It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Deus Ex: Human Revolution actually decent?(291 posts)(291 posts)
(291 posts)
Pages:
1
5
10
15
16
17
18
19
20
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 02, 2012
avatar
Fenixp: What I dislike is that it really only has 2 hub locations that get recycled
I agree about that one, but they are the best hubs I've ever seen this side of VtM: Bloodlines, so I'm cool with it. And I think they said somewhere they had to cut out one or two other hubs they were planning because of time and budget constraints.
Posted June 02, 2012
I think this is a good moment to think for a minute about what DX:HR could have been, and I don't mean in a good way ...

Considering they actually had to appeal the CoD crowd somehow, they did an impressive job. DX:HR and Batman were the two games of 2011 that showed me that mainstream AAA gaming is actually still something to take note of.
Posted June 02, 2012
avatar
SimonG: Considering they actually had to appeal the CoD crowd somehow, they did an impressive job. DX:HR and Batman were the two games of 2011 that showed me that mainstream AAA gaming is actually still something to take note of.
Add Saints Row: The Third to that list. It was a remarkable year in gaming, that's for sure.

I was actually rereading this thread right now – it's pretty funny seeing everyone so genuinely surprised HR has turned out so well.
Posted June 02, 2012
avatar
SimonG: Considering they actually had to appeal the CoD crowd somehow, they did an impressive job. DX:HR and Batman were the two games of 2011 that showed me that mainstream AAA gaming is actually still something to take note of.
avatar
bazilisek: Add Saints Row: The Third to that list. It was a remarkable year in gaming, that's for sure.

I was actually rereading this thread right now – it's pretty funny seeing everyone so genuinely surprised HR has turned out so well.
Well, in regards to SR3, while I agree with you, if you've played 1 and 2 it left you more with a wtf did they do to the series feeling. They took too much out and left little to do when the main storyline was over. Where in comparison there was quite a bit to do in 2 when all was said and done. It was a fantastic game but not as good as the second entry as it lacked lasting subsistence. I'd almost say it was too streamlined losing a bit of its original identity with it.

I am going to chalk it up to new engine refresh and hope the game gets back what it lost with Enter the Dominatrix and SR4, its the same thing I hope happens to GTA5.
Post edited June 02, 2012 by zmagnum
Posted June 02, 2012
Just wanted to mention: Invisble War wasn't a pure disaster. It had good story (even better than original at times), awesome endings (completely no good/bad duality), graphics and atmosphere (a bit different than the first, but that's not a fault). It mostly suffered from restrictive level size (that in turn affected level design). The other faults i can overlook: lack of openness and reduced rpg aspect (the game is just different and should be treated on it's own terms, i don't need a second deus ex, i'm tolerant in this regard), being short (i don't care about that one, there are so many games to play, if it's short but good, i like it, unless it costs million dollars, but then i wouldn't buy it anyway). I liked the shortness of ammo / unified ammo thing (although it made no sense story-wise, it made a fun stealth ammo conserving gameplay, which is exactly how i played the first). So yeah, another "sequelism" case, where it not a sequel, wouldn't be as badly recieved.

BTW saing "meh" graphics about Human Revolution sounds really funny to me, as with all the modern games, which i rarely play or never play at all, look godly. I don't own a console and my PC is old, so i'm not used to it that much.
Post edited June 02, 2012 by CaveSoundMaster
Posted June 02, 2012
avatar
CaveSoundMaster: BTW saing "meh" graphics about Human Revolution sounds really funny to me, as with all the modern games, which i rarely play or never play at all, look godly. I don't own a console and my PC is old, so i'm not used to it that much.
I agree it looks good enough, and I love the art direction, but at the very least the character models in the game are pretty bad – not bad as in low-poly, but very weirdly proportioned and animated. Jensen's shoulders when he's climbing a ladder are about the worst example I remember (and you get to see those very often), many people have too small heads for their bodies etc. I found that very immersion-breaking.
Posted June 02, 2012
avatar
Fenixp: What I dislike is that it really only has 2 hub locations that get recycled
avatar
bazilisek: I agree about that one, but they are the best hubs I've ever seen this side of VtM: Bloodlines, so I'm cool with it. And I think they said somewhere they had to cut out one or two other hubs they were planning because of time and budget constraints.
The game certainly would have been better if Montreal was a hub and Detroit and Heng-Sha were only used once, which was the original plan. There is no question more is better in almost any RPG as far as unique assets is concerned.

That said if you focus on what games COULD be you are more often than not asking to be let down.
Posted June 02, 2012
avatar
CaveSoundMaster: ...
Yeah I pretty much agree with this mindset. While it was IMO the weakest game of those three, it was a very good game by it's own right.
Posted June 02, 2012
avatar
CaveSoundMaster: ...
avatar
Fenixp: Yeah I pretty much agree with this mindset. While it was IMO the weakest game of those three, it was a very good game by it's own right.
While I agree IW is underrated and good game when not directly compared to the original I have to say that thinking it is better than HR is kind of loony-tunes IMO. Gameplay-wise there is no comparison, IW felt rough and cumbersome while HR is fluid and polished. Story-wise IW was okay, but the writing and atmosphere in HR is superior by a mile.

I mean these are just opinions, but that's a shocking one to me.
Posted June 02, 2012
avatar
StingingVelvet: While I agree IW is underrated and good game when not directly compared to the original I have to say that thinking it is better than HR is kind of loony-tunes IMO. Gameplay-wise there is no comparison, IW felt rough and cumbersome while HR is fluid and polished. Story-wise IW was okay, but the writing and atmosphere in HR is superior by a mile.

I mean these are just opinions, but that's a shocking one to me.
I didn't say it was better. Gameplay-wise you're probably right. Story-wise - i don't know, i haven't seen that much of HR. But it's definately not just "okay". It's one of the best stories in gaming. Maybe not so much in action and narrative, but in underlying concepts which explode in all four endings. And what they did to JC was marvelous. The game is very socially conscious, much more than original Deus Ex, whose story in some moments amounts to very bad guys wanting to take over the world. They did a very good job at preserving the best moments of all endings of vanilla, while choosing the most intricate as canon.
Posted June 02, 2012
avatar
CaveSoundMaster: I didn't say it was better. Gameplay-wise you're probably right. Story-wise - i don't know, i haven't seen that much of HR. But it's definately not just "okay". It's one of the best stories in gaming. Maybe not so much in action and narrative, but in underlying concepts which explode in all four endings. And what they did to JC was marvelous. The game is very socially conscious, much more than original Deus Ex, whose story in some moments amounts to very bad guys wanting to take over the world. They did a very good job at preserving the best moments of all endings of vanilla, while choosing the most intricate as canon.
Ah, I misread his comment, my bad.

Anyway the story was okay but had some real flaws. For one thing the Templars have a kiosk in the corporate-owned arcology, which makes NO sense. Trying to blend the endings of the original came off as weird as there is no explanation for how he caused the collapse AND merged with Helios, which are impossible to do at the same time both in-game and logically. Also I thought dialogue was a little rough and cheesy at times.

Still, I agree that compared to most action games it's amazing.
Posted June 02, 2012
avatar
StingingVelvet: Anyway the story was okay but had some real flaws. For one thing the Templars have a kiosk in the corporate-owned arcology, which makes NO sense. Trying to blend the endings of the original came off as weird as there is no explanation for how he caused the collapse AND merged with Helios, which are impossible to do at the same time both in-game and logically. Also I thought dialogue was a little rough and cheesy at times.
I admit that the writing and narrative have some flaws. Your points are legitimate, but the grand scope was enough for me to overlook those details. They did not detract me.

About the Helios thing - I don't remember it clearly now, some years have passed since i played it, but I can think of two options: Helios destroying most of his connections with the global network (and ultimately the network itself) or just rendering the network unusable to humans (he could refuse to cooperate with all users). Anyway, this are technical details for me, they are not explained but one can think of something on his own or correct them...
Posted June 02, 2012
avatar
CaveSoundMaster: About the Helios thing - I don't remember it clearly now, some years have passed since i played it, but I can think of two options: Helios destroying most of his connections with the global network (and ultimately the network itself) or just rendering the network unusable to humans (he could refuse to cooperate with all users). Anyway, this are technical details for me, they are not explained but one can think of something on his own or correct them...
It's just weird because those endings had completely different philosophical purposes. Merging with Helios meant using the global communication network to control everyone peacefully while the other ending involved destroying that same network entirely for true freedom. The idea he would do both is... ridiculous, and makes the end of IW feel kind of silly to someone who played the original.

I guess we can explain it away by saying the Helios ending is the "true ending" and somehow the collapse occurred anyway, but... it's weird.
Posted June 02, 2012
avatar
CaveSoundMaster: Just wanted to mention: Invisble War wasn't a pure disaster. It had good story (even better than original at times), awesome endings (completely no good/bad duality), graphics and atmosphere (a bit different than the first, but that's not a fault). It mostly suffered from restrictive level size (that in turn affected level design). The other faults i can overlook: lack of openness and reduced rpg aspect (the game is just different and should be treated on it's own terms, i don't need a second deus ex, i'm tolerant in this regard), being short (i don't care about that one, there are so many games to play, if it's short but good, i like it, unless it costs million dollars, but then i wouldn't buy it anyway). I liked the shortness of ammo / unified ammo thing (although it made no sense story-wise, it made a fun stealth ammo conserving gameplay, which is exactly how i played the first). So yeah, another "sequelism" case, where it not a sequel, wouldn't be as badly recieved.

BTW saing "meh" graphics about Human Revolution sounds really funny to me, as with all the modern games, which i rarely play or never play at all, look godly. I don't own a console and my PC is old, so i'm not used to it that much.
Most folks seemed to agree on its own IW was an okay or slightly above average game. As a Deus Ex folloup, though, I actually do feel it was sorely lacking. To be sure it had its good points but it just wasn't really up to the task of being a Deus Ex game.

Is that fanboy speaking? Maybe. But I actually think it's more a case that if you're slightly cute and you're standing next to a super model, you'll look drab in comparison. It is a sequel and therefor one cannot help but compare it to the first.
Posted June 02, 2012
avatar
orcishgamer: Is that fanboy speaking? Maybe. But I actually think it's more a case that if you're slightly cute and you're standing next to a super model, you'll look drab in comparison. It is a sequel and therefor one cannot help but compare it to the first.
Well considering how butt-ugly many supermodels look, that wasn't a good example :-P
Pages:
1
5
10
15
16
17
18
19
20
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Deus Ex: Human Revolution actually decent?(291 posts)(291 posts)
(291 posts)