|
|
 |
Report this Comment
Use this form to report the
selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally
be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.
 |
| 62. |
Re: Deus Ex 3 Details |
Jan 31, 2009, 01:13 |
Creston |
|
|
Harvey was the lead designer on DX1.
I've had this discussion a million times on this forum already, and I'm really not all that eager to go over all the old crap again.
Harvey Smith was NOT in charge of Deus Ex. He WAS in charge of Invisible War. (coincidentally, he was also in charge of Area51, which sucked even fucking worse. At some point you'd think you Harvey Smith defenders would start getting a clue?)
Therefore, he gets the shit for IW. Also, several of the really fucking stupid design choices were his. The most hated "universal ammo" being his prime fucking lovebaby.
Perhaps the specs for the console weren't exactly what were sold to the developer.
Oh, that's a new one. So Harvey & Co just didn't KNOW that the Xbox would only have 64MB of memory? Even though every single person on the internet was yelling at them that the Xbox would only have 64MB of memory, and were seeking reassurance the game maps wouldn't suffer from that as a consequence? People who were BLATANTLY LIED TO when Spector kept saying that the Xbox and the PC would have different maps. The Xbox would have small shitty maps, whereas the PC would combine several of those maps into a bigger map. He kept that lie up until right near the release of the demo one of his main programmers came out and said "That's just fucking insane. All the maps are the same."
You mean that was all because Harvey & The Boys just didn't KNOW that the Xbox had 64MB of memory. Ah, I see now. Poor Harvey. It must be tough developing a game for a console if you can't even spend five seconds looking up the technical specifications on the internet. For a box that had already been out two years by the time you released your game.
I gotta admit, it's an original excuse. I'd never heard that one before.
IW was still a solid game.
It was a decent game. 70-75% decent. If you're the sequel to a game that many people consider the best game of ALL TIME (especially back then), and the reason you drop from that high a pedestal is because you TOOK OUT all the stuff that made the original game so great, I'd say you didn't really do a bang up job. And you deserve all the fucking criticism you get.
It just wasn't up to some people's ginormous expectations
Yeah, foolish PC Gamers who wanted maps bigger than two rooms and a hallway. Or a "city" of Seattle that looked slightly more expansive than three walkways and a fountain, with a hotel attached to it. Or a game without a hud that took up half your screen. Or a game where all the character design choices of the original were still there.
Many of the reasons why however where out of the hands of people like Harvey and in the hands of the people who drove the Tomb Raider, Hitman, Timesplitters, Commandos, etc, etc, franchises into the ground.
I have no doubt that Eidos shares a nice large portion of the blame. But in the end, if the game isn't that great at its core, you can't put that on the publisher. That's the developers who either just REALLY didn't have a fucking clue what made the original so great, or DID have a clue, and just thought that their ideas were so much better. Unified Fucking Ammo.
Creston
This comment was edited on Jan 31, 2009, 01:19. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
.. ..
Copyright © 1996-2013 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Twitter 
