Deus Ex 3 Details

[Oct 04, 2008, 10:35 am ET] - Share - Viewing Comments

Computer and Video Games offers the promised (story) first detail on Deus Ex 3, as the shooter/RPG sequel is previewed in the 200th issue of print magazine PC Zone, which has begun reaching subscribers in advance of its release on newsstands this Thursday. The game is under construction at Eidos Montreal with Deus Ex writer Sheldon Pacotti consulting on the project, and while Harvey Smith and Warren Spector are not involved, word is it has their "blessing." According to the article, Eidos Montreal is aware of complaints about Deus Ex: Invisible War, promising to redress "mistakes" like ammo type limitations. On the other hand, changes are described that further depart from Deus Ex canon, and make the project sound more like Gears of War, including combat relying more on player aim than stats, a cover system for stealth (rather than skulking in shadows), and an auto-healing system for damage. Thanks Jonas.

View

109.

Re: ...

Oct 6, 2008, 22:37

Jerykk

That is the goal of game design after all...to make things functional, understandable and fun. Functional? Agreed. If your game doesn't work, that's a problem. Understandable? That depends entirely on the player. There are many players out there who don't understand how to play Civ. Does that mean the game isn't understandable? No, it just means certain players are retarded. Fun? Completely subjective. Only players can determine what is fun. The intent of designers is irrelevant. I found System Shock 2 to be more fun than Bioshock. According to the developers, I should find Bioshock more fun because it's more accessible. If a player can't understand what they are supposed to do or how to upgrade items, then they need to let the players know that somehow. Again, it depends entirely on the player. As I mentioned before, focus testing is usually performed with the lowest common denominator of players. I'm guessing that Bioshock was originally very similar to SS2, which is to say it was completely incomprehensible to the Halo kiddies they undoubtedly used as their focus group. SS2 was not incomprehensible to the many players who consider it a classic. When all you do is focus on the slightest semblance of statements that supports your position while ignoring the fact that she outright says the changes made the game better...yes, your interpretation is slanted. Say it with me: The player decides whether a game is better or not. Not the developers. I'm sure some of the developers of Bioshock think it is better than SS2. As a player who has played both games, I think SS2 is better. See what I'm getting at?

		Date	Subject	Author
	1.	Oct 4, 10:43	No subject	NKD
	86.	Oct 5, 12:48	Re: No subject	Doma
	87.	Oct 5, 14:07	Re: No subject	Verno
	88.	Oct 5, 14:42	Dorf Fort	Fuzzmatang
	2.	Oct 4, 10:44	This IP is SHOT!	Techie714 ©
	16.	Oct 4, 12:25	Re: This IP is SHOT!	Xyggy
	18.	Oct 4, 13:12	GITS	Wildone
	3.	Oct 4, 10:45	...	theyarecomingforyou
	4.	Oct 4, 10:47	Re: ...	NKD
	26.	Oct 4, 14:58	Re: ...	Dittohead
	5.	Oct 4, 10:47	d'oh	DG
	6.	Oct 4, 11:31	No subject	Verno
	7.	Oct 4, 11:49	Re: No subject	nin
	10.	Oct 4, 11:59	Re: No subject	StaTik
	12.	Oct 4, 12:05	Re: No subject	NKD
	13.	Oct 4, 12:07	Re: No subject	NKD
	15.	Oct 4, 12:24	Re: No subject	StaTik
	8.	Oct 4, 11:52	Deus Ex is dead.	necrosis
	11.	Oct 4, 12:01	Re: Deus Ex is dead.	Cholma
	9.	Oct 4, 11:57	No subject	Cholma
	14.	Oct 4, 12:15	No subject	Tanto Edge
	17.	Oct 4, 13:11	No subject	irata
	19.	Oct 4, 13:13	No subject	Bluesfanboi
	20.	Oct 4, 14:07	Re: No subject	Prez
	21.	Oct 4, 14:17	Ugh	Creston
	23.	Oct 4, 14:35	Re: Ugh	NKD
	24.	Oct 4, 14:39	Re: Ugh	NKD
	27.	Oct 4, 14:58	Re: Ugh	Wildone
	25.	Oct 4, 14:44	Deus Ex	CJ_Parker
	22.	Oct 4, 14:34	No subject	Hump
	29.	Oct 4, 15:13	Re: No subject	Dreagon
	31.	Oct 4, 15:26	Re: No subject	DG
	32.	Oct 4, 15:43	Re: No subject	Prez
	33.	Oct 4, 16:49	Re: No subject	Ludomancer
	34.	Oct 4, 17:20	Re: No subject	NKD
	37.	Oct 4, 18:28	Re: No subject	Prez
	28.	Oct 4, 15:03	They have inherited...	Dreagon
	30.	Oct 4, 15:19	No subject	Verno
	35.	Oct 4, 18:04	No subject	DangerDog
	36.	Oct 4, 18:27	No subject	Kxmode
	38.	Oct 4, 18:34	3rd person?	Surf
	39.	Oct 4, 18:38	Re: 3rd person?	Prez
	43.	Oct 4, 19:30	Re: 3rd person?	Kxmode
	40.	Oct 4, 18:41	No subject	Verno
	41.	Oct 4, 18:53	No subject	Wilson
	42.	Oct 4, 19:24	Re: No subject	Ludomancer
	44.	Oct 4, 19:53	True	Surf
	46.	Oct 4, 20:23	Re: True	Jerykk
	47.	Oct 4, 20:34	Re: True	NKD
	48.	Oct 4, 20:48	Re: True	Prez
	49.	Oct 4, 20:57	Re: True	Jerykk
	50.	Oct 4, 21:08	Re: True	NKD
	51.	Oct 4, 21:15	Re: True	tuddies
	52.	Oct 4, 21:19	Re: True	Jerykk
	53.	Oct 4, 21:30	Re: True	NKD
	54.	Oct 4, 21:40	Re: True	Jerykk
	45.	Oct 4, 20:09	Great quotes from dev	DirkDaring
	55.	Oct 4, 21:41	No subject	Verno
	56.	Oct 4, 21:43	Re: No subject	Jerykk
	57.	Oct 4, 22:02	Re: No subject	NKD
	58.	Oct 4, 22:22	Re: No subject	Jerykk
	59.	Oct 4, 22:26	Re: No subject	Ludomancer
	60.	Oct 4, 22:38	What I wouldn't give..	Dmitri_M
	62.	Oct 4, 22:53	Re: No subject	Dreagon
	64.	Oct 4, 23:36	Re: No subject	Kedyn
	66.	Oct 5, 00:17	Re: No subject	Jerykk
	67.	Oct 5, 00:58	Re: No subject	Prez
	68.	Oct 5, 01:07	Re: No subject	Jerykk
	69.	Oct 5, 02:04	Re: No subject	Verno
	70.	Oct 5, 02:16	Re: No subject	Jerykk
	71.	Oct 5, 02:45	Re: No subject	Kedyn
	89.	Oct 5, 18:31	Re: No subject	Shadowdean
	90.	Oct 5, 18:52	Re: No subject	Fuzzmatang
	61.	Oct 4, 22:39	No subject	KilrathiAce
	63.	Oct 4, 23:35	Re: No subject	Prez
	65.	Oct 5, 00:05	No subject	Cabezone
	72.	Oct 5, 02:53	No subject	Cabezone
	73.	Oct 5, 03:08	Re: No subject	Verno
	77.	Oct 5, 07:19	Re: No subject	Jerykk
	78.	Oct 5, 08:03	No subject	J
	74.	Oct 5, 03:35	Why?	Acleacius
	124.	Oct 13, 12:09	Re: Why?	Doc
	75.	Oct 5, 04:06	No subject	Verno
	76.	Oct 5, 06:14	Re: No subject	Prez
	79.	Oct 5, 09:35	No subject	tuddies
	80.	Oct 5, 10:33	No subject	Hump
	83.	Oct 5, 12:17	Re: No subject	NKD
	91.	Oct 5, 19:03	Re: No subject	Jerykk
	81.	Oct 5, 10:46	...	theyarecomingforyou
	92.	Oct 5, 19:10	Re: ...	Jerykk
	93.	Oct 5, 21:27	Re: ...	Krovven
	94.	Oct 5, 22:12	Re: ...	Fuzzmatang
	95.	Oct 5, 22:25	Re: ...	Jerykk
	101.	Oct 6, 03:21	Re: ...	Krovven
	102.	Oct 6, 11:55	Re: ...	Jerykk
	103.	Oct 6, 16:37	Re: ...	Krovven
	104.	Oct 6, 19:18	Re: ...	Jerykk
	105.	Oct 6, 20:46	Re: ...	Krovven
	106.	Oct 6, 21:18	Re: ...	Jerykk
	107.	Oct 6, 22:05	Re: ...	Krovven
>>	109.	Oct 6, 22:37	Re: ...	Jerykk
	108.	Oct 6, 22:10	Re: ...	Krovven
	110.	Oct 6, 22:43	Re: ...	Jerykk
	111.	Oct 6, 23:02	Re: ...	Wowbagger_TIP
	116.	Oct 6, 23:49	Re: ...	Krovven
	117.	Oct 7, 00:04	Re: ...	Jerykk
	118.	Oct 7, 00:31	Re: ...	Wowbagger_TIP
	82.	Oct 5, 12:15	So...	Quboid
	84.	Oct 5, 12:22	Re: So...	Unzerpum
	85.	Oct 5, 12:23	Re: So...	NKD
	96.	Oct 5, 23:23	Hmmmm	Creston
	97.	Oct 5, 23:27	Re: Hmmmm	Jerykk
	98.	Oct 6, 00:43	Re: Hmmmm	Trainwreck
	99.	Oct 6, 00:49	Re: Hmmmm	Jerykk
	100.	Oct 6, 00:52	Re: Hmmmm	PHJF
	112.	Oct 6, 23:07	No subject	Verno
	113.	Oct 6, 23:10	Re: No subject	Jerykk
	114.	Oct 6, 23:22	Re: No subject	Prez
	115.	Oct 6, 23:25	Re: No subject	Jerykk
	119.	Oct 7, 10:24	...	theyarecomingforyou
	120.	Oct 7, 13:03	Re: ...	Jerykk
	121.	Oct 7, 16:38	Re: ...	Prez
	122.	Oct 7, 16:42	Re: ...	Prez
	123.	Oct 7, 16:49	...	theyarecomingforyou