Deus Ex 3 Details

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 : : :
116.
 
Re: ...
Oct 6, 2008, 23:49
Re: ... Oct 6, 2008, 23:49
Oct 6, 2008, 23:49
 
I know it's your opinion. And on some levels I agree with you. What I don't agree with is how you skew things to support your argument or how single minded you are and don't seem to look at the bigger picture sometimes. This whole Bioshock postortem thing is an example.

Being cerebral doesn't make something good, just as simplifying things isn't necessarily bad. There are plenty of games over the years that have forced the play to figure out the entire game on their own, with complicated game systems. A good example of this would be Derek Smarts space sims. Very cerebral games. I don't find these very fun or well designed.

Puzzle Quest. Simple game, just have to move the mouse and click 1 button. Game starts you out with walking you through the gameplay, eventually gets more challenging in some aspects, but really all you are doing is matching up colored squares, a child can do it.

In Bioshocks case, could the game have been better? Yes. Would it have been cool to see Bioshock have more refined RPG aspects? Yes. Is what we got better than what was in development but canned? I don't know, and neither do you. All I know is that to have deeper and more meaningful RPG aspects then a lot in the game would have to change and that might have not made Bioshock any better. Obviously they were trying to do something that just wasn't coming together near the end. I think one example of this is the train/tube system that allows you to go back and forth between other levels. It's entirely pointless in the game as it is now and probably left over from a canned game mechanic.

So whether these other game systems would have made the game better as they were at that time...I doubt it. I think they pulled it for a reason and that was because it wasn't fun and they didn't have enough time to make it all work. So no, I don't think Bioshock was "dumbed down" due to focus testing, so much as they realized the RPG game wasn't working out (not to mention marketing started advertising it as an FPS), so things got cut to get it out for shopping season 2007.

http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=19146

----------------------------------------------------
Trackmania United Forever, Bionic Commando Rearmed, GRID

PSN= Puscifer73 • Trackmania= puscifer604
"Blues News" Steam Community... http://steamcommunity.com/groups/bluesnews/
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
86.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
87.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
88.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
   Dorf Fort
2.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
16.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
18.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
  GITS
3.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
4.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
26.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
5.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
6.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
7.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
10.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
12.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
13.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
15.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
8.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
11.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
9.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
14.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
17.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
19.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
20.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
21.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
23.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
24.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
27.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
   Re: Ugh
25.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
22.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
29.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
31.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
32.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
33.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
34.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
37.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
28.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
30.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
35.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
36.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
38.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
39.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
43.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
40.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
41.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
42.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
44.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
46.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
47.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
48.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
   Re: True
49.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
   Re: True
50.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
    Re: True
51.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
     Re: True
52.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
      Re: True
53.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
       Re: True
54.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
        Re: True
45.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
55.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
56.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
57.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
58.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
59.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
60.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
62.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
64.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
     Re: No subject
66.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
      Re: No subject
67.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
       Re: No subject
68.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
        Re: No subject
69.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
      Re: No subject
70.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
       Re: No subject
71.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
        Re: No subject
89.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
       Re: No subject
90.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
        Re: No subject
61.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
63.
Oct 4, 2008Oct 4 2008
65.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
72.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
73.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
77.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
78.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
74.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
124.
Oct 13, 2008Oct 13 2008
75.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
76.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
79.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
80.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
83.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
91.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
81.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
92.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
93.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
94.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
   Re: ...
95.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
    Re: ...
101.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
     Re: ...
102.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
      Re: ...
103.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
       Re: ...
104.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
        Re: ...
105.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
         Re: ...
106.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
          Re: ...
107.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
           Re: ...
109.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
            Re: ...
108.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
           Re: ...
110.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
            Re: ...
111.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
             Re: ...
 116.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
             Re: ...
117.
Oct 7, 2008Oct 7 2008
              Re: ...
118.
Oct 7, 2008Oct 7 2008
               Re: ...
82.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
84.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
85.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
96.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
97.
Oct 5, 2008Oct 5 2008
98.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
99.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
   Re: Hmmmm
100.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
    Re: Hmmmm
112.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
113.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
114.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
115.
Oct 6, 2008Oct 6 2008
119.
Oct 7, 2008Oct 7 2008
120.
Oct 7, 2008Oct 7 2008
121.
Oct 7, 2008Oct 7 2008
122.
Oct 7, 2008Oct 7 2008
123.
Oct 7, 2008Oct 7 2008