My Message close
GAME JOBS
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
May 23, 2013
 
2K Games
Tools Programmer - 2K Games
 
2K Games
Graphics Programmer - 2K Games
 
2K Games
Engine Programmer - 2K Games
 
GREE International
Senior Product Manager, Growth and Revenue
 
GREE International
Business Intelligence Data Analyst
 
Synergy Blue
3D Artist / Animator
spacer
Blogs

  Deus Ex: Non-Revolution?
by Taekwan Kim on 09/02/11 07:31:00 am   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs
20 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra's game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.

Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It's easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra's home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.
 

Some very minor spoilers ahead.

It has been said that “all labor and all achievement spring from man's envy of his neighbor”. The argument could similarly be made that all games are social: in our minds we are constantly evaluating our performance in front of an imaginary audience (or imagined community), measured against the imaginary performance of other players (my story is better than yours, etc.).

How much we think a game is “important” or culturally significant, then, can significantly change how much fun we have with it. In a way, you could even say that “fun” is really just a word for “imaginary acknowledgement”. The more worthy and respected a game seems—the more of our peers seem to value it—the more our achievements within it seem meaningful and worthwhile.

It’s a circular thing. If everyone says it’s good, it simply begins to feel good to be good at something that’s supposed to be good. Similarly, if enough people say a game is bad, it’s pretty hard to stave off the feeling of wasted effort and time long enough to find that you might in fact enjoy it (the above in two words: confirmation bias).

Where am I going with this? I want to make an exaggerated argument here that the rarified praise DXHR has drawn has perhaps been unduly inflated by its charm. Undoubtedly, as an exercise in world building, DXHR is a towering achievement. But in terms of the core gameplay, the case can be made that the game design is—to begin my exaggerations—almost lazy and irresponsible.

Too Much Agency...

My main problem with this game is that agency isn't earned, it's simply a given. For the most part, the game offers so little resistance that all the agency that exists is persistently accompanied by a feeling of redundancy. Ok, these are pretty harsh statements, so I need to back them up.

Let’s talk about the stealth game. Here’s a typical scenario: you have two guards, a turret, and a camera guarding a narrow passage way. Hmm, that sounds pretty good. Make me shoot the camera with a stun gun to temporarily put it out of commission, strong arm the turret to face a wall to safely avoid detection, knock out the two guards then drag them out of view before the camera reboots and tracks back to see the bodies. Fun.

Except, hold on a minute, here’s a computer terminal with a trivial level of security which turns off the camera and turret. Oh, and actually, then there’s this vent here where you can just walk past all four altogether. Wait, what? I mean, come on.

The Infamous Vent Option
The Infamous Vent Option

The thing is, most of the stealth scenarios in the game don’t even rise to a meaningful level of challenge in the first place. It’s 70% two guards patrolling a hall without any overlap, and maybe 15% situations where you actually have to hide bodies (and 3% what the heck, all of a sudden there’s 30 hostile civilians in one corridor).

Or really, it’s even simpler than that. The typhoon. Seriously? That’s an “I WIN” button if ever I saw one, and there’s more than enough ammo for it to go around and then some.

Veneer of Due Diligence

Rare is the game that gets away with letting the player simply ignore entire swaths of obstacles wholesale. Yet DXHR does exactly this, and even more audaciously, does it in the name of “choice.”

We can see that DXHR suffers from too much agency when we look at the XP system and the lack of a level cap. To be blunt, no level cap is essentially a way of saying, “look, we couldn’t be bothered to balance the game from start to finish so that specialized builds are viable, so we’re just going to hand out praxis points like candy and blame it on the player if he isn’t prepared for an unpredictable boss fight.”

But there’s more. Presumably, the XP system is to reward players for extra effort. In practice, though, it instead punishes the player for exercising the options provided by the game. You can totally walk through that whole warehouse using glass shield, but then you’d be losing out on a significant XP opportunity which you will never be able to make up, which means that vent option is not really an option at all.

This again is laying the blame and responsibility on the player, when they could have provided a level cap (and all the requisite balancing that requires) so that you could stealth the whole level without touching a single guard and not automatically be left shorthanded for it. In a game that purports to offer so much choice, why is that not a real option? (Even Vampire Bloodlines knew of, and tried to address, this problem by giving the same XP no matter how you solved a combat zone).

This kind of legerdemain-yness can even be found in the hacking and dialog systems, where randomness is a crutch overly relied upon due to a pervasive lack of actual challenge. You know it’s a bad situation when you can get your hack detected within 2 seconds on the first try, and unlock every single node without getting detected at all on the second. Indeed, the hardest part of the hacking game is getting the laggy/sticky interface to click on the frigging capture flag instead of the nuke or stop button (seems to be a common problem in Scaleform UIs). And as for the dialog challenges, it’s still 50% guesswork and 50% reload spam until you find the right combo to pass a random seed—just a façade of skill where none exists.

...Equals No Real Dilemmas

At first glance, then, these systems seem challenging and meaningfully interactive. But a deeper analysis quickly disabuses that view. What we have instead is a plethora of systems rife with inconsequence and redundancy. All the praxis points and experience gained in the game don’t actually matter because the player has so much agency to begin with. That’s DXHR’s way of “balancing” for player choices—just lower the bar to the point where nothing is really necessary.

And that’s why that vent is there, so you can basically fail at character point distribution, hacking, stealth and pretty much everything else and still get through the game with ease. Even the boss fights are reduced to one minute farces with a couple of mines to keep them disabled and a full blast to the head with an automatic weapon1. If we can berate Oblivion for letting the player complete the main campaign at level 2, it’s hard to see why we should let DXHR be an exception; you can handily beat DXHR without a single augmentation, too.

Am I seriously complaining that the game is too easy? In a word, yes. I’m not here to get my hand held in five different ways, I’m here to forge a meaningful experience by overcoming adversity and challenge. And, for the most part, DXHR simply didn’t sincerely support that. Which is to say, that’s not choice at all, that’s just being spoon fed content, even if it is a buffet.

This whole philosophy is neatly summarized in the central narrative (and depressingly non-ludic) axis of the game: why is Jensen exempted from the principal moral dilemma of the world, the one thing that gives it weight and makes it unique, compelling, and interesting? Why couldn’t Jensen, too, have required neuropozyne for his survival? Why doesn’t he have to scrounge for it, fiend for it, and pay for it, too?

It’s an inexplicable narrato-ludic design decision which from the start guts the game of any lasting gravitas. The game takes the phrase deus ex machina too literally and places Jensen on a detached and higher plane of agency that makes it less interesting and real, and moreover, removes us from his character as well. After all, no deus ex machina has ever genuinely provided satisfaction.

Choice and Non-Consequence

Since DXHR has been held up as a poster boy for everything that is good about PC games, I’m going to be contrarian and hold it up as a whipping boy for everything that is bad about the attitude that resilient gameplay is secondary to overpowered player narrative agency.

Mr. Tom Bradwell over at Eurogamer recently published an opinion piece asking, “are choice-and-consequence systems making our games less interactive?” His conclusion was that DXHR gets it right by not restricting narrative agency so that it gets in the way of his ludic agency.

But I don’t think I would be unreasonable in saying that DXHR has nothing to do with choice and consequence at all. Because the operative word there is consequence. C&C is an exclusionary principle, and the purpose of its introduction is to make a game’s narrative more ludic by denying certain ludic opportunities based on narrative motivated goals, or at least by increasing the difficulty of obtaining those goals.

Which is to say, narrative wrangling is also ludic—is also a game—just as ludic wrangling is also narrative (what Mr. Bradwell calls “writable”). The whole point of C&C is to provide another layer of ludic, strategic decisions. I would argue, then, that Mr. Bradwell’s dichotomy of “readable” and “writable” games is, in this case, a false one.

So, in the same way that your playstyle and character build are ignored when it comes to how the boss fights need to be played, what exactly are you “writing” if none of your dialog decisions impact your agency at all? Do we honestly want games where NPC interactions are secondary, ornamental, and unilateral?

Perhaps Mr. Bradwell is arguing against the kind of blind decision making that certain games demand, where the player is forced to pick between exclusionary choices without having any context or a means of assessing one’s options. But that’s a problem of implementation, not with C&C itself. Otherwise, the complaint is really just one that says “we want the vent option in our dialogs, too.” Indeed, it’s this position that reduces narrative interactivity, not the other way around.

I’ve already pleaded the case that there’s no gameplay to a game that offers no resistance, that too much agency is actually a bad thing. So the claim that C&C is reducing the interactivity of games is, to me, rather disheartening. Of course, who am I to question the way others enjoy their games? And yet, I can’t help but feel that this idea that narrative and game can be, should be, and is played separately is a disservice to the kind of games to which DXHR purportedly belongs. The word, after all, is gameplay.

“That’s how it was in Deus Ex”

When I say that this post is an unfair polemic and exaggerated critique, I’m not just saying that in placating self-defense, I really mean it. DXHR is a great game, and this has been a one-sided argument which ignores the notable exceptions and the quality of its many and significant achievements. So the arguments that have been presented here should be taken with a grain of salt; just the Good Soul event alone puts a pretty big dent on the whole “non-consequence” argument. Plus, a game that can hold me for 70 hours over 9 days, unable to sleep and waking up at bizarre hours so I can get back to it, simply can’t be all that bad.

I hate being the guy that complains about an early christmas present because it isn't absolutely perfect. Still, I’m not being contrarian for the sake of being such, either. I wrote this analysis in an attempt to break the seemingly prevailing attitude that DXHR can do no wrong, because it does, and it does so in some striking ways that I think are worth discussing. In many aspects, DXHR felt like Alpha Protocol Deluxe (or AP Lite, depending on your point of view), and the huge difference in Metacritic ratings between the two games seems symptomatic of something else.

Perhaps the real problem is this. Talking about some of the issues I experienced with the game, more than once I received the retort, “that’s how it was in Deus Ex”. This was meant to be the final word on the matter, an end to that line of questioning. The attitude was one that emphatically claimed that some things just can’t—or even shouldn’t—be improved. That is to say, DXHR suffers from a different kind of legacy problem: one of wearing the trappings of an idealized inheritance all too well—of being a game that falls too easily into the “important” category.

It’s hard to criticize what is so clearly a product of love, and, because DXHR gets it right on so many things, perhaps we have fallen under the spell of confirmation bias in so freely giving a pass to those parts that could have been pushed just a little further. To make one last unfair statement, everything about DXHR, from the writing to the level design to character progression, is about spectacularly and unapologetically appeasing the player. And in being so seduced, we might forget to ask if we are actually having fun.


1The final boss fight is even easier. Just put in the code, blast the glass. Done.

 
 
Comments

Brandon Battersby
profile image
Awesome post Kim! "systems rife with inconsequence and redundancy" is the best way to put it. I like how you point out that there is such a thing as too much Player Agency. I never would have thought about it in that light. Plus, the ending illustrates this the best with the player's ability to plug in his own ending. There is no sense of consequence in this game, from mechanics to player choices. A player could go on a killing spree or choose to never upgrade augments and still will be allowed to select conclusions contradictory to his path and character.



Still it's worth a play through or two. Funny how that works.

Dave Endresak
profile image
Let me offer a couple points.



One point to remember is that games are not about challenge, at least in general. This was the main point of the MDA document a few years ago, and the points it made were precisely true. I do not play games for challenge, for example. To me, that is boring and pointless. That's also why I would point out that games are not necessarily social at all, and never were, at least not electronic games. Electronic games were originally about offering people who wanted to play a game but lacked a partner the chance to do what they loved. People who focus on "social" interaction of games miss the point of playing for an awful lot of the market. That's why even MMOs have been forced to offer single player experiences.



Having said that, you do raise some points about how DXHR has been praised so highly. In fact, I am currently doing a playthru and academic analysis because that's how I play all games. In the past, I have kept my analysis to myself or communicated it in limited fashion (this has been true for decades ever since I began playing with Pong and Spacewar). The first playthru and analysis I have done and uploaded for public viewing is Alice: Madness Returns. I was appalled by the general attiutude and poor reviews for Alice: Madness Returns when it offers so much that is "right" despite a few issues here and there. Just on technical quality alone, it blows DXHR out of the water (after all, the Nvidia PhysX effects are amazing in Alice). Of course, the same general rejection happened to the first Alice game, too, back in 2000 when it came out. It's very hypocritical for the industry and consumers to complain about products not offering novel content and then ignoring a product that does (Alice) while praising a product that doesn't (DXHR).



This brings me to your points about choice and consequence. I have to stress that the original Deus Ex was great because it was NOT like DXHR. Specifically, you could not simply access choices easily in Deus Ex. This has been pointed out by others, too, not just me. It was not usually true that you could simply choose to use the vent or other option to continue playing. You had to have your character built to allow you to get past the obstacles to such choices. For example, there might be a heavy crate over the vent and you cannot move it to access the vent unless you had the strength augs to do so. Same with hacking... the vent would often be secured (duh... security!) and you would have to either hack it (requires developed hacking skill) or find the code to unlock it (may require various developed skills and/or augs to accomplish). DXHR makes it even worse because it actually points out the security loopholes in the game's story!



Back to technical issues... the graphics are very poor compared to many other games today, including Alice (which has outstanding graphics and animation, despite the texture pops from the Unreal Engine). The save system is horrible and people are complaining very loudly about not having control of how they manage their save games, not to mention the ludicrous cap on number of save slots. When will companies learn that the only cap on save slots should be the hard drive space available? Bethesda does it right, for example, so why not all companies? The stealth system is broken when enemies can detect you from clear across a room even though you are being stealthy, and even when they are preoccupied with checking the body of someone they just killed. Same with cameras, since they can see you well outside of their cone of operations. Boss fights are pointless in this type of game and people have complained about them greatly. It annoys me that people complain about lack of boss fights in Alice (for example) when Bioshock used the same structure and was awarded Game of the Year by many publications, and is generally highly regarded. Players really need to stop placing their own expectations on others both in games and in life.



Obviously, there are also issues such as sexism with respect to the portrayal of the various conspirators as well as restricting you to Adam Jensen, who I cannot identify with any more than I could identify with JC Denton. In a game that claims to allow you choice, this is very silly. We can add others "-isms" such as ageism, classism, racism, etc. On the other hand, the game offers environments that show attention for NPCs who may not be able to use stairs, for example, and asks the player to consider stereotyping and discrimination between augs and non-augs.



In the end, I agree with you that DXHR should be much more criticized than it has been, but I don't necessarily agree with the specific elements or points you choose to stress in your analysis. In fact, I would largely disagree with your overall approach to what a game should be in order to be "fun" even though I agree that DXHR has serious flaws in many areas, especially compared to the original Deus Ex. I think this result is interesting in and of itself.

Joe Wreschnig
profile image
What is "the MDA document" you refer to?

Dave Endresak
profile image
Sorry for the late reply. I've been busy with the analysis and the start of fall term.



The MDA (Mechanics, Design, and Aesthetics) document was presented at the GDC in 2004. Here is a link to the PDF:



http://www.cs.northwestern.edu/~hunicke/MDA.pdf

Steven An
profile image
A lot of the stuff you say is true, but it's really a matter of taste. They just didn't really bother me that much. It depends on how you play the game and what kind of goals you give yourself. I started playing as a pacifist, and that was fun for a while. But half way through it became too tough to do that (I played on "Give me Deus Ex"), so I just made it a point to eliminate every guard in most situations. And that was fun.



So you are right that the design is "lazy", but I guess for a lot of us, we figured out how to have fun with it anyway.

Steven An
profile image
But I would agree with you that HR is no revolution. It really doesn't do anything new. It's just a very competent and fun mish mash of other equally good games.

Taekwan Kim
profile image
Yeah, actually that whole scenario with the vent, if I'm honest, didn't bother me much either because I just did it the hard way anyway. Then I went down and hacked the terminal to turn off the stuff. Then I unlocked the door, went back up the ladder and used the vent. Etc.



I think the reason we can have fun with it is that the easy option is always there, but you can also do it the hard way too. And it feels extra satisfactory because you have the illusion that you probably weren't supposed to be able to do it that way. Like knocking out every guard at the street level front entrance of the Harvesters Hideout while staying ghost. Or at the end of Tai Yong. Doing the Good Soul event with a stun gun, takedowns, and a pistol for the bot on Give Me DX. Etc. Fun. And that's no small thing.

Josh Bycer
profile image
Great post Kim, I'm working on my analysis on the game and I echo your complaints. The first time playing the game, I really enjoyed it, but trying to do it a 2nd time, I'm seeing all these faults bright as day.



Where Deus Ex failed providing personalization, is where Alpha Protocol succeeded. In AP, the story changes based on not only how the player responds, but reacts. In Deus Ex I can be a sociopath or a cloaked ninja, and there is no difference in the story or world.

Taekwan Kim
profile image
Hey, thanks Mr. Bycer. Yeah, I wish they had kept up the richness of responses to the first mission with the hostages for the whole game. Getting Thorton, Inc. on my first playthrough of Alpha Protocol was _so_ satisfactory. Whereas the ending to DXHR, that was totally just choose your own adventure, (literally) reload if you want a different ending. Plus they were all so vague, non-committal, and impersonal. Mr. Battersby's comment up top about it: spot on.

Taekwan Kim
profile image
Hey all, thank you for taking the time to read through all that and comment. Good to hear from you guys.



I want to talk about this split we have between those that say games should be challenging and those that feel it’s not all that important. In my understanding, I believe this originates from differences in orientations: process orientation versus goal orientation. Neither of these is ever pure and entirely separate, but I believe one of these is usually dominant to the other’s recessive in most people.



For those of us that are process oriented (such as myself), reaching the goal itself is secondary to extracting as much meaning and value as possible in the process of getting there. In others, the process has no value unless the goal is reached—otherwise it’s all just wasted time because there’s nothing that can be externalized to show for it.



From a purely goal oriented perspective, anything that gets in the way of our goals becomes an annoyance as opposed to an opportunity. What’s important is to be able to say that, yes, I saw that, or did that, or finished that game. For process oriented types, it’s more important to figure out how all that works, to gain skills from it, and to build up a store of lasting assets that applies to more than just a single playthrough (or game).



It’s an introverted versus extroverted thing, and we can find an archetypal example of this in the saying “store up in heaven where moth and rust do not destroy” (versus the external, tangible attitude of “storing on earth”). For really process oriented types, losing a saved game or two to file corruption isn’t such a big deal because progress isn’t measured by how far you got into the game anyway.



Obviously, I’m pretty biased towards process orientation. Heck, more than once during my first playthrough of DXHR, I went back on over 3 hours of gameplay to redo some stuff that I had missed or felt hadn’t done to satisfaction, and I was constantly reloading everything to see if I could do it better—I do that in games all the time. And I think at least part of it has to do with how much we value our time spent in a game, or value games themselves. If you feel rushed for time and that you have more pressing matters to attend to, you just want to get to that next progress nugget so you feel like you’re getting somewhere; going back 3 hours sounds simply insane.



But an argument I would make for process orientation as it especially and particularly relates to games is that, at the end of the day, the only things real about a game are our experiences and how a game changes us through those experiences. If we are speeding through the content just so we can sample, or claim to have sampled, all of it, we are reducing the depth of each experience, and thus reducing how real a game is. Without challenging ourselves, we simply might not be giving the game a chance to actually change us by forcing us to reconsider, reiterate, and reform.



But then, all of us from time to time just want to relax, not be so damn serious, and feel badass, so I’m probably overstating things again. And man, do I like my achievements, so, as process oriented as I am, it’s not like I’m immune to the allure of goal orientation, either. The other side has a point, too.



Those are just my thoughts on that.

Dave Endresak
profile image
Actually, I would have to say that your view of process versus goal orientation is almost the opposite from mine, at least as far as play preferences. Or perhaps the problem is one of looking at things in a dichotomous, binary way rather than a continuous spectrum. Or maybe it just seems that your statements contradict each other to some extent. I might be confusing what you are trying to say, of course.



It would appear that, by your definitions, I would be goal oriented, but I'm actually the opposite. Totally opposite, in fact, because the goal is irrelevant. This is also why many games ate never completed by many players. The process isn't enjoyable so they stop playing.



In my case, it's more than just a personal preference because I analyze content. You really cannot analyze content by focusing only on goals, though. If you take that approach, you would miss a lot of content and be unable to properly analyze the whole product.



DXHR is going to be hard to finish for me because the process is not enjoyable, unlike the first game. I am mainly pushing myself to continue it because it relates to my academic studies, but that can also be said of Alice or many other games where the process is far more enjoyable, including the first DX.



Some people would find my approach to playing through analyzing content to be unenjoyable, boring, and pointless. I approach all media the same way, though, not just games. For me, the analysis is what makes experiencing media enjoyable. If there is no analysis, I may was well do something else with my time. That's why I do not play competitive or goal-oriented games, at least not very much.



As an added note, there has been some articles warning about focusing too much on goals due to the use of trophies, achievments, etc, particularly in Western-developed games. I believe I have read some articles on the subject in Game Informer and some of the other magazines, especially a few years ago after the current gen consoles were introduced. Some articles have also pointed out the difference between good or reasonable achievements versus very pointless or poor achievements (the latter usually relying on boring grinding that serves no point within the game other than to get the achievement).

Taekwan Kim
profile image
Mr. Endresak, I appreciate the comments you have contributed to this post. A question: what do you mean by "analyzing content"? If I understand this in its traditional definition, then mechanics would indeed get in the way of this preference since most games require you to extract content first.



As I mentioned, neither process orientation nor goal orientation "is ever pure and entirely separate", so it's entirely possible to be goal oriented concerning process, and vice versa (if that even makes sense--nebulous and intertwined concepts and all that, sorry :( ). For instance, analyzing content is also a goal, and if you approach a work of media mostly so you can say you have analyzed it, that's goal orientation. See what I mean? (Not saying this is your position, just positing an example.)



What's more important, getting through a game to have experienced all of it or experiencing parts of it wholly? That would be goal versus process orientation. Or, I would say, finishing DXHR despite not enjoying it so that it can serve academic studies seems to be rather goal oriented. For a process oriented type, it wouldn't really matter if DXHR ultimately didn't serve a specific academic goal because you still got something out of it anyway.



But that's really neither here nor there. The whole point was actually rather in agreement with your original comment, which is to say, feeling that challenge is unimportant is just as valid as being challenge seeking.

Tommy Hanusa
profile image
I have noted that giving a player a choice of OR is much better than giving them the choice of AND.



(I have no idea why difficulty has come into this argument).



DXHR seems to follow a philosophy of AND. In the game you get to keep adding to Jensen, its all more more and more! (I find it sarcastically patriotic. An incidental wry sneer to american culture and how unsatisfying it can be). However, by the time I was midway in china for the first time; I felt pretty built. I was done with character progression. I had like 9 praxis points. so I started expanding into areas I hadn't considered and playing with the system more.



in the original DX when I went to china (well hong kong; which is... debatably china). I remember feeling a sense of progression; but it was different because I had to choose between invisibility OR armor; I had chosen to lift heavy objects OR be a melee specialist. When I played through the game I had moments of "awe man, if I took my character in this direction it would be awesome (but how would I do that last part?)".



in DXR I keep a bank of 2-4 praxis points so I can get the augmentation I need for the scenario (haven't felt the need for the typhoon though.)



Simply put DX had lots of options for completing levels because the game didn't know what abilities you had. DXHR has lots of options for completing levels because DX had lots of options for completing levels. (the problem is that this still stands out compared to most games who are linearly solved, which means the game is 'good'. Also I only caught this problem when Mr. Kim brought it up, so I'm not sure of any development practices that could catch this type of problem, aside from the generality 'Or is better than AND'.)



*I think DXHR does some really awesome things too. No morality metric, cool hacking game, shooting and sneaking mechanics work good, conversation and persuasion is interesting, the art style really shows, environments feel lived-in, characters are more interesting than usual, the 'AND' nature of the design lets me run and gun when I get bored of sneaking; and so we come full circle (but I stand by my claim that AND seems less compelling than OR).

Dave Endresak
profile image
Tommy, your point is important because DXHR, like the original DX, claims that the game is about choice and consequence, and stresses that it is a hybrid of RPG, FPS, and stealth. However, the fact is that DXHR has broken stealth compared to DX (c'mon, enemies preoccupied with the body of someone they just killed see me clear across the room even though I am in shadows, crouched, and sneaking down the stairs?) and does not require specific builds to choose certain paths to continue the game. Likewise, I feel nothing for any of the characters, and the sort of "punch line" to the story was telegraphed right from end of the first sequence (just prior to the opening credits).



DX 1 had lots of options for continuing the game because the game had to allow for a variety of builds. DXHR offers choices but doesn't vary anything due to builds because it assumes that players will retain praxis points and make their choice as needed, just as you did. The first game was also superior in this regard because, in general, you could not upgrade/choose whenever you wanted, and the nanocanisters actually took inventory space, thus being a strategic choice whether or not to save them for later.



From a role playing perspective, it's very silly for the player to be able to switch from being a stealth/scout type of character to being a run-n-gun type. It violates the character development.

Taekwan Kim
profile image
Mr. Endresak, it seems we are actually in agreement, then. At least about being able to run parallel builds and the lack of actual specialization (redundancy, inconsequence).

Jonathan Jou
profile image
There's this weird sentiment I seem to be hearing echoed here: it sounds like in a game which is being heralded for having "no wrong answers," you and quite a few commentators are coming out and saying "No! We want to have to make mistakes, and we want to get frustrated while we do it, gosh darn it!" It's one thing to talk about win buttons and the dumbing down of games, but I'm really, really interested in your idea that there should not be an easy way out. The corollary to "no easy way out" tends to be "a lot of players are frustrated by their lack of skill, knowledge, or foresight and blame the game for being unfair." Now, I love a good game of frustrating, death-riddled "hardcore" gaming myself, so I revel in doing things the hard way just to see if I can. But I'm sort of curious: would you have fewer complaints if this game had come with an option to turn on "hard mode," in which you were expected to fail each mission at least twice due to mistakes you wouldn't know you were making?



See, in single player games "balance" makes very little sense, because no one complains when you can powerlevel your Pikachu to make up for the fact that you're trying to beat Brock. I honestly think *having* that win button available for the people who are more interested in feeling like they beat the mission, but throwing in a challenging, rewarding choice for the people who actually want to feel like they're getting better at the game is the best we've come up with so far. While I don't like it when, say, I notice that successive Zelda games have easier and easier dungeons, I'm yet to feel like a game should be criticized for leaving a crutch out for those who need something to lean on. I don't hold easy mode against Rock Band, or quick saves against Max Payne. Is that what you're advocating? I'd be very interested in understanding this point of view.

Taekwan Kim
profile image
Mr. Jou, that’s interesting that you mention this auto-fail, you have to try 5 times before you can even move an inch thing that certain games do. _For the most part_, that’s actually not challenge at all, that’s a failure of design where the designer couldn’t figure out how to really make it challenging and so resorts to arbitrary and obligatory fails. It is, in a word, _filler_. And you can tell when it’s a failure of design if player skill has absolutely no impact on whether he will be able to pass that obstacle or not.



Not to be antagonistic in any way, but I have to say that I feel that you are putting words in my mouth, so I’m going to come off a bit aggressive here. “No! We want to have to make mistakes, and we want to get frustrated while we do it, gosh darn it!” basically has nothing to do with this post. I don’t know if other commenters have taken that position so you are making the understandable assumption that I am doing the same, or if my writing in the post was too exaggerated and poorly written to effectively get my point across—in which case, my apologies (I knew I shouldn’t have included that part about “I WIN”; the phrase is just too loaded). But please refer to my earlier reply under Mr. Gillian’s comment in which I have attempted to redress this perception that this post was mostly about challenge.



At any rate, let me repeat myself because it does seem that I haven’t been clear enough: you can tell if it’s a failure of design if player skill has no impact on whether he will be able to pass an obstacle. This works both ways. If a player with no skill can pass an obstacle (discounting chance successes of pure luck), obviously that means there’s actually no skill involvement designed into the obstacle, which means the design itself is weak. And by weak design I mean that the mechanics themselves that are supposed to be involved in solving a problem in fact do not come into play. If then there is no interplay between mechanics, where actually is the gameplay? (Even in the Sims—a game without much challenge—you can go bankrupt and die without proper time/asset management.)



So, am I saying there is no gameplay in DXHR? Not at all. Indeed, I have taken great pains to note that I am ignoring exceptions and significantly exaggerating only in order to counter the perception that DXHR can do no wrong. What I am saying is that the design in DXHR is loose enough that at times the interplay between mechanics fails to happen—and moreover, that this seems to be a deliberate design decision which is reflected in everything from character progression (where players frequently have 4-10 praxis points just lying about) to patrol paths and level design.



I’m not sure what you mean by “in single player games ‘balance’ makes very little sense” (having never played any of those games, I’m not catching the Pikachu reference), but I think that is really the root of the differences in our perspectives. Balance in gameplay is simply about solving/preventing the “player skill has no effect on obstacle solution” problem—both ways. That’s all it really boils down to.



It’s actually absolutely fine if a game provides an easier way to solve a problem; I have no problems with that in and of itself. What is less fine is if a game abuses those opportunities in order to avoid having to balance for different player decision chains. Offering an easy out is one thing, relying on it is something else.



So the (exaggerated) point of this post was that DXHR cheaply avoids having to solve the balance problem by ensuring there actually are no decision chains (or that they don't matter), that there is no specialization or real support for adherence to playstyles in the game. _Which is fine_. It is simply that the less mechanical decisions impact (positively or negatively) player agency, the less interplay there is between those mechanics, the less depth there is to the gameplay.



Once again, my apologies if this came off as antagonistic—if I am honest, perhaps it rather was and there is no call for that. I hope I was able to clarify my position and I do appreciate that you’ve taken the time to read, comment and engage in direct dialog.

Jonathan Jou
profile image
No no, I wrote that to be a little provocative myself, in the spirit of your post. I take no offense with what you've written here and hope you responded because you wanted to defend your position, and not because you felt a need to defend your person. If it sounded that way I'm very sorry, I could have made that comment a lot less inflammatory.



I now fully understand where you're coming from, which is the fact that too many decisions (or decisions which have no consequences) are not decisions at all. It's certainly disappointing when you're given the ability to tailor your character's skill set to plan out a mission, only to find the mission completes itself with or without your skill and preparation.



I think my point was that it's really, really hard to make a game that's deep, accessible, and rewarding. Games which meet these criteria go on to become classics, and many of the sports and board games we still play today show these qualities. The fact that Deus Ex sacrifices depth in order to keep the came accessible and rewarding is indeed an admission of defeat, much like the developers of Portal explaining why they had to put giant flashing arrows around the solutions because playtesters couldn't figure it out on their own. Granted, I haven't even played the game, so I can only speak in platitudes, but I believe that if Deus Ex provided challenge to those who sought it, and afforded easy outs for those wishing to move on, they did the best they could, which is as close to the right thing as they could manage.



About the Pikachu reference, that's a true story re-enacted in the Anime and also by my older brother. In the game, when you take Pikachu to fight the Rock-Type Gym Leader (Brock) you're taking a lightning pokemon to fight a rock pokemon, which is strongly resistant to physical attacks, and immune to lightning attacks, which is to say a correctly-leveled Pikachu will be summarily destroyed by any of Brock's 5 pokemon. One of the reasons you run into Brock so early is to encourage players to catch pokemon of other types, which can easily and readily take out rock type pokemon instead of spamming physical attacks. My brother, in lieu of capturing more pokemon, simply returned with a Pikachu 7 levels higher than it should be, and proceeded to physically beat down the physically-resistant pokemon.



I think that this "easy out" is at least a good way for people who are stuck to get past the one obstacle that they're not interested in overcoming. Win buttons are good in single player, so long as they don't press themselves.



Hopefully this was less inflammatory! This is actually a lot of fun to talk about so offending you is not at all something I'd like to do.

Taekwan Kim
profile image
Oh, not at all offended. Not at all. Also, I really did feel I wasn’t very clear in the original post, and I just wanted to clarify that (which I wouldn’t have been able to as specifically without your comment, so I’m actually appreciative of that opportunity you provided). Direct dialog is good! And I agree, hammering out different viewpoints for consideration is fun—it’s a great way to forge new understanding. Good stuff, all around.



Ok, so I think I understand the pikachu story now. I actually feel like that’s a good demonstration of player skill overcoming challenge—it’s taking a suboptimal build but compensating for that with knowledge and effort. It also seems to me that the fact that the player could level up outside of that encounter in order to be able to meet it with his suboptimal build means the game has provided balancing measures. It’s not forcing a specific and singular solution to a problem regardless of player choice or skill. And it only became an easy out because the player made it so through effort. Does that seem accurate?



But again, I haven’t played the pokemon games, so I don’t know if I’m misinterpreting the situation. Maybe vertical expansion (leveling) is much easier than horizontal expansion (acquiring other types) in those games, so it really is just an easy out.

Ali Afshari
profile image
Wow, I really enjoyed this analysis and all of the subsequent comments...very enlightening for a core gamer who is working toward getting into the industry. At this point I don't think I'm adding anything substantial to the discussion, but I wanted to at least respond now because I purposely did not read this during my first playthrough of DX:HR so that I could analyze my unbiased feelings after completing it. I'm on the 2nd playthrough on the hardest difficulty and it's still fun for me. Granted, I can totally see the points made by Mr. Kim and others, but they weren't enough to detract from my experiences so far. The first Deus Ex really made the player to choose wisely about paths, skill tree, and inventory management...it does feel like there is less commitment required from the player in DX:HR because of the available paths, easy hacking (most of the time), and because the story wraps up at one central location and player actions throughout the game don't seem to make any changes to the narrative. At least in the first game, there were multiple endings but each still required the player to complete specific tasks to see them.



I'm confident that the success and criticism will lead Eidos Montreal to make a better product in the sequel...or a new Thief game, which would be very awesome.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Tech