Deus Ex

[deanb]

Well I used my PXOD account to email 'em yesterday about the adverts. The reply today is essentially "what adverts?". So that's off to a good start.

 

I also had a scout of the patch notes and there's nothing I can see regarding adding adverts, which either means they didn't feel like adding that to the patch notes, or it's something built into the game since launch and only just now activated.

 

Personally my dislike for the adverts is

1. There was no prior word that the game would be running adverts, and there's still no official word from either Eidos or SE that the games are currently running adverts n why. Even though it's absolutely garish the Peacewalker stuff was at least known about upfront. So it does feel very dirty and underhanded. As others have pointed out about the main reason they'd keep quite and only activate the ad's a few weeks after launch is to avoid it being detrimental to review scores.

2. Adverts generate money for the publishers, money on a game that at least 2 million people have bought. That should generally cover the cost of the game. Normally adverts subsidize the cost of a game, in Angry Birds case it subsidises it to the price of free. If The Missing Link is going to be free DLC paid for by the adverts then hoorah. But I have a feeling it won't happen (I can enquire in my reply back to SE)

3. As has been pointed out in-game advertising, which isn't unheard of, would have been possible. There's a couple of billboards around Detroit at the very least. Even if you don't make coke vending machines that are used to murder cops with you can still fit unobtrusive adverts in.

4. Loading screen adverts slow down the game. And even on a non-technical level adverts in loading screens present a financial incentive for longer load times as it increases exposure. You don't want to put your advert on a loading screen that's over in less than a second.

 

It's not suddenly making Human Revolution a shitty game, it is however a black mark against Square for implementing it in this fashion. And remember: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/09/09/actually-its-okay-to-complain/?

[Thursday Next]

That comment thread is amazing. Seriously... so much tea...

[Yantelope]

What bothers me about the ads is they break the continuity of the gameplay experience. If you're thinking about the game and the story and then ads pop up "BUY STAR WARS!" it really jerks you out of the game world. Deus Ex isn't as irritating as many of the sports games have been for years but I really don't much care for the creep. For years I've been frustrated by the pop up ads in TV shows that block the show and I fear that's where games are headed.

 

Here's the problem with advertising. Irritating people works! You say "I hate these ads!" but they're being noticed and they're effective. Here's a great example.

 

http://consumerist.com/2011/04/walmart-declutters-aisles-per-customer-request-then-loses-185-billion-in-sales.html

 

You may hate the giant bulk stacks in Walmart but you people keep buying stuff off of them. It's the same way with game advertising. Unless there's some sort of negative consumer backlash against certain types of advertising then it will continue.

[deanb]

I was rather confused the other day when...Duke I think it was, said the RPS comments aren't that great. (The actual system itself is another matter mind)

[Yantelope]

One possible solution might be for everyone to try to block or undermine these ads. If we can make it so that the ads aren't getting delivered en masse then perhaps the value of incorporating something like this will be diminished.

[Hot Heart]

Wow, a lot of discussion here.

 

I'm not sure how I feel on the ads as I've not experienced them first-hand yet. I would've preferred them integrated into the game world in some way, even if is is in 'the future', but I don't feel they're too obtrusive. I'm not sure how they work but I think having them on the initial load and not all load screens would've been a more agreeable approach; showing before you get into the game and not having the possibility of breaking continuity.

 

I can't say I support this 'well, they should give something back to the consumer approach'. I can understand it's annoying for the end-user and was very much sprung on them, but product placement and advertising have become very much a part of the entertainment industry. As far as I'm aware, the game took four years to make, was considered a big risk and went over-budget. Perhaps these deals were struck to help cover development, I'm not sure. It's an unfortunate situation but it probably makes sense from a business standpoint.

 

Obviously, this is all down to personal perspective though. I liked the game and I think the development team did a great job. I've already completed it so I don't think ads on the screen could take me out of the game so much anymore. And I'm OK with a few ads in little sections on the loading screens if that keeps the publisher happy and the developers making more games. Whereas I can see how some people may take issue with them.

 

And they'd better not increase load times.

[CorgiShinobi]

My copy of Human Revolution came in the mail the day before the banner ad became active. When I was first playing, I wasn't doing so hot, so I would see the loading screen quite a bit. Now I'm at the Police Station, but I didn't go through the entrance, so I'm saving and loading whenever I'm successful at sneaking around. (I really should enter through the front now.)

 

Point is, as far as the PS3 version goes I haven't noticed the loading time increase. Maybe it's as much as a second, but I can't notice an extended waiting period from my first entire day playing to the next day where the banner ad was present.

 

If Duke is right, the banner ad doesn't even show up every time there's a loading screen. I can attest to that since I was playing for two hours without it, though at around 1:00 am it came back. This is why I talked about the nature of the advertisement, and why I made a comparison to Angry Birds. Ad placement isn't black and white, like if you do have an ad, "Oh, then you get X dollars for having one ad!" Angry Birds is free because those banner ads that take up an eighth of the screen and are present for the majority of gameplay. That's the benefit the user receives.

 

Something like Human Revolution's ad isn't going to have that large of affect. Given that the "Missing Link" DLC is coming October, I can only hope the added revenue decreases the price for that DLC. If I'm perturbed about anything Human Revoluton related, it's the DLC as it's the "missing chapter" in the game, much like the Memory Sequences for Assassin's Creed II.

 

EDIT: Again, I agree the better option should have been product placement, but with a spark of creativity like if the company's logo was given a futuristic redesign. Given that there are already billboards and newspapers with fake ads, it seems like a more natural solution. Though, to be honest I can still see people getting upset about "Coca-cola 2027."

Edited September 16, 2011 by Atomsk88

[Vargras]

If it was in-game, and the team did nothing to make it fit in the with DX:HR atmosphere, I'd be pissed.

 

But it's a tiny little bar at the load screens, so I'm not. Life goes on.

 

See how easy that was?

[CorgiShinobi]

To get back to the actual game, I've got a question.

 

In Jensen's emails, there's one where somebody suspects another employee of "augment rejection" drug theft (I can't remember Neuroph-whatsit). Anyway, I've followed the trail to the one office you can enter through an air duct, but I haven't found anything else to go on. I'm wondering if this is a waste of time as no actual side quest has been activated.

[Hot Heart]

Hmm, yeah, there should be a related sidequest. A guy should be sat in your office. I thought it should 'activate' without a need to do anything besides having completed the first 'augmented-Jensen' mission (the manufacturing plant).

 

Also, hacking and exploring are never a waste of time where XP is concerned.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Hot Heart

[Pirandello]

So I started my 4th playthrough today after the new patch supposedly fixed most of the stuttering. It did, which is pretty nice as most of the gameplay is now silky smooth.

 

However, this time, I decided to be more gung-ho and forego a bit of hacking skill early on to get improvements towards combat capabilities.

 

Worst. Freaking. Choice. Ever.

[CorgiShinobi]

Hmm, yeah, there should be a related sidequest. A guy should be sat in your office. I thought it should 'activate' without a need to do anything besides having completed the first 'augmented-Jensen' mission (the manufacturing plant).

 

Also, hacking and exploring are never a waste of time where XP is concerned.

I've already helped that guy, so I guess those emails and pocket secretaries are pointless? I mean, it was pretty straight forward to break into an apartment and at the end beat up two dealers.

 

Would the side quest have gone different if I answered another way?

[Hot Heart]

Sidequest is the same. Emails and such are just giving some background and showing some funny misunderstandings, especially since you know what's been going on all along.

[Hot Heart]

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/2963/article/deus-ex-human-revolution-s-terrible-boss-fights-were-outsourced/

 

It all makes sense.

[DocSeuss]

That video isn't actually serious, is it?

[Connorrrr]

Yeah, I saw that video too. It certainly explains a lot. He seemed pretty proud of himself but he totally missed the point of Deus Ex.

 

Though of course, Eidos are also to blame for making it so they're completely unavoidable.

[CorgiShinobi]

I'm not shooting my weapons, but I already know I'm not getting the pacifist trophy or whatever because I shot people dead in the tutorial level.

 

Still, that's because going in guns blazing is practically a death wish. Now that I have a silencer, I might leave a few... accidents around.

[Thursday Next]

Pacifist Trophy is annoying. I didn't kill anyone, but it seems that someone died by misadventure, while being dragged or something. Lame.

[CorgiShinobi]

I did that side quest where you knock out Diamond Chan and drop him off the roof. I wonder if that technically counts as a kill, which in my opinion is rather a hilarious kill as you never pick him up, but instead drag and push him off his apartment building.

[Hot Heart]

I didn't realise the tutorial section counts against it. Which is a little odd. I mean, what sort of security chief doesn't shoot guys who have broken in and are killing everyone? You're not infiltrating at that point, you are motherfucking defending yo shit.

 

Not that it mattered in the end, I opened a can of whoopass at one point and also could not resist bursting through a few walls and snapping dudes' necks.

[Thursday Next]

It does.

[CorgiShinobi]

Finished the game tonight... or should I say "early morning."

 

Short and simple, the majority of the the time I was stealth and hacking. Still kept my weapons upgraded and had: heavy rifle, 10mm, machine pistol, P.E.P.S., tranquilizer rifle, stun gun, but then I dropped the P.E.P.S. for the plasma rifle. I was one upgrade away for both a fully upgraded 10mm and machine pistol.

 

As for the last level (and boss):

 

I felt bad having to kill most of the zombie workers. Made me wish I had the P.E.P.S., though the final boss fight was easy with the plasma rifle. Speaking of which, I completely forgot I had the code "2012" and did the battle the odd way. Seriously, once you begin manually doing anything, you can't use the code. Honestly, I pushed buttons, hacked two terminals, killed zombies with my machine pistol and robots with my plasma rifle.

 

Shot Zhao with my 10mm a few times. B)

 

As for the ending, I think the "Self-Destruct" ending is the better of the four. I've read a few people mention how all the endings have a partial truth, and that they're more so neutral rather than "good" or "bad." I watched them on YouTube and I would agree. We need order, but people must have will. There is need for progress, but only with aim can progress help.

 

For me, I didn't want to spin a story for Sariff or Taggart, acting as a false witness for an agenda, even if I can fully understand their intentions. Darrow wanted everything to be revealed, essentially having fear become the determining factor for society's future. The truth is important, but truth can be so powerful it might shatter your reality.

 

So while I basically had Jensen and everyone on board die a cold, wet death, the people were given agency to decide the future of human augmentation.

 

[Hot Heart]

As for the last level (and boss):

 

I felt bad having to kill most of the zombie workers.

 

As for the ending, I think the "Self-Destruct" ending is the better of the four. I've read a few people mention how all the endings have a partial truth, and that they're more so neutral rather than "good" or "bad." I watched them on YouTube and I would agree. We need order, but people must have will. There is need for progress, but only with aim can progress help.

 

For me, I didn't want to spin a story for Sariff or Taggart, acting as a false witness for an agenda, even if I can fully understand their intentions. Darrow wanted everything to be revealed, essentially having fear become the determining factor for society's future. The truth is important, but truth can be so powerful it might shatter your reality.

 

So while I basically had Jensen and everyone on board die a cold, wet death, the people were given agency to decide the future of human augmentation.

 

 

 

Well, you didn't have to kill them. I found my way past most of them and at other times employed rapid use of gas grenades, tranq rifle and stun gun...with the occasional smash in the face. Didn't kill a single one. Not that it mattered come the final curtain...

 

I wouldn't say there was a 'best' ending and I think that works in the game's favour. Even your approach to the rest of the game affects how Jensen justifies his choice in the voiceovers. I'd honestly like to believe Darrow's choice would not completely scare everyone off progress but I also sort of sided with Taggart in all apart from the Illuminati aspect (d'oh!). And Sarif was ever the optimist... So, yeah, I chose self-destruct because it was all too much.

 

Continuity would suggest that Taggart's message got through but who knows...

 

[CorgiShinobi]

As for the last level (and boss):

 

I felt bad having to kill most of the zombie workers.

 

As for the ending, I think the "Self-Destruct" ending is the better of the four. I've read a few people mention how all the endings have a partial truth, and that they're more so neutral rather than "good" or "bad." I watched them on YouTube and I would agree. We need order, but people must have will. There is need for progress, but only with aim can progress help.

 

For me, I didn't want to spin a story for Sariff or Taggart, acting as a false witness for an agenda, even if I can fully understand their intentions. Darrow wanted everything to be revealed, essentially having fear become the determining factor for society's future. The truth is important, but truth can be so powerful it might shatter your reality.

 

So while I basically had Jensen and everyone on board die a cold, wet death, the people were given agency to decide the future of human augmentation.

 

 

 

Well, you didn't have to kill them. I found my way past most of them and at other times employed rapid use of gas grenades, tranq rifle and stun gun...with the occasional smash in the face. Didn't kill a single one. Not that it mattered come the final curtain...

 

I wouldn't say there was a 'best' ending and I think that works in the game's favour. Even your approach to the rest of the game affects how Jensen justifies his choice in the voiceovers. I'd honestly like to believe Darrow's choice would not completely scare everyone off progress but I also sort of sided with Taggart in all apart from the Illuminati aspect (d'oh!). And Sarif was ever the optimist... So, yeah, I chose self-destruct because it was all too much.

 

Continuity would suggest that Taggart's message got through but who knows...

 

True, I realize that there were ways you could get around them...

 

Though, I didn't know what the boss battle would be like, so I wanted to save my gas grenades. Most of the time it was because one person in a whole crowd would see me and thus they would all charge at me. I stopped caring after reaching Sarif. The walkway, it was pretty epic to mow down three dozen people with the Heavy Rifle. I didn't notice the vent right away, so yeah, there was a turret.

 

Like I had said, I understand their intentions (absolute freedom = absolute chaos), but the whole framing one another thing turned me away from Sarif and Taggart.

 

 

Also, I when I was in a "questing" mood, I had chosen to get the biochip.

 

Seriously, I knew something was up, but I wanted to complete all my objectives too.

 

At least if you get the biochip, you can use the corner-standoff glitch for the boss fight. A little more legit than a knock out punch.

 

[Yantelope]

So...

 

 

If all the zombies were killing each other in the cutscene why did they suddenly stop killing each other and resort to only killing you?

 

 

All in all it's a good game but I feel like its ties to the original story were very very loose. Then again I still can't keep everything straight in my head from the first game. The other problem with 4 endings is that the sequel is going to have to assume one of them so it really loses the point.

Deus Ex 2 assumed that JC Denton merged with Helios so screw you if you went another direction.

 

 

Oh, also, the muscle boss guy, I couldn't kill him with my laser gun or my machine gun. I finally just pulled out my pistol and since it had the armor piercing upgrade and some damage upgrades it took only a couple of shots to the face and he was dead. I was pretty confused by how this game does the damage after that.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Yantelope