Deus Ex: MD - In Praise of Prague

This time. Wait until they will get properly integrated in the later games. If somebody's taking down your trousers and bends you over I think that it's a good idea to react now rather than wait for what he'll do next. But, apparently, at least 3 people here think differently.

The crowdfunded scene has taken down many people's pants by now. They love it.
Useless to bother about Ubisoft doing the same.

sakichop said:

Problem is you can't create a character that everybody can "get behind".

Click to expand...

Adam Jensen is written so that socalled RPGers can get behind.

It is a capital difference with other writings. In other writings, characters can be written to exist by themselves. They do no exist through readers. They can get readers to reject them. There is no requirement for association.

In video product story, all characters must be written to inspired association. Socalled RPGers desire to be their avatar, they want in. As such, the writing must accomadate room for players.

Jensen is thought that way, his background story etc

Here comes Jensen, destined to be from birth the most augmented person in the world (exceptionality)
Yet his own course with augmentation is tortured, Jensen never misses an opportunity to bitch about augmentations, he was forced into it.
Nothing new here as somewhat, Jensen stands as a reluctant hero, walking backwards to his future.

In parallel, the quest to satify socalled RPGers lust for power is run. Both episodes provide the opportunity to make Jensen even more powerful. Yet players do not desire this satisfaction to be openly worded.

The result is that Jensen is written to be a dismissive powerwhore as per socalled RPGers desire.
The most powerful augmented being in the becoming who cant assume his own lust. Will not miss an opportunity to get more powerful and to lambast augmentation.

Falchor said:

I can't seem to make myself play this game. And I haven't been able to figure out why, other than I don't feel like I'm role-playing. I feel like I'm playing Adam Jensen. And Adam Jensen is not a particularly intriguing character. He's a tad standoffish (maybe), he's a tad untrusting of his higher-ups (maybe),… I just don't know who he is.

Click to expand...

Adam Jensen is a dismissive powerhouse. That is who he is. For the rest, there are the degrees of freedom given to players.
That is acting (and not roleplaying)
It is up to players to determine how they want him to be: angry, blasé, cruel, romantic etc

It is different from Of Rivia, that is a novel character that was meant to exist without inputs from players.

zahratustra said:

This time. Wait until they will get properly integrated in the later games. If somebody's taking down your trousers and bends you over I think that it's a good idea to react now rather than wait for what he'll do next. But, apparently, at least 3 people here think differently.

Click to expand...

React how if you already preordered it? Best to make lemonade from lemons and try to enjoy what you have. I certainly will not do another preorder for any sequel though.

joxer said:

btw, IMO Dawn engine is slightly changed Foundation engine (also known as Horizon) used in Rise of the Tomb Raider. Noone will officially confirm this. But when and if you play both games, you won't be able to shake away the feeling it's the same engine.
If I'm right, this only means the engine, whatever it's actual name might be, is a brilliant piece of software.

Click to expand...

Dawn is known to be based on Glacier 2 that was used in Hitman Absolution. Doesn't mean, that Crystal Dynamics didn't use it either for Tomb Raider, but I don't know.

Thrasher said:

I certainly will not do another preorder for any sequel though.

Click to expand...

Good enough

Ripper said:

To me, microtransactions in full-price games and DLC are both part of the same problem.

When DLC first emerged, it seemed fairly innocuous, but, as time went on, it became clear that game content was being chopped out to be sold separately, Bioware style. This is now at the point were to get the full experience in some games, they demand a ludicrous price for the Ultimate Edition, or some such bullshit.

While it looks like microtransactions in Deus Ex were added as an afterthought, and don't affect the game, I think it highly likely that, should they become an accepted practice, gameplay in future games will start to be altered in order to encourage their purchase. In addition, they will start to lock down the games to prevent modding and tweaking, which could circumvent their control of the game elements they're selling. I'm just very keen to send them the message, "Don't even think about it, or the wallet is not coming out tonight!"

Also, to my mind, a AAA game should be a complete experience, and any content sold separately should be developed as a proper expansion. Again, the way CDPR do things being the ideal model, IMO.

Click to expand...

I get what your saying I'm just not buying in to the doom and gloom scenario your painting. Micro transactions and DLC are nothing more than a way for devs to combat high production cost and line thier pockets with a little extra cash. Personally I'd rather see them go to $80-90 full games and do away with the nickel and dime system but gaming is owned by the mainstream and they would go ape shit if base game prices went up like that even though they seem perfectly happy to spend more than that $5 at a time.

I also don't buy into the whole outrage of cut content. I've asked several times in other threads but never seem to get an answer but shouldn't the devs be able to decide what content to put in thier game and what content they want to charge extra for? Why do games feel it's thier job to tell dev what should have been in the base game?

Would your opinion of CDPR and the Witcher 3 change if you found out they made the content before the release of Witcher 3? Would they all of the sudden be a bad company? Or what if they broke the 3 DLC's down to 6 and sold them for the same cost and in the same time frame? Are they then doing it wrong even though your paying the same amount, for the same content in the same time frame just in smaller chunks?

I know it's a lot of questions and I don't expect you to answer them all but my point is that it seems we're just bickering about how content is delivered. Big expansions, ok. Smaller DLC, bad. Micro transactions, worse. At the end of the day I don't care how they want to sell it to me I'll still just buy what I want and skip what I don't.

If your doom and gloom scenario comes true and I have to buy 100 gems to continue playing my full price game then I'll just do something else. I really enjoy gaming but I'm not consumed by it.

zahratustra said:

Good enough

Click to expand...

But mainly because the graphics performance is so terrible.

sakichop said:

I get what your saying I'm just not buying in to the doom and gloom scenario your painting. Micro transactions and DLC are nothing more than a way for devs to combat high production cost and line thier pockets with a little extra cash. Personally I'd rather see them go to $80-90 full games and do away with the nickel and dime system but gaming is owned by the mainstream and they would go ape shit if base game prices went up like that even though they seem perfectly happy to spend more than that $5 at a time.

I also don't buy into the whole outrage of cut content. I've asked several times in other threads but never seem to get an answer but shouldn't the devs be able to decide what content to put in thier game and what content they want to charge extra for? Why do games feel it's thier job to tell dev what should have been in the base game?

Click to expand...

Those arguments seem to me to boil down to "let the market sort it out". Or, to put it another way, whatever way the producers provide their goods is fine, and how their customers respond is fine, too. I would just say that voting with one's wallet is one function of the market, and another is customers giving feedback publicly. So, in a sense, I agree that it's all fair play, but I think that we, the customers, should also play our part in the process by expressing our pleasure or displeasure at the service we receive. In that way things will evolve one way or the other.

sakichop said:

Would your opinion of CDPR and the Witcher 3 change if you found out they made the content before the release of Witcher 3? Would they all of the sudden be a bad company? Or what if they broke the 3 DLC's down to 6 and sold them for the same cost and in the same time frame? Are they then doing it wrong even though your paying the same amount, for the same content in the same time frame just in smaller chunks?

Click to expand...

What I was getting at is that CDPR's record has impressed me as honest and respectful to their customers, even to the extent of risking the exclusion of DRM to avoid their customers having to run code that treats them as an untrusted party. In turn, I respect the way they do business, I want to reward them, and I wish they were so rewarded overall that it influenced other companies to emulate their example.

When they tell me that I get the full experience of an exceptional AAA game for $60, and then they'll work for the next year to produce two excellent and substantial expansions, $20 apiece, I believe them and I'm delighted to do business with them on that basis.

Other companies make me feel much less respected, and that I'm being nickeled and dimed. I don't dig that so much. Others may take a different view, but it still makes sense for us all to air our views and arguments to try and influence things in the direction we wish to see.

sakichop said:

Micro transactions and DLC are nothing more than a way for devs to combat high production cost and line thier pockets with a little extra cash.

Click to expand...

Hardly...they are designed precisely to exploit weak willed people...like setting a liquor store next to rehab to prey on people's weakness.
"Don't like it...Don't buy it!" is only turning a blind eye to the problem.

I also don't buy into the whole outrage of cut content. I've asked several times in other threads but never seem to get an answer but shouldn't the devs be able to decide what content to put in thier game and what content they want to charge extra for? Why do games feel it's thier job to tell dev what should have been in the base game?

Click to expand...

Comes down to common sense. If Dlc is continuation of developers previous work, unfinished as result of time/budget constraints...nothing wrong with that.
If it's priced a bit higher than it should, so it can help developers fund another title or let some of their people remain working a while longer...that's understandable: AAA are ridiculously expensive and getting more by the day.
But something deliberately cut from main game( Prothean Dlc) or that reeks of easy dime for almost no effort , then we're talking of entirely different story.
If you bought a book with obvious missing chapters that you have to pay extra $ for complete story, would that be alright with you?

As for your comment about CDPR, I'm not sure how it relates here. It's not the size of what they are offering or ( more or less) how much they're charging, but how they're doing it.
Second expansion was a new game in it's own right, with more unique assets than entire Dark Souls 3 next to it's predecessors, so they must have done a great job of fooling us all about cutting it from the main game.

You are a laissez-faire marketer and laissez-faire gamer saki. And this, in both cases, might only work if buyers and sellers were in an equal position. But, since they aren't, your argument rings hollow.

BoboTheMighty said:

Hardly…they are designed precisely to exploit weak willed people…like setting a liquor store next to rehab to prey on people's weakness.
"Don't like it…Don't buy it!" is only turning a blind eye to the problem.

Click to expand...

Weak willed people? A bit of an elitist statement don't you think. Do they have to be weak willed couldn't they just enjoy the extra content that's being sold?

Anyway, Don't I have to see it as a problem before I can turn a blind eye to it. I've never purchased a micro transaction in a game but it they ever sold anything I found worthwhile I wouldn't be apposed.

BoboTheMighty said:

Comes down to common sense. If Dlc is continuation of developers previous work, unfinished as result of time/budget constraints…nothing wrong with that.
If it's priced a bit higher than it should, so it can help developers fund another title or let some of their people remain working a while longer…that's understandable: AAA are ridiculously expensive and getting more by the day.
But something deliberately cut from main game( Prothean Dlc) or that reeks of easy dime for almost no effort , then we're talking of entirely different story.
If you bought a book with obvious missing chapters that you have to pay extra $ for complete story, would that be alright with you?

Click to expand...

To me it's common sense that they can sell it how they want to and consumers can decide if they want to buy it. Even cut content costs money to make so I don't see the difference if it's made before or after. If they make 100 hours of content at once sell 80 hours as the main game and another 20 as DLC, how is that any different if they make an 80 hour game and sell it then make 20 hours of DLC.

The book analogy doesn't really work imo. Whole chapters of a book would probably be noticeable. I've never played a game and thought, man there's a lot of missing content here.

BoboTheMighty said:

As for your comment about CDPR, I'm not sure how it relates here. It's not the size of what they are offering or ( more or less) how much they're charging, but how they're doing it.

Click to expand...

It's not? So a 2 hour DLC for $20 would have been fine as long as it has new assets.

BoboTheMighty said:

Second expansion was a new game in it's own right, with more unique assets than entire Dark Souls 3 next to it's predecessors, so they must have done a great job of fooling us all about cutting it from the main game.

Click to expand...

Nice try, but I'm not biting. Your not getting me riled up by throwing a jab in about dark souls games.

Weak willed people? A bit of an elitist statement don't you think. Do they have to be weak willed couldn't they just enjoy the extra content that's being sold?

Click to expand...

Yes, in fact. Microtransactions are by design targeting younger gamers, to buy them impulsively... a buck here, a buck there and it slowly piles up, until someone notices a bill on credit card. That's not exactly typical for people responsible with their money and it's common sense that it is more common with teenagers than adults.
There is absolutely no sense of "fairness" in why and how they're designed...I haven't seen anyone once manage to prove otherwise. Only "I'll pretend they don't exist, so it doesn't bother me" "reasoning".

To me it's common sense that they can sell it how they want to and consumers can decide if they want to buy it. Even cut content costs money to make so I don't see the difference if it's made before or after. If they make 100 hours of content at once sell 80 hours as the main game and another 20 as DLC, how is that any different if they make an 80 hour game and sell it then make 20 hours of DLC.

The book analogy doesn't really work imo. Whole chapters of a book would probably be noticeable. I've never played a game and thought, man there's a lot of missing content here.

Click to expand...

You don't find it suspicious when cut content is immediately "finished" a week or so( or even less) after release, even with " crunch"and all the effort that goes into patching, fixing bugs, optimizing that nowadays AAA, more and more require?
And book analogy is exactly on point...Mass Effect Prothean Dlc is an example of something fully integrated into main storyline and sold separately for quick extra $. They didn't cut it, as result of time constraints and worked their asses 24/7 to finish it.
Milk the player base for extra money as much as possible for little effort or sell already in game content that is fully integrated into it, quickly delivered through the miracle of developer ...I'm not sure why this needs explaining.

It's not? So a 2 hour DLC for $20 would have been fine as long as it has new assets.

Click to expand...

Wut?

sakichop said:

I get what your saying I'm just not buying in to the doom and gloom scenario your painting. Micro transactions and DLC are nothing more than a way for devs to combat high production cost and line thier pockets with a little extra cash. Personally I'd rather see them go to $80-90 full games and do away with the nickel and dime system but gaming is owned by the mainstream and they would go ape shit if base game prices went up like that even though they seem perfectly happy to spend more than that $5 at a time.

Click to expand...

No. Corp people have been taught lessons by crowfunded small business minded people. Corp have not grown that unproficient though.

First point: an increase of price up to $80 and micro transactions could be combined. They add up. People do not have to decide over one or the other.

The second point is a price control issue. Video products lose value very fast. For some time, devs found a haven with the pre order release stuff that somewhat helped a stable price and improve the readability of forthcoming revenues but it is gone.

Devs if they can get an anticipation of the volumes less and less know the prices they are going to sell.

Setting the price to $80 does not improve that point.

On the opposite, micro transaction prices fluctuate much less, an estimate on volume is an estimate on revenue.

Even better, a bundle offer works as an improvement. In a no micro transaction, a bundle works at a discount, products bundled together are sold for less.
The customer pays less than the expectation.

Microtransaction bundles usually operate reversely. The customer usually pay more than expected. When buying a $50 bundle, there is no guarantee this customer would have reached the $50 bar on $1 transactions only.

BoboTheMighty said:

Yes, in fact. Microtransactions are by design targeting younger gamers, to buy them impulsively… a buck here, a buck there and it slowly piles up, until someone notices a bill on credit card. That's not exactly typical for people responsible with their money and it's common sense that it is more common with teenagers than adults.
Milk the player base for extra money as much as possible for little effort or sell already in game content that is fully integrated into it, quickly delivered through the miracle of developer …I'm not sure why this needs explaining.

Click to expand...

Great assertion to be made on a site filled with no longer teenage people who keep admitting their backlog is overfilled.

Who dares wins.

BoboTheMighty said:

Yes, in fact. Microtransactions are by design targeting younger gamers, to buy them impulsively… a buck here, a buck there and it slowly piles up, until someone notices a bill on credit card. That's not exactly typical for people responsible with their money and it's common sense that it is more common with teenagers than adults.
There is absolutely no sense of "fairness" in why and how they're designed…I haven't seen anyone once manage to prove otherwise. Only "I'll pretend they don't exist, so it doesn't bother me" "reasoning".

Click to expand...

I think your generalizing too much. Problems with impulse buying don't age discriminate. It affects all ages. Yes people are more apt to spend a buck here and a buck there, I already said as much in an earlier post. I think most people can handle it just fine though, sure you have the occasional person that ends up with a $10,000 bill or something crazy like that. Those people are rare though, companies would much prefer to get $4-5 from everyone than $10,000 from a few. They also don't want the negative press those people bring.

As examples my brother and wife both play games with micro transactions and are very financially responsible. My bother plays clash of clans since its inception. He spends about $20 a month but plays for hours/day. My wife spent a whopping $25 last year according to my apple account on candy crush. She plays the crap out of it. I would bet both of them have a better ROI in terms of hours of gaming/$ spent than I do and I only buy single player "full games".

BoboTheMighty said:

You don't find it suspicious when cut content is immediately "finished" a week or so( or even less) after release, even with " crunch"and all the effort that goes into patching, fixing bugs, optimizing that nowadays AAA, more and more require?
And book analogy is exactly on point…Mass Effect Prothean Dlc is an example of something fully integrated into main storyline and sold separately for quick extra $. They didn't cut it, as result of time constraints and worked their asses 24/7 to finish it.
Milk the player base for extra money as much as possible for little effort or sell already in game content that is fully integrated into it, quickly delivered through the miracle of developer …I'm not sure why this needs explaining.

Click to expand...

Never played mass effect so I can't comment. Suspicious? What would I find suspicious? I already said I don't care when they make the extra content. As I said before I can't find a difference between making 100 hours of content all at once then selling 80 as the main game and 20 as DLC and making 80 hours of content selling it as the main game and then making 20 more and selling it as DLC.

DLC was originally conceived as post-release content to add new features, etc, and extend the life of games. At some point (I'm not sure who was the first to do it) some developers decided to start taking content that was designed prior to release and making it DLC to turn an extra buck.

Now I don't have an issue if that content was intended to be DLC to begin with, but the problem is that we don't know if it was or if it was cut from the original game for the sole purpose of milking more cash.

I also have an issue when DLC contains something important to the main story or gameplay (i.e. a character class) in such a way that the base game would feel incomplete without it. DLC is supposed to be optional and shouldn't contain core components that are otherwise inaccessible.

sakichop said:

Yes people are more apt to spend a buck here and a buck there

Click to expand...

In past times when people were still normal those'd buy some pot here and some pot there instead of worthless DLC junk.
At least they could get high. Seems now they get low, no wonder shrink business blossoms.

JDR13 said:

Now I don't have an issue if that content was intended to be DLC to begin with, but the problem is that we don't know if it was or if it was cut from the original game for the sole purpose of milking more cash.

Click to expand...

This is a question of perspective that rarely can be answered based on facts. Technically, it is nearly impossible to distinguish content that was cut because they wanted to milk more money or content that was planned somewhere during production, but at some point didn't fit any longer to the development plan for the main release, for whatever trivial or non-trivial reasons you could think of (costs to develop, not enough time for bug hunting, illness of the main developers, feature creep, …). The only difference is the intention behind that decision and who can say he was part of that decision process? Even "anonymous sources" close to the dev team don't necessarily have macroperspective insights. Of course fanatic anti-DLC campaigners will always argue with bad will. But it will always be an assumption, never a fact.

Speculations about the DLC for Human Revolution are the best example. It's possible they cut it out to make more money. Or maybe they simply had plans for that before. Maybe some level designs didn't work out and there was no time to find another solution. Or a narrative designer found a plot whole that could be answered that way.