Deus Ex: Human Revolution - Comments on Invisible War

No, it was a huge deal because Xbox performance was significantly below PC performance. Even the first DX succeded the console performance, as the levels had to be splitted into smaller fractions for the PS2 version. So technically it was a stepdown for PC, even with improved graphics engine (Unreal —> Unreal 2)

The difference today between consoles and PC is mainly graphic performance. That's something you can accept as long as the rest can compete. But loading screens are a gameplay barrier. It kills the flow.

I don't think you understood me. I agree it was a different game because of the console focus, I am saying that was a bigger deal back then because it was a much newer thing. That was right about the time all the typical PC genres were moving over to consoles.

Today we are used to console limitations effecting PC games. When IW came out we weren't.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
Today we are used to console limitations effecting PC games. When IW came out we weren't.

I agree. Not only are we used to it now, we expect any AAA title to be developed as a cross-platform game.

I understood totally. I just simply disagree, that today's games would be that different if they were developed only for PC. No one expects a game to be multiplatform, you only expect that it works for your preferred platform. Today's games work on every platform because of a shift in game design, not because of attending to technical limitations of the weakest platform. GTA4 for PC only would be not that different as it is now, maybe better graphics. Consoles are capable of streaming as well as mainstream gaming PCs. The difference in technology isn't the main difference anymore and therefore doesn't affect the gameplay anymore. But that day the difference had more influence.

Since everyone is rattling about IW I had to go ahead and buy it, just a question.'
How do you get it to work properly on Win 7 64 ?

/C

Originally Posted by Avantenor
I understood totally. I just simply disagree, that today's games would be that different if they were developed only for PC. No one expects a game to be multiplatform, you only expect that it works for your preferred platform. Today's games work on every platform because of a shift in game design, not because of attending to technical limitations of the weakest platform. GTA4 for PC only would be not that different as it is now, maybe better graphics. Consoles are capable of streaming as well as mainstream gaming PCs. The difference in technology isn't the main difference anymore and therefore doesn't affect the gameplay anymore. But that day the difference had more influence.

Console RAM limitations are still a huuuge deal, and the UI's and such being made for consoles is still a big issue as it was in IW. Compare Crysis' massive open areas with the tunnels of Crysis 2.

Originally Posted by Avantenor
No one expects a game to be multiplatform, you only expect that it works for your preferred platform.

Speak for yourself. After seeing most AAA titles be multiplatform for the last 5+ years, a lot of people are coming to expect it.

Personally, I don't understand how some people can't see the differences between PC exclusives and multiplatform games.

Originally Posted by Crilloan
Since everyone is rattling about IW I had to go ahead and buy it, just a question.'
How do you get it to work properly on Win 7 64 ?

/C

Some good rule of thumb answers:

Don't install it under program files.
Do try XP compatability mode if it won't run natively.
Make sure you're an admin of the folder where it is installed.
Try slowing down acceleration of your graphics card/sound.

I ran IW on Win7 64 not long ago and it worked fine right out of the box.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
I ran IW on Win7 64 not long ago and it worked fine right out of the box.

Did you use any mod?

eg. to get widescreen resolution?

C

Bioshock is more easily excused, as it wasn't a direct sequel to anything.

Personally, I probably think IW is the better game - overall - but I do think it SHOULD have been much better.

Bioshock didn't do what I would have done with the System Shock paradigm, but they weren't really obligated to provide that kind of experience.

So, it really depends on your position.

But, looking at games in a vacuum and using only my own personal preference for gameplay over pretty much everything else - I think IW is the better game.

Bioshock, however, oozed atmosphere and had a fantastic premise. Taken as a combined "experience" and looking at it from an objective position - I think Bioshock is, by far, the bettter game of the two.

Originally Posted by JDR13
I think some of us are starting to get overly apologetic here.

Just to make sure that trend doesn't continue … I will go ahead and call Deus Ex: Invisible War the worst and most disappointing sequel of the last decade.

Worst because it had horrific performance, was blatantly optimized for the XBOX (to the point of having INI files full of XBOX stuff - which wasn't toggled correctly for PC), the entire UI was set up incorrectly for PC, and on and on and on. The game was a piece of crap at release.

Disappointing because the original had shown intelligence of design and the possibility of combining RPG, FPS, and great story together. The sequel simply tried to ape on that, to capitalize on an existing fanbase while jumping on the console train at a very early stage. *Everything* about it was of lesser design, lesser intelligence, and altogether dumbed-down. It pissed on the franchise, pissed on PC gamers, and pissed on Deus Ex fans.

So the way I look at it, it is nigh on impossible for Human Revolution to disappoint me.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
Console RAM limitations are still a huuuge deal, and the UI's and such being made for consoles is still a big issue as it was in IW. Compare Crysis' massive open areas with the tunnels of Crysis 2.

But still there are Open World games as the forementioned GTA, Assassins Creed, Fallout or Elder Scrolls.

Originally Posted by JDR13
Speak for yourself. After seeing most AAA titles be multiplatform for the last 5+ years, a lot of people are coming to expect it.

Marketeers maybe. The average gamer buys one copy of a game and does not tend to have multiple consoles and a gaming PC. So why should he care if it comes also to another platform? He expects it coming to his platform, that's all.

Personally, I don't understand how some people can't see the differences between PC exclusives and multiplatform games.

If strictly optimized to one platform, of course there could be differences. But that's also depending on the developers capabilities and budget and so oftenly it is not optimized, with minor exceptions. Also depends on what people think what is meant by the term "optimization". Some think of AI henchmen being Optimization to console players. Others like it that way, because they are no fans of micromanaging a whole party.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
It helps to not directly compare it. It's a shitty sequel to Deus Ex but on its own I think it's a fine game. Better than BioShock is a stretch, but better than most modern games? Probably.

Sadly that's true of every sequel ever made. There nothing like the original.

Originally Posted by Avantenor
But still there are Open World games as the forementioned GTA, Assassins Creed, Fallout or Elder Scrolls.

Yeah but the pop-in is terrible on console for those games. Basically you either build an engine that streams content in outside of 20 feet or so or you build smaller areas. Crysis 2 chose the latter.

I'm really not saying anything crazy. Google console RAM and you'll find developers bitching about it constantly.

If you stream your content wisely, there's absolutely no reason it can't be done on consoles - as several games have proven.

Imo, Fallout 3, GTA4, and Assassin's Creed stream content quite well on consoles.

Now, anyone can argue that they're bad - but I certainly think they're quite impressive. I'm pretty particular about my streaming pop-in "limits" - and Oblivion/Morrowind were quite horrible - to my mind.

Then we have games like Infamous or Just Cause 2 - both of which excel at streaming content.

Nah, memory isn't a problem so long as you reduce texture/asset size appropriately - and incorporate intelligent content structure. After Oblivion, I didn't expect the awkward cell-structure of modern TES games would ever stream to my satisfaction - but Fallout 3 changed my mind.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Nah, memory isn't a problem so long as you reduce texture/asset size appropriately - and incorporate intelligent content structure.

Well you saying that certainly means more than dozens of actual developers saying otherwise, let me tell ya.

Developers say many different things in many different contexts. They're human beings with different opinions, afterall.

I'm sure it's a challenge to make the games look great and stream well - but since they've managed to succeed with several games - it seems they've learned to deal with the limitations.

Now, on the old Xbox - it would have been somewhat harder for IW. The Unreal engine was not designed to stream level assets originally, AFAIK. I seem to remember reading that it wasn't until UE3 that streaming was truly planned for from the beginning.

Originally Posted by txa1265
Just to make sure that trend doesn't continue … I will go ahead and call Deus Ex: Invisible War the worst and most disappointing sequel of the last decade.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it "pissed on Deus Ex fans" et al… but for me the game just seemed… boring… which for a Deus Ex game is a crushing indictment on its quality (at least for me). I tried and retried the game several times and found the small levels, streamlined for Xbox interface, etc. just too hard to swallow. I've never gotten further than half-way through the game. In contrast, I played and replayed the original Deus Ex countless times and enjoyed every minute of it.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I'm sure it's a challenge to make the games look great and stream well - but since they've managed to succeed with several games - it seems they've learned to deal with the limitations.

Depends on what you mean by stream well. From what I hear UE3 games have horrible texture pop-in and open-world games have horrible pop-in of everything. I played Oblivion on the Xbox and the grass fades in literally right in front of you. One great example of console limitations would be Mass Effect… the original ran like complete shit on the Xbox with texture pop-in galore. ME2 thus was made using smaller and more corridor-y areas.

To pretend the RAM limitations do not effect games is silly.