Playing Deus Ex for the First Time

[gamer0004]

I think Stalker plus the complete mod (which is mostly HD textures) looks as good as a game has to look. It can be quite beautiful and it's never bad enough to distract and I think it looks quite consistent, which is another plus. Hell, IW plus texture pack looks pretty darn good I think. It really doesn't have to be much better (though it should be more open and bigger).

[Jonas]

Well I didn't play STALKER with mods, but I don't remember it as a particularly beautiful game. What charms it had were in its AI and the openness of its design. It was aesthetically consistent and extremely atmospheric, I'll give it that, but nothing made me stop and stare. In my experience, its atmosphere as much if not more down to its openness and its use of sound as anything visual.

Even the dried lakebed in Call of Pripyat, the first area you start in, managed to be extremely striking, memorable, and atmospheric on a high level without actually being particularly good looking.

But of course your mileage may vary.

I suppose if your point is that the level of technology on display in STALKER is about as much as any studio should need to create a beautiful game, I'm inclined to agree. But I'd never turn down technological advances, to do so is to give up on a very basic form of excitement that I believe is integral to being human.

[Hassat Hunter]

Except some "advancements" are a big step back (*cough* bloom *cough*). Also motion blur can be a pain. And some GFX effects (Helm of Secrets in Divinity II: Dragon Knight Saga comes to mind, but there are plenty more) are just nauseating.
I think I already mentioned UE3 giving me a headache. Especially shaderheavy ones like BioShock.

And despite all that, I still think The Witcher II looks rather bland, even if everyone hauls it as the big graphical leap forward.

And DX and TNM made some quite awesome scene's and believable worlds, so I don't believe "a lot of stuff" or majorly advanced graphics are needed for that.

[MercWithMouth]

Except some "advancements" are a big step back

The cat might have a point.
Breaking new ground in the way that games are played and designed can sometimes mean that certain competing game genres might go into deep decline. The best example is the First-person-shooter revolution. It's been at the expense of 2D games which have become less prolific as 3D-games have become more and more prolific. This isn't necessarily a bad thing of course.
But, it does mean that there are 2D games out there that are not being designed that might have been a lot of fun if they ever made it to the market; the would-be designers for such games are now making other 3D games.

[DaveW]

I don't remember precisely the first time a game level made me stop to just admire the beauty of it, but it was probably some time in the middle of the last decade. It took a certain level of artistic detail to get to the point where that sort of purely aesthetic experience was possible, and I wouldn't want to trade that in for anything.

I still look at levels from Unreal and find them beautiful, and I think Unreal (plus custom maps made for it) have some of the most atmospheric levels of any game. I don't know of many modern games that have the same effect, certainly none of the larger mainstream games.

Personally I think 2005 was the 'high point' - the art had become good enough that you no longer had to use cheap tricks or ridiculously low poly models. I think it meant that you had more fully-fledged games coming out of smaller studios, because the technology was there to make great games and you didn't need a massive team to do it. Hence the surge of inventive FPS games from Russia and Eastern-Europe (Boiling Point and Chaser spring to mind, but there were a tonne of others around 2004-2005.)

While obviously technology will never stand still and games will get progressively more (graphically) detailed, that doesn't mean it's either a good thing or that everyone has to like it. If a game can be great regardless, than that's fine - but I think the extra graphical requirements of modern games has been at the expense of everything else, notably game length.

[MercWithMouth]

I think the extra graphical requirements of modern games has been at the expense of everything else, notably game length.

Playing through Deus Ex -- and while trying to hurry a bit -- took me nearly 15hours spread out across two days.

[Jonas]

Except some "advancements" are a big step back (*cough* bloom *cough*). Also motion blur can be a pain.

Bloom was a half-measure, an attempt to fake the effect that HDR light has on your eyes (or more noticeably on a camera). It was fairly quickly supplanted by actual HDR and when you see it now adays it tends to be as a less resource-demanding alternative to proper HDR, no? Motion blur can be a pain, but so can anything if it's not used well. Motion blur can also look pretty good if applied carefully and in moderation. The Witcher 2 is not an example of motion blur applied in moderation, but thankfully they give you the option to turn it off.

Another thing you didn't mention but might have is Depth of Field. A lot of games in the beginning used it poorly, and some games still do, but it's an excellent effect in certain situations. It works really well in third-person conversation sequences to make the foreground stand out from the background and keep the player's attention focused on the dialogue, for example, and it also works really well any time actual lenses are involved, such as when looking through a scope or a surveillance camera.

It's all a question of how you use these things, that should be self-evident. You really shouldn't condemn techniques like bloom or motion blur just because too many studios use them poorly.

And despite all that, I still think The Witcher II looks rather bland, even if everyone hauls it as the big graphical leap forward.

Well... I disagree.

And DX and TNM made some quite awesome scene's and believable worlds, so I don't believe "a lot of stuff" or majorly advanced graphics are needed for that.

No it's just a question of what you're willing to settle for. If we could've done Forum City as an open world, we would've jumped at that opportunity (indeed that was our original intention). Open world games are one of those things you only got once the technology for them was good enough, if we'd frozen the technological advancement at the time Deus Ex was released, we never would've had that entire category of games, and I think we'd have been much poorer without it. There's much more in TNM that could've been done better if we'd had the tech and the resources, but you work with what you've got and I regret nothing.

Did you ever notice what a shitload of office supplies we have in TNM? Everything from graphics cards and the boxes they came in to IDE cables, anti-static bags, and harddrives to stablers, printers, and DVD spindles. At some point I just got tired of not having enough stuff for all our offices so I asked Phas what he could come up with and he churned out all that stuff over a couple of weeks. If only we'd been able to do the same with other types of areas, like apartments, laboratories, or the city itself. Empty levels suck.

Personally I think 2005 was the 'high point' - the art had become good enough that you no longer had to use cheap tricks or ridiculously low poly models. I think it meant that you had more fully-fledged games coming out of smaller studios, because the technology was there to make great games and you didn't need a massive team to do it. Hence the surge of inventive FPS games from Russia and Eastern-Europe (Boiling Point and Chaser spring to mind, but there were a tonne of others around 2004-2005.)

Do you really want to highlight Boiling Point as an example of a large game from a small studio? Boiling Point where the team had clearly torn off a waaaaay larger bite than they could chew, and which subsequently shipped in such a state as to be nearly unplayable, and was still a bit on the glitchy side after a couple of 200 MB patches? If anything, Boiling Point is an excellent demonstration that even without super detailed graphics, small teams still shouldn't try to make super ambitious open world FPSRPGs from scratch. You don't need great graphics to screw yourself over on the scope of your game.

While obviously technology will never stand still and games will get progressively more (graphically) detailed, that doesn't mean it's either a good thing or that everyone has to like it. If a game can be great regardless, than that's fine - but I think the extra graphical requirements of modern games has been at the expense of everything else, notably game length.

I really think you and Hassat and anybody else who agrees with you are grossly misattributing the short game length of modern shooters. And I'm going to go ahead and repeat the word shooters, because let's take some examples of very short AAA games: all the Modern Warfares, Medal of Honor from 2010, Homefront, Crysis 2. Let's see how many non-shooters you can name with less than 15 hours of play time.

I can pick out a wide variety of modern games that speak to the contrary: Uncharted is probably about as long as an ultra-scripted linear game can get these days, Skyrim is full of modern graphics technology but I've spent 111 hours with it at the time of writing, the Assassin's Creed games typically exceed 30 hours at the very least, Deus Ex Human Revolution is not only largely linear but also pretty high tech in terms of graphics and came out at around 40 hours for me, and though I haven't played through Rage I believe it has well over 15 hours of gameplay, and that's a full-on shooter with some RPG stuff tacked on.

So why are those shooters I listed above so short? Because they don't compromise with their pacing. They are all about high-action, super scripted, 120 explosions per minute, 10 setpieces per level, balls-to-the-wall over-the-top war, and the only time they slow down is to throw some "stealth" at you so you have to stop in pre-set hiding spots and admire their animations or something. It's short because every single second of gameplay has been meticulously designed and pored over and because the pacing is consistently super fucking fast. Yeah, they could be longer if they were less impressive in terms of graphics and scripting, and indeed their forebears were back around 2000, but it's pretty clear this is the direction they were going in all along, and putting more work into each individual part of a shorter game is their decision, not something the technology forced them to do.

Plus, fuck. You'd probably die of stress and sensory overload if Modern Warfare 3 were longer than 6 hours. The game is fucking relentless

[Hassat Hunter]

Morrowind was released before DX. Daggerfall waaaay before that. Not to mention all spacesims like Elite.
"Open world needs modern technology?"
Nope, not so much. VGA can do that.

I also notice the same trend with RPG's. The newer ones (KOTORs, ME, DA, AP) are definitely a lot shorter than the old generation. And adventure games (though I suppose that's due to Telltale's episode method of delivery).
Of course sandbox games or building sims can be done the longest of times as one desires.

[Jonas]

Morrowind was released before DX. Daggerfall waaaay before that. Not to mention all spacesims like Elite.
"Open world needs modern technology?"
Nope, not so much. VGA can do that.

Wrong, Morrowind was released in 2002, two years after Deus Ex. Was Daggerfall seamless? No area divides, no level transitions at all?

Elite, heh. Give me a break. It's fucking space, no shit you can do that without much technology.

I also notice the same trend with RPG's. The newer ones (KOTORs, ME, DA, AP) are definitely a lot shorter than the old generation.

Hmm... maybe a larger font will make it go through:

FUCKING SKYRIM, DUDE.

And adventure games (though I suppose that's due to Telltale's episode method of delivery).

Yeah episodic games don't really count. I don't play many adventure games - in fact not many adventure games are even made any more. I suppose Heavy Rain counts, but I don't remember how long it was. I think around 10 hours, so that'd count, but it's a bit of an odd one - more film than game. Still, that one counts.

Of course sandbox games or building sims can be done the longest of times as one desires.

Indeed.

[Hassat Hunter]

Wrong, Morrowind was released in 2002, two years after Deus Ex. Was Daggerfall seamless? No area divides, no level transitions at all?

By that criterium Dungeon Siege (2001) matches. Oblivion, Morrowind and the Fallout's don't. Can't say about Skyrim. -75% Steam slae plz?

Elite, heh. Give me a break. It's fucking space, no shit you can do that without much technology.

Have you seen how beatiful one can make space in Freelancer?
Even so, back in these days also "non-space" games where made with VGA. Or worse. Not much to work with.

I also notice the same trend with RPG's. The newer ones (KOTORs, ME, DA, AP) are definitely a lot shorter than the old generation.

Hmm... maybe a larger font will make it go through:

FUCKING SKYRIM, DUDE.

Morrowind dude! Can't really compare them yet though due not having played. And freeform "rpg's" like Fallout:NV or Fallout or Skyrim I don't really count on the RPG scale. Mostly due to lacking a grasping story, which most RPG's listed do posses. Sandbox never really worked properly with that.

Yeah episodic games don't really count. I don't play many adventure games - in fact not many adventure games are even made any more. I suppose Heavy Rain counts, but I don't remember how long it was. I think around 10 hours, so that'd count, but it's a bit of an odd one - more film than game. Still, that one counts.

Can't really talk about that one until (I highly doubt it at this point) it gets a PC-version. No consoles. So never played it.
Did play predecessor Fahrenheit though, and I wouldn't count it an adventure much. More action-game.

Of course sandbox games or building sims can be done the longest of times as one desires.

Indeed.[/quote]
But that has always been the case, doesn't need the modern tech. As good as Anno 2070 looks like, it worked back in 2D times with Settlers, Anno 1602, heck the original Sim City. Etc. etc.

[Jonas]

By that criterium Dungeon Siege (2001) matches.

By what criterium? Was Dungeon Siege actually open world or was it just a linear game that streamed its levels?

Either way it supports what I said - technology had to advance far enough for streaming to be possible.

Oblivion, Morrowind and the Fallout's don't. Can't say about Skyrim. -75% Steam slae plz?

They don't what?

Have you seen how beatiful one can make space in Freelancer?

Doesn't matter, still way easier than creating a proper open world game.

Even so, back in these days also "non-space" games where made with VGA. Or worse. Not much to work with.

But they weren't open world... so what the hell are you saying?

Morrowind dude!

Skyrim has at least 150 hours of gameplay, and that's too much for me to be honest, after 111 hours I'm kind of desperate to finish it off so I can play something else for a change. Never liked Morrowind.

Can't really compare them yet though due not having played. And freeform "rpg's" like Fallout:NV or Fallout or Skyrim I don't really count on the RPG scale. Mostly due to lacking a grasping story, which most RPG's listed do posses. Sandbox never really worked properly with that.

NO. TRUE. SCOTSMAN.

Look it up.

Did play predecessor Fahrenheit though, and I wouldn't count it an adventure much. More action-game.

Fahrenheit definitely wasn't an action game. It's either an adventure game or one long, painful quick-time event.

But that has always been the case, doesn't need the modern tech. As good as Anno 2070 looks like, it worked back in 2D times with Settlers, Anno 1602, heck the original Sim City. Etc. etc.

That's not the point. In fact it's not remotely close to the point. You're saying modern technology makes games shorter. Yeah that genre of games had some long-ass installments back in the days, but now they have awesome new technology and they're still that long, entirely disproving your argument.

[SyntaxError]

I think the main reason for games getting shorter is the change in audience and the change of the industry behind it.

Let's face it, the average gamer is no longer a 16 year old nerd who has enough free time to spend entire afternoons in front of the pc for weeks in a row.
Furthermore, now that gaming is actually serious business, you want people to spend money.
A single player hardcore rpg that is 100 hours long and only attracts a very small subset of all gamers is economically uninteresting. I don't like that, but I'm afraid that's the way it is now.

Neither point has much to do with modern (graphics) technology directly.
Although there probably is some indirect influence due to ever increasing development costs, at least for AAA titles.

Also, DA: don't know about you guys, but I spend pretty long on it (more than 60 hours), even without add-ons.
Was pretty bored at the end though. The game had potential, but turned out rather mediocre (not bad, just not very good either), imho.

And finally, regarding the usage of "modern" techniques like bloom, hdr, dof, etc.:
They are nice if used "right". Most games overdo it.
They don't go for realistic, but rather something I call "hyper-reality". It's pretty similar to hdr-photography. If done right it can look very good, but most (esp. inexperienced) photographers take it to ridiculous amounts, because "it makes the picture look interesting"...
"Godrays" are another good example from gaming, btw...

[DaveW]

Do you really want to highlight Boiling Point as an example of a large game from a small studio? Boiling Point where the team had clearly torn off a waaaaay larger bite than they could chew, and which subsequently shipped in such a state as to be nearly unplayable, and was still a bit on the glitchy side after a couple of 200 MB patches? If anything, Boiling Point is an excellent demonstration that even without super detailed graphics, small teams still shouldn't try to make super ambitious open world FPSRPGs from scratch. You don't need great graphics to screw yourself over on the scope of your game.

Boiling Point was mostly fine when it was patched - but yes, clearly it was a bit over ambitious. But:
A) It was ambitious
B) It was made by a small team
Two things that don't apply to any comparable modern games.

I'd rather play a game that tries to be interesting and ends up losing some polish than a bland, uninteresting shooter that sacrifices any originality in favor of being just another generic shooter set in an American vs Russia conflict (and yes, I'm generalizing, sue me)

I really think you and Hassat and anybody else who agrees with you are grossly misattributing the short game length of modern shooters. And I'm going to go ahead and repeat the word shooters, because let's take some examples of very short AAA games: all the Modern Warfares, Medal of Honor from 2010, Homefront, Crysis 2. Let's see how many non-shooters you can name with less than 15 hours of play time.

I can pick out a wide variety of modern games that speak to the contrary: Uncharted is probably about as long as an ultra-scripted linear game can get these days, Skyrim is full of modern graphics technology but I've spent 111 hours with it at the time of writing, the Assassin's Creed games typically exceed 30 hours at the very least, Deus Ex Human Revolution is not only largely linear but also pretty high tech in terms of graphics and came out at around 40 hours for me, and though I haven't played through Rage I believe it has well over 15 hours of gameplay, and that's a full-on shooter with some RPG stuff tacked on.

I am mostly talking about shooters when I say 'modern games', simply because most games are shooters. The other major type of game are RPG's, and they're comparatively cheap to make last longer because of leveling up and the scale of the game world - Stalker, Fallout, Just Cause etc. would all be shorter if it wasn't for the scale of the game world and the time taken to travel to each mission.

That said, there'll always be exceptions to the rule in FPS territory. But most of said exceptions take far longer than an 'average development time' to complete - Human Revolution was announced in 2007 and released in 2011 - so that's at least 3 years of development with a team of around 90 (I think). I don't actually know the development time / team size for Deus Ex except that they only had 8 (!) artists for everything - good luck making a modern game with that. Rage was announced in 2007, released in 2011, with a large team etc. - same story. Exceptions, not the rule.

putting more work into each individual part of a shorter game is their decision, not something the technology forced them to do.

And this isn't wrong, but I feel it's a bit disingenuous. The technology isn't forcing them to do anything, they could make Modern Warfare 4 in iDTech 2 and release it - it just wouldn't be well received. People demand greater and greater detail, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it's going to either:

A)Take longer
B)Require a much larger team
C)Require shortening the game

And game studios have taken the approach of B and C (almost every modern FPS), and rarely A and B (HR, Rage).

[gamer0004]

Talking about small and large teams, this industry is severely lacking in medium-sized teams. I mean, there is an enormous amount of indie games made by very small teams and there are many big budget titles. It's either small or big. Exceptions being the STALKER games (at least the first one), Mount & Blade Warband and other Paradox games and a few others. Which is a shame because I think those teams are perfect for making really cool games: big enough to make proper 3D games with acceptable graphics, large enough to be ambitious, but small enough to keep costs low and thus to take risks (by innovating or making more complex games or games which don't appeal to a large numbers of people).

[DaveW]

Agreed - and my point is that those teams can no longer exist because of the amount of tech required for a modern game. Freely available engines like UDK have done a lot to help the situation, though ultimately you still need a very large art team to handle a medium sized project. Which is why there are very few indie games that aren't casual puzzle games (there are brilliant exceptions to that though.)