I actually think Deus Ex ruined DXHR for me by teaching me to explore everything the first time around. When I played the original Deus Ex, I wasn't really used to freedom, so I chose one path in each situation and left the other ones alone - always progressing in the direction I identified as forwards. As I've played many more openly designed games since then, I've learned to do the opposite thing and leave the way forward until last - trying one path, then turning around and exploring every other path I could find. I don't move forwards (completing the objective, entering the level transition, or whatever) until I'm confident I've found everything I can find.
And so in my second playthrough of DXHR, I found very little that I hadn't found the first time around (there were a few things, like the illegal medical clinic in Detroit and a few subtle passages in Hengsha). Nevertheless the quality of the game and the difference in how I played it (gung-ho violent vs. sneaky bastard the first time through) kept me going all the way through to the end again.
I'm not convinced that Deus Ex has that many more hidden things than DXHR, I've simply gotten better at finding them. If I played DX1 for the first time tomorrow, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't leave much undiscovered for a second playthrough either. With a few exceptions - the sunken section of Canal Road in Hong Kong is hidden more effectively than anything in DXHR that I can think of, no question about that.
DX3 reviews?
Moderators: Master_Kale, TNM Team
Re: DX3 reviews?
Jonas Wæver
Chief Poking Manager of TNM
I've made some videogames:
Expeditions: Rome
Expeditions: Viking
Expeditions: Conquistador
Clandestine
Chief Poking Manager of TNM
I've made some videogames:
Expeditions: Rome
Expeditions: Viking
Expeditions: Conquistador
Clandestine
Re: DX3 reviews?
I always forget how to find it and spend half an hour looking for itJonas wrote: the sunken section of Canal Road in Hong Kong is hidden more effectively than anything in DXHR that I can think of, no question about that.
"Delays are temporary; mediocrity is forever."
odio ergo sum
odio ergo sum
Re: DX3 reviews?
yeah you definitely need some sort of gimmick.
I think one of the big reasons HR is less replayable is that there's no plot twist. A video game with a lot of freedom and a plot twist is a pretty big deal; it comes around once a blue moon.
....what I mean by plot twist is something where it turns out you've been working for the bad guys, essentially.
I think one of the big reasons HR is less replayable is that there's no plot twist. A video game with a lot of freedom and a plot twist is a pretty big deal; it comes around once a blue moon.
....what I mean by plot twist is something where it turns out you've been working for the bad guys, essentially.
-
nerdenstein
- Illuminati
- Posts: 1591
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:40 pm
- Location: Leicester, England, UK.
Re: DX3 reviews?
@Jonas; I find that I do that. In Deus Ex and HR both. Though, agreed there was less in HR to explore.
I did find however that the Belltower Dock in HR was really fun to play due to the different options. It was one of the most open sections for me I think, I stealthed it through the underground tunnels, found the explosive package, took a vent out, EMPed a camera and turret, took out the patrolling guard, built a makeshift staircase, hid under a couple of lorries and then proceeded to blowing the shit out of the place. And then did it again; hacking the bot and sniping the snipers. Such is life in Deus Ex.
The only thing it was lacking was paying a mechanic for the Bot AI Login Code or Weapon upgrades.
I did find however that the Belltower Dock in HR was really fun to play due to the different options. It was one of the most open sections for me I think, I stealthed it through the underground tunnels, found the explosive package, took a vent out, EMPed a camera and turret, took out the patrolling guard, built a makeshift staircase, hid under a couple of lorries and then proceeded to blowing the shit out of the place. And then did it again; hacking the bot and sniping the snipers. Such is life in Deus Ex.
The only thing it was lacking was paying a mechanic for the Bot AI Login Code or Weapon upgrades.
... I don't remember this.illegal medical clinic in Detroit
The real trouble with reality is that there's no background music.
Re: DX3 reviews?
If you get hacking early, you can get to it very early in the game. It has a praxis points in it, as I recall, and some high protein foodstuffs.nerdenstein wrote:@Jonas; I find that I do that. In Deus Ex and HR both. Though, agreed there was less in HR to explore.
I did find however that the Belltower Dock in HR was really fun to play due to the different options. It was one of the most open sections for me I think, I stealthed it through the underground tunnels, found the explosive package, took a vent out, EMPed a camera and turret, took out the patrolling guard, built a makeshift staircase, hid under a couple of lorries and then proceeded to blowing the shit out of the place. And then did it again; hacking the bot and sniping the snipers. Such is life in Deus Ex.
The only thing it was lacking was paying a mechanic for the Bot AI Login Code or Weapon upgrades.
... I don't remember this.illegal medical clinic in Detroit
As I recall, you're introduced to each of the buildings in the detroid apartments, one at a time.
The buildings are:
The building with the senile nurse's flat
The building with the illegal arms trader
The building with the security guard at the front desk
The two buildings behind the security gate
- The one where you attempt to track down the neuropozyne dealer
- The one with the corrupt police officials weapons stash
As I recall, the illegal medical clinic is in the same building as the corrupt police officials weapons stash, one floor up. It has the hardest security lock in detroit, as I recall, or at least, it's the hardest with no other way of getting in.
The clinic is equiped to perform diagnostics and perhaps surgery, with boxes of neuropozyne and medical tools and supplies all over. It appears relatively sterile, if you look past the fact that the bathroom is also used as a supply closet.
It makes a lot of sense for it to be there. There aren't a lot of hancers in Detroit, not even half as many as regular street thugs, if that, but there are some, and they obviously aren't comfortable using the limb clinic...probably because many of their enhancements have been stolen. It actually adds a lot of atmosphere to the game, I think.
Also, @ Jonas:
I agree with you that being a completionist gamer (at least in this genre) has probably made the game a lot less replayable for you. There is not a doubt in my mind that if I were 14 or 15 and got to play HR as my first stealth-rpg-shooter, I would be all over it. If I was 12 (probably the age where I would appreciate it the most), I would likely replay it at least 5 times.
Alas, my impulses and tastes have apparently changed with age.
Re: DX3 reviews?
@ Gamer
I realize I never got back to you with an appropriate deconstruction of the arguments you made earlier, before I stopped the discussion.
I figure you don't much care to hear my oppinion, and one reply has in fact already gotten eaten by the forum somehow.
Anyway, for anybody who cares, I'll try to be brief:
The current stockmarket is structured such that game theory can be used to exploit it for financial game if you have enough money to buy machines on site, and if you have programmers able to build good buy and sel algorithms.
They generally skim the margins of every transfer, acting as a ubiquitus house at a casino. The reason they can do this, is because the problem which they're solving...which is a very limited problem...is something computers are reasonably good at. That is, they're able to predict value changes of stocks before they happen if they get all the market data.
That's because it's not a very complicated problem. The reason they aren't better than humans is that they don't have to be, which is why they're not; they can make so much money so fast off of rapid purchases and sales that so long as they get less than 1:1000000 worth of gain out of each transfer, if enough of them happen during the course of a day (and they do, buying and selling stock worth about 100 times their capital is enough) they can easily beat the market gain of around 0,01% avg. pr. day. In other words, even if you could make a computer as clever as a great stock trader at predicting what will happen, it would take longer than simply getting a lot wrong and getting slightly more right. It's not efficient to make great predictors as fast "ok" ones, which is why it's all everybody does.
The practice ought to be illegal, and the european union is currently in the midst of putting a toll on all stock trades...about 1:100000 or 1:50000 toll on each trade is enough, which will effectively outlaw it on all european mainland stock markets. It's probable that you will only be able to trade currencies and securities under these new rules as well. Once in place, long term investors are going to demand them for their countries too; they might not have the power over the markets, but you're likely to see investors willing to accept transfers to other stock markets to secure that the gains from their investments don't end up in the pocketbooks of computerized traders.
Anyway, by 2025, all stock markets will be running similar systems, because we'll probably have another massive financial crisis within the next 5-10 years, and then everybody will want their stocks protected from chinese capital. All that will happen is that game theory will be used to design a system with which game theory cannot be used to break.
These systems exist, and they will be incorporated on the stock markets, because the people supposed to make gains off the stock markets (joe-sixpack investors) have to make do with much less under current systems than if the problem wasn't computerized.
So it doesn't matter if you've got a doctorate in economics; assuming that these strictly hard-scifi things happen, there is no flaw in the quest which you claim was obviously flawed. Given your education, in fact, I think you must recognize this. I even believe you always recognized that you made those assumptions about the markets and how they would evolve, and that you simply decided to ignore the possibility of such changes because it was convinient. That jumping on the accuracy of the quest was merely another nail in the coffin. After all, it would be ironic and powerful to find a flaw in the example I brought forth. Well, you didn't, and I think you revealed yourself to care more about coming out on top of the argument than actually being right.
I mean, I can prove none of this, it's all conjecture, but how would someone with a background in economics not realize that those systems change often and much historically, and that in any piece of sci-fi involving them, they could've taken any number of odd, unpredictable turns? That solving future stock-trade problems might best be undertaken by a machine-human hybrid, rather than either their own, under the correct set of circumstances?
I realize I never got back to you with an appropriate deconstruction of the arguments you made earlier, before I stopped the discussion.
I figure you don't much care to hear my oppinion, and one reply has in fact already gotten eaten by the forum somehow.
Anyway, for anybody who cares, I'll try to be brief:
The current stockmarket is structured such that game theory can be used to exploit it for financial game if you have enough money to buy machines on site, and if you have programmers able to build good buy and sel algorithms.
They generally skim the margins of every transfer, acting as a ubiquitus house at a casino. The reason they can do this, is because the problem which they're solving...which is a very limited problem...is something computers are reasonably good at. That is, they're able to predict value changes of stocks before they happen if they get all the market data.
That's because it's not a very complicated problem. The reason they aren't better than humans is that they don't have to be, which is why they're not; they can make so much money so fast off of rapid purchases and sales that so long as they get less than 1:1000000 worth of gain out of each transfer, if enough of them happen during the course of a day (and they do, buying and selling stock worth about 100 times their capital is enough) they can easily beat the market gain of around 0,01% avg. pr. day. In other words, even if you could make a computer as clever as a great stock trader at predicting what will happen, it would take longer than simply getting a lot wrong and getting slightly more right. It's not efficient to make great predictors as fast "ok" ones, which is why it's all everybody does.
The practice ought to be illegal, and the european union is currently in the midst of putting a toll on all stock trades...about 1:100000 or 1:50000 toll on each trade is enough, which will effectively outlaw it on all european mainland stock markets. It's probable that you will only be able to trade currencies and securities under these new rules as well. Once in place, long term investors are going to demand them for their countries too; they might not have the power over the markets, but you're likely to see investors willing to accept transfers to other stock markets to secure that the gains from their investments don't end up in the pocketbooks of computerized traders.
Anyway, by 2025, all stock markets will be running similar systems, because we'll probably have another massive financial crisis within the next 5-10 years, and then everybody will want their stocks protected from chinese capital. All that will happen is that game theory will be used to design a system with which game theory cannot be used to break.
These systems exist, and they will be incorporated on the stock markets, because the people supposed to make gains off the stock markets (joe-sixpack investors) have to make do with much less under current systems than if the problem wasn't computerized.
So it doesn't matter if you've got a doctorate in economics; assuming that these strictly hard-scifi things happen, there is no flaw in the quest which you claim was obviously flawed. Given your education, in fact, I think you must recognize this. I even believe you always recognized that you made those assumptions about the markets and how they would evolve, and that you simply decided to ignore the possibility of such changes because it was convinient. That jumping on the accuracy of the quest was merely another nail in the coffin. After all, it would be ironic and powerful to find a flaw in the example I brought forth. Well, you didn't, and I think you revealed yourself to care more about coming out on top of the argument than actually being right.
I mean, I can prove none of this, it's all conjecture, but how would someone with a background in economics not realize that those systems change often and much historically, and that in any piece of sci-fi involving them, they could've taken any number of odd, unpredictable turns? That solving future stock-trade problems might best be undertaken by a machine-human hybrid, rather than either their own, under the correct set of circumstances?