Would you have bought DX:HR if it wasn't Deus Ex?

[Hassat Hunter]

Lemme see.
If the first time anyone watched me play DX I would die horribly to the first NSF in gunplay.
Does that mean gunplay is unviable in DX? That I have to grind XP and spend them in pistols to have actual gunplay in DX? Is DX gameplay now broken?
Does videotaping me dying on Liberty Island 20 times my first game on Easy mean the game is too hard? Or maybe I just still needed to learn my way around it, not?

Ammend it to Morrowind however you want.
Broken would be if you put all your points in guns and then to reward you all regular enemies get upgraded to bots, immune to gunfire. Which is about Oblivion's system.

STOP SAYING WE ALL GO "AEMER HATES MORROWIND". Seriously, learn to fucking read yourself. It's getting annoying that your defense is us going "Aemer hates Morrowind" We already knew you actually liked it from like, the first post. Although you going the system is fucked up and Oblivions better and "streamlined is better" is what we do not agree with, in the slightest.
And yes, some builds are harder than others. That's kind of the point in all RPG's. If you make them all the same, what is the point of making a build in the first place? If a mage can fight with the best what's the point of having mage or fighter classes?
However none require excessive grinding or powerleveling to be "viable", as you claim to be. Nor does it use Oblivion's system that if you pick the wrong skills (namely natural ones), enemies level way faster than you, breaking any fun you might have in the game. Any build is viable, even if taking some practice. Unlike Oblivion. Which is why the system is superior, not inferior, as you claim.
I doubt you're going to attent to defute these points (you didn't do so before after all)...

Aemer is keeping a level head and focussing on arguing his point while you guys are sitting back and taking cheap shots at him. What's that? You disagree? Well you would, wouldn't you?

Arguing comes down to "You need x5 in Morrowind!" and "This gamer has a hard time" repeated infinite aud-nauseum (sp?). Who'd have thought?
Good thing he never made cheap shots like saying he was the expert and authority on the issue, and I was wrong for not agreeing with him. It's a few posts back.

He pretty fucking masterfully analysed his own logic and presented his defence in completely no-bullshit technical terms

Link plz?

pointlessly repeat the challenge of his logic

Yeah, if he never explained it, and keeps repeating it over and over to prove he's right... but as said, link to his so called "materful analysis"...

nothing useful is contributed by you

I was discussing this some time ago till Dragon took over. Was fine with that... Have seen some good points of him, which AEMer seem to completely ignore for repeating his statement again.
And since you out of the blue took a shot at Gamer, I think *that* was totally uncalled for. Hence speaking out again (and apperently, getting back mixed up in the conversation)

[gamer0004]

The aggression towards you is because from where I'm standing, Aemer is keeping a level head and focussing on arguing his point while you guys are sitting back and taking cheap shots at him. What's that? You disagree? Well you would, wouldn't you?

Here's what just happened as far as I can tell: Aemer produced an example to support his point. Predictably, his example was immediately dismissed as not sufficiently representative. He defended its relevance. His logic was challenged. He pretty fucking masterfully analysed his own logic and presented his defence in completely no-bullshit technical terms, in my opinion destroying any criticism so far levelled at his logic. And then... you figured now would be a great time to drop in and just pointlessly repeat the challenge of his logic that Dragon already formulated significantly better previously but which was still, as far as I'm concerned, obliterated by Aemer himself.

I've completely lost track of which side of this ridiculous argument I agree with, but Aemer and Dragon seem to be doing an all right job of presenting their arguments (Dragon is taking a bit too many personal shots at Aemer himself in my opinion, but I'll leave it to Aemer to address that himself or let it slide now that I'm no longer drunk), nothing useful is contributed by you and gamer0004 taking pot shots from the sidelines.

And yeah I can probably apply that to myself. I don't want to be here, I just got pissed at the tone with which you're engaging Aemer. God knows I can be an immature, poorly argued asshole when I'm sitting here at 2:30 am trying to distract myself from doing any proper work, but Aemer is doing a much better job at debating than I think I ever have, and your low blows are fucking uncalled for.

That's why all the aggression towards you.

I'm not siding with anyone. I am criticising Aemer because he is basically calling on his authority as someone who did a course on logic and then presents us with "proof" for whatever he is trying to point out based on assumptions which are false. I read it and I commented on that, and then I commented some more on his logic because that logic is used by many people with detrimental effects. Perhaps I should have left out that part because indeed I derailed the discussion. I am sorry for that. I am, however, not sorry for pointing out his flawed assumptions as it is essential for whatever it is that is being discussed.

I really don't see how any of this is "a cheap shot". I'm not calling him names. I'm not nitpicking on some unimportant detail.

Also, I would like to say one more thing regarding this:

We can't even agree if what I did with that link was a valid proof by counterexample; to me, the video shows a "perfectly" played ordinary build, which is inexplicably much harder to pull off than a build I referenced, when given that a player wants to advance the main storyline as the number one priority.

That should prove "no builds are favored in morrowind" cannot be a true statement, because if it were, surely a perfectly played ordinary build could not possibly be inexplicably much harder to pull off than another build when given a reasonable goal, and from the video, it clearly is. This is a logical contradiction. Either the video doesn't show that, or the statement is wrong.

I agree with this, Morrowind (inevitably!) favours some builds. I think this is true and, yes, it can be pointed out using logic (he does, actually, but in a less rigid way than he did above). The logic I commented on is, however, different and false.

Also, I'm not sure that is what this discussion is about and it's not really important to me, it's not my discussion. Which means I will now stay away from it.

Edit: I wrote this post without reading Hassats post. There are some similarities which are entirely coincidental.

[AEmer]

Good thing he never made cheap shots like saying he was the expert and authority on the issue, and I was wrong for not agreeing with him. It's a few posts back.

I really didn't. I asked you a question in relation to that. Untill such a time as you answer, I'm not going to respond to that issue. In fact, I think I'm going to ignore you till you answer it.

[AEmer]

Gamer:

Ohhhhh...I think I get what you're refering to now.

Let me line it up:

In this case, the following implication is obvious: if (A and B) then C holds, where A is "good mechanics", B is a "good player", and C is a "good time"

That reasoning is absurd. Just because one guy, who is a good player, gets his ass kicked and doesn't like it doesn't mean the game mechanics are broken. It's an RPG, and if your character is weak you get your ass kicked. It's how it should be.

I'm not sure if you realized this, but I wrote what I did because I had my ability to do logic questioned.

I boiled down the situation to a very simplistic equivalency to prove that the logic wasn't the problem. Good Mechanics, and Good Player, were "stand ins" for the more nuanced arguments I'd made above; by boiling it down, I hoped to illustrate that if my point of view was wrong, it was not because I had used deduction incorrectly, as Dragon claimed.

To clarify, "good mechanics", and "good player", had some very specific contextual meanings that can be gleaned from the above posts. If I were to outline them, it would go something like this:

A good player is someone who tries really hard to play "with" the system. He's willing to play as intended, rather than how its optimal. His modus operandi is not to abuse the system, and he has a good amount of suspension of disbelief.

A game has good mechanics in this context, if the game is designed such that, if the player is a good player, he ends up having a good time.

The definition has to go something like this for the equivalency I put forward to make sense. But it's obviously still overly simplistic.

If you grab the term "bad mechanics" out of the equivalency, and try to apply the equivalency in a general fashion, yes, that's problematic. But english isn't context-free; things have meaning based on what has been said before, and what is said after.

I would argue any day that within context, the equivalency makes perfect sense, but you're right, if you recontextualize it generally, the equivalency doesn't hold. Either way, it was put forward to resolve an argument I had with dragon, where you've come down believing the exact thing I believed.

Also, I apologize, I thought you were saying something completely different.

[gamer0004]

I am very sorry that I was unclear as to what I was referring to. And yeah, as I said: your argument isn't flawed, but the way you wrote it down "formally" was. That was all I wanted to say.
Okay now I feel guilty about pissing off people for no good reason. My mistake.

[AEmer]

don't sweat it

Things had gotten tense because of how convoluted the discussion was, and how adamantly each side claimed to be in the right. That probably wasn't apparent, but you'll note Jonas thought it was decidedly painful to read and said as much. Peoples nerves were a bit on the fritz and you poked in with a fresh perspective at nearly the worst possible time...not your fault.

But at the end of the day, we managed to clear it up, didn't we

[miguel]

I can't belive how wrong i was about this game. It really played like DX to me. Almost nothing buged or anoyed me at all, not even the boss fights.
The only thing was that i felt it a bit short, i wanted more.

I compare it to Metal Gear 4 whish is a great game, in MG You can cover and switch from 3rd person view to 1st, you have camo, enhaced vision, and use close combat techniques just like the takedowns in HR. In this case, MG wins cause you can do a lot more with the hand to hand combat instead of just press a button, in other words: more control. There are boss fights too

I didn't put too much atention to HR's plot, I'm not saying that plot is not important , it gives a reason to play single player focussed games like this one.
Other thing was that i dont feel like playing again immediately afther completing it for the first time just like i did with the original DX.
Great game. I really enjoyed.

[PlausibleSarge]

I think a better question is:

Would you have bought DX:HR if it didn't come with TF2 items


you would be surprised what people do for TF2 items

[AEmer]

Some people _really_ like playing TF2.

If you sit on your ass every evening playing 3 hours of TF2 on most weekdays, you're gonna want to pimp your character a bit....and the Deus Ex: HR items look _really_ nice.

A sniper rifle that can kill multiple people with one shot? That's improbably cool =P

@ Miguel

What made you think you wouldn't like the game? I spent less than an hour on previews and reviews before I got to play, and I spent even less before I preordered it on steam...I had no idea what I was getting into.

But it seems many had either higher or lower expectations?