[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYLEuQrvND0[/media]
Fresh from the dungeon.
Just finished it. Man I normally love these videos, but I couldn't disagree with him more about Human Revolution.
I think the fact is that Eidos Montreal sort of wrote a lot about the past and put it inside the e-books and emails that you can find so the world itself makes a lot more sense than the way he presents it to be.
I was hoping he'd do the mobile game as well, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
[QUOTE=DinoJesus;51034068]Just finished it. Man I normally love these videos, but I couldn't disagree with him more about Human Revolution.[/QUOTE]
Obviously biased here but I think he was a little harsh on some things like the characters and the Detroit setting in particular.
Seems like he's really harsh on the game, but it's really just the story and setting. Gameplay wise it's great and there's obvious nice ties to the original.
I feel like his criticism is valid when you consider it in the context of the original game. If you think of it on it's own, it's good, but with regards to the original it feels like an odd departure.
I dont think he understands they only used gold/yellow spectrum colors as a deliberate artistic choice.
[QUOTE=AaronM202;51034369]I dont think he understands they only used gold/yellow spectrum colors as a deliberate artistic choice.[/QUOTE]
Seems pretty clear to me that he recognizes it is an artistic choice. Just happens to be a choice he disagrees with. Someone at Eidos must feel the same way, considering the director's cut.
He does bring up a few fair points, but he was way too hard on the writing.
Though in real life Detroit is a shit hole, in Human Revolutions world the city was brought back to a similar status to when the automotive industry was booming. It was brought back by Sarif industries and the augments boosting the economy somehow.
I think he missed a key point in the writing in that certain things happen before hand in universe that don't happen in real life and that the game isn't supposed to follow the real worlds timeline.
I don't remember where, but iirc theres even a note that says humanity is decades ahead tech wise of what its supposed to be due to a discovery that was made.
I understand the point he was trying to make with it, but the four minute section nitpicking the fashion was really annoying.
[QUOTE=richard9311;51034431]I understand the point he was trying to make with it, but the four minute section nitpicking the fashion was really annoying.[/QUOTE]
I thought it was really funny since I don't know any other game reviewer who would actually care about something like that enough to stop and spend time putting it on a spotlight, but I couldn't tell if he was being sassy about it until the very and and then I couldn't quite understand why
[QUOTE=tman450;51034426]He does bring up a few fair points, but he was way too hard on the writing.
Though in real life Detroit is a shit hole, in Human Revolutions world the city was brought back to a similar status to when the automotive industry was booming. It was brought back by Sarif industries and the augments boosting the economy somehow.
I think he missed a key point in the writing in that certain things happen before hand in universe that don't happen in real life and that the game isn't supposed to follow the real worlds timeline.
I don't remember where, but iirc theres even a note that says humanity is decades ahead tech wise of what its supposed to be due to a discovery that was made.[/QUOTE]
That wasn't his point, his point was that it's a prequel to the original Deus Ex that takes place 25 years before the original and yet most of its technology far surpasses the stuff seen in the original game. It's not about not sticking to a realistic timeline, it's about sticking to the timeline of the previous games.
He has fair criticisms but it's also clear he's a huge fan of the old games. If this were it's own thing and not a Deus Ex game he would probably let a lot of them slide.
I loved HR and never got into the old games. MD is pretty cool too, took me longer than HR to beat but I tried to avoid shooting this time.
Ross, what do you have against Taggart-Senpai?•
He says that Human Revolution is a great game, but it's not a very good Deus Ex game.
I never played the original Deus Ex at the time I first played Human Revolution, so I loved every aspect of it except for the graphics maybe. If I were a long time fan of the original, I would have a lot of problems with Human Revolution too, but it's still a damn good game.
[QUOTE=simkas;51034473]That wasn't his point, his point was that it's a prequel to the original Deus Ex that takes place 25 years before the original and yet most of its technology far surpasses the stuff seen in the original game. It's not about not sticking to a realistic timeline, it's about sticking to the timeline of the previous games.[/QUOTE]
His reaction to Mankind Divided ought to be quite something.
With regards to Human Revolution being more futuristic, the original's world was already barely any different from reality, and that was supposed to be 50 years in the future at the time of release. I always found it strange that 2052 looked exactly like 2000, just with cyborgs, robots, and weird looking guns everywhere. [i]Especially[/i] since Deus Ex is supposed to have diverged technologically from our world in 1948. Even ignoring technology, in terms of architecture and style, 1948 and 2000 look drastically different from each other. One would expect the same to be true of 2000 and 2052. So I think injecting more futurism into the world design than the original had was a good thing, even if Human Revolution did go off the deep end with it.
[QUOTE=Nukedrabbit95;51035437]With regards to Human Revolution being more futuristic, the original's world was already barely any different from reality, and that was supposed to be 50 years in the future at the time of release. I always found it strange that 2052 looked exactly like 2000, just with cyborgs, robots, and weird looking guns everywhere. [i]Especially[/i] since Deus Ex is supposed to have diverged technologically from our world in 1948. Even ignoring technology, in terms of architecture and style, 1948 and 2000 look drastically different from each other. One would expect the same to be true of 2000 and 2052. So I think injecting more futurism into the world design than the original had was a good thing, even if Human Revolution did go off the deep end with it.[/QUOTE]
The original Deus Ex had plenty of futurism in it though
Most of it was just constricted to secret science labs and shit, because the world at large is a giant shithole. Because of the whole, dystopia thing.
[QUOTE=Nukedrabbit95;51035437]With regards to Human Revolution being more futuristic, the original's world was already barely any different from reality, and that was supposed to be 50 years in the future at the time of release. I always found it strange that 2052 looked exactly like 2000, just with cyborgs, robots, and weird looking guns everywhere. [i]Especially[/i] [B]since Deus Ex is supposed to have diverged technologically from our world in 1948. [/B]Even ignoring technology, in terms of architecture and style, 1948 and 2000 look drastically different from each other. One would expect the same to be true of 2000 and 2052. So I think injecting more futurism into the world design than the original had was a good thing, even if Human Revolution did go off the deep end with it.[/QUOTE]
What. How did I even miss that?
I thought it was simple anticipation from the 2000s onwards.
[QUOTE=_Axel;51035659]What. How did I even miss that?
I thought it was simple anticipation from the 2000s onwards.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't really wildly diverge, but there are some differences earlier on. Most of it related to setting up the Illuminati since they obviously existed much longer than that.
There's also the whole [sp]UFO's actually crashing in Roswell thing[/sp]
[QUOTE=elowin;51035716]It doesn't really wildly diverge, but there are some differences earlier on. Most of it related to setting up the Illuminati since they obviously existed much longer than that.
There's also the whole [sp]UFO's actually crashing in Roswell thing[/sp][/QUOTE]
Oh, so it's just the conspiracy theory stuff then.
[QUOTE=elowin;51035649]The original Deus Ex had plenty of futurism in it though
Most of it was just constricted to secret science labs and shit, because the world at large is a giant shithole. Because of the whole, dystopia thing.[/QUOTE]
Being a shit hole and looking like the future aren't necessarily exclusive.
Also keep in mind that I'm mostly just talking about everyday architecture here. I mean, look at the difference between times square in [URL="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e-IXSLBedcE/TwMkUfo0R6I/AAAAAAAAA7w/nfQYlPFxJXk/s1600/times_square_NYC_1950.jpg"]1950[/URL] and times square in [URL="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5074/5910590408_d22eb5e067_b.jpg"]2000[/URL]. Deus Ex is separated from 2000 by the same time frame, but it portrays New York as looking almost less modern. Even if the whole world had gone to shit by that time, surely there would have been [i]some[/i] kind of advancement in architecture and urban design in the last 50 years, no?
[QUOTE=_Axel;51035747]Oh, so it's just the conspiracy theory stuff then.[/QUOTE]
As said earlier,[sp]it's implied that the Majestic 12 was originally created to study alien technology recovered from the Roswell crash.[/sp]
Before HR's release the devs said they acknowledged that DXHR's 2027 looks more futuristic than 2052 from DX1 and wrote it off as it was made on beliefs of the future from 2000s, so the first game has stuff like stationary telephones and big tv's compared to what we have in the newer games so eidos' version is sort of based on their beliefs.
To be honest a lot of points Ross made were super nitpicky imo, although I agree with him on the suspension of disbelief part to some extent.
Did he not mention The Missing Link at all? I know it's post-release DLC but he did comment on the director's cut and in my opinion The Missing Link really explains a lot for what it is.
The problem with creating a futuristic setting is that we have no clue what the future is going to look like.
Back when DX1 was made, the whole futuristic tone many people may have conceived of was big and blocky techno everything (over simplifying here, but you get the point). And within a decade instead of going that route things went smaller and rounder.
So I don't really mind if a prequel game that is released 16 years after its chronological sequel kind of "modernizes"
[QUOTE=richard9311;51034431]I understand the point he was trying to make with it, but the four minute section nitpicking the fashion was really annoying.[/QUOTE]
It's kind of arsey given the art director said before/during/after the release of HR that he wasn't pleased with their costume designs in the game and wished he could have hired a fashion designer to help work on it. This wasn't like they went right in and purposely made it OTT they just didn't know any better and wanted to have everything stand out visually.
There's a bunch of stuff he went too harsh on/didn't research properly but I'm not gonna bother going through every single point. It's his opinion, but take it with a pinch of salt.
[QUOTE=Nukedrabbit95;51036036]Being a shit hole and looking like the future aren't necessarily exclusive.
Also keep in mind that I'm mostly just talking about everyday architecture here. I mean, look at the difference between times square in [URL="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-e-IXSLBedcE/TwMkUfo0R6I/AAAAAAAAA7w/nfQYlPFxJXk/s1600/times_square_NYC_1950.jpg"]1950[/URL] and times square in [URL="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5074/5910590408_d22eb5e067_b.jpg"]2000[/URL]. Deus Ex is separated from 2000 by the same time frame, but it portrays New York as looking almost less modern. Even if the whole world had gone to shit by that time, surely there would have been [i]some[/i] kind of advancement in architecture and urban design in the last 50 years, no?[/QUOTE]
I don't know, part of the design in Deus Ex was that almost every place is dilapidated as fuck. Doesn't really make sense if everything is relatively new.
Also like Karmah said you can't ever really predict how the future is going to look. Or, at least, you're almost certainly going to be wrong at some level.
I was afraid that he's going to bash this game after Invisible War and I was right. Still, it was quite a fun review.
Man, I think Ross is so strongly wearing the nostalgia goggles for the original DX that he's cherry picking the "worst" elements of HR.
Honestly I think he completely misses the point of why there is so much emphasis on Augmentations and just looks at the surface. Augs in HR are a vehicle for so many things ranging from the Haves-Have Nots of Capitalism, the centralization of power/society via media control, an analogue for societal apartheid and the Kill Switch and lets not forget the stronger elements of Neuropozyne.
Neuropozyne reflects so much of how corporate greed and control can wreck society, hence why VersaLife (Manu of Neuropozyne, see also Bob Page) are cornerstone to the Illuminati right up there with Picus Comms in terms of media control/censorship. All these elements are square in your face if you pay attention and think on your own as you did in the original DX.
Hell, I'd go as far to say that HR takes on most of the original DX in terms of real world issues and ideas as stated above.
And towards the end of the video he states how the games (In terms of HR and MD) should be looking to the future instead of current events. He completely contradicts what he said in his DX video and misses one of the pillars of proper Cyberpunk. Proper Cyberpunk reflects current issues as well as taking them to their logical extremes.
I'll admit that I sorta agree with him on how some of the characters can be a bit hamfisted on some of your choices (See ending to the Milwaukee Junction mission), but shit that's just how the world works Ross, certain characters have stronger opinions different to your own. Moral ambiguity is normal.
Also I'd enjoy seeing Ross and the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvwlt4FqmS0"]Guy Who Did The Shandification Of Fallout Video[/URL] go at it, they both are really deep thinking reviewers.
As someone who actually played the first DX, I can understand his criticisms, but I don't necessarily agree with them.
Is HR a good Deus Ex game? I think so, but I could understand how some people could be let down by it. I think it's at least a better attempt than what we got with IW, and I commend them for trying to balance the complexity of the first game, with the ease of access of IW in a way that doesn't feel like they're dumbing down the core DX "experience."
I think the one bit of his criticisms that stuck with me was him "ranting" (for lack of a better term) about how the cops chastised him for just going in and killing everyone, including Zeke. I get the whole aspect of "HE'S A THREAT, SO IT'S BETTER TO PUT HIM DOWN THAN TO NEGOTIATE", but you'd honestly be putting the hostages at a greater risk if you just carelessly went in guns blazing. That, and what if incidents like those at the Sarif plant are orchestrated by someone higher up the chain than Zeke. Wouldn't you want to take him in alive so you could get as much information as possible out of him regarding possible future incidents, or perhaps some idea as to who orchestrates them?
And if there's one thing I've noticed about reviews that criticize the narrative (of both HR and MD), it's that a lot of their points seem to miss just how their criticism is actually fully explained. Like how Yahtzee couldn't see how augmented people would be slumming it in the ghettos in MD, despite the aug incident happening in the last game, and the fact that a decent chunk of augmented people did not willingly choose to be augmented, or chose to be so due to hardships in their lives. Though yes, there are some who chose to in order to enhance themselves.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.