Deus Ex Alpha

Made an 'Original' DX thread, and these are the responses (albeit some points are true)...



"fuck it, unless you grew up with the game or have HUGE nostalgia goggles, this game is shit. its aged REALLY poorly."



"At what point does the game get as good as everyone claims it is? Is there a degree of nostalgia associated with it? I got about 1-2 hours in and uninstalled it because it just felt too dated. I enjoy stealthy, methodical games, but I just couldn't play through this one. I'd be willing to give it a second chance, but I want reassurance that the "fun" will happen. I don't give a shit about stories, never have. I just want fun game play."



"I dont play shitty games."



"It's the definition of clunky to me nowadays. I re-installed HR over this since it gave me the same fix only with better combat."



"A promise is not impressive if they can't deliver, which they couldn't. It was just a game with bad gameplay."



"What? I beat it once and tried nine separate times to replay it...
It's just old. The story is cyberpunk, the philosophy crap doesn't really compel me and even with maxed skills the gunplay is an rpg before a shooter, meaning impotent and unsatisfying. And don't tell me I'm a consolekiddy I love the shit out of the first two thief games but Deus Ex just doesn't have any charm to me. The only reason I forced myself through it was to say I beat it. Nothing compelled me on."

It is true it hasn't aged well, but you'd be hard pressed to find an FPS that did.

As for everything else, you either got it or you didn't, and if some kid decides to play it 10 years later because of the lasting hype, then they may be in for a disappointment. The pace of games and expectations from features and design have changed. Might as well have asked them to state when exactly they played it.

If an actual kid tries to play it then yes, he's going to be disappointed. At 12 years old Deus Ex was one of the coolest games I'd ever feasted my eyes upon. I didn't know about System Shock back then and my expertise in FPS games was largely set with Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake and Duke Nukem (though Half-Life wasn't much different to any of these, it just had a better storyline).

As r12m said most shooting games don't age and Deus Ex's controls alongside it's interface can feel relatively clunky at times, but to say it's a piss-poor game based on these is absolute rubbish.

The problem is that people compare things to other experiences. Since today's gamer's (aka: my generation) experiences likely include liberal amounts of Call of Duty, Battlefield and the seemingly endless barrage of MMO's which all have relatively polished interfaces, menus and even gameplay in comparison to a game made over 10 years ago then yes, it might look a tad "outdated" or "shit".

People should be comparing games to other games like them made during similar times. Comparing Deus Ex to even Deus Ex: Human Revolution or the many other games released today is unfair. How can it ever compete? Many of the mistakes Deus Ex made were noted and fixed in future games so it's completely unfair to base something off it's descendants.

Knowing this I would always recommend Human Revolution over Deus Ex to anyone who I know doesn't have the patience to play Deus Ex, but thankfully, most of my friends aren't 12 years old and slow as fuck.

FPS games don't age well, even Halo 1 & 2 are feeling pretty old. However, while it is certainly a little more stiff (not 'clunky' at all), Half Life stands out as the worst perpetrator of an aged FPS. Yes, it's got a storyline, but the main gameplay is just absolutely flat, clunky as all hell and just a chore to get through more than anything. So, they have some points, but I know they wouldn't say the same thing about Half Life.

Ion Storm super team did know how to design a game to gamers preference, still surprising with extra depth that would keep the gamer nailed to the chair. It shows from every angle in Deus Ex, and both its simplicity and complexity speak for it. For whatever reasons, they managed to fuck up several other titles, but with Deus Ex I believe they delivered what was expected from them. This means that how ever great game it is, it was largely designed to gamers preference (stemming from previous experience) 13 years ago. Those 13 years have further shaped our preferences to a point where we'd wonder why some or other feature is missing when "good" games have them, and be awfully annoyed by it. TBH if couple of those /v/ brainiacs find Deus Ex clunky then I'm sure they'd shit bricks if they played Kotor. They think that if they can shoot in first person mode it has to automatically be smash and splash type of gameplay instead of working around weapon stability (ok, lets pretend that an untrained sniper suffered from zyme withdrawal), recoil, ammo..

As said, my argument isn't whether games haven't aged or not, as I believe they have, my argument is that it's completely unfair to judge a game that is over 10 years old with a game that is only 1 or 2.

But in saying that, Deus Ex isn't that hard to play. I don't think Half-Life is either, to be quite honest. Half-Life doesn't even have interface menus like Deus Ex does and frankly, if people don't have the patience to navigate through Deus Ex's then how the fuck do they even use their computer?

Are they "clunky" in comparison to most today? Perhaps, things have certainly become a lot simpler. But does that make them "shit" games or "hard to play"? No. It just means you're an impatient fuck who's been spoon-fed bullshit. It's not the hate towards Deus Ex that pisses me off, it's the lack of patience and what the industry has taught people (because we weren't always spoon-fed).

Welcome to the 21st century. We feed you shit and you goddamn love it, because you don't have to feed yourself. That's what video games of today are like.

Fuck majority of the new /v/ they're a bunch of fucking wankers that think Portal 2 is the best game ever made

That's how you tell an experienced gamer and /v/irgin from these hordes of Gabe Newell worshipping dickheads. I remember making a similar topic and there were actually a shitload of people going "Best game ever" and attacking those that called it shit

clyzm wrote:Fuck majority of the new /v/ they're a bunch of fucking wankers that think Portal 2 is the best game ever made

That's how you tell an experienced gamer and /v/irgin from these hordes of Gabe Newell worshipping dickheads. I remember making a similar topic and there were actually a shitload of people going "Best game ever" and attacking those that called it shit

Yeah man it's brutal nowadays. There aren't many good communities left that appreciate good games.

Reddit is even worse.

Reddit is the last place to look for decent gamers

clyzm wrote:Reddit is the last place to look for decent gamers

The amount of times I've been down-voted because of my one of my opinions is testament to this. As I said, people have been spoon-fed for the past 10 years and they're so pathetically brain-washed they think every older gamer is dead wrong.

Yeah, that's why gaming survived for so fucking long. Because the old games sucked?

Most of the major community outlets are nothing but huge circle-jerks anyway. Aside from discussions amongst friends this forum is virtually the only one I've had any decent debates on (and possibly my local realm forums on WoW, funnily enough).

This isnt another circle jerk? I came to the wrong place.

Hanover Fist wrote:This isnt another circle jerk? I came to the wrong place.

I've had numerous debates over the years where people disagree with me but you aren't going to know that by looking at this account, you'd have to look at my old ones to figure that out (alongside my other shady history).

Of course we're going to have reservations against anyone who dismisses Deus Ex as tripe - this is a Deus Ex forum, but to say we sit here jerking each other off all the time is also pretty inaccurate.

Question, Why do people care so much about FPS Rate?

atrey65789 wrote:Question, Why do people care so much about FPS Rate?

After a certain point, it seems to go like this:

> Most people: e-peen.
> Proper compet. players: edge on players on lower end systems due to more detail in how things are moving to shoot/attack/dodge them. [probably talking shit here, please correct if needs-be]
> Others: Low FPS causes motion sickness apparently?

What?! lol motion sickness? lol

As in frame-rate? Because a higher frame-rate is smoother. Higher frame-rates also tend to have a little more leeway when it comes to high lag areas in games (particularly ones with high explosions and other effects).

I've always thought having over 60 fps means jack shit if your computer is already good enough to run the game decently at 60 fps, but more fps, regardless of actual effect, allows for more leeway in how much shit could be on the screen at a time.

Having the potential to run Skyrim with hundreds of fps could be handy if you planned to start rolling thousands of cheese-wheels down a mountain, though it's probably still going to bottleneck your CPU at some point (YAY PHYSICS).

atrey65789 wrote:What?! lol motion sickness? lol

Low FPS (<35) causes headache and sickness for me. This is the reason why I stopped playing new resource intensive and unoptimized games.

atrey65789 wrote:Question, Why do people care so much about FPS Rate?

In DXMP: because game is too old. Some more info here: link Our delta time code is bad, but it more or less worked in 2000-2001 for the hardware back then. Basically, in DXMP high fps = cheat. In modern games high FPS = good computer.

In Gaming: gamers can feel higher FPS than eye is shown to see, and there are some articles you can google. For technical reasons, playing shooter at low fps can start to hinder your ability to move mouse. Variable FPS can mean that you cannot move mouse same way in similar situations.

In Competitive Gaming: Ideally they want to match their monitor refresh (hz) with game refresh (fps) exactly, to produce perfect conditions. Commonly this is 100FPS, sometimes ~120. If FPS drops below that, game experience (aim, feel, looks) becomes inconsistent and disturbing. In competitive gaming this means death.

In benchmarking: some dumb gamers mix up benchmarking and competitive gaming, thinking it is good idea to play with very high FPS. Other than that, some gamers want to test their investment and push their PC as far as it can go to see results in games, and FPS is best statistics they can immediately note and compare. This is e-peen, and does not belong to gaming per se, but at the same time should not cause significant issues in modern games. That said, it is not uncommon for games to have a max FPS cap. Wikipedia has more information on that.


That said, you've frequently trolled my thread on FGS forums that explains these issues in detail, but hopefully it answers similar question for someone else that can actually read.

You have always been the person to seem to start stuff with everyone....Hmm... If you really dislike DX and constantly tell us that there are better games to play, then why don't you get rid of the game and play something else? We do not really care of what you say.

Did my post answer your question?

too long; didn't read: People care about FPS so much because it makes game unplayable, makes it ideal for aiming, or -- as is the case with aging games -- breaks game play and online variable game speed translates into cheating. If you want to see it first hand, come and play me in some server.

Yeah it answered my question, sorta. But you talk in the same tone and in the same attitude as you do to everyone else in other forums... It's getting old.

It may have something to do with my inability to distinguish properly between the content of your posts and those of spambots. I do apologize and will attempt to search more thoroughly for words "runescape gold" to make sure I am talking to a person.

Dae wrote:

atrey65789 wrote:What?! lol motion sickness? lol

Low FPS (<35) causes headache and sickness for me. This is the reason why I stopped playing new resource intensive and unoptimized games.

Oh man I know what you mean thats why I stopped playing Метро soon as I finished it

That said, you've frequently trolled my thread on FGS forums that explains these issues in detail, but hopefully it answers similar question for someone else that can actually read.

Kinda harsh

Believe it or not, you get used to it. I had same issue with my 60hz monitor in general, outside games all the same. I used to play DXMP with 10-30 FPS, was more likely to go under 10 than above 30. You do get used to it, but once you've gotten used to higher fps, even 60 feels weird.

These days, if my PC cant push some new game properly, I notice that I make less sudden movements and walk like a drunk person. Gets me through the game fairly smoothly

Can the human eye distinguish anything above 30 fps?

clyzm wrote:Can the human eye distinguish anything above 30 fps?

Apparently not but I find it's not as smooth as 40+ fps, but I think this is largely because we're not necessarily thinking about average fps.

30 fps, under normal conditions, should be fine for most people, granted that it stays at a consistent 30 fps. If it dips below 30 then that's when you start getting choppy gameplay and is probably why some people think 30 fps is not as "smooth" as 60.

clyzm wrote:Can the human eye distinguish anything above 30 fps?

This is what bothers me. Apparently we can't see beyond 30 or 60 yet when I use a 120hz monitor v-sync @ 120 frames per second, I notice a HUGE difference. It honestly irritates me when others tell me there is no difference. A few of my friends have top notch 60hz monitors, and I DO notice a drop in smoothness.

Human eye can certainly distinguish anything above 30 FPS, above 60 FPS and even above 100 FPS.

http://www.overclock.net/t/1197137/30-f ... -human-eye

Main reasons for this debated issue stem from the differences between television/cinema technology and video games without motion blur.

We can probably play at 30 FPS without necessarily seeing a slideshow, but if you're not used to it then you get a proper headache. Even if you're used to it, the chances are that it damages your brain somehow as you're not really seeing a movie nor images. Ideal FPS is where game is smooth for you, and reasonable motion blur technology helps bring down the necessary FPS cap.

Today, Deus Ex has to be excluded from this discussion due to its poor code, but it applies to contemporary games of any era.

Really? Are you seriously making the argument that 30 FPS or lower can "damage your brain"?

That might be true but I'm sure as hell going to need some damn good evidence to prove it, cause if that's true I must be motherfuckin' brain dead.

[e] More people should take into account that games work on averages, not consistency.

Pre-rendered movies and animations should never encounter choppy frames as they're run at a consistent fps. Games, however, being rendered live off your PC do not get consistent frames, we have to work in averages instead due to the variables encountered.

FPS can fluctuate all the time but people never seem to account for this, they just presume that if they get 60 fps on average they'll get it all the time. There is a difference between 30 and 60 fps and it's far more noticeable if your PC sucks and bottlenecks a lot.

I still believe this is the number one reason why people think one fps value is dramatically better than the rest, alongside the placebo effect of always thinking higher is better. There IS a point where extra frames won't do anything other than act as a buffer (for frame stuttering and the likes) but I don't believe 30 is that limit like some people do.

"the chances are"

Based on the logic that the image sequence is too fast for eye to properly focus on every frame, but too slow for brain to easily translate it into a smooth motion (brain sees fast movement in a blur but is able to focus on specific detail amidst the blur, hypothesized to become a new indicator of relative IQ level). The subsequent, constant strain will have some kind of effect on the body, I'd start with worsening eye-sight that is observed in identical conditions (saw and experienced the effect of that in the printing industry, but it applies to vast variety of tasks), but would assume that in the long run it potentially has more significant effects, largely because I can and you can't stop me. As no clear evidence seems to exist that I can come by, that "chances are" statement was not meant to be picked on .

Edit: effect may be similar as the typical "watching TV too close" speech your mom might've given you, as we are dealing with somewhat similar issues, but I cant be bothered to dig up information on refresh rates now. Contemporary TVs use advanced motion blur that does half the work for your brain, but on PCs some motion blur technologies can still distress the brain causing headaches.

More information about motion blur (and relating to the 30 fps topic) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur