beelzebozo said:
well, i think it's an example of the worst kind of sequel: one that seems to bear a superficial resemblance to the first game, and includes the key "hooks" that get noted in previews, reviews, and positive rants by fans, but ultimately is missing some of that real developmental talent that makes the total package gel into something great. and so i think that's why someone like me--and i imagine many others--could play dm2 and think to themselves that maybe they were just in love with a gimmick with that first game, and that the second game just made very obvious all the problems that were there all along. i think what happened from pop: sands of time to pop: warrior within to pop: two thrones is the closest example i can think that follows a similar path.
that shit is like poison for a franchise. to be honest, though i've reconsidered the first game and now think it to be extremely solid, i still am not enthused by the idea of playing the third or fourth games. i imagine many others feel the same way about pop. sometimes the only way to clean out the dirt a shitty second game creates is to rethink the design from the ground up and make it look and feel totally different--something ubisoft montreal is doing with the new prince of persia, and something these developers will probably have to consider if they're going to bring back all those burned by deux ex invisible war who loved the o.g. deus ex.
At least Warrior Within and Two Thrones improved the combat considerably, though they definitely didn't fit the atmosphere of the first game (except Two Thrones, to an extent) and were inferior games, overall. DMC2 was a regression in nearly every meaningful way.
I'd give DMC 3 and 4 a shot if you liked the first one. They basically just build on it and don't fuck things up in the process.
Zilch said:
DEFENDING it? I posted the Metacritic score to show that aggregiate scores don't mean shit!
And yeah DXIW was a disappointment, but calling it a travesty is just exaggeration (like I said previously in this thread). All I'm calling for is levity and objectivity and you're perfectly illustrating why those two things are needed (and lack of them makes you look a fool).
And yeah, I got GOTY edition of Deus Ex for Christmas in 2000. Stop slinging your angry assumptions. These are just videogames.
I thought you posted IW's 80 metacritic in response to someone posting DX's 90 metacritic. That's a bit like saying "see, it's not
that bad."
But it is. As a standalone game, IW isn't a travesty, but as a sequel to Deus Ex it's simply one of the worst ever. I doubt you could form a cogent defense of the game when comparing it to the first.
It's sad watching these classic franchises being butchered in the name of profit, and to see gamers defending the practice in the name of "objectivity." Yes, we can all easily take a neutral position and say "well, let's just see what happens", but that would necessitate completely ignoring recent gaming history as well as the recent track records of the developers taking on these franchises. In essence, burying your head in the sand, as stated earlier.
Half of the posts in the recent Dragon Age thread (where Bioware virtually admitted the game would be consolized) were to the effect of "lol PC gamers, day 1!" These people are literally praising the dumbing down of video games, while simultaneously railing against the huge increase in casual gaming this gen and labeling themselves "hardcore gamers". It's amusing to watch, to say the least.
