Deus Ex: Human Revolution Review (PC)
I can't explain to you how badly I wanted Eidos Montreal's Deus Ex: Human Revolution, the prequel to Deus Ex, to be released after I saw the teaser trailer for it a long while back. Much of this excitement was due to the fact that I'd played the first game, which, in my opinion, still ranks as one of the best games of all time. When I finally got my PC preorder in the mail, I was ecstatic. But did it hold up to the standards of the original? Well, after watching the intro movie and using the player character (Adam Jensen) to look around Dr. Megan Reed's office, I decided I was already impressed.
The graphics were above average for the standards of today, and there was the same immersive feeling from the first game in which you could manipulate objects and read computer emails, newspapers, and other forms of data, except - like everything else in the game - the graphics were updated. While I was pleased by this, I was hoping this game wasn't merely a graphics update of the original (i.e. Duke Nukem Forever compared to Duke Nukem 3D, Fallout 3 compared to Fallout 1, and likely iD Software's upcoming game, Rage, compared to Doom). Not that there's anything wrong with those, but we often like innovation in the stories of our sequels. Or at least I do. But I digress...
Arguably the story in FPS games isn't always so important, and it is hard being compared to an original cult classic, so what other good qualities does Human Revolution have? What did they do right, and what did they do wrong? Well, the first thing we should examine is the combat. The AI seemed to be smarter which was a plus. I first noticed this in the "tutorial" level when they fanned out, exploring almost every possible hiding place that I could be in, and making proper use of space and cover when provoked.
Another thing I liked in terms of realism was the fact that enemies you rendered unconscious could be killed afterward, unlike in the original where nothing short of a LAM explosion would transition an unconscious body to dead. While the original game arguably had "boss" characters, they didn't really have boss fights like in this game (the exception being the final boss fight in Human Revolution, which is a blatant copy of the original's Illuminati ending). In my opinion, the boss fights took away from the realism that the rest of the game had in terms of enemy health (whereas two bullets to a normal enemy became 102 for the bosses).
A way around this was the fact that the player character regenerates health, which was an initial concern among hardcore fans. The original game's health system seemed much more essential to the gameplay like having a damaged arm lowered accuracy, damaged legs meant crawling, etc. I was willing to get over that, however, as many of today's health regen games (like Call of Duty) make up for that by making the enemies more difficult. Human Revolution was no exception.
As for the weapons, I was pleased that they took a note from the original and made them mod-friendly as well as realistic in damage. I didn't know how to feel about melee being completely replaced with lethal and non-lethal takedowns (depending on your preference - either way, they are much cooler than the original's melee animations), and that they cost energy on top of that, but it did certainly change the dynamic of the game, as well as the reliance on certain tactics. Also, the skill tree that would normally accompany the aforementioned weapons was fused with the augmentations tree, something that was done separately in the original.
Now, the gameplay was arguably more user-friendly in Human Revolution, and although I never had a problem with the original game's complexity, most people would say that it was an improvement nonetheless. I agree somewhat, as it, to me, seemed not to be overly complex for casual gamers but also not overly simplistic like Deus Ex: Invisible War, the second game created in the series. Also, I felt like the easier controls were due to Human Revolution's release on multiple platforms such as XBOX 360 and PS3.
One thing people loved about the original Deus Ex was its nonlinear gameplay - every decision, big or small, yielded consequences, and made one feel more immersed in the game's universe. Human Revolution followed in those footsteps to great success, a great example being a hostage situation in which the player character could kill the terrorist, knock him out, let him go, kill the hostage, knock her out, talk the terrorist into releasing the hostage, etc.
The story itself in Human Revolution is not as good as the original Deus Ex, but it is still an interesting one. It is certainly worth seeing what events led up to the original game. If you have played both games though, you'll notice similarities between characters, intentional and unintentional. For example, Adam Jensen is a clear homage to JC and Paul Denton (although it is implied that Jensen and the Dentons share the same genetic material). Malik is a female version of Jock, even up to the point where the game puts you in an optional rescue scenario where you can save their lives, Sarif and Manderley are both employers that keep secrets from the player character. Pritchard and Jacobson are both computer techs (the former is much more of a jerk, however). Cassan and Daedalus are both AIs that the primary antagonists try to link to (Zhao and Page respectively). Fallout 3 did the same thing by making President Eden essentially the character of The Master in Fallout 1. However, this kind of rehashing is perhaps to be expected, as the developers clearly expected the majority of people to have not played the original game.
Lastly, I had mixed feelings about the multiple endings. Whereas the first game made you choose completely different ways of ending the game, Human Revolution merely had you choose endings by pressing a button. That being said, the endings for Human Revolution had a better dialogue than Deus Ex's endings.
The bottom line: Despite its flaws, Human Revolution is still a very good game by itself and is a worthy homage and prequel to the original.
Verdict: 7/10
The graphics were above average for the standards of today, and there was the same immersive feeling from the first game in which you could manipulate objects and read computer emails, newspapers, and other forms of data, except - like everything else in the game - the graphics were updated. While I was pleased by this, I was hoping this game wasn't merely a graphics update of the original (i.e. Duke Nukem Forever compared to Duke Nukem 3D, Fallout 3 compared to Fallout 1, and likely iD Software's upcoming game, Rage, compared to Doom). Not that there's anything wrong with those, but we often like innovation in the stories of our sequels. Or at least I do. But I digress...
Arguably the story in FPS games isn't always so important, and it is hard being compared to an original cult classic, so what other good qualities does Human Revolution have? What did they do right, and what did they do wrong? Well, the first thing we should examine is the combat. The AI seemed to be smarter which was a plus. I first noticed this in the "tutorial" level when they fanned out, exploring almost every possible hiding place that I could be in, and making proper use of space and cover when provoked.
Another thing I liked in terms of realism was the fact that enemies you rendered unconscious could be killed afterward, unlike in the original where nothing short of a LAM explosion would transition an unconscious body to dead. While the original game arguably had "boss" characters, they didn't really have boss fights like in this game (the exception being the final boss fight in Human Revolution, which is a blatant copy of the original's Illuminati ending). In my opinion, the boss fights took away from the realism that the rest of the game had in terms of enemy health (whereas two bullets to a normal enemy became 102 for the bosses).
A way around this was the fact that the player character regenerates health, which was an initial concern among hardcore fans. The original game's health system seemed much more essential to the gameplay like having a damaged arm lowered accuracy, damaged legs meant crawling, etc. I was willing to get over that, however, as many of today's health regen games (like Call of Duty) make up for that by making the enemies more difficult. Human Revolution was no exception.
As for the weapons, I was pleased that they took a note from the original and made them mod-friendly as well as realistic in damage. I didn't know how to feel about melee being completely replaced with lethal and non-lethal takedowns (depending on your preference - either way, they are much cooler than the original's melee animations), and that they cost energy on top of that, but it did certainly change the dynamic of the game, as well as the reliance on certain tactics. Also, the skill tree that would normally accompany the aforementioned weapons was fused with the augmentations tree, something that was done separately in the original.
Now, the gameplay was arguably more user-friendly in Human Revolution, and although I never had a problem with the original game's complexity, most people would say that it was an improvement nonetheless. I agree somewhat, as it, to me, seemed not to be overly complex for casual gamers but also not overly simplistic like Deus Ex: Invisible War, the second game created in the series. Also, I felt like the easier controls were due to Human Revolution's release on multiple platforms such as XBOX 360 and PS3.
One thing people loved about the original Deus Ex was its nonlinear gameplay - every decision, big or small, yielded consequences, and made one feel more immersed in the game's universe. Human Revolution followed in those footsteps to great success, a great example being a hostage situation in which the player character could kill the terrorist, knock him out, let him go, kill the hostage, knock her out, talk the terrorist into releasing the hostage, etc.
The story itself in Human Revolution is not as good as the original Deus Ex, but it is still an interesting one. It is certainly worth seeing what events led up to the original game. If you have played both games though, you'll notice similarities between characters, intentional and unintentional. For example, Adam Jensen is a clear homage to JC and Paul Denton (although it is implied that Jensen and the Dentons share the same genetic material). Malik is a female version of Jock, even up to the point where the game puts you in an optional rescue scenario where you can save their lives, Sarif and Manderley are both employers that keep secrets from the player character. Pritchard and Jacobson are both computer techs (the former is much more of a jerk, however). Cassan and Daedalus are both AIs that the primary antagonists try to link to (Zhao and Page respectively). Fallout 3 did the same thing by making President Eden essentially the character of The Master in Fallout 1. However, this kind of rehashing is perhaps to be expected, as the developers clearly expected the majority of people to have not played the original game.
Lastly, I had mixed feelings about the multiple endings. Whereas the first game made you choose completely different ways of ending the game, Human Revolution merely had you choose endings by pressing a button. That being said, the endings for Human Revolution had a better dialogue than Deus Ex's endings.
The bottom line: Despite its flaws, Human Revolution is still a very good game by itself and is a worthy homage and prequel to the original.
Verdict: 7/10
Comments
Post a Comment