Are there any melee weapons in the game? I saw various punks using crowbars, chains and etc. but I never managed to loot any of those, and weapon shops don't sell them either. Kind of silly.
Last edited:
Well, extracting soundtrack from Dex was rather complicated. Why are they using FMOD that does weird stuff to audio?... And Unity packing it all into blobs doesn't help things either.
---------- Updated at 10:27 PM ----------
---------- Updated at 10:27 PM ----------
I just discovered a hard to reach place on the roof. You can get enhanced artificial limbs augmentation there. Really useful for exploration (nullifies damage from falling).
Towards the end, Dex started reminding me Beneath A Steel Sky more and more.
---------- Post merged on 18-07-2016 at 12:32 AM ----------
---------- Post merged on 18-07-2016 at 12:32 AM ----------
That underwater clones shaft is pretty spooky.
Just finished Dex. Which choice did you make...
in the final level in cyberspace? The ending was kind of abrupt (just picking a data node and that's all). I expected some more elaborate struggle of GSV vs Kether. There weren't even any dialogs and no virtual avatars of them shown.
Last edited:
@Sardukhar: Did you finish the game? What do you think about endings? I have a feeling their either rushed it, or there was some other issue. It feels somewhat raw and unpolished towards the end.
My thoughts on the plot and player choices:
---------- Updated at 02:08 PM ----------
@volsung: you'll probably like this game. Did you play it?
There were several important choices, but they weren't elaborated well enough in the game.
In the cloning labs:
1. Side with Raycast and don't expose / kill other clones.
2. Side with Raycast and kill other clones.
3. Side with Hammond and expose Raycast.
In the Complex space station / final level in cyberspace:
1. Destroy Complex (possible if you chose #1 or #2 above).
2. Rule Complex (possible if you chose #3 above).
3. Reach singularity (possible for all #1, #2 and #3).
So altogether there are 6 endings it seems.
Now about those choices. Everyone has some agenda there. Raycast despite being initially shown as a positive character in the end isn't much better than Complex in some ways, since he is deceptive, manipulative and doesn't hesitate to sacrifice others without telling them even. Yeah, he is against oppression of the Complex but he is just as cruel as some of them. I was put off by his insistence on killing all the clones.
Crow is most complex (pun not intended) character there. She is the head of the Complex, who for her dream was letting quite a lot of bad things happen. Dex is actually her clone, and Crow sees Dex as her perfected child. Crow's intentions seemed genuine unlike that of Hammond who is the more power hungry type, though the later claims he is doing it "for the sake of progress". Crow was one of the designers of the initial Kether, and she didn't just appreciate that Kether became self aware, she wanted to push it to its limits and give Kether free will (which the player can do choosing the singularity ending). She wanted the ultimate artificial mind. Hammond on the other hand didn't want that. He wanted to create "new man", the post-human, and Kether was to remain a tool on the leash. I suppose he was the one who created the GSV (which was probably at odds with Crow's vision).
Raycast was against all of that, while for instance Decker on the other hand sounded positive of the Kether becoming self aware.
So in the end, choices can be categorized as:
1. Crow's vision (Decker liked that interestingly) aka "Singularity". Kether stays self aware, gains free will and breaks any control of it by others. Dex is merged with Kether.
2. Hammond's vision (Complex gains full control of Kether). Dex becomes the head of the Complex.
3. Raycast's vision (Kether is destroyed). Dex remains as before.
How clones tie to that isn't really explained well in the game. If clones aren't killed, I suppose Hammond's vision will make them obedient servants of the Complex. We can only guess what happens in Singularity case. They become real post-humans? Situation with Raycast's vision and clones is more obvious and well elaborated in the endings.
I'd say, they had to work a bit better on the finale, and how those choices play out in the end. I personally was most sympathetic to Decker's / Crow's vision.
In the cloning labs:
1. Side with Raycast and don't expose / kill other clones.
2. Side with Raycast and kill other clones.
3. Side with Hammond and expose Raycast.
In the Complex space station / final level in cyberspace:
1. Destroy Complex (possible if you chose #1 or #2 above).
2. Rule Complex (possible if you chose #3 above).
3. Reach singularity (possible for all #1, #2 and #3).
So altogether there are 6 endings it seems.
Now about those choices. Everyone has some agenda there. Raycast despite being initially shown as a positive character in the end isn't much better than Complex in some ways, since he is deceptive, manipulative and doesn't hesitate to sacrifice others without telling them even. Yeah, he is against oppression of the Complex but he is just as cruel as some of them. I was put off by his insistence on killing all the clones.
Crow is most complex (pun not intended) character there. She is the head of the Complex, who for her dream was letting quite a lot of bad things happen. Dex is actually her clone, and Crow sees Dex as her perfected child. Crow's intentions seemed genuine unlike that of Hammond who is the more power hungry type, though the later claims he is doing it "for the sake of progress". Crow was one of the designers of the initial Kether, and she didn't just appreciate that Kether became self aware, she wanted to push it to its limits and give Kether free will (which the player can do choosing the singularity ending). She wanted the ultimate artificial mind. Hammond on the other hand didn't want that. He wanted to create "new man", the post-human, and Kether was to remain a tool on the leash. I suppose he was the one who created the GSV (which was probably at odds with Crow's vision).
Raycast was against all of that, while for instance Decker on the other hand sounded positive of the Kether becoming self aware.
So in the end, choices can be categorized as:
1. Crow's vision (Decker liked that interestingly) aka "Singularity". Kether stays self aware, gains free will and breaks any control of it by others. Dex is merged with Kether.
2. Hammond's vision (Complex gains full control of Kether). Dex becomes the head of the Complex.
3. Raycast's vision (Kether is destroyed). Dex remains as before.
How clones tie to that isn't really explained well in the game. If clones aren't killed, I suppose Hammond's vision will make them obedient servants of the Complex. We can only guess what happens in Singularity case. They become real post-humans? Situation with Raycast's vision and clones is more obvious and well elaborated in the endings.
I'd say, they had to work a bit better on the finale, and how those choices play out in the end. I personally was most sympathetic to Decker's / Crow's vision.
---------- Updated at 02:08 PM ----------
@volsung: you'll probably like this game. Did you play it?
Last edited:
Hey Gilrond. No I haven't played this game but it looks cool. I wishlisted it on GOG so I'll get it when it's on sale. Depending on how they approach computing and cognition I might have a few things to say about it. Haven't been playing much lately and still have a couple of long games ahead, so it might take a while before I play this!
Thanks though.
Thanks though.
volsung : in case you didn't buy it yet, I have a spare key from the GOG sale. It works very well on Linux.
Gilrond-i-Virdan I haven't bought it yet. I was out of town since Friday and missed most or all of the GOG sale. I am not opposed to the idea of receiving a spare key though 
Thanks again Gilrond-i-Virdan for the Dex key!
So I'm finally playing Dex. I like the gameplay and side scrolling action. The quests are all fun and have branching paths. Detailed dialogue system and character development. As usual I started by adding points to charisma, hacking and lock picking, but I am now at this point very early in the game where I have a bunch of quests all of which are too tough for my puny character. With one point, hacking anything is extremely tedious and frustrating. This also means I can't sneak around because hacking all those security systems is impossible. Not to mention all interesting doors need lock picking tier 2. So what the hell can I do? Should I not have invested points in melee and ranged (one each)? Should I stock up on ammo and shoot anything that moves? Is there a recommended order for early quests?
Other than that, the writing/dialogue so far is frankly quite bad. The intro part where they explain the creation of that government software is embarrassing, also from a technical perspective.
And this has to be the silliest interpretation of hacking I have ever seen, and there are MANY dumb ones out there (Deus Ex HR for instance...). In the end "hacking" and most of the other technological background in most games becomes a futuristic substitute for magic: it doesn't make any sense, it just provides gameplay opportunities. Of course I don't expect academic standards from game fiction, but they should be careful with how in-game "experts" phrase things. The best sci-fi authors, in my opinion, avoid detailed descriptions and excessive use of techno-babble and focus on what they can do: create interesting worlds.
With this in mind, I am actually enjoying the game and the overarching technomagical elements.
---
Edit: So really, which quests are recommended for a weak, starting character with one point in lock picking, hacking and charisma?
So I'm finally playing Dex. I like the gameplay and side scrolling action. The quests are all fun and have branching paths. Detailed dialogue system and character development. As usual I started by adding points to charisma, hacking and lock picking, but I am now at this point very early in the game where I have a bunch of quests all of which are too tough for my puny character. With one point, hacking anything is extremely tedious and frustrating. This also means I can't sneak around because hacking all those security systems is impossible. Not to mention all interesting doors need lock picking tier 2. So what the hell can I do? Should I not have invested points in melee and ranged (one each)? Should I stock up on ammo and shoot anything that moves? Is there a recommended order for early quests?
Other than that, the writing/dialogue so far is frankly quite bad. The intro part where they explain the creation of that government software is embarrassing, also from a technical perspective.
capable of unsupervised learning, OH MY!
And this has to be the silliest interpretation of hacking I have ever seen, and there are MANY dumb ones out there (Deus Ex HR for instance...). In the end "hacking" and most of the other technological background in most games becomes a futuristic substitute for magic: it doesn't make any sense, it just provides gameplay opportunities. Of course I don't expect academic standards from game fiction, but they should be careful with how in-game "experts" phrase things. The best sci-fi authors, in my opinion, avoid detailed descriptions and excessive use of techno-babble and focus on what they can do: create interesting worlds.
With this in mind, I am actually enjoying the game and the overarching technomagical elements.
---
Edit: So really, which quests are recommended for a weak, starting character with one point in lock picking, hacking and charisma?
Last edited:
Well I just finished Dex, literally, like less than a minute ago at the moment of writing this line.
My final thoughts on the game: It's a great mix of platforming, beat'em up, adventure and RPG. The quests are fun and entertaining and there are several different interactions (lockpicking, hacking, fighting, coercing) as well as approaches (front door, air ducts, sneaking) available. Many quests can also be completed in different ways, so there are real options.
Now on to constructive criticism. I understand this is a crowdfunded game, probably made by an inexperienced team. As such, it's a great effort. Sadly it falls short on several important aspects.
- World and quest design: the city feels somewhat small, and the only thing limiting a starting character from moving freely is the fact that many areas are swarming with enemies. In my case this resulted in having to determine which quests were doable for a low level character, after a lot of trials and frustration.
- Character progression: a low level character is useless, whereas a high level character is unstoppable. Most if not all quests can be completed by a mid level character. In my case, the early game quests involving hacking and/or fighting were simply annoying and frustrating. Made me want to stop playing. Also, the game obviously wants you to collect augmentations with no physical cost to the wearer. In other words, you can only get stronger, there is never any compromise.
- Writing: very inconsistent. Some portions of the game feel interesting and engaging, whereas others seem like pointless gossip and fillers. Some characters talk too much and say nothing. Everyone goes on these long, senseless rants even in the middle of a crisis. Not to mention, there's this underlying attempt to be humorous, cracking terrible jokes and one-liners way too often.
- Cohesion: I did not like how the city is essentially a hub for minor quests that contribute nothing to character progression, other than money, items and "XP". In a very subtle, metagamey kind of way, one could argue the choices in "side quests" reflect the character's disposition to the world in general, but sadly here these "side quests" feel very disconnected from the rest of the (narrative) world. This is evident once the game moves on to the really important stuff, completely outside and detached from the main city.
- Ending: seems very rushed. Of my two possible options, only one had proper narrative and the other showed only an ambiguous animation.
Finally, the science behind this fiction feels very amateur. As if the writers only had some very general knowledge of how some things work and got to work on a story ASAP. I have to say I liked the way it turned out, the direction in the later and ending parts of the game, and the questions it raised. However, in trying to sound very "hardcore" it ends up in embarrassment, using terms and concepts far beyond the grasp of the writers.
For example:
Finally, I think this is sort of a plot hole:
So there it is. I am glad I played it though, it was a lot of fun. I maintain my position though, there are MUCH better fantasy games out there than there are sci-fi. It's harder to write believable, technical stuff, which is why IMO the best sci-fi is that which happens around particular concepts (futurism, space exploration, human-computer interaction, humanoid robots) but focuses on the implications and dynamics arising from such contexts. Please listen to this CDPR, I would like CP2077 to truly make an impact in more than just gameplay.
My final thoughts on the game: It's a great mix of platforming, beat'em up, adventure and RPG. The quests are fun and entertaining and there are several different interactions (lockpicking, hacking, fighting, coercing) as well as approaches (front door, air ducts, sneaking) available. Many quests can also be completed in different ways, so there are real options.
Now on to constructive criticism. I understand this is a crowdfunded game, probably made by an inexperienced team. As such, it's a great effort. Sadly it falls short on several important aspects.
- World and quest design: the city feels somewhat small, and the only thing limiting a starting character from moving freely is the fact that many areas are swarming with enemies. In my case this resulted in having to determine which quests were doable for a low level character, after a lot of trials and frustration.
- Character progression: a low level character is useless, whereas a high level character is unstoppable. Most if not all quests can be completed by a mid level character. In my case, the early game quests involving hacking and/or fighting were simply annoying and frustrating. Made me want to stop playing. Also, the game obviously wants you to collect augmentations with no physical cost to the wearer. In other words, you can only get stronger, there is never any compromise.
- Writing: very inconsistent. Some portions of the game feel interesting and engaging, whereas others seem like pointless gossip and fillers. Some characters talk too much and say nothing. Everyone goes on these long, senseless rants even in the middle of a crisis. Not to mention, there's this underlying attempt to be humorous, cracking terrible jokes and one-liners way too often.
- Cohesion: I did not like how the city is essentially a hub for minor quests that contribute nothing to character progression, other than money, items and "XP". In a very subtle, metagamey kind of way, one could argue the choices in "side quests" reflect the character's disposition to the world in general, but sadly here these "side quests" feel very disconnected from the rest of the (narrative) world. This is evident once the game moves on to the really important stuff, completely outside and detached from the main city.
- Ending: seems very rushed. Of my two possible options, only one had proper narrative and the other showed only an ambiguous animation.
Finally, the science behind this fiction feels very amateur. As if the writers only had some very general knowledge of how some things work and got to work on a story ASAP. I have to say I liked the way it turned out, the direction in the later and ending parts of the game, and the questions it raised. However, in trying to sound very "hardcore" it ends up in embarrassment, using terms and concepts far beyond the grasp of the writers.
For example:
Emotion is the foundation of Logic? WHAT? I have come to realize many people say "logic" when they really mean "common sense", just like they say "theory" when they really mean "conjecture" (or simply a wild guess most of the time)
Crow wants to convince Dex that there is no free will and that all our choices have already been made, suggesting there is no best action. That is terrible phrasing. If we wanted to play along, we could potentially agree that without free will, preferred actions are deterministic. "Best" however is reserved for optimal outcomes, so yes, there is often (if not always) a best action and there is currently enough math to compute optimal decisions even in non-deterministic environments and with uncertainty in perception and outcomes. Granted, in many cases there is not enough information to (efficiently) compute optimal decisions and so other mechanisms come into play. The idea of using emotion or any other bias (including deterministic preferences) in decision-making is introducing a shortcut regardless of the real value of actions. An external observer such as Crow might *know* whether choice is deterministic if omniscient, or simply *believe* it is, based on personal experience or ideology. I find it hard to believe she would phrase her speech this way, with her years of insight, wisdom and advanced scientific knowledge. On the other hand, she might be simply trying to brainwash Dex into completing her vision.
Crow wants to convince Dex that there is no free will and that all our choices have already been made, suggesting there is no best action. That is terrible phrasing. If we wanted to play along, we could potentially agree that without free will, preferred actions are deterministic. "Best" however is reserved for optimal outcomes, so yes, there is often (if not always) a best action and there is currently enough math to compute optimal decisions even in non-deterministic environments and with uncertainty in perception and outcomes. Granted, in many cases there is not enough information to (efficiently) compute optimal decisions and so other mechanisms come into play. The idea of using emotion or any other bias (including deterministic preferences) in decision-making is introducing a shortcut regardless of the real value of actions. An external observer such as Crow might *know* whether choice is deterministic if omniscient, or simply *believe* it is, based on personal experience or ideology. I find it hard to believe she would phrase her speech this way, with her years of insight, wisdom and advanced scientific knowledge. On the other hand, she might be simply trying to brainwash Dex into completing her vision.
Finally, I think this is sort of a plot hole:
If Dex is the pinnacle of digitally enhanced humans, that arguably have technological components in organs such as the brain (allowing her to eg. connect to networks naturally) how come Dr. Niles didn't find anything wrong with her brain scans, other than "her neurons fire too fast!"?
So there it is. I am glad I played it though, it was a lot of fun. I maintain my position though, there are MUCH better fantasy games out there than there are sci-fi. It's harder to write believable, technical stuff, which is why IMO the best sci-fi is that which happens around particular concepts (futurism, space exploration, human-computer interaction, humanoid robots) but focuses on the implications and dynamics arising from such contexts. Please listen to this CDPR, I would like CP2077 to truly make an impact in more than just gameplay.
Last edited:
volsung : Yeah, I also got a feeling that development was rushed, especially towards the end, when things started to get more intense story wise. The ending feels abrupt and incomplete. On the other hand I tried not to approach it from the hardcore / realistic sci-fi perspective. As you said, few can do it well. For instance, you can say that Beneath A Steel Sky (which Dex reminded me of, by the way) is also somewhat "fantasy" fused form of cyberpunk and not as based in hardcore science fiction like works of Lem or Asimov. But it doesn't make it bad necessarily. I'd compare it to "comics" style cyberpunk of Judge Dredd, which can be enjoyable even if scientific background of it can feel weak at times.
Last edited:
Yeah I can appreciate and have fun with comic-style sci-fi, not everything has to be realistic, informed or believable. But I think the half-assed attempt in Dex makes it look worse than not using any technical jargon at all. In the end the game doesn't care about how an advanced, artificial entity could become self-aware, but it cares about eg. how such programs can be used with humans. In that sense I think Beneath a Steel Sky did a better job.
I tend to think technical fiction is boring anyway. It's also dangerous for authors to speculate about such things without looking silly in the very near future. So called "soft sci-fi" tends to be more interesting and (ironically) more scientifically sound.
Either way thanks for the Dex key Gilrond-i-Virdan . It was a lot of fun.
I tend to think technical fiction is boring anyway. It's also dangerous for authors to speculate about such things without looking silly in the very near future. So called "soft sci-fi" tends to be more interesting and (ironically) more scientifically sound.
Either way thanks for the Dex key Gilrond-i-Virdan . It was a lot of fun.