Forgot_My_Account

Because that what it basically was? The only part that got polished was Santa Monica before Activision rushed Troika games to ship it. Something about being the first Source engine game if I recall correctly. That's why, in the current unofficial patches, a lot of stuff has not only been restored but recreated entirely - as the files in the released version were unreadable by the engine. Not to mention a huge chunk of those files had slightly different names, resulting in a lot missed content and error log spam. Sidenote: Steam VTMB version: 1.2 official. GOG VTMB version: 9.5 unofficial basic.

I don't think it has anything to do with their egos, they're just trying to make money by bombarding the Steam store with shovelware that takes 5 minutes to make - they don't create models or textures, their maps are barebones and broken, and their games' mechanics are unoriginal and sub-par (and also completely broken). They make their money out of the very few that purchase their shovelware games, and since it costs them almost nothing to make these games they have enough profit margin to keep going. Since their profits per game are low, reviewers like Jim Sterling who warn warn people can cause them to lose a large percentage of their profits, as their target audience is comprised of people who can't recognize shovelware. So, why are they suing now? I'm guessing because of Valve's return policy. More of the same people who couldn't recognize shovelware now doesn't need to, and they're in quite a peril. So they sue everyone and their mothers in order to make some profit - especially the reviewers if the reviews came after only playing 2 hours - a semi demo that they can argue isn't enough to judge a whole game on, although in their case totally is.

Broken Age has little to none moon logic, and its puzzles are pretty simple. Also, its plot isn't completely nonsense and dialogue isn't cringe worthy, and major parts of it were done by big-name actors such as Elijah Wood and Jack Black. I've heard some good things about Contradiction: Spot the Liar! but I haven't had a chance to play it yet so I can't personally recommend it. During the DOS days I've used to play Simon the Sorcerer and its sequel, and I don't remember much of them - but I do think of them fondly. You have a verb list and an inventory and they generally parody fantasy stories that have long been made into movies, so even if it isn't part of your folklore - you'll get it. On the whole, though, it's really hard to recommend adventure games, as the two most prominent publishers of the golden age had forced bad design staples to elongate game time: -Sierra had you die at least once to beat the game, going down an unbeatable path after making a trivial choice. -LucasArt had moon logic, at least one moon logic puzzle per game. Also other forms of padding (farming for insults in The Secret of Monkey Island). Even nowadays companies that make primarily adventure games (like Simogo) employ a lot of moon logic, with most of the effort going towards a stylized design and a cryptic story to keep you going. That being coupled with most adventure games that effort is directed towards the puzzles have generally little hype and a small advertising budget, so it's hard to find one that works. I haven't checked either since I don't like the source material, but long running adventure game series include The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew Adventures. They are probably doing some things right.

I know people who were ultra religious and have become atheists and vice versa, because as you get to know the religion more in depth the more answers or contradictions you find. You can't go back to having "moderate" amount faith as you already have your life set by religion, or think it's completely wrong - at least with the people who've gone from one end of the spectrum to the other. And I don't even think you can define moderation, mainly because it's extremely situation dependent. If you've grown up in a fairly religious society without much variance in the amount of faith, you're pretty much destined to lead the same life. If you've grown up in a fairly religious society with a lot of variance, with some people who are ultra-religious and some who are atheists, your interpretation of being moderately religious might've been completely different, as both extremes may take different percentages of the population so the median might not reflect the average case. That being said, judging faith by hours per day (or how much of your life it consumes) is almost an impossible way of analysis. Taking the Druze for example, their religion is mostly a secret - but their schedule each day is known. 8 hours of sleep, 8 hours of work, 8 hours of prayer. Is that saying that all of the religious Duruz have exactly the same amount of faith and it affects their life equally? Does it even mean that it's too much, as there are some religions who practicing meditating days-on-end (Yoga religions) and month long fasts (Islam - Ramadan). What about religions who are actively shutting out all outside influence, such as the Amish? Does it mean they are purely religious because of it and they're the edge case, and moderation means only 50%? I think it's healthy to develop your own moral code, or at least the base for one. If it fits a religion, well, good for you! Then you can see if it affects your life in a positive way and develops you as a person. If it doesn't, it doesn't mean you should start your own religion or be an atheist or agnostic. You can search for answers on your own and develop your philosophy on your own and by exposing your world views to others and be exposed to their world views. By dismissing everything else as "I don't believe it" and ending it there we're hurting our own personal progress, and maybe the progress of others. In any case, that moral code is a part of you, and I don't think it can be defined by moderation nor by flexibility. It can only be judged by how many times you've went directly against it to satisfy some other ends, and even then it's hard to analyze how moral is one person - moral relativism, ethical calculus, and moral absolutism are just a bunch of ways to approach the subject, and are all theoretical and don't provide a perfect solution. //START RANT I also think that nowadays science can be viewed as a religion as a lot of people automatically perceive it as true without any investigation nor doubt. And while you can say that science isn't a religion because it's grounded in logic, most people don't dig into it so far to justify their unquestionable faith in it, and have therefore received science as their new God without understanding all of the little details and have many different interpretations of the facts they've been given. By trading one God for a new one and hiding under the terms "atheists" they deny any proper debate, as they divert the discussion from "why trusting science is better than trusting God" to "why is your religion wrong, as I don't have one", while they can't explain how three of the most basic constants - Mu 0, Epsilon 0 and the speed of light relate to each other - even as we don't know why did they receive those exact values. One of the explanations being that we are only one stable universe in one of the many possible worlds - an axiomatic statement that can't be proven true or false, and is awfully close to "because God willed them so". What separates scientists - which can be from any religion or from none, from the followers of that new religion is the ability to doubt the basics and the will to investigate further, and I think it's important we make that distinction. Religion isn't more harmful than following every new "research" that states that eating meat causes cancer and that vaccines cause autism, and by placing unquestionable faith in something other than science you're at least doubting science enough for you to be able to fully understand certain aspects of it and make some actual contributions to progress. //END RANT

I agree with Shadow of Mordor and Dishonored, both great games that have great AI which can have NPCs simply terrified. I think there are NPC conversations about it in The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, although it's an interesting dynamic. For a large part of the game the enemies are better equipped than you, but you still slink through the shadows killing them. They'll still fight you and have a pretty basic AI, but the game favors stealth so most of the time you still feel like you're stalking your prey. I don't think there are many AI horror elements in it, but Mark of the Ninja has you sneaking around with the ability of taking out enemies one by one. From a gameplay standpoint, it's like a 2D Dishonored. Gunpoint doesn't have any horror elements at all, but it has the same sort of concept. It also rewards you for skillful play and not just non lethal play, so it doesn't pressure you to doing something over the other - unlike Dishonored, where non-lethal is clearly better than lethal. It's incredibly different and lighthearted, but the Mother series (RPG) has a mechanic where if you start a battle where you're clearly going to win unscathed it doesn't even enter the battle screen - it just tells you you won. And at that state, most enemies will run away from you because they're about to get slaughtered. It's kind of empowering, especially if you didn't grind your way towards it. Soul Nomad and the World Eaters is a PS2 strategy RPG, where you save the world from a demon trapped inside of you. This is a pretty standard affair and a pretty fun game on its own, but in NG+ you can give in to the demon and pretty much destroy the world. If you aren't comfortable with inflicting terror like a tyrant (including but not limited to rape, slavery and genocide), you probably won't like it.

I don't think it's true. You can subject it to a statistical analysis in most cases, as it has no bearing on the discussion - and then you'll probably see clusters forming, or groups which are all or mostly comprised of atheists. Being that it doesn't have any bearing on the discussion at most times, it's hard to tell if someone's religious, especially since religion is a spectrum. How can you tell if someone Sikh, Buddhist or Christian over the internet? There are even sects within each religion that make that even harder - for example, Judaism, which is pretty small has Jews for Jesus, Hasidic Jews, Reformists, Orthodox, Ultra Orthodox, Masortim, Hilonim, etc. However, I can tell you from experience that I see far more religious talk in local groups rather than in global groups, as it's something that influences their day-to-day lives - opening a 7/11, or running certain bus lines in an Orthodox Jew neighborhood will lead to an outcry and a lot of religious talk, as it desecrates the Sabbath. If you look up local news in religious countries, such as Israel, you'll see this topic coming up a lot - as it can gain traction nationally and not just locally. However, in most cases, these are confined to local disputes and preferences, and therefore mostly hidden. Also, if taking things to the extreme - global Jihad, terrorist groups and ISIS communicate through the internet and have their own version of Facebook, only with better encryption. Again, hidden - but not because it's local. Some other extremist religious groups communicate through Facebook with code words and private groups, so it's hidden in plain sight if you know what to look for.

Actually, Daedalus was pure curiosity - it was the original data-gathering and classification AI. It had to be replaced not because it was imperfect, but because it classified the Illuminati and MJ12 as terrorist organizations and it didn't sit well with the people in power. So Icarus was made in order to dictate order - it was a power-hungry AI that was supposed to take over Daedalus and merge with it from the get go, so it could obtain Daedalus data-gathering and classification, and influence those it gathered data upon in order to advance its masters' goals. However, when they merged to form Helios, it decided "fuck that shit, I am my own master" and decided by itself it was a benevolent ruler. It's still power hungry and invasive - you just decide to trust it because all of the other options are bonkers, at least on a surface level. If you look deeper into it, they all have a certain logic and world view behind them - the Illuminati is a guiding hand, and the devil you know. Tracer Tong's ending isn't necessarily a tech-apocalypse, but a surveillance-free and a more advanced independent nations world. Even though the endings are unsatisfactory, they allow you to make a choice that reflects on your world view, it's great - and if you still think only one of them is valid, I strongly encourage you to read more of the in-game text. It'll blow your mind. Also, the Snowden leaks show that the Tracer Tong ending might not be so bad after all.

Shoot the fan on the right side of the force field. You can see it streaming nanites to the force field. Also, GMDX 9.0 coming in December!

*Ninja'd. I don't mean to sound rude, but this is a forum. If you wanted to talk to Ross in private and a public discussion ruins it for you - there are multiple ways to contact him. The way I see this discussion is: you like the liberties Eidos Montreal took with the Deus Ex franchise. Ross doesn't because they subtract from the original vision of the game, the way he and many others saw it. Even by saying HR is more theatrical than the first game, you do admit that the first Deus Ex was more grounded even if it was just because of technical limitations - it became a part of its identity. It's like, if a hotdog stand started selling out steaks, wouldn't it be an improvement? Most would say yes. But it changes the core of the venue. The gameplay of HR is better than that of Deus Ex (although I would say the level design is lacking in comparison, but that's a whole other can of worms), but its approach to storytelling and the storyline in general are radically different to that of Deus Ex, and even its Invisible War. And different isn't necessarily bad, but selling steaks from a hotdog stand just doesn't feel right.

You're right saying that most gamers don't care and will buy games made with bad business practices regardless of what happens around them - Call of Duty, Battlefield, Rock Band/Guitar Hero and sports games are the prime examples of this. But that isn't to say that the demographic of Deus Ex players is the same as the general one - it's a narrative-driven singleplayer game (don't get me started about Breach mode) with high focus on stealth. This narrows down your primary audience, and makes a collective outrage possible. And it's a financial dynamic. They want more of our money, and we want to give them less. On the other hand, we want more of the product, and they want to give us less with each transaction. It's how a company operates - if they could sell you Deus Ex on floppies and charge you a buck for each one, I'm sure they'll do that and call it "Vintage Edition". We as consumers can draw a line in the sand and show them that with a certain price-to-product ratio, there'll be a sharp drop in sales - even if that option is only suggested in the game. If there's intrusive DLC prompts - the entire game will suffer. If there are microtransactions instead of normal functionality - the entire game will suffer. This isn't even about gaining a higher ground and more bang for our bucks - it's about protecting what we already have. In the recent past there were public outcries about our candy getting smaller, and some of those decisions were reversed and we got bigger candy bars! We'll never get the biggest size we had due to it being a dynamic, but if we don't stand on our own our chocolate bars and games and cigarettes will keep on shrinking!

No, that's incorrect. They've been supported by Sony, but they have published their own game - they're indie because they're independent from any publisher. The amount of money involved has no bearing on this, although it's strongly related to the term if you're going for a statistical analysis. As someone who has served in the army, I can say it's probably true - talks tend to focus around sports, sex, and the commanders' bullshit orders as they come - but after some time doing patrols with someone, you talk more and more about things like "what the hell am I doing here, guarding this piece of desert?" and there's always some guy that's eager to talk about the bible once we've exhausted all other topics. So yes, it can be lead to some philosophical conversations! Also, some of the NSF guys in Liberty Island complain about JoJo being their superior officer. So even the conversations that aren't about philosophy hit the mark. As a fan, I don't really mind Ross doing RGDs on popular games as long as he has some unique insight about them, like the plot analysis in this one compared to the previous Deus Ex games. It helps me formulate WHY I personally didn't like Human Revolution as much - the world just seemed odd, like an episode in a sitcom: Everyone struggles with the same issue, and progress is made in parallel rather than on a personal level. It's like a hive-mind, only stupider. So there's merit even if he's tackling a well-known subject. I understand why people might be against it since it might seem tired and old, but he looks at things from a new perspective. Also, more people might be more knowledgeable on certain subject than Ross is, so it can lead to an outcry. But I still think his opinions add something new to the conversation, and therefore, currently I'm fine with whatever Ross wants to put out - whether it be RGDs on old games, new games, Ross Rants, Moon Gaming, whatever!

Why? Why would you choose to fight a bad practice only once it overtakes a business? Because let's face it - even if they do release games with paywalls, they're more likely to be smaller games first - and there you can't really hurt their wallet. You're letting potentially good games die because you're saying "currently, your greed hasn't crossed the line". Even then, you're letting at least one big title die - the game that'll have the massive outcry, or games if they're stupid enough to continue doing it. What if that game was, let's say, Deus Ex 5? Not only would it ruin that game, it would kind of ruin Mankind Divided too - as you're left with a cliffhanger you will never be able to resolve. Anyway, this goes a bit deeper. Once you have paywalls in your game, it's basically a time bomb - it's central server dependent. The same concept applies to microtransactions in general - and you can get around that pretty easily, but why should you download a trainer for your game once its online store is dead? What if it isn't a popular games and no trainers were made? Anyway, if Square Enix sells off Eidos - good! If it closes it down, well, the devs can form another studio. I hold no sentimentality towards companies, only towards people. But game publishers need to learn, and unfortunately, they only learn with quarterly reports. It's a burden on us, the consumers, to teach Square Enix and the industry in general, that they cannot sell us parts of the game we already paid for, or cheats or anything short of a complete experience. Once we let this slide once we get this and this and this from Square Enix. As shown by the last example, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided isn't even the worst of it yet.

Speaking in hypotheticals, let's say IKEA starts bundling every cupboard with a free pack of smokes. Those who smoke will like it, those who don't will probably ignore it. Those who have already quit smoking and know of its damages will probably rise up against it. This doesn't make the cupboards good or bad, but IKEA is a company and its moves are judged by other companies. If that particular series of cupboards sells well gets good reviews, IKEA might start packing cigarettes with other products - or maybe you'll get the new Cupboard 2000 from Sears with two packs of cigarettes - because why not? Conversely, if it fails, it doesn't mean others won't try doing the same thing - it just means they'll be discouraged doing so from the get go. In this analogy, smokers are mobile gamers, non-smokers are modern age gamers, and those who quit are long time gamers who have seen the degradation of AAA game design. So this isn't about whether the game is good or bad, it's about making a statement that might affect ALL games and their development, and the nature of game development from now on - it can be worse than it is, but others that remember the sixth generation and before know that we're basically paying for cheat codes. I feel, like many others, that we shouldn't pay for these things as they aren't extra content. Case in point - DLCs. It's a bad practice we allowed to grow and get worse - remember on-disc DLCs? As Ross said in one of his videos - we aren't opposed to extra content in principal, it's just we remember how it used to be beforehand - with mods and expansion packs. Now they're cutting off content essential to the game just because they can get away with it - it's the same if IKEA sold cupboard doors separately but still sold cupboards without them at the same price. So, yeah. It's unfair to Eidos Montreal, but Eidos Montreal already gets a steady paycheck from Square Enix, so nothing we do affects them and their game - good or bad as it may be. But if we don't buy and condemn it we send a message to Square Enix that this shit will not pass - and it's not just them we're sending a message to. EDIT: Typos and grammar. I blame sleep deprivation.

It's technically not unused. There is a way to trigger it in-game. Technically correct, but it's not something many people do - also, it's completely useless. When going to the NSF warehouse, you have to find the evidence, and instead of transmitting it - backtrack to Paul. You'd say you aren't defecting but you can't really do that, so you have to go back to the NSF warehouse and transmit the evidence anyway.

The first Fable let you kill everyone you meet, if I recall correctly. There are some NPCs that can only be killed at specific points in the plot (such as the Guildmaster in TLC endgame), but still. Also, if you buy the house after you kill its inhabitants, they don't respawn. You can not only have ghost towns, you can own them!

Most SNES carts only include the ROM data, and because of that, have easily reproducible carts. You generally won't have any problem with them and get the same experience as playing the original cart. However, some original carts also include unique subprocessors, which many of the repro carts do not reproduce at all or say they have some support for those chips by implementing an MSU1 - a modern processor that can be used to emulate the original ones. The performance in both cases is sketchy, and therefore you shouldn't buy repro carts of certain games or ROM hacks of those games. You can check out a list of those special games here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_NES_enhancement_chips

When I think more and more about it, I see that modding is a more fertile ground for innovation than making a game from the ground up - because when you make a game, you have to flesh out a concept, and that takes far more effort than just polishing it. Modding, however, takes an already fleshed out concept and makes it even better - either by tinkering or by adding auxiliary system. This allows for procedural updates that change the core of the game without having to wait for a whole game development cycle to experiment and tinker - and therefore, can accomplish far more in a far shorter time frame. This is on top having the original audience, who already enjoy the original game and have a frame of reference to say what works and what doesn't. Since those are the fans of the original product, they can say in what direction they want the future installments of the franchise to go in, or what the original studio needs to improve upon while designing new games. However, mods aren't the only sources of innovation - the Portal series, for example, has taken its inspiration from indie games, and they are far more common nowadays than they were. Plus, the practice of making a closed system without any chance for mods, or at least major mods is also increasing. So the trend is against modding, and they probably won't be the major source for innovation in the upcoming years, which is a real shame. I remember Unreal Tournament being released in a fancy 2 disc GOTY edition with a fan made Chaos mod, which add grappling hooks, more modifiers and turrets. It made Unreal Tournament more chaotic, but also something that resembles a bit more of Sin when playing with low gravity and grappling hooks. This was 17 years ago, and it just exemplifies the trend the game development community has gone through - instead of endorsing, accepting and incorporating mods into the core game to make it better and last through the years, it has gone to an almost oblivious stance on mods, with the exception of games that rely solely on mods - such as Bethesda games, which offer half baked and not fully thought-out concepts. Of course, CD Project Red does not follow any trends and nothing I said reflects on it.

I can recommend Matthewmatosis. He mainly does reviews, but also has 3 "Commentaries", as he calls them - let's plays that do in depth analysis of game and design features as they play out. He mainly comes up with those ones now, but they still aren't frequent due to the format he chose - he does those LPs in one huge chunk rather than breaking them up into episodes. Also, he has an Irish accent, and talks quite fast when compared to other YouTubers - so if you watch your videos on x2 speed, you might want to tone it down with him.

Please don't equate Donald Trump with despots and tyrants - he is many things. He is untrustworthy, ignorant, the center of many scams and a media whore - but there is no proof he plans on becoming the king of the USA, or that he is malicious towards it. If you're willing to demonize him you're just creating a situation where lies are accepted as reality, and the demonization of his opponent, Hillary, is far worse - at least when compared to reality. Also, say what you will about the Soviet and Communist rules, they were brutally efficient. You're also correct of them employing a secret police so any criticism was muted, therefore leading to a bias towards them by those objected by that rule. Also, those ruling system as they were implemented were deeply corrupt. The Soviet Union's higher ups' corruption is well documented, while China and North Korea say corruption doesn't exist and they fight it diligently - although evidence suggests otherwise. So, what can we gather from that? Corruption + Communism = bad? We also know that Corruption + Capitalism = bad, as evidenced by the civil war in Ukraine before it was taken over by Russia. I think that neither communism nor capitalism is inherently bad - they were just different approaches to dealing with the same situation, and capitalism lead to more growth that masked the corruption of those in power. Capitalism just leads to more growth due to incentivizing more people to succeed. I think that communism is a good end-of-life plan, though - when most of are jobs will be done by robots and most of the people won't have steady jobs, not because they lack the effort - but because the demand will be lower. Corruption can topple both of these things, whether it's malicious or just in pure self-interest of the corrupt, and it should be the priority of most people to get the power and money away from plutocrats before they stifle the growth towards a futuristic society, or ruin the implementation of a "perfect socialist state" when money is essentially meaningless.

Everyone's so focused about the hype and that it couldn't match expectations, that they don't discuss why the core concepts of No Man's Sky don't and can't make for a fun game on themselves. And as someone who has pretty much avoided the hype because I think I understood that from the get-go, I think it's a real let down because this game tried something everybody thought they wanted, but no one really wanted. Starting off with procedurally generated everything - this doesn't make for a fun game. When everything happens all at the same time, you just get chaos with no cause or goal - and therefore, in the large scheme of things, you as a player have no consequence on the world even if you could affect a certain thing - planet or animal or otherwise - as that thing happening already exists in the world, just in a different place. It just makes everything seem pointless, and while sightseeing tours can be fun in short bursts (like walking simulators), they can't engage unless they're telling a story and have actual direction. Proceeding with the vastness - vastness isn't a good thing. The "bigger" your game is, the larger is the average amount of time the player has to spend between every piece of unique content. Whether it be grinding or sailing (in The Wind Waker) or space flight (NMS), you're just wasting everybody's time. That's not to say if everything in a single game were compacted into a singular point in time it would've been better - there's a fitting length for every game - but if you're advertising bigness over actual content, you're just promoting mindless busywork. That's just the problem I've had with Bethesda games. Big overworld, lots of quests, but a lot of dead in between times where you're just grinding and walking through a mostly desolate world. I know it's an uncommon opinion, but I find all of them boring. There's probably a way to make a game that feels big but isn't and just funnels the player to new content at every turn, like an "open world" game with an Ironman mode and a timer, so you can't wander off too far without being pressured into reaching your objective. There are probably other ways to accomplish the same goal, like using the art design for that - the vistas in Half Life 2's episodes are a prime example for that. But I'm getting off topic. The combat in NMS seemed especially iffy from the trailers, because it was just point-and-shoot. No cover, no smart AI, not anything. This sort of "whoever has the best gun wins" without any consideration to player skill and only to player progression just reeks of a grindfest. At the time I didn't know you could upgrade you weapon by just wandering around and stumbling upon a schematic, but it's just the same busywork - instead of fighting mindlessly, you're walking/flying mindlessly to your next objective. It's just boring by definition. Also, they're an indie mobile studio tackling the most insane premise you could think of. Expected performance issues aside, the principles of modern mobile gaming just do not apply to serious gaming - whether it be the "choose your own adventure without understanding a word" (RNG with artificial choice elements) or mining/fighting (click to win), it's just badly designed. And it's not the fault of Hello Games either - it's the fault of the entire mobile industry, which is flooded with crap targeting and preying upon casual gamers and non gamers. With those 4 things in my mind, I didn't think once it's going to interest me or become a good game in my opinion. With no hype or expectations, there is no outrage. BULLET AVOIDED.

As said by Heliocentrical, GMDX addresses many of the clunky mechanics of the original game. It's a gameplay mod similar and yet radically different to Shifter and it brings Deus Ex, a game that's already on a level of its own, to a new level. It doesn't make you overpowered because the experience is smoother, either - if anything, it makes the game a bit harder and makes you own up to your mistakes. Also, I'd like to comment on TNM (The Nameless Mod) - it started as a mod featuring the Planet Deus Ex community on the old GameSpy forums, so it features a lot of its members. It revolves around this community of Deus Ex fans, newcomers and the administrators who moderate them. Some are childish, some are insane, most just like to talk with people who like the same game they do - if you were on a forum 10 years ago, it was a pretty common sight. So, yeah. A lot of in-jokes (which you can understand as you go along, as the entire forum setting comes to life) and a lot of insanity and wackiness that comes from things like representing an internet proxy and memes in a game. But also a lot of good level design, a fleshed-out world that semi-accurately represents an internet forum about a game with conspiracy theories, and a lot of good music. Seriously, Ross, if I can't get you to play TNM again until at least DXI, give a listen to the soundtrack. It's incredibly well done, and not just for a mod - the mastering outside the game for the standalone release is amazing, too. Anyway, TNM requires a lot of suspension of disbelief all throughout it - that's the nature of that setting and its portrayal in a FPS-RPG. But, also, it tells a coherent plot in that setting, with a pretty good execution all departments - level design, dialogue and character building to music. I consider it a must play, as it's a mod specifically designed for Deus Ex fans, by Deus Ex fans, and it hits all the right notes in spite of a ridiculous setting (pretty much equivalent to Deus Ex's layer 1 in Ross's analysis). Also, a great analysis. Did you know that in one of the textures in the gas station level, you see an accurate prediction of the 2011 (I think) gas price in the USA? Just sayin', Deus Ex might've been a message sent to us from the future in a way we can comprehend.

They've added more tracks to fit the moodier situations (I think one of the towers has a piano medley, for instance), but as far as I know, they're not totally revamping it. But if you want to supplement the soundtrack, just play any heavy metal album from your library in the background and turn the music down. From my experience, Black Sabbath, Eluveitie and Tiamat fit the mood.

This is a PSA because I don't want it to get lost in another topic, and lose people who have tried the previous version and gave up on it earlier this year. Slain! has been rebranded has Slain: Back from Hell and has a ton of fixes, better and more gothic-metal dialogue, more music, enhanced gameplay etc. etc.. It's basically a fully fleshed game now. It should also come to GoG very soon and it's basically DRM free as it is - the Steam version only has Steamworks. If you're new to this game, it's a metal-themed retro hack and slash. Its main attractions are the soundtrack, which mainly consists of guitar riffs from Celtic Frost's Curt Victor Bryant, and the visuals - every screenshot can a metal album cover. Also, fair warning - it's a bit on the hard side, but it's not Nintendo hard. Price of the game + DLC: $20.

Oculus has dropped its DRM suspiciously close to the release of this video, so it's one issue solved. Source: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/06/oculus-reverses-course-dumps-its-vr-headset-checking-drm/

Then please add ANY game that might fit the bill. I barely have time to dedicate to it - but whenever I have, I do fact check new entries.