>>718486078 (OP)
>real imsims are robust, meaningful and revolutionary
I played all the deus ex games. the first game has its strengths but is by no means perfect. it's got
>great soundtrack
>freedom of choice in terms of playstyle and some small choices in an otherwise railroaded plot
>some deep conversations between some characters while still being silly enough to be called camp
>a relatively intelligent story (as far as video games are concerned) that invites the player to explore the philosophical concepts behind the advance technology concepts like AI and cybernetics, the internet and human augmentation
sad to say, but this should be the norm, not the exception. if you want to call it revolutionary because it's a smart game for smart people, that says more about video games as a whole than it does about how revolutionary this title is, because underneath the hood it's not anything special. the 'imsim' design philosophy only has so much flexibility; you can play this game in a few different ways, but they primarily boil down to choosing between stealth or combat. JC is as smart as he's ever going to be, there are no speech skill checks and there aren't many side quests to use them on anyway. it's a game where you can abuse the level's geometry and boxes to climb past a fence that you're unable to breach with a multitool, or use LAMs to outright destroy it simply remove the obstacle in question.
it's not so much of a simulation as it is a small sandbox with various ideas for emergent gameplay but it's all predetermined by the devs. 'emergent gameplay' happens when a system is designed in such a way that you can do things with it that the devs didn't consider, and unless you're glitching and breaking the game, then you're not really doing that. the devs knew you were going to try to use boxes to climb over the fence; they knew you'd try to blow the door, and they knew you might invest in lockpicking so you can get past it that way.
