Thread: List of things people did not like/liked in DXHR - Thoughts & Suggestions

List of things people did not like/liked in DXHR - Thoughts & Suggestions

  1. #26
    Believe what you will. I don't think stealth/non-lethal was superior (enjoyable) as a playstyle because of how piss-easy and awesome button-laden it was, but my point on objectivity ("superior (in terms of xp rewarded and...)") is not debatable. It factually is easier to your gamer of average competence at both stealth and combat, it does factually reward more xp and therefore more power, it does grant you regenerating invisibility should you invest in it. The latter point being notable to stealth & not combat as firing a gun negates the invisibility effect.

    And for the record, spreadsheets are commonly used in the design process of game systems.

  2. #27
    Originally Posted by CyberP
    Believe what you will. I don't think stealth/non-lethal was superior (enjoyable) as a playstyle because of how piss-easy and awesome button-laden it was, but my point on objectivity ("superior (in terms of xp rewarded and...)") is not debatable. It factually is easier to your gamer of average competence at both stealth and combat, it does factually reward more xp and therefore more power, it does grant you regenerating invisibility should you invest in it. The latter point being notable to stealth & not combat as firing a gun negates the invisibility effect.

    And for the record, spreadsheets are commonly used in the design process of game systems.
    You're conflating "non-lethal" with "stealth." They're two different things (and HR goes out of its way to show them as two different things, giving you combat-based non-lethal weapons like the PAPS or Tranq Rifle).


    The "problem" is that your average gamer does not actually have "average competence at both stealth and combat." Stealth is a niche segment of gaming, while combat is anything but. Your average gamer has tons of combat experience, but much less stealth experience. Hence, the stealth is more difficult for them, and the combat more straightforward.


    I understand the value of spreadsheets and formulaic approach. But they do not make a game "good" or "bad."
    Mooberry the Cow God demands repentance and belief!

  3. #28
    Originally Posted by EternalAmbiguity
    You're conflating "non-lethal" with "stealth." They're two different things
    I am aware they are two different (but very closely related) things. Perhaps my use of a forward slash was not ideal, yet I always focus more on non-lethal stealth in my criticism as it is the optimal, most silent, most xp-rewarding and most easiest form of stealth. Though lethal stealth is still easy, non-lethal takes the cake and is encouraged in just about every way through terribly-balanced gameplay systems.

    The "problem" is that your average gamer does not actually have "average competence at both stealth and combat."
    No, the problem is DX:HR's stealth is garbage.

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    8
    Originally Posted by CyberP
    No, the problem is DX:HR's stealth is garbage.

  5. #30
    Originally Posted by CyberP
    I am aware they are two different (but very closely related) things. Perhaps my use of a forward slash was not ideal, yet I always focus more on non-lethal stealth in my criticism as it is the optimal, most silent, most xp-rewarding and most easiest form of stealth. Though lethal stealth is still easy, non-lethal takes the cake and is encouraged in just about every way through terribly-balanced gameplay systems.

    No, the problem is DX:HR's stealth is garbage.
    But non-lethal stealth being optimal is a strength of the game, not the drawback you think it is. In a COD world, games that encourage more thoughtful and nuanced play are simply better.

    ^^^ That's why it's debatable.

    How is the stealth garbage?
    Mooberry the Cow God demands repentance and belief!

  6. #31
    Originally Posted by EternalAmbiguity
    But non-lethal stealth being optimal is a strength of the game, not the drawback you think it is. In a COD world, games that encourage more thoughtful and nuanced play are simply better.

    ^^^ That's why it's debatable.

    How is the stealth garbage?
    Stealth itself is not garbage concept, but the way it is implemented in HR - makes stealth game-play borderline overpowered even for casual gamer in DX difficulty. You can skip all set of enemies with least amount of effort, or kill whole room if you bored and they do not even understand where you are. And game rewards you too well for it. True challenge of HR is, when you throw grenade to announce you are there and do full blown stand off - never-mind just throw gas grenade [or better yet - leave gas mine, they do not even turn hostile]. Also cover to cover-auto-roll-between-objects make you next to invisible to anything.

    I do not mean it was 'as terrible'. I just feel they could have made whole lurking around a bit more dangerous. I liked the spiders on vents on an old game for example. Small things like that which could give you away.
    Last edited by Dvaythavvar; 11th Apr 2015 at 19:41.

  7. #32
    One thing I didn't like was the lack of character development for a lot of the characters. The end-bosses in particular never really got any meaningful development or even a proper introduction really. Maybe that stuff was present in the support material, but you can't put most of your plot in the support material. The game itself should tell you all you need to know. I don't want to have to buy comics and books and figurines and water paintings in order to get the full story of the game I'm playing.

    Combat was terrible. Movement was awkward and not fluent in the least. For popamole combat the shooting from cover with iron sights also felt really clunky. Popping out, getting a sight picture, squeezing off a few rounds and getting back in cover was not a smooth operation. Enemy squad tactics were pretty laughable. I'd even dare say absent.

    Stealth wasn't as bad as the combat, but by no means was it fantastic. There was no light/dark mechanic. Ideally the stealth would be composed of Line of Sight, Sound and Light/Dark. While LoS made it in the sound was half-assed and light/dark mechanic was completely absent. The pretty poor AI made stealth too easy. I'd like to see better coordinated searches and a reaction when a guard suddenly goes missing. Have he AI react better to sound clues as well. Now it barely mattered if you were quiet or threw a grenade down the opposite corridor. Try to get them to deal with vents in a reasonable way. They should be handy means of staying out of sight. Not impenetrable bunkers that the guards can't deal with. Also give the player better tools. You were pretty dependent on the 3rd person cover mechanic and all the acrobatic rolling. The rolling also apparently turned you invisible. Movement in 1st person wasn't that great.

    The XP mechanic was terrible. Giving the most points for tranqing everybody and hacking everything even when you have the code was not the way to go forward. It encouraged one single playstyle and mode all other modes of play just a means of handicapping yourself. Keep the XP for completing objectives and some exploration.
    Rule 30: A little trust goes a long way. The less you use, the further you'll go.

  8. #33
    Originally Posted by EternalAmbiguity
    But non-lethal stealth being optimal is a strength of the game, not the drawback you think it is.
    Yes it very much is a drawback.

    In a COD world, games that encourage more thoughtful and nuanced play are simply better.
    Somewhat agreeable (arcade-y games can be great fun if well-designed) yet irrelevant to the argument you are making.

    How is the stealth garbage?
    It's a landfill full of it.

  9. #34
    The thing I hated most about DX:HR that really ruined the experience more then anything else was the ending. Everything went off the rails at the end and it was obvious the ending was truncated because of budgets and deadlines.

  10. #35
    Originally Posted by Dvaythavvar
    Stealth itself is not garbage concept, but the way it is implemented in HR - makes stealth game-play borderline overpowered even for casual gamer in DX difficulty. You can skip all set of enemies with least amount of effort, or kill whole room if you bored and they do not even understand where you are. And game rewards you too well for it. True challenge of HR is, when you throw grenade to announce you are there and do full blown stand off - never-mind just throw gas grenade [or better yet - leave gas mine, they do not even turn hostile]. Also cover to cover-auto-roll-between-objects make you next to invisible to anything.

    I do not mean it was 'as terrible'. I just feel they could have made whole lurking around a bit more dangerous. I liked the spiders on vents on an old game for example. Small things like that which could give you away.
    It's a single-player game. There's nothing wrong with an "over-powered" playstyle. This isn't DMC or Ninja Gaiden--the purpose of the game isn't simply being difficult. And I thought stealth was plenty difficult a few times (the time when you go to Zhao's room and she tricks you then sends a squad after being one of them).

    That said, I do understand stealth being less realistic than it should have been (the bad line-of-sights for one).

    Originally Posted by CyberP
    Yes it very much is a drawback.

    Somewhat agreeable (arcade-y games can be great fun if well-designed) yet irrelevant to the argument you are making.

    It's a landfill full of it.
    And I say it's not a drawback.

    We can go back and forth on a "nuh uh!" and "yes huh!" forever, or you could explain what is bad about optimal play-styles.

    My statement isn't irrelevant at all: I'm saying that a gameplay type that is "more thoughtful and nuanced" (sneaking around avoiding lines-of-sight as opposed to going loud with every enemy you see) is superior simply by its very nature, and reflecting that in the XP system is only good design. There is no necessity, especially in a single-player game, to give all playstyles the same reward.

    That isn't quite my viewpoint, but it's easily debatable.

    How is the stealth garbage? The fact that you're not going into specifics makes me wonder if you actually have a point here.
    Mooberry the Cow God demands repentance and belief!

  11. #36
    Originally Posted by EternalAmbiguity
    It's a single-player game. There's nothing wrong with an "over-powered" playstyle. This isn't DMC or Ninja Gaiden--the purpose of the game isn't simply being difficult. And I thought stealth was plenty difficult a few times (the time when you go to Zhao's room and she tricks you then sends a squad after being one of them).

    That said, I do understand stealth being less realistic than it should have been (the bad line-of-sights for one).
    I think the problem here is two sided. 1st there are now many games that utilize sound and light much better and, when a game focuses on stealth so much as HR - stealth must be designed to be more advanced than in games, where it is secondary feature.

    And other is that overpower feeling in single players games is likely a must have feature and important feature, but in my eyes it should be left for 'normal' difficulties. And I love being overpowered too in some games or least by the last 1/4 of the game. But here we have hardest difficulty which really does not differ from previous difficulty. I did not even know bosses had more HP because, when you play in DC version of HR you have so much EXP coming from your nose that you can have hacking pimped up early on and still get your typhoon sorted. And this way there's no difference between normal and hard in HR.

    Even single player games should have the option to challenge yourself. Perhaps have more ground lasers [there are those pillars in missing link] ? Spiderbots ? Flying drones? Enemies or stealth generators that drain your energy while cloaked? Take town having chance to fail or not kill ? There are many difficulty boosters they could add. For example playing Hitman on hardest difficulty made me crawl back to my hole. HR DX difficulty ? *shrugs*

    To sum up : Overpowered feel is good and even needed in single player games, but there should always be the option for challenge mode for people who seek doing things on equal level or even perhaps under powered level. Like I said somewhere already. For all the love I have for HR, the difference between middle and highest difficulty was eating few more candy-bars. And in my case mainly for double typhoon. Admitted 1st boss took 3 typhoons so i had to run a bit. But just a bit for regen. And so I feel that stealth in HR was either too good, or enemy AI was too bad.
    Last edited by Dvaythavvar; 11th Apr 2015 at 21:36. Reason: Graemmar, I none, know.

  12. #37
    Originally Posted by Dvaythavvar
    I think the problem here is two sided. 1st there are now many games that utilize sound and light much better and, when a game focuses on stealth so much as HR - stealth must be designed to be more advanced than in games, where it is secondary feature.

    And other is that overpower feeling in single players games is likely a must have feature and important feature, but in my eyes it should be left for 'normal' difficulties. And I love being overpowered too in some games or least by the last 1/4 of the game. But here we have hardest difficulty which really does not differ from previous difficulty. I did not even know bosses had more HP because, when you play in DC version of HR you have so much EXP coming from your nose that you can have hacking pimped up early on and still get your typhoon sorted. And this way there's no difference between normal and hard in HR.

    Even single player games should have the option to challenge yourself. Perhaps have more ground lasers [there are those pillars in missing link] ? Spiderbots ? Flying drones? Enemies or stealth generators that drain your energy while cloaked? Take town having chance to fail or not kill ? There are many difficulty boosters they could add. For example playing Hitman on hardest difficulty made me crawl back to my hole. HR DX difficulty ? *shrugs*

    To sum up : Overpowered feel is good and even needed in single player games, but there should always be the option for challenge mode for people who seek doing things on equal level or even perhaps under powered level. Like I said somewhere already. For all the love I have for HR, the difference between middle and highest difficulty was eating few more candy-bars. And in my case mainly for double typhoon. Admitted 1st boss took 3 typhoons so i had to run a bit. But just a bit for regen. And so I feel that stealth in HR was either too good, or enemy AI was too bad.
    I agree that the hardest difficulty should definitely be hard. I don't know about the Typhoon though--that thing should be super powerful. Perhaps it would have been better to have like no ammo for it, maybe a single ammo at each hub and no drops.
    Mooberry the Cow God demands repentance and belief!

  13. #38
    Originally Posted by EternalAmbiguity
    There's nothing wrong with an "over-powered" playstyle.
    [B]"Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational, or psychological role."

    I expect all games to provide at least a moderate challenge otherwise a key component is lost, as can the mental stimulation aspect be, and as a result it can be difficult to even consider such a product a game. Would you get a kick out of a game of football, your team consisting of professional players bringing their A game, the opposing team a bunch of 5 year olds?

    t's a single-player game.
    It being singleplayer or not is irrelevant. Rules and challenge remain key components.

    The fact that you're not going into specifics makes me wonder if you actually have a point here.
    I've gone over it enough times on this board. Enjoy your mindless mechanics & systems that you fail to recognize as such.
    Last edited by CyberP; 11th Apr 2015 at 23:13.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    2,362
    I'd like more tactility with the world this time. I was saddened that you couldn't walk around holding a plant pot in HR.

    Wouldn't mind staying first person if I like: cover, and being able to look around at things whilst climbing ladders. They are great vantage points.

    More books/papers to read this time, more consumables, less single-minded NPC chatter on the streets about augmentations.

    Perhaps wider, open environments. If my memory serves me right, most of the areas within HR are quite cramped. Sometimes it's fantastic, like in Hengsha where being packed in is half the point, but there's something great about a wide open area to run around in.

  15. #40
    Originally Posted by CyberP
    [B]"Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational, or psychological role."

    I expect all games to provide at least a moderate challenge otherwise a key component is lost, as can the mental stimulation aspect be, and as a result it can be difficult to even consider such a product a game. Would you get a kick out of a game of football, your team consisting of professional players bringing their A game, the opposing team a bunch of 5 year olds?

    It being singleplayer or not is irrelevant. Rules and challenge remain key components.

    I've gone over it enough times on this board. Enjoy your mindless mechanics & systems that you fail to recognize as such.
    I don't deny the validity of challenge. Heck, I just finished a "Son of Sparda" playthrough of DMC4 a few weeks ago. I deny the necessity of challenge. There are many games out there that break various elements of your so-called "key components."

    And further, the idea of "moderate challenge" is hilariously subjective, it is anything but objective. When I first played Dragon Age Origins on my computer on Normal, I had to use the console command "killallhostiles" many, many times, because the challenge was too high for me. Now, with a mod where I literally don't even have to control the combat, I play on Hard and it's very easy.

    Similarly, I grew up on RTSes, and one of those was Age of Empires II. I found the game challenging enough on Normal with multiple enemies fighting each other, but I know a man (who, granted, had all day to play pretty much every day) would take on the maximum amount of enemies at the maximum difficulty level and beat them all.

    So to recap, I deny that challenge is a necessity, and that the concept of "normal" or "moderate challenge" is in any way objective. I certainly understand the value of a challenge in challenge-specific environments, such as a higher difficulty level, but again dispute its necessity on any "normal" level.

    To return to the idea of necessity, your "key components" are not necessary outside of the final one, interaction (I would say rules are intrinsic but not necessary).

    Your example isn't relevant. You're comparing an intrinsically competitive sport to something that is not intrinsically competitive, games, at all. When I play The Sims I don't have to do "better" than anyone. When I play Civilization I don't have to do "better" than anyone (until that inexplicable moment that the AI randomly decides to declare war). When I play Dear Esther I don't have to do "better" than anyone. When I play Life is Strange I don't have to do "better" than anyone. When I play Euro Truck Simulator, Mount & Blade, X3: Reunion, Microsoft Flight Simulator...I don't have to do "better" than anyone else. I could go on but I'm sure you get my point.

    My point is that the very goal of football is to "beat" someone. That is the entire purpose. But there is no universal "goal" of games outside of maybe interaction. So your example is flawed.

    It being a single-player game is entirely relevant. Being single-player, it is irrelevant for one playstyle to be superior to another--because videogames don't (and Deus Ex in particular doesn't) have a universal "it must be challenging" criteria.

    "I've said it so many times I won't bother saying it again" is a statement that means that one has nothing to say. Are you really expecting people who want to hear your reasoning to sift through random old threads to find them? No one will do that.
    Mooberry the Cow God demands repentance and belief!

  16. #41
    Originally Posted by EternalAmbiguity
    I agree that the hardest difficulty should definitely be hard. I don't know about the Typhoon though--that thing should be super powerful. Perhaps it would have been better to have like no ammo for it, maybe a single ammo at each hub and no drops.
    Maybe Typhoon should have been unlocked with a quest later in the game rather than praxis . Ability to take down anything and everything so soon in a game with just pressing F2 perhaps is maybe a small deal, but strong enough emotion to feel that whole balance is tipped off. I, know, typhoon is supposed to be "wtf I just did !" weapon, but maybe they should have restricted its use more. Powerful ability should have equally strong penalty. Sure there was billions of dollars put into jensen and he should be one bad mofo, but he is not one of a kind - his enemies should be bad mofos too.

    Anyway for me here is/should be difference on story mode-normal-hard difficulties in game. Normal should be challenging, but not complex and allow player gain power in swifter way and AI should eventually perhaps fall slightly behind. however Hardest difficulty of a game should be "oh drat" and by the way try playing Skyrim (known easy game)legendary difficulty. Bethesda f***ed that up so badly that you can be fully geared know most dragonshouts and still the dragon CAN 1 shot you at your level 60+ (level most payers don't even get to or do not even know there are as many levels in Skyrim) and I didnt even mod my skyrims combat /because I dont believe in player combat systems being balanced/. Oh and still at L65 or so I didn't want to argue with guards as they did follow me across the town and hurt if I mistakenly hit one.
    Last edited by Dvaythavvar; 12th Apr 2015 at 07:14.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    1
    Originally Posted by EternalAmbiguity
    "I've said it so many times I won't bother saying it again" is a statement that means that one has nothing to say. Are you really expecting people who want to hear your reasoning to sift through random old threads to find them? No one will do that.
    You're free to click his name, look at his activity, and search stealth... But I'll do it for you...

    Originally Posted by CyberP
    Yeah HR was definitely a Stealth/Action RPG-lite. And indeed DX1 was an Stealth/Action RPG Immersive Sim.
    Originally Posted by CyberP
    Eidos noted fans who played stealthily enjoyed the game more
    Said fans are completely blind. A focus on combat when it was the stealth that was in desperate need of redesign was misguided. ...
    And the gem of a post I'm sure he was referring to in particular...

    Originally Posted by CyberP
    C'mon people, be realistic here. Regenerating invisibility. Regenerating. That is worse than regenerating health.
    Multiple stealth tools that give you such an advantage over the environment and your enemies that it really is not engaging at all, and throwing third person cover on top just to be sure.
    The primary means of taking out your enemies non-lethally is a damn time-stopping win button.
    I feel it features the worst design of stealth gameplay I've ever seen in a game. Metal Gear Solid had a radar and third person cover, but it also had a limited overview perspective as the primary perspective. Thief had sound and light levels as the primary tools of outsmarting your enemies. Tenchu had "Ninja senses" and little else. Splinter Cell too had very few such tools. Syphon filter is another with just third person and a radar. Deus Ex 1 had the same as Thief, and limited cloaking that only protected you against one of the two primary enemy types. Manhunt had light levels and sound. Human Revolution however had EVERYTHING, with regenerating invisibility thrown on top for good measure. Well, everything except the logical light levels and decent sound systems that are typical to first person stealth.

    The gunplay in HR too was far from ideal, but at least the augmented gun battles could be intense at times.

  18. #43
    For me the worst things were conversations between random npcs(transhumanism is the ONLY thing they discuss), inability to talk to npcs except for questgivers, there was nothing interesting happening in city hubs, no motivation to explore them outside of reading some emails. And another thing is an awful implementation of player's movement in the game world i.e. no sense of weight, jumping, walking and running all felt clunky and unnatural.

  19. #44
    Originally Posted by Terenty
    For me the worst things were conversations between random npcs(transhumanism is the ONLY thing they discuss), inability to talk to npcs except for questgivers, there was nothing interesting happening in city hubs, no motivation to explore them outside of reading some emails. And another thing is an awful implementation of player's movement in the game world i.e. no sense of weight, jumping, walking and running all felt clunky and unnatural.
    On this light I liked breaking windows with sword on Invisible War for example. I missed breaking into random places or shop windows So i at times just shot TVs with my weapons, but it didnt feel same.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Croatia
    Posts
    4,673
    Originally Posted by Spyhopping
    Perhaps wider, open environments. If my memory serves me right, most of the areas within HR are quite cramped. Sometimes it's fantastic, like in Hengsha where being packed in is half the point, but there's something great about a wide open area to run around in.
    Add more side missions, which might be important for the rest of the game, to these wide areas and we have a game.

    It would also be nice to be able to just stand and admire design of the environment from time to time. Though I think HR's wasn't bad, I didn't often feel like looking around to notice how creative the design of environment was. Belltower dock did make me stop for a minute, but I felt depressed in Detroit.


    Originally Posted by Terenty
    For me the worst things were conversations between random npcs(transhumanism is the ONLY thing they discuss), inability to talk to npcs except for questgivers, there was nothing interesting happening in city hubs, no motivation to explore them outside of reading some emails.
    It wasn't enjoyable to read about augmentation only, I had to make myself do that and eventually I gave up bored to death. Exploring, on the other hand, wasn't as bad for me. Finding some new paths, occasional side missions and picking up stuff like vodka was fun.
    Last edited by IvanaKC; 12th Apr 2015 at 15:00.

  21. #46
    1.I want bigger environments to explore.It simply felt closed in with DXHR.

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    56
    I hated the music in some parts, it felt like McCann threw in a few loops together to get his paycheck.
    I'd love to hear something closer to Skrillex, because dubstep is my favorite genre in music, and add a few rap lyrics like in Persona games to make it even sweeter. Persona sells well, so adding some elements from there will definitely boost sales.

    I also disliked long conversations. No point in debating so much when you can simply say "drop the gun, asswipe", blood is pumping, music wubwubwub and you feel rewarded for taking down an enemy in a cool, gangsta way. Listen to some bands/artists from my homeland, like Kartellen or Ken Ring to get the feeling that really matches Deus Ex.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    The Mythical City on the Hill
    Posts
    3,671
    Originally Posted by bluffit
    1.I want bigger environments to explore.It simply felt closed in with DXHR.
    I thought it hit a good balance, about as open as Deus Ex, and not as claustrophobic as Invisible War.

    (click image to enlarge)

  24. #49
    And for some reason EM think that augmentation and transhumanism is the main theme of Deus ex:

    "For 15 years, Deus Ex has been a point of conversation across the games industry and beyond, whether the topic is the franchise’s unique gameplay or topical narrative focused on advanced biotechnology and human augmentation..." - David Anfossi

  25. #50
    Originally Posted by Terenty
    And for some reason EM think that augmentation and transhumanism is the main theme of Deus ex:

    "For 15 years, Deus Ex has been a point of conversation across the games industry and beyond, whether the topic is the franchise’s unique gameplay or topical narrative focused on advanced biotechnology and human augmentation..." - David Anfossi
    Anfossi either has no clue what DX1 is about, or he wants to defend using the same theme for two games (and likely more). DX1 is a socio/political critique established through the various government conspiracies presented in the game; trans-humanism (as a societal issue) was but one topic touched upon to add depth to a few characters and to capture the imbalance of power between augmented UNATCO agents and the common folk (NSF, etc). Looking back at the instances where nano augmentation has been brought up, it becomes apparent that its primary purpose in the story is to show how far corporations and the government are willing to go to achieve their goals. This is reverberated when the player speaks with Leo Gold, Lebedev, Everett, Tong, and many others. There is no "debate" about trans-humanism, it's just another tool that adds atmosphere.

    What's really amazing is that if you completely take everything about human augmentation out of DX1, the story still manages to hold up reasonably well. The ending and some story elements may need some adjustments here and there, but the overall effectiveness of the story almost remains untouched.

    No matter how many times EM brings up trans-humanism, it won't make a game intelligent or smart. I've already said this numerous times, but basing a game on such a tug-of-war moral topic is no better than making a game about abortion or gay marriage.

Page 2 of 4 First First 1234 Last