Talk:Deus Ex

Untitled

We're moving Deus Ex development onto 2010 page to the modifications page because of irrelevance to the series page. I feel that this could be linked from the category box. --21:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

There is an official novel on Amazon, Deus Ex: Icarus Effect. Never heard of it until now and apparently neither has Wikipedia. Could probably use a mention here, along with the upcoming DC comic adaptation. Phlegat (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. @Steel1943: Note that some pages may need cleaning up as a result of the new title. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

---

• Deus Ex (series) → Deus Ex
• Deus Ex → Deus Ex (video game)

– The Deus Ex series seems to meet the following criteria on WP:NCVG:

"...If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series (e.g., Final Fantasy), the series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with "... (series)"."

...So, with that being said, should the series page be moved to the base title? Steel1943 (talk) 00:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I started this request in response to a contested move request on WP:RMTR: Request. However, since I wanted to add my own rationale for this, I performed this move request in this manner. Steel1943 (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support I'm fine with the proposed move. I should note that I reverted the initial move while patrolling, due to it being unexplained with no discussion. I did not see any evidence by the moving user (Neverrainy) that there was more going on other than an unnecessary disamb move at the time. -- ferret (talk) 00:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support per naming guidelines on game series. — JFG ^talk 16:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support with at least 4 games and many as successful as the first, the series is the common name now. --MASEM (t) 16:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support It follows the criteria of WP:NCVGDAB. 86.130.199.246 (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fixing redirects

So who wants to go fixing redirects?  :-) — Dispenser 18:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A quick glance at the broken redirects suggests they were broken prior to the page move, due to a page merger of Deus Ex characters over two years ago. They appear to be quite old and point to sections that have long been removed from either article (Likely under WP:VGSCOPE guidelines). I'll try to remove the section anchors later today if no one else gets to it. -- ferret (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I did a few, but since I usually edit using a mobile, I cannot use WP:AWB to fix them all real quick. Anyone can be my guest; I think I got burnt out after the first 100 or so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

100? There's only 58. Or do you mean you're changing any wikilinks using them? -- ferret (talk) 20:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I meant that some of the links to Deus Ex may still need to be updated to link to Deus Ex (video game). (Yeah, I misunderstood the original query in this section.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

...And I seemed to find the time and drive to fix the rest of the incoming links, so I updated the related remplate. Steel1943 (talk) 20:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

All broken redirects fixed. -- ferret (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deus Ex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.gamespy.com/articles/april02/dxbible/dx1/index.shtm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105022823/http://www.avault.com/reviews/pc/deus-ex-pc-review/ to http://www.avault.com/reviews/pc/deus-ex-pc-review/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Deus Ex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131007071116/http://uk.gamespot.com/news/qanda-invisible-wars-harvey-smith-6092978 to http://uk.gamespot.com/news/qanda-invisible-wars-harvey-smith-6092978
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823185358/http://uk.gamespot.com/news/warren-spector-exits-eidos-6112661 to http://uk.gamespot.com/news/warren-spector-exits-eidos-6112661

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Development timeline

"Untitled Deus Ex game" release at the future is not officially confirmed anywhere. Merko (talk) 07:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deus Ex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 17:47, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Gommeh (talk · contribs) 19:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll get this one. Expect comments in the coming days. Gommeh 📖/🎮 19:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Mostly good. The instances of "Deus Ex Universe" and "immersive sim" don't need quotes around them, so I would axe them unless they are being quoted from a source.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Spot check of a few random sources confirms that most sources are reliable and back up claims. I have a slight concern about source 44 being used to cite "A new Deux Ex game [...] fans of the original Deus Ex" due to it being an interview (therefore WP:PRIMARY), but it is accompanied by a citation to source 76. Just something to think about. Additionally, the last two paragraphs in the reception section have multiple instances of five or six citations back-to-back, which should be avoided as it just doesn't look good. I'd suggest either finding a way to split those up or delete some of them.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The setting and narrative sections, while they do go over the main aspects of the games, I feel like they could afford to go into more detail about the games themselves instead of just linking to the games' articles. More details about the plot could be potentially used here, perhaps taken from the sources on the respective games' articles. Additionally, are there any more things you could possibly include in the gameplay section as well? Finally, I feel you could go over what the sources say in more detail in the reception section, particularly sources 135 through 149.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Information appears neutral for the most part. My only suggestion is the criticism sentence should either be expanded upon or deleted depending on what the sources say. Additionally, in the last paragraph you go from talking about praise to criticism and back again; I'd split it up more clearly into praise and criticism sections.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This is a high quality article, however I think work could still be done to push it over the top. There are a few minor punctuation issues that don't stop it from becoming a GA, but the sourcing issues I mentioned at #2 and #3 above are significant enough to need reworking. Having said that though, I do believe that with time this has the potential to become a GA. If I were you, I'd take the time to think about the comments I've just given you and how best to address them, then re-nominate again.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Release Date

I played this game in 1999, it definitely came out then, not 2000... It seems like a minor detail, but it's always struck me as bizarre a simple fact like that could be gotten wrong by so many people... --~2026-41803-6 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2026 (UTC)