Poll: Which Deus Ex: Human Revolution Ending did you choose? *SPOILERS*
- Thread starter Danpascooch
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ehm well "kill a lot of inocent" ehm whom is still alive more than a few corporate and media people? ;-P
My second run of the last "level" I more or less made it a clean house got bored since I had the "not getting shocked" Aug so well a few shots and a few EMP's made it with some hacking made the ending really meh boring...
But I choose Taggart one 'cause thats what I would like and who cares about the Ilumintati, I just kicked like their super butt quite a few times...
My second run of the last "level" I more or less made it a clean house got bored since I had the "not getting shocked" Aug so well a few shots and a few EMP's made it with some hacking made the ending really meh boring...
But I choose Taggart one 'cause thats what I would like and who cares about the Ilumintati, I just kicked like their super butt quite a few times...
In my opinion, ALL of the endings sucked.
I didn't give a shit about any of them. The "Real-world" montages didn't show us how it changed anything; there was no follow-up to how it mattered to Jensen or what he did; just some philosophical ramblings.
Compared to the original, whose endings you unlocked by taking different actions. And the game actually followed through on them.
Yet I understand why they did it this way: the ending has to be open-ended enough that you don't get a paradox. So the nano-augmentation project that drives the original Deus Ex goes ahead.
Very disappointing, really. But just about everything up to that point was pretty damn good (I'd say the game ceased being remotely challenging by the time you leave Singapore; just about everything was plot at that point).
Though the post-credits ending made up for that mess somewhat.
As for my choice: If you put a gun to my head and asked whose ideal I would support the most, I'd grudgingly say "Hugh Doward". It's the truth of the matter. Yes, global riots would occur, heads would certainly roll. But one cannot truly grow or mature without the truth. That's my bullshit-philosophy quota for the day. Take it or leave it.
I didn't give a shit about any of them. The "Real-world" montages didn't show us how it changed anything; there was no follow-up to how it mattered to Jensen or what he did; just some philosophical ramblings.
Compared to the original, whose endings you unlocked by taking different actions. And the game actually followed through on them.
Yet I understand why they did it this way: the ending has to be open-ended enough that you don't get a paradox. So the nano-augmentation project that drives the original Deus Ex goes ahead.
Very disappointing, really. But just about everything up to that point was pretty damn good (I'd say the game ceased being remotely challenging by the time you leave Singapore; just about everything was plot at that point).
Though the post-credits ending made up for that mess somewhat.
As for my choice: If you put a gun to my head and asked whose ideal I would support the most, I'd grudgingly say "Hugh Doward". It's the truth of the matter. Yes, global riots would occur, heads would certainly roll. But one cannot truly grow or mature without the truth. That's my bullshit-philosophy quota for the day. Take it or leave it.
Hugh Darrows. I am personally against this kind of augmentation, and had hoped there would be an ending as to sort of.. Get a grip on all this augmentation, and just stop it. Hugh Darrows was the closest to that, besides, I feel people should know the truth.
I picked Sarif's first.
Darrow's would make me obsolete, along with roughly 20% of the population some way or another. Which could cause serious issues.
Taggart's was wide open to be completely influenced by the Illuminati into doing exactly what they had planned all along.
Self-destruct kills me.
Sarif's is a breeding ground for corporate corruption, but it allows for innovation and eventually cheaper augmentation without neuropozyne due to Reed's research.
Darrow's would make me obsolete, along with roughly 20% of the population some way or another. Which could cause serious issues.
Taggart's was wide open to be completely influenced by the Illuminati into doing exactly what they had planned all along.
Self-destruct kills me.
Sarif's is a breeding ground for corporate corruption, but it allows for innovation and eventually cheaper augmentation without neuropozyne due to Reed's research.
Loved this game to death. And while, like many people, I wished there had been a bit more to the endings, I didn't mind them so much. The way they were, there's no direct conflict with canon and each one neatly sums up the philosophical conceits of the game's factions.
Anyway, this was a REALLY hard choice for me. I was never going to choose Darrow (when I found out that he was motivated by his lack of ability to accept augs, I was so mad that I killed him on the spot) and I didn't really have any qualms about blaming the Humanity Front (a bunch of annoying luddites). But I think Taggart was morally right. There needs to be some form of oversight for the augmentation industry, as there needs to be with any industry. We have the FDA, the FAA, the SEC--all valuable real-world organizations that not only protect the common man, but also employ those protections to ultimately make better products.
But one thing I admired greatly about the game (in contrast to, say, Invisible War or BioShock) is that it never paints its choices as philosophical absolutes. The debate over augmentation isn't one between people of science and people of faith, between left and right, or even one of class--it's highly nuanced, and there are people in the world who both fear and admire the possible implications of the technology. Given that, it's impossible to look at the game's endings as simple absolutes of "yes," "no," or "maybe," even assuming Eliza Cassan's assertion that she can convince the public of the veracity of any of the messages.
So with that in mind, I chose Sarif's ending. There may be a need for regulation, but it has to evolve naturally. Otherwise, all the other citizens of the world are going to see is that the folks with metal in their bodies started going crazy and attacking everyone. And unless you paint it as a drastic measure by an extremist organization, there is a risk that augmented technologies and people will be marginalized, trampled or even outright purged, and the risk of a second Dark Age is too great. It's not pretty, but to build the perfect world, you need a few bodies in the foundation. The same thing goes for the perfect human.
Wow, long post is LOOOOOOOONG. Sorry about that, guys!
-J
Anyway, this was a REALLY hard choice for me. I was never going to choose Darrow (when I found out that he was motivated by his lack of ability to accept augs, I was so mad that I killed him on the spot) and I didn't really have any qualms about blaming the Humanity Front (a bunch of annoying luddites). But I think Taggart was morally right. There needs to be some form of oversight for the augmentation industry, as there needs to be with any industry. We have the FDA, the FAA, the SEC--all valuable real-world organizations that not only protect the common man, but also employ those protections to ultimately make better products.
But one thing I admired greatly about the game (in contrast to, say, Invisible War or BioShock) is that it never paints its choices as philosophical absolutes. The debate over augmentation isn't one between people of science and people of faith, between left and right, or even one of class--it's highly nuanced, and there are people in the world who both fear and admire the possible implications of the technology. Given that, it's impossible to look at the game's endings as simple absolutes of "yes," "no," or "maybe," even assuming Eliza Cassan's assertion that she can convince the public of the veracity of any of the messages.
So with that in mind, I chose Sarif's ending. There may be a need for regulation, but it has to evolve naturally. Otherwise, all the other citizens of the world are going to see is that the folks with metal in their bodies started going crazy and attacking everyone. And unless you paint it as a drastic measure by an extremist organization, there is a risk that augmented technologies and people will be marginalized, trampled or even outright purged, and the risk of a second Dark Age is too great. It's not pretty, but to build the perfect world, you need a few bodies in the foundation. The same thing goes for the perfect human.
Wow, long post is LOOOOOOOONG. Sorry about that, guys!
-J
For me the decision was an easy one, no doubts here, since I felt strong about this throughout the game: I took the Hugh Darrow ending.
My reason is simple: if humans would allow Augmentations, over time they would evolve into Borg, a mostly cybernetic race and lose all what makes us human. I abhorred this vision! As it was seen, humans with cyber implants can be directly controlled in some way, there would be a danger someone makes uber soliders asf. I saw it has an terrible vision of humanity losing what makes us human. No way!
Sarif was a greedy man who cared only for his profit and lied to Jensen all the time. Taggart was playing too much games and wasn't really interested in humanity. And just nuking the place would solve nothing; then all Jensen did would have been for nothing.
No, it was a clear choice for me. And humanity deserved to know the truth. Augments need to be taboo. Forever.
My reason is simple: if humans would allow Augmentations, over time they would evolve into Borg, a mostly cybernetic race and lose all what makes us human. I abhorred this vision! As it was seen, humans with cyber implants can be directly controlled in some way, there would be a danger someone makes uber soliders asf. I saw it has an terrible vision of humanity losing what makes us human. No way!
Sarif was a greedy man who cared only for his profit and lied to Jensen all the time. Taggart was playing too much games and wasn't really interested in humanity. And just nuking the place would solve nothing; then all Jensen did would have been for nothing.
No, it was a clear choice for me. And humanity deserved to know the truth. Augments need to be taboo. Forever.
I went with Self-Destruct, but it wasn't an easy choice. Like the original, there were no choices I liked 100%.
I'm inclined towards the future Sarif envisioned and from my conversations with him in the game and my bits of spying I did I was always convinced that he was pretty sincere in his goal to use technology for the betterment of humanity, in a way that I never got from the other two. But at the same time I was uncomfortable with his willingness to cheat and tweak the truth here and there to get at the future he wanted, and basing the future on a big lie didn't seem like a good way to start, to me. And I realised that while this was the future I wanted, I couldn't force it on people.
Furthermore I have a vaguely optimistic view of humanity's will to progress - despite everything corrupt and bad now, on average humanity has still never have it better: taken as a whole, we're living longer, more tolerant of eachother's differences and have more time to ourselves. It's very far from utopia, still, but it's an upward trend when you take the LONG view. And so something about letting humanity figure things out for itself without me forcing its hand had a certain appeal, even if it did mean some people in the local area had to die.
I'm inclined towards the future Sarif envisioned and from my conversations with him in the game and my bits of spying I did I was always convinced that he was pretty sincere in his goal to use technology for the betterment of humanity, in a way that I never got from the other two. But at the same time I was uncomfortable with his willingness to cheat and tweak the truth here and there to get at the future he wanted, and basing the future on a big lie didn't seem like a good way to start, to me. And I realised that while this was the future I wanted, I couldn't force it on people.
Furthermore I have a vaguely optimistic view of humanity's will to progress - despite everything corrupt and bad now, on average humanity has still never have it better: taken as a whole, we're living longer, more tolerant of eachother's differences and have more time to ourselves. It's very far from utopia, still, but it's an upward trend when you take the LONG view. And so something about letting humanity figure things out for itself without me forcing its hand had a certain appeal, even if it did mean some people in the local area had to die.
I chose to tell the truth in the end because tbh I felt that Adam had been messed around and taken for a fool by everyone so much that it almost was a kind of a snarky revenge to post Darrows confessional. I guess I'm kind of vindictive...
I did a pacifist playthrough and I think that effected the little spiel you get afterwards. I was kind of proud of myself finished on Give me Deus Ex first time through, pacifist run and I saved Malik :3. Really enjoyed the game and I'm looking forward to the DLC.
I did a pacifist playthrough and I think that effected the little spiel you get afterwards. I was kind of proud of myself finished on Give me Deus Ex first time through, pacifist run and I saved Malik :3. Really enjoyed the game and I'm looking forward to the DLC.
I'm confused. To my memory, in the original you had all the different players (Tong, Page, Helios) start telling you to do their optimal solution, at which point you choose the ending that suits you most. No unlocking based on previous gameplay. Just a sudden point where you have suddenly four (I think) options in front of you in a game that had a linear story. I always felt that was rather poorly done, as I do with Human Revolution. I would have preferred the self-destruct option to be the only one, and to have it fleshed out a little more.Atmos Duality said:
edit: Wait, was there a Paul Denton ending that was specific to him surviving?
What I meant is that instead of pushing a button, the actions you took at the very end of the game were different.GiantRaven said:
For Tong: You set the Antimatter reactors to explode.
For Morgan Everett (NOT PAGE), you killed Bob Page by essentially switching him off.
For Helios, you accessed the Aquinas Hub, and then returned to Helios' control chamber, where you then merge with it.
In Human Revolution, you push one of three buttons (or a fourth button further down the hall) and watch a shitty ending.
For Morgan Everett (NOT PAGE), you killed Bob Page by essentially switching him off.
For Helios, you accessed the Aquinas Hub, and then returned to Helios' control chamber, where you then merge with it.
In Human Revolution, you push one of three buttons (or a fourth button further down the hall) and watch a shitty ending.
You can't save Malik without killing the guards. So you can't get both Pacifist and Save Malik unless you save-scum the game.xXxJessicaxXx said:
Yeah, I can see where you're coming from. I'm clearly misremembering the end of the game.Atmos Duality said:
Perhaps the ending of Human Revolution could be improved if you only had the choice to send the broadcast, or destroy the station?
I figured the one *my* Jenson would have chosen was the Self-destruct choice. He's just that kind of guy. I have seen all four and they are all equally disappointing as far as production value goes, but that doesn't take away point from a games which does stealth *IMO* better than the MGS series or even early Splinter Cell.
I went with Bill Taggart the first time, since his ending seemed to have the best outcome, considering the big picture. Yes, the public gets lied to, but order is established and compromise is met.
Its also the most likely candidate for canon ending. It's the most congruous with the world of the first Deus Ex.
Its also the most likely candidate for canon ending. It's the most congruous with the world of the first Deus Ex.