Same, I would've chose David's, but I wasn't given the option... Bit disappointing really. How wuld I go about getting it?kman123 said:
Poll: Which Deus Ex: Human Revolution Ending did you choose? *SPOILERS*
- Thread starter Danpascooch
- Start date
This [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0SjM0eFik8] is the one I was looking at when going through that section. I don't know why I didn't look for others, as this person had more ways to knock out enemies than I did (I had no gas grenades). But that one is on Give Me Deus Ex as a Pacifist. I used the stun gun on 8 of the guys and tranquilized one guy sniper and one guy with a combat rifle (they were both on higher platforms).Atmos Duality said:
I didn't even know the stun gun works on the Box Guard robot until after I finally completed the section without killing anyone. I died soooo many times just from making sure the bodies were outside of robot's blast radius. When someone told me the stun gun works on it...I just. I breathed a very heavy sigh. So it goes...
IMO, the Stun Gun is the best weapon in the whole game.DustyDrB said:
/unsubstantiated claim
But seriously. It's so damn useful I can't even begin to describe it.
Who was adam (Or me I guess since I was playing him) TO make a choice for humanity. Self-destruct seemed like the best course, it got rid of the three most important parts of the pro/anti augmentation arguments, allowing for humanity to make its own choice.
Cheers mate, I only have 9 saves across the game, so I'll see where I can get to a decent point! Much appreciated!Saviordd1 said:
pspman45 said:
Pretty much this. Especially the brofist.
But no, I chose Sarif because I 1: objected to the illuminati, 2: have no qualms about twisting the truth a bit for the greater benefit and 3: I love the idea of cybernetics, cyberisation, all that. I'd love to work on it one day, hence why I'm studying genetics. I like to think one day I'll get there. I can dream!
Hugh Darrow. It is the only honest path. Although it might lead to the abollishment of augs, that will be for humanity to decide, once they know the truth. There are no guarantees with this option, just as there are none in real life.
Sarif's was a Corporate lie to give power to the corporations.
Taggart's a Big Government lie to press government even more into our personal lives.
Destruction was a big cop out.
What it boils down to is: who do you trust, mankind, corporations, or government?
Sarif's was a Corporate lie to give power to the corporations.
Taggart's a Big Government lie to press government even more into our personal lives.
Destruction was a big cop out.
What it boils down to is: who do you trust, mankind, corporations, or government?
Okay, Hello people. I got an account on this site just for this discussion, and here is how I see it and how I believe it is.
I chose Hugh Darrow's ending for these reasons, believe me or not.
Okay, I hated that Hugh Darrow was a complete bigot because he could not have Augmentations himself, BUT the fact is Eliza and Darrow both said that his confession contained UNBIASED, FACTUAL truths about the Illuminati using the Bio-Chips to control people. I don't agree with him using the signal, I don't agree with his bigotry but in no way does this ending mean that Augmentations will he banned, outlawed or even harshly regulated. Hugh Darrow only exposed the Illuminati's plans never once in the confession did he say anything about how Augments should not be used or banned even though that was his sentiment. He only wanted people to know the truth so they could make their own decisions, and in no way does this mean you are controlling the opinions of other people.
I've heard a lot of people say that the Self-Destruct ending is probably canon and that it's the only one that is unbiased and allows people to choose for themselves. So I ask you, has the truth ever swayed your opinion on computers??? Cyber-Predators, Hacking, Identity theft, Tracking people through GPS and such.. I don't see people banning computers, because essentially the technology is GOOD. BUT you know the truth about computers... THIS is only what Hugh Darrow had done. May some people not want Augs after the confession? YES, will EVERYONE refuse Augs? NO because people have their own opinions and no matter what happens as long as they get THE COMPLETE UNBIASED TRUTH on the matter like Hugh Darrow gave humans will always be able to make their own opinions.
(Chose Hugh Darrow for those reasons)
plus I wasn't about to slaughter hundreds of innocent workers who would have been fine after stopping the signal. It's not my place to decide when a group should live or die.
I chose Hugh Darrow's ending for these reasons, believe me or not.
Okay, I hated that Hugh Darrow was a complete bigot because he could not have Augmentations himself, BUT the fact is Eliza and Darrow both said that his confession contained UNBIASED, FACTUAL truths about the Illuminati using the Bio-Chips to control people. I don't agree with him using the signal, I don't agree with his bigotry but in no way does this ending mean that Augmentations will he banned, outlawed or even harshly regulated. Hugh Darrow only exposed the Illuminati's plans never once in the confession did he say anything about how Augments should not be used or banned even though that was his sentiment. He only wanted people to know the truth so they could make their own decisions, and in no way does this mean you are controlling the opinions of other people.
I've heard a lot of people say that the Self-Destruct ending is probably canon and that it's the only one that is unbiased and allows people to choose for themselves. So I ask you, has the truth ever swayed your opinion on computers??? Cyber-Predators, Hacking, Identity theft, Tracking people through GPS and such.. I don't see people banning computers, because essentially the technology is GOOD. BUT you know the truth about computers... THIS is only what Hugh Darrow had done. May some people not want Augs after the confession? YES, will EVERYONE refuse Augs? NO because people have their own opinions and no matter what happens as long as they get THE COMPLETE UNBIASED TRUTH on the matter like Hugh Darrow gave humans will always be able to make their own opinions.
(Chose Hugh Darrow for those reasons)
plus I wasn't about to slaughter hundreds of innocent workers who would have been fine after stopping the signal. It's not my place to decide when a group should live or die.
to me the ending is all about the choice. The stock footage and narrative was just an artistic choice that I agree they shouldn't have made... I kinda wanted to know if Megan and Adam ever got back together and how everything worked out with that guy I helped with the Neuropozine shipments (Gave him a contact in Sarif Industries apparently) but that's just how the developers wanted it to end... suspenseful sort of.
I saved before I made my choice so I could go back and see all 4 endings in one go and get the trophy. I personally liked the self-destruct ending.
However considering the fact that Human Revolution is a prequel to the first 2 games and the first 2 games feature people with augments. Unless you choose the "yay augments" ending, every other choice you make is kinda pointless anyway.
However considering the fact that Human Revolution is a prequel to the first 2 games and the first 2 games feature people with augments. Unless you choose the "yay augments" ending, every other choice you make is kinda pointless anyway.
It helps relate to the real world and similar dilemas we had faced. Could it have been an ending where Adam talks with Sarif/Taggart/Darrow and asking them about their future and his and pending on your ethics will change Adam's dialogue but the ending is fine on it's own.Ashen1 said:to me the ending is all about the choice. The stock footage and narrative was just an artistic choice that I agree they shouldn't have made... I kinda wanted to know if Megan and Adam ever got back together and how everything worked out with that guy I helped with the Neuropozine shipments (Gave him a contact in Sarif Industries apparently) but that's just how the developers wanted it to end... suspenseful sort of.
Sarif's ending. Overall I felt the selection and the execution of the endings was one of the worst parts of Deus Ex 3, Sarifs ending would pave the way for wider augmentation and unless you weren't paying attention to the story, using Jensen as a base would eliminate the need for Neuropozene eventually. Not a perfect world but better than the other choices.
Destruction, otherwise known as stupidity, killing yourself is not a viable option when faced with such a dilema, the moralty of it also implies that common people are smart enough to make the best future, unfortunately this isn't the case and SOMOENE ELSE would just step up with their own reasons for the incident occurring and spin it in their favour, someone like BOB ****ing PAGE!
Taggart: Augmentations are powerful, they can create armies that no normal force would oppose, lets give supreme power over these to the Illuminati, that way they can decide the lives of everyone by dicking around with the on/off button or using them as an iron fist (it would happen eventually)
Darrow: : Lets be afraid of technology, it's obviously the mother of all evil, don't forget those dark days when we discovered how the AC current could kill a man, god forbid we wired entire nations this way. Oh and lets not forget that dreaded population surge that followed curing smallpox. Utter stupidity, besides killing yourself this has to be the worst of the endings.
Way I see things is that strangely Sarifs ending would be the only one that could alter the timeline and prevent the effects of the original game. More people would have freedom to research the technology and the illuminati (which includes Bob Page) would have to race to keep up, in the other endings they can take advantage and get into first place always making sure there's no real competition.
EDIT: Also note that if you kill yourself you'll never get to give Megan a piece of your mind, seirously ALL of my hate.
Destruction, otherwise known as stupidity, killing yourself is not a viable option when faced with such a dilema, the moralty of it also implies that common people are smart enough to make the best future, unfortunately this isn't the case and SOMOENE ELSE would just step up with their own reasons for the incident occurring and spin it in their favour, someone like BOB ****ing PAGE!
Taggart: Augmentations are powerful, they can create armies that no normal force would oppose, lets give supreme power over these to the Illuminati, that way they can decide the lives of everyone by dicking around with the on/off button or using them as an iron fist (it would happen eventually)
Darrow: : Lets be afraid of technology, it's obviously the mother of all evil, don't forget those dark days when we discovered how the AC current could kill a man, god forbid we wired entire nations this way. Oh and lets not forget that dreaded population surge that followed curing smallpox. Utter stupidity, besides killing yourself this has to be the worst of the endings.
Way I see things is that strangely Sarifs ending would be the only one that could alter the timeline and prevent the effects of the original game. More people would have freedom to research the technology and the illuminati (which includes Bob Page) would have to race to keep up, in the other endings they can take advantage and get into first place always making sure there's no real competition.
EDIT: Also note that if you kill yourself you'll never get to give Megan a piece of your mind, seirously ALL of my hate.
That was my first pick too, for the same reason.busters said:
.....I was dissapointed at the result.
After looking at all the endings, I think I would have sided with Taggart. It was the least worst, IMO. Augmentation can continue, the world isn't thrown into anarchy, etc.
But I do think that the "blow up everything" ending is the canon one. It leaves the least amount of plotholes.
Oh, and BTW, I blasted Darrow with the PEP gun.
A couple broken ribs will do that idiot some good. He was the only guy I wasn't able to win a debate against. Not even with the Casie aug (and no, I NEVER used that one move convince move in a full on debate battle. It felt too cheap for that.)