Aug.... and you all want to say Mass Effect 3's ending was bad. (Deus Ex Spoilers)

[DudeistBelieve]

I just finished Deus Ex: Human Revolution. I loved the game, but it too just boiled down to "What button do you want to push?"

At least you got to see shit blow up in Mass Effect 3. Deus Ex's ending is just a bunch of cobbled together videos of 3rd world countries with Jensen just narrating about how the choice he made is the right one. Nothing said of how my choice actually effect anything. I literally just save/reloaded and looked at all the others, it's all the same crap.

Plus Jensen goes on in each one about how his morality forced him to do the right thing each time.... except that I've been playing him like a total sociopath. I had him kill Reed's mother for christ sakes, then dragged her body to his apartment and propped her up on the couch for decoration.

And thats the other thing, what about Reed? Fucker goes through the whole game hunting for her like shes princess fucking peach, you save her and.... nothing. No closure.

I mean at least with the Mass Effect 3 endings I got the bad/destroy ending so everyone died and I got something out of that, my renegade Shepard wanted peace for the galaxy. Everyone being dead = peace. This was total lazy bullshit, why the hell didn't people rage over this?!?!

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Human Revolution was a prequel to an already established game.

Can't exactly have any major differences in the endings without affecting the timeline.

It could have been better, agreed, but it ain't ME3 levels of terrible.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Human Revolution was a prequel to an already established game.

Can't exactly have any major differences in the endings without affecting the timeline.

It could have been better, agreed, but it ain't ME3 levels of terrible.

Shouldn't of even offered choice then. Should of just gave us a straight proper ending.

Now it kinda seems like a cop out, like they went with the choices just so they didn't annoy anyone that didn't agree with their message.

 

[DustyDrB]

It's much better because it had build-up. It's still not great, but I didn't really have a problem with it. The fact that you get to debate it with people whose perspectives you can understand is a plus. I loved that final talk with Hugh Darrow.

Having Eliza Cassan there at the end dragged it down most, I guess. I wasn't a fan of that character.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

It's much better because it had build-up. It's still not great, but I didn't really have a problem with it. The fact that you get to debate it with people whose perspectives you can understand is a plus. I loved that final talk with Hugh Darrow.

Having Eliza Cassan there at the end dragged it down most, I guess. I wasn't a fan of that character.

Funny. Once I arrived at an empty news station, I automatically thought "She's gonna be a robot."

Yep. #IOutwitsPlot?

 

[fireaura08]

To be fair, Eidos said that they ran out of time and money. The endings to DX:HR also didn't come out of left field: they made sense and previous events had already led up to each of them, with the possible exception of the destroy one. Mass Effect 3 had no mention of the Catalyst/Starchild, and he/she/its appearance destroyed any sense of coherence the ending had. ME3 also had a major thematical shift at the very end, but that is an entirely different can of worms.

Not to mention, HR is a prequel, so it had a lot less wiggle room in regards to how it would have ended, because HR's events would lead up to the first DX. ME3 was the end of a trilogy, so it was not as limited and should have had more options as opposed to the ones that were presented.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

To be fair, Eidos said that they ran out of time and money. The endings to DX:HR also didn't come out of left field: they made sense and previous events had already led up to each of them, with the possible exception of the destroy one. Mass Effect 3 had no mention of the Catalyst/Starchild, and he/she/its appearance destroyed any sense of coherence the ending had. ME3 also had a major thematical shift at the very end, but that is an entirely different can of worms.

Not to mention, HR is a prequel, so it had a lot less wiggle room in regards to how it would have ended, because HR's events would lead up to the first DX. ME3 was the end of a trilogy, so it was not as limited and should have had more options as opposed to the ones that were presented.

Yeah but it's still just him narrating about his choice and the future in general terms and shit. I would of rather the makers of the game not give a choice and just give us a proper ending that brought closure to the characters I just experienced and lead up to DX.

Although the time and money argument is a fair assumption.

 

[AyreonMaiden]

I enjoyed how Human Revolution explored its topic of choice entirely too much to be put off by the lack of fanfare and explosions at the end. This game felt completely unpretentious to me.

I was bugged about not knowing what happens to characters I like, such as Malik and Pritchard, but then again, what the fuck CAN happen to them? Life really just goes on for them. They keep working for Sarif, the end. They have no actual plotline to follow, so what's there to close?

Also you can't account for every single minute way a person will play a game in the story. You can play him pacifist or aggressive in a general way, but it'd be a ***** to account for Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic on top of Good/Neutral/Evil. You not only played him aggressive, but he was a sociopath. I have a limited experience but I feel like that's an awfully specific role to play for most RPGs nowadays, even with all their "choices."

 

[fireaura08]

To be fair, Eidos said that they ran out of time and money. The endings to DX:HR also didn't come out of left field: they made sense and previous events had already led up to each of them, with the possible exception of the destroy one. Mass Effect 3 had no mention of the Catalyst/Starchild, and he/she/its appearance destroyed any sense of coherence the ending had. ME3 also had a major thematical shift at the very end, but that is an entirely different can of worms.

Not to mention, HR is a prequel, so it had a lot less wiggle room in regards to how it would have ended, because HR's events would lead up to the first DX. ME3 was the end of a trilogy, so it was not as limited and should have had more options as opposed to the ones that were presented.

Yeah but it's still just him narrating about his choice and the future in general terms and shit. I would of rather the makers of the game not give a choice and just give us a proper ending that brought closure to the characters I just experienced and lead up to DX.

Although the time and money argument is a fair assumption.

Don't even get me started on the absence of Malik, after all the trouble I went through to save her.

Eidos probably wanted to keep up with the theme of choice, and the significance of the players/Jensen's actions. I would have preferred something like what was done in the original DX (where your actions throughout the level determined what ending you were going to get) but they already said they ran out of money, which was why they ended up using all that stock footage, so tough luck I guess.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

To be fair, Eidos said that they ran out of time and money. The endings to DX:HR also didn't come out of left field: they made sense and previous events had already led up to each of them, with the possible exception of the destroy one. Mass Effect 3 had no mention of the Catalyst/Starchild, and he/she/its appearance destroyed any sense of coherence the ending had. ME3 also had a major thematical shift at the very end, but that is an entirely different can of worms.

Not to mention, HR is a prequel, so it had a lot less wiggle room in regards to how it would have ended, because HR's events would lead up to the first DX. ME3 was the end of a trilogy, so it was not as limited and should have had more options as opposed to the ones that were presented.

Yeah but it's still just him narrating about his choice and the future in general terms and shit. I would of rather the makers of the game not give a choice and just give us a proper ending that brought closure to the characters I just experienced and lead up to DX.

Although the time and money argument is a fair assumption.

Don't even get me started on the absence of Malik, after all the trouble I went through to save her.

Eidos probably wanted to keep up with the theme of choice, and the significance of the players/Jensen's actions. I would have preferred something like what was done in the original DX (where your actions throughout the level determined what ending you were going to get) but they already said they ran out of money, which was why they ended up using all that stock footage, so tough luck I guess.

at least they can admit that, part of the reason i'm not on bioware's side on it is they still pull out the pretentious art bullshit card which apparently can't be criticized..

anyways, as mentioned, the deus ex ending didn't CAUSE plot holes nor shoe horn in a character that basically debunked parts of the first games, not to mention me3 was a sequel, DE:HR is a prequel, MUCH MUCH less wiggle room, especially for endings.

honestly for time/money allowance, the endings weren't horrible, they left a slightly grey area inbetween it and the next game, so you can decide what you like. (i'm sure down the line there is one that they will say is "canon", probably the one that you kill yourself in and let the world figure out the mess)

 

[Vegosiux]

Don't even get me started on the absence of Malik, after all the trouble I went through to save her.

While disappointing to an extent, a simple "Any time, fly girl" on a pacifist run was still good enough for me. Seriously, I actually wanted to go all "D'awwww" and hug 'em both.

As for the Endingtron 3000...yeah, as was said, not much room to have wide differences without retconning something. The ending narration is also affected by things you did to an extent (it would change if you didn't kill people, if you killed some, if you arbitrarily slaughtered everyone who was in your way, were you stealthy or rushed in guns ablaze...).

The execution sucked with the "Push a button" thing, but in the end, if you take the ending narration as Adam reflecting on the his actions and motivations, it still somehow ties it up nicely enough. Not optimal, but it's not a complete letdown.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I enjoyed how Human Revolution explored its topic of choice entirely too much to be put off by the lack of fanfare and explosions at the end. This game felt completely unpretentious to me.

I was bugged about not knowing what happens to characters I like, such as Malik and Pritchard, but then again, what the fuck CAN happen to them? Life really just goes on for them. They keep working for Sarif, the end. They have no actual plotline to follow, so what's there to close?

Also you can't account for every single minute way a person will play a game in the story. You can play him pacifist or aggressive in a general way, but it'd be a ***** to account for Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic on top of Good/Neutral/Evil. You not only played him aggressive, but he was a sociopath. I have a limited experience but I feel like that's an awfully specific role to play for most RPGs nowadays, even with all their "choices."

just based on my kill count alone and how many bullets I used it's ridicolous for Jensen to say something like "even with all I experienced in the past couple months, I resisted the temptation to overstep my morality and my resources."

When... no. No he didn't. That one mission at the start of the game where you have to go into a enemy gang's terrortory? I slaughtered the whole gang.

Maybe just a little coding to remove that line if the kill count was high enough? I don't know.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Shouldn't of

What? the word you're looking for is HAVE.

a) The endings of DEHR have to fit into established storylines

b) the hype wasn't around the events of a game series 5 years long to all be wrapped up

c) Eidos aren't the same level of dickheads that EA are.

Pick one.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Shouldn't of

What? the word you're looking for is HAVE.

a) The endings of DEHR have to fit into established storylines

b) the hype wasn't around the events of a game series 5 years long to all be wrapped up

c) Eidos aren't the same level of dickheads that EA are.

Pick one.

I have brought shame to my english degree. *hari kari*

Would it have killed them to choose one narrative ending then? The time and money explanation I get, but I would of rather had a conclusive ending showing what happened to the game world and the characters, not him waxing poetically about his decision. The fact that technology exists in the DX game this is a prequel to, they should of just did a really fleshed out version of the Pro-Technology ending and just did that.

 

[Iszfury]

Shouldn't of

What? the word you're looking for is HAVE.

a) The endings of DEHR have to fit into established storylines

b) the hype wasn't around the events of a game series 5 years long to all be wrapped up

c) Eidos aren't the same level of dickheads that EA are.

Pick one.

I have brought shame to my english degree. *hari kari*

Would it have killed them to choose one narrative ending then? The time and money explanation I get, but I would of rather had a conclusive ending showing what happened to the game world and the characters, not him waxing poetically about his decision. The fact that technology exists in the DX game this is a prequel to, they should of just did a really fleshed out version of the Pro-Technology ending and just did that.

Firstly, I don't think Deus Ex took any massive strides characterizing individuals at all, Malik and Prichard, perhaps, but you have to realize that the majority just stood as thematic figureheads, almost like symbols. As for the game world, you get dialogue directly before the decision telling you what's probable based on the message you decide to distribute to the world. Ideally, endings should invoke a sense of wonder and reflection on the overall theme of the game...they're not there to provide emotional relief, nor do they bear witness to the lives and fates of every character. That's overindulgent and completely kills the effect. The ending could have been less abrupt, yes, and they did ditch Megan to a degree, but I thought it was quite good.

As for your preferred ending, that totally fucks player agency over, and shits on the theme. It leaves nothing to question, and suggests that allowing augmentation techdev to continue uninterred was and will always be the morally correct option, when THE ENTIRE GAME revolved around the debate over aug tech...

 

[Dryk]

When you get to the ending-o-matic, the options presented to you make sense, you've spent the entire game debating talking about and being presented with this issue and the consequences of the endings are very well laid out.

I think this is why even though the method of selecting the endings are bad, and their execution is flawed it doesn't leave such a bad taste in people's mouths. Everything is set up. Not to mention the people representing the three main sides are present on the installation. You've just talked to them about what you should do.

Mass Effect on the other hand. The Catalyst shows up out of nowhere, tells you to decide one of three poorly laid out options and then refuses to explain himself. I think I remember reading somewhere that they cut most of the dialogue tree for "pacing"... that was an incredibly dumb move.

Funny. Once I arrived at an empty news station, I automatically thought "She's gonna be a robot."

Yep. #IOutwitsPlot?

Did you notice that the office she's not in in Room 404, and her mainframe is located in Room 802-11?

just based on my kill count alone and how many bullets I used it's ridicolous for Jensen to say something like "even with all I experienced in the past couple months, I resisted the temptation to overstep my morality and my resources."

When did you play it? When it first came out I was under the impression that there was only one ending narration, that sounded like they planned for an adaptive one. But recently I've heard that the ending does adapt... so maybe they've since fixed it

 

[IAmTheVoid]

I thought it could've been done better, but like a poster before me said, unlike ME3 these choices were a persistent theme in the game. Time and time again the game makes you make up your mind on these issues. And at least what Jensen says in the clips is incredibly well written, too. I was particularly moved by the 'keep on going with augmentation' one, my original pick and still where I stand on the (totally in-game, fictional) issue.

And no game can really accomodate for you being a total psychopath when it's trying to tell a story which requires the main character to be slightly invested in the events around him. I mean, GTA hardly makes any sense when it's trying to make out that Niko is in any shape or form likeable when he drives along the pavement killing hundreds of pedestrians. If you want a game where you can be a moustache twirling villain/murderous psychopath, play Knights of the Old Republic :>

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

At least the ending made sense. I wish it had more character closure though. It just ended.