Human Revolution's ending and why gamers are looking inconsistent.

[thejackyl]

Here's something I haven't seen brought up yet (don't quote me if I'm wrong, please), but the people who were hyped about Human Revolution, are the same people who adored the original Deus Ex (+1 reinstall). And one thing I remember about the original is that the endings were pretty bad too. Some didn't even last more than 30 seconds.

People weren't expecting a good ending(s) from HR, they wanted the freedom of the original (multiple paths, and approaches, etc) in a modern title. And for the most part it's what they got (sans boss fights, with exception to the last one).

Since I had no interest in ME3 (or 1 or 2 for that matter) I can't comment on those, so I won't.

 

[KingHodor]

Plus, they did a game with "JC", and a prequel with "Adam". I predict the next game will star a female named "Eve". Or, if they had balls, a man named "Steve".

The sequel, Deus Ex: Invisible War, let you choose your main character's gender - which is why they went with the gender-neutral and probably-not-biblical name "Alex".
The bible connection in that game mostly came from JC's brother, Paul (named for the apostle) playing a bigger part in the plot (which kind of makes sense, seeing as how Paul came after Jesus in the chronology of the bible).

If they make another DX, my guess is they'll go with a main character named John - as in "the Revelator" if it's a sequel, or "the Baptist" if it's a midquel.

 

[somonels]

I can't even say if I ever saw DXHR's ending, after the first 20 minutes everything is just a blur that does not evoke any memories, thoughts or feelings in me.

 

[Aircross]

Human Revolution had themes on the different views of human augmentation, which was foreshadowed all the way to the ending.

Mass Effect did not have the theme of combining organic and synthetic life at all.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

But, nobody at all made even close to a fuss about the ending of another big entry to a well loved franchise. I'm obviously talking about the ending to Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not being inconsistent: I didn't like that ending either. And for a lot of the same reasons, now that I think of it: it was vague and abrupt and it offered no real closure, as I recall. I'll say this much for Bioware--at least they didn't outsource their boss fights.

I don't think this will ever stop being relevant:


(captcha: "buckle your shoe")

 

[Shadows Risen]

I wondered how long till this cropped up. The ending for HR fit the game a lot better than ME3's ending fit ME3.

Everything in HR's story was based around augmentation and how it affected people's, or more specifically, your humanity. Throughout the course of the game, you get to see the effects augmentation has and so on. The choices that at the end fitted with this, and ultimately you choose either Darrow's, Sarif's or the Illumanti guy's (can't remember his name) truth based on your experience through the game. You can even say you're not qualified to make the decision for humanity and it can sort itself out. It may have been Deus Ex Machina ending but it fit.

It's a prequel as well, so you know what happens after in Deus Ex so the lack of closure aspect in HR's ending doesn't matter. Oh, and Eidos admitted they ran out of money.


ME3's choices didn't follow this. You spent the entire game, hell, the entire trilogy is about the Reapers and taking them out. The control and synthesis endings completely clash with this. It doesn't work. There was no closure either, where there needs to be some. It's the ending of an epic trilogy, it NEEDS the closure. How many hours did people invest in the trilogy, just to never find out what happens to everyone you met, and all the races.

Bioware also promised everyone, yes, your choices will matter in the ending, we won't do a A, B, C ending and then they go and do it. That's probably where the majority of the backlash came from. They lied. Simple as.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

The ending for HR fit the game a lot better than ME3's ending fit ME3.

I think it's more like ME3 stole from the first Deus Ex rather than the third. Weren't the ending choices in the original game literally "destroy technology," "control technology" and "merge with technology"? (This just in: plagiarism = ARTISTIC INTEGRITY. But anyway.)

I forget which TGS podcast it was where Total Biscuit and the other guy explained this, but the reason the DE1/3 ending works for those games is that J.C. Denton/Adam Jensen are the stars of the story. Everything that happens in those games, in one way or another, revolves around them personally.

Mass Effect, on the other hand, wasn't really about Shepard. It was about everybody else. You cared about curing the genophage because you cared about Wrex; you cared about the Quarians getting their home back because you cared about Tali; and on and on. So ending a story about a dozen different characters by effectively ignoring all of them is kind of a dick move.

 

[Seventh Actuality]

DE:HR's ending was shit, ME3's ending was much shitter.

That's it.

 

[RedFeather1975]

I remember people criticizing HR's endings. But I think because players hadn't been playing HR for 4.5 years to get to the story's conclusion, the quality of ending wasn't that big of a deal.

 

[Risingblade]

It's a prequel not the end of a trilogy, there's a vast difference.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Keep in mind, DX HR was a prequel not too long before DX. The ending had to be done in such a way that it could be tied into the first game. No matter which ending you choose, the original DX happens. So it really makes no difference.

Mass Effect on the other hand wasn't a prequel.

 

[Spygon]

edit: Also Human Revolution can live without the closure you feel it needs because it's a prequel. If you want closure, play the first Deus Ex game.

But could that not be said about mass effect 4 just bioware have not released there "closure" sequal to it yet.

 

[Neonsilver]

The use of an endingtron to decide how it ends is a cheap way to end a game, in that regard both endings are bad.
But what you could choose fitted in the story in HR.

Besides Deus Ex was more about how you reach your destination, do you kill everyone in your path? Sneak past your enemys? Or are you an assassin that sneaks so he can kill the enemys undetected?
Deus Ex truly was a game about the journey, not the destination.

Mass Effect 3 on the other hand was a game about the conclusion of shepards story, how did your choices in the first two games change the universe and how are the reapers defeated.
The journey were the first two games.

Thats my opinion, I'm sure there are people who disagree with me, especially people who didn't played the first two ME games.

 

[Lugbzurg]

You know what this made me start thinking about again?

"Hey, next time RareWare ever ports Conker's Bad Fur Day in some way, let's force them to change the ending! The ending was so dark and sad and so inconsistent with the wacky adult humor throughout the rest of the game!"

Then, there's always how in Sonic Generations, Sonic causes a boostrap paradox at the end of the game. So does Eggman. But, then again, that game was plauged by paradoxes, plotholes and inconsistencies.

You're absolutely right. So many people are inconsistent like this. I have a few examples, myself.

I've seen a lot of people saying that the main reason Gex is so stupid is because it makes pop culture references. Yet, the same people say that Conker's Bad Fur Day was awesome, because of, you guessed it, the pop culture references. Of course, BFD is a higher-quality game, but, this is one thing I've heard people saying.

Then, there's the case with Zapper: One Wicked Cricket!. Everywhere I go, without fail, everyone I see just calls it a ripoff of Frogger. Well, guess what? Aside from hopping around on grid-based maps and collecting... stuff... these two games have nothing in common! You could say the same thing about Super Mario Bros.. Well, there's over-the-top death animations, too. Actually, I'd say this game has a heck of a lot more in common with Chip's Challenge than anything else. Plus, Zapper and Frogger aren't even within the same genre. Frogger is this game with broad, open maps. Very simple. Zapper, on the other hand, has you traveling on a more linear pathway solving puzzles. It's a much more intelligent, superior game. And, as if that's not enough, unlike Frogger, Zapper can actually KILL STUFF!!!

It's also quite inconsistent how people attack Zapper the way they do, yet praise Portal for pretty much the same reasons they attack Zapper. They were inspired by earlier games and are more intelligently-designed. Except that Zapper is virtually nothing whatsoever like Frogger. Portal, as great as it is, is essentually Narbacular Drop with a science fiction paint job and a robotic narrative. That's about it. Portal isn't original. Zapper is. And yet, they call it a ripoff and go off praising Portal. They're all great games, but this is very inconsistent.

Do I even need to bring up inFAMOUS and [Prototype] and how they have nothing in common asside from being sandbox games about guys with superpowers? ...And how [Prototype] has a heck of a lot more in common with Grand Theft Auto, Assassins Creed, Devil May Cry, the various Incredible Hulk games and even the animated television series Generator Rex than it does with inFAMOUS? How about that Mankind is yet to recognize my Genius?

 

[Vivi22]

What I'm a bit concerned about is the fact that everyone is complaining about ME3's ending because of it's plot holes, Deus Ex Machina ending and lack of choices affecting the ending. But, nobody at all made even close to a fuss about the ending of another big entry to a well loved franchise. I'm obviously talking about the ending to Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Spoilers below so be warned.

Lot's of people complained about the ending. It was the weakest part of the game by far after the boss battles. But it wasn't so bad that it ruined the game because the endings made sense within the context of the story at the very least.

You then are shown a cutscene of crappy stock footage showing NOTHING about what actually happens to anyone after the events and nothing about what happens to anyone on the oil rig, or anyone with augments, or anyone at Sarif industries or most importantly, what happens to Adam Jensen. The only ending that gives any hint at what happens is the one where you destroy and kill everyone at the oil rig you are on. But even then there is still thousands of people with augments who we have no idea anything that happens to them.

Deus Ex: HR is a prequel to the original Deus Ex which means we don't need to be explicitly told what happened to everyone. We already know what happens to the world and a lot of people in it after the game ends. Also, to explicitly show what happens to the characters and world after the ending defeats the purpose since the entire idea behind the choices is that you pick the one you feel will be the best choice for the world. Showing the effects of that choice explicitly would force the developers to pass moral judgement on those choices when they want the player to do that themselves.

Basically what I'm saying is that the Human Revolution ending was crap, it has all the same problems as the ME3 ending, massive plot holes

I'll admit it's been a while since I played it all the way through and saw the endings, but I can't think of any noticeable plot holes. Care to share what you're referring to?

Yet noone whined and moaned at Eidos Montreal to make an "Extended Cut DLC" or change the ending. This fact just makes me think that gamers are people who like to pick their own battles, say they are fighting against bad art and then not bother with another ending that was terrible because well, it wasn't the ending of a trilogy. If gamers really wanted to have the integrity they deserve then you must stop picking your battles to what best suits you, there's been countless endings that have been crap, not just the HR ending. Yet none of them caused such a stir.

You're ignoring the difference in the level of emotional investment here. People who stuck with 3 40+ hour games where their choices could dramatically affect the game outcome and characters are going to be a lot more invested in the ending to a trilogy than people will be in a game where it's largely linear but you get to choose how you handle individual sections, and where it's clear up front that the overall story structure isn't going to be affected by what you do.

Moreover, the ending to HR was functionally identical to the ending of the original Deus Ex to be honest, so I think the level of disappointment there is a bit lower because it was pulled before. Deus Ex is one of the best games ever made despite a bad ending. HR is one of the best games of last year despite a bad ending as well. But it's ending is still far better than ME3's if only because it wasn't touting the idea that your choices would affect the outcome dramatically, and the choices given didn't contradict major plot elements that came before it.

So Escapist what do you think of all this, is the HR ending good in your eyes, are gamers really being inconsistent and why the hell didn't anyone complain about this ending.[/quote]

 

[GothmogII]

Everything in HR's story was based around augmentation and how it affected people's, or more specifically, your humanity. Throughout the course of the game, you get to see the effects augmentation has and so on. The choices that at the end fitted with this, and ultimately you choose either Darrow's, Sarif's or the Illumanti guy's (can't remember his name) truth based on your experience through the game. You can even say you're not qualified to make the decision for humanity and it can sort itself out. It may have been Deus Ex Machina ending but it fit.

The only noticeable effect being apparently akin to wearing a fancy pair of gloves or socks.

Yeah the whole virus and mind control thing toward the end, but otherwise? Oh, we get -told- about it plenty of times, Jenson on a number of occasions is called along the lines of being a freak or giving up his humanity etcetera. But, he's basically superman, and really, he can mod himself up fully throughout the game with no penalty, because that would be no fun actually having to make a choice to become more augmented or not. But for everyone else...why is it every gangbanger in sight seems to be packing shiny new augs? Jenson gets a pass because well, he's got a multi-billion dollar company to kit him out, but those LIMB clinics seem overly philanthropic, to an extreme degree if every Tom, Dick and Bort can afford to have a couple of thousand dollars worth of augs fitted to them, and that would just be for something 'minor' like an arm or a leg. Even if the goal was to make people reliant on augs and the necessary drugs, and indeed render people capable of being mind controlled, they potentially waste billions of dollars just so they can have the average Joe stand on his head at their whim?

I mean, having the rich and powerful augmented is one thing, but really...the whole plan is comic book villain bad. -Bad- comic book villain bad. :/

Aside from that, the other result is that it creates some kind of terrible prejudice against augmented persons. And you may argue, creates the very stratified class system of haves and have nots presented in the game. But, funny thing about that, you know that big anti-aug theme that's supposedly the impetus for big class war and debate that goes through the whole game? The protesters and such that got played up in the adverts for HR? Yeah, that takes up about maybe 20-30 mins of gametime. The rest is punching guys in the neck and following the trail of some missing scientists you met for a handful of -seconds- in an un-interactable intro sequence at the start of the game. You get barely a few minutes more than that with Jenson's ex-girlfriend. And investigating her disappearance is supposed to be what's driving him.

That aside...I don't really buy that broadcasting Darrow's confession would get augmentation banned. For one thing. People do not work that way. We have a hard enough time agreeing on whether or not circumcision is or is not okay, and some people have it done and some people don't. Humanity is not going to rise up in unison and agree to ban something like this, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the negative effects. I don't doubt there'd be a serious look at the whole mess amid some unfortunate CEO's heads rolling. But really...it's like banning nuclear power just because nuclear bombs are so destructive. :/

The blowing everything up option is the canon ending anyway, so it's not like the other choices really matter. :/ The only thing that bugged me about that was: WHO THE HELL RIGS A NON-TIMED SELF-DESTRUCT BUTTON TO THE BOTTOM OF THEIR INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE AND MASSIVE UNDERSEA BOREHOLE?!

Seriously? Did Darrow honestly expect to blow the whole place up like that if things went titwise? That right there is a sign everything he says is a crock of shit.

 

[Gennadios]

My memory of HR's ending wasn't exact, but it had alot more going for it than ME3's.

1) HR was pretty much a closed narrative, it was tied to a series but your choices were always meant to be immediate, they weren't advertising anything being carried over or having repercussions further down the line.

2) The Deus Ex Machina ending was in a closed ecosystem. You decided who to help and who not to over the course of the game, but at the end, the choices only really directly effected the platform. You sink it and everyone on it or you don't, and by that point you had a pretty good idea of whether it was worth saving them or not. The real ending decision was whether to tell the world what really happened or blame one ideology over another. Once again, you're not hurting the people you helped earlier because they're bit players, the world will change, but they'll be in a good position to decide how to tackle it and what to do with themselves.

 

[GothmogII]

My memory of HR's ending wasn't exact, but it had alot more going for it than ME3's.

1) HR was pretty much a closed narrative, it was tied to a series but your choices were always meant to be immediate, they weren't advertising anything being carried over or having repercussions further down the line.

2) The Deus Ex Machina ending was in a closed ecosystem. You decided who to help and who not to over the course of the game, but at the end, the choices only really directly effected the platform. You sink it and everyone on it or you don't, and by that point you had a pretty good idea of whether it was worth saving them or not. The real ending decision was whether to tell the world what really happened or blame one ideology over another. Once again, you're not hurting the people you helped earlier because they're bit players, the world will change, but they'll be in a good position to decide how to tackle it and what to do with themselves.

Holy... Jenson's a god damn mass murderer too come to think of it, going by the explosion ending. And it never crosses his mind...