Muzman on 14/10/2007 at 00:50
Quote Posted by ZymeAddict
That sort of presentation might make it more obvious (and I think you are exaggerating the level of the open-endedness in the DX endings a bit) but that certainly doesn't account for all of what I said.
So you're saying they...are as permanent and drastic as IW's endings.
Quote:
It's just a matter of common sense. Which is more permanent and drastic? An essential return to the status quo (DX Illuminati ending with limited and suggestive power), or an outright world dictatorship? (IW ending) The plunging of the world into temporary anarchy which leads to the rise of more localized government (DX Tong ending), or the complete nuking of the entire world, with only an extremely bio-modified group of trans-humans surviving? The creation of an AI world dictator who could possibly be overthrown sometime in the future (DX Helios), or the permanent merging of the entire human race (IW Denton)?
Come on man, this has been my point the whole time and you've danced around it long enough. Please tell me how these results are equal in severity and permanence.
Don't get all debate club about it. This is an internet conversation.
To the first; the entire plot of Deus Ex revolved around revealing the growing centralisation of power, technology and information into few hands via a secret unified computer system (and it's revealed thanks only to a little in-fighting at the top). At the end you hand over control of it to (or back to) the Illuminati.
Invisible War's tells the story, in part, of said Illuminati trying to recreate the way things were before it all went to hell. If you pick their ending, they succeed in rebuilding this computer network, only now it's based in orbit. There's no indication that they're any more or less of a dictatorship and they were in the first game, even if two of them (both of them I guess) are known (only by you and few others) to hold very high office.
Sounds pretty much the same to me. It might seem a bit more severe because IW's world is a more severe place. The enclaves seem like a good indication that the WTO are doing a good job in securing free enterprise. I found the ending a kind of "Well, I haven't made things worse at least".
To the second: You're assuming Tong's actually right about the way it'll go after things collapse, which I find hard to do. The templar ending in IW is just as appropriate a parallel to what Tong's on about. Besides, the Omar ending happens a long time in the future. The immediate aftermath of your actions in the game aren't said. I doubt things would look much different for a while. Really, you can't take Tong's bizarrely optimistic tone at face value. "Living traditionally in villages" or some nonsense he says. Sounds like feudal principalities to me (and don't worry about the decade or so of shitfest before that congeals). Nice work Tong; cheers. Remember, the Omar appeared in the chaos after the collapse, from typical Russian ingenuity in the face of extreme adversity. It's pretty obvious what the writers think is the outcome of picking Tong's ending.
Quote:
And how does Tong's ending come anymore "out of nowhere" than the others? Yeah, maybe the Illuminati ending was a bit easier to predict, but did you really think going in "You know, I bet Helios wants to merge with me and become the benevolent dictator of the world".
I don't see how it is "completely out of character" either. He's allied with the Triads, remember? That seems like a pretty good example of "localized government" to me.
But when the Helios ending shows up it makes sense given what you've seen and the themes of human technological advancement in the RPG elements of the game. When you're the hero of the game it's not entirely surprising that things revolve around you, and Helios's implies he has some other agenda quite a lot, if only through his different personality.
The Tong ending however, while it does make some sense to look at it in that Neo-Confucian sense, has zero precedent for me. He's a scientist fer crissakes. Ok so he's had a bad run with technology recently, but he's asking you to plunge the world into chaos with the most glib optimism yet. He's not seemed quite that stupid until right then, and everything about JC is totally the antithesis of that point of view. It doesn't even seem like a reasonable option for a second and so smacks of padding out the options for the ending.
As an option it fits with the logic of the game's philosophy; as a reasonable narrative element it is fumbled.
D'Juhn Keep on 14/10/2007 at 02:17
I wouldn't want to argue against Muzman to be honest. And that's without even seeing his arguments.
There was quite a bit opf foreshadowing of the Helios ending in the Morpheus conversations and the goddamn TITLE of the game, if viewed properly.
ZymeAddict on 14/10/2007 at 02:59
Quote Posted by Muzman
So you're saying they...are as permanent and drastic as IW's endings.
How the hell did I say that? I was referring to the possibility that the presentation used by
IW might make its endings seem even more drastic.
Quote Posted by Muzman
Don't get all debate club about it. This is an internet conversation.
Well forgive me for getting a tad annoyed when you ignore my main point for three posts, and instead go off on tangents each time.
Quote Posted by Muzman
To the first; the entire plot of Deus Ex revolved around revealing the growing centralisation of power, technology and information into few hands via a secret unified computer system (and it's revealed thanks only to a little in-fighting at the top). At the end you hand over control of it to (or back to) the Illuminati.
Yes, but the Illuminati do not have
direct control. Remember what Morgan Everett saying about how they "insinuate and suggest" or something to that effect?
Quote Posted by Muzman
Invisible War's tells the story, in part, of said Illuminati trying to recreate the way things were before it all went to hell. If you pick their ending, they succeed in rebuilding this computer network, only now it's based in orbit. There's no indication that they're any more or less of a dictatorship and they were in the first game, even if two of them (both of them I guess) are known (only by you and few others) to hold very high office.
Sounds pretty much the same to me. It might seem a bit more severe because IW's world is a more severe place. The enclaves seem like a good indication that the WTO are doing a good job in securing free enterprise. I found the ending a kind of "Well, I haven't made things worse at least".
One of the main plot twists of the game was the fact that the Order and the WTO were both really controlled by the same people, remember? When they "ally" at the end of the game, they finally unite everyone on earth under a centralized world government with one dictator - Chad Dumier. It sounds a damn site worse than "insinuating" position of the Illuminati in DX in my opinion.
Quote Posted by Muzman
To the second: You're assuming Tong's actually right about the way it'll go after things collapse, which I find hard to do.
The templar ending in IW is just as appropriate a parallel to what Tong's on about. Besides, the Omar ending happens a long time in the future. The immediate aftermath of your actions in the game aren't said. I doubt things would look much different for a while. Really, you can't take Tong's bizarrely optimistic tone at face value. "Living traditionally in villages" or some nonsense he says. Sounds like feudal principalities to me (and don't worry about the decade or so of shitfest before that congeals). Nice work Tong; cheers. Remember, the Omar appeared in the chaos after the collapse, from typical Russian ingenuity in the face of extreme adversity. It's pretty obvious what the writers think is the outcome of picking Tong's ending.
Well it turns out he was still right though, to a certain extent. The world descended into chaos for awhile (The Collapse) and then a number of city-states (feudal principalities as you said) emerged to be allied under the WTO. Yeah, it was shitty for a while, obviously, but that's a damn site better than nuking the entire planet into oblivion. And only an idiot could think that the statement "oh, but maybe that doesn't happen for awhile" makes the ultimate outcome at all better.
And how the hell is the Templar ending, with its establishment of a brutal pseudo-religious theocracy, at all related to this? :rolleyes:
Quote Posted by Muzman
But when the Helios ending shows up it makes sense given what you've seen and the themes of human technological advancement in the RPG elements of the game. When you're the hero of the game it's not entirely surprising that things revolve around you, and Helios's implies he has some other agenda quite a lot, if only through his different personality.
The Tong ending however, while it does make some sense to look at it in that Neo-Confucian sense, has zero precedent for me. He's a scientist fer crissakes. Ok so he's had a bad run with technology recently, but he's asking you to plunge the world into chaos with the most glib optimism yet. He's not seemed quite that stupid until right then, and everything about JC is totally the antithesis of that point of view. It doesn't even seem like a reasonable option for a second and so smacks of padding out the options for the ending.
As an option it fits with the logic of the game's philosophy; as a reasonable narrative element it is fumbled.
So what if he's a scientist? How does that have any effect at all on a decision of this kind? And just because you think that option is stupid doesn't mean everyone with intelligence would. You may find it surprising, but I actually think his is the
best choice of those available. I would rather have a relatively brief period of chaos with the promise of more localized government in the future than partial or full enslavement now. This sort of thinking seems very consistent with Tong's character in my opinion.
Muzman on 14/10/2007 at 08:52
It's picket fence of death time folks. lookaway if you must
Quote Posted by ZymeAddict
Well forgive me for getting a tad annoyed when you ignore my main point for three posts, and instead go off on tangents each time.
I didn't ignore them, I disagreed entirely with their precepts (eventually) and found they still sounded rather similar the way you expressed them
Quote:
Yes, but the Illuminati do not have
direct control. Remember what Morgan Everett saying about how they "insinuate and suggest" or something to that effect?
And you believe him? The very concept of the Illuminati is one of invisible control. The illusion of freedom maintained by humanities elites while they guide our real destiny, as they see it. Forget their version. No one can invoke the concept without that reading. It's integral to the myth, like all such stuff regarding Templars, Masons, Reptilians, worshipers of the Great Old Ones et al.
The more behind the scenes version might have worked before, but the ending option is to hand them the worlds computer networks and therefore economies, surveilance etc. Hello!
Quote:
One of the main plot twists of the game was the fact that the Order and the WTO were both really controlled by the same people, remember? When they "ally" at the end of the game, they finally unite everyone on earth under a centralized world government with one dictator - Chad Dumier. It sounds a damn site worse than "insinuating" position of the Illuminati in DX in my opinion.
Who's to say if he's a dictator. They don't really discuss the elections or lack thereof. Churches and states frequently ally. The fact of the player knowing that they are both illuminati doesn't really imply any more or less control of the situaton than Everett's version. World leaders have been thought to be Illuminati in the past and it's not like Dumier ruled with an iron fist.
Quote:
Well it turns out he was still right though, to a certain extent. The world descended into chaos for awhile (The Collapse) and then a number of city-states (feudal principalities as you said) emerged to be allied under the WTO. Yeah, it was shitty for a while, obviously, but that's a damn site better than nuking the entire planet into oblivion. And only an idiot could think that the statement "oh, but maybe that doesn't happen for awhile" makes the ultimate outcome at all better.
And how the hell is the Templar ending, with its establishment of a brutal pseudo-religious theocracy, at all related to this? :rolleyes:
The point of the omar ending is to say that humanity will evolve into something post-human by necessity whether we like it or not, and it'll happen through the hot-house of war if we want. Really you'd have to be pretty dense to think the Illuminati endings imply a 'happily ever after' outcome in the case of either game; No more wars? No more revolutionaries? No more Page-s and Symons? The Omar ending is set in the far flung future for a reason.
And yes there's never been any coincidence of feudal society and harsh religous theocracy in the past. Of course that's entirely unprecedented and could never arise out of a dark age where socio-political and techological structures of society are destroyed, how silly of me. :rolleyes:
Quote:
So what if he's a scientist? How does that have any effect at all on a decision of this kind? And just because you think that option is stupid doesn't mean everyone with intelligence would. You may find it surprising, but I actually think his is the
best choice of those available. I would rather have a relatively brief period of chaos with the promise of more localized government in the future than partial or full enslavement now. This sort of thinking seems very consistent with Tong's character in my opinion.
What does it have to do with anything that he's a scientist? Apart from the fact that his entire way of life kinda depends on the status quo, his faith in technology, ingenuity and the progress and enlightenment of humanity that knowledge can bring you mean? (if he's anything like most scientists I've had anything to do with). Sure he's been through a rough patch but such a turn around appears rather too suddenly. From memory he makes no reasoning whatever that destroying everything avoids slavery (I could be wrong here) but acts as doom sayer rabbiting on about these elites like Page and Everett just going to lead us to the brink again so we might as well tear it all down, which is the desparing ramblings of some sort of mad man. Even if him being a scientist permits this point of view (and it does. Being a scientist doesn't necesarily make you politically astute) his character gives no indication that he's going off this particular deep end before the end. And above all, the argument is not one any self respecting super agent, respecter of military men and honour, and a man educated enough to engage in political debates with bar tenders for fun, would
ever for a moment even
consider. So as a narrative ending it's a total wash. Something to try on the replay and that's it. Really it doesn't matter what you think such an outcome "promises", chaos is unlikely to be fun.
I think it was Steven King talking about 'The Stand' who says, we all love apocalypse fiction because it's fun to imagine ourselves as survivors even though the odds are rather against it in the average apocalyptic scenario.
Papy on 14/10/2007 at 13:16
I don't think the game give enough background information about Tong to be able to really establish his psychological profile. Particularly when the whole game turns around secrets and conspiracies. If my own brother is hiding his true intentions, then why Tong wouldn't do the same thing ? Does he like his life ? Does he have secret political ambitions ? I have no way to know.
One thing I find interesting is that Tong, who is obviously a very valuable scientist, has a small laboratory inside a criminal group's compound (where he seems to be considered as someone important), instead of working for a big corporation. Is there any explanation for this situation ?
I guess we can assume anything we want about Tong, but, in the end, it is just a projection of our own preconceptions. Nothing more.
BTW, I guess I should add that I obviously have different preconceptions than yours. I view myself as someone who respect the military (I did my two years of military service and I am proud of it), I am someone who strongly believe in honor, I guess I am moderately educated, I love to engage in political and philosophical debate for fun, and yet I think the most acceptable solution was by far the Tong ending. Do you think I'm a mad man ?
I'd also like to say that political chaos from a global point of view, following a temporary loss in communications, does not imply "apocalypse", particularly in a world that went through... the gray death. It certainly does not imply that technology and knowledge will disappear.
Muzman on 14/10/2007 at 14:05
This is all true to some extent. But I wouldn't have any trouble accepting Tong's ending coming from him if there was some precedent for it. They did pretty good job allowing for many possibilities of character elsewhere, but he's not that destructive. It makes sense to have that an an option, in the logic of the game, but it's where it comes from and how it comes that is clunky. To me anyway. With a bit of a tweak it could even make more sense if JC came to that conclusion himself, maybe in conversation with Tong. It's chiefly a writing problem.
The other thing is; shutting down Aquinas causing the apocalypse is a bit of an extrapolation, but not a huge one. They went to some lengths in the game to explain that all computer communication had been centralised, and so to power and economics. If we buy that then turning it off suddenly is going to be very destructive (when small economies collapse they move over to stronger currencies rather than their own, only there wouldn't be any). IWs collapse is a pretty sensible follow on from that scenario. The whole idea of some vast conspiracy to secretly centralise things is pretty juvenile to me anyway, but the idea that if you then destroy that system suddenly you make a huge mess makes sense to me. A new dark age is more extreme but not entirely unreasonable if one was to be pessimistic about things.
Really if they wanted to give the option of JC and Tong giving a crap about people, the future and stopping things going down the other paths, or any similar ones, the best thing to do would be to actually take over Aquinas and dismantle it. But then you don't get to set the ship to self destruct and run away from an explosion in slow motion.
heywood on 14/10/2007 at 16:21
Quote Posted by Muzman
This is all true to some extent. But I wouldn't have any trouble accepting Tong's ending coming from him if there was some precedent for it. They did pretty good job allowing for many possibilities of character elsewhere, but he's not that destructive. It makes sense to have that an an option, in the logic of the game, but it's where it comes from and how it comes that is clunky. To me anyway. With a bit of a tweak it could even make more sense if JC came to that conclusion himself, maybe in conversation with Tong. It's chiefly a writing problem.
I don't understand your arguments regarding Tong at all. He's the brains behind a triad, a classic example of anarcho-capitalist philosophy. He's independent and not allied with any of the big organizations or factions in the game. He has no ties to any governmental organizations, and his triad subverts them. He distrusts the Illuminati and warns you about them earlier in the game. He may be a scientist, but he's OK with you destroying the Versalife UC, which is man's ultimate invention. And he doesn't seem to have any love for communicating on the Aquinas network, because you have to penetrate the triad and meet face to face before he makes his presence known.
When Tong asks you to bring down the system which holds together large scale governments and institutions, leading to decentralization of power, he's doing exactly what an anarcho-capitalist would. IMO, the only thing I would change about the Tong ending would be to give it a different name. "New dark age" is a bit too pessimistic.
Papy on 14/10/2007 at 21:28
Quote Posted by Muzman
Tong giving a crap about people
This interpretation is probably where we differ the most. I view the shutting down of global communications as : giving a chance to people. I guess it's the old debate of security (if we can call the gray death security) over freedom.
Muzman on 15/10/2007 at 08:14
Quote Posted by heywood
I don't understand your arguments regarding Tong at all. He's the brains behind a triad, a classic example of anarcho-capitalist philosophy...
When Tong asks you to bring down the system which holds together large scale governments and institutions, leading to decentralization of power, he's doing exactly what an anarcho-capitalist would. IMO, the only thing I would change about the Tong ending would be to give it a different name. "New dark age" is a bit too pessimistic.
To split a hair; anarcho-capitalism is a particularly western notion which doesn't describe the sort of post-feudal familial relationship of organised crime groups like the mafia and triads. I take the general thrust of the argument; yes he's an independent sort involved with independent people. But either of those positions kinda underlines my point as neither of them are given to the sort of idealism necessary to want to bring the whole thing crashing down V for Vendetta style. If there was some reason to believe Tong was becoming some sort of old school european style anarchist I'd go along with it. But there ain't; not in the two or three times I played through it anyway.
JC is potentially a revolutionary, depending on how you play it. He could come up with the idea and Tong might not come down against it, for the reasons described here. That I would buy.
As to Papy's security thing; It's like Chade says: by that stage of the game all the major problems are solved. The balance has tipped in your favour and you just need one last push to finish off the bad guy. Security vs freedom has very little to do with it. The endings are about manouvering to change the aftermath. The world is now in the clear and once you finish off Bob you're just seeing what steps in to the vaccuum you've created. An option to make sure no one thing can step into it doesn't need to make a huge mess unless you are given to the view that that's good for people (and you don't mind a lot of them dying in the process, like V in the comics) and, as I've said, I don't think there's much in the game, no matter how you play it, that suggest JC or Tong are likely to be sympathetic to this point of view.
ZymeAddict on 15/10/2007 at 21:26
Quote Posted by Muzman
I didn't ignore them, I disagreed entirely with their precepts (eventually) and found they still sounded rather similar the way you expressed them
Obviously you disagreed, that's not the point. My main argument was that they were very different from on another. All you did was say "no, they're similar" without explaining how and then go off on a semi-related subject to explain why you thought I thought they seemed similar.
Quote Posted by Muzman
And you believe him? The very concept of the Illuminati is one of invisible control. The illusion of freedom maintained by humanities elites while they guide our real destiny, as they see it. Forget their version. No one can invoke the concept without that reading. It's integral to the myth, like all such stuff regarding Templars, Masons, Reptilians, worshipers of the Great Old Ones et al.
The more behind the scenes version might have worked before, but the ending option is to hand them the worlds computer networks and therefore economies, surveilance etc. Hello!
What's not to believe? It's implied that it is the Illuminati have secret control of the reigns of power right now in our timeline. You don't see armed goons with labels saying "Illuminati" on their uniforms marching around now do you? It's only after they have grown weak and Bob Page's crew take over that things really start going to hell. The sort of society we (supposedly) have now, though perhaps not truly "free", is certainly preferable to an overt dictatorship. Why can you not understand this difference?
Quote Posted by Muzman
Who's to say if he's a dictator. They don't really discuss the elections or lack thereof. Churches and states frequently ally. The fact of the player knowing that they are both illuminati doesn't really imply any more or less control of the situaton than Everett's version. World leaders have been thought to be Illuminati in the past and it's not like Dumier ruled with an iron fist.
Fine, maybe it's not overtly stated that Dumier is an outright dictator, but considering he is the head of the WTO, (which is one of only
two "superpowers" in the world, the other being the The Order) and these two "ally" to form a one world government, I kind of doubt their is someone else who outranks him, or that he is in a big hurry to hold elections. But all of this is extremely obvious when you compare the two end cinematics. Look at these and then tell me with a straight face that the two situations are equally bad:
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N69GX988WwE&mode=related&search=) Deus Ex - Illuminati Ending
(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIX0BIuRYGo) Deus Ex: Invisible War - Illuminati Ending
Quote Posted by Muzman
The point of the omar ending is to say that humanity will evolve into something post-human by necessity whether we like it or not, and it'll happen through the hot-house of war if we want. Really you'd have to be pretty dense to think the Illuminati endings imply a 'happily ever after' outcome in the case of either game; No more wars? No more revolutionaries? No more Page-s and Symons? The Omar ending is set in the far flung future for a reason.
What do you mean "if we want"? It expressly stated it
will happen that way. Earth
will be nuked to shit! Period!
And I didn't say that the Illuminati endings were "happily ever after", far from it! All I said was that the second Illuminati ending was far less "happily ever after" than the first.
Quote Posted by Muzman
And yes there's never been any coincidence of feudal society and harsh religous theocracy in the past. Of course that's entirely unprecedented and could never arise out of a dark age where socio-political and techological structures of society are destroyed, how silly of me. :rolleyes:
Yes, but not on a world-wide scale. That was the main point of the Tong ending. Fracture the world system so no one faction could gain absolute control and impose shit like that on everyone.
Quote Posted by Muzman
What does it have to do with anything that he's a scientist? Apart from the fact that his entire way of life kinda depends on the status quo, his faith in technology, ingenuity and the progress and enlightenment of humanity that knowledge can bring you mean? (if he's anything like most scientists I've had anything to do with). Sure he's been through a rough patch but such a turn around appears rather too suddenly. From memory he makes no reasoning whatever that destroying everything avoids slavery (I could be wrong here) but acts as doom sayer rabbiting on about these elites like Page and Everett just going to lead us to the brink again so we might as well tear it all down, which is the desparing ramblings of some sort of mad man. Even if him being a scientist permits this point of view (and it does. Being a scientist doesn't necesarily make you politically astute) his character gives no indication that he's going off this particular deep end before the end. And above all, the argument is not one any self respecting super agent, respecter of military men and honour, and a man educated enough to engage in political debates with bar tenders for fun, would
ever for a moment even
consider. So as a narrative ending it's a total wash. Something to try on the replay and that's it. Really it doesn't matter what you think such an outcome "promises", chaos is unlikely to be fun.
I think it was Steven King talking about 'The Stand' who says, we all love apocalypse fiction because it's fun to imagine ourselves as survivors even though the odds are rather against it in the average apocalyptic scenario.
The other posters have answered these points pretty well already. It is quite obvious Tong has some anarcho-capitalist leanings, whether he fits the exact mold or not is irrelevant. And just because someone is trained as a scientist doesn't mean that that person will now automatically follow a certain outlook on life ("scientism" I guess you could call it :p ) or that he is not willing to throw much of his life's work away in the face of such an important decision.
And as I, and the others posters, have already pointed out, just because you don't like this particular choice, does not make it "madness" or "going off the deep end". There are perfectly logical reasons for choosing it. This, of course, also follows for JC.
