PDA

View Full Version : How can you save the world in a prequel?



PugPug
27th Jan 2009, 05:45
So in Deus Ex 1, you save the world in one of three different ways. In each of them, it appears that there is no return -- the endings are pretty final.

Then, in Deus Ex 2, somehow Denton managed to pull off all 3 endings simultaneously, while at the same time not accomplishing anything at all. :scratch: Then, again, the 4 endings are pretty final, for good or ill.

If Deus Ex 3 is going to be a Deus Ex game, it has to follow the formula of the first two: You fight the bad guys until there's a sudden twist, and then you have a new enemy. You defeat them, then decide the fate of the world.

Do you think there will be a believable narrative at the end of the game to get from the "sunshine & gumdrops" of the ending to "MJ12 runs the show" at the start of DX1? Or will there be no sunshine nor gumdrops? Or will it break from the Deus Ex formula?

Romeo
27th Jan 2009, 06:47
Who says you have to save it? As I recall, most endings in Deus Ex are fairly negative overall. Who's to say you don't create a power vacuum, or give a group too much power?

Jerion
27th Jan 2009, 07:49
Good point. None of the endings in DX really had you "saving" the world, at least in any conventional sense. The endings were:

a) merge with an A.I. and rule the world (no guarantee that people will be better off)

b) rule the world in secret in a compassionate conspiracy (again, no guarantee but at least you have a job)

c) destroy the internet, thus sending the world back to the 1970s (no more LOLcats! :eek: )

I suppose that in DX 3 you don't really need to save the world. You just need to lay the groundwork for events to transpire as they do in DX 1. :)

Of course, saving the world would be a cool touch. :cool:

Lady_Of_The_Vine
27th Jan 2009, 12:03
I guess it isn't the world that needs saving... it is 'us'. ;)

SageSavage
27th Jan 2009, 12:13
I really don't see why the world couldn't be saved multiple times. Most of the time most people don't even know that somebody saved them. I saved the world countless times myself but nobody ever noticed. That's just the way it is. :gamer:

Sabretooth1
27th Jan 2009, 13:01
Well if you look at all the world-saving in Deus Ex, it isn't really epic, it's in the shadows, behind public consciousness. So even when you do save the world in both games, nobody ever really finds out.

I think that's what will happen in Deus Ex 3 pretty much, you save the world and nobody really knows you did because you did it all behind the scenes and under cover. The ending will probably be left kind of ambiguous, but recognizable enough so that when you play Deus Ex the original, you'll see datapads and and books referring to past events that were DX3's endings, and like DX2 you'll get to imagine which ending your hero chose. >_>

jamhaw
27th Jan 2009, 13:59
I thought that JC merging with Helios ending was the canonical one?

spm1138
27th Jan 2009, 14:02
Hah.

Do you really save the world in DX?

You could say that you form a totalitarian one world government with yourself as god emperor / plunge the world into anarchy / maintain the corrupt status quo that got you into that mess in the first place.

Spiffmeister
27th Jan 2009, 15:44
I'd say it's more of a "bring on a new age" then save the world. If you have a look at DX1 though, there's a lot to explain, for one, how the world entered a depression (surely the grey death wasn't 100% responsible for the was the world looked in DX1). How did a big corporation like VersaLife get involved with MJ12 would be another interesting point (if MJ12 shows up in DX3).

There are a lot of things that could be explained to set the DX1 scene. Think of it like Star Wars 1-3 coming out after the original series. (Lets hope DX3 is better then Star Wars 1-3 though :eek: )

SageSavage
27th Jan 2009, 15:52
It's debatable but for me one of the endings actually felt like saving the world from global slavery and over the top corruption. It certainly caused a lot of fatalities and trouble but at least it granted another chance. It was nothing like a beautiful world wonder but it saved people their freedom and individuality.

gamer0004
27th Jan 2009, 15:57
Saving the world isn't the problem, it's the being able to choose how to do it...

PugPug
27th Jan 2009, 17:15
It might be cool if, at the end of DX3, you inadvertently put MJ12 in power. Perhaps they started with good ideals. They could be the good guys, and maybe they aren't even called MJ12, but at the very end you see the "hand grasping for the globe" symbol, and you think to yourself, "OH NOES!"

Concerning "saving the world," here's how I thought of the endings so far:

DX1:

Helios: Positive. Merge with a benevolent dictator, immune to corruption, able to consider the needs of every being on earth simultaneously.

Illuminati: Positive. With JC on board, a "compassionate conspiracy" just might work. And Everett seems well-intentioned.

Collapse: Negative. Another conspiracy bent on world domination was sure to rise again in a matter of time. Plus, no more LOL Cats. :(

DX2:

Helios: Negative. It was just creepy.

Illuminati: Positive. Barely. Their hearts were in the right place, and there was at least prosperity.

Templar: Negative.

Renegade: Negative.

spm1138
27th Jan 2009, 17:44
Illuminati: Positive. With JC on board, a "compassionate conspiracy" just might work. And Everett seems well-intentioned.

Doesn't matter. It's the same compassionate conspiracy that caused the problems you've been fixing :D While the machinery is there with no checks or balances...

SageSavage
27th Jan 2009, 18:41
Collapse: Negative. Another conspiracy bent on world domination was sure to rise again in a matter of time. Plus, no more LOL Cats. :(

Quite possible but as I see it, the only realistic chance for mankind is to slowly learn from its mistakes and pull the plug everytime the systems crash so badly that a reboot is unevitable.

The Illuminati-ending is like living with the defeat and the Helios-ending is like abandoning pretty much everything that makes us unique and free. As if that wasn't scary enough there's also this (potentially corrupt) human element within the AI. No way!

ilweran
27th Jan 2009, 19:11
DX2:

Helios: Negative. It was just creepy.

Illuminati: Positive. Barely. Their hearts were in the right place, and there was at least prosperity.

I thought the Helios ending was creepy until I read "Raising the Stones" and "Sideshow" by Sheri S Tepper, although it's a sentient fungus rather than an AI that's saving humanity from itself.

As for the Illuminati, there wasn't prosperity for everyone and I'd be loathe to put in charge of the world a group who used religion to manipulate people seemingly without realising the potential downside of extremists.

FrankCSIS
28th Jan 2009, 00:17
What's wrong with an old fashioned tragedy anyway? Some of the best game endings we've had were pretty sad and difficult to swallow. I know they leave you frustrated and they feel anti-climatic for a while, but they also tend to be those you remember the longest. Besides, it doesn't have to be all-out bad. There's hope as long as there's life, right? ;)

Dead-Eye
28th Jan 2009, 02:19
Helios: Negative. It was just creepy.


Really I thought it was the ending that the devs wonted to show me, the other endings didn't seem that well refined.

The idea that mankind could build a Artificial Intelligence System capable of understanding each individual's needs, wants, etc and using that knowledge to make judgment calls on how our "government" should operate is what I would call democracy. Living Democracy that is.

Here in the states we live in a republic. Elected officials represent the people. It's not a democracy because true democracy can't work, so instead we have a system that tries and fails to be true democracy. Yet with the power of everyone hooked up to a wireless internet highway where people are not only "voters" but also supporters of ideas that flow through a AI to compile all of human intellect seems like a system where true democracy would work. Everyone's ideas and opinions all come to one place as one individual to be compiled and evaluated at speeds faster then the processing power of the human spices combined. Not only dose it solve the problem of governments lake of ability to care for every individual but also the power to solve all problems with the sum of human knowledge.

The only thing people fear from this system is the lose of their secrets that they see as individuality. People fear what other people will think of them when they know who they really are. So we hide it. We hide who we are from everyone else in the forum of secrets and call it individuality because we are afraid of others. Yet this Deus Ex Machina would be able to take into consideration who everyone truly was and have the knowledge to satisfy everyone needs and wants? "I do not have enemies. Only tachographs of ignorance." - JC/Helios "Your needs are the needs of all." - Helios

Truly the last frontier for our species is braking down the wall of fear of the lose of our individuality in order to create something more. To create god.

Sabretooth1
28th Jan 2009, 03:51
Concerning "saving the world," here's how I thought of the endings so far:

DX1:

Helios: Positive. Merge with a benevolent dictator, immune to corruption, able to consider the needs of every being on earth simultaneously.

Illuminati: Positive. With JC on board, a "compassionate conspiracy" just might work. And Everett seems well-intentioned.

Collapse: Negative. Another conspiracy bent on world domination was sure to rise again in a matter of time. Plus, no more LOL Cats. :(

DX2:

Helios: Negative. It was just creepy.

Illuminati: Positive. Barely. Their hearts were in the right place, and there was at least prosperity.

Templar: Negative.

Renegade: Negative.
Actually, I've seen the endings as ambiguous. They have their pros and cons, and its upto the players to go with whatever matches their philosophy.

DX1:

Helios: Positive. Merge with a benevolent dictator, immune to corruption, able to consider the needs of every being on earth simultaneously.

Negative: As benevolent as a dictator gets, he's still a dictator and cannot ensure the freedom a democracy can. And a machine ruling and presiding over the entire world is an unnerving idea for many. I'm talking about the people who still hate computers in 2008. ;)

Illuminati: Positive. With JC on board, a "compassionate conspiracy" just might work. And Everett seems well-intentioned.

Negative: Everett may seem well-intentioned, but there's still a conspiracy, a hidden shadowy figure dictating the world. Everett's successor may not end up so well-intentioned, or another MJ12 might spring up.

Collapse: Negative. Another conspiracy bent on world domination was sure to rise again in a matter of time. Plus, no more LOL Cats. :(

Positive: By throwing the world into a dark age, Tong ensures that the Illuminati don't secretly hold the keys to the world, thereby giving mankind the chance to start over again, for the better and with freedom.

DX2:

Helios: Negative. It was just creepy.

Positive: Like in DX1's Positive Helios, mankind will be united and connected to a central computer that will for the first time, ensure absolute equality and cater to the needs of every individual as opposed to making gross generalisations.

Illuminati: Positive. Barely. Their hearts were in the right place, and there was at least prosperity.

Negative: Inequality pervades, mankind is being fooled by the world's two largest organisations, people played for pawns and like before, it all ultimately depends on the leadership: a malevolent leadership could put the world in danger, or result in splinter cells.

Templar: Negative.

Positive: Rid of the 'heathen' biomods, mankind is once again pure as God had made him, and not under the sway of vile and corruptible technology. In non-religious terms, this would mean that while biomods could have potentially destroyed the human genome and corrupted humanity beyond measure, they have now been destroyed and humanity is back to its pristine state.

Renegade: Negative.

Positive: Rather than fight in the petty squabbles for world domination, the Omar gradually advance with biomods and technology to become the successor to the human race. And while everyone wipes out each other, the Omar, because of their biomods and adaptability are the only ones to survive and prosper.


It's all about what you agree with and what you don't. :p

FrankCSIS
28th Jan 2009, 04:12
There's one problem with Helios, the same problem I always found in religions. We all have a different vision of the world. I could speculate for hours on why that is, but it's irrelevant, the fact simply is that we do. My fear, with such an omnipotent artificial thinking machine is how it would take into account those various visions, and how it would deal with the temptation of imposing its own. Not that its vision would be necessarily wrong or ill-intended, but it has the potential of being rather dangerous, or at least simply badly adapted. There is no guarantee that "just" is necessarily what we need or are truly looking for. There is no guarantee either for a rational being to understand justice the way we portray it. In fact, justice itself is a rather strange principle, and it highly varies in definition depending on your vision of the world. Once again, who's to say we won't end up with the AI's understanding of Justice?

Not to drift away too much (and I realise I already have), I can't help but link this invented God with the one(s) we already made for ourselves. No matter how intelligent or insightful religions can be on a various array of topics, they have the problem of sharing only one vision of the world, which would be alright in itself if they didn't also claim it to be the portrait of the world as intended by its creator.

As for loss of individuality, I do certainly feel threatened by that aspect, because it makes life absolutely useless. It's difficult enough to find a point to our existence, we certainly don't need a being who decides in our place, no matter how better off we might "objectively" end up. Life in itself is useless, it's absolutely not necessary in our universe for it to exist. If you take away its adaptability and its individuality, you might as well just take it all away. Joining our spirits together to become one sentient being is the equivalent of a collective suicide. In fact you said it yourself, it's the last frontier of our species. The last step, with life as with everything else, is death. It's a logical step, I'll agree with you on that, but it would also mean the death of life.

If there truly was a creator, it's rather obvious by now he never meant to directly intervene with life. Why create one that does?

Romeo
28th Jan 2009, 06:33
Actually, I've seen the endings as ambiguous. They have their pros and cons, and its upto the players to go with whatever matches their philosophy.

DX1:

Helios: Positive. Merge with a benevolent dictator, immune to corruption, able to consider the needs of every being on earth simultaneously.

Negative: As benevolent as a dictator gets, he's still a dictator and cannot ensure the freedom a democracy can. And a machine ruling and presiding over the entire world is an unnerving idea for many. I'm talking about the people who still hate computers in 2008. ;)

Illuminati: Positive. With JC on board, a "compassionate conspiracy" just might work. And Everett seems well-intentioned.

Negative: Everett may seem well-intentioned, but there's still a conspiracy, a hidden shadowy figure dictating the world. Everett's successor may not end up so well-intentioned, or another MJ12 might spring up.

Collapse: Negative. Another conspiracy bent on world domination was sure to rise again in a matter of time. Plus, no more LOL Cats. :(

Positive: By throwing the world into a dark age, Tong ensures that the Illuminati don't secretly hold the keys to the world, thereby giving mankind the chance to start over again, for the better and with freedom.

DX2:

Helios: Negative. It was just creepy.

Positive: Like in DX1's Positive Helios, mankind will be united and connected to a central computer that will for the first time, ensure absolute equality and cater to the needs of every individual as opposed to making gross generalisations.
NEGATIVE
Illuminati: Positive. Barely. Their hearts were in the right place, and there was at least prosperity.

Negative: Inequality pervades, mankind is being fooled by the world's two largest organisations, people played for pawns and like before, it all ultimately depends on the leadership: a malevolent leadership could put the world in danger, or result in splinter cells.
NEGATIVE
Templar: Negative.

Positive: Rid of the 'heathen' biomods, mankind is once again pure as God had made him, and not under the sway of vile and corruptible technology. In non-religious terms, this would mean that while biomods could have potentially destroyed the human genome and corrupted humanity beyond measure, they have now been destroyed and humanity is back to its pristine state.
NEGATIVE
Renegade: Negative.

Positive: Rather than fight in the petty squabbles for world domination, the Omar gradually advance with biomods and technology to become the successor to the human race. And while everyone wipes out each other, the Omar, because of their biomods and adaptability are the only ones to survive and prosper.
POSITIVE

It's all about what you agree with and what you don't. :p
As you can see, the only good ending in Deus Ex 2, is the one where the vastly superior Omar rise up and replace humanity as the dominant species. =)

Dead-Eye
28th Jan 2009, 09:48
In fact you said it yourself, it's the last frontier of our species. The last step, with life as with everything else, is death. It's a logical step, I'll agree with you on that, but it would also mean the death of life.

If there truly was a creator, it's rather obvious by now he never meant to directly intervene with life. Why create one that does?

The Helios merger was too drastic at the end of IW. It did not go with the flow of what people would have wonted. As such I could not except that exact interpretation nor allow it.

However imagine instead of our minds merging with Helios that they would become connected to Helios in a way that you as an individual where willing to accept. Maybe a little voice in your head that talked to you or a rendered friend that only you could see. Only if you where willing to give up you individuality would Helios merge with you mind turning you into this identity.

However even in that there seems to be some underlying idea that we are losing our individuality and becoming something else, something different if we merg. The way it seems expressed is that your "soul" merges with all the other souls to become one big soul. Yet we don't really know what a soul is. Is it the image of god? And if so is a soul something different then god? What if your soul and god are the same thing? That is to say that the "soul" that we all share is not your soul and my soul but our soul. What if we are all in fact manifestations of god in different forums...(pun intended) To merge with Helios would not be the merging of our individuality into one but the realization that we are and always had been one. This would mean that what divides people is not individuality because individuality dose not exist. Instead it would be ignorance. Only our lake of knowledge is what separates us. Our ego. The thing that hides the truth from you but when merging with Helios you realize that you are every other person on the planet as we are all you.

Food for thought at any rate.

spm1138
28th Jan 2009, 13:24
Food for thought at any rate.

Sounds creepy as hell to me.

Why would I even want a "voice in my head"?

It's my head. Why on earth would I want anyone else in it? :rasp:

Blade_hunter
28th Jan 2009, 14:58
The positive endings are almost "subjective", because when I do something even if I think it's good for a person, it wouldn't mean I did the right thing, and even I give him a service.

Saving the world is a big word because we join only a group at the end we don't save the world at all; some groups keep their intention the good and the bad, A dictatorship can think he made the rightest thing for its people, but it's not always the case.

Some people did revolutions to save their country from totalitarian governments but did they save always their country at all ? Not always even if something goes better than before we got always problems to solve and even with new regimes that grants to people freedom, sometimes the freedom is a pure illusion.

Political judgments and even means to govern people by maintaining a certain order in our country/world and keep the people happy is very hard to do and I think it's impossible to do.

When a president wants to make something on its country or even in an other he's decision can be a good decision for some people and a bad form some other.

When we choose to save the world by choosing an ending it's because we think this ending sounds to be the best solution, it wouldn't say, it's the true solution to save the world

SageSavage
28th Jan 2009, 15:23
Saving the world from a specific threat and for the moment - not eternally saving the world from all the harm there is. When you look at it that way it's no problem to "save the world" multiple times.

AaronJ
28th Jan 2009, 20:07
So in Deus Ex 1, you save the world in one of three different ways. In each of them, it appears that there is no return -- the endings are pretty final.

Then, in Deus Ex 2, somehow Denton managed to pull off all 3 endings simultaneously, while at the same time not accomplishing anything at all. :scratch: Then, again, the 4 endings are pretty final, for good or ill.

If Deus Ex 3 is going to be a Deus Ex game, it has to follow the formula of the first two: You fight the bad guys until there's a sudden twist, and then you have a new enemy. You defeat them, then decide the fate of the world.

Do you think there will be a believable narrative at the end of the game to get from the "sunshine & gumdrops" of the ending to "MJ12 runs the show" at the start of DX1? Or will there be no sunshine nor gumdrops? Or will it break from the Deus Ex formula?

No.

NK007
28th Jan 2009, 20:49
Big chance UNATCO will be formed at every ending. I wonder if we could have a Manderley controlled UNATCO or a Simons controlled one or a Sam Carter one. Here's hoping.

Blade_hunter
29th Jan 2009, 03:51
The thing we need some groups / guys that appear to be bad and even if the group sounds to be mysterious.

In the prequel the question isn't how we can save the world but how we can change the world.

In all DX we change the world in a certain manner, but we don't save it at all even if we eradicate a threat.

In DX all choices Bob page is neutralized in a certain manner because he never merge with Helios and got the power, and that's all

The question is How we can change the world to maintain a link with the events in DX and reach the DX point, normally we try to solve a problem in 2027, but those events must be a start to the problems that happened in DX.
even if the begining of those problems are 10 - 20 years after our decisions...

Dead-Eye
30th Jan 2009, 03:06
Sounds creepy as hell to me.

Why would I even want a "voice in my head"?

It's my head. Why on earth would I want anyone else in it? :rasp:

Well look at it this way everyone else in the world has Helios in their head too. No one will notice your crazy self loathing because everyone else will be doing the same thing you are... unless you don't have any problems in which case you'll be the creepy guy in a nice jacket drinking wine in the corner and straying at people as they do their everyday "human" things.

GmanPro
30th Jan 2009, 05:16
You probably wouldn't even know that you had Helios inside your head controlling your every action. For all we know, there could already be an AI controlling the whole world as we speak :eek:

Dead-Eye
30th Jan 2009, 11:35
You probably wouldn't even know that you had Helios inside your head controlling your every action. For all we know, there could already be an AI controlling the whole world as we speak :eek:

Yup it's too late... haven't you played Assassins Creed? It's basically the same thing.

Sabretooth1
30th Jan 2009, 13:53
Sounds creepy as hell to me.

Why would I even want a "voice in my head"?

It's my head. Why on earth would I want anyone else in it? :rasp:
I've always interpreted that as a Googlecracy.

Basically, with Helios connected to everything, you'd be connected to an endless stream of information, kind of like getting an Internet connection in your brain (which is pretty awesome).

Like Google customizes its content to match the user by studying user data, Helios will study you to provide you the best government possible. It's as creepy as it is theoretically utopian.

Mindmute
31st Jan 2009, 15:22
Like Google customizes its content to match the user by studying user data, Helios will study you to provide you the best government possible. It's as creepy as it is theoretically utopian.

It's not just information mining for government purposes, I got the idea it's about everyone knowing what you are thinking at each moment from listening to Helios's speech...

I shudder to think what would happen to something as subjective as art...
Or dating :p

I agree with that other fella, it's pretty creepy to me..



You probably wouldn't even know that you had Helios inside your head controlling your every action. For all we know, there could already be an AI controlling the whole world as we speak :eek:

Quiet.. Or we'll feed you to the Karkians!



On topic:
I honestly don't want to save the world on DX3, I actually hope I get the chance and choice to break it..
What can I say? I've always disliked not being given the choice to join MJ12 in the original game...

SageSavage
31st Jan 2009, 15:24
Btw...

"Google Search Flagging Everything As Potentially Harmful"
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/31/1457221

Yes, right now.

Dead-Eye
1st Feb 2009, 13:20
I've always interpreted that as a Googlecracy.

Basically, with Helios connected to everything, you'd be connected to an endless stream of information, kind of like getting an Internet connection in your brain (which is pretty awesome).

Like Google customizes its content to match the user by studying user data, Helios will study you to provide you the best government possible. It's as creepy as it is theoretically utopian.

Yeah Utopia is creepy... :lol:

Jerion
1st Feb 2009, 21:40
Basically, with Helios connected to everything, you'd be connected to an endless stream of information, kind of like getting an Internet connection in your brain (which is pretty awesome).

Awesome until you download a virus. :eek:

FrankCSIS
2nd Feb 2009, 04:14
Sounds like you're using technology to describe what many believe to already exist, the collective mind.

Dead-Eye
2nd Feb 2009, 10:14
Sounds like you're using technology to describe what many believe to already exist, the collective mind.

It's fairly easy to show proof of a collective mind. How do we know that 12 inches is a foot? (Or 1 meter is 100 CM) We know because it's "common knowledge" that 12 inches is the same as one foot. However common knowledge is really something we know to be true because everyone else said it to be true. Why can't I say that a foot is 11 inches or 13? I could but everyone would say I was wrong. Yet if everyone said that 13 inches was a foot things would be different but there not. In essence what we call truth is really only true because we believe it to be true. The collective minds of people agree on what is truth; not the individual.

Saying there is a collective mind is like saying the sky is blue. The real question is how well developed is the collective mind? Dose it have cognitive thought? (IE something like ants) Or is it more basic and if so how can we upgrade it?

The same way augmentations will be applied to humans come the singularity; augmentations will be applied to the collective mind in the post human era. A Deus Ex Machina; God from the machine. It really is only a matter of time. However I think Invisible War's take on it was far more drastic then it will be when actually implemented. Most likely people will barely notice the collective mind watching them as they go about there normal lives. They will only notice it's actions through the changes in the world as we see it. No more wars and ignorant leaders. Far fewer conflicts and crimes... the kind of world we won't to see go into space.

SageSavage
2nd Feb 2009, 10:47
There's a difference between common knowledge, like conventions (eg. units), which is data input that has been saved and processed offline in your brain (learning process) and a collective mind, which could be seen as some kind of subconscious and ubiquitous network between all living things.

Dead-Eye
3rd Feb 2009, 04:01
There's a difference between common knowledge, like conventions (eg. units), which is data input that has been saved and processed offline in your brain (learning process) and a collective mind, which could be seen as some kind of subconscious and ubiquitous network between all living things.

I would say that common knowledge is a part of the collective mind. In every animal DNA is passed on from parent to child. However in humans we also pass on our memes to our children. The knowledge accumulated by the parent is inherited by the child. This includes conventions, history, etc. This to me shows a basic collective mind. I'm not saying that we are connected with this mind yet people seem to find a place of agreement over time when it is needed. We all agree on units of measurement because we must. When we finally do agree the sum of human knowledge is increased and the collective mind grows. Something that was untrue becomes true. 12 inches becomes a foot. The sun becomes the center of our solar system. The earth is no longer flat. Space becomes a vacuum. All of these things become truth. In the minds of the people.

As we grow we continue to augment this collective mind. We wright books to pass on what we believe to be truth. We apply layers to make laws on what is truth. We use democracy to find the medium point on what the people believe to be truth. We have Wikipedia to collect the sum total of human knowledge. We do this so that 'we' can grow. There are still so many things we do not understand about our universe and as we find it we grow. The collective mind grows.

hem dazon 90
3rd Feb 2009, 06:11
Good point. None of the endings in DX really had you "saving" the world, at least in any conventional sense. The endings were:

a) merge with an A.I. and rule the world (no guarantee that people will be better off)

b) rule the world in secret in a compassionate conspiracy (again, no guarantee but at least you have a job)

c) destroy the internet, thus sending the world back to the 1970s (no more LOLcats! :eek: )

I suppose that in DX 3 you don't really need to save the world. You just need to lay the groundwork for events to transpire as they do in DX 1. :)

Of course, saving the world would be a cool touch. :cool:

No Not the lolcats!!

SageSavage
3rd Feb 2009, 08:05
@Dead-Eye:

I'd say "common knowledge" is another word for "cultural memory", which is a part of the "collective memory". There's no doubt that such a thing exists. I am not sure how much cultural information is passed through DNA but it is covered by this concept because it's still just individually stored information.

Collective memory may or may not be one of the many parts of the rather fuzzy, borderline esoteric, concept called "collective mind", which (like a a single "mind") would also include realtime functionality and combine all subconscious and conscious processes (which I said wrong in the previous post). It's totally a matter of believe if it exists as a whole or not and therefore I'd rather avoid this term as long as possible.

Tstorm
3rd Feb 2009, 20:27
New enemy is needed

facepalm
3rd Feb 2009, 20:50
We've had to endure much, you and I...

This.

singularity
3rd Feb 2009, 22:03
On the note of the original topic, I don't think you need to save the world at all.
The two previous games featured events on a very grand scale (conspiracies that spanned centuries, corruption that spanned the globe), so it's natural to assume that a similar approach will be taken with this prequel -- however, such huge events with such huge consequences are hardly needed for a good game, or even an emotional gaming experience -- Alex doesn't need to save the world (or even himself). In fact, if he did, it would screw with the Deus Ex mythos a little, seeing as how the world is in pretty bad shape by the time we catch up with Paul and JC on libery island.

Like the other two games that came before it, I wouldn't be surprised if this game focused more on the story, and less on the characters telling it (lets face it -- none of us can say with certenty what JC's motives were... what his priorities were, etc. -- a common problem with RPGs, as you have to build your own character)

As for the topic of merging with AIs and bluring the line between biology and technology, others have said it better than I, so I will let them tell you.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1079797626827646234

Dead-Eye
4th Feb 2009, 21:30
@Dead-Eye:

I'd say "common knowledge" is another word for "cultural memory", which is a part of the "collective memory". There's no doubt that such a thing exists. I am not sure how much cultural information is passed through DNA but it is covered by this concept because it's still just individually stored information.

Collective memory may or may not be one of the many parts of the rather fuzzy, borderline esoteric, concept called "collective mind", which (like a a single "mind") would also include realtime functionality and combine all subconscious and conscious processes (which I said wrong in the previous post). It's totally a matter of believe if it exists as a whole or not and therefore I'd rather avoid this term as long as possible.

I agree with that.

Larington
4th Feb 2009, 23:40
Just for a change, I'd like a game where you drive away with the girl having decided the world can fall apart for all you care because you have a destiny with a personal paradise island. Thats proper badass, rather than the big guns, muscles, in-combat attitude and armour stuff that certain people try to pass off as badass these days.