By Kieron Gillen on September 6th, 2011 at 1:23 pm.

The new Deus Ex is about many things, but ranking high amongst them is DRM. I’m not even joking. (The following article contains spoilers to the very end of the game.)
Human Revolution is a meditation on technology’s ability to make us more than human, and the dangers (both perceived and actual) herein. This is a universal, perpetual theme that’s interwoven with civilization. We have been made more than human since our greatn ancestor chimp picked up a rock and bashed the living shit out of something that was trying to kill it.
I’m a cyborg. I am able to write this today because the technologies of antibiotics and surgery were able to remove a malfunctioning organ when I was 24. If this was 200 years ago, I would have died from the common appendicitis. Now, I sit with a hole in my belly, my physiology altered for the better as much as any of the cyborgs in Human Revolution. Equally, unless you’re crouched in the corner of my room, watching over my shoulder, you’re reading this via an internet technology developed to avoid the hammer-footsteps of nukes instantly removing the military’s ability to scream “Fucking hell! We’re fucking fucked!” at each other when the bombs started wiping them out. You could be in an office, or a beach, or a packed train or wherever, and my thoughts are being projected directly to you. And that in turn rests on the technology that made us more than human several thousand years ago, able to transmit thoughts across time and space. The written word allows Plato – 2400 years dead – to project his thoughts directly into the mind of anyone who bothers to read him.
And as technology changed what it meant to be human, people question its merits. Let’s take Plato’s thoughts – through the mouthpiece of Ammon in his dialogues – talking about the very technology that allows him to reach us through the years:
“If men learn this, it will implant forgetfulness in their souls; they will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks. What you have discovered is a recipe not for memory, but for reminder. And it is no true wisdom that you offer your disciples, but only its semblance, for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing, and as men filled, not with wisdom, but with the conceit of wisdom, they will be a burden to their fellows.”

Technology gives us power. And some of us always fear that the technology that is providing this power will also reduce us, to the point of ending us.
Right now? We’re all superhumans. And as time goes by, at least in the industrialised world, we’re all increasingly superhuman. It’s almost impossible to over-emphasise how much technology has made us titans. It was said, the Colt is the great equaliser. For the last century, I would favour your gran with a gun over any martial artist in the world. Today, I’d favour anyone with a basic understanding of Google over pretty much any scholar in matters of general knowledge. Frankly, after a prompt from Dan Griliopoulos, the previous two paragraphs are pretty much evidence of that. I appear more learned than I actually am by the power of a Google search. And that power is only going to increase over time.
Communal sighing for the loss of human achievement is misplaced. This is the fundamental story of humanity. We’ve only ever been what our technology has made us. And if it made us, will it destroy us? That’s been the story since Prometheus, and if we observed humanity from a distance, I suspect it’s the story aliens would tell about us. “Humanity: an animal on a little muddy ball with a nasty addiction to the steroid of technology”.
We live in the shadow of Oppenheimer. Nukes have the ability to annihilate human society in an eye blink. But nukes are nukes, held by larger bodies. What happens when people can turn themselves into something with the ability to alter society as much as a nuke? What happens when the technology means there is absolutely no need to pay anything but lip service to the society in which you find yourself?

It’s the end of the world. Even for people who are in favour of the eternal acceleration, it’s the end. The geek rapture of the Singularity is nothing if not an ending.
Human Revolution is about reactionary forces trying to put that genie back in the bottle.
Human Revolution methodically takes us through a host of aspects of how an emerging technology is changing society. By doing so, they’re using a science-fiction filter to show how technology effects any society. Take, for example, the memorable plot in Shanghai where a trader from a poor background is in debt to a money-lender to pay for the cybernetics that allow her to play on an equal playing field with everyone else. People who come from backgrounds which can afford to pay for it. Even away from that particular incident, the wealthy draining money from those who buy the advantages they need to prosper is all too visible in the world’s initial set-ups. While medically necessary, the anti-rejection drugs you’re on for life if you become a cyborg are fundamentally an endless mortgage on your life. You do not pay, you die. But if you don’t get the cybernetics, you sink to the bottom of society. What choice do you have but to become as much meat as metal. Technology is the key to temporal power which is the key to economic power with pays for the technology. It’s a vicious circle. And when bought-for-advantages entirely outstrip anything a lucky genetic throw of the dice can give you, those towards the bottom of society are perpetually annihilated.
Of course, strip away the metaphor, and it’s already leaning like that. As a child, in a Midlands town, I was never aware of class on a day-to-day basis. It’s when I went to work at PC Gamer and realised that I was the only person on the magazine who went to a comprehensive rather than a private school that the penny dropped. In the decade and change since then, it’s got worse for young writers. Not willing or able to work as an unpaid intern? You may just be screwed.
Human Revolution’s point: the more technology advances, the more advantages it buys, and the more those unable to purchase it suffer.
There’s a flip to it though. While the bleeding edge of tech – what lets you operate as the best in the world – is beyond most, whatever’s lagging behind becomes more available. And older tech is still, in its own way, power beyond what you would have “naturally”. And to return to my nuke metaphor, when the gap in earnings and societal respect becomes a chasm, having a large underclass with access to even the original generation of nukes is a recipe for the aforementioned end of the world.

In Human Revolution, Hugh Darrow – Augmentation’s Oppenheimer – sees the world he’s created and can’t help but think it’s doomed. He does not trust people with the power he’s given them. Moreover, he doesn’t trust those who have power over others to act correctly. He knows what the Illuminati were planning – the ability to prevent anyone in the world mis-using the nukes beneath the skin. While we can easily say his bitterness is because he’s physically incapable of accepting augmentations himself – therefore, is always going to be left behind by progress – he does have a point. This is what technology allows people to do, both the masters and the serfs. You are deluded if you believe by putting technology into your body you make it yours. It is still theirs – and putting it into your body, makes you theirs.
The Illuminati’s original position doesn’t really care about that. It thinks the masters are best for the people. If people are free to just do whatever they want, they’re going to destroy the society. If everyone has a nuke, even if the vast majority can use it responsibly, it only takes a tiny portion to decide to mis-use it to bring ruination. So, by fair means or foul, there must be a way of enforcing discipline. By killswitching this world-ending they maintain control. They have added entirely unnecessary functions to a piece of technology because they distrust human nature to use it responsibly and maintain a societal order.
At which point you see the DRM metaphor. The Illuminati’s plan is to put DRM into every piece of cybernetics to ensure that it’s not misused – or, if it is misused, it can be prevented from causing wide-spread harm. Darrow’s murderous critique isn’t just that augmentations are dangerous – but that augmentations will leave you open to something like this. His problem is both what the augmentations let you do (“I can tear that dude’s head clean off if I feel like it”) and what they make you do (“They can make you feel like tearing that dude’s head clean off if they feel like it”). Some technology is just too dangerous for anyone to allow it to exist, because the safety-locks you “have” to add to it are just as rife for abuse as the technology it exists to control.
David Sarif’s one of the most interesting figures in the game. Making a corporate head sinister has been a cliché (if an understandable one) for decades now, but Sarif has a Steve-Jobsian charisma to him. Of all the leaders, I like him most. Of all the leaders, my best instincts wish he was right. He believes we can trust people to push this tech as far as we can, because it’ll turn all right in the end. Those who are worrying about it are just old people. The old always say the young are changing us for the worse. The young always say the old never understand. However, I find myself thinking, just because this will always happen – and has always happened – as long as there are young and old, does not mean that at different times one side is always righter or wronger than the other.

As much as I like Sarif, I don’t trust his successor or his peers to act like him. And I don’t trust Sarif in five or ten years time, because time changes people. By then, he could be just like one of the Illuminati, looking for ways to maintain control. Or, to look at the world we live in, just because Google have been relatively lovely up to now, we shouldn’t necessarily assume that they’re not going to decide to be Doctor Doom in two weeks time and simultaneously blackmail every Google-account-owning person in the world.
How time changes people preyed on my mind as I finished Human Revolution. A decade ago, with the first game, I went with Tracer Tong and burned down civilization for hope of a more equitable, better world tomorrow. This time around, I sided with the people who wanted to put a DRM-chip inside every consumers’ head.
Yeah, I went with the Illuminati. How the young radical has changed, eh?
After seeing the world of Human Revolution, I simply saw a disaster. I was too in love with the concept of progress to go for simply nailing the door shut to the future that Darrow offered. Equally, Sarif’s tech-utopia was mediated by corporate bodies. I trusted Sarif. I don’t trust the immortal, perfect soulless machine of a corporation. And to leave it up to humans? My second choice. My idealistic one. This is too big for any one man, especially me. However, in a world where bodies with no responsibility to the public wield so much money and power, I couldn’t see how what the world would decide would be anything other than what the corporations told them to think. Or, at least, until it was too late.
To cite Plato’s famous peer Uncle Ben, with great power comes great responsibility. The anarchist in me would like to think that in times to come people would learn to live without the controls. But whoever I am today thinks that without some enforced restraint, the dark future of Human Revolution simply becomes no future. I simply don’t believe that enough people in Human Revolution’s world would do the right thing. Not Yet. Maybe ever.
So I guess that’s my confession. Human Revolution convinced me that in certain situations, to prevent a certain abuse of technology, I’m totally fine with the sort of draconian DRM that even certain major PC publishers would think a trifle harsh.
I’m one of them now. Shit.




06/09/2011 at 13:28 Bilbo says:
“I’m a cyborg. I am able to write this today because the technologies of antibiotics and surgery were able to remove a malfunctioning organ when I was 24. If this was 200 years ago, I would have died from the common appendicitis. Now, I sit with a hole in my belly, my physiology altered for the better as much as any of the cyborgs in Human Revolution.”
Come on, now. They’ve got swords for elbows and shit.
06/09/2011 at 13:37 Balobam says:
I don’t know about you, but I wish when I had my tonsils removed they’d replaced them with tiny flamethrowers.
I look forward to the future.
06/09/2011 at 13:49 bglamb says:
We’ve been living in the future for ages now. It just creeps up on you so you don’t notice.
Lovely piece of writing Kieron. Thanks for that.
06/09/2011 at 13:52 MCM says:
You probably wouldn’t have gotten appendicitis 200 years (or longer) ago. Rates of appendicitis in developing countries are like 1% of that in developed countries.
We shouldn’t make the mistake of assuming that what happens in the first place is “natural” and that our solutions are “artificial”.
06/09/2011 at 14:48 WPUN says:
You think Deus Ex is science, but it’s not. It’s pure fantasy! This is way it would really be:
Thank you for purchasing a General Products Replacement Appendix, Part of Our “Bin and Win” Line of Budget Replacement Organs! Before you can use your new General Products Replacement Appendix, please read and acknowledge the End User Licencing Agreement (150 pgs.) , the Terms of Use (25 pgs.), and the FAQ (1/2 pg.).
Please be aware your General Products Replacement Appendix will only stay under warranty as long as you select modification and upgrades exclusively from the General Products Replacement Organ ModShop(tm). We may also require your General Products Replacement Appendix to upload firmware changes that may remove previously available functionality as General Products or Third Party Providers deems necessary.
*Popup* Hey, I’m your Mod Licencing Manager intelligent assistant! I wanted to alert you that I’ve only been able to download half of the upgrades required for your General Products Replacement Appendix. Please be aware some activities may not be protected by your Comprehensive Mod Liability Coverage until all upgrades are installed. Thanks, have a nice day! OK.
*Popup* Ling Standard “Give ‘em the Toe” Big Toe Enhancement tech note 9p8y45: We suggest turning off anti-fungal subsystems if you have recently installed a General Products Replacement Appendix, versions 2.3 to 3.7 inclusive. OK. Message Boards. Cancel.
*Popup* Your General Products Replacement Appendix has been successful installed, Do you wish to restart your limbic system? Yes. Later.
*Popup* Would you like to fill out your General Products Replacement Appendix warranty card now? Yes. Later.
*Popup* Your General Products Replacement Appendix has been successful installed, Do you wish to restart your limbic system? Yes. Later.
*Popup* We’re sorry, you can’t restart until you complete the General Products Replacement Appendix warranty card. OK.
*Popup* The General Products Replacement Appendix warranty card cannot be used right now because the system is shutting down. OK.
*Popup* We’re sorry, you can’t restart until you complete the General Products Replacement Appendix warranty card. OK.
Care to guess where the master reset switch is?
Yeah, I thought you’d figure that one out.
06/09/2011 at 16:58 Mr_Hands says:
@WPUN: This sounds about right. Deus Ex (for the sake of dramatic tension) rather overstates the impact that technology has on social systems. It’s easier (and typically more fun) to articulate an extremist/technological determinist view in which technology is essentially a tyrant that forces its will upon a gormless populace. The reality is (as always) a lot more complicated, as social structures and regulatory bodies enact a dialogic relationship with emergent technologies.
I imagine, had Deus Ex had a more moderate tone, of course, it wouldn’t have done so well. Or at least required a stupendous amount of philosophical debate (enough to choke a horse with an augmented epiglottis) to coherently get the point across. Which, had they made THAT game instead, I’d have been pining for the dystopian cyberpunk madness where all I need to do is skim an email for an access code (that I soundly ignore and hack the keypad anyways.)
06/09/2011 at 20:14 outoffeelinsobad says:
@WPUN: Glass half-empty much? Not every user interface needs to be Windows ME, thanks.
06/09/2011 at 22:11 Sweetz says:
Unless your appendix was replaced by a machine counterpart, you’re not a cyborg. Having an organ removed does not make you a cyborg.
Couldn’t be bothered to finish article after opening paragraphs. Author needs to be a bit less infatuated with his self-supposed cleverness.
07/09/2011 at 00:20 Grygus says:
@Sweetz I think your definition is too narrow, practically speaking. Check this out.
08/09/2011 at 21:17 rufflove says:
“Come on, now. They’ve got swords for elbows and shit.”
Innit. Bladerunner it ain’t.
The story struck me as a rather hackneyed, cyberpunk-by-rote affair, which exhibited little more than a cursory ambivalence towards the Clint-meets-Neo augmented coolness of its protagonist. I suspect all the waxing lyrical about the game is as much a product of its seductive powers, as it is á product of the game’s more thought provoking moments. Ahhh, the PC Gamer days… I still remember your Homeworld review, Kieron. Still a great game with an affecting story. Shame about the review!
06/09/2011 at 13:33 Hexanol says:
My New Games Journalism is augmented.
06/09/2011 at 13:39 TooNu says:
That was a funny comment indeed :) well done.
06/09/2011 at 13:33 jon_hill987 says:
I am a Cyborg. Due to a serious ear infection/cyst I have had the bones in my middle ear (just in the left one) replaced with a lump of plastic.
Can’t hear for shit with it though but it is much better than nothing at all.
06/09/2011 at 13:46 Stuart Walton says:
I am a cyborg. I had my chest cut open, heart stopped, heart cut open, valve repaired (with sutures) and hole patched (with an autograft so no drugs needed for the rest of my lfe). Then closed up with steel wires holding my ribcage together. Also, my iPod and netbook are constantly at hand.
06/09/2011 at 16:06 jon_hill987 says:
Maybe one day I’ll be able to have my ear replaced with one that works like an owl ear and you will get a super roboheart that is twice as good as a regular one and makes you have regenerating health or something.
06/09/2011 at 16:42 nrvsNRG says:
Maybe one day I’ll be able to have my ear replaced with one that works like an owl ear and you will get a super roboheart that is twice as good as a regular one and makes you have regenerating health or something.
aawwww!bless your cotton socks :)
06/09/2011 at 16:53 jon_hill987 says:
I am quite serious, granted my suggestions for improvements were not but when and if it does get to the stage when artificial replacements for our broken squidgy bits are better than the real thing why should those of us who have had such work don in the past not go under the knife again to get it put right?
06/09/2011 at 17:44 The Innocent says:
I am a cyborg too.
When I was a wee baby, I had one of my kidneys removed.
They put in an Icarus Landing System in its place.
I wish that second part were true. =(
06/09/2011 at 22:02 Oak says:
My vision is augmented by spectacles.
06/09/2011 at 13:36 JackDandy says:
Nice.
DRM still sucks, tho!
06/09/2011 at 13:37 wccrawford says:
You aren’t a cyborg. You had something removed, not replaced. People with fake hearts are cyborgs. I’d even go so far as to say those with pacemakers could be considered cyborgs. But not people that are just missing something.
As for the rest of it… You’re trading your freedom (and mine!) for the illusion of safety. So yeah, you really ARE one of ‘them’ now. Just because your chip is ‘safe’ because it has DRM doesn’t mean that the criminal’s is. In fact, I’d bet that it isn’t. And that his chip is quite a bit better than yours because of it.
This isn’t really even about DRM. It’s a gun ban. “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” You can’t prevent the outlaws from having guns. That’s impossible. They don’t care about the law. You can, however, make sure that normal people can defend themselves against outlaws. That not only gives them protection, but disincentivizes the outlaw’s illegal actions in the first place.
06/09/2011 at 13:39 Jim Rossignol says:
Your definition of “cyborg” needs to be augmented. I suggest reading this: http://50cyborgs.tumblr.com/
06/09/2011 at 13:43 Richard Beer says:
I think Kieron’s parallel of DRM is slightly flawed, and that wccrawford’s suggestion of gun control is better.
When you walk down the street, you’re in no danger from someone who’s illegally downloaded a cracked copy of a game.
06/09/2011 at 13:44 Richard Beer says:
Although I disagree with his stance that gun-control can’t work!
06/09/2011 at 13:45 Jacques says:
I think I agree with wccrawford definition, but it does appear that we need a new name to talk about mechanically enhanced post humans.
I’d lean towards body hacking as the term, which Quinn Norton mentions elsewhere, but without mentioning the originator of the idea, Lukas Zpira.
http://www.sterneck.net/ritual/zpira-body/index.php
Interestingly, Zpira is also working on some rather cool looking implants that create metal pockets in the skin, to, for example, hold an ipod.
06/09/2011 at 13:48 Baboonanza says:
‘This isn’t really even about DRM. It’s a gun ban. “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” You can’t prevent the outlaws from having guns. That’s impossible. They don’t care about the law. You can, however, make sure that normal people can defend themselves against outlaws. That not only gives them protection, but disincentivizes the outlaw’s illegal actions in the first place.’
That’s the same bullshit argument that gets trotted out every time by the pro-gun lobby. If it was true then everyone in the UK would be living in fear of gun-wielding criminals, totally unable to defend ourselves. In reality we have a very, very low gun-crime rate while the US has a tragically high one (I suspect the per-capita rate of accidental shootings alone in the US is still higher than the overall rate in the UK but I don’t have the stats).
In other words the facts directly contradict your statement. It should read: “If guns are outlawed, less people get shot.”
06/09/2011 at 13:49 karry says:
“You can’t prevent the outlaws from having guns. That’s impossible. ”
Absolutely possible. Stop producing the fucking guns. There. Done. You’re welcome.
“we have a very, very low gun-crime rate while the US has a tragically high one”
Dont forget the monthly school-shootouts. Never a dull moment in US.
06/09/2011 at 13:58 Jumwa says:
I suppose gun control could work absolutely if the police and armed forces were willing to hand over their guns. And we lived under a global government that could enforce that universally.
But seriously, plenty of countries with high legal gun ownership rates have extremely low gun violence rates. Canada for instance. My home corner of the country has a homicide rate lower than that of any nation, but an extremely high rate of gun ownership. And homicides committed with a gun are almost unheard of, they’re almost exclusively accidental deaths from drunken bar fights.
A more apt comparison here to piracy would be that: your culture surrounding a product will shape use of the product–legal or otherwise–more than laws or rules surrounding it. Formalized restraints on human behaviours in the form of laws (or in this case DRM) have always been rather blunt and inexact methods of regulating human behaviour.
06/09/2011 at 14:03 Berzee says:
@karry: because outlaws could never make their own gun!
06/09/2011 at 14:05 Sheng-ji says:
Total Firearm related death per 100,000
US 15.22
England 0.46
Looks like giving everyone guns really dissuades those criminals huh!
06/09/2011 at 14:11 Theory says:
@Jumwa: Don’t make the mistake of filtering your sample like that. As Kieron points out there will always be lots of people who behave sensibly. The problem is that we have technology which creates change so acute (nukes, shooting sprees, bomb vests) that even a tiny handful of abusers can create huge amounts of misery.
Edit: FYI, Canada is the fourth-worst industrialised nation for firearms murder after the USA, Italy (mafia violence?) and Finland.
06/09/2011 at 14:13 JackShandy says:
Basically, if you make it harder to get guns, guns are used less.
It’s crazy, I know, but give it a chance.
06/09/2011 at 14:25 PoLLeNSKi says:
To go back to the DRM comparison – supplying people with easily copied versions of software means that people ‘may’ be more tempted to pass on those copies.
I remember when I was still at school it was very usual for people to be handing around floppy disks of the latest games, maybe sometimes raiding the school-photocopier to copy the piracy protection of the ‘DRM’ which accompanied them.
If that opportunity was still about nowadays with the internet to advertise and distribute pirated games using a simple PDF file for the manuals/codewheels, it’d be likely that on day 1 there would be copies flying around the internet. (Also it’s FAR less hassle for most consumers to register a game through Steam than to have to look up the word on the 50th page, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence each time they want to play – I make no excuses for Ubisoft though who use their idiotic always-on DRM).
EDIT @Theory: 4th after USA, Italy and Finland.
So N.Ireland, Switzerland and France aren’t Industrialised? Also according to your link, Italy has fewer incidents. Interesting ^^
RE-EDIT:: Was looking at suicides included as well – you still missed out N.Ireland tho
06/09/2011 at 14:33 Theory says:
@PoLLeNSKi: I’m sorting by homicide. Sorting by total deaths includes suicide, which doesn’t seem like a fair point of comparison.
I also excluded NI because it was more or less a warzone when its figures were taken.
06/09/2011 at 14:44 PoLLeNSKi says:
I found this while looking for ownership against homicide rates:: http://www.gun-control-network.org/International.gif – the hosting page http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm has more stats on there as well.
I was surprised to see Canada nestled in amongst all the other countries – I had heard that they would be an anomaly :)
I did notice it says ‘Intentional’ in the y-axis, so there is a possibility that including ‘accidental’ incidents skewed the data somehow.
06/09/2011 at 14:51 Binho says:
@ Sheng-ji
Those statistics are meaningless. In Brazil, where guns are illegal, the gun-death rate is 14.15 per 100,000.
Also, if you look at the statistics, half the gun related deaths in the US are suicides. Brazil, where guns are illegal, has a higher homicide rate.
France, where guns are illegal, also has a higher gun-death rate than Canada, where guns are legal.
Gun related deaths are very much related to illegal organised crime and cultural issues. End of. School shooting happen here in Europe as well. England has had a historically low gun crime rate, even before harsher controls on guns. Not that it is particularly difficult to get one here though. Do you know you don’t have to give the police a reason to own a shotgun here, if you have a certificate? And you are allowed to own as many as you can safely store?
And I don’t think the DRM comparison is entirely correct. Games don’t give you any advantage in life. They are not dangerous. You wouldn’t put DRM chips on board games or D&D, would you? What’s the difference? Is it just because AAA studios spend millions, that they somehow deserve to have people buy their game?
And I wouldn’t want a kill-switch either. What’s to stop an irresponsible corporate moron, or a group of terrorist hackers from finding a work-around to the kill-switch and holding people’s life hostage? Or from killing you from afar to rob your house? So you would rather have your life perpetually held hostage by the powerful, or the possibly incompetent? Just because some one else may be a threat?
06/09/2011 at 14:54 Jumwa says:
@ Theory
You’re not comparing homicides to homicides-with-firearms though. You’re just saying “Look! People are committing homicide with guns!”
Does it actually increase the homicide rate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#2000s
Looking at actual homicide rates, even with the influence of our very hostile and violence-ridden neighbour to the south so strong here, Canada’s over all homicide rate ranks in the second lowest tier. With my own province ranked at a 0.20 despite high ownership rates.
The culture of violence down south permeates Canada a great deal, but I don’t think you can blame their violence on gun ownership either. Switzerland, last I checked, had a high gun ownership rate and a lowest tier homicide rating.
Edit to add: Yes, Switzerland is ranked higher than Canada in gun ownership, but lower in deaths. So obviously gun ownership doesn’t explain everything, or even seemingly most of the picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership
06/09/2011 at 15:04 Theory says:
That’s a good point, but tellingly my initial claim still holds a lot of water. Removing the developing world from that list leaves us with:
USA
Liechtenstein (WTF? Might be page vandalism)
Finland
South Korea
New Zealand
Israel
Belgium / Canada equally
That’s still pretty damn high.
It’s also very simplistic to merge gun murder into general murder when firearms make killing so easy. I doubt there have been many drive-by stabbings in history, and you don’t often find bystanders stabbed in the crossfire between two gangs.
What we really need to look at is how many murders would not have been committed if guns had not been involved, which isn’t something that tables of numbers will ever give us. As you can see in the paragraph above, I think the answer is “plenty”.
Edit: I have never claimed that there is a simple link between lots of guns and lots of deaths. Only that reducing the easy routes to murder reduces the number of murders taking place, and that cherry-picking samples isn’t helpful.
Edit 2: I can now see an
amusingmorbid parallel with piracy arguments. On the one hand “they wouldn’t have bought it anyway”, on the other “they would have killed him anyway”. Both of which only hold true if you focus on favourable examples.06/09/2011 at 15:14 Jumwa says:
Sure they make things easier.
I’ve never argued that there’s no relation at all, but the correlation is low. And when you realize the fourth highest gun owning nation is one of the safest, it’s obvious the correlation is low. If the discussion is: does gun ownership have zero relation to homicides at all or not? Then that’s a silly and pointless discussion. Of course they do. Owning a car makes it easier to kill people too, it’s why we regulate their use.
But even insightful regulations don’t hold a candle to a culture of non-violence that lacks the socially accepted concept of blood-vengeance and personal retribution.
If we want to lower gun-related homicides, let’s cultivate a culture where such things are taboo. Strip our police of such weapons as a first step, and get away from glamourizing such violence in our movies and games. The latter not as legal steps, but as just socially responsible actions motivated by activism.
Also, let’s not forget to address poverty. That will be a key step into alleviating almost all forms of crime.
Just to reiterate though, on the original topic, I don’t see how such arguments really relate to DRM. There’s really no relation between a powerful tool and some bits of harmless code.
06/09/2011 at 15:17 jimjonescult says:
@theory
there is no statistical evidence that gun control laws influence crime rates.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
06/09/2011 at 15:27 Binho says:
@Theory
So Eastern Europe, Brazil, Russia and Mexico are the developing world? The latter two have 3x the homicide rate than the USA. The former, has 4x the homicide rate – though less total gun-deaths (Even though more of those are homicides), and is one of the top 10 world economies.
You can’t be that selective with your evidence. What the evidence suggests to me is the US has some hardcore social issues. And I would agree, from what i’ve seen. I’m sure most of the gun related deaths occur in the poorer communities of the USA. I’m pretty sure the gun crime around the rich WASP’s is as low as in the UK.
Not to mention the UK has a higher overall homicide rate than Italy, which has a significantly higher total gun-death and gun-homicide rate and stricter gun laws.
06/09/2011 at 15:41 Theory says:
I agree entirely. You’ll notice that I’ve not made any claims about how guns should be weeded out of society up till now. :) This should also answer jimjonescult and Binho.
This, to start another thread of discussion, is the problem America has. Gun ownership was enshrined in its written constitution hundreds of years ago and has ended up an indelible part of their culture, despite technological advances making it ludicrous (ages-to-reload muskets then, automatic rifles now).
It isn’t. It’s the joint-seventh worst. Again, you are projecting your own personal experience onto a much larger canvas. (Perhaps I’m sensitive about this because I realised I’d made the same mistake after this summer’s riots.)
@Binho:
I would say so. They certainly don’t belong with the countries I did rank. Insert your own term if “developing world” means something more specific to you than to me.
Just to reiterate: I have never said anything about laws. Laws are an abstraction that need not have any bearing on reality.
Since I live in a country that already has gun control, gun laws are a non-issue to me and you can assume I am not thinking about them.
06/09/2011 at 16:08 Jumwa says:
@ Theory
I find myself worrying as I grow older about the influence of our violent culture, such as in video games.
No, not in the absurd notion that we’re all blank tablets walking around being imprinted upon by movies and games to become violent killers. I think that’s absurd. But we are normalizing violence and notions of blood-vengeance and war. We play games that trivialize and celebrate war, and I can’t imagine that doesn’t influence to some degree peoples political perceptions on the frivelous violence our nations inflict on others.
At the same time, however, I don’t care to monopolize control of force of arms in the hands of governments I don’t trust to act on our behalf.
I see it as a multifaceted issue that needs a broad, across the board addressing. I’d be up for seeing a non-legal decline in the number of violent games and movies to see it come about, but it’s not up for me alone to say.
06/09/2011 at 16:42 Theory says:
This has always happened, right back to the dawn of man, yet we are a more peaceful species now than we have ever been. I am glad to be alive today and not in 1913, when I would have likely been so ignorant of war and violence that I would have happily joined my friends in marching off to the trenches with a cheery smile. Violent images will inspire a few, and modern technology makes them more dangerous than ever, but still horrifies and teaches the vast majority.
In fact this is a connection I’d not made before. Perhaps the shift from nations going to war to individuals going on tech-enhanced killing sprees is down, on one side, to the electorate being so much better educated.
I’m afraid that the citizens-resisting-army idea is pure fantasy. We already know what happens in that situation: look at Iraq or Afghanistan. I’d rather be invaded peacefully, thanks.
06/09/2011 at 17:05 Jumwa says:
There is a stark difference between depictions of war that are realistic and impactful, and depictions of war and violence which trivialize and make light of. You’re acting as if there is and can be no difference.
Certainly, war is less of an issue now than it was in past times–though a single war between majour powers with modern technology would change that immediately–that doesn’t mean we give up on progress entirely or treat what we have as the best.
Note that the homicide rate now is much lower than it was in centuries past. If you’re sincerely using that as an argument to say nothing needs to be done about the trivializing of warfare than you’ve just refuted your own argument about gun violence.
06/09/2011 at 17:55 Drinking with Skeletons says:
I’m an American who lives in the rural south (although North Carolina is hardly the paragon of southern culture it used to be) and I have to say that Europe seems to have an odd view of the U.S. My family took a trip to England once, and I recall seeing an episode of a show that focused on wild police chases and criminal behavior. We have those here as well, and in fact I seem to remember recognizing some of the footage from American shows. However, the British show painted a picture of America as some kind of lawless frontier, a Hollywood Wild West transplanted across time and the boundaries of fiction to appear in the present day.
The truth is that we Americans mostly leave each other alone except when circumstances force us to interact. We are very far from a monolithic culture, and we have a tendency to compartmentalize ourselves based on social class, geography, interests, and more. Gun violence occurs more frequently in specific subsets of the population as a result of these cultural differences. For example, and at the risk of offending someone, the African American population of the U.S. contributes to far more “everyday” (for lack of a better term) gun violence than any other group. The white population contributes far less, despite the fact that the gun-worshiping, militia-forming, NRA mindset that is so often associated with the U.S. as a whole is almost exclusively a white phenomenon.
I could go on in more detail (and I might in another post), but I’m worried about the length of my post. It just bugs me–as I’m sure it does everyone else–when outside observers make sweeping generalizations about my nation and its character.
06/09/2011 at 18:05 Theory says:
I keep trying to write a comment here, but the site thinks it’s spam. So here it is on Pastebin.
@Drinking with Skeletons: Telly is crap, what can I say? I’m sure we get the same treatment on US programmes.
06/09/2011 at 18:19 Jumwa says:
@ Theory
I wasn’t separating homicide between state-sanctioned and non-state-sanctioned as is most common. I would like to see both lessened over time. Law enforcement that uses force beyond what is absolutely necessary loses its legitimacy and becomes an agent for promoting violence.
My remark about those movies and games which trivialize or glorify violence and warfare in particular was not a call for criminalization or even legal restraint, as I stressed. I just think we could do with less of them, and an enhancing of a taboo upon violence of every sort. To encourage the path towards treating those subjects more seriously when addressed.
If that’s the path we’ve already been going down, I can’t help but think encouraging further would only be a good thing.
06/09/2011 at 18:56 Drinking with Skeletons says:
@Theory: “I’m sure we get the same treatment on US programmes.”
Not really. I recall watching an episode of My Hero (I think; can’t really remember what it was called, it was a decent enough superhero comedy) on BBC America which had a character proclaim that George W. Bush was a terrible president. I was shocked, not because of the statement–which wasn’t and isn’t uncommon in the U.S. and one that I think is basically correct–but that it was coming from a foreign citizen.
In the U.S. we largely believe in minding our own business. Despite the shenanigans from certain factions within the government (mainly the CIA and the Executive Branch) and the busybody media, the average citizen doesn’t see it as his place to get involved in foreign affairs and certainly doesn’t publicly criticize or comment upon foreign powers except in direct comparison with ourselves (often to highlight our own shortcomings, I might add). For example, despite the cheerleading going on recently in the media regarding the situation in Libya, the response from the public has been lukewarm at best. We have our own problems, and Khadafi wasn’t one of them. Trying to solve other people’s problems is a quick way to make them bigger and, worse, ours.
More often other nations are spoken of with gushing praise: beautiful scenery, delicious food, friendly people, and charming accents. Intelligent Americans who travel enough realize that many nations–including our allies–have a deep-rooted loathing of Americans stemming from many poorly thought-through government decisions over the past century or so. Most others, however, have a difficult time comprehending this, as our view of other nations is so positive that it’s hard to understand why the feeling wouldn’t be reciprocated.
07/09/2011 at 00:14 Ultra-Humanite says:
@Drinking with Skeletons: I’d stay away from broad generalizations altogether. It doesn’t take much digging to find American snark towards foreigners.
07/09/2011 at 03:34 kanine says:
The US may have a higher amount of gun related incidents but Ill take that any day over the UK’s crime rate.
“The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html#ixzz1XEJZvDw7”
Now I don’t assume that really has that much to do with there anti gun laws just trying to prove how easy it is to spout out some sensational crap. When in reality these are complex issues with no single cause.
07/09/2011 at 14:12 DoucheMullet says:
@ultra-humanite
Uhhh no, sorry.
Most of us have great for Europe and admire it’s many countries. At the most we bad talk the French, but who doesn’t? We treat all foreigners with respect and class, which is more than I can say for how I and my friends and family have been treated when visiting foreign countries.
In regards to the gun debate, some cities with the lowest crime rates in the country are in states with lax gun laws, while for example Camden is the most dangerest city in the country and is located in New Jersey which has very strict gun control. Throwing out random bullshit statistics are pointless.
I also find it highly ironic how my fellow American here said a TV show made Americans look like the wild west, as the wild west was actually incredibly safe with an incredibly low rate of gun violence.
08/09/2011 at 04:00 vagabond says:
@Theory
Liechtenstein has a population of ~35,000 people. When you are dealing with statistics that are measured per 100,000 people, a single incident can distort the figures and make them look pretty bad.
If you look at the page linked above with intentional homicides for the years 2000-2009 my reading is that they had one person murdered in 2004 and another one in 2009. Pretty good really.
06/09/2011 at 13:38 TooNu says:
A Kieron Gillen article on Deus Ex!?!…I think I shall read this twice!
06/09/2011 at 23:24 Bob says:
A good idea.
Excellent read, thank you KG
06/09/2011 at 13:38 John Connor says:
I went with Sarif because he had great hair.
06/09/2011 at 14:03 Teddy Leach says:
This. And that arm was COOL.
06/09/2011 at 15:31 Devenger says:
Let’s not forget that, even though you only needed chest and arm repairs/replacements after the incident (according to one thing I found somewhere in the game), he threw in complete replacement of the other arm and your legs, absolutely free. That’s service for you!
06/09/2011 at 16:04 unangbangkay says:
I couldn’t help but wonder if Sarif decided to augment Adam’s junk as well. Since Adam always wore pants (one wonders why he’d fully expose his amazing arms, while still limiting his movement with archaic pants.
Also Malik.
06/09/2011 at 18:24 Makariel says:
I went with Sarif because you can win against a machine, but you cannot stop progress.
06/09/2011 at 21:16 bionicsheep says:
@unangbangkay
During the opening credits, you hear Sarif’s voice saying “He doesn’t need that”. It’s up to you to speculate where exactly Sarif decided Adam didn’t need augmenting, considering how nuts they went on most of him.
06/09/2011 at 13:40 Nihi says:
This remind me of the reverend in Clockwork Orange.
He said what makes us human is the ability to chose to be good or evil, when you take someone’s freedom of choice, you take his humanity.
06/09/2011 at 14:25 Mirqy says:
By that argument, games with no player choice make the player inhuman. Which is I guess the point Bioshock was trying to make.
06/09/2011 at 13:41 Will Tomas says:
I’ve missed Kieron’s articles contextualising games in wider culture. No one else writes them anywhere near as well. Great stuff, thanks for writing it.
06/09/2011 at 13:42 The Sombrero Kid says:
I couldn’t believe John said it didn’t make him think, given the other major theme running parallel to this one is the effect video games have on people and the way they are treated by the mainstream media.
EDIT: there’s also some musings on the state of game developement culture too.
06/09/2011 at 13:43 Dawngreeter says:
Don’t trust anyone over 25.
I’m 30, by the way. I don’t trust myself.
06/09/2011 at 13:46 Balobam says:
Okay, I suppose I shouldn’t tru…. Or is that your plan?! Maybe I SHOULD trust you…
Damn you and your mind games! WHAT AM I TO DO
06/09/2011 at 18:25 Makariel says:
I don’t trust anyone above 30.
I’m 31.
06/09/2011 at 13:44 Kefren says:
A thought-provoking article. However there is a difference between someone having hands that can rip my head off, and someone who would never have bought a game anyway ripping that off. In the latter scenario lives aren’t shattered. And the issue with DRM is that – via various effects, some unintentional – it stops people buying your game, or coming back to buy your next one. Those are the customers companies should focus on, and they will only succeed by offering an organism that can survive on its own in the wild, and won’t die when they switch off their servers. Their technology leads to the opposite of what they intended. What a shame.
06/09/2011 at 13:45 Ringwraith says:
First of all, this article really needs a spoiler warning, so very badly.
Anywho, although I went with all the endings to just see what the monologue was, I think I agreed with the decision of not making a decision the most, although I couldn’t really bring myself to actually accept it, as it would mean two of the best characters, Sarif and Jensen himself, would cark it, which I simply couldn’t do to them. That and Hugh Darrow would escape with his death, which I felt was too lenient a punishment after what he caused.
As such, I would probably lean towards Sarif’s plan a bit more, as cutting off the world from the technology that helped so many people would be almost selfish, and having merely one group in control of the entire human race is a position that is far too easily abused, as there’s a reason why monopolies are heavily avoided in business for the sake of everyone but the monopolist. So I thought letting it progress naturally would be the best course of action, as it’s what happens with every new piece of technology, the good and bad sides rear their heads until it reaches a happy equilibrium where the benefits outweigh the harm. Although the inequality gap would get larger, I felt that removing it completely would be a greater loss.
Of course, I could simply be a sucker for Sarif, who has such a convincing, optimistic view of the future.
06/09/2011 at 16:21 PleasingFungus says:
“(The following article contains spoilers to the very end of the game.)”
(Of course, I suppose this may have been edited in… but I doubt it.)
06/09/2011 at 16:34 Ringwraith says:
It was edited in some time after I posted that. ^^
06/09/2011 at 13:45 daphne says:
A society that has the ability to graft nukes on ordinary people that pay the cost probably deserves a good scarring. Roll on!
06/09/2011 at 13:47 Jumwa says:
So the story in a nutshell: large company makes game about a dark scary future where technology threatens much of existence, games journalist finds it a convincing tie in to mediocre petty theft issue of piracy!
I hope that didn’t come off too glib, it just seems like an amazing stretch to compare DRM to anything of importance. With plenty of DRM-less games flourishing, and the only anecdotal evidence of DRM even remotely succeeding in doing anything other than ticking off customers being Ubisoft claiming that it’s always-online DRM reduced piracy (but not that it increased sales, oddly enough) where’s these doom and gloom comparison come from?
Why are we treating piracy as anything more than a red herring for investors to throw them off the scent of poor management and lack of competitive distribution models? Give your products to the people in an efficient and accessible manner at a price that’s not absurd (I’d say reasonable, but people prove time and again they’re willing to pay well beyond what’s reasonable as long as it meets the first criteria) and you can make a go of it.
Piracy is one of those things companies toss out there to convince their shareholders not to analyze their companies products or processes too closely. “Don’t blame us! It’s the pirates!”
06/09/2011 at 13:48 unitled says:
A lovely article. Having done a mechatronics degree I have more than a passing interest in transhumanism and thought that DXHR had a very good, balanced portrayal of the issues and opinions.
Humanity has been using technology to improve itself since the first time a proto human picked up a sharp bit of rock and attached it to a stick in order to crack open a nut. I don’t believe there will be a step change so we end up with an augmented socciety as portrayed in the game, but technology will inevitably advance to the stage where it, well, to coin a phrase, will be indistuinguishable from magic.
For the record, I went with the destroy all evidence ending. I didn’t believe Adam would dictate the future of the world, and he would believe in humanity’s ability to make the correct decision to continue our survival.
06/09/2011 at 13:48 karry says:
“for by telling them of many things without teaching them you will make them seem to know much, while for the most part they know nothing”
There was this short story about a guy from our time sent back to the vikings, where he found out all his knowledge to be next to useless. He needed to make tools, to make tools, to make tools, and he couldnt make the initial step in anything he turned to.
06/09/2011 at 13:53 Harlander says:
The moral of this story? Learn how to knap flint in case you ever get timewarped back to the Paleolithic.
06/09/2011 at 13:58 Dawngreeter says:
Any man placed outside of the framework of his society is useless. A man from the past sent to the present suffers as much as man from the present sent to the past. All knowledge is useless without its assumed framework.
Of course, given enough knowledge, your framework can be wide enough to encapsulate any given situation. A human being can not have this knowledge. But a posthuman being can.
06/09/2011 at 14:45 karry says:
The moral is that the current education system is such, and the amount of knowledge amassed is such, that in the very near future, a situation will be possible where a technological process becomes so complex, that nobody really understands it anymore, and can only sustain let’s say a factory until the equipment gets worn down, and then it will require decades to reach the same level again.
If someone bombed all the world’s microchip factories tomorrow, and killed all the main engeneers, how long would it take us to get back to the current levels just from books and manuals ?
06/09/2011 at 14:58 Dawngreeter says:
26 days
06/09/2011 at 13:49 Berzee says:
You were already beautiful…
you poor man.
06/09/2011 at 13:50 HisMastersVoice says:
I gave people the truth. All of it. Truth empowers. Yes, it gives the power to do both good and evil, but that’s the point. If you don’t have that choice you’re not human. I didn’t find myself arrogant enough to play God again, like I did in DX when JC merged with Helios.
On a related note, the fourth ending makes absolutely no fucking sense.
06/09/2011 at 14:36 John P says:
None of the endings make much sense because you’re not actually doing anything significant. We’re supposed to believe that sending one worldwide news broadcast is supposed to magically convince everyone in the world of … something. It’s silly.
Darrow’s ending even says ‘This may make people turn their backs on science and technology’ or something. Seriously? People are going to give up on science because of a random news report from some guy?
06/09/2011 at 14:51 Olivaw says:
Actually it’s more of an in-depth news report from the only global news network left in the world of the worst civilian atrocity in modern history using the current bleeding edge popular technology (that a lot of people require to live), which was itself created by the man who orchestrated and perpetrated the entire attack.
You don’t think that if everyone in the world saw that, after they were already rioting in Detroit over a “super soldier” program, that they wouldn’t just start flipping the fuck out?
It’s like if CNN were the only news network in the entire world, and then all of a sudden the man who invented the MP3 player comes on CNN and says that every single device, iPod or generic, ever purchased has a bomb in it and he just flipped the ‘detonate’ switch.
You can bet that no one in their right mind would ever purchase an mp3 player for a very, very long time.
06/09/2011 at 15:07 John P says:
Not buying an MP3 player is a bit different from turning your back on all technology. It just doesn’t work like that.
(Could I also suggest that there being only one news network in the world is also ridiculous, so that whole premise about the Picus Network is silly too?)
06/09/2011 at 15:41 Olivaw says:
Sure it doesn’t work like that. They’re not giving up all technology, fer fuck’s sake. Just augmentation, and the general philosophy of “technology is inherently a good thing” that we’ve had since we invented the light bulb. Of course it’ll eventually come around again. The idea is that maybe the second time around we’d be more cognizant of the dangers instead of prancing around in blinged out golden arms going “THIS SHIT IS SO CASH YOU GUYS”
And yeah, the Picus News Network being the only global news network left is a tad far fetched. But those are the facts within the fiction, and you wanted an explanation, so I gave it to you.
06/09/2011 at 16:10 HisMastersVoice says:
@ John P – Well, I assumed, perhaps a bit naively, that the broadcast would be more than Eliza saying “derp, Illuminati did it!1!” and calling it a day. If that would be the case, then only Sarif/Illuminati endings make any sense.
07/09/2011 at 00:53 Grygus says:
All of the endings are incomplete because they all lack nuance. They’re all ideologically pure, which makes them all necessarily wrong.
I think it was Sarif himself who pointed out that nobody would believe the Illuminati did it, so the truth isn’t setting anyone free; it would just be a blow to Picus’ credibility (which is already called into question throughout the game.)
Sarif’s idea is to just keep doing what already didn’t work.
Taggart wants to regulate the industry, as if it isn’t already flouting law and convention whenever it likes.
The nihilist option makes everything you’ve done nearly pointless; nobody knows what you did, and you’re keeping it that way. I chose this option because I felt the entire point of the game was that few people making decisions for the many will inevitably turn out badly for the many, and so did not wish to continue that cycle, but obviously this won’t stop it from simply happening again and so isn’t a solution at all.
A sensible solution would have included idealism, pragmatism, regulation/transparency, and justice. You can’t pick them all, though.
08/09/2011 at 03:52 Hidden_7 says:
I actually loved that all the endings had something good and something bad about them. It was a hard choice because there was not one ending I agreed with entirely, and also none that I could dismiss out of hand.
I liked Darrow’s because that involved telling the truth; I wasn’t down for any covering up or story spinning. I disliked it because of the scared Luddite principles it espoused.
I liked Sarif’s because I liked Sarif. His idealism was infectious, and an ideal I could agree with. I disliked it because it involved lying, and was based around the idea of unchecked unregulated corporate machinations.
I liked Taggart’s / The Illuminati because I believed in principle that with augs as potentially dangerous as they were, there ought to be some sort of regulations on the books somewhere, that should be a discussion that is had. I disliked it because the method they were proposing was monstrous and the Illuminati were terrible people seeking to control humanity from the shadows because they thought they knew best.
I liked the Blow Everything Up option because it didn’t involve Adam deciding that he knew best for the world. It involved the least ideologically spun story (possibly even including the truth), and put the decision in the hands of those who should be making it, the people. I disliked it because it involved killing a lot of innocent people as well as myself, and was also a sort of cover-up.
It took me quite awhile to decide, because whenever I had decided that the benefits of one path outweighed the benefits of the others, I was reminded of the terrible shortcomings of that path, and the whole decision process would start all over again.
06/09/2011 at 13:54 aronbarco says:
Our times are of the leap of faith in technology. The paradigm of this century is: technology makes us better, and with the correct one we can solve any trouble we have – ensure a becoming better, an incredibly bright future. Against this, I say with vehemence: all the damage we have caused [to our planet and other life forms] will not be solved if we keep the same posture to them, the same behavior that provokes the problems in the first place. We urgently need to stop (and I mean stop everything) and rethink our own being-in-the-world. We need think more on were we are going and if we want to go there rather than just keep going, blindly. Maybe rediscover some extinct world views of the societies who were slaughtered by this civilization.
As much as we have communication speed, cleaner environments, more sharp drugs, or even augmentations, in the end death still haunts our houses, existence still harsh and needs a lot of hugs, and we remain innocent before our own paradigms carefully constructed over time by the quicksand of tragicomedy that is being and being aware of it.
06/09/2011 at 13:55 The Tupper says:
That paragraph about joining PC Gamer is truly shocking. I mean…you’re from the Midlands!?! The horror!
I’m from the frozen northerly wastes myself and, up here, we live our lives ignorant of the rampant class disadvantage that still permeates the UK. The penny dropped personally when I worked in London and found the kind of people whom I’d previously assumed were anachronistic cliches of incompetent poshos to be real and in positions of well-remunerated responsibility.
06/09/2011 at 16:08 Cinnamon says:
Those people live in a different world and kids don’t generally want to believe how class ridden and regionalist the country is until they see it first hand. I would say that economics and politics are more to blame than technology. It’s the same old rackets of real estate/business cycles and political/social connections.
06/09/2011 at 13:55 Jonas says:
I’m going to go ahead and side with the people pointing out that you can’t really compare DRM to human augmentation (or gun control, as somebody else pointed out). I realise it’s just perspective, but that final twist of the words went a little overboard with the parallel I think.
Anyway… I figure the Illuminati ending was the one that fits best with how everything ends up in Deus Ex 1 either way. I still went with Sarif though, because I couldn’t stand Taggart’s smug face and because Darrow was a murderous psychopath. I realise this is essentially no different from the Americans electing whatever presidential candidate they most wish to have a drink with, but I’ll just have to live with that.
06/09/2011 at 13:55 Jarenth says:
Mr. Gillen, after reading your article I was left with a question.
You say you want to trust Sarif, but you can’t, because people change, and people change, so the Sarif you trust now might be a different person in five years, or he might not even exist anymore. And, fair enough, I agree there.
But why, then, would you trust the Illuminati in any respect? It’s the same for them: they might actually have humanity’s best interest in mind with their kill-switching idea now, but who’s to say how they will act five years from now?
What makes the Illuminati’s DRM-locked future preferable to Sarif’s corporate utopia?
06/09/2011 at 15:10 Theory says:
This is my response as well. The Corporate and Illuminati endings are exactly the same. In both cases a tiny group of unaccountable people control humanity’s future, and as we can see from Deus Ex they will end up being the same people.
06/09/2011 at 16:44 unangbangkay says:
I wouldn’t say that the Sarif and Illuminati endings are EXACTLY the same. Though Sarif clearly has the good of his company as the primary motivation behind his proposal (namely hiding the truth so as to make augmentation more prolific/demanded/profitable), his reasoning also smacks of an idealism Taggart clearly lacked.
I believe (or I’d like to believe) that Sarif really IS the sort of “don’t be evil”-slogan Google-type-person Kieron believes he is (at least initially). Sarif’s reasoning is that the proliferation of augmentation, rather than its limitation, would be the best path, both for Sarif and the world, and by his words he might even go so far as to hand out augments for free, like Valve might drop the price of a game to $0 for a weekend.
Sarif is laissez-faire where Taggart is full “big government”.
06/09/2011 at 17:45 Theory says:
Eh?
1) As the article points out, you are handing power not to Sarif but to whoever is the dominant seller of augs at any one time. That is certainly not Sarif Industries. The illuminati are clearly the most ruthless group out there, and they *already* control the biggest corporation. It’s them.
2) Giving everyone augs makes everyone manipulable in the same way. The whole story centred around that happening in front of your eyes. Augs are not games, they are literally people’s bodies.
Meanwhile, we know from the rest of the series that “big government” is controlled by the illuminati. Hence the outcome is the same.
07/09/2011 at 09:14 Jarenth says:
While these are good points, what I meant was less that they’re exactly the same, and more that the intent seems to be the same. In both cases, you hand off the power to a specific group of people; people that could change or go away in the future.
06/09/2011 at 13:55 The Dark One says:
I think you guys are missing the game’s greatest achievement- a joke that combines the infamous ’77 Pink Floyd concert at the Olympic Stadium and that large chunk of concrete that fell off its side in ’91.
06/09/2011 at 13:56 JackShandy says:
Man, you’re crazy! Giving a small group control over the bodies of a large amount of the population just isn’t going to turn out well. The Illuminati would give augmentations only to the people they like, and thus create an upper-class of super humans that all owe them favours. And that would only stop armageddon if the Illuminati can completely control the tech. The Harvesters and back-alley chop shops would mean we’d still see plenty of unauthorised auged terrorists.
I felt like the only real options were to destroy the technology completely, or let it run free. Like you, I loved progress too much to ban them completely. I felt like things would be ok if everyone could have a chance at getting augs. Make it not controlled by any one body, no one group could control the entire population of post-humans.
06/09/2011 at 22:50 Kestrel says:
Actually wouldn’t it make more sense for the Illuminati to give augs to everyone? In terms of control – creating an augmented elite is less effective than having a backdoor to the entire population, especially with the anti-rejection meds. Shanghai pimp side-quest writ large.
06/09/2011 at 13:59 MonkeyMonster says:
“To cite Plato’s famous peer Uncle Ben, with great power comes great responsibility.”
As ever KG a brilliantly crafted piece. The hivemind’s augmentations are truly remarkable to produce such prose as if from different people hour by hour. Tentacles to type with too!
06/09/2011 at 13:59 Blackcompany says:
Excellent write up. So good in fact that I will be buying this game this weekend. I will barely make it through between finishing up New Vegas and then going immediately to the upcoming Rage, which I have already ordered.
However, it seems this game is worth the playing. Apparently the story is amazing, and so is the world building. Thanks for writing this, and for convincing me to finally get this game. It sounds as if it will be worth the playing.
06/09/2011 at 14:32 John P says:
Well I hope you enjoy it and all, but don’t expect much thematic depth. The game is lacking the wider contextualisation that Kieron has put into this article, and that was one of the disappointing things about it.
06/09/2011 at 14:44 JackShandy says:
How do you mean, John P? The game has a bunch of conversations, emails, other context – one conversation even directly compares Sarif and Steve Jobs like Keiron does in the article.
06/09/2011 at 14:52 John P says:
Probably the main area I felt it was lacking is putting this whole augmentation business in context. It’s not a new thing. It’s just a continuation of the human project of self improvement. HR treats mechanical augmentation as, well, a revolution. But it’s not, and I think placing it in historical context would allow the game to resonate more than it does, as more than just a self enclosed work.
06/09/2011 at 14:57 Olivaw says:
Yeah, I felt like the game had plenty of context. It just never outright insulted you by going “SEE THIS THING IS LIKE THIS OTHER THING THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST. SEE?!”
Like, I’m really glad they never mentioned Oppenheimer in the game. Not once.
06/09/2011 at 15:09 JackShandy says:
Well – SPOILERS?!?!!?! – the endings used stock live-action footage of the present day, accompanied by a voice-over that was clearly made to be applicable to us. Kind of brechtian – there to forcibly alienate you, draw a direct parallel between the events of the game and the real world. (Edit: Which basically is going “THE STUFF THAT HAPPENED HERE IS JUST LIKE THIS OTHER STUFF, SEE?”) Apart from that, it keeps it low-key.
06/09/2011 at 15:11 John P says:
True, but didn’t one character mention the watchmaker quote from Einstein? Proving that the writers have, in fact, read Watchmen?
06/09/2011 at 15:46 Olivaw says:
Actually they only quoted Einstein at the very end of the game, and it wasn’t the watchmaker quote, it was the “technological progress is an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal” quote.
06/09/2011 at 14:04 Berzee says:
So what do you think of this “drm” debate?
Sounds like a typical power grab to me.
06/09/2011 at 14:04 Cinnamon says:
Not a fan of Plato. Epicurus is my current favourite.
06/09/2011 at 14:05 alh_p says:
“I’m one of them now. Shit.”
Press F8?
06/09/2011 at 14:07 Rii says:
There’s an almost inverse relationship between how thought-provoking an article is and my propensity to comment upon it, something which I fear is easily confused for disinterest. So at this juncture I just wanted to say… +1.
06/09/2011 at 14:21 Linfosoma says:
Fantastic piece, I personally went with the Darrow ending. In a way, it was sad to abandon technology like, specially when you know that stopping progress is inevitable (at best, my efforts will only halt them for a while), but I like to believe that people still have the right to know the thruth and decide on their own.
06/09/2011 at 14:47 LennyLeonardo says:
100% agreed, as per my post below. The downer was that what the game had people do with the truth (i.e new Dark Age) seemed a bit too extreme.
06/09/2011 at 15:08 Unrein says:
Thankfully, if my take on humanity is not completely clueless, the Darrow path is still just delaying the inevitable.
06/09/2011 at 16:18 Lamb Chop says:
It is interesting that the vast majority of people in their decision-making compared the future worlds (Consequentialist) instead of evaluating the morality of the decision itself (Kantian). I went with the Darrow ending because in my view a properly moral person wouldn’t lie to the entire world regardless of the consequences.
Although I am more sympathetic to the strong ‘government’ control offered by the Illuminati than the libertarian corporate freedom of Sarif’s path.
06/09/2011 at 21:36 Hidden_7 says:
@Lamb Chop
I agree. I intially went with the Hugh Darrow route not because I agreed with him at all or wanted his plan to come to fruition, but because it was the choice that wasn’t lying. I was sympathetic to Sarif and would have sided with him, if his plan didn’t require a cover up. If telling the truth meant that people rejected technology, so be it, that’s their informed decision.
My problem was that the ending narration seemed to be more about Adam’s feelings. He was saying the exact opposite of everything I felt in that ending, all the unfortunate consequences that came with telling the truth were phrased as his opinions. Doing it all again I’d go with the fourth option of destroying everything, since that seems most in keeping with my intention of “no manipulation” I wanted going with the Darrow ending.
06/09/2011 at 14:26 westyfield says:
Argh, first time Gillen writes here in ages and I don’t want to read it because I haven’t played DX3 yet.
06/09/2011 at 14:36 reticulate says:
Nice comparison between Sarif and Steve Jobs. He even tries on a sort of Reality Distortion Field when you’re arguing with him.
As to your wider article, I think it’s very nice and that you should do more of it. However, you’re a bastard for siding with them. I blew the damn thing up – it was the only real choice Jensen had, everything else was serving other people’s pursuit for power and control.
06/09/2011 at 14:42 JackShandy says:
You maniac! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell!
06/09/2011 at 14:37 Freud says:
I went with Sarif simply because that is what Jensen was. A guy that did what Sarif wanted. I couldn’t break character the last five minutes after doing exactly what I was told for 30 hours.
I would have preferred it if we weren’t given the choice in the end.I think it would have been a more poignant look at technology, where it has been and where it is going. But then I am a cynic at heart.
06/09/2011 at 14:41 Olivaw says:
Yeah, I gotta tell ya boss, this Illuminati ending just don’t fly with me.
How can you not trust Sarif and not trust humanity to take care of itself, but you can trust a small group of individuals, no better than you or I or Sarif, to handle overseeing and regulating technology without ever acting in their own best interests?
The Illuminati ending is for suckers. Either you trust humanity to find a way to survive, or you don’t. Either you believe that people are intrinsically selfish and power hungry, or you don’t. There’s no middle ground in this equation, as much as I wish there were.
Far as I’m concerned, if everyone’s got nukes, then no one’s got nukes. Mutually Assured Destruction and all that. You have to trust that people are smart enough not to kill themselves and the world for short term gain (which, I admit, is getting harder and harder to do these days). So I tend to lean towards Sarif’s ending. Even if the common man doesn’t have the bleeding edge of technology, empowering him more than he would be otherwise is a good thing.
Of course, on a bad day like today, I tend to lean toward’s Darrow’s philosophy. Humanity is fucked if they keep this up, it’s time they learned that. If it means rejecting technology for the survival of the species, then so be it. It’s harder to go backwards than it is to go forwards, but maybe with a little more time, we’ll be ready to be bitching cyborgs someday.
Great article, by the way. Encapsulates a lot of what makes the story in this game so excellent.
06/09/2011 at 14:43 Crimsoneer says:
There is a very, very big difference between 10 clever people ruling the world, and 6 billion retarded idiots ruling the world.
The vast majority of humanity is pants on head retarded.
06/09/2011 at 14:48 JackShandy says:
I would absolutely prefer 1000000 idiots running the world to ten clever people.
06/09/2011 at 15:04 Sunjumper says:
I have yet to see 10 clever people controlling anything. (and to agree on something)
06/09/2011 at 15:33 Olivaw says:
See, it’s because as an individual, you are smart. You are smarter than the masses. Given the opportunity, you would avoid destroying yourself or the world around you. And everyone around you is having the same exact thought. And power is decentralized, so no one person has a great deal more power than the lowest man.
Whereas if ten clever dudes had all the power and were running the entire world, you are NOT smarter than them. You cannot outwit ten clever dudes. And you will not have the opportunity to avoid destroying yourself or the world around you, because those ten clever dudes will not give you the opportunity, nor will they ever even afford you a choice in the matter.
06/09/2011 at 14:42 Crimsoneer says:
I didn’t trust the Illuminati, because that would have meant sharing power…I miss the Helios power. I WANT THE POWER. ME! Me alone…
06/09/2011 at 14:42 LennyLeonardo says:
That Plato quote always makes me angry. He was a miserable bastard and thoroughly deserved a PEPS-ing.
I loved Sarif too, but I broadcast Darrow’s message because he was the only one who was actually telling the truth, though the game kind of overstated mankind’s reaction to it.
Not sure about the DRM analogy here. I mean, guns have safety catches, nukes have launch codes – making things safer to use is not the same as controlling their owners’ rights, surely?
06/09/2011 at 14:54 Valdyr says:
I still went with Sarif though, because I couldn’t stand Taggart’s smug face
That was my strongest motivation for not siding with Taggart as well. When I ran into him on Panchea, I listened to his argument and reasoned carefully. Then I nodded to myself, tapped the Q key, and watched Adam rear back and deliver a no-frills haymaker right in Taggart’s stupid fucking mouth. The other civvies in the room screamed and gasped. I crab-scuttled into a nearby air vent, cackling.
Pretty much the defining moment of the game for me. I considered socking Sarif because of his naked (and rather inept) attempt to manipulate me, especially with constantly calling me “son”, but I ultimately spared his face a clobbering out of fondness for his folksy, slightly thick, how-did-I-become-a-CEO-of-a-multi-billion-dollar-corporation-I-just-love-watching-baseball charm. I would’ve punched out Megan, too, but I was never given a chance.
Edit: I took Darrow’s ending because I didn’t really understand its implications. The “Just tell the truth about what happened at Panchea and reveal the existence of the Illuminati to the world” aspect appealed to me. It wasn’t until the ending cutscene that I realized the talk about humanity maybe abandoning technology was less a “maybe” and more a “this is exactly what will happen, for some reason, goodbye forever augs”.
06/09/2011 at 14:57 JackShandy says:
This describes 99% of my interactions with NPC’s.
(and in the game)
06/09/2011 at 15:43 Devenger says:
Wow, it never occurred to me that you could simply punch or stab the three main players in the final area. Good show!
06/09/2011 at 15:01 Unrein says:
Really, Kieron? The Illuminati in DX just have humanity’s best interest at heart? You only have to look at Bob Page and the logo of Majestic 12 (the clue is in the name) to see where that ends up. This life isn’t worth living if we are not allowed to commit mistakes, to give us the chance to learn from them. Pain and mistakes really do make us stronger, even as it culls others. I wish that weren’t true, but it is. Technology isn’t the end – it’s just change, and change is utterly vital to humanity and society. The point of view you espouse in this article is nothing but stagnation and the repeat of our past.
If we don’t have hope that we can change for the better, if we don’t have the ability to take risks.. Why the fuck even live?
06/09/2011 at 15:02 Chris D says:
Not to nitpick (Meaning the opposite) but isn’t it a little bit early for a spoilers to the end of the game piece? I know journalists have had this for ages but it’s only been out for a week for the rest of us.
I know there’s nothing stopping me coming back when I have finished but by that point the comments thread will be like wandering through the ruins of a long dead civilisation, albeit probably with lots of opportunies to buy shoes.
06/09/2011 at 15:05 shrieki says:
sure an nice read! thanks for the nice article.
06/09/2011 at 15:14 kataras says:
I was disappointed that there was no ending in which you could just reveal the truth without hiding anything and taking sides. So I went with the closest thing and condemned everyone in Panchea to death, hoping there would be questions asked later and the truth would come out and let them make sense of it themselves. There might be only one news station feeding propaganda to everyone but in a society rife with augmentations and hackers, there must be some kind of underground counter-information mechanism?
I mean why do we have to take sides, they all had some ulterior motive behind. One was bitter and half-crazy, the other was a secret society that wanted to control people and the third, why would I trust corporations to have the best interest of mankind at heart?
06/09/2011 at 15:18 Valdyr says:
I was reminded of VTM: Bloodlines, in that regard. Like the player character in Bloodlines, everybody–EVERYBODY–was playing Adam to some extent, sometimes with arguably noble goals in mind, sometimes not. I wished for a “Fuck all you people, I choose me” ending like Bloodlines had, except without the need to kill Adam and everybody else. Something involving escaping to a small Caribbean island with Malik, dropping off the grid, and living happily ever after.
You want a cutscene of Malik lounging on a beach. Don’t lie.
06/09/2011 at 15:44 kataras says:
You read my mind!
And also a chance to stun Reed and shove her in a vent in the Harversters’ HQ!
06/09/2011 at 15:27 mlstrum says:
A large part of this Trust issue about technology is we, in large parts, do not trust others. Yet we clearly can see that we could hit each others with hammers, shoot ourselves with guns, artillery strike the hell out of each other and nuke the planet… but we don’t. It’s not productive, it’s not useful, it’s not desirable in any way.
We tend to look at the black dot on a completely white wall, it’s in our nature. But while I know some would abuse of this tech and destroy the live of others, a lot more others would not. In fact the majority would not. Its how it has always been and how it will probably be for centuries.
I’d agree to have a ban on the Typhoon augment for the general public, since there would be absolutely no positive use for it. But stronger muscles, faster legs, augmented vision and reflexes? Being a transhumanist I’m with Sarif on this one. Yet I chose the 4th ending because the choice about those issues can only really be made by us as a whole, not a few individuals. Yet I cleared the way for the remainder of the Illuminati, dammit.
All that aside, human augmentations are not DRMs, even if some parallels can be made.
06/09/2011 at 15:33 Edcrab says:
It’s all very well to support the concept of DRM now, but in 25 years time- by his own admission, nonetheless- Kieron intends to plunge the world into a new dark age in the hope of a more equitable tomorrow. Say goodbye to your Steam accounts, you slaves of technology!
06/09/2011 at 15:36 Valdyr says:
Was I the only person who wanted to hear what kind of regulations Humanity Front and the other anti-aug people were proposing? I mean… hell, maybe they were entirely reasonable. No one ever questions the legality or appropriateness of Adam’s augmentations, even the extendable arm-lawnmower-blades, despite the fact that he’s..just a dude. He’s not even in the police force anymore. He may be chief of security, but being a security guard or the boss of security guards presumably doesn’t put you on the same level as, say, an active-duty SOCOM commando. As cool as Adam is, he’s technically a civilian. The game acknowledges this early on–when Sarif wants you to break into the morgue at the police station, you have the option of objecting to it on the basis that it’s insanely illegal, and Sarif’s response, rather than “It’s fine, you’re an awesome special agent”, is “So what, do it.”
So, in the eyes of the law, are Adam’s enhancements totally fine? Even the one that shoots exploding ball-bearings? We’re cool with anyone who can afford it being able to punch through walls and turn invisible? Did the Supreme Court rule on this one?
Damn. Maybe Humanity Front was just the voice of reason in a world of anarchy. Maybe their proposed U.N. resolution was just “Perhaps at least have a background check or something on people signing up for surgery to turn their arm into a transforming minigun prosthetic. Or have the receptionist at the LIMB clinic sit down for a very serious chat with them beforehand, I dunno.”
06/09/2011 at 15:54 Olivaw says:
See, I felt that way too at first. But as the game goes on and you learn more about Taggart, you realize that since Humanity Front is led and was created by Taggart, and Taggart is a member of the Illuminati (presumably before he formed Humanity Front), all his motivations come into question.
Does he really want augmentation regulated because he feels it is inherently dangerous to others, or does he want it regulated (with him doing the regulating) because he feels it is a threat to him and his fellows, and the more control he can exert on augmentation the safer he and his cabal will be?
Maybe the regulation WAS sensible. But Taggart still worked to put kill-switches into every single augmented person on earth. That seems decidedly less like regulation and much more like domination.
06/09/2011 at 16:00 Valdyr says:
Good point. And Taggart’s corruption would only give more credibility (by comparison) to the rhetoric of the people (like Sarif, I guess?) arguing that, if someone decides they truly need the ability to jump 10 feet in the air, run 30 miles per hour, and have enough upper body strength to use a car as a baseball bat, and, most importantly, he has a good credit rating, who are we to tell him no? Free market, personal liberty, the Founding Fathers would’ve wanted, etc.
06/09/2011 at 15:39 Raziel_Alex says:
Fucking excellent, Kieron.
06/09/2011 at 15:57 yoggesothothe says:
Wasn’t Sarif’s point, though, to make the technology so cheap that everyone can use it? To destroy the chasm that is here discussed? That’s what Megan was doing, and what she as abducted to prevent (or so we’re lead to believe from the intro cut scene, although, strangely, that falls away in the course of the game).
Isn’t this actually more a fear of mega-corporations and the sometimes depressingly inadequate regulations that are now in place? There will always be hackers and modders, pirates and disassemblers, so it’s somewhat strange that Mr. Gillen is going with the DRM metaphor while ignoring what brought about DRM in the first place: the masses that are bypassing corporate ownership through homebrew.
06/09/2011 at 16:05 Valdyr says:
I don’t know. Megan’s breakthrough was discovering that Adam had (or had been given) a genetic mutation that caused his body to fail to recognize augmentations as foreign bodies and subsequently try to reject them. Presumably, if this mutation could be given to other people through some sort of gene therapy, they too could have as many augmentations as they can stuff into their meat-sacks. (And whoever manufactures Neuropozyne–VersaLife?–is shit out of luck, I guess, if this gene therapy is covered under health insurance.)
Would this really have an effect on the price of augmentations, though? Or was there a conversation I missed somewhere in which Sarif talked about how he had plans to make Sarif Industries financially solvent enough that they could afford to hand out augs at bargain basement prices? NPC dialogue seems to imply that the company has been a little shaky, income-wise, even before the attack on HQ.
06/09/2011 at 16:18 Olivaw says:
Sarif’s idea was absolutely to get the company solvent enough to essentially hand out augs after Megan’s research went public. I’m pretty sure that exact thing is mentioned somewhere in the game, either in an ebook or an email or Sarif himself saying it.
Which is part of the reason I like his ending a lot. Of course the problem is, what happens when Sarif doesn’t have control over his company anymore, and what happens if he ever decides that you know what, maybe some people don’t deserve this gift, and also the ever-present danger of unchecked experimentation and deregulation leading to deep-seated corruption.
You have to put a lot of trust in Sarif to do as he says and make augs freely available to everyone, in order for things to turn out alright. And even if he does, it’s a calculated risk either way.
06/09/2011 at 16:26 Valdyr says:
Neat. Although, canonically, I guess it didn’t work out, since in the first DX it seems the only people with mechanical augs are looked on as a handful of out-of-touch old people. Kind of depressing to know that the bad guys won in the end.
06/09/2011 at 16:37 Olivaw says:
Yeah, you… kinda have to pretend Deus Ex doesn’t happen to really get the full effect of the endings.
But I’ve thought about it, and they are all technically possible as a lead up to DE1, just, you know, with some extrapolation.
06/09/2011 at 16:44 Valdyr says:
The Deus Ex wiki says that Megan’s research was still used, but as a basis for nano-augmentations and the Gray Death virus. So…way to go, Megan. Good career move, joining Page Industries. See, maybe this could’ve been avoided if I had been given the chance to punch her.
The article also says that the DNA JC and Paul Denton were cloned from was Adam’s. Huhwhat? I don’t know how canon any of this is.
06/09/2011 at 16:06 kyrieee says:
The endings are interesting to talk about but it still makes no sense in the context of the game, it’s handled so clumsily. Why is this for Adam to decide? Everything that leads you to that point is there only to lead you to that point, it’s a huge contrivance. This story about how augmentation technology is affecting society it was there in the background the whole game, there was never any need to bring it to the forefront.
06/09/2011 at 16:11 Christian O. says:
Great article, but I have an overall question:
While it’s true that if you don’t subscribe to augments, you get left behind, isn’t the bottom lifted to some extent with the higher-ups? The gap certainly becomes larger, but poor people today (at least in the Western world) have it better than poor people 200 years ago. There’s probably an argument that poor people now have more and different, but equal, challenges today as they had 200 years ago, but overall, it’s better (read: easier, with more opportunities) to be human today than it was previously.
06/09/2011 at 16:21 Valdyr says:
While it’s true that if you don’t subscribe to augments, you get left behind, isn’t the bottom lifted to some extent with the higher-ups?
That’s true with a lot of technological advancements, yeah. Take the Internet, for example. Nowadays, even if he can’t afford a barebones PC and a home connection, even a penniless hobo can go to a public library (until we abolish them all as being intolerably socialist, anyway) to check out Wikipedia, BBC, and of course RPS. But is augmentation really the same thing? You can get food or a drink out of a vending machine for pocket change. Many vaccines for common diseases are now offered for free or at extremely low cost to everyone.
But augs? You can’t get surgery from a vending machine. (I wouldn’t recommend trying, at least.) You’d need a pretty radical universal healthcare policy to cover multimillion-dollar, elective “I want awesome cyber arms what can punch down an oak tree” procedures. If a girl from a rich family gets a neural aug package for her sweet 16, and you don’t have access to anything of the sort, why wouldn’t a corporation hire her over your impoverished ass? She can, objectively, think faster and remember more than you. She’s a walking computer. And, simply for the circumstances of birth, you’re a nobody.
Maybe it’s a different story by the time frame of the first Deus Ex when relatively no-fuss nano-augs are commonplace. Perhaps in that scenario, buying yourself a shot of visual HUD or an mp3 player in your brain or whatever is the equivalent of saving up for that new iPhone. For citizens of the wealthy democracies, at least, not really out of reach at all.
06/09/2011 at 16:15 TooNu says:
This was awesome to read :) it’s the sort of thing I wish I could put into words. When and how did you start thinking like this? Did you lie in bed one night and the DRM thing just hit you, or was it whilst eating a sandwhich? I shall link this to all!
06/09/2011 at 16:18 unangbangkay says:
The problem with the DRM analogy is the same problem one has when publishers equate every pirated copy to a lost sale: it’s simply not true.
A closer analogy to the Illuminati’s intended use of their augment kill-switch would be a car maker installing traction controls or horsepower caps into a sports car, to prevent a reckless or incompetent driver from harming himself or others.
Thus DRM is NOT the same as a limitation on augmentation’s abilities, because the core intention behind its use is not for preventing harm (as was the purpose behind the Illuminati’s plan), but for increasing the level of control a publisher has over a user’s ownership of software and the circumstances under which it can be used.
Software piracy, by itself, is essentially harmless to those who perform it. The only thing a user risks when downloading a game copy or buying a burned .iso is that there might be a virus on there, or that they might be indirectly funding a drug cartel (which are known to fund pirate rings). The only harm piracy causes is the harm to publishers, which has yet to even be proved as existent.
Long story short, please, for all that’s good and right in the world, PLEASAE don’t start supporting Ubisoft because you fucking played Deus Ex. It’s not what Tracer Tong would want, nor is it what Hugh Darrow would want.
06/09/2011 at 16:35 Olivaw says:
“Thus DRM is NOT the same as a limitation on augmentation’s abilities, because the core intention behind its use is not for preventing harm (as was the purpose behind the Illuminati’s plan), but for increasing the level of control a publisher has over a user’s ownership of software and the circumstances under which it can be used.”
Ha!
You know, from my perspective, I think this DRM analogy is lining up perfectly!
06/09/2011 at 17:00 unangbangkay says:
It “lines up” ONLY if you begin with the assumption that it WILL be abused.
Call me naive, but if we assume that Taggart’s reasoning was GENUINE and not just a lie designed to convince Adam to go with the plan, then the DRM analogy DOESN’T line up, because DRM, as it is today, (i.e. a way to prevent paying customers from making copies of their games for whatever reason, good or ill) is INHERENTLY sinister, and its primary motive is to reduce the customer’s control, rather than add value to the product. I absolutely CANNOT think of a reason for supporting DRM that asserts its existence as a force for the common good. Its very nature ONLY benefits the publisher, and not the consumer.
Limiting augmentation, be it through technology or legislation, can be argued for as supporting the common good by preventing people from harming others with their augmentations. That safety can be considered as added value.
DRM, on the other hand, does NOT support the common good. It does NOT give the consumer more options, more safety, or more value for their money. It simply limits. Therefore the analogy does NOT line up.
Of course, I’m splitting hairs, being idealistic, etc., but that’s exactly how thin the line is.
06/09/2011 at 16:25 Nalano says:
Yeah, let’s go with the shadow government that answers to nobody instead of the corporations that answer to their quarterly profits.
What about representation? Hell, it’s messy, but sometimes you need Democracy.
06/09/2011 at 16:29 Valdyr says:
Another “Am I the only…” question: Did anybody else find themselves unable to not think of Hugh Darrow as Evil Richard Dawkins? Something about their respective voices was very similar to me. (I’m not from the UK, so I apologize if this observation is as obvious and stupid as an American noticing that George W. Bush and Rick Perry kind of sound alike.)
Edit: Also, the phrase “a combination of iron seeding and geothermal management” will forever be stuck in my head now thanks to that fucking repeating news broadcast. The new “What a shame”?
06/09/2011 at 17:02 kament says:
An extremely regrettable affair.
06/09/2011 at 18:13 Serenegoose says:
I DIDN’T ASK FOR THIS
06/09/2011 at 16:50 kament says:
So basically you didn’t want this tech to be abused, so you sided with those who abused it in the first place. Or do I get it wrong?
06/09/2011 at 16:52 kament says:
Nice DRM metaphor though. Really enjoed reading your piece, thanks.
06/09/2011 at 17:03 Mendrake says:
This is silly, everyone knows Deus Ex: Human Revolution is all a metaphor for the rise of micropayments. The augments that help people who are injured are the kinds of things we want in micropayments: assisting those that, for whatever reason, cannot play the game enough to attain the things they buy. but you get to the bad things, the military contracts, the things that give advantages that ruin the balance of the world, such a great advantage in your line of work that nobody who plays without micropayments can ever hope to reach you. so resent grows, for the world and for those who would buy such things. the hatred grows great enough that those who would buy their advantages ingame instead of earning them become treated as second class citizens by regular players, even though those who pay micropayments are technically better and have an advantage. players hate those who pay micropayments, their power not earned but purchased, and so those who pay become both the upper and lower class.
06/09/2011 at 17:06 Valdyr says:
The official Deus Ex: Human Revolution Facebook account is now linking to this article, and describing it as “absolutely wonderful”. Maybe it really was about DRM and Kieron’s won the prize?
06/09/2011 at 17:17 DevilSShadoW says:
KG, you son of a bitch…
Your article title made me think this is just another one of those rants that pops up every now and again to claim DX;HR is a rubbish game.
And so I read all of it thinking all your brilliant skullduggery was a euphemism for how the game had shit DRM. Damn you…
Yes i was fooled. Yes that was probably your intention from the get-go. Yes your writing is in fact augmented.
So then I had to read it again without a big “BUT WAIT” sign hanging over my head. Good stuff indeed. Stuff that I myself pondered on whilst facing those 3 buttons.
I eventually decided to just go the easy route and off myself and let humanity destroy itself. I mean, it deserved it, right? You only get to live in harmony and bliss if you have seen the horrors of your actions beforehand. Let them face their demons, I say. Let them be reborn and maybe be reborn as better people altogether.
Oh who am I kidding….
06/09/2011 at 17:28 sinelnic says:
Well you’re missing the universal principle that says that given “A”, a direct opposite “B” will try and make its way into existence with as much intensity and urgency as it is possible. So you can’t really try and stop things from happening, that only makes them happen faster and in nastier ways.
06/09/2011 at 17:29 Novack says:
Great Reading!
06/09/2011 at 17:30 wodin says:
I think you’ve become abit obsessed with Deus Ex HR…how many articles about this game now?
Not only that how deep have you analysed it? None of it was real…none…twas a game…a dcent game but nothing more…it’s not a future prediction, it’s not based in reality.
If you analyse things to much you become a paranoid wreck….think you need some help….first off uninstall the game….and get a grip…
Oh and please god no more articles on it…
@Valdyr…what you mean Richard Dawkins isn’t evil……another fanatical nutcase who can’t let people believe in what they want. He was even spouting about how fairy tales are wrong and shouldn’t be read to children…nobhead…hate him. A man who seriously has no imagination….
06/09/2011 at 17:55 Theory says:
Irony meter is off the chart!
06/09/2011 at 18:27 Christian O. says:
So… Stop looking for or creating a meaning in anything ever?
06/09/2011 at 17:48 The Kid says:
I love RPS. Thanks for the read.
06/09/2011 at 18:30 Flobulon says:
Superb.
06/09/2011 at 18:31 Jockie says:
I really didn’t find Sarif that charismatic. He had an annoying accent and when cornered and confronted he came off as a whiny little boy. The insinuation of other characters suggested his ‘we’re a family’ bullshit was just that – he was more interested in seeing how far he could push augmentation than he was concerned for Adam’s wellbeing in any way, shape or form.
I got the impression his legacy of freedom was fuelled more by ego than idealism, he wants to go down in history as the man who changed everything – like his idol Hugh Darrow – does he really care about the evolution of the human race, or is it just marketing bullshit?
06/09/2011 at 18:35 TODD says:
I read the first few paragraphs and already knew what ending the author chose. RPS writers are nanny-statists through and through. No matter that the Illuminati and their lackeys were responsible for kidnapping your girlfriend, your dog’s death, FEMA internment camps, dozens of attempts on your life, widespread public corruption, wanton slaughter of civilians in pursuit of power, and all the atrocities committed at Omega Ranch and Tai Yong Medical, in your arrogance you couldn’t stand to give your friend and stalwart ally David Sarif the benefit of the doubt. You know what’s best for the people, just like the Illuminati.
Aside from your utterly straight-faced moral and philosophical bankruptcy, the DRM metaphor was a major reach.
06/09/2011 at 18:43 Jockie says:
Yes, clearly someone who makes a choice within a game can be called morally bankrupt based on their decision and that isn’t some kind of massively hysterical over-reaction.
06/09/2011 at 19:08 TODD says:
I called his decision morally and philosophically bankrupt. I had grounds to say that because the author spent many paragraphs justifying the decision morally and philosophically. Had he simply stated his choice of ending instead of taking half a dozen wrong turns on his way to rationalizing it, I could not have judged it.
06/09/2011 at 22:24 Christian O. says:
“You know what’s best for the people, just like the Illuminati.”
The fourth ending is the only one that doesn’t presuppose that the player knows better than the people. And as indicated by your description of Serif, I doubt you picked that one.
*SPOILER*
Serif, I’ll, add, is the man who exploited someone else’s genetic code for personal gain and repeatedly asks you to plant forged evidence to sabotage his opponents (corporate and idealistic). So this leads me to believe that while you dislike nanny states and shadow governments, you have no issues with corruption, exploitation, and megacorporations whose only directive is to make money and reach the highest echelon by climbing the bloodstained bones of everyone else. So good on you for critizing Gillen’s moral and philosophical bankruptcy, and simultaneously implying that your position is better, when it’s, in fact, equally despicable according to your logic.
06/09/2011 at 22:10 Dobleclick says:
This is why I love RTS. Thoughtful, profound, yet terribly funny and entertaining “videogames news”. Unparalleled and unique.
*bow*
Edit: Oops, forgot to extend my bows to the RPS community as well. They’re as important as the staff.
06/09/2011 at 22:11 Lagwolf says:
And those against progress, like the Humanity Front, are not exactly fictional. The rants of this guy and those of the guy on the radio in DX are damn near identical. DX:HR is an interesting commentary on where humanity is heading and how. Like any good science fiction it could be our future very easily.
06/09/2011 at 22:30 0over0 says:
A well-written piece.
I would not, however, compare DRM to the situation in DX because, of course, games are optional (believe it or not). But certainly the seed is there. A killswitch for the Internet? Remotely disabling vehicles? Remotely disabling firearms? Remotely disabling a computer? All things discussed and being worked on by the makers of the devices.
Disturbing ideas, certainly, but since when have any of us plebeians ever really been in charge of anything or had any real say? Control is an illusion–a gilded cage–and our cage in this modern age, though mightily gilded, is no less a cage.
The idea of safety for the greater good even at individual loss is probably antithetical to your existence the less you have to lose. I certainly felt that way for much of my life. But now that I have three little girls it’s a far different decision I’d come to. Those who are quick to judge this change may find that they are in complete agreement as their lives proceed–so try to be a little less judgmental when others express their opnions, please.
As for DX:HR’s resolution–it being a game and in no way reflecting any real considerations–I chose to destroy the tower and let society work it all out on its own. And then I went back to my save and chose each of the others and found that they were all disappointingly similar.
So which was my real choice? The destruction one was just the first one I happened to chose since I knew I could–and would–go back and chose any of the others.
If it had been RL–well, I’m not very suicidal so that choice is out. I’m not particularly keen on some shadowy power group controlling things–even if to a certain degree that is the reality of our lives today. It may not be some coordinated, static group, but our lives are most definitely controlled by corporations, societies, and governments more than I would like in an ideal world. So the Illuminati choice is out as well. Allowing corporations free reign? Yes, that’s never blown up in our collective faces before–has it? That said, though corporations can be very powerful, they are never all-powerful. And though they can, do, and always will abuse any freedom they are granted (because they are after all agents of an anonymous collective–basically filtered and directed mob rule), they are also ultimately weak because they are agents of society as a whole. They can be torn down and destroyed. So, in the end, I would have to go with Sarif.
As for Darrow’s Hobson’s choice of simply letting the world riot and possibly fall into another dark age, well, that’s a nonstarter for me. Therein lies madness and the ultimate in hubris. So, no.
By the way, I thought naming Sarif “Sarif/serif” was kind of interesting. In modern type, a serif is a sign of the traditional. Something that is primarily decorative and has no real function anymore, but is a holdover from writing by hand. A reminder of the human origins of our technology. I thought Sarif’s was the most human of the different choices as well.
06/09/2011 at 23:33 Kestrel says:
Great essay.
Great comments, even the tangents. I like the gun control one. Re: one comment there on how it was silly to think assault rifles had impact in a world with tactical missiles. I actually just had a nice debate on Right to Bear Arms and used Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of how poorly armed non-state actors *could* beat the most advanced military in the world. YMMV
In the game: Seems like your choices are as much about how efficiently you believe various socio-political models interact with tech as the tech itself. If you are Statist then you have to go with Illuminati, because government regulation has impact. If you have more faith in the individual, in the corporate, or in cultural norms then you pick something else. Unless, like some above, you are making a moral choice i.e. pick Darrow because the Truth is important, etc.
Interpretation of Darrow’s signal through official channels can have only so much impact, however. You can spin the news all you want – little Timmy’s relationship to augs will by forever coloured by seeing his parents cut down by the insane cyborg up the hall.
Darrow has already made the most visceral point – this tech, all tech, is dangerous when mishandled. It’s the same point he made in one of the E-Books when he demonstrated his pacemaker hack early on, and the devs underline it again and again. The problem is that you can’t get to MAD with a tech as personal as physical augs. You don’t have the equivalent of a soviet planetcracker here, unless maybe it’s the next generation’s blood music.
07/09/2011 at 04:22 josephsiar says:
Mmm….
I think that Plato just wanted to say that “something” would be lost, not that the world would end.
And as a Philosopher graduate I’ve found lots of philosophy students that just read and read and keep reading… without thinking anymore. There is so much to read now that nobody has time to think anymore… But still, I love having the internet and all it’s potential.
Your thoughts remember me a lot of a little piece Michael Ende wrote (neverending story, mirror in the mirror). In it, the future is incapable of doing evil because technology is so advanced that if your girlfriend broke up with you you could simply blow up the world. I don’t endorse DRM but… on the other hand… I don’t trust people either. And… since companies have showed me that they are even less trustworthy than individuals… I think that I’ll just pray your girlfriend doesn’t break up with you.
07/09/2011 at 07:04 qwiggalo says:
Woah, tl;dr.
07/09/2011 at 10:11 Lucifer2166 says:
While Deus Ex: Human Revolution may paint a horrific future that some may find hard to believe, I can totally see something like this game depicts as to what the future holds. The human race has always been finding new ways to kill and control one another and as we develop new technologies haven’t we always applied them is such ways before? Why would we ever stop now?
There seems to be an expected percentage of evil based on populous at any given time so realistically as the world’s population rises and new technology becomes available it is only logical to expect to see people conceive of new horrors to inflict on their fellow human beings.
And you think DRM is going to stop anything? We can’t even stop spam yet…lol.
07/09/2011 at 14:00 JasPurewal says:
That was a great post, thanks KG
07/09/2011 at 15:06 Runciter says:
Kieron, my friend, I weep for your soul.
07/09/2011 at 21:28 Talon says:
Thank you for writing articles like these. That is all.
08/09/2011 at 03:16 crimzind says:
I did like Sarif early on, but as the game progresses, my opinion of him started to fall. Spoilers, obviously.
First, he prioritizes the Typhoon over the Hostages. Then he wants you to break into the police station and steal stuff. Then you find out he’s hiding stuff from you the entire time, including that A) You’re Patient X, and they’re using your DNA for whatever groundbreaking they’re doing and B) You only needed 1 arm and your chest to be replaced/fixed. He tells them to remove your other arm and legs, etc etc. Someone else said he might have done it because he wanted more samples of you, for their research (perhaps to also make up for Megan’s lost/destroyed work?).
Finally, he wants you to lie to everyone and blame what Darrow did on Humanity First. Now, I don’t like them, I think they’re close-minded/ignorant/assholes, but I certainly don’t want to support more lying and fighting.
I wound up going Illuminati as well. I didn’t like/trust Sarif anymore, Darrow was jealous/insane, and I wasn’t keen on blowing myself, innocent people, Sarif/Darrow/Taggart up.
09/09/2011 at 00:21 mogofogo says:
I was almost about to go with Hugh Darrow till the CASIE mod revealed the truth.
SPOILERS
I’m not sure if this has already been mentioned on the thread, but Hugh Darrow whilst being the father of Human Augmentation is unable to use said Augmentations because his body or blood type(something that I forgot) is not compatible with said augments. It was a cruel irony, and well, it made DX:HR have that much more gravity as a plot. So thick juicy and meaty like a steak.
I watched all the endings for the Achievement, but I found the blowing myself up one seemed to fit me best? Because then, Adam Jensen realized while he had been given the power to change the course of humanity, he had no right to.
That’s just my opinion, you’re welcome to critique/Troll if need be.
SPOILERS
Might be the second game I complete a third playthrough with though. Absolutely lovely.
14/09/2011 at 07:27 free keno says:
Agree with you Mister Junwa. But if the homicide rate is getting lower and lower agains, this is probably thanks to that kind of game. Hopefully, video games exist and the Far West age is behind us, no more need to have a Winchester to soothe this strange but natural violence need…
14/09/2011 at 09:58 bonuswavepilot says:
This is a lovely collection of words, Mr Gillen. :)=
18/09/2011 at 18:12 Coccyx says:
Interesting, You’ve taken exactly the same stance as I did. My second choice would not be blowing up the facility however, as that would involve killing all the innocent people in said facility.