Avec Sarif: Deus Ex 3 Sarif Industries Video

It would've been better if he'd turned around and flattened the boy with his throw

PC Gamer’s spotted a new video that’s gone up on the Sarif Industries viral site – Sarif Industries being the body augmentation corporation that employs Adam Jensen, protagonist of Deus Ex: Human Revolution. It’s just unexciting enough to make me aware that I’m posting an advert, but what the hell. Speaking of adverts, have you guys seen the Deus Ex 3 ads we’ve got over here in the UK on the Rustlers range of microwaveable burgers and hotdogs? Take a look. Madness.

(10:03:51 AM) Kieron: It just seems wrong to see them spending money on a deus ex game
(10:06:29 AM) Quintin: Wait until you play the sodding thing
(10:06:41 AM) Quintin: It’s as expensive a game as has ever been made


  1. clownst0pper says:

    Burgers and Deus Ex you say?

    Good call. Afterall, everyone knows geeks eat nothing but junk food.

    • rivalin says:

      “Rouss-Laz, nor a tays-tee in sixy sek unds” as the advert voice over guy who is barely able to speak English says, is less geek food and more chav food. If its target demographic is the sort of “lads” who think that COD 4 was the first ever first person shooter and argue about which FIFA edition is the best game ever made then we should all be fairly worried about the direction Deus Ex has gone in.

    • frenz0rz says:

      Seen that burger competition a while ago. Oddly enough, it doesnt even give you the chance to win a copy of the game – instead, you win an all expenses paid holiday to Detroit. Hmm.

    • Vague-rant says:

      As a geek who eats mainly junk food, I too dislike the stereotyping going on here. I had an apple just last month.

  2. Inigo says:

    Shouldn’t they all be an unsettling flesh tone like real prosthetics?

    • Baboonanza says:

      If I had a bionic arm that I could use to crush people’s skulls whenever the mood struck me I’d want everyone to know.

      Who’s skull would I crush first? Hmmm.

    • Heliocentric says:

      I was hoping the guy throwing the ball would go all “maximum strength” and knock his kid out with the ball.

    • Ergates_Antius says:

      I wouldn’t crush peoples skulls, that’d just get messy. I’d punch their heads off.

    • Mungrul says:

      My Dad’s got an artificial leg; has had since he lost his leg in a motorcycle accident at the age of nineteen.
      It’s been interesting to see how the technology has evolved over the years.
      Initially, it was not much more than a cup on top of some metal struts.
      Later on, it became coated in foam and a stocking in an attempt to make it look more realistic. This was Dad’s least favourite leg, as it got manky quickly and the stocking was continuously getting ripped.
      Now, it’s a really cool leg with a switchable universal joint knee. When sitting down and putting a shoe on his artificial leg he can twist it so his foot’s up near his face. It’s pretty damn cool.
      Dad’s always been incredibly active, so they’re always trying the newest tech out on him to see how quick he breaks it :D
      When I was 11, we back-packed from Naples to Venice.
      A couple of years on, we started sailing catamarans. Dad went on to regularly compete in the Dart nationals and did very well.
      He even tried his hand at windsurfing!
      When he moved to Maine for 18 months for a job, he took up skiing.
      Recently he toyed with land yachts and bought himself a Blo Kart.
      Even without fancy cybernetic limbs, losing a limb doesn’t mean you have to be restricted in your daily life. My Dad’s proof, and I’m incredibly proud to be his son.
      It’s also amazing to watch reactions of people, and often the most refreshing reactions are from kids. It’s natural curiosity with virtually every kid that meets Dad, where adults quite often don’t know what to say.
      I think the time that embarrassed Dad the most was when we were backpacking in Portugal through a poor town. At the market, people were trying to give Dad food for free, something he had a hard time with as he realised he earned more in a year than they would probably earn in 5.
      Christmas in our household must look a little odd to outsiders mind you.
      To attach the leg to his stump, dad uses a special sock, which pulls out through the bottom of the cup to create suction. He calls these, quite naturally, his “stump socks”.
      And we don’t use stockings at Christmas ;)

    • Loopy says:

      Cheers for sharing that Mungrul, absolutely fascinating and for me inspiring. :)

    • SanguineAngel says:

      Mungrul your post is full of awesome, and memories! My grandfather lost his leg during the war so he’s been using a prosthetic since before my mum was born. Likewise he’s gone through a gamut of leg designs. I never knew him when he was young and active – not as active as your awe inspiring dad perhaps – but I have deffinitely seen 65 year old grandfather legging it across an open field chasing after a neighbour’s sheep and jumping clear over the hedge boundry. That was on a pretty standard plasticy articulated leg.

      We also never used christmas stockings. It pleases me to hear the same from you!

    • torchedEARTH says:

      I’m not sure I would want that lady playing the piano getting anywhere near my happy place.

      Ah, that’s probably the plot of Deus Ex HR right there.

    • Pani says:

      @Mungrul Thanks for sharing, that was awesome.

  3. gorgol says:

    Lol, I approve of the creepiness in context of the video.

    First thing I’ve seen on the game that makes me interested in it.

    • passingstranger says:

      Very much the same here. It’s a very cool, kind of modern Blade Runner tone. It comes off as a part of a great sci-fi movie.

  4. Lewie Procter says:

    Those burgers are so disgusting. An old flatmate of mine used to eat them and they would stink out the whole kitchen.

    Poor choice.

    • Heliocentric says:

      It truly is tasty bread though.

    • Nick says:

      I have a weakspot for the BBQ pork ribs though, even though they are clearly terrible.

  5. Twilightx says:

    I see what they’re doing there, showing a future that seems awesome… seriously, that kind of eye augmentation?! I want one! :D These are things I hope to see in real life in 30-40 years :)
    Now only to wait for the game, to see how horribly wrong it can go.

    • gorgol says:

      Why would you want to look like you have a weird glass eye? You might think its “cool” but show that to a chick and ask them if they’d prefer a guy with a working natural eye or that and you might change your mind.
      Plus its never going to be as good as a working natural eye.

      And I have proof of this. Since the begginging of mankind’s technological endeavours there hasn’t been a single instance of us being able to produce a prosthetic that improves on the original design, EDIT: a design that has been millions of years in its evolution. We can’t compete with that.

    • Inigo says:


    • Wilson says:

      @gorgol – I don’t think “it hasn’t happened yet” counts as conclusive proof.

    • Heliocentric says:

      Every tool is a prosthetic , the hammer is the fist, the spear is the nail and the tooth, the gun is the throwing arm.

      I don’t have an analogue for space rockets other than jumping really hard.

    • Nickless_One says:

      @gorgol: so if it hasn’t been done yet, it’s a proof that it’s impossible? great logic, you teach us all…

      (damn, ninja’d…)

    • Twilightx says:

      Why so skeptical? Imagine taking a person from 1900 and explaining to him the technology we use every day now… I think he would react exactly as you do. Sure, we are not living in space, how people were predicting it in 1950s, but technology and especially medicine is progressing at an incredible rate. Just check this out for example :) – link to arstechnica.com
      As long as we keep saying something is impossible, we will never achieve it, in my opinion…

      @Inigo… nice example :D

    • gorgol says:

      Wilson, Nickless,

      oh but it does. Science makes no claims to being infallible. It is built upon foundations of proof by experimental evidence, and one can always come up with a result that smashes old “proven” theories. For further reading please see, link to en.wikipedia.org .


      no a prosthetic is by definition a replacement for a missing body part. Tools are therefore not prosthetics.


      you’d replace your dick with a strapon?… OK… :S

    • battles_atlas says:

      Whilst a Rampant Rabbit is clearly superior to the common or garden cock in certain applications, its really hard to piss out of, as the batteries tend to short.

    • Giant, fussy whingebag says:

      gorgol: Actually, evolution is pretty rubbish at producing elegant, efficient systems.

      The layers of cells in the eye are the wrong way around, for example, leading to a blind spot where the optic nerve has to go through the receptor layer. The human skeleton is poorly re-purposed from walking on four legs, leading to things like back problems and flat feet.

      The trouble is that evolution is a boot-strap process, modifying an old template to deal with current pressures. Much better to build something from scratch, no?

      Of course, I wouldn’t want such an augmentation if I lost any of my current capabilities, and technology is a fair way away from being able to get a decent sense of touch.

    • Twilightx says:

      gorgol, is it just me, or are you contradicting yourself? :) First you say “Never will be” and now you explain falsifiability?

    • Lars Westergren says:

      >that kind of eye augmentation?! I want one! :D These are things I hope to see in real life in 30-40 years :)

      I’ve already started saving up for my future operation actually, no joke. I’m going to make sure I can get the ones with open source drivers. I want to be able to tweak them as I want to, and install extra safe firewalls so I don’t get hacked. Getting reality spam would suck, as would having my sensory input controllable by dictatorships.

    • gorgol says:


      its just you. The point is that scientific proof as we know it is always falsifiable but that its nevetheless still scientific proof. It is counterintuitive but its also a fact.

    • Twilightx says:

      I agree, with current level of knowledge and technology, such augmentations are impossible. We don’t even understand the mechanisms that we would need to reproduce in a prosthetic like that.
      But you can’t say that something will never be possible.

      Ok, I am not continuing in this discussion :)

    • gorgol says:


      without getting into a debate on evolution and our comparable capabilities when compared to it, the point remains that expecting prosthetics to one day improve upon natural design is highly speculative at best.

      But getting back to the video, imo the prosthetic eye presented there is a poor replacement. The writing that appears on the retina obstructs the view of the beautiful sunset. I would much rather that information be displayed on a wristwatch for example, than on my eyeball.

      EDIT: but still, I like the video for its I think intentional creepyness, and as science fiction it makes an interesting concept for a video game.

    • Giant, fussy whingebag says:


      It’ll probably be much cheaper to get the ad-supported versions. Imagine Google AdVision detecting what you’re looking at right now to provide you with personalised ads in the corner of your vision… I’m with you on the open-source drivers!

    • matty_gibbon says:

      1. You have not yet proven that because something has not been done, it cannot be done, which is the criticism that has been leveled at your argument. Ignoring the fact that it’s demonstrably not true (one example among thousands – humans once thought it was impossible for us to fly in any form – now we have planes), your “counter-argument” that science is fallible says nothing about whether something can be done in the future despite the fact that it seems impossible now.

      2. Twilightx is right in that you’ve contradicted yourself. In an attempt to prove that something cannot be done because we cannot do it now, you point to science’s ever-changing model of the world around us. In a similar way, what you understand about our abilities and limits may give way to better understanding in the future – you have slipped on your own logic-banana-skin.

    • Giant, fussy whingebag says:


      You’re right, it is speculative. That’s why it’s still in the realm of science fiction.

      Still, I think technology isn’t far from being able to provide better limbs, mechanically, than we currently have. As I said, I have more difficulty seeing the sense of touch being well integrated into a prosthetic. EDIT: There’s also power supply issues and other complications which just mean it’s better, in general, to stick with what we have.

      The eye there is pure fantasy, though. The brain isn’t capable of processing images at high resolution anywhere other than a very small area the centre of your vision. To provide a usable HUD it would have to be projected into your view of the world for you to fixate on, rather than pasted permanently into the edges of your vision where it would just be a blur.

    • gorgol says:


      I think you are struggling to come to terms with the concept of scientific proof and the fact that its inherently fallible but also happens to be the best thing we have in order to make sensible predictions about the physical world.

      My theory: healthy body parts will always be superior to

      My proof: there has never been an instance where the contrary is true.

      And in analogy,

      Newton’s theory: Every body remains in a state of constant velocity unless acted upon by an external unbalanced force.

      Newton’s proof: there has never been an instance where the contrary is true.

      EDIT: Of course, now we know Newton was wrong and his theory has been superceeded by General Relativity. But his theory stood as proven for hundreds of years until Einstein came along, and rightly so, because it was good and useful and remains so today.

      EDIT: so yes, it is vanishingly possible that one day we will make prosthetics that will be better than the healthy body parts they replace, but nevertheless I still predict with about as much confidence as anyone can predict anything, and with about as much evidence as anyone can have for anything, in much the same terms that Newton made his predictions, that that will not happen. Though of couse I could be proven wrong tomorrow, just as I am proven right today.

    • Chris D says:

      My theory: There will never be a 14th of April 2011

      My proof: There hasn’t been one so far

      But I do agree with you that the nature of science hasn’t quite been grasped by everyone in this thread.

    • gorgol says:

      Chris D,

      Haha. Touche. But you will be proven wrong tomorrow.

      EDIT: On the other hand, you are using the calendar to define a prediction but contradicting the definition of the calendar. Your theory is therefore self contradictory and I don’t need to wait till tomorrow to be able to dismiss it :P

    • Harlander says:

      @whingebag on HUDs and human visual processing I’d always imagined something like doing a special squinty blink to bring up a HUD you can then fiddle with by ‘looking’ at different points of it

      [prosthetic limbs better than natural limbs] will not happen. Though of couse I could be proven wrong tomorrow, just as I am proven right today.

      Dunno about anyone else, but I’m still not sure that “X has not happened ever” proves “X will not happen” when we’re talking about technology. Technology has a habit of suddenly making things that have never happened before happen…

    • Chris D says:

      Yes, I suppose that would completely invalidate my point :)

    • galen says:

      Gorgol, you making predictive theories about the future of human technology is absolutely not equivalent to Newton making theories based on human observation of how things work.

      “My theory: healthy body parts will always be superior to

      My proof: there has never been an instance where the contrary is true.”

      This is completely fallacious. Your theory does not apply to specific “instances”, it applies to the entire timeline of human technology – to prove it by lack of counterexample would involve observing several timelines of human technology (which really makes no sense) and observing that in every case, prosthetics never beat natural limbs.

      Newton’s proof was not by lack of counterexample per se, it was that his theories could model what happens in reality very accurately.
      I think you’re trying to oversimplify the concept of “scientific proof” – just because they not absolute proofs, does not make them arbitrary conjectures based on lack of counterexamples.

      I hope this made sense.

      EDIT: wrote disprove when I meant prove

    • MrMud says:

      Saying that something is true because the opposite has not happened is very shaky grounds for calling something “proof” indeed.
      Newton didnt make a good theory because it matched with all previous data (because so did the epicircle theory of planetary motion of the time), it is a good theory because it made predictions that were true.
      Saying that prosthetics will never supercede natural body parts is incredibly speculative or even straight up wrong. Nature is not perfect, far from it. In fact it could be argued that glasses are a form of add on prosthesis for the lens and that it improves the function of the organ for many people.

    • .backslash says:


      Your very tenuous grasp on philosophy of science and inductive logic aside, your argument is still nonsensical. Pointing out the “fallibility” (although it’s a lot more complicated than that) of the scientific method does not in any way prove technology’s inability to create augmentations, superior to our current biological organs.
      Furthermore, you’re mixing up terms. A prosthetic is, by definition a replacement for a lost organ., while an augmentation is an improvement. Thus, cybernetic augmentations are, by definition, better, A hearing aide, inserted after a person has lost their auditory capabilities a prosthetic, replacing a fully functioning inner ear with an artificial one of greater range and sensitivity is an augmentation.
      And, of course, we have achieved it before. While the merits of a plane can be argued over walking and mobile phones are certainly superior to shouting really loud, it could be argued that those are external to the body. But antibiotics aren’t. Ingesting artificially grown substances to fight off infections the body’s immune system is incapable on handling on its own is a textbook example of artificial (in this case, biotechnological) augmentation.
      So take your luddite arguments somewhere else.

      On topic, video was pretty cool, though the lady was overacting a bit. Those voiceovers are meant to be soothing and reassuring and not sound like someone’s ODing on Valium.
      Rustlers burgers are overpriced shite.

    • matty_gibbon says:


      “My theory: healthy body parts will always be superior to prosthetics.
      My proof: there has never been an instance where the contrary is true.”

      It’s still not conclusive. I think where you’re going wrong is in the complete lack of context. you are looking at a single area of technology in isolation, and ignoring all other human advances. One thing you are ignoring in fact is the steady improvement in prosthetic limbs over the course of human history. This in fact is a line of evidence against your hypothesis, as it strongly suggests that humans will continue this progression, which may well result prosthesis that improve on human organs.

      And you can talk about falsifiability all you like, but the real problem with your hypotheses is that it cannot be proven to be true. Ever. The only way it can conclusively have come true is at the end of the human race. And then there will be no one to observe that your hypothesis came true. :-p

    • gorgol says:

      Galen, Mr Mud,

      EDIT: About your first argument, to disprove my argument would only require the instance of a prosthetic being better than a healthy body part it is intended to replace.

      Your second argument about Newton’s theory being proven due to making very accurate predictions is valid. A theory must make testable predictions. But I can do the same with my theory. I predict there will never be prosthetics that are better than the parts they replace. You will find this to be very accurate for the forseeable future.

      Mr Mud,

      Glasses do not replace body parts therefore they are not prosthetics.


      you are trying to draw a distinction between cybernetic augmentation and prosthetics that improve the healthy body part they replace. There isn’t one.

      About antibiotics, they do not replace a healthy body part and are therefore not prosthetics that improve upon healthy body parts they replace.

      And I think the fact that you resort to insults is a symptom of the weakness of your arguments to be honest.


      I agree wholeheartedly that my theory, despite the massive evidence that supports it, is not conclusive. But no theory is, no matter how well proven or well supported it is.

      Your first argument consists of pointing at the steady improvement in prosthetic limbs as evidence that cybernetic enhancements are an inevitability. Its a reasonable argument, and I will even grant that there is enough evidence to support it, but can you make a specific prediction with it? If you state that an event will happen you have to give a specific time and place for the event, otherwise the event is not defined. The place can be as vague as “the solar system” if you like. The time can be vague too, but it must be defined.

      And there is no problem with a theory being impossible to be determined as absolute truth. No theory is possible to determine as such. The only requirement is that it and its predictions are testable and never demonstrated to be false.

    • matty_gibbon says:

      I could make a specific prediction with it, yes. If I were to look at a specific body part, look at the rate of progress, and determine a pattern in that rate of progress, I could make a prediction that (for made up example, because I don’t have the data) in 50 years, a prosthetic arm will be commercially available that improves upon the pulling power (wahay!) of a natural human arm (of an average 20 year old male, say).

      In contrast, your prediction was not specific, as “never” is not a specific time. I refer you to your own statement:

      “The only requirement is that it and its predictions are testable…”

      Exactly. And a prediction that includes “never” in it’s wording is not testable. Never implies “given infinite time”. Infinite time can never be reached or observed, so there is no end to a test of such a theory, and so no conclusion as to the success of the test can be reached. You simply cannot test whether something can never happen. Your hypothesis is therefore unscientific.

      But it’s been fun.

      [edited for specificity]

    • galen says:

      Gorgol, in regards to my first argument, I meant to write prove instead of disprove. You have attempted to prove your theory by lack of counterexample, but your counterexample is not, in fact, a counterexample at all.

    • gorgol says:


      First I would point out that I did not say that a prosthetic would never be better in some respects than the healthy natural counterpart, I said that it would never be better, period. I will define that as “a human never has and never will, willingly replace a healthy natural body part with a prosthetic”.

      But lets extend your prediction to cover that. You have now specified a time frame for the event of 50 years. Very good. If and when that event occurs you will have disproven my theory.

      I will now point out how my prediction is testable. It is in fact not just one prediction, but a series of testable predictions. One of them is as follows, “within the next 50 years there will not be a single instance of a human willingly replacing a healthy body part with a prosthetic “.

      So we have two conflicting theories, both of whose predictions are based on induction and the tests of which will conclude in 50 years time. In the mean time can we declare one as being better supported than the other? Well yes because your theory is predicting something that has never happened and might never happen and that we have to wait 50 years to verify or not, but my theory can be tested every year. Next there wont be any such prosthetics, nor the year after that, nor the year after that.


      My theory states there has never been an instance of a better than healthy body part prosthetic and there never will be. (Lazily contructed sentence but I hope it makes sense). A counter example to that would be the instance of a better than healthy body part prosthetic. But you state that is not a counter example? How so?

    • Afro says:

      I mentioned this in another post, but I just got ICL surgery on my eyes. My new implantaple contact lenses as given me better than 20/20 vision, and I was pretty near legally blind before. Awesome.

    • galen says:

      Oh sorry I phrased that awfully. What I meant was not that your idea of counterexample is wrong, but that there are no EXAMPLES of your theory being correct – since it applies to the future there can be no examples, only counterexamples. The fact that prosthetics haven’t been that good in the past is not an example of your theory being correct.

    • Xocrates says:

      @gorgol: You’re comparing a prediction to a scientific theory, that simple does not work.

      Newton could formulate his laws, because natural laws and constants are not supposed to change.

      Saying that X won’t happen because X never did happen doesn’t work unless you assume that a) X is dependant in Universal constants and b) X can’t happen under the existing conditions, regardless of timeframe.

      Newton’s laws should work regardless of when and where an event takes place, and what’s more they allow for events that never did happen so long as they don’t break the known laws of physics.

      On the other hand, saying that prosthetics will never be better than the real thing because it never happened, disregards the fact that the value that affects it the most, i.e. human technology is ever changing and evolving. As such your comparison to Newton’s laws is not only erroneous, it’s plain stupid.

      Your prediction is just that, a prediction. You could be wrong, you could be right, but do our brains a favour and don’t state it as scientific fact when it clearly isn’t.

      EDIT: Also, fun fact, the “an object in motion will remain in motion” part? That never happened, since no matter what there’s always some force interacting with something else. Newton actually described something that never happened and his law explains why it doesn’t.

      So yeah, you’re doing a lousy comparison.

    • Arglebargle says:

      Gorgal be wrong. Not just in theory.

      Here are some links to artificial legs being disallowed in competition because they give too much of an advantage. Wish I could find the videos of the gal who has designer legs. She decides which to wear depending on task, and her mood.

      link to slate.com

      link to sciencedaily.com

    • Highstorm says:

      Aw beaten to it. Anyway, your argument was invalid before you even made it, Gorgol.

      Here’s another article on the same thing:

    • gorgol says:

      Thank you guys for proving me wrong by providing counterexamples I was not aware of.

      And with all sincerity congratulations on your new better than 20/20 eyesight Afro, its an inspirational story.

    • Sleepymatt says:

      It’s not just restricted to limb prostheses and implanted lenses. These folk have had even more remarkable ocular implants:

      link to guardian.co.uk

      And another one I heard of recently:

      link to dailymail.co.uk
      Admittedly, this is a long way off sending what you are seeing to your girlfriend’s phone (and even a long way off the headline “news”), but it’s also a massive leap ahead from living the rest of your days in the dark.

  6. TooNu says:

    IF you ignore how it smells and tastes and feels in your mouth and just consume it, Rustlers burgers are actu…no, they are disgusting

  7. Hmm-Hmm. says:

    The microwaveable part says enough, methinks.

    The trailer is nice.

  8. Alexander Norris says:

    The Rustlers ads kind of make sense, given that it is the primary food source of LAN parties.

  9. McDan says:

    I just…don’t know what to say. Deus Ex burgers? I’ve lapsed into a coma at the ridiculousness of it.

  10. lurkalisk says:

    I guess by the time the events in the original roll around, “chrome plated inefficiency” is back in style.

    Actually, they seemed to have abandoned most of these things (crazy VTOL jets and the like), in favor of ’90s nostalgia (chronologically speaking). But… I guess the super Gibson-like nature of 3 makes me want to forgive…

  11. Baboonanza says:

    ‘Why would you want to look like you have a weird glass eye? You might think its “cool” but show that to a chick and ask them if they’d prefer a guy with a working natural eye or that and you might change your mind.’

    Yeah, but you still get to see them naked using your awesome X-Ray eye. Besides, it would depend on the girl. I can’t imagine why anyone finds facial piercings attractive but apparently some do.

  12. Spider Jerusalem says:

    “Action packed trip to Detroit”

    Too easy.

  13. HexagonalBolts says:

    Advertising… on… Rustlers….

    Optimism…. faaaadingggg……

  14. reticulate says:

    I am a fan of such fake advertisements, and would happily watch more of them.

  15. AndrewC says:

    That their demographic-research has told them microwavable burgers is where to put their ads says nothing good about us lot. We’ll know we’ve made it when there’s Minecraft ads on Hummous. Or at least Rizlas.

    • Baboonanza says:

      Minecraft should be advertised on Ginsters Cornish Pasties

    • Gonefornow says:

      Why don’t they put Minecraft ads on pickaxes, shovels and alike.
      Wouldn’t that be ad money well spent?

    • AndrewC says:

      Minecraft shovels always break. But pasties is a good idea, for those long trips. Or bacon. Mmmm, bacon.

  16. Sirico says:

    Buying my shares tomorrow can’t see anything that would ruin this company

  17. jimjames says:

    Only nazi child molesters eat Rustler Burgers. Its true.

    • Dozer says:

      And there’s not many of them, owing to the worldwide shortage of nazi children.

  18. Dozer says:

    I love how more than half of the comments here are discussing the absurd microwave-burger advertising rather than the video. But then, it wasn’t a very interesting video, was it? Except that it employed flesh-and-blood actors rather than pixels to make it.

  19. Hoaxfish says:

    Is that the Mach 5 of fapping arms?

  20. heretic says:

    would be funny if the dad threw the ball with so much strength that the kid got decapitated trying to catch the ball

    I can see problems like these arising with those kinds of augmentations though

  21. SanguineAngel says:

    I recently had laser eye surgery and now wish I had augmented eyes instead :( – direct uploading from sight? hell yes.

  22. Jac says:

    Rustlers chicken burgers are the fruit of kings.

  23. Sarlix says:

    I spill my burger.

  24. Navagon says:

    The sad thing is we all know how much Valve could have improved this.

    • DSR says:

      Keep your hat simulators to yourselves.

    • Navagon says:

      I’m not talking about the game. I hate all that microtransaction bullshit. Especially considering that the transactions in question aren’t often all that micro.

      I’m talking about the advert and only the advert.

    • Hmm-Hmm. says:

      That’s ridiculous. Personally I like this one better than Portal 2’s Aperture trailers. Not that those are bad, mind.

  25. VelvetFistIronGlove says:

    You’d think at least they’d put their adverts on soy food.

  26. Tams80 says:

    Nothing to do with the burger (yuk!), but does that video creep any of you out a little? I also went to the website and in particular the “Road to here” section started to creep me out even more. I know it’s fiction, but non of it seemed too far fetched. Maybe it was the eerie music that helped?

    • Rabbitsoup says:

      There is some hidden info on the website I found it while looking at the augmentations, you play a small hacking mini game then get “captured data” which is info on the things you have already seen the the trailer.

  27. Dubbill says:

    Good video. Reminds me of the Veridian Dynamics promo vids from Better Off Ted:

    link to youtube.com
    link to youtube.com

  28. Muzman says:

    I too was expecting the kid to be obliterated or something along those lines. Then I remembered Valve didn’t make it.

  29. Altemore says:

    Advertising on burgers is genius. Remember how the game is supposed to evoke the time when people like Anna Navarre and Gunther Hermann were the the results of augmentation? Stigmatized by their inelegant artificiality. Same goes for the burger. It’s the result of a primitive technology, in the future, we will have non-disgusting nano-burgers, but for now we are stuck with an impractical beast of a burger which is shunned by society at large.
    In other words, their burger is augmented.

  30. Gundato says:

    Think the narrator lady was the same one for the GI Joe Renegades ad/commercial about Cobra Industries.

  31. FalseMyrmidon says:

    That reminds me of an ad years ago that showed Christopher Reeve getting up out of his wheelchair and walking. It was just an ad of what could be in the future but many people thought it was real and were asking where he got his treatment.

  32. arienette says:

    The future is really white.

  33. Text_Fish says:


  34. Pantsman says:

    It does strike me as odd that a company would use such ominous music in the marketing materials for its supposedly life-enhancing products.

  35. John P says:

    Why aren’t the piano and football glowing bright orange?

  36. Sinnorfin says:

    The Piano should’ve played the dx theme:)