DX3 reviews?

[Jonas]

Ah never mind then, so what you're actually saying unless Paul is sleeping with Maggie Chow, suspecting that she's involved with MJ12 isn't enough to do... well, anything at all. "An action taken as a means to an end", I mean... that's pretty much anything in this context. So:

"hey Paul, this extremely famous actress in Hong Kong (where you're currently stationed) seems to be involved with Majestic-12, do you want to do anything about that?"

"Nah, it's not like I'm fucking her."

"Righto!"

[AEmer]

Ah never mind then, so what you're actually saying unless Paul is sleeping with Maggie Chow, suspecting that she's involved with MJ12 isn't enough to do... well, anything at all. "An action taken as a means to an end", I mean... that's pretty much anything in this context. So:

"hey Paul, this extremely famous actress in Hong Kong (where you're currently stationed) seems to be involved with Majestic-12, do you want to do anything about that?"

"Nah, it's not like I'm fucking her."

"Righto!"

That's not what I said you could replace it with. That's the dictionary definition of the words I used, but that ignores the context in which it was said. The meaning erodes. I'm pretty sure I've clarified that here, I took active measures to mean a specific kind of, and, if discovered, overt actions.

Also: "Hey, what's your name? How do you know this? How did you find this out? How do I know I can trust you? Why am I not putting you under surveilance?
Also, I'm not really sure what MJ12 even is. Aren't you perhaps a conspiracy theorist whom I shouldn't trust?

I mean...MJ12, give me a break. Next you'll tell me I should be worried about the illuminati too

Finally, even if I did want to take a closer look at Maggie Chow, I'm not sure what I could do with the information, and I'd have to stick my neck out just to set an operation up. The budget would come out of my own account, which could be under surveilance, and I couldn't do it myself since the people I'm working for are paying very close attention to me. I'd have to turn an asset to do it, and even though I have a pretty good idea I can trust the helicoptor pilot I'm usually flying with, you never know where peoples true loyalties lie, and it could mean my head if he somehow turns out to be connected to MJ12 too"

[Jonas]

I really don't know what you were trying to say with that "quote", but I think we can all agree that John and I are right, and you are wrong

[gamer0004]

And I am the most rightest by pointing out DXHR was a shallow game with no intellectual value whereas DX was deep and thoughtful and interesting as is shown by the fact that we're, again, discussing it and we haven't been discussing DXHR at all since people were playing it.

[AEmer]

I really don't know what you were trying to say with that "quote", but I think we can all agree that John and I are right, and you are wrong

Perhaps that your quote was completely unfair, and two can play that game =P

[AEmer]

And I am the most rightest by pointing out DXHR was a shallow game with no intellectual value whereas DX was deep and thoughtful and interesting as is shown by the fact that we're, again, discussing it and we haven't been discussing DXHR at all since people were playing it.

And as I said, that only proves that there is more to discuss.

I attributed that to a ton of ambiguity of Deus Ex, versus far more straightforward connections in HR.

[gamer0004]

And I am the most rightest by pointing out DXHR was a shallow game with no intellectual value whereas DX was deep and thoughtful and interesting as is shown by the fact that we're, again, discussing it and we haven't been discussing DXHR at all since people were playing it.

And as I said, that only proves that there is more to discuss.

I attributed that to a ton of ambiguity of Deus Ex, versus far more straightforward connections in HR.

= DXHR was more shallow than DX.

(I'm not talking about amount of content but about, er, shallowness... For instance, the Harry Potter series is longer than the Lord of the Rings (4000 pages vs 1200 I believe), yet the Lord of the Rings is far deeper than HP. Ulysses is only 700 pages, and is deeper than HP as well (and I would Ulysses and tLotR are equally deep, though most literary critics would disagree.))

[Jonas]

Ambiguity != depth.

Though admittedly Ernest Hemingway might take your side on that one. Even then his stuff is only deep because he uses minimalism and ambiguity in a very deliberate way.

[gamer0004]

A lot of content != depth either.

Ambiguity is not necessarily the same thing as depth (ambiguity because the writing is unclear or "just because" is not deep) but if one is writing a novel or making a game about any world (be it fantasy or the real world in either the past, the present or the future) ambiguity is necessary and typically makes the product a lot less shallow. This is even more true when writing (or making a game) about ethical issues or conspiracies. Deus Ex did a very good job. HR didn't; everything was about the incredibly important issue of mechanical augmentations which is not nor will ever be an important issue at all. Where were the people thinking "the fuck, what are these idiots going on about? This is ridiculous" which should be about 100% of the people because it's a stupid issue.

Forced ambiguity doesn't count either. That was a big mistake in IW (as well as many other novels, films and games). By making every single option suck, by making every side of any issue a bunch of assholes, there is no serious discussion possible. One forces the player to make a choice he would never make in real life. People tend to choose the option they like, and if no such thing is possible people try to produce an alternative. (Which, incidentally, is the problem with economical, sociological and psychological experiments where participants can only choose between a few predetermined options).

Skyrim, despite not being as deep or thoughtful as DX or Morrowind, does an extremely good job at this. I haven't joined any side yet (I'll probably join the Imperials at some point), but both sides have something going for them. They also both have their weaknesses. The Stormcloaks are racists, believing in Nord supremacy, the Imperials are being fucked by the Thalmor who are racist and frankly a bunch of assholes (though they still have a point in saying it's weird to revere Talos, him being a man and all). The Stormcloacks rightfully wonder why they would have to live by Imperial rules and pay taxes if the Empire can't even protect them. The Imperials are right in saying the Empire offers great benefits to all involved.
Such ambiguity is important, for without ambiguity, why would there even be discussion or conflict? If the Stormcloaks had all just been assholes (in general, not just to the player) and the Imperials had been great, why would literally anyone support the Stormcloaks? They wouldn't. In real life, people believe in what they stand for and they can only do so if they actually have anything going for them.
(To give another example: if both the Imperials and Stormcloaks had been utter assholes, people would prefer to start another rebellion).

I'm moving away from HR with all this talk about ambiguity, but I think it's an incredibly important issue for any fiction. Things are never clear cut. Not when people are taking sides in a debate, nor in common everyday happenings. One will never know everything. Games, however, tend to explain everything related to anything, because developers are afraid gamers might miss some content, and often reduce complex issues to a yes/no question, if only because it's far easier to make the game react to a yes or no choice than to a more ambiguous choice.

[AEmer]

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/de ... revolution

Extra Credits disagrees with your assertion that the issue is irrelevant. As do I.

HR is also not devoid of ambiguity. The ambiguity is merely focused, and concerns itself with a few key issues.

And unlike Deus Ex, which is an idealistic study of government more than anything else, Human Revolution isn't focused on as abstract and philosophical an issue.

It's there; the study of government is much closer to our current reality, and the conspiracies are much more believable, less far fetched, less silly, but also less atmospheric and not nearly as interesting. It's a tradeoff, but as a science fiction piece, it arguably works better, because it is much harder sci-fi than the more eroded and ambiguous sci-fi of the original. It doesn't if you're a chemist or a biologist, because the technobabble has well documented flaws that are largely absent from the original, but it is indisputably far harder.

The study of society as such as we undergo the coming human revolution, which will undoubtedly happen by the way, might not feel relevant to you, but it's a nice little subject to tackle with a piece of sci-fi...at least, many people think so.

That the subject is smaller, and is dealt with by means of more examples and through more issues only makes the work more pointed and directed, not less interesting. It's not a broad study of a grand idea, it's a deep study of an important idea.

At least, that's the way I see it.

[Jaedar]

Extra Credits disagrees with your assertion that the issue is irrelevant.

They count as a credible source now?

I really don't have anything to add to this discussion. carry on

[AEmer]

They count as a credible source now?

I really don't have anything to add to this discussion. carry on

Name something you consider more credible, and actually has an oppinion on this.

[gamer0004]

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/de ... revolution

Extra Credits disagrees with your assertion that the issue is irrelevant. As do I.

HR is also not devoid of ambiguity. The ambiguity is merely focused, and concerns itself with a few key issues.

And unlike Deus Ex, which is an idealistic study of government more than anything else, Human Revolution isn't focused on as abstract and philosophical an issue.

It's there; the study of government is much closer to our current reality, and the conspiracies are much more believable, less far fetched, less silly, but also less atmospheric and not nearly as interesting. It's a tradeoff, but as a science fiction piece, it arguably works better, because it is much harder sci-fi than the more eroded and ambiguous sci-fi of the original. It doesn't if you're a chemist or a biologist, because the technobabble has well documented flaws that are largely absent from the original, but it is indisputably far harder.

The study of society as such as we undergo the coming human revolution, which will undoubtedly happen by the way, might not feel relevant to you, but it's a nice little subject to tackle with a piece of sci-fi...at least, many people think so.

That the subject is smaller, and is dealt with by means of more examples and through more issues only makes the work more pointed and directed, not less interesting. It's not a broad study of a grand idea, it's a deep study of an important idea.

At least, that's the way I see it.

Extra credits are arguing HR was so satisfying because it's so close to our reality and the problems we face... Like what the fuck is that about? Why do they think so? Because it is set in 2027 which is less than 20 years from now? Because if anything it did a horrible job of presenting us with a somewhat realistic depiction of the future and the relevant issues. I have pointed this out many times before, but this whole futuristic depiction with mechanical augmentations is outdated. It was relevant, say, 100 years ago, when manual labour was still important in our economy. Nowadays it isn't. The only tasks done by humans in the near future will be tasks which require creativity or being human itself (like keeping company, which is something I can definitely see getting commercialized). The rest can be done by machines (automatically, or under supervision of a human). The exact opposite of this real trend which is happening right now and is the only way our economies can develop is to have mechanical augmentations. What use is a pair of super powerful arms to a banker? Or an artist? Or an accountant? Or a government official? Or a writer? Or a doctor (mind you, they're often using machines nowadays which they control using joysticks)? Even if a certain precision is required which cannot be offered by mere humans then it is still both cheaper, less risky and probably better to just use a dedicated machine. No doctor would want to amputate his fucking arm to replace it with a mechanical one, nor will any hospital be willing to provide such an arm to their staff, when there is a perfectly valid alternative!*
Only the military or certain police units would have use for mechanical augmentations, and even then one might wonder whether the risk is worth it (mechanical augmentations require some extremely pervasive surgery which, even today, is dangerous).

Also, fun fact: technology typically does not make the gap between rich and poor wider. It makes the gap between those who can use it and those who can't bigger, which is typically based on intelligence, creativity and talent rather than money. According to economic theory, it's literally impossible for technology to increase the gap between rich and poor, for poor people who can benefit from the technology could get a loan to afford them, and pay back the money by using the additional revenue generated by them using said technology (though augmentations don't generate revenues. Which is why it won't make the gap between rich and poor any bigger). Now, in reality this is somewhat more difficult, but the fact remains that new technology creates winners and losers, and in many cases the losers are the establishment rather than poor people. Which is why the establishment is often opposed to change.

Considering all this, one of the problems of HR is that it's not a "what if" situation, like the Watchmen comic. It wasn't very relevant, but it was at least interesting. Hr's setting is a situation which denies a few very fundamental characteristics of modern society (a payoff/profit maximizing, merits benefiting society) yet is supposed to be the same modern society, and HR develops the issues of this setting using those very same characteristics it just denied (i.e. capitalism; wealth distribution; profit maximization &c.).

*The logic is simple. If they can manufacture a mechanical arm custom made for a certain person to perform a certain task (or several tasks as well as the specific task), then it is possible to produce a better stand alone machine doing just that or one which is equally good at lower cost. Hospitals wouldn't want to invest in mechanical arms, since these are relationship-specific assets. When a doctor is fired or if he leaves himself, the machine will be left behind. It would be more difficult to take away someone's arm. The doctor wouldn't want to get a mechanical arm either, because for him it's a relationships-specific asset as well: it would suck tremendously if he gets fired shortly after replacing his arm with a mechanical one.

[AEmer]

New technology in entrenched markets - staying ahead of the curve - is often very good for the establishment. Look at IBM: they've been doing it for more than a hundred years.

Secondly, technology can and will make the gap between rich and poor bigger if not having it is a handicap, and getting it is expensive.

Consider reading glasses. People with bad eyes in poor economies who are poor will simply work around not having reading glasses, whereas rich people will get them and get an advantage. Same thing with hearing aids, and eye surgery, and even cosmetic surgery.

And while a strong or precise set of artificial arms are very far from being relevant for anyone, other technology, such as a mathematical coprocessor, or an advanced computer-human interface, will almost certainly be relevant within 20-30 years...and not having one of those can certainly be a handicap.

Fundamentally, the economics of these things is sound.

When it comes to military applications - and they will almost certainly be there - then things get even muddier.

Things will assuredly not look like they do in human revolution, that much is obvious, but the parallels are clear. That's why they praise it for thatæ

[Jonas]

New technology in entrenched markets - staying ahead of the curve - is often very good for the establishment. Look at IBM: they've been doing it for more than a hundred years.

Sometimes in literally entrenched markets!