The revitalized Deus Ex franchise is easily one of the most renowned for its approach to open-ended play, science fiction narrative, and its overall quality especially on aesthetic grounds. Having recently completed my first play through Deus Ex: Human Revolution followed by a return to the original Deus Ex (with the New Vision mod, of course), it’s clear that this is one of the most important series of games to date. It’s no wonder the original is still held as one of the best video games ever. Though the recently released Human Revolution didn’t quite cover all its bases – specifically on the technical end in comparison to its contemporaries – it still stands tall as one of the best games of 2011: a brilliant game where the merging of ideas and action into praxis feels completely natural and “mature” in the best sense.
In fact, where Human Revolution pushed the series forward the most was in its effective portrayal of the questions concerning human evolution and augmentation, specifically the political aspects of such a future just over the horizon. It was this concrete connection to “real life” which I found most compelling in play, yet it brought to light aspects of the series which I’ve found to be wanting, especially in light of a turn to concrete modern day geo-politics. In essence, while it scratches at legitimate and “real” political concerns about power, media, class, technology, and choice, Deus Ex fails to do what great science fiction does best: address head-on the core problems of contemporary society.
Specifically, Deus Ex creates a narrative in which the power of the few elite, the “They”, have an inappropriate level of control over resources (money power-political power-technology) and communication (social narritives-media coersion & deflection). In short, corporations who employ workers and advance technological civilization conglomerate power to themselves, and as unelected powerbrokers, make decisions on the public’s behalf without input in their own interest. This dystopian future, especially in Human Revolution, may be aesthetically similar to Blade Runner, but it’s obvious a corollary is present day global politics (especially in the United States). Unfortunately, the cause (and thereby the solution) to this web-like problem is never pointed at the source. Rather, in a move that feels very co-opted by the media-power at large, fingers are pointed at shadowy conspiracy theories like the Illuminati rather than at actual, present day, corporate CEOs. It’s almost as if corporate power was enough to buy off the game developers, who went as far as to hint at the problems – enough so that reasonable people could draw a logical conclusion bearing to life – and then deflected and effaced the issues by creating a supernatural god-like cause to explain these events; in other words, pure fiction. It’s like an Oil Company’s advertisement saying that they care about the environment as well, so we should use their gas instead of the competition’s; It suppresses the actually rational response – the third way – which is to stop driving altogether.
Certainly, Human Revolution does a better job than the original Deus Ex in bringing the events of the game to bear on contemporary life. Whereas the original was swamped in conspiracy theories ranging not only from the Illuminati to Area 51 and “greys”, along with a whole host of other science fiction tropes, Human Revolution seemed to try to stay out of that arena. My sense is that it’s entirely possible that Edios Montreal included the Illuminati if only to tie the narratives of the games together, as a good prequel ought to. It should also be noted that both games do an excellent job putting the questions out there, specifically in regards to their endings: each game has 3 or 4 different ways to wrap up the events and carve out the path for the future – each choice grounded in meaningful logics connected to personal power grabs, questions of who chooses on behalf of others, the ability for technology to both lift humanity and drive us under, and the like. These endings are impactful because they are real problematics that need thinking on behalf of the public, and do a service both to the player and to the Deus Ex franchise.
However, as effective as these ending decisions are, they fail to overcome the Deus Ex franchise narrative that we can’t know who’s really responsible or what ought to be done. After setting up important problematics, the Deus Ex games seem to want to cloud the issue, never wanting to place blame on anyone. That almost all of the prime actors in Human Revolution could be said to have a “good” intention for their deeds is just such a fiction. They would’ve done better to reveal the corporate malaise of power and money grabs through technological and media control, especially of the bosses, rather than paint everyone with a benevolent brush. Though Human Revolution does suggest a general great class divide between the haves and have-nots, the rulers are always portrayed as wanting the best for everyone, rather than simply being in it to make another buck. This moral failure to properly set up the scenario means that the entire problematic is in danger of becoming one more skewed media story, harmless to those with real power. That’s a shame, because the Deus Ex series could be one of the most influential paradigms that generations of gamers take to heart.
I’ve long felt that games have the ability to make real and impactful effects in our society and ways of perceiving the world, much in the same way that the arts do. What great science fiction has always done is offer a glimpse of our own world – a clearer glimpse – though the telling of a story from another place. Whether I Dream of Electric Sheep, Alien, Dune, or Robocop, all are useful windows through which to perceive our own world. While Deus Ex approaches the shores of great science fiction, what ultimately holds it back is its own failure to stick to its own story and offer a truly meaningful picture into our own world.
JohnSteed7 says:
You may have wanted this game’s story to align with your political views, but that’s obviously not the story the makers of Human Revolution wanted to tell. There’s a reason you’re able to see the good intentions behind the actions of all the different factions in the game. It’s the same reason you’re asked to make a choice at the end, rather than have Adam make one for you in a cut scene. Human Revolution wants you to decide who is right and who is wrong on your own.
Had they assigned blame for all of that society’s ills on “evil corporations”, as you wanted them to do, the game would have far less interesting to me. I appreciated that they simply dropped us in this world they created and allowed us to make up our own minds, rather than force us down one way of thinking. The story was much more complex as a result.
thegarfie says:
JohnSteed7 makes a good point – while it’s often good practice for a film or a book to have a ‘statement’ eg: ‘Power Corrupts’ or ‘Corporations are bad’ – that might not be the way forward for games. This might be the failed creative writer in me speaking, but In writing a movie or a novel, the writer can ask a question but eventually has to ‘take a side’
I sadly can’t remember who wrote that ‘the interactive form of a statement is a question’ – but I think it applies here. So rather than ‘augmentations are bad’, Deus Ex asks something to the effect of ‘are augmentations in humanity’s best interests?’ (hugely simplified of course) The player is then asked to take a side instead.
Does it work? Not entirely. That’s why I agree that it fails as a science fiction story, it lacks the convictions of the best science fiction. But it’s a laudable effort to tell a videogame story rather than a movie story, and one that’s ever so slightly hampered by trying to incorporate some of the tin-foil hat conspiracy theorizing of the original.
zeromantic says:
In addition to what’s been said already, the perspective of ‘basically everyone wants to work for a greater good’ seems like a more accurate depiction of reality than ‘corporations are evil and only care about moneygrubbing, especially if it screws over the little man!’.
gnome says:
Excellent article and one I almost fully agree with. Thing is, I don’t really believe that any mainstream game by a big developer could ever hope to make a political statement that could matter, as a) self-censorship has already proven its power in the mainstream media, b) proper censorship could be employed and c) most game designing prima donas are to rich to care about society. It’s like Hollywood. One can expect a few decent and/or progressive ideas, but nothing politically dangerous.
Stralci, Deus-Ex: Human Revolution | Games Vertigo says:
[...] Deus-Ex mette in scena una battaglia industriale su vasta scala in un futuro che non è molto lontano dal nostro fra Cina (un plagio aperto alla Tokyo Honkongizzata di Oshii nel suo Ghost in The Shell), USA e chissàdove, una congiura che viene spersonalizzata in maniera bambinesca ma che può essere facilmente ricondotta ai giorni nostri (come scriveva qualcuno ). [...]
Games Vertigo says:
[...] Deus-Ex mette in scena una battaglia industriale su vasta scala in un futuro che non è molto lontano dal nostro fra Cina (un plagio aperto alla Tokyo Honkongizzata di Oshii nel suo Ghost in The Shell), USA e chissàdove, una congiura che viene spersonalizzata in maniera bambinesca ma che può essere facilmente ricondotta ai giorni nostri (come scriveva qualcuno ). [...]
Chris Jordan says:
Interesting article. I know I’m a little late to comment, but I just finished the game so I thought I’d come back to this. Major spoilers below!
I think you’re definitely right about there being a potential cop-out in that conspiracy theories have always been about blaming the imaginary. It’s almost like blaming the devil. But I’m not sure that what the conspiracies represented in the context of this game was necessarily wholly detached from the real-life questions–it just seems to shift it more into the philosophical abstract rather than offering a close paint-by-numbers analogy of our own world. Maybe that makes it weaker, I’m not sure. Storywise, the conspiracy stuff did feel less convincing than the rest, though, definitely.
I also, like JohnSteed7, think going the ‘corporations are evil’ route would have been a mistake, at least as an overall conclusion. It’s a classic cyberpunk trope that isn’t without merit, but it’s also very likely too simplistic, and I’m glad the game moved on from it.
I realise your article is more about corporations not being held accountable enough rather than necessarily being anti-corporation, but it’s not like the game didn’t call out that aspect: we had Zhao to represent corporate greed and she was pretty much the most straightforward villain of all (right down to the campy evil behaviour), the final ‘boss’ (the others of whom were all mercenaries, so she’s lumped with them), and the last person you absolutely have to put an end to.
I think the game recognises corporate greed as an easy target and treats it as such. Then the real decision comes with, ‘Well, we know what kind of corporate behaviour is obviously unacceptable, so what about the much more difficult question of what is acceptable?’
Like most, I didn’t like the buttons–it bugged me that the idea of regulation was lumped together with the unaccountable power of the Illuminati, which seemed like it was thrown in there just for the sake of giving it a potential downside and distorted the options (where’s my option for regulation from a power can be held accountable?)–so I agree, to an extent, that the Illuminati does muddy it needlessly. I think you definitely hit on something there. But I don’t think the conspiracy stuff necessarily undermines everything else, and I don’t think the Deus Ex narrative fails, because it isn’t about finding someone to blame. Even the Illuminati aren’t categorically wrong unless you decide they are.
fellow says:
Good ariticle!
I have to disagree with you though. The series is extremely thought provoking on a political and future-of-humanity level, especially when we consider a longer timescale.
Yes, it is science fiction and in a lot of ways too incredible to accept as the near future. But the series is poitically best thought a study into the concept of world government. When I was playing the 1st game, I first thought it was just a classy, well made shooter. But gradually I noticed I was learning more about the world and starting to form opinions on the way the world would be best run. The end-of-game options are exaggerated, but ultimately provoke questions such as: to what extent should humanity integrate? Should we be advancing towards a unified world or remain as independant states? Who is best placed to decide on all of this?
This is something that is completely relevant to contemporary politics. The progressive unification of the world is something that has been accelerating since the middle ages, and arguably before. And it continues faster than ever in our age, causing complex problems and providing expanded opportunites.
The main theme of Human Revolution was human augmentation, although true to the original there was an overarching context of increasing world government and globalization.
PS No corporate bad guys? What about David Sarif? He is the archetypal pushy and manipulative CEO…:)