Deus Ex

this is very weird. anyone remember the game Deus EX and its secret organisations, well they all exist aprt from UNATCO, which will probly be set up soon. FEMA exits the illuimarty exist and Savage exits i have found it i think is was on this site.

Also do think theses orgaisations are creating crazy technolgy like the virus in the game.

Why don't you just ask if JC Denton is going to come save us?

The game does something very well, it makes you think what happens when the conspiracy is undeniable to some, yet invisible to everyone else.

Don't look for the total truth in the game though... It doesn't touch on the occult, preferring to go the ultra-tech route. This is slightly misleading as to how people are to be controlled...

I was just playing that game a few motnhs ago, loved the little articles and books you'd find in it every now and then adn your right, everything I looked into from the game was based on real stuff except for UNATCO. Glad soembody else noticed honestly lol.

Played it almost all the way through. then bam had to reformat. There is a user around here named DeusEx, nice guy.

I just played through the last one, Deus Ex: Invisible War which was surprisngly kept hidden on the back shelves everywhere (not literally, but it wasn't like there was any type of promo or help for it to sell). It got great ratings but little coverage and went down unknown. After completing the game, I can see why the game was hushed from the public as it depicts more of that conspiracy stuff but inevitably gives you a decision to choose the direction of the world and in turn, choose your true alliance or faith.

In the end, the three choices were basically the groups that you could work for throughout the game. The choices are good which would be pure equality including for yourself so that noone gains but noone loses, bad which would be toppling society for anarchy rule, and ugly which is looks good but its really the wealthy leeching off of society.

That's just a very brief description of just what kind of choices your make in the game, and i doubt the nwo or whoever would be happy if you decided to side with rebels against them, but the game tends to steer your decisions away for that.

Surprisingly enough, a majority of the decisions in this game direct you to align with the illuminati and to realize that their way is best. And if you do choose their side, the game is much easier with their assistance while going against them results in a lot harder game. Subliminal message maybe?

Anyways, the story is all great but this was once again another deterrant from the actual truth made to dillute what is real. The best is how they describe that aliens don't exist and the greys were merely modified human expieriments. Obviously, I joked at that thought seeing that these "expieriments" happen to be many and miles from their cages. But of course, the pure simple goal of getting you to think something else works because that leads the mind to acknoledge a second conclusion which of course leads to second thoughts.

If anyone loves conspiracy stuff, play this game through although the second one requires a better pc to play. Notice that both games were rated high but never got that public appeal. Oh well, to those that played it, kudos.

Here's a good page for some more info on deus ex
nuwen.net...

btw, here's some info about the term Deus Ex which was from the original term, Deus Ex Machina.

originally from
newark.rutgers.edu...

In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a deus ex machina.

Few modern works feature deities suspended by wires from the ceiling, but the term deus ex machina is still used for cases where an author uses some improbable (and often clumsy) plot device to work his or her way out of a difficult situation. When the cavalry comes charging over the hill or when the impoverished hero is relieved by an unexpected inheritance, it's often called a deus ex machina.

Look, the creators of Deus Ex do not have some secret link to the government as a way to warn us of the new way that things will happen. So what if every agency they have in the game is real except one. That doesn't mean anything. All that tells you is that the creators and programmers wanted the game to seem real when it is not. This is all a part of a ploy to get you to buy the game not to reveal the truth about the new way of government.

Secondly, FEMA is, in a way, a scary agency. If the power they hold were abused the could hold small areas under their control, but americans are bitches. We put up a fight over a damn moving violation, what makes anyone believe that we would just roll over and play dead if some rougue government came up?

We have a free will, just as any other human. However, the mistake that people make is to assume that this "rift" in america is going to be a way for the NWO to take over or some weird stuff like that. Actually the more polarized, the less likely that a radical can take over. If you have everyone agreeing politically, then whoever in power will be a dictator. Any proposal they have before their desk or comes out of their mouth will be rubberstamped through and automatically law because the are "of the same party as us".

I am glad that there is such a polarization of politcal world in america. If not, nobody would pay attention to the world around them and get their information from what is only meant for entertainment. The days of Larry King have given way to Beyonce and Nelly....how sad has our world of knowledge become to allow the fictionaries to tell the stories of men.

Awesome game but years old now! I think it was the first time id ever heard of the illuminati that i can remember anyway.

i done all the endings first one i done was to join with Helios but personal i think Wongs way was best to return to the stoneage much more intresting.

Played the first one 3-4 times... never had the chance to have a PC fast enough to play the second one.

I think that the main reason why the game did'nt got much attention is because it's just too damn intellectual for all these PC gamers out there. What are the most popular PC games in the 3D shooter/adventure genre? Doom 3 and Half Life. While Deus Ex was a simulated political thriller/action movie about deep, worldwide conspiracies, HL and Doom are nothing more tahn rail shooters with a paper-thin plot and character development. A brillant idea, but not made for the dumb masses of PC gaming geeks.

The other thing is that 3D shooters serve one big, hidden purpose: to mentally and morally nurture kids and young mens into becoming perfect military slaves... brainwashed even before they make it to boot camp. They are being programmed for years into shooting mutants, aliens and monsters (always archetype of "foreigners"... may they be communists, chinese or arabs) in a virtual reality that always looks more and more real to them (thanks to great CGI work) and into linear plots which leave no room for questionning and critical thinking, so what have you got at the end of the line? A bunch of little sociopaths that are'nt even able to question authority and the very reasons why they do waht they do. Stupid drones and potential killers.

But what,s happenning with the Deus Ex games is that they actaully leave a choice for the players, and leave them a lot of space to reflect on what's really going on. Half of the fun with this game is to think about the subplot, to built teh conspiracy theory inside your head as you play through the levels. More improtantly, especially in the first game, you get to litterally CONFRONT THE AUTHORITY and REBEL against it! You rebel against your employers (makers) and join forces with rogue organisations. So that's really a big issue for the government and the military...

Actually, never mind killing monsters in FPS, the biggest thing now is Ghost Recon, where you are the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS!!! Oooh!), and you take out the other human players, who are the terrorists.

In terms of army training, games like this are only getting more and more realistic. If you believe in that type of thinking. I think it goes a long way in making people think guns are 'cool' instead of, 'If I never see a gun in my life, I'm happy'.

Deus Ex was a great game, and ya know, I just assumed it was a lie when they said the greys were human experiments that they would reveal it was not actually true.

I think its funny, whoever said that Americans have too strong a will to be taken over by a 'group', and that they are divided makes them stronger. What if Arnold Schwarzenegger was the leader of this group? He's just an innocent bodybuilder, honest!

So, another thread likes this. Yes, the game is extremely good and I recommend everyone gets it and plays it through. I've gotten all the endings, and the option of choice is my favorite part, though it could have been done better.

The first game, in fact DOES NOT reward killing early. The further I played through the game, the more I kicked myself for that. I basically used the tranq gun 99% of the way through the first half of the game, and our good friend tear gas.

However, the game does brign up soem excellent questions, like "When do peacekeepers become an occupying force?" and "How can people be so dedicated to preserving good, yet commit so much evil?"

DE

Yea, games obviously have become a new medium for brainwashing with almost all games having the same point a to point b approach forcing you to go with what is told. It's getting funny how government conspiracy is in just about a lot of games now, including the latest grand theft auto. Years ago, talking about the secret government was a no no, but now it's like they want it almost everywhere now.

DX didn't get as much cred as it deserved plainly because you could direct your outcome and overall view against the illuminati and government, something they don't need in the future. DX was made for the more intellecutually minded in terms of it's story (I played the first when I was 12 and didn't understand anything). Now the story easily makes sense, but it isn't something the everyday fps gunnut can keep up with. I'm sure however that any rpg fan with an open mind could've enjoyed this game as well, but like I said before, it went out in a whimper so that it would never reach mainstream status, like HL2 (help the secret government overthrow a corporation), Unreal Tournement (Just keep shooting and killing), and Doom 3 (Secret government projects with Hell and Satan that goes wrong).

What the hell are you people talking about? Deus Ex won multiple Game Of The Year awards, multiple FPS of the year awards and it was a major seller.

Originally Posted by Akilles
Actually, never mind killing monsters in FPS, the biggest thing now is Ghost Recon, where you are the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS!!! Oooh!), and you take out the other human players, who are the terrorists.

The very first FPS on a PC was Castle Wolfenstien back on that mysterious thing you've never seen called "DOS." It featured a guy running around killing Nazis. Yep, all sorts of monsters and mutants.. and uh oh yeah, just Nazis.

In terms of army training, games like this are only getting more and more realistic. If you believe in that type of thinking. I think it goes a long way in making people think guns are 'cool' instead of, 'If I never see a gun in my life, I'm happy'.

Army training my ass. Computer games are not, and can not be, training tools for the army. Paintball, Laser Tag, Computer simulations where you strap on a helmet, a power pack and run around in a room with a few hundred cameras to judge your movement? Ok that could be used for Army training. Games like Ghost Recon? Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six? Those games? Not a chance in hell.

What has been proven however is that PC based Flight Simulators in combination with a good joystick/throttle set up is good for keeping an already trained pilot's instrument/rudimentary flight skills up.

I think its funny, whoever said that Americans have too strong a will to be taken over by a 'group', and that they are divided makes them stronger. What if Arnold Schwarzenegger was the leader of this group? He's just an innocent bodybuilder, honest!

Herr Ahnold Schwarzenegger won't likely be going anywhere past Governor of Kalifornia.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Helios Barca]

Major seller to only the hardcore gamer, but it never acclaimed mainstream status in which it continued to sell well and recieve media coverage like most other fps. The first one came out unknown and took time to build momentum while the sequel didn't get the coverage it deserved. If you disagree, compare the sales between both DX to any of the mainstrream fps games like hl, doom, unreal, etc. Even smaller games like Far Cry and such got more spotlight then DX. Granted, DX did deserve the awards it got because it was a great game. If it was soo great though, why didn't it live up so well and died like all other fps games. Multiplayer? maybe... There wasn't even many fansites on this game when it came it and it's community was alot smaller which is why I was saying that the game got stiffed on the market.

It sold well, but nothing close to what a game with that potential (groundbreaking graphics and gameplay) should of sold. You ask anyone the top 10 fps games and only hardcore gamers will tell you DX.

OH, and training doesn't have to main full simulation. In fact, you just said pc games aren't training tools yet you mention a computer with a helmet as a means of training. That is basically the same thing, and the way games are training is how to assess and react in tense situations. A great example would be the military's own game, America's Army which was created as a simulation of the military expieriance along with learning abit about the arsennal (got to love having to fix your M4 after 30 rounds fired). Also, the military is making another game to improve upon the sim effect to encourage recruitment.

And by training, don't take it to the full literal term. It isn't as if playing these games will turn you into a full fledged killing machine but quite the opposite if you don't play it right. You may end up finding a nice big gun and forgetting all about the recoil effect or you'll run into a firefight thinking it's that easy to avoid bullets. At the same time, there are those that play games so good that in combact, they'll be using their tatics of stealth and evasion to survive much better. Also, you learn to conserve ammo (unless you cheat) and in some games, learn that automatic may not be as good as a single shot. This is how games train, by adding some knowledge without saying it directly because if they did, the game would never hit the shelf. Then of course, you got the military now taking matters into their own hands on this.

[edit on 11-2-2005 by makavelli]

you forgot what happens if you kill everyone (like i did the first time through. I was hated by everyone, templars, wto, illuminati), then those russian cyborgs end up winning. I couldnt figure out a way to kill them too... damn,

quote]Originally posted by makavelli
Major seller to only the hardcore gamer, but it never acclaimed mainstream status in which it continued to sell well and recieve media coverage like most other fps. The first one came out unknown and took time to build momentum while the sequel didn't get the coverage it deserved. If you disagree, compare the sales between both DX to any of the mainstrream fps games like hl, doom, unreal, etc. Even smaller games like Far Cry and such got more spotlight then DX. Granted, DX did deserve the awards it got because it was a great game. If it was soo great though, why didn't it live up so well and died like all other fps games. Multiplayer? maybe... There wasn't even many fansites on this game when it came it and it's community was alot smaller which is why I was saying that the game got stiffed on the market.

Multiplayer plays a large roll. There were several fan sites, they seemed to have died off, deusex.org for example. It was a game with a limited market from the beginning and it sold very well inside that market. Comparing Deus Ex to HL is like comparing a racing game to a hockey game. They're both sports, but they're totally different none the less.

It sold well, but nothing close to what a game with that potential (groundbreaking graphics and gameplay) should of sold. You ask anyone the top 10 fps games and only hardcore gamers will tell you DX.

The game had semi-ground breaking game play and wasn't anywhere near ground breaking in graphics. The dialogue feature was straight out of old games like Heart of China. The inventory system was ripped directly from many RPGs.

OH, and training doesn't have to main full simulation. In fact, you just said pc games aren't training tools yet you mention a computer with a helmet as a means of training. That is basically the same thing, and the way games are training is how to assess and react in tense situations.

No it’s not. What I mentioned by a helmet also includes a full body suit and a weapon in your hand that you aim and use. The idea being to simulate indoor combat situations, against other humans no computer AIs running around fighting you. Basically it would be a very sophisticated version of last tag. What I am talking about is *nothing* like sitting in your leather computer chair pushing WASD and clicking the left mouse button.

A great example would be the military's own game, America's Army which was created as a simulation of the military expieriance along with learning abit about the arsennal (got to love having to fix your M4 after 30 rounds fired). Also, the military is making another game to improve upon the sim effect to encourage recruitment.

Actually the games were made solely as recruiting tools and to give some semblance of an idea of what the Army is like. You get a far better idea by simply visiting a local recruiter, and he lies to you. Once again it is nothing at all like the real deal and it does not provide anything approaching training for war.

And by training, don't take it to the full literal term. It isn't as if playing these games will turn you into a full fledged killing machine but quite the opposite if you don't play it right. You may end up finding a nice big gun and forgetting all about the recoil effect or you'll run into a firefight thinking it's that easy to avoid bullets.

Which is among other things why they can’t provide anything approaching training.

At the same time, there are those that play games so good that in combact, they'll be using their tatics of stealth and evasion to survive much better.

No, they won't. You learn nothing in any computer game even approaching anything you would be able to use on a battlefield. The possible exception being AA and even then you don’t actually learn how to do it, you just learn to press x to crouch.

Also, you learn to conserve ammo (unless you cheat) and in some games, learn that automatic may not be as good as a single shot. This is how games train, by adding some knowledge without saying it directly because if they did, the game would never hit the shelf. Then of course, you got the military now taking matters into their own hands on this.

Oh the hell you don't. Most of these games give you ammo numbers in the hundreds and you can walk around shooting off a gat gun. Games like Rainbow Six, Rogue Spear etc... have limited ammo but then they also included nifty things like a "heart beat sensor" so you could see opponents through the walls...

Basically, these games teach you nothing. You'd learn more about surviving in combat by playing a game of paintball or air soft than you would be sitting down and playing FPSs for hours on end.


[edit on 11-2-2005 by makavelli]

If all you wanted to do was shoot down deus ex and criticize every line I wrote, then go right on ahead. What you've stated is an opinion, a rather vague one that not to many will agree on. By having you argue that computer games are in no way involved with influence on the mind along with educating anyone, your saying that any progress made through computer simulations is worthless and one must perform the actions rather then press a few keys to get it done. I'm 50/50 with you on that, but only on the physical part because it's true, no game can ever offer a full expieriance of anything. However, a computer game serves better as not only a training tool, but a practice simulation to get ones mind to take into these concepts (such as firing a weapon and so on). Not all games give unlimitted ammo, in fact none do unless it's on very easy but on difficult levels, you'll have to play a game smart before accomplishing anything and the same can go for combat situations (such as doing something more professional then you would've if you'd never expierianced it before). Simulations are all the same, and the only difference with your computer and helmet one is that is a phsyical excersise while a computer game is mainly mental.

If you don't believe me, who would be more dangerous with a weapon. A person who play's games like counterstrike and other shooters all the time or Person B that has only read about combat but never before had seen or been involved (figuring that both have the same expieriance on everything else). I'm pretty sure person A will end up lasting longer then B only because person A is more natural in that they'll seek cover and fire a gun better then one that has no expieriance prior, regaurdless if they've ever used a gun or not.

What I'm trying to say is that games in a way affect the mind, like any movie or book, but in a more directive way that one can learn easier from simulations rather then reading. Oh and just before you begin to cry fowl and say "BUT I TOLD YOU THATS NO SIMULATION", this is the definition:

sim·u·late Audio pronunciation of "simulate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smy-lt)
tr.v. sim·u·lat·ed, sim·u·lat·ing, sim·u·lates

1.
1. To have or take on the appearance, form, or sound of; imitate.
2. To make in imitation of or as a substitute for. See Synonyms at imitate.
2. To make a pretense of; feign: simulate interest.
3. To create a representation or model of (a physical system or particular situation, for example).

In no way does it say a simulation has to be a full physical and mental expieriance, so stop trying to shoot that down. First person shooters of games that simulate what it's like to shoot a weapon and kill people. IF it's not, then tell all those driving and flying schools to throw out those PCs that have flight and driving simulators since their worthless I guess, right? Granted, shooting an alien may never happen, but the simulation of aiming and firing is applied. Don't take the whole game as my concept to a simulation, but only what some of the actions are.

Originally posted by makavelli
If all you wanted to do was shoot down deus ex and criticize every line I wrote, then go right on ahead. What you've stated is an opinion, a rather vague one that not to many will agree on.

Shoot down Deus Ex? I love the game. As far as the rest of what I've said, I've basically advanced the same opinion of those I know in the military regarding this issue. And frankly I trust their opinions regarding FPS and their affect on people in combat than I do some random person off the internet.

By having you argue that computer games are in no way involved with influence on the mind along with educating anyone, your saying that any progress made through computer simulations is worthless and one must perform the actions rather then press a few keys to get it done.

Seeing as I have not argued that computer games have no involvement with influencing the mind I find that statement to be bull# lies. I am arguing that the statement etchellion made,

The other thing is that 3D shooters serve one big, hidden purpose: to mentally and morally nurture kids and young mens into becoming perfect military slaves... brainwashed even before they make it to boot camp. They are being programmed for years into shooting mutants, aliens and monsters (always archetype of "foreigners"... may they be communists, chinese or arabs) in a virtual reality that always looks more and more real to them (thanks to great CGI work) and into linear plots which leave no room for questionning and critical thinking, so what have you got at the end of the line? A bunch of little sociopaths that are'nt even able to question authority and the very reasons why they do waht they do. Stupid drones and potential killers.

Is total complete bull#.

I'm 50/50 with you on that, but only on the physical part because it's true, no game can ever offer a full expieriance of anything. However, a computer game serves better as not only a training tool, but a practice simulation to get ones mind to take into these concepts (such as firing a weapon and so on). Not all games give unlimitted ammo, in fact none do unless it's on very easy but on difficult levels, you'll have to play a game smart before accomplishing anything

Clicking the left mouse button on your mouse while watching pulsating red beams of light fire out of an imaginary weapon on your screen teaches you to fire a weapon? Gets you used to the concept? Ha. I know multiple people who love to play FPS who are scarred of even holding a gun, let alone shooting one.

and the same can go for combat situations (such as doing something more professional then you would've if you'd never expierianced it before).

You have not experienced it and you will not do it more professionally simply because you've played Doom II: Hell on Earth or Rogue Spear.

Simulations are all the same, and the only difference with your computer and helmet one is that is a phsyical excersise while a computer game is mainly mental.

Go out and play paintball. Then go back to your computer and play one of the games that try to simulate paintball. Or go out and play paintball and then go back to your computer and play X FPS. You'll find that they're nothing alike.

If you don't believe me, who would be more dangerous with a weapon. A person who play's games like counterstrike and other shooters all the time or Person B that has only read about combat but never before had seen or been involved (figuring that both have the same expieriance on everything else). I'm pretty sure person A will end up lasting longer then B only because person A is more natural in that they'll seek cover and fire a gun better then one that has no expieriance prior, regaurdless if they've ever used a gun or not.

And you are sure of that why? For no reason other than your own personal conceptions and rationalizations. Seeking cover, peeking over the top etc... is all natural reactions for *everyone* regardless if they've played Counter-Strike. Hell Counter-Strike is the perfect example for this. Someone who has played Counter-Strike and behaves as if that is combat will find himself quickly killed for doing extremely stupid things on the battlefield. Never mind that the concept of cover barely exists in Counter-Strike.

What I'm trying to say is that games in a way affect the mind, like any movie or book, but in a more directive way that one can learn easier from simulations rather then reading. Oh and just before you begin to cry fowl and say "BUT I TOLD YOU THATS NO SIMULATION", this is the definition:

To bad that FPS are extremely poor simulations that don't simulate combat because they do not take on the appearance, form or even sound. Nor do they create an accurate model. The only definition they fit is definition number 2, and that is a sorry definition to fit.

In no way does it say a simulation has to be a full physical and mental expieriance, so stop trying to shoot that down. First person shooters of games that simulate what it's like to shoot a weapon and kill people.

They simulate what its like to shoot a weapon as much as pointing a stick at someone and saying "bang bang" simulates it. Likewise they simulate killing someone as much rolling the dice in Warhammer and plucking a model of the table simulates killing someone. So yeah, they simulate it, extremely poorly.

IF it's not, then tell all those driving and flying schools to throw out those PCs that have flight and driving simulators since their worthless I guess, right? Granted, shooting an alien may never happen, but the simulation of aiming and firing is applied. Don't take the whole game as my concept to a simulation, but only what some of the actions are.

As I already noted up there Flying Simulators have been shown to be useful, a big reason is because they accurately simulate the inputs, outputs and general experience of control of flying. They don't do a good job of simulating the feeling of flying though. Likewise driving simulators can do the same thing and can accurately simulate the inputs, outs and general experience of driving. FPS games do not accurately simulate the inputs, outputs and general experience of armed combat. And that is why they are not useful.