Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
In the end, I went with Sarif's option. It's not the truth, it's probably not the right choice, but at the same time, I think that is the history of humans. To overreach, to strive for something. I like the last line of that cutscene: "We can become the gods we've always been striving to be. We might as well get good at it."
On the other outcomes:
Completely eliminating augmentation makes no sense since there is a real need being served with augments. People that were once blind would be able to see. Those who've lost legs would be able to walk. And so on.
Regulating augmentation would be a reasonable choice if not for the people who are requesting it. What this really amounts to is a shadow organization taking control of the world and research being obstructed if it does not fall in line with the organization's policies (i.e. projects that threaten their power). This reduces progress considerably and helpful technologies that might otherwise become available never see the light of day.
Hiding everything that happened and letting the world decide what to do will basically solve nothing. The destruction of a high profile facility with no absolute tie to augmentation will not have any real effect on the world. Everything would be as it was with new faces to replace the old. Progress will still stagnate as opposing factions work hard to obstruct each others' goals.
I chose Darrow's message as well, but I was sorely disappointed in the consequences. Eidos wants us to believe that by telling the whole truth, people will buck science altogether and plunge themselves into a neo-pre-modern age. That's BS. On top of that, I wanted to reveal the whole truth without supporting Darrow's horrendous biochip disaster. And yet, there was Jensen promoting the whole event as necessary and good because it planted the seed for change. No, NO, NOOO!!! That is not what I'm agreeing to by telling the truth, dammit!
/dropmic, Rorschach out.
P.S. I did agree with Taggart the most, but still, screw the Illuminati.