Deus Ex: Human Revolution has a great many secondary characters that the player can and must interact with throughout the course of the game. Some of these secondary characters are minor, only appearing in one place in the game to perform one specific role in the narrative. Other characters have much more impact, appearing at several times in the game and driving the narrative to a large degree.
David Sarif is one of these major secondary characters. Sarif is the head of Sarif Industries, a major biotech firm, and Adam Jensen (the game’s main character, who the player controls) works for him. One of the central questions posed by the game is whether cybernetic augmentation of humans is the next step in human evolution, or whether it strips away essential humanity, and Sarif is the game’s strongest voice for the former point of view. Sarif Industries has several military contracts, but a large portion of the company’s work is focused elsewhere, and Sarif believes that his work is improving the lives of everyday people.There are two conversations in particular that illuminate Sarif’s view of human augmentation. The first takes place about a third of the way into the game, when Sarif and Adam are discussing an attack on Sarif Industries by an unknown group of mercenaries. The relevant portion is quoted below:
SARIF: Look, Adam. There’s a reason this company’s under attack. You think it has to do with the Typhoon, or with some other top-secret military project I haven’t told you about.
ADAM: The thought had crossed my mind.
SARIF: Yeah well, it doesn’t. The work Megan’s team was doing before they were killed—it was redefining what it means to be human. This company, Sarif industries, was about to lead mankind to its next stage in development—self-controlled evolution! Can’t you see how scary that can be to some people?
ADAM: Sure. I also see how lucrative it can be for some others.
SARIF: It’s never been about money for me, Adam. But you’re right—there are people out there who don’t exactly feel the same.
This conversation portrays Sarif as someone who genuinely believes that augmentation is humanity’s future and believes he is taking a moral position by supporting it and trying to make it available to everyone.
However, a second conversation at the end of the game reveals that Sarif is much more morally grey. This conversation takes place after faulty biochips (intentionally distributed to the world by the Illuminati, a group of conspirators) have malfunctioned and are causing people with augmentations to become insane and violent. Adam and Sarif are discussing what to do, and the relevant portion of the conversation is again quoted below:
SARIF: We’ve got to fix this, Adam. If people realize what’s happened—if they believe augmentation technology created this chaos—they’ll ban human enhancement research forever!
ADAM: And that would be a bad thing.
SARIF: Yes, it would! Don’t you see what’s at stake here? Ever since man first crawled out of that ocean, we have been striving to be more than we are! Augmentation technology is just the latest, greatest step on a very long road—but we’ve barely scratched the surface of its potential. We can’t let fear stop us from continuing!
ADAM: That’s your belief, Sarif. Not everyone shares it.
SARIF: But you do, Adam. I know it! And if we work together, we can really make a difference. We can improve the lives of everyone! But only if we fix this.
ADAM: Go on....
SARIF: We have to get a message out . . . Tell the world... tell them that Humanity Front (ed. note—Humanity Front is an anti-augmentation organization in the game) did this. That their doctors created a virus that only affects augmented people.
ADAM: You mean, lie.
SARIF: It will give us time, son. Time to figure out how to destroy the Illuminati’s biochips, and move on.
ADAM: And what about the people who’ve been hurt by this? Don’t they deserve the truth?
SARIF: Ah, Adam... If we want the freedom to become more than we are, we can’t be blinded by a misguided morality. Some people will be left behind—it’s reality. It’s evolution, son.
This conversation again showcases Sarif’s belief that augmentation is humanity’s future, but it also shows that he is willing to take actions that are, at best, morally questionable, in order to further that belief.
Sarif is, in large part, the game’s voice for the pro-augmentation side of the argument, and through their interactions with him, the player is given the opportunity to shape Adam Jensen’s position in that argument, and also, possibly, their own as well. Sarif plays a key role in the game’s narrative, and since he serves as the voice for a technology that is seeing increasing use in the real world, his words have the potential to carry real-world weight as well.
This is very insightful data that allows followers to understand what exactly is being presented as a narrative within the game. Your data is very clearly led up to, I appreciate the introduction to Sarif’s character and then getting to see his dialogue and personality emerge was enlightening. One of the questions I had from the data presented is how this particular piece of data, this narration, is affected by certain choices within the game. Is there always the same narrative for every player or are there particular choices the individual might make that alter this narrative? I did not feel that this was thoroughly addressed in so far as to show why this piece of data is important to the larger scheme of the project. This certainly points out Sarif’s role in the game and illuminates his possibly questionable character affecting how the player might become suspicious about the narrative, but what is it exactly that you are using this data to prove?
ReplyDeleteOne of the other things that I thought might be interesting to include was something about Adam Jensen’s reaction. There was a place at the end of your post where you said “the player is given the opportunity to shape Adam Jensen’s position in that argument.” I was curious how this allows you (the player) to shape Adam Jensen’s position. What does this narrative or other narrative allow you to do in regards to the situation? Are you able to choose what you say in the game or is there a prearranged narration? Is it set or more choose your own adventure? Perhaps by including some data about how significant the narration changes, or influences the character might provide some interesting information to contrast. The main thing I believe is to place this tiny data set into the larger scheme of the game and what it means in terms of narration throughout video games and its effect upon players.
This is an insightful data sample and the game seems really interesting (I may have to check it out). I think the part of your analysis I found most interesting was this:
ReplyDelete“The player is given the opportunity to shape Adam Jensen’s position in that argument, and also, possibly, their own as well.” Not having played the game before, I am wondering to what extent players can truly shape the character of Adam Jensen and what affect their decisions have on the overarching narrative of the game. Does the game allow multiple endings?
One thing I’ve noticed in games that I’ve played is that players have the option to either play a hero (virtuous, forthright, etc.) or an anti-hero (more morally grey). The most blatant examples I can think of are Star Wars games where you are either on the light side or the dark side. Is this something you see as possible as far Adam Jensen’s character development? If so, how does it impact the overall narrative?
I also like the idea of players shaping their own views as they shape the views of their characters. For me, I think this is the case. When I play a game I have a really hard time playing morally grey characters, even though on some level I know it’s just a game, but I know some players like to play games and be as morally gray or down right evil as possible. Many more players do both. What do you think this says about players?
I would also be curious to know the level of intimacy between the player and the character. Is the player in a first person position in the game? Do they have the feeling that they are in the story interacting with the characters or do they have the feeling that they are controlling a character in a story? I know that I find a gaming experience far different depending on whether I can see the character I’m playing or not.
This would be a good post to revise for your final. Your data excerpts are interesting and you provide some initial insights for each piece of data, but I'd like to see you discuss each segment more and use evidence from the excerpts to support your argument.
ReplyDelete