PlayStation 3

The ending did indeed suck, but unlike ME3's I didn't think it detracted too much from the game. And everything else was so damn good. Really, really good.

I actually bought this and avoided playing it for almost a year because I was sure it would disappoint, but it turned out to be one of my favourite games this gen.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQ_wbc3Z5C8

Considering the game sold over 2 million copies, yeah, there will be more games. But you would do well to know that the first game Human Revolution was announced 4 years before it was released, never mind when the development actually started.
---
Don't just post youtube links. Say what the **** they are.
http://i.imgur.com/WaN8M.png

Isn't the team behind HR working on a Hitman game for this year or next? I know their studio got bigger with the success of HR.

Hopefully. Despite the huge flaws it was one of the best MGS games ever.
---
After the Fallout

The ending was actually excellent. HR was an example of how to do the "push X button for X ending" correctly. I think gamers are so used to seeing that mechanic done the wrong way that they automatically hate it. Let's compare the ending of ME3 to the ending of HR -
In ME3, a star child with omnipotent power gives the main character 3 choices. The star child is never alluded to during any of the game play. The choices are never alluded to during the game play. The choices don't even fit with how people role-played their characters, and the only difference between the choices is the color of the beam of light. Finally, even if we ignore all that, the ending has plot holes because characters are inexplicably placed in a different part of the universe from where we saw them just prior to the ending. So the 3 main problems are -

(1) The whole "push X button for X ending" scenario came out of nowhere
(2) It presented choices that had nothing to do with the game up to that point
(3) The choices were incongruent with the main character
(4) The choices weren't different enough
and
(5) Even if we ignore the above 4, the ending wasn't even internally consistent

In HR, the "push X for X ending" isn't altogether unexpected. Your goal is to stop a virus by going to a central hub - while it may not have been 100% obvious, there was certainly the reasonable possibility that you would have choices with regards to how to fix the virus.

Second, the choices were presented throughout the entire course of the game, not just at the very end. You understood the corporatist point of view through your interactions with David Sarif - you understood that he just wanted to give the people what they wanted and to keep pushing the science forward. You understood the eradication scenario through you interactions with William Taggart - you could see the destruction caused by genetic augmentations. Hugh Darrow's point of view was a little less well-done, but still you had already had a long talk with him and understood where he was coming from as well.

All of these choices fit into the way you role-played Jensen. Were you a friend of Sarif's? If so, you can pick Sarif's ending. Were you hostile to Sarif? You can pick the Taggart ending. Were you hostile to both? Pick the Darrow ending. And all of these are an oversimplification on my part - it's not just your conversation choices that you can role play. Don't like augmentations? Don't use them. Do a Purity First playthrough and pick the Taggart ending.

In summary, the HR ending was fantastic. No need to hate on it purely because it was a "push X button for X ending". That type of mechanic can be done well, and HR is proof of it.

TL;DR - Don't hate on HR because of the ending - it was great.