I do feel like even if they skipped Clair Obscur because of recent controversies, the author should have addressed it. I think it’s certainly deserving of being in the list, so saying nothing kinda seems contrarian at best.
I played Clair Obscur, liked it, and it’s in my top 10 for the year out of about 18 games. But man, the reception of that game in the Game Awards and such is wildly out of sync with what I thought of it, and it makes perfect sense to me that it wouldn’t end up in an outlet’s top 20.
It has some really strong moments and a very powerful ending that means it leaves a very strong lasting impression in a lot of people. Also the music really carries it. I still think it’s a good game, but I was definitely a victim of this too and have found that my esteem of it has fallen a little bit as the “dust has settled” so to speak.
It’s still a great game, and I’d recommend people playing it but I don’t think I’d rank it as highly on my all-time list now as I would have when I sat and watched the credits roll the first time.
Honestly this list reads like the person who picked the games doesn’t actually play games and just listed the most popular/ most talked about games, but to make it not that obvious they asked that one “weird” person groupchat they were invited to once that is full of actual gamers to provide like 3 games for the list lol
2000 was the direct successor to NT4 and was specifically targeting the business market. It was available in Pro, Server, Adv Server, and Datacenter editions. I would not call it a consumer Windows OS.
That‘s interesting because I remember our home computer ran on it for a while. I guess that was only because my father was friends with a PC shop owner who knew about it.
ME was basically 98 but much less stable, so a lot of people grabbed a copy of 2000 one way or another to run it at home. XP came out in 2001, bringing an end to DOS based kernels in the Microsoft lineup.
Windows was built on IBM compatible MS-DOS, not regular DOS. The term “DOS” was so ubiquitous with IBM compatibility specifically, that it almost exclusively referred to MS-DOS, and not any other variant. Windows 95 does not run on top of Atari DOS, for example, and therefore trying to run any Windows 95 application in Atari DOS would not be possible.
Software natively compiled for Windows 95 will not usually run in any other variant of DOS than MS-DOS, and in some cases, even MS-DOS itself.
Quake II released in 1997 natively for Windows 95, but was not compatible with other DOS based operating systems at the time. Over the years, fans have tried to “backport” it to other variants of DOS, most notably Q2DOS. But its original PC release does not natively support any OS other than Windows 95. Many games of this era are like this, and a game released in this era usually said it was compatible with “Windows 95/98/ME,” not “DOS.”
I distinctly remember running most, if not all, of my games on Windows 2000 (not ME). I mean, yeah, NT 4 was pretty hopeless for gaming, but 2000 was better.
I never encountered a single Windows 9x game that wouldn’t run on Windows 2000 Pro. It was my primary OS in 2003 or so, having moved from Windows 98 SE.
Glad to see Tribes get a mention. I spent a hell of a lot of time in that game. learning how to ski was mini game in itself. It was a great feeling when you mailed it When you nailed it.
I definitely own Diablo and I definitely used Win2K, but I didn’t go out of my way to buy a weird special version of it. This leads me to believe the normal Windows 95 version would work on NT as well.
So he couldn’t have been younger than 15 at the game’s release (and could have been as old as 25).
That being said, that game came out a quarter-century ago, and there are people in the workforce who won’t have been born when it was released. Can’t just assume any more.
I think they have the knowledge, but write only about what brings views.
From how often they write about Elon Musk, you’d think they are his promotion department.
Like a Stadium for games? That’s a really cool idea, I mean they already have the streaming tech, they only have to get their business model right. Easy, right?
It's basically an infinite money glitch! All Google has to do is make sure not to have the project run by the guy who botched the Xbox 360 launch and it'll be unstoppable!
I loved CS1 and have had CS2 since launch. I just can't get into CS2 - it's just not fun.
A large part of that is Paradox Mods in CS2. When CS1 launched from day one you could go onto the steam workshop and download player made models - houses, offices, train stations, roads etc. It grew rapidly and continuously, and it meant every city you made you could customise and change. The game was constantly refreshing and fun, and you could make whatever you wanted.
For CS2, 2 years on and you still can't add custom assets to the game. Paradox/CO have released themed region based asset packs that they have made and the mods are there, but the player made assets remain largely missing. And I suspect the reason is Paradox Mods and the upcoming console version - the PC version seems to have been held back from being good so Paradox can get it's console launch. There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding that the player made content was what made CS1 so great. I suspect CO get that, while Paradox only cares about DLC.
It’s weird, there is a long history of these kinds of games getting a console release going all the way back to SimCity for Super Nintendo. IIRC it could optionally use the Mario Paint mouse.
I think I’m the only person who played through the entire game and didn’t like it. Yes, yes, I should probably have quit but I’m a bit of an optimist and hoped it would get better.
It felt to me like the game really didn’t want me to kill anyone. However it had any number of fun ways to kill people and then scolded me when I was naughty enough to (gasp) use them!
Also the rats were bizarrely low poly compared to everything else. Odd gripe, perhaps, but given how crucial they are to the setting it felt strangely shit.
It was unfortunately a product of its time where moral systems ultimately amounted to binary good guy/bad guy outcomes which was the style at the time. The system was designed to make you want to play it twice. If you’re used to the more modern moral ambiguity in today’s RPGs I don’t think anyone can blame you for disliking it.
I grew up playing Fallout 1/2, Deus Ex, stuff like that. Dishonored framed its morality system as “chaos” rather than good vs. bad but ultimately I had characters complaining about my methods. You brought in someone to specifically be an assassin and then you’re outraged that he kills people? I shot the damn traiterous boatman in the head at the end of the game.
IIRC you still get the low-chaos ending if you only kill the targets. It’s just by going wild and killing everyone that you get high-chaos, and I think this fits in the moral framing of the game.
I do agree with your gripe that D1 gives you a lot of fun ways to kill people and challenges you not to use them, while at the same time giving you very little nonlethal tools. They addressed this well in the sequel IMO, but I did also love the challenge and the temptation knowing that these enemies would be so easy to defeat with a rat swarm but I just shouldn’t. Like I said, keeps with the moral framing about the slippery slope of mindless revenge IMO
I’m reminded of a show I was watching and lampshading. One of the characters is exhausting to watch and the other characters comment on how much the character sucks. That’s great an’ all but I’m still stuck watching this character suck. Commenting on it doesn’t make it go away.
Similarly I could not use the tools the game gives me but they’re there for me to use. If I’m not supposed to use them then I might as well instead play something that wants me to play it!
I understand what you’re saying (I think) but you know that… you can kill everyone, right? The worst the game does is throw a few more enemies at you (to kill) and some moral characters say mean things to you. Pretty standard RPG mechanics, IMO. It’s just a choice and like I said, the narrative framing sets you up to be a highly-trained stealthy assassin, not some mass-murdering juggernaut. But you can do that if you want
Similarly I could not use the tools the game gives me
Offers* you. There’s even an achievement for completing the game with just a sword and pistol, no upgrades or powers ;) Choices!!
Much like in Spec Ops: The Line the player can just stop playing. I mean, you’re not wrong, but it seems silly to me.
Some games handle this by making it the ultra-violent approach essentially non-viable but that’s not how Dishonored decided to roll.
the narrative framing sets you up to be a highly-trained stealthy assassin
I quietly took out guards rather than avoiding them. No alarms were raised, etc.. Seems pretty stealthy to me.
Ultimately I just didn’t appreciate the mixed messaging of “here are tools for extreme violence” and “why did you commit extreme violence?”. If non-lethal means were such a priority why was I given tools that heavily favour lethality?
What you’re not understanding is its not “don’t use these tools” its, “if you’re a murder hobo you’re going to get a darker ending narratively” there’s not a real consequence otherwise, you can play however you want still.
Let me put it another way then:
They made the creative choice to build the game that way. I think it was a bad choice and hurt the narrative experience significantly and can think of multiple better options that would have made it a better game. Evidently I am very much in the minority on this but my experience playing the game is just as valid as anyone else’s.
I’m not some strange creature that has emerged from an undersea cave with no understanding of narrative conventions or game structures. I’ve been playing games since the early ‘90s, including plenty from the ‘80s, and have continued playing since, across many genres.
I think the way they chose to structure their game could have been better and I was actively annoyed by the way they went about handling “high chaos”. Other games before and since did it better.
You are more than welcome to disagree with my opinion! Most people seem to!
…but it is not me being some idiot who doesn’t understand gaming and I’m frankly rather tired of being told I’m the problem here.
Because your qualm of “they gave me the tools but don’t want me to use them” is plain wrong.
It’s like playing FO3 or NV and getting upset that killing random people in a city results in everyone getting angry with you and losing karma. “They let me kill them so why should there be any consequences?”
Lol fair enough, idk like you called the boatman traitorous, view it from his angle, you would have to have gone around murdering a LOT of people for him to turn his back on you. The whole plot is about the govt being suoplanted and you’re supposed to be part of the “good guys” yet it doesn’t feel that you’re (a player with high chaos) is being a “good guy” I can totally get why he’d be like… Dude in done with helping you, this isn’t right what you’re doing
I’m sorry that I don’t remember many story specifics from thirteen years ago. I remember the group I was working on behalf of seemed utterly awful so I very much didn’t feel like I was on the side of “the good guys”. The whole system seemed rotten on all sides and I didn’t feel like I was doing anything positive regardless. I recall the boatman just being an arse towards me throughout and having the opportunity to off him at the end was at least satisfying. He does straight up betray the player in high chaos, so traitorous is an apt description.
As I said, my complaint was more with framing that the specific consequences.
When I played Dishonored it felt like I was given tools like that and then reprimanded for my lack of subtlety. If I’d been told “Use these only as a last resort as subtletly is the priority” and I’d used them then I’d have felt like I’d just barely scraped through a mission. Instead I did a thorough job, from my perspective, eliminating threats to the group I was working for, avoiding raising any alarms, and then being told I did a shitty job. You gave me a toolset geared towards extreme violence, why the shocked Pikachu face?
I think it’s really cool that the game is setup so that it can be traversed non-violently (I can’t recall whether there are any targets that absolutely must be killed, but I remember most, if not all, had non lethal options). Given the tools I had though, I didn’t feel like going that route, and I really didn’t appreciate the mission givers acting like I was doing a bad job when I used the tools I was given. It felt very much like “Well the proper way to play this is the sneaky sneaky way - but I suppose deep begrudging sigh we’ll allow you to do things this way” was the message the game communicated to me.
I wasn’t cheesing the systems presented, messing with pathfinding bugs, that kind of thing. I used the tools given in a canonically acceptable way. Don’t give me a loaded gun and then complain about a loud bang!
“This person is a problem. We’ve left some tools for you."
(events transpire)
“Oh my gods, what did you do?! They’re dead!”
Sorry, was I supposed to have a little chat with them, convince them to mend their ways? Was the collapsible sword for cutting cake? The gun for firing into the air in celebration of an understanding? Those exploding knife mine things for… uhhh.
These are my perceptions and recollections, over a decade later. They may not be entirely accurate, but it’s what I remember. The game left me with a lasting impression that it disapproved of my approach and I found its mixed messages deeply irritating. I didn’t feel I was being mechanically punished and I was aware that being more violent would increase “chaos”, but I felt that should be my choice for tackling the problems and the mission givers should treat it Corvo making decisions in the field that he felt were appropriate. He wasn’t there to just be a triggerman, as far as he was concerned, but to make decisions in his area of expertise.
If you disagree with my experiences I can’t stop you, but that was what I took away from the game. If it failed to communicate things to me it’s certainly not because I lack media savvy or gaming experience. I’m annoyed that I didn’t have more fun with it - I played to the end because throughout I hoped that I would enjoy the next bit more. Then it was the end of the game and a bunch of people were telling me that my opinion was wrong.
I’m really not interested in dragging this out further.
…because I knew that if you continued to engage I would feel compelled to do so, rather than going to bed or whatever. Dishonored annoys me to this day. I do not get the love for it. I’m glad the rest of you had such a good time with it and annoyed that I didn’t get that enjoyment. I put the effort in, where’s my fun?!
I’m sorry and appreciate your nuanced response, thank you for taking the time to explain.
For my part, I played generally low chaos just because I found it very fun to blink in, knock out a guard on their own, blink away and end up with all the guards in piles up in the rafters, on the chandelers, stuffed into corners of closets etc lmao. I haven’t replayed 1 in a couple years but I think all the main targets have non-lethal as an option and generally require some set up to achieve which gives more time for world exploring. There are also a lot of powers that work very well with non-lethal and more stealth oriented play throughs.
Like the other commentor pointed out, the guard and good amount of the general folk are not really enemies because they are “bad”, they’re simply manipulated by propaganda and think Corvo is the one who murdered the empress in cold blood. So from a bystanders prospective, the boatman in this case, he’s seeing a high chaos player murder a bunch of at least morally neutral guards and is understandably disgusted. For high chaos you’d definitely have to kill a good percentage of the guards as, from my understanding, you can still kill every target and achieve a low chaos ending. Corvo is given the choice to do what’s needed, but at a point it’s more like a slaughter and the characters are effected by it. Not to mention murdering the majority of the police and leadership of an empire is going to throw an already strained empire into… Chaos has. Not enough guards left to keep the peace. It felt less to me (in high chaos runs) like the game is chastizing me, and more like understandable consequences to my annihilation tactics lol, more rats because of all the bodies, characters becoming disillusioned and turning away, the guards absolutely know I’m a monster now, etc…
You indicated you felt the tools you were given pushed you more towards a lethal playstyle, however what about the non lethal tools you were given? There’s a stun mine, sleep bolts, ability to choke guards unconcious, several powers as I mentioned… Plus you get to choose what you upgrade, most runs I didn’t upgrade the lethal options much at all. 🤷
Idk, I went in expecting a stealth game and it overdelivered and had the bonus of also being open to a less stealth oriented call of duty or dark souls style kill all in your way option with a bunch of completely different powers I didn’t use on my stealth run.
Reading your experience it feels like you might have gone in with a different mindset or maybe misundertstood something about how you can play the game and that it clouded your experience with a game I so thoroughly enjoyed, It’s one of those I go back and play every few years.
It’s silly that I pushed so much on it because of course in the grand scheme it doesn’t matter lol its just a videogame, but eh.
Edit: My wife pointed out to me there’s some additional moral points around how the Outsider basically tempts you with power just to see if you’ll succumb to the “easy route” with the lethal powers. It is kind of the point that it’s harder to do/be morally good in ethically complex situations.
Well an assassin kills his targets. He doesn’t kill every innocent bystander he sees. In the first game, the guard enemies you see are your colleagues who are fully under the impression that you are a traitor who killed the empress. They are functionally your enemies during the game, but they are ultimately the good guys.
The rebel leaders, especially the admiral are going to complain about you killing who are also basically his men.
That’s true, it is a game where each choice has a direct consequence. Going along that train of thought, do you see the “star system” in GTA as the game scolding you for your choices? If you’ve never played it, in GTA you are a criminal and as you commit crimes you get a star rating. The more stars means the more law enforcement that attempts to subdue or kill you. There really isn’t a way to complete the game in a non-violent manner though.
A better equivalent would be a GTA game giving you a mission with a tank and then the mission givers seriously, not for comedy, giving the player shit for doing anything but driving on the road avoiding all cars.
My problem is with the tonal dissonance of giving the player weapons designed to be fun only for the game to complain when they’re used.
The opposite being a Bond game. Really he should only be using sneaky spy weapons but he’s given a ridiculous arsenal and expected to use it. If you give me a machine gun then why would you expect me not to use it?
I think there is a difference between what the developers expect and what characters expect. In Fallout3 a settlement builds their town around a deactivated nuclear bomb. There is an opportunity very early in the game to detonate it, which most characters understandably react poorly to. But I wouldn’t rate the game poorly because the surviving NPCs of that settlement become hostile to the player afterwards. The developers don’t really expect anything from the players as there is the choice to do either thing. I thought Dishonored did that as well. NPCs who cause havoc to the city by killing people and spreading disease will hear complaints from the surviving citizens. Also the story of the game sets up the player to be framed for murdering the empress so most NPCs by default already hate the player character. I liked that the game gave players the choice to remain noble and try to actively prevent further chaos or say fuck it and slaughter everyone who stands against you even if you are technically in the right.
On one hand I’m happy its dead because paradox deserves this. But on the other hand I spent $80 on this and I really thought it had the base to be an amazing game.
arstechnica.com
Aktywne