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.
Some enthusiasts would have you believe that with prices adjusted for inflation the switch 2 is actually a deal at $450 and get mad when you say other wise
But then they won’t tell you that switch 2 uses the same type of capacitive analog sticks cursed with stick drift instead up updating to Hall effect sticks. Or that you really really don’t own the games because the games are actually just download keys.
Edit to add: Pro controllers also cost more than last gen and they’re lower craftsmanship and aren’t repair friendly because they weld plastic instead of using screws
I’m not implying there aren’t any improvements this time around I just feel like the improvements and corner cutting cancel each other out but that’s just my opinion
Existing switch owners can use any wireless controllers they already have with the switch 2. The pro controller 2 does have much nicer joysticks IMO, but you don't need one unless you really want the dedicated button for GameChat or the grip buttons
That’s not what this article is talking about though. It’s talking about how single generation consoles don’t get any price drops anymore. The comparison isn’t Switch 1 vs Switch 2 prices, it’s launch Switch 1 vs current Switch 1 prices.
Like let’s vent about Nintendo all we want, but at least let’s read the article first.
You misunderstood: current gen isn’t getting price drops while previous gen usually did. Current gen PS5/Pro and Xbox Series S/X are all actually more expensive now factoring in inflation (excluding the impact of the tariffs) than at launch. Since the Switch 2 literally launched two months ago, we can’t really talk about price drops for it, so we compare the Switch 1. The article headline is correct, and all of this is in the body of the article.
fair enough. I didn't scroll past the first graph in the article, which was comparing switch 1 prices. That plus this part of your previous comment had me thinking current-gen consoles weren't the topic.
The comparison isn't Switch 1 vs Switch 2 prices, it's launch Switch 1 vs current Switch 1 prices.
I used to have an early VR headset. With 3DoF headtracking, 640x480 at 60 Hz (combined, so actually every eye got only half of that). Descent supported stereoscopic 3D and the headtracking could be added to almost every game with a mouse driver. It was bad. Really bad. Descent alone could be nausea inducing. In VR it was a literal pukefest. Still I had to try it every few months or so, because it was so cool on paper.
I’m the dude in that meme looking at the other girl, and she is my icon collections in Steam, GOG, even Epic, etc. Icons with native Linux versions get slight preference.
EXAPUNKS and Last Call BBS have the most flavour IMO. TIS-100 and Shenzhen I/O are also very good.
Honestly, all of them are worth trying so that you can see which ones are for you. They're all pretty different (with a couple of exceptions), especially MOLEK-SYNTEZ.
Putting the game out to pasture after years of neglect… Sad that they’ll never restore the actual game to its pre-matchmaking glory days. Hopefully this will result in a proper vanilla experience, but it’s pretty painful that the actual game (which will always attract the most players) is being left to rot like this.
Look into TF2 Classic. It’s essentially ~2011 tf2 with just a few different items and game modes. No stupid hats, manageable and balanced weapons. I love it! Been playing for years now with no bot issues. I believe it will be added to the official steam store sometime soon
Yeah I’ve touched both TF2 Classic and Open Fortress in the past. They’re certainly better than post-2016 TF2, but a) they have very low player-counts, and b) they’re definitely not trying to be vanilla TF2. Each has their own unique vision and balance.
edit: Okay I played TF2 Classic for a couple hours last night and actually it does feel a lot like the good old days. A couple of the new weapons feel either over- or under-tuned (namely the Heavy’s AA cannon is crazy strong while the Demo’s TNT feels pretty bad), but having such a manageable amount of alternatives keeps each class pretty grounded. One of my complaints about modern TF2 is how almost every class can be played so differently – it’s good for player freedom, but bad for instantly recognizing what you’re up against.
I believe it will be added to the official steam store sometime soon
Assuming nothing explodes, yes. The devs have confirmed they’re working on porting TF2C to use the newly-released codebase and plan to release on Steam now that they’re legally allowed to do so.
Might not be “soon” though. I suspect porting will take a lot of work.
I think it’s a pretty good deal. As a dad who has limited amount of time to play, I’ve had an Xbox for 16 months and bought it with game pass.
In that time I’ve played > 50 games and played about 15 of them to the credits.
In that time I’ve not actually bought a game. At the new price of $20 is have paid $320 which is the cost of about 5 or 6 games, Maybe 10 or a 11 if I’d aimed for sales.
I mean console games are always more expensive. There’s always something amusing about getting about 20 good games for five bucks on PC. Also epic games is still trying to bribe us with free games.
What drivers issues, don’t consoles require just as many updates? I distinctly remember console update taking upwards of a half an hour to install like 300Mb. Refusing to update would log you out and disable digitally purchased games. It often killed the mood when I just wanted to play some games after work, the steam deck filled that spot nicely.
Besides I use Linux so my drivers are built in and updates are unintrusive and take no time to apply. I have it set to remind me once a month, I get a little icon in the taskbar and I apply them before shutting down. It takes like two minutes.
I’m not judging if you like console but modern consoles are just as annoying as any other internet appliances. They need updates, they need regular Internet access to work, they can’t really do anything else, when it shits the bed your expected to throw it away get a new one, and often have tack on a monthly fee for basic features.
I need a computer so instead of splitting the cost between a computer that won’t be too slow to do any real work and a $500 game console I just get a more powerful computer and justify the cost with the money I’m saving.
That does sound like a pretty good deal. The thing is, it used to be a fantastic deal. And judging by the way they are acquiring multi billion studios and IPs left and right it’s clear as daylight that they want to monopolize the market and keep the subscription model for a long time, which means the deal will get ever worse. So yeah, this pricing change was definitely expected.
I know right. I get about an hour a day and was quite shocked as I just went back through my achievements to see how much I’d actually played in that time.
and it’ll require some crazy grip that makes the player look like they’re having a seizure, while slamming their heads into the p2 controller dpad to cause a buffer overflow.
arstechnica.com
Ważne