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 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
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.
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?
deleted by creator
You’re really not getting this lol
I think you’re confusing getting and agreeing with. I understand what it was going for, that doesn’t mean I like it.
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?”
It sounds like I’m incapable of expressing my point in a way that you can understand.
It is not that there are consequences I take issue with. The chaos system is fine. It’s a matter of framing.
I’m really not interested in dragging this out further. How about you just decide that I’m dumb and we both get on with our lives?
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