Critical Miss: Top Five Games of 2012 #4
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
I played through Dishonored twice. The first time as a nice goody-good shoes that tried to strangle and sleep dart as many people as possible and then as a murderous bastard that gleefully sliced throats and left a trail of bodies behind him. I actually preferred both the playstyle and story of the high chaos-playthrough. The intrigue of jerks backstabbing eachother in a horrible city of horribleness just fits much better than the good equivalent of the story.
Still a really good game. People say it's "short" but I felt that it was just the right length. I did want to know more about Daud and the Outsider, though. But I hear there's a DLC coming that will solve that particular gripe.
Still a really good game. People say it's "short" but I felt that it was just the right length. I did want to know more about Daud and the Outsider, though. But I hear there's a DLC coming that will solve that particular gripe.
You know, I would LOVE to play a game set in Ankh-Morpork. And not an adventure game, but like a real triple-A game. I'm not sure which could pull off the gleeful madness best. Gearbox? Obsidian?
This is one of the only games from the long list of GotY games from various sites/venues that I am interested in and still haven't played. It looks interesting and, while I'm still waiting for a bigger price cut (and a smaller backlog), I can't decide which platform. PC for the graphics/controls or PS3 for the trophies? One of those stupid questions that mean only as much as you put into it.
Still, I'm hoping to play it sometime this year.
Still, I'm hoping to play it sometime this year.
Liking your little reference at the bottom of the panel there, Carter. Muchly amusing.
Also, you win quote of the day for referencing Half-Life and Discworld in one sentence, bravo.
Now, here's hoping that tomorrow's comic is a game I actually played last year, as so far, both games you've listed have been ones I never got around to playing. More fool me. >_>
Also, you win quote of the day for referencing Half-Life and Discworld in one sentence, bravo.
Now, here's hoping that tomorrow's comic is a game I actually played last year, as so far, both games you've listed have been ones I never got around to playing. More fool me. >_>
Absolutely agree with your summary. I actually just finished Dishonored today. While I did kind of like the plot, it was simple but it could have worked. However, the structure means you really never get to know the characters. At all. Hell, I think I learned more about most of the targets than I did about my co-conspirators through shit like journals.
My one rather major complaint was indeed the morality bullshit. I'm sick of games in general doing that. Having moments that can change events I'm actually cool with, Witcher handled that quite well I think. Hell, if Dishonored had just kept it to high chaos causing more rats/weepers I think it could have worked. But the moral choice thing isn't a moral choice. It's simply asking you what ending you want to see. Or rather, usually, whether you want to have the most fun or see the "good ending". Which doesn't work, because the bad ending doesn't feel like it's mine, it just feels like the game is punishing me for using all it's toys. I ended up going with non-lethal as much as possible, which I felt annoyed about. I have to shoot for the good ending if I can in games, it's an annoying thing I have, so I just felt roped into this. I do plan on going back through with a lethal stealth approach soon though, which seems to me to promise the most fun. So isn't that a bit ridiculous, I can either get a "bad" ending and play the way I want, or play this apparently open game the way the developers want me to?
Despite my raving about this, it is a very enjoyable game, I'd advise everyone to pick it up.
It's a pity really, because Emily did seem to be a pretty good character (the child, for those who don't care) which is quite rare for me, but that could just be because she's barely there.
My one rather major complaint was indeed the morality bullshit. I'm sick of games in general doing that. Having moments that can change events I'm actually cool with, Witcher handled that quite well I think. Hell, if Dishonored had just kept it to high chaos causing more rats/weepers I think it could have worked. But the moral choice thing isn't a moral choice. It's simply asking you what ending you want to see. Or rather, usually, whether you want to have the most fun or see the "good ending". Which doesn't work, because the bad ending doesn't feel like it's mine, it just feels like the game is punishing me for using all it's toys. I ended up going with non-lethal as much as possible, which I felt annoyed about. I have to shoot for the good ending if I can in games, it's an annoying thing I have, so I just felt roped into this. I do plan on going back through with a lethal stealth approach soon though, which seems to me to promise the most fun. So isn't that a bit ridiculous, I can either get a "bad" ending and play the way I want, or play this apparently open game the way the developers want me to?
Despite my raving about this, it is a very enjoyable game, I'd advise everyone to pick it up.
I don't understand why people didn't like the whole moral choice system in the game. It isn't some horrible thing that forces you to play in a different way than you want to. In fact, I believe it is actually one of the better moral choice systems out there.
If you are playing a stealthy, no kill run, the game helps you by having less enemies to sneak around. If you are playing a "kill all the people" run, the game gives you more enemies to deal with and do what you will with.
Also, I believe that either ending is an equally viable way to end the story. While one could be considered "good" and the other "bad", they both end in a way that is satisfying and, most importantly, coherent.
Also, the characters are amazing. If you actually pay attention, you can pretty much learn that the people you are working for are really no better than the people you are assassinating. Also, I kinda love Samuel Beechworth's character.
If you are playing a stealthy, no kill run, the game helps you by having less enemies to sneak around. If you are playing a "kill all the people" run, the game gives you more enemies to deal with and do what you will with.
Also, I believe that either ending is an equally viable way to end the story. While one could be considered "good" and the other "bad", they both end in a way that is satisfying and, most importantly, coherent.
Also, the characters are amazing. If you actually pay attention, you can pretty much learn that the people you are working for are really no better than the people you are assassinating. Also, I kinda love Samuel Beechworth's character.
It looks to me like he's redirecting the bullet, but if that's the case I have to wonder, are these homing bullets? And if so, WTF? Yeah I haven't played it either.Kiyeri said:
Yep. Freeze time, possess shooter, walk shooter in front of own bullet, unfreeze time. Completely possible. Me? I was a little more boring. Never tried it myself (the bullet technique, not the game, loved the game).Kiyeri said:
The guy shot at him, so he froze time, possessed the guy, and then moved him in front of his own bullet. Half this game is just figuring out the various crazy ways you can disable or kill people.canadamus_prime said:
Also, as for the supposed morality system, for this game people have it wrong, I'd say. The morality system is based on how much death you cause in a city already tearing itself apart. It's quite believable to think that in an already volatile situation some guy comes in and murders everyone things for the city aren't going to end well, the same way where if your only goal is to rescue the princess while doing little harm as possible while getting rid of the worst of the worst will result in a city that is rescue-able.
Really, what the game wants you to choose is do you want to be the Harbinger of Destruction for a city that's filled with corruption, greed, and suffering (and oh man, if you listen to the heart there's so much messed up stuff going on) to bring about the end it so much deserves, or do you want to try to be the Guardian Angel that works to stop the massive chaos and death that's already taking place? Either way, at the end of the game all roads lead you to being the same nameless, faceless, voiceless character you were playing, the "good" ending doesn't even celebrate your heroics.
I pretty much came to the comments for the Discworld reference; there was in fact a mod that was in development for Dungeon Siege that boasted recreating a Discworld style game but as with many best-intention-mods it fell over...Eruanno said:
I loved the first two adventure games, not so keen on Noir though. The old text based Colour of Magic was naff, and the Discworld MUD serves as a good example of what happens when a Discworld game is created without careful guidance. I think the problem with Discworld is that theres almost too much stuff. Any dev team tackling the lore would have their hands full trying to create a game that appeals to all the fans and non-Discworld fans at the same time while still being faithful to its lore.
Corvo stopped time, possessed the guard, moved him in front of the bullet that he fired at Corvo, put himself where the guard was, and unfroze time, effectively making the guard shoot himself with his own bullet. Wibbly wobbly, timey wimey, stabby shooty.canadamus_prime said:
I finished it recently and I agree with your assessment. I think it makes perfect sense that you should get a bad ending for joyfully massacring people, and rewarded with a happy ending for being merciful. It's totally organic, and it reflects the actions you make throughout the game, rather than you choosing your ending from a couple of big buttons. That said, I found it hard to replay as a pacifist, because the non-lethal options are often fates worse than death. I wanted to be a nice guy, but it just ain't an option - either way your a vengeful, horrific person, but they are different grades of horrific.uchytjes said:
My problem wasn't so much with the plot, but with the characters. Characters are as wooden as an Oblivion game, standing stock still and staring at you whilst talking with flat, purely functional dialogue. The worst by far is the Outsider, who should have been the most intriguing and imaginative character, but instead comes off as a try-hard teenager who's read too much vampire fiction. The heart was brilliant though.
Cenzton said:
Really? 'Cause it doesn't look like the guard moved or was moved.WarHamster40K said:
"Dishonored is a hodgepodge of stolen ideas, mashed together into a shambling, Frankenstein's monster of a game. "
This 'stolen ideas' thing has been making the rounds and it gets me a bit upset. The year is now 2013. There aren't a whole hell of a lot of 'fresh' ideas kicking around. People are heaping praise upon a game about characterization and zombies. Or a war game. Then you get to Dishonored and you call it stolen? Dishonored was about the most original thing to come out in 2012 (well, maybe besides Journey). Half the games on people's favorites lists are :2's or :3's.
So apparently it's no longer hip to call something original, let's draw upon some really outlandish sources and claim this thing 'stole' them. /rant
-edit-
Alright, so I've read around a bit, and apparently the environments are from Half Life, while the costume is from Assassin's Creed, while the gameplay is from Thief, and the perspective is from Bioshock. I have only played one of these games. But let's switch the 'originality' binary of a game from 1 or 0 to a 10 point scale. So at 10 we have something Wolfenstein, which was perhaps the first FPS video game (certainly the first well recognized one). Then we put something like Battlefield 3 at originality rating: 1; this idea has been done to death. On a scale of 1-10 I figure Dishonored comes out around a 7 or so. My point being that all these reviewers seem to be equating originality to quality, and thus the nose goes high into the air as they claim 'Dishonored isn't original'. Maybe not, but it sure is more original than the standard fare recently.
This 'stolen ideas' thing has been making the rounds and it gets me a bit upset. The year is now 2013. There aren't a whole hell of a lot of 'fresh' ideas kicking around. People are heaping praise upon a game about characterization and zombies. Or a war game. Then you get to Dishonored and you call it stolen? Dishonored was about the most original thing to come out in 2012 (well, maybe besides Journey). Half the games on people's favorites lists are :2's or :3's.
So apparently it's no longer hip to call something original, let's draw upon some really outlandish sources and claim this thing 'stole' them. /rant
-edit-
Alright, so I've read around a bit, and apparently the environments are from Half Life, while the costume is from Assassin's Creed, while the gameplay is from Thief, and the perspective is from Bioshock. I have only played one of these games. But let's switch the 'originality' binary of a game from 1 or 0 to a 10 point scale. So at 10 we have something Wolfenstein, which was perhaps the first FPS video game (certainly the first well recognized one). Then we put something like Battlefield 3 at originality rating: 1; this idea has been done to death. On a scale of 1-10 I figure Dishonored comes out around a 7 or so. My point being that all these reviewers seem to be equating originality to quality, and thus the nose goes high into the air as they claim 'Dishonored isn't original'. Maybe not, but it sure is more original than the standard fare recently.