Critical Miss: Top Five Games of 2012 #4

[irishda]

Reason #26 Video Game stories and single player campaigns are still largely shit:

So this game doesn't have a lot of original ideas, the campaign ruins all your fun, dialogue is wooden, characterization sucked, and the moral system stops you from having any fun. But the environment is great and you get these cool abilities! FOURTH BEST GAME OF THE YEAR!

 

[uchytjes]

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.

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.

Really? I honestly liked the outsider. He is pretty much what I thought a god-like being would be: someone who is only trying to find something interesting and different in his eternal existence. But yeah, the dialogue was kind of bad at points.

Also, I actually played my first playthrough completely stealth with no one even seeing me and killing no one and on the hardest difficulty. It was utterly enjoyable most of the time, but i found myself all too often mashing the quicksave and load buttons. But now I could easily do a speedrun of the game if I was into those sorts of things.

 

[themilo504]

The game actually has quite a bit of characterization its just the fact that the voice acting is so lifeless it feels like there?s no characterization.

Yeah I agree the morale choice system is annoying there?s nothing wrong with allowing you to play the game nonlethal(it can be quite fun actualy) but I wish games would come up with other reason for you to do so beside punishing you if you don?t.

 

[maninahat]

snip

Also, I actually played my first playthrough completely stealth with no one even seeing me and killing no one and on the hardest difficulty. It was utterly enjoyable most of the time, but i found myself all too often mashing the quicksave and load buttons. But now I could easily do a speedrun of the game if I was into those sorts of things.

Oh, I tried to do that myself, but as I had a PS3 version, and I'd hardly ever touched a PS3 in my life, I kept clumsily blundering into enemies time and time again. After an hour of screwing up (and forcing myself to not reload saves), I finally said fuck it and went on the war path.

 

[The Wooster]

"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

Original is not a synonym for good. Dishonored wears its influences on its sleeve, and I like that, but putting a fresh coat of paint on a collection of nicked mechanics doesn't make the game original.

 

[The Wooster]

Reason #26 Video Game stories and single player campaigns are still largely shit:

So this game doesn't have a lot of original ideas, the campaign ruins all your fun, dialogue is wooden, characterization sucked, and the moral system stops you from having any fun. But the environment is great and you get these cool abilities! FOURTH BEST GAME OF THE YEAR!

I'm rather play a game that does one thing amazingly well than a game that manages to be mediocre in every category.

 

[Ulixes Dimon]

"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.

The environment isn't so much from half life as it is from the guy who did the concept art for half life, they just hired the same person, that's a bit like saying bioshock stole from system shock when the same people madde them both, I can see how it completely ripped audiotapes from bioshock, but then again, fairly certain bioshock got those from another game. Not sure I can see the resemblance to Assassins Creed costume. Basically I agree with you, so it took some ideas from other games, it still used them in a creative, refreshing way.

 

[irishda]

Reason #26 Video Game stories and single player campaigns are still largely shit:

So this game doesn't have a lot of original ideas, the campaign ruins all your fun, dialogue is wooden, characterization sucked, and the moral system stops you from having any fun. But the environment is great and you get these cool abilities! FOURTH BEST GAME OF THE YEAR!

I'm rather play a game that does one thing amazingly well than a game that manages to be mediocre in every category.

And that's part of the hypocrisy among gaming culture. We're quick to laud games that are fun for us, condemn those who enjoy games that aren't fun for us (e.g. Call of Duty, Sports games), and then bemoan the fact that there aren't a lot of great stories in games. I believe Yahtzee talked about how almost all game stories aren't much better than bad B movies, and he's fairly correct. Most protagonists are blank slates Kristin Stewart style in order for the audience to be able to project themselves onto the screen (which is why it's so maddeningly infuriating that Gordon Freeman is consistently touted as the greatest video game character).

What we hold as the most important aspects of a game is what gets made. And right now, we believe that freedom is the best aspect a game can have over qualities. We're willing to ignore all the bugs, the lack of story pacing ("Meet this burglar at the inn tomorrow night." "I'll be there in a year; first I gotta become head of the Thieves' Guild!"), and the shallowness of so many characters in expansive worlds, just as long as there's a TON of stuff to do. I'm glad that it Dishonored does something really well; but is it enough to elevate it into the media spotlight or just keep it on your shelf as a personal treat?

 

[irishda]

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.

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.

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.

It's especially ironic since his last comic was how brilliant it was pointing out the psychopathic way in which people act in realistic shooters. If this is gonna be a modern shooter than you better talk about how crazy these people must be, but if I get to possess people to shoot themselves and flood a town with plague rats then dammit don't tell me it's wrong.

 

[Bvenged]

That "Genius" panel cracks me up. I'd love to see it used sarcastically too!

Dishonored's in my top 5 list for good reason. A bit on teh short side, but damn is it intuitive and freeform.

 

[The Critic]

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?

I dare say any area based on anything designed by Bloody Stupid Johnson will simply melt the computer. Or cause a time paradox, whichever the gods find more amusing.

Still, it would be highly amusing, and I would assume that the same thing would go for anything made by Leonard of Quirm?

Still, if there's ever a game in Ankh-Morpork, it would be a crime if the Watch didn't show up at least once.


More on topic, I do find the tally incredibly funny. Irony is the best weapon!

 

[The Wooster]

Reason #26 Video Game stories and single player campaigns are still largely shit:

So this game doesn't have a lot of original ideas, the campaign ruins all your fun, dialogue is wooden, characterization sucked, and the moral system stops you from having any fun. But the environment is great and you get these cool abilities! FOURTH BEST GAME OF THE YEAR!

I'm rather play a game that does one thing amazingly well than a game that manages to be mediocre in every category.

And that's part of the hypocrisy among gaming culture. We're quick to laud games that are fun for us, condemn those who enjoy games that aren't fun for us (e.g. Call of Duty, Sports games), and then bemoan the fact that there aren't a lot of great stories in games. I believe Yahtzee talked about how almost all game stories aren't much better than bad B movies, and he's fairly correct. Most protagonists are blank slates Kristin Stewart style in order for the audience to be able to project themselves onto the screen (which is why it's so maddeningly infuriating that Gordon Freeman is consistently touted as the greatest video game character).

What we hold as the most important aspects of a game is what gets made. And right now, we believe that freedom is the best aspect a game can have over qualities. We're willing to ignore all the bugs, the lack of story pacing ("Meet this burglar at the inn tomorrow night." "I'll be there in a year; first I gotta become head of the Thieves' Guild!"), and the shallowness of so many characters in expansive worlds, just as long as there's a TON of stuff to do. I'm glad that it Dishonored does something really well; but is it enough to elevate it into the media spotlight or just keep it on your shelf as a personal treat?

Super busy right now, so you'll have to forgive me if there's some typos in this mess.

I agree with you on a lot of points, I dislike how in-game "freedom" has become an excuse for a lack of focus and quality content. I personally prefer tightly structured, highly polished, generally linear games. Read my points about Dishonored and you'll see that I think it's this inherent lack of structure that undoes the game. Much like the vastly underrated Mirror's Edge, the individual mechanics work well, but the larger campaign structure fails to take advantage of them. That being said, I still prefer Dishonored over most of the year's offerings, largely because it's absolutely beautiful to look at (seriously, with the right anti-aliasing the game starts to look like its own concept art) and Dunwall has a lot of character. In a perfect world, every game would environmental story-telling this good, and Dishonored's numerous flaws would knock it out of the running for GOTY, but that simply isn't the current state of gaming. Dishonored is flawed art, but it is art, many games don't even aspire to that. I agree with you on the writing front, any narrative that doesn't make the game its in actively worse seems to be lauded as good, but if I discounted every game with shitty writing, this list would literally be only one game long.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Wait... people are saying this game is unoriginal? It was probably the most original game of the year! The only game it really comes close to resembling is Bioshock IMO and that's because of the different powers you have(and the powers you do have are quite different). I also think the story is quite good if you actually read all of the stuff littered around the world.

I originally voted for Borderlands 2 to be my GOTY but I hadn't played Dishonored at that point. I got the game for Christmas and I've already played through it 3 times. It's just so much fun. Easily my favourite game of the year. Also, it has quite possibly one of the best credits songs I've ever heard.

 

[Darth_Payn]

I'm sensing a theme for this week; Erin declares GENIUS on any game where you do a great many violent acts for which you are called out as an arsehole. At least Dishonored gives you choices, although they didn't make that obvious.

 

[LiMaSaRe]

"Like Ankh-Morpork"
really? Dishonored? sigh... GOTY
now i have to buy a copy and walk around like a tourist not completing missions whatsoever.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

Last paragraph actually convinced me to take a closer look at that game.

 

[Sergey Sund]

The fact that you can re-use the same final panel in all 5 Top-5-comics must be a huge load-off

 

[Sergey Sund]

The Jimquisition talked about loneliness in games this week and I think it kind-of related to this a bit.
If you had a shoe-horned-in co-op or mulitplayer in Dishonoured the, as you've said, main star of the game would have been overlooked, probably.
Like, when you are forced, by social convention, to play the game with your friend, who just wants to steamwalk through the game as efficiently as possible you're not going to have the time to pause every once in a while and, say, observe a dying city.
Things like the beauty of the environment cannot be enjoyed if you have a nagging skype-voice in your right ear that tells you to hurry up and another nagging skype-voice in your left ear that tells you to stop talking to the NPCs because we don't really need them for the quest.
But exactly these side-objects, these pointless NPCs that stand around to tell you the sob-story of their digital lifes flesh out the game and can give it that enormous atmosphere and depth that we sometimes find in well-crafted environments.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

Snip

I hear ya, that was the gameplay to me. I would take the highest route (height wise) so that I could observe everything. I took my time reading every book and scrap of paper I found, returning to the shadows to ponder what I just read, how it ties into the world, and how it might affect the way people lived or were living. That way the massacre wasn't a constant, and it was a nice contrast. I guess ideally Arkane would include more of that background and world building in the core gameplay itself, though that could have been an artistic decision. I eventually had fun with it, but I wouldn't include it in my personal GOTY. I am however intrigued about how they might approach a sequel as they certainly have laid some good seeds for that.