I will write a Dishonored!

[Balkan]

So, I played dishonored and loved it, but the narrative was a huge missed opportunity. The worst thing about it was that the whole story took place in such an interesting world, where everything seemed to fit in it's right place. We have the Abbey of the everyman, the Outsider, the plague and a whole globe with interesting geography, but all of this was used just so we can learn a story about a mute guy who was on a quest to punish some boring assholes. So I've decided to make up my own story in that fits the world better.
The story follows a man named Jack Downes. He is young and intelligent thought somewhat unfocused and reckless, the kind of guy who would smash his head against a wall just to prove that he can (figuratively speaking of course). He is the son the rich and influential head of The Academy of Natural Philosophy, let's name him Roger Downes. So, Roger is a famous philanthropic figure throughout the Isles, famous(or infamous) for his campaign against the cults who worship the Outsider.
Now, this is where our game starts. Jack returns to the family mansion after a some time sent in prison( its a bethesda game after all) just to find that the entrance blocked and all of his calls to the family members remain unanswered. Something is really wrong here, so Jack decides to make his way into the building. This will serve as our tutorial. So, he climbs, crawls, jumps and so on to get in. Eventually enters through one(of the many) back entrances for the servants, and what he finds is a bunch of his family's workhand slaughtered and put down in a very ritualistic manner. Before he can really come to his senses from the shock, he hears two voices going down. This is our stealth tutorial as he has to hide until they go away. From what he can gather from their conversation, they need to "check everything, it all must be in place for him". Despite his fear, our hero decides that he must search the house for his family, he has to know if he can save them. Sadly, the more he ascends his home, the more death he sees, his family is butchered. There is only one room that is left unchecked- his father's office. He spies through the lock to see a figure that is performing some sort ritual/operation on Roger. Jack decides that he's got enough hiding in the shadows, bursts into the room, takes up a sword that is lying around and attacks. This is our combat tutorial as the strange man just toys around with Jack until he gets bored and knocks him down and captures him.
Jack is taken to the base of the group where he is being locked down. After a while he passes out, again, only to wake up somewhere else. That place is the realm of The Outsider. There he explains to Jack what happened, that these men worshiped him as a god and the whole slaughter was just a way to get his attention. After that The Outsider brands Jack with his mark, that he can use however he wants, then he wakes up, ready to make his escape. This is our first open level, an abandoned by the overseers complex for training hounds. This is where our tutorial ends and the player is free to tackle objectives however he wants with the given powers.
And speaking of freedom, I think that the whole moral choice system from the original should be scraped, or at least not implemented into the story. The game would reward exploration and creativity, but only with fun, while the whole "kill or not" only punishes you for everything. If you wanted the good ending then you had to sacrifice the gameplay fun, if you wanted the gameplay fun, then the good ending goes to hell.
So, yeah. That's my vision of a perfect Dishonored game, or at least the start of a perfect Dishonored game. I doubt that I'll ever see it realized since the game industry rarely takes the narrative of it's games seriously and when it does its mostly misguided movie writing(see Tomb Raider or Call Of Duty Black Ops 2).
I would like to hear your versions, I think that many great ideas can be born from this.
Also if anyone gives a shit about it, I might finish up my story to the end. There are a lot of things that might seem stupid right now(and they probably do sound stupid outside my head) but there is a reason behind much of it. Trust me, the it's going places.

 

[King Aragorn]

First of all, it's a game made by Arkane, not Bethesda. And the head of Natural Philosophy is Sokolov....
Unless we're assuming you're ditching all the characters, everything.

Dishonored is MUCH more than a ''mute guy punishing some boring assholes'', the targets were really interesting to me, and I thoroughly enjoyed how they showed the city crumbling, a bomb ready to explode at any moment. The Outsider even mentions that in the ending where Emily dies. Corvo is mute so you can inject yourself into him, just like the TES protagonists.
And The Chaos meter is not a morality meter. It's a stability meter, how well Dunwall is holding up. Also, you can still be lethal but actually get low-chaos. You don't have to force yourself into choking and sleep darts exclusively.

And, I sincerely doubt The Outsider would go so much out of his way just to grant this guy his mark. With Corvo, he didn't plan the whole thing, he just basically was ''Hey, this might be interesting...let me spice it up a little''.

One thing here, is I fail to see how this is any different than the original plot of Dishonored. It's still basically a revenge story, and you could just replace the cult with The Whalers, who have Outsider powers.

 

[Balkan]

First of all, it's a game made by Arkane, not Bethesda. And the head of Natural Philosophy is Sokolov....
Unless we're assuming you're ditching all the characters, everything.

Dishonored is MUCH more than a ''mute guy punishing some boring assholes'', the targets were really interesting to me, and I thoroughly enjoyed how they showed the city crumbling, a bomb ready to explode at any moment. The Outsider even mentions that in the ending where Emily dies. Corvo is mute so you can inject yourself into him, just like the TES protagonists.
And The Chaos meter is not a morality meter. It's a stability meter, how well Dunwall is holding up. Also, you can still be lethal but actually get low-chaos. You don't have to force yourself into choking and sleep darts exclusively.

And, I sincerely doubt The Outsider would go so much out of his way just to grant this guy his mark. With Corvo, he didn't plan the whole thing, he just basically was ''Hey, this might be interesting...let me spice it up a little''.

One thing here, is I fail to see how this is any different than the original plot of Dishonored. It's still basically a revenge story, and you could just replace the cult with The Whalers, who have Outsider powers.

Well, I'm not really scraping the events of the game, they are still a part of this world, they just don't affect our story.
Also I think that the difference from the first game is not the theme but in substance. Corvo os supposed to be an avatar for the player to explore the world, but they still give him motivation, a name and a face, so he stops being me and becomes a mute guy who risks his life for a bunch of really suspicious characters. The only motivation I can think of would be to avenge the death of the Empress, but the game never explains that. The other would be to save Emily, but he never shows any signs that she means something to him, yeah he rescued her from the abduction. So, Corvo is not an avatar, he is a character without identity or motivation, and that's not an interesting character.
Now, about the moral choice system. Dishonored never really makes things clear about how many you can kill or if the side quests would increase the chaos. The game really started being fun once I completely stopped giving a shit about the rules and started killing every target and anyone who spotted me (so several kills for a level). And guess what, the game still gave me e good ending, so I'm a really good role model for Emily because I only killed several people per day.
Don't you see the problem here? OK, lets start again while thinking that this is not a moral choice system and only a chaos rating(so killing a few guards is not a problem). First of all, choking out people is really dangerous, it might result in brain damage or even death. Second, looting is not considered chaotic, despite that I stole dozens of secretly stashed elixirs and coins (yeah, taking away the medication for the plague and stealing the only means of getting another would totally be fine with the guy who owned them). And killing infected people is considered chaotic? That just doesn't make any sense, if they are dead they can't spread the plague, so there goes our chaos system.
Now, about the Outsider going out of his way. I don't remember saying that he planed any of this, I said that the cult wanted to get his attention through the slaughter and the only thing that interested him was Jack. So, this might be another case of "lets give this guy a mark, the show might be good".
Anyway, thanks for reading.

 

[King Aragorn]

First of all, it's a game made by Arkane, not Bethesda. And the head of Natural Philosophy is Sokolov....
Unless we're assuming you're ditching all the characters, everything.

Dishonored is MUCH more than a ''mute guy punishing some boring assholes'', the targets were really interesting to me, and I thoroughly enjoyed how they showed the city crumbling, a bomb ready to explode at any moment. The Outsider even mentions that in the ending where Emily dies. Corvo is mute so you can inject yourself into him, just like the TES protagonists.
And The Chaos meter is not a morality meter. It's a stability meter, how well Dunwall is holding up. Also, you can still be lethal but actually get low-chaos. You don't have to force yourself into choking and sleep darts exclusively.

And, I sincerely doubt The Outsider would go so much out of his way just to grant this guy his mark. With Corvo, he didn't plan the whole thing, he just basically was ''Hey, this might be interesting...let me spice it up a little''.

One thing here, is I fail to see how this is any different than the original plot of Dishonored. It's still basically a revenge story, and you could just replace the cult with The Whalers, who have Outsider powers.

Well, I'm not really scraping the events of the game, they are still a part of this world, they just don't affect our story.
Also I think that the difference from the first game is not the theme but in substance. Corvo os supposed to be an avatar for the player to explore the world, but they still give him motivation, a name and a face, so he stops being me and becomes a mute guy who risks his life for a bunch of really suspicious characters. The only motivation I can think of would be to avenge the death of the Empress, but the game never explains that. The other would be to save Emily, but he never shows any signs that she means something to him, yeah he rescued her from the abduction. So, Corvo is not an avatar, he is a character without identity or motivation, and that's not an interesting character.
Now, about the moral choice system. Dishonored never really makes things clear about how many you can kill or if the side quests would increase the chaos. The game really started being fun once I completely stopped giving a shit about the rules and started killing every target and anyone who spotted me (so several kills for a level). And guess what, the game still gave me e good ending, so I'm a really good role model for Emily because I only killed several people per day.
Don't you see the problem here? OK, lets start again while thinking that this is not a moral choice system and only a chaos rating(so killing a few guards is not a problem). First of all, choking out people is really dangerous, it might result in brain damage or even death. Second, looting is not considered chaotic, despite that I stole dozens of secretly stashed elixirs and coins (yeah, taking away the medication for the plague and stealing the only means of getting another would totally be fine with the guy who owned them). And killing infected people is considered chaotic? That just doesn't make any sense, if they are dead they can't spread the plague, so there goes our chaos system.
Now, about the Outsider going out of his way. I don't remember saying that he planed any of this, I said that the cult wanted to get his attention through the slaughter and the only thing that interested him was Jack. So, this might be another case of "lets give this guy a mark, the show might be good".
Anyway, thanks for reading.

It's heavily shown and suggested that Emily means alot to Corvo, and vice versa. See how she reacts around him, how affectionate she seems to him. Also, Samuel says ''Good luck out there Corvo, I know Emily must mean alot to you''. Also, it's often suggested in the game that she's actually his daughter, and The Empress was his lover. Again, same case as The Dragonborn. Somethings are pre-determined, such as him being a Dragonborn, yet you can still project yourself. Same with Corvo.

And to some degree yes, the entire Weepers thing is a bit strange, but an argument could be made that considering we've seen Sokolov and Piero cure last stage plague in the good ending, you just killed an innocent life who could have been cured.
"they're sick people, not criminals... we will save them from the plague if we can. all of them"
But alas, that would make it function more like a morality meter. The system is a bit too simple, relying on the formula of High Kills = High Chaos, Low Kills = Low Chaos, rather than being a bit more complex. It's something I want to see improved in the sequel.

 

[xefaros]

Seriously how come every one bought that game for fancy killing?Everyone that played the stealth game-run must surely found a story worth while(even though most consider the ending a dud).I guess developers shoot themselves in the foot by diversifying the killing mechanics to the point nobody gave a frak about the story besides a blood-lusting game with superhuman abilities

At the end pointless mindless grind killing sells

 

[MetalMagpie]

Whoa. That post needs paragraph spacing.

Narrative in a video game is always a careful balance. Mute, personality-empty protagonists are handy if you want to give players freedom to play the game in different ways. So one player's Corvo is a cold-blooded killer who leaves a trail of bodies in his wake, while another player's Corvo will do anything to avoid murdering his fellow man.

 

[Balkan]

Whoa. That post needs paragraph spacing.

Narrative in a video game is always a careful balance. Mute, personality-empty protagonists are handy if you want to give players freedom to play the game in different ways. So one player's Corvo is a cold-blooded killer who leaves a trail of bodies in his wake, while another player's Corvo will do anything to avoid murdering his fellow man.

Yeah, but why would they bombard you with so much motivation for Corvo? He does everything because he wants revenge, because he loves the empress, because he loves Emily, because it's the right thing to do... The worst thing of all is that all of these motivations conflict each other in many ways(examples- if he loves the empress, then why would he want to fuck Calista, if he loves Emily, then why would he ignore her) . Corvo is a character, he is not a blank avatar as in Skyrim or Bioshock, and that often works against the player's actions and the story's direction.
Also you don't have total freedom in Dishonored, if you do things in a certain way, there are consequences and they restrict this freedom.

 

[VoidWanderer]

Whoa. That post needs paragraph spacing.

Narrative in a video game is always a careful balance. Mute, personality-empty protagonists are handy if you want to give players freedom to play the game in different ways. So one player's Corvo is a cold-blooded killer who leaves a trail of bodies in his wake, while another player's Corvo will do anything to avoid murdering his fellow man.

Yeah, but why would they bombard you with so much motivation for Corvo? He does everything because he wants revenge, because he loves the empress, because he loves Emily, because it's the right thing to do... The worst thing of all is that all of these motivations conflict each other in many ways(examples- if he loves the empress, then why would he want to fuck Calista, if he loves Emily, then why would he ignore her) . Corvo is a character, he is not a blank avatar as in Skyrim or Bioshock, and that often works against the player's actions and the story's direction.
Also you don't have total freedom in Dishonored, if you do things in a certain way, there are consequences and they restrict this freedom.

When did consequences restrict freedom? Without lawyers being involved, I mean.

Consequences don't restrict freedom, they emphasize player choice. The best example of this is Kreia explaining the ripple effect on Nar Shaddaa.

Just because you commit an action doesn't mean that's where it stops. It has repercussions. Sometimes things happen that you just didn't plan on.

 

[The_Lost_King]

.
Also you don't have total freedom in Dishonored, if you do things in a certain way, there are consequences and they restrict this freedom.

Of course there are consequences!! Why would there not be consequences for killing everybody?! Life has consequences, and choice has consequences. Things are not going to be all sunshine and rainbows if you kill the entire city!

 

[Kontar]

I thought the game's narrative was actually pretty good, it's not just a story about revenge, it's a story about redemption. As the title Dishonored implies, he was the royal guard and has been dishonored by a conspiracy to kill his Empress and the blame was conveniently laid at Corvo's feet because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Also it is heavily implied that The Empress was his lover, if you missed some of the hidden texts you may have missed that. And it's pretty obvious he cares a great deal about Emily, joining up with a group of random people whom he knows nothing about just so he can rescue her, place her rightfully on the trone, and redeem his name and bring those resplonsible to justice. The combination of the story of a person put in a terrible position, and the incredibly well done environment itself actually kind of depressed me as I played the game. One of the few games to give me a real visceral emotion while playing it.

The great thing about this game is because Corvo is a mute protagonist you can really project some of your own feelings onto him. For you Corvo may have been a skilled and cold blooded murderer who killed when he needed to quietly and efficiently and murdered those who killed the Empress out of revenge.

To me Corvo was a man put in a horrible position where the average citizen did not believe his side of the story (the truth) and instead believed the conspirators who orchestrated the assassination of the Empress. My Corvo hated those who ruined his life, killed his lover and kidnapped her (and possibly his) daughter, the rightful heir. He did not, on the other hand, hate the city guards who were simply doing their jobs protecting the people they believed were the good rulers of the city, he did not hate the sick and dying plague victims, although I did kill quite a few of them when they would catch me sneaking by. Even though he hated those that killed the Empress and put him in prison and were going to execute him, he did not execute them himself, he brought them to rightful justice and allowed others to decide their fates, and in doing so cleared Corvo's name.

I played an all stealth no-kill game and I had a blast! Also I felt I had more freedom in what I could do than in most games, I did have to kill a few people every so often when I was caught sneaking, but still got the "good" ending. Sure if I killed everybody chaos would rise and the city would fall apart, but don't you think those consequences would happen in reality? It's a city on the brink and you go out there and murder all the guards and peacekeepers. The plague would overrun the city and it would be destroyed. It is a bit strange that killing the weepers increase chaos too, but it makes more sense at the end as to why that would be. It was after-all a pretty simple kill, no-kill system, I wish they had put more work into it, and look forward eagerly to the sequel.

 

[Chicago Ted]

Ahhh it's......it's.......a wall of text......make....make it stop!!! Desu

Ok, going to go off topic here, just to reply to this and this alone.

Mate, you do know that there are many other methods of communication and response OTHER than posting a random anime gif right? Almost every reply I've seen from you here has just been like one sentence than a massive random anime gif, and actually looking at your profile to check your responses, confirms that it's not just randomly been the ones that I've come across.

Seriously dude, you can cool it off a bit. Not every single post requires you to post a gif that somehow tangentially relates to vague emotional state behind it, nor does it have to be only one line in total of text. Because posts like this really aren't adding much to the discussion going on around.

Now, going on topic here, and I'll start this off by saying that I haven't played the game, but where the hell would this go from here? So, you're family is ritualistically slaughtered, what now? What is stopping the character from simply claiming the inheritance and living fabulously? This cult that worships this Outsider figure would be completely screwed after this, what with their most vocal opposition having his house slaughtered horribly, the general public would turn on them in an instant. Also, why hasn't the main character been disowned by the father? For what sounds like a very well off aristocratic family to have such a troubled son with such a horrible reputation, I would think they would either be massively trying to reform him or put as much distance between him and them as possible instead of just letting him do whatever he wants.

Just some things I had to note immediately upon looking, but from a more outside perspective, I do not see the rhyme or reason behind most of the motivations here other than stuff happening.

 

[Balkan]

.
Also you don't have total freedom in Dishonored, if you do things in a certain way, there are consequences and they restrict this freedom.

Of course there are consequences!! Why would there not be consequences for killing everybody?! Life has consequences, and choice has consequences. Things are not going to be all sunshine and rainbows if you kill the entire city!

Yeah, but this is a GAME, and a really fun one at that. They made the mechanics so they could be fun and the moral choice aspect serves to restrict you.
Look at Thief. There the story works with the mechanics, Garrett says that killing is a mark of an amateur and that's a good reason to play non-lethaly, the game never punishes you with a story consequence, it just becomes more boring if you run around and kill people. While in Dishonored running around and killing people is fun, the game punishes with giving you a bad ending. The difference between Dishonored and Thief is that Thief uses the story and characters to benefit the fun of playing while Dishonored discourages the fun of playing with story consequences.

Whoa. That post needs paragraph spacing.

Narrative in a video game is always a careful balance. Mute, personality-empty protagonists are handy if you want to give players freedom to play the game in different ways. So one player's Corvo is a cold-blooded killer who leaves a trail of bodies in his wake, while another player's Corvo will do anything to avoid murdering his fellow man.

Yeah, but why would they bombard you with so much motivation for Corvo? He does everything because he wants revenge, because he loves the empress, because he loves Emily, because it's the right thing to do... The worst thing of all is that all of these motivations conflict each other in many ways(examples- if he loves the empress, then why would he want to fuck Calista, if he loves Emily, then why would he ignore her) . Corvo is a character, he is not a blank avatar as in Skyrim or Bioshock, and that often works against the player's actions and the story's direction.
Also you don't have total freedom in Dishonored, if you do things in a certain way, there are consequences and they restrict this freedom.

When did consequences restrict freedom? Without lawyers being involved, I mean.

Consequences don't restrict freedom, they emphasize player choice. The best example of this is Kreia explaining the ripple effect on Nar Shaddaa.

Just because you commit an action doesn't mean that's where it stops. It has repercussions. Sometimes things happen that you just didn't plan on.

It doesn't matter why, the important thing is the result and I think that Dishonored would benefit from removing the moral choice system. Its not making an artistic statement like The Line or Bioshock did and it draws attention away from the strong parts of the gameplay. Its just a slopy gimmick to make you play the game twice, and Dishonored has a shitload of replay value even without the multiple endings .

 

[The_Lost_King]

.
Also you don't have total freedom in Dishonored, if you do things in a certain way, there are consequences and they restrict this freedom.

Of course there are consequences!! Why would there not be consequences for killing everybody?! Life has consequences, and choice has consequences. Things are not going to be all sunshine and rainbows if you kill the entire city!

Yeah, but this is a GAME, and a really fun one at that. They made the mechanics so they could be fun and the moral choice aspect serves to restrict you.
Look at Thief. There the story works with the mechanics, Garrett says that killing is a mark of an amateur and that's a good reason to play non-lethaly, the game never punishes you with a story consequence, it just becomes more boring if you run around and kill people. While in Dishonored running around and killing people is fun, the game punishes with giving you a bad ending. The difference between Dishonored and Thief is that Thief uses the story and characters to benefit the fun of playing while Dishonored discourages the fun of playing with story consequences.

Whoa. That post needs paragraph spacing.

Narrative in a video game is always a careful balance. Mute, personality-empty protagonists are handy if you want to give players freedom to play the game in different ways. So one player's Corvo is a cold-blooded killer who leaves a trail of bodies in his wake, while another player's Corvo will do anything to avoid murdering his fellow man.

Yeah, but why would they bombard you with so much motivation for Corvo? He does everything because he wants revenge, because he loves the empress, because he loves Emily, because it's the right thing to do... The worst thing of all is that all of these motivations conflict each other in many ways(examples- if he loves the empress, then why would he want to fuck Calista, if he loves Emily, then why would he ignore her) . Corvo is a character, he is not a blank avatar as in Skyrim or Bioshock, and that often works against the player's actions and the story's direction.
Also you don't have total freedom in Dishonored, if you do things in a certain way, there are consequences and they restrict this freedom.

When did consequences restrict freedom? Without lawyers being involved, I mean.

Consequences don't restrict freedom, they emphasize player choice. The best example of this is Kreia explaining the ripple effect on Nar Shaddaa.

Just because you commit an action doesn't mean that's where it stops. It has repercussions. Sometimes things happen that you just didn't plan on.

It doesn't matter why, the important thing is the result and I think that Dishonored would benefit from removing the moral choice system. Its not making an artistic statement like The Line or Bioshock did and it draws attention away from the strong parts of the gameplay. Its just a slopy gimmick to make you play the game twice, and Dishonored has a shitload of replay value even without the multiple endings .

It doesn't at all make sense to have a good ending if you slaughter everyone though. You have eliminated the entire city guard and half the population of Kirkwall. You really expect a good ending? That is stupid and kind of babyish.

 

[Balkan]

.
Also you don't have total freedom in Dishonored, if you do things in a certain way, there are consequences and they restrict this freedom.

Of course there are consequences!! Why would there not be consequences for killing everybody?! Life has consequences, and choice has consequences. Things are not going to be all sunshine and rainbows if you kill the entire city!

Yeah, but this is a GAME, and a really fun one at that. They made the mechanics so they could be fun and the moral choice aspect serves to restrict you.
Look at Thief. There the story works with the mechanics, Garrett says that killing is a mark of an amateur and that's a good reason to play non-lethaly, the game never punishes you with a story consequence, it just becomes more boring if you run around and kill people. While in Dishonored running around and killing people is fun, the game punishes with giving you a bad ending. The difference between Dishonored and Thief is that Thief uses the story and characters to benefit the fun of playing while Dishonored discourages the fun of playing with story consequences.

Whoa. That post needs paragraph spacing.

Narrative in a video game is always a careful balance. Mute, personality-empty protagonists are handy if you want to give players freedom to play the game in different ways. So one player's Corvo is a cold-blooded killer who leaves a trail of bodies in his wake, while another player's Corvo will do anything to avoid murdering his fellow man.

Yeah, but why would they bombard you with so much motivation for Corvo? He does everything because he wants revenge, because he loves the empress, because he loves Emily, because it's the right thing to do... The worst thing of all is that all of these motivations conflict each other in many ways(examples- if he loves the empress, then why would he want to fuck Calista, if he loves Emily, then why would he ignore her) . Corvo is a character, he is not a blank avatar as in Skyrim or Bioshock, and that often works against the player's actions and the story's direction.
Also you don't have total freedom in Dishonored, if you do things in a certain way, there are consequences and they restrict this freedom.

When did consequences restrict freedom? Without lawyers being involved, I mean.

Consequences don't restrict freedom, they emphasize player choice. The best example of this is Kreia explaining the ripple effect on Nar Shaddaa.

Just because you commit an action doesn't mean that's where it stops. It has repercussions. Sometimes things happen that you just didn't plan on.

It doesn't matter why, the important thing is the result and I think that Dishonored would benefit from removing the moral choice system. Its not making an artistic statement like The Line or Bioshock did and it draws attention away from the strong parts of the gameplay. Its just a slopy gimmick to make you play the game twice, and Dishonored has a shitload of replay value even without the multiple endings .

It doesn't at all make sense to have a good ending if you slaughter everyone though. You have eliminated the entire city guard and half the population of Kirkwall. You really expect a good ending? That is stupid and kind of babyish.

And this is exactly my point, the story is written it a way that goes against the gameplay.

 

[DoPo]

And this is exactly my point, the story is written it a way that goes against the gameplay.

That is subjective, now, isn't it? I personally liked the low chaos route more - don't murderize everybody and try not to be seen. But I liked the high chaos ending. In fact I even liked

Spoiler

the variation with the girl dead. It's probably my preferred ending of the two high chaos variations. Although it's ridiculously easy to save here (seriously, I shot the guy THROUGH HER and she was fine) the thought of Corvo failing after putting so much effort into it is just so beautifully tragic - there are more or less two choices - Corvo either embraced the Outsider's gifts or not. If he didn't, then maybe he'd wallow in his misery and keep thinking how maybe accepting the dirty black magic may have saved the life of the one he cared for. Or if he was fond of using the gifts, then perhaps he either stopped caring or blames the Outsider for his failing.

Oh, and by the way - I first did a high chaos run (kill everything that moves) and then a ghost pacifist one and I really felt punished for the first time. OK, not really "punished" but there is at least one piece of story you don't get if you just try to kill everybody

Spoiler

Killing the Lord Regent, which is what I did on my first run, means you don't find out why the plague started. And the information you get through the non-lethal route is actually quite interesting.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

snip

nice wall of text you got there.
now try spacing it out and separate your main points from each other using paragraphs. A wall of text Is annoying to read, so I will not even attempt to read what you typed.

from what understanding I have of what you typed based off of the post below mine and the title you want to do something involves you writing. well then I recommend you learn how write properly first if your wall of text post is a properly representation of your level of writing skill.

 

[synobal]

Well lets hope your book/story/whatever has paragraphs because ya you're gonna need them. Other than that I encourage you to write just don't expect anything you write at first to be very good. In fact I guarantee almost anything you write at first will be a giant massive turd. You'll be ashamed of it if you've much sense and want to hide it or delete it. Don't delete it but you don't have to share it either. Once you pound out your first story, write another and another. Once you've got a few done get some input on your latest and try to improve.

But ya almost anything you write at first is gonna suck, accept it now and power through it.

 

[Balkan]

Ahhh it's......it's.......a wall of text......make....make it stop!!! Desu

Ok, going to go off topic here, just to reply to this and this alone.

Mate, you do know that there are many other methods of communication and response OTHER than posting a random anime gif right? Almost every reply I've seen from you here has just been like one sentence than a massive random anime gif, and actually looking at your profile to check your responses, confirms that it's not just randomly been the ones that I've come across.

Seriously dude, you can cool it off a bit. Not every single post requires you to post a gif that somehow tangentially relates to vague emotional state behind it, nor does it have to be only one line in total of text. Because posts like this really aren't adding much to the discussion going on around.

Now, going on topic here, and I'll start this off by saying that I haven't played the game, but where the hell would this go from here? So, you're family is ritualistically slaughtered, what now? What is stopping the character from simply claiming the inheritance and living fabulously? This cult that worships this Outsider figure would be completely screwed after this, what with their most vocal opposition having his house slaughtered horribly, the general public would turn on them in an instant. Also, why hasn't the main character been disowned by the father? For what sounds like a very well off aristocratic family to have such a troubled son with such a horrible reputation, I would think they would either be massively trying to reform him or put as much distance between him and them as possible instead of just letting him do whatever he wants.

Just some things I had to note immediately upon looking, but from a more outside perspective, I do not see the rhyme or reason behind most of the motivations here other than stuff happening.

The Outsider worship in dishonored is presented as something that completely corrupts and twists the individual, they are some pretty fucked up psychos in the game, there are characters that would travel around the world just so they can meet him, no matter what. And this is where our story picks up, after Jack escapes the prison, he is obsessed by finding why all of this have happened, so he goes on a quest for knowledge about the outsider's influence(sure, thats not a normal thing to do, but given the situation, I think that our hero is not your average person). That journey would lead him to others like him, who are worshiping the outsider and differ in background and social position(see, the first cult leader who attacked Jack's house, but there would be aristocrats, navy admirals and so on). I think that Dishonored never really made it's villains very likable and there was never any reason for the main character to spare their lives, but since the villains would be portrayed as victims of their own ambition and very similar to the protagonist I think that there would be a real moral dilemma there.
As to Jack and his family- in Dishonored there is a character whose soul was trapped inside a beating heart, who narrates the events, thought its an optional story and not that significant to the plot. I think that's a good way to import Roger into the story, without using flashback, that way Jack's relationship with his father and family could be brought up.
By the way, I didn't finish the whole plot in the first comment just see if anyone was asking the right questions, and you did. These are exactly the plot points that are left in the dark for the player to find later on.
In other worlds, I really thank you for asking me this, friend.

 

[King Aragorn]

.
Also you don't have total freedom in Dishonored, if you do things in a certain way, there are consequences and they restrict this freedom.

Of course there are consequences!! Why would there not be consequences for killing everybody?! Life has consequences, and choice has consequences. Things are not going to be all sunshine and rainbows if you kill the entire city!

Yeah, but this is a GAME, and a really fun one at that. They made the mechanics so they could be fun and the moral choice aspect serves to restrict you.
Look at Thief. There the story works with the mechanics, Garrett says that killing is a mark of an amateur and that's a good reason to play non-lethaly, the game never punishes you with a story consequence, it just becomes more boring if you run around and kill people. While in Dishonored running around and killing people is fun, the game punishes with giving you a bad ending. The difference between Dishonored and Thief is that Thief uses the story and characters to benefit the fun of playing while Dishonored discourages the fun of playing with story consequences.

Whoa. That post needs paragraph spacing.

Narrative in a video game is always a careful balance. Mute, personality-empty protagonists are handy if you want to give players freedom to play the game in different ways. So one player's Corvo is a cold-blooded killer who leaves a trail of bodies in his wake, while another player's Corvo will do anything to avoid murdering his fellow man.

Yeah, but why would they bombard you with so much motivation for Corvo? He does everything because he wants revenge, because he loves the empress, because he loves Emily, because it's the right thing to do... The worst thing of all is that all of these motivations conflict each other in many ways(examples- if he loves the empress, then why would he want to fuck Calista, if he loves Emily, then why would he ignore her) . Corvo is a character, he is not a blank avatar as in Skyrim or Bioshock, and that often works against the player's actions and the story's direction.
Also you don't have total freedom in Dishonored, if you do things in a certain way, there are consequences and they restrict this freedom.

When did consequences restrict freedom? Without lawyers being involved, I mean.

Consequences don't restrict freedom, they emphasize player choice. The best example of this is Kreia explaining the ripple effect on Nar Shaddaa.

Just because you commit an action doesn't mean that's where it stops. It has repercussions. Sometimes things happen that you just didn't plan on.

It doesn't matter why, the important thing is the result and I think that Dishonored would benefit from removing the moral choice system. Its not making an artistic statement like The Line or Bioshock did and it draws attention away from the strong parts of the gameplay. Its just a slopy gimmick to make you play the game twice, and Dishonored has a shitload of replay value even without the multiple endings .

Actually, what I wanted to say is: Dishonored is all about choices, correct?
Gameplay choices, how you approach things, so on and so forth.
But what would make the choices different if there are no consequences? what's really the point?
Also, Corvo isn't really a character. Maybe he was so scarred by his experience that he became a psychopath, etc. You can choose who Corvo is, it's not really pre-determined.
Also, why is it that the evil ending automatically means punished? I personally found the third ending where you fail the best, just like DoPo said.

 

[DoPo]

Also, why is it that the evil ending automatically means punished? I personally found the third ending where you fail the best, just like DoPo said.

Yeah, while the low chaos ending, and I want to stress this - is not bad it is just a bit...bland. It's really close to "and they lived happily ever after" which may work for some, but after seeing all the fucked up shit the city has gone through, I just don't find it fitting enough for me. The high chaos one really hammers in to what extent can things spiral out of control. Really thematic, too.