Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
I'm pretty sure there are some others. The three of us are just really vocal about it.
But the thing is that the sword kind of rocks. You don't have to use up your limited ammo, it kills quickly anyway, and you can get instant kills for only a moderate degree of skill. If you choose to go the murderous route, it's also the primary means by which you solve problems that are unaware of your presence. By all accounts, the sword is the most useful and versatile tool in the game.
And the thing is that a more complex and well-developed system of swordplay would probably be more difficult to use than what we got, which would reinforce the idea that you shouldn't be getting into a bunch of fights. As the current system stands, though, it's far too easy to parrykill your way through a small group of enemies and so on. Your only problems are when you're tied down in combat but some enemies can use ranged attacks against you. When it's just sword-to-sword, though, it's really easy.
He did say "ACTIVELY interested".
And the game constantly explicitly reminds you that it is and will continue to punish you for it.
It's...like I said, the murderous route is essentially for impatient, instant-gratification types. It's flashy and quick, but overall quite unsatisfying.
When I played it, I didn't kill a single target.
Not killing the Lord Regent was pretty tough. Wait, no it wasn't. Getting the crap from his safe and all the extra goodies in his room without killing him was tough.
I have not played this game, but it really seems like your options here are: do the "wrong" thing and kill people, and actually play a game, or: do the "right" thing and essentially, do nothing.
I mean, that's just what I'm getting from the bits of your conversation I'm reading. Never played it and probably never will.
Also video game related, I am surprised that Rocky Memphis & The Temple of Ophuxof is not more popular. It's a retro C64-style platformer, and I thought gamers these days were all over those like white on trap music.
I think that game devs like those more than gamers do, really.
Also, the popular things now are zombies and games that look like Minecraft.
And smartphone games, I guess.
No lazuli, the "right" thing is to find alternate methods. Revealing your targets evil ways to the public, shaming them and banishing them. Ironic punishments that leave them alive.
>stop time
>walk up to him
>sedative crossbow
No, you have to do stuff to not get people. Like, frequently you'll have to kidnap someone instead, or do a job for someone to have them arrested.
And before that you have to get to them, meaning passing shitloads of city guards.
I guess. Those things are both pretty lame, though*.
The only games that are Minecraft-esque that I like so far are Terraria and Blockland, and the latter is very early in development. As for zombies, unless they're The Flatbush Zombies, I want nothing to do with them.
*in my own opinion only, obviously.
As I mentioned, though, it doesn't really punish you for killing. None of the runes or other collectibles are locked away, and the additional "challenges" the game throws at you aren't an issue. The worst that happens is that the game tells you that you're a bad man. Which is true, given that I was complicit in slavery and abduction. It's up to every individual to decide for themselves whether killing is worse than them, but even if they're "less bad", that doesn't make them morally strong options.
It's also worth it to remember that being complicit in those things is part of what earns you the "good" ending. I'm not sure this game has any authority by which to judge the morality of anyone's actions.
I haven't done a pacifist run, but I can hardly imagine the game being that much of a better experience for it. In a narrative sense, the characters aren't much good anyway, so getting a positive reaction from them means little. What's more, the game doesn't alter the mechanical options at your disposal by way of morality, so the gameplay experience isn't drastically changed. Last, but not least, the game commits the (admittedly common) crime of quantifying your moral decisions via the "chaos" value. This encourages the player to see morality from a mechanical perspective rather than an organic one. Do you want to be the bad man, or the good one? It encourages us to engage with morality as part of a gaming experience rather than a thought experience.
Contrast with how the Witcher games handle this. In fact, they don't make judgements and the way they alter the story and characters isn't immediately clear. The whole moral structure of those games is much more organic and nuanced, right down to how one views the killing of monsters and the value of sapience. Likewise, although Metal Gear Solid doesn't actually include moral choices, it still has a superior discussion of morality in context of lethal violence. Those games are in part about what a soldier is, what they're supposed to be and how to handle the task of a professional killer while also keeping true to egalitarian values.
These games don't stop at "killing is bad" as a moral imperative. They start there and examine the whole thing from that point onwards. Unlike in Dishonoured, killing is absolutely necessary and there is no such thing as a true pacifist run (barring making exceptions for oneself, such as "bosses may be killed"). All the same, they look at where killing may or may not be an actual necessity and what might justify taking the life of another, or how conditions can force one's hand. That final point finds purchase to its final extreme in the Metal Gear series, because as soldiers, your characters are under governmental directive to end the lives of other people.
Neither the Witcher series or the Metal Gear series include quantified morality, and by that virtue, they're free to enter into more nuanced and relevant discussion of these topics rather than enforcing a pre-established ideal by way of the developers. The latter series doesn't even have moral choices, but uses the predetermined nature of its story as a means of synchronising with the role of a soldier.
Yes it is.
It's literally the difference between combat and parkour.
Again, I'm not saying the game is the best game ever; it's rife with flaws, some of which I agree with you about.
But it isn't as bad as you're describing.
GMH, too. And DYRE, as he said. And there are several other people who aren't actively interested enough to participate in the discussion, but are interested enough to follow along the discussion, and occasionally dip their head in to make a point or ask for clarification.
I have a friend who is really into parkour.
I'm not sure I really "get" it per se, but it seems like it might be fun were I physically fit enough to do it.
My bother is very much into it. And also very very VERY good at it. He's...14, I think?
@Clockwork
(There's a lot moar poast there.)
Anyway, my experience with the game was trying to do it with the minimum of violence (although not strictly in a pacifist sense), but fighting my way out of situations that failed. No reloading or anything, since I considered dealing with my mistakes a part of the experience. So I did a lot of parkour, in fact, as well as a lot of sneaking and so on and so forth. But I was also found on a regular basis and fought my way out of such situations.
By my personal view of morality, one has a right to end another's life if a weapon is drawn on them with sincerely lethal intent. This is a lawfully-supported view on violence in most places. So while I played in a way that avoided a significant amount of fights and while I deployed non-lethal solutions on a regular basis, I also ended up fighting to the death on a regular basis.
Since there's no middle ground in the game, though, I got the bad ending and the Empress is now a psychopath or something. I may have just sucked at stealth (although I feel I pulled some pretty good moves, too), but at the very least, I experienced every facet of gameplay between sneaking, spellcasting, combat and general agility shenanigans. My experience wasn't comprised of openly walking into situations and blowing things up.
So yeah, I got the chaos ending and killed a significant amount of enemies, but I also experienced every major element of what the game had to offer.
I should go to bed.
Goodnight.
Well, the problem may be that your view of morality does not line up with the idea of morality in Dishonored, and that is why you ended up with the Chaos ending. The Chaos ending is for people who decide that murder is OK in any situation where it's not unavoidable without going to extreme actions.
^^^Fair enough.
Basically...what I'm saying is that while I think there are major thematic and storytelling flaws in Dishonored...the combat isn't one of the biggest problems.
If I was convicted of a crime I did not commit, and then I had a chance to escape, and took it, and now every police officer is actively going to try and kill me if they see me, I'm not going to try to kill all of them. I will run, and kill when only absolutely needed.
Well, you're not a supernatural assassin who has to stay int he city to fulfill his goals, in all fairness.
True.
And what authority determines which one is better or more right? The game spent its length talking down to me for no supportable reason, without nuance or discussion. It was an entirely closed, one-sided conversation where the developers arrogantly decided on a moral imperative in context of a game where assassination was a major mechanical and narrative point.
Like I said, the game ends with "killing is bad, not killing is good" as its essential conclusion. I don't think many people need to be told this. This has been a common sentiment throughout human history, military campaigns excluded. Other games begin there and then analyse the mechanics of violence, necessity and the divergence of morality. In a philosophical sense, Dishonoured is an admonition for the perceived "CoD generation" of gamers, speaking along simple lines of thought that hypothetical population sample would hypothetically understand. You can only consider Dishonoured to be morally valuable in context of a generation of both gamers who don't understand morality and games that don't analyse violence and killing. But I don't think gamers as single-minded as shooter protagonists actually exist or actually, seriously believe that the actions in those games aren't morally questionable at various points.
In short, I find Dishonoured's moral stance to be arrogant, short-sighted and condescending, all the while agreeing with its essential stance on the matter.
I have a university offer from my top choice
o/
Just felt like going back to this, but there is a trick to do a nonlethal takedown after you get spotted. You have to cast stop time within a second or so of them noticing you and then do a non lethal take down. Chances are you might be able to pull off two non lethal frozen time takedowns if a group spots you and you are relatively close.
eh
I would like to do parkour too. I'm not an especially fit person though.
Parkour is fun to watch, but I'm too much of a wuss to try it out.