I came to this after playing AC3 and it was satisfying to actually be able to assassinate people. That said, I did a high chaos run but got rid of my targets non-lethally for the most part. I found I had a slight issue with the Dark Vision. Like the Batman games and Detective Vision I found myself in that mode often. I liked to always know where the enemies are but it made it hard to enjoy the very good graphics. Just my own OCD problem though.
The rest of the game was smooth, looked sharp, was super fun and except for The Flooded District which I wasn't a huge fan of, every level was quite fun. Especially the last one on High Chaos where I did kill everyone. I really can't wait to see what Arkane does for the sequel, I'm glad it sold well enough to merit one. The world is really interesting and well developed.
Yeah, Emily is probably the best character in the entire game. By far.
Yeah, probably.
Which is good, because, you know, she's a central motivating factor. Your motives for most of the game are payback and the kid, and if you go minimal force, payback might feel a bit lacking.
Especially with Daud, where one option is "Sure. Go on and retire. You feel bad about it, and that's enough revenge for me!"
Means the kid being likable matters a bit.
(Did like Piero and Solokov as well. Always been a sucker for mad scientist types)
Finished this game. Easily one of my most favorite games ever.
I wish I played longer than 9 hours though. I went stealth, low chaos. Got the best ending, which was really rewarding. I hope this is a huge series. Scratched the assassin itch unlike any other game.
I like shorter games these days because I don't have infinite time, but Dishonored is one of those games that could be 100 hours long and I wouldn't get bored, I think. At least we're getting DLC and a sequel.
Games like this or the Arkham games, Thief or Deus Ex... if they give me a special vision mode that shows enemies through objects, I will spend the entire game in that mode.
This was the prettiest blue, yellow and black colored game i've ever played.
Dark Vision is pretty ugly. They should just draw bright outlines on people's silhouettes and show the cone as a transparent beam. Stealth X-Ray should integrate with the artstyle, not obscure it.
Games like this or the Arkham games, Thief or Deus Ex... if they give me a special vision mode that shows enemies through objects, I will spend the entire game in that mode.
This was the prettiest blue, yellow and black colored game i've ever played.
the key to avoid this is to give the vision mode a significant downside, i think. making it drastically reduce the range of your vision while using it (like even level geometry, etc) or make you unable to see certain other important things as a tradeoff, or make it slow down your movement while it's on, etc. that way it forces players to balance their vision use, because yes, otherwise why ever NOT use the vision mode?
Games like this or the Arkham games, Thief or Deus Ex... if they give me a special vision mode that shows enemies through objects, I will spend the entire game in that mode.
This was the prettiest blue, yellow and black colored game i've ever played.
the key to avoid this is to give the vision mode a significant downside, i think. making it drastically reduce the range of your vision while using it (like even level geometry, etc) or make you unable to see certain other important things as a tradeoff, or make it slow down your movement while it's on, etc. that way it forces players to balance their vision use, because yes, otherwise why ever NOT use the vision mode?
I feel like I do have more trouble seeing things in brightly-lit areas, which seems like a downside that makes sense if they're calling it "Dark Vision".
They had the right idea, they just didn't make the disadvantage big enough.
(Also, I tend to get cocky and careless when I'm using Dark Vision, but that's a flaw in my brain and not in the power.)
I've done two play throughs. One as an organic kill when seen thing where I ended high chaos and one as my Clean Hands run.
I used Dark vision for all of about ten minutes in the first and didn't even buy it in the second (where ideally it should have being my most used thing by the playstyle used).
It's a horrible power that makes the game ugly and that I actually find very hard to use for anything other than corner checking where lean doesn't go far enough.
That and it makes an already easy game easier.
In regards to other comments in the thread:
1) Length was fine, felt like Portal in that it was just short enough to leave me wanting more but not so short that it felt a rip off (I'm a Uni student, to put the whole time/money value thing into a bit of perspective).
2) Piero and Sokolov probably tie for best characters under Emily just because they have a very definite arc and sets of personality quirks that are fun to engage with and well presented (just FYI, Corvo is the worst character in the game because he never speaks)
3) Fuck the flooded district. That level is to me about the only really challenging stealth section because of blinking guards. It's also not as pretty as the other levels and feels back tracky/time padding with the whole 'go fetch your equipment' thing (which I didn't do on my no kill run, seriously, last level, no sleep darts and only magic, was fun). If it weren't for the bits inside Duad's hide out, which are awesome, I would describe it as the 'flood level' of Dishonoured.
Regarding DLC: I'm tempted by the time trails but want to know exactly what they are, if they teach me some new gimmicky tricks for me to use in the campaign as well as being fun time trials I'm down with it (stuff like grenade punting with windblast or the Corvo slide). The Duad stuff I'm all down for unless they botch it completely. I mean at that point you have the same gameplay mechanics but with you playing an actual character rather than a blank slate.
The whole blank slate thing I understand btw, I just wish they'd given him SOME personality, maybe one that adjusts for current chaos. If they'd made Corvo a generally quiet man who quipped occassionally on low chaos and a more aggressive guy on high it would have added tons to the experience IMHO.
Okay, Corvo rarely grunts out a response to someone. I can't think of any instances where he actually shows character outside of those granted to him by player actions.
Your mistake is to think of him as a character in the same sense that you are thinking of the rest as characters.
One could argue the mistake would be laid at the developers' feet for rendering him silent, especially when his position in Dunwall has been clearly established. All we knew about Gordon Freeman was that he's a scientist, and he spends long sections of the game without another soul to communicate with. The same cannot be said for Corvo.
I wouldn't be surprised if Dis2 had an entirely new protagonist. Hopefully one with a functioning voicebox and the desire to use it.
I think it is short-sighted to call it a mistake at all. You may think it was a mistake, but it's not like the developers just forgot to record lines.
Frankly, spoken protagonists are often disappointing because there is a shadow between our thought and their action. It is extremely rare to find a game wherein you occupy a persona that is sufficiently well-written as to be a satisfactory reflection of how you feel. There is nothing inherently 'good' about talking. Indeed I much prefer the silent protagonist: Crono, Link, Corvo, Gordon, Mario, Scythian, Soap, Chell, Wander etc.
The only examples I can think of where we have benefited from the protagonist talking are ones where were are separated by some degree from the character in question. Resident Evil 4 is a perfect example of this: we are separated from Leon both physically, through the third person camera, and through a narrative that is theatrical and overblown. Leon is a stereotype (albeit an interesting one), so we have no cause for projection onto him. He fulfils a purpose that is a trope player to our omniscient narrator, rather than being our own inseparable access point to the story.
The other main examples are triggered dialogue (Starfox, Left 4 Dead), which work because they are largely illustrative, or modern RPGs that approach the protagonist in a fully scripted way. It is no coincidence that I cannot stand most modern RPGs, and that their plots often feel excessively melodramatic and prescriptive.
The only examples I can think of where we have benefited from the protagonist talking are ones where were are separated by some degree from the character in question.
This is awfully vague. What counts as "some degree" outside of camera? You could pretty easily call the narrative here overblown since it relies more on caricature than character to facilitate the revenge arc. Garrett? Faith?
The problem with Corvo's muteness is that it doesn't fit. It looks stupid. Chell doesn't need to talk because she's just dealing with robots that are torturing her, there's no point in quipping back at them. Link is a kid (most of the time), and his stories are simplistic fairy tales so he doesn't need to talk. Mario is wahoo.
A good silent protagonist is when you aren't thinking "I really wish I could say something right now".
Corvo on the other hand is very strongly characterized and even though he doesn't speak he has different, defined relationships with multiple characters. He has a complex backstory. Having a kid hug a mute just feels weird to me.
Yeah, Corvo has a reputation, interacts with characters and is definitely a character.
Saying I shouldn't think of Corvo as a character in the conventional sense because he's silent is a silly line of reasoning.
Mario doesn't need to speak because he's in a cartoon
Link is a fairy tale hero whose job is literally to be the silent courage that saves the world
Chell is stuck with crazy robots
Gordon Freeman is... well actually if it weren't for him being alone for long stretches of gameplay I'd probably wind up wishing he'd say something too.
The point is that Corvo is not just some trope that allows us to dismissively base his behaviour on his back story. Corvo's back story has depth to it that should leave him with opinions on the situation and things to say to his allies along with quips for his enemies. Imagine how much more you would care about the three loyalists if at some point Corvo had said to Pendleton 'you know what Pendleton you're a coward, but I'm glad you're with us'. That line there makes sense with Corvo as basically as loyalist as you can get and immediately connects us to the world better than a silent protagonist would.
If you want an example of this, look at Duad, we had a two page discussion of that dude and it's for a simple reason, he connects with Corvo. Not only is he a mirror image of an outsider gifted individual uses his powers for attainment of a personal goal, but the guy speaks, he says things that Corvo as a character would likely say himself if he wasn't a mute.
How does Corvo feel about killing Lady Boyle just because she had the wrong lover?
Maybe on high chaos he sees it as cleansing the nobility
Maybe on low it's a shame and he feels regret and resonance with the death of his own wife the Empress
Unlike the conventional silent protagonists Corvo to me is a man who could have so much to say about his situation and help connect us to the game world through his point of view.
I don't resent the decision to make him silent, I just feel it would have being better to have him speak.
+1
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited December 2012
I don't like his character much, for a pretty specific reason.
He doesn't get himself out of his own mess at the start of the game. He doesn't choose to help himself. He's given powers by someone else and broken out of prison by an outside organisation.
After that point everything you do becomes what he does...but that foundation is fairly important, I think.
Initially with regard to Corvo I got the impression from early trailers and information that
The powers he uses are his own. I thought he was the mysterious mystical body guard protector everybody in the realm feared and whispered about. I though the mask was something he always had and was a symbol of his status as the royal bodyguard. Even though I think the Outsider is interesting I'm still disappointed about that.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention early on, but do they even state why the Outsider takes an interest in Corvo?
I do agree that he should have been voiced. The silent protagonist always feels like lazy writing. I realize you don't always nail what the audience feels, but when I decide to spare someone versus jab a sword in their throat I want something more than a note on the mission summary screen.
PSN SeGaTai
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention early on, but do they even state why the Outsider takes an interest in Corvo?
There's a lot of things the game doesn't really explain, and the outsider's motives are one of them.
0
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Anyone else feel a bit confused by how the trailer for Dishonored shows the Outsider appearing to Corvo and giving him powers in his prison whereas in the game he gets back to the hound pits before meeting him?
Beat this today after setting it on the backburner for a few weeks. It was pretty good, though fairly short, even with the amount of reloading I did. If I go back and play a different way, it won't be for a while.
Were people complaining about the ending? I didn't really have a problem with it. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. Sort of abrupt I guess.
I did feel like the big twist should have been a halfway point, or closer to it. Instead, I got through most of the rest of the game in one sitting.
I don't like his character much, for a pretty specific reason.
He doesn't get himself out of his own mess at the start of the game. He doesn't choose to help himself. He's given powers by someone else and broken out of prison by an outside organisation.
On the silent protagonist note:
OH GOD IF ONLY I COULD SPEAK AND EXPLAIN THAT TELEPORTING WIZARDS MURDERED THE EMPRESS.
And yeah, it is a bit weird how Corvo is always essentially led through his actions and it's not until the very end he's honestly acting independant of a higher power.
Games like this or the Arkham games, Thief or Deus Ex... if they give me a special vision mode that shows enemies through objects, I will spend the entire game in that mode.
This was the prettiest blue, yellow and black colored game i've ever played.
the key to avoid this is to give the vision mode a significant downside, i think. making it drastically reduce the range of your vision while using it (like even level geometry, etc) or make you unable to see certain other important things as a tradeoff, or make it slow down your movement while it's on, etc. that way it forces players to balance their vision use, because yes, otherwise why ever NOT use the vision mode?
Mark of the Ninja made it so you couldn't move while in the see everything mode. I quite enjoyed that. That being said, with Batman and this, my 2nd playthrough I barely even use this mode.
Yeah, Corvo has a reputation, interacts with characters and is definitely a character.
This doesn't really prove anything. So do/are lots of silent protagonists.
Saying I shouldn't think of Corvo as a character in the conventional sense because he's silent is a silly line of reasoning.
I disagree, quite strongly. Silent protagonists, especially when played in the first person, are explicitly to serve the purpose to bringing you, the player, closer to the story. And you, the player, therefore are granted the privilege and indeed the burden of interpretation. You speculate yourself about how Corvo feels about killing Boyle, but that's not the question you should be asking. The question is how you felt about it. Personally I found her death animation very interesting, and thought it silently conveyed a great deal about that instant in time - but whatever one feels, the entire point is that the game is not offering a prescriptive interpretation.
Mario doesn't need to speak because he's in a cartoon
Link is a fairy tale hero whose job is literally to be the silent courage that saves the world
Chell is stuck with crazy robots
Gordon Freeman is... well actually if it weren't for him being alone for long stretches of gameplay I'd probably wind up wishing he'd say something too.
This is a woeful line of logic. Not just because I think the rationale is poor but also because you make the assumption of dividing between 'doesn't need to speak' and 'needs to speak'. You must realise this is a hugely subjective qualification. You surely also realise that even if we could definitely identify who did and did not need to speak (which we cannot), this is not to say that they should or should not speak.
The point is that Corvo is not just some trope that allows us to dismissively base his behaviour on his back story. Corvo's back story has depth to it that should leave him with opinions on the situation and things to say to his allies along with quips for his enemies. Imagine how much more you would care about the three loyalists if at some point Corvo had said to Pendleton 'you know what Pendleton you're a coward, but I'm glad you're with us'. That line there makes sense with Corvo as basically as loyalist as you can get and immediately connects us to the world better than a silent protagonist would.
If Corvo said that line I would be find it risible. Again, this is just a revision of the same argument, with the same conclusion: all this comes across as is a distinct lack of imagination. There is nothing preventing you from taking away this interpretation. It is not, however, my interpretation - not least because I find Pendleton's character far more nuanced than a simple coward. So yes, imagine if Corvo had said that. I would be disappointed that Arkane had decided that we needed to be told what to think.
If you want an example of this, look at Duad, we had a two page discussion of that dude and it's for a simple reason, he connects with Corvo. Not only is he a mirror image of an outsider gifted individual uses his powers for attainment of a personal goal, but the guy speaks, he says things that Corvo as a character would likely say himself if he wasn't a mute.
This has nothing to do with the point at hand. We are not playing Daud.
How does Corvo feel about killing Lady Boyle just because she had the wrong lover?
Maybe on high chaos he sees it as cleansing the nobility
Maybe on low it's a shame and he feels regret and resonance with the death of his own wife the Empress
Yes, maybe, maybe! Isn't it great that there's that ambiguous space to occupy?
Unlike the conventional silent protagonists Corvo to me is a man who could have so much to say about his situation and help connect us to the game world through his point of view.
The effort that went into building the world of this game is specifically so that we have a fleshed-out and complex scenario for us, the player, to interpret.
I don't resent the decision to make him silent, I just feel it would have being better to have him speak.
And I feel you are wrong, for precisely the reason that this argument is always wrong.
As I said previously, interpretation is a privilege and burden. We are granted it because - especially in a multilayered narrative with differing outcomes and ways to kill or not kill - Corvo is an extension of ourselves. In Dishonoured, the developer maturely respects the act of interpretation and relinquishes the author's intent. I am thankful for this, because imposed dialogue would have inevitably not reflected my own designs on the world. When playing a first person game I will always prefer the silent protagonist. Demanding that the game offers you a set reaction or interpretation feels like the player's shortcoming, not the game's.
Yeah, Corvo has a reputation, interacts with characters and is definitely a character.
This doesn't really prove anything. So do/are lots of silent protagonists.
Saying I shouldn't think of Corvo as a character in the conventional sense because he's silent is a silly line of reasoning.
I disagree, quite strongly. Silent protagonists, especially when played in the first person, are explicitly to serve the purpose to bringing you, the player, closer to the story. And you, the player, therefore are granted the privilege and indeed the burden of interpretation. You speculate yourself about how Corvo feels about killing Boyle, but that's not the question you should be asking. The question is how you felt about it. Personally I found her death animation very interesting, and thought it silently conveyed a great deal about that instant in time - but whatever one feels, the entire point is that the game is not offering a prescriptive interpretation.
Actually the game does offer me a prescriptive interpretation. It tells me through How the other characters react, the creepy stalkers lines when you 'rescue' her from death. The game has obviously got an opinion on all the things that Corvo does, fuck that's the point of the chaos system in that it literally shapes the world based on what the developers consider to be a 'good action' or a bad one. Saying that you get the right to interpret more because your protagonist is silent doesn't really say anything. It would be like if in a film the central character never spoke, you wouldn't be allowed more interpretation but denied the authors ability to express themselves using a tool they have at their disposal
Mario doesn't need to speak because he's in a cartoon
Link is a fairy tale hero whose job is literally to be the silent courage that saves the world
Chell is stuck with crazy robots
Gordon Freeman is... well actually if it weren't for him being alone for long stretches of gameplay I'd probably wind up wishing he'd say something too.
This is a woeful line of logic. Not just because I think the rationale is poor but also because you make the assumption of dividing between 'doesn't need to speak' and 'needs to speak'. You must realise this is a hugely subjective qualification. You surely also realise that even if we could definitely identify who did and did not need to speak (which we cannot), this is not to say that they should or should not speak.
It's subjective whether someone needs to speak therefore I am wrong to think Corvo should speak. This line just read silly as you pretty much just pointed out my point, that some heroes have a reason to be blank slates due to a low amount of backstory/desire for the player to experience the world through their own eyes, and then told me that the same argument is silly. If it's subjective as to who needs to speak then why is it woeful for me to explain why I believe other popular examples of the silent protagonist work where Corvo does not.
The point is that Corvo is not just some trope that allows us to dismissively base his behaviour on his back story. Corvo's back story has depth to it that should leave him with opinions on the situation and things to say to his allies along with quips for his enemies. Imagine how much more you would care about the three loyalists if at some point Corvo had said to Pendleton 'you know what Pendleton you're a coward, but I'm glad you're with us'. That line there makes sense with Corvo as basically as loyalist as you can get and immediately connects us to the world better than a silent protagonist would.
If Corvo said that line I would be find it risible. Again, this is just a revision of the same argument, with the same conclusion: all this comes across as is a distinct lack of imagination. There is nothing preventing you from taking away this interpretation. It is not, however, my interpretation - not least because I find Pendleton's character far more nuanced than a simple coward. So yes, imagine if Corvo had said that. I would be disappointed that Arkane had decided that we needed to be told what to think.
Except a character speaking has no more reason to influence your opinion unless you have a respect for him or his speech sheds new light on the world. Corvo speaking would not be instruction of 'this is how the player should think' but 'this is how Corvo, the players avatar, does think'. Even if you struggle to distinguish player agency from the character I would still have preffered to have perspective of the character who is at the centre of all this.
If you want an example of this, look at Duad, we had a two page discussion of that dude and it's for a simple reason, he connects with Corvo. Not only is he a mirror image of an outsider gifted individual uses his powers for attainment of a personal goal, but the guy speaks, he says things that Corvo as a character would likely say himself if he wasn't a mute.
This has nothing to do with the point at hand. We are not playing Daud.
You missed the point. Duad is an example of how interesting Corvo could be as a spoken character because Duad is a very similar man to Corvo. Indeed why many people found him so interesting was percisely this fact that he represented what a high chaos/off the track Corvo was. We are playing Duad, or at least Corvo is similar enough to Duad that saying the reason we like Duad is because Duad was a character we felt an immediate connection too because he voiced thoughts that were likely in corvo's mind as well.
How does Corvo feel about killing Lady Boyle just because she had the wrong lover?
Maybe on high chaos he sees it as cleansing the nobility
Maybe on low it's a shame and he feels regret and resonance with the death of his own wife the Empress
Yes, maybe, maybe! Isn't it great that there's that ambiguous space to occupy?
Not really, given the choice between being able to fill in the blanks and being told one opinion and then being allowed to come up with my own. I'll choose the one that gives out more information. Again the player acts as Corvo, but Corvo does not need to speak for the player.
Unlike the conventional silent protagonists Corvo to me is a man who could have so much to say about his situation and help connect us to the game world through his point of view.
The effort that went into building the world of this game is specifically so that we have a fleshed-out and complex scenario for us, the player, to interpret.
So having Corvo speak and provide his point of view would have ruined this world building by... giving us more information from the perspective of a man in a very interesting position with in the world? No
I don't resent the decision to make him silent, I just feel it would have being better to have him speak.
And I feel you are wrong, for precisely the reason that this argument is always wrong.
As I said previously, interpretation is a privilege and burden. We are granted it because - especially in a multilayered narrative with differing outcomes and ways to kill or not kill - Corvo is an extension of ourselves. In Dishonoured, the developer maturely respects the act of interpretation and relinquishes the author's intent. I am thankful for this, because imposed dialogue would have inevitably not reflected my own designs on the world. When playing a first person game I will always prefer the silent protagonist. Demanding that the game offers you a set reaction or interpretation feels like the player's shortcoming, not the game's.
Also classy, because one game gave bad voice acting to their main character there fore all games must be ruined by adding voice acting to the character. Great line of reasoning.
The simple result is that you seem to be of the opinion that because the character who voices thoughts is the one you are playing you have been dictated to follow that line of reasoning. This simply isn't the case and many games are made richer by making use of the player characters voice to help inform a mode or the world around them (take a look at the Farcry 3 intro and imagine it without Jason speaking, it would lose impact).
A'ight. I'm not going to waste anyone's patience on this further than is necessary, but:
Anything further on authorial intent and reader is best addressed within the essay by Barthes that I linked to.
Focusing on the reactive within the environment is a red herring. You're not talking about Corvo himself here - and indeed your understanding of the reactions is in itself an interpretative act. There's a reason it's called 'high chaos' and 'low chaos', not good/evil.
Simply because your logic is poor, no more or less than that. Your rationale for deciding who 'needs' and 'does not need' to speak makes little sense. Chell is constantly being spoken to, for example. You're also still confusing 'needs to' and 'should', which was the crux of my point. You might think Corvo 'needs to' speak because he is in scenario x, but Link 'does not need to' speak because he is in scenario y. I was saying that was a completely untenable delineation, which it is. But I was also saying that even if it were not, 'needing to' speak because the character is in a scenario that you think is appropriate for it does not necessarily mean the character should, and vice versa.
I have no response to your stuff on Daud (and it really is spelt Daud). It is complete nonsense. Something is vaguely like one iteration of something completely different, therefore reasons.
The inclusion of Tidus was perhaps supercilious, but frankly the majority of games botch protagonist speech. I could probably count the exceptions on two hands: GTA, Uncharted... And, by the by, those only work because yes, they are well-executed, but also they fit into the structure and philosophy of the game. The same rules do not apply to every narrative act, and especially not first person cameras. I can't begin to tell you how ridiculous I find much of the trailer footage for Bioshock Infinite.
What you prefer is irrelevant, we are talking about the strength of the choice as an artistic/directorial decision. As an aside, you seem to be limiting agency only to what is said, discarding actions. This ignores both what we as players make Corvo do, and also the small bits of prescription that do make it into the game - for example, escorting Emily from the boat. I also strongly disagree that Corvo speaking would be 'no reason to influence opinion' (and anyway, if it is not, then why include it in the first place?). Corvo and the player are one and the same. Corvo speaking would not, in the majority of cases due to simple math if nothing else, align with the wishes, intent, and characterization possessed and bestowed by the player. That is the whole point of silent protagonists in the first instance, and the only debate that was seriously being mooted.
There is a value in silence; it is the best mode of interpretation. Thoughts and actions that we physically play out and illustrate within our own experience have no need to be clumsily signposted along the way - there are a thousand other, better ways to deliver the details. If you don't feel like you are able to make that leap without something unambiguously cut-and-dry from the developer then I have no answer for you.
Except what I'm saying is that nothing stops you from having an interpretation of the world because Corvo voiced his opinion. Seriously I never expressed it in terms of needs to speak, I said that the game would be improved if Corvo had spoken.
The point with Daud is that the reason he is such a popular character is due to his close relation to Corvo's position with in the game. The fact that so many people latched onto his few lines and explored the character is a good example of how interesting Corvo could have being.
If you genuinely are of the mind that Corvo speaking would undermine your ability to interpret what the game presents to you then I really have no idea what to say. Again does the fact that Elizabeth Bennet talks during Pride and Prejudice undermine a readers ability to decide their own thoughts on the characters around her?
Yet she is the main character, and if for fun someone wrote a version where it was just presumed she spoke and acted the same as she did in the book it would not be as entertaining because we would lose out on a wonderful character and opinions that help fill us in on the situation.
I get that you don't like having speaking protagonists, but saying that you don't like it because their speech will not match up perfectly to your playstyle or interpretation of the character is silly. By that argument no character we are given agency of should speak at all because it may contradict what we as players thought we were playing.
I didn't even notice this game got patched a few days ago.
BUG FIXES
• Support for playing the game on multiple screens.
• Game Settings are now saved and restored properly even when using Steam offline.
• Fixes for some interactions with Granny Rags that invalidated nonlethal playthroughs under certain circumstances. (Note: These fixes work even for savegames AFTER the final Granny Rags encounter.)
• Fix for a crash that could happen during loading/transition between areas – notably near Dr. Galvani’s house.
• Reworked “Choke” interaction to make it more reliable in valid contexts.
• Fixed global post-process that sometimes worked improperly during some missions.
Granny Rags bug fixed ex post facto! Fix also for that Galvanni bug that ruined a few people's days (@Ragnar Dragonfyre?).
Wow thanks for thinking about me! Guess I can finally blow the dust off this one and start over... that is, if I can drag myself away from Chivalry.
I didn't even notice this game got patched a few days ago.
BUG FIXES
• Support for playing the game on multiple screens.
• Game Settings are now saved and restored properly even when using Steam offline.
• Fixes for some interactions with Granny Rags that invalidated nonlethal playthroughs under certain circumstances. (Note: These fixes work even for savegames AFTER the final Granny Rags encounter.)
• Fix for a crash that could happen during loading/transition between areas – notably near Dr. Galvani’s house.
• Reworked “Choke” interaction to make it more reliable in valid contexts.
• Fixed global post-process that sometimes worked improperly during some missions.
Granny Rags bug fixed ex post facto! Fix also for that Galvanni bug that ruined a few people's days (@Ragnar Dragonfyre?).
Wow thanks for thinking about me! Guess I can finally blow the dust off this one and start over... that is, if I can drag myself away from Chivalry.
You could always just roleplay a very angry Corvo and go around murdering everyone while shouting AGATHHHAAAAA at the top of your voice. That would be a happy medium.
Weird thing with Granny Rags on this playthrough, forgot to mention it.
I decided to work my way to Galvani's apartment first, then loop back around through the alleys to Granny Rags.
Just as I crested the rooftop adjacent to Granny Plaza, I saw her standing on her balcony, throwing rocks at 3 guardsmen, who were in turn throwing rocks at her.
...just as I realized what was happening, a rock hit her and she died, dissolving into black smoke because she wasn't aware of me at the time. :P
Posts
Haha... whoops.
Steam: abunchofdaftpunk | PSN: noautomobilesgo | Lastfm: sjchszeppelin | Backloggery: colincummings | 3DS FC: 1392-6019-0219 |
The rest of the game was smooth, looked sharp, was super fun and except for The Flooded District which I wasn't a huge fan of, every level was quite fun. Especially the last one on High Chaos where I did kill everyone. I really can't wait to see what Arkane does for the sequel, I'm glad it sold well enough to merit one. The world is really interesting and well developed.
Steam: abunchofdaftpunk | PSN: noautomobilesgo | Lastfm: sjchszeppelin | Backloggery: colincummings | 3DS FC: 1392-6019-0219 |
Yeah, probably.
Which is good, because, you know, she's a central motivating factor. Your motives for most of the game are payback and the kid, and if you go minimal force, payback might feel a bit lacking.
Means the kid being likable matters a bit.
(Did like Piero and Solokov as well. Always been a sucker for mad scientist types)
Why I fear the ocean.
PSN: ShinyRedKnight Xbox Live: ShinyRedKnight
PSN: ShinyRedKnight Xbox Live: ShinyRedKnight
This was the prettiest blue, yellow and black colored game i've ever played.
On Tuesday the stealth/kill trials DLC comes out, then after that they've mentioned a story bit with Daud is coming.
edit: whoops SoundsPlush already said that.
the key to avoid this is to give the vision mode a significant downside, i think. making it drastically reduce the range of your vision while using it (like even level geometry, etc) or make you unable to see certain other important things as a tradeoff, or make it slow down your movement while it's on, etc. that way it forces players to balance their vision use, because yes, otherwise why ever NOT use the vision mode?
I feel like I do have more trouble seeing things in brightly-lit areas, which seems like a downside that makes sense if they're calling it "Dark Vision".
They had the right idea, they just didn't make the disadvantage big enough.
(Also, I tend to get cocky and careless when I'm using Dark Vision, but that's a flaw in my brain and not in the power.)
I used Dark vision for all of about ten minutes in the first and didn't even buy it in the second (where ideally it should have being my most used thing by the playstyle used).
It's a horrible power that makes the game ugly and that I actually find very hard to use for anything other than corner checking where lean doesn't go far enough.
That and it makes an already easy game easier.
In regards to other comments in the thread:
1) Length was fine, felt like Portal in that it was just short enough to leave me wanting more but not so short that it felt a rip off (I'm a Uni student, to put the whole time/money value thing into a bit of perspective).
2) Piero and Sokolov probably tie for best characters under Emily just because they have a very definite arc and sets of personality quirks that are fun to engage with and well presented (just FYI, Corvo is the worst character in the game because he never speaks)
3) Fuck the flooded district. That level is to me about the only really challenging stealth section because of blinking guards. It's also not as pretty as the other levels and feels back tracky/time padding with the whole 'go fetch your equipment' thing (which I didn't do on my no kill run, seriously, last level, no sleep darts and only magic, was fun). If it weren't for the bits inside Duad's hide out, which are awesome, I would describe it as the 'flood level' of Dishonoured.
Regarding DLC: I'm tempted by the time trails but want to know exactly what they are, if they teach me some new gimmicky tricks for me to use in the campaign as well as being fun time trials I'm down with it (stuff like grenade punting with windblast or the Corvo slide). The Duad stuff I'm all down for unless they botch it completely. I mean at that point you have the same gameplay mechanics but with you playing an actual character rather than a blank slate.
The whole blank slate thing I understand btw, I just wish they'd given him SOME personality, maybe one that adjusts for current chaos. If they'd made Corvo a generally quiet man who quipped occassionally on low chaos and a more aggressive guy on high it would have added tons to the experience IMHO.
Also, there is such a thing as a hagfish. I learning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagfish
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22564-hagfish-slime-could-slink-to-the-height-of-fashion.html
One could argue the mistake would be laid at the developers' feet for rendering him silent, especially when his position in Dunwall has been clearly established. All we knew about Gordon Freeman was that he's a scientist, and he spends long sections of the game without another soul to communicate with. The same cannot be said for Corvo.
I wouldn't be surprised if Dis2 had an entirely new protagonist. Hopefully one with a functioning voicebox and the desire to use it.
Frankly, spoken protagonists are often disappointing because there is a shadow between our thought and their action. It is extremely rare to find a game wherein you occupy a persona that is sufficiently well-written as to be a satisfactory reflection of how you feel. There is nothing inherently 'good' about talking. Indeed I much prefer the silent protagonist: Crono, Link, Corvo, Gordon, Mario, Scythian, Soap, Chell, Wander etc.
The only examples I can think of where we have benefited from the protagonist talking are ones where were are separated by some degree from the character in question. Resident Evil 4 is a perfect example of this: we are separated from Leon both physically, through the third person camera, and through a narrative that is theatrical and overblown. Leon is a stereotype (albeit an interesting one), so we have no cause for projection onto him. He fulfils a purpose that is a trope player to our omniscient narrator, rather than being our own inseparable access point to the story.
The other main examples are triggered dialogue (Starfox, Left 4 Dead), which work because they are largely illustrative, or modern RPGs that approach the protagonist in a fully scripted way. It is no coincidence that I cannot stand most modern RPGs, and that their plots often feel excessively melodramatic and prescriptive.
This is awfully vague. What counts as "some degree" outside of camera? You could pretty easily call the narrative here overblown since it relies more on caricature than character to facilitate the revenge arc. Garrett? Faith?
A good silent protagonist is when you aren't thinking "I really wish I could say something right now".
Corvo on the other hand is very strongly characterized and even though he doesn't speak he has different, defined relationships with multiple characters. He has a complex backstory. Having a kid hug a mute just feels weird to me.
https://medium.com/@alascii
Saying I shouldn't think of Corvo as a character in the conventional sense because he's silent is a silly line of reasoning.
Mario doesn't need to speak because he's in a cartoon
Link is a fairy tale hero whose job is literally to be the silent courage that saves the world
Chell is stuck with crazy robots
Gordon Freeman is... well actually if it weren't for him being alone for long stretches of gameplay I'd probably wind up wishing he'd say something too.
The point is that Corvo is not just some trope that allows us to dismissively base his behaviour on his back story. Corvo's back story has depth to it that should leave him with opinions on the situation and things to say to his allies along with quips for his enemies. Imagine how much more you would care about the three loyalists if at some point Corvo had said to Pendleton 'you know what Pendleton you're a coward, but I'm glad you're with us'. That line there makes sense with Corvo as basically as loyalist as you can get and immediately connects us to the world better than a silent protagonist would.
If you want an example of this, look at Duad, we had a two page discussion of that dude and it's for a simple reason, he connects with Corvo. Not only is he a mirror image of an outsider gifted individual uses his powers for attainment of a personal goal, but the guy speaks, he says things that Corvo as a character would likely say himself if he wasn't a mute.
How does Corvo feel about killing Lady Boyle just because she had the wrong lover?
Maybe on high chaos he sees it as cleansing the nobility
Maybe on low it's a shame and he feels regret and resonance with the death of his own wife the Empress
Unlike the conventional silent protagonists Corvo to me is a man who could have so much to say about his situation and help connect us to the game world through his point of view.
I don't resent the decision to make him silent, I just feel it would have being better to have him speak.
After that point everything you do becomes what he does...but that foundation is fairly important, I think.
Initially with regard to Corvo I got the impression from early trailers and information that
I do agree that he should have been voiced. The silent protagonist always feels like lazy writing. I realize you don't always nail what the audience feels, but when I decide to spare someone versus jab a sword in their throat I want something more than a note on the mission summary screen.
There's a lot of things the game doesn't really explain, and the outsider's motives are one of them.
I did feel like the big twist should have been a halfway point, or closer to it. Instead, I got through most of the rest of the game in one sitting.
OH GOD IF ONLY I COULD SPEAK AND EXPLAIN THAT TELEPORTING WIZARDS MURDERED THE EMPRESS.
And yeah, it is a bit weird how Corvo is always essentially led through his actions and it's not until the very end he's honestly acting independant of a higher power.
Mark of the Ninja made it so you couldn't move while in the see everything mode. I quite enjoyed that. That being said, with Batman and this, my 2nd playthrough I barely even use this mode.
I disagree, quite strongly. Silent protagonists, especially when played in the first person, are explicitly to serve the purpose to bringing you, the player, closer to the story. And you, the player, therefore are granted the privilege and indeed the burden of interpretation. You speculate yourself about how Corvo feels about killing Boyle, but that's not the question you should be asking. The question is how you felt about it. Personally I found her death animation very interesting, and thought it silently conveyed a great deal about that instant in time - but whatever one feels, the entire point is that the game is not offering a prescriptive interpretation.
This is a woeful line of logic. Not just because I think the rationale is poor but also because you make the assumption of dividing between 'doesn't need to speak' and 'needs to speak'. You must realise this is a hugely subjective qualification. You surely also realise that even if we could definitely identify who did and did not need to speak (which we cannot), this is not to say that they should or should not speak.
If Corvo said that line I would be find it risible. Again, this is just a revision of the same argument, with the same conclusion: all this comes across as is a distinct lack of imagination. There is nothing preventing you from taking away this interpretation. It is not, however, my interpretation - not least because I find Pendleton's character far more nuanced than a simple coward. So yes, imagine if Corvo had said that. I would be disappointed that Arkane had decided that we needed to be told what to think.
This has nothing to do with the point at hand. We are not playing Daud.
Yes, maybe, maybe! Isn't it great that there's that ambiguous space to occupy?
The effort that went into building the world of this game is specifically so that we have a fleshed-out and complex scenario for us, the player, to interpret.
And I feel you are wrong, for precisely the reason that this argument is always wrong.
As I said previously, interpretation is a privilege and burden. We are granted it because - especially in a multilayered narrative with differing outcomes and ways to kill or not kill - Corvo is an extension of ourselves. In Dishonoured, the developer maturely respects the act of interpretation and relinquishes the author's intent. I am thankful for this, because imposed dialogue would have inevitably not reflected my own designs on the world. When playing a first person game I will always prefer the silent protagonist. Demanding that the game offers you a set reaction or interpretation feels like the player's shortcoming, not the game's.
I leave you with this.
Responses in bold.
Also classy, because one game gave bad voice acting to their main character there fore all games must be ruined by adding voice acting to the character. Great line of reasoning.
The simple result is that you seem to be of the opinion that because the character who voices thoughts is the one you are playing you have been dictated to follow that line of reasoning. This simply isn't the case and many games are made richer by making use of the player characters voice to help inform a mode or the world around them (take a look at the Farcry 3 intro and imagine it without Jason speaking, it would lose impact).
There is a value in silence; it is the best mode of interpretation. Thoughts and actions that we physically play out and illustrate within our own experience have no need to be clumsily signposted along the way - there are a thousand other, better ways to deliver the details. If you don't feel like you are able to make that leap without something unambiguously cut-and-dry from the developer then I have no answer for you.
The point with Daud is that the reason he is such a popular character is due to his close relation to Corvo's position with in the game. The fact that so many people latched onto his few lines and explored the character is a good example of how interesting Corvo could have being.
If you genuinely are of the mind that Corvo speaking would undermine your ability to interpret what the game presents to you then I really have no idea what to say. Again does the fact that Elizabeth Bennet talks during Pride and Prejudice undermine a readers ability to decide their own thoughts on the characters around her?
I get that you don't like having speaking protagonists, but saying that you don't like it because their speech will not match up perfectly to your playstyle or interpretation of the character is silly. By that argument no character we are given agency of should speak at all because it may contradict what we as players thought we were playing.
There have been good games with spoken protagonists and there have been bad games with spoken protagonists.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
High chaos is certainly a faster way of doing things, with Shadow Kill 1.
Wow thanks for thinking about me! Guess I can finally blow the dust off this one and start over... that is, if I can drag myself away from Chivalry.
You could always just roleplay a very angry Corvo and go around murdering everyone while shouting AGATHHHAAAAA at the top of your voice. That would be a happy medium.
Just as I crested the rooftop adjacent to Granny Plaza, I saw her standing on her balcony, throwing rocks at 3 guardsmen, who were in turn throwing rocks at her.
...just as I realized what was happening, a rock hit her and she died, dissolving into black smoke because she wasn't aware of me at the time. :P