In all honesty DISHONORED is DISAPPOINTING.

For one, I though it would be open-world, as I recall some early articles that have suggested it would be that.

Two, the morality system is yet again, black and white, naive and thus unrealistic. Oooh, I kill a few people there will be more rats and more plague victims, and the world will become darker and the ending will be chaotic!
[indent]
Wikipedia wrote:Actions committed by the player are not judged to be of a good or evil morality, but instead are tracked by a "chaos" system that records how much collateral damage, violent actions and deaths are caused by the player. The game world is modified by how little or much damage is caused, affecting story decisions with an emphasis on not punishing the player or forcing them to choose one style of play over another.[/indent]


Yet, it is exactly what it does!

All this "chaos" system seems to suggests is that if I don't want a bleak, ruin of a future, and more difficult missions with more enemies and more innocent plague victims, then I have to play nice and just knock tyrants, conspirators, guards and thugs fully deserving of death, unconscious or frame them and get them exiled and such. Brand them heretics. Boohoo! Big revenge...The behavior and dialogue most of the hostiles have when approached, make it quite clear that they don't care about the innocents and the plight of the people and aren't at all squeamish about throwing people, dead or alive, in the gutter and disposing them.

This sort of infantile 'killing=bad' and 'non-lethal is right' approach to morality irritates me. Kill tyrants and those who are loyal to them and who enforce and protect their reign. The world certainly won't change for the worst. A plague doesn't spread faster just because a corrupt leadership gets a taste of their own medicine, so to speak. It simply enables people who are more fitted to serve the population to lead on. Those in the slums, plagued and wretched, in such a world, won't shed tears for tyrants and oppressors, but they might get help from a better leadership.

Besides that, the game allows me to kill and burn the bodies or have rats (even ones that my own character can summon!) devour them, so there shouldn't even be any evidence of the kill, except weapons and whatnot left behind, still at the end of missions it'll be listed in the fatalities with Chaos - High, if I kill too many. Cry me a river!!

And if I can get a few kills in on mission, including the main target, without increasing Chaos, keeping it low, then what's the point of half the abilities and character upgrades? I read some guy's first play-through was without any power or upgrade usage. Then, I might as well not have any gadgets or powers, just my blade and the occasional sleeping dart, and I still spare or kill the main target, but then what's the point of powers or any equipment really.

Using swords, slashing, blocking, grenades, traps and darts, and incendiary darts; Shadow Kill or that wind blast or the rat swarm once or twice, or thrice per mission makes half of the character's abilities practically pointless. If I cannot use them more in order to avoid increasing Chaos and avoid having a darker ending, then they're pointless.

The developers, perhaps inadvertently, have made it so that a non-lethal approach will yield a more stable world. Requiring the player to abstain from using violence.


This was the LAST time, the LAST time, I got hyped for a game that has Bethesda's name in it. Others told me the game lacked any noticable bugs, so a part of me gave them the benefit of the doubt while the other didn't hold its breath. Turns out, the other part was right. Again.

OK, calm down. First off, they have said over and over that the game is NOT open-world. And thankfully good level design and handcrafted hubs will always trump an open world.

Secondly, yes, the chaos system is still black and white and I agree with most what you said. However, it's implementation, design and how it works is better than almost any other system out there and it affects just enough to be noticeable. What they need to do is expand on that and give it more depth and choice to the player's actions. Also the person missing himself is enough to cause alarm.

Thirdly, yes there isn't a balance between non-lethal and lethal in terms of variety and depth. I would like to see more of that and a better attention to RPG elements and a conversation system.

And lastly, NO, quit it with the damn "gamesas published games will always be bad QQ" nonsense. Adjust your expectations and you won't get disappointed. I can see you hardly did any research so I would say some of that disappointment is your own fault.

What the guys over at Arkane have managed to proof with this title is that they can make very detailed quality and fast-paced fluid and intuative gameplay bringing the Thief feel back. They have amazing ideas and they need to expand on them for their next project and try to pay attention on the big things as well as the small ones. Overall, I'd say you are right to be a little disappointed but the game shows promise for future products.

Blame that on poor journalism. Arkane never said it would be open world.

There are good logical as well as thematic and gameplay reasons for chaos. The game doesn't punish you, it just gives you consequences. There's a difference. If you bother to think it through, you'll see it's actually a really cool system that rewards you for how you play. The more violent you are, the more stuff it gives you to chop up. The less violent you are, the less lethal obstacles the game places in the way of stealth. This way, the game emphasises your playstyle.

Why is it so difficult for people to think before they post?

Of course it shows promise, but the execution was poor.

The stealth elements, a main, critical and crucial aspect, feel unfinished, in the sense that, it has all the elements it needs, but they're all lazily done. I really hope it is just the game difficulty setting though, and enemies really are more perceptive on higher ones, but then again, I already don't see much point in a second playthrough.

I find that whole leaning out, and peeking around cover thing is also quite unrealistic. Okay, maybe from a distance a guard wouldn't notice a masked, dark head slightly tilting from the side of something, even in broad daylight, but especially at night, but I can just snake my head around any cover and the guard doesn't see me even when they're a few paces away and I'm carrying a body...and easily slip through vents with them completely unimpeded. It's ridiculous. In most parts, the stealth system is solid, but in others it is actually worse than e.g.: Skyrim, and that's saying something. Bethesda was never good with stealth, and this Arkane Studio(s)? seems to be only margianolly better. In some elements, even reminiscent of Bethesda. The peeking thing is neat, and a nice touch, but quickly gets unrealistic. Another use I've found for it, though, is to lean out on balconies or ledges and blink to another segment of the same structure when they're separated by beams or whatever.

Also, enemies just don't see you when you are on a ledge, only a bit higher up, like, right after you open your cell and first approach a guard, you can perch atop of that wall there, almost right above the stationary guard, and the guard pacing back and forth sees nothing. And, there is that guard up the walkway, with the key, who is looking out over that area down where the first three guards are, and I can even kill off all three and it's like he's blind, when he should immediately see me moving from his position on considerably higher ground.

And the reason I keep bashing Bethesda is quite simple. They're incompetent. And I have been reassured with Fallout: New Vegas, for example, that I "needn't worry because Bethesda is only the publishers and the developers are someone else." Even though, the game had the same issues and some stupid oversights and...peculiarities as Bethesda's Fallout 3, Oblivion or Skyrim.

And I applaud this Arkane group for their amazing ideas, but then, let me experience those elements of the game, without some BS quasi-idealistic, black and white, non-lethal goodie-goodie-two-shoes approach to the story. Going lethal on certain parties doesn't lead to a society in more plague and ruin. It's pacifistic, naive nonsense. And it really prevents me from making the most of the game. I certainly don't want the plague to ravage even more of the world, and the death of more innocents (evem though it is unavoidable, and there will be lots of casualties regardless of my action and moral choices), but I don't want to be expressly told that me being a killer will automatically lead to chaos. That's ridiculous. More guards on missions, and more security? Sure! By all means. I just kill more. But, don't practically force me to stay my blade with this Chaos nonsense.

Read my reply above!

I don't have a problem with them beefing up security after I assassinate/massacre my way through a level, even when I'm undetected. It means I just have to use my abilities more and kill more corrupt bastards. I don't mind that one bit.

What I do mind, however, is this ridiculous notion that me killing a few deserving filth will make the plague spread further, even though I can even reduce them to ash along with any rodents I come across. Or practically summon a swarm of potential plague carriers myself to do my bidding (but I actually don't like that ability). This Chaos system and warning of more rats and weepers is a rather transparent and ridiculous way of forcing a certain play-style, rendering over half of the player's arsenal pointless.

You know that, how? How do you know that the guard you kill doesn't have a family that relies on him for money, and by extension elixir? If he dies, there's no more money for elixir, and his family contracts the rat plague.

Killing a noble might lead to infighting among their family, which would definitely lead to more chaos in a city already overwhelmed by so many other things. And you don't know what those nobles might get up to. Maybe they replace all the elixir of a rival family member with plague-infested vials. Maybe that noble's spouse is so griefstricken that their house falls into disrepair, and the rats gain entrance to the premises and find a cosy, comfortable spot from which to hump and pop out little rats into oblivion.

A maid's husband can't find work and you kill her. He's evicted from his apartment because he can't pay the rent, and he ends up on the streets, where a pack of rats comes upon him. They have more food, they breed more, and more rats find their way onto the streets.

Etc.


You can see now how it is not ridiculous.


It's your choice. Your choices have consequences. I really like that about this game. There are far too many games-- practically all of them-- that give you no consequences for being a murderous psycho.

plague represents a loss of control of the government. as you kill more, it makes the Lord regent put more and more focus on you. Less time and resources spent on fighting the plague and more on dealing with the masked man that is ruining his plans. if your non lethal and dont cause much chaos he sticks to his regular plan which is running the government, dealing with the plague etc, as you create more and more chaos you become a higher priority and his cares more about dealing with you then anything else/

Oh, you mean all those nobles who sit comfortably in their estate and having balls laughing and chatting while the city dies aroud them? Those who have all the wealth and power to help and perhaps even end all the needless suffering but choose not to, from either fear or neglect, or apathy? The maids are just servants, and as long as they don't show any signs of corruption or inclination to behave as their masters do towards the innocent I have no quarrel with them. And even if a maid could attack me with a weapon, I'd be forced to tranq her. Not kill her. I have no reason to end her life. Her husband, if it is evident from dialogue that he is a supporter of the tyrannical regime that oppresses innocents plagued by the disease, will not be so lucky. And if the Ms has the same mindset then that plague stricken, already heartless and helpless world will be better without uncaring filth like them. Those having their lives destroyed by the plague and abandoned or rounded up and burned by the guards and their leaders, will not be too sorry when the leg that is standing on their necks is swiftly severed. Those nobles who actually have a consciense will not, and needn't, be afraid. For they will have the opportunity to rebuild a government and society that will be largely purged of corruption, arrogance and apathy towards it's members. Certainly not all corruption. Nor ever will be rid of all. But, enough for a more or less fresh start.

So, if we're inventing backstories and speculating on the antincs of nobles and maids and guards, consider the above picture.

That's exactly all it is. Speculation. You can't know what effect your actions will have. Butterflies and hurricanes and all that. But it's perfectly conceivable that going around slaughtering people, no matter how "evil" they are, is going to have a negative effect. Maybe not as negative as those people themselves had, but in the context of Dishonored, you're still piling on the problems. Dunwall is in a precarious balance, and you're messing with it. It's no wonder things go to hell.

And, again, it also serves a thematic purpose.

I particularly liked Emily's reactions to your actions. It's a clever way of bringing up all sorts of themes and issues without belabouring the points.

They rather obviously don't actually care about battling the plague, with the exception of the physicians. Their concern is but a mere facade to placate the masses. Their main concern is power, prestige, privileges, parties and finger pointing. That much became evident in the first two missions. For me, at least.

Thanks to notes and books some killings are given more context, but overall it's pretty much a guessing game yeah. And after all, tinkering with order does lead to chaos, one way or another.

How can people still think this would be open world game? Why do people get annoyed when it is not? The levels are some of the best. Why do people still think having Bethesda as publisher has anything to do what kind of a game it is? And why do people insist that being psychopathic mass murderer would give you happy ending? Oh that I know...every other game rewards you for killing as much as possible. And it is possible to kill 20% of enemies without getting the "bad" ending. You are propably just after every achievemnet there is, and getting annoyed this ain't like every other game.

I played mostly non-lethal and it was really enjoyable experiance. You should try playing the game stealthy, might enjoy it. I agree that most of the equipments and upgrades are for killing, but I didn't use them. You don't have to use everything to enjoy the game experience.

Kaldwin's Bridge...nuff said.

"Psychpathic mass murderer" is quite a bit of a hyperbole. The people I'd actually kill, including the main target, are completely deserving of death. Of course, in a society lulled into a comfortable illlusion of unreachable idealism and naivete, killiing is always met with the same disapproval, people unable to tell the difference between the acts of a psychopath and someone who aims to liberate them from oppression. At least, a lot of people seem unable to make a distinction. Not all murders are indiscriminate acts of violence. Far from it.

And on the stealht part, I am playing stealthily, as it is my prefered methd, but I'm also committing assassinations, in stealth. But, I'm practically not allowed to kill more than a few guards/thugs for fear of increasing chaos. I suppose I can actually sneak my way through the level and only kill the main target and perhaps one or two guards, but then, as said before, the problem is with the exception of Blink, freezing time, Possession and agility, all other abilities and upgrades are pointless. And that means, half the fun is thrown straight out the balcony. And I don't even want to use grenades and spring traps and the rat swarm so you can disregard those as well.

Now that that's out of the way...
Not everyone in the game deserves to die. Most of the assassination targets, yes, but not all of the guards. This is the advice I have given other people who want to play this game like everyone is the embodiment of pure evil, take it or leave it: Aim the heart at people, use its power, and if the first thing it says is bad: kill them. If not: find someone else to kill.

You're confusing choice with freedom.

But also lol at the little kid acting all edgy and telling people that it's childish to think that the less directly violent way out could possibly be the better option.

Sorry to hear you didn't like the game. It seems you're dead-set on not liking it and that this forum thread is just a cathartic way for you to blow up some frustration, so good luck with future purchases. This game is definitely not for everybody.

I never said all guards deserved that fate. I actually ran into one who was saving his wife from the other guards more set in their ways. He and his wife thanked me and were off. Also, I cannot help but think of Nazi soldiers. A lot of them weren't fanatical, übermencsh-type, genocidal maniacs like their führer. That's obvious.

In all honesty, I haven't actually used that listening ability of the Hearth, until I was part way through the second mission, or perhaps it was after it, I just accidentally held down a button and it started to speak. It became apparent after a few lines that it might be the heart of the late Empress who was assassinated at the beginning. I read the wikia afterwards and found similar speculation. I haven't progressed further in the game, yet.

Well, to be frank, I did only register so I could voice my disappointment.

A bit of an over-reaction, admittedly. One of my character faults.

I still like the game, even though it is disappointing in two key aspects. Stealth and morality. I was sort of expecting it not to deliver on the latter, but wasn't expecting the same of the former at all..

Excepting the targets, if you're allowed to kill 1 in 5 and still have low chaos and therefore the least bleak ending (not taking into account the various side-quests that affect chaos) that sounds ok to me. Irrespective of what you may think should or shouldn't cause more chaos, there is a different set of parameters in Dishonored, one which I think is a better gauge of cause and effect than most games out there. Even if you didn't like what a guard may say as an aside to another, the fact is those guards still perform various functions that keep the city running. Some of them may be "Dead Counters," people who get extra rations of the Elixir and pay in exchange for the increased hazard of their jobs in tabulating the amount of people dead or infected, rounding them up and disposing of them or containing Weepers when they arise. You kill the guards, there's less people around doing that. Either the game can have its own set of parameters, a sense of order or chaos (good/bad) or you can have a game where there is no cause/effect and do what you will with no ramifications.

I think Arkane might have already made a compromise with a certain choice in a side-mission. The reward was a rune, but the events leading up to getting that reward seemed like it would mess up the world much more. I have a feeling because of the rune economy, play-testers were frustrated that they could lose out on an item that develops their characters and they have to pay a price to get it so the consequence was watered down. Maybe this wasn't the case.

There were definitely elements of the game that were scaled back due to technical resources and time. Occasionally, powers were blended together because having more of them seemed superfluous at times. The MO for these guys trends to efficient minimalism. More often than not, I think the choices worked and Dishonored is a world I'll continue to find new things in.

Very curious as to which side mission you're referring. Mind including it in spoilers? You can spoiler by typing [ spoiler ]text goes here[ /spoiler ], without the spaces in the brackets.


I remember at one point they were (apparently) going to include fire and ice magic attacks in the game, and I thought to myself, Ah, come on, that's completely unnecessary. I'm glad they pared back on the powers. They're iconic now, instead of a smorgasbord.

The first part of the above indicates you use the said arsenal rather liberally, so I fail to see why you're complaining that over half of it is pointless.

The truth is, when one uses a mostly combative, lethal play style, pretty much ALL of the arsenal can be used in one way or another. The only time it's severely limited is when going for a completely nonlethal run.

The game certainly isn't perfect, and I for one feel it could benefit from some much needed fleshing via DLC, but a lot of the complaints I see about it here don't really make much if any sense.