In the sokolov mission why the sudden limit on player choice. The devs have pushed the idea that you can choose to kill targets or take them out non lethally. So why in the sokolov mission is capturing him alive the only option? Why can't we kill him if we wish? Seems like kind of a slap in the face to players to give them so much choice but then with a such an obvious choice situation you are not allowed to kill.

I guess you need him for information?

Sokolov is kinda important to the story, killing him wouldn't work out. Also, that choice about killing or not killing your target is just a simple binary choice. Its not that important, the real deal is all the choices you get to make through regular gameplay. Choose your own adventure style stories are only so interesting, react to a simulation style choices is a much bigger deal

Yes,he is relevant to the story,and I think there won't be that many targets that you cannot kill.

I dont see a problem at all with just abducting him,he's needed to drive the plot forward. Also I have a theory that you may be able to steal an invitation to the boyle party in that mission.

Player choice doesn't mean that we totally make up the story as we go. Dishonored has a narrative, and in that narrative Corvo needs Sokolov alive (presumably for his research or something else that he knows). Not every mission will have the same objective of eliminating a target (lethally or otherwise).

I'm kind of happy there's some variance in the missions, TBH. And at least they didn't force you to kill him; that would have been worse.

The creators need to keep some form of structure in the narrative. I wouldn't consider it a slap in the face unless I were to ignore 90% of the rest of the game.

He possesses vast scientific knowledge, most notably as a physician. Piero probably needs his help in order to find a solution to the plague.

Funny thing is, my own name is Alexander Sokolov and I'm a medical student.

Not all missions are assassinations. Sokolov is important to the story so abducting him is the only way to do. I don't see how this is an issue, your main objective is the same in that particular mission yes, but that doesn't mean that the side missions, collectables and great level design + choice aren't the same.

I agree with everything being said, plus imo
IF you could do ANYTHING at all, it would be more like Postal,
plus you can't create a game where a new branching of the story happens every single time you choose to do something weird, stupid or pointless, much like Postal.
A good game needs a frame, it needs structure and stability to a certain degree. Dishonored does this very well!

Also let's say I create a game where you can do whatever you want,
and in a mission you come upon a terrorist leader who has planted a bomb somewhere only he knows.
You go ahead and kill him, cause you can. Then the story branches on to a point where you wait 30 minutes until the bomb goes off and you die.
The point from this somewhat crappy example? It is that often in a videogame or a book that wants to have a good story, needs structure and at times scenes where you HAVE to follow a specific path, in order for the writer/creator to make a plot twist or add some extra spice to the story.

Bioshock has a few examples in it's story of this caliber, which gives off the great story and quality.

just my two cents.

I agree but...who said killing Sokolov is stupid or pointless? This is a man who's ideas ushered in an era of darkness for Dunwall's normal citizen. Why not give some players the ability to kill him and change the story with meaning and depth behind it? That will make it even better.

Keep in mind that I still agree with what you said but you are missing the bigger picture here. If we argue what the "perfect game" is, I would personally say that it should follow Dishonored's Chaos system both in gameplay and narrative that not only go well together but actually make each other better. Both sides have a point is all I am saying.

I see your point and do fully agree,
I was just taking his entire point up, the fact that you could do "anything", not just with the Sokolov Mission,
With that mission, I could somewhat see the story branch onward in a way, f.x let's say you currently have to kidnap Sokolov to find a cure to the plague,
or you need information or the liking. Let's say you kill him, then you don't have that info or the cure, which could change the ending of the game, or maybe the next mission as you have nearly no intel on what, where and when etc. BUT in general, I can't see it happening that you have total freedom, I mean even Skyrim has limits and boundaries, even Postal has it You can't create a game that doesn't have a frame or doesn't have limits or rules at all

BUT in all fairness, the whole term of a "perfect game" or "freedom in games" is sort of a "in the eye of the beholder"-case in the end

Don't go about experimenting on human beings heh?

Did you ever get that thing to work.

Don't discourage the lad!
I shall change my last name to Roseburrow and we shall embark upon a new era!
free whale oil for everybody!

There is something about this mission that I wanted to know about so that the issue of choice doesn't pop up like it does for kill/don't kill in this particular instance even further than it has already (for the record I don't have any problems whatsoever with the objective being static so to speak). Some people on the boards that Celiria and I frequent (over at GFAQs I have a different tag---random information) think there won't be any other location where you find Sokolov and I wanted to say that he'll be available in different parts of his quarters much like the randomization of the runes and charms in that level. Is he only in the lab or was that a choice for the purpose of the demo. For the Pendletons I know they had described that you may need (not need exactly since there isn't fencing like that where you can't complete B unless you look at A) to do things like check the registry to know the whereabouts of the brothers.

I'll put the question here since it might be murky in that blob of text: Sokolov's potential location could be elsewhere in his living space like his bedroom right? I thought I remembered reading an article preview where he was knocked out there. Thanks for any help guys.

When did I say anything about allowing us to do anything? I solely spoke of being able to kill any target. I don't care if they don't let us do every possible thing ever but in a game where they have spoken so much about letting the player play there way and the ability to kill or take people out non lethally and play your way why should we not be able to make the choice to kill Sokolov.

And him being a big character and needing story stucture are bs excuses. Based on their entire design so far could easily have written some extra dialogue and scenes to compensate within the story for you killing Sokolov. I mean hell if they are so worried about story structure why allow the player to not have to kill anyone? Thats bound to change the course of the story having all these big name people vanish without a trace instead of just winding up dead. What about the effect of the chaos level feature. All those deaths are bound to turn a few heads within the structure of the story.

There is no reason they couldn't have put in some alternate dialogue and adjustments in levels just like they are doing for numerous other types of choices to account for Corvo potentially killing Sokolov instead of abducting him.

I am not saying this is gamebreaking by any means but it is lame when your whole design is to allow the players to play their way and kill/not kill as they please to suddenly have a character that they aren't allowed to kill.

And this is not me asking to change the variation of levels. By all means it could still be a mission to abduct Sokolov. Just give the player the option to kill him instead should they so wish and have that choice effect the story like all the other choices they have implemented.