this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2025
380 points (97.3% liked)

Games

43454 readers
1026 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Rules

1. Submissions have to be related to games

Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.

This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.

2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.

We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.

3. No excessive self-promotion

Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.

This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.

4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.

We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.

5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.

No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.

6. No linking to piracy

Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.

We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.

Authorized Regular Threads

Related communities

PM a mod to add your own

Video games

Generic

Help and suggestions

By platform

By type

By games

Language specific

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 12 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I think I'm the only person who played through the entire game and didn't like it. Yes, yes, I should probably have quit but I'm a bit of an optimist and hoped it would get better.

It felt to me like the game really didn't want me to kill anyone. However it had any number of fun ways to kill people and then scolded me when I was naughty enough to (gasp) use them!

Also the rats were bizarrely low poly compared to everything else. Odd gripe, perhaps, but given how crucial they are to the setting it felt strangely shit.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

It was unfortunately a product of its time where moral systems ultimately amounted to binary good guy/bad guy outcomes which was the style at the time. The system was designed to make you want to play it twice. If you’re used to the more modern moral ambiguity in today’s RPGs I don’t think anyone can blame you for disliking it.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 6 points 6 days ago (3 children)

I grew up playing Fallout 1/2, Deus Ex, stuff like that. Dishonored framed its morality system as "chaos" rather than good vs. bad but ultimately I had characters complaining about my methods. You brought in someone to specifically be an assassin and then you're outraged that he kills people? I shot the damn traiterous boatman in the head at the end of the game.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Well an assassin kills his targets. He doesn’t kill every innocent bystander he sees. In the first game, the guard enemies you see are your colleagues who are fully under the impression that you are a traitor who killed the empress. They are functionally your enemies during the game, but they are ultimately the good guys.

The rebel leaders, especially the admiral are going to complain about you killing who are also basically his men.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 1 points 5 days ago

To be fair, that's the best explanation I've seen. It's been too long for me to remember the specifics.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

IIRC you still get the low-chaos ending if you only kill the targets. It's just by going wild and killing everyone that you get high-chaos, and I think this fits in the moral framing of the game.

I do agree with your gripe that D1 gives you a lot of fun ways to kill people and challenges you not to use them, while at the same time giving you very little nonlethal tools. They addressed this well in the sequel IMO, but I did also love the challenge and the temptation knowing that these enemies would be so easy to defeat with a rat swarm but I just shouldn't. Like I said, keeps with the moral framing about the slippery slope of mindless revenge IMO

[–] VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Playing as Emily in 2 is really fun. You have the option to ignore stealth, go all out with your powers, and still not kill anyone.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I'm reminded of a show I was watching and lampshading. One of the characters is exhausting to watch and the other characters comment on how much the character sucks. That's great an' all but I'm still stuck watching this character suck. Commenting on it doesn't make it go away.

Similarly I could not use the tools the game gives me but they're there for me to use. If I'm not supposed to use them then I might as well instead play something that wants me to play it!

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I understand what you're saying (I think) but you know that... you can kill everyone, right? The worst the game does is throw a few more enemies at you (to kill) and some moral characters say mean things to you. Pretty standard RPG mechanics, IMO. It's just a choice and like I said, the narrative framing sets you up to be a highly-trained stealthy assassin, not some mass-murdering juggernaut. But you can do that if you want

Similarly I could not use the tools the game gives me

Offers* you. There's even an achievement for completing the game with just a sword and pistol, no upgrades or powers ;) Choices!!

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social -1 points 6 days ago (2 children)

Much like in Spec Ops: The Line the player can just stop playing. I mean, you're not wrong, but it seems silly to me.

Some games handle this by making it the ultra-violent approach essentially non-viable but that's not how Dishonored decided to roll.

the narrative framing sets you up to be a highly-trained stealthy assassin

I quietly took out guards rather than avoiding them. No alarms were raised, etc.. Seems pretty stealthy to me.

Ultimately I just didn't appreciate the mixed messaging of "here are tools for extreme violence" and "why did you commit extreme violence?". If non-lethal means were such a priority why was I given tools that heavily favour lethality?

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You're really not getting this lol

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think you're confusing getting and agreeing with. I understand what it was going for, that doesn't mean I like it.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What you're not understanding is its not "don't use these tools" its, "if you're a murder hobo you're going to get a darker ending narratively" there's not a real consequence otherwise, you can play however you want still.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Let me put it another way then: They made the creative choice to build the game that way. I think it was a bad choice and hurt the narrative experience significantly and can think of multiple better options that would have made it a better game. Evidently I am very much in the minority on this but my experience playing the game is just as valid as anyone else's.

I'm not some strange creature that has emerged from an undersea cave with no understanding of narrative conventions or game structures. I've been playing games since the early '90s, including plenty from the '80s, and have continued playing since, across many genres.

I think the way they chose to structure their game could have been better and I was actively annoyed by the way they went about handling "high chaos". Other games before and since did it better.

You are more than welcome to disagree with my opinion! Most people seem to!

...but it is not me being some idiot who doesn't understand gaming and I'm frankly rather tired of being told I'm the problem here.

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Because your qualm of "they gave me the tools but don't want me to use them" is plain wrong.

It's like playing FO3 or NV and getting upset that killing random people in a city results in everyone getting angry with you and losing karma. "They let me kill them so why should there be any consequences?"

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It sounds like I'm incapable of expressing my point in a way that you can understand.

It is not that there are consequences I take issue with. The chaos system is fine. It's a matter of framing.

I'm really not interested in dragging this out further. How about you just decide that I'm dumb and we both get on with our lives?

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Lol fair enough, idk like you called the boatman traitorous, view it from his angle, you would have to have gone around murdering a LOT of people for him to turn his back on you. The whole plot is about the govt being suoplanted and you're supposed to be part of the "good guys" yet it doesn't feel that you're (a player with high chaos) is being a "good guy" I can totally get why he'd be like... Dude in done with helping you, this isn't right what you're doing

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm sorry that I don't remember many story specifics from thirteen years ago. I remember the group I was working on behalf of seemed utterly awful so I very much didn't feel like I was on the side of "the good guys". The whole system seemed rotten on all sides and I didn't feel like I was doing anything positive regardless. I recall the boatman just being an arse towards me throughout and having the opportunity to off him at the end was at least satisfying. He does straight up betray the player in high chaos, so traitorous is an apt description.

As I said, my complaint was more with framing that the specific consequences.

I'm reminded of an episode of American Dad in which someone needs to kill someone (...anyone) for plot reasons. "...and you'll be doing your killing with this."

When I played Dishonored it felt like I was given tools like that and then reprimanded for my lack of subtlety. If I'd been told "Use these only as a last resort as subtletly is the priority" and I'd used them then I'd have felt like I'd just barely scraped through a mission. Instead I did a thorough job, from my perspective, eliminating threats to the group I was working for, avoiding raising any alarms, and then being told I did a shitty job. You gave me a toolset geared towards extreme violence, why the shocked Pikachu face?

I think it's really cool that the game is setup so that it can be traversed non-violently (I can't recall whether there are any targets that absolutely must be killed, but I remember most, if not all, had non lethal options). Given the tools I had though, I didn't feel like going that route, and I really didn't appreciate the mission givers acting like I was doing a bad job when I used the tools I was given. It felt very much like "Well the proper way to play this is the sneaky sneaky way - but I suppose deep begrudging sigh we'll allow you to do things this way" was the message the game communicated to me.

I wasn't cheesing the systems presented, messing with pathfinding bugs, that kind of thing. I used the tools given in a canonically acceptable way. Don't give me a loaded gun and then complain about a loud bang!

"This person is a problem. We've left some tools for you." (events transpire) "Oh my gods, what did you do?! They're dead!"

Sorry, was I supposed to have a little chat with them, convince them to mend their ways? Was the collapsible sword for cutting cake? The gun for firing into the air in celebration of an understanding? Those exploding knife mine things for... uhhh.

These are my perceptions and recollections, over a decade later. They may not be entirely accurate, but it's what I remember. The game left me with a lasting impression that it disapproved of my approach and I found its mixed messages deeply irritating. I didn't feel I was being mechanically punished and I was aware that being more violent would increase "chaos", but I felt that should be my choice for tackling the problems and the mission givers should treat it Corvo making decisions in the field that he felt were appropriate. He wasn't there to just be a triggerman, as far as he was concerned, but to make decisions in his area of expertise.

If you disagree with my experiences I can't stop you, but that was what I took away from the game. If it failed to communicate things to me it's certainly not because I lack media savvy or gaming experience. I'm annoyed that I didn't have more fun with it - I played to the end because throughout I hoped that I would enjoy the next bit more. Then it was the end of the game and a bunch of people were telling me that my opinion was wrong.

I’m really not interested in dragging this out further.

...because I knew that if you continued to engage I would feel compelled to do so, rather than going to bed or whatever. Dishonored annoys me to this day. I do not get the love for it. I'm glad the rest of you had such a good time with it and annoyed that I didn't get that enjoyment. I put the effort in, where's my fun?!

[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I'm sorry and appreciate your nuanced response, thank you for taking the time to explain.

For my part, I played generally low chaos just because I found it very fun to blink in, knock out a guard on their own, blink away and end up with all the guards in piles up in the rafters, on the chandelers, stuffed into corners of closets etc lmao. I haven't replayed 1 in a couple years but I think all the main targets have non-lethal as an option and generally require some set up to achieve which gives more time for world exploring. There are also a lot of powers that work very well with non-lethal and more stealth oriented play throughs.

Like the other commentor pointed out, the guard and good amount of the general folk are not really enemies because they are "bad", they're simply manipulated by propaganda and think Corvo is the one who murdered the empress in cold blood. So from a bystanders prospective, the boatman in this case, he's seeing a high chaos player murder a bunch of at least morally neutral guards and is understandably disgusted. For high chaos you'd definitely have to kill a good percentage of the guards as, from my understanding, you can still kill every target and achieve a low chaos ending. Corvo is given the choice to do what's needed, but at a point it's more like a slaughter and the characters are effected by it. Not to mention murdering the majority of the police and leadership of an empire is going to throw an already strained empire into... Chaos has. Not enough guards left to keep the peace. It felt less to me (in high chaos runs) like the game is chastizing me, and more like understandable consequences to my annihilation tactics lol, more rats because of all the bodies, characters becoming disillusioned and turning away, the guards absolutely know I'm a monster now, etc..

You indicated you felt the tools you were given pushed you more towards a lethal playstyle, however what about the non lethal tools you were given? There's a stun mine, sleep bolts, ability to choke guards unconcious, several powers as I mentioned... Plus you get to choose what you upgrade, most runs I didn't upgrade the lethal options much at all. 🤷

Idk, I went in expecting a stealth game and it overdelivered and had the bonus of also being open to a less stealth oriented call of duty or dark souls style kill all in your way option with a bunch of completely different powers I didn't use on my stealth run.

Reading your experience it feels like you might have gone in with a different mindset or maybe misundertstood something about how you can play the game and that it clouded your experience with a game I so thoroughly enjoyed, It's one of those I go back and play every few years.

It's silly that I pushed so much on it because of course in the grand scheme it doesn't matter lol its just a videogame, but eh.

Edit: My wife pointed out to me there's some additional moral points around how the Outsider basically tempts you with power just to see if you'll succumb to the "easy route" with the lethal powers. It is kind of the point that it's harder to do/be morally good in ethically complex situations.

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 1 points 6 days ago

yea, mofo sold me out & scolded me and he took an arrow in the ear for it

[–] DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

In what way do you think the game scolded you for killing enemies?

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Whilst it's been twelve years I remember returning to the between mission hub and characters literally complaining. The boatman in particular.

[–] DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

That's true, it is a game where each choice has a direct consequence. Going along that train of thought, do you see the "star system" in GTA as the game scolding you for your choices? If you've never played it, in GTA you are a criminal and as you commit crimes you get a star rating. The more stars means the more law enforcement that attempts to subdue or kill you. There really isn't a way to complete the game in a non-violent manner though.

[–] Flamekebab@piefed.social 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

A better equivalent would be a GTA game giving you a mission with a tank and then the mission givers seriously, not for comedy, giving the player shit for doing anything but driving on the road avoiding all cars.

My problem is with the tonal dissonance of giving the player weapons designed to be fun only for the game to complain when they're used.

The opposite being a Bond game. Really he should only be using sneaky spy weapons but he's given a ridiculous arsenal and expected to use it. If you give me a machine gun then why would you expect me not to use it?

[–] DrSteveBrule@mander.xyz 1 points 5 days ago

I think there is a difference between what the developers expect and what characters expect. In Fallout3 a settlement builds their town around a deactivated nuclear bomb. There is an opportunity very early in the game to detonate it, which most characters understandably react poorly to. But I wouldn't rate the game poorly because the surviving NPCs of that settlement become hostile to the player afterwards. The developers don't really expect anything from the players as there is the choice to do either thing. I thought Dishonored did that as well. NPCs who cause havoc to the city by killing people and spreading disease will hear complaints from the surviving citizens. Also the story of the game sets up the player to be framed for murdering the empress so most NPCs by default already hate the player character. I liked that the game gave players the choice to remain noble and try to actively prevent further chaos or say fuck it and slaughter everyone who stands against you even if you are technically in the right.