Dishonored

[Biggles]

Rather like this game. Finished it with low chaos. I'm just too good of a person to really let myself go I guess, because I can't really bring myself to kill so many people when I can just as easily bypass them

For some reason, I'm very fond of Samuel the Boatsman. Dunno why, I just like the guy. Dunno if you can kill him, but I sure as hell won't.

[Manco]

Finished it last night.
Loved the game in general, but a few points:
- stealth is a bit too easy (even in Hard). For example, at times a guard notices another guard has disappeared from his rounds, but it happens too seldom and has too little a consequence.
- While the plot is perfectly serviceable, it stays too close to the comfortzone imo. I needed more of the Outsider, more of a hook at the end, less of your thirteen in a dozen "vengeance or true saviour" plot.

I do hope a sequel comes, this world has potential

[Huberto]

I'm not trying to defend Dishonored here btw, just stating that your issues isn't Dishonored's fault, but has become standard fare for the genre.

I''ve played several FPS games that take, fully explored, twenty five hours or longer to finish, reward replay and therefore end up amounting to over fifty hours of enjoyment. I don't see short FPS games as "standard fare" but more of an emerging trend that should be widely discussed, criticized and labeled as controversial.

The good news is this appears to be happening with Dishonored despite the onslaught of reviewers calling us "prats" for complaining about a super short game. Some reviewer says I'm not "playing it right?" off.

And all the detail, coolness, density of the gameplay are some of the major reasons these games are so short.

I don't buy the excuse that a game has to be short in order to be detail rich and innovative. Hiring Susan Sarandon to do voice overs? Really? I'd of rather gotten a few more missions. And no I don't mean that literally, but it does illustrate how mistaken priorities in developing the game for release can be to blame, rather than the overall budget for the game. I don't excuse it.

If we lavish praise on and soak up games that take 12 hours to play @ $60 without complaint, companies aren't going to make games that take a decent amount of time to finish.

[Metro] did cost 60$, and I certainly didn't get 15h out of it.

I did see that Metro 2033 was listed at $50 at release, not $60. But even at $50 that would amount to a rip off for a linear shooter that takes less than 20 hours to fully explore and finish.

[Skyrim] is also a game with broken progression, a lacklustre combat-system, a of generic quests, an uninspired plot,.... you don't feel it's repetitive because you're a fan of this kind of game. But it IS repetititve..

Did I say Skyrim wasn't repetitive? I acknowledged it could be a grind if played for extended periods without breaks. But that isn't a kiss of death for the game at all... Your argument seems to be that Skyrim is weak so who cares how much content is has, or perhaps that the suckiness is a direct function of it's length? But given that Skyrim has so much more content than dishonored, and so many people like it, doesn't excuse it's flaws, but makes it a good counter example of what a game could be or even should be, i.e. both long and rich in content.

Stalker to take an example might have given you much more playtime and a sort of sand-box environment, but meant also no notable NPC interaction or design, all weapons being simply point and shoot, a barely functional way of delivering the plot,....

Nah. Stalker's strength is the dream-like, alien atmosphere which almost demands a lack of meaningful NPC interaction and a mysterious story line. What makes the game compelling, i.e. it's alien-ness in the familiar, which is really a function of its music, artwork, the soviet era world and its detailed features, the kitsch etc. The longer Stalker game isn't an either-or with plot or with character.

In Stalker CS, for example, by the time you get to the end of the game, in the city and the hospital shoot out, you just can't believe what "a long strange trip it's been" and that feeling is stronger for having been through such a rich world with a lack of deep NPC interaction and the vagueness of plot.

With respect to Far Cry 2, which is an underrated FPS, that takes quite a while to finish... I have used all forms of stealth made available in the game and I can assure you they work. Camo, the stealth weapons, sneaking round can be quirky, somewhat unpredictable, and at times even unfair, but they work. I will even turn this on it's head and say, for me, it made the game more compelling, because the stealth was not always guaranteed to work but had an element of randomness to it, as real life stealth would. Could it have been more "refined?" Sure. But it's hardly completely broken or useless, it works

Here are some other examples, since you the one I provided before wasn't clear enough:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rbQit7UH8Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azgnng5rGC0

[Astaroth]

I'm playing Dishonored right now (not sure if you^^ are). And it simply cannot be compared to Skyrim. Sure, Skyrim is a game in which you can pour a lot more hours. That's in its nature as an open RPG. Dishonored is a lot shorter, sure, but it also isn't as generic as most of Skyrim's storylines/quests are.

I like both games but comparing them by their length or "amount" of content is quite ridiculous.

[Huberto]

I'm playing Dishonored right now (not sure if you^^ are). And it simply cannot be compared to Skyrim. Sure, Skyrim is a game in which you can pour a lot more hours. That's in its nature as an open RPG. Dishonored is a lot shorter, sure, but it also isn't as generic as most of Skyrim's storylines/quests are.

I like both games but comparing them by their length or "amount" of content is quite ridiculous.

I understand how a linear game would end up much shorter than an open world like Skyrim. But why can't we compare the games based on amount of content?

And if a game doesn't have "generic" storylines, why does it have to be so limited in terms of missions and playlength?

[Publius Clodius Pulcher]

Spoilers ahead


Just finished it, and I definitely agree with Huberto. This game was way too short. While it was fun as long as it lasted, I'm very glad I rented instead of buying. Plus the game felt like it could of used more development time and length. The story was okay but uneven (I really don't fully buy SPOILER the Loyalists betrayal of Corvo) and some more missions would of helped the storyline as well as the game

Here's an example. The VERY first real mission has you assassinate the leader of the overseers. Why do I care? There is basically no development of what an overseer is. Through reading most of the book (in later levels) I can determine he's some quasi religious/ warrior (the Jedi I suppose?). Instead of throwing me at the overseer first thing, why not give me a mission or two to develop my powers and learn of the contrast between the outsider and the overseers? That would of created a much more immersive world and added length without being unnecessary.

SPOILERS In the same vein, the twist was rote at best. I'm sorry but 6 hours in and I've toppled the government and I'm not supposed to expect a betrayal? If the game was at the 12 hour mark before the twist, then it might of paid off. As it was I was beyond ready for either the Loyalists to betray me or Emily get nabbed by someone else ( a better twist would had been if Emily was captured by some forces of the outsider who reveals he only gave you powers to nab the girl)

The actual gameplay was nice, but could of used with more variety of weapons. Going sneak I used the Pistol a total of once and the flaming crossbow arrows maybe twice. Level design was complex, but I was hoping for something more akin to Deus Ex in having non-attacking areas (beside the hub world). The design of the party mission was mediocre at best. Also, while the art direction was nice, the actual graphics were horrid. The whole thing looked vaguely like Timesplitters 2 for the PS2. We are 6+ years into development for this generation and they can't texture?

Overall I'd say a 7/10. Would of been an 8 with 2 more missions. By no means a masterpiece but I'm glad I played it. If they go for the sequel it could make a jump like AC to AC2.

[vinh834]

I do agree with the notion that the game is too short. However, I am so far taking over 20 hours in the game due to be wanting to make every single guard unconscious. I don't know why, but it sure is slowing me down.

[Mhaedros]

Spoiler

That's true, I'm on the first mission after you've been betrayed, and I've probably played like 15 hours already due to me wanting to take my time doing stuff. Hell, I don't even find those paintings and stuff, I just run around searching for stuff to kill without being seen, so I'd get some ammo.

[Jaketh]

Halfway through my second playthrough, got the "good" ending on the last one by killing less then 5 guards per level and doing nonlethal on all the Assassination targets. Fantastic game and i can say getting really good at murdering dozens of guards at once is very gratifying even if it will get you the bad ending.

[Katsumoto]

I always found it strange in these games where they give you all these interesting ways to kill people but then punish you for doing so.

[Ataegina]

I always found it strange in these games where they give you all these interesting ways to kill people but then punish you for doing so.

yes thats true, they give you freedom you kill and then punish you if you didnt the assassination on ONE way the game creators wanted it to be...... i guess the fact there is achievements for all the playstyles would be enough to support every playstyle, but punish them ingame is a bit too far.nontheless the game is great but short

[Manco]

I wouldn't really call it punishing, that assumes there is a correct way to play and ther isn't. Do whatever the hell you think's fun, the game simply attaches some consequences to your playstyle.
Killing loads of people is bound to influence a city, how would you be in a plague-stricken city where the authorities are regularly being killed?

@Huberto, just to pre-empt myself here. I'm not defending short games, at least not in way where I imply anyone to just suck it up and accept it. Just that it is pretty much the standard, and that exceptions to the rule either have huge budgets or in exchange have mode other sacrifices.

I''ve played several FPS games that take, fully explored, twenty five hours or longer to finish, reward replay and therefore end up amounting to over fifty hours of enjoyment. I don't see short FPS games as "standard fare" but more of an emerging trend that should be widely discussed, criticized and labeled as controversial.

Oh come on, emerging? It's literally been a decade, that 's a third to a fourth of gaming history. And I'd like some names, I've played nearly every FPS and very few gave me that amount of play time.
But simply comparing length is dishonest. Take STALKER (I keep using it since it's perhaps the most recent "long" FPS, and I've got over a 150 h in the series), the actual plot is pretty short, don't get sidetracked by the survival/exploration and you'll finish it in about 15h as well. And while the exploration and survival is fun, you have to admit is simply doing the same thing over and over. There's nothing wrong with it; that's the meat and bones of the gameplay, but content-wise that's no different than simply walking around in a game like Dishonored and repeating a mission again and again.
I'm getting the idea you're mixing up the time you took to play a game, and the time it took to finish a game. I used to play Quake 2 and Doom 2 for dozens upon dozens of hours, but it didn't took that long to finish them, it was just me having a great time. No different than people who have a great time with Dishonored and its ilk, replaying missions again and again.
Open-world games in general tend to mostly consist of very superficial, easily repeatable "content".

The good news is this appears to be happening with Dishonored despite the onslaught of reviewers calling us "prats" for complaining about a super short game. Some reviewer says I'm not "playing it right?" off.

You say it's good news, others say it's just more of the old entitlement complex.
Both have their merits.

I don't buy the excuse that a game has to be short in order to be detail rich and innovative. Hiring Susan Sarandon to do voice overs? Really? I'd of rather gotten a few more missions. And no I don't mean that literally, but it does illustrate how mistaken priorities in developing the game for release can be to blame, rather than the overall budget for the game. I don't excuse it.

That assumes the budget for the VO would be put back into other areas of development, which is very doubtful; and ignores how having big names is a part of marketing (and usually adds to the general quality as well, good voicework is important). Games aren't developped or financed by fiddling with a few financial sliders.
Dishonored isn't the flashiest game or the easiest to market, it needs this kind of marketing to catch mass appeal.

If we lavish praise on and soak up games that take 12 hours to play @ $60 without complaint, companies aren't going to make games that take a decent amount of time to finish

Unfortunately that's not how it's been in real life. In the real world, games have gotten exponentially more expensive to produce and the return on investment has become increasingly risky.
Stop buying these shorter games, and you won't get longer games, you'll get even more mass-marketed lowest denominator stuff that's essentially a grind. It's what the TES series is becoming, it's what every MMO is, and it's what brought us the huge MP franchises and the coming wave of F2P.

I did see that Metro 2033 was listed at $50 at release, not $60. But even at $50 that would amount to a rip off for a linear shooter that takes less than 20 hours to fully explore and finish.

So don't buy it then. I thought Metro 2033 was worth the full price.

Did I say Skyrim wasn't repetitive? I acknowledged it could be a grind if played for extended periods without breaks. But that isn't a kiss of death for the game at all... Your argument seems to be that Skyrim is weak so who cares how much content is has, or perhaps that the suckiness is a direct function of it's length? But given that Skyrim has so much more content than dishonored, and so many people like it, doesn't excuse it's flaws, but makes it a good counter example of what a game could be or even should be, i.e. both long and rich in content.

You're not getting it. The amount of content does not change the fact that the nature of it is also very different. Dishonored couldn't have been like Skyrim, it's entire format precludes it from ever being as long or rich in content ( and that richness is very debatable).

Nah. Stalker's strength is the dream-like, alien atmosphere which almost demands a lack of meaningful NPC interaction and a mysterious story line. What makes the game compelling, i.e. it's alien-ness in the familiar, which is really a function of its music, artwork, the soviet era world and its detailed features, the kitsch etc. The longer Stalker game isn't an either-or with plot or with character.

In Stalker CS, for example, by the time you get to the end of the game, in the city and the hospital shoot out, you just can't believe what "a long strange trip it's been" and that feeling is stronger for having been through such a rich world with a lack of deep NPC interaction and the vagueness of plot.

Stalker CS was a weird ride, because it was a bad game. Seriously, Clear Sky was easily finished in 15hours, and did not have the exploration and survival down at all.
And again, in original content, that's not all that much.

With respect to Far Cry 2, which is an underrated FPS, that takes quite a while to finish... I have used all forms of stealth made available in the game and I can assure you they work. Camo, the stealth weapons, sneaking round can be quirky, somewhat unpredictable, and at times even unfair, but they work. I will even turn this on it's head and say, for me, it made the game more compelling, because the stealth was not always guaranteed to work but had an element of randomness to it, as real life stealth would. Could it have been more "refined?" Sure. But it's hardly completely broken or useless, it works

That some people have managed to adapt to its peculiarities doesn't stop it from being broken. It is unintuitive and unrealistic.

[Huberto]

I'm getting the idea you're mixing up the time you took to play a game, and the time it took to finish a game. I used to play Quake 2 and Doom 2 for dozens upon dozens of hours, but it didn't took that long to finish them, it was just me having a great time. No different than people who have a great time with Dishonored and its ilk, replaying missions again and again.

Yeah maybe...I never played Quake 2 or Doom 2 so I can't compare them. But I am talking about the amount of time it takes to fully explore the content in the game; and then replaying the game several times. I am also happy to compare how long it would take just to play through the main parts quickly. Either way, people seem to think Dishonored is very short no matter how you stack it.

Sure if you move quickly through Stalker and were a skilled player you could get it done in 15 hours. But apparently you can rush through Dishonored in 4 hours.

And to be sure I've had a strong reaction to the shortess of Dishonored because I was interested in it -- it sounds like an very good game but I know it's shortness would ruin the experience for me.

Open-world games in general tend to mostly consist of very superficial, easily repeatable "content."

Well since I haven't played Dishonored, Bioshock, Thief or DX I am admittedly at a loss in terms of agreeing or disagreeing with your construct of the anti-superficial, non-repetitiveshort winded FPS. I will say that if Metro 2033 is an example of a non-superficial, non-repeatable game, fundamentally it isn't a very interesting game to play and I find it repetitive. Nor do I consider having to listen to a baby wail as I blast shotgun rounds into mutuants as I have in Metro to be a very profound experience.

I am aware however, that a player can get through Dishonored far less than 12 hours time; that is why the reviewers were whining that people were "playing it wrong." But let's be honest, Dishonored is a perfect game for professional reviewers: they don't have to pay the $60 and they can easily explore what they have to write about in a long afternoon. Sure if you take your time you can drag the game out to 15-20 hours, right?

It takes much longer to finish any of the Stalkers or Far Cry 2 no matter how you play them, short or fast, to use the examples I am very familiar with.

Yes, I understand that they are open world shooters which makes them take longer to play. But even discounting the travel time and exploring, those games are chock full of different problem sets that are in turn solved in unique and richly detailed environments. Stalker Clear Sky for example has different anomolies to master, radiation to hide from, dogs that require special shooting tactics, other tactics for leaping mutants, still more tactics for dealing with bloodsuckers, psychic monsters, many different types of human enemies with different attributes that appear in different environments, not to mention the set-piece battles in Limansk and in the hospital that are every bit as challenging as the best firefights in Metro. Yes I suppose if you rushed through those games and were especially good you could finish them in 15 hours. But they are not very repetitive in terms of either locale or challenge.

Similarly in Far Cry 2, each mission takes you to a beautifully designed, unique environment and each environment depicted typically requires a different approach to be successful (on the higher difficulities anyway).

Stop buying these shorter games, and you won't get longer games, you'll get even more mass-marketed lowest denominator stuff that's essentially a grind. It's what the TES series is becoming, it's what every MMO is, and it's what brought us the huge MP franchises and the coming wave of F2P.

Yeah I don't trust the crowd either but there are so many people who are deeply invested in games, I'm not really worried about stupid, weak willed capitalist publishers any more. Look at Kickstarter. The only thing we really need to do is to be insistent about high standards in the industry, not vice versa -- ie., following the industry into a gutter. They'll learn, just as there's a lesson for Bethesda to learn about releasing games at fullest price even though they are super short-- it will cost you in rep and sales.

You're not getting it. The amount of content does not change the fact that the nature of it is also very different. Dishonored couldn't have been like Skyrim, it's entire format precludes it from ever being as long or rich in content ( and that richness is very debatable).

No I get it. The missions are "deeper" and there are more possibilities in each mission. But the premise that the game must be super short to be deepr amounts to an elitist conceit that works OK right up until the game ends abruptly. It s could easily be longer as say Deus Ex HR reportedly was.

That some people have managed to adapt to its peculiarities doesn't stop it from being broken. It is unintuitive and unrealistic.

Lot's of us haven't simply adapted, we've thrived in Far Cry 2. We know how to use stealth, how to sneak around roadblocks, and that using camo and stealth weapons helps us avoid detection. You missed a good FPS here. Not looking forward to Far Cry 3 by the way, it looks awful.

[Katsumoto]

There is no working stealth in FC2. The game was released unfinished. Slicing a dude's neck in the dead of night while he's standing in a bush 100 metres from the enemy camp should not alert every occupant of said camp. Same thing with silenced weapons that everyone can hear. Before the game was released there was also talk of having the two factions fight each other and being able to manipulate them to help achieve your objectives and whatnot but obviously that was never implemented. As Manco said it's a broken game and whether you or others have 'adapted' to it being broken doesn't change the fact that it is broken.

[Huberto]

There is no working stealth in FC2. The game was released unfinished. Slicing a dude's neck in the dead of night while he's standing in a bush 100 metres from the enemy camp should not alert every occupant of said camp. Same thing with silenced weapons that everyone can hear. Before the game was released there was also talk of having the two factions fight each other and being able to manipulate them to help achieve your objectives and whatnot but obviously that was never implemented. As Manco said it's a broken game and whether you or others have 'adapted' to it being broken doesn't change the fact that it is broken.

1.) If you played Far Cry 2 beyond early frustrations you would see that stealth works. The machete in Far Cry 2 is unreliable and is difficult to use cleanly in the game. I like that, there's no reason to believe it would be easy to slice and stab cleanly and quietly in real life. In fact, one of the things that bugs me about Far Cry 3 stuff I've seen is how routine the stabbing is... In Far Cry 2 the silencers work too, they just don't guarantee that a kill will go undetected. I realize some may be frustrated by that but it doesn't mean the game or stealth system is broken at all.

2.)Gamers shouldn't care whether the game included features that were talked about. The game is interesting and rewarding to play as it stands.

3.)To be fair I didn't play Far Cry 2 until well into 2009 and patches may have fixed some of the more pressing problems, as with ETW, for example, which got a hell of a lot better ten months down the road after patch 1.5. Here's a nice apprecation of Far Cry 2, written several years after release: http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/pc/20...-appreciated/2

4.) Funny we've been arguing about Stalker and Far Cry 2 -- Arkane's lead designer cites both games as influences in Dishonored:
http://www.xbox360achievements.org/n...vey-Smith.html

[Mhaedros]

This might be a stupid question, but does killing people, using the "turn unawares enemies into dust" thing also increase the plague? It seems it shouldn't, cause well it's dust, but you never know with these games

[Jaketh]

This might be a stupid question, but does killing people, using the "turn unawares enemies into dust" thing also increase the plague? It seems it shouldn't, cause well it's dust, but you never know with these games

I don't think its the number of bodies itself that increases the number of weepers but the act of killing a guard reduces the strength the city guard has to fight off the increasing horde of weepers and rats. So i would assume any death counts towards high chaos.

[Musthavename]

Indeed, it's kill count. I went through the entire game with that ability and had consistently high chaos (which I expected to have, but I just wanted to kill people ).

[Manco]

IT's not just dead guards who are the problem, dead guards mean more crime; less people to enforce the actually necessary quarantines and keep the weepers at bay which in turn leads to more deaths, rats and weepers; less faith in an already unstable and unpopular government; more guards being pulled of their regular duties; families of those guards losing their steady supply of elixir;...
A death doesn't happen in a vacuum.

[ivan_the_terrible]

Played this briefly at my friends'. Brilliant art direction and game mechanics. Bethesda can learn a LOT from the way sword-fighting is made in this game. Plus the first person climbing is great too -- would be great to have something similar in Elder Scrolls (governed by the acrobatics skill, maybe).