I don't understand this game...

[The Sinless Assassin]

It feels like it's telling me: "look at all the cool and fun ways to kill people! But you are bad for having fun!" With how the ending changes based on how much you kill people...

Before I commit to it, I want to know if the game is still worth playing even if I'm gonna be punished with a bad ending for simply having fun with it.

[Renfrew]

You are 100% correct. A lot of die-hard fans will completely ignore that the game was marketed with freedom to do whatever you want:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4b_pKoTebk
2:40 - best example of this.

The morality system is complete garbage, one-dimensional, black and white morality taken straight from superhero stories (e.g. batman). All it does is give a little bit of replayability, by affecting enemy spawns depending on your choices, but this is so small it doesn't even matter.

The game is definitely a lot more fun when you ignore the endings, and just do whatever you want. Just keep in mind that higher difficulties are more balanced for stealth purists (i.e. you die in like 2-3 hits ), so best to play on medium difficulty.

[rod66]

It's actually simple, the game gives you the ability to do pretty much what you want but that freedom comes with consequences for those around you. You pretty much have a Fisher king like effect on the world (Especially one character).
Renfrew I have to ask: Do you listen to what people say and watch how sides scenes play out? Did you not notice the completely different setup in the last mission? the Chaos system effects a good deal more than the enemy spawning

[The Sinless Assassin]

Is the "good" ending better if I am to play mercifully on the second playthrough?

[Lord Of Dorkness]

Originally posted by The Sinless Assassin:

Is the "good" ending better if I am to play mercifully on the second playthrough?

It's a bit saccharine, but that good saccharine you really only get in games where you, the player, actually had to earn all that stuff by doing a lot of extra heavy lifting.

Personally, I found it much more enjoyable a story compared with the Dark ending of a lethal run.

[The Sinless Assassin]

Hm I see...well I guess I gotta get what I deserve for simply wanting to have fun XD

Though I suppose there's SOME fun in a non-lethal/minimal chaos run.

[Renfrew]

Originally posted by rod66:

Renfrew I have to ask: Do you listen to what people say and watch how sides scenes play out? Did you not notice the completely different setup in the last mission? the Chaos system effects a good deal more than the enemy spawning

Optional dialogue is irrelevant, it has no affect on gameplay. Events will play out based on spawns which is based on your Chaos level, hurr durr.

The final mission doesn't change anything. Samuel makes the enemies alerted? Big deal, you can go right back into hiding rendering this alert useless. On top of this with such High Chaos you were probably going to start an alert anyway...

No real impacts to gameplay at all. On top of this nothing you said changes the fact that the marketing vs actual product are contradictory.

[Sovereign]

I reject the notion that you’re “punished” for killing people. The high chaos playthough is great, the ending is darker but it’s not a “bad ending” as you still win, just in a darker fashion.

Also something people often overlook is that you can still kill people and get the low chaos ending, you just can’t kill too many people.

[Steppy20]

Originally posted by ꧁Renfrew꧂:

Optional dialogue is irrelevant, it has no affect on gameplay. Events will play out based on spawns which is based on your Chaos level, hurr durr.

The final mission doesn't change anything. Samuel makes the enemies alerted? Big deal, you can go right back into hiding rendering this alert useless. On top of this with such High Chaos you were probably going to start an alert anyway...

No real impacts to gameplay at all. On top of this nothing you said changes the fact that the marketing vs actual product are contradictory.

It has a story, with story based elements so I would disagree that optional dialogue is irrelevant. But then I enjoy games that have a story with side narratives that still keep me engaged. If all someone is looking for is gameplay with absolutely no regard for the story then I agree with you, however most people are not like that. I would also argue that if you're going for low chaos, you try and avoid enemies in the first place which leads to different playstyles and different gameplay.

The final mission is massively different, tone-wise. It's not just the number of guards but also the time of day, the weather and the way in which the final confrontations take place. In low chaos, Havelock kills them all with poison but in high chaos they die in multiple different ways. Also, your example of Samuel alerting the guards is only in the higher of the two high chaos scenarios (the game doesn't tell you this, but it kind of has a medium chaos as well.) You are also missing the fact that you can actually kill Samuel before he alerts the guards, which then removes him from the end cutscenes where he's on his boat.

Originally posted by The Sinless Assassin:

It feels like it's telling me: "look at all the cool and fun ways to kill people! But you are bad for having fun!" With how the ending changes based on how much you kill people...

Before I commit to it, I want to know if the game is still worth playing even if I'm gonna be punished with a bad ending for simply having fun with it.

The game does not reward or punish different playstyles and different chaos levels as in the end, the result is the same. It just has different scenarios that cause the ending. If you want to play the game, then play the game how you want - especially if it's a first playthrough.

Pretty much everyone agrees though that having more non-lethal gadgetry and options would make the game better which is why they did exactly that in every release of subsequent games.

[Renfrew]

Originally posted by Steppy20:

It has a story, with story based elements so I would disagree that optional dialogue is irrelevant. But then I enjoy games that have a story with side narratives that still keep me engaged. If all someone is looking for is gameplay with absolutely no regard for the story then I agree with you, however most people are not like that.

YOU like side dialogue, that cannot suddenly be generalised to everybody else. This is a game, not a movie, the major selling point is the gameplay. You don't need story to be engaged by a game, this is why multiplayer games are so massive and successful, despite having bare bones lore; some games don't even have or need a story. This suggests the exact opposite of your sudden generalisation.

Originally posted by Steppy20:

I would also argue that if you're going for low chaos, you try and avoid enemies in the first place which leads to different playstyles and different gameplay.

The question isn't whether the game allows different playstyles the question is why are you forced to a particular playstyle for a specific ending. You literally just said "if you're going for low chaos", but why would I need to go for a specific ending at all in a game that markets itself with freedom to do what you want? Low Chaos itself barely encourages a playstyle, you either avoid enemies, put them to sleep, or both; the variety is stale compared to high chaos, making it practically non-existent. Yes you can kill a few, but every time you get to the mission end screen and accidentally killed a bit too much you will be forced to retry, making it better to avoid killing in the first place, than to risk your chaos rating.

Originally posted by Steppy20:

The final mission is massively different, tone-wise. It's not just the number of guards but also the time of day, the weather and the way in which the final confrontations take place. In low chaos, Havelock kills them all with poison but in high chaos they die in multiple different ways.

Stylistic features, not particularly relevant.

Originally posted by Steppy20:

Also, your example of Samuel alerting the guards is only in the higher of the two high chaos scenarios (the game doesn't tell you this, but it kind of has a medium chaos as well.)

I know this, what's your point? Medium chaos only applies to this ultra-specific scenario, notice how this aspect of gameplay isn't used anywhere else in the game? It's only worth mentioning significant changes, if there is little to no change to gameplay then it makes little sense to mention it.

Originally posted by Steppy20:

You are also missing the fact that you can actually kill Samuel before he alerts the guards, which then removes him from the end cutscenes where he's on his boat.

This is such a minor detail, and unless you know what Samuel is going to do (i.e. having played the game before) this is barely relevant as a gameplay aspect.

[Sovereign]

Originally posted by ꧁Renfrew꧂:

Originally posted by Steppy20:

It has a story, with story based elements so I would disagree that optional dialogue is irrelevant. But then I enjoy games that have a story with side narratives that still keep me engaged. If all someone is looking for is gameplay with absolutely no regard for the story then I agree with you, however most people are not like that.

YOU like side dialogue, that cannot suddenly be generalised to everybody else. This is a game, not a movie, the major selling point is the gameplay. You don't need story to be engaged by a game, this is why multiplayer games are so massive and successful, despite having bare bones lore; some games don't even have or need a story. This suggests the exact opposite of your sudden generalisation.

Originally posted by Steppy20:

I would also argue that if you're going for low chaos, you try and avoid enemies in the first place which leads to different playstyles and different gameplay.

The question isn't whether the game allows different playstyles the question is why are you forced to a particular playstyle for a specific ending. You literally just said "if you're going for low chaos", but why would I need to go for a specific ending at all in a game that markets itself with freedom to do what you want? Low Chaos itself barely encourages a playstyle, you either avoid enemies, put them to sleep, or both; the variety is stale compared to high chaos, making it practically non-existent. Yes you can kill a few, but every time you get to the mission end screen and accidentally killed a bit too much you will be forced to retry, making it better to avoid killing in the first place, than to risk your chaos rating.

Originally posted by Steppy20:

The final mission is massively different, tone-wise. It's not just the number of guards but also the time of day, the weather and the way in which the final confrontations take place. In low chaos, Havelock kills them all with poison but in high chaos they die in multiple different ways.

Stylistic features, not particularly relevant.

Originally posted by Steppy20:

Also, your example of Samuel alerting the guards is only in the higher of the two high chaos scenarios (the game doesn't tell you this, but it kind of has a medium chaos as well.)

I know this, what's your point? Medium chaos only applies to this ultra-specific scenario, notice how this aspect of gameplay isn't used anywhere else in the game? It's only worth mentioning significant changes, if there is little to no change to gameplay then it makes little sense to mention it.

Originally posted by Steppy20:

You are also missing the fact that you can actually kill Samuel before he alerts the guards, which then removes him from the end cutscenes where he's on his boat.

This is such a minor detail, and unless you know what Samuel is going to do (i.e. having played the game before) this is barely relevant as a gameplay aspect.

If you only care about gameplay and nothing else then why is the chaos system an issue for you? Just play the way you want and narrative consequences be damned.

[Renfrew]

You completely ignored that the initial discussion stemmed from this:

Originally posted by The Sinless Assassin:

It feels like it's telling me: "look at all the cool and fun ways to kill people! But you are bad for having fun!" With how the ending changes based on how much you kill people...

Before I commit to it, I want to know if the game is still worth playing even if I'm gonna be punished with a bad ending for simply having fun with it.

The discussion is the poor implementation of morality, not whether Dishonored is in itself a bad story.

P.S. Nowhere did I say the words you suggested.

[Sovereign]

Originally posted by ꧁Renfrew꧂:

You completely ignored that the initial discussion stemmed from this:

Originally posted by The Sinless Assassin:

It feels like it's telling me: "look at all the cool and fun ways to kill people! But you are bad for having fun!" With how the ending changes based on how much you kill people...

Before I commit to it, I want to know if the game is still worth playing even if I'm gonna be punished with a bad ending for simply having fun with it.

The discussion is the poor implementation of morality, not whether Dishonored is in itself a bad story.

As far as morality systems go it's a pretty solid one that makes sense in the context of the narrative while giving you the sense that your actions have consequences that effect the world around you. I've seen better, but I've many far worse.

[Renfrew]

Except it isn't I already addressed that in my very first reply:

Originally posted by ꧁Renfrew꧂:

You are 100% correct. A lot of die-hard fans will completely ignore that the game was marketed with freedom to do whatever you want:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4b_pKoTebk
2:40 - best example of this.

The morality system is complete garbage, one-dimensional, black and white morality taken straight from superhero stories (e.g. batman). All it does is give a little bit of replayability, by affecting enemy spawns depending on your choices, but this is so small it doesn't even matter.

The game is definitely a lot more fun when you ignore the endings, and just do whatever you want. Just keep in mind that higher difficulties are more balanced for stealth purists (i.e. you die in like 2-3 hits ), so best to play on medium difficulty.

So I see the discussion has come full circle, and there is not much in the way of refutation.

[Sovereign]

Originally posted by ꧁Renfrew꧂:

Except it isn't I already addressed that in my very first reply:

Originally posted by ꧁Renfrew꧂:

You are 100% correct. A lot of die-hard fans will completely ignore that the game was marketed with freedom to do whatever you want:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4b_pKoTebk
2:40 - best example of this.

The morality system is complete garbage, one-dimensional, black and white morality taken straight from superhero stories (e.g. batman). All it does is give a little bit of replayability, by affecting enemy spawns depending on your choices, but this is so small it doesn't even matter.

The game is definitely a lot more fun when you ignore the endings, and just do whatever you want. Just keep in mind that higher difficulties are more balanced for stealth purists (i.e. you die in like 2-3 hits ), so best to play on medium difficulty.

So I see the discussion has come full circle, and there is not much in the way of refutation.

Well your point there seems to be it doesn't matter because it doesn't effect much but it has big effect on the narrative and characters as has already been pointed out sooo... I still say it's perfectly fine.

[Renfrew]

Contradicts original marketing and restricts you to a simplistic playstyle = perfectly fine

I already addressed, the narrative aspects.

Yup, discussion has come full circle