Dishonored 2

its chaos system, its not moral unlike most people understood. basically killing or sparing someone could make the overlworld to be in state of chaos,which is what you dont want when you want to combating an otherworldy abomination (the void)
 
eissa said:
its chaos system, its not moral unlike most people understood. basically killing or sparing someone could make the overlworld to be in state of chaos,which is what you dont want when you want to combating an otherworldy abomination (the void)
Click to expand...
Which would make sense if killing ever actually reduced the chaos in the game. Which it doesn't. Because leaving people alive to stir up more shit (or handing them over to mysterious dudes in rabbit masks) is always the less chaotic option.

And it might just be that I played the game too long ago, but this is the first thing I'm hearing about combating any kind of void. I was pretty sure I was going against the dudes who screwed me over and kidnapped the empress-to-be, and then again against the dudes who did it to me again because I'm playing some kind of imbecile.
 
Illuminati Confirmed! said:
Which would make sense if killing ever actually reduced the chaos in the game. Which it doesn't. Because leaving people alive to stir up more shit (or handing them over to mysterious dudes in rabbit masks) is always the less chaotic option.

And it might just be that I played the game too long ago, but this is the first thing I'm hearing about combating any kind of void. I was pretty sure I was going against the dudes who screwed me over and kidnapped the empress-to-be, and then again against the dudes who did it to me again because I'm playing some kind of imbecile.
Click to expand...
It's because there are less guards to protect places from weepers. This is shown in the party mission- in low chaos the guards will be manning an outpost, however in high chaos weepers will have breached the gate into the level and slaughtered them.

Non-lethal isn't morally good, it's about gaining a good reputation. You're giving away a woman to her stalker- but your allies don't know that, all they know is that you dealt with a problem without murder, and they perceive it as good. Clean hands means looking good- surely committing two people to work in silver mines until they die is more cruel than simply killing them.

Killing everyone and getting a "good" ending shouldn't be a thing. So what's your problem with it? I'm genuinely intrigued as to how you can complain about C&C.
 
SarcasticGoodGuy said:
It's because there are less guards to protect places from weepers. This is shown in the party mission- in low chaos the guards will be manning an outpost, however in high chaos weepers will have breached the gate into the level and slaughtered them.
Click to expand...
Except you also raise chaos by killing weepers.

Non-lethal isn't morally good, it's about gaining a good reputation. You're giving away a woman to her stalker- but your allies don't know that, all they know is that you dealt with a problem without murder, and they perceive it as good. Clean hands means looking good- surely committing two people to work in silver mines until they die is more cruel than simply killing them.
Click to expand...
So they know you solved the problem without murder, but don't even bother to ask how? Doesn't that imply that they believe you did something worse than killing them, something they don't even want to know?
So if you're a psychopathic type that likes sticking people into silver mines or handing women over to their stalkers your boatman friend won't have a single complaint, but if you just kill them (and a bunch of glorified zombies along with them) he will be disgusted by your behavior and tip you off to the guards.

Killing everyone and getting a "good" ending shouldn't be a thing. So what's your problem with it? I'm genuinely intrigued as to how you can complain about C&C.
Click to expand...
Killing everyone and getting a good ending is as stupid as killing no one and getting a good ending. It's shallow, it's uninteresting, it breaks immersion, it's just a bad system. These things should be different for every single character.
 
The chaos system is definitely too one-sided and shallow.
As for stealth not being featured that much in the trailers, I think that's just because it's a trailer. Action just looks better. Personally I felt that the first game was very much in favour of stealth-focused gameplay, and I think this one will be similar.
 
Illuminati Confirmed! said:
Except you also raise chaos by killing weepers.
Click to expand...
That is a huge problem with chaos.
Illuminati Confirmed! said:
So they know you solved the problem without murder, but don't even bother to ask how? Doesn't that imply that they believe you did something worse than killing them, something they don't even want to know?
So if you're a psychopathic type that likes sticking people into silver mines or handing women over to their stalkers your boatman friend won't have a single complaint, but if you just kill them (and a bunch of glorified zombies along with them) he will be disgusted by your behavior and tip you off to the guards.
Click to expand...
They don't look into it. Why should they? They gave you a task and you completed it in a way that will not implicate you later. When Emily rises to the throne, less blood on your hands makes it easier to win over the general population. If you've slaughtered lots of people it will be seen as a hostile takeover- by your citizens and the other Isles. If your political enemies have mysteriously disappeared there is no proof that you were connected to any of it. It will be suspicious of course, but better than just murdering everyone.

Now, here's the thing. If you complete the game killing only the targets. I have to stress this part, you won't get a high chaos ending. It's when you kill guards and civilians that your allies start to resent you. Which makes sense- guards are just following orders, you're meant to be taking apart the usurpers- not their underlings.
Illuminati Confirmed! said:
Killing everyone and getting a good ending is as stupid as killing no one and getting a good ending. It's shallow, it's uninteresting, it breaks immersion, it's just a bad system. These things should be different for every single character.
Click to expand...
If you kill no one it's still not an entirely good ending. You're recovering from a plague, riots, infighting, two coups. The game in low chaos ends with hope- but if you've killed everyone, it ends with the city falling to chaos. It makes more sense, but the chaos system is by no means perfect but it was better than "karma" or "alignment" points. It needed some tweaking in some areas and heavy tweaking in others. I agree with a lot of your points and the devs have said they're revising the chaos system for Dishonored 2. If it's the same I will be sorely disappointed though.
 
Chaos is not karma, or Alignment in sense of Good-evil spectrum. Chaos is system that as a representative of your effort in bringing order to the world thus combating the void influence. Funny thing, getting a low chaos is enough to satisfy and entertain the outsider itself which is a creature that ascociate with the void itself (and possibly the current ruler of the void). Also it is said that the void could be visited during dreaming, and guess what you get durng high chaos playthrough? lots of character dialogue imply that they get a nightmare, enough to drive someone mad.

The arch plot is not about revenge or dishonoring your opponent, it is about an effort of "screw you" to an ambiguously evil otherworldy being that have power beyond comprehension. Corvo is just a pawn, or a puppet for The outsider to satisfy him or rather to make the world not bland or just boring.

Dishonored 2 mention about otherworldy usurper; something that even make the outsider seeking help to corvo and emily for it. let see if arkane could make something interesting from it, not just a rehash of previous character in dlc.

One thing about weepers; These guy are not zombies, but being a zombie would be a mercy compared to what they have become: they shamble around, continuously vomiting, their vomit being highly caustic (it injures you if they vomit on you), and their bodies have become home to large numbers of flies. Maggots are literally devouring their flesh while they are still alive. When they clutch you when they attack, they aren't trying to hurt you, they're begging for help, or at least for you to put them out of their misery.

So trying to kill them would be a mercy kill right? well indeed, but its not pretty for the greater good of everyone...
 
Last edited:

Domino is gonna be useful for the non-lethal full knock-out runs.

eissa said:
Dishonored 2 mention about otherworldy usurper; something that even make the outsider seeking help to corvo and emily for it. let see if arkane could make something interesting from it, not just a rehash of previous character in dlc.
Click to expand...
IIRC the usurper in Dishonored 2 happens to be the main antagonist from the Brigmore Witches DLC which also means;
the ending that results in her being sucked into the void (non-lethal elimination) would be the canon ending for that game.
The game is looking more like Dishonored 1 but more improved. I'm not complaining but I am afraid that there will not be much added to it. After all, a good sequel should, as said by Yahtzee, one that sees the original as a jumping-off point, something to build on, rather than one that merely wallows in the original and "pays respect." A sentiment I tend to agree with though not wholeheartedly.
 
CerberusGate said:

Domino is gonna be useful for the non-lethal full knock-out runs.


IIRC the usurper in Dishonored 2 happens to be the main antagonist from the Brigmore Witches DLC which also means;
the ending that results in her being sucked into the void (non-lethal elimination) would be the canon ending for that game.
The game is looking more like Dishonored 1 but more improved. I'm not complaining but I am afraid that there will not be much added to it. After all, a good sequel should, as said by Yahtzee, one that sees the original as a jumping-off point, something to build on, rather than one that merely wallows in the original and "pays respect." A sentiment I tend to agree with though not wholeheartedly.
Click to expand...

that is huge letdown just like what i predict....*sigh*

i hope its not because of bethesda involvement
 
eissa said:
that is huge letdown just like what i predict....*sigh*

i hope its not because of bethesda involvement
Click to expand...

I think they were setting her up for a big role from the beginning but there's a lot of problems with that as, bluntly, Delilah is a completely uninteresting shrew of a character. She's one-dimensionally evil in a way even the Regent wasn't and I can't really think she's going to bring any more nuance to a fairly three-dimensional and well-written world like Dunwall.

I also dislike the sunny beautiful Faux-Italy we're visiting. I *LIKED* the shitty steampunk hellhole of before.
 
To be honest they should've went with a new antagonist rather than taking a DLC boss and turning her into one. Wish they would take some stealth inspiration from the original two thief games like the light gem.
 
MercenarySnake said:
To be honest they should've went with a new antagonist rather than taking a DLC boss and turning her into one. Wish they would take some stealth inspiration from the original two thief games like the light gem.
Click to expand...

I consider Dishonored the true Thief sequel....which is a shame. Rhianna Pratchett and everyone else really dropped the ball on that game.
 
Apparently this game is turning out to be pretty good... the interactivity with the environment is considered pretty great so... that's what I want.
 
I'll rent it from Redbox. Save some money. The original Dishonored wasn't that great as a Thief successor, and if it has the playtime I think it does, three days should suffice.
 
AgentBJ09 said:
That's in no way difficult for any game made with some caliber of respect to what preceded it; if you recall, Arkane was saying Dishonored was supposed to be a modern successor to the original games, so that's what I expected.
Click to expand...
Dishonored did well in tons of areas. The problem is that it's not a hard stealth game. Mechanically I feel that the game is great, but there's a massive problem with balance. I had hoped that the clockwork soldiers would add some difficulty but after seeing the demo and learning that half of them were cut from the game I have lost hope.

Could've been a lot worse, it's a well made stylistic stealth game with lots of options. You don't get many nowadays.
 
SarcasticGoodGuy said:
Dishonored did well in tons of areas. The problem is that it's not a hard stealth game. Mechanically I feel that the game is great, but there's a massive problem with balance. I had hoped that the clockwork soldiers would add some difficulty but after seeing the demo and learning that half of them were cut from the game I have lost hope.

Could've been a lot worse, it's a well made stylistic stealth game with lots of options. You don't get many nowadays.
Click to expand...
I don't mind the easiness of stealth too much, especially as combat is extremely satisfying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top