I think the example of the overseer who is infected is an example of how weird the chaos system can be. Nothing you do should have affected him physically at that point, I guess you can infer that the Chaos system is somehow metaphysical, but the game explicitly says it isn’t. That’s another weird thing, apparently the chaos is related to the spread of the plague, but getting the power that destroys bodies leaves killing with the same Chaos effect. It feels like systems that should have been separated got mixed in with the Chaos. Actions that probably should increase the spread of the plague like taking down a wall of light and letting rats through don’t have an effect I know of. Or what about choices that are bad but might be see as accidents like releasing rats to distract guards in a stealth play through. That shouldn’t affect Emily’s behaviour as they can’t be linked to Corvo, but it would increase the spread of the Plague. The game is assuming that you are judged by an omniscient force in doing the Chaos calculation, but the game doesn’t explain Chaos as a morality system
Honestly, in Dishonored 2, I worked off my own sense of morality. City watch guards and overseers i mostly spared and only knocked out. But when it came to the witches and gangsters, I honestly had enough. I felt no moral dilemma in killing them because i saw no redeeming quality. Paolo and his gang terrorized, looted, and killed. The witches, I mean do I really have to explain. Why would I spare the most evil, disgusting, disgraceful memebers of an already collapsed society. Hell, i mean, even Slackjaw and his gang provided for the community with some elixrs. That's my perspective on justice.
GAHHHHHH, I love this video essay!!! I cannot put in words how much a single watch of it helped me in terms of inspiration and figuring out the logistics of my dialogue-based game! I am VERY surprised this doesn't have more views Certainly gonna recommend this video to my gamedev friends and will give it another watch myself!
I'm glad you didn't shy away from the political discussion. It's a really important part of analysis of art. I know some people "just want escapism" but art is not a place for escapism. It is a space to speak and listen.
I don't like this talk of good and evil and kill or don't kill, I've debated this all before And sometimes you have an enemy that if you don't get rid of them now, they'll become a bigger problem later down the road. Sometimes you just need to take out the trash, Debating whether or not the murdering monster needs to be eliminated Or not and whether that puts you on their level Is the kind of Thinking someone has when they'll never be in that situation and survive, We The viewers definitely have a third party observation based role In the story of dishonored But if I am criticized one more time for Choosing to Bury the guy who took advantage of Women and children or Silencing the exploiter who Thrived off at the misery and death of others Then I'm going to start throwing flack at those who stand by and do nothing. Maybe all the killing And death will put me on their level, But that just means I'll be there to drag them into hell myself.
4:43 also Alpha Protocol by Obsidian Entertainment, dialogue choices pop up before the npc finishes his/her dialogue that the player character is conversing with.
The idea that Corvo having a voice is a bad thing is wild. A silent protagonist is an objective bad thing and it’s one of my biggest problems with the first games
Hard disagree. I feel talked down to when a silent protag is given a voice in a game where choices matter. When I'm playing D1 I'm invited to think about what people say, think about the events unfolding. In D2, the character does my thinking for me. What does Corvo think about sparing a certain character? Don't worry, he will spoon feed the answer to you, like a baby. I don't like having my hand held when it's unnecessary, if that makes sense.
@@alackofgames913 so you just check out of conversation when you don’t need to pretend you are the character? It isn’t engaging to you to see multiple characters talking to you? I mean I guess this is just a preference thing but I don’t understand how this is talking down to and why what Corvo this doesn’t matter to you. Should all characters be silent, what makes this one good?
@Doomsword0 ah, I see where I mistepped in my criticism. Let me explain: In Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy, the titular Jak is a silent protagonist. This doesn't really matter in the context of that specific game. In Jak 2, Jak is given a voice, but it is specifically a plot point that he suddenly has a lot to say. The reason that this works for me is because it isn't a game about making decisions. Jak is a character whose actions are predetermined to always be the same. Literally (time travel is a major plot point). Why does Corvo being silent matter to me in light of this? Well, in the first game, whenever I took an action that had consequences, I was free to think about it before other characters would talk to me about the ramifications. I had to do an entire escape before I could have a chat with my allies who all have their own ideas, granting me a much wider freedom to imprint my own mode of roleplay on Corvo. Because he was established to me in this way, giving him a voice while continuing to give me choices that he will immediately muse to himself about cuts away that valuable time for introspection. As a counterpoint, I present Geralt of Rivia as he is presented in the Witcher 3. Geralt is a character with a well established canon of being very chatty to himself and others about the world and things around him, and the only choices ever available are choices that he might be reasonably expected to make. Giving him a voice makes more sense because he is a lot more heavily bounded in his actions. Recently, Isaac Clark was retconned into having a voice through the first part of the Dead Space story, and I think it works because he has an established story he goes through, with no major choices other than what order he wants to do things. Corvo feels like he is meant to be an audience surrogate who allows time to consider the world in the first game, and ends up feeling like a thought stopper in the second. Hope this helps make my stance more clear.
@@alackofgames913 I think this is a agree to disagree situation because I just don't see it. the way you explain Geralt I also see for Corvo. the audience/player surrogate thing has honestly never really meant anything to me personally
About the political criticism - the player has agency, and they can always off everyone they percieve as exploitative, and/or blink into a wall of light. Should the player find the political elite they portray a member of lacking, they can step down, so to speak.
The Boyle non-lethal is problematic only because it may break immersion. The participation in human trafficking and questions of consent is interesting because in our liberal world both are soft taboos - our current ruling elite revels in both - in the West at least. The UK for example has their grooming gangs, tolerated if not protected by the state. On paper everyone knows how disgusting it is, but it's everywhere. Murder on the other hand seems to be the only true taboo, as even self-defense is scrutinized, if not punished in some countries. Thus the problem with the Boyles is the quick, clean death is treated as the uncivilised option compared to a promise of a lifetime of abuse.
Prey 2019 Base Campaign Turbo Virgin vs. Prey Mooncrash Giga Chad Who would win?! YOU DECIDE Lol I'm jk. Great video!! I've been in a Immersive Sim mood lately and of the 20ish recent longer form Prey videos I've watched, this video was very good! I liked what you focused on.
I adore Griftlands, and one of the big reasons why is you have to balance both your combat and negotiation decks. While you can talk your way out of several conflicts, it shouldn't be your go to option since there are forced fights, and ignoring the chance to level up your combat deck only makes boss fights harder. At the same time, neglecting to engage in conversations means you may be unprepared for some of the harder negotiations, which can lead to failing a mission or making combat more difficult. It's a balancing act, and it also applies to your deckbuilding in general, since card bloat is an easy problem to run into if you're not careful. I personally didn't mind the gameplay being abstract, because I love the dialogue, writing and story, but I can see why you didn't enjoy it. The reason I bring this up is so often conversation systems in games either skip combat or make it easier, which while appealing can mean that the actual fighting mechanics can be neglected. I enjoyed my time with Fallout: New Vegas, but mostly because of the story and conversations. I disliked the actual gunplay, and stuck with speech in part because it got around the unfun combat. It came off as the "better" option than "an" option most of the time.
I just finished the platin thropy 4 days ago And having 400+ hours in that game and just listen to you just wanna make me play the game again Question: why didnt you upgraded your weapons or dont collect the neuromod building plan early in the game you just need hacking level 2 and then you can farm aliens with your powers. I would use the mobility and sneaking abilities so finish them you dont try to stun to quick many more of throwing objects at them with lifting level 2 or 3 to insta kill aliens also to activate your abilities need the Bar of "PSI" there is a side mission where you can put in the water system a potion where you get from any drinking sink and other water sink free unlimited "PSI" and with that you can be unstoppable If you want more details you know where to find me or i think the RU-vidr of this channel know too much to give you tips and tricks
This feels like we are puting way too much leftest politics in this. Billie is just another person and even the in game chars don't treat her any different just cuz she is black or bi. Those points are not what makes her who she is..
Tbh I totally agree with you. I can't imagine being offended like that from a game having you deal with the consequences of your actions.. Also The whole female representation in the first game is kinda awful and gross. That was an issue that was brought to the team and was dealt with in the rest of the dishonored games going forward (thankfully and that is the main reason why my fav is Dishonored 2) I also love the option to not have to kill! Though I do find it fun to find creative ways to get rid of your target.. I find it way more fun and emersive to never be seen and to have a sparing hand. I love how Dishonored holds you accountable in a way for your actions as it really hits different compared to most games that incrourage it or has killing as it's only option.
I played Prey in June 2017 (no spoilers pre-playing) and it immediately became one of my favorite games of all time. It still is to this day. I haven't played it since 2019, but recently moved to PC and will be playing it all over again and grinding through getting all of the achievements. This game (IMO) is the most underappreciated game of the last 10 years or so. It's a masterpiece and a game that I continue thinking about all the time.
I think a low chaos corvo would kill just about every target, except maybe the lord regent, but for the most part do his best to avoid everyone else. Maybe he would kill a few particularly nasty guardsmen, gang members, or some of daud's assassins along the way
My biggest gripe of the whole game is how the water physics clip into and nearly sink the little boat whenever you go to or from the missions and similarly that people can drown in 2 inches of water cause of how the water is programmed. First mission to the city and the waves almost go up to Meagan’s waist even tho we’re in a boat.
The Heart artifact has an additional function… learning about the other characters in the game. At one point, you come across an NPC who is helpful, even friendly. However, if you use the Heart on him, you find out that he abuses his wife and daughter. This opens a new angle of moral gameplay. Do you go about your way, or do you discreetly insure that he will never hurt his family again? It’s just another reason why Dishonored is fantastic.
I honestly kind of like not having the chaos system for this game. The world still reacts to our decisions, just not in the grand world redefining way it does with the chaos system. One example is how when we free Daud, if we played nonlethally, he'll only knock out the remaining hoodlums, whereas if we've killed, he'll do the same. This isn't a story where our decisions will change the world. No matter what we choose, the game ends with the Outsider gone. It doesn't matter if it's because we killed or saved him, the impact on the rest of the world is the same. But for that one boy who was once a god, that single decision makes all the difference, and I think that's what DotO is all about. It doesn't matter if the chaos system is there or not, what matters is that the world still reacts to our choices in the small, more subtle ways that Dishonored and Arkane as a whole do so well
One aspect of RPGs like BG3 and others like it, is that while the randomness to the dialogue check may seem unfair, it's not really your only option. Quite often you can use magic or items to improve your chances, or you can use stealth, or some kind of non-charisma based skill to find a way an alternative solution, or you can fight your way through. So it doesn't need to be fair compared to games where you have to succeed in a dialogue check to proceed.
I just wanted to add that the Inspiration Dice in BG3 (and D&D) is a great way to tip the RNG in your favour for important dialogue checks. You have a limited number of them, so you have to decide when to make use of them, and you get them as a reward for roleplaying your character according to his personality and background.
So, canonically, Dishonored 2 follows a Low Chaos ending. He was overall merciful. The game even mentions a couple of the hits and their canon fates. However, _Low Chaos_ does not mean _Pacifist_. And even the first game makes it clear of Corvo's character that he _is_ willing to kill if he deems it necessary. One doesn't become a Lord Protector without spilling a little blood. That same ending also makes it clear that Emily would not dismantle the machine. Her future was always to become either a mostly benign ruler or an outright tyrant, but never to just abdicate and set up a new democracy. Conveniently, that's also how we know none of the darker endings in Dishonored 2 are canon. I'd love to see a tjird game where Emily - either as a side character or a main character - has to actually address the societal issues of her empire. Because that canonical "good" ending from the first game promised a Golden Age.
Great video as always! It's funny you didn't enjoy Mooncrash, as I personally consider it one of the best DLCs ever and I was looking forward to hearing you talk about it lol
3 years after creation and towards the end of Biden's presidency. The poor are poorer than ever, homelessness has reached record levels, crime is staggeringly high, 2-3 new wars have begun, and we are being invaded by drug cartels. You still feel like Trump is the uncaring one? This video hasn't aged well
Weird = Xenophobia, or a genuine fear of "Them", instead of pure antagonism. New Weird = Neo-Cosmopolitanism, or the embrace of city as the New Frontier or a Middle Ground.
I'd say that Dishonored 2 did the social part with much more impact though. Player automatically roots for Emily who is fighting against evil usurpers, gangs, betrayers, etc. To restore order and bring peace (chaos system makes player think that there is a good and peaceful way to deal with the situation). But then comes the realization, that it takes a lot to drive the country into THAT many problems. And barely any of those problems (except for personal enemies and betrayers) were addressed and dealt with. Player is caught into thinking "I'll deal with the enemies, minimize casualties of bystanders, and everything will be good". But there's literally no indication that it will. Aristocracy was slightly decimated, practically no political alliances were made. The only tool at the Empress's disposal after the ending is good old military power plus the Outsider's force. No channels of communication were established (even Billy left her). There's an option to team up with the overseers, but it's not very promising In the end a very bitter taste is left regarding social-economic situation of the country
~a coup, a coup, what is it to you?~ I loved this game, for some reason when I first tried it many years ago, I dropped it right at the point when you choose which character to play, or shortly after that. I didn't know what I was missing out on until I played it just a month ago. And the DLC was friggin good, too.
You speak as if a stealth play through and a lethal one are opposites. You can play stealthily *and* lethal. You'll use less resources and not have to fight your way out of endless opponents. And killing the main targets don't count toward your chaos score.
Hey, I recently finished reading Perdido Street Station (and it's sequel.) I know it's been a couple years for you, but how do you view the ending of PSS? I like it. Like a lot of media I enjoy, I feel compelled to find other people's opinions on it. But I've been a bit disappointed, people either don't talk spoilers, or if they do talk about the ending just describe the events in the book (moths dead; Isaac leaving) and say they liked or disliked it. They don't really expand on the more interesting points it raises. Things like did Isaac make the right choice? Is Yag redeemed? Should you respect the justice of other cultures? What's more I don't think I've seen anyone actually talk about the final events in the book; Yag "remaking" himself and walking back to the city. It's definitely a weird ending but in spite of that I've seen no one bring this up or their own thoughts on it. It's especially weird since a common theme throughout the novel is justice. I get that talking about themes is "uncool" and for "academic types" but it's been a bit disappointing for me. It's like if you were to review Disco Elysium and never bring up politics, your own or in the general sense.
Amazing video, and glad to find another vegan in the world ♡ i appreciated your specific acknowledgement of the empathization with animals in these games, especially the whales who are absolute pariahs in the dishonored universe, the symbolism there is so effective. This is by far the most affecting of the games in the series and you so perfectly captured its impact; I am trying so hard to get my partner to play it lol.
I found the pistol (esp. the gold one) to be the most powerful weapon of all. It benefits a lot from upgrades and neuromods that boost damage. It does a lot of damage due to it's rate of fire, has long range and you save on health because it is stealthy. I always wished there was an assault rifle in this game and the upgraded pistol plays closest to that type of weapon.
You mention Emily had absolute power, but from what I could gather from the lore the Empire of The Isles is not an absolute monarchy, it even has a Parliament. Sure, that Parliament seems to be composed only by members of nobility, but the nobility is a powerful class in its own right. So to say that Emily had absolute power is flat out wrong. She did have a lot of power, but she depended on the nobility and also rich bussiness owners like Rothwild. All of these people have power and influence that rivals the monarch's own power. If Emily had tried to make the extensive reforms you propose, like dissolving the nobility, she would have faced a revolution, civil war or a coup way before Delilah tried hers. And even with Corvo's supernatural powers, it would be difficult for Emily to stay in power. But I agree that Emily was indolent and could have been a better ruler. She could have tried to make more gradual reforms, like giving commoners the vote and creating a second house on Parliament, originating something like a bicameral Westminster system with a House of Lords and House of Commons. That alone would have been a huge improvement! So if Emily had tried some reforms they would have to be gradual and would have extended beyond her reign into sucessors.
