Dishonored 2 - Creative Kills trailer - General

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;51084724]HOLY SHIT Corvo is voiced by Stephen Russell, AKA. the original voice for Garrett from the Thief series. We have come full circle! This is fucking awesome. Super late on this but I never realized. Now I'm considerably more interested in the game.[/QUOTE] [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPq-z6dyi04[/media] Shit, you got me interested now.

[QUOTE=bitches;51097244] people who complain about the endings are fans of the gameplay, but not fans of the story i really hope the developers improve upon these concepts instead of stripping them out due to popular demand[/QUOTE] I dunno, I never had an issue with the good and bad endings to the game. It was considerably short the first time I played, and even then with a non-perfect run I still got the good ending, even after I killed some folks and fucked things up here and there. I feel that it adds replay value, especially with the inclusion of an official blood and steel mode of the game with no powers and a different outcome to the game. (Not a spoiler, it's been discussed in many previews for the game). Even though the game is supposedly nearly 20 hours, even by the people who made the game, I can see a different outcome impacting many things and keeping my second playthrough more interesting. After all, a good and bad ending makes my choices in-game more erratic towards non-lethal or lethal play, and it's almost an entirely new game when you play with different / more lethal powers compared to a regular non-lethal game. With the inclusion of branching power paths as well, I can see this becoming really, really interesting to replay, which is great because I've replayed the first game about 120 times by now. I feel people who complain about having a good or bad ending are people who want the good ending every time they play a game, but are too bad at stealth games to play correctly. The bad ending only happens if you're awful at stealth games and murder everyone you see, the good ending happens if you play stealthily as getting spotted / leaving corpses around adds to your chaos meter as well.

On paper the endings and morality of the game works fine. You murder and slaughter dozens of people and the leaders of the resistance know that they've employed a cannon as an assassin. You don't kill a single person and your actions almost fly under the radar. The issue comes in when non-lethal kills are almost objectively worse than straight up killing your target. Case in point is the party hostess, whose name escapes me at the moment. [sp]Instead of just slitting her throat, you drug her and dump her on a canal to be taken away by her stalker who assures you 'she'll never be heard from again'.[/sp] Some of the non lethals, such as the High Overseer and the Pendleton brothers are handled very well and only add to the tone and themes of the game and the world, but a life of seclusion and implied rape surely is worse than simply dying unexpectedly.

[QUOTE=cyclocius;51097901]On paper the endings and morality of the game works fine. You murder and slaughter dozens of people and the leaders of the resistance know that they've employed a cannon as an assassin. You don't kill a single person and your actions almost fly under the radar. The issue comes in when non-lethal kills are almost objectively worse than straight up killing your target. Case in point is the party hostess, whose name escapes me at the moment. [sp]Instead of just slitting her throat, you drug her and dump her on a canal to be taken away by her stalker who assures you 'she'll never be heard from again'.[/sp] Some of the non lethals, such as the High Overseer and the Pendleton brothers are handled very well and only add to the tone and themes of the game and the world, but a life of seclusion and implied rape surely is worse than simply dying unexpectedly.[/QUOTE] All of the non-lethal options were supposes to be "fitting" punishments iirc. The high overseer was branded a heretic and shunned by his own people, the hostess (lady Boyle) lost her life of (stolen) luxury to live in poverty and fear -- the same things the citizens had to live in because of her. So on, so forth. Whether its appropriate is up for debate, but that's my interpretation.

[QUOTE=bitches;51096812]the game doesn't punish you for it characters react to violence sensibly the game gets only a little harder at the last level with more guards, which is more appropriate for a fighting playthrough anyway... unless you WANT the game to be super easy??[/QUOTE] Actually, it's not just the last level. If you have high chaos the Lady Boyle mission has more Tallboys in the streets and Lord Regent mission also changes guard density and his location.

[QUOTE=cyclocius;51097901]On paper the endings and morality of the game works fine. You murder and slaughter dozens of people and the leaders of the resistance know that they've employed a cannon as an assassin. You don't kill a single person and your actions almost fly under the radar. The issue comes in when non-lethal kills are almost objectively worse than straight up killing your target. Case in point is the party hostess, whose name escapes me at the moment. [sp]Instead of just slitting her throat, you drug her and dump her on a canal to be taken away by her stalker who assures you 'she'll never be heard from again'.[/sp] Some of the non lethals, such as the High Overseer and the Pendleton brothers are handled very well and only add to the tone and themes of the game and the world, but a life of seclusion and implied rape surely is worse than simply dying unexpectedly.[/QUOTE] You can kill all of your targets and still get low chaos. It's about the number you kill. The third ways aren't meant to be mercy, they're meant to be Corvo extracting revenge in the most fitting way he can imagine. Horrible things happen to everyone you do it to. [sp]Overseer, for instance, becomes a weeper[/sp] The devs did say they regretted how they handled Lady Boyle because they were looking at it from the wrong direction, but said if you take the third way [sp]she most likely wraps the stalker around her finger[/sp] [editline]24th September 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Marden;51097952]Actually, it's not just the last level. If you have high chaos the Lady Boyle mission has more Tallboys in the streets and Lord Regent mission also changes guard density and his location.[/QUOTE] It's every level, and dialogue and situations change as well, as well as the weather in the city and the spread of plague. It's EXTREMELY dynamic.

It's really getting hard to stick to my policy of not getting hyped for games because I'm a sucker for Dishonored and this looks really cool so far.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51097940]All of the non-lethal options were supposes to be "fitting" punishments iirc. The high overseer was branded a heretic and shunned by his own people, the hostess (lady Boyle) lost her life of (stolen) luxury to live in poverty and fear -- the same things the citizens had to live in because of her. So on, so forth. Whether its appropriate is up for debate, but that's my interpretation.[/QUOTE] I appreciated the irony of most of the Non-Lethals, Pendletons in the mines and the Overseer getting the brand as you said. I must've missed out Lady Boyles luxurious life being stolen. I get why they're called "Non-lethal" and not "good" choices, but that one felt a little excessive. Maybe I just read into it a little too much, but in this mission you are actively...spoiling someones fun I guess. Every other mission you're breaking into a place of work, the manor houses you infiltrate aren't necessarily a home. Here, it's a party. You're sneaking into someones house and trying to figure out which one of the hosts you'll kill/abduct. It almost felt perverse to me, despite being my favourite level in the game.

[QUOTE=cyclocius;51098249]I appreciated the irony of most of the Non-Lethals, Pendletons in the mines and the Overseer getting the brand as you said. I must've missed out Lady Boyles luxurious life being stolen. I get why they're called "Non-lethal" and not "good" choices, but that one felt a little excessive. Maybe I just read into it a little too much, but in this mission you are actively...spoiling someones fun I guess. Every other mission you're breaking into a place of work, the manor houses you infiltrate aren't necessarily a home. Here, it's a party. You're sneaking into someones house and trying to figure out which one of the hosts you'll kill/abduct. It almost felt perverse to me, despite being my favourite level in the game.[/QUOTE] Perhaps that was the point. I mean, its already a pretty dark atmosphere to begin with. I think the reason this one is so uncomfortable is because its one of the more realistic possibilities. Real people have actually been kidnapped and forced to live as slaves. You're actively committing one of the most heinous crimes against a person possible. Its not supposed to feel good, unless you're sadistic. It could be argued that its better to just kill her, and I don't think I would disagree with that position. It is perverse though. You break into her house, disguised as her known enemy, you go through her belongings until you know everything about her, and then you kidnap her, and give her to a stranger to live a life unknown. Its absolutely perverse and wrong, but also possibly almost justified. The Boyle's funded the Lord Regent, who ruined so many other lives. You're giving her a taste of her own medicine. And that's a debate that has been around for almost all of human existence. You have to decide for yourself whether its better to just kill her, or let her live her new life in the unknown. That's what makes me love that level so much. Its one of the most fucked up decisions that I've ever had to make in a video game. It makes you question if you made the right decision no matter what path you take.

[QUOTE=Anti Christ;51098270]Perhaps that was the point. I mean, its already a pretty dark atmosphere to begin with. I think the reason this one is so uncomfortable is because its one of the more realistic possibilities. Real people have actually been kidnapped and forced to live as slaves. You're actively committing one of the most heinous crimes against a person possible. Its not supposed to feel good, unless you're sadistic. [B]It could be argued that its better to just kill her, and I don't think I would disagree with that position.[/B] It is perverse though. You break into her house, disguised as her known enemy, you go through her belongings until you know everything about her, and then you kidnap her, and give her to a stranger to live a life unknown. Its absolutely perverse and wrong, but also possibly almost justified. The Boyle's funded the Lord Regent, who ruined so many other lives. You're giving her a taste of her own medicine. And that's a debate that has been around for almost all of human existence. You have to decide for yourself whether its better to just kill her, or let her live her new life in the unknown. That's what makes me love that level so much. Its one of the most fucked up decisions that I've ever had to make in a video game. It makes you question if you made the right decision no matter what path you take.[/QUOTE] I would argue that just murdering your targets is the more merciful option every time. The only one who actually deserves the non-lethal end is the Lord Regent, [sp]as he is exposed to the people and arrested, showing that he isn't above the law as he thought.[/sp] All of the people you go to murder are horrible people, but that doesn't make it morally right to be sadistic. Which is why the morality system in the game is "High Chaos" vs "Low Chaos", it not about what you're doing, it's about how you do it (as was said on the last page).

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;51098552]I would argue that just murdering your targets is the more merciful option every time. The only one who actually deserves the non-lethal end is the Lord Regent, [sp]as he is exposed to the people and arrested, showing that he isn't above the law as he thought.[/sp] All of the people you go to murder are horrible people, but that doesn't make it morally right to be sadistic. Which is why the morality system in the game is "High Chaos" vs "Low Chaos", it not about what you're doing, it's about how you do it (as was said on the last page).[/QUOTE] Oh I don't disagree that it's more merciful to kill them outright. When I said 'better', I was thinking specifically about the punishment fitting the crime. Is it better to follow an eye for an eye and give these monsters a taste of their own? Or is it better to just kill them and let it be over?

You might feel less sympathetic for Boyle if you use the heart on her a lot. [editline]24th September 2016[/editline] I've replayed this game over and over. Does the weather really change based on chaos? I've only seen that in the last level.

[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;51084770]Slightly unrelated from Dishonored 2, but there's this guy on YT who does things like this in the first Dishonored. It makes me wonder if they took some notes from him. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Ymh_wHjaQ[/media][/QUOTE] every damn time I see this guy, I want to play again, but am reminded that I wont be this good and goddamn I love the look of the game

[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;51084724]HOLY SHIT Corvo is voiced by Stephen Russell, AKA. the original voice for Garrett from the Thief series. We have come full circle! This is fucking awesome. Super late on this but I never realized. Now I'm considerably more interested in the game.[/QUOTE] Really makes you think that he ended up doing a voice for Dishonored while he didn't do it for Garrett in Thi4f.