Errant Signal - Dishonored

[@DARE0451]

The text message when you jump in the tub ISN'T because you hopped in the tub. It's because you hopped on her HEAD. You can goomba stomp any of the Loyalists and get the same Game Over message, if I recall correctly.

[@NoTimeNoEffort]

To be fair, Pendleton does have a somewhat legitimate reason to not be exactly shaken by the assassination of his brothers, if you enter his room after every mission you find his diaries, in which he talks about how much he resents his family for being the "third brother", the youngest insignificant one and how much abuse he received from his family because of that. So yeah, I wouldn't be too shaken either.

[@WandaThePanda]

You have a point there, but I think I agree with ES when he says that no real character development happens through the game; explaining characters with writings scattered around is probably not the best way to characterize them in a videogame.

[@NoTimeNoEffort]

No no, I agree, pretty much all the characters are robotic and don't develop at all, I'm just pointing out a little bit of lore that ER might have missed that kinda-sorta excuses Pendleton specifically for being kind of cold towards what happened. On one end I appreciate that it's not shoved in your face, but you have to intrude in his room when he's not there and rifle through his shit to get his backstory, it's a cool complement of indirect storytelling and reward for exploration, but then Pendleton himself is just as stiff and robotic as anyone else and it doesn't really work at all. I wonder what happened to this project, maybe they ran out of money and time and decided to polish the game before all the plot stuff? Which I can admire, at least it left us all with a solid as hell stealth game...

[@WandaThePanda]

Scrapjack I admit that it's easy to look at a finished product and point out its fallacies, who knows, maybe timeline schedule or production cost forced the developers to a more straightforward/binary solution. Like other said, it would be interesting to have a peek into the game developing story, to see why and in front of which difficulties certain choices are made.

[@VictusVictii]

I know this is a old video now, but I never have understood people saying that the stealth mechanics were not as fun or interesting as the combat ones in Dishonored. To me, combat/lethal tactics got kind of boring about halfway through the game. If you are at all good at Dishonored, you can dismantle and wreck the entire map of enemies fairly easily, no matter the difficulty, with all the tools in your hand. The precise reason you can try all those crazy combos of options is because the enemies are not that tough to begin with. Stealth meanwhile, had a lot of skill, tension and precise timing. To me it was satisfying as all hell to pull off every mission without being seen, or killing anybody in the mission, because of the difficulty of avoiding detection. While you yourself do not have more than a few tools to avoid being seen, the maps themselves often have many varied different ways of getting around them without being noticed, from hidden passages, to certain events going on, and so on. I was surprised by just how many different non-lethal options there were for getting around enemies on most maps. Just my opinion on the matter though. As for why the world gets more and more shitty if your violent, its no so much you, as it is the Outsider. The game not so subtly hints that since you bear his brand, your actions effect what the Outsider does to the city. Its implied he brought the plague to the city, and that rats and whales are associated with him, so its not a stretch to say that the plague gets more and more out of hand, because you represent the moral center of the city. The Outsider is testing you (For his own curious amusement as far as I could tell), and effecting the city based on your choices. This can be missed though understandably if you are not reading the lore in-game.

[@arthursimsa9005]

Nah, it was boring.

[@sososo3906]

you need to wait every time you won't to blink in order to preserve your magic stuff, in when sneaking the only downsize is the fact that you're time is wasted

[@liamobrien6044]

I think he was talking less about the difference between stealth and non stealth, and more about the difference between leathal and non leathal. Because there’s tons of ways to kill people, but two ways to not kill them if u know what I mean

[@sososo3906]

@@liamobrien6044 it's more accurate but most of the time you are trying to stay stealthy in order to avoid killing. How else can you avoid killing? Charge to the target with blink and than to the objective and than to the boat? You wouldn't know whare there are your first time

[@goulakh555]

Yeah!!world was fantastic to explore slowly and stealthy for me...doing badass things with powers was fun few times but I ended up playing slow and stealthy without using much of powers most of my time with this game which kind of more than 100 playthrough... That much I like this game.

[@noxabellus]

I think this video misses a lot of the subtlety of the game. When I played thru, I thought that the perceived flatness of the characters was intentional. As were the non-lethal mission objectives being arguably morally worse than the lethal ones. They were playing up the distrust, and they were playing on the idea that chaos is not intrinsically evil, and that evil is not intrinsically chaotic...

[@shadowmaydawn]

+noxabellus But the non - killing objectives options where discovered by the player themselves, the other resistant members just asked the player to kill them. So where exactly is this mistrust coming from? I also doubt that the case with the characters as they're just badly written.

[@Eskinor]

The "Irreconcilable hostilities" is because of assault. You just jumped on top of her head...

[@samueljay8519]

The amount of people saying its rape in the comments is absolutely pathetic.

[@noname-dp3gn]

"They took my daughter and now I need to get revenge plot" You do realize Emily is more than just a "daughter" right? keep the fact in mind that Emily is the queen of Dunwall.

[@Skullkan6]

Yes but... how does that change his point about the relationship with emily being shallow?

[@Kriptini]

I think Errant Signal sort of missed the mark in the first part of his review. I agree with him that there are problems with the characters and storytelling that make the game very weird for any player not ready to "become" Corvo. However, I don't agree with his opinion of the lethal/non-lethal mechanics. Dishonored is a game about mercy. Errant Signal comes close to getting it when he talks about how Corvo gains supernatural powers, but instead drops off the trail to talk about meaningful and satisfying choices. And while he certainly isn't wrong about those things, he does miss what the core of the game is about: mercy. To understand Dishonored, you have to put yourself in Corvo's shoes. This is not an easy thing to do because, as Errant Signal said, the characters don't lend themselves to emotional attachment. But as a "hardcore" RPG player, I was ready to become Corvo the moment I started my game. I knew to get pissed when I saw the Empress killed in front of my eyes. I knew that someone was gonna pay. The great thing about Corvo being a silent protagonist is that the player gets to decide just how pissed Corvo really is and how much it interferes with his honor. During the game, Corvo gains supernatural powers and hi-tech weapons that make him objectively more powerful than anyone else in Dunwall. But is he really going to kill hundreds of men who have no idea what's going on and are just following orders? Is he going to outright end the lives of Campbell and Lady Boyle or is he going to give them a second chance? Sure, it can be argued that eliminating targets "non-lethally" results in truly horrible things, but the point isn't to decide if what Corvo is doing is right or wrong. The point is to consider if despite all of the betrayals, Corvo is still able to show mercy. And I think the game does a great job of that. ...even if the NPCs are pretty meh.

[@jbmuggins8815]

"Supporting an insurrection against a government" Why is this a bad thing?

[@StabbeyTheClown]

Especially since it's one piece of world-building that we are given a lot of context for. We see the Empress murdered in front of our eyes, we know that it was the Regent who set the assassination in motion. It's not just any random government we're overthrowing for no reason, it's one founded on betrayal and corruption from the start.

[@MultiMACOLO]

He doesnt support fascism anf tyranny does he?

[@emmetdalton3199]

It's a morally complex thing, is the point.

[@tenfivesmiths7802]

Chaos rating is meaningful in narrative sense because your murder mayhem produces corpses which feed the rats and help spread the plague. And the corpses themselves help spread the plague. Yes it's a "morality meter", but Corvo's an assassin, his murders don't really take a personal toll on him, but he does help spread the "chaos" by being unnecessarily wasteful of human life.

[@zedek_]

It's ridiculous though, specifically because I took the ability that causes corpses to dissipate immediately after death, and I did quite early on.

[@zedek_]

Anibal Morales It's also called 'incoherent'.

[@zedek_]

Anibal Morales If such a simple thing as my comment bothers you so much, then maybe you should rethink your priorities. See what I did there? I too can assume how _extremely triggered_ you are by a minor thing, and blow it out of proportion. Try not pulling baseless assumptions out of your ass next time, huh? Regardless, VATS is a bad example, and is a mechanic that does not directly conflict with the narrative. There is no 'overthinking' such a simple and obvious thing. The game says corpses make more weepers etc, I see a skill that removes corpses, _and I pick it because of the potential narrative impact_. There is no impact, I observe that this is incoherent. Pretty simple observation; clear cut case of Ludonarrative dissonance. Try again without the bitchy passive aggressiveness. You make it out like I'm having an emotional response for merely pointing out "it's incoherent," but that's obviously just projection. I enjoy having discussions (even if your arguments haven't been good so far), but if you keep it up I simply wont bother with you.

[@zedek_]

Anibal Morales _"If such a simple thing as a game mechanic bothers you so much then maybe you should rethink your priorities"_ Tooootally not passive aggressive. Haha, k. Super friendly too. _"Some people are so eager to prove a false level of intelligence that they possess that they would blow anything out of proportion to prove they are in the right. Disgusting."_ More brazen projection, and no response to the actual topic at hand. Well, it was fun stomping on you, but you've made it clear it's pointless continuing. You have a nice day, kid. btw, I like your definition of "overthinking" "Hurr durr, you notice obvious incongruencies, you need to rethink your priorities," hahaha. Alright man, we're done.

[@CepnayaPila]

Apparently, it's called ludonarrative dissonance.

[@cajhonson44]

The thing wen you jump in the bath is wrong is the message wen you jump over the head of some friendly npc

[@SimonMorganYay]

> Peep on Callista through keyhole > Criticise game for letting you peep through keyhole > Bust through door > Criticise game for letting you bust through door > Jump in bath tub > Criticise game for letting you jump in bath tub

[@ZodiacEntertainment2]

The game was supposed to scold you and call you a naughty boy, I guess.

[@EvilTim1911]

How come there's always a point in these videos where the portrayal of women just has to be talked about? Yes, there are many women portrayed unfairly in video games, but a lot of the time (and in this case in particular) it's there to sell the story and setting. Women being mistreated goes with the whole Victorian-styled semi-historical setting. Just because a game includes women being mistreated doesn't mean it encourages those actions so I don't see it as anything bad, same as all the murder that goes down in countless games. Having male maids would have felt completely out of place, so really you can't criticize the game having female maids. Brothels are a thing too, and in any brothel I've ever heard of, females were what you get for your money. Anything that gets me more immersed into a video game's world is more than welcome, even if it paints a picture of a world I wouldn't like to live in.

[@dr.martinvannostrand512]

He said he'd give all that a pass if it weren't for those two scenes. And maybe he's making a little much of the Callista scene, but the non lethal disposal of Lady Boyle is legitimately creepy.

[@keonianderson5145]

Not to mention the term "slut shaming" seems to imply that being a slut is a positive quality or at the least not a negative one.

[@EvilTim1911]

***** Who determines if one is objectively a slut? Since labeling someone a slut is based on subjective ideas, slut shaming can have as much or as little to do with sluts as possible.

[@dr.martinvannostrand512]

***** His line of thinking fails even if you take the term at face value. It's like "fat shaming" -- it's not that it isn't a "flaw", but it's a flaw that gains an inappropriate level of attention. And of course, promiscuous men don't gain the same attention for the same flaw.

[@keonianderson5145]

Dr. Martin Van Nostrand Sorry children but the media is not the entire world. If a guy fucks all of his girlfriends friends and has a bunch of illegitimate children he gets a bad reputation, is labeled a scumbag and a dead beat dad too. The only difference is that there is no negative stigma attached to insulting a man for those poor choices. Things actually happen in the world that are not made into media campaigns. What do you think would happen if your dad fucked around on your mom? Do you think your whole family and circle of friends would be saying "Hes the man, what a pimp" and would call your mom a slut for the same thing? Get real, you know this shit you just willingly ignore it.

[@BeezOne84]

15:37 Using Boyle's love for sex to lure her out from crowd for killing =/= slut shaming in any way. It's using her soft spots to get job done. If she really were "slut shamed" she couldn't be "crem de la creme" of Dunwall, holding "feast in time of plague" event. By the way, "nice job" skipping in game subtle social commentary all together in favor of "sexism".

[@CripplingDuality]

>subtle Lmao gamers stay functionally illiterate

[@MrJenssen]

I really don't see a problem with Lady Boyle's "good" ending. Seriously. What's the problem? How is it worse than any of the other non-lethal ways to dispatch of the "bosses"? The point is that there isn't a good ending for these characters. Just a different one. One where their life is not taken by you. Sending the Pendleton brothers to slave in their own mines forever, having the inquisitor branded as an outcast for life, all those things. These are people you're told are gruesome people who have committed gruesome deeds (by the people who later betray you), and they are to be punished or eliminated. You can kill them, or send them off to some punishment, but with their life still intact. There's CLEARLY a reason why the guy you help abduct Lady Boyle, is wearing a pig mask. Not only does it make the guy mysterious, but he also looks grotesque. Not a man you'd likely want to leave a poor unconscious person with. It's SUPPOSED to make you feel conflicted about your decision. It doesn't celebrate or condone the action, it's telling the story the way it wants to. A dark world with dark deeds, and Corvo is hardly to be considered a true hero. He was always a dark and shady character, even before the queen was murdered. I doubt the developers themselves ever had the intention of painting him a hero. Not every videogame protagonist needs to be a hero.

[@WandaThePanda]

True that.

[@ThaX14]

I agree, but the game writes this option of as a 'good' option (especially when you later receive a letter by her sisters thanking you for not killing her). Also the Good ending shows nothing of this moral ambiguity and therefore the sudden impact of two 'grey' choices feels pretentious (at least to me). The world is dark and hostile, but the game tries its hardest to make Corvo appear as one of the only good guys in that world.

[@nnennamonet9762]

Maybe its just the fact that the punishment for the woman happened to be sexual in nature. Why?

[@netcyber]

Agreed. Also, Lady Boyle's crime isn't being a "sexually liberated woman". It's funding the oppressive regime currently in power.

[@alexburn4014]

I whats troubling for the good endings for your targets are a fate worst then death. You would actually be more merciful just killing them. the first guy ends up slowly dying of the plague alone cursing Corvo for ruining his life, the twins get kidnapped and shipped to a salt mine were their tongues are cut off unable to ever say who they really are or escape and you learn that Lady Boyle is miserable and broken for the rest of her life. This is also why i went with all these options.

[@ArcaneSorceror]

We must have played different games... I mean, you keep referring to Corvo as an assassin, which is strictly not true. His original position was Royal Protector. His job was to protect the Empress, with whom he may or may not have had a child with. He comes back from a mission to find out about the Rat Plague, so it indicates that just sticking by her side is not the only task he performs. While the interactions between Corvo and Emily seem distant, you need to remember that for EMily to ascend to her rightful place, he needs to the tasks that none of the 'traitors' are trained for. It is stated that Corvo is a masterful fighter in the beginning of the game, while not a whole lot of characterization I concede, it is more than some others. Your constant reference to the 'acceptable murder rate' speaks more to your playstyle than the mechanic. For me, killing anyone is needless. Stealth is not a fast paced playstyle, it should never be that. It is all about careful planning and recon work. Your entire view seems to be from the 'kill all people', and your views seem to be knee-jerk reactions. You are given reasons to go after the targets. the High Overseer knew the location of Emily, the Pendletons helped the Lord Regent stay in political power, Sokolov knew which Lady Boyle you needed to remove, Lady Boyle was financing the military. Three very important people in regards to the Lord Regent. There are good reasons for your actions, you just had to pay attention

[@shadowmaydawn]

+Andrew Well technically he is considering he's killing important figures and the other character refers to him as such. That still doesn't help the fact that the relationship between these characters is almost non-existent. You can find any small detail within any blank state character. He was talking about what the implications of the mechanics are saying. Well this game failed as your magic abilities can easily get you from place to place in a quick manner.

[@ArcaneSorceror]

True, but I can call someone a fish because they swim well, doesn't mean that person is actually a fish though, does it? I get differing points of views, but given that Corvo was disgraced through circumstances beyond his control, and that you can pay that back in kind by not killing your targets does lend more credence to the title. And revenge doesn't mean murder, if you go by the game's tagline.

[@korvo3427]

We must have different games... Corvo does not come back from an unrelated mission to suddenly find out there's a rat plague, he came back from a diplomatic mission where asked the neighbouring isles if they'd come up with a cure for said plague...

[@Bobbythewrecker]

Dishonoured is literally the game title. You were a royal guard/spy to the queen until her death. Now you are nothing, a shamed exile hunted. Your only goal is to save your maybe daughter and restore her place on the throne. There is no good or evil. The less bodies you leave the less of the plague can return. The less death and chaos you leave the less the people of the city will fear you. You aren't there to be a beacon of hope, that's the new queens job.

[@jasonmoyer]

People seem to confuse order/chaos, which the game is measuring, with good/evil, which...isn't really a thing in this series. There's basically evil and morally ambiguous.

[@JanPospisilArt]

So...the game punishes you for sexual assault and tells you specifically how invasive and awful it was. And that's proof of the game promoting this kind of behaviour? What.

[@Zaphod7835]

If it were otherwise the complaint would be how despicable it is to portray the rape of a woman as just-like any other crime that might have broken up the conspirators. The important thing is that no matter how women are depicted, it's wrong... If women aren't depicted at all, also wrong... The only way to be right is to become one of the heroes, like Errant Signal, shedding light on how wrongly women are treated no matter how they're treated.

[@kappamanize]

Zaphod7835 You are being sarcastic right?

[@Zaphod7835]

About what the "right" way to portray women is? Yes About how no matter women are portrayed it gets painted as abusive/sexist? Not one bit.

[@nnennamonet9762]

No, its that, the game even fucking allows you to sexually assault a woman. Why? And if you want to include a mechanic allowing for sexual assault, why exclude it to women (twice)?

[@nnennamonet9762]

Zaphod7835 Saying that as if not allowing the exclusive sexual harassment of women in a game is not on option.

[@vinx.9099]

on the defence of dishonored, it doesn't really say that disfiguring a man is good, just that it is better then murdering him. or even more accurately: will leave less chaos around the sity. what would lead to more chaos? a religious leader exiled for what most people would think is disobeying the rules or someone basically murdering the pope? the people disappearing or two royals disfigured corpses being found? also, i never got the vibe that the outsider was evil, only that he was seen as evil by the abby of the everyman. and while the outsider does give you these murderes tools, he mostly wants something "interesting". and while the corvo you play isn't that interesting, you can find out a lot. for one, he is emilies father. not a nobleman, not a great admiral, but an upgraded guard. while the game didn't give it on the surface, for me he really was a good character, even if a large part of that might have just be my own input. and i like the Emily parts, while you don't do a lot with her, but corvo has to to make things right. and in the way she talks it sounds like they have a good relationship. he might not be her caretaker, now, he still feels like the fatherfigure instead of Calista the babysitter. and how she reacts to high chaos after doing low chaos was heartbreaking. I always love how she doesn't take shit. when she was captured right after her mother was killed she didn't just take it, she tried to escape. even in the little amount you see her she feels like a very strong character. and lady boils crime was not "sleeping with a dude" it was "provide the lord regant with the money he needs to do whatever the fuck he pleases" there is a little difference. and the bad portay of woman is i think to do with that they try to place it in the Victorian times, and even they realised they had gone to far and making them way more powerful in the DLC. SPOILERS: billy, the nise who orders you to kill her nephew (if i remember correctly), the main vilan, that crazy gang leader. and yes, i am hyper defensive of this game, there is no getting around it. this was the game that made me see games as art. i already had skyrim that made me fall in love with games. but the betrail was to me unexpected. i felt betraid. betrail, and them the emptiness of the flooded districs made a deep impact. this is the game that made me see games as something that can be more then books or movie as you are part in it. now i just hope that dishonored 2 can reach the same hight.

[@KarasuNoGoh]

Usually agree with you on most reviews, but here, a lot of these negatives is basically just you missing the point.

[@BigCowProductions]

***** I agree here. I'm glad this isn't the first video I found of his stuff, or I probably would have not stuck around lol.

[@Thylonicus]

A fair part of this is thrown out the window when one takes into account that Gristol is an analogue for Victorian London, and Serkonos for Italy. So things like female sexuality being, alone, cause for shaming are true to the era the game is inspired by. That also makes the "morality" mechanic make more sense, as it's not about "good" or "evil" or even honor by modern standards. It's about "honor" as defined in the Victorian era, which--is very, very different.

[@purplexenno]

yeah i made the same point to Nnenna Monet after her third "anti-sexism" comment and posting that people should "think" which is just rude.

[@S590573]

The games subtitle in the marketing campaign was "revenge solves everything." I hate to pull a 'yuh didn't get it" card because your analysis is quite thorough, but the question at the heart of this game is "how much is enough?" Or "when will Justice be served" Corvo getting his daughter back and the missions continuing on plays into this theme perfectly. Corvo attains his theoretical goal: saving Emily, but it's not enough. The theme of revenge is layered into every mission. Campbell's revenge against the overseer. Corvo's revenge against Daud. I think it's brilliant that what you essentially said is "the good option is less fun" which mirrors reality. Often to get a long term good outcome we have to make sacrifices of immediate pleasure in the short run. You touch on this in your analysis of the outsider: can the player himself resist the temptation to power that the loyalists experience? Its not always brilliantly illustrated, but all of the Brushstrokes are there and they're included intentionally.

[@Ikcatcher]

The fact that you CAN jump into Calista's bathtub doesn't mean you HAVE to. Hate the player, not the game.

[@fbritannia]

So in the end the gameplay is amazing, the world building is fantastic, and the overall story is good, but the characters are uninteresting and badly portrayed. Yeah, I agree, I still love this game and I'm really excited for the sequel.

[@kappamanize]

So let me see if I got this right, the game does a poor job of representing women because there is a scene in the game that allows you to peep on Calista, even though the game never forces you to do it and actually peeping on her is a deliberate action the player has to make on their own. If the game forced you to peep on her then I would agree with you, but because you the player have to actively make your way over to the door, crouch and look through the key hole your argument kind of losses steam here signal, also while im at it the only reason Lady Boyle's non-leathal means of disposing of her is considered the better method of disposing of her is because killing her would leave another body to attract more plague rats, this is why you get the low chaos ending for only killing a handful or zero people in your playthrough. Oh and you don't get the game over message for jumping in the bathtub with Calista, you get it for jumping on her head, something you would have noticed if you payed closer atention to your own gameplay footage.

[@nnennamonet9762]

The problem is that, optional or not, the game gives the player mechanics allowing them to sexually harass a character, but only a female character. Why only a female character? As for Lady Boyle, again, the game provides the ability to assist in the rape of a character, but again, only a female character? Why only a female character? Think.

[@purplexenno]

Nnenna Monet i'm only going to reply once, did you notice what era it is?? should i get some reading material from some of the muck-mucks of that era for you to read so you will realize just how repressed they were from a social stand point and how that played out in how the sexes were viewed??? Think!

[@vavakxnonexus]

***** I don't think you need to kill all three of the sisters in the Lady Boyle quest. Just one.

[@purplexenno]

***** guess again, we are talking about the setting not the place pieces. Per the setting, it's most certainly Victorian England, with all that entails, just because you can't wrap you mind around that doesn't suddenly make it not so. Edit for clarification: I hate SJW of any stripe. If you have to jump around and shit on things to make yourself feel good about the world you live in, you have far worse problems than the "thing" your going against. I see this argument as a SJW circle jerk. The game is fine. If you don't like a part of it, don't play it. Simple really. All these opinions are like elbows and knees... We all have them and most of time they just get in the way.

[@keyboardstalker4784]

as soon as you call other people SJWs as an insult i immediately stop listening to anything you have to say

[@pickledparsleyparty]

I'm not so sure the dichotomy here is "good" v. "evil." As the game's system states, it's about "order" v. "chaos." When you kill people, the game doesn't call you "bad." Instead, it tells you that you're scaring people, and that their fear results in chaos, which perpetuates the plague. When you don't kill people, then citizens are less scared and are, in fact inspired. They come to believe that a force outside of themselves is watching over them. Their optimism then translates into order, which by some means or other results in a weakened plague. The dichotomous end state sends a message about cause/effect, not morality.

[@WandaThePanda]

That's true, but I think his main issue is that the correlation between the player's action and the consequences in the world are too indirect and far-fetched. Sure, how people sees Corvo's intervention can have a consequence on the world and on the plague, but a simplistic body-count cannot be a substitute for significant interaction with npcs or specific moral choices.

[@pickledparsleyparty]

WandaThePanda Yeah, I think maybe what could have strengthened the story is a bit of demonstration of the links between pacifism-order and murder-chaos. In my imagination, I can pretend these things: 1) Corvo, as the most apparently powerful force in that world, is leading through example. If bad guys go away and nobody gets hurt, then it sends a message to the people that acting like caring human beings can get society through the plague. They may follow suit. Likewise, murder to get the job done communicates how dire the situation is, and may lead people to enter states of desperation. Even in real life we can see how that might perpetuate horror. 2) Dead bodies attract carrion rats. Those rats carry the plague. People get the plague from the rats.

[@WandaThePanda]

TrumpKingsly Yep, these two would be pretty solid links between the playing style and the game world A form of demonstration of the player impact might have been civilians that recognize Corvo and, I don't know, help him if he's been an inspirational figure or run away in horror if not; though I admit that it's easy to look at a finished product and point out it's *edit: its* fallacies, who knows, maybe timeline schedule or production cost forced the developers to a more straightforward/binary solution

[@nickziegler1904]

Women being subservient seems like a relic of the setting of the game, am I wrong?

[@aresdotexe]

I personally don't think the subservient women was a sexism thing, just part of the world the game is set in. I didn't know you could barge in on Callista, though. I get allowing you to peep through the hole, consistent mechanics and whatnot, but they could just have easily locked the door and put the key inside the bathroom so you couldn't barge in.

[@TheReconRacoon]

Jesus fuck errant what was the last 5 mins of this vid

[@Viehzerrer]

I actually found non-lethal playing more interesting in the long run. Lethal was loads of fun at first, but it gets boring after a while. Having more ways of slaughtering people barely make it better. I think the problem is that you have to be very unsubtle to use many killing methods. And the game's mechanics, while very decent, aren't good enough to make a nearly-pure action run interesting for a longer time. The game excels when you use stealth, where you can't use that many ways to kill. I liked the story and the characters, but it really could have been more. The story isn't anything special and the twist isn't exactly shocking and rather predictable (especially if you snoop around in the rooms of your "allies"). But making Corvo a silent protagonist was a bad move. Pretty baffling too, since the Arkane's previous game, Dark Messiah of Might & Magic and Arx Fatalis, both had fully voiced protagonists. And the latter game is one, where I expected a silent one. Making Corvo a blank slate... I really wonder what the hell they were thinking. It even carries over to the Daud DLCs (the first one, at least, haven't played the second one yet), as Daud, while not completely silent, is oddly quiet and speaks pretty rarely. "It could have been more" is basically the story in a nutshell. There are some really good elements that could make story and characters great, but none is really fleshed out. Especially the latter (for me). I found them basically interesting, but overall, I wanted more of them. More Emily, more Piero, more Sokolov, more Pendleton, more Kallista, more everyone who is in some way significant. And I don't just mean that the game should have been longer. They should have been fleshed out more and there should have been more interaction with them (or really, any interaction at all, just listening to them doesn't cut it). Pendleton and his brothers seemed really odd. Considering what they did to him, I thought he must hate them. And he certainly didn't seem fond of them. But at the same time, he apparently felt bad for their deaths. Now, this could make for a good story about him being torn between his hatred and family ties, but... I'm not even sure whether that's what they wanted to do. The way it was presented, it just felt disjointed and kind of random. I have to wonder whether they even themselves knew what they were going for. I fully agree with Daud. In my first playthrough, I killed every target, except for Daud. I didn't even fight him head-on and listened to him when he was wounded. I just heard his remorseful speech in his room, which was enough for me to decide to spare him (and just shoot him with a tranq bolt). It's funny how someone, who appears for a short amount of total time, is better fleshed out than other characters who appear more often in the game. The idea of non-lethal solutions that are pretty nasty, possibly even moreso than murder, too is pretty interesting, but they really didn't follow it through. The whole Good Ending/Bad Ending makes it all crash down. Like that, it feels like non-lethal solutions are gruesome just because someone it would be fun, not because there is any point to it. I love Dishonored, it's definitely my GOTY 2012, but it's really more for the gameplay than the story. It's like the team focused mainly on the former, but someone was also wanted to tell an interesting story, but was largely unheard.

[@danish211]

i felt the action play was good but the stealth was badly underdeveloped the detection system is broken and the a lack of a reliable detection indicator basically made the x-ray vision power a necessity. I felt that corvo as a silent protagonist felt lazy because i did not get a feel for who this character was, while having a character who does not speak allows for the player to project them selves into the character it helps to have some foundation to build a character on. for instance look link in twilight princess or Gordon freeman. we go no indication as to who corvo is at all prior to playing him is he like James bond willing to kill to protect the state or is more of a bodyguard concerned with the preservation of life it make him feel like a non-character. The story is also really weak and cliche without much to say other than a rather generic message about power corrupting. i killed daud because i was playing the role of corvo the professional assassin avenging the murder of the mother of his child, daud was a scumbag he killed a honorable political figure knowing the chaos and death would be the fallout he deserved a bad end . The moral choices in this game were also problematic for me: how is handing a woman over to a rapist a better choice than a clean death, how is sending some laving pimps to be mutilated and enslaved a better choice than just killing them. This game did not deserve goty it was good not great.

[@stevelarry3870]

Falcon Kenshiro I wish I was around 5 years ago to point out everything wrong in this comment.

[@SarahAndreaRoycesChannel]

The game has the wrong subtitle. It should be just one word: Karma. And that is not only due to the "morality system", it is a repeating story element for pretty much any character. And it gets even better - it extends to the player. You go into the game, seeing the "fun" killing mechanics and run through the levels? The game is way too short and you miss most of the fineprints in the story of the world. And best of all, you feal pissed by a not so good ending, after all you did was what the game kindley asked you for, You just look for the subtitle and never get to think about Corvos motivations, just reduce it to free the princess and have your revenge? You might get caught in the trap Errant Signal was here. It also fits in how he cannot see how Corvos actions have such an impact on the cities future. Corvo wants to get his honor back and he wants Emely in her rightful place. Both of those motivations do not end when he knows Emely to be safe and the conspirancy that killed her mother and his lover met their end one way or the other. Corvos influence doesn't end in his role modelling for Emely (and in having the Outsider set the weather theme for the last level he plans to enjoy watching). The people Corvo fights are the executive of the ruler(s). If he kills them for a hobby they will be less than willing to do Emelys bidding (and do not really see Corvo as a honorable men I guess). Oh how well this Karma idea works :-) Every nonleathal end is perfectly karmic for the Victims, much more so than simple deaths. And it was then very interesting to have this theme reappear in Dauds story, where revenge doesn't even come into play (well maybe a little at the end of Knife of Dunwall), but it keeps the running theme of Karma, and the Outsider, handing him the name "Delilah" was truely a gift from him, who so loves to watch chaos unfolding - it was a way for Daud to end his inner tormoil by getting his karma meter somewhat back in the better direction. The Outsider is not the devil equivalent. He is not a Jesus or christian God equivalent either. It is funny how people try to press that worlds spiritual frame into the one we know best. There isn't a heaven or hell equivalent either, just the Void, The Outsider is just like Star Treks Q or Elder Scrolls Deadric princes, Mainly just bored with almost eternety.

[@dkapbboy]

Dropping Lady Boyle from the ledge hahaha. Nobody even looks up.

[@innerparty1]

Not sure if you read the comments on these old videos, but you perfectly and eloquently convey every single flaw and disharmony that I had problems with in this game. Brilliant job on this review.

[@highgrove8545]

If Dishonored supports sexism then it also supports horrible plagues. Just because it exists in the game doesn't mean that that is what the developers think is moraly good. Also, the message that appears when you "jump in the bath" is what appears when you jump ON a friendly npc.

[@ZPM7]

No, the game actively associates the submission of a woman into sexual slavery with the positive ending of the game. You do that to get the good guy ending.

[@highgrove8545]

ZPM7 Uhh, no, not at all. The golden cat was shown to be a terrible place for terrible people to come to. And the messege you get for jumping into the bath with callista is what you get when you jump ON a firendly NPC, any friendly NPC.

[@kaylajames2184]

Actually, I think the point of the "good" options of eliminating your targets is actually not good at all. It's the game's way of saying "Which is worse? Death or Slavery, being a sex slave, being exiled, etc... and should you be merciful? I choose non-lethal methods out of spite (kinda hate being bossed around by people who think they can boss me around. You can make requests and offer me deals, but kill this person, you owe me? Yeah...no. I'm going to fufill my job to the minimum. Oh could I help your uncle live? Sure. I will replay over and over to get it right. Kill the guy? Yeah...I'm feeeeling...dishonoring the guy. Hey, he's eliminated.) No matter what, those targets need to be eliminated. You are a horrible person no matter what. From the instant you let the empress die, you became dishonored. And the moment you let the loyalists boss you around (who once again is the former ROYAL BODYGUARD OF THE EMPRESS and is being bossed around by people lower than you) you accept it. The only thing that matters is power (and for you, vengeance, whether it be for yourself or others) and how far you go with it. No matter what, you are doing dark deeds. But you live in dark times. You're not good. No one is. But maybe you can be not so bad, and inspire people to be good, or at least better.

[@ZPM7]

Undead Viking You condemn a woman into sexual slavery. Then you get the good guy ending. Full stop. There is no getting around that fact, friendo.

[@ZPM7]

Kayla James You're attributing nuance to the game that doesn't exist.

[@GNeves302]

The way the chaos system turns into a binary good/bad ending depending on a arbitrary threshold being surpassed really took me out of the story when I first played. It turned out I had been close to the chaos limit and just barely pushed over it, so despite a relatively tame strategy throughout the game I got an ending that seemingly came out of nowhere (in a first playthrough, I wasn't aware of the hints at the chaos level). Ultimately how the system is set it incentivizes picking between a pure stealth playthrough or just going balls to the wall in exploring the lethal options, highlighting its own artificiality by disincentivizing players to way the particular options offered in each mission, the actions of the people you're send to dispose of, the actions that would be involved in each lethal or non-lethal option, etc.

[@ThatGuy-tx2xr]

I feel you're boiling down the morality system a little too much. A game like Bioshock has you kill hundreds of people with the occasional scripted "press x to be evil press b to be good" moment. Dishonored by contrast doesn't really care what you do to the bosses, it cares how you treat the mooks. While it still is based on an arbitrary kill count, the morality system being based on how you interact with the minor people rather than a handful of targets. It's a pretty good step in the direction of more nuanced morality systems that should encouraged as much as critisized.

[@Bane_questionmark]

But, aren't all of those instances of "misogyny" supposed to be negative? Do you just want games to not even acknowledge that such attitudes exist or have existed? Or do you need the games to hold your hand and tell you "THIS STUFF RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW IS BAD MKAY"?

[@MagnusThiHan]

+Matthew Marceau The thing is, it doesn't really do that. I mean, there is certainly and totally room for a game in a historical setting that goes 'this is bad m'kay,' but the game doesn't do that. It just goes 'look at this world, where all the women are servants or evil' without saying 'but the women shouldn't be servants and the society that judges the 'bad' woman for her sexual fredom is screwed up'

[@maximeteppe7627]

+Magnus Thirup Hansen i agree, but the bathtub example kinda baffles me: peeping certainly isn't treated as normal, so i really don't see this as the last nail in the coffin. As for nonlethal lady boyle, i really saw all nonlethal runs as fate worse than death scenarios. Sure the game doesn't judge you for it, but...On the long run, you should pick up that a clean death might be more mercyful. It could be better of course, like not having the sole woman in position of power stuffed in the fridge at the beginning.

[@ShinoSarna]

+Matthew Marceau Best way to do that would be to humanize and flesh out female characters being HURT by said misogyny, right now it feels sort of as if someone is abusing carpet - you're supposed to think that misogyny is bad just because vaguely human shaped software constructs that you don't have much attachement to are experiencing it.

[@BearsThatCare]

Admitting you're pretentious in the beginning of the episode doesn't make the show any less pretentious.

[@SwitchFeathers]

Also, in terms of the "Representation of Women", specifically Lady Boyle's nonlethal route, I'd say her ending is no worse than any of the other character's nonlethal routes: Specifically, being assaulted and exiled only to succumb to a horrific plague (The High Overseer). Being mutilated and sold into slavery in the very mines you, yourself own (The Pendletons) and having your past mistakes broadcast across an entire city and having your loyal guardsmen arrest you and presumably execute you later on (The Spymaster). I mean, they're all pretty terrible. Although I do agree that the whole reason to go after Lady Boyle is pretty ill-defined. The actual story reason is because she's the power-backer in terms of money and essentially holds sway over the aristocracy, and that she was one of the people plotting alongside the core villains from the very beginning. But the fact that you have to dig through pages and pages of subtext and optional, easily missed notes to find this out doesn't speak very well to the game's narrative flow.

[@TheBlueArmageddon]

16:18

[@tintintb1980]

I feel you're missing the point about the lethal versus non-lethal options on your main targets. ALL the non-lethal "removals" of your assassination targets are worse than death. It's meant to be that way. Makes you feel like a worse person for choosing non-lethal as apposed to just executing your targets. Not that hard to understand what the Arkane dudes were aiming for is it?? I really feel your being anal with this "review"... :/

[@UnworthyFun]

Then why does the conclusion of the non lethal playthrough have positive connotations, you fool?

[@Dgames101]

Examples: If you brand the High Overseer you can find him as a weeper in the flooded district circling around your gear. The Pendletons are hinted to be whipped to death for denying to work in their mines. As for Boyle you also find a boat similar to the one that was used crashed in front of the giant barnacles. So they all die anyway.

[@Wiffernubbin]

William Unsworth The non lethal playthrough has positive outcomes because the plague isn't based on a morality meter it's based on how sanitary the player leaves the levels and how big the bodycount of each level is. It's quite intentional that the devs weren't going to condemn the player's actions but instead demonstrate that the plague, the greatest arbiter of change, isn't based on morality.

[@Dgames101]

Yes, but I can feed the rats all the dogmeat in the game and still achieve a positive outcome.

[@UnworthyFun]

***** You actually make an interesting point here. However, you feel that the characters and their attitudes towards you and the world change depending on your actions. Emily Coldwin rules differently and the entire game world is filled with characters committing "moral" or "immoral" actions varying on how you play. Kinaesthetically, the morality system is identical to the likes of Bioshock and Infamous. Besides, you could make the argument that the developers of Dishonored implemented the plague as a simple excuse to justify the morality system. It makes the assumption that there are only 2 possible outcomes as a result of the many different variable actions in how you play, which is a common fallacy of morality systems. As mentioned in the video, it is a pointless system, as it just gets the player to play through 2 very similar games with ever-so-slight differences.

[@presidentvochelli]

The Game Theorists pointed me to your channel recently, and I have to say I am really appreciating your more academic view on games. Its very refreshing to hear genuine critic instead of mere fan praise or hate.

[@Volvagia1927]

The sequel came out recently and it mostly improved on these points as far as I could tell. Better voiced characters (especially The Outsider, my word does Robin Lord Taylor KILL IT), fully voiced mains in a game that needs it, better focal point characters, clearer world view, better overall narrative. I don't KNOW if it's something that should have taken four years (I don't know if they added much, if any, new mechanics or powers because I played an Emily No Powers run through due to thinking that that was the thematically pure way to respond to the events of the first game), but it was worth it either way.

[@zacharygustafson8714]

Fun fact: they originally wanted corvo to be voiced, but had to cut it out due to time restraints.

[@shadixyt]

While I am not supportive for the future application of women as portrayed in Dishonored in real life, I do think its important to display the fact that this portrayal is period accurate for post Renaissance\Colonial settings. It like people said that Bioshock Infinite portrayed its racist tones just be racist cause Ken Levine might hate blacks, it rather portrayed these values because they were accurate for the time and the obviously flawed Columbian morals and values.

[@peppermillers8361]

***** just because it has magic, doesn't mean it can't be serious. They wanted to capture the Victorian era, magic is what suppose to make this game STAND UP MORE.

[@dylonk2607]

*****magical whales are the reason you HAVE TO defend this game.

[@theepicone100]

***** It's not because realism, it's because this is a serious game.

[@peppermillers8361]

Polyester Homes so? they use whales for electricity. Big deal.

[@theepicone100]

***** Criticizing something as being sexist while it is clearly not sexist also is ridiculous and is not a valid complaint. The Empress had a lot of power, and was privileged. The fact she was assassinated does not make the work sexist. Prostitutes are a thing in real life, and likely would exist in Dishonored's world. Dishonored is a steampunk setting, borrowing heavily from the Victorian era, therefore it makes sense that women would be seen the way they are. Also, it's worth mentioning that the women are often treated better in dishonored than in the actual Victorian era. They are seen doing various tasks around Dunwall. Half the nobles at Lady Boyle's ball are powerful women, in fact. Just because you kill Lady Boyle through various means does not mean it's sexist. Flirting with her, assuming that twin is the right one, is merely a means to an end. Same thing goes for telling her she's in danger. By this same logic, killing any of the games other targets through optional means (Such as burning a mark on their skin, publishing some VERY private notes, and kidnapping them for information) is sexist against men. Oh, and the magical whales are not sexist. Do your research before complaining. pepper Mill Fun fact: whale oil is a thing in real life! However, it was mostly used for lamps.

[@pointofinnocence9430]

I understand this is a bit off topic of the full review, but given the responses in comments it does feel a bit fitting. It genuinely bothers me that gamers jump on any reviewer that highlights how a game may paint women in a negative light. Look, I am not blind to the fact that in this instance along with several others, sexism and gender roles are used a flavour text or in ways to flesh out a world. What bothers me is that any reference, any criticism that a stereotype was taken too far, or that the game seems revelatory in it's sexuality, is always met with such a defensive reply. Essentially saying, "Well there goes an otherwise decent review" Like really? We cannot so much as discuss the representation of any group in a game with out being chastised as social justice warriors in some of the most pitifully childish and ham-fisted ways. Do I feel that the games morality paths juxtapose oddly next to the pacifist outcome with Lord Brisby kinda unsettling? yes. But, I also feel that Campster's disregard for what the sexualised imagery is trying to say about the world in Dishonored is also a bit reductionistic. Granted, the game isn't really trying to make a case about sexual objectification~ if anything it equates it to a general good in association with the morally "good" playstyle. That is my issue. When you bring up an inequality~ or recreate the discrimination or objectification of the world, for instance with sexism or racism, without due comment or critique, it becomes replication. Which, you may agree or disagree with the existence of replication of morally repugnant marginalizations~ but what we as gamers and reviewers need to do is at least be able to discuss our opinions of the subject without childish "Oh look a feminist!" comments. Rather you feel the portrayal of men or women in any game is justified is your opinion. I just wish that we as a community would be as open to talk about sexism or racism as openly as we talk about mechanics or plots.

[@GrandCorsair]

PointOfInnocence From reading youtube comments it seem some people wants to either to ignore them , scream "agenda!" or want to turn the issue into a life time movie of the week drama. Right now is a dreadful time to try to speak meaningfully about these issues. It seems no one is willing to talk like a adult about this and rather degrade to melodrama, wild accusations or pretend it's a non issue.

[@pointofinnocence9430]

***** I really couldn't agree more. It does genuinely feel like the internet likes to create meme-ish jokey arguments or conflicts out of actual discussions and argue with those ideas rather than the actual topics brought up. For instance, saying "Oh, Errant Signal you sound just like Anita Sarkeesian" isn't undermining any of his arguments. Saying, "the behaviours of the characters you are citing in this game were created with the time period they come from in mind" comes much closer to actually hitting at his argument. It is frustratingly shocking how often people argue against the topic of feminism by citing the words of others rather than attacking the claims of the person you are speaking with. I would posit, that had this topic been brought up before the major mainstream aversion to feminism that most people that are commenting in strong opposition would be much more passive on the topic as a whole. I think people are just a bit burned out on it and are becoming frustrated at the mentioning of female representation as a whole. When they really, really, shouldn't be.

[@GrandCorsair]

People hand wave it like racism does not exist, sexism does not exist and being gay means your welcomed with open arms by everyone. It's creating a world where if you call out a person for a harmful comment you get attacked and not the person who is clearly posting hateful ideals. The comments are just filled with hateful garbage even if their being trolls or not. The worst comments seem to get a lot of attention.

[@SuperHipsterGamer]

PointOfInnocence and ***** Everything lately has been more about idealism, than actual rational debate. I've a few times tried to argument why a game isn't racist or misogynistic in it's portrayal of either minorities or women, and sometimes I've criticized the way the game handles those issues. Both times on either spectrum, everything turns into a condemnation of the person having those oppinion, rather than the discussion itself. The problem is, when we try to make the person look bad, rather than the argument. Focusing on trolls on either side will just continue the perputual mudslinging. Moral or ethical absolutism is so damn easy, but always so damn wrong.

[@Treblaine]

This was all good till the contrived slut-shaming accusation. It's just a way to get her in a place to be assassinated, one of unlimited number of dirty tricks throughout the game, generally against male targets. I mean you even acknowledge how you exploit other male targets going alone to be with a female sex worker as as means to assassinate them, isn't that just the EXACT SAME THING of "ha, your lust for sex contributed to getting you killed". Also, if you didn't like the idea of peeking through a keyhole, accosting a bathing woman and jumping in the bath then... YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT!!! Why did you look? Why should the key-hole work any different, what were you expecting, the game universe to make special exceptions to stop your own lechery when it JUST ESTABLISHED other characters in the universe could do it? Jeez, it's like going on a shooting spree in GTA and complaining that you find shooting sprees distasteful. And it's just clearly a bug in dialogue logic, this is hardly conscious design, you get one over on Piero and it's just not followed through with greater changes in established quest option. "The game ACTIVELY makes it hard for me to care about or believe these characters" No, it's quite clearly they didn't ACTIVELY try to create such a contradiction, that arose from changing circumstances that the game simply fails to account for. You've completely over-reacted to distasteful sexuality.

[@SeantommyE]

+Treblaine I agree with your statement about Boyle, but the peeping tom thing is a little different. There are plenty of things people do in this game that you the player can't. The real question isn't "would this technically be possible" but "does this add anything to the experience". How does being able to creep on her enhance the game at all? What is gained there? I guess you could say it's a way to tempt players into doing something terrible (the sexual assault) and then punishing them for it (the game over) but it's all so flippant that it's hardly worth the time. For that sequence to have any value, it would have to have carried over into something after that scene, or at least into some contextualized punishment. I don't think it's enough of a blemish to call into question the whole game's treatment of women, but I do think it's unnecessary and not exactly tasteful.

[@Treblaine]

Sean Tommy But you can look through keyholes in the game, and you were literally just told it was wrong so you can't claim it was a mistake. But if you did it anyway, put yourself on trial. "How does being able to creep on her enhance the game at all? What is gained there? " You might actually realise that you're a creep, the game invites you to judge one peeping tom but can you actually rise above that? Can YOU resist the urge to look at what you have no right to look at. The game is about your ability to murder ANYONE. That's not right. "For that sequence to have any value, it would have to have carried over into something after that scene, or at least into some contextualized punishment." That would actually be an INCONSISTENCY in the game as the game does not have a "Karma" system. The game does not track bad things you do regardless of whether people know about them, the reaction of players entirely hinges on whether they know or not. Nor does the game have a morality system (like Infamous, an _infamously_ bad example) where the moral choices the player makes early on forces their hand in action later. As it is, only you'd know you peeped, and if you burst in, guess what you get the ULTIMATE consequence, your bursting in leads to the complete and irrevocable collapse of the conspiracy. What do you think SHOULD happen? He never let any of his other appalling acts trouble him, you need to get some perspective. I've been reading a lot of memoirs from WW2, what really troubled people, what really fucked people up, it was't going to a titty-bar or spying on the nurses shower block; It was killing people. Even when it was absolutely justified self defence that if they didn't kill they'd be killed themselves or worse, it haunted them as a traumatic and horrific act. Corvo is a killer. Who is this character who the player makes the decisions for? He is the sort of person who coldly and methodically kills without his hand even slightly trembling. No hesitation. Nothing ever impedes the players' decisions to act. He is not the sort to waver over what are undeniably far less grave matters than the ultimate sin, taking the lives of his fellow human beings. Violently. So I put the question back to you, why do you suddenly expect such inconsistency, where previously Corvo was a calculating angel of destruction, unphased by the most horrific things would suddenly have massive consequences for... this? I put it to you that this is an effect of a society run by censors, censors who mysteriously don't care much about violence and death but obsess over sex. Lead to an utterly distorted view of the world and proportionality. "I guess you could say it's a way to tempt players into doing something terrible (the sexual assault) and then punishing them for it (the game over) but it's all so flippant that it's hardly worth the time." No, that's simply the least contrived way. You can't have a suddenly invincible door, yet going in there. If the player keeps having Corvo do things that she wouldn't accept the interaction between the characters is so broken the game can only be over. Look, if there is a cliff in the game and the player insists on pushing an NPC off it, despite repeated warnings of the danger.... guess what.. GAME OVER Because that's how cliffs work. It doesn't have any purpose except to do what every game should do in having consistent rules. would be inconsistent if the game suddenly had to change the rules so "oh some cliffs have invisible walls now" or you do succeed in killing that NPC but you don't realise how you have soft locked the game until the next critical scene where (1) they aren't there, and (2) you are responsible for them not being there. "I don't think it's enough of a blemish to call into question the whole game's treatment of women" I don't think that is accurate at all, what is the case: "I don't think it's enough of a blemish to call into question the *player's* treatment of women" Take some fucking responsibility. The game didn't do that. You did. Or whichever player decided to be a peeping tom. You're like those idiots who said "GTA made me do it" no, it's your decision how to peep, how to go into rooms you shouldn't be in, say inappropriate things and go into personal space at a most private moment. The GAME handled itself magnanimously. Now players are shifting the blame, how dare they say its not my fault. The game didn't force you to look, to go in there, to do anything. Why would you do something in a game JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN!?!? And then blaming the game for being consistent in how common doors can be picked and how you can jump up against characters and objects in the environment. " I do think it's unnecessary and not exactly tasteful." Then why did the player do it? If the player found it so unnecessary, WHY DID THEY DO IT!?!? If they found it so untasteful, WHY DID THEY DO IT?!? I applaud the game for not being so hamfisted as to bring down a title card admonishing the player and making clear who is responsible for this, but what's worrying is so many players are unwilling to take personal responsibility it's apparent it is a necessity!

[@Nethan2000]

People like the video's author are the reason why you can't kill children in games where you can kill everyone else. IT'S POSSIBLE; THIS MEANS THE DEVS APPROVE OF IT!

[@SeantommyE]

The point is that this was something intentionally placed in the game by the developer. Why? What purpose does it serve? If it was given a more contextualized consequence, it could be taken as a legitimate in-game choice with value that comments on the player's actions. Instead, it's a throwaway moment that doesn't affect anything because it's not given a chance to. So why even include it? That door could have easily been locked. She could have easily finished and left the bathroom by the time you're done talking to him. Instead, they specifically allow you to spy on, intrude on, and sexually assault her, but then don't follow through in any meaningful way. Nothing is gained by including something like this. I don't necessarily agree with Errant Signal's stance on female representation in this game in general, but I do agree that this scene introduces a serious topic only to immediately drop it, and the developers shouldn't have put it in in the first place if they weren't going to do anything with it. The point is not whether a single given player is at fault for taking those actions or not, the point is the developers' intentional decision to include that option in the first place, and what they did with it.

[@Treblaine]

Sean Tommy A world where everything has to serve a "purpose" is the most phoney and hackneyed shit imaginable. She's taking a bath because that's a thing people do, he's peeping on her because that's a thing people do. But what are YOU going to do? Are you going to stoop to his level? Well apparently Errant Signal will. "If it was given a more contextualized consequence, it could be taken as a legitimate in-game choice with value that comments on the player's actions" You need consequences to know what you did wars wrong? Bullshit, if you were so socially inept you didn't already know that sying on people bathing was wrong, the guy you caught peeping's shame made it abundantly clear. You don't need such contrived consequences for a "legitimate" choice. Especially as the peeping may not be known by anyone else except Corvo. Why should she " Instead, it's a throwaway moment that doesn't affect anything because it's not given a chance to. So why even include it? " Bitch, 99% of the things in the game have no long lasting effects. You can legitimately murder people in cold blood without consequence, and you expect that this universe is suddenly going to have a moment of divine intervention, God Almighty will see Corvo peeping and then use his miracle powers to change the future based on his eye rays? "That door could have easily been locked." No it could NOT easily have been impassible for a master of infiltration. "She could have easily finished and left the bathroom by the time you're done talking to him." That's a contrivance. How about instead testing the player's self control, are the players really such hypocrites they will enjoy looking down on a pervert only to then immediately stoop to his level. The consequence should be for the player to have jsut an ounce of self-reflection. Instead of acting like an impulsive sensation-junkie. And the game should not have to teach the player by punishing them like a naughty child, that's preaching. That's not a game, that's a PSA. "Instead, they specifically allow you to spy on, intrude on, and sexually assault her, but then don't follow through in any meaningful way." You're either an idiot or a liar. The game absolutely does not "allow" any form of assault, the game falls apart of you try to force a collision in the bathtub as the physics engine leads to objects bouncing off like poles of magnets and the game literally stops. Game over. You're told you caused "irreconcilable hostility" as if fucking should but the game doesn't actually allow anything to actually happen, the game ends well before then. And you claim this is not any "meaningful way"?!?!?/ "Nothing is gained by including something like this." Not to someone in such self denial of their own hypocrisy. " this scene" It's not a fucking scene. This isn't a movie. Corvo isn't doing what the director tells him to do, he is doing what YOU make him do. "introduces a serious topic only to immediately drop it, and the developers shouldn't have put it in in the first place if they weren't going to do anything with it. " They DID do something with it, it showed how lecherous this character is and it TEST YOU THE PLAYER to see if you have the same character flaw that he has. You are actually being WORSE than him, you are blaming god for your own free will. You wanted the god of this universe to stop you where he never stopped you from killing so many people. What the fuck do you expect? This is a time for introspection that the game cannot do for you, only you can look into your own heart and acknowledge what a hypocrite you are. That you are every bit as bad as Pierro but at least he can admit he's a scumbag. He doesn't blame the lock, he doesn't blame her. He blames himself. Something YOU won't do. This is your fucking problem, you aren't treating the world as remotely real, you are demanding contrivances that it's the universe's fault for not having her get dressed before you could spy on her. Hey, scumbag, there is a very easy way to avoid seeing her in the nude, and it's doesn't involve blaming her for not getting dressed before you can peek, it's involves YOU not spying on her. "The point is not whether a single given player is at fault for taking those actions or not, the point is the developers' intentional decision to include that option in the first place" Why? Because you say so? This is the short skirt fallacy, the crime is not that is was available and tempting but in your decisions, your lack of control. The game never EVER enticed you, telling you you should do this or that it's okay, it says the opposite. And it does not actually show anything. It shows nothing that could titillate any player who has had access to internet pornography, it shows just enough to make it undeniable you are invading their privacy of this character. You cannot fucking pretend this is fan-service, do not try to bullshit me. All this could possibly be is to make the player take a good hard look at themselves and ask themselves what kind of person they really are. Without the game doing anything as stupid and hackneyed as have some White Knight walk in and outright tell them how they should feel.

[@kalaong]

5:00 - I agree that the moral choice system is rather hackneyed, but it is a game mechanic that makes perfect sense in-universe - what is killing Dunwall, in the end, is the rat infestation. The average weight of a healthy first-world human being is 80 kilos, and the average weight of a rat is from a fourth to half a kilo. So for every human you kill in Dishonored, you are in effect spawning anywhere from a hundred and sixty to over three hundred more rats! It’s a bit of an arbitrary measurement, but it makes a kind of sense that there’s a critical mass of rats that will simply overwhelm the city and destroy it. 10:00 - I also agree that Corvo is kind of a blank slate. I may be opinionating here, but *everyone* - including the Empress! - used Corvo as kind of a sounding board. They projected their own opinions onto him, and used him for their means. Hell, if Corvo is Emily’s father, the Empress got a great deal - an heir without having to share authority with a husband. In fact, Emily is another source of authority she has over Corvo - “Act on Dunwall’s best interests on behalf of your daughter, who will one day rule it.” Dishonored is thus a reversal - an opportunity for Corvo to use that relationship to shape the world as it shaped him. 13:00 - Pendleton’s motivations are side material in conversations and hidden documents. You’re right, that’s a deficit, as a casual player won’t find them. But a lot of players enjoy being rewarded with secrets for taking time and effort to explore. Downside is that a key plot element is unavailable for most players, and that’s a problem. 14:00 - Heh. The tagline is “Revenge Solves Everything” and there are suggestions that Corvo’s origins are in a culture that is very different from Dunwall’s. That’s an entire article in and of itself - see Corvo Is Not An Honorable Man over at the Escapist. The thrice-repeated “Revenge!” plotline is thus Corvo’s journey to realize that revenge is a means, not an end. Or his Breaking Bad-esque fall from “victim of the system” to “tragic monster”. 15:00 - See Pendleton. 19:00 - The blatant misogyny is supposed to be an Anvilicious display of turn-of-the-century attitudes. But it does lack a proper dismissal of it that would make it more palatable. 20:00 - Well, I guess Dishonored is an ambitious failure. You want a so-called “interactive movie” where characterization is all, try one of the better point-and-click adventure games. Dishonored is a Deus Ex-like attempt to combine heavy characterization with a sandbox full of abilities and playstyles. Makes sense it would be messy.

[@CountBifford]

The non-lethal ways of taking down characters are "better" because they are "less evil". What I don't like is that they all felt impractical if you thought about it. Why would the church cast out the Overseer just because somebody scarred his face? How could you ensure that Lady Boyle's stalker would keep her safe and out of the way? Why would Slackjaw kidnap the Pendleton Twins in exchange for the code to a safe, and how do you know he'd keep his word? And why would the Regent record his own confession?

[@Dina-dj2zt]

Yeah, pretty much all of these options are a little too convinient.

[@SarahAndreaRoycesChannel]

Overseer - was in his position by blackmail, others of the chapter tried to get his notes that enabled it... in fact they are all happy that they have a base to do it. On rules that are the grounding for such an extremist group. Lady Boyles stalker ist not supposed to make you feel good. Like the others, it is a fate worse than death. Slackjaw... well you don't question his motivations because they are not important. Your a cynicist. Depending on some dececions you pretty much murdered many of his people and customers without it affecting your chaos level. Yet you deal with him. How about you am the questionable part here? And you can rob the safe before you give hin the key? You are not above moral yourself. The whole chaos thing is aptly named as it don't judges your morals ( e.g. it won't make much of a difference how yo treat the bad guys if you don't go for the "clean hands" badge) it makes a realistic outcome of your actions (as I posted elsewhere here in more detail) Think about it: Moral is always changing. People aren't

[@Tuberuser187]

Sarah Andrea Royce Its even simpler than that, although it played out like a binary moral choice it wast that. It was high and low chaos, if you kill loads of the guards and spread panic throughout the city with obvious assassinations of Dunwalls leading class it amplifies the panic caused by the plague and destroys the cities chances of coping with the disaster. Low chaos on the other hand doesn't do that, a few knocked out guards and some disappearances blend in with the noise created by a city on the verge of tearing itself apart. Corvos actions have the potential to create a tipping point, if you brutally murder the leader of the Empires religious faction and the Lord Regent and terrify the aristocracy (who have the wealth and resources needed to save the city) and kill the guards that are enforcing the curfew and cleaning up the dead and dying the City cannot cope.

[@CountBifford]

Kindella McJohn Speaking of chaos, the game increases your chaos rating when you kill gangsters and weepers. I'd have thought these actions would in fact reduce chaos because you're removing agents who harm safety and order.

[@gabiaxinte8518]

Not a problem, we will do our own Dishonored game, with blackjack, and hookers, you know what? Forget the blackjack and hookers

[@JohnnyElRed]

I don't know. Saying that in Dishonored there is a good ending and a bad ending, is like saying that in Game of Thrones there are heroes and villains. It's only a political conspiracy, where you pushed to stand with a side that betrays you, and then you have to make your own stand of your own will. Just after facing the guy like you that became a tool to others.

[@zedek_]

Podrick is exactly a hero! haha

[@thecatfish1918]

Why do people act like Game of Thrones has no villains? Yes, they aren't moustache twirling rapscallions who do things for the Evulz (except for Ramsay Snow) and yes, they all have motivations and depth but that just makes them good villains, rather than 'not a villain' simply because they have a reason to commit atrocities. There are no heroes though, in fact the only argument that you could make for there being no villains is that arguably the 'heroes' are even worse than most of them (except Ramsay Snow). Most people in ASOIAF are assholes tbh

[@Daemonworks]

Gared Tuttle they say it doesn't have villains because GRRM has taken care to not define his characters in terms of simple moralistic narrrative roles. it has people who do varying mixtures of things we approve of for reasons we approve of, and in many cases the 'good' ones make choices that actually do more harm than many of the 'bad' ones. they're more sympathetic or otherwise do things for reasons we approve of, but the actual effect of those decisions is significantly worse, and most of those who profess higher morality are ultimately just as self-serving as their opponents when being so benefits threm. the most honest and morally consistent people in the series are the spies, manipulators and assassins.

[@thecatfish1918]

I completely agree that some of the supposed heroes end up causing more harm then the people we perceive as the villains of the story. But while ASOIAF is unique it's not a study of the nature of narrative story-telling. It's just well written and complex, thus it doesn't dive straight into common fantasy tropes. It's about human morality, war and peace, equality etc etc. They do try and subvert the idea of a clear cut hero and villain in some cases (Robb and Tywin is a good example) they also do genuinely have truly sinister characters. However most of the time they are in conflict with more morally gray characters (Roose and Stannis, Oberyn and The Mountain, Theon and Ramsay, Victarion and Euron). And then there's Joffrey. Who everyone is in conflict with.

[@DM-Raven]

I agree with you, I think having Corvo as a silent protagonist was a huge disservice to the game as a whole. The way they set up the story, a character Corvo would have worked much better.

[@Mafia200100]

I do have two things I'd like to add here. 1 - There is never, ever any mention of whether what you are doing is good or evil. Only chaotic or non-chaotic. Going on DnD logic, this means short-term actions. The means, not the ends. It's a classic example of how, with many things, the destination matters not, but the journey. 2 - There are a lot of things you missed in this, which I think may help a little. Hell, I've sunk 40+ hours, and I still feel I haven't even scratched the surface.

[@Realthx]

That moral grandstanding.

[@deadsevenvy]

For those arguing about the portrayal of women thing, Errant Signal said if it weren't for those two things, it could be good. Even the developers said that the Lady Boyle non-lethal method was distasteful. They'd like to think Lady Boyle turned the tables on the stalker somehow.

[@Eralun]

Fine with murdering hundreds of people, the kidnap & potential rape of one woman a big no no. Whelp.

[@ToastbackWhale]

Nnenna Monet Nope. In the Golden Cat there's a man who's into getting shocked in an electric chair, he has safe words and everything. You can then ignore the safe words to get a safe combination out of him, give it to Slackjaw, and he takes care of the Pendeltons. inb4IgnoringSafeWordsIsn'tSexualAssault, isn't 50 Shades in some controversy because of this?

[@dr.martinvannostrand512]

Jats' Misc. Content You shock him, you don't fuck him.

[@ToastbackWhale]

Dr. Martin Van Nostrand Your point? There's no sex anywhere in the game.

[@samueljay8519]

@@nnennamonet9762 Jumping on a fully clothed woman ina tub isn't raping her. It's aggravated assault. And the game treats you the same way if you jump on an allied male character. Your definition of rape needs fine tuning. Not only that, but the non-lethal fates you give the men in the game are just as horrible as Lady Boyle's non-lethal fate. So don't cry sexism.

[@obermegalutschoar]

There being a context for an action where it would be okay does not mean that they are any less reprehensible in an act where they are reprehensible, because the context is what makes them reprehensible to begin with. This is why we have different word for superficially identical actions: taking/stealing, killing/assassinating.

[@Lucitaur]

I think that Arkane named the moral system 'low/high chaos' because it is actually not a moral system. It's not 'you are good/bad for doing that'. It's more like 'what you did caused a lot of fuss'. So knocking out people, sending your targets to work in the mines, and such may not be good options, but they surely cause less chaos than killing them. Btw, all the 'politically incorrect' stuff you mentioned should not be used against the game. I mean, the game is suppose to be set in a dystopian world! Also, 'sexualy liberar'? Please... People should really stop being so stupidly sensitive and dwell on everything 'rapey' and other bullshit you make out to be wrong with the game.

[@zacharyheine4177]

I always assumed that the "Chaos" mechanics were related not to whether you are a good person or not, but that leaving a bunch of corpses around the city is going to make the rat plague worse.

[@CountBifford]

What I didn't like about the story is that Chaos increased if you killed gangsters and creepers. Eliminating criminals and disease-carrying zombies should in fact LOWER chaos and make the city a safer place.

[@Guille2033]

Maybe you kill dangerous people,but rats feed on corpses.And with more rats(because of more corpses to eat) comes more plague.Simple as that.

[@CountBifford]

Guille2033 I've heard that argument and it feels a little weak.

[@Guille2033]

CountBifford that's because you consider Chaos influenced only by criminals and weepers.But actually rats are the most dangerous piece in the board. More rats means more weepers and,consequently,more guards and more security.All of this results in a darker ending. It seems logical to me.

[@BearsThatCare]

Never once does the game say, or even imply that your a horrible person for a high chaos rating. That's just what you apply to it. What you called the "good" ending where you give the lady to the creepy scarecrow dude, is clearly supposed to be bad. It shows that "nonlethal" doesn't mean good. I personally found non lethal play a much more challenging and rewarding experience.

[@MissyMona]

It's funny that he's concerned about oppression and sexism of women...totally forgetting the fact that the empire was ruled by an Empress..

[@pedroportillo1585]

Well to be fair, the reason the plague goes away in the game if you choose low chaos is because the rats are attracted to corpses. The less people you kill, the less rats there will be, which means the plague doesn't spread as rapidly. My only gripe with this idea is that you never really see the plague go away and enjoy a recovered Dunwall. The game ends, you see still images of people slowly getting cured, and that's it. It would have been better if I played as Corvo helping out in getting rid of the plague after Emily was put on the throne again.

[@333Trihll]

"The less people you kill, the less rats there will be, which means the plague doesn't spread as rapidly" unless you have the magical passive ability that let corpse disappear in smoke...

[@pedroportillo1585]

Tri333 Yea, that too.

[@Pyrofreak321]

That misogyny thing is kinda bullshit. Don't people like seeing dark story elements in games/movies/etc from time to time? Granted its not well done at all in Dishonored, but to say it is a bad thing to have in the game is bullshit.

[@purpleblah2]

I remember Gunther Hermann as the guy who liked orange soda. The maintenance conspiracy to mix up the soda selection was the biggest conspiracy in Deus Ex.

[@HarperSanchez]

The presentation of women stuff completely lost me. Women are subservient in the game because of the culture in the game's fictional world. You kill seemingly innocent women because you're being cajoled by dastardly turn coats. Corvo's motivation is the player's motivation. That's the point of silent protagonists. You are the main character.

[@krrrcht]

There's a difference between in-universe logic (women being oppressed) and designer's choice of how to depict that oppression - i.e. fetishising the "tragic suffering" of "chaste" and "pitiable" maids, and in turn romanticising the need for a "strong male protector" figure. While there are some good female characters in the game, Campster's right to point out many others are essentially used as objects of pity for the player to fetishise, not autonomous human beings dealing with oppression.

[@Robert399]

In general I don't think there was a problem. It's loosely based on Victorian London and women simply were pretty disempowered then. The only thing I felt was a bit uncomfortable was the non-lethal way of dealing with Lady Boyle. I know it's "low chaos" not explicitly "evil" but everything else in the game basically sets up "high/low chaos" as being "good/evil". It actually could've been kind of cool if they separated them a bit more and actually explored the idea that sometimes preserving life isn't the best choice.

[@madzec]

I ran on this review by accident about 6 years after I finished Dishonored on both playthrough lethal and nonlethal and I still consider this game one of the best games I ever played with great graphics and steampunk design. In general it is good game and i do not think you should get too much in details of characters I mean we are here to play the game.

[@mikebobman6004]

You're too pessimistic.

[@DavidBuckleybestprogrammer]

The game over about the hostilities with you jump into the bathtub is not because you jumped into the bath, it is because you jumped on calista, and jumping on a character counts as attacking them, and the hostility message plays whenever you attack the loyalists.

[@wolfgangi]

I can't take this reviewer seriously after this one

[@legs0fsteel]

that's good because he's not a reviewer

[@DBZHGWgamer]

Why do people misunderstand the morality system in this game? There is not "good way" to do a level or "bad way". There are only endings that cause a lot of chaos or a little chaos. A girl disappearing is likely to cause less chaos than finding her dead body in the middle of a highly guarded area. Killing more than 1/5th of a towns population will obviously lead to more chaos than killing less than that. It isn't about whats good and bad, is about order. Wether your actions destroy a society (as the outsider wants) or simply changes society is the only measure the game makes. You equate it to a morality system either because you think it is more moral or because you are very limited in your thinking of the topic.

[@CRRPGMykael]

What are you, a third wave feminist? You are really pushing this sexism angle when there is none, the game mostly portrays traditional gender roles appropriate to the world setting (which alludes to a historical reality). Lady Boyle isn't being punished for her promiscuity, it's just a neutral facet of her character, presented AS IS, that happens to be exploited to the player's advantage. The non-lethal solution is creepy, so what? For one, it reminds me of the sadists that say "I don't support the death penalty because I think life in prison is a harsher punishment!", and pretty much every non-lethal option in the game is an act of sadism. I was cringing as hell when you were talking about the "rapey" bathtub scene because of a game-over message you misinterpreted after you chose to be a peeping tom.

[@amyfalconer1660]

"Where there is none" > See his video about "Keep yer politics out of my vid-yee-oh gaems!"

[@CRRPGMykael]

Yeah and that video was garbage too. He assumes "gamers" are trying to keep politics out of their games, as opposed to anyone trying to keep politics out of any art form. I don't like politics in films either, unless I agree with those politics, obviously. If I don't, I will think less of it, just like this guy thinks less of Dishonored and GTA because apparently it isn't as liberal as HE would like it to be. In my opinion, GTA is sometimes too liberal. Based on his own assessment in that video, him saying that there are politics in the game IS his own political statement, and it's clear that he's a liberal sjw cultural marxist. He tries to criticize Civilization V for its apparent "political views" on what is a mark of achievement of a nation, such as cultural influence, military superiority, etc, which actually is an objectively accurate historically proven method of evaluation. It's just that HE doesn't like it because he's a cultural marxist who hates the idea of "cultural darwinism" and that some cultures are superior to others because liberals view it as a form of discrimination, when in fact it is simply an objective observation. He simply accuses the game of not having the same political agenda as he does. The truth is, GTA V is one of the biggest achievements of all time in the medium of games- technologically, culturally, critically and commercially.

[@amyfalconer1660]

MICHAEL LEON The point being that the politics are already there. The idea that you can "keep politics out' of any artform created by humans is silly from the get-go.

[@CRRPGMykael]

Amy Falconer The point being that judging a piece of art or media by its authors' political views and not by its merit (artistic or otherwise) is silly. I don't care about this guy's political views and I barely care about the political views of the game (not to mention that the creative director of Dishonored is known to be a huge sjw liberal). In his book, a game not being "liberal" enough is a minus, and that's nonsense.

[@BrorealeK]

You're projecting. You even acknowledge yourself that you don't care about the politics of a game or film if they agree with you, meaning you recognize your hypocrisy and yet you're still on this bent about being "too liberal." All artforms carry political messages of some kind: the fact that there's a Jewish soldier in Saving Private Ryan taunting the Nazi prisoners shows that at least some American soldiers were aware of the stakes and hints at the evil acts of the Holocaust. Is this too strong of a political message for you? Of course not, unless you're a National Socialist, but the fact remains it makes a statement. You say he's trying to push this game into a box when it's really you who's trying to push him, and all game critics, into an area where they don't make comments you disagree with. Useless buzzwords aside, he's just criticizing the game's treatment of women: YOU are making the grand statements about culture wars and political correctness.

[@ToastbackWhale]

4 years on and this is still the most white-knight review to ever be made.

[@rycullen441]

Guther is not a interesting character or believable. He,s a generic though guy with with a soft side.

[@akashsingh1170]

Campster, I was wondering what you thought of the DLC (Knife of Dunwall and the Brigmore Witches). I personally thought it improved the narrative and, thank goodness for this, it had an interesting protagonist who actually talked. It also made some minor improvements to gameplay and wasn't sexist (it had female pirates, Lizzy Stride, the Witches, and Delilah). All in all, the DLC fixed my major gripes with the game.

[@WandaThePanda]

I love this channel. BUT like often happens to me with the videos from this guy, I agree with the overall thesis - "Dishonored plays well, but story-wise is poorly elaborated and character are somewhat inconsistent"; that's absolutely true - but I also always have the feeling that he reads too much into things. Like, sure, the game portrays women in a passive, serving attitude, but that is more a description of the game world gender roles more than a justification of women abuse. Like, that doesn't make me uncomfortable with the game itself; it does so with the world that the game represents - which is, by the way, a world rotting with corruption and power-lust, so... yeah, it kinda make sense. It's a creepy world, and the fact that it is so sex-wise too makes it somewhat more real. That said, I admit that the bathtub scene was awkward. Like, the fact that you could peek was interesting - are you better than Piero? are you going to not care and move along? or are you actually intrigued by that possibility? It kinda creates a moral-choice situation; but Callista's answer to Corvo's proposition of "joining in the tub" is somewhat out of tune.

[@purplexenno]

i'm not so sure of that. After all you saved her father, and you have been nothing but kind so considering the era, yeah i could see it. Still doesn't change the fact that looking through the keyhole is optional, i didn't even think of it till this i saw this video which i think says more about errant than the option being there does about the devs.

[@WandaThePanda]

purplexenno I can see what you mean, and I guess it could makes sense for her to be grateful and possibly attracted toward Corvo; the dialogue still sounds a bit off to me, but hey, that could just easily be my way of seeing things. And on the second thing you said, yeah I agree, I too believe that he is seeing some things that aren't actually there. I guess sometimes being too well-intending can get in your way :)

[@obermegalutschoar]

"Art, as an expression, I feel conveys the artist's ideals and values" It does not have to explicitly contain those ideals. In fact, most art portrays its ideals implcitly by painting its anti-thesis. Art should also be allowed to deprived of all ideology, or else the human element can never be observed in its being, but only as it should be. Art should know no restrictions, even if its intentions can be misinterpreted. Art truly only becomes dangerous if you are uncritical and hateful.

[@ryanmorton3841]

It's always interesting to hear your opinions on morality in and of games, even if I do disagree with you from time to time, it becomes amusing when you start talking about binary morality systems and go on to describe and lament the actions of the players as they interface with said systems and you do so using your own ironically binary and arguably childish morality, it's even more amusing considering that you seem to have little to no self awareness on the matter. An example of this is this video of course, but outside of this video I've time and time again seen you label games as problematic, which reminds me of Jack Thompson and his scape goating of games and ultimately rings hollow as I know for sure that you like almost everyone else who has a love for our medium would disagree with the arguments made by someone like Jack Thompson but then you yourself would make similar arguments in your own videos. It's a shame really because I can often find something of value in your videos, whether it's knowledge or entertainment or both, too bad it becomes increasingly difficult to do that the moment your turgid political opinions start to creep in.

[@ThaX14]

Can you give examples? Your comment doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I'm interested to see if I'm wrong since it sounds like you may have a valid point and criticism of his videos. Whatever it is you're complaining about, I do think Jack Thompson is more on the extreme side here. He argues that games influence behavior to the point that normal people could potentially murder other people just because they played a violent game, while ES usually argues that these morality systems are crappy and don't provide a deep and intelligent narrative.

[@ryanmorton3841]

ThaX14 Maybe he's not exactly like Jack Thompson, in the sense that he explicitly states that games can overtly effect normal people so much so it could cause them to do "abnormal" things, but lets take this video for example and his rather laughable high school level analysis on the women in Dishonoured, granted it is just his opinion and he's very much entitled to it and to state it. Although I saw somewhere on the internet a feminist analysis of Dishonoured and they claimed that the game was harsher on the men in its world than the women and that it could've even been considered a matriarchy, this was interesting especially considering that she was a critical supporter of Anita Sarkeesian. My point is that he claims or at least heavily implies that the representation of women is problematic, so then I'd like to know how, was it problematic for the players, will the players see it and then internalise it? That too is baseless and of course echoes similar sentiments to Jack Thompson, there's little to no evidence that games make people violent so I think it's about as reasonable to suggest the same about misogyny; So okay sticking to the player side of things, is it problematic because it might offend or trigger some people playing it? If so then I'd say that any artistic medium and those who partake in it's creation don't and shouldn't have to pander to the feelings of the overly sensitive or easily offended or anyone for that matter and if they're easily triggered then they're probably in need of professional help not artistic pandering and that's coming from someone with mental illness; Okay so maybe it's problematic for the industry, does it make the industry look bad? Does it make it harder for women to work in games? If so, how? The way I see it if people want more games from the female POV then either men should learn how to write from that perspective or more women should join the industry, the former is actually more difficult than you'd think and the later sounds like a great idea, it would be great if both could happen but either way Dishonoured or anything else for that matter is not standing in the way of the later happening or at least nothing so monumental, so tangible that it can't be overcome. Besides if we want our medium and the industry around it to be respected then we have to allow all works to have a chance to develop, even those "that make us look bad", otherwise we're a coward's medium, an industry of cowards. Anyway my point was that like Jack Thompson he makes or at least implies some pretty baseless and unfounded points about the medium and it's effects and when he does so it's clear that his morals are no less binary than the games he criticises.

[@ThaX14]

I don't think his point was that (according to his opinion) the implicit sexism doesn't cause misogynistic behavior. I think he was merely pointing out the sexist representation of women in the game, thereby underlying the sexism of society. I don't agree with him though, since I think the representation of women in this game is actually a little bit 'realistic' in context with the patriarchy and sexist culture that was very present in victorian times (which of course this games style is based on). Also, I think his criticism of the representation of women doesn't go farther then just lazy writing in this game (which I do agree with). It depends on the player if this hurts the experience or not and although I disagree with him, it's fair to at least address this point. He provided some solid evidence for his claims (although most of it is in my opinion just a misunderstanding). However, I agree that this medium should address heavy and controversial subjects in our society but the way this industry addresses those subjects is mostly lazy and just...bad. He's not against games with controversial topics, he's against lazy narratives and mechanics which poorly contextualizes the narrative. At least, that's why I got out of this video. I'm not sure what his stance is in the 'sexism in videogames' discussion and I really hope he will make a video about it. Maybe then we can criticize him for having binary morals, but right now I don't think we've enough evidence to support your accusation since it's not too clear if his morals are binary. At least that's my opinion. You do raise some fair points, and thanks for not cursing at me which happens all the time when I ask these questions :P Have a great day!

[@ryanmorton3841]

ThaX14 You see games are a subjective medium, even you're analysis of it is a subjective one and there's nothing wrong with that, as I touched on in my previous comment even certain kinds of feminist would disagree with both your analysis and Campster's. As for it being lazy or sexist, I think that implies intent and to judge the intent of a creator can be a slippery slope, heck I was even aware of that when I was mentioning what I thought Chris was implying and thus what I was inferring, that's why I used words like "probably", that's why I proposed multiple possible viewpoints for each of my questions along with me own, my own being by no means definitive. Besides you may find the story lazy, but I don't, I'll admit that what's offered on the surface seems cliché, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, I implore you to think of an original idea and I guarantee it won't be; To me the story is implicate rather than explicate, it's in the lore, the conversations, the environment, side content, architecture, the characters and so on. I recently watched all of his videos right up to his most recent and I've heard him say plenty that more than suggests his political opinions, especially in regards to "sexism" in games and it's pretty clear to me that he thinks there's a problem and that the games themselves are problematic and each time he doesn't come off as nuanced or intelligent as he normal would, instead it's clear cut, childish and binary. Look I personally I don't believe that games have this huge sexism problem, some games maybe sexist or offensive but no where near all of them are that way and besides offensive art has always existed and should have the right to exist, especially considering what's sexist or offensive is highly subjective and really complex, even amongst feminists; If someone found a game sexist or offensive or triggering then that sucks for THEM and that's a problem for THEM but it isn't the industries problem and it shouldn't be made the problem of those that didn't find it offensive. I'm all for discussion but the moment it devolves into name calling, accusations and binary, one-sided "arguments" then I see no point in going on.

[@nnennamonet9762]

Ryan Morton So when does he name-call or accuse anyone? And how the fuck is pointing our areas and explaining the problem with them "binary, one-sided "arguments". It sounds like to you, any mention of "sexism" in a critique you take offense to.

[@CircleTheSkies]

The high/low chaos can be mistaken as a 'morality' system, but it's really more of a way to reflect how Corvo's actions affect the city - regardless of the chaos level, Corvo succeeds in rescuing Emily. In high chaos (reflecting massive spread of plague, few living guards to keep order, etc), the city is lost and Corvo gets Emily safely out. In low chaos, he protects here while she maintains order.

[@warxdrum]

i get how some comments say that the women's attitude fits the time period but NOT EVERY SINGLE WOMAN behaves according to that. you don't see women today acting the same no matter who you talk too. they don't act the same when you talk to them on the next day or even an hour later. btw. the first time i saw pendleton i thought "that dude will betray me later". not "might", not "could". just that he will. all the characters in the game are shitty and it's understandable if you can't even hide the plot twist for a minute...

[@KethamBodds]

well, you're right as well. It's more or less left to the player to decide what kind of person Corvo is anyway, so you have valid points, if you get my meaning.

[@amyfalconer1660]

You have to wonder what makes so many men in these comments feel SO defensive about the discussion of things being rapey.

[@IIBizzy]

yeah, it's really telling how obsessive they get, if a reviewer dares to mention it. No matter the game, if you look in the comments section, it's always wrong.

[@Treblaine]

It's Errant Signal who is on the defensive. HE spied on her. HE accosted her. HE jumped in the bath with her. Yet he blames the games for decisions HE made, decisions that the game went out of its way to explicitly show were wrong and HE DID IT anyway. Yet somehow the game is at fault, not him. The game should have stopped him... because apparently he has zero self control of his own. At least Pierro shows shame, he admits he's a scumbag and he is sorry, he doesn't have the childish idea that the universe he is in should warp itself by contrivances to stop him from being a total perv. He doesn't need someone to tell him off, like Errant Signal supposedly demands... he seems to have a sense of self aware maturity that Errant Signal lacks. Are you going to be really defensive of Errant Signal now? Are you going to obsessive about anyone daring to mention that the problem her is not "the girl for wearing a short skirt" but the actual perpetrator? Not that anyone was hurt here except pixels. This is just a game after all, but maybe in this simulated fictional world people might just take a moment of self reflection, some consideration of the hypocrisy of their judgements and actions.

[@amyfalconer1660]

Treblaine he's criticizing the fact that it's an option. The developers made a choice to allow that behavior, and he's criticizing that decision.

[@Treblaine]

Amy Falconer The fact that what is an opinion? How would you criticise a fact? You didn't phrase that well. "The developers made a choice to allow that behavior, and he's criticizing that decision." The criticism is utterly hypocritical as he is criticising an event that is entirely of his creation. It's textbook hypocrisy. And what does the game ACTUALLY allow? The game does not actually show anything, you can only see her from her shoulders up this is less than even a PG13 rating, this is daytime TV. *But it's clearly an invasion of privacy*. It's clearly wrong, bad, immoral, an injustice, you name it. One thing it is ABSOLUTELY NOT is it is NOT fanservice. Nothing is actually shown to titillate. Only enough is shown to cross the bounds of decency, you have clearly breached her privacy. The game actually plays it perfectly, it has set up the perfect trap for the lecherous hypocritical player with no actual payoff for the voyeur. And by the way, it's entirely consistent for this poor woman to have a meek and overly conceding response to the unhinged mass murderer who just burst in. Corvo isn't just an utterly ruthless killer he's also vital to their cause, so she's playing it real smart to not scream and try to fight him (Corvo would kill her in a heartbeat)... but instead try her best to defuse the situation. A bad situation the player created. Suddenly they are a toddler who has no self control and needs a locked fence over the stairs to stop them falling down. Only the strongest doors stop them before now Errant Signal expects a bathroom door to stop them. Notice the endless self-serving excuses dressed up as criticism. Notice the immediate unreserved mea culpa of Pierro. Notice the complete lack of introspection on the part of this player and critic, it's all about the game and nothing about him. Corvo may be a cypher for the player to immerse into the role but that means the player has to actually consider the consequences for their actions. The developers aren't the only ones writing the story here... you, the player, are as well. And it's little things like this that matter. It's not perfect, the dialogue options are obviously broken as being caught in the act can't be used to blackmail Pierro, but as a self-contained bit it's important. But Errant Signal has a bias here and the bias is letting himself off the hook, he's on the defensive, he needs to defend his decisions as a peeping tom. He could have brushed it off as nothing "hey, she's jsut a load of polygons, no real people were hurt" but he went full sophist, expecting the game to self-censor to compensate for his lack of self-control.

[@amyfalconer1660]

I agree that it says a lot about the player, but I think it's a fallacy to pretend like it doesn't reflect on the developer as well. It's the aftermath that's really telling.

[@wormerine8029]

I am pretty sure Callista situation is the result of systemic design: it is set up pretty early that Piero is a bit of a creep with crush on Calista. The heart will tell you that he spies in her as she bathes. This is just an opportunity to spy him in-game. But due to the game being systemic, you can look through the keyhole, and you can barge into the room, so devs accounted for it. Her response definitely falls into “player empowerment and fantasy” rather then what a sane character would say in this instance, but as you showed character writing is not Dishonored’s strong point.

[@KreativeKill]

4:21. It "Boyles" down to. I see what you did there

[@Monoochrom]

Corvo also does not motivate the City to catch itself. The game explains in clear terms that killing allows the rat population to grow which in turn makes the plague spread easier. Piero and Sokolov are at odds with each other, the cure only comes along when they reconcile their differences and work together. Corvo doesn't save Dunwall, Piero and Sokolov do. Corvo is simply the catalyst that allows them to come together.

[@s2korpionic]

The moral system feels quite binaric indeed.

[@S-Nova0]

It's a chaos system

[@TheExquisiteTallboy]

Thanks for putting it in better words than I did. I imagine anybody from Arkane Studios watching this video and seriously shaking their head in disbelief, that somebody so seemingly smart can get something of such major importance so completely wrong.

[@SnepKaunt]

Lots of whiteknight feminist bullshit but a decent review nonetheless.

[@nnennamonet9762]

Wow, what an enlightening critique.

[@Nolrai12]

I find my self wondering if I would actually like it worse if the characters were more interesting. I mean I don't like drama, I like melodrama. I like using characters as lenses on to their situations and the societies that shape them, and not so much as people to /be/.

[@goldenOO]

The feminism points are extremely forced.

[@GrandHighGamer]

The bathtub game over was because you jumped on the character, sending them into an 'attacked' state. It wasn't an intentional game over for doing anything untoward.

[@father042]

Most overrated game of this generation

[@SperryACHI]

Agreed.

[@father042]

SperryACHI Nice avatar btw

[@EGRJ]

The player has to choose to peek through the keyhole, choose to walk in, choose between saying he came in by accident or propositioning Callista (or, IIRC, exposing Piero), and choose to jump in the bath.

[@mackhudson1493]

you need to tone down the virtue signalling

[@billyweed835]

WHAT. DOES. THAT. MEAN?

[@mackhudson1493]

Billy Weed If you can't understand it, then it's impossible to explain it to you

[@billyweed835]

nota mack If you can't explain your terms to someone else, you're spourting bullshit. I've heard the term before, i'm asking how it applied here exactly.

[@mackhudson1493]

Billy Weed then look it up and infer, don't bother me

[@billyweed835]

nota mack Looked it up and it doesn't at all apply here unless you're a mind-reader.

[@TheCrimsonSeven]

I thought the part with the piero WAS just a way to add a little to his character. I found it humorous.

[@christiansoldier11]

can't believe people complain about the "lack of options" when it comes to Non-lethal, when all the Thief's had was 1 set of arrows and an "only when not detected" melee weapon.

[@lCore17]

New thief only had few, but the old thief games had a lot of options for non-lethal play, and hell, not killing anyone was a requirement in harder dificulties.

[@chiblast100x]

That could, from a character perspective, actually be argued as a bad ending. The one attribute we can all agree Corvo shows throughout the game is his desire to protect Emily. The ending in question essentially demonstrates him, depending on how you otherwise characterize his actions, either failing to do so and destroying his psyche in the process or choosing to let her die knowing that both of them have fallen into the darker side of their world's grey and grey morality...

[@jabberw0k812]

I don't think the game necessarily frames the assassinations as morally worse in any objective sense. Which is probably why they specifically use high and low chaos as the opposed terms in this case. And some of the non-lethal options are arguably just as mean as murder. I think it's up to the player to decide what constitutes good. What changes most based on the overall body count is the perception of Corvo by the people around him. A number of the loyalists, most especially Havelock, muse over their moral position as insurrectionists, and their rationalizations of murder to arrive at justice. And it makes perfect sense that Corvo's decisions to either avoid or revel in murder have a profound impact on the psyche of the people around him, especially those who look up to him (Emily) or those who have made themselves directly responsible for Corvo's actions (Havelock).

[@refundreplay]

I think the point is that the society is breaking down and becoming decayed because of the corruption of the individuals. The complete lack of empathy that lead them to ruin. They didn't become corrupted because of society, it was their corruption which ruined their society.

[@MakooWallinen]

Vera Moray (Granny rags) says: "Nothing's been the same since her death! Poor child! Her spirit lives on - trapped - misused - and for what purpose?" And the heart also says: "Anton Sokolov... He knew me once, and did much to set me on my path." If the heart is the empress, it's entirely up to you how you interpret it. ^^

[@catpurrito5586]

the first game would really be improved a lot if Corvo has a voice

[@Turboxantia]

Nice to see my upload of pirates sound track linked here. Actually, it’s how I discovered your work on KZbin, thanks👌

[@wwklnd]

I agree that the story isn't particularly captivating, but I must say that Dishonored has some of the best level design and world-building I've seen in a game. As for your presentation of the endings as "good ending" vs. "bad ending", I'm not sure I would say so. The high chaos ending has you act as a stronger catalyst for change in the world, and while you do on one hand let a little girl die and everything is pretty terrible in the "worst" ending, you also brought down an oppressive monarchy.