By Alec Meer on October 8th, 2012 at 7:00 pm.

There’s going to be a backlash against Dishonored. It can’t be helped: when a game makes big promises, a justice squad will quickly arise to loudly demand that it accounts for not meeting them to the very letter, and in this case I suspect there’s an additional flock of people who have been led by marketing to expect an all-out action game. I can predict, even sympathise with, some of the complaints, others I suspect will be absolutely mystifying to me. It’s the finest hour in what we might loosely but innacurately term ‘blockbuster shooters’ in years – I’d feel petulant were I to demand it give me even more. But there is one complaint that may reach a crescendo in short order, and that is the issue of length. For me, Dishonored was a deliciously long game, clocking in at about 25 hours even without the total replay I intend on having very soon. For someone else – someone who has a lot of numbers in the name they use when playing Halo 4, say – it will be insultingly short. It may not even make a double figures quantity of hours. That’s not the game’s fault, it’s theirs (or, perhaps, the fault of the marketeers who sold the game as an action opus). They gobbled the onion up whole, too greedy or too lazy or too accustomed to inflexible fare to peel apart its layers.
When you start a mission in Dishonored, your main objective/target will, if you not deliberately deactivated it on option, appear on the HUD as an ever-present marker. In most cases, the objective will be under 300 metres from your position (though will require a transition from an outdoor space to an indoor one). You can take out your gun, your crossbow, your grenades, your sword, your razor mines, perhaps your windblast power if you’ve been minded to acquire it, and you can run towards that marker.

You will have to do some jumping, you will probably have to do some fighting, and you’ll almost inevitably need to do some saving and reloading, but with a bit of skill and a bit of luck you will make it to that marker in a matter of minutes. This is certainly the case if you play on Normal, though expect a need for greater caution and precision on Hard. I have tried it myself on a couple of missions, and lo, it can indeed be brief.
If that is your Dishonored, your Dishonored will last but a handful of hours. You will have followed a cursor and you will have shot some men, and you will perhaps be questioning why there was so very little of it. Dishonored does contain that game, but Dishonored is not that game.
My Dishonored was largely spent in a crouch, in the shadows, killing no-one, collecting everything. That is not the necessary way to play it to get more out of it, but it’s certainly one way to do so. Dishonored’s levels always appear, at a quick glance, as straight, albeit lavish, runs across short distances with perhaps a couple of dozen enemies to contend with. You can do this, if your skill at shooters so allows, but by God you’re denying yourself so much.

Power upgrades, vignettes that flesh out this broken world, capsule puzzles and magnificent sights are hidden away to the sides and most of all under the skin of the map. Events and choices with some pretty huge repercussions on not just plot, but the contents and nature of later levels. What looks, superficially, like a small area is dense with layers, both of possibilities but also architecturally – maze-like buildings with satisfyingly inconvenient access points and hidden rooms, tragic notes from plague victims, books from lost authors, references to the unseen monsters which pull at destiny’s strings, and even requests for lengthy assistance from the occasional damned survivor. Things that change matters, things that flesh out a world that largely avoids open exposition, but also things to be seen for the simple joy of seeing.
Ignore the objective marker. Turn it off, ideally, but if you must have it on because otherwise you feel too unfocused, don’t even look towards it until you’ll teased open all the layers, scoured every corner whether for loot, for context, or for spectacle. Creeping around the back entrance to an enemy-occupied townhouse, I stumbled across a narrow, flooded street stretching off into the distance. Dunwall’s metal-plated walls towered at either side, suggesting something massive, fortified, impregnable. In the water below floated rubble, bodies, misery, but the light played across one iron face of this artificial valley in a sharp white beam, bleaching out the dirt and death, turning this bleak scene of ruin and oppression into one of stark, unblemished beauty. It became a hint of the gleaming metal-Victorian metropolis Dunwall once was on the way to becoming, before the plague, before the death of its beloved ruler, before man’s awful hunger for power laid it so low.

It wasn’t a scene to do anything with, or in. But it was clearly hand-crafted, put there by someone proud of it, who wanted to describe Dunwall in a single scene. Had I run from A to B, I would never have seen it – never even have known it was there. It was put there for people like me, who will play the game not to complete the objectives, not to get the end and kill anything that moved, but to explore for the simple, pretention-free pleasure of exploring.
I want, with perhaps unhealthy compulsion, to see everything that’s there, everything that’s been made for me. It’s not just that I want to find all the Runes, Bonecharms, paintings, side quests and money (I do though – oh, I really do. Even though, as a non-lethal player, most of the things I can buy with this loot are of no use to me), it’s that I want to know that I have not missed anything. It agitates to me to even suspect some stone was left unturned. If the level results screen shows I’ve missed something, it burns me. This is nothing to do with kleptomania or achievement-hunting, and everything to do with the knowledge that something was created and I didn’t get to see it. I don’t know why it matters so much, but I know that Dishonored is a game designed to meet this strange, silent, selfish need.

In almost any game, should I encounter a hallway with one staircase going up, towards my target, and another going down, towards nothing obvious at all, I will go down. In the vast majority of shooters – and I lump Dishonored into that category even though I shot no-one in it, bar the occasional emergency stun dart – that stairway will end abruptly, in a fallen bookcase, a crumbling sofa, a pile of bricks or a mysteriously damage- and jump-resistant Closed For Maintenance sign. In Dishonored, it goes somewhere. An alternate route to your objective, perhaps. A path to a different objective. A letter or character who will reveal how to neutralise your assassination target non-lethally. A Rune, a nest of maddened plague victims, a key that won’t serve a purpose until the next level, or just a new perspective on part of this infected, drowned, proud, painterly world.
So fearful of missing anything was I that I felt compelled to knock out or stun-dart every guard I saw, purely to ensure I could then explore unfettered. Even once everyone was sleeping their bruised-necked sleep, I would creep and Blink about the place, possessing rats and fish, combing every corner. The maps felt palatial to me. The idea that that they contained just 200 metres or so of space ludicrous. Because they didn’t. They contained kilomotres of it, folded in on itself, braided, shielded, but all there to unravel for those willing to do so.

If you want to rush around with a gun, shooting anything that moves, don’t buy Dishonored. It has put those things in there for you, and it offers slick, brutal, varied permutations on how to use them, but they are not its all. If you’re looking for 10+ hours of shooting men, or even stabbing men, you are well-served already and forever by games that do that, do it well, and do it for a long time. You and those like you are the victor of the great games race, and you have the spoils, many times over.
So let us have Dishonored. Let us have this one expensive, luxurious game that only truly works, only sings a glorious tune, only becomes a 20+ hour game if met by those who treat it in the spirit with which it is offered. Don’t tell us it’s too short and too slight just because you don’t find combing through its many layers, peeling back every last millimetre of artfully subdued skin, of interest. Because you want to rush to the conclusion, and you don’t believe anything that doesn’t explicitly inform reaching that conclusion is worthwhile.

As for me, I ignore the objectives. I wait, I watch, I wonder. Eventually, with a working knowledge of guard movement patterns, I run a careful knife across the surface, make myself a way in to what’s underneath. I start peeling and that deceptively short 200 metre sprint sprays open, exploding into a sprawling, handmade world of navigational puzzles, short stories, unspoken character studies and bespoke beauty spots. Dishonored’s Corvo has bullets, blades, bolts and black magic to call upon, but it’s Blink that is the game’s bedrock. The power that lets you reach more places, because, underneath all the distorted Victoriana stylings, that showy skull mask and the artful violence, Dishonored is a game about going places. And there’s no hurry.




08/10/2012 at 19:27 Revisor says:
Thank you.
08/10/2012 at 19:30 aliksy says:
Yes. Bravo.
08/10/2012 at 21:24 RedFaust says:
He basically told us to play dishonored how i’ve always played the deus ex, thief and bioshock series. It was brillant to point that out.
08/10/2012 at 22:33 Lemming says:
I try to play every game this way. I’m what is known as a ‘pack rat’. I will look, explore and collect every damn thing I find. It’s what comes from being raised on Black Isle RPGs and Legend of Zelda games. It’s just how you play games anyway.
I’ve been aware that not everyone does it this way of course, but it never occurred to me that these people are actually ruining the industry for players like me, so maybe now I’ll call them on it when I meet them (politely of course).
08/10/2012 at 23:24 Vandelay says:
It comes from being raised on old games. I never played RPGs in my youth, always being more of a Quake, Dark Forces, etc. fan, yet I still long for the days when I could have a game that actually let me explore an environment to unearth its secrets, as you had to in those games.
08/10/2012 at 23:57 crumbly says:
Uhh the number of hours I still don’t feel were wasted attempting to make jumps I know now were impossible in the Ocarina Of Time all flashed through my head. Those chickens made anything feel possible…
09/10/2012 at 00:33 Lemming says:
@crumbly I think I went through the game about 4-5 times before I discovered you could get Nayru’s Love. There’s probably still stuff I never found in it, but not for want of trying!
08/10/2012 at 19:32 Arclight says:
Hear, hear.
08/10/2012 at 19:39 mouton says:
That is why I read RPS.
*clap* *clap* *clap*
08/10/2012 at 20:08 Drayk says:
I logged just to say thank you for this amazing article !
08/10/2012 at 21:11 conceitedguy says:
lmao
08/10/2012 at 20:09 Baardago says:
Alec, you are a scholar and a gent.
Thank you.
08/10/2012 at 20:24 Wololo says:
If Alec was a woman, I’d make him lots of literate babies.
Seriously, this was godlike.
08/10/2012 at 21:16 Rawrian says:
Like, genius babies that are literate right from birth?
08/10/2012 at 21:38 Wololo says:
That’s the kind, yup. Of course, I wouldn’t be the one they’d get those genious genes from.
08/10/2012 at 20:38 President Weasel says:
testify, Mr Meer, testify!
I vote we promote Alec Meer to Jim Rossignol immediately. It will be confusing for all concerned but that’s the price we pay for enacting stupid ideas!
09/10/2012 at 15:24 proudpheeple says:
Hear hear!
08/10/2012 at 20:42 Bent Wooden Spoon says:
This, along with the GMG discount, have tipped me over the edge. Preloading now.
Great piece Alec.
08/10/2012 at 21:21 Inglourious Badger says:
Thanks for pointing out the GMG discount, I was hoping someone would en-cheapen this before launch. This article and the review have confirmed my long held hopes for this game. And with 25% off I am now pre-loading also :D
09/10/2012 at 04:15 Bent Wooden Spoon says:
I found out from some helpful souls in the WIT comments, so I’ll deflect your cosmic thank-rays towards them.
09/10/2012 at 09:40 chris says:
Also, for those who are looking to buy from GMG but haven’t yet; head to topcashback.co.uk, sign up and get an extra 6.06% off. Presumably UK only though.
08/10/2012 at 21:17 tomeoftom says:
Alec, you’re an absolute gem. Every one of these kinds of pieces (I distinctly remember the Dear Esther one) is just stand-out life-affirming good taste.
08/10/2012 at 21:19 DevilSShadoW says:
Also felt the compulsive need to say “thank you” for this. You’ve put a feeling that I’ve been trying to describe to my friends into such an amazing string of words. There aren’t enough bottles of beer in this godforsaken world i could offer you as a token of my appreciation.
08/10/2012 at 21:22 mr.black says:
Encore, encore!
08/10/2012 at 21:33 ninnisinni says:
Thank you, Alec, for the wonderful evening reading material. Pure RPS gold!
08/10/2012 at 23:14 Shakermaker says:
Indeed. Great piece, Alec.
08/10/2012 at 21:33 Cheese says:
Beautiful, thank you.
09/10/2012 at 08:31 Ateius says:
*Tear-filled applause*
Bravo, Mr. Meer. Bravo.
09/10/2012 at 08:42 cspkg says:
Brava! Best art-icle ever. I do enjoy games the least when rushing through them (I’m looking at you, MW3). And given the rewards for exploration, it looks like I’ll be taking my sweet time with each level of this beauty. Whilst being a pacifist supernatural ex-assassin. Cannot wait!
08/10/2012 at 19:27 ordteapot says:
From the writing here, it almost sounds as though the inclusion of objective markers was a design mistake. Or that at the very least they should have defaulted to ‘off’. Is that the case for the harder difficult modes?
Plus it would make the shootem-up play style more gruesome (and longer): instead of a mystical revengeman-with-purpose on a beeline for his target, you’d have a deranged one just shooting up everyone and everything he didn’t like the look of until he found his target by chance.
08/10/2012 at 19:48 tobecooper says:
It seems to actually be a conscious design decision, because this:
Without clues Dishonored was too difficult
But to, be honest, this seems like an overreaction and a misreading of player’s actions. Of course, they didn’t go for the target! The target can wait. Exploring is more fun.
08/10/2012 at 21:29 HothMonster says:
““People would just walk around. They didn’t know what to do. They didn’t even go upstairs because a guard told them they couldn’t. They’d say ‘Okay, I can’t go upstairs.’ They wouldn’t do anything,” explained Arkane’s Julien Roby to Games.On.net”
Too funny. I’m going to see how far I can make it through the game obeying every command given to me. Like I traded my free will for my super powers.
08/10/2012 at 23:37 Nihilist says:
Some gamers got raised with game design that honored a slave mentality. Because of that Bioshock was so much fun. You had to laugh about yourself at the end.
09/10/2012 at 09:50 Low Life says:
“Would you kindly not go upstairs?”
09/10/2012 at 10:00 Amazon_warrior says:
Where the heck did they find their playtesters? :| I’d have volunteered like a shot!
15/10/2012 at 16:55 Grimstone says:
I for one am grateful for the target markers, it lets me know which areas to avoid, well, avoid until I’ve torn apart every square inch of the map. Love it…
08/10/2012 at 21:55 noom says:
I am going to remove that quest marker so hard that it’ll hopefully remove itself from at least 20 other player’s games too without them knowing it was ever there. I’m going to be in the options removing that shit before the game’s even finished loading.
08/10/2012 at 23:36 particlese says:
Spoilers: You will have removed it so hard that it tore open space-time to remove it from my DX:HR and Skyrim. Well done, sir.
Edit: And, to be a broken record, well done, Alec Meer.
09/10/2012 at 07:16 Hanban says:
I’m afraid Noom also removes the sperms’ quest marker to the egg causing the end of mankind. A thousand curses upon you Noom! Hope this is what you wanted!
08/10/2012 at 19:27 cliffski says:
A 2 hour movie will cost me £10 to buy. Anything more than 3 hours of gameplay for my £27.99 and I’m already quids-in. The incredibly vocal minority of people online who demand 50+ hours of gameplay for £27.99 are just that -> A serious minority. Anyone who has access to gameplay duration stats knows that the vast majority of gamers aren’t playing double digit hours of ANY game these days.
08/10/2012 at 19:29 Uthred says:
I dont think movies are the universal metric for entertainment to cost ratio that you think they are
08/10/2012 at 19:34 mouton says:
I don’t think hours of gameplay are an universal metric of entertainment either. I will always prefer a short but brilliant game that lasts a few hours (like Portal) over bland padded “blockbusters” which drag on for weeks (say, Diablo 3).
Of course, many AAA titles are both short AND poor, heh
08/10/2012 at 19:38 Uthred says:
I agree, how long something is should generally be (at least) secondary to how good it is. But when comparing things its much more likely that people will compare like to like in which case length (or value for money if you will) does become a factor. I dont think many people whould look at Dishonoured and think “Oh I could see X amount of movies for this much!” theyre much more likely to compare it to another game, say XCOM. In that situation the fact that you can get a longer but equally polished experience for the same price is a factor.
Or to boil it down. Why would people compare a game to a move in terms of entertainment hours/pound when they could compare it to another game. (and if compared to another equally good game then it makes sense to buy the one that offers superior value for money)
08/10/2012 at 19:49 jezcentral says:
Yes, but although Cliffski’s maths sucks, he has a point. The ones who complain invariably say “I wanted more game than just X hours for my Y pounds/dollars/euros.”
I think we can all agree they are wrong to say this, but it won’t stop them saying it, all the same.
08/10/2012 at 20:20 Vorphalack says:
”Or to boil it down. Why would people compare a game to a move in terms of entertainment hours/pound when they could compare it to another game. (and if compared to another equally good game then it makes sense to buy the one that offers superior value for money)”
That’s the real issue when discussing game length. It’s never as simple as £ / hr entertainment value, that has always been a gross over simplification. It is (in this case) Dishonored vs GW2 + TL2 + DotA2 + Borderlands2 + whatever else you might be playing this month. We are in a bit of a purple patch for PC releases this year so there are a lot more quality games making demands on peoples time. I doubt i’ll pick up Dishonored until after christmas, partly because of the pre-order bonus farce, partly because of the aforementioned other games, but also because I want to see what they do with the DLC and how much they charge.
08/10/2012 at 23:59 SiHy_ says:
The way I see it sometimes you want a Sunday dinner, sometimes you want a chocolate bar. They’re both satisfying in their own way.
12/10/2012 at 14:15 Ragnar says:
That’s true, movies are only comparable to games if you enjoy them equally, and you value your time being entertained more than the entertainment.
But the problem isn’t that movies are not directly comparable to games. It’s that entertainment in any other medium is never judged by its length.
A longer book is not better than a shorter book. A longer movie is not desired over a shorter movie. A longer song or album is not superior to a shorter one. Does anyone really evaluate their food or drink based on how long it takes them to consume it? So why do we evaluate games based on how long they are?
08/10/2012 at 19:34 SiHy_ says:
I understand what you’re saying, quality over quantity and I wholeheartedly agree. However, I cannot fathom your strange equation:
A 2 hour movie costs £10. Ok so that’s £5 per hour.
A 3 hour game costs £27. That’s £9 per hour. That’s getting on for double.
How are you already quids in?
08/10/2012 at 19:53 Obc says:
“…these day”.
but why should we not have long games like back in the days. ok, some games were only long because of ridicilous difficulties or because they were padded. some jrpgs had a great length without feeling padded because they were tuned well (Chrono Cross, FF8)
but if we want to stick to action games: i spent hundred of hours in MGS and only after spending so much time was i able to beat it in under 3 hours. MGS3 was also very rewarding the longer you stick with it.
08/10/2012 at 20:31 LionsPhil says:
Personally, I find I have less time, but there are many more interesting games being made, and I can afford more of them. I’d like to finish more of them, too, so I only want to play the bits the developers had good ideas for and made fun. Unfun padding is the worst thing in the world, because time is now more valuable to me than money.
Personally. But as a lot of microcomputer-era gamers move into the tedious grown-up world of dayjobs and other commitments, and pocket money/parents’ wallet changes to what is petty change compared to other bills (I spend way, way more on petrol than Steam/GOG/Humble Bundles can get out of me), I suspect it casts fairly wide.
(That is not the same as long games = bad. Hell, I have spent many an hour in Just Cause 2 knocking over villages—sounds grind-tacular, but there are so many toys in its box it didn’t feel it. And there will always be a place for burning a whole weekend on Civ.)
12/10/2012 at 14:34 Ragnar says:
Exactly. For those of us in our late 20s / early 30s, particularly those of us with families, time is a much scarcer resource than money. When I was 8, I was happy to grind for gold in the Ogre tunnel in FF1. That shit doesn’t fly anymore. I have too much to do, too many games to play, and not enough time for everything. As it is, a 20 hour game will take me at least 2-4 weeks to finish. I’ve been playing Valkyria Chronicles on and off for 2 years now and still haven’t beaten it (4 battles left).
As such, I would much rather have a tight, focused game that’s been trimmed of all the excess padding. A great 5 hour game is better than a good 10 hour game, which is in turn better than an ok 20 hour game or a mediocre 30 hour game. Hell, many games would be improved by trimming them down to remove the padding (Alice 2, for example).
08/10/2012 at 20:48 dE says:
I wish I’d get a dollar everytime cliffski fires a “Hit and Run Sweeping Generalisation Missile MKIII”. I’d be bloody rich by now.
09/10/2012 at 11:03 cliffski says:
Sorry i don’t spend my whole life on here arguing, but I actually have a very time-consuming day job. Those £0.0001 per hour value games don’t make themselves.
09/10/2012 at 11:40 Aedrill says:
I don’t think you get his point. It’s not the problem with one post only policy, it’s because your posts are often very debatable (like in the piracy discussion when you said that EVERYONE can pay by card on the Internet and if they say otherwise, they’re filthy liars. Or here, where you based your point on terrible maths) and then you disappear. Someone with less good will than us could call this trolling, you know?
EDIT:
One more thing – if you’d invest some time into writing slightly more elaborate posts in which you’re backing your claims with some actual arguments, not assuming that people will take your ungrounded opinion as a word of God, you wouldn’t have to come back too often to add anything.
09/10/2012 at 11:50 cliffski says:
Yeah I totally called people filthy liars. thats exactly what I said.
Get a fucking grip.
09/10/2012 at 13:12 dE says:
Basically what was said, the one hit posts aren’t an issue. Folks get it, you’re busy with your life. As are many others with theirs, me included. My issue is with research done from the ivory tower, then coming out and proclaiming you have done the research, possess all the facts and everyone disagreeing is spreading “FUD” (your words) and lies.
I love your insight as an Indie Dev, I love GSB and bought all expansions to it, but every once in a while you feel compelled to make these badly researched posts with a rather aggressive and unmoving stance.
09/10/2012 at 21:13 Aedrill says:
Oh, so you don’t like generalizations and they annoy you? Wow, that’s a surprise!
09/10/2012 at 00:59 alundra says:
Yeah, first, keep you “incredibly vocal minority of people” bullshit on the door, not everybody is a fool lacking all sense of ROI.
There is a reason why special sales drive Steam’s numbers up, people don’t like to spend a lot to get little, it’s the other way around, so what are you going to argue?? That the user base on the biggest e-tailer out there is a minority?? Please, cry me a river.
If anything, the apologists who want to justify lazy work on a game, and inviting everybody to be thankful for the money spent in so little, are not a serious, just a pathetic, minority of fanboy geeks who see gaming as something more than entertainment.
09/10/2012 at 08:11 raptorak says:
I for one am glad the game can be so short, that shows that the designers themselves haven’t taken shortcuts in making the game have multiple ways to complete an objective. Honestly, if I want to rush in guns-blazing and complete the game in 4 hours (which I may well do, I often play the quickload creep) I am glad the option is there, but I sure as hell won’t be complaining about it.
IMO some games are too damn long – if more games went for quality over quantity I would be very happy. A game like DE:HR could have been shorter and more open ended and would have been the better game for it.
Maybe I just have too many games and not enough time to complete any of them these days. I often spend more time critiquing games on message boards than playing (Tribes:Ascend, looking at you!).
10/10/2012 at 08:17 Nesetalis says:
You are smoking your shoes. Sure many people don’t have TIME to devote to a game like that.. but.. I’ve clocked some 300 hours or more in terraria. 404 hours in guildwars 2, 20 in binding of isaac, 273 in Dota 2, 25 in dungeons of dredmor, 13 in torchlight 2, 722 in X3 Terran Conflict. So on and so forth.
Then there are plenty of games I pick up for a few hours, then drop and never look at again. This has nothing to do with whether how much time I want to dedicate to it, it has everything to do with how much time it is worth. If it is a good game, I want to keep playing it, and not stop playing it until I’ve exhausted my interest. (I might put it down for a week or two at a time, but then come right back to it.) 25 hours is short, when I was younger, I spent weeks working at RPGs and such… hell I have no idea how much time I spent playing Uncharted Waters: New Horizons as a kid, but It has to be some where in the 10,000 hour range.
Then came games like Dungeon Siege 3. It was fun, good mechanics, and just about the point where I expected it to pick up and the story to explode… it was over. I was pissed. I had beaten it in only 8 hours, 8 fucking hours. It was a fucking 60 dollar game, with absolutely no replayability. The developers were just insulting themselves, they spent so much time on that game engine, the details, and all they had to show for it was 8 hours… This to me is bordering on wasting lives. How many manhours were spent creating this?
25 hours is okay, its not great, but how many manhours went in to it’s creation? Does 25 hours justify the great expense of human life trapped in a cubicle?
10/10/2012 at 08:37 JackShandy says:
You think the amount of work put into a game can only be justified by the amount of time it takes to experience it?
10/10/2012 at 20:14 Nesetalis says:
Only? no, but generally there should be some reflection upon the amount of effort put in, and the amount of entertainment that comes out.
Yes there is a place for the short lived butterfly or what have you… but that itself is its own specific artistic genera… And this is not that. In a game, I expect at least 2$ per hour of entertainment, if I spend more than that, I feel put out and cheated. this one is a 2.40$ per hour game, its not too bad, but its not where I would prefer it.
12/10/2012 at 14:47 Ragnar says:
But why do you expect at least $2 per hour of entertainment from games? Where does this expectation come from? Do you judge movies, books, or songs the same way?
I agree that coming across a game / book / movie / tv show that ends abruptly leaves you feeling cheated. You want to to get closure and resolution from a story, rather than be left feeling that they ran out of time and wrapped it up as quickly as they could. But if the story is resolved, and the game leaves you wanting more, wouldn’t you call that a success? Isn’t that the goal?
08/10/2012 at 19:28 Uthred says:
Surely the games doing itself something of a dis-service by actively encouraging people to miss all this wonderful incidental content? I’m not saying the game necessarily has to hold us by the hand and say “Look, look at this thing we have wrought!”. But surely theres a middleground between “Play by numbers” and “Follow the objectives and miss everything”.
Certainly a more considered playthrough should provide a richer experience than a quick run and gun but I think its in the creators intrest to lower the disparity between the two experiences. Reading this article it sounds like if I take my time and explore lots I’d get, say, 75% of the experience and if my friend hears about the game and isnt familiar with its nuances he just follows the mission objectives, and gets around 25% of the experience.
“You’re playing it wrong” can be, and seemingly in this case is, a valid observation but I think the games creators bear a large measure of the responsibility for insuring this isnt the case. Based on whats been said here it seems like they could have done that better.
08/10/2012 at 19:41 HisMastersVoice says:
I don’t think it’s a case of the developer doing something wrong. It’s the PR department marketing the game against the grain. I’m sure people would be supremely disappointed in Halo 4 if it was marketed as a stealth game only to turn out as yet another 6 hour alienshooter.
08/10/2012 at 19:53 Uthred says:
Yes thats a very good point. Sometimes marketing for bigger games does wildly skew what the games focus should be/is
09/10/2012 at 01:05 ffordesoon says:
Sometimes?
09/10/2012 at 01:13 Uthred says:
Well for a recent example XCOM is a big game who’s marketing was not in the least deceptive
08/10/2012 at 19:44 Kilometrik says:
THere is actually no “You are playing it wrong” with dishonored. Being able to beeline to your target if you are good enough is there for the speedrunners and challenge gamers. The game doesn’t have a “good” playstyle, so to speak.
08/10/2012 at 19:53 Uthred says:
Surely the playstyle promoted in the article would be the “good” playstyle? I dont think anyone wants to knowingly miss a big swathe of content
08/10/2012 at 19:55 Kilometrik says:
Nope, there are people. An Iron man, hardest difficulty, speed run sounds right up my alley for my 4th or 5th playthrough. Thief was famous for players creating challenges like that for themselves.
08/10/2012 at 20:59 Emeraude says:
Thankfully, players don’t have to do that nowadays. They have achievements.
08/10/2012 at 21:27 DerNebel says:
How lucky we are! No more of that pesky ‘setting goals for yourself’ nonsense, just clear, concise goals toward which to strive!
Luckily we have Minecraft et al. to show us that games can be more like music, that they can be meant to be experienced not beaten. Nobody beats Minecraft, and I would bet that most Bastion playthroughs were more about experiencing the wonderful setting and story than it was to reach the final stage.
Tl;dr: Achiefs are good, more plz!
09/10/2012 at 07:50 Gnarf says:
“(…) more about experiencing the wonderful setting and story than it was to reach the final stage.”
Having a destination does not mean that it is no longer about the journey.
Are you seriously complaining about game designers putting in things like iron man modes (or, more or less equivalent, achievements for getting through games without dying), because then the players can’t “invent” iron man mode? It’s not like those were all the goals and now there are no more goals that the players can possibly set for themselves. And even if it was, wouldn’t it be more important that chasing those goals amounted to awesome experiences, and less important excactly who set them?
09/10/2012 at 07:59 Emeraude says:
And even if it was, wouldn’t it be more important that chasing those goals amounted to awesome experiences, and less important exactly who set them?
My main problem with achievements is that the way they have generally been implemented, they are kind of predatory on certain profiles of players (the completionists being one) and contribute in fostering a generally agonistic/competitive social environment I find… ugly for lack of a better word.
09/10/2012 at 09:30 Gnarf says:
Maybe I just hang with the wrong people. Only ugly thing I’ve noticed is a bunch of snobs obnoxiously pointing out how very little they care about achievements.
Mostly it’s been stuff like, guy in L4D is like, “hey, wanna try and get achievement X?” And then we have a lot of fun trying to get achievement X. It’s cool that it is shown outside of the game and you can point at it and be like, I did thing in game, but it’s not very important to anyone. Mostly just fun trying to get it.
I might be kind of with you on the implementation thing. The only thing I strongly dislike is gamerscore stuff on the 360, but there are plenty of bad achievements and there’s room for improvement etc. etc. Plenty of stuff we can attack there, but I don’t like that they’ve become this thing that it’s cool to hate on (the “Thankfully players don’t have to blahblah” was pretty much unrelated to everything before it, and mostly just sounded like “I’m cool because I’m dissing achievements”). And it bothers me that a bunch of guys act as if you have to hate on them or, if they’re like really tolerant about it, completely ignore them, else you’re obsessed with them/winning/something.
09/10/2012 at 23:16 Emeraude says:
“Thankfully players don’t have to blahblah” was pretty much unrelated to everything before it, and mostly just sounded like “I’m cool because I’m dissing achievements”)
The snark was meant to cut both ways. But I guess my kind of dry humor isn’t really fit for textual form.
And, no I would argue it was not purely gratuitous: a good portions of the comments that preceded were about control/shaping of the gaming experience. Objective markers plays a similar role to achievement in that respect, and I found the similitude funny, though tangential.
08/10/2012 at 19:59 jmedge91 says:
I think Alec is saying that this is two very different games for two very different types of gamers, and thus the experience varies according to approach. I have met many gamers – specifically those that find pleasure in the point-shoot-fast fests of today – that have absolutely no interest in exploring a world and discovering its nuances; instead, they care solely for accomplishing the clearly marked objective at the end of the map because – to them – that is all that matters. In fact, many of these gamers refuse to play a Fallout, Elder Scrolls, or other similar game because there’s “too much time” between exciting ‘splosion sequences. For gamers like Mr. Meer and myself (I also expect you to being among this group Uthred) that enjoy the peripheral content (I don’t know know that peripheral is the correct word) each game presents an opportunity to unravel its secrets a bit further, even going so far as challenging us to do so. I for one cannot complete a stage on Torchlight, for example, without exploring every inch of the map. I hate fogs of war with a passion, and will hunt them down and slaughter them with my presence without mercy. When I enter a dungeon in Skryim, I make sure to travel down every corridor, pick every lock, and solve every puzzle before I leave. But, not every gamer wants this experience, and as I said above I know people who actually are deterred from enjoying games because of the games’ reputations for such experiences.
Long paragraph made short: it’s not a matter of one experience, experienced wrongly; it’s a matter of multiple experiences, experienced according to the players’ personalities and preferences.
08/10/2012 at 21:41 HothMonster says:
I agree but wanted to add that certain types of manshoots have also trained gamers to ignore those other corners and hidden nooks. As Alec said most of the time in fps games that other half of the stairway ends with a barricade. If there is anything down there besides a dead-end its probably next to meaningless unless you are an achievement hunter. Some worthless collectible trinket or a newspaper most people will skip reading anyway.
So gamers are being trained by these games, if they do not care about 100% completion they do not head down that staircase because its only going to be a disappointing dead-end down there.
I’m not above playing the generic blockbuster AAA games from time to time but when I do, I quickly remember what type of game it is and stop trying to crawl into every cranny of the world because I know the only reason it exists is to keep the level from being one straight hallway, not because they are trying to add substance to the world. I think a lot of people just never got trained by the type of games that really do reward you for looking under every rock, and I mean reward beyond ticking off a checklist on your way to 100%.
08/10/2012 at 22:35 BubuIIC says:
I just had a blast playing Black Mesa, there is so much detail in this game, it’s really a great tribute to Half Life. Beginning with the opening sequence you just can’t capture everything going on around you, also there are quite a few notes in the train you can read. Then all the whiteboards in the offices, which thanks to the high detail textures you can actually read :-). In the second Lab complex (with that laser routing system) There is quite a bit of enemy physiology detailed on the boards, including some sketches you’d otherwise call concept art.
At one point I found myself studying a floor plan of the complex, which was placed on the wall, for at least 10 minutes. Figuring out where I am, studying all the lab descriptions, paths to the assumed objective and so on.
This actually helped to get from the ‘stumbling along and see where the level design leads you’ feeling to a real spatial understanding of the lab complex and a sense of ‘I need to go there, but this door is blocked, so here is an alternate path through the restroom area’.
“Oh, err, now back to shooting some military guys.”
TL;DR: You can also spend time to admire the level design in some shooters, cue Black Mesa
09/10/2012 at 01:19 Wedge says:
Did I miss a setting or something? I swear I had textures set to super max and many of the whiteboards were only just barely legible on the larger texts, while still being quite blurry and difficult to make out. I did notice that pretty much every one in the game seemed to be unique, which was awesome.
09/10/2012 at 14:08 BubuIIC says:
That’s how it looks for me:
Whiteboard
Floor plan
09/10/2012 at 00:21 Shralla says:
Video games are an interactive medium. More so than any other medium in the world, the phrase “you get out what you put in” applies perfectly. There is no reason for them to funnel you through a funhouse ride full of things being shoved in your face. You’re directly interacting with the world. The vast majority of the content SHOULD be off the beaten path, because art is there for the people who want to take the time to appreciate it.
09/10/2012 at 10:24 Gnarf says:
I think you’re misunderstanding what (at least some of the) people are asking for here.
It is not that the awesome bits are off the beaten path and we would like them to be on it instead. It is the beaten path that is the problem.
08/10/2012 at 19:30 MiniMatt says:
Anyone else an old school b3tard who can’t help but think of yet another tedious “apologies for length” line everytime length is mentioned?
It’s one of those words that’s now hardwired into the smirk centre of my brain.
08/10/2012 at 19:48 Sheng-ji says:
Haha, me too!
It’s what I think about every time I hear the word girth as well!
08/10/2012 at 19:30 crumbsucker says:
This thing’s like an onion. The more layers you peel, the more it stinks.
08/10/2012 at 19:34 BooleanBob says:
– Carol Ann Duffy, on love
08/10/2012 at 19:42 crumbsucker says:
Also George Costanza in Seinfeld :)
08/10/2012 at 19:31 Arclight says:
Think I would have just gone with “you’re doing it wrong, dumbass.”, but this works too.
08/10/2012 at 19:32 Trevty says:
Having originally put off preordering Dishonored after having burned by previous purchases of that nature; I am now very sad about that decision. Based upon what I’ve read from you guys, this is exactly my kind of game, and something I really should be excited for.
08/10/2012 at 19:36 mouton says:
Pre-orders are a bad idea in general. Unless you worship a developer and will forgive everything, of course. Happens to me sometimes.
08/10/2012 at 19:39 Trevty says:
Of course. Nonetheless, I am unhappy in retrospect.
09/10/2012 at 00:42 LintMan says:
I was very interested in this game, until the bewildering variety of pre-order bonuses was announced, compounded by the bonuses sounding most interesting to me not being available at the places I would have ordered it from.
So I put off preordering and then just decided this was a bunch of bullshit and would just give the game a pass. Maybe I’ll pick it up in a 50% steam sale or a GOTY edition in a year or two.
No regrets here.
08/10/2012 at 19:32 derbefrier says:
I plan on turning off any HUD element I can. Skyrim was a completely different experience when I did the same with it. Maybe its just me but even though I want to explore, for some reason if that way point is in my face I am just compelled to follow it, even if its the last thing I wanna do. I plan on turning all the hud elements off putting it on the highest difficulty and enjoying every bit of this game. games like this dont come around enough to just run through like its a Call of Duty.
08/10/2012 at 20:25 Kefren says:
Currently playing Dead Island, and the first thing I did was turn off as many ‘helpers’ as possible. It was even giving me a dotted line to the door I needed to go through!
Let me find my own way!
08/10/2012 at 21:48 BubuIIC says:
Also Deus Ex: HR was a more enjoyable experience for me with the object highlighting turned off. Yes, you could miss a vital weapon upgrade or ammunition but when you found something, you really found it, you didn’t just pick it up after it glowed yellow. (But I must admit, I preferred the cross hairs to be enabled.)
08/10/2012 at 22:47 Naum says:
Unfortunately Skyrim is also very much not designed to be played without objective markers and the like. It’s interesting though: I realised how strange it is that RPGs generally won’t let me ask where an NPC or a building is located because they assume that I’ll just look it up on the map. Or that someone tells me “go kill the guys in XY Mine” without even bothering to give a general direction of where to find them. Dishonored with its seemingly not exactly large levels probably doesn’t have that problem, but I’d really like to see some Open World(ish) RPG cater to a UI-less playstyle. It does add to the experience quite significantly, at least for me: much less grindy checklist, overall more enjoyment.
08/10/2012 at 19:32 Heliocentric says:
You could play Hitman: Blood Money like a shooter too, Really, that it can be played that way is a blessing in disguise, stops the stealth intolerant hating on it.
08/10/2012 at 19:37 mouton says:
Or Thief for that matter. Just get your sword out and charge.
08/10/2012 at 19:40 Revisor says:
And die soon after. :)
08/10/2012 at 19:55 mouton says:
Nah, with some skill you can murder everyone on your way. Also, shoot them with arrows from high up.
08/10/2012 at 20:08 DarkFenix says:
Every now and then, I do go and play Hitman: Blood Money like a shooter. Or at least partly. With these games I’ll have a playthrough stealthily where I seek perfection. Then I’ll have a muck around as an utter psychopath, blasting a bloody path to the target in a short time. Then I’ll have the in-between playthrough, where I painstakingly search every last corner and ensure that not only was I never seen entering or exiting the area, but nothing is even still breathing in the vicinity. Doing H:BM levels like that is bloody fun, in both senses of the word.
08/10/2012 at 20:24 Kyrius says:
I’ve played Hitman: Codename 47 and didn’t like it much… After seeing so much discussion with the next game (Hitman: Absolution), I might give Blood Money a shot… Is it worth it?
08/10/2012 at 20:55 Meldreth says:
Well… Yes. I kind of had a hard time getting into the other Hitman games ( And I never really did, to be honest ), but Blood Money is different. You’ll love it for sure.
08/10/2012 at 21:13 jezcentral says:
The original Hitman was a bit ropey, but the rest are great. Some swear by the second installment, but for me, HBM is the apogee of the series.
08/10/2012 at 19:34 Dilapinated says:
This strikes me as similar to discussions about open world RPGs and their Main & Side Quests (as well as collectable paraphenalia, Easter Eggs, etc).
I think for those of us who don’t have to collect every coin in the level, it comes down to repetition. Many times (Mass Effect 1 >:|) games will have a lot of non-essential content that ends up being a cardboard copy of the last 5 iterations. However, other games (Fallout, Deus Ex) reward this kind of attention by the player with content that feels both fresh and still fitting with the game environment.
I think it’s a hard and often frustrating task for developers, when they know that 70% of players won’t see the content they’re pouring their hearts into. But it really pays off when it results in a game world that feels alive and welcoming (in a playing sense, not hostility or lack of), regardless of which parts the player encounters. And sometimes the stuff that you don’t see is part of the story, too; make a choice here, and you won’t be able to access something there. I don’t know if Dishonored is like that or not, it doesn’t seem to be fettered with the binary morality system that these choices tend to be a part of.
08/10/2012 at 22:33 DigitalSignalX says:
Agree; when a game places me in a new map or area, I immediately will strike out 90 degrees or even 180 from the objective, because many developers will have invested a great deal of effort fleshing out the rest of the landscape. I consider exploring it a fundamental element of my enjoyment of a title.
08/10/2012 at 19:35 commenter1008 says:
just registered to say:
beautiful writing!
thank you
08/10/2012 at 19:41 horsemedic says:
Shorter apology: It’s the gamer’s fault if he plays Dishonored in the obvious, efficient way and finds it overly easy. The proper way to play is by playing it in the “spirit it is offered,” which I guess mean counterintuitively moving away from the glowing quest objective and handicapping yourself. Halo sukz!
08/10/2012 at 19:53 Sheng-ji says:
We should make all our entertainment efficient!
I’m not going to savour nice food any more, just eat as efficiently as possible. I’m not going to drink fine whiskey, when a cheap vodka gets me drunk so much quicker. I’m not going to watch my team play, its more efficient to watch on TV. I’m not going to read the whole book, just the collins guide. I’m not going to read the book, just watch the movie
etc etc
08/10/2012 at 20:09 horsemedic says:
“Efficient” here would mean following the game’s instructions on where to go/what to do.
Earlier I read this article telling me exploration was originally a crucial gameplay component. But beta testers found the exploring prohibitively difficult, so rather than fix the problem the designers simply made exploration optional by adding quest markers.
Now I read an article indicating that without the exploration the game is extremely easy.
To me, this suggests Dishonored may suffer from some very poor design decisions, but what do I know? I’m probably missing the spirit of the game.
08/10/2012 at 21:53 HothMonster says:
How do you fix the problem of gamers not being able to think for themselves and explore the world putting clues together on their own as to how to accomplish their mission? Well you can teach them how to think. You could make them play decades worth of games that forced them to do those things. You can tell your publisher that a huge percentage of the gaming population won’t be able to play this game. Or you can add an objective marker and point them on the way.
Seriously, someone wouldn’t go upstairs because a guard said so? While I agree that games should be made accessible to as many audiences as possible that certainly doesn’t mean we always have to design for the lowest common denominator. It is not a poor design decision to cater to those of us who would explore by default and really make our experience richer by designing the world with us in mind. In just the same way it wasn’t a bad design decision for the last COD to have “follow” or “go here” on screen at all times. They were just designed for different types of people.
I think dishonored was designed by people who want to play it like Alec for people who prefer to play it primarily like Alec but then playtested by everyone. Thief may be one of the greatest games of all time but that doesn’t mean everyone will like it. However when you convince a publisher to give you millions of dollars you can bet your ass the want it to be as accessible to as many people as possible.
Having not played it I still really do think it was designed for those of us who will turn off objectives before hitting start. However they had to add objective markers for all the people who will by it expecting something else thanks to Beth’s huge marketing push.
I’m excited to look through keyholes and listen in on conversations. I will be a fly on the wall. On the occasion that I fall off the wall I will be glad the game is equipped to allow me a short and beautiful bloody rampage until nothing alive knows I exist. Though the game allows you to rampage bloodily I don’t think it was designed for that to be the primary mode of play and those that buy it for that reason got fooled by marketing.
Its not that it has poor design decisions, it that it was designed for an audience that doesn’t need ist hand held, but you don’t get Beth to throw money at you if you say, a lot of gamers will get stuck and give up in the first 2 levels by design.
/rant
08/10/2012 at 20:33 MacTheGeek says:
Watching your team play on TV takes far too much time. Just watch the highlights after the game is over. Better yet, wait until the season is over, and then check the final standings to see whether you should continue to claim the team as your own, or bury their gear in the back of your closet.
08/10/2012 at 20:47 horsemedic says:
If you’re 7 points up in the final quarter, don’t go for another touchdown. Run in the opposite direction. Fumble the ball and give the other team a chance to make up the score. That’s the spirit of the game.
08/10/2012 at 21:57 JehuGarroutte says:
Horsemedic, you are a profoundly silly goose.
08/10/2012 at 22:03 HothMonster says:
Those defensive blitzes you are running are way to confusing on the other teams quarterback. Rather than play to your full potential by developing a rich, diverse and responsive defense you should just have blitzing players hold up their hand before the snap so everyone is on the same page.
08/10/2012 at 23:08 Hidden_7 says:
Horsemedic, I assume you play all games on their easiest settings, correct? Otherwise you’re just intentionally making it harder for yourself.
08/10/2012 at 19:57 Lambchops says:
I find it hard to criticise the “path of least resistance” mindset too much though, as I’m guilty of it myself from time to time. Something like Crayon Physics Deluxe, for example, saw me getting bored halfway through because I was basically solving the majority of puzzles using the same tried and tested techniques, despite the fact it was clear the designer wanted me to be more elaborate or indulge in my creativity more. In the case of Crayon Physics there wasn’t (for me) enough motivation to stay with the spirit of the game.
Whether this is my fault or bad design (or both) is open for debate but nevertheless, it would be somewhat hypocritical of me to deride people who take the same path in Dishonoured for whom extra world detail wont be a motivation to do things the trickier, but perhaps more fulfilling way.
08/10/2012 at 20:36 Hematite says:
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with ‘path of least resistance’ play, particularly if you’re bashing through to get past a tedious part of the game.
It seems like with Dishonored an as-yet-unknown number of people will buy it, play it as a shooter, and not even especially realise that that’s not what most of the design effort of the game went in to. The fact that it’s probably a lot of fun, if a tad short, as a shooter is more likely to make people fall into this trap of dissatisfaction.
09/10/2012 at 03:26 ffordesoon says:
Sounds like Crayon Physics Deluxe has the same problem the Scribblenauts series has, which I would put in the category of, at the least, sub-optimal design.
That is to say, it goes so far in the direction of respecting player choice that it actually becomes boring, because there’s no real in-game reward for being incredibly creative with your solutions to the puzzles. I mean, you might get a better star rating, but so what?
The difference with Dishonored would seem to be that, as with its inspirations, you get out what you put in. It reinforces and rewards exploration by tempting you with the promise of more information about its gloriously designed world.
08/10/2012 at 19:42 aperson4321 says:
Thank you for the great article. It is articles like this that makes me think of this site as the best internett site about games. This is the only video games site that got the same quality of writing as “the economist”. Thank you for existing rockpapershotgun.
08/10/2012 at 23:33 Hidden_7 says:
Don’t be silly. RPS is much better than The Economist.
08/10/2012 at 19:44 leQuack says:
Very nice article.
For me, I buy games for their replayability and was actually just checking my Steam data: apparently I’ve played Civilization V for 249 hours.
How about that onion?
09/10/2012 at 00:51 alundra says:
No no no, you are a very vocal minority /s
That must be 24.9 hours /s
Games these days lasts 24 at most /s
We should be thankful for being allowed to spend $60 usd in disposable entertainment. /s
That more or less sums the first two pages of comments of this article.
08/10/2012 at 19:45 veremor says:
It may not be “great” in the strongest sense of the word, but games in total haven’t been worth much of a look since, well, ever since I don’t think games are automatically something great. (They aren’t in fact above bad TV, only with a different target group which feels more at home with them.)
08/10/2012 at 20:58 JB says:
I’m sorry, what?
08/10/2012 at 19:46 Lambchops says:
This article, more than any, has convinced me that I will really enjoy this game. See I love exploring in games but, quite often, I find that hugely expansive open worlds don’t draw me in. I prefer the compact Liberty City of GTA III to the vast sprawl that was San Andreas, I prefer the tightly designed but densely featured maps of Deus Ex to wandering aimlessly around Morrowind.
So this description of how the world in Dishonoured definitely has hooked me in. I couldn’t help get the impression that it sounded a bit like Hitman: Blood Money in the way its levels are laid out, just with more incidental details and things to discover. That can only be a good thing.
08/10/2012 at 19:47 Stellar Duck says:
Reading the first paragraph of this I was sure I was about to be heart broken for having just bought it.
Then it turns out that I wont. I was afraid Alec was going to say that the game wasn’t as layered and nuanced as I want it to be and that was why the backlash would come.
Turns out he was talking about backlash from people who play games the exact opposite way of how I do.
That bit with taking the stairs down, away from the objective. I do that in every game I play.
08/10/2012 at 21:30 Shadram says:
Same. In any game I play, if I can figure out which way the game wants me to go, I instantly turn around and go the other way. Dead-ends are the norm, but just occasionally you’re rewarded for going the wrong way.
I had little interest in Dishonoured. Now I feel I need it.
PS. I had a housemate at uni who ate onions like apples. It made me want to throw up every time.
08/10/2012 at 21:41 Stellar Duck says:
You know what the worst thing ever is? I’m sure you do from the sound of it. When you go down on path a bit to see what there is, realise that it’s the main route, turn back to take the other one and find that something has closed a gate behind you. I hate that so much!
Also eww on the onions.
08/10/2012 at 22:07 HothMonster says:
There is little I hate more. “Hmm, I can’t tell which way is right….I’ll just saunter down this hallway a little to peek around the corner and wait wait wait fuck! I can’t go back. And oh look you checkpointed me too so I can load my last save from a hour ago or just never know what was down that other path.”
08/10/2012 at 22:18 Stellar Duck says:
Ugh. Check points… The bane of my gaming fun since forever.
08/10/2012 at 22:17 BubuIIC says:
Oh, how I hate it! Really, I think I might need objective markers in some games, just to go exactly in the opposite direction. Also made playing Deus Ex 1 a bit awkward at first… which might be the path leading to the objective… oh no, they all do! What should I possibly do?
09/10/2012 at 16:47 Qazinsky says:
Agree completely! Back in older games, not only did I follow every wall around like simple house layouts needed maze techniques to get through, I constantly spammed the ‘use’-button to find secret doors. Honestly not sure if I’m happy about the removal of secret doors hidden as part of a plain wall or not.
I still got the Quest marker activated in Skyrim so I know where to go last.
08/10/2012 at 22:18 BubuIIC says:
Was the first thing I did in Limbo… got an achievement out of it :D.
08/10/2012 at 22:29 Stellar Duck says:
Been a while since I played Limbo but looked up my cheevo list. Got that one as well.
08/10/2012 at 19:47 The First Door says:
This article has actually made me want to buy the game more than the review in many ways. I love little secrets, story and scenes being hidden down in every corner as it validates my near obsession with never going the right way if I can possibly avoid it. Although that did get me into trouble in Deux Ex: HR when I didn’t realise something was time sensitive…
Anyway, I always find the discussion of length a little odd with games. First off play length is very subjective. For example, Black Mesa was quoted as being 8 – 10 hours long and I think it took me about 15, whereas I got through Q.U.B.E. quicker than the reported play time. Secondly, often the people who’ll be complaining a single player game is a certain length are the same people who’ll be saying what an amazing game something like Vanquish is, despite having a much shorter running time.
08/10/2012 at 22:10 HothMonster says:
Was there anything in Deus Ex that was time sensitive beyond getting to that first mission? They backhanded me right off the start for not moving it along but I feel like that was the only time in the game that it happened. Which makes it seem more like a cheapshot then anything. It seems like it is teaching you that this is a different kind of game and time does matter, if they say get somewhere you can’t spend 5 hours checking cubicles. But if I remember right you can spend the rest of the game examining brickwork and never get penalized again.
08/10/2012 at 23:32 The First Door says:
To be honest after that early backhand I felt so guilty that I’d gotten all of them killed, I never tested that game again! I’d go into an area and clear it before obsessively checking every computer, instead.
09/10/2012 at 13:17 Naum says:
[DX:HR first mission SPOILERS ahead]
I took my time throughout the game, read everything etc., so I suppose the first mission is indeed the only time-sensitive thing in the game. Actually, I wasn’t even aware of its time-sensitivity: When I got to the bomb there were about 40 seconds left, just enough to hack the thing, so I thought the game was fooling me into believing that I’d made it just in time for a bit of additional drama — when indeed I had made it just in time and the situation was genuinely dramatic. It’s a perfect example of how contemporary computer game design conventions sometimes spoil the experience.
08/10/2012 at 19:57 Ross Angus says:
My first instinct at the spawn point of any new level is to turn 180 degrees, and start walking in the wrong direction. I often look at the architecture of levels to work out where I’m supposed to go, so that I can go the wrong way. Finding you’ve passed a valve, and the way back is blocked is frustrating. So Deus Ex: Human Revolution took me weeks to finish. And I don’t think I saw it all. Dishono(u)rd sound right up my cup of tea.
08/10/2012 at 20:00 Klonopin says:
I’m having a little trouble with the metaphor of greedily gobbling up whole onions. Is this a British thing that I just can’t grasp as an american? Are people walking the streets of London chomping into raw onions like apples, stopping to occasionally dab at their streaming eyes ?
08/10/2012 at 21:17 conceitedguy says:
Yes.
08/10/2012 at 22:53 BubuIIC says:
We’ve read this book in school: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holes_%28novel%29
A book about onions (although it might not seem that way at first). And it’s American, actually.
08/10/2012 at 20:03 felisc says:
well put mr Meer. *raises his glass of wine*
08/10/2012 at 20:16 Lobotomist says:
One of my favorite games in ‘olde days was “Monty’s great escape”. Not to get much into game mechanics the game could be played extremely fast if one knew what he is doing. My record was 45 seconds play-trough.
08/10/2012 at 20:19 Dervish says:
Addressing this problem is the real justification for Thief’s loot requirements. “Smash and grab” works well for some of the main objectives, but loses a lot of appeal when you have to stop and search most of the rooms anyway.
08/10/2012 at 20:21 DiamondDog says:
It was always going to be how I approached the game, but it’s nice to know it’ll be worth it. Can’t wait.
08/10/2012 at 20:22 Cytrom says:
I’m smelling poor excuses here.
I haven’t played the game yet so I’m not judging it, but measuring game length by difficulty or playstyle is an old and total bullshit argument.
There were a few super short games on NES that only had like a grand total of 4… FOUR, levels and a sugar rushing asian could beat them in 5 minutes flat, but their difficulty was so intense (in an unfair way) it took days for mere mortals to beat if they havent given up sooner… but *that doesent change the fact that they were super short games with very little content*. Increasing the playtime of a game by difficulty INSTEAD of actual game content is the cheapest way to make a game seem bigger than it actually is.
About the playstyle argument. Just because My playstyle consists of me staring an hour at every wall in game doesnt make game consisting of 2 hours of narrated / scripted game content a 100 hour game. Skyrim had at least a hundred hours of playtime if you attempted to do every quest regardless of your approach.
So the short translation i gathered from this article is this:
“Objectively, the game is thin on content but i like it too much to admit it planly, and I’m biased enough to make lengthy excuses that sound deep, and gather some self validation in the process so i don’t have to consciously admit the fault even to myself.”
Fanboy logic basically.
Thats just my gut feeling though…
08/10/2012 at 20:33 Lobotomist says:
You can practically beat Skyrim in around 6 hours. Yet I have over 180 hours in my playtime and still didnt see everything game has to offer.
What is he saying that lot of attention was given to detail and richness of the world. And if you just beeline for the goal you are simply going to miss it.
08/10/2012 at 20:57 The First Door says:
Hang on a second… you read an article which talks about how much content a game contains, and instantly compare it to a game with very little content? Alec is trying to make the point that the game is FULL of random little bits of content, but you have to go looking for it.
08/10/2012 at 21:07 BarneyL says:
I can run through my local library in under a minute, does that mean that it’salso lacking in content?
08/10/2012 at 22:12 Eddy9000 says:
Best metaphor yet.
08/10/2012 at 23:36 mwoody says:
Aye, well done.
09/10/2012 at 00:41 Lemming says:
Bang on.
08/10/2012 at 21:07 Savagetech says:
“Skyrim had at least a hundred hours of playtime if you attempted to do every quest regardless of your approach.”
Right, if you play it exactly the way Alec is suggesting you play Dishonored. I’m smelling a lack of reading comprehension here. “Events and choices with some pretty huge repercussions on not just plot, but the contents and nature of later levels” are hidden off of the beaten path along with “power upgrades and vignettes.” Is providing optional plot and loot for the adventurous not the exact function of 99% of Skyrim’s quests? You could blow through the main storyline in under 10% of the time you’re quoting; the fact that it’s there is irrelevant unless you take the time to look for it. Which is… exactly what he’s saying you need to do with Dishonored. Is this so hard to understand? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here.
08/10/2012 at 21:16 Cytrom says:
I just find it weird that the fact the game has lots of content needs to be emphasized in an article of its own. It gives me the impression that this is a defensive response to many people who think otherwise for some reason which may or may not be valid.
08/10/2012 at 21:42 Totally heterosexual says:
It’s not that weird. Alot of people have been looking forward to this and when a lot of really dumb people (read: you) start complaining when they dont even know what they are talking about, it can be expected for someone to elaborate a bit on the subject.
08/10/2012 at 21:44 Zeewolf says:
It’s because games with lots of content that you may have to look for, are for many of us better than games with little content that forces you through it all in a linear fashion that lasts 10 hours.
08/10/2012 at 22:20 HothMonster says:
I think it’s in defense of people who got suckered into this game from the marketing campaign expecting it to be like most AAA fpses and have the vast majority of the content dropped in front of them as they walk from point A to point B. It is more of, look CODlikes have trained you to experience games like so if you try to experience this game like so you will be greatly underwhelmed.
As much as this article excites me I hope it keeps some people who would have been buying it for the wrong reasons from doing so.
08/10/2012 at 21:58 Dervish says:
Describing difficulty as “unfair” is usually a poor excuse itself. Attempting to measure “content” as if it’s a volume of liquid that you slurp through a straw at a set rate ought to be a disdainful metric for anyone, especially if “hours spent slurping” is the only measurement people are using for how much “content” you get.
19/11/2012 at 20:27 specksynder says:
“…fanboy logic…”
I vastly prefer reading commentary to participating in the internet, but felt compelled to log in just to tell you to suck it. I can’t fathom how you could read the entire article with your brain and then use the same brain to present the “short translation” you provided. Your head’s like a waste-water treatment plant some mad person is running in reverse. Crystal Clean In —-> Effluent Out.
08/10/2012 at 20:27 Wololo says:
This is exactly how I’ve spend the last week or so playing Skyrim, just enjoying to see everything the devs made for us. And I’m playing on low graphics.
I’m most likely going to get Dishonored as soon as I’m able to, as I’m not really keen on preordering.
08/10/2012 at 20:28 wodin says:
Hmmm…would have been better design then if it utilised as much of the world as possible before you even get too your objective maybe. Instead of giving you what seems more or less direct and quick access to your objective.
Just a thought.
08/10/2012 at 22:06 AlwaysRight says:
No, because it would feel forced and unrewarding.
08/10/2012 at 23:16 Sheng-ji says:
Like a sort of linear corridor, with every bit of content crammed along it on the way. Think about it, you can use things like invisible walls to give the illusion of freedom whilst still guiding the player along the corridor! If we put doors along the way or high drops which can only be traversed forward, then the door locks or the drop can’t be climbed we can stop them going back and keep them on the straight and narrow.
If we give them less to think about, less to work out, less to explore, surely the game will be more fun!
09/10/2012 at 00:59 Hidden_7 says:
To be fair, there are ways to do this without resorting to linear corridors. If you have an open environment composed of say three distinct areas you can have a gating mechanism for your ultimate objective by requiring you complete non-linear objectives in each area first.
Plenty of Thief maps, for example, required you to complete a few different objectives in different areas of a large, open environment. Of course, Thief had the benefit of not having an objective marker. Really the objective marker is the problem here. It leads to a follow the marker gameplay where stop paying attention to your environment. I understand how adding it as an option must of seemed like a simple concession to what were no doubt developer demands brought on by focus groups for more accessibility, but I wonder if it might not have been to their benefit to spend time working out solutions that avoided an objective marker. It certainly sounds like the game is designed that it can be played quite successfully without it, it sounds that turning it off is the intended way of playing the game, and I have no doubt most people who read this site will turn it off before playing even a second of the game, but having that option there I think will poison the discussion around the game some. Hell, it’s already come up as a point of contention.
I think the best option at this point is a concentrated campaign by both players and journalists to brand the objective marker as “easy baby mode.” Launch an effort to stigmatize playing with it on. Call it cheat mode. Start every review with a reccomendation to turn it off immediately. Lead every discussion about the game with friends with claims that “it doesn’t count” if you played with it on.
Hopefully we can erase it from existence if enough people consider it shameful to play that way, and the discussion around the game needn’t get hung up on issues surrounding this unfortunate concession to design.
09/10/2012 at 02:32 wodin says:
Thanks mate..exactly what I meant. There are ways of designing that allow you to explore and utilize whats on offer before you get to the main objective without it being force fed or linear.
Just takes some thinking about.
08/10/2012 at 20:31 Casimir's Blake says:
I’m far, far more concerned that they included OBJECTIVE MARKERS.
This “feature” should never ever have infected modern gaming, it’s a get-out clause for game designers that don’t have the courage to trust the gamer to be intelligent enough to find their own way through the game. It bothered me in Sega’s Aliens Vs Predator reboot, and the idea that it should be present in a first-person sandbox immersive simulation bothers me even more.
Are Arkane really trying to pander to the mainstream 360/PS3 player by stooping this low?! Yes, clearly, they are. Everyone and anyone with any sense should disable the feature immediately, or face even shorter playing times. And little or no exploratory challenge, which would be a complete waste.
08/10/2012 at 21:08 AmateurScience says:
But hey, you *can* turn them off, so no harm no foul.
I would love it if ‘off’ was default, and there was a little tooltip saying: ‘hey, if you’re really lost put these on, but we think you’ll get more out of the game if you try it with them off first’
On a more general note, it might be cool if they started doing whatever the gaming equivalent of a preface or introduction would be, like ‘hi: we’re the game designers, this is what we were shooting for here…’
08/10/2012 at 21:51 Stellar Duck says:
I’ve got a few manuals where that happens. Mind you, it’s mostly stuff like Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron, Galactic Civilizations 2 and stuff like that so it’s not really main stream.
But I love reading them.
08/10/2012 at 22:09 AmateurScience says:
The manual for Civ 2 was brilliant. I think I still have it kicking around somewhere.
08/10/2012 at 22:47 Stellar Duck says:
Oh! Oh! The manual for Alpha Centauri is the best manual ever I reckon.
08/10/2012 at 22:53 Zanchito says:
Let me recommend you the original Homeworld manual. It’s a proper novel-encyclopedia, giving you the background of the original space-faring civilization BACK TO THE STONE AGE. Impressive and truly delightfult to read. I believe the digital versions of the game come with the manual in PDF format.
08/10/2012 at 22:40 HothMonster says:
Playtesting, publishing and marketing. The people who paid for the game want tens of millions of people to be able to play it and not give up in the first hour. They really don’t care if the game was designed for those people or if pandering to the lowest common denominator spoils the artistic vision.
Maybe that is a bad thing, but I can still turn the markers off and Beth still threw millions of dollars at Arkane to make it in hopes of selling it to those millions. So I guess unless you got fooled into thinking you were buying a blockbuster linear manshoot then everyone wins.
08/10/2012 at 20:32 Dominic White says:
The guys who burn through Dishonored in 4-5 hours and then complain about it being short and ripped off are the same breed that went through Bioshock using nothing but the wrench and lightning plasmid, then complained that there was no variety in the combat.
There are a lot of gamers out there who will obsessively seek out the most efficient way to play a game, to the point where they no longer enjoy it, then kvetch about how boring it was. Self-flagellation combined with the ability to blame everyone else for your pain. It’s sad.
08/10/2012 at 22:15 Eddy9000 says:
I have to say that even then, as someone who went through the game with wrench and lightning mostly, it was still a very satisfactory experience. Hell I would have been happy just walking through the levels with no enemies.
08/10/2012 at 22:50 horsemedic says:
> There are a lot of gamers out there who will obsessively seek out the most efficient way to play a game, to the point where they no longer enjoy it, then kvetch about how boring it was.
For better or worse, making players obsessively seek out the most efficient way to play is the primary design principle of most games on the market, including this one. You start off inefficiently, end up a pro, and have a blast along the way.
A good game makes this process challenging and interesting. A great game (like chess) makes it challenging, interesting and ultimately impossible. A bad game makes it easy, and requires players to read 1000-word RPS articles about how they should walk backwards through the map and handicap themselves if they want to have any fun.
08/10/2012 at 22:59 Eddy9000 says:
When RPS writes an article like that be sure to let me know, because all I’ve ever seen are suggestions that different games might suit people that have different play styles and expectations.
08/10/2012 at 23:11 Sheng-ji says:
Horsemedic. You don’t get it do you. There are people in this world who want to challenge a different part of their brain, They want to explore a world without an NPC telling them which bit of the world to explore next. They want to figure out where the ballroom is, without a pointer pointing at the ballroom and a distance counter telling them how far away it is. They want to read a book in game and later find graffiti on a wall which quotes the book, or maybe misquotes it. I get that you don’t understand why this is fun for some people, but as the article says, you have plenty of games, we don’t. Get off our case – don’t buy this game, go spend your money on the latest cod or whatever it is you feel nice and efficient in and leave us to enjoy this one gem.
08/10/2012 at 23:16 horsemedic says:
Yeah, and from what I’ve read of Dishonored’s development, they tried to make a game like that but ended up with an overly difficult mess in which players were wandering around aimless and frustrated. Then, rather than fix the design, they just stuck quest markers everywhere to make it easy. The result: you can follow the markers and play a very easy game, or wander pointlessly through the 90% of the level whose purpose was discarded at the last minute.
Maybe I’m misreading these articles and the game will turn out to be awesome, but everything I’m seeing now indicates a design cluterfark.
08/10/2012 at 23:26 woodsey says:
That’s talking about how you’re made aware of certain opportunities. So characters might more noticeably reference them as opposed to you purely having to find them yourself.
08/10/2012 at 23:38 Sheng-ji says:
Horsemedic – DO NOT BUY THIS GAME. YOU WILL HATE IT AND YOU CLEARLY WILL NOT GET IT.
And that’s OK, you’ve got plenty of games you do like, now those of us who want this type of game will have it too. Of course I could be wrong, but, despite you linking to a site which calls itself “lazy gamers” and is reporting that gamers I assume are like you were lost without having it carefully explained what to do next is not winning you any supporters. We want a game like this because finding those “pointless bits of level” is the fun.
You are the person who when the train breaks down, you wait patiently on the platform for the next one.
We are the people who check the timetable, go find a local bar, catch a cool new band and buy their cd, climb up to the top of a tower just to see the view, meet a new friend and still jump on that next train.
08/10/2012 at 23:45 HothMonster says:
They didnt just add the marker and walk away. That article states that they made some options more apparent. Also while some playtesters were dumbfounded im sure plenty of us would have had a grand time figuring it out.
Sounds to me like they left the hard routes in for people to find and added a little hand holding for those that are not so good at finding the other routes. So im not sure what your problem is. They designed it too hard for everyone so they went through and made it more accessible, sounds like everyone gets what they want.
You seem to think that responding to playtesting is a bad thing and that everyone who was playtesting was part of the target audience.
08/10/2012 at 23:46 horsemedic says:
I hope so. I really do hope I can turn the quest marker off and enjoy a balanced, intelligent game that is equal parts deciphering clues and exploding people with rats, or what have you.
What I fear based on the reporting so far is that I can either turn off the quest marker and wander through a pretty but unfocused game where I need to stumble across nearly every square inch of the map before find the goal, or I can turn on the quest marker and sprint to the end in a few quicksaves.
09/10/2012 at 00:42 JuJuCam says:
The point of the previous article was that the playtesters they employed that found the game too difficult were players who have been conditioned by the likes of COD – they may even have grown up playing such games, or otherwise only started gaming in the era of COD-likes. These people are used to rollercoaster ride experiences where NPCs literally open the doors for you. Unfortunately, this variety of gamer makes up some 60 – 80 % of the Venn circle labelled “people willing to drop upwards of US$50 on an FPS game”, and it wouldn’t do to have most of your market uncomfortable with your gaming experience because their previous experience suggests that people who talk to you in the game should be trusted to lead you in the right direction. In addition, as has been suggested by others, one could almost be forgiven for expecting a COD-like experience given the marketing for Dishonored. And it’s marketed that way because that marketing pulls the numbers.
I liken it to a test screening of an art house film by someone like David Lynch that’s packed to the gills with Micheal Bay-esque blockbuster fans. These people aren’t going to enjoy that film. There are not enough explosions, and what’s up with the midget? Does that make the film terribly made? I’d argue not. However, Arkane’s solution in the case of Dishonored would be like if Lynch went back and made a cut of the film that popped up tooltips indicating what was important in each scene and what the visual metaphors were supposed to represent according to him. But not all of them. So the Bay fans get at least some sense of the film and its deeper meaning and quality, but they’re still not meeting the work on its own terms because they’re only capable of seeing what’s made obvious to them.
The hope, I think, is that these people will eventually discover or otherwise realise that there is more to Dishonored than the linear objective markers suggest, and perhaps start again playing with a discovery focus rather than a killcount / time to completion focus.
08/10/2012 at 20:40 MistyMike says:
I think the heart of the problem here is the devs trying to make a ‘something for everybody’ kind of game. Play it how you want, they say. You want to sneak about – there are tools available for that. You want to should your way through – grab that gun and fire away. I believe the key is specialisation. This should have been a STEALTH game. You MUST be sneaky, albeit in a lethal or non-lethal manner. Weapons and violence are limited and suitable for self-defense only. You try to fight your way through and your guts get owned. That way no player would get a sub-optimal experience. There is no way of ‘playing it wrong’ in a video game.
09/10/2012 at 02:52 ffordesoon says:
You’re right, there isn’t.
Which is why your argument is silly. You act as if the design ethos behind the game is a problem, but it’s not. It’s a solution to a problem. That problem is the design you propose, because it punishes the player for improvisation and creativity
08/10/2012 at 20:41 MacTheGeek says:
Based strictly on the title, I thought The Onion had written a review of ‘Dishonored’ (and was appearing here courtesy of some sort of article exchange program). I was expecting some quotes from Billy Ray Scabtrap, whining about how there just aren’t enough redneck role models in videogames today.
08/10/2012 at 22:44 HothMonster says:
The Onions A.V. club usually has some pretty on the money video game reviews. I mean they are usually short and from more of an outsiders prospective then the gents here who fart game mechanics but they are usually good and often have a very interesting take.
08/10/2012 at 20:42 ChiefOfBeef says:
Revenge solves nothing.
08/10/2012 at 20:43 Emeraude says:
I’ll be in the corner, crying some more over the fact I won’t be playing this game because of its use DRM.
That should teach me about being an opinionated bitch.
Have fun for me if you’re kind enough.
08/10/2012 at 23:28 woodsey says:
You’re on the internet, presumably you can oblige the single-time connection to Steam you need to play it.
09/10/2012 at 06:50 MadTinkerer says:
Well to Emeraude and Vinraith, that’s just unacceptable, you know. Requiring a one-time activation of a game you’re downloading regardless. What’s “picking your battles” mean on the Internet anyway?
09/10/2012 at 08:51 Emeraude says:
Your assuming I would download the game, when a boxed version is available is quite erroneous.
Even if it weren’t, yes, I think I still would find the model proposed by Valve with Steam (which is more problematic than just “one online activation”) unacceptable.
08/10/2012 at 23:31 Vinraith says:
Much respect for sticking to your principles. I’d claim I was taking a stand on this one, but honestly it’s just not my type of game.
08/10/2012 at 20:47 Memphis-Ahn says:
Didn’t know Meer worked for Bethesda’s damage control.
08/10/2012 at 20:51 Emeraude says:
Arkane: they’re so arcane everybody thinks they’re someone else.
08/10/2012 at 21:14 AmateurScience says:
I can see the headlines now: ‘Game critic in expressing his opinion about a game shock’
Are you seriously suggesting that Mr Meer was paid to write that piece just because it expresses a favourable opinion of a game that is contrary to the complaints of some people on the internet?
Really?
08/10/2012 at 22:18 Eddy9000 says:
I know RPS is a pretty tolerant website when it comes to moderation but I’d just like to say that if you guys ever decided to ban people for making dumb-arsed and totally baseless accusations against your journalistic integrity then I would fully support it.
08/10/2012 at 22:46 HothMonster says:
No they should just go to his job and tell everyone in line that the only reason he works there is so he can have sex with the raw burgers on his lunch break.
08/10/2012 at 23:31 Alec Meer says:
While it is incredibly tempting to just delete The Paranoid People Who Hate And Fear Existence, they do tend to take that as validating their insane half-wit theories.
08/10/2012 at 23:50 Memphis-Ahn says:
You can delete it if you’d like I don’t mind, it was merely a jest. I actually do agree with you on a basic level (anyone playing this game like a run’n'gun isn’t taking advantage of the games’ strengths) but I honestly do think the fault lies with the developers for allowing such a thing to happen.
“You’re playing it wrong” shouldn’t have to be an excuse.
Maybe it’s a reflection of the current mass market that purchases games, maybe it was a design oversight. Maybe I’m just jaded.
08/10/2012 at 23:27 caddyB says:
Oh it’s that time of the week again.
08/10/2012 at 21:02 The Sombrero Kid says:
Sounds boss
08/10/2012 at 21:09 conceitedguy says:
Yes, the retards may have won the War of the Expensive Luxury Entertainments, but cannot we, the intelligent, tasteful crowd of adult gamers, be allowed our own niche, a safe haven of Thinking Man’s Shooters, safe from the slavering horde of imbeciles? Dishonored is that shining, oh so rare light within the greater darkness. Well said, sir; a spectacular review. Let us drink, to the Honor, of Dishonored.
08/10/2012 at 21:21 MarcP says:
“If you’re looking for 10+ hours of shooting men, or even stabbing men, you are well-served already and forever by games that do that, do it well, and do it for a long time. You and those like you are the victor of the great games race, and you have the spoils, many times over.”
I hear this often and it leaves me feeling like a very stupid man, because as someone who loves manshooting, and to a lesser extent, manstabbing, I find surprisingly few quality games letting me do just that.
The Call of Modern Battleface single-player stuff is more of an interactive Hollywood movie than a good shooting game. I’ve got nothing against Hollywood movies, but it’s just not what I’m looking for here.
The Painkiller series and Hard Reset were definitely shooting games, but relatively shallow and mediocre ones.
Certain games blending genres between shooter and RPG can be entertaining (Borderlands, Dead Island), but often moreso due to the addicting nature of RPG mechanics masking weak gunplay.
Serious Sam 3 (2011) was great. Before that… I have to go all the way back to Crysis (1, not 2 ; definitely not 2), which was released 4 years earlier. Before that, FEAR (again, the original and not the sequels), which came out in 2005. There’s maybe 30-40 hours of game in each of these titles, for someone who really enjoys his manshooting and is willing to go through multiple replays. This is not a whole lot over 7 years, so ultimately, I always come back to Doom 2, a 1994 game, thanks to id releasing the source code and the community doing so much with it.
It’s alright. I’m having fun. Still, I often wish I was playing something else, something equally good using tech that isn’t close to two decades old; and yet, save for the few exceptions mentioned above, there doesn’t seem to be anything worth playing.
Oh, Left 4 Dead is also worth mentioning, although sticking strictly to solo play it’s hard to eke out more than a few hours out of it.
So, where? Where are those numerous games made for people like me? Because I’m just not seeing them.
Dishonored, Deus Ex, Portal, Half-Life, Vampire:Bloodlines, Amnesia, Bioshock on one hand. Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Halo on the other one. It seems to me those who prefer a focus on stories and character development rather than gunplay have won. What differs from game to game is the quality of that story – and the target audience, with the more “mature” crowd jumping on any occasion to point and laugh at how dumb games designed for teens are.
Sorry, not designed for kids – designed “for those who like manshooting”.
*groan*
08/10/2012 at 21:24 conceitedguy says:
play doom
08/10/2012 at 21:44 Totally heterosexual says:
I am so sorry. Please if you want a blowjob or something to make you feel better, just tell me.
08/10/2012 at 23:24 Sheng-ji says:
In the last 12 months, on PC by memory
COD: Black Ops 2
Borderlands 2
Serious Sam 3
COD: Combat Evolved
Battlefield 3
Rage
Red Orchestra 2: Heros of Stalingrad
Dead island
vs
In the last 12 months, on any machine, by memory
…. er….. anyone help?
That is all
09/10/2012 at 01:17 Uthred says:
Borderlands 2 and Dead Island are hardly pure shooters by any stretch of the imagination
09/10/2012 at 03:10 DXN says:
No, but they’re both oriented towards “head for this marker, killing things on the way” rather than “here’s an interesting world to explore and unravel on your own initiative”.
08/10/2012 at 21:21 Paul says:
When I first finished reading this article, comments were disabled. I thought that was great decision since no fuckhead could start a flamewar by being idiotic under this brilliant article.
Now I see they were enabled, and I am pleasantly surprised to see comments being very nice.
Cannot wait for Dishonored. Game of the year, calling it now.
08/10/2012 at 22:39 horsemedic says:
So you decided to make “fuckhead” your contribution to civil discourse.
08/10/2012 at 22:43 Gira says:
lol, “civil discourse”. It’s an internet comments thread, pal.
09/10/2012 at 14:10 mondomau says:
Ignore horsemedic, he’s just sore because it it could be argued that it refers to him on this occasion.
12/10/2012 at 05:17 SkittleDiddler says:
It will most certainly be Game of The Year, but not for any of the reasons you think.
See also: Skyrim, Oblivion.
08/10/2012 at 21:33 SonicTitan says:
This article needed to be written. It was in fact something I was toying with the idea of writing myself, but I think Meer phrased it better than I could have.
I’ll only add that there is NOTHING wrong with power gaming – video games are beautiful partly because we can choose which ways we want to interact with them. Instead what’s wrong is the tendency to devour and shit out the remains of a game without even thinking about the experience. That’s tiresome, and there’s no more room in gaming for it. Thank God for RPS.
08/10/2012 at 21:36 Savagetech says:
Sounds like my idea of a good time. In most games I refuse to advance the plot until I’ve thoroughly cased the area I’m currently in. I can’t bear to leave behind delicious loot only to find out about it later and realize I can’t return to the location.
Can’t help but feel it’s lazy design to add quest markers you don’t really want to follow, though. I don’t mind doing some digging to get the most out of a game, but unless you’re already inclined to do so then you’ll probably use the general FPS rule of “follow the shining golden beacon and you’ll see the entire game.” If this were an RPG that sort of marker would be alright since it’s easy to lose focus when you have nine billion potential sidequests, but in a more linear experience it invites players to play the game in the least satisfying way.
Why couldn’t they make it like Dark Souls, where your next objective is a simple description of what you need to do next? That invites the kind of “no stone unturned” exploration Alec seems to endorse here; if you don’t know the precise location of your target then you follow each side-path to its end. If some of those side-paths lead to worthwhile rewards, you’ll be enticed to explore things even after you’ve found the main objective.
I hope this unfortunate pandering to the lowest common denominator doesn’t hurt the game more than a lack of accessibility would have.
08/10/2012 at 21:49 ulix says:
“In almost any game, should I encounter a hallway with one staircase going up, towards my target, and another going down, towards nothing obvious at all, I will go down.”
This is exactly how I play games.
Sometimes, when its not clear which way is the “Linear” way to your target, I go in for a few meters, then maybe turn around if I think this is the “right” patch, to first explore the optional one.
08/10/2012 at 21:51 UncleLou says:
What happens if you use the difficulty option – does it just make open confrontations more difficult, rewarding stealth, or does it also make stealth harder (by whatever means)? I’d like to set it up so that bee-lining to your target absolutely isn’t an option, but stealth is not impossibly hard.
09/10/2012 at 09:03 tomeoftom says:
Mad props to your Gravatar.
08/10/2012 at 22:15 Iskariot says:
25 hours is excellent for a game. Of course if a game is as good as Dishonered even 250 hours is too short.
-
But as I have a very exploring nature I will get 30 to 35 hours out of the first play through with ease.
I love worlds that suck you in with pure palpable atmosphere. Dishonered is such a game.
I feel lucky being able to enjoy such a game in a time were superficiality in entertainment rules.
08/10/2012 at 22:15 jalf says:
I mostly play games this way as well, and yet it rubs me the wrong way. Where’s the suspension of disbelief when you’re supposedly rushing to save the world, and yet you dally around *intentionally* going the wrong way every chance you get?
Yes, I always do it, yes, I try to explore as much as possible, but I also consider such a game slightly broken. Why did the game not put all this content somewhere where I’d see it if I immersed myself into the game, somewhere where I’d see it if I didn’t metagame and consciously decide “this seems like the wrong way, so I’ll explore that first, because I might not get a chance later”?
At the end of the day, I think that’s bad game design. Not *very* bad, you can do a lot of things that are worse, but it’s still bad.
Ideally, the game should reveal itself to someone who played the game like the main character would have. Which would likely involve trying to go at least approximately the right way, at least most of the time.
09/10/2012 at 00:38 affront says:
Exactly this.
Which is why I prefer smaller-scale, more personal stories instead of the much too prevalent “saving the world”, “epic” variants that if you really played them like the story mattered would make you speed-run them.
It’s too bad that I seem to be in the minority in this.
09/10/2012 at 01:44 ffordesoon says:
You’re in luck, then. Dishonored’s story is about revenge, not saving Dunwall. That was a brilliant decision, because revenge doesn’t have to be swift and bloody or slow and silent. Revenge can be both, or something else entirely. So when you’re exploring every nook and cranny of Dishonored, you can view it as Corvo simply taking his time with his revenge. The only thing at stake is how long the bastards get to continue being bastards.
09/10/2012 at 02:29 ffordesoon says:
Totally disagree. While I think playing with player expectations through invisible time limits (DXHR, et al) is a fun mechanic I’d like to see explored a lot more, the idea that being able to take your time despite a looming threat is automatically bad game design is, to me, suspect at best. There are three reasons for that:
1) As I mentioned in my reaponse to Affront, Dishonored’s story apparently supports multiple playstyles just as much as its mechanics do. There is thus little ludonarrative dissonance. When the narrative and the mechanics are in sync, the narrative only serves to strengthen the game design. It only fails in games where the narrative and the mechanics are at cross purposes, like Uncharted (which I quite like anyway, because I don’t lash my enjoyment of a creative work to any specific dogmas, even the ones to which I subscribe).
2) Realism – even strict narrative realism – does not equal good game design. As a rule, it is actually pretty terrible game design when misapplied. Strict adherence to a linear narrative with very specific beats that don’t fit a game also often leads to crap design, which is why most licensed games blow. Games are like living art galleries; they tell stories through the precise arrangement of spaces.
3) There is no wrong way to make art, which means there’s no wrong way to make a game. There,is recieved wisdom, certainly, but a great piece of art can ignore that recieved wisdom and still be great.
09/10/2012 at 11:04 jalf says:
1) perhaps this game is one of the lesser offenders compared to many others. But again, actively rewarding (whether via XP rewards or better/more loot, or via pure narrative) the player for going the wrong way, for ignoring objectives, seems weak to me. It’s not black and white, but in general, I think it’s much more interesting if a game encourages me to immerse myself in the game, to play as if the objectives were actually my objectives, the things I want to achieve, and the things I *try* to achieve — and not something I try to put off and delay as much as possible.
2) complete strawman. I didn’t say *anything* about realism. I talked about suspension of disbelief and immersion. A game which maintains suspension of disbelief is, all else being equal, better designed than one which does not.
3) that is completely and utterly pure nonsense.
Because
a) games are not automatically art. Some people feel that some games are art, but that is very much a subjective judgment.
b) even if a game is art, art can be criticized too. Art is not exempt from being judged by its audience. You might even say that this judgment is the entire point of art.
c) I am not discussing its artistic merits, but its gameplay and game design. The Mona Lisa might be great art, but its gameplay is nonexistent, and, if treated as a game, deserves to be bashed to hell and back for that. Dishonored was, last I checked, a game, which means that discussing it as a game is not just fair, but the only goddamn sane thing to do. Pretending that we are not allowed to discuss the game aspects of a game under some absurd art pretense is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.
08/10/2012 at 22:16 Timthos says:
I, for one, am going to loot that city into the third world.
08/10/2012 at 22:30 VanishedDecoy says:
I have yet to play the game, but I actually like knowing what my main objective is so that I don’t accidentally complete it. I make sure that I hold off on it until I’m fairly certain that I have seen everything there is to see in the level. Like I said before, I have yet to play Dishonored so the structure may be a bit different to what I’m used to.
08/10/2012 at 23:02 Mr-Link says:
This +1000. I completely agree with the spirit of the article and the game, but I don’t get all the hate that objective markers are getting. I am pretty sure that if I turn off the objective markers and start exploring I will end up wandering to the main objective sooner then I would have otherwise wanted or trigger an event that I don’t want triggered.
Yet angry internet commenters are telling me that if I keep the objective markers on then I am a console trained pussy.
:’-(
09/10/2012 at 09:06 Grargh says:
There once was a time when level objectives could be conveyed by other means than quest markers with a distance on them. I think if in the mission briefing I’m told my target is in the guardhouse cellars, I will be able to recognize and stay away from that area without huge HUD-elements telling me which one it is. And any other triggers I may fire when wandering through a city like that are obviously meant to be extras I discover along the way, aren’t they?
09/10/2012 at 09:11 JackShandy says:
You end missions by killing a specific NPC. It should be easy to avoid that until you’re ready.
08/10/2012 at 22:32 MondSemmel says:
I can’t believe nobody commented on that:
“The idea that that they contained just 200 metres or so of space ludicrous. Because they didn’t. They contained kilomotres of it, folded in on itself, braided, shielded, but all there to unravel for those willing to do so.”
To paraphrase Mr. Meer’s points for Metacritic or something: RPS’ Alec Meer considers Dishonored to be one-dimensional.
08/10/2012 at 22:45 Gira says:
I think the fact that Dishonored’s playtimes differ wildly is a credit to it, and makes me more inclined to buy it after having been a little wary that this was going to be another BioShock.
I really dislike Alec’s disdain for speedrunners, though, which is something I really admire about the power of emergent game design and PC gaming in general. Not everyone wants to Emotionally Immerse themselves in watching a 3D fox run across a frosty plain.
08/10/2012 at 22:58 HothMonster says:
” Not everyone wants to Emotionally Immerse themselves in watching a 3D fox run across a frosty plain.”
…..I’m sorry but, um, do you know where I might maybe be able to go to get emotionally immersed in a 3D fox running across a frosty plain? I mean I got some hours until Dishonored unlocks and frankly that sounds like a fine way to do it.
08/10/2012 at 23:16 Harlander says:
You too, huh?
Man, don’t leave us hanging, dish out that sweet snow fox action
08/10/2012 at 23:04 Alec Meer says:
I don’t mean speedrunners at all – that’s a very deliberate, very thought-out discipline that encourages enormous ingenuity. I mean just blindly following the objective markers, really.
(I’m actually really excited to see what speed runners manage to do with the Blink powers. Some of the routes across roofs and stuff they might find could be incredible. Though there are a few invisible ceilings in there, presumably to stop people getting up high enough to escape the level bounds, which saddened me).
08/10/2012 at 23:08 The_B says:
I think you’re mistaking a disdain for those who complete a game as fast as they can – and then complain a game isn’t long enough or those that buy the game expecting a run and gun and want their money back because they feel they didn’t get enough ‘value’ for their game rather than a disdain for those who know what the game is but then want to speedrun it as an option.
And I think that’s somewhat what it comes down to, is this perception of ‘value’ for a game, and why some of us are happy to pay something for a game because of what we expect to get out of our cash. The issue that needs addressing – and I do think is exactly what Alec does here – is those who don’t get the specific type of “value” they may have been expecting, of everything handed to you on a plate in a linear fashion without having to do much ‘work’ to find it, as opposed to say a proper speedrun which would take a degree of effort to figure out the most time efficient way to do properly itself.
EDIT: Ahh Alec beat me to it with his response.
08/10/2012 at 22:49 Tom OBedlam says:
This right here is some journalism. Nice one, Alec, I cannot wait get my paws on this.
08/10/2012 at 23:25 Lagwolf says:
Skyrim effect mb? People are so spoiled by the game, that can easily be played for 150 hours on your first build. I suspect it will be a while until we get another (solo) game with such legs.
08/10/2012 at 23:38 MadTinkerer says:
Aha! So in other words they did make Ultima Underworld 3 after all! Bravo, chaps. I’ll set aside some money next paycheck to get this (this paycheck I needed to choose between Dishonored or X-Com, so Dishonored had to wait).
08/10/2012 at 23:49 Vinraith says:
Yes, they did. It was called “Arx Fatalis” and it’s on GOG for a reasonable price.
This game, on the other hand, bears no resemblance whatsoever to Ultima Underworld. It doesn’t claim to be an RPG and isn’t trying to be one.
09/10/2012 at 06:43 Harlander says:
It’s also a pre-order bonus for Dishonoured, bizzarely
09/10/2012 at 07:08 MadTinkerer says:
How would you know? You’re skipping it.
As for Arx, okay maybe I should have said “Ultima Underworld 4″ above. But relatively small, completely non-linear level design seemingly from a time before linear level design had been conceived, that just screams “Underworld” to me. If you want to say that Dishonored isn’t like the Underworld games because it isn’t an RPG, then you have too strict a definition of RPG. Most Immersive Sims are RPGs.
Go read the leaked Ultima VII design documents (avaiable on GoG.com if you buy U7) if you don’t believe me. They were calling it “virtual reality” before the term was stolen to mean strapping televisions to your face. Dishonored is descended from the same pre-Diablo, pre-Baldur’s Gate school of first-person RPGs as Skyrim and System Shock 2 and Arx Fatalis and Ultima Underworld 2. Just because there’s no skill points or classes, that doesn’t make it not an RPG.
08/10/2012 at 23:43 int says:
“My Dishonored was largely spent in a crouch, in the shadows, killing no-one, collecting everything.”
This is why I love Splinter Cell, before it went action-shooty-shoot-shoot.
If I wanted to I could go non-lethal throughout the entire game. Sometimes never even assault anyone, just sneak past the goons.
08/10/2012 at 23:52 futage says:
I am worried about the shortness of Dishonoured.
I am not one of those people, to whom you have pre-emptively responded in this article, who rush through a game and then complain about its length.
I just enjoy long games. I like playing a game for weeks or months on end and becoming subsumed into the world and its reality. I like losing myself in games, this is a huge part of what I enjoy about them. And I sometimes find it difficult to enjoy a game where I can’t do this.
25 hours isn’t a long game, for me. It varies of course but 50 hours is about the point where I’m starting to feel at home and 100+ hours is far more like it. I’m prepared to work for this, I’ll explore every nook and cranny when I fall in love with a world and its reality. I don’t expect it to be served to me on a plate.
I’ll certainly play Dishonoured and I’m sure I’ll love it, it looks great. But if someone asks me what I think, I’ll likely say “I wish it were longer”.
Of course I realise that it’s not really economically viable to make lengthy, complex 3d action games any more since the work required to create the assets has kinda exploded. I also realise that some games should be short, that sometimes a short length is appropriate to the form and the content and that to have gone on longer would compromise the whole. That may be the case here, I won’t know until I’ve played it.
None of that alters the fact that I often find it hard to enjoy shorter games. It’s like sitting down to a long-anticipated delicious meal only to have the plate removed after only a few mouthfuls (I realise how flawed that is as an analogy – they’ve been very open about the length of the game. I’m only trying to describe how it feels.)
I realise it’s a hugely subjective thing but I am one of those people who simply enjoys long games And to (implicitly at least) characterise all complaints about length as the whining of those unwilling to engage fully with the experience is bollocks.
09/10/2012 at 01:10 alundra says:
Yeah, I agree with you, games are too short these days, 100+ hours for $60usg on Skyrim, that was some good value for the money, nobody expects every game out there to last so much but you gotta be a total conformist to feel well served by less than 50 hours.
Mr. Meer was spot on on his article, it’s obvious if you don’t take the time to savoir every bit of the game it last a lot shorter than it should, but, praising pathetic excuses for a game wrapped in shinny gfx is plain mediocrity.
And no, by that last comment I’m not referring to Dishonored, can’t be the judge of that yet.
09/10/2012 at 17:31 Qazinsky says:
I feel that game length standards have gone the wrong way, one opinon I cannot truly understand is the “This game is great, but XX hrs are long enough”. Sometimes it feels like you’ve only just sampled the games mechanics before it is over!
11/10/2012 at 12:37 futage says:
Ok well I spent 16 hours on mission 1 so my fears are pretty much allayed.
09/10/2012 at 00:21 frightlever says:
So this is a thing now is it? Alec devoted a post to pointing out why some people didn’t understand the Xcom demo. Now he’s telling people they’re playing Dishonored wrong. Given how Dishonored was billed, I find that ironic.
09/10/2012 at 01:58 Fincher says:
Any stealthy aspect to a game is there to give gaming “aficionados” some kind of superiority over people who choose not to go that route. I’
09/10/2012 at 01:58 Fincher says:
Any stealthy aspect to a game is there to give gaming “aficionados” some kind of superiority over people who choose not to go that route. I’m puzzled by it too.
09/10/2012 at 17:44 Nogo says:
It’s not that hard to understand, and hardly about feeling smug (especially considering most of those ‘aficionados’ usually resort to violence or end up completing a madcap run-through). Simply put, most shooters don’t allow stealth. So how is it so baffling to think people prefer the rare stealth approach when on offer? You’re basically saying you can’t understand why people find it weird to buy a burger at a Mexican restaurant.
And where are you reading Alec saying “use stealth?” The article plainly states that there’s ample content on offer, it’s just not explicitly sign-posted. So please, point and laugh at all the reviewers who were on a deadline and missed the majority of the game because arrows are more interesting than levels.
09/10/2012 at 07:28 Acorino says:
Honestly, it would be like merely playing the main quest in Skyrim and complaining there isn’t much to it. If you stick to one rigid path then it’s your own damn fault if you miss out on a lot of excellent content. You can play nothing more than shooty bang bang in Dishonored. But don’t complain then if you finish the game rather swiftly. If you want more bang for your buck (pun intended), then better find the right game for it. I heard Battlefield 3 is pretty good…
Skyrim and Dishonored I feel are great examples why its ludicrous to measure a game in terms of its lengths. Sure you can finish Skyrim under 10 hours, but how much have you missed then? Pretty much everything, I would wager.
I guess many gamers still perceive games as movies, with one linear path to the end.
09/10/2012 at 11:52 Lawful Evil says:
“Sure you can finish Skyrim under 10 hours”
Incorrect. You can’t *finish* Skyrim, or Oblivion, or Morrowind under 10 hours. You might complete the main quest, albeit with cheats, but not finish the game, because there isn’t an *ending* – you end playing the game when you chose, but the game doesn’t force yout to evade the ending of the main quest simply because it isn’t the ending of the game.
09/10/2012 at 08:10 TheApologist says:
Or they’re advocating games they really like through extended and useful discussion beyond a review. As is their wont and as RPS has always done.
09/10/2012 at 00:53 MDefender says:
I’ve always played games like this. What are you apoligising for, the short game that isn’t even out yet or the fact that “nasty internet trorrs” might say exactly that in the coming few days? What on earth is the point?
This is a ridiculous situation to be in. The idea that a design factor that was arguably self-apparent for months needs or even deserves this whitewash.
“On a direct playthrough on normal using objective markers and violence, dishonored takes between 4-6 hours to complete.”
Was that so hard?
09/10/2012 at 00:58 faelnor says:
My own little backlash for the time being: Is there no way to holster my weapons? I don’t want to see that useless gun, and I do not need the blade. Why take space on my screen?
09/10/2012 at 01:07 faelnor says:
You actually can! Just long press use. That game is a dream.
09/10/2012 at 01:16 MarcP says:
Most of the games you mention were already dismissed or acknowledged in the very post you’re replying to, Sheng-ji, and by lumping “story-based for teens” and “RPG” with genuine manshoots you’re just proving my point. Unfortunately for me.
09/10/2012 at 01:25 ffordesoon says:
This piece reminds me of a Deus Ex Made Me installment that Jordan Thomas (I think) wrote for RPS a couple years back, where he talked about how he thought Deus Ex was a “shitty linear shooter” the first time he played it, because it literally didn’t occur to him that there could be more to it. And then (I believe – this is a summary from memory) he heard that you could save Paul, and it cracked his brain wide open, because he was like, “No, no, Paul has to die… Right? Th-that’s how games work!”
And then he played it again, and saved Paul and did everything completely differently, and other shooters were kind of ruined for him. XD
Oh, Alec? This quote:
“In almost any game, should I encounter a hallway with one staircase going up, towards my target, and another going down, towards nothing obvious at all, I will go down.”
…Is the absolute best description of what sort of gamer I am that I’ve ever read, and explains a hell of a lot more about my taste in games than any label I’ve ever heard. I don’t care about genres at all. I care about whether I can go down the staircase that seems to lead nowhere and maybe see something amazing.
09/10/2012 at 02:52 LintMan says:
““In almost any game, should I encounter a hallway with one staircase going up, towards my target, and another going down, towards nothing obvious at all, I will go down.”
…Is the absolute best description of what sort of gamer I am that I’ve ever read, and explains a hell of a lot more about my taste in games than any label I’ve ever heard. I don’t care about genres at all. I care about whether I can go down the staircase that seems to lead nowhere and maybe see something amazing.”
I compulsively do this as well, but annoyingly in a lot of recent games, I seem to keep running afoul of game designers’ intent to detour players off the obvious paths, forcing me to do a lot of backtracking:
Me:
“Those stairs look like they’re lleading up to the goal, so I’ll explore this side passage first and see what’s there”. Then: “Wow this area was huge andit’s still going, and I just saw another event/cutscene indicating I’m getting CLOSER to the goal.” So then I have to backtrack to the stairs I skipped to see what I missed there, where I discover they dead ended in an impassable door or pile of rubble just around the corner from where I started. So then I have to backtrack AGAIN to where I had gone. Grrr. It’s like I’m being punished for trying to thoroughly explore the area.
09/10/2012 at 07:31 Acorino says:
Oh yes, I know that feeling. Damn annoying. :(
09/10/2012 at 08:31 ffordesoon says:
*nods*
Hate.
09/10/2012 at 01:34 yesterdayisawadeer says:
The words! They are healing my torn soul!
09/10/2012 at 02:46 zerosociety says:
So a friend of mine and I both got New Vegas at the same time. We both enjoyed it a great deal. His first playthrough took 10 hours and mine took 74. Which of us is superior?
Neither. We both paid our money and engaged with the game in ways it was designed to encourage and support and in ways we enjoyed. His playthrough of NV was 10 hours (and his Skyrim playthrough was 7) but was he doing something wrong? Nope. Was he missing content? Yes.
The question is: does this make New Vegas “A 10 hour game”?
The last few days have seen all sorts of Dishonoured buzz calling it “a 6 hour game”, but is it? I don’t see this article so much declaring superiority for one playstyle over another, but just saying “yes, it CAN be a 6 hour game or it CAN be 20+ and that decision is up to you.” I actually value that information a lot more as a consumer than if they had just said it’s one or the other.
I’ll take games that have content that can be explored depending on my playstyle over games like (the rather fun and well made) Darkness 2 which, no matter how you play it, lasts about 4-5 hours from start to finish with only a little replayability.
09/10/2012 at 03:08 JackShandy says:
The other thing is that most people don’t even finish games.
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2011/04/50-of-portal-2-players-on-steam-havent-finished-the-game/
09/10/2012 at 11:14 ChaseGunman says:
I didn’t finish Portal2 because halfway through it started crashing and nothing I’ve tried will fix it :(
09/10/2012 at 12:24 derbefrier says:
I’ll admit I have a lot of games i have never finished(I did finish Portal 2 though). Its mostly because I get bored with them after a while. I feel like I have seen everything the game has to offer and the story sucks so I move on to something else. In other words the game may have 40 hours of gameplay but gets boring after the first 20 or so why would i keep playing. This mostly happens with RPGs for me as most action games are pretty short and sweet but RPGs just have a way of dragging on and on and on and on….. Its not like I cant put a lot of hours in a game though I have put well over hundred in Skyrim thanks to mods and just broke the 100 hour mark with Dark Souls because that game is just awesome. Most games though just aren’t good enough to even finish these days.
09/10/2012 at 03:20 LintMan says:
I generally judge the length of a SP game by how long you can keep playing it and seeing and doing substantially new content (without being OCD about doing 100% of EVERYTHING). But I don’t consider “replay the campaign on a harder difficulty leve to get better lootl” or even “replay the campaign with a different class” as “new content”.
So for me, Starcraft 2 was about a 10 hour game. Diablo 2 was maybe 15 hours. DX:HR was maybe 30-40. Oblivion with expansions was around 130. Skyrim is 80+ (ongoing) so far.
09/10/2012 at 06:56 fish99 says:
I’d actually argue that your friend was doing it wrong and basically missed the point of a game like Vegas. I’d equate just doing the main quest in a Bethesda/Obsidian RPG to just doing the first level in Gear of War, especially given that the best content in these games is usually not the main quest. Does your friend even realize he missed 90% of the game btw?
09/10/2012 at 07:38 zerosociety says:
He knows, but he’s happy with what he got. He got the barebones beginning/middle and end that Obsidian designed. Is he minimizing value? Yeah. Is he doing it wrong? Nah.
09/10/2012 at 14:46 fish99 says:
I would say that’s a matter of opinion.
09/10/2012 at 03:04 TCM says:
Anyone who measures the value of game in hours taken is entirely silly anyhow.
Braid took me around 3 hours to beat, and I’m not going to bother with the stars. Bastion took me around ten hours. Binding of Isaac takes maybe an hour to run through once. Red Dead Redemption took me a good forty hours. X-Com, around 10 a run. Europa Universalis 3 has no actual ending, but I’ve probably invested a good 300 hours into it. All of these games occupy the same space in my heart, the space of ‘games that I absolutely love and will recommend to anyone who will ever listen’.
If there is some minimum threshold of time you need to invest into a game before you feel it was ‘worth it’, you should reevaluate the way you are thinking about gaming.
09/10/2012 at 03:35 LintMan says:
Time played isn’t the sole factor for game value judgement, but I think it can be a big factor.
For example, I was overwhelmingly satisfied after the 4 hours it took me to complete Portal. It was Game of the Year for me. On the other hand, I recall feeling massively ripped off by the 4 hour campaign length of the Age of Mythology: Titans expansion pack.
09/10/2012 at 04:32 Poliphilo says:
So let us have Dishonored. Let us have this one expensive, luxurious game that only truly works, only sings a glorious tune, only becomes a 20+ hour game if met by those who treat it in the spirit with which it is offered.
Yes please. Thank you very much, Arkane. I will play the shit out of it! ^^
09/10/2012 at 04:36 welverin says:
I like have quest markers and and a compass pointing me towards the objective, because then I know where not to go and head off in the other direction until I’ve explored every lat thing there is before doing what I’m supposed to be doing.
There were two or three times while playing Fallout 3 where while randomly exploring things I got rather annoyed when a quest update for the main questline popped up, all because I accidentally stumbled upon a plot point without realizing it.
09/10/2012 at 04:52 Sigh says:
This actually kind of concerns me.
I am not a “Straight-to-the-objective-Mountain-Dew-and-whiskey-swilling-steroid-injecting-adrenaline-junkie” That Alec is sooooo concerned with here, but I am a little worried that Dishonored has a lot of filler…more than I anticipated. I love sneaking around to hidden corners of a map to find piles of coins but when I did that in Bioshock I still had between 15-30 hours of core gameplay that was not crouching-in-shadows-looking-for-pennies-and-pence gameplay. I pre-ordered Dishonored and will find out for myself how long the game is, but I have this sneaking suspicion that there is not as much core/storyline-focused gameplay as I thought I was purchasing…despite what all of the White Knights say above.
Well, we will all find out soon enough. I am hoping for the best, but this article damaged my anticipation and excitement a little as I think even Adam Smith hinted at the brevity. Sigh.
EDIT: Does anyone else find it creepy that Alec wrote a feature length article defending a game that has not been released yet that is followed by a long stream of people concurring and also defending a game that has not been released yet given that nearly everyone here has not played it yet? Oh while you are reading this just know that Halo 5 and Call of Duty 15 are going to be AWESOME despite what all of the doubters say. And I am someone that pre-ordered Dishonored but I read all of this over-confidant trumpeting and hollering as actually a thinly-veiled facade hiding the doubts that are creeping into everyone’s consciousness…I don’t know how else to interpret such uninformed yelling in my ear.
Pleaaaassseeee let the game be good and of decent length.
09/10/2012 at 11:22 DXN says:
Alec is writing about his own experiences actually playing the game, and responding to criticisms that people have already started making, and the commenters are agreeing with the principle of his argument because it’s something we/they have thought about in the past. So what’s creepy?
09/10/2012 at 14:31 Sigh says:
Yes, Alec has played the game and is responding to criticism both real and imagined. Nearly everyone in the comments has not played the game. I applaud Alec’s sentiment and writing, I value this videogame site above all others, and I love these opinion pieces that result in such an outpouring of passion from the community from both sides of a debate.
However, the very fact that Alec felt compelled to write this piece before the game was released into the wild worries me. The creepy part is all of the individuals that have joined him on the soapbox before they have even experienced any gameplay firsthand. I know that a lot of the comments are agreeing with Alec’s sentiments and perspective abstractly as I do, but it feels like this whole thing is a group of people drawing some strange line in the sand that didn’t really need to be there. I am a little concerned about intrinsically poor design in Dishonored. Yes the CITY is the best character in the game and there are so man shiny trinkets to find in dark corners, but come on I feel like we are all stretching a bit far here to defend this game. I cannot comment authoritatively on the game since I have not played it, but I sense there were some missed opportunities.
And yes I still find all of this hollering agreement about an unknown quantity “creepy”. Good day sir.
09/10/2012 at 13:00 Muzman says:
Bioshock was a shooter with relatively simple levels.
If Dishonoured has levels like that it will be bad, so hopefully not.
09/10/2012 at 05:13 Synesthesia says:
“In almost any game, should I encounter a hallway with one staircase going up, towards my target, and another going down, towards nothing obvious at all, I will go down.”
So, you too, are part of the covenant? Show me The Mark.
09/10/2012 at 05:18 thestage says:
“This is nothing to do with kleptomania or achievement-hunting, and everything to do with the knowledge that something was created and I didn’t get to see it”
By which you mean it is egotism (in the real sense of the word). You know, the same egotism that is the clinical root of kleptomania, and the assuaging of which happens to be the method du jour of modern video games. The fawning–look at what exists for me, what these wonderful people did to create this fantastic thing that is “the finest hour…of the shooter”–in addition to being unhelpful, anticritical, sycophantic, cynical, and subservient, is a cover. It is a means toward branding, an exercise of identity control cast in terms of fealty, which is now rather ironically repurposed as a critical act.
This site has spent the last several months as the mouthpiece of Dishonored’s “do anything, you are in control!” bullet point; more generally, it has not so subtly enforced this as the “proper” means of crafting a video game, and specifically as the identifier of “pc gaming” in general. All of which is garbage, I might say, but instead I’ll note that this is only true when it is convenient, as now we are supposed to play Dishonored “a certain way” (obviously the stealth way, which is not only the way everyone actually plays these games–ie, the fictional audience you are raging against doesn’t exist–but also the way in which they were designed, everything else being a response to that play style). If we don’t we are in no uncertain terms a bunch of idiots; a bunch of, as the the undertones go, “console gamers.” This game, which is noted as the finest hour of the modern “shooter”, can only truly be played by not shooting. Perhaps you find profound depth in that decree, but I’m here to assure you that the hole you’re digging ain’t any deeper than six feet.
This entire article is an identity piece, just as the game is an identity game, and the site is a transparently ideological one. It is, to put it more succinctly, a function of ego. Which is why this is not a piece of writing investigating the kind of design that entertains or might entertain certain possibilities, reward certain behavior, lead in certain ways, or an investigation of the suppositions that might lead one to playing this way or that, to design and pace the experience in this direction or that–why, in short, it is not a critical investigation using any method of analysis, but is instead in the form of polemic, a pre-emptive assault against an imaginary antagonistic audience. Until you get over this nonsense, you will never be able to tell me anything about the game that I could not glean from a video. One day video game writing will move beyond all of this, I swear.
09/10/2012 at 05:26 SonicTitan says:
Well RPS *is* just a glorified blog.
Seriously though, what you just described is basically every video game that has ever existed. If you wanted to be a cynical asshole (and you obviously do) then you could deconstruct the appeal of ALL video games as a narcissistic one. They’re a power fantasy, right? And thus should be vilified if at all possible. But if you think that why are you even here? Yeah, Meer has an opinion on how video games should be played – that is, with awe, delicacy and respect for what’s been created. He’s not a narcissist for having a strong opinion.
09/10/2012 at 06:00 thestage says:
1. Where did I say anything about power fantasies? Where did I say anything that you can reduce to them, apply to them, or that can be explained by an appeal to them?
2. No, video games are not inherently power fantasies. No, appeals are not inherently narcissistic.
3. Alec’s essay, in fact, is all about denying the power fantasy in favor of something else. That “something else” can be called a lot of things. By abandoning the power fantasy to the imaginary antagonistic presence to which he is responding, he is pretending that his “selfish need” is in some way more noble. I’m calling a spade a spade, and then noting how this move of his has entirely overridden both the game and his view of it, which both makes this functionally useless as criticism and identifies it as stemming from the same root as whatever response he is preemptively attacking.
09/10/2012 at 11:25 DXN says:
The only problem? The spade doesn’t exist. *ollies outy*
09/10/2012 at 05:40 JackShandy says:
Ahahaha! That was great.
09/10/2012 at 07:24 MadTinkerer says:
Just bear in mind that the system is making you egotistic, man. People need to be objective, not subjective, if they’re getting paid for it. And the consolization of PC games is the best thing to happen to anyone ever! Get with the program and buy an XBox, Alec!
(If you don’t I’ll psychoanalyze you! I mean it!)
09/10/2012 at 05:49 thestage says:
To get more nuts and bolts with the game, and with games and their effect on certain people in general, lets look at this, which someone above quoted as an exemplary notion:
“In almost any game, should I encounter a hallway with one staircase going up, towards my target, and another going down, towards nothing obvious at all, I will go down.”
One question is “why?” You seem to assume that it is a matter of the subject, as an inherent difference between Player A (awesome guy, the specter of the ego) and Player B (the idiotic menace to whom you are functionally addressing). I would contest that, and place this as a conditioned response, a function of accumulated video game design. But that is a complicated and difficult topic, unfit, at least, for these comments. Instead, I’ll simply note that your portrayal of this response as a positive one is functionally opposed to the structure of the game, to which this would be seen as a rupture, a failure. The game is praised as “alive,” as atmospheric and “immersive” (which is even the RPS genre code word), but within this totality your instinct is not to acquiesce to the fiction of the game world, but to ignore it entirely. Were it truly “immersive,” you would feel a strong compulsion to track and kill the “target” at the expense of everything else. This suggests to me a break in the hardwiring of the game, which would compel the player to adopt the mantle of tourist (and to do so in a very pejorative sense of the word where every location, character, scrap of dialogue, or mechanic is reduced to a number on a checklist) while claiming immersion (again, the tourist is never immersed), and would at the same time oppose this with a fiction and play goal that rather dumbly and duteously beg for an opposite approach.
But there I go being critical again.
09/10/2012 at 06:22 SonicTitan says:
Video games are power fantasies. All of them. This isn’t a negative, just an observation on the inherent mechanics of the medium. It’s part of what makes them universally appealing – they’re an intuitive, accessible automata box where the player sets the pieces in motion. The real question is whether wanting to play them is a function of narcissism.
To your second point, I would agree that a desire to break from what a game “wants” you to do means that on some level the game has failed to “immerse” you in its design. In that case, it’s either a failing on the developer’s part, a failure of the language we use to describe games, or a failure in understanding how games are supposed to be played. And it puts games in an interesting position – if the ultimate goal is to be “immersive” then how can the game ever really allow players control? It’s the age-old question of developer design vs. player intent. Meer is arguing for player intent, and for what it’s worth I agree him. Maybe it’s time to retire the objective of being “immersive” altogether, since you correctly pointed out that it’s anathema to good game design.
09/10/2012 at 06:33 JackShandy says:
“Video games are power fantasies. All of them.”
Silent hill? Slender? Proteus? Botanicula? I’m just reading icons off my desktop here. Spacechem. How can you possibly believe this?
(e: I particularly like how disbelieving my avatar looks here)
09/10/2012 at 07:12 thestage says:
” Maybe it’s time to retire the objective of being “immersive” altogether”
Oh I retired it long ago, if I even believed it to begin with. But Alec did not, and it is Alec I am responding to.
Video games are neither inherently power fantasies, nor are they universally appealing. You are viewing a very specific slice of video games, and then launching a defense/attack that generalizes that to the whole. Which is what Alec is doing. In fact, it’s rather a bit of a fad to take a “power fantasy game” and then hit the OSNAPREVERSE button by turning the tables But not only do all shooters not have to be power fantasies (you are correct to say that the term is not inherently negative), but there also exist a whole lot of games that don’t even have to be shooters. Some of them don’t even have avatars! Which is also why all talk of “innovation” is doomed to juvenility: it assumes and adheres to the strict genre convention and classification that it nominally opposes.
Note also that a break between the intentions or desires of the player, and the intentions or desires of either the avatar or the designer does not automatically constitute a flaw in the game design. There is no such thing as a systemic, generalized, universally applicable law of design or notion of failure that would accompany such a dogma. My entire critique of Alec’s little article is more or less based on that idea in general, but in this specific instance as it relates both to this game and to Alec’s assessment of it, he has seriously overlooked the discontinuity between what he is praising and how the game operates. It is his insistence on a universal, hierarchical method of play (as an aside, you and he both separate “failure of the developer” and “failure in understanding how games/the game is supposed to be played”–there is no separation, you can only play what is designed, and how the game responds to that play is only ever a function of said design) that exposes the flaws in his own argument.
09/10/2012 at 06:28 JackShandy says:
I think you know the answers to the questions you’re posing, and you’re mostly playing devils advocate.
” (going away from the goal is) functionally opposed to the structure of the game, to which this would be seen as a rupture, a failure.”
Luckily, Videogames are fun even if you don’t go towards the goal at all times. Simply existing in the structure of a game world, without pursuing the goal, is fulfilling. It does not rupture the game, or render it pointless. Don’t you believe this?
In ignoring the objective, he is fulfilling the game’s promise: that the people and places within it are more than simply obstacles; that experiencing the living world is a pleasure in it’s own right. That is essentially what Alec means by Immersive.
09/10/2012 at 06:53 thestage says:
me responding to me again (note the irony)
RPS chum Robert Yang might explain what I’m talking about by noting that Alec is promoting the integrity of the game by actively encouraging (demanding, rather) players to exist outside of it. the game is great because it is open and because it reacts to this openness, but it does so by strictly opposing its narrative and its functional goals to the openness and immersive pull that it professes to serve. further, it’s only “truly” great when you deny this entire system in favor of one of its specific permutations. that’s not game design.
09/10/2012 at 07:13 Emeraude says:
Were it truly “immersive,” you would feel a strong compulsion to track and kill the “target” at the expense of everything else.
Why ? I don’t see it at all.
I guess it might depend on how you understand “immersive”. Immersive as “allowing the player to lose himself in the construct of the game” ? Immersive as in “makes you immerse yourself in the built persona” ? And even if you saw it that way why would “kill the ‘target’ at the expense of everything else.” be more valid a reaction than, say, a paranoiac “who are all the actors in this little drama and what is exactly that I’m being manipulated in doing” ?
09/10/2012 at 08:20 ffordesoon says:
It astonishes me that one so erudite can also be so narrow-minded.
Whether or not the “stairs” example constitutes a failure of immersion depends on the game. It depends on the level of dissonance between the mechanics and the story, the logic of the gameworld, how well the game teaches the logic of the world to the player, and about a hundred other things. If we were certain that an NPC would be killed if we didn’t get to a certain area in time, and we liked that NPC, then yes, efficiency would be the order of the day. If, however, neither the narrative nor the mechanics are time-sensitive, and the protagonist is a blank slate, there is no dissonance between the desires of the player and the desires of the protagonist, and as such, there is no loss of immersion. Dishonored, as far as I am aware, fulfills both conditions. Ergo, no loss of immersion.
Now, I personally would argue that player immersion is not something every game should aspire to. In fact, I think many abstracted mechanics can be just as compelling as the you-are-there immediacy of an immersion-driven title, and I also think some games should abandon even the pretense of immersion. It’s not a panacea, nor should it be thought of as such.
But a game like Dishonored is built around player interaction with systems, with the narrative there to contextualize the interaction. The “immersion” such games aspire to is not virtual tourism, but exacting verisimilitude. Returning to the “stairs” example, the immersive sim is the answer to every frustrated cry of “Why can I only break this door down and not that one?” ever. In an immersive sim, every object plays by the same rules as every other object. The player is, in theory, immersed because of this, not because he or she is following a shopping list laid down by an overbearing auteur who really wants to make movies.
To act like rewarding the tendency to test systems amongst players instead of punishing it somehow contravenes immersion is to fundamentally fail to understand the continuing appeal of the immersive sim.
It’s not unique to games, either. Many great films noir have murky, hard-to-follow plots, but they are great films just the same, because their emotional arcs make sense. We feel like we are being given a privileged glimpse into a world with its own rules, like we could get lost in them. It’s the same with immersive games. Immersion is not about synchronizing the player and the protagonist’s desires. That’s just one tool to increase immersion – one among many. It’s about giving the player a world they can fall into, a world with its own rules.
And yes, our egos are flattered when we catch something that almost all players will miss, something that feels like it was put there just for us to find and ponder. So? You say that like it’s a bad thing, when it’s merely a byproduct of the developer’s attention to detail. You get the same thrill when you realize a bit of set decoration or costuming in a film foreshadows a character’s eventual fate. Are you suggesting that a work of entertainment should be a slapdash affair so as to avoid potentially appealing to an audience member’s ego? That a persuasive essay like this should fail to appeal to anyone’s ego? What is your contention?
You have deconstructed Alec’s essay by presupposing an RPS metanarrative into which this essay neatly fits (which misses the rather substantial point that the RPS guys have always been high-profile proponents of immersive sims, and never claimed to be anything else, which means that your critique attacking them for being biased toward immersive sims is basically you saying, “You are biased towards the games you like and think are fun.” Which I don’t think they would dispute), but you have not constructed anything in its place. Point the way out of the society of the Spectacle, O Guy Debord of games criticism, and I shall respect you. Until you can do that, I will continue to find your comments pointless and shortsighted.
09/10/2012 at 14:58 Gnarf says:
“Whether or not the “stairs” example constitutes a failure of immersion depends on the game. It depends on the level of dissonance between the mechanics and the story, the logic of the gameworld, how well the game teaches the logic of the world to the player, and about a hundred other things.”
Note that Alec said that he did that in almost every game. As a general thing, I’d say that suggests a kind of metagaming. It sounds more like consciously deciding against doing something you know you’re “supposed” to and less like just feeling like wandering about is the right thing to do in the game.
What you’re saying is that in this or that game it maybe makes sense to go downstairs. I don’t think that was what Alec was getting at. Or at least it didn’t come off like that.
09/10/2012 at 06:18 kud13 says:
right
because trying to encourage the industry to produce more immersive sims by supporting the rare few we do ever get is such a horrible, horrible thing.
Dishonored is openly driven by nostalgia. this fact, along with the pedigree of the developers was squarely aimed at the part of the potential consumer base who are not attracted by the shiny COD-esque gameplay.
RPS writers like imsims They recognise their importance as an alternative in development of gaming to the mainstream industry standards. Thus, they promote them. RPS never claimed the lofty peaks of total objectivity. There is a reason why they use opinion pieces rather than a standardised scoring system for their reviews of games.
09/10/2012 at 06:55 thestage says:
this article entirely denies the openness of the immersive sim, and the structure of the game denies the immersiveness of the immersive sim. you’re not reading what I’m saying; you’re reading alec’s polemic and placing me on the other side so that you can identify as one at the expense of the other.
09/10/2012 at 18:24 Nogo says:
But you’re assuming the game has some sort of drive towards main objectives that’s somehow greater than a little digital arrow. Your argument makes sense in theory, but unless you’ve played the game and found some consistent thread that actively discourages exploration, in favor of rote objectives, then the only argument you can make is that the arrow should be defaulted to off.
09/10/2012 at 23:09 thestage says:
You’re an assassin. Usually assassins aren’t sight-seers.
But as I’ve said elsewhere in this minefield of a thread, the entire idea of video game “tourism” as a superior mode of play is 1) full of a million holes, 2) expressed as a reflection of the insecurities and neurosis of the player in question. Which is why Alec has to paint it as superior in the first place.
10/10/2012 at 06:48 MadTinkerer says:
EDIT: Nevermind, Sheng-Ji said it much better and was probably less inebriated than I am right now.
09/10/2012 at 06:21 ffordesoon says:
Hey, guy who got pissed at Alec for being a pseudo-intellectual prat fresh from university because he mentioned Mitt Romney in a video game review?
This is what a pseudo-intellectual prat fresh from university looks like.
You can tell them apart from the actual intellectuals because they use five-dollar words to explain a one-cent point.
09/10/2012 at 07:12 Henke says:
thestage, I gotta agree with a lot of what you’re saying. I love RPS, stealth, and exploration-heavy gameplay but this article mostly came off as self-congratulatory wankery. (Yay us for “getting” stealth!) If these “Halo-fanboys” who won’t understand how the game is meant to be played actually exist they’re in the extreme minority. The Splinter Cell, MGS and Assassin’s Creed games have been huge mainstream successes and even the Halo and COD games contain stealth-bits, so I doubt the concept of stealth is lost to even the consoliest of console-gamers.
09/10/2012 at 07:14 neofit says:
@thestage: Well put Sir! And you did it without any name-calling, yet I am sure a horde of those ubermensch-wannabes is going to call you names for disagreeing with the party line.
The WITs (as well as this “WIT hotfix”) these past months are changing focus. They used to be about games. Now it’s more about how the author is feeling awesome about himself playing a game. The pieces about Dark Souls and this very Dishonored are perfect examples.
So, either I spend time gazing at every texture, looking for every piece of lore or whatever, or I am a leet 13-years-old kiddie? Really? These are all the alternatives awesome people can think about? This reminds me of TSW players, who feel they are geniuses for googling and solving trivial pixel-hunting puzzles, while meleeing zombies with their assault rifle.
Let’s talk about exploration then? In the Thief games, you are, well, a thief, so it’s in your job description to explore every nook and cranny and come out with max loot. In the TES games, you’ll find quests, loot, etc., that you can use in the rest of the game. Heck, even in the unexpectedly fun Borderlands games, exploring may give you a chest with loot that you can either use or sell, which is useful for the rest of the game (btw, 77 hours played just for the first playthrough, but I suspect Steam is lying here).
All these posts with “oooh, I too love to take the stairs going down” posts are awesome, as if it were something exceptional.
Now, from your description of Dishonored I understand that exploring yields… lore? Vistas? Liking these doesn’t put you even remotely above anyone else. I am doing about an hour of reading each day and have about 10 books waiting in my unfortunately ever-growing backlog. The last thing I want to do is waste time reading some game-writer’s lore in some 10-hours long computer game.
So you are given a task to kill X, you seem to be a pro with supernatural powers and can do the hit in 20 in and out, yet you will explore the whole mansion, read all the inhabitants’ letters, clobber all the guards and put your mission at risk? Really? And doing this make you feel superior? I don’t see any gameplay elements here, only filler. Unless you are into the Mist and other type of adventure games, but then please state this clearly in the first paragraph so we don’t waste our time reading any further.
Are you even given a task and if so by whom? As with most WITs these days, we need to look at comments to get actual information about the game. With all your talk of awesomeness, both the game’s and of those who like it, you still haven’t described in any piece what kind of game it is, in any article. Is it a TES-like persistent roamer (yeah, fat chance)? Is it a GTA or SR-like non-persistent pseudo-roamer, with a strong party line and mediocre mouse and keyboard controls? Is it a Witcher-like slightly interactive movie, as is too common these days? Is it a Thief-like game with a series of missions and full freedom inside the mission area? I suppose it’s the latter, but this is not clear. What about controls, AA, save-system, inevitable comparisons with other games, etc.?
Now go ahead, flame, express your superiority.
09/10/2012 at 07:44 JackShandy says:
“Now, from your description of Dishonored I understand that exploring yields… lore? Vistas? ”
“Power upgrades, vignettes that flesh out this broken world, capsule puzzles and magnificent sights are hidden away to the sides and most of all under the skin of the map. Events and choices with some pretty huge repercussions on not just plot, but the contents and nature of later levels. ”
So, side quests, puzzles, upgrades, events and choices that effect the plot and gameplay of later levels.
“you still haven’t described in any piece what kind of game it is, in any article.”
“A stealth game… almost certainly the finest stealth game I’ve played since the dawn of The Metal Age.”
So, a stealth game, similar to Thief in most aspects. This may be unhelpful if you haven’t played Thief, of course.
(Forgive me if I pretend that you wanted your question answered.)
09/10/2012 at 18:41 Nogo says:
“So you are given a task to kill X, you seem to be a pro with supernatural powers and can do the hit in 20 in and out, yet you will explore the whole mansion, read all the inhabitants’ letters, clobber all the guards and put your mission at risk?”
How do supernatural powers preclude marshaling resources and intelligence? And who said “20″ or “clobber all the guards” for that matter?
You and thestage seem to be making most of this up as you go for the sake of saying “narrative and gameplay should work together!” Which isn’t really necessary to point out these days.
09/10/2012 at 09:43 Alec Meer says:
What a lot of words.
09/10/2012 at 10:07 thestage says:
volumes spoken, writer
09/10/2012 at 13:22 ChaseGunman says:
Still not sure what your point is though.
19/11/2012 at 22:56 specksynder says:
I could literally barf on your face right now.
09/10/2012 at 12:29 Unaco says:
And not a whole lot of much said.
09/10/2012 at 12:12 PikaBot says:
Good lord, man. Unless your goal is to look like a smug, pretentious prick, Stephen Dedalus is a poor role model.
09/10/2012 at 12:23 deejayem says:
But he’s only a pretentious prick to cover up the bleeding of his wounded heart! Underneath it all he’s a sensitive soul scarred by dysfunctional parents and brutal Catholic upbringing. Honest.
09/10/2012 at 12:44 thestage says:
You’ve a pretty poor reading of Stephen Dedalus. Or of Joyce, for that matter.
09/10/2012 at 13:04 PikaBot says:
Nope, I’d say he’s got it about right. Not even having Simon Dedalus for a father is sufficient excuse for bringing up Aquinas in everyday speech. And if you think Joyce himself wasn’t a pretentious prick? I challenge you to try to read Finnegans Wake and then come back and say that with a straight face. The man was a brilliant writer in a lot of ways but he was absolutely intolerable in a lot of others.
09/10/2012 at 13:12 deejayem says:
I wasn’t being entirely serious, but Dedalus is no angel. One of many things to love about Joyce is his honesty about his own failings, and his willingness to reflect them in his characters.
PS Remind me how we got onto this again?
09/10/2012 at 23:11 thestage says:
of course he wasn’t an angel. but you paint him as a victim. and there were quite substantial differences between stephen and the young joyce anyway (particularly the stephen from Ulysses).
oh, and we got to this because pikabot wanted to show that he was smarter than me because he had read joyce
09/10/2012 at 12:47 Gnarf says:
‘All of which is garbage, I might say, but instead I’ll note that this is only true when it is convenient, as now we are supposed to play Dishonored “a certain way”’
That is something that has been bothering me that I haven’t been too consciously aware of. Or, they’re two things that have been bothering me (obsessing about “openness”, and “you’re playing it wrong”-arguments) that I haven’t seen a connection between. Either way, very well said.
09/10/2012 at 15:17 Sheng-ji says:
@ The Stage.
Your entire, weird rant is based on flawed logic. You use that flawed logic to elevate yourself to dizzying heights of pretentiousness and smugness but because your nasty little personality seems to think it is OK to hurl insults and accusations at people from the anonymous depths of your disgusting little corner of the world, allow me to do the same directed squarely at you. You may notice I am using unnecessary and insulting descriptive words, like weird, nasty, disgusting. I am taking my cue directly from you, this is exactly what you did.
Your flawed logic is that the above article was a critical piece. It was not. The review was. This was an article in which someone who has played the game is writing an opinion piece on why he had a blast with the game. So let’s de-construct your entire scribble. Cutting through the psychobabble bullshit (your history of psychology lecturer would be ashamed at your lack of comprehension of Freuds id, ego and superego model – You’ve essentially stated that 0=0. Well done. My 2 and a half year old son is on a level with your understanding of it.) you state that Alec is looking at what exists for him in the game. Yes, a strong start for an article which is explaining why he found the game fun!
You call it unhelpful, well that’s a matter of opinion but I’d like to see you explain why you enjoyed anything without explaining what there is to enjoy and crucially not giving spoilers
You call it anticritical – I feel I have to repeat myself to penetrate your dim mind. This wasn’t the review.
You call it sycophantic and subservient – You are saying he is acting obediently for his own gain. Here we come across a massive problem. This is your first instance of accusing Alec of corruption – taking money for positive press of the game, so lets shelve this one for a bit. We’ll come back to it, don’t worry.
You call it cynical – Er…. after your last accusation, I would say you are the only cynic here. Of course we all know that the game makers only made the game for their paychecks. This was not a game given to the world for free in an amazing act of love. How was Alec mistrustful of the game makers integrity in the article. This leads me to my first proper, evidence based accusation of you: You do not understand the words you have used in your scrawl.
You call it a cover – Tinfoil hats anyone? This article is a cover for what? He’s pretending to like the game because he really wants to get the message across that…. What, what???? What hidden messages do you see here? Buy the game if you enjoy the kind of game Alec describes? Ahhhh… you’re accusing him of misrepresenting the game. You are saying he’s creating a false impression of the game. But it’s an opinion piece. You have essentially told him that his opinion is wrong.
You call it a means towards branding and an exercise in identity control. Well obviously RPS is a brand and it has it’s image. So what. I bet you maintain an image too, I bet you never dress as a punk rocker for a funeral and if you do, it’s because you nearly always dress as a punk rocker.
You start a new paragraph with the accusation that RPS has been a mouthpiece for a style of gameplay. Which I can easily disprove by pointing you towards any number of reviews/articles etc you conveniently forgot to take into account like for example all the ones on xcom talking about turn based strategy. Hardly a mouthpiece when treating many styles of gaming with equal enthusiasm – selective use of outliers, you have ignored any evidence which doesn’t support your accusation.
You go on to write that RPS has insinuated that there is only one way to make a game and that way is to do anything, be in control. Again, I would point you to the reams of writing over the last few months which explain in great detail why many games which don’t meet this criteria are fun. It’s you selecting your evidence again. In fact you then go on to write that this article disagrees with that imaginary standpoint. No shit sherlock, because they never took the stand you imagined they did.
You then rage against the idea that there is a wrong way to play games. You have a point. If you have loads of fun playing blindfold, using broomhandles to steer your racing wheel and press the pedals whilst trying to play a first person shooter – more power to you. However, if you are playing a first person shooter with a wheel and pedals, controlled from the length of a broom handle away whilst blindfolded and you are complaining that the controls are shit, you are most definitely doing it wrong. This article wasn’t a response to an imaginary audience, it was a response to very real criticism that the game is not fun (all made by people who haven’t played the game yet) because there wasn’t enough content and the levels were too short and the game was too short. If people are having fun blasting through the front gate and killing the target in a minute or two, more power to them. If they are complaining that by doing so they are not having fun (bearing in mind once again that at that point, they hadn’t actually played the game), this article points out the game is not for them.
You make a wonderful point about the modern shooter only being fun with not shooting, however this relies on the falsehood that to play this game non lethally or stealthily, one will not be shooting. Wrong. There is plenty of shooting involved. I have deliberately ignored until now the fact that this very article says that the description of shooter is inaccurate because your argument didn’t work even if Alec hadn’t clarified that in the first paragraph. The only six foot hole here is for you and your continued ignorance of the evidence refuting your accusations.
You begin your concluding paragraph with the assertion that the article is an identity piece. The game is an identity game . No amount of googling finds any meaningful definition for this tripe, so I assume you made this up or copied it from someone who made it up. Maybe you could explain using terms and definitions that are more familiar to us lesser mortals?
You claim that RPS is a transparently ideological one – as in they are trying to push an ideology. What is that ideology? They do have several, first and foremost being that PC gaming is not dead and second that reviews do not need scores. I hardly think these are the ideologies you refer to, so maybe instead of slinging hollow accusations, you could define the ideology that you imagine they have and has got you so irked so I can point you in the direction of lots of evidence to the contrary.
You then oddly explain that because the site has an imagined ideology, this is the reason why the article didn’t become a thesis on game design. It was never meant to be a thesis on game design, just one mans opinion on what is fun in a game. Which is why your assertion that it is a polemic is wrong. You describe the audience as imaginary, while I agree that the game was not released when the article was written, there were very real complaints about the game being published before this article was written. Again, you are ignoring the evidence to suit your purposes. Also, unless you write a threat to someone, it is impossible to assault someone in writing. There is no threat to anyones health or wellbeing in the article therefore it is not an assault to anyone or anything. Stop using overly emotive words to support your baseless arguments, it’s the last resort of stupidity.
Finally you conclude that Alec will never be able to tell you anything about the game you could not glean from watching a video. Well, maybe not, but let me explain one thing Alec could do that a video could not. Make his point without spoilers. How could a video show you that there are multiple ways of entering a mansion without showing you at least 2 of those ways? And when you get to that level in the game, you’ve just spoilt it for yourself. Slow Clap et al.
So now we have deconstructed your crazed rant, what can we conclude.
1) You don’t understand the words you have used.
2) You believe that people whose opinion doesn’t match yours are wrong
3) You will ignore any evidence presented to you which disproves your hollow accusations.
Taking those three things into account, I can conclude that you are an idiot.
But before I go, lets tackle the corruption accusations. This is a world where we strive to be more civilised to one another. Part of being civilised involved the concept of innocent until proven guilty. You make these accusations without a flicker of evidence, anecdotal or otherwise. Put up or shut up and sit down. Present your evidence that Alec or RPS have accepted money in exchange for positive coverage or don’t make the accusation.
Here’s why you don’t make accusations without evidence:
You are in the pay of a rival game to dishonored. You have accepted money to spam the boards of sites giving dishonored positive press with insults and negativity.
See, we could sling mud all day in that vein and get precisely nowhere.
So I’ll stick to evidence based accusations. You are an idiot.
Fin
09/10/2012 at 19:54 HothMonster says:
Slow day at the office Sheng?
10/10/2012 at 08:47 ChaseGunman says:
… and the horse you rode in on!
09/10/2012 at 07:05 Emeraude says:
” This game, which is noted as the finest hour of the modern “shooter”, can only truly be played by not shooting.
It was ? Because I rather remember it being described as a Thief and Deus Ex successor – and though those games share first person view with “shooters”, they belong to schools of game design based on completely different presuppositions. Along which: if you only play the game once – and only one way – you’re doing it wrong. One of the main interest of that kind of games is exploration of the possibilities and variations. I know no player who’d do a pure stealth/exploration run and not *also* a violent direct one – and others too after that.
The purpose of the game is not to reach the end of its course, it’s to explore all the ways by which you can reach it, and the implications and consequences those have.
If such an exploration of game mechanics and narrative does not interest you, then you *are* quite simply playing the wrong game for you (and there is no shame in that – I’d never play a racing game, I hate those, but I don’t go complaining that they’re stupid because your aim is to reach the end the faster possible… the game is built on other presuppositions, for a different audience).
This site has spent the last several months as the mouthpiece of Dishonored’s “do anything, you are in control!” bullet point; more generally, it has not so subtly enforced this as the “proper” means of crafting a video game, and specifically as the identifier of “pc gaming” in general.
The proper mean of crafting a certain kind of video games, who have historically been mostly prevalent on PCs, yes – and has such has been associtated by some with the identity of the platform.
09/10/2012 at 07:20 thestage says:
“It was?”
By Alec, yes. In the article to which I am referring and responding.
As for the rest of your post–or at least the parts that are relevant–you’ll note that Alec is not promoting an investigation of the game’s mechanical or responsive permutations. In fact, he is specifically privileging one and attacking those who do not agree with that privilege.
09/10/2012 at 07:25 Emeraude says:
First part of my post I erased by mistake: I tend to agree with you that the article is problematic, but was trying to make sure whether you talked in light of this article in particular or also those that preceded it too… which by the time I posted you had already answered elsewhere.
I’m not sure I can follow you if the whole context of publication is taken – even if I can see your point.
You’ll note though that in the article; Alec started to define the game as “loosely but inaccurately [a]‘blockbuster shooter’”, though.
Emphasis mine.
09/10/2012 at 07:45 Zorn says:
There is some nice personal opinion propaganda going the last pages. I’m feeling a bit like when I was at my first year at university. Or when I was reading Mao for the first time: “There are only two ways, one is the way the plunge us all into darkness, the other one is the one to guide us all into the light. My way.” Okay, this not word by word, and I let the parts about china out. But then again, I’m just a poster on a glorified blog, don’t expect too much from them. Oh, shouldn’t we may play the who has which degree or IQ game to measure who even has the right to call an opinion an argument? That never fails to be amusing, and much more important, constructive.
09/10/2012 at 10:24 Smion says:
Clearly, stating that there might be more content in a game than those who haven’t seen that content suggest is just like Maoism.
09/10/2012 at 08:31 Muzman says:
Seriously disappointed in this comment section. This was a golden opportunity to produce a raft of Dishonoured based headlines in the style of The Onion.
There’s still time!
Anyway, key to all this is a fact I’ve not seen mentioned: How many missions are there exactly?
I’m a Thief type, I won’t judge it based solely on that. (people forget the first Hitman, popular enough to found a dynasty, had Four proper complicated levels and about four more little ones to pad it out. But those first four (aforementioned four?) were damn fun with endless things to do)
09/10/2012 at 11:20 Henke says:
Hey Muzman! :D
I heard somewhere that there are 12 chapters in the game. Not sure if a chapter is a single level or series of levels though.
09/10/2012 at 12:58 Muzman says:
Shouldn’t you be playing Half-Life? Back to your room!
cheers guys. Actual numbers. Both pretty decent.
09/10/2012 at 11:44 JackShandy says:
I heard 9.
09/10/2012 at 08:45 alilsneaky says:
This is more like it, an actual description of what the game plays like and what makes it different and what to expect from it.
09/10/2012 at 08:58 popej says:
I don’t think I’ve ever played a game in any other way than as described here. Hopefully Thief 4 will take it to the next level although I’m not holding my breath.
09/10/2012 at 09:16 Alas Away says:
It’s amazing how there’s small amount of people with real passion for good, deep games, and a vast majority of…well, those that have none.
09/10/2012 at 10:31 The_QC says:
I have to say that RPS is starting to be rather defensive about the games that they like. Both this one and XCOM have had articles about how people who don’t like the game are wrong.
I don’t accept that there is a right type of gamer and a wrong one. I like what I like and I’m not going to accept that I’m inferior just because it’s not what you like.
I haven’t played Dishonored yet, so I have no opinion on it, but an article that basically says “stealth is the only fun way to play” doesn’t really push me towards buying it. Personally, my tolerance for stealth is very low and there are only a handful of games in existence where I didn’t hate it.
The article also seems to also create a straw Dishonored hater. Are those really the reasons why some people will dislike it? Having easily found objectives has never prevented open world games from being successful and well liked (and thoroughly explored). The GTA games, the Elder Scrolls games, the Assassin’s Creed games, all have large worlds with lots of stuff to explore, while at the same time always having a next objective that you can reach easily. I’ve never found the objective marker to be a problem there. If anything, the objective marker is useful for knowing where NOT to go before you’re done with exploring. Are there people who say that Skyrim is too short? I’ve never heard of such a thing.
09/10/2012 at 10:38 Advanced Assault Hippo says:
The article has some issues. Mainly, if the developers of the game had designed it better (allowing a natural way of discovering what the game has to offer as part of the main drive of the game), there shouldn’t have been any *need* for an article like this.
But this rather important point is skipped over and ignored for some reason I’ve yet to work out. It’s a fault of the game and should be recognised as such, not glossed over in this…frankly rather disappointing…way.
09/10/2012 at 11:41 Bob says:
Good Lord. I’m another explorer in games, to the point of suspecting I’m suffering an OCD. As a fan of Deus Ex and the Thief series it gladdens my heart that Dishonored is a game that lets you try different paths and ways to achieve your objectives.
@ Muzman:
*News Flash*
A group of Dishonored reviewers were arrested for accepting under the counter payments from Bethesda. The popular press has labeled them “The Onion Ring”. When a group of gamers were asked what would be a suitable punishment, the consensus was they should be sautéed and put to the steak….preferably a Porterhouse.
09/10/2012 at 11:47 DXN says:
Thanks for the article, Alec. I’m not sure why strong opinions like this make people freak out in such odd ways, but it’s nice to have someone confirm the type of interest that can be take from this game for those who are interested in it.
09/10/2012 at 12:53 remoteDefecator says:
I haven’t played it, it looks cool, it’s definitely on the list, but…
25 hours? Playing “the long way” through the game?
Well, guess I’m waiting for the $30 GOTY edition.
09/10/2012 at 13:34 jezcentral says:
Cliffski says “Thank you, very much”.
09/10/2012 at 13:39 shadowy_light says:
Wonderfully well written piece, and I agree with your sentiments and play style with near 1:1 accuracy.
I would lend my weight to the slight swell of dissent with regards to the somewhat dismissing tone of the article to those individuals who do not want to play the game like this, however. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the whole idea of games like this (by which I mean of the Deus Ex lineage) is that you should be able to play them exactly however you want to play them and be entertained regardless.
As such, I feel the line “If you want to rush around with a gun, shooting anything that moves, don’t buy Dishonored. It has put those things in there for you, and it offers slick, brutal, varied permutations on how to use them, but they are not its all.” is not in keeping with the spirit of this genre’s ideology. I also suspect that Arkane would rather those who want to rush around with a gun do in fact buy the game. Let them play it like that, let them judge it based on its merits as that game… Why on earth should they not?
If Dishonored isn’t a good game when played as a straight up shooter, then surely that’s as big a flaw as if it hadn’t managed the more subtle gameplay elements with aplomb… commercially speaking its a much bigger flaw.
09/10/2012 at 15:02 JulienJaden says:
With all due respect (and I have a lot of respect for you RPS guys), I think the game seems a little on the short side.
Before somebody tells me to: I always play thoroughly. I look for everything there is to do, I explore, I try to find other ways to solve problems. I had a good 80 hours when I was done with my first “Dragon Age: Origins” playthrough, and it could have been a couple more if I hadn’t been so keen on knowing how it ends.
Yet, I think that it’s valid to criticize “Dishonored” for its length (hehe), or lack thereof.
I agree that people should play the game with a sense of wonder and the wish to explore the world around them, simply because that is far more enjoyable than rushing through. But the argument that following the most obvious way, picking the obvious solution to the problem and staying “on the rails” should be a valid way of playing is not to be ignored. You may say that that is a stupid way of playing, and you may be right, but even then the game should offer some longevity. I mean, a speedrun through HL1 can be done in less than three hours, and then you’re shamelessly exploiting the game’s limits here and there. But we’re not talking about a speedrun here but about about finishing a game in one of the ways it’s supposed to be played, guns blazing, in under six hours.
This isn’t the first time that a game’s on the short side. I may very well remember things subjectively but I’ve got a feeling that games were longer ten, fifteen years ago. I know for a fact though that they had more than six hours or so to offer, even when you weren’t checking every nook and cranny.
Maybe I’m unreasonable but I would have loved to see MW2 and 3 as one game, with a better multiplayer and a story that will occupy you for more than an afternoon each.
What about “Spec Ops: The Line”? I was done in less than a day. It was a fantastic story but since I generally don’t do multiplayer, that’s a title I might not pick up again.
My point is: Games, especially FPS, that offer as much as two or three days’ worth of entertainment, singleplayer-only, seem to be in very short supply. Especially those that do so by offering an intriguing story that would fill a book with 700 pages or more. I think you could easily fit a dozen modern FPS in one those. And that’s scary, at least to me, because few people seem to be vocal about this and the publishers just keep throwing them our way, burrying the precious few games that are actually worth picking up because of their story, or singleplayer in general.
I’m glad that “Dishonored” can be played twice and has a fascinating setting and story, and that’s probably enough to make me buy it (that and being able to mess around with different “character builds”) but people are cutting the industry way too much slack for using multiplayer and graphics as an excuse for shitty singleplayer and the prices for games that can’t even boast a seven hour campagin are fairly unreasonable (Yes, I’m looking at you, CoD).
And if it’s actually the growing pile of garbage, instead of the very few gems hidden inside, that people want, then I think that gaming has already passed its zenith.
09/10/2012 at 17:09 Shooop says:
If people go into this game expecting another standard-issue shooter then it’s their own damn fault for not watching any more than the first two trailers.
10/10/2012 at 00:38 His Dudeness says:
Look Alec, I already pre-ordered it following the ‘Wot I think’ the other day…what else do you want me to do?? ;-p
10/10/2012 at 11:47 derekro says:
You Sir. I salute you.
12/10/2012 at 13:18 Megazell says:
I don’t get the logic on how a consumer/player who plays the game as it was made and ends the game faster then others is lazy, if that is the way the game was made by the developers.
I could most certainly understand this if a person used a cheat or exploit because that is something that was not intended as part of the game playing experience by the developers.
I get that many games have detours and/or side quest but if the core game/content can be ended naturally in a short time then that is a game maker issue not a consumer/player issue.
15/10/2012 at 06:46 Uninteresting Curse File Implement says:
Yeah, I’m fairly early in the game, but the levels do seem kinda small and there’s not much to see even in hidden corners besides books (to be fair, those are pretty great)
I’m hoping that it’s just the “tutorial” bunch of levels though, and things will open up somewhat later in the game.