Oh lord.. That ending... (spoilers)

  • 63 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Sunjammer (907 posts) -

Do NOT read this if you haven't played the game through!

What is it with Deus Ex style games and really shit endings? 70% of the way through Dishonored I had an absolute blast, getting some really good Thief-style vibes (which I haven't had since Thief 3, and I've missed it!), and then they just throw it all down the toilet at the very last minute. That final mission is a joke.

I choke out Havelock, open the door and blam, fade to black, THE END. No conclusion to Havelock at all? And Pendleton and Martin are dead already? What happened? What happened to Havelock? How can you put me in a level with that amazing architecture, and then not use that architecture at all for the final mission?

And then you just tell me how I played the game. You can not give me all these choices throughout and then conclude by telling me how I played the game. I KNOW how I played! "This guy played stealthy. I guess he'll really enjoy hearing how he played stealthy!" No! No thanks!

And that credits song.. I couldn't skip the credits fast enough.

Oof. Just fantastically disappointing. Overall I'd say the designers got too obsessed with giving choices and not rewarding them.

#1 Posted by Sunjammer (907 posts) -

Do NOT read this if you haven't played the game through!

What is it with Deus Ex style games and really shit endings? 70% of the way through Dishonored I had an absolute blast, getting some really good Thief-style vibes (which I haven't had since Thief 3, and I've missed it!), and then they just throw it all down the toilet at the very last minute. That final mission is a joke.

I choke out Havelock, open the door and blam, fade to black, THE END. No conclusion to Havelock at all? And Pendleton and Martin are dead already? What happened? What happened to Havelock? How can you put me in a level with that amazing architecture, and then not use that architecture at all for the final mission?

And then you just tell me how I played the game. You can not give me all these choices throughout and then conclude by telling me how I played the game. I KNOW how I played! "This guy played stealthy. I guess he'll really enjoy hearing how he played stealthy!" No! No thanks!

And that credits song.. I couldn't skip the credits fast enough.

Oof. Just fantastically disappointing. Overall I'd say the designers got too obsessed with giving choices and not rewarding them.

#2 Posted by hedfone (1749 posts) -

My problem was pre-final mission Samuel was like you gotta save Emily you're the only hope!!! But when we get there he calls me a monster and pops a cap in the sky to get me killed?!?! Like wtf bro? So i just reloaded the save and sleep darted him before he said anything. But still that shit is insanely stupid.

#3 Posted by Fyllikall (13 posts) -

Especially considering this: http://www.giantbomb.com/dishonored/61-35850/it-wont-do-the-3-4-different-decisions-at-the-endgame/35-563037/

You didn't choose between 3 endings in the final mission which was cool but there weren't any multiple endings in that way. You only had the two unless you are a soulless dick and got the worst ending. But I think this is a case of looking at the journey not the ending. The journey affects the ending, not the final mission. But there should maybe have bin more player choice in that mission.

The game is very well done in many areas but at times feels rushed. The final mission was very unfulfilling. If there was any aspect of Deus Ex: HR that was lacking in this game then it was the conversation "battle" you could have with NPC's and convince them to do something or talk to them about their plans. The only interactions you had with characters was either killing them or putting them to sleep.

But no game is perfect and a I had a blast playing this one and it is a definite replay for me :)

#4 Edited by CJduke (783 posts) -

@hedfone: Wow, im assuming you were playing through the game killing people? Because he did nothing like that to me

As for the ending goes overall, yeah it was a bit disappointing the final mission was probably the easiest, but I didn't really mind because the game was awesome.

@Sunjammer: I think the rewards for your choices is just seeing yourself do awesome stuff that you thought to do/figured out, like air assassinating a tall boy or getting through a stealth section perfectly untouched because you played so well and made good decisions. Getting through an area and then looking around and seeing there were at least 2 other ways, probably more, that you could have done it, is also pretty rewarding I think.

#5 Posted by John1912 (1831 posts) -

I was pretty disappointed with the game in general. Gameplay was good, but not great by any means. The world and the characters just were not fleshed out enough. The missed potential in doing that was just a real let down.

Your thrown into a political mess with no real background to any of the players, then sent to hunt them down without exploring who the characters are in the least. No real depth to the bond you have with Emily to give the relationship much meaning. Ambiguous plague. Ambiguous cult to a god who gives you powers. Ugh actually pisses me off the more I think about all the shit they just brushed over.

#6 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2228 posts) -

@Sunjammer said:

Do NOT read this if you haven't played the game through!

What is it with Deus Ex style games and really shit endings? 70% of the way through Dishonored I had an absolute blast, getting some really good Thief-style vibes (which I haven't had since Thief 3, and I've missed it!), and then they just throw it all down the toilet at the very last minute. That final mission is a joke.

I choke out Havelock, open the door and blam, fade to black, THE END. No conclusion to Havelock at all? And Pendleton and Martin are dead already? What happened? What happened to Havelock? How can you put me in a level with that amazing architecture, and then not use that architecture at all for the final mission?

And then you just tell me how I played the game. You can not give me all these choices throughout and then conclude by telling me how I played the game. I KNOW how I played! "This guy played stealthy. I guess he'll really enjoy hearing how he played stealthy!" No! No thanks!

And that credits song.. I couldn't skip the credits fast enough.

Oof. Just fantastically disappointing. Overall I'd say the designers got too obsessed with giving choices and not rewarding them.

Its safe to assume Havelock killed Pendleton and Martin out of paranoia. I believe its Sam or the outsider who alludes that Havelock might do something like that.

#7 Edited by Nardak (464 posts) -

I think the final outcome depends a lot on how many people you kill (especially civilians). Also if you want to get the good ending then you have to be merciful towards your enemies (for example i spared the life of the master assasin who killed the empress).

Got myself the low chaos ending. Basically in that ending Corvo acts as a counselor to Emily for the rest of his life. After his death Emily (now called "Emily the wise") buries Corvo besides the Empress. It seems that Emily is the child of the empress and Corvo.

According to the ending Corvo also ushers in the "golden age" in Dunvall through his actions.

Online
#8 Posted by TheBluthCompany (367 posts) -

@SomeDeliCook: I believe he poisoned them.

#9 Edited by huntad (1930 posts) -

@John1912 said:

I was pretty disappointed with the game in general. Gameplay was good, but not great by any means. The world and the characters just were not fleshed out enough. The missed potential in doing that was just a real let down.

Your thrown into a political mess with no real background to any of the players, then sent to hunt them down without exploring who the characters are in the least. No real depth to the bond you have with Emily to give the relationship much meaning. Ambiguous plague. Ambiguous cult to a god who gives you powers. Ugh actually pisses me off the more I think about all the shit they just brushed over.

This is exactly how I feel about this game. I beat it in 2 or 3 days (I don't remember), but I took my sweet time, listened to every word of dialog, read some books, and even got all of the collectibles. I still feel like I was not given enough information in almost every part of the game.

And yeah, the gameplay is definitely good, but it's not great by any means. Stealth has been done better in the past.

#10 Posted by TheDudeOfGaming (6078 posts) -

@Sunjammer said:

Oof. Just fantastically disappointing.

Fucking knew it! Was it worse than Borderlands?

#11 Posted by Sterling (2085 posts) -

@Sunjammer: Then you need to replay the game killing people and causing mass chaos. Because that ending is way better. It feels like it has more closure.

#14 Edited by Gantrathor (202 posts) -

I actually really liked the ending that I got. I was mostly lethal throughout the game, and got a high chaos rating. When Samuel basically told me to get the fuck off his boat and he shot his pistol into the sky to alert the guards, it made me feel like a heartless dick. Since I had a high chaos rating, I basically went through the whole level murdering everyone in my path. I even managed to decapitate martin before he was able to kill himself. Couldn't kill Pendleton before he bled out, though. It definitely wasn't a hard level, but I felt like I was rewarded for playing super violently with an ending that reflected that. That was more than enough for me.

Also, this is one of the few times where I've felt like my opinion on a game is in the minority. I've been hearing equal disappointment and and praise for this game, but even the people praising it have a lot of problems with it. But I don't have any problems with it, not any big one anyways. I adore the game. I can't get enough of it. The first thing I did after I finished it the first time was start a new game, and I'm already nearly done with that playthrough, too. I'll probably play it a 3rd time afterwards, and then go for all of the Steam achievements after that. If I were to make a top 10 list of games, I would feel fully comfortable with putting Dishonored on there because of the awesome amount of fun I've had with the game.

I don't know, maybe I'm weird.

#15 Posted by Sunjammer (907 posts) -

My first playthrough was low chaos, I killed very, very few, spared all my targets, and ghosted several missions. It ended with a super boring climb up a tower, turning a corner, choking a dude and opening a door. I looked at that tower boating in and though oh yeah this is going to be epic and vertical and Prince of Persia style jumping among clouds and falling to my death, and instead it was boring nonsense. Pish.

On my second playthrough now. Climbed to the top of the bridge tower, ran off it, double jumped, air-blinked ahead and dropped what felt like hundreds of feet to drop-assassinate a guard at the waterfront to break my fall. Then I went into the Boyle party with level 2 rat swarm and caused HIDEOUS DEATH. The gameplay is really fantastic, and simply moving around that world and messing with it is a ton of fun. But ending on such a flat boring fart of a note makes everything that came before it seem pointless.

I think developers have an obligation to finish their games on a high note. You see so many games where the first 2-3 missions are great and the final few are dull, and it always makes the entire game seem poorly thought out. As far as I'm concerned games (narratively driven anyway) need a strong start, a strong middle and a strong end, padded with whatever. But you need those narrative structures to satisfy!

Dishonored is more of a gallery of art you can do awesome shit in. It's a really stunning game to look at and a ton of fun to play around in. But it starts nowhere and goes nowhere. IMHO.

#16 Posted by august (3827 posts) -

I wasn't a fan of the ending either. Just got the low chaos ending a few minutes ago.

Patrick was pretty much right on the money when he said the actual plot of the game doesn’t really fulfil the promise of the setting. A far cry from Deus Ex and Thief that were all about throwing world-changing crazy stuff at you at the climax.

#17 Edited by Tennmuerti (8012 posts) -

Yep, having just finished it I have to agree. (low chaos)

The ending felt like a limp dick flapping in the cold breeze. Forgettable and uninteresting as fuck. Which some might consider as being worse than a bad ending.

Overall it is reflective of the game itself.

The world that the game set's up could be cool and intriguing, but the game ultimately does nothing interesting with it, either with the whales, or Outsider, or technology, or characters. You can feel the writers did a great job setting things up, but actual game design just leaves that there, instead of doing something with it. A bit disappointing.

#18 Posted by Demoskinos (14579 posts) -

I dunno, I enjoyed the ending I got I think the best ending. Havelock apparently killed the other two then I choked him out saved Emily and then it showed her ruling with Corvo at her side. I thought the bond between Corvo and Emily was a pretty driving force so to see that all pay off in the happy ending was great. I don't think every game needs some big exposition with the antagonist or giant boss fight sometimes the ending that you didn't expect is the ending that I appreciate the most.

I'm interested as to what the other endings are though.

#19 Posted by DeathByWaffle (629 posts) -

I just had the low chaos ending myself, and was very disappointed. Thought the mission would be very hard but it was one of the easiest in the game, just chocked Havelock out and opened the door for Emily. Playing stealthily, all I really needed was to blink everywhere and choke guards out; I only used Possession to get through vents as rats, and I use Bend Time a handful of times.

I also was surprised how I never got into some epic, grand-scale fight with tallboys. From the videos coming out prior to the game's release, I thought they would be integral to the story. If you don't play like an idiot and run in front of them though, you never have to fight them or deal with them.

#20 Posted by mosdl (3228 posts) -

They were smart to avoid the boss battle trap that Human Revolution ran into. The final mission was easy but being low chaos made me feel pretty overpowered.

#21 Posted by Madz (62 posts) -

Same problem I had with both endings I got, first playthrough was really careful and all that. The ending simply said 'STUFF WENT WELL :)" I kind of foolishly expected something more...Fallout. In which they say silly stuff like 'the torturer was knocked out, woke up and decided to live for charity with his dog'.

I liked both endings but...it's like they're setting up for a sequel, even in the High Chaos they don't say 'the city died' which would be the conclusion you'd make from everyone talking. It's just 'History might not remember you, but Emily will.' after saying how the city is fucked...

DLC maybe?

#22 Posted by Akrid (1356 posts) -

The low chaos ending was frustrating and had very little pay-off. I know a boss battle would have definitely been a bad idea, but maybe a little puzzle, like when you need to get the key from Daud. Instead, it was just me tearing through a series of some of the easiest guard patrols in the game on the way up to the tower and then just being plain confused that there seemed to be no apparent closure at the top. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the game otherwise.

The characters themselves aren't exactly fleshed out, but that comes with the territory in a way. Anything you learn about the characters is learned moments before you take 'em out, and that's an aspect that I actually really enjoy in a stealth game. It creates an interesting perspective of impartiality.

Aside from the targets, Havelock was pretty 2-dimensional, but Pendleton was an interesting guy. I also think the characters are represented appropriately given the fact that the game takes place over only a number of days. Not exactly enough time for every person in the pub to become best buds with you and show the true depth of their character.

As far as the world is concerned, I felt I learnt exactly the amount I'd want to learn - just under being overly expository, just over being bare bones.

#23 Posted by BlatantNinja23 (930 posts) -

@hedfone: I actually killed him before he could make the warning shot

#24 Edited by Kaarloss (29 posts) -

I really enjoyed the ending. last level although not hard compared to previous missions allowed me to inventively deal with those who had betrayed me. only done chaos ending but was particularly fun when they are about to jump off the tower. would much rather an ending like this over say the ending to bioshock. game strengths are in the journey and last level felt like the ending cutscene that you get to actually play.

#25 Posted by Kaarloss (29 posts) -

using the heart on people really fleshes out the charachters as well i felt.. havelock really came across as a fraud when using the heart on the loyalists. also loved how havelock is pretty much drinking in every scene lol

#26 Posted by falserelic (5333 posts) -

@Gantrathor said:

I actually really liked the ending that I got. I was mostly lethal throughout the game, and got a high chaos rating. When Samuel basically told me to get the fuck off his boat and he shot his pistol into the sky to alert the guards, it made me feel like a heartless dick.

I actually killed him before he fired his flare gun it was aswome....

#27 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4330 posts) -

Yup that ending was very weak but I never came to the game for the story. I enjoy playing it way too much to care enough about the story.

#28 Posted by Draugen (630 posts) -

Uhm. I must have played it a different way to alot of you, cause all Samuel said to me was that it had been an honour to work with me, and he hoped we would meet again. :P

Loved the game, from beginning to and including, end.

@Nardak said:

I think the final outcome depends a lot on how many people you kill (especially civilians). Also if you want to get the good ending then you have to be merciful towards your enemies (for example i spared the life of the master assasin who killed the empress).

Got myself the low chaos ending. Basically in that ending Corvo acts as a counselor to Emily for the rest of his life. After his death Emily (now called "Emily the wise") buries Corvo besides the Empress. It seems that Emily is the child of the empress and Corvo.

According to the ending Corvo also ushers in the "golden age" in Dunvall through his actions.

Yup, that's the one I got.

#29 Posted by Demoskinos (14579 posts) -

So just finished up chaos ending for achievements. S-ranked it! Man, the bad chaos ending is just depressing the imagery of Corvo's sword and Mask on Emily's tomb had me all frowny face. =(

#30 Posted by Superfriend (1530 posts) -

I played through on high chaos and I absolutely loved the last mission. Just one giant revenge tour and a dark, dark, DARK ending. On my first attempt even Emily died, because the damn Admiral took her down with him.

Such a great way to end the game. The closing montage cutscene was so amazing, especially the outsiders lines over those depressing images.

I don´t know what people expect these days.. but I´d say that if you´re "disappointed" with this game and the ending, then chances are you´re never gonna be satisfied with any game ever. Well, bad luck for you. By the way, I fucking hate how people just throw the term "disappointment" around for no good reason and when talking about some of the best games of the year.

The "good" ending could be shit, I haven´t seen that one yet, but I also think that the ending to a game is more than just the last cutscene. In Dishonored you get so much cool stuff about the outsider and the state of the world in those last few missions- I thought it was a great conclusion. It left some things to your imagination, just like a great ending should.

#31 Posted by Twinsun (468 posts) -

The main thing I didn't like about the low chaos ending that I got, was that I couldn't talk to Havelock, or whatever his name is. I wanted to hear him explain himself a bit. Nevertheless, I still really enjoyed the game, much more than I anticipated in fact.

#32 Posted by Sunjammer (907 posts) -

That's pretty good , call out people on something you don't know anything about. If you haven's seen the low chaos ending, you have no frame of reference. It's real bad. I'm on my way to the high chaos ending (btw, playing the game high chaos style makes it a total breeze and ridiculously short) so I'll see what's up with that.

My disappointment - and my low chaos playthrough was like a god damn archeology expedition; I collected everything, read everything, listened to everything and got really sucked into that world - is simply that the game tells a lot but shows little. I was super intrigued by Pandyssia, the whaling industry, even the overseer religion, but none of it pays off. The game is about Corvo putting Emily back on the throne, and all the other stuff is just window dressing. It's awesome window dressing but it goes nowhere, and if you look at the core story, it's ludicrously flat:

Guys want power and put away Emily and Corvo to get it. Corvo escapes and saves Emily. Corvo gets doublecrossed and Emily gets taken again. Corvo saves Emily again. The End. That is the story of the game. Beyond Emily being genuinely affecting (I really did want to help her) I thought that whole debackle was the least interesting thing in a while.

If you want, of course, you could focus on the Outsider and Daud and so on and so forth but all those are just vignettes. Dishonored is a game packed with potential for storytelling, but the actual story you play through offers little choice and ties up all too neatly. Ok so you save Emily and put her on the throne. The End. What about all her talk about commanding ships or living at sea? What about pirates with witch queens summoning sea monsters? What about the experiments to replicate whale oil characteristics in the oil of terrestrial creatures through pressure chambers? What about the heart's constant playing up of the Leviathans and their importance? So god damn much of the world is incidental, and woe to the man who gets curious about any of the things hinted at because the game isn't going to resolve squat.

Here's hoping for a sequel. The gameplay was fantastic and engrossing, and their world building is wonderful, but they need to be able to tie all that stuff together without it feeling like three different teams did the world, the game and the story.

#33 Posted by august (3827 posts) -

@Sunjammer said:

That's pretty good , call out people on something you don't know anything about. If you haven's seen the low chaos ending, you have no frame of reference. It's real bad. I'm on my way to the high chaos ending (btw, playing the game high chaos style makes it a total breeze and ridiculously short) so I'll see what's up with that.

My disappointment - and my low chaos playthrough was like a god damn archeology expedition; I collected everything, read everything, listened to everything and got really sucked into that world - is simply that the game tells a lot but shows little. I was super intrigued by Pandyssia, the whaling industry, even the overseer religion, but none of it pays off. The game is about Corvo putting Emily back on the throne, and all the other stuff is just window dressing. It's awesome window dressing but it goes nowhere, and if you look at the core story, it's ludicrously flat:

Guys want power and put away Emily and Corvo to get it. Corvo escapes and saves Emily. Corvo gets doublecrossed and Emily gets taken again. Corvo saves Emily again. The End. That is the story of the game. Beyond Emily being genuinely affecting (I really did want to help her) I thought that whole debackle was the least interesting thing in a while.

Agreed. With the Thief games you are at least stealing from crazy pagan monsters or Steamwork robotic abominations by the end. And Deus Ex has at least a few new critters or bosses and crazy plot stuff happening at the end of each of them.

The tower itself is awesome in Dishonored, but it's JUST MORE SOLDIERS AND DOGS, which is crazy for a finale.

#34 Posted by Droop (1832 posts) -

The low chaos ending really needed some closure with Havelock. I mean that guy fucked you over so bad, and you can't really do anything to him., I guess it is assumed if you don't kill him he is sent to prison. Thought it was very wierd to just end it like that. Especially since the other non-lethal options were pretty good.

It sounds like the higher chaos endings are better written. Might replay it through again (for the 3rd time) with higher chaos.

#35 Posted by august (3827 posts) -

If you fight Havelock on low chaos you at least get this little bit of business:

#36 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

As a writer myself, I liked the ending. Why? Because it fucking ends. No fucking drama, no new layers of questions, it's just over depending on what you did. And that's it. I don't need end-of-the-world revelations for a storyline to be good, it needs to grab you, the player, and motivate you to see it through. And that, it did very well.

#37 Posted by Demoskinos (14579 posts) -

@Klei: Agreed. Its fantastic that a story actually just ENDED. The cool part is they could still do a believable sequel if they wanted to assuming the "low chaos" ending is cannon Corvo stands by Emily's side for years as she rules over the land meaning they could throw some more stories with corvo in that time period without opening new threads in the story they are telling you at the moment.

#38 Posted by Akrid (1356 posts) -

@august said:

If you fight Havelock on low chaos you at least get this little bit of business:

See, that's cool as hell. But any sane thinking person does what they've been trained to do the entire game and just chokes the dude out instead of just walking up to him.

#39 Edited by Tennmuerti (8012 posts) -

@Klei: @Demoskinos:

Except that it ends abruptly with an equivalent of "and they lived happily ever after, the end" that is more akin to childrens fiction rather than something more serious. Talking about low chaos here obv.

Just because it does not dangle a sequel in front of us and that it has a decency to conclude is not enough to create a good ending. (the passivity and lack of actual significant events in the end doesn't help either)

An ending can end and still be much more interesting or thought provoking, or invoke feelings after the fact. An ending that leaves nothing, neither provokes thought nor lasting emotions after it's passing is ultimately a failure imo, because it's forgettable. The works of best writers are remembered. And a conclusion/ending can play a major factor in this.

( @Sunjammer: earlier pointed out the complaints of people with the "meat" of the narrative quite well earlier. The overall storyline is ultimately found lacking by some like him and me. )

#40 Posted by Demoskinos (14579 posts) -
@Tennmuerti

@Klei: @Demoskinos:

Except that it ends abruptly with an equivalent of "and they lived happily ever after, the end" that is more akin to childrens fiction rather than something more serious. Talking about low chaos here obv.

Just because it does not dangle a sequel in front of us and that it has a decency to conclude is not enough to create a good ending. (the passivity and lack of actual significant events in the end doesn't help either)

An ending can end and still be much more interesting or thought provoking, or invoke feelings after the fact. An ending that leaves nothing, neither provokes thought nor lasting emotions after it's passing is ultimately a failure imo, because it's forgettable. The works of best writers are remembered. And a conclusion/ending can play a major factor in this.

( @Sunjammer: earlier pointed out the complaints of people with the "meat" of the narrative quite well earlier. The overall storyline is ultimately found lacking by some like him and me. )

And I think that kind of ending is just fine. I was satisfied with it. Sure it didn't have much actual meat to the ending but at least personally the imagery they used at the end hit me in a way that I felt an emotional payoff for all of my work and effort.
#41 Posted by august (3827 posts) -

@Akrid: I actually walked up to him and because I was all like EXPLAIN YOURSELF, ASSHOLE.

But then he started fighting when I grabbed the key so I knocked him out with a sleep arrow and it was still pretty anti-climactic.

#42 Posted by august (3827 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

@Tennmuerti

@Klei: @Demoskinos:

Except that it ends abruptly with an equivalent of "and they lived happily ever after, the end" that is more akin to childrens fiction rather than something more serious. Talking about low chaos here obv.

Just because it does not dangle a sequel in front of us and that it has a decency to conclude is not enough to create a good ending. (the passivity and lack of actual significant events in the end doesn't help either)

An ending can end and still be much more interesting or thought provoking, or invoke feelings after the fact. An ending that leaves nothing, neither provokes thought nor lasting emotions after it's passing is ultimately a failure imo, because it's forgettable. The works of best writers are remembered. And a conclusion/ending can play a major factor in this.

( @Sunjammer: earlier pointed out the complaints of people with the "meat" of the narrative quite well earlier. The overall storyline is ultimately found lacking by some like him and me. )

And I think that kind of ending is just fine. I was satisfied with it. Sure it didn't have much actual meat to the ending but at least personally the imagery they used at the end hit me in a way that I felt an emotional payoff for all of my work and effort.

I totally agree. I went way out of my way to set a good example for my daughter and seeing it pay off was extremely satisfying.

#43 Edited by Tennmuerti (8012 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

@Tennmuerti

@Klei: @Demoskinos:

Except that it ends abruptly with an equivalent of "and they lived happily ever after, the end" that is more akin to childrens fiction rather than something more serious. Talking about low chaos here obv.

Just because it does not dangle a sequel in front of us and that it has a decency to conclude is not enough to create a good ending. (the passivity and lack of actual significant events in the end doesn't help either)

An ending can end and still be much more interesting or thought provoking, or invoke feelings after the fact. An ending that leaves nothing, neither provokes thought nor lasting emotions after it's passing is ultimately a failure imo, because it's forgettable. The works of best writers are remembered. And a conclusion/ending can play a major factor in this.

( @Sunjammer: earlier pointed out the complaints of people with the "meat" of the narrative quite well earlier. The overall storyline is ultimately found lacking by some like him and me. )

And I think that kind of ending is just fine. I was satisfied with it. Sure it didn't have much actual meat to the ending but at least personally the imagery they used at the end hit me in a way that I felt an emotional payoff for all of my work and effort.

Fair enough. I'm glad it worked for you, this reason I can fully understand.

My reply was more in response to the arguments themselves (in the two posts) why it was good. Rather than if people liked it or not.

I personally just didn't feel anything, it was more like: "eh, that's it? k i guess". I think part of the fault lies with Corvo who as a character failed for me. (as explained in another thread)

#44 Posted by Demoskinos (14579 posts) -
@august That's exactly it. I really ended up giving a shit about Emily. I always spent time with her when I could. It wasn't about revenge for me it was about saving her. That's all that mattered to me and that is what ai accomplished
#45 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

@Klei: @Demoskinos:

Except that it ends abruptly with an equivalent of "and they lived happily ever after, the end" that is more akin to childrens fiction rather than something more serious. Talking about low chaos here obv.

Just because it does not dangle a sequel in front of us and that it has a decency to conclude is not enough to create a good ending. (the passivity and lack of actual significant events in the end doesn't help either)

An ending can end and still be much more interesting or thought provoking, or invoke feelings after the fact. An ending that leaves nothing, neither provokes thought nor lasting emotions after it's passing is ultimately a failure imo, because it's forgettable. The works of best writers are remembered. And a conclusion/ending can play a major factor in this.

( @Sunjammer: earlier pointed out the complaints of people with the "meat" of the narrative quite well earlier. The overall storyline is ultimately found lacking by some like him and me. )

I get your point, but I share a different opinion. A credible ending doesn't need significant events brought in a provoking way to be strong. Corvo is standing in front of a mere man, Havelock, who bit more than he could chew. And in all cases it ends there. I thought the journey was a lot stronger than the ending, and in most stories, its the important thing. Unless of course, the journey is uninteresting and filled with irrelevant mysteries until a revelation ending comes crashing in. Like Assassin's Creed, for instance, even if I really don't like the whole 2012 solar flare shit.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't have an interesting journey and an interesting ending ( like Inception ), I'm just saying that even simple stories can be good. And in the case of Dishonored, its story is very well executed, especially with its deep lore scattered all around. Personally, I felt satisfied.

#46 Edited by Tennmuerti (8012 posts) -

@Klei:

Agreed significant events are not necessarily required for the ending, I mostly mentioned that lack of thereof didn't really help what i thought was a bland and textureless end.

The first problem I have with Dishonored is that all that deep lore, like mentioned in this thread several times already, is just window dressing. Nothing of significance is ever really done with it, it's never truly explored or dug into. The universe setup is great, but lacking in any follow through. The game could have been set in a generic fantasy fiction world and it would have been of little difference to the events, or modern day with a dash of magic thrown in (ala Nightwatch). It's fiction is ultimately meaningless.

Again I have to refer you to Sunjammer's post on why he feels the story is poorly executed. He said it well, so it's pointless atm for me to simply repeat him.

The second is Corvo. I know some people have been able to either identify him or think of it as themselves in that setting. For me Corvo's character straddles the fence too much. He is just sufficiently fleshed out as a unique character rather than a blank slate for player agency, with his own background, feelings, ties, relationships. This makes it impossible for me to think of myself as being him, Corvo is Corvo, I'm playing as Corvo, but I am not Corvo. (I can't just can't identify with Corvo when the retard walks into an obvious trap midway through the game. In no way can I think of myself as him. My actions and his are separate entities.) However on the other side of the fence Corvo does not deliver, he is fleshed out, true, but not enough, not nearly. It's not just a question of voice acting. It's the lack of feedback, of emotions during important personal events, or of opinion on matters; these and more create a non fully fleshed out character, he is half a blank, like a drawing someone started but forgot to finish. Hell even Adam Jensen for all his grating (to some) voice acting still felt like he had more of his own personality.

Games like (for example) Witcher 2 do the same thing well and fully flesh out an individual character with his own agendas and outlook on life, while playing such a character like Geralt, I have to put myself in his shoes and adjust my thinking, what would Geralt do, not what would I do in Geralt's place. So he is a constant participant in the events, I'm just adjusting some of his actions. Now I'm just using this game as an example only, i'm not comparing them to each other qualitatively. In say a game like Baldurs Gate you are the character, you are making the choices those are your emotions and attachments, you inhabit a (mostly) blank slate to shape and form as you see fit after the initial setup. These are the 2 major examples of conduits through which a player can form an attachment to the events in the narrative. Either directly by relating in a "what would I do way", or through someone "in a what would he/she do". But you need to form an emotional attachment/investment to the events somehow. Corvo acts as a stopping block in this regard to many, rather than a conduit.

I believe, the only way for a non fully realised character like Corvo to work properly and create a link between the player and the narrative, is if the players actions/opinions already partially align with that of the incomplete character, and naturally fill the void. Then is works! And as is testament it works for some people in this game. Which is great. But it doesn't work if your thoughts/feelings don't align. With a stronger more individual and complete character it would not have mattered, because the players attitude becomes much less relevant, and can be overpowered by a well written persona. This is a general theory as to why people can't connect with or through Corvo however, I am not putting it forward as fact as to how or why people feel this way, just that I believe as to why this happens.

These two: a lack of caring for the characters and non realisation of the world around them, create to combine an ultimately bland experience for someone like myself.

#47 Posted by Klei (1768 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

@Klei:

Agreed significant events are not necessarily required for the ending, I mostly mentioned that lack of thereof didn't really help what i thought was a bland and textureless end.

The first problem I have with Dishonored is that all that deep lore, like mentioned in this thread several times already, is just window dressing. Nothing of significance is ever really done with it, it's never truly explored or dug into. The universe setup is great, but lacking in any follow through. The game could have been set in a generic fantasy fiction world and it would have been of little difference to the events, or modern day with a dash of magic thrown in (ala Nightwatch). It's fiction is ultimately meaningless.

Again I have to refer you to Sunjammer's post on why he feels the story is poorly executed. He said it well, so it's pointless atm for me to simply repeat him.

The second is Corvo. I know some people have been able to either identify him or think of it as themselves in that setting. For me Corvo's character straddles the fence too much. He is just sufficiently fleshed out as a unique character rather than a blank slate for player agency, with his own background, feelings, ties, relationships. This makes it impossible for me to think of myself as being him, Corvo is Corvo, I'm playing as Corvo, but I am not Corvo. (I can't just can't identify with Corvo when the retard walks into an obvious trap midway through the game. In no way can I think of myself as him. My actions and his are separate entities.) However on the other side of the fence Corvo does not deliver, he is fleshed out true out but not enough, not nearly. It's not just a question of voice acting. It's the lack of feedback, of emotions during important personal events, or of opinion on matters; these and more create a non fully fleshed out character, he is half a blank, like a drawing someone started but forgot to finish. Hell even Adam Jensen for all his grating (to some) voice acting still felt like he had more of his own personality.

Games like (for example) Witcher 2 do the same thing well and fully flesh out an individual character with his own agendas and outlook on life, while playing such a character like Geralt, I have to put myself in his shoes and adjust my thinking, what would Geralt do, not what would I do in Geralt's place. So he is a constant participant in the events, I'm just adjusting some of his actions (semantics are important here). Now I'm just using this game as an example only, i'm not comparing them to each other qualitatively. In say a game like Baldurs Gate you are the character, you are making the choices those are your emotions and attachments, you inhabit a (mostly) blank slate to shape and form as you see fit. These are the 2 major examples of conduits through which a player can form an attachment to the events in the narrative Either directly by relating in a "what would I do way", or through someone "in a what would he/she do". But you need to form an emotional attachment/investment to the events somehow. Corvo acts as a stopping block in this regard to many, rather than a conduit.

I believe, the only way for a non fully realised character like Corvo to work properly and create a link between the player and the narrative, is if the players actions/opinions already partially align with that of the incomplete character, and naturally fill the void. Then is works! And as is testament it works for some people in this game. Which is great. But it doesn't work if your thoughts/feelings don't align. With a stronger more individual and complete character it would not have mattered, because the players attitude becomes much less relevant, and can be overpowered by a well written persona. This is a general theory as to why people can't connect with or through Corvo however, I am not putting it forward as fact as to how or why people feel this way, just that I believe as to why this happens.

These two: a lack of caring for the characters and non realisation of the world around them, create to combine an ultimately bland experience for someone like myself.

On that, I agree. Especially the Corvo part.

#48 Posted by Ghost_Cat (1395 posts) -

I should have been a murderous bastard if I knew I was going to get an ending like that. It really deflated much of my experience with Dishonored.

#50 Edited by august (3827 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

@Klei:The first problem I have with Dishonored is that all that deep lore, like mentioned in this thread several times already, is just window dressing. Nothing of significance is ever really done with it, it's never truly explored or dug into. The universe setup is great, but lacking in any follow through. The game could have been set in a generic fantasy fiction world and it would have been of little difference to the events, or modern day with a dash of magic thrown in (ala Nightwatch). It's fiction is ultimately meaningless.

I'm genuinely conflicted as to whether the story being just a political/personal story that happens in this crazy universe is ballsy and awesome or a total waste of potential. In any other game the plague wold be some sort of punishment on the people of Dunwal for their hubris of harvesting the Leviathans and there would be some sort of biological horror monsters vs. high tech robots by the end and you'd end up choosing one of three or so world-changing endings. Is the fact that Dishonored actually bucks typical videogame science-fantasy narrative admirable? Or just lazy? I'm still not sure.

At any rate the final set of challenges needed to be something more intimidating and dramatic that just more dogs and guards.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.