Log in or sign up to comment
70 Comments
  • 70 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Pixeldemon

I have not played the high-Chaos ending, but I thought the low-Chaos play style and ending were very interesting for this reason: As Corvo you are essentially an unstoppable supernatural murder-machine, and yet you can choose to use restraint all throughout the game. Yes it IS unsatisfying, that is part of the point. Doing the right thing and not being a vengeful killer is hard. Many games botch the good/evil choice by making being "good" easier than being "bad". This is backwards, at least for people who are powerful. Being a complete scumbag in life is actually easier than being a good person, and this basic idea is reflected in the game mechanics. Yes it would be more fun to stab/shoot/explode everyone, and you CAN do that, but doing so is a corrupting experience that will impact the nature of the world (mainly just the ending, but that should be enough).

The story beats seemed deliberately low-impact, to the point that it approaches irony. In the final mission, you are on your way to deal with the people who betrayed you, only to find that Havlock has already killed the others with poison. He stole your thunder. The world ends not with a bang but with a whimper.

Emily, the future sovereign, has Corvo for a role model, and the implied difference between low-chaos and high-chaos is huge.

Posted by Aterons

I think complaining about the ending on this game means you didn't really get the game. The world is basically 20-19 century England naturalist book city with steampunk and magic, accent on naturalist novel 20-19 century England. You are supposed to know everyone is "bad", by that meaning power hungry/corrupt,from the damn start. From their faces, from the way they speak and let notes.

The only "good" guys are you, the silent protagonist and Emily/her mother which is basically the "symbol" of purity/innocence... etc in this naturalist novel world, hence why all the shit happens to them. If it was me to chose than id only have the "red" ending, even for guys that played non-lethal, because the :good: ending doesn't fit the world at all.

You might get real RPG with loads of choices and what not in the next game since they now have more of a name/budget but this game was very much a naturalist novel book in which you were kinda "thrown", the good vs bad part is not a choice it's only "flavor" on the side, hence why the protagonist is silent and doesn't really have any dialogue, because he is just a tool for moving the plot on, he is not the "focus" of the plot.

Edited by mordukai

@BBQBram said:

Reminded me of the ending of Mass Effect, that was heavy on the cheese as well.

But the ending of Mass Effect 1 kept in line with the entire game and took your choices into account. PLus, that ending song wasn't that bad.

@mosdl said:

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.

Not to mention you skip almost the entirety of the final mission by using the cable. Personally at some point during the game I realized the story wasn't that great but I enjoyed the setting and gameplay so much that I just ignored the story all together. As an entry for the first game in a series I think the developer did a great job and the feedback they are getting will make them do some changes that can make another great game.

@Chaser324 said:

@RainVillain said:

Absolutely loved the game but yeah the fade to black after hugging emily + vignette resolutions, mixed with the weird pop song.. huge buzz kill on a game I really loved.

Yeah, I feel the same way. It all just feels very hastily thrown together. I'm bothered the most by there being no resolution at all to the betrayal by Havelock and his buddies.

That what I thought. I think it would have been a real kicker if you actually got to see that whole scene unfolding. Better yet it would have been great if you had the chance to influence that scene by having you finding out Havelock's plans and either let them unfold as is, warning Martin or Pendleton, or turning the tables on Havelock and switching the glasses.

Posted by DaSmart1

@Sunjammer: I thought the exact same thing on my first playthrough with low chaos. Trust me, the high chaos final mission is WAYYYY more satisfying.

Posted by vikingdeath1

The game was Shit-loads of fun. Not much else mattered in the end.

more closure woulda been nice though.

Posted by Jonny_Anonymous
@SomeDeliCook said:

@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.

It depends how you play it, I got to kill Havelock and Pendleton my self 
Posted by Chaser324

@RainVillain said:

Absolutely loved the game but yeah the fade to black after hugging emily + vignette resolutions, mixed with the weird pop song.. huge buzz kill on a game I really loved.

Yeah, I feel the same way. It all just feels very hastily thrown together. I'm bothered the most by there being no resolution at all to the betrayal by Havelock and his buddies.

Moderator Online
Posted by BBQBram

The rock song at the end was actually composed by Daniel Licht as well, it's part of the original soundtrack. It was kinda jarring yeah, but the arrangements and melodies were in the same vein as the rest of the score, the production emphasized that as well. It was cheesy, but not as out of nowhere as some are saying. Reminded me of the ending of Mass Effect, that was heavy on the cheese as well.

Posted by Sunjammer

What I really don't understand is why they use that shitty pop song at the end when they have this lying around

Posted by RainVillain

Absolutely loved the game but yeah the fade to black after hugging emily + vignette resolutions, mixed with the weird pop song.. huge buzz kill on a game I really loved.

Posted by xdaknightx69

so i got the high chaos ending because i finished the last 2 mission on high chaos. yah the ending wasn't anything great or blew my mind. at least i didn't have to chose a ending like deus ex: HR or ME3 lol

also load up your save and let Emily die, don't save her, that ending is pretty awesome and i preferred it to the high chaos.

Posted by j3ffro919

In reading this, and talking to two of my buddies I feel like I played a completely different game. Even the high chaos stuff sounds different than what I experienced. I'm sure part of that was playing start to finish as a part of a 24 hour marathon for Extra Life, but there are a number of events that seem to have at least 3 possible outcomes. YMMV, but all said and done I really enjoyed it.

Posted by MjHealy

By the time I get to the end of most games, I am usually dying to finish them. It's problem I have. Once I get a few hours in and the new game "sheen" wears off, I begin to look when it's over. Didn't have that feeling with Dishonored. I was having some serious fun with the gameplay. But at the end, when I opened that final door all I could say was;

"Wait! Is that it?"

A potentially interesting universe that is let down by never really exposing itself. Still a very good game, nonetheless.

Posted by Encephalon

Yup. Just finished it and pretty much agree with every critical point made in this thread.

So there's a pair of books in the game called A Gaffer's Tale Vol.1 & 2, which chronicles this dude's gradual disillusionment over a long whaling career. I want to play that game.

Posted by Ghostiet

Playing for low chaos generally bits you in the ass - I regret attempting that, since later in the game there's simply very little fun for such a run, considering all you really do is rely on Blink and Dark Vision.

@mordukai said:

@Klei said:

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.

To be perfectly honest; the story itself didn't have much meat to it. I enjoyed the level design, gameplay, and settings but I largely ignored everything about the story. Missed opportunity imo. They created such an interesting world but crafted such a predictable bland story around it.

Exactly. I would even extend it to the atmosphere - they've managed to create a very bleak world and do it in a very stylized art style, but it lacks any sense of wonder. The Rapture reveal in BioShock gets me every time and they were clearly attempting something similar with the boat rides with Samuel, but it just doesn't work.

Posted by Sunjammer

Haha yeah I skipped the end credits practically the second I heard a bit of lyrics. My god what a poor decision

Posted by Lysergica33

I just finished this literally about 10 minutes ago and I couldn't be any more angry. It's not even the ending itself that pissed me off, it's the fucking music. 16 hours of plague-ridden, dystopian, immersive as all hell, nigh on genius, they end it with some of the most generic pop-rock bullshit known to man. It's not even that the music is offensively bad music, it's just generic, boring crap for generic, boring people; it's the context in which it's (mis-)used. Who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to end a game about a corrupt, Orwellian society with a piece of modern pop rock trash? WHO!?! You'd have to be a fucking idiot to approve an idea like that, and I doubt it was even Bethesda forcing them to do such a thing. I could see SOME publishers saying "put some modern pop on the end credits so we can make more money!" but Bethesda...? Eh... It's just so fucking jarring. They could've used one of their sea shanties, or one of their orchestral pieces, but no, they use modern, generic pop-rock that forcibly pulls you out of the game experience. The ending itself was terribly written, yes, but my God.. I feel all kinds of wrong right now, all because of that fucking music. What the actual fuck is wrong with whoever approved that song choice? And why do they still have a job?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to pour another glass of wine, find a good corner, and weep.

Edited by Sunjammer

IMHO Dishonored tried to pull a Bioshock with its ending, with the emotional string pulling and family references, but it just didn't work. The only character they made us care about was Emily, so who cares what happens, really, once she's on the throne? Dunwall is a nightmare probably best left to the plague (which, even though we know its cause, was never resolved as a plot device), the Overseers are still around to fuck everybody's day up, and thank god we saved Piero and Sokolov, a perv and a sadist, so they can continue militarizing science and abusing the poor.

At its best, the game ends terribly. Playing the character-driven emotional angle is not going to cut it.

Edited by mordukai

@Klei said:

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.

To be perfectly honest; the story itself didn't have much meat to it. I enjoyed the level design, gameplay, and settings but I largely ignored everything about the story. Missed opportunity imo. They created such an interesting world but crafted such a predictable bland story around it.

Posted by august

Also, as easy as it was for the final confrontation to be undramatic for most low-chaos players Havelock's final speech is incredibly well acted and staged.

Edited by august

@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.

Posted by Ghost_Cat

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.

Posted by Klei

@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.

Edited by Tennmuerti

@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.

Posted by Klei

@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.

Posted by Demoskinos
@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
Edited by Tennmuerti

@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)

Posted by august

@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.

Posted by august

@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.

Posted by Demoskinos
@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.
Edited by 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. )

Posted by Akrid

@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.

Posted by Demoskinos

@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.

Posted by Klei

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.

Posted by august

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

Posted by Droop

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.

Posted by august

@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.

Posted by Sunjammer

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.

Posted by Twinsun

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.

Posted by Superfriend

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.

Posted by Demoskinos

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. =(

Posted by Draugen

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.

Posted by Colourful_Hippie

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.

Posted by falserelic

@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....

Posted by Kaarloss

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

Edited by Kaarloss

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.

Posted by BlatantNinja23

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

Posted by Akrid

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.

Posted by Madz

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?

  • 70 results
  • 1
  • 2