It finally happened. I have found my inspiration drought so this week will not have anything relevant or eye-catching here. Unless you consider some lines of words to be interesting... So, I will mix and match whatever comes in mind. Remember that some of these statements may not match my actual opinion but these are the ones that came to mind when I force myself to think about them.
Hype is something that annoys me a lot since it is encouraged to promote sales and so, it happens all the time. As a sales strategy, it is effective in encouraging sales and in the video games industry, it is done to boost pre-order sales. However, as a result of this, fans end up overly excited with the titbits announced and wind up building expectations about the product even before it is released. On Youtube, I have already encountered so many overly hyped individuals that are excited about upcoming games even with the brief teases and demo of said games (which include Fallout 4 and Dishonored 2). The hype is powerful enough to prompt pre-orders of these unfinished games which baffles me as the act of pre-order, to me at least, seems like the most unsafe and least profitable method of gambling (aside from Kickstarter though there have been some gems from Kickstarter). While I do respect these opinions, the annoying bit is when they try to force their opinions down the throats of any perceived dissenters.
For the record, I consider hype-mongerers to be individuals that pre-order games (and not the limited edition copies that have collectibles and extra goods provided) upon the announcement trailers and are extremely optimistic about said game while not being reviewers that have pre-ordered the game to submit their own review. I am among those that do not think Fallout 4 will be the best in the franchise. The extreme amount of freedom and lack of skill-based stats (from what I can tell) concerns me as a lack of progression may arise as a result of these new implementations. Suddenly, one does not experience the journey of a fresh rookie to hero of the land but rather the bland path of an action hero being an action hero.
Thanks to the hype raised, those caught on the hype train may be more than willing to defend or even criticize others who disagree with their views. I am however willing to acknowledge that this is not the case most of the times since a good number of people can be rational and even discuss their views whether it be positive or negative. Then again, those that pre-order probably feel the need to constantly justify their spent money and should the product be terrible, the satisfaction from defending a game will soothe their aching wallets. I bring up the effect of hype as I have recently faced criticism for my lack of faith in Bethesda's writing and ability for Fallout 4 despite not actually insulting said game directly. Somehow, some individuals are over-excited for an unreleased product to the point that they already imagine the game being perfect or being amazing. The reason I repeat the notion that hype mongerers believe their beloved game to be perfect is the excitement raised from titbits provided by the developers which help build expectations for the game and even result in them imagining more from the product. I admit that I have done this a couple of times with Skyrim, Colonial Marines (a blatantly misrepresented product that I thankfully never bought or played - see the E3 demo), Watch_dogs, the Evil Within (never played it but watched enough playthroughs to realise the flaws in the narrative and how action-based it was - the scars of Resident Evil 6 have not healed) and Fable 3 with each time leaving me disappointed. It hurts the game itself since a decent game that was hyped up would be forced to meet the unrealistic expectations that overly hyped individuals have drawn up for said game and once they end up disappointed, they criticize the game without realising that they expected the world from a product that only promised them a plot of land.
I guess the best option for most gamers with average income is to retain the ability to be excited for a product but avoid being excessively excited for the product. Even if a trailer, a gameplay demonstration or a behind-the-scenes video appears flawless and paints a good picture of the final product, pragmatism is still a valuable trait to have since the final product may differ in appearance and/or content. The outrage surrounding Witcher 3's graphical downgrade shows the danger of having a final product that differs from the pre-release materials though it made up for this by being a decent game that has good writing, well-written characters and solid gameplay (To see an example of a heavily criticized product that differed from pre-release materials, look for Colonial Marines and to a lesser extent, Duke Nukem Forever which was marred by old assets being used for the final product)
Video game movies have a bad reputation and while Uwe Boll has helped maintain the reputation of said movies, there is a stigma attached to most video game movies. What usually happens is the movie is barely connected to the source material as the movie is either actionised to an excessive extent or has very little ties to the source material. To see proof of this in effect, one only needs to look at Mila Jovovich's meal ticket or her husband's kinky dominatrix fantasies being adapted into a movie franchise with very little ties to the actual game series that is eerily resembling said movie franchise by the sixth instalment. The problem from what I can tell is the difficulty of adapting a game into a movie format seeing as how a game shows the entire method to achieving a goal whereas a movie has to handle a time limit to ensure that it's audience is not asleep by the first five minutes.
For movies that involve stealth and sneaking around, the methodology of the stealth cannot be fully shown to audiences and usually ends up with a brief montage or scene that depicts an example before cutting to the aftermath of a successful stealth run. In games, these moments end up being more interesting due to player involvement that influences a flawless success or a frantic cover-up of mistakes made which leave a stronger impression. For video game movies that involve horror, spectacle is usually prioritised which winds up leaving less room for build up and more shock being brought in. I once watched a bit of Silent Hill: Revelations and had to turn it off when I realised that this was a Resident Evil movie except Wesker was replaced with Pyramid Head. I guess what I am trying to say her is that a video game movie is unable to capture the essential moments and effort that make a video game good. Even if a movie can capture the moments well, it does not mean much if there was no real build-up to the moment. Pivotal moments in games, which may include climaxes, may falter as the effort and investment by players will not be present in an audience that views a movie.
I guess the best alternative to a movie adaptation of a video game is a loose adaptation instead whereby the setting is used rather than the game itself. This would limit the options available to movie makers as they would be forced to find game franchises with large settings that are capable having these stories (i.e The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Warcraft, Deus Ex) and even these movies are not guaranteed to work (i.e Dungeons and Dragons, not a video game movie but a game adaptation with actors so bad that they don't even act). However, the potential to make a gem is more likely with these franchises with a large world capable of exploring with a movie since little stories do exist within these worlds. To cater to the video game audiences, these movies can even reference the original works with cameos of signature side characters along with mention of main characters and their deeds.
What I say here is not a sure-fire way of making a good movie since I do not know how to make a movie but I am giving suggestions. Perhaps someday a good video game movie will appear and be as popular as comic book movies are today (except for Fantastic 4). Until then, I know that Hitman: Agent 47 is not one of these movies (I have not seen this movie yet so the review is not up and hence I am making a post to distract you from the above fact) and that the promised movie to end all movies have not shown up.
Time to go back to Blood Money or Terraria or Xenonauts or The Nameless Mod or The Witcher 3 or a tub full of pie.
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Hitman: Blood Money
Hitman: Blood Money (PC, X-Box, PS2 and part of the HD Trilogy for PS3 and X-Box 360) is the fourth instalment of the venerable Hitman series which happens to be a social stealth game where you play as the world's greatest assassin, Agent 47 (a genetically engineered super assassin), as said assassin completes assassination jobs assigned by the ICA (International Contracts Agency). As I mentioned in my Dishonored review, I consider Blood Money to be the best social stealth game and one of the best stealth games involving assassinations that I have ever played. There are flaws as all good things have though mitigated by so many merits and seeing as this blog is called "What makes or breaks it?", I think it's time to write about something I really like rather than stuff I am okay with (also partially due to having finished it two weeks ago). One thing to note though, I played this on PC (a laptop to be precise) using my Steam copy and I had problems with it as the Steam version does not seem to be optimized properly (at least in my case, I suffered from crashes if using high graphic settings and the game requiring some tweaking to play on Windows 8). My experience with the Steam version could differ from others but I'll just point out that there could be issues (that can be fixed with some troubleshooting and forum searching).
What makes it
Gameplay in any stealth game is very important as it can make up for flaws in the story. Games like Dishonored or Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory have weak writing but if the stealth gameplay is fun and intuitive, the writing becomes a negligible stain on a custom made tailored suit. Coupled with a dash of creative experimentation, Blood Money delivers on gameplay and more. As a hitman in public areas, a player would have to focus on the social aspects in stealth, namely blending into crowds, looking for opportune moments to assassinate while hiding among the regular folk and to escape without being detected or suspected. To aid in this task, 47 is provided with a plethora of equipment (customisable firearms, fibre wire, syringes, mines and lock-picks) and the ability to disguise himself using the outfit of certain NPCs. While the game offers you the freedom to go in guns blazing with the numerous weapons provided, this is usually unwise (especially on harder difficulties) as 47 has the constitution of a twig when faced with multiple opponents and has no clue on how to use cover. This usually forces the player to play stealthily and assassinate using certain tools and methods (i.e fibre wire for garrotting, poisoned syringes, silenced pistol shots to the head, re-enacting the Kennedy assassination (a sniper riffle from a good vantage spot) and more) . A player can go beyond typical stealth kills and create accidents with the tools and methods that can be found(i.e placing a mine on a chandelier winch for a chandelier above the target, pushing the target into water or off a flight of stairs and many more). This is where the fun was for me as setting up these accidents were difficult at times thanks to a reasonable NPC AI whose patrol routes I usually forgot at inopportune times. When the set up and execution do work, there is a greater thrill and sense of accomplishment from performing a masterfully executed hit which appears to be an accident to the NPCs. In addition, if the stealthy approach fails, the game does provide the freedom to go postal on the NPCs though at a significant disadvantage on harder difficulties or even improvise a different method of assassination (i.e sticking a bomb in a mission vital suitcase and toss it near the target). While the controls do require some playing to get used to, the game does have a tutorial level to gain some familiarity with them.
Wide open levels are part of the reason why Blood Money's gameplay is excellent. Most levels are large with many places and tools strewn around for the player to discover. The large levels encourage exploration and as a result of this exploration, any player can potentially discover new methods to arrange accident kills, new tools to use, occasional easter eggs, surveillance rooms to steal evidence tapes from (removing the danger of cameras from levels) and the location of disguises. While not as large as open world games, these large levels act as an experimental sandbox where the player is free to poke and toy with the AI and the game mechanics. Some have even discovered unintentional methods to murdering targets using these mechanics and those like me will attempt to determine if an alternative method to elimination can be done.
The sound design is decent and works well. Voice work is fine as it is with David Bateson, the voice of Agent 47, being as professional and cold as a professional hitman and the other voice actors sounding natural without being cringe-worthy. Stereotypes are present but in light of the setting they are in, this is not an issue unless you happen to be overly sensitive. The music of the game has numerous classical scores (Ave Maria as an example) and fits the tone of the moments they represent, such as a tenser track used when the corpse of a target or bystander is found along with calmer tunes at the start of each level.
Entertainment value can be very important to some games that lack a good story and can compel players to continue playing the game. Blood Money has this due to the freedom granted by the gameplay and levels which allow for vast freedom to experiment as previously mentioned. A normal player could replay certain levels differently and see a different result on the second result screen which happens to be a newspaper with your hit being the front page article with references even being made to the weapons used, the number of witnesses, the analysis on the shooter's accuracy rate and even an acknowledgement of having no information by the authorities in said article. Some experimentation can even lead to new methods being discerned from careful observation of routines. I appear to repeat this often but bear with me, I am emphasizing a strong part of the game as a whole. The freedom to perform these hits in a way that the game has allowed directly or indirectly is ever present and as a result, any player can return to this game after a successful play-through to impose rules to their play-styles (i.e only using a fibre wire to kill targets, only use accidents, only use loud weapons to kill and many more). As a result of all this, Blood Money has immense replay value and will entertain players for a long time, until a new Hitman game appears that improves everything about Blood Money.
What breaks it
Dated graphics is something that can break immersion for the modern gamer. In Blood Money's case, the dated graphics primarily appear in the character models (at least from what I can tell) and the textures of certain objects especially when viewed in first-person along with a repeated usage of character models in some levels. For me however, the graphics do not actually harm the gameplay since the point of Blood Money is granting any player a dollhouse or playground to experiment to their hearts content. At the very least, the low graphics reflect the notion that the game world is not realistic which makes sense seeing how some guards will simply shoot a person for walking into a party without the proper attire even if no else is. I only point this flaw out for the reader's sake and while I do acknowledge that the graphics are dated (though not dated around the time of release), I personally did not see this as a flaw. Hitman: Absolution, the sequel and fifth installment, had better graphics and more character models but suffered a reduction in the large levels that Blood Money had, causing most levels to end up being stealth treks from point A to point B.
Frustrating features are something that can irritate players to the point that they would abandon whole playthroughs. Blood Money has a few that I can note. The first of the top of my head is the speed of 47's actions which include the speed used to drag and hide bodies along the speed in equipping disguises. While these are negligible issues that can be justified, they can lead to frustrating moments that can ruin a perfect stealth run whereby 47 drags or hides a body so slowly that a patrolling guard or civilian sees 47 trying to hide said body in the nearby freezer. This makes playthroughs on the harder difficulties frustrating as at the hardest difficulty, no saves (in the levels) are allowed which means an hour's worth of effort can be undermined by an NPC walking in at the wrong moment. The other feature is the gunplay which does not work as well outside of stealth. Most gunfights in this game require an absurd amount of strafing as 47 has not fully comprehended the concept of using cover like most modern games. This usually is not a problem until the player is forced into a shootout situation in the game and at higher difficulties, any player would feel frustrated by 47's low constitution along with his inability to blind fire from behind some cover. Personally, I did not find this to be a major issue except for one particular section which I'm not going to spoil but let it be said that being able to use cover would have aided me immensely in that section. These frustrating features could turn off some players though those that can adapt could overlook these features.
Story is not a positive point to Blood Money as it is mostly told through cutscenes that are rather insignificant in comparison to the game. While a story does exist in Blood Money, it is rather underwhelming and can be missed by an inattentive player or someone forced to skip cutscenes due to time constraints. While the game shows the presence of a rival faction of assassins, their presence is rarely felt in the game which makes them seem like weak villains rather than worthy adversaries. Blood Money instead showcases 47 at his job with the actual story mentioned during said cutscenes or pre-mission briefing. Then again, Blood Money is more about the gameplay rather than a thrilling story and for what it has, it was sufficient to justify 47's position in the levels. Absolution tried to make a Hollywood-esque story in a Hitman game and as a result, the levels suffered as there was a need to accommodate for said story. Without an pver-arcing storyline that watches over 47, locales of greater variety can be introduced.
Personal views
I quite enjoyed Blood Money when I first played it 3 years ago and I still enjoy coming back to it every once in a while. The freedom provided in the game makes it fun to experiment especially on the lower difficulties whereas on higher difficulties, I usually attempt a perfect Silent Assassin run that I can usually pull off due to strategies that I can dimly recall. The frustrating features I mention above only become issues for me in higher difficulties since they usually spell the end of a particularly good attempt on the highest difficulty but they also add a challenging aspect to the game as the player would have to compensate or even time one's style. For me, I found it enjoyable to stick to a carefully planned out strategy and watch it work out flawlessly before reloading another level to re-enact the battle at the Alamo on a random NPC's face. To make it official, I highly recommend getting Hitman: Blood Money if you enjoy most games or want to re-create your favorite murder-fantasies that involve chandeliers and shark tanks.
Summary:
What makes it
Gameplay, Wide open levels, Sound design, Entertainment value
What breaks it
Dated graphics, Frustrating features, Story
P.S: Now I would like to voice out my opinion on the new Hitman game announced at E3 2015: Looks promising but not enough to be hyped about. Not a lot of gameplay was shown at E3 and even if a developer explains its features, it may differ from the final product (see Aliens: Colonial Marines, a heavily misrepresented product that led to my embargo against Gearbox games; f*ck Borderlands). That said, it appears that the new Hitman might go back to Blood Money-like missions where you play as 47 performing hits in large and differing locales. I read about improvements to the AI that allow for player manipulation to alter their routines (using well placed bombs to draw attention in order to sneak into areas, similar to Blood Money) which sound promising as a gameplay feature and may even be an improvement on Blood Money's own manipulation (the bomb trick works in Blood Money too). All this game has to do is avoid Absolution's disguise system (every cop in the city knows each other on sight?) that made harder difficulties nearly impossible to play and return the normal save function rather than fixed checkpoints that reset progress whenever used. I guess what I'm saying is that the new Hitman game should be like Blood Money but with vast improvements that fits the current technology available and providing the freedom of Blood Money (rather than the penalties imposed by Absolution that force a particular playstyle).
P.P.S: This review is subjectively biased and opinions of the game can differ. Feel free to voice your opinions on the matter.
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation
Not too long ago, I saw Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation with some of my friends. While this happens to be the fifth instalment to the Mission Impossible series, I have to admit that this was the first Mission Impossible movie I've watched. I have no prior knowledge of the Mission Impossible series with my only memory of the show being a blurry scene with mountain climbing from a scratched CD I used to have. So, I am going to try to provide this opinion based on my own hazy memory and how I felt while watching it. Luckily, Fantastic Four was not out. As the reviews from actual review sites paint a bad prognosis, I feel like I have dodged a bullet or at least never turned up for the gunfight.
What makes it:
Action sequences are something one expects in action movies and Mission Impossible delivers with a large number of said sequences, with two (in my opinion) having the most creativity in it [Hint: involves water and/or a plane]. An interesting tidbit to note is that some of the stunts performed are actual stunts performed by the actors without excessive green-screen effects applied (though with precautions in place since hanging onto an actual air-plane without a harness is suicide). The basic stealth breach, car and on-foot chase scenes are in the movie and for the most part, they are entertaining to watch. I cannot divulge the content of said scenes to avoid spoilers so to sum it up, the action sequences are probably where you'd get your money's worth. I was not bored by the sequences and other less critical individuals would probably enjoy it even more.
The actors in this movie were decent for the most part with no significant problems in the acting department, at least when I was watching it. It was not good enough to get me engaged with the characters but to its credit, it was not cringe-worthy and appeared to have gone through proof-reading to ensure that the dialogue is not too absurd (plus the level of acting that is needed to get me engaged with motion picture characters must phenomenal). Out of all the characters, I wound up rooting for Simon Pegg's character the most though this could be a case of personal bias (I really liked Shaun of the Dead - a good flick for a good time).
Entertainment value is something that an action movie should have even if it is lacking intriguing plot elements or thought-provoking themes. If an action movie can provide entertainment in the form of action sequences that are filled with high octane thrills (and not the nightmare-inducing thrills), it can possess entertainment value. Mission Impossible fulfils this quota with action sequences in the right places, humour when required and a lack of excessively cringe-inducing dialogue that ruins the moment. In addition, there is barely any out-of-place romantic development between the main hero and heroine which is refreshing to say the least as these developments tend to be irksome to some due to its effects to the tone and narrative.
What breaks it:
Predictability is something I tend to notice in most forms of fiction as there is some difficulty in innovating as most good ideas have been used or are being used (I could be wrong on this though). Mission Impossible avoids cringe-worthy writing for the most part but has a storyline that is mostly predictable, or at the very least, has predictable story elements. I distinctly recall making predictions throughout the movie on how a scene will unfold, the plans of the protagonists, the individual in disguise, the twist and the dramatic screw up of a plan to create a climax point for the protagonists. During my viewing, I was able to predict most of these things (with the exception of the villain's plans) and whenever they were unveiled, I was left with both a smug satisfaction for having clairvoyance and disappointment that the writing was too predictable. I do enjoy complexity in a movie (and when I don't get it, I go to Wikipedia to get an idea on what was going on before piecing the whole picture myself) and I had some hope that this movie would be more interesting as the whole "nation of spies" concept in the trailers could have been more interesting (a large number of top agents who are almost as competent as the protagonist as the opposition). Sadly, it was not but to be fair, this was never advertised as an espionage thriller.
A weak villain ends up appearing as a result of predictability. While the movie does justify his actions as part of the story, I felt that the villain of the movie was a rather weak villain, or at least, an idiotic one, as he provides the motivation for Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise's character) to hunt him down. I feel that it was a rather dumb move for a spy to make as giving motivation to anyone can backfire (at least in the land of fiction). He does improve a little but as a villain, I never really felt that the individual was truly threatening as he mostly acted as a mastermind rather than a true equal to Hunt. The organisational skills he has when it comes to commandeering a group of spies as a mastermind could be a threat but not the man himself in a straight up fight (unless he has a firearm).
Personal opinion: If you are wondering why I did not explain much about the movie, it is due to the fact that the movie is quite predictable. If I went into detail, I would spoil a lot of scenes and sequences that the reader would want to see for themselves. I would not wish to do this to any reader and as a result, I will simply tell you this: See this movie with a group of friends. Like Jurassic World, Mission Impossible is a flick that only seeks to entertain and the best way to do that is with a group of friends who want to be entertained. This movie is not bad though and for the most part, it is entertaining. Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is not a bad flick to watch if you want to be entertained (but not enthralled) and it certainly is a way better alternative to Fantastic Four.
What makes it: Action sequences, actors, entertainment value
What breaks it: Predictability, weak villain
What makes it:
Action sequences are something one expects in action movies and Mission Impossible delivers with a large number of said sequences, with two (in my opinion) having the most creativity in it [Hint: involves water and/or a plane]. An interesting tidbit to note is that some of the stunts performed are actual stunts performed by the actors without excessive green-screen effects applied (though with precautions in place since hanging onto an actual air-plane without a harness is suicide). The basic stealth breach, car and on-foot chase scenes are in the movie and for the most part, they are entertaining to watch. I cannot divulge the content of said scenes to avoid spoilers so to sum it up, the action sequences are probably where you'd get your money's worth. I was not bored by the sequences and other less critical individuals would probably enjoy it even more.
The actors in this movie were decent for the most part with no significant problems in the acting department, at least when I was watching it. It was not good enough to get me engaged with the characters but to its credit, it was not cringe-worthy and appeared to have gone through proof-reading to ensure that the dialogue is not too absurd (plus the level of acting that is needed to get me engaged with motion picture characters must phenomenal). Out of all the characters, I wound up rooting for Simon Pegg's character the most though this could be a case of personal bias (I really liked Shaun of the Dead - a good flick for a good time).
Entertainment value is something that an action movie should have even if it is lacking intriguing plot elements or thought-provoking themes. If an action movie can provide entertainment in the form of action sequences that are filled with high octane thrills (and not the nightmare-inducing thrills), it can possess entertainment value. Mission Impossible fulfils this quota with action sequences in the right places, humour when required and a lack of excessively cringe-inducing dialogue that ruins the moment. In addition, there is barely any out-of-place romantic development between the main hero and heroine which is refreshing to say the least as these developments tend to be irksome to some due to its effects to the tone and narrative.
What breaks it:
Predictability is something I tend to notice in most forms of fiction as there is some difficulty in innovating as most good ideas have been used or are being used (I could be wrong on this though). Mission Impossible avoids cringe-worthy writing for the most part but has a storyline that is mostly predictable, or at the very least, has predictable story elements. I distinctly recall making predictions throughout the movie on how a scene will unfold, the plans of the protagonists, the individual in disguise, the twist and the dramatic screw up of a plan to create a climax point for the protagonists. During my viewing, I was able to predict most of these things (with the exception of the villain's plans) and whenever they were unveiled, I was left with both a smug satisfaction for having clairvoyance and disappointment that the writing was too predictable. I do enjoy complexity in a movie (and when I don't get it, I go to Wikipedia to get an idea on what was going on before piecing the whole picture myself) and I had some hope that this movie would be more interesting as the whole "nation of spies" concept in the trailers could have been more interesting (a large number of top agents who are almost as competent as the protagonist as the opposition). Sadly, it was not but to be fair, this was never advertised as an espionage thriller.
A weak villain ends up appearing as a result of predictability. While the movie does justify his actions as part of the story, I felt that the villain of the movie was a rather weak villain, or at least, an idiotic one, as he provides the motivation for Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise's character) to hunt him down. I feel that it was a rather dumb move for a spy to make as giving motivation to anyone can backfire (at least in the land of fiction). He does improve a little but as a villain, I never really felt that the individual was truly threatening as he mostly acted as a mastermind rather than a true equal to Hunt. The organisational skills he has when it comes to commandeering a group of spies as a mastermind could be a threat but not the man himself in a straight up fight (unless he has a firearm).
Personal opinion: If you are wondering why I did not explain much about the movie, it is due to the fact that the movie is quite predictable. If I went into detail, I would spoil a lot of scenes and sequences that the reader would want to see for themselves. I would not wish to do this to any reader and as a result, I will simply tell you this: See this movie with a group of friends. Like Jurassic World, Mission Impossible is a flick that only seeks to entertain and the best way to do that is with a group of friends who want to be entertained. This movie is not bad though and for the most part, it is entertaining. Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is not a bad flick to watch if you want to be entertained (but not enthralled) and it certainly is a way better alternative to Fantastic Four.
What makes it: Action sequences, actors, entertainment value
What breaks it: Predictability, weak villain
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Dishonored
I recently finished Dishonored on PC. So, here's the opinion based review. Take it away, myself...
Dishonored tells the story of Corvo Attano, silent protagonist and personal bodyguard of the Empress of Dunwall, Jessamine Kaldwin, who ends up being framed for the murder of the latter and the kidnapping of Emily Kaldwin, daughter of the Empress, by the former Spymaster turned Lord Regent, Hiram Burrows and his fellow conspirators. Corvo winds up joining a group of Loyalists who busts him out of prison and offers him the opportunity to clear his name in exchange for eliminating the conspirators in order to restore Emily's rightful place on the throne.
What makes it?
Gameplay is the main selling point for this game. With the massive amount of games with forced hybrid stealth elements (CoD if I recall correctly), it is refreshing to see a game where stealth is mostly mandatory. In the harder difficulties, not being stealthy is very difficult as your sword-fighting skills (which is effective though simplistic) is not good enough to handle every single enemy who is able to swarm around you. As a result, the stealth gamer will be able to have fun in this age where slow stealth is given less priority for quick cinematic takedowns(though the AI's predictability at times will ruin it). Helping this along are the powers which I will discuss later.
The environment is quite nice to look at with its steam-punk motif and Victorian era style. It looks like, as said in Zero Punctuation, Victorian London if it had been taken over by the Combine (and the PA lady was let go for an equally dull man). The books scattered around make for some decent world-building with the mechanisms and structure of the world in Dishonored explained with sufficient detail to clarify questions but leaving enough queries for speculation (though recent interviews with the creators have shed some light on additional aspects that the wiki has noted)
The powers are part of gameplay, but I would dedicate a section to describe how much they enhance the gameplay. As part of the story, Corvo receives a set of supernatural abilities from the resident trickster god, the Outsider which adds a collecting mechanic as runes used to level up said abilities are scattered throughout the levels. For the homicidal (and those who forced themselves to be pacifists), the game offers abilities such as summoning swarms of rats and wind-blasts whereas the pacifist can use blink (short range teleportation), dark vision (enhanced vision to see NPC vision cones and through walls), bend time and possession. The fun starts when using these powers as part of a combination such as summoning a swarm of rats, stop time, place a mine on a rat, possess an enemy NPC, position NPC into swarm, release NPC from possession, find a nice vantage spot and revel in the agony of said NPC (bonus points if the NPC was a particularly annoying guard). For a stealthy player, the possession power already opens up new options to the player when dealing with a group of guards that stand still along with bend time whereas blink allows for quick getaways for almost all given situations. Exploration is made easier using these powers with special mention to blink. I personally only used possession, bend time and blink in my playthroughs (along with agility, a non-active supernatural ability that includes vitality, shadow kill and blood thirsty)
Freedom of choice is present in a limited sense. When it comes to eliminating the main targets of the story, the game offers two paths. The first is the normal assassination path where you are given a target and a sandbox to plan out your unannounced execution. The second is the non-lethal elimination whereby an additional option is presented to the player that allows for the target to be removed from the game's events without spilling a drop of blood and dealing poetic justice to most of the targets. The second path is usually hidden and requires some exploration to discover. I quite liked this option as I usually got my assassination kicks from playing Hitman: Blood Money, so giving me an option to inflict cruel mercy on the morally depraved targets was rather fun (one in particular was quite cathartic due to the level being rather difficult). It should be noted however that this freedom only appears for eliminations whereas its effects happen to hamper it. This will be discussed later
What breaks it?
Balancing issues do crop up as a result of the powers and tools at your disposal. With possession or bend time along with the right bone charms to augment your character, entire patrols can be eliminated by walking and this is not considering the use of blink or lethal playthroughs. A lethal predator playthrough would probably be quite easy (especially with shadow kill which disintegrates corpses upon a stealth kill) and make the game less challenging. I haven't tried it but from my rare experimentation with the game, it is possible to eliminate most enemies with stealth and the right abilities. With the tension lessened, some players could lose the thrill of playing the game or would enjoy being an empowered individual due to player input (once again opinions will vary).
Moral choice is implemented in the game via the choice to be lethal or non-lethal. Being lethal creates high chaos that worsens the conditions of the in-game places, adds difficulty and makes all the characters far more critical and aggressive to each other whereas being non-lethal improves the conditions of said places, maintains the usual difficulty and makes the characters amicable towards each other. As a result, the player that wishes to mix up their play styles would be forced to pick one route and stick with it (unless they go for the middle route but it's the equivalent of being full lethal). It winds up being tedious when something goes wrong and the body you hid on the rafters fell into water or onto the pavement, necessitating reloads of previous saves. The endings are also influenced by chaos so the moral choice is forced onto players seeking out specific endings. For me, this was rather restrictive as I restricted myself from fully exploring the levels as I could not disable enough guards to grant me the freedom to explore and loot. I could sneak around but that was half the fun.
Story was not amazing or grand as it felt like a typical story about an individual being framed for a crime and goes off to clear his name or seek revenge. It was not helped by the predictability of certain twists and the uninteresting characters of the game, which mainly consists of your allies which fit some clichés and tropes too well. It is not helped by the main character being a silent protagonist as it makes Corvo feel like an outsider to the world even though the characters treat him with friendly familiarity. While in-game events depict Corvo as having a character that in-game people have seen, the fact that he is a silent protagonist diminishes this as Corvo is never able to portray whatever character he is said to have. I never felt engaged by the story once and most of my fun was a result of the voyeuristic thrill that decent stealth games give me like Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory and Hitman: Blood Money.
Personal views
I had a good time with this game despite my criticisms. With solid gameplay and the fun that only a stealth game could provide, Dishonored is an acceptable game to have. I would recommend other titles but for what it has, along with the DLC that adds onto the game (and gives a protagonist that has a voice and character), Dishonored is good enough for a purchase (during a sale and buying the GOTY version). While some aspects left me disappointed (since I was hyped for the game), it was never awful or left a bad taste after playing it unlike certain games(i.e Final Fantasy XIII). It was able to deliver on most points and for me, this was enough. I still go back to Blood Money though for my assassination fun. I recommend getting Dishonored GOTY during a sale. Just remember that this recommendation is subjectively biased. Your own opinion may vary.
Summary
What makes it
Gameplay, environment, powers, freedom of choice
What breaks it
Balancing issues, Moral choice, Story
P.S: While I am talking about Dishonored, I will provide my opinion on Dishonored 2. Feel free to disagree. I think it is an unnecessary sequel. The way Dishonored end seemed conclusive to me or at least felt like the end of a story. I get that there is a whole world to see in the Dishonored universe so a game would have pop up somewhere though I was thinking along the lines of a spin-off rather than a direct sequel.
(SPOILERS PRESENT) I guess having Emily and Corvo being the protagonists is fine though my first issue is giving Corvo a voice seeing as he was a silent protagonist in the first game and as a result, his character does not really shine through. This means that Dishonored 2 has to establish Corvo's behaviour (and whether it is influenced by the events of Dishonored via save file transfer) and establish adult Emily's character. Judging by how characters were handled in Dishonored, this may backfire. (SPOILERS OVER)
The hype created from the CGI trailer is rather odd in my opinion seeing as all we saw in a nutshell was a fancy looking cutscene with hints of in-game powers that may not act the same way in actual gameplay. I'm not eagerly anticipating this game but I am willing to give it a chance.
 |
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/65/Dishonored_box_art_Bethesda.jpg |
What makes it?
Gameplay is the main selling point for this game. With the massive amount of games with forced hybrid stealth elements (CoD if I recall correctly), it is refreshing to see a game where stealth is mostly mandatory. In the harder difficulties, not being stealthy is very difficult as your sword-fighting skills (which is effective though simplistic) is not good enough to handle every single enemy who is able to swarm around you. As a result, the stealth gamer will be able to have fun in this age where slow stealth is given less priority for quick cinematic takedowns(though the AI's predictability at times will ruin it). Helping this along are the powers which I will discuss later.
The environment is quite nice to look at with its steam-punk motif and Victorian era style. It looks like, as said in Zero Punctuation, Victorian London if it had been taken over by the Combine (and the PA lady was let go for an equally dull man). The books scattered around make for some decent world-building with the mechanisms and structure of the world in Dishonored explained with sufficient detail to clarify questions but leaving enough queries for speculation (though recent interviews with the creators have shed some light on additional aspects that the wiki has noted)
The powers are part of gameplay, but I would dedicate a section to describe how much they enhance the gameplay. As part of the story, Corvo receives a set of supernatural abilities from the resident trickster god, the Outsider which adds a collecting mechanic as runes used to level up said abilities are scattered throughout the levels. For the homicidal (and those who forced themselves to be pacifists), the game offers abilities such as summoning swarms of rats and wind-blasts whereas the pacifist can use blink (short range teleportation), dark vision (enhanced vision to see NPC vision cones and through walls), bend time and possession. The fun starts when using these powers as part of a combination such as summoning a swarm of rats, stop time, place a mine on a rat, possess an enemy NPC, position NPC into swarm, release NPC from possession, find a nice vantage spot and revel in the agony of said NPC (bonus points if the NPC was a particularly annoying guard). For a stealthy player, the possession power already opens up new options to the player when dealing with a group of guards that stand still along with bend time whereas blink allows for quick getaways for almost all given situations. Exploration is made easier using these powers with special mention to blink. I personally only used possession, bend time and blink in my playthroughs (along with agility, a non-active supernatural ability that includes vitality, shadow kill and blood thirsty)
Freedom of choice is present in a limited sense. When it comes to eliminating the main targets of the story, the game offers two paths. The first is the normal assassination path where you are given a target and a sandbox to plan out your unannounced execution. The second is the non-lethal elimination whereby an additional option is presented to the player that allows for the target to be removed from the game's events without spilling a drop of blood and dealing poetic justice to most of the targets. The second path is usually hidden and requires some exploration to discover. I quite liked this option as I usually got my assassination kicks from playing Hitman: Blood Money, so giving me an option to inflict cruel mercy on the morally depraved targets was rather fun (one in particular was quite cathartic due to the level being rather difficult). It should be noted however that this freedom only appears for eliminations whereas its effects happen to hamper it. This will be discussed later
What breaks it?
Balancing issues do crop up as a result of the powers and tools at your disposal. With possession or bend time along with the right bone charms to augment your character, entire patrols can be eliminated by walking and this is not considering the use of blink or lethal playthroughs. A lethal predator playthrough would probably be quite easy (especially with shadow kill which disintegrates corpses upon a stealth kill) and make the game less challenging. I haven't tried it but from my rare experimentation with the game, it is possible to eliminate most enemies with stealth and the right abilities. With the tension lessened, some players could lose the thrill of playing the game or would enjoy being an empowered individual due to player input (once again opinions will vary).
Moral choice is implemented in the game via the choice to be lethal or non-lethal. Being lethal creates high chaos that worsens the conditions of the in-game places, adds difficulty and makes all the characters far more critical and aggressive to each other whereas being non-lethal improves the conditions of said places, maintains the usual difficulty and makes the characters amicable towards each other. As a result, the player that wishes to mix up their play styles would be forced to pick one route and stick with it (unless they go for the middle route but it's the equivalent of being full lethal). It winds up being tedious when something goes wrong and the body you hid on the rafters fell into water or onto the pavement, necessitating reloads of previous saves. The endings are also influenced by chaos so the moral choice is forced onto players seeking out specific endings. For me, this was rather restrictive as I restricted myself from fully exploring the levels as I could not disable enough guards to grant me the freedom to explore and loot. I could sneak around but that was half the fun.
Story was not amazing or grand as it felt like a typical story about an individual being framed for a crime and goes off to clear his name or seek revenge. It was not helped by the predictability of certain twists and the uninteresting characters of the game, which mainly consists of your allies which fit some clichés and tropes too well. It is not helped by the main character being a silent protagonist as it makes Corvo feel like an outsider to the world even though the characters treat him with friendly familiarity. While in-game events depict Corvo as having a character that in-game people have seen, the fact that he is a silent protagonist diminishes this as Corvo is never able to portray whatever character he is said to have. I never felt engaged by the story once and most of my fun was a result of the voyeuristic thrill that decent stealth games give me like Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory and Hitman: Blood Money.
Personal views
I had a good time with this game despite my criticisms. With solid gameplay and the fun that only a stealth game could provide, Dishonored is an acceptable game to have. I would recommend other titles but for what it has, along with the DLC that adds onto the game (and gives a protagonist that has a voice and character), Dishonored is good enough for a purchase (during a sale and buying the GOTY version). While some aspects left me disappointed (since I was hyped for the game), it was never awful or left a bad taste after playing it unlike certain games(i.e Final Fantasy XIII). It was able to deliver on most points and for me, this was enough. I still go back to Blood Money though for my assassination fun. I recommend getting Dishonored GOTY during a sale. Just remember that this recommendation is subjectively biased. Your own opinion may vary.
Summary
What makes it
Gameplay, environment, powers, freedom of choice
What breaks it
Balancing issues, Moral choice, Story
P.S: While I am talking about Dishonored, I will provide my opinion on Dishonored 2. Feel free to disagree. I think it is an unnecessary sequel. The way Dishonored end seemed conclusive to me or at least felt like the end of a story. I get that there is a whole world to see in the Dishonored universe so a game would have pop up somewhere though I was thinking along the lines of a spin-off rather than a direct sequel.
(SPOILERS PRESENT) I guess having Emily and Corvo being the protagonists is fine though my first issue is giving Corvo a voice seeing as he was a silent protagonist in the first game and as a result, his character does not really shine through. This means that Dishonored 2 has to establish Corvo's behaviour (and whether it is influenced by the events of Dishonored via save file transfer) and establish adult Emily's character. Judging by how characters were handled in Dishonored, this may backfire. (SPOILERS OVER)
The hype created from the CGI trailer is rather odd in my opinion seeing as all we saw in a nutshell was a fancy looking cutscene with hints of in-game powers that may not act the same way in actual gameplay. I'm not eagerly anticipating this game but I am willing to give it a chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)