driver on 3/7/2015 at 19:25
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
The reason that Daud works better than Corvo is that you can still take him in different directions, and the VO gives you reason to believe that those two directions are valid choices he would make. I don't have any reason to believe that Corvo would want to murder the hell out of everyone
or be non-lethal, and him being obviously manipulated by a small group of minor aristocrats and never having anything to say about it either way makes him seem kind of dumb, which undermines the idea of him being the Lord Protector and Consort of the Empress,
and makes him less enjoyable to play.
Very much yes.
It also felt somewhat incongruous for Corvo to have 'dialogue' options in a few circumstances, but never actually have him say anything. You're also known to several of the characters you meet during the game, and, whether or not you're her father, you do have a relationship with Emily and that really should have been expanded beyond one game of hide-and-seek. Doing that without having him talk would have been very tricky, though.
Pyrian on 3/7/2015 at 20:08
Quote Posted by Judith
[video=youtube;4Ud_Yn_xHXg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ud_Yn_xHXg[/video]
That is hilariously gratuitous. I can't decide which kill is my favorite. The one where he waits for the captain to shoot at him, stops time, possesses the captain, and then walks him in front of his own bullet? Or the one where he simply makes a noise behind a guard at a ledge, who turns around, spots him, and backs up a step off the ledge?
I didn't know you could make the lightning towers hit guards by approaching them while the guard is between you. That's interesting.
Slasher on 3/7/2015 at 20:33
It worked better for Gordon because he didn't have dialogue options and the developers kind of acknowledged his awkward silence with a nod and a wink.
Still, I'll miss imagining Corvo pantomiming and gesticulating wildly to voiced characters in order to get his point across.
Emily: How did you ever get rid of Lady Boyle?
Corvo: :(
Emily: Ooooookay, so there was a moat, and...
Corvo: :erg::idea::angel:
Emily: You...flew? You blinked across!
Corvo: :D:devil::eww:
Emily: You did a lot of killing that made you sick. And then?
Corvo: :bored:
Emily: Dammit, Corvo.
Judith on 3/7/2015 at 21:37
Quote Posted by Slasher
Emily: How did you ever get rid of Lady Boyle?
Corvo: :(
Emily: Ooooookay, so there was a moat, and...
Corvo: :erg::idea::angel:
Emily: You...flew? You blinked across!
Corvo: :D:devil::eww:
Emily: You did a lot of killing that made you sick. And then?
Corvo: :bored:
Emily: Dammit, Corvo.
:cheeky:
Starker on 3/7/2015 at 22:17
Quote Posted by Slasher
It worked better for Gordon because he didn't have dialogue options and the developers kind of acknowledged his awkward silence with a nod and a wink.
I don't know. It got kind of awkward in HL2 and the Episodes where there was more interaction with people.
Malleus on 3/7/2015 at 22:38
^Pretty much this. I feel this whole silent protagonist thing only works if there isn't any meaningful interaction with other characters, like in Half-Life or FEAR. Half-Life 2 was incredibly awkward, and Dishonored was even weirder with the added text responses.
gkkiller on 4/7/2015 at 05:24
With F.E.A.R. it worked because you were so isolated most of the time, and you rarely had any friendly contact. With Dishonored, there were so many areas with friendlies that you could talk to that it just felt awkward. Not to mention, in Half-Life your silence was acknowledged most of the time; with Dishonored, people treated Corvo like he was saying something we couldn't hear.
Tony_Tarantula on 4/7/2015 at 14:16
Quote Posted by Fafhrd
To go to the Gordon Freeman comparison: Gordon is
supposed to be a mostly unwitting pawn in a much,
much larger game, and is continually thrust into a world and situation that he has as much context for as the player does, so his being a silent protagonist makes a certain amount of sense, at least the first time you play. Corvo may be a pawn, but he's also intimately familiar with all of the players of the game (except The Outsider I guess, but he'd still be familiar with the myths and legends surrounding him), while the player isn't. Making Corvo a silent protagonist denies the player a bunch of context that they need.
Did you just say what I was trying to say but smarter?
Inline Image:
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/boondockstv/images/d/d0/Boondocks-booty-warrior.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20120524161838He nailed it. The reason why it doesn't work in Dishonored is that Corvo has fairly intimate, personal relationships with a lot of the characters and locations in the game. Corvo isn't an "unwitting pawn" but is a key player in the story.
Hell even most of the dialogue seems to be written like Corvo was vocal. It's almost like they had a voice actor who did all the work and his lines were left out of the game for whatever reason.
Also there's nothing stopping an established character from having free agency. See witcher 3.
Judith on 4/7/2015 at 16:07
Nah, that was a deliberate choice they made, they said it in the interviews. The idea was to make players create their own version of Corvo, be it the vengance-driven psychopath or whatever you choose to be. If they had given Corvo a voice, especially during the interaction with Emily and friends, they would have suggested a certain approach. (Or, those accusations of ludonarrative dissonance would appear this instant.) As Thirith said earlier, there is no inherent good or bad in using such device. I guess the only 'bad' thing is that they overestimated how imaginative their audience can be, at least by what you can read on the Internet. Still, that doesn't undermine the concept.
nicked on 4/7/2015 at 19:51
It's a valid choice when designing a narrative. It just wasn't pulled off very well in this case. It's all very well to say people need to use their imagination, but if that's the case, everything else about the presentation is contradictory to that. On the one hand you have a very predetermined story (albeit with two basic variations) about a guy getting revenge etc. and on the other you have a "blank slate to project your own personality onto" (as long as that personality is either hate-filled vengeance-monger or smug paladin of friendship).
I'd argue it causes more ludo-narrative dissonance because the cutscenes and interactive conversations give the player the impression that a story is being told to them and then jarringly discover that they are supposed to be filling in the blanks themselves. At the very least it breaks immersion because every time a character responds to you vehemently not saying something, it reminds you that you're playing a game.
Having said all that, it never bothered me in the slightest when I was playing, but I can't see giving the main character a voice as anything but a good thing.
