Thirith on 5/7/2015 at 10:06
I agree that the Loyalists' betrayal is a problem - but it's not a problem because of Corvo's silence but because of the lack of options he is given. It's quite clear to the player that they will turn on him - and it may well be clear to Corvo - but there's no way to act on this, whether verbally or otherwise. Just giving him lines wouldn't change this; giving him ways of acting on what he (or the player) suspects would. Of course such ways of acting could be verbal, but they needn't be. (If I suspected that someone was going to betray me, telling them so would be fairly low down on my list of priorities.)
driver on 5/7/2015 at 11:38
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
If you use "doesn't speak" then Dishonored is off the list too.
If you want to be picky then 'Doesn't speak in any meaningful capacity'. I don't think saying yes/no to Piero's offer to see his equipment really counts, unless there's some other interaction I've missed?
Quote Posted by Judith
And the Loyalists' betrayal isn't an LND
I never said it was.
heywood on 5/7/2015 at 11:55
Quote Posted by driver
The way you dispatch foes in Dishonored doesn't make Corvo a less or more interesting character. He doesn't have any personality, so there is no character for the player to create that has any meaning inside the game. Sure you can sit there and imagine what he might have said, but the other characters won't react to that and the game will carry on regardless whether you stab a guy or perform the fancy manoeuvres in the video posted above.
I completely disagree with you that "there is no character for the player to create that has any meaning inside the game". A video game 'character' is more than a set of dialogue choices. Dishonored responds to Corvo's actions, not his words. And the way Corvo acts has a bigger effect on the larger game world than in many RPGs that have dialogue trees.
Quote:
Take the example I mentioned before of getting stiffled by Custis. Corvo doesn't react and the game carries on. That's your LND right there, the bloodthirsty Corvo would have slit his throat, the passive one might have spiked his drink and doodled on his face with a pen.
Think you mean Treavor, and the game does give you different endings for Treavor. In high chaos, you're given the opportunity to finish him off in Kingsparrow. If you wanted to be able to kill him earlier in the game, sorry. But what does that have to do with dialogue?
Quote Posted by Thirith
I agree that the Loyalists' betrayal is a problem - but it's not a problem because of Corvo's silence but because of the lack of options he is given. It's quite clear to the player that they will turn on him - and it may well be clear to Corvo - but there's no way to act on this, whether verbally or otherwise. Just giving him lines wouldn't change this; giving him ways of acting on what he (or the player) suspects would. Of course such ways of acting could be verbal, but they needn't be. (If I suspected that someone was going to betray me, telling them so would be fairly low down on my list of priorities.)
Exactly right. One common problem with dialogue options in a story-driven game, especially involving a conspiracy, is that the player often anticipates plot twists before they are revealed, and then you feel like you're playing a dumbass and can't say what you're thinking.
driver on 5/7/2015 at 12:31
Quote Posted by heywood
I completely disagree with you that "there is no character for the player to create that has any meaning inside the game". A video game 'character' is more than a set of dialogue choices. Dishonored responds to Corvo's actions, not his words. And the way Corvo acts has a bigger effect on the larger game world than in many RPGs that have dialogue trees.
Corvo's only means of shaping the plot is whether he kills people or not, that's hardly the grounds for crafting a deep and meaningful character. Daud was restricted in pretty much the same way, but since he spoke, it gave him some depth and made him far more interesting. Of the people who played both the main game and the DLC I'd be willing to bet more people remember Daud's name than Corvo's, I certainly had to look him up to check.
Quote:
Think you mean Treavor, and the game does give you different endings for Treavor. In high chaos, you're given the opportunity to finish him off in Kingsparrow. If you wanted to be able to kill him earlier in the game, sorry. But what does that have to do with dialogue?
Ah, yes. Sorry, it's been a while since I played. I'm not saying you should necessarily be able to kill him, just that
some kind of reaction to his stiffing you would have been appropriate. Killing him in Kingsparrow is just part of wiping out the Loyalists after they've all betrayed you. Since you'd have to have been fairly bloodthirsty to have reached that point, you'd have thought Corvo would have done something at the time rather than just walking away.
Slasher on 5/7/2015 at 18:07
Quote Posted by driver
Corvo's only means of shaping the plot is whether he kills people or not, that's hardly the grounds for crafting a deep and meaningful character. Daud was restricted in pretty much the same way, but since he spoke, it gave him some depth and made him far more interesting. Of the people who played both the main game and the DLC I'd be willing to bet more people remember Daud's name than Corvo's, I certainly had to look him up to check.
I think that's what rang hollow to me about Corvo. It seemed like the developers chose some arbitrary point between
Fallout's build-from-the-ground-up player character and
Jedi Knight's this-is-who-you-play-as approach. As an artistic technique I guess I can appreciate that. But I question its design implementation. So does the design team, apparently. ;)
Don't get me wrong, I think Dishonored is a great game and the lack of speaky Corvo was confusing more than an annoyance.
Tony_Tarantula on 6/7/2015 at 01:57
Quote Posted by heywood
Exactly right. One common problem with dialogue options in a story-driven game, especially involving a conspiracy, is that the player often anticipates plot twists before they are revealed, and then you feel like you're playing a dumbass and can't say what you're thinking.
Again, easily avoided with good writing. Dishonored isn't immune to your criticism because in spite of the lack of dialogue they make you completely powerless to see through and anticipate the betrayal....because plot, and if you did that would make you miss out on an entire level and a key character encounter.
First off there's still nothing stopping a character from mutting a lack of trust towards other people. In others the game is written in a way that allows you to position yourself against characters you don't trust. You already know which game I'm going to point to as one that (at least in major quests) allowed you to do that while still having your character act in a manner that doesn't reveal his distrust.
heywood on 6/7/2015 at 10:44
Quote Posted by driver
Corvo's only means of shaping the plot is whether he kills people or not, that's hardly the grounds for crafting a deep and meaningful character.
Spoken dialogue has very little to do with character development. In most RPGs that feature dialogue, the dialogue trees are just another tactical gameplay device. Your dialogue choices don't change your character.
Besides, how many RPGs have you played in which you can shape the plot
at all? Two story arcs which depend on your play style is more than you get from most games.
driver on 6/7/2015 at 11:38
Quote Posted by heywood
Spoken dialogue has very little to do with character development. In most RPGs that feature dialogue, the dialogue trees are just another tactical gameplay device. Your dialogue choices don't change your character.
I disagree, they allow you to express yourself in the way in which you wish to appear. Granted you usually only get 'Nice guy', 'Neutral' or 'Complete bastard', but at least you're able to present yourself in the game world as something more than a mass murderer. Alpha Protocol is an excellent example of how this can be done (Although god knows it had its faults).
:edit:
We're kinda getting away from the original point, though. I'm not saying every game should be like Alpha Protocol and you should be able to shape the plot any way you wish, I'm just saying that giving the player/character some way of expressing themselves beyond killing is a good thing.
Thirith on 6/7/2015 at 12:35
Quote Posted by driver
We're kinda getting away from the original point, though. I'm not saying every game should be like Alpha Protocol and you should be able to shape the plot any way you wish, I'm just saying that giving the player/character some way of expressing themselves beyond killing is a good thing.
I half agree with you on the latter; I think it's fair enough to ask that more games should allow for such self-expression, but not all games need it. If only we could talk to the monsters, yes, but that doesn't mean a
Doom needs a "Talk to monster" button. Also,
Dishonored offered more than the option to kill - it also offered *not* killing, which is relevant, and it offered various ways of killing and not killing. Is
Thief a worse game for not offering the option to talk? Yes, it's got a voiced protagonist, but these are two distinctly different issues: player expression and character expression.
driver on 6/7/2015 at 12:54
Oh sure, not every game would improved by it, quite a few games are all about the stabbing and the shooting and the murder with nary a friendly interaction in sight, and pressing F to express your character's inner-most turmoil would just be bizarre (That said, I thought Wolfenstein:TNO benefited from BJ's internal monologues but that's an exception rather than a rule). But when you're interacting with friendly characters who are talking to you, not being able to respond just seems immersion breaking.
:edit:
Thief was very much about playing Garrett, not a faceless avatar. Whilst you could complete your objectives with a fair amount of freedom, what Garrett did and why he did it were very much set out in the story. I wouldn't criticise Thief for not allowing me to express myself the way I wanted to because that's not what the game was trying to do. On the other hand, Dishonored tried to let you play the game the way you wanted yet restricted you from doing it in any way other than kill/not kill, which is pretty shallow. While the Daud DLC doesn't differ much in the ways you can express yourself, they did give you a more Garrett-like avatar in that he was able to interact more with the people he encountered outside combat and he did express his thoughts.
