Interview Dishonored Interview: Players Without Clues Getting Lost

[Mister Takeda]

As for guns supposedly being the "easy accessible way to fight", that's mostly just market talk you'd hear about any new technological innovation, something that Arcanum's lore is full of. It's pretty obvious that weapons technology has not yet reached a point where it would be that common or superior compared to more traditional weaponry.

No. That's actually a major plot point. Otherwise Tarant would be Cumbria's bitch right now.

 

[Mikko Moilanen]

NOT AS GOOD AS SKYRIM BUT BETHESDA KEEP MAKING AWESOME GAMES !!!!!!!!

HAHAHA, this is priceless with the caps locked text.

It just makes me want to quit other gaming than strategy gaming alltogether when I see to whom the games are being made

 

[abnaxus]

What does crApple have to do with Skyrim or Dishonored, though. At least Mactards will get to enjoy Project Eternity instead.

 

[St. Toxic]

No. That's actually a major plot point. Otherwise Tarant would be Cumbria's bitch right now.

But those guys had like a real war going on, presumably using artillery equal to or just below ww1 grade. It's one thing to say that a flint-lock pistol doesn't stand a chance against an armored knight with a bigass sword, but cannon v.s magic and melee in the field? I also don't remember raiding any military complex for my firearms, mostly just putting them together from scrap. Presumably military outfits might be better equipped, stressing "common" in the post quoted above. Those ancient epic firearms were also pretty dope, nice post-apoc vibe to the whole thing. I don't know, I always went GUNZ in Arcanum and I never felt mistreated for it.

 

[Manjuice Nutella]

What does crApple have to do with Skyrim

Everything, considering what today's generation is like.

 

[Mikko Moilanen]

If you have to wear an apple spam shirt and you are not getting paid $10 000 to wear it......

 

[Mister Takeda]

No. That's actually a major plot point. Otherwise Tarant would be Cumbria's bitch right now.

But those guys had like a real war going on, presumably using artillery equal to or just below ww1 grade. It's one thing to say that a flint-lock pistol doesn't stand a chance against an armored knight with a bigass sword, but cannon v.s magic and melee in the field? I also don't remember raiding any military complex for my firearms, mostly just putting them together from scrap. Presumably military outfits might be better equipped, stressing "common" in the post quoted above. Those ancient epic firearms were also pretty dope, nice post-apoc vibe to the whole thing. I don't know, I always went GUNZ in Arcanum and I never felt mistreated for it.

I remember some of the conversations regarding the war from the Cumbrian side, particularly the daughter of the knight and the veteran who served as the expert trainer for dodge and melee, and both seemed convinced that a line of poorly trained troops with rifles could take down Cumbria's best. That's what the opening cinema is depicting, some badass guy with a revolver taking care of some knight with a magical sword. I think relatively primitive small arms were what gave Tarant the edge they needed to win the war. Regarding balance, that would be equally game breaking. Melee characters would be mowed down by easily obtained revolvers and rifles and no one would take those skills.

 

[tuluse]

No. That's actually a major plot point. Otherwise Tarant would be Cumbria's bitch right now.

But those guys had like a real war going on, presumably using artillery equal to or just below ww1 grade. It's one thing to say that a flint-lock pistol doesn't stand a chance against an armored knight with a bigass sword, but cannon v.s magic and melee in the field? I also don't remember raiding any military complex for my firearms, mostly just putting them together from scrap. Presumably military outfits might be better equipped, stressing "common" in the post quoted above. Those ancient epic firearms were also pretty dope, nice post-apoc vibe to the whole thing. I don't know, I always went GUNZ in Arcanum and I never felt mistreated for it.

I remember some of the conversations regarding the war from the Cumbrian side, particularly the daughter of the knight and the veteran who served as the expert trainer for dodge and melee, and both seemed convinced that a line of poorly trained troops with rifles could take down Cumbria's best. That's what the opening cinema is depicting, some badass guy with a revolver taking care of some knight with a magical sword. I think relatively primitive small arms were what gave Tarant the edge they needed to win the war. Regarding balance, that would be equally game breaking. Melee characters would be mowed down by easily obtained revolvers and rifles and no one would take those skills.

They also mention that Tarant vastly outnumbered the Cumbrian Knights.

 

[Mister Takeda]

It just reminds me of what historians point out when they highlight the decline of the knightly combat, that is, that projectile weapons had become so good that the armor was useless, and that it was much easier to whip a bunch of peasants into shape and give them crossbows or firearms than to spend many years drilling highly trained mounted combatants that required expensive gear and significant support to remain effective. Which, in game terms, would mean you'd have to sink a lot more points into melee and dodge to meet the effectiveness of the guy with a rifle and a few points worth of basic training. I agree, it doesn't factor in magic, and one of Cumbria's problems was they received no support from Tulla during the war.

 

[BlackAdderBG]

On meeting with our publisher In playtesting, Arkane found that people just weren’t all that able to go about finishing the mission using their own heads.

 

[Orchestra of Wolves]

In the good old days, kids were ashamed if they did not learn basic calculations, and they tried to at least conceal it.

Nowadays, they are given a diagnosis and they are made stars of their little group. Somehow they are not told that they are stupid. Then they will eventually run for president and quite possibly win.

See: George W. Bush. As I originally said, I blame the self-esteem movement. Entitled little fuckers.

But this is the thing that turns games into larp simulators or, well, toys. The challenge removed, the player himself is forced to put limitations on his abilities so as not to get bored to death playing the game. Part of the whole problem-solving mechanic is to solve the problem with as little effort (pot. relative to reward) as possible; in an rpg that would be playing on the skillls on which you have invested. If you bypass that and make the problem solving optional, where minimal effort actually equates to no effort, then why not just watch a lp of a good and challenging game? Even that's gotta be more rewarding right?

Well, in a sense, I sympathize with the brainless sacks of shit. It's easy to see this only from the point of view of someone who actually wants to get something out of an entertainment product, and this type of feature can cut into that by accentuating one solution to such an extent that other alternatives become mere easter-eggs (did u kno u cud use ducts too acess dat room wit dat guy lol?). Many of us, I would imagine, aren't motivated by achievements or unlockables and simply want multiple solutions that are equally viable and rational, on a subjective level naturally.

How about this for a game -- there's the exit; head on out for the final cutscene. Or go to the right to look for the key and actually play the fucking game and make sure it's unforgiving as hell. The exit is just an obvious false choice, nobody would settle for it, but since it's there you have to question why it's there. The only function it serves, as you encounter it throughout the game while the difficulty steadily increases, is as a demoralizing symbol. Even if it were to actually progress you to a later stage of the game, it's still essentially a "give up" mechanic and players, wittingly or not, are penalized for it.

I would imagine the same applies to Dishonored, especially if the dummy options were added on later as a last resort. Dumdums simply won't be playing through the same game; they'll get the watered down version with, hopefully, chunks of vital information and the most amazing sequences omitted, as their low-INT builds chug along doing menial tasks to get the job done. Question is, which is more cruel/motivating? A hard game that distributes content fairly across the entire playerbase, or a game that has a "special needs" path that holds content back from the mentally retarded?

I realize, of course, that the question is moot. The games of this generation normally only have one, retarded and unrewarding path, with a side dish of ocd collect-em-all.

Fair enough, not disagreeing. I was speaking more from the standpoint of my personal enjoyment rather than the gaming community at large (at least in the first paragraph you quoted). Given a game I know will have multiple possible solutions (or at least suspect so; most modern games I assume don't, other than a generic talk-or-fight in BioWare games and their ilk), the game can throw out quest arrows, NPCs pointing and jumping and saying "THE ACHIEVEMENT IS THAT WAY! GO OVER THERE! POINTS AND RECOGNITION AND ONLY THREE OF YOUR FRIENDS HAVE THIS ACHIEVEMENT SO YOU'LL BE ONE OF THE FIRST! COMPLETE LACK OF INTELLECTUAL FORTITUDE!", and I'll explore everywhere to see if a separate/better/whatever solution is available.

 

[Average Manatee]

No. That's actually a major plot point. Otherwise Tarant would be Cumbria's bitch right now.

But those guys had like a real war going on, presumably using artillery equal to or just below ww1 grade. It's one thing to say that a flint-lock pistol doesn't stand a chance against an armored knight with a bigass sword, but cannon v.s magic and melee in the field? I also don't remember raiding any military complex for my firearms, mostly just putting them together from scrap. Presumably military outfits might be better equipped, stressing "common" in the post quoted above. Those ancient epic firearms were also pretty dope, nice post-apoc vibe to the whole thing. I don't know, I always went GUNZ in Arcanum and I never felt mistreated for it.

I remember some of the conversations regarding the war from the Cumbrian side, particularly the daughter of the knight and the veteran who served as the expert trainer for dodge and melee, and both seemed convinced that a line of poorly trained troops with rifles could take down Cumbria's best. That's what the opening cinema is depicting, some badass guy with a revolver taking care of some knight with a magical sword. I think relatively primitive small arms were what gave Tarant the edge they needed to win the war. Regarding balance, that would be equally game breaking. Melee characters would be mowed down by easily obtained revolvers and rifles and no one would take those skills.

Tarant didn't win the war just because of guns vs swords. They won the war because of the Arcanum equivalent of the industrial revolution.

Of course, you shouldn't be going too deep into the gameplay mechanics vs the world representation. Otherwise you would have to question why anyone bothers to make anything other than Balanced Swords.

 

[Black]

Because the schematics for the pyro axe are hidden in the sewers.

 

[almondblight]

Well Half-life was in large part a platforming game. Those parts expected the player to be able to do simple actions with some degree of precision. I'm not sure alternate ways of progressing would have made it a better game, just like Mario wouldn't be a better game for being less linear.

The most intelligent thing there is, in that situation, would be to use that little trick that tutorial taught you. Which is crouch jumping.

But that's the point, isn't it? If I'm used to games where the only way to get through a situation is to do the one move I've been told, and trying to find another way to do it - even one that's completely logical - always fails, then why should I bother to keep trying to do that? Sure, once a player grasps that this game (Dishonored) is different and presents you with multiple paths (and I wouldn't be surprised if this is exaggerated), that's one thing, but players coming from other games wouldn't expect that at first.

The player can either play every game the smart way, by doing things that should work in the game but probably don't because they weren't programmed to. Alternatively, they can go through the game the right way (for most games), waiting for the game to tell them what the designer thought was needed to pass X obstacle.

I'm not saying that this is a good thing, but with the amount of garbage that's out there I can't blame a gamer for being pessimistic about a game, rather than spending hours trying to experiment with different things that should work but don't.[/quote]

 

[tuluse]

I don't think that's the point because I think a human capable of thinking should be able to tell what game he's playing.

Also, even in HL you didn't have to do what the NPCs told you to, or you could at least try not to, usually with pretty funny results.

Does the Dishonored tutorial teach you to follow the instructions of every NPC in the world? If not, the players are stupid. This is totally different from applying a specific technique that the game has taught you to use.

 

[RK47]

They played this game with the mentality of first person shooters. (CoD, BF3 Campaign with going out of map = Fail)
Hell, even drawing from assassin creed...where going out of the area de-synch the player (AKA Fail)
It's easy to see why people are unsure of what to do with Dishonored.

Now if you put them in a sandbox game like Skyrim or Morrowind, they just do whatever they want without fear of repercussions like shouting goats to drop of a cliff etc.
Even directions are clear cut with no chance of failure.

 

[Gragt]

Heh. Compare that to the beginning of The Void where the characters guiding you through the tutorial either lie or provide the wrong information because they don't really know what's going on. That's on another level than not being able to follow simple directions to find Caius Cosades: it's deliberately misdirecting the player and teaching him behaviours that may help him on the short term but greatly harm him in the long term, even make the game impossible to complete. Those guys would just go nuts.

 

[Darth Roxor]

You haven't really lived if you haven't scavenged materials from trashcans to make your own weapons and ammo.

...and if you haven't squealed like a little girl when you found revolver parts in that one trash can a bit down the street from the magic shoppe

 

[almondblight]

I don't think that's the point because I think a human capable of thinking should be able to tell what game he's playing.

And how do you know the game is different from 95% of the games out there until you play it for some time? In my experience betting that the developer is tepid and generic works more often than it doesn't, why shouldn't this be someone's initial reaction when trying a new game?

But that's besides the point, because let's look at what actually happened. We have a game that always talks about how there are multiple ways to solve problems, and how similar it is to Deus Ex. Then we have this information from the actual mission:

Once inside the manse, the primary conceit of the level becomes clear. With Lady Boyle’s identity obscured behind a mask, it’s up to you to talk to the guests and use deductive reasoning to determine which one is the one you should be shanking. I spend a bit of time moseying through the party and chatting with the guests, mosts of whom only have one line or so to repeat to me.

Often, that line is a variant on “I wonder if the lady’s diary is upstairs in her room?”, and after the fifth NPC straight-up told me that the Lady Boyle’s diary was upstairs and would tell me which dress she was wearing, I spitefully resolved to work it all out for myself.

Eventually, I’d narrowed down Lady Boyle to the black or the red dress, but then it all became somewhat redundant when a man in a bizarre bunny mask pulled me aside to explain that he knows I’m here to kill Lady Boyle, but he’d like me to do something else instead — knock her out and take her down to the basement so he can spirit her away to be his bride. ‘Not creepy at all dude’, I think, agreeing instantly.

He then helpfully reveals that Lady Boyle is in a black dress, allowing me to find her and convince her to join me in the basement — for her own safety. One quick chokehold later, and me and the Lady Boyle are on our way to the canals underneath the house for a bit of a pre-arranged wedding.

So let's get this straight. There's no need to read the diary to solve this mission. It can be solved by people wandering around talking to people and following clues. The game is supposed to be sandbox like, so players are supposed to "just walk around" when they get to a big party like that. But Arkane (or Bethesda) feels that you have to read the diary because that's the one proper way of solving the riddle, and people that don't take that one path don't know what to do. Talking to people to people to pick up clues, or observing the individuals in the room - that shouldn't work, the only thing that should work is reading a diary that tells you the answer. Well, and the man at the party that solves it for you without you doing a thing.

In a game that's supposed to be a sandbox with multiple solutions, players walking around and exploring rather than being railroaded are stupid, so they need to be herded towards the goal.

Congratulations, Codex. You just got trolled by another case of developer's "it's all the players fault" syndrome.

 

[Machocruz]

And how do you know the game is different from 95% of the games out there until you play it for some time? In my experience betting that the developer is tepid and generic works more often than it doesn't, why shouldn't this be someone's initial reaction when trying a new game?

In your experience. The mainstream gamer experience, from what I've seen, is "Games r better than evar!!!"

But if these devs had any confidence in their design, they wouldn't need to herd the player through one channel. People are stupid, but this just sounds plain inelegant on the designers' part.

 

[Murk]

While this is bad news for gamers and gaming in general, it doesn't really bother me about this game specifically. So long as there are alternate routes to give me freedom in how I sneak and stab, I'm OK with it. If they "hand" you the most obvious route then it's not a big deal as the most obvious route is easily figured anyway.

I think I'm going to need to replay Thief 2 again.