Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Unknown Target on October 10, 2012, 10:30:13 pm
-
Has anyone played this? Is it any good?
-
All I can see is the title of this thread but I assume it's some question so the answers are: yes it's good, no it's not as good as Thief, yes it's better than DXHR or Bioshock, yes it runs very well, no it's not buggy, I don't know if it's better than XCOM I haven't played XCOM yet
-
It's not as good as Thief or Thief 2, but it's a much more solid game than Bioshock or Deus Ex: HR as Battuta just said.
Unlike Deus Ex: HR there's no forced boss battles or real idiot ball moments for the player.
Like Thief, there's multiple ways of completing objectives.
Overall, this game feels a lot like what Bioshock 2 was trying to be namely with:
[spoilers]Emily reacting to your interactions with her and how you relate to the world.[/spoiler]
The game is very replayable, with lots of hidden missions, nooks and crannies, and different objectives or ways to execute missions.
There is some hand-holding, but not as bad as say Thief 3. Similarly what "quest compass" there is generally makes sense and is based on things like knowing the location of a room after being given instructions or blueprints. You can also turn off a lot of those sorts of things too.
Overall it doesn't feel like a dumbed-down game at all, probably the weakest part is that the AI is very standard Thief/Deus Ex style.
But... despite going ruthless kill-bot mode not necessarily being the best thing, stopping time and using it to nail dozens of guards is great.
Art direction wise the game is rather unique, and feels like a combination of Avatar: Legend of Korra and Half Life 2.
-
Definitely gotta call out the art style, it's excellent. I'm doing a no kills/no sightings run and I keep the objective marker off unless it's something dumb and nonessential they didn't give any information on. Taking the game slowly and exploring is really the way to play.
-
In this game, there's not enough vaccine to go around, and the underclasses are starting to get desperate. Also there's a lot of talk about old men running the world.
Desperate.
-
the good:
The powers are fun, the atmosphere is pretty interesting.
the bad:
It's very easy, even on hard/very hard, mostly because some of the powers are overpowered (blink, for example)
it's very short. Can be beaten in 8-12 hours
the graphics are terrible and they are just trying to use the art style to hide the low res textures and blocky models.
wait for a steam sale.
-
The graphics are fine, all it needs is a bit more AA. You can beat it in 8-12 hours, but if you're playing it right (and there is a right way to play it) you shouldn't, and you can easily get 2 runs out of it.
I wouldn't say 'wait for a Steam sale' is bad advice but if you have a good income and you buy it now you won't regret it.
-
Desperate.
Desperate.
-
Desperate.
Desperate.
Desperate.
-
I hear the art style is reminiscent of Chris Riddel's work, which for those of the right age to have read the Edge Chronicles is a resounding endorsement.
-
I'm almost finished I think, and it's been great fun so far. Playing it nonlethally is quite interesting too.
-
The graphics are fine, all it needs is a bit more AA.
And higher poly models and higher-res textures, or any number of graphical features modern cards support. The watercolor texturing style is fine, low resolution not so much. I love the game so far, and I love the art style, but that doesn't cover up the fact that the game looks like it just time-warped out of 2003. Art style is great, the technical execution could have been a lot better. There is absolutely no need of 12-sided barrels and detail like that in this day and age.
So far I don't regret buying it, it's a very fun game well worth it's price, but the graphics could have been a lot better, which would have made what is a very good game into an awesome, immersive experience in a completely unique world.
-
Who the **** cares about graphics.
(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/who-gives-a-****-harrison-ford.gif)
-
And higher poly models and higher-res textures, or any number of graphical features modern cards support. The watercolor texturing style is fine, low resolution not so much. I love the game so far, and I love the art style, but that doesn't cover up the fact that the game looks like it just time-warped out of 2003. Art style is great, the technical execution could have been a lot better. There is absolutely no need of 12-sided barrels and detail like that in this day and age.
So far I don't regret buying it, it's a very fun game well worth it's price, but the graphics could have been a lot better, which would have made what is a very good game into an awesome, immersive experience in a completely unique world.
I dunno, I played Deus Ex for the first time somewhere around last year, and I thought it was an awesome, immersive experience in a completely unique world.
-
Who the **** cares about graphics.
(http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/who-gives-a-****-harrison-ford.gif)
yes, technology should remain stagnant. Who the **** cares about pushing the envelope? just make games look like they come from the late 90's. who the **** cares?
-
FTL. Your argument is invalid.
I could make a list but I doubt the post size would be sufficient.
-
This is an interesting broader design question. Higher production values have killed a lot of the stuff we cared about in 90s games - Planescape Torment is impossible to make with every line fully voice acted; Deus Ex's range of levels probably would've been cut down brutally. And the publisher pressure to release AAA titles on consoles means there's incentive to work in their design constraints.
Most of the games that really pushed the envelope lately were either indies or, in cases like Alpha Protocol, had really dreadful art and technical design.
-
FTL. Your argument is invalid.
I could make a list but I doubt the post size would be sufficient.
FTL is an indie game with a small budget that by design doesn't need very good graphics. This is a AAA title from a major studio and major publisher.
-
I dunno, I played Deus Ex for the first time somewhere around last year, and I thought it was an awesome, immersive experience in a completely unique world.
That's not the point. The point is, if you make a Deus Ex sequel today that looks like DX1, you will get called on it. Note I'm not saying the game is bad - in fact, I enjoy Dishonored quite a bit - but you can't tell me graphics don't make a contribution towards immersing you in the game's world. I really don't understand why the art standards were so low in this case; I'd love the play the exact same game that has contemporary graphics.
I'm not saying graphics alone make a good game. I'm saying you can have a great game with bad graphics. And you can make that game even better if you improve it's graphics. Dishonored doesn't even have mediocre graphics in terms of polycount and resolution (watercolor effect hides the low res to some degree but it's still visible). Some may be content with having new games that look like they're 10 years old, but I think Dishonored's art standards could have been a lot higher, which would have done more justice to the uniquely designed world.
I do prefer a good game with bad graphics to a dumb, great looking game, but dismissing graphics standards as completely irrelevant in a today's AAA first person-based game doesn't strike me as the best approach to modern game design.
-
I think the point that Battuta was trying to make is that making the graphics and artistic side of the game really good takes a lot of time, money, and effort that could be more constructively spent elsewhere.
-
yes, technology should remain stagnant. Who the **** cares about pushing the envelope? just make games look like they come from the late 90's. who the **** cares?
It has remained stagnant for the past 7 years. Apparantly only the chosen few of the PC master race have cared so far.
-
I think the point that Battuta was trying to make is that making the graphics and artistic side of the game really good takes a lot of time, money, and effort that could be more constructively spent elsewhere.
First he said the graphics are fine, and when it turned out they're not he said it doesn't matter since you can have a good game without it. As for better spending time and resources elsewhere, if you charge full price, you should deliver the goods in full as well. Got to love HLP; I specifically said I actually liked the game even though it has dated graphics specifically to avoid this sort of a debate. Worked out really well..
Loving a game doesn't mean it's perfect. This one happens to have a flaw in the looks department. Some may care, some may not, but graphics aren't irrelevant. You want to balance your time and effort, not spend it all on some venues and then leave one sorely lacking. I wouldn't have said anything if the game didn't look so very dated - but the graphics are way below mediocre as far as today's standards go. Making them at least at a mediocre level by today's standards wouldn't have taken that much more work, either. Why have ugly polygonal objects when you can have them round is beyond me - it's like someone wanted to make sure this thing will run on the iphone...
It's a shame precisely because it is a good game. Imagine how that world would look if it had, say, Witcher 2's level of art standards?
-
I do prefer a good game with bad graphics to a dumb, great looking game, but dismissing graphics standards as completely irrelevant in a today's AAA first person-based game doesn't strike me as the best approach to modern game design.
I didn't mean to imply that, but I think it's too simplistic to say 'more graphics = better'. Development is (obviously I don't really have to tell you this) all about tradeoffs and resource allocation. So I'd quibble specifically with this:
I'm not saying graphics alone make a good game. I'm saying you can have a great game with bad graphics. And you can make that game even better if you improve it's graphics.
All else being equal, maybe...but all else isn't equal. Would Minecraft be a better game with better graphics? Probably not. It probably wouldn't exist. It likely would've tanked and burned.
Dishonored is running on UE3. It's from a studio that clearly doesn't have a vast amount of horsepower (or, in all likelihood, a vast amount of money). Their talents lie in design. I don't think they could've made the game 'AAA gorgeous' without just slathering bloom on everything and ****ing their design process over. The resources they would've put into graphics would've come at a cost.
I could definitely go for some higher-res textures and a lot more AA, but otherwise, I can't say I need any more. And returning to this point:
That's not the point. The point is, if you make a Deus Ex sequel today that looks like DX1, you will get called on it.
Why, though? Because a 'AAA game' from a 'AAA studio' should look 'AAA'? Maybe...but indie titles, F2P titles - these are sectors that are exploding. Setting aside the expectation framing of 'this came from AAA studio', do graphics matter at all in how much we enjoy a game?
I played Deus Ex last year. In my subjective world this was a game that came out last year. Heck, I played XCOM for the first time last year...and having just gotten into the new one, sure, it looks better, but the leap from sprites to gorgeous UE3 3D hasn't meaningfully altered my experience. Half-Life 2 remains one of the most attractive games I've ever played because it's so crisp.
So:
Note I'm not saying the game is bad - in fact, I enjoy Dishonored quite a bit - but you can't tell me graphics don't make a contribution towards immersing you in the game's world.
I think I can tell you that.
I really don't understand why the art standards were so low in this case; I'd love the play the exact same game that has contemporary graphics.
I just don't follow your reasoning here. I doubt at any point in design they said set art standards to low. They didn't have the time, or the resources, or the expertise and knowhow, or the memory budget on consoles (I am thinking particularly the latter).
e:
You want to balance your time and effort, not spend it all on some venues and then leave one sorely lacking. I wouldn't have said anything if the game didn't look so very dated - but the graphics are way below mediocre as far as today's standards go. Making them at least at a mediocre level by today's standards wouldn't have taken that much more work, either. Why have ugly polygonal objects when you can have them round is beyond me - it's like someone wanted to make sure this thing will run on the iphone...
I guess I just don't have your eyes.
-
First he said the graphics are fine, and when it turned out they're not he said it doesn't matter since you can have a good game without it.
e: nm I got a bit snappy here, but I hope you can see how this would come off kinda high-handed
-
Speaking as an artist, you make a fallacious assumption that making a 12-sided cylinder is a lot less work than making a 24-sided one. A lot of the low detail in the game has incredibly low poly assets. The up side is you could probably run it on a very old system, but as far as amount of work goes there's no magical super-expensive skill that precludes lower-budget studios from making a gorgeous game. Making it look absolutely top-end is a lot more work, but making the graphics at least acceptable wouldn't have taken that much more work or increased the costs by a huge amount.
Comparing to Minecraft isn't the best of analogies, either; of course there are games where graphics don't take a second, but the last place when it comes to enjoyment. Minecraft is a different type of a game - try making Dishonored or a Witcher sequel with Minecraft-level graphics and see how well you do.
It's a very basic logical error:
1. Minecraft's graphics are irrelevant to enjoyment of that game.
2. Graphics are irrelevant to enjoyment of every game.
Um, yea, but don't expect to pass your high school logic exam with that :P Saying graphics don't play a part in immersion is something we'll have to agree to disagree on. I would love to have seen Dunwall with graphics on a Witcher 2 level.
I'd still totally recommend this game to anyone who loved DeusEx or the Thief series. I'm just saying two things here:
- graphics look dated;
- this is a shame.
Some may care, some may not, we're not all the same. It's still a game well worth playing, but saying it looks dated is a completely valid argument from someone who paid 50€ for it - as much as that same person saying it's still worth the price.
-
I will make it clear. Graphics are, and will always be, nothing more than a nice bonus to any game, ever. It's as simple as that.
If a game needs graphics to make itself interesting, then it is a game that has utterly failed. It is that simple.
If the low graphics of a game are bothering you enough that you can't enjoy it, then it is you that are failing. It is, again, that simple.
-
Comparing to Minecraft isn't the best of analogies, either; of course there are games where graphics don't take a second, but the last place when it comes to enjoyment. Minecraft is a different type of a game - try making Dishonored or a Witcher sequel with Minecraft-level graphics and see how well you do.
It's a very basic logical error:
1. Minecraft's graphics are irrelevant to enjoyment of that game.
2. Graphics are irrelevant to enjoyment of every game.
I actually don't think this is a logical error. A Dishonored or Witcher sequel should be able to succeed solely on the strength of its systems and narrative. The Witcher less so perhaps, but Dishonored is special because of its approach to systems, the same approach DX and Thief used.
-
If the low graphics of a game are bothering you enough that you can't enjoy it, then it is you that are failing. It is, again, that simple.
You're just failing to read here, since I've said I enjoyed the game in pretty much every post I made in this thread. As for the rest, agree to disagree. It's a bit like saying that the design of a product's package is irrelevant if the product itself is great. Sure, but a well designed package will make it more presentable and, by extension, make it easier to sell to a wider audience. And I'm an industrial, not a graphics designer; still, negating the value of one department's work because you think yours is more important is the wrong approach to things. Of course graphics aren't gameplay and of course you can enjoy a game with bad graphics, as much as you can love a great blender that came in an abysmal package. But how many people are going to miss out on it precisely because of the package? The competition is huge these days and presentation is important - if we can't agree on that one then further discussion is pointless. But I'll never concede graphics are totally irrelevant - while not necessarily so, they can contribute to immersing the player in the game's world quite dramatically.
I actually don't think this is a logical error. A Dishonored or Witcher sequel should be able to succeed solely on the strength of its systems and narrative.
Then make a similar game with a great story and narrative, and make it a text-based adventure with no graphics at all. Then charge 50€ for it. That'll be a great test for your claim.
-
Then make a similar game with a great story and narrative, and make it a text-based adventure with no graphics at all. Then charge 50€ for it. That'll be a great test for your claim.
I certainly wouldn't charge $50 for it, but at another price point, concomitant with the development costs, I have no doubt this would move gangbusters.
Anyway this argument is all a bit tangential as I think Dishonored is gorgeous. :p
-
If the low graphics of a game are bothering you enough that you can't enjoy it, then it is you that are failing. It is, again, that simple.
You're just failing to read here
Where did I say I was talking about you in particular ? I was making a general statement.
-
Where did I say I was talking about you in particular ? I was making a general statement.
I think it's easy to see how that would look like it was referred to me, but fair enough. We all agree Dishonored is a good game, I just don't get why I get called out for saying it looks dated. Still, I have a game to complete so I'm done here :)
-
It's a bit like saying that the design of a product's package is irrelevant if the product itself is great. Sure, but a well designed package will make it more presentable and, by extension, make it easier to sell to a wider audience.
You are assuming the number of sales is a reliable way to measure the quality of a product. It is obviously not.
I actually don't think this is a logical error. A Dishonored or Witcher sequel should be able to succeed solely on the strength of its systems and narrative.
Then make a similar game with a great story and narrative, and make it a text-based adventure with no graphics at all. Then charge 50€ for it. That'll be a great test for your claim.
Same thing. There are a number of awesome games that didn't sell well. For example, that obscure, utterly unknown game called Freespace 2.
Some awesome games also don't sell at all ! I don't remember Diaspora making even 1$ of profit, so it must utterly suck !
But I'll never concede graphics are totally irrelevant - while not necessarily so, they can contribute to immersing the player in the game's world quite dramatically.
I never said it's irrelevant. To quote myself, it is "a nice bonus". As a bonus quality, it is on the very bottom of the scale of relevant factors to judge the quality of a game, but it's there.
-
You are assuming the number of sales is a reliable way to measure the quality of a product. It is obviously not.
I'm really puzzled how you came to that conclusion. I never said anything of the sort. What I did say was good presentation can be a good way to up the number of sales, and that good graphics can help with immersing the player in the game's world (it's certainly not the only way of doing that, but it helps).
Same thing. There are a number of awesome games that didn't sell well. For example, that obscure, utterly unknown game called Freespace 2.
Again, we're discussing quality of graphics and how that helps, and certainly not the number of sales as a measure of a game's quality, nor was this ever implied. FS2, btw, had awesome graphics for when it was released. It must have been a really shallow game with no substance there. I know you didn't say that but why should that prevent me from claiming you did? :)
-
And again, how is that relevant to the quality of a game ?
-
And again, how is that relevant to the quality of a game ?
I think if you actually go read what I maintained from the start you'll see I've been saying Dishonored is a good game. I feel silly just repeating that so many times already. Yes, good graphics would have been nicer, and to prevent this sort of crap I've been adding "but it's still a good game" as a safety measure in every post! Doesn't seem to help as people like you still assume my message is "graphics = quality", or equally baseless "number of sales = quality". I guess even directly saying that's not what I'm saying doesn't help.
-
Oh look, another argument between people conflating graphics and aesthetics and those who aren't! How novel!
-
I say DNF is better. :D
-
I'm coming into this kind of late, and obviously a lot of what I'm about to say is relative, but....
-Art / Graphics != Texture Resolution
-Good Art > Higher Texture Resolution
^(although there is a balance to be maintained)
-Good Art's main purpose is to make things visually interesting (see: entertaining).
-Good Art™ can cause the player to forgive other flaws in the game, because the scene itself is interesting enough to balance out uninteresting elements of the gameplay. (see also: cinematography / plot)
Now look at the pretty screenshots:
http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/595857590412748837/43A395A69551A7CE65FC34C601494B22B77E0957/
http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/595856594251027474/DFB8AB2B9A889ACBC4206D2D5E45F7C698615B06/
If that game weren't so damned pretty I would have quit playing weeks ago over all of the bugs.
-
This whole conversation makes it painfully apparent that gamers today have a rather inflated sense of entitlement when it comes to games.
-
If that game weren't so damned pretty I would have quit playing weeks ago over all of the bugs.
You would have quit playing a game weeks ago that only came out last week?
Are you from the future?
-
I actually don't think this is a logical error. A Dishonored or Witcher sequel should be able to succeed solely on the strength of its systems and narrative.
Then make a similar game with a great story and narrative, and make it a text-based adventure with no graphics at all. Then charge 50€ for it. That'll be a great test for your claim.
I've spent quite a bit more than 50 bucks on the original Witcher Books by Andrzej Sapkowksi. (The whole saga is already available in German)
Some of the best money I ever spent. Sapkowski is a true master of the genre and refreshingly different from "the usual" fantasy stuff.
That's all story, no graphics. .... ;)
If I were to make a guess.... the mainstream "gamer" crowd that the industry panders to so strongly nowadays propably wouldn't buy a high quality text adventure... however I would also guess that the average "mainstream gamer" doesn't buy many - if any - *books* either. lol. (With the possible exception of game related trash novels.)
-
If that game weren't so damned pretty I would have quit playing weeks ago over all of the bugs.
You would have quit playing a game weeks ago that only came out last week?
Are you from the future?
Considering it released on the 28th of August, no.
-
All games need graphics, gameplay, and narrative. And a host of other things, depending on the game type.
You can stretch the definition (e.g. the narrative might be a tutorial or some kind of opening sequence that tells you what the game actually is, or at least some kind of flavor in the world or gameplay that tells you wtf is going on) but all three have to be there, even for text-based games. All of those parts are important to a game and are more or less individually important depending on the type of game, but you cannot shirk any of them entirely.
If you were to make the graphics of a FPS extremely simple and barebones, the game would suffer for it unless the graphics design was deliberately abstract and minimalistic for competitive reasons (but you still must design it to be eye-catching and interesting, etc.) Comparing an excellent first person shooter, in terms of gameplay, with graphical quality that is truly awful to a less exceptional, but still solid, first person shooter that looks gorgeous will net the following result: The prettier one is better, every time, because the poor graphics of the former game will detract too much from the experience.
Graphics isn't everything nor is it irrelevant. It's just another, essential, part of the games we play.
-
If that game weren't so damned pretty I would have quit playing weeks ago over all of the bugs.
You would have quit playing a game weeks ago that only came out last week?
Are you from the future?
Considering it released on the 28th of August, no.
You might want to revise your "release" date to the actual date, the 8th of October.
-
If that game weren't so damned pretty I would have quit playing weeks ago over all of the bugs.
You would have quit playing a game weeks ago that only came out last week?
Are you from the future?
Considering it released on the 28th of August, no.
You might want to revise your "release" date to the actual date, the 8th of October.
Or you could re-read my post.
-
This whole conversation makes it painfully apparent that gamers today have a rather inflated sense of entitlement when it comes to games.
It's a product, we're consumers. It's not entitlement.
-
If you were to make the graphics of a FPS extremely simple and barebones, the game would suffer for it unless the graphics design was deliberately abstract and minimalistic for competitive reasons (but you still must design it to be eye-catching and interesting, etc.) Comparing an excellent first person shooter, in terms of gameplay, with graphical quality that is truly awful to a less exceptional, but still solid, first person shooter that looks gorgeous will net the following result: The prettier one is better, every time, because the poor graphics of the former game will detract too much from the experience.
I have no idea whether I'm agreeing with you or not: Team Fortress 2 > CODMW3. (IMHO)
-
Neither of those games has exceptional graphics. Of course I don't think Dark Revenant is remotely correct, since Half-Life is always going to be more fun to play than Homefront.
-
Comparing an excellent first person shooter, in terms of gameplay, with graphical quality that is truly awful to a less exceptional, but still solid, first person shooter that looks gorgeous will net the following result: The prettier one is better, every time, because the poor graphics of the former game will detract too much from the experience.
And this, young padawan, is why you fail.
-
This whole conversation makes it painfully apparent that gamers today have a rather inflated sense of entitlement when it comes to games.
It's a product, we're consumers. It's not entitlement.
While it is a product, and we are consumers, the attitude is still there. *****ing about graphics that aren't strictly as good as your hardware can handle when the rest of the game is a pretty solid effort sounds a hell of a lot like entitlement issues to me. Gamers have come to expect standards that cannot be realistically met, and react negatively when they inevitably aren't.
-
It has been said already, but it's worth reiterating. Game design is all about compromising between what you want to do, and what you can do. So the Dishonored team chose to cut corners in some places, while concentrating on others. For most people, this doesn't break immersion, but for others, it's a constant reminder that it's a game they're playing, not a world they're acting in.
The line between the two is highly subjective, of course. For newman, seeing a world that has gorgeous design but doesn't go all the way in making it real is this line. For Battuta, it's something he doesn't even notice. This does not mean one of those viewpoints is wrong.
Now, as to the subject of entitlement, let's not use that word. It's poisoned by pages upon pages of stupid debate about what gamers expect from a game versus what they actually got. In this instance, it seems to me that it's more of a matter of expectations, and people not willing to let go of what they thought the game would be like. The discussion about the new XCOM, for example, is currently being poisoned by people who expected to get exactly the same game as the original X-COM, but who were disappointed when they found out that not every little gameplay quirk the original had was ported over. It's similar here; people were expecting Graphics on par with the big leagues, but were disappointed when it turned out that the dev team apparently had other priorities.
-
For me, a good story is much more important than shiny graphics. Wing Commander 2 FTW. :)
-
Half-Life's graphics are fine. They're dated, but well-designed and skillfully-made. Why would you use that as a counterexample?
Bad graphics, to me, are inexcusably bad graphics. i.e. bad design, detracts from the game, looks "wrong", etc.
All I want from a game's visuals are something that is functional and aesthetically effective (from a purely abstract standpoint). Anything above that bare minimum is a nice bonus.
-
Someone mentioned TF2 earlier and it really illustrates the difference between technical graphical quality and aesthetic design: it's 5 years old and hasn't had any great graphical upgrades, but it still looks fantastic because the artists did a great job of designing the characters and the levels to evoke a particular era and genre, and to convey gameplay elements on a subconscious level. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXPkDQnM0JI) Visual style does matter, and a game is worse for not having it, but that's not the same as having lots of polygons and shaders.
-
Being a modeler and a texture artist myself, I do have my own perspective on this. As I tried to iterate many times, and failed for the most part, Dishonored is a good game. But I think they made some questionable choices when it comes to creating detailed models and textures. It's meshes remind me more of Mafia 1 (another excellent game) than of anything modern, and as I've said before, making it all look a bit more detailed wouldn't have taken that much more work. There is absolutely no reason why I should be counting sides to car's headlights when they can look more or less round in this day and age, and still work well with most hardware. That's not a sense of self-entitlement, it's a legitimate observation of someone who has first hand experience in creating game assets, has paid for the game and played it. I even recommended that Thief / DeusEx fans should definitely get it.
The game's art design is something else entirely and that I have absolutely no problem with - it's all gorgeous. I'd just loved to have seen it all in a bit higher definition, because the polycounts and resolutions are definitely on the lower end of the spectrum for modern games. Again, having it all a bit more spruced up wouldn't have made the game mechanics or game design any better, but it would help me immerse a bit better as I wouldn't keep running into objects I can work out their polycount from just by glancing at them :)
Most games can function with bad graphics, some even without them, but saying a game can work as a story alone with no graphics is, in my book, just as bad as saying the graphics alone make a good game and the story doesn't matter. If I want a story alone I go read a book. A game is a combination of the story, game mechanics, and graphics blended together so it all works. Some compromises are needed, but I don't buy that the developers didn't have the money to make 30-sided cylinders as opposed to 14-sided ones; that's just not how it works.
-
You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike.
-
There's always the issue of balancing frames per second against everything else you want inside the game. Everyone who is claiming that this game could have had more polygons are absolutely right, however we just simply do not know why certain 3d guidelines their team followed were the way they were, and there were probably performance concerns with them.
Most "AAA" games do with a lot more polygons, however they are always testing and retesting where they can cut polygons and what tricks can they do to increase performance, and where their cylinders should be 30 faces rather than 15. Sometimes, a very detailed object is necessary, sometimes a raw cube works just as well (due to distance, shaders, etc.). You have to spend a huge time just to iterate this process so you can guarantee 30 fps in the game, despite it looking so awesome and crisp.
So I speculate here that probably, just probably, they decided this was a thing they didn't want to waste *any* considerable amount of time, so they just streamlined everything to low-poly as a way to guarantee performance by fiat.
-
Dishonored is a incredible game and truly beautiful looking. I've been really been taking it slow and been trying to soak up the whole story and environments, it's most definitely a game I suggest to play slowly, exploring every little bit, preferrably in Stealth, then after finishing the game pick a totally different way of playing it.
I love how silly things can occur too though, like in this video (warning, spoilers!): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc7ByJP520I&feature=plcp
Might film more instances too, I don't usually have fraps turned on, even though I really ought to.
-
:bump:
Just got this game the other day. So far it's pretty great and definitely reeks of Deus Ex and System Shock 2 in terms of FPS/RPG hybridness. I'm barely a mission in and so far the story seems a little funny but like it's been said atmosphere makes up for that. Overall, what did you guys think of the story given that you've probably actually played it already?
-
:bump:
Just got this game the other day. So far it's pretty great and definitely reeks of Deus Ex and System Shock 2 in terms of FPS/RPG hybridness. I'm barely a mission in and so far the story seems a little funny but like it's been said atmosphere makes up for that. Overall, what did you guys think of the story given that you've probably actually played it already?
Functional enough. It changes a bit depending on you behavior (primarily how much chaos you cause). I wouldn't call it anything hugely excellent but it gets the job done and enables the gameplay well.
I really recommend taking this game slow and going for a low/no kills run the first time through.
-
I really recommend taking this game slow and going for a low/no kills run the first time through.
It's on stealth / no kills approach that the game really shines. That being said, going in guns blazing the first time around to see the high chaos ending, and then doing it "right" the second time around is also a valid approach :) Really depends on the player. Both my playthroughs were stealth with no kills, I just find the gameplay more fun that way. Easy enough to see the high chaos ending on youtube, though I'll grant that some of the high chaos powers are cool.
-
I'm inclined to disagree: by going purely nonlethal, you're cutting yourself down to using 3, maybe 4 powers and one weapon. It's fun, but you'll end up missing out on a lot of gameplay.