[Unknown Target]

Has anyone played this? Is it any good?

[General Battuta]

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

[Ace]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Topgun]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[redsniper]

Desperate.

Desperate.

[General Battuta]

Desperate.

Desperate.

Desperate.

[Phantom Hoover]

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.

[CommanderDJ]

I'm almost finished I think, and it's been great fun so far. Playing it nonlethally is quite interesting too.

[newman]

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.

[MatthTheGeek]

Who the **** cares about graphics.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Topgun]

Who the **** cares about graphics.

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?

[MatthTheGeek]

FTL. Your argument is invalid.

I could make a list but I doubt the post size would be sufficient.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Topgun]

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.

[newman]

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.

[Scotty]

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.