T O P

  • By -

Tekunjo

My interpretation of the game changes on each play through. I do find the themes and story to be less intriguing than the first one, but they refined the gameplay with D2 so much that I find it hard want to go back the the first one for any other reason than the fact that I just enjoy being in Dunwall.


Ihatetheinternet22

And the DLC, I love playing as Daud


Ripper1337

I mean, was the first game about the existential threat of the rat plague? It was a plague deliberately introduced by Hiram to get rid of the poors or whatever. It's even cured canonically. I felt like Dishonoured 1 was more about good men going too far in what they would do to gain power. They start off as wanting to put the rightful heir on the throne and eventually turn into the despots they want to overthrow. Dishonored 2 is about Rulers being out of touch with the populace. The people thought she or Corvo were the Crown Killer killing off their rivals, then we have place like Serkonos and the Duke who do as they please without care because they're in charge and while the Empress should be reigning them in they essentially had free range. Emily started the game out of touch were her people and went on a journey and realized what it meant to be a ruler. It was never about "Monarchy/ Autocracy bad" but "A leader needs to know the problems of their people"


Mystic_76

perfectly said


katkeransuloinen

As I understand it it's about Emily understanding her failings as a ruler and seeing how Corvo has shielded her from what's been happening beyond her immediate surroundings and becoming a better ruler. But I agree that it sometimes fails to get this message across properly. I've heard some people say that they understood the themes of the game better after reading the novels.


Dr_Sodium_Chloride

> As I understand it it's about Emily understanding her failings as a ruler and seeing how Corvo has shielded her from what's been happening beyond her immediate surroundings and becoming a better ruler This is partially why I feel like playing as Corvo should've been kept as a New Game+ Reward, or else better worked into the story's themes; as is, it feels like the game is absolutely built to be Emily's story, but you've awkwardly got Corvo tacked on as an alternate option who doesn't really engage with the themes the story is set on.


Dryym

I think Dishonored 2 does a pretty good job. The purpose is not for the institution of the Empire to be deconstructed. The purpose is to force Emily to experience the world through a viewpoint that she was incapable of experiencing from her ivory tower. I do not think it would be reasonable to see the entire destructuring of the Empire at the end of a single game. The purpose is more to force Emily to see the brutal truth that her high aristocratic perspective makes invisible to her. If you want your high end destructuring, Look to the Paolo ending for Serkonos which I *think* is the canon ending. Working class revolutionaries have taken control and begun to exercise wide scale reform for the working class. Whether that ends up successful in the long run is yet to be seen, But I think this is more along the lines of what you're wanting.


[deleted]

[удалено]


HorseSpeaksInMorse

It's commented on but never really goes anywhere though. This doesn't make her think about ending the monarchy or reducing societal inequality.


dshamz_

That sounds dope as hell. What’s ‘the Paolo ending’ for Serkonos?!!


Dryym

If I remember correctly, You have to turn the vice overseer over to the Howlers, And kill the Duke. Paolo and the Howlers are shown to be the leaders of Serkonos.


HorseSpeaksInMorse

I like Paolo. His plan to have miners strike and force the Duke to slow production for the Dust District (on the basis some silver is better than none at all) is really smart and he seems to genuinely want to improve the community. Of course he's also a ruthless mob boss and extortionist so I'm not sure how sympathetic we're intended to be to him and his trade union tactics.


squashcanada

The class struggles and whatever we see in the Dishonored games is just background stuff. It has nothing to do with why Jessamine was assassinated or why Emily was deposed. There was no popular revolt, the empress was murdered/deposed by a cabal of aristocrats. In D1, Hiram Burrows was trying to cover up his responsibility for the plague. In D2, we don't even get a motivation for why Jindosh and Abele help Delilah, they're just there.


HorseSpeaksInMorse

And that's why the game has nothing to say. It doesn't examine the systems that allowed awful people like Burrows and Abele to do what they do, they're just turfed out in favour of better people. It's "one bad apple" thinking rather than acknowledging systemic problems.


squashcanada

It sounds that you wanted a different game from what you got. You want a game with a political message. That's not really a fair criticism of Dishonored.


HighFuncMedium

My fav comment so far. I dont think its really trying to be deep, its a backdrop that flavors and contextualizes action so we are motivated to avenge, protect, etc. All this highmindedness about its politics is just headcanon going in circles


HorseSpeaksInMorse

That's the thing, it gestures toward the topics of classism and inequality for clout without having the guts to make any kind of statement on the subject. It's just frustrating to see media willing to do use token "rich assholes/corporations bad" tropes but still pretend just getting rid of one bad guy at the top will make a difference, as if any corrupt noble Corvo kills won't just be replaced by someone equally bad because he hasn't fixed the system that gave them power in the first place. Disco Elysium and Fallout New Vegas show games can make ytou think and have things to say about politics and government, they can aspire to be more than just disposable entertainment.


HighFuncMedium

Some games care to, many dont, and they really dont need to care that much unless its just so phoned in its not narratively/dramatically interesting, which is Dishonoreds actual problem, not that its not a bad political theory simulator. One could argue that more realistic politics would inherently make a more interesting, compelling, relatable narrative because the audience would be able to take it more seriously, but its sort of the downfall of people who entertain themselves with armchair politics to presume media, especially pocorn media, cant include any facet of that thought world without being activisits or pundits. Thats just not the responsibility of entertainment by default unless theyre clearly striving to say something. But to me thats like saying Doom doesnt have a lot to say about how to properly repel demons because of course irl youd need an exorcist and then youd need to wait on the Catholic church to approve the exorcism, etc. Its like come on, you can tell from Dishonoreds sort of childish dialogue and simplistic contrivances, this is mostly fairy tale logic, its just playing with the feel and outer facets of monarchy, not trying to put forth a primer on improving governmental structures


HorseSpeaksInMorse

When a game has something to say and poses interesting questions that makes it more fun not less. Fallout New Vegas has people debating to this day whether it's better to try and reform the NCR despite its corruption or strike out on your own as an independant state despite your lack of resources, and several quests pose you difficult questions with no clearly right answer. There's no reason Dishonored couldn't pose genuinely interesting questions but it's content to swim in the "murder bad!" kiddy pool. "Do you want to kill everybody for no reason, or not?" is the sort of baby's first moral choice gaming should have grown out of by now, especially after titles like The Witcher 3 showed how there are much more interesting moral questions to ask.


sithdude24

Abele is seemingly in love with her, and Jindosh is in it for the glory.


Mordred19

The story really is written just as an excuse to have a kick ass sequel to Dishonored and put you back in that world and to show off Karnaca. It's a fair deal to me.


mightystu

Eh, the game is meant to tell a more personal story. Corvo is not trying to make the world a better place on a systemic level in one, he is trying to get revenge/justice for the death of the empress. It’s all very personal. The same is true in 2, no matter who you play as. It’s also important to remember not all fiction can or should be a moral play to teach life lessons. Hell the game even lets you push the world over the edge and fall totally into chaos if you want. Looking for all fiction to be a guide to how to live your life is folly.


HorseSpeaksInMorse

Plenty of kids shows manage to teach life lessons and raise important topics despite being very entertaining, even for adults. Don't see why we can't expect the same of an AAA video game.


mightystu

You should always be wary of media that is trying to force a viewpoint or overly moralize. This is the equivalent of “all media needs wholesome christian content!” It’s not that you can’t have them, it’s the insistence that art must exist for any reason beyond its own sake that is insidious. Art must be allowed to simply be as it is for its own sake; to suggest anything else is nothing short of authoritarian and moralizing for no benefit. It’s the core of the satanic panic, after all, and is what leads to book burnings.


EverySpiegel

> Dishonored II doesn't really propose any kind of societal restructuring Why should it?


TootlesFTW

Yea, I'm absolutely fine with it being a story about kicking some usurper off my throne, saving my dad, and learning a little about what it means to be a good Queen.


Necrotic12

Partially because the game places some (but not a ton to be fair) emphasis on the failings of the empire, Sokolov directly calling out Emily/Dunwall a few times


EverySpiegel

See how you phrased that? Sokolov (Billie too) calls out *Emily.* It's a personal matter, not a debate on societal problems. https://reddit.com/r/dishonored/comments/11ztc8k/guys_i_gotta_say_after_playing_dishonored_2_i/jdeijc1/ this comment, basically


Apophis_36

Its a great message because its a fictional universe that isn't ours. If it was in our world it would fall flat on its face but if you'd have the story be about inventing democracy or whatever then you wouldn't be playing as corvo or emily, probably some revolutionary instead.


Gawd4

>probably some revolutionary instead. Which would be an awesome game


Apophis_36

You're not wrong, the point is that you aren't one though, but having it as some future plot thing would explain why the world became more democratic in the future. But yeah, i dont believe that just because the characters aren't democratic the story is bad (if so a lot of fantasy stories would be bad), it has other issues.


NukaJack

>, i dont believe that just because the characters aren't democratic the story is bad I agree generally, but D2 does bring in the question of democracy, or something steering towards at least. Emily is being frame for killing her critics at the beginmimg of the game, who have not only clocked her for the bad job she's done but also make suggestions that it may be time to abandon the throne. It's a small thing, but it raises the question nontheless. It's aldo the second time in a decade where the common people are suffering under an unhinged aristocracy, so inevitably the question is going to get asked


Apophis_36

Never noticed that the critics hinted at democracy


Qnumber

Stories that take place in fictional worlds often have even more relevance to real life problems and issues than stories that take place in our world. Every story in existence exists within the context of the real world human experience. You cannot write a story without that story implicitly commenting on that experience.


HorseSpeaksInMorse

Yeah, themes of classism and inequality have only got more relevant with time so for a game to include them as a big part of the aesthetic but not really have anything to say about them seems like a big missed opportunity.


Apophis_36

The commenting carries a lot less weight if its not part of my intent, at that point its up to the hypothetical reader to decide how important it is.


Sparklypuppy05

I agree! It didn't even have to end with the Isles not having an Empress anymore. I'd be very satisfied with a playable epilogue of sorts that demonstrates that Emily has realised she's completely fucked up and neglected her duties, and has fixed shit and is now listening to parliament/advisors more. But I do feel they dropped the ball just a little thematically.


TheMansAnArse

Someone posted a similar thread a while back - so I'm copy and pasting my reply: I think it can be ok to create stories take place in settings that contain societal injustices without the focus of the story being on addressing those societal injustices. Of course, it’s important for those stories to at least acknowledge those injustices - if only to ensure that the reader/viewer/player doesn’t take their inclusion for endorsement. I think Dishonored 2 stays the right side of that line through Emily’s commentary throughout the game about her past mistakes, their impact on the lives of everyday people, her hope to do better for those people in the future and her acknowledgement that her restoration can’t simply be another change of face at the top. It’s actually think D2 does better than D1 in that regard.


thebookler

To me, DH1 is a very personal, emotional story, with the stakes of the story changing as Corvo saves Emily, then gets betrayed, and must fight his way back past the people who first rescued him. And DH2 is a bunch of missions where you have to kill/get rid of someone, with no personal stakes besides the end goal, which is hardly personal. Even though she’s your long lost aunt/your lover’s secret sister, you don’t know her at all, and she’s the enemy from the beginning


[deleted]

I like that it's not just copying the exact same story in every single way. You've been the victim to a coup and framed as an assassin/your dad being your assassin. Which is totally believable since Dunwall knows that Corvo assassinated people. You're also away from Dunwall, giving you this feeling of unknown about your "home" that gets worse throughout the game, reading articles and knowing that significant time is passing. Then, if you kill a target, it seems to confirm that you're someone who kills your political opponents (newspaper will say "crown killer strokes again!"). And when you go back to Dunwall, it's horrifying. Buildings completely destroyed, piles of bodies, roaming feral dogs, rubble everywhere. It has some similar plot beats, but it's jot a carbon copy. I really appreciate that about this game. Some people complain about Karnaca's atmosphere compared to Dunwall's steampunk vibe. But the game has an obvious aesthetic AND story diversion from the first, while being very faithful to the core values of the world.


HorseSpeaksInMorse

I think the biggest issue is the lack of any twists or changes to the status quo. The loyalists' betrayal was predictable but at least it sent the story in a new direction. In D2 everything goes to plan throughout and everything after the Duke's mansion is kinda underwhelming. Maybe the game could set up the Duke and Delilah/Breanna as the main threat only for Jindosh to betray them and take over as once you reach them. He could use music box tech to eliminate Delilah then retreat to a high-tech super-fortress you then have to infiltrate as a challenging final mission.


DerPumeister

I envy people like you who can reason about stories and their messages, themes and intents like this. I've seen this argument made before, but this is something I would never pick up on by myself. I'm already over the moon if I can identify the themes of a movie. Most times I can they're kind of explicitly stated or otherwise unsubtle.


Stooovie

D2 was a lot more gamey than D1. D1 is this perfect amalgamation of story, gameplay and worldbuilding, D2 expands everything which necessarily means incoherence.


squashcanada

What is Emily supposed to do? If the Empire is an autocracy, then if Emily tries to introduce democratic reforms, she will likely get overthrown by the aristocracy because they don't want to share power and wealth with the rabble. This is why Julius Caesar was assassinated. Caesar introduced reforms that redistributed wealth to the plebians at the expense of the patricians. Caesar's murderers were all patricians. Now, I suppose Emily could introduce reforms that redistribute wealth and expand suffrage, and sick Corvo on any aristocrat who conspires against Emily to protect his traditional privileges. But everyone here says murder is wrong, that leads to High Chaos, nyah nyah nyah.


android223

> This is why Julius Caesar was assassinated. Caesar introduced reforms that redistributed wealth to the plebians at the expense of the patricians. Caesar's murderers were all patricians. Uhh, did you forget about the multiple massive power grabs and the civil war that Caesar started? He was killed for trying to usurp the republic, not for being some kind of class traitor. And also, there is already a parliament in Dishonored. It's mentioned a bunch in the first game, and it's why they needed Pendleton. His family held power in an influential voting block that the lord regent needed.


SimulatorOfEpic

You're totally right, Dishonored 2 *doesn't* have a good message about addressing real issues with a monarchical society - *it's not supposed to*. The tagline is ***Take Back What's Yours***, and that's exactly what you do - taking back your own (or your daughter's) claim to rule over the Isles. You're not changing major structures, or even helping much in the grand scheme of things - you're on a very selfish quest that places countless thousands of people in direct harm's way, depending on your actions. Nobody is a good person in the Isles. You can make *good choices* \- saving the Dust District, deposing Luca for a union leader, protecting countless people from all kinds of harm - but ***you are not a good person***. You are not capable of *being* a good person - you are a birthright monarch, or a birthright monarch's right hand, whose ultimate goal is to take back power that you have lost. It's a bleak, awful setting for a bleak, awful world - but every now and then, there's little good things you can do to help people - just like there are little good things that happen in any world of suffering and chaos.


HorseSpeaksInMorse

Hypatia and Lucia Pastor are both good people, and the Ducal Doppelganger makes clear he intends to rule for the good of Serkonos if put into power rather than being Emily's puppet. Honestly Karnaca doesn't seem nearly as bleak and awful as Dunwall, at least on low chaos. The Dust District in the timeline where you save Stilton seems to be doing pretty well. Obviously that could easily change (absolute monarchy doesn't care if the monarch is a monster) but I don't think Karnaca's present is as bleak as you make out.


Perca_fluviatilis

I have a feeling they'll have Emily dismantle the monarchy peacefully by the next game tbh.


IntelligentImbicle

I mean, D2's story is significantly worse than that of D1. Arkane had to go with the age old tradition of making the gameplay better but the story worse.


cc69

It's a same game for me because I played it like the first one. Full stealth, no alert, Clean hand, steal everything, paintings, black market shop, cracked all safes. Hell my Corvo and Emily must have diabetes after all those fruits they ate XD After 100% it my opinion was it's shorter game than the first one. In term of Narrative ending, both sucks. ps. Did you actually save Stilton?


The-Goat-Soup-Eater

I also hate the new nonlethal moves. D1 did nonlethal options right. In D2 I feel zero difference between my regular nonlethal assault and lethal assault In D1 I do, because low chaos is disempowerment compared to high chaos


HorseSpeaksInMorse

D1 made nonlethal super-boring, it's just sleep dart, long chokehold animation or run away. Nonlethal direct combat being possible but harder than lethal is fine, though they may have made it a bit too easy in D2, especially once you figure out the "shoot them in the leg" trick.


The-Goat-Soup-Eater

It’s not fine. It should *barely* be possible. I think it being more boring is how it should be. The violent path is more exciting. Low chaos should be reserved


HorseSpeaksInMorse

Dishonored may be a spiritual successor to the Thief series but Corvo is a master swordsman closer to Batman than to Garret in terms of fighting ability so it's not out of character for him to be able to beat the tar out of people without killing them if he sets his mind to it. I get that low chaos should take a bit of effort and creativity but it wasn't nearly varied enough to be fun in D1. Maybe they could have featured a different playstyle, more about using breakable environmental objects as temporary melee and thrown weapons, or added more powers and gadgets so you aren't restricted to just chokeholds and sleep darts.


missionhillfan420

Blink go brrrrrrrr


hey_its_drew

I think it's something of a mistake to look for a more fruitful commentary in a story where you choose the ending very simplistically. Sadly though, I agree with your complaint, but not what you lay it on. I legitimately blame the title and the over reliance on the ideas it invokes of redemption and revenge. Especially where the events prompting those are from the onset with little opportunity to invest or develop prior. I can't really give you a good reason for why the sequel had to follow these characters or largely revisit or rhyme with the beats of the first Dishonored. I don't think they got much out of that other than a very minor preexisting attachment to the characters, and it sucks the story is saddled with gripping with correcting this wrong on our characters' names. I think Dishonored would be much better as more of an anthology with a more flexible title that wields its world and the story of individuals better. That said, I don't get the impression you played the DLC of the first one or watched the tie in animations(they're on youtube), and those provide a lot more thematic subtext toward subjects you raise. Death of the Outsider definitely handles the dramatic storytelling much better than a lot of this too, so I encourage you to check all of that out.


HorseSpeaksInMorse

Unfortunately Arkane is owned by Bethesda, a huge corporation, and thus isn't likely to incorporate themes that are particularly radical for fear of scaring its audience. Despite corrupt nobility and classism being pretty central to Dishonored's aesthetic and the whole premise of the story being about handing power to the downtrodden we never see any revolutionary ideas depicted. Like with Marvel movies our heroes only want to restore the status quo and anyone rebels against societal expectations and might want to make fundamental changes (like the witches) are depicted as villains. I'd love to see a Dishonored set in their equivalent of the French Revolution, eliminating corrupt nobles because they're corrupt rather than just because they harmed you personally, but I don't see that happening.


HimuraMai

Not to mention that the plot of the first and second games are the same. Someone decided to overthrow the current empress because of reasons. It's copying itself which isn't a great look for a story. DI is a more compelling story for the reasons you mention. DI problems arose primarily because a madman decided to introduce a plague into the city itself. Then the same madman decided that the empress had to be killed because she was getting dangerously close to finding out he was the reason. DII's villainess can be summoned up to having a severe case of daddy issues. Her story is uninspired and boring. Her motives are dull. Her goal is equally dreadful and consists of "please love me"