Critical Miss: Top Five Games of 2012 #4

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Critical Miss: Top Five Games of 2012 #4

Five days. Five of 2012's best games.

Read Full Article

I don't know what hurts more, the bullet or the irony. Can you believe it's the irony? *bleh* XP

And letting them live can be fun to. "None of you saw ANYthing!?!"
"Just rats" =/

I played through Dishonored twice. The first time as a nice goody-good shoes that tried to strangle and sleep dart as many people as possible and then as a murderous bastard that gleefully sliced throats and left a trail of bodies behind him. I actually preferred both the playstyle and story of the high chaos-playthrough. The intrigue of jerks backstabbing eachother in a horrible city of horribleness just fits much better than the good equivalent of the story.

Still a really good game. People say it's "short" but I felt that it was just the right length. I did want to know more about Daud and the Outsider, though. But I hear there's a DLC coming that will solve that particular gripe.

It's a vibrant, filthy, sad, beautiful place that seems to exist midway between City 17 and Ankh-Morpork.

You know, I would LOVE to play a game set in Ankh-Morpork. And not an adventure game, but like a real triple-A game. I'm not sure which could pull off the gleeful madness best. Gearbox? Obsidian?

This is one of the only games from the long list of GotY games from various sites/venues that I am interested in and still haven't played. It looks interesting and, while I'm still waiting for a bigger price cut (and a smaller backlog), I can't decide which platform. PC for the graphics/controls or PS3 for the trophies? One of those stupid questions that mean only as much as you put into it.

Still, I'm hoping to play it sometime this year.

Liking your little reference at the bottom of the panel there, Carter. Muchly amusing. image

Also, you win quote of the day for referencing Half-Life and Discworld in one sentence, bravo.

Now, here's hoping that tomorrow's comic is a game I actually played last year, as so far, both games you've listed have been ones I never got around to playing. More fool me. >_>

Absolutely agree with your summary. I actually just finished Dishonored today. While I did kind of like the plot, it was simple but it could have worked. However, the structure means you really never get to know the characters. At all. Hell, I think I learned more about most of the targets than I did about my co-conspirators through shit like journals.

My one rather major complaint was indeed the morality bullshit. I'm sick of games in general doing that. Having moments that can change events I'm actually cool with, Witcher handled that quite well I think. Hell, if Dishonored had just kept it to high chaos causing more rats/weepers I think it could have worked. But the moral choice thing isn't a moral choice. It's simply asking you what ending you want to see. Or rather, usually, whether you want to have the most fun or see the "good ending". Which doesn't work, because the bad ending doesn't feel like it's mine, it just feels like the game is punishing me for using all it's toys. I ended up going with non-lethal as much as possible, which I felt annoyed about. I have to shoot for the good ending if I can in games, it's an annoying thing I have, so I just felt roped into this. I do plan on going back through with a lethal stealth approach soon though, which seems to me to promise the most fun. So isn't that a bit ridiculous, I can either get a "bad" ending and play the way I want, or play this apparently open game the way the developers want me to?

Despite my raving about this, it is a very enjoyable game, I'd advise everyone to pick it up.

Eruanno:
You know, I would LOVE to play a game set in Ankh-Morpork. And not an adventure game, but like a real triple-A game. I'm not sure which could pull off the gleeful madness best. Gearbox? Obsidian?

I dare say any area based on anything designed by Bloody Stupid Johnson will simply melt the computer. Or cause a time paradox, whichever the gods find more amusing.

I don't understand why people didn't like the whole moral choice system in the game. It isn't some horrible thing that forces you to play in a different way than you want to. In fact, I believe it is actually one of the better moral choice systems out there.

If you are playing a stealthy, no kill run, the game helps you by having less enemies to sneak around. If you are playing a "kill all the people" run, the game gives you more enemies to deal with and do what you will with.

Also, I believe that either ending is an equally viable way to end the story. While one could be considered "good" and the other "bad", they both end in a way that is satisfying and, most importantly, coherent.

Also, the characters are amazing. If you actually pay attention, you can pretty much learn that the people you are working for are really no better than the people you are assassinating. Also, I kinda love Samuel Beechworth's character.

I'm not sure I understand. What did he do there?

Still havent finished this game. It's just so... boring. If the game isn't going to try to give me any reasons to care about what's happening, then I'm not going to bother trying either.

DVS BSTrD:
I don't know what hurts more, the bullet or the irony. Can you believe it's the irony? *bleh* XP

And letting them live can be fun to. "None of you saw ANYthing!?!"
"Just rats" =/

Oh dear. The penguins have finally gone homicidal.

canadamus_prime:
I'm not sure I understand. What did he do there?

I think he possessed the guy who shot the gun, stopped time so he could position the guy in front of his own bullet, then un-possessed him. Never played the game, so not sure if that's possible, but I think that's what happened.

Kiyeri:

canadamus_prime:
I'm not sure I understand. What did he do there?

I think he possessed the guy who shot the gun, stopped time so he could position the guy in front of his own bullet, then un-possessed him. Never played the game, so not sure if that's possible, but I think that's what happened.

It looks to me like he's redirecting the bullet, but if that's the case I have to wonder, are these homing bullets? And if so, WTF? Yeah I haven't played it either.

Kiyeri:

canadamus_prime:
I'm not sure I understand. What did he do there?

I think he possessed the guy who shot the gun, stopped time so he could position the guy in front of his own bullet, then un-possessed him. Never played the game, so not sure if that's possible, but I think that's what happened.

Yep. Freeze time, possess shooter, walk shooter in front of own bullet, unfreeze time. Completely possible. Me? I was a little more boring. Never tried it myself (the bullet technique, not the game, loved the game).

canadamus_prime:

Kiyeri:

canadamus_prime:
I'm not sure I understand. What did he do there?

I think he possessed the guy who shot the gun, stopped time so he could position the guy in front of his own bullet, then un-possessed him. Never played the game, so not sure if that's possible, but I think that's what happened.

It looks to me like he's redirecting the bullet, but if that's the case I have to wonder, are these homing bullets? And if so, WTF? Yeah I haven't played it either.

The guy shot at him, so he froze time, possessed the guy, and then moved him in front of his own bullet. Half this game is just figuring out the various crazy ways you can disable or kill people.

Also, as for the supposed morality system, for this game people have it wrong, I'd say. The morality system is based on how much death you cause in a city already tearing itself apart. It's quite believable to think that in an already volatile situation some guy comes in and murders everyone things for the city aren't going to end well, the same way where if your only goal is to rescue the princess while doing little harm as possible while getting rid of the worst of the worst will result in a city that is rescue-able.

Really, what the game wants you to choose is do you want to be the Harbinger of Destruction for a city that's filled with corruption, greed, and suffering (and oh man, if you listen to the heart there's so much messed up stuff going on) to bring about the end it so much deserves, or do you want to try to be the Guardian Angel that works to stop the massive chaos and death that's already taking place? Either way, at the end of the game all roads lead you to being the same nameless, faceless, voiceless character you were playing, the "good" ending doesn't even celebrate your heroics.

Eruanno:

It's a vibrant, filthy, sad, beautiful place that seems to exist midway between City 17 and Ankh-Morpork.

You know, I would LOVE to play a game set in Ankh-Morpork. And not an adventure game, but like a real triple-A game. I'm not sure which could pull off the gleeful madness best. Gearbox? Obsidian?

I pretty much came to the comments for the Discworld reference; there was in fact a mod that was in development for Dungeon Siege that boasted recreating a Discworld style game but as with many best-intention-mods it fell over...

I loved the first two adventure games, not so keen on Noir though. The old text based Colour of Magic was naff, and the Discworld MUD serves as a good example of what happens when a Discworld game is created without careful guidance. I think the problem with Discworld is that theres almost too much stuff. Any dev team tackling the lore would have their hands full trying to create a game that appeals to all the fans and non-Discworld fans at the same time while still being faithful to its lore.

canadamus_prime:

Kiyeri:

canadamus_prime:
I'm not sure I understand. What did he do there?

I think he possessed the guy who shot the gun, stopped time so he could position the guy in front of his own bullet, then un-possessed him. Never played the game, so not sure if that's possible, but I think that's what happened.

It looks to me like he's redirecting the bullet, but if that's the case I have to wonder, are these homing bullets? And if so, WTF? Yeah I haven't played it either.

Corvo stopped time, possessed the guard, moved him in front of the bullet that he fired at Corvo, put himself where the guard was, and unfroze time, effectively making the guard shoot himself with his own bullet. Wibbly wobbly, timey wimey, stabby shooty.

uchytjes:
I don't understand why people didn't like the whole moral choice system in the game. It isn't some horrible thing that forces you to play in a different way than you want to. In fact, I believe it is actually one of the better moral choice systems out there.

If you are playing a stealthy, no kill run, the game helps you by having less enemies to sneak around. If you are playing a "kill all the people" run, the game gives you more enemies to deal with and do what you will with.

Also, I believe that either ending is an equally viable way to end the story. While one could be considered "good" and the other "bad", they both end in a way that is satisfying and, most importantly, coherent.

Also, the characters are amazing. If you actually pay attention, you can pretty much learn that the people you are working for are really no better than the people you are assassinating. Also, I kinda love Samuel Beechworth's character.

I finished it recently and I agree with your assessment. I think it makes perfect sense that you should get a bad ending for joyfully massacring people, and rewarded with a happy ending for being merciful. It's totally organic, and it reflects the actions you make throughout the game, rather than you choosing your ending from a couple of big buttons. That said, I found it hard to replay as a pacifist, because the non-lethal options are often fates worse than death. I wanted to be a nice guy, but it just ain't an option - either way your a vengeful, horrific person, but they are different grades of horrific.

My problem wasn't so much with the plot, but with the characters. Characters are as wooden as an Oblivion game, standing stock still and staring at you whilst talking with flat, purely functional dialogue. The worst by far is the Outsider, who should have been the most intriguing and imaginative character, but instead comes off as a try-hard teenager who's read too much vampire fiction. The heart was brilliant though.

Cenzton:

canadamus_prime:

Kiyeri:

I think he possessed the guy who shot the gun, stopped time so he could position the guy in front of his own bullet, then un-possessed him. Never played the game, so not sure if that's possible, but I think that's what happened.

It looks to me like he's redirecting the bullet, but if that's the case I have to wonder, are these homing bullets? And if so, WTF? Yeah I haven't played it either.

The guy shot at him, so he froze time, possessed the guy, and then moved him in front of his own bullet. Half this game is just figuring out the various crazy ways you can disable or kill people.

Also, as for the supposed morality system, for this game people have it wrong, I'd say. The morality system is based on how much death you cause in a city already tearing itself apart. It's quite believable to think that in an already volatile situation some guy comes in and murders everyone things for the city aren't going to end well, the same way where if your only goal is to rescue the princess while doing little harm as possible while getting rid of the worst of the worst will result in a city that is rescue-able.

Really, what the game wants you to choose is do you want to be the Harbinger of Destruction for a city that's filled with corruption, greed, and suffering (and oh man, if you listen to the heart there's so much messed up stuff going on) to bring about the end it so much deserves, or do you want to try to be the Guardian Angel that works to stop the massive chaos and death that's already taking place? Either way, at the end of the game all roads lead you to being the same nameless, faceless, voiceless character you were playing, the "good" ending doesn't even celebrate your heroics.

WarHamster40K:

canadamus_prime:

Kiyeri:

I think he possessed the guy who shot the gun, stopped time so he could position the guy in front of his own bullet, then un-possessed him. Never played the game, so not sure if that's possible, but I think that's what happened.

It looks to me like he's redirecting the bullet, but if that's the case I have to wonder, are these homing bullets? And if so, WTF? Yeah I haven't played it either.

Corvo stopped time, possessed the guard, moved him in front of the bullet that he fired at Corvo, put himself where the guard was, and unfroze time, effectively making the guard shoot himself with his own bullet. Wibbly wobbly, timey wimey, stabby shooty.

Really? 'Cause it doesn't look like the guard moved or was moved.

"Dishonored is a hodgepodge of stolen ideas, mashed together into a shambling, Frankenstein's monster of a game. "

This 'stolen ideas' thing has been making the rounds and it gets me a bit upset. The year is now 2013. There aren't a whole hell of a lot of 'fresh' ideas kicking around. People are heaping praise upon a game about characterization and zombies. Or a war game. Then you get to Dishonored and you call it stolen? Dishonored was about the most original thing to come out in 2012 (well, maybe besides Journey). Half the games on people's favorites lists are :2's or :3's.

So apparently it's no longer hip to call something original, let's draw upon some really outlandish sources and claim this thing 'stole' them. /rant

-edit-
Alright, so I've read around a bit, and apparently the environments are from Half Life, while the costume is from Assassin's Creed, while the gameplay is from Thief, and the perspective is from Bioshock. I have only played one of these games. But let's switch the 'originality' binary of a game from 1 or 0 to a 10 point scale. So at 10 we have something Wolfenstein, which was perhaps the first FPS video game (certainly the first well recognized one). Then we put something like Battlefield 3 at originality rating: 1; this idea has been done to death. On a scale of 1-10 I figure Dishonored comes out around a 7 or so. My point being that all these reviewers seem to be equating originality to quality, and thus the nose goes high into the air as they claim 'Dishonored isn't original'. Maybe not, but it sure is more original than the standard fare recently.

Reason #26 Video Game stories and single player campaigns are still largely shit:

So this game doesn't have a lot of original ideas, the campaign ruins all your fun, dialogue is wooden, characterization sucked, and the moral system stops you from having any fun. But the environment is great and you get these cool abilities! FOURTH BEST GAME OF THE YEAR!

maninahat:

I finished it recently and I agree with your assessment. I think it makes perfect sense that you should get a bad ending for joyfully massacring people, and rewarded with a happy ending for being merciful. It's totally organic, and it reflects the actions you make throughout the game, rather than you choosing your ending from a couple of big buttons. That said, I found it hard to replay as a pacifist, because the non-lethal options are often fates worse than death. I wanted to be a nice guy, but it just ain't an option - either way your a vengeful, horrific person, but they are different grades of horrific.

My problem wasn't so much with the plot, but with the characters. Characters are as wooden as an Oblivion game, standing stock still and staring at you whilst talking with flat, purely functional dialogue. The worst by far is the Outsider, who should have been the most intriguing and imaginative character, but instead comes off as a try-hard teenager who's read too much vampire fiction. The heart was brilliant though.

Really? I honestly liked the outsider. He is pretty much what I thought a god-like being would be: someone who is only trying to find something interesting and different in his eternal existence. But yeah, the dialogue was kind of bad at points.

Also, I actually played my first playthrough completely stealth with no one even seeing me and killing no one and on the hardest difficulty. It was utterly enjoyable most of the time, but i found myself all too often mashing the quicksave and load buttons. But now I could easily do a speedrun of the game if I was into those sorts of things.

The game actually has quite a bit of characterization its just the fact that the voice acting is so lifeless it feels like there's no characterization.

Yeah I agree the morale choice system is annoying there's nothing wrong with allowing you to play the game nonlethal(it can be quite fun actualy) but I wish games would come up with other reason for you to do so beside punishing you if you don't.

uchytjes:

maninahat:

snip

Also, I actually played my first playthrough completely stealth with no one even seeing me and killing no one and on the hardest difficulty. It was utterly enjoyable most of the time, but i found myself all too often mashing the quicksave and load buttons. But now I could easily do a speedrun of the game if I was into those sorts of things.

Oh, I tried to do that myself, but as I had a PS3 version, and I'd hardly ever touched a PS3 in my life, I kept clumsily blundering into enemies time and time again. After an hour of screwing up (and forcing myself to not reload saves), I finally said fuck it and went on the war path.

RobfromtheGulag:
"Dishonored is a hodgepodge of stolen ideas, mashed together into a shambling, Frankenstein's monster of a game. "

This 'stolen ideas' thing has been making the rounds and it gets me a bit upset. The year is now 2013. There aren't a whole hell of a lot of 'fresh' ideas kicking around. People are heaping praise upon a game about characterization and zombies. Or a war game. Then you get to Dishonored and you call it stolen? Dishonored was about the most original thing to come out in 2012 (well, maybe besides Journey). Half the games on people's favorites lists are :2's or :3's.

So apparently it's no longer hip to call something original, let's draw upon some really outlandish sources and claim this thing 'stole' them. /rant

Original is not a synonym for good. Dishonored wears its influences on its sleeve, and I like that, but putting a fresh coat of paint on a collection of nicked mechanics doesn't make the game original.

irishda:
Reason #26 Video Game stories and single player campaigns are still largely shit:

So this game doesn't have a lot of original ideas, the campaign ruins all your fun, dialogue is wooden, characterization sucked, and the moral system stops you from having any fun. But the environment is great and you get these cool abilities! FOURTH BEST GAME OF THE YEAR!

I'm rather play a game that does one thing amazingly well than a game that manages to be mediocre in every category.

"the Pied Piper of Fuck You, here to ruin everyone's day with my swarm of flesh-eating rodents"

that line.... is genius.
image

The amount of times you can pull off an irony kill in Dishonored was crazy, yet I never tried any of those. Nope just sleep darted enemies and knocked them out, never killing anyone ... let me tell you, I love being a good guy but doing that for an entire game is boring.

RobfromtheGulag:
"Dishonored is a hodgepodge of stolen ideas, mashed together into a shambling, Frankenstein's monster of a game. "

This 'stolen ideas' thing has been making the rounds and it gets me a bit upset. The year is now 2013. There aren't a whole hell of a lot of 'fresh' ideas kicking around. People are heaping praise upon a game about characterization and zombies. Or a war game. Then you get to Dishonored and you call it stolen? Dishonored was about the most original thing to come out in 2012 (well, maybe besides Journey). Half the games on people's favorites lists are :2's or :3's.

So apparently it's no longer hip to call something original, let's draw upon some really outlandish sources and claim this thing 'stole' them. /rant

-edit-
Alright, so I've read around a bit, and apparently the environments are from Half Life, while the costume is from Assassin's Creed, while the gameplay is from Thief, and the perspective is from Bioshock. I have only played one of these games. But let's switch the 'originality' binary of a game from 1 or 0 to a 10 point scale. So at 10 we have something Wolfenstein, which was perhaps the first FPS video game (certainly the first well recognized one). Then we put something like Battlefield 3 at originality rating: 1; this idea has been done to death. On a scale of 1-10 I figure Dishonored comes out around a 7 or so. My point being that all these reviewers seem to be equating originality to quality, and thus the nose goes high into the air as they claim 'Dishonored isn't original'. Maybe not, but it sure is more original than the standard fare recently.

The environment isn't so much from half life as it is from the guy who did the concept art for half life, they just hired the same person, that's a bit like saying bioshock stole from system shock when the same people madde them both, I can see how it completely ripped audiotapes from bioshock, but then again, fairly certain bioshock got those from another game. Not sure I can see the resemblance to Assassins Creed costume. Basically I agree with you, so it took some ideas from other games, it still used them in a creative, refreshing way.

Grey Carter:

irishda:
Reason #26 Video Game stories and single player campaigns are still largely shit:

So this game doesn't have a lot of original ideas, the campaign ruins all your fun, dialogue is wooden, characterization sucked, and the moral system stops you from having any fun. But the environment is great and you get these cool abilities! FOURTH BEST GAME OF THE YEAR!

I'm rather play a game that does one thing amazingly well than a game that manages to be mediocre in every category.

And that's part of the hypocrisy among gaming culture. We're quick to laud games that are fun for us, condemn those who enjoy games that aren't fun for us (e.g. Call of Duty, Sports games), and then bemoan the fact that there aren't a lot of great stories in games. I believe Yahtzee talked about how almost all game stories aren't much better than bad B movies, and he's fairly correct. Most protagonists are blank slates Kristin Stewart style in order for the audience to be able to project themselves onto the screen (which is why it's so maddeningly infuriating that Gordon Freeman is consistently touted as the greatest video game character).

What we hold as the most important aspects of a game is what gets made. And right now, we believe that freedom is the best aspect a game can have over qualities. We're willing to ignore all the bugs, the lack of story pacing ("Meet this burglar at the inn tomorrow night." "I'll be there in a year; first I gotta become head of the Thieves' Guild!"), and the shallowness of so many characters in expansive worlds, just as long as there's a TON of stuff to do. I'm glad that it Dishonored does something really well; but is it enough to elevate it into the media spotlight or just keep it on your shelf as a personal treat?

maninahat:

uchytjes:
I don't understand why people didn't like the whole moral choice system in the game. It isn't some horrible thing that forces you to play in a different way than you want to. In fact, I believe it is actually one of the better moral choice systems out there.

If you are playing a stealthy, no kill run, the game helps you by having less enemies to sneak around. If you are playing a "kill all the people" run, the game gives you more enemies to deal with and do what you will with.

Also, I believe that either ending is an equally viable way to end the story. While one could be considered "good" and the other "bad", they both end in a way that is satisfying and, most importantly, coherent.

Also, the characters are amazing. If you actually pay attention, you can pretty much learn that the people you are working for are really no better than the people you are assassinating. Also, I kinda love Samuel Beechworth's character.

I finished it recently and I agree with your assessment. I think it makes perfect sense that you should get a bad ending for joyfully massacring people, and rewarded with a happy ending for being merciful. It's totally organic, and it reflects the actions you make throughout the game, rather than you choosing your ending from a couple of big buttons. That said, I found it hard to replay as a pacifist, because the non-lethal options are often fates worse than death. I wanted to be a nice guy, but it just ain't an option - either way your a vengeful, horrific person, but they are different grades of horrific.

My problem wasn't so much with the plot, but with the characters. Characters are as wooden as an Oblivion game, standing stock still and staring at you whilst talking with flat, purely functional dialogue. The worst by far is the Outsider, who should have been the most intriguing and imaginative character, but instead comes off as a try-hard teenager who's read too much vampire fiction. The heart was brilliant though.

It's especially ironic since his last comic was how brilliant it was pointing out the psychopathic way in which people act in realistic shooters. If this is gonna be a modern shooter than you better talk about how crazy these people must be, but if I get to possess people to shoot themselves and flood a town with plague rats then dammit don't tell me it's wrong.

That "Genius" panel cracks me up. I'd love to see it used sarcastically too!

Dishonored's in my top 5 list for good reason. A bit on teh short side, but damn is it intuitive and freeform.

Major Tom:

Eruanno:
You know, I would LOVE to play a game set in Ankh-Morpork. And not an adventure game, but like a real triple-A game. I'm not sure which could pull off the gleeful madness best. Gearbox? Obsidian?

I dare say any area based on anything designed by Bloody Stupid Johnson will simply melt the computer. Or cause a time paradox, whichever the gods find more amusing.

Still, it would be highly amusing, and I would assume that the same thing would go for anything made by Leonard of Quirm?

Still, if there's ever a game in Ankh-Morpork, it would be a crime if the Watch didn't show up at least once.

More on topic, I do find the tally incredibly funny. Irony is the best weapon!

irishda:

Grey Carter:

irishda:
Reason #26 Video Game stories and single player campaigns are still largely shit:

So this game doesn't have a lot of original ideas, the campaign ruins all your fun, dialogue is wooden, characterization sucked, and the moral system stops you from having any fun. But the environment is great and you get these cool abilities! FOURTH BEST GAME OF THE YEAR!

I'm rather play a game that does one thing amazingly well than a game that manages to be mediocre in every category.

And that's part of the hypocrisy among gaming culture. We're quick to laud games that are fun for us, condemn those who enjoy games that aren't fun for us (e.g. Call of Duty, Sports games), and then bemoan the fact that there aren't a lot of great stories in games. I believe Yahtzee talked about how almost all game stories aren't much better than bad B movies, and he's fairly correct. Most protagonists are blank slates Kristin Stewart style in order for the audience to be able to project themselves onto the screen (which is why it's so maddeningly infuriating that Gordon Freeman is consistently touted as the greatest video game character).

What we hold as the most important aspects of a game is what gets made. And right now, we believe that freedom is the best aspect a game can have over qualities. We're willing to ignore all the bugs, the lack of story pacing ("Meet this burglar at the inn tomorrow night." "I'll be there in a year; first I gotta become head of the Thieves' Guild!"), and the shallowness of so many characters in expansive worlds, just as long as there's a TON of stuff to do. I'm glad that it Dishonored does something really well; but is it enough to elevate it into the media spotlight or just keep it on your shelf as a personal treat?

Super busy right now, so you'll have to forgive me if there's some typos in this mess.

I agree with you on a lot of points, I dislike how in-game "freedom" has become an excuse for a lack of focus and quality content. I personally prefer tightly structured, highly polished, generally linear games. Read my points about Dishonored and you'll see that I think it's this inherent lack of structure that undoes the game. Much like the vastly underrated Mirror's Edge, the individual mechanics work well, but the larger campaign structure fails to take advantage of them. That being said, I still prefer Dishonored over most of the year's offerings, largely because it's absolutely beautiful to look at (seriously, with the right anti-aliasing the game starts to look like its own concept art) and Dunwall has a lot of character. In a perfect world, every game would environmental story-telling this good, and Dishonored's numerous flaws would knock it out of the running for GOTY, but that simply isn't the current state of gaming. Dishonored is flawed art, but it is art, many games don't even aspire to that. I agree with you on the writing front, any narrative that doesn't make the game its in actively worse seems to be lauded as good, but if I discounted every game with shitty writing, this list would literally be only one game long.

Wait... people are saying this game is unoriginal? It was probably the most original game of the year! The only game it really comes close to resembling is Bioshock IMO and that's because of the different powers you have(and the powers you do have are quite different). I also think the story is quite good if you actually read all of the stuff littered around the world.

I originally voted for Borderlands 2 to be my GOTY but I hadn't played Dishonored at that point. I got the game for Christmas and I've already played through it 3 times. It's just so much fun. Easily my favourite game of the year. Also, it has quite possibly one of the best credits songs I've ever heard.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here