• Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    22 days ago

    It was unfortunately a product of its time where moral systems ultimately amounted to binary good guy/bad guy outcomes which was the style at the time. The system was designed to make you want to play it twice. If you’re used to the more modern moral ambiguity in today’s RPGs I don’t think anyone can blame you for disliking it.

    • Flamekebab@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      22 days ago

      I grew up playing Fallout 1/2, Deus Ex, stuff like that. Dishonored framed its morality system as “chaos” rather than good vs. bad but ultimately I had characters complaining about my methods. You brought in someone to specifically be an assassin and then you’re outraged that he kills people? I shot the damn traiterous boatman in the head at the end of the game.

      • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 days ago

        Well an assassin kills his targets. He doesn’t kill every innocent bystander he sees. In the first game, the guard enemies you see are your colleagues who are fully under the impression that you are a traitor who killed the empress. They are functionally your enemies during the game, but they are ultimately the good guys.

        The rebel leaders, especially the admiral are going to complain about you killing who are also basically his men.

        • Flamekebab@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 days ago

          To be fair, that’s the best explanation I’ve seen. It’s been too long for me to remember the specifics.