Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 23, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 23, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

Dishonored: The Successes
by Eric Schwarz on 11/05/12 05:00:00 am   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.


In last week's update on Dishonored, I took the game to task for a number of elements I felt were either failings with the game, or places where it missed major opportunities to expand on its fundamental design.  However, I think what may have gotten lost in that article is that some of those same things I pointed out were intentional design choices made by people who are, in all probability, more talented and dedicated than I am (not to mention they, you know, have made real games and stuff).

In this article, I'll be turning my attention to what I think are the game's strongest points.  My complaints with the game and overall final impressions still stand, but I'd like to take the time to explain how and why I think Arkane did a phenomenal job in a number of respects as well.

It's Not Deus Ex

This was probably the hardest thing for me to accept about Dishonored.  To say it lives in the shadow of Deus Ex would be an understatement.  Not only is the inspiration obvious, one of its selling points has specifically been its links to those who worked on the original Deus Ex, specifically Harvey Smith.  What's more, Arkane Studios, while not really related to Ion Storm in any way, have a pedigree for excellent level design and especially interactive worlds - both Arx Fatalis and Dark Messiah of Might and Magic weren't just standard dungeon crawls or action games, they were comprehensively enhanced in almost every way by the inclusion of simulation elements that were very much part of the underpinning of Deus Ex and its strong emergent mechanics.

At the same time, Dishonored, while cut from the same cloth, really is not quite the same type of game and after spending more time with it, I'm not convinced it was ever meant to be a direct "spiritual successor" to it.  While the abandonment of the more complicated, tabletop-derived skill points, abilities and inventory system has sapped the game of some depth, that's not necessarily a misstep - it's an intentional choice brought about by the fact that Dishonored is really an action game first and an RPG a very, very distant second.  Deus Ex tried to be a perfect blend - its core action gameplay suffered from time to time as a result, and enjoying the game meant overlooking some flaws in favor of the whole.  Dishonored intentionally discards some of the smaller systemic details because it ultimately makes for a game that plays better in the short term.

Notice how I did say short term, and not just "better" period.  That's because Dishonored's changes to the design are not necessarily things which elevate it above its inspiration in the grand scheme; rather, it makes sacrifices in some places, namely vectors where long-term resource management and decision-making live, in order to provide more coherent gameplay on the immediate level.  That's to say, no, Dishonored doesn't have skills that determine how well you can shoot... but the result is that it can have shooting mechanics that don't feel like a bastard love-child between two conflicting systems.

There are things that I think that Deus Ex still did better. Call them skill points or not, I think that the lack of structure and progression in the character upgrades is a weakness that results in gameplay that can't evolve beyond its base elements in a way that it really needs to (i.e. the designers can't fully exploit abilities the player may or may not have at any given time).  The same goes for the weapon upgrades and the inventory system; Deus Ex: Human Revolution forced the player to make choices in improving his or her firepower, as well as in what to carry, and if it was worth giving up augmentation upgrades in favor of being able to haul around more tools of destruction or subterfuge.  Whether action game or RPG, these sorts of deficiencies are genre-agnostic.  It's for these reasons that while it might not be fair to compare Dishonored directly to Deus Ex, to use the PC classic as a reference point most certainly is fair.

Verticality Done Right

After playing Dishonored, it's amazing to see just how much modern level design has lost over earlier titles when it comes to providing game spaces which extend not just outwards on the horizontal, but vertical as well.  You are rarely if ever playing Dishonored with just one plane in mind.  Even if you're standing on a city street, there are lampposts you can climb to gain a height advantage; fences that can be climbed over or jumped on top of; pipes and ducts that form bridges and pathways.

Part of this relates to the style of game Dishonored is.  In a game like Call of Duty, the shooting mechanics very rarely take verticality into account, but this is also because there is little room for it in the existing shooting dynamic.  In Call of Duty the challenge doesn't come from positioning, but rather from having cat-like reflexes and firing upon enemies as they poke out of cover, while avoiding taking hits yourself.  This works very well for gamepads as it minimizes the amount of movement players have to do (generally the most cumbersome thing about playing shooters on gamepads, next to precision aiming), but it also means that having too much of a vertical component could actually hurt this intended dynamic by allowing players to bypass it; without it, the shooting mechanics in the game are not especially interesting because the enemies remain mostly stationary and the player has little way of avoiding incoming fire when not in cover.

Verticality defines Dishonored's level design - in many parts of the game, you'll be spending more time above the ground than on it.

Dishonored, because of its design mandate for multiple options in every scenario, cannot afford to have levels play out on a single plane.  Unless you built levels to about three times their standard size, it would be very difficult to accommodate every single gameplay option in a way that feels plausible.  Imagine, for instance, this common choice that Dishonored poses: three ways into a building - entry through a window, a small vent, and the front door.  What would this look like without any vertical component?  You'd probably see something like A, B, C, with your choices displayed one next to the other.  Verticality helps break up the composition of the level and make not just the choices themselves important, but the means of reaching each of them as well.  Suddenly, if a window is on the second or third floor of the building instead of the first, getting into it can be its own mini-challenge in a way that it simply wouldn't be if the player could walk right up to it and hop right through.

Verticality also has a profound impact on how the stealth gameplay operates.  Though the stealth in Deus Ex is decent, it's also often quite limited.  Most of the rooms the player needs to navigate have two planes at most, and while the vertical element is critical, usually it doesn't provide the player with options so much as create a puzzle that needs to be solved (i.e. how to get past a guard overlooking a room from above).  In Dishonored, however, the gameplay puzzles created by verticality are more complicated because the player is far more mobile between them.  A higher plane isn't an end goal, it's a means to an end, or even a transitional route to another location.  Sometimes it's not about routes from A to B, but little options you have on the way - using a gutter as temporary cover on the way to a doorway, or climbing onto a support beam to drop down on a patrolling guard.  Thus you have options both in the grander scheme of navigating an environment, but in even the split-second decisions you could make at any time.

It also goes without saying that the Blink power also enables a degree of vertical play that would simply be impossible otherwise.  While the level designers in Dishonored sometimes can't clearly mark which parts of the game world are accessible and which are blocked by invisible walls, most of the time they go to great lengths to ensure that Blink allows players the chance to move between one plane or another at almost any time.  Sometimes this can get a little bit ridiculous and implausible - the surprisingly sturdy and stable hanging lamps in a number of buildings, for instance, or holes carved into the upper portions of walls that allow the player to teleport from perch to perch - but for the most part it's done in an extremely seamless and non-contrived way.  That the vertical element works into the Dishonored's aesthetic is also a big bonus - it'd be very difficult to pull off this same style of gameplay outside of a dense urban area, so it's good that the game never even tries to leave it behind.

Don't Spell it Out

Dishonored spends a great deal of time and care setting up its world.  Though it rarely beats the player over the head with its particularities, it doesn't take very long to expose the player to its steampunk-style aesthetic, its industrial maritime setting, or its supernatural elements.  The world is littered with all sorts of details which you are guaranteed to absorb passively while you play - the merging of old-world architecture with the machinery of an upcoming age, the flesh and blood of the occult versus the cold steel of the state religion.  Even the constant propaganda broadcasts in the background serve as much to keep the player updated on the story as they do to simply reinforce the increasingly worse state the city of Dunwall is in.

Then there are the more overt details which are still only hinted at.  Much can be inferred about Dishonored's world by reading the dozens of texts scattered around it, from how the discovery of whale oil brought rapid industrialization that conflicted with the world's traditions, to the slightly strained, cautious relationship between the foreign powers across the seas.  The game never spells things out directly, but it paints a picture and lets the player fill the gaps in between.

Dishonored has been criticized for its lack of interesting characters, but I think the real problem isn't that they're flat or uninteresting, but rather than the game presents them in a way that requires interpretation and thought.  Unlike the BioWare-style characters many players are used to these days, whose personality gimmicks and motivations are spelled out clearly on a whiteboard for all to see within the first 30 seconds of meeting them, Dishonored's characters are a bit more dry in that they lack those same gimmicks.  Instead of looking at a given person and fitting them into a little box in your head ("the funny guy", "the femme fatale"), you learn to interpret them as human beings by learning little bits and pieces of information about them as the game goes on.

Dishonored doesn't take the time to flesh out every single character, but all of the recurring and significant ones have interesting things to say, and none of them are one-dimensional.

 For some characters this is more over than others, but even the secondary characters get some time to shine.  Pendleton's servant, Wallace, is far from the typical butler archetype, and usually comes across as a practical, slightly cynical sort, which mirrors his occupation as personal manservant to a demanding, demeaning noble far more accurately.  The main characters tend to require a little more analysis to figure out.  Admiral Havelock initially comes across as a grizzled old veteran who left the navy in order to keep his dignity - judge him on this and his later actions don't make so much sense.  Dig a little deeper, though, by reading his journals and talking to other characters, and you'll begin to learn that his discharge from the navy was less-than-honorable, and that he has an ego complex which renders other people underneath him tools.  Pendleton, meanwhile, is a noble, but living in the shadow of his abusive older brothers left him weak and malleable, and it becomes clear towards the end of the game that he has very little direct influence on his own because ultimately he's someone who needs to be led, not to lead.

Perhaps one reason why the game's plot twists are considered jarring by some players is precisely because Dishonored  doesn't spell out the motivations and intent of its characters.  They make sense in retrospect, and you can infer them from their past and current actions, but there are few cartoon villains who sit around twirling their mustaches.  Dishonored's characters don't come across as behaving arbitrarily or erratic - on the contrary, everything is there to suggest why they behave the way they do.  The game simply doesn't give them ugly scars or halos above their heads, nor do they spill their deepest thoughts to the player, foreshadow every next move they make, etc.  More than anything, Dishonored deconstructs the notions we have about good and evil by depicting characters who simply behave in line with their personalities - whether an act is good or evil depends more on circumstances and outcomes than it does on the act itself.  In a game that's all about enacting positive social change through assassination, that's about as appropriate as it gets.

Rewarding Exploration

If I had to say there was a major mistake made in Deus Ex: Human Revolution last year, it was the way the experience system worked.  Although the original Deus Ex rewarded you for exploring every nook and cranny around the game world, either with items or with skill points (sometimes both), these sorts of bonuses rewarded not the means you used, but the fact that you were able to solve the challenge presented.  Human Revolution, by contrast, gave experience points not just for exploration, but also for taking out enemies - with kills providing the least and flashy stealth takedowns providing the most.  This meant that there was a great gameplay incentive to play in a style that might not have felt right for you; the game effectively assigned a value judgement that said one player was better than another.

Dishonored does not have this problem at all, at least not for the same reasons.  By placing Bone Charms and Runes in the environment as collectables, it justifies its open-ended levels either by giving players optional challenges to complete, trinkets to hunt down, or secrets to run into.  This makes exploration in Dishonored satisfying and worthwhile, rather than just busywork for an arbitrary collectible.  And while there are definitely some downsides, such as how it randomly places different Bone Charm in the environment and makes it harder to plan character builds, that slot machine element also means that any Bone Charm has the potential to be useful.  The same goes for Runes, which, as a generic currency, work a lot better in this respect than Deus Ex's augmentation canisters, which conferred a bonus you either might not want, or already acquired earlier.

Dishonored's levels feature many optional areas to explore, ranging from little scenes and sequences to witness, to more tangible and useful gameplay rewards.  All of them tie into the story and world in some way.

 Sometimes, exploration doesn't provide gameplay rewards, but instead helps to flesh out the game world.  Early on, for example, Blinking up into an old sealed apartment building's second floor yields a poignant scene of several plague victims - reading the journal of one of the deceased gives a very human look into the effect of the sickness on individuals which is glossed over more by the main story.  Even when gameplay rewards are involved, they tend to say something narratively too - due to the occult nature of Runes and Bone Charms, for example, learning that a given character happens to have one framed above his mantlepiece, or enshrined in her basement, gives a little new insight into him or her.

If there's one thing I think Dishonored could have substantially improved here, it's the way that loot is handled.  As it stands, all loot, other than ammo and consumables, are immediately converted into money as soon as you pick them up.  This saves time for the player, it's true, and it avoids the problem of having gold coins lying around everywhere, but it doesn't make a lot of sense that there's no process whatsoever to convert those old newspapers, bottles of tonic and silverware into money.  There's obviously a little bit of Thief inspiration here, but it would be nice if the player's home base at the Hound Pits Pub had a fence to sell these items too.  It would help avoid breaking the gameplay/story segregation barrier while also introducing the potential for ways to expand gameplay - for example, different merchants that offer different prices or side-quests to get discounts on wares.  Ultimately it's a minor part of the game, but I never found myself especially excited when I picked up a high-value item in the game world - the process of going back to a merchant to sell it completes a psychological loop that the game currently doesn't manage.

Reactive World

One of the least-publicized but most important and interesting things Dishonored does is how it alters its game world based on past decisions.  Most games in the Deus Ex vein, as well as true RPGs, have degrees of choice and consequence - Deus Ex itself truly didn't have many decisions that mattered, but the ones it did react to made all the difference because they were significant in the context of the story and characters.  Actually hearing characters react to your play-style was an impressive thing to see when the game came out, and even today it's a level of acknowledgement that makes the world feel much more real than most modern titles.

However, Dishonored takes things to a new level.  Although the game's multiple endings have received some criticism because of the way the chaos mechanic forces players into stealthy, non-lethal roles to see the best ending (a complaint I share), to leave it at that is simply unfair.  The world of Dishonored changes in manifold ways, some of which are aesthetic, but many others have gameplay effects which are still being catalogued by fans. While the overall story doesn't change, the details of it reflect the player's actions enough to give Dishonored's world a sense of reactivity few other games manage.

One of my favorite ones happens early in the game, but ties into the sandboxy, emergent gameplay that the game promotes.  On the mission to assassinate High Overseer Campbell, Campbell is meeting with the city's guard captain and plans to assassinate him by poisoning his drink.  The player has the option of swapping the drinks around, spilling the drinks, leaving the drinks alone, or mixing them to kill both men as they sip their wine.

Dishonored doesn't just pay lip service to your actions.  Every mission can have its gameplay affected by past choices, most notably in the form of different numbers of guards, more security devices, and different enemy types.

 Already, that's a large number of options for just one way to take out a target, but the game doesn't stop there.  If the player swaps the drinks, then the guard captain, after witnessing the High Overseer's death, calls for help, and the guards rush in to arrest him, assuming he was responsible.  This fails the secondary objective to rescue the guard captain from the High Overseer... but if the player is crafty and manages to kill or knock out the nearby guards before-hand, instead the guard captain will panic and flee, which successfully completes the objective to rescue him.  Similarly, if the player spills the wine, the High Overseer escorts the guard captain to his private quarters in the basement to kill him more directly; when they arrive, their dialogue can vary significantly based on whether the player had previously visited and/or pillaged the Overseer's quarters.  And, if the guard captain does escape successfully, then the next mission has fewer guards and watchtowers, reflecting his more level-headed leadership.

Little touches like this are scattered all throughout the game, and if there's a fault, it's that sometimes they are so subtle you probably won't even notice them - perhaps that's one reason few commentators and reviewers have pointed it out.  But even so, the attention to detail by Arkane borders on obsessive.  In the game's intro, the player can come across a painting of the High Overseer being worked on by Sokolov, the Royal Physician, who is using a wine bottle as a scale reference.  If you take it, he'll chastise you... but later in the game, you'll actually come across the finished painting, and if you swiped the bottle, it will actually be missing from it.  Most developers wouldn't even think to bother with such things, but Arkane went the extra mile to make sure the player knew that the game was watching and responding to each individual play-through.

Closing Thoughts

I still think that Dishonored isn't the game it could have been.  It's undeniably good, even brilliant in a few key respects.  When it comes to level design and providing lots of different options which don't firmly fit into obvious "stealth" and "shooting" categories, Dishonored cannot be beaten - it's obvious a lot of time and effort were spent fine-tuning levels to make sure that buildings were spaced just right to let you Blink between them, or objects placed with line of sight and exposure in mind.  

However, when it comes to its mechanics and systems, it can't compare - the stealth lacks the depth of Thief over a decade later, character progression is not paced especially well, and I still think the decision to make Corvo a silent protagonist was the wrong one.  Although initially I thought perhaps I was being too judgemental, the fact is that certain flaws with the game are just that, flaws, whether intentional or not.  While it's tempting to say things like "it's not an RPG, therefore it doesn't need great character progression", I think that's a delusional attitude; whether it's enumerated XP or Runes, that doesn't make up for the lack of depth and refinement.

I'm extremely excited to see where Arkane go either with any sequels or DLCs they might be planning for the game, it goes without saying.  I also have to wonder if they see those problems I had with the game as flaws, or if I'm just an grumpy troll who went in with the wrong idea.

Related Jobs

DeNA Studios Canada
DeNA Studios Canada — Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Analytical Game Designer
University of Texas at Dallas
University of Texas at Dallas — Richardson, Texas, United States

Assistant/Associate Prof of Game Studies
Avalanche Studios
Avalanche Studios — New York, New York, United States

UI Artist/Designer
Bohemia Interactive Simulations
Bohemia Interactive Simulations — ORLANDO, Florida, United States

Game Designer


Bart Stewart
profile image
Eric, I agree with the details of most of these points, but from a different overall direction.

It's very tempting to use Deus Ex as the primary basis for assessing Dishonored. But while Dishonored did have something similar to DX's "multiple solutions to challenges" core mechanic design, it seems to me that Dis's much more personal-action focus causes it to diverge from DX in two major ways.

One is that DX was designed to offer multiple ways to solve challenges -- movement, hacking, sniping, lockpicking, dialogue, crates of boom -- as puzzles. (DX:HR also tried to do this, but in a limited and more overtly signposted way.) Because Dishonored, by design, always needs to allow straight-up, close-quarters combat action, it's not as much "multiple ways to solve challenges" as it is "multiple ways to access a location."

The other way that DX is less a good analogue is that Dishonored is, as noted, simpler and weaker as an RPG. DX needed to be mechanically strong as an RPG in order to support the diversity of ways to solve challenges. That would actually slow down the action in Dis. Minimizing RPG-ness in Dishonored was thus arguably the right design choice, but that does make it less comparable to DX.

It's because of these differences that I suggest Thief is a better baseline for analyzing Dishonored than Deus Ex. While the action/assassination emphasis in Dishonored means it's about "eliminate these people and optionally steal some stuff" (which is probably why liberated stuff all magically converts to coin), Thief is more "steal the following loot items and optionally eliminate a few people." Despite that difference in how those two gameplay goals are emphasized in Thief and Dishonored, though, they share those as their primary play activities. I believe that makes Thief, rather than the more general puzzle-oriented Deus Ex, the better game against which to assess Dishonored.

Schematically, I see Deus Ex and Thief as sibling children of Ultima Underworld/System Shock, and Dishonored as the love child of Thief and Assassin's Creed. Deus Ex is more like the weird uncle. ;)

On that basis, I think the verdict for Dishonored goes up a notch or two. Storywise, I give Dis and Thief about equal marks. The extended guard conversations in Thief (as sources of world and mission lore) can be mapped to the books and audio recordings in Dishonored.

But Dishonored improves on Thief in verticality, and in the enhanced jump/possession/blink abilities that a more vertical play architecture requires. As a game about solving physical-access-to-places puzzles, Dishonored takes much of what was great about Thief and polishes it to brilliance.

The main difference between the two (other than the kill/steal emphasis) is, as you previously observed, Dishonored's reduced abilities for altering the environment to aid stealthy play. I miss those, too, as I personally prefer stealth play over combat play. But I'd still say Arkane's design choice is defensible given that you're always supposed to be able to play Dishonored as an exciting action game.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed playing Dishonored, especially considering that Thief 2: The Metal Age is one of my all-time favorites. I consistently felt that Dishonored respected that design legacy while bringing something new to it.

Now I'd like to see Arkane do for Deus Ex what they did for Thief. :)

Eric Schwarz
profile image
"One is that DX was designed to offer multiple ways to solve challenges -- movement, hacking, sniping, lockpicking, dialogue, crates of boom -- as puzzles. (DX:HR also tried to do this, but in a limited and more overtly signposted way.) Because Dishonored, by design, always needs to allow straight-up, close-quarters combat action, it's not as much "multiple ways to solve challenges" as it is "multiple ways to access a location.""

This is a fair point, but I'm not sure if I agree with it. Aside from having slightly fewer objects to pick up and carry, as well as the lack of the slightly antiquated crate-stacking mechanic, Dishonored shares far more similarities with Deus Ex. The only difference is that I think the game makes it more tempting to use lethal force. Deus Ex was far more rewarding to play in a stealthy way because the action was actually fairly challenging (until you upgraded into a walking tank), but Dishonored's combat is fast, simple, fluid, and easy, most of the time.

"The other way that DX is less a good analogue is that Dishonored is, as noted, simpler and weaker as an RPG. DX needed to be mechanically strong as an RPG in order to support the diversity of ways to solve challenges. That would actually slow down the action in Dis. Minimizing RPG-ness in Dishonored was thus arguably the right design choice, but that does make it less comparable to DX."

And yet the game has a huge focus on slow-paced stealth. I don't think the sorts of players to run through killing everything are also the same ones who want to explore every nook and cranny, hack every computer, open every lock, etc. That's largely why I'm not convinced that faster and better action is mutually exclusive with having good, fleshed-out RPG elements.

"It's because of these differences that I suggest Thief is a better baseline for analyzing Dishonored than Deus Ex. While the action/assassination emphasis in Dishonored means it's about "eliminate these people and optionally steal some stuff" (which is probably why liberated stuff all magically converts to coin), Thief is more "steal the following loot items and optionally eliminate a few people." Despite that difference in how those two gameplay goals are emphasized in Thief and Dishonored, though, they share those as their primary play activities. I believe that makes Thief, rather than the more general puzzle-oriented Deus Ex, the better game against which to assess Dishonored."

A fair point, if it wasn't for the fact that it's a pretty unfavorable comparison between Dishonored and Thief - as a stealth game, Dishonored really cannot compare, and doesn't even attempt providing the same amount of depth (enemies who go hostile auto-alert everyone in X radius and they all gain psychic knowledge of the player's location, enemies don't look up, light, shadow and sound are not big concerns, etc.). Structurally Dishonored is a bit closer to Thief, with its stats screens at the end of each mission, but it feels tacked on because the rest of the game design doesn't support the absolute win states and goals it suggests.

That said, thank you for your lengthy, insightful and interesting contribution! Your comments are always more than worth reading.

Bart Stewart
profile image
Thanks, Eric, but you make it easy with your solid starter posts. :)

It seems like where we differ is in Arkane's decision to make Dishonored an action game. To me, that moves its lineage closer to Thief than the more complex Deus Ex.

I personally wish Arkane had tried for something more like DX, or even more like Thief. But although I'd have enjoyed that more myself, I'm not ready to say Arkane was wrong to emphasize action. That's what sells. Even BioShock had to go there.

While an Arkane or Irrational is big enough to make a true successor to Deus Ex, I don't really think they ever will. True or not, the belief that a console game has to be simple and focused on Exciting Action constrains what these developers produce. If there's hope for something as great as Deus Ex, I expect it will be a Kickstarted PC game. No one else would be crazy enough to try something like that.

Even then, I'm not sure anyone could successfully implement such a game. It may never be possible for anyone to make a game that "gets it" to the degree that Deus Ex did.

In which case, comparisons to it are doubly unfair.

Luis Guimaraes
profile image

Don't be so negative, I really bet some interesting stuff might happen sooner or later. Hopefully sooner.

It's pretty accurate to sum up all (I would really say "flaws" or "shortcomings") untackled potential in Dishonored with "It's a modern console AAA title". But today development and prototyping has become faster and many new indies and students are looking for ways to replicated old favorites while also pushing experimental stuff further, here and there.

Let's hope for the best, or start being part of it.

Eric Schwarz
profile image
I don't see how not living up to a 10+ year old game is "unfair." :p What about all the "forward progress" the games industry is supposed to have been making in terms of simulation elements, mechanics, systems, etc.? That's why I can't so easily accept "it's *just* an action game" even though I realize that's probably more what the developers intended - Dishonored does some things very well but it could have done so much more. I'm not content with a "we wanted to do X, not Y" explanation because it glosses over the fact that there are still problems as a result of that design direction. Just because you set out to make a car with one giant wheel that's propelled by fan blades, and do it well... that doesn't mean that maybe you shouldn't give the whole "four wheels and an engine" thing a shot.

Bart Stewart
profile image
I'm truly not trying to be contrarian -- I agree with many of the points, pro and con, made about Dishonored.

I'm hesitant to fully embrace some of the criticisms, particularly from the Deus Ex side, precisely because I know that as a gamer I personally like the Looking Glass games and Deus Ex better than any other games I've ever played. It's possible that no modern game could measure up to those for me -- and being aware of that is why I'm carefully trying not to make impossibly unfair comparisons.

On futuregames: I don't see this caution as being "negative": I would say "realistic." I believe in the new ideas coming out of indie development; that's one reason why I mentioned Kickstarter. (And for what it's worth, I'm happily involved in two projects, one of them personal, that are pursuing some very different ideas in game design and technology.)

But I do question whether a group of young, energetic developers have the world-experience to make a game that -- like Deus Ex -- is so remarkably mature and thoughtful on what was and is a fundamentally serious subject: liberty versus security. I just don't know that any indie team could pull off what Sheldon Pacotti and the rest of the DX team accomplished. (Side note: if you read Dishonored's books closely, you'll notice a reference to a "Pacotti" as the author of a book on the noble whales.)

To be clear, I'm not saying I think it's impossible now to make a game as intelligent as Deus Ex. I do think there are a lot more realities lined up today against such a game, however. I'd love to see it happen, but I choose not to set myself up for disappointment.

I'll be first in line if such a game ever does get made, though. :)

Eric Schwarz
profile image
I think what stands in the way of Deus Ex is less the difficulty in designing such a game and more in the fact that many people in the games industry today grew up playing newer titles and are more interested in making "cinematic experiences" than mechanics-driven ones. Even Eidos Montreal, who did a pretty great job with Human Revolution, didn't strike me as especially interested in Deus Ex on the whole, or didn't truly grasp why some of its design choices worked so well.

If even a direct sequel (well, prequel) comes across as more a heavily-inspired cousin rather than a real follow-up of the core ideas, well, that to me says something about the people who made it, as well as the state of the current industry, not the difficulty in making such a game. Nothing against Eidos, I loved the game, and they made it their own in many ways, but I don't think the idea of a systems-driven world that was less about action and more about puzzle-solving and exploration was really fulfilled. I don't even know if some modern designers really understand that or its appeal, either.