This is very funny and well done, but there's a lot in it that's wrong: 1. Chaos is explicitly not a morality system, it's a reflection of how your actions affect the world: more death means more weepers, more violence influences your "allies" into being more paranoid and cynical, etc. This is also why (as you pointed out) the non-lethal methods are almost all arguably less moral than just killing the targets. 2. You don't need Clean Hands for Low Chaos - in fact, if you're playing stealthy, you generally won't kill enough people to get High Chaos unless you go out of your way to do so. 3. If you fight Daud head on, he straight up tells you that he's going to give up his work and disappear, explicitly because of his guilt over killing the Empress. This is corroborated in his diary and audio logs, as well as his ramblings if you eavesdrop on him. 4. I'm less sure of this one, but Dunwall/Gristol is not an absolute monarchy - the explicit goal for two of the targets you have is to remove their votes from Parliament. It's implied that it's a House of Lords type thing, so not exactly democratic, but neither was the Loyalist's plan. 5. The Loyalist plan wasn't to take power for themselves directly, it was to use Emily as a puppet, which is the same thing that ends up happening (through advisors and what not), except Corvo is her father and therefore has her best interests at heart, and also doesn't have a political agenda. Since no one in the city had any interest in instituting a democracy (I'm not even sure the concept exists in the world at that point in time), this was the better option.
@@TheShiningEnergyThe problem is I don’t think the joke works if it’s built on a foundation of misunderstanding. It comes off as “hey isn’t this silly if you think about it” and I’m like no, not really, makes sense to me
I kinda feel like this entire game deals with the point of good and bad. Sometimes the non lethal options are on purpouse worse than the lethal ones just to make you think if its not better to just kill them, Hiram's idea of killing the poor with the plague being pretty messed up but him trying to contain it by dictatorship kinda logical and then the entire character of Daud and how people change. Its supposed to make you think outside of just "good" and "bad". Still a good video tho!
"Your actions have lead to a peaceful world with no corruption" Shortly after showing a Nobel whispering to another Nobel with a dagger hidden behind his back.
A lot of this is fair, but I actually like the morality system. Despite these points, I prefer it to the approach in most games, when I can kill as many people as I want, but still be good just as long as I make the "good" decision in a couple of cut scenes. I also like that so many of the non-lethal options with the main characters are so evil (and not obviously better than killing them). That's got to be deliberate. And, indeed, makes for some interesting ethical choices, because you don't have to be completely non-lethal to get the good ending, so you can kill some of the baddies - whether because you think they deserve to die, or because you think the non-lethal version is actually too evil. I was going for the good ending, but killed a fair few of the main characters (for different reasons). In the end though, I wasn't patient enough with the stealth, so ended up getting the bad ending anyway. Might get the good ending one day.
This video makes a lot of really bad assumptions about the Chaos system. It never purports to even be a morality system. It simply states that the more you kill, the more the world in general worsens as the plague is more able to spread and such. Whilst obviously that's attached to morality, it's not so simplistic as "no kill bad" as you try to portray. You can kill all the assassination targets and get low chaos, Corvo is not portrayed as evil for killing these people. The Non Lethal options aren't meant to be morally good options, but rather ironically cruel fates. No one at Arkane genuinely believes the Non Lethal option for Lady Boyle is a good thing to do, but rather, it's a twist on her role as Hiram's mistress. Your "Non lethal" = "Game says im a good guy" point is very reductive and strips any nuance from the chaos system. Your own incredulity about that perspective demonstrates why its very obviously not true. The Emily point is also very reductive. There have been child monarchs before to varying levels of success. Emily having advisors is to be expected, that's how monarchies have always worked, especially with a child monarch. Its weird to say that having a monarchy with a child head is more chaotic than the genocidal heads of state who literally caused the current crisis, especially the given the aforementioned advisory of Corvo. I think every argument made here is flawed, but these are the most egregious since they're harped on the most.
The chaos system has it's flaws, and they didn't implement it consistently. But low/high chaos is not the same as good/evil. It's about how you actions affect the stability of the kingdom, the progress of the plague and how Emily develops. I think they should've done more to differentiate the chaos system from a traditional morality system so that confusion like yours wouldn't be so common. Also The Outsider isn't the devil I think, I think most normal people in Dunwall actually worship him. I think he's more like the Greek and Nordic gods: human-like and fickle, yet powerful and thus worshipped for boons and blessings.
With the third game *SPOILER* we discover that he was just a normal human like everyone else, forced to become something he didn't want to, forced to become a god
Genuinely Hiram burrows is the best person to lead. Yeah the rat plague was fucked, but he fixes it, it's revealed in the books if he doesn't kill the empress the entire empire collapses due to the plague anyway. The plague also was going to come eventually anyway due to broadening connections. Plus under the Queens rule and the loyalists rule dishonored is a literal dystopic nightmare, many of it's subdivisions like Tyvia make 1984 look tolerable with death camps, brutal exterminations, etc. Under the monarchy slavery, and disease remains a constant problem and blood flies are rapidly spreading because the empire stops dealing with them, and it could be rat plague round 2. Burrows has basically an ego, cruelty, and a fuck up with the rat plague... That's kinda it.
Hiram "Kill literally all poor people" Burrows is too stupid to be a good ruler. But I guess the empress was stupid enough to trust him so I guess he's not that dumb.
Idk if you've played the daud DLC or DOTO, but daud living ironically enough decreases how many people die.
This is very funny and well done, but there's a lot in it that's wrong:
1. Chaos is explicitly not a morality system, it's a reflection of how your actions affect the world: more death means more weepers, more violence influences your "allies" into being more paranoid and cynical, etc. This is also why (as you pointed out) the non-lethal methods are almost all arguably less moral than just killing the targets.
2. You don't need Clean Hands for Low Chaos - in fact, if you're playing stealthy, you generally won't kill enough people to get High Chaos unless you go out of your way to do so.
3. If you fight Daud head on, he straight up tells you that he's going to give up his work and disappear, explicitly because of his guilt over killing the Empress. This is corroborated in his diary and audio logs, as well as his ramblings if you eavesdrop on him.
4. I'm less sure of this one, but Dunwall/Gristol is not an absolute monarchy - the explicit goal for two of the targets you have is to remove their votes from Parliament. It's implied that it's a House of Lords type thing, so not exactly democratic, but neither was the Loyalist's plan.
5. The Loyalist plan wasn't to take power for themselves directly, it was to use Emily as a puppet, which is the same thing that ends up happening (through advisors and what not), except Corvo is her father and therefore has her best interests at heart, and also doesn't have a political agenda. Since no one in the city had any interest in instituting a democracy (I'm not even sure the concept exists in the world at that point in time), this was the better option.
Oh my god, finally somebody gets it!
Yeh really feels like this video was made for the sake of making a video, the guy has a critical misunderstanding of the game.
i think this video was more played for comedic purposes, than anything.
Bruh it’s not a critical analysis on the game it’s just making fun of the gameplay mechanics
@@TheShiningEnergyThe problem is I don’t think the joke works if it’s built on a foundation of misunderstanding. It comes off as “hey isn’t this silly if you think about it” and I’m like no, not really, makes sense to me
I kinda feel like this entire game deals with the point of good and bad. Sometimes the non lethal options are on purpouse worse than the lethal ones just to make you think if its not better to just kill them, Hiram's idea of killing the poor with the plague being pretty messed up but him trying to contain it by dictatorship kinda logical and then the entire character of Daud and how people change. Its supposed to make you think outside of just "good" and "bad". Still a good video tho!
Really well made and enjoyable to watch, cant wait to see more
"Your actions have lead to a peaceful world with no corruption"
Shortly after showing a Nobel whispering to another Nobel with a dagger hidden behind his back.
Bro created youtube account in 2007, i was born in 2007, his acc is older than me
A video talking about dishonered? Uploaded 3 months ago? Don't mind if I do comment and like the video to boost it in the algorythm
A lot of this is fair, but I actually like the morality system. Despite these points, I prefer it to the approach in most games, when I can kill as many people as I want, but still be good just as long as I make the "good" decision in a couple of cut scenes. I also like that so many of the non-lethal options with the main characters are so evil (and not obviously better than killing them). That's got to be deliberate. And, indeed, makes for some interesting ethical choices, because you don't have to be completely non-lethal to get the good ending, so you can kill some of the baddies - whether because you think they deserve to die, or because you think the non-lethal version is actually too evil. I was going for the good ending, but killed a fair few of the main characters (for different reasons). In the end though, I wasn't patient enough with the stealth, so ended up getting the bad ending anyway. Might get the good ending one day.
hes a good father
Emily will be Empress
This video makes a lot of really bad assumptions about the Chaos system. It never purports to even be a morality system. It simply states that the more you kill, the more the world in general worsens as the plague is more able to spread and such. Whilst obviously that's attached to morality, it's not so simplistic as "no kill bad" as you try to portray.
You can kill all the assassination targets and get low chaos, Corvo is not portrayed as evil for killing these people. The Non Lethal options aren't meant to be morally good options, but rather ironically cruel fates. No one at Arkane genuinely believes the Non Lethal option for Lady Boyle is a good thing to do, but rather, it's a twist on her role as Hiram's mistress.
Your "Non lethal" = "Game says im a good guy" point is very reductive and strips any nuance from the chaos system. Your own incredulity about that perspective demonstrates why its very obviously not true.
The Emily point is also very reductive. There have been child monarchs before to varying levels of success. Emily having advisors is to be expected, that's how monarchies have always worked, especially with a child monarch. Its weird to say that having a monarchy with a child head is more chaotic than the genocidal heads of state who literally caused the current crisis, especially the given the aforementioned advisory of Corvo.
I think every argument made here is flawed, but these are the most egregious since they're harped on the most.
Well articulated bro.
Keep your work up! Very good video my guy. Surprised that the YT algorithm came through and recommended me your video.
Hell yeah keep making videos!!
MOM I'M A GOOD PERSON
This should have more views
This was unironically Superb
The chaos system has it's flaws, and they didn't implement it consistently. But low/high chaos is not the same as good/evil. It's about how you actions affect the stability of the kingdom, the progress of the plague and how Emily develops. I think they should've done more to differentiate the chaos system from a traditional morality system so that confusion like yours wouldn't be so common. Also The Outsider isn't the devil I think, I think most normal people in Dunwall actually worship him. I think he's more like the Greek and Nordic gods: human-like and fickle, yet powerful and thus worshipped for boons and blessings.
With the third game *SPOILER* we discover that he was just a normal human like everyone else, forced to become something he didn't want to, forced to become a god
Blessed be the algorithm
Dishonored has no good ending. You are messy or bloody. No other way.
Can you make the opposite ending ? (Killing everyone 😅)
Make a video about duad DLC
Genuinely Hiram burrows is the best person to lead.
Yeah the rat plague was fucked, but he fixes it, it's revealed in the books if he doesn't kill the empress the entire empire collapses due to the plague anyway. The plague also was going to come eventually anyway due to broadening connections. Plus under the Queens rule and the loyalists rule dishonored is a literal dystopic nightmare, many of it's subdivisions like Tyvia make 1984 look tolerable with death camps, brutal exterminations, etc. Under the monarchy slavery, and disease remains a constant problem and blood flies are rapidly spreading because the empire stops dealing with them, and it could be rat plague round 2.
Burrows has basically an ego, cruelty, and a fuck up with the rat plague... That's kinda it.
Hiram "Kill literally all poor people" Burrows is too stupid to be a good ruler. But I guess the empress was stupid enough to trust him so I guess he's not that dumb.
dishonored 1 is just an idiocracy
*sees dead stabbed man*
"mustve been the rats."
*clearly sees a persons shadow move*
"mustve been the wind"
good vimdeo