People I hate: Stephenie Meyer, author of Twilight

I know it's cool to hate on Twilight, but to be honest, I didn't really hate it. Objectively it is a bad book, nobody can deny that. Its riddled with Mary Sues and Gary Stus, the vampiric rules are ridiculous, the plot is fairly non-existent, the characters tend to come off as the opposite of what Meyer intended, and it's riddled with unfortunate implications.

However, Twilight is, admittedly, an entertaining read. (Not so much an entertaining movie.) Somehow, Meyer managed to make it work, and I'll give her that much.

No, whom I really hate is Stephenie Meyer.

It's no secret Bella looks like her. Meyer has stated her opinion that she feels Bella is just like all teenage girls.

Meyer expected to get full control over casting. At least she didn't throw a fit when she didn't get her way. Unlike when her book, Twilight from Edward's view, was leaked part-way through writing. She threw the biggest temper tantrum I've seen, and said she was not going to write the book. I've always suspected she would pick it up again after the movies. Outside of the Midnight Sun fit, Meyer has been quite horrible to her fans.

Finally, when I look at the 'big three' authors out there, Smeyer is the one with the most houses, and the least money donated to charity. This isn't a reason to hate her, but it is something I felt was worth pointing out.

Meyer liked to misuse words to make herself seem smarter, something she has become infamous for. There is something else about Meyer that people rarely talk about: her most interesting characters are the side characters.

Rosalie was raped on her wedding night, and after getting turned into a vampire she went on a roaring rampage of revenge. Alice got stuck in a mental hospital for years. Leah is the only female werewolf. Emily, the pack leader's wife, is implied to have a very conflicted emotional state.

But we're stuck with bland and angst.

Now, I want to discuss unfortunate implications in her work.

Feminism: I don't mind having a character or two be submissive, or feminine. Portraying isn't the same as advocating. However, to see how Meyer feels about women's role in life, look no further than Leah. Leah is the ONLY female werewolf. She is barren, and this is treated as the worst thing possible. She is also treated as a total bitch for being unhappy her ex-boyfriend left her for no reason, and now she's stuck around him.

Relationships:

Oh my God, where to start.

Edward is a stalker. I know this isn't a new argument. Just look at Midnight Sun--Twilight from his point of view--and you'll find out he actually oiled her window to make it not creak when he came in. This was alluded to in Twilight, where she mentions it's odd that sound isn't made anymore, but it is made much more explicit in Midnight Sun. He is also controlling. In Eclipse, he literally takes her engine out of her car so she can't go visit her friends.

Bella is throwing her entire life away for a guy. This is lampshaded frequently, but usually brushed off as: "Whatever. They just DON'T UNDERSTAND US."

When it comes to the other side of the 'love triangle' Jacob was at least willing to accept no. Well, until Eclipse, when he forces himself upon her.

Now that I've talked about Jacob, I have to mention the idea of imprinting. Now, again, I'm not going to talk too much about the pedophilia aspect. Instead, what I want to talk about is the pack leader and his wife. The pack leader imprints on his wife, and leaves Leah. The wife pretty much had no choice in the relationship, which is compounded when she gets horrifically scarred when he transforms in front of her--which, in a more deliberate author's book, could very well have been a metaphor for abuse. It's clear she feels too ugly to leave him, even if she wanted to. She exudes sadness in every scene she's in. But she's quickly brushed aside, and forgotten about.

I don't mind her religious beliefs creeping into her work; it happens to the best of writers, even if the birth scene in Breaking Dawn seems horrifically out-of-place.

Ok, so I've dissected Twilight. I like to think I have actually added something to the conversation. Let me just finish some points, using The Host as reference material.

Meyer creates a rather interesting idea, but refuses to think it through. Two characters in one body, one being an alien, the other struggling not to fade away. The borderline-apocalypse always appeals to me. Meyer tried to market it as: "Science fiction for people who don't like science fiction." Fair enough, when you consider those who like science fiction wouldn't like this book.

The biggest piece of unfortunate implications here adds onto the relationships part of Twilight. Wanda, the alien, was abused by the guy she ends up with by the end of the book. We are expected to brush that off, like most of the unfortunate implications. Why?

TRU WUV

Explaining Tropes: Mary Sue/Gary Stu

A Mary/Gary Sue is a difficult term to define, and the term is frequently misused. The line between interesting and a sue can be a matter of opinion, something writers are painfully aware of.

There are traits that commonly show up, but are neither the immediate indicator of a sue, nor universal with them.

For example:

• Being beautiful
• Having a hard life (usually to a very exaggerated degree)
• Their look may be unrealistic considering their habits (for example, a healthy-looking anorexic)
• Characters look like a celebrity, or the author
• Unnatural hair or eye color
• A hybrid of more than two species (like half vampire, half werewolf, half human)
• Weaknesses or faults like 'clumsy' or being 'passionate.' 

There's two major indicators of a Mary Sue: How the author treats them, and how the other characters treat them. The author might be incredibly close to or defensive of their character. Any criticism is met with hostility, as if you were insulting the author themselves. Sharing traits with the author, like looks or even their name, is a nearly universal indicator. 

Inside the universe, there are two things to consider: Is the character exempt to the rules of the universe? (For example, Bella getting pregnant by Edward, despite it being explicitly explained that vampires can't reproduce.) Do characters fall over themselves for the character, despite the character's actual quality, or their original temperament? (Like Bella's circle of friends, and Edward's being taken with her despite being a loner his entire life, and how the vampire leaders are willing to break the rules for her.) 

With Sues/Stus there is usually a lack of balance within the character. They are treated as the most awesomest thing that ever existed. They are gorgeous, strong, and loved by everyone. But weaknesses? Faults? Bah! Sometimes writers will attempt to throw us a bone by giving a fault that is considered very minor, but it can't even  begin to balance out their virtues. 

Finally, Sues/Stus will never see consequences for their actions, and if they do, everyone is being 'incredibly unfair' and we are clearly meant to pity the character. 

I want to stress that Sues/Stus are not characters you dislike. For example, Ginny Weasley is liked by most of the fandom, but it cannot be denied she is a sue; she is great at magic, she escapes the second book completely unscathed and with nobody even remotely upset with her, and she ends up with Harry Potter. It is all about how they are treated by the author, and the other characters in the work. 

Things I Hate: Laugh Tracks

I can't stand TV shows with laugh tracks.

Sure, I used to watch a lot of them. I grew up on the Disney Channel, after all. As I grew older, something about the laugh tracks began to rub me the wrong way. Each pre-recorded laugh grated on my brain, until I began to boycott all TV shows with laugh tracks.

Due to my penchant for self-analysis, I began to dig into myself to try and determine why they bothered me so much.

The history of laugh tracks started with an attempt to force people to think an unfunny radio play was funny. Then, it was added to stabilize differences between laughter in studio audiences in multi-camera sitcoms.

Then, it was to cover up the fact that they stopped using a studio audience. That's all well and good, or at least expected.

But I don't feel they have a place in the modern world of television. Now, they're both condescending and awkward, for one thing. When they're used now, completely without the help of a studio audience, I feel like the writers are screaming: THIS IS FUNNY BELIEVE ME IT IS FUNNY LOOK HOW FUNNY I AM HAHAHAHA.

And when it actually isn't funny? It's incredibly awkward. It's like crickets, but with laughs.

Funnily enough, I seem to be in the major minority in this opinion. Scientists actually found that laugh tracks make things funnier. We succum to peer pressure, as a species. Personally, I was always the outcast, so peer pressure wasn't really a thing for me, as I didn't have peers. Perhaps that's why I find laugh tracks grating rather than inducing an urge to conform.

This study suggests laugh tracks aren't going to go away, and I am probably the only one who boycotts shows that use laugh tracks. Bummer.

Netflix Original Series Round-Up: Orange is the New Black

Let's talk about something I know nothing about: Women's prisons.

I've never even seen the outside of a real prison. I don't even know what the inside would look like. So I can't comment much on that.

My town was largely homogenous, meaning we had two black kids and three hispanics in the entire school. So I can't comment on race relations.

You know what I can comment about?

Lesbians. It may not surprise anyone to hear I'm a lesbian. I considered bringing it up several reviews ago, when I was reviewing Emily Owens, MD. I decided my comment about how touching that scene was could stand without that knowledge, but my review of this show couldn't.

Because the sheer amount of gay in this show can be overwhelming, and to be honest, it's the only part of the show I can truly relate to.

Netflix's Original TV shows seem to be taking on a pattern, and it's one I really hoped they would; They won't shy away from issues, their characters are largely gray when it comes to morals, rather than being good or bad, and the tv shows are (generally) quite smart.

One thing my doctor said, when I mentioned to her I didn't really like guys, was: Sexuality is a spectrum. People think you're either on one side, or another, but really, it's like a scale, where one side is women, and the other is men, and you're somewhere in-between.

This show is the first one I've seen willing to portray homosexuality like this. The main character even talks about it the same way, though she gets teased for 'not being gay' anymore. At least one other person in a lesbian relationship seems to have turned to it not really because she's more into girls than guys, but because she's lonely.

However, it's not afraid to shy away from homophobia. Despite being a lesbian, I'll admit, I haven't truly  seen homophobia. I mean, when I came out, nobody was surprised. My last boyfriend was pretty much a girl (I'm sorry, you know who you are). I'm fairly masculine, and I approach gender roles like a guy. I was often told I probably was just dressing like a girl.

I'm not saying this is how all lesbians are: the show presents quite the range of them, from lesbian as a personality trait (the butch one), to lesbian only being incidental to her personality (the ex-girlfriend.)

In fact, since I came out, I've only had one direct experience with homophobia.

Coworker: So, are you dating anyone?
Me: No, I'm kinda taking time to sort myself out.
Coworker: Your last boyfriend sucked, huh?
Me: You have no idea. He cheated on me. With a guy.
Coworker: My ex-boyfriend wanted me to have a threesome with another guy. I broke up with him right then and there. Gay people are disgusting. There's nowhere in the bible where a man and a man are together, you know? (puts dish cloth away.) Hey, will you make me a sandwich?
Me: (snaps) So long as you don't mind it being touched by a lesbian.
Coworker: ...
Me: ...

After making her sandwich, I apologized, and explained she had no way to know that would offend me, and I had given every indication I was straight, and she apologized for offending me.

Yeah, that's earth-shattering stuff right there.

The fact is, lesbians aren't nearly as hated as male homosexuals. The show called "What Would You Do" proved this, by noting almost nobody caused a scene when two girls were kissing in public, but two boys kissing frequently got confronted, and even had the police called on them.

It gets to the point where I sometimes forget that people might be upset when they hear I'm gay. After all, girl on girl is hot, right?

This show reminded me that I really shouldn't start dying my hair rainbow yet, with two characters: The warden and Sandusky.

The warden gets disgusted when he hears Piper supposedly requested a specific bunking partner. When he hears she didn't, and she didn't like the advances of another girl, the warden makes it clear he doesn't like lesbians, and Piper decides not to bring her sexuality up. He starts acting rather pervy towards her.

Sandusky is an evangelical druggie, since being mistaken for a Christian political protester. Sandusky eventually realizes Piper is gay, and goes to the warden, saying she caught Piper having sex with another girl in the bathroom.

The warden decides to put Piper in solitary for 'lewd behavior' (he caught her dancing). Everyone points out he can't do that, and eventually he relents, but it's too late for her to meet her fiance for the holiday.

Piper snaps at him, and reveals she's gay. I will not spoil the finale, but let's just say this moment leads to the climax.

There are two other major stories going on, which I can't comment on too much from experience, but I will say they were touching, and I enjoyed watching them.

An emotionally abused girl gets involved with one of the nicer guards, eventually getting pregnant by him. She decides to coerce another guard into having sex with her, and tell everyone he raped her, which doesn't please the nicer guard at all. (It leads to a rather funny episode, where the second guard lets the first one know he's 'really tall'.)

And, a guard and the cook (named Red) clash, leading to the death of a character, and the fallout from it.

This is not an easy show to watch. It's not a light show, either. It can be pretty funny at times, which eases the harsh realities it presents. But I think everyone should watch it. If not the entire one, at least the episode where everyone convinces Sandusky she can heal people, until she tries to heal a girl in a wheelchair, and gets sent to the mental ward.

America's Next Top Model: A Redaction

In my last review of ANTM  I gave it a rating of 'meh.' Or, a guilty pleasure. Basically, watching it wouldn't change your life one way or another.

But ANTM finally lost me. How? Flixels.

Between being turned into a serial killer by video games, and being brainwashed by TV, I am a photographer. 

This is one of my photographs.

I've worked with models before.

I've even sold several of my photographs.

So I can comfortably say I am fairly familiar with the 'art' side of ANTM. I'm not going to claim that ANTM is one of the highest art forms out there. It's not. It's a reality TV show that is increasingly being taken over by Tyra Bank's ego. 

So, when I say 'flixels' are tacky, and they piss me off, I'd like to pretend I have some credibility on the subject. For those of you who don't follow my links--I don't blame you--a flixel is basically a gif. Part of the image moves. The rest doesn't. It was previously known to the world as a cinemagraph. I think a flixel is in the right direction for a cinemagraph. The flixels I saw were much stabler than any cinemagraph I've seen, and though a cinemagraph and a flixel are basically the same thing, I don't have nearly as much vitriol towards a cinemagraph as I do a flixel.

I'm not going to analyze why. I have to give my therapist something to talk about. 

But, my rage over the fact that every photo shoot the models do is going to be flixels quickly turned into musings. 

When did ANTM jump the proverbial shark? I feel it's happened, but I don't feel flixels were that point. Was it when Tyra tried to use it to launch her music career? Was it the season focused less on modeling, and more on making a 'celebrity?' Was it the fact that Tyra is the only judge to survive all 20 seasons? Was it the fact that there have been 20 seasons? Was it the 'british invasion' season, where America's next top model very loosely interpreted 'America?' Was it the not one, but two contestants that disappeared from the show for no clear reason? Was it the fact that Tyra has now picked up so many jobs it really should be renamed Tyra: supermodel/judge/stylist/singer/dancer/linguist/mentor/photographer? Was it when she started making up her own words?

I don't know. I've tolerated all of it, so I guess I have no room to judge. One thing that has disappointed me about America's Next Top Model is its decision to throw away the art in favor of drama. The enforced drama was always there; The militant Atheist and Christian in season one were likely chosen equally for skill and their likelihood of clashing. Once Sharon flipped out over the nude shoot, they made it a staple of the seasons until the girls stopped being bothered by it. Usually, there was one less bed than the initial group, to create a fight over who was going to double-up, or sleep on the couch or floor. The makeovers have always created a lot of drama, to the point where they pretended they were just done dealing with it, by giving an opportunity to add more drama by telling girls they can refuse the makeovers.

Then punishing them for it. Though I do admit, because the makeovers are done every season, they should know it's coming, and just suck it up.

I also always found it suspicious that, in the top four girls, if not the top three, there was always the one that everyone hated. The one that clashed the most with the group. I won't deny some of them had the skill to stay, but I will suggest they stayed for more than one reason. 

I was subconsciously aware that, to a degree, the show was carefully edited and scripted. The girls all scream when they see Tyra. They all piss themselves over Tyra mail. Several girls have come out suggesting they were edited into personalities they didn't have. They adopt Tyra's words and bend over backwards to feed her ego. And the girls who don't are quickly eliminated. 

The fact is, America's Next Top Model has been struggling to control itself for some time. It has to maintain Tyra's ego (I cannot stress her ego enough), recruit and support models who will have careers, be entertaining as a reality tv show, handle the people well, and keep itself interesting enough to maintain itself over twenty seasons. 

It has done most of these things well up until this point. Tyra gets to do pretty much anything she wants, though she usually limits herself to one or two episodes where she takes more than one job, and she's balanced out by the two other judges. Most models on ANTM have careers after it, even those who were eliminated early on. Whenever someone out-of-the-ordinary comes around: the two pre-op transsexuals, the multitude of lesbians and (as of season 20, homosexuals), and the girls with clear mental health issues (the bulimic girl, the few anorexics, the Aspie, and the girl with severe co-dependency), or plain health issues (the girl going blind, and the girl with short-term memory loss), the show usually treats them with respect. (The only one I feel was unfairly handled was the girl with Aspergers, who would often get marked down for stuff that was part of the disease, but life isn't fair and I should suck it up.) 

The way it has handled keeping itself interesting is the one it keeps fumbling on. Increasingly, ANTM feels less and less like an introduction to the industry, and more and more like a cruel human experiment.

Especially the runways. The video refers to two crazy ones, but I don't even consider these the worst. The first episode of season 20 has one where the runway is down a building. They have a runway that's done quite high in the air, and they have one in the dark, where they know one of their contestants is borderline-blind. (She said she could see the runway only because of the lights on the edges, but somebody did fall, or more accurately, walk into a wall.)

Some of the non-nude photoshoots also seem designed to break the girls down, or press some buttons. There are two photo-shoots done involving heights: one on the edge of a tower, one where they are lifted into the air. They do a photo-shoot with a spider, and bees. Both times, some girls cried.

So I'm done with America's Next Top Model. Maybe I'll just look for amazing photos on art sites. There will be less egos there. (Ha! Who am I kidding?)

Video Games: Skyrim

There isn't too much about Skyrim as a whole that hasn't already been said, so I'm going to be very short about my general thoughts.

This was the second serious game I've ever played. Before this point, I had always exclusively played platformers on the DS and its ancestors. Some would argue that those were serious games, but I don't feel that way. Mostly because it ended there. I got Yoshi's Island, and I played it over and over again when I was bored. I wasn't interested in any other games.

Before Skyrim, I thought $60 on a game was insane. I was like: "Nope, not happening." With the combination of a random Steam sale knocking it down $20, and the fact that I had a friend who absolutely adored the game, I decided to try it. After realizing that, between the games and the dlcs, I'd spent about $85, and I had played 600 hours, I'd spent .14 cents per hour I changed my mind about that.

There are a lot of things about Bethesda games I really enjoy that apply to Skyrim. Bethesda's games encourage you to build your own experience, create your own story. Sure, there is a plot. There are quests. But you're free to ignore them. As I mentioned with Dishonored, you are welcome to determine your own play style. Plus, in Skyrim you can create your own character down to the bone. I like rpg games, and especially ones where you set up your own character, rather than the game doing it for you.

So, instead of talking about the game as a whole, which is largely impossible for Skyrim, I'm going to talk about questlines.

Dragon-killer: 7/10

The main quest. I rather like the main quest, but I do have one glaring issue with it: you cannot tell Delphine and Esburn to go fuck themselves. Sure, you could never talk to them again, but without mods, when they tell you to kill Paarthurnax, you can't tell them: "I'm the fucking dragonborn. You need me. I can just walk away and leave you to die, so shape the hell up."

Otherwise, I have no issues with the main quest. I have a lot of fun with it, from invading the Thalmor embassy to defeating Alduin. 

Civil War: 9/10

Yes, I actually like the civil war quest better than the main quest. I like it for the thought put into it. As it has also been done to death, let me just quickly reiterate one thing: When one of the leaders can be compared to Hitler and to George Washington, clearly a lot of thought and work was put into it. The fact that people have been so divided over Stormcloaks vs Imperials is a good thing. 

This quest encourages repeat playthroughs just so you can play both sides, but I remember thinking I didn't want to touch the Stormcloaks. Finally, one playthrough I did, and I really enjoyed it. It felt like the Stormcloaks were more rewarding, for some reason. 

I like how gray the morality is. No matter which side you pick, parts of Skyrim will be better for it, and parts of Skyrim will be worse, with the thanes being replaced not always being better than their predecessors. 

Companions: 4/10

One of the things I enjoy about Bethesda games is how smart the game is to how you play. Like in Dishonored, Skyrim has bits and pieces of this. However, the companions is where it falls flat.

Even if you have travelled across Skyrim and killed everything hostile from Riverwood to Windhelm, when you approach the companions your accomplishments will never be noticed. Farkas will still exclaim he's never heard of you, which wouldn't be too big of a deal in a setting where news doesn't travel fast... except you literally save Whiterun from a dragon. 

You think he would have paid attention to that.

It's also greatly satisfying to avoid Whiterun until you have done some levelling up, so you can sneak in and kill the giant for them, which I don't think the game wanted you to be able to do. (I've only ever been able to do it as an archer, because if I get close enough to get a swing at it, it will already be dead.)

Companions is the first quest you come across that shows one of the issues I have with Skyrim's faction quest lines: You usually become the leader of the quest-line by the end. 

I know it sounds like I totally hate this quest-line, but I don't. Kodlak, and his journal, save the quest-line. The werewolf thing doesn't hurt either. 

Dark Brotherhood: 10/10 

Out of the two Elder Scrolls games I've played, the dark brotherhood was the best quest-line in both of them. Admittedly, the Skyrim quest-line was worse than the Oblivion, but I honestly wonder how they could have topped some of the Oblivion Dark Brotherhood quests. (Getting locked into a house, and having to set up everyone else's death while making it look like you're not involved? AWESOME.) 

The quest-line is well written, with amazing characters. The ending of it is very visceral and painful. Spoiler ends at next bold. When Astrid performed the black sacrament on herself, even after all she'd done, my execution of her was a healing spell.

...yes, my character was that bad at healing spells.

Thieves' Guild: 6.5/10

I don't know why I don't like this quest-line too much. It isn't bad. It's quite solid, in fact, and the nightingale armor is the coolest armor in the game. The characters aren't bad, and the storyline isn't bad. 

It isn't Maven Black-Briar, whom I love to hate. The end of the quest-line is fantastic. I like how the side-quests encourage you to go out into the entire world, and you have to do more than a handful to advance. It also does feel like you earned becoming the boss this time. But out of the 600 hours I've spent in Skyrim, I have only played the Thieves' Guild quest-line once.

Once.

Dawnguard: 5/10

I got Dawnguard because the Oblivion DLCs really added a lot to the game, and Dawnguard didn't disappoint. I've done the Dawnguard quest-line twice. The snow-elf quest-line is the best part of it, and it was one of the things I remember mentioning in a conversation with someone about what I wanted out of Skyrim DLCs: looking into what happened to the Falmer. 

That said, the Dawnguard quest is alright. Not bad, not good. Serana is one of the best followers in the game, if only because they were aware you would likely spend a lot of time with her, even if you didn't  regularly have followers, and thus spent a lot of time on her AI and lines.

I think Dawnguard might have been more fun if you could have secretly been a vampire working for the Dawnguard. Sure, you can secretly be a werewolf, but it's just not as much fun. 

That, and feeling like your initial decision really didn't matter. No matter which side you choose, the end is the same. (Unlike the civil war quest, where the 'end boss' is different depending on your side.) 

I also want to give it props for the soul-cairn: Creepy stuff. I stopped using black soul gems after seeing it, and that's saying something.

Hearthfire DLC: 5/10

The hearthfire DLC appealed to me, in that I spend hours in Skyrim arranging my sword collection (not a euphemism), but I can see how it wouldn't appeal to a lot of people. I wish you had the ability to make the houses even bigger, by adding all the wings, but I understand why it was the way it was. I also wish it offered more customization; if you decide not to put in a table there's a clearly empty spot where the table should have been, and the place feels empty without it. 

Though considering Skyrim's physics engine, perhaps it's best I ignore that wish.

I will acknowledge that modded houses have done better, and the child and marriage mechanic wasn't too solid to begin with, but it was only $5 full-price. I'm not going to scream rip-off.

Dragonborn: 7/10

I am angry this was the last DLC for Skyrim, seeing as my list wasn't done. (For DLCs I wanted one on the Thalmor, one on the Snow-Elves, and one on the Dwarves, at the very least.) That said, this was a great final addition to Skyrim. (Though I do wish all the armors added in with Dragonborn had a weapon-set to go with them.) 

Meeting the first dragonborn is creepy, fighting him is creepier. The decisions aren't quite black or white, and it brought back Hermaeus Mora, giving him a proper Daedric quest. (His quest in vanilla skyrim was the weakest of all the Daedric quests.) 

Skyrim was my first big game. It hasn't been the greatest game I've played, or the one that will stick with me forever, but it will always have a place in my heart.

Now make Fallout 4, Bethesda. 

Video Games: Dishonored

I've been taking a break from TV over-saturation (don't worry, I found some very shitty tv shows to review as well, plus of course I'm reviewing Netflix's "Orange is the New Black.") to kill everything everywhere.

That's the point of video games, right?

I have some major problems with Dishonored. I think it's clumsy, judgemental, and not sure of what it wants to be, and too short.

So why can't I stop playing it? I'm 27 hours in. I've played the game twice over, and I have yet to play the DLCs! (I was only 5 hours in when I decided the DLCs were worth buying, if only due to the Steam sale and the fact that the game was clearly wrapping up.)

Why do I like the game? First off, I'm a sucker for stealth. I like playing Skryim as an archer-assassin, Fallout as a sniper, and the Batman Arkham games as Batman. Dishonored gets a big win for that. I like the setting; scratch that, I LOVE the setting. I'm not a huge historical anything fan, but the steampunk elements really appealed to me. The plot really interests me, though I do agree with Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation that Corvo should have been more: "Wait a minute! I didn't kill her!" It might not have done any good, but it was a lot harder to swallow Corvo just taking being accused of killing his implied lover. I love open worlds that encourage me to climb on the rooftops. I love how the game encourages you to figure out your own way through the game, and is fairly smart about it. I remember having quite the shock the first time one of the guards found the body of another guard, and immediately began looking for me. The AI pays attention to what you do in the environment, and that's fantastic.

However, the longer I play the game, the more it rubs me the wrong way about a few things. As I said, it was very judgemental.

I don't mind games that have a morality meter, and as hamfisted as this game is about its, Dishonored probably has one of the better-done morality meters. (I would call Fallout New Vegas as the best, but this is a close second.) I like games where the game pays attention to you: it really adds to the immersion. The more people you kill, alarms you raise, and attention you gather, the harder and darker the game gets. You are a marker  for the game's place on the Sliding Scale of Idealism vs Cynicism. If you don't kill anybody, or barely kill anybody, the game is fairly light. (The achievement for completing the game with low chaos, which is how the game keeps track of how many people you kill, is called "Just Dark Enough/") Emily, the only child in the base game, is the most stark example: in a low chaos run she is called Emily the Wise, but in a high chaos run her last words in the game are: "The others are all dead, aren't they? Good. I was always gonna have them killed anyway."

For the most part, the game's reaction to how you play makes sense. The more people you kill, the more food for the plague rats, and the worse the plague gets. The exception the game doesn't account for being if you get the ability to make bodies disappear after you kill them. The more trouble you make, the more guards will be around, and the more people will be on alert for you. As you are heavily implied to be Emily's father, and that Emily knows this, it makes sense that she would take her sense of morality from you.

I also think it's neat how the dialogue changes based on how you play the game. If you complete the prologue of the game without being seen or killing anybody, you will overhear guards comment in later levels about how you were a ghost. If you complete the prologue inversely, by killing anything that moves, you will overhear guards say things like: "How many people did he kill on his way out of there?" and imply there was no way you couldn't have not killed the empress. I don't even mind how, the more vicious you are, the more desperate the people are at the end of the game. It makes sense: by this point they know you're coming, and they know you will show no mercy.

I don't know how I feel about you representing the hope of the city, however. The scene that comes to mind occurs in the High Overseer level. You come across three overseers, and what happens depends on your chaos level.

In low chaos: one of the overseers is showing symptoms of the plague. They beg the other two to kill them so they can't spread it. They do, but apologetically.
In high chaos: one of the overseers is showing symptoms of the plague. They are accused of trying to hide it, and brutally murdered by the other two overseers.

It's too early in the game for you to have a true effect on the city, and the people in it. They don't know your end game. They don't even know you're coming, but the game is still paying attention. And it has the eye of your grandmother: antiquated and judgemental. (That's how your grandmother is, right? Right.)

The morality system encourages the stealth, yes. The biggest problem I have with it is: if you are encouraged to not kill anybody, even within the plot of the game (you are able to find a non-lethal way of taking out every single person you need to in the game if you are paying attention) why does the game hand you twenty ways to kill someone? You always have a sword in your right hand, and if you play the game like the game wants you to you are never going to use it. You are still stuck with the sword, however. You can't switch it out for another ability, or anything like that.

By being given a grenade, mine, sword, two lethal and one non-lethal variant of crossbows, and a gun as weapons, along with the ability to summon plague rats to eat someone alive, the ability to possess someone and make them leap to their death (and quickly unpossess them so you don't die with them) and do things such as stop time as someone shoots at you, possess them and move them into their own bullet so they die, the game is slyly giving you a knowing wink and going: "Come on. I know you want to! I won't judge (I totally will.)" If you sneak above a guard, it will tell you if you press x, it'll just kill that guy for you. And of course, they create a whole sophisticated combat system they encourage you not to use. (The sword fighting is awesome, and you can one-shot kill people if you fight a chain of them, and upgrade an ability.)

If you take the 'kill everything' route, the game is incredibly gorey. There's a bit of psychopathic satisfaction in knowing you can decapitate someone and carry their head around that section of the level as a good luck charm. The game always slows down when you kill a target, so you can enjoy the view of your character throwing a sword in their neck.

On top of all that, while sneaking around, you will more than once find signs of humanity in your victims. It is an odd thing to complain about, yes, that you will witness guards talking about getting married, or hear about their affairs, but the game seems confused on even that. The heart mechanic, a very interesting and creepy piece of equipment that tells you the secret story behind everyone, has generic lines for guards. You can hear a guard talking to a maid about how they should just run away together, point the heart at him, and hear: "He always eats well, even as his wife and child grow thin."

On top of all that, one of the studios involved in making the game is called: "Revenge Solves Everything." The game just needs to tell me where it stands: am I a bastard for stabbing that guy, or not?

I am not denying that Dishonored is a fun game, or that you can do very fun things with it. Here's a guy who sets everything up as a horrible accident, for example. I just think if somebody had sat down in the planning stages and cleared up where the game is on just murderizing everything, it would have been an amazing game.