Talk:Dishonored: Death of the Outsider/@comment-27070191-20170915075506/@comment-16533050-20170915141008

Change for the sake of an evolutionary process is one thing....

...removing a core tenet of the game simply so players won't be "constrained" by their desire to inflict mass destruction is something totally different. It feels like lazy writing to be honest, even more so than on the scale of D2 versus D1.

Are the levels going to be impressive? More than likely yes. Are the gameplay mechanics going to be interesting and diverse? Again, I would lean toward the positive. I would even bet highly on exciting and interesting bits of lore sprinkled throughout the game.

Despite this, it seems to evoke a loss of story and instead leans toward a sense of singleplayer Overwatch Lite then (in my opinion). Lots of flashy super-kill combos with very little meat to tie everything together. The 'story-elements' such as they are, become merely short pauses through which the player(s) must travel until they get to the next soon to be carrion-strewn area.

Self-imposing constraints are certainly not a bad thing, as I do them myself quite often. Of late, however, I've noticed a trend in games I play where such constraints are becoming necessary to keep my interest. It therefore begs the question, if the player(s) have to basically impose penalties upon themselves to make the game enjoyable and thus do the 'development work' themselves, how good is the actual game itself?

Replayability, at least on a mass market scale, dwindles without something else to hold the interest of the players. I mean a year later, and the Hitman game is STILL putting out neat little bits to keep player interest. With sales of D2 down compared to D1 (at least to my understanding), removing a core element just doesn't sound the most ideal solve.