PDA

View Full Version : Player choice in the story



123
6th Jun 2015, 03:32
Hitman is all about player choice, completing the mission the way you want to. But what about the player choice in the story?
I think that people should be able to pick witch jobs they want to do or not do. Like in Dishonored: you could choose to kill a target or not kill them. Hitman should be like that except you would only be able choose what mission your going to do, but not choose if the target lives or dies.

In hitman games they barely ever show the client and I think that's a mistake. They should always show you who the client is and what their about, unless the story has a good reason not to show them. The story should focus on 47's mission and not on his character and personal life.

An example of this would go as follows: A woman wants to kill her husband so she can get all of his money, So she hires 47 to do it. The player can than decide to take the job or do another job like killing a small time drug dealer. If the player doesn't take the job they'll be able to find out what happen to her in the news paper or something. She probably get caught tying to do it herself or tying to find someone else to do the job. and if you don't kill the drug dealer he'll become a big time kingpin and potential client of 47. Maybe even have the same client more than once and it just be a branching storyline.

Quajek
22nd Jun 2015, 20:09
I don't ever want to choose to not play a mission.

The whole point of the game is that I want to play every single mission.

Valenka
22nd Jun 2015, 22:10
I think that people should be able to pick witch jobs they want to do or not do. Like in Dishonored: you could choose to kill a target or not kill them.

Yes, but the difference is that in Dishonored, you're tasked with getting rid of the target, whether it be by lethal or non-lethal means. In Hitman, 47's contracts detail that his target must be killed.


In hitman games they barely ever show the client and I think that's a mistake. They should always show you who the client is and what their about, unless the story has a good reason not to show them. The story should focus on 47's mission and not on his character and personal life.

A: They do not show the client or detail any information about them because that is not our business as we are in the shoes of 47. Diana Burnwood is the person who accepts and distributes contracts as the middleman at the ICA. Information about the client is on a need-to-know basis and is not pertinent to the execution of the mission.

B: There's nothing wrong with giving players insight to the personal life (or lack thereof) of 47. It builds his character for the sake of the narrative or overall experience. It's hard to give a damn about a character when you know nothing about them. It helps build character development and understanding of the person we're playing as.


An example of this would go as follows: A woman wants to kill her husband so she can get all of his money, So she hires 47 to do it. The player can than decide to take the job or do another job like killing a small time drug dealer. If the player doesn't take the job they'll be able to find out what happen to her in the news paper or something. She probably get caught tying to do it herself or tying to find someone else to do the job. and if you don't kill the drug dealer he'll become a big time kingpin and potential client of 47. Maybe even have the same client more than once and it just be a branching storyline.

I know what you mean and that's not a bad idea. I just wouldn't want that to be a constant thing; I don't want to have to continuously choose between one contract or another when I could do both.

In other words, you mean we're presented with two contracts: one from the spouse of a wealthy husband who wants him killed so that she may obtain his money. The second contract is from a client who wants the potential threat of a small-time drug dealer eliminated before it becomes a bigger problem.

You're tasked with choosing one contract out of the two and there will be story consequences for your choices. If you choose to kill the wealthy husband for the spouse, the small-time drug dealer rises through the ranks and becomes a top contender in say, the criminal underworld of Los Angeles. However, if you take the contract to kill the drug dealer, the spouse of the wealthy husband might try and kill him herself and gets killed or arrested or whatever.

Like I said though, I don't want to be presented with "Here's two contracts but you can only do one: choose wisely." I want to be able to play and complete any and all missions without having to choose one over another. I think that's unnecessary.

Striike
22nd Jun 2015, 22:49
The concept of this thread could be played out in Contracts mode. We just need either some better developed contracts, or to use more imagination. I personally will play every mission, at every angle, regardless of what the story tells me, so I really don't have much value in spending money to allow player choice to change a story.

MasterTaffer
23rd Jun 2015, 03:53
The concept of this thread could be played out in Contracts mode. We just need either some better developed contracts, or to use more imagination. I personally will play every mission, at every angle, regardless of what the story tells me, so I really don't have much value in spending money to allow player choice to change a story.

That was largely why I didn't participate in Contracts mode much. I loved the idea, but I found the contracts online to be wanting in terms of creativity. They lacked... Finesse?

123
25th Jun 2015, 19:14
I don't ever want to choose to not play a mission.

The whole point of the game is that I want to play every single mission.The idea was you can still unlock all the missions but you would have to replay the story. The same way you revisit a mission to collect a weapon you missed.


Yes, but the difference is that in Dishonored, you're tasked with getting rid of the target, whether it be by lethal or non-lethal means. In Hitman, 47's contracts detail that his target must be killed.
I know that why instead of lethal or non lethal, it would be about how you kill. Weather or not it looks like a murder, suicide or accident can be either negative or positive for the client. Also how well you do the mission would give you a better rep and that would earn you better more higher pay jobs.


A: They do not show the client or detail any information about them because that is not our business as we are in the shoes of 47. Diana Burnwood is the person who accepts and distributes contracts as the middleman at the ICA. Information about the client is on a need-to-know basis and is not pertinent to the execution of the mission.

B: There's nothing wrong with giving players insight to the personal life (or lack thereof) of 47. It builds his character for the sake of the narrative or overall experience. It's hard to give a damn about a character when you know nothing about them. It helps build character development and understanding of the person we're playing as.
47 is supposed to be a professional but in Absolution he was very unprofessional. Because they wanted to focus on 47 personal story, they had to change his character. They said they want 47 to be "likable" so they made him emotional and made him start caring about whats morally right or not. 47 isn't supposed to be any of that.
The client on the other hand is the one who is motivated to have these hits take place. Bloodmoney was all about that wheelchair guy.


I know what you mean and that's not a bad idea. I just wouldn't want that to be a constant thing; I don't want to have to continuously choose between one contract or another when I could do both.

In other words, you mean we're presented with two contracts: one from the spouse of a wealthy husband who wants him killed so that she may obtain his money. The second contract is from a client who wants the potential threat of a small-time drug dealer eliminated before it becomes a bigger problem.

You're tasked with choosing one contract out of the two and there will be story consequences for your choices. If you choose to kill the wealthy husband for the spouse, the small-time drug dealer rises through the ranks and becomes a top contender in say, the criminal underworld of Los Angeles. However, if you take the contract to kill the drug dealer, the spouse of the wealthy husband might try and kill him herself and gets killed or arrested or whatever.

Like I said though, I don't want to be presented with "Here's two contracts but you can only do one: choose wisely." I want to be able to play and complete any and all missions without having to choose one over another. I think that's unnecessary.Maybe it wouldn't be every mission. It would be 5 branching story line that can turn into 15 out of 50 mission in total.

Mayhzon
30th Jun 2015, 14:36
The story content of the Hitman games before was always just fluff to set the gameplay up, except for Absolution maybe. I'm fine with it staying that way. We don't need an interactive branching story.