PDA

View Full Version : Some Questions **SPOILERS**



DeathClaw991
2nd Jun 2006, 21:09
hello

i have finished hitman Blood Money and at the End What is the Point in dieing i think it has some things thats happened thats not right u can some how hold ur guns and things so u cant be paralised from your neck down

and the person who is after you what is his name?

if someone could answer or tell me something to this please post:confused:

clockwork9
2nd Jun 2006, 22:29
As far as I can tell, the story about 47's falling off the wall and subsequent paralysis was made up. You know yourself how 47 managed to escape the White House without injury so that couldn't have happened. My interpretation of the ending is that Diana knew she and 47 were toast. She contrived a situation whereby she would murder 47 in exchange for a position in The Faction. She used the same solution 47 used in the level "Flatline;" to make The Faction believe she had killed him. Remember, one injection simulates death and a second injection revives the 'victim'.

This made everyone believe 47 was goon for good and that Diana's betrayal to The Faction was genuine. At the funeral, Diana mixed the reactivation serum in her lipstick compact which she then applied to her lips. When she kissed 47, it set about bringing him back to life. Remember, Diana did say it was a "bold plan."

Am I right about this? What does everybody else think?

I'm hoping 47 will wake up right before his cremation, bust out of the crematorium and go off on another adventure. It would be great for him to team with Diana when she's working for The Franchise, working together to bring the place down from the inside. I'm glad her betrayal wasn't genuine. I couldn't stand it if Diana ever turned on 47.

Edit;

BTW, I truly loved this game. It had way more story than I was expecting. Everytime I thought it was going to end, another level popped up. And if you're a score-nut like me, I thought Jesper Kyd's music was stunning.

Xcom
2nd Jun 2006, 22:34
Big spoiler:



Hitman isn't dead, unless you do nothing. When credits start rolling, keep tapping 'W' (forward) button.

clockwork9
2nd Jun 2006, 22:46
Wow, it never occurred to me to to try that. See what I mean? It just keeps going. What an amazing game.

Xcom
2nd Jun 2006, 22:59
I agree. It's one of the most original game endings I've ever seen.
A lot of people ... ehh.. didn't realize there is more to it.. ;)

clockwork9
2nd Jun 2006, 23:05
Well, like I said, it just didn't occur to me. Without knowing you can revive 47, it's still a perfectly reasonable ending with enough sustainable setup for a sequel. I mean, the additonal 'Requiem' level adds little in terms of actual plot aside from confirming what we can already assume - that 47 will survive and that Diana didn't betray him.

It was a hell of a lot of fun though and I must admit, the setup of 47's new employer is tantilising.

How did you realise there was more to it?

Xcom
2nd Jun 2006, 23:19
I was really kind of upset with the ending. On my first run, I patiently waited for credits to finish, thinking that something will happen at the end. Well, 47 got submerged and, apparently, died and I was thinking, "WTF is this? Did they really let him die? That sucks.. Why would IO let main hero die?" But then I just kept thinking that this hartbeat gotto mean something. After all, this was real-time cutscene and not a movie. There's gotta be a logical reason. So, I reloaded Requem and started clicking mouse, pushing keys.. etc. The rest is history.

clockwork9
2nd Jun 2006, 23:36
Nicely done! Keep the faith. I didn't suspect there was more because, as I said, I'd been thinking the game was going to end since House of Cards. But during those end credits I did think to myself, "Why did they start the heartbeat sounding so early if it doesn't get any more rapid? I would have waitied a while, started the heartbeat, increased the pace and built up to about 120 bmp ;) before fading out." So I guess something about it didn't feel quite right to me but I wouldn't have tried anything in a million years.

What was your favourite level? I wish I could go back and re-experience the feeling I got when I walked out onto the streets in "Murder of Crows" for the first time. My jaw literally hit the floor with that one. In terms of overall playability, atmosphere etc I did massively enjoy 'Dance With The Devil.' Also liked 'A New Life' because it was one of those situations we've seen in film and tv a million times. And it took place in broad daylight which is always an interesting challenge. I think I would have preferred one less Deep South mission. I didn't enjoy the riverboat one as much though I thought I was going to, that was probably my least fave.

But overall, these levels were far superior to any other hitman game, IMO. I'm so pleased there weren't any militaristic levels like the Russian sub base in Contracts or the Japense Snow castle level in Hitman 2 or the Colombian odyssey in Hitman 1. I get plenty of those missions in Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six. I'm glad they stuck to civilian, urban settings.

BTW, is it possible to store any of the knives in hitman's inventory? I was disappointed he didn't have a knife as standard issue. Especially when you can get super-cool carbon fibre and non-metallic knives these days that would be the perfect complement to hitman's fibre wire and mines.

Xcom
2nd Jun 2006, 23:44
I really liked all levels, to be honest. The most favorite for me is "A house of cards". It sort of brought memories of "Tradition of the Trade".

It's unfortunate about the knife, I agree. You can't bring it with you.

I am now trying to achieve SA on all levels in Pro difficulty, and by using accidents wherever possible. It's pretty challenging.

clockwork9
3rd Jun 2006, 00:00
Indeed, shame about the knives. Though it may be that there are knives on most levels (perhaps even all.) I liked the look the Stilleto knife particularly.

Yeah, I'm going for SA now as well. The accident feature is a great idea. The other thing I try to do although it's probably impossible with some of these levels, is to complete the mission without changing costume. Ever tried that? There's something about the suit... :)

Xcom
3rd Jun 2006, 00:13
Yes, I have.
The real Hitman never takes off his suit. :cool: Hehe..

I am not sure how it would be possible to complete the last two levels w/o changing outfits, but you never know. I've seen some amazing videos people have made so far..

clockwork9
3rd Jun 2006, 00:28
I thought I wasn't going to enjoy the whole upgrading weapons idea but actually found that addictive. You can more accurately tailor your hardballers, say, for a particular mission. Am I right in thinking the sniper case can only store the sniper rifle? I know there are other cases (like the aluminium ones on House of Cards) that can store anything but is hitman's rifle only?

DeathClaw991
3rd Jun 2006, 15:15
ok thanks for this

So he does not die at teh end you just have to move from the bed????
if so i never even thought of This and by the way i forgot to say that i have the xbox360 game is it still the same?

Xcom
3rd Jun 2006, 18:54
Am I right in thinking the sniper case can only store the sniper rifle?

I think so, don't remember for sure.

To be honest, I found BM's weapons somewhat on a weak side. The upgrading system doesn't really work, IMO. It's more of a gimmick rather than something practically useful. Why would you need Hardballers with scope? Or laser targeting? I mean you already have crosshairs so what's the point? In addition to that, basically all levels are designed in a way that you don't need any guns at all. Personally, I've only used pistols to "human shield and ko" people. So, I still think they haven't come with really good "reward" system for Hitman.

clockwork9
3rd Jun 2006, 19:27
Yeah, absolutely it's a gimmick. Those kind of upgrades would only be useful if you were killing people for real. I just think it's nice to have another layer of creativity to the game - it's almost like personalising the weapons.

The only thing that really bugs me about the game is the mines. People can tell what they are even when you're just holding them in your hand. In real life, I don't think anyone would give two *****s if you were walking around with a hockey puck behind your back. :)

DeathClaw991
3rd Jun 2006, 19:45
I kind of Guess that the way he is holding the Bomb is going to give it away its like saying if u have poison behind your back no one will care i think its the way he holds it


So he does not die at the end you just have to move from the bed???

if so does that mean that when u do move then the people wil shoot you as you are not dead???

Well could you lot tell me because if you can move and then they would all shoot you very hard to get away from

Xcom
3rd Jun 2006, 19:53
Why don't you play it through and find out, eh? ;)

clockwork9
3rd Jun 2006, 19:56
But even when he's not holding the mine behind his back, somehow they still instinctively know it's bad news. It gives me flashbacks to the Japanese levels in Hitman 2 when snipers stationed half a mile a way could tell you were a bad guy even though you were covered from head to toe in a black jump suit.

You asked about the ending - yes, the guards do try to kill you but hitman has a slight advantage at first because he moves in slow motion which allows you to get the jump on three or four of the guards. After that it's just a case of covering yourself. There's plenty of room to run around.

DeathClaw991
3rd Jun 2006, 20:07
Well Thanks for telling me i was worrying about that but how do i move in the credits he is just on that bed thingy and when i try to move when the credits are on or when they end he does not move

I HAVE XBOX360
is it still the same ?

napmaster
3rd Jun 2006, 20:08
*EDIT* Keep tapping any direction keys and he will get up. Do this as soon as requiem loads.
It's not hard to get away from the gang when you get revived.

This is how I did it:

Keep tapping "w" (obviously), then when he gets up you take advantage of the slow motion for 2 seconds. As soon as you get up take a left and you'll see an opening to go outside. Don't try and kill everyone when you get up, that doesn't work. Then you find the graveyard and hide in the house (i forget what these are called) to the right when you are going downhill. Funny thing is they won't open the doors and you can see through the door, so when they turn there backs, you open the doors and blast them for a couple of seconds then close the door back again.

Works like a charm.

clockwork9
3rd Jun 2006, 20:09
Well, first let me give credit where credit's due: I got this from Xcom, I didn't figure it out. Plus I have the PC version so I don't know how Xbox works but I'm sure if you just mess with the buttons, particularly movement controls then he'll be up on his feet in no time. You'll know what to do when you see it in action.

DeathClaw991
3rd Jun 2006, 20:13
well thanks Do i Press the Bottons while the Credits are on or after


One thing i dont get is why he is saying that you hurt ur back when you did not well I dont pick things Up quick Lol

clockwork9
3rd Jun 2006, 20:17
Press the buttons as the credits roll, you get ages and it takes only about five-ten seconds.

The paralysis line is just a bit of confusion on the part of the bad guys. I think it's so Diana can explain how she was able to find/kill him.

DeathClaw991
3rd Jun 2006, 20:19
Ok wow never knew that it would happen like this and then i kill person in the wheel chair???

or something like that and then i escape like every other mission:P

Suri
22nd Jun 2006, 01:38
Press the buttons as the credits roll, you get ages and it takes only about five-ten seconds.

The paralysis line is just a bit of confusion on the part of the bad guys. I think it's so Diana can explain how she was able to find/kill him.

Or, he's lying to the reporter, in order to make himself look better. Considering that by his comments on cloning, he appears to be on the same side as the (late) VP, and how he's lying about other things (47 attempted to assassinate the president, etc.) it seems like he had some ulterior motives with that stuff.

lra2or
22nd Jun 2006, 12:59
Actually, I think if you read between the lines, the ex head of the CIA (guy in the wheel chair) is also the head of the Firm (the other group, trying to kill the President).
When Diana talks to the guy after injecting 47, he says something along the lines of "Now I know I can trust you, I have a special place for you in the Firm."
This then, would also be why he says that 47 died by slipping and breaking his spine - it lessens 47's cred as an assassin, as well as making clear he had nothing to do with it (which also covers up Diana's involvement).
All along it's been about one group wanting the cloning ability for themselves - i.e. The Firm.
47 is a threat to that, as he is a blueprint for further clones. The president was also a threat, as he was going to legalise and make public the cloning procedure.

May be way off the mark, but that's how I interpreted it!

Oh, and greets to everyone by the way ;)

H34D5H07
23rd Jun 2006, 16:35
Caine is meant to be a super-duper genius and very intelligent and wise if u read his description on the hitman website; so i dunno how he fell for Diana's lame plan of sedating 47 and then antidoting him in the church. I thought Caine would've sussed Diana out and realised when she gets the antidote out of her purse and kisses him. heh, no complaints tho :D it was a cool ending ;)

EL CHUPACABRA
26th Jun 2006, 08:03
what an end it almost brings tears to me eyes .........for a moment i hated diana

DeathClaw991
26th Jun 2006, 08:28
Anyone if u know what the accident is to kill the Person on A New Life?

ShadowReapr
26th Jun 2006, 15:23
I had my suspicious doubts when I first played Requiem. While I thought that, on it's own, it would have been a majestically artistic end for the Hitman series. However, and I thought, if that was the case it would have been directed more artistically, without as much of that bloody annoyed fuzzy view. I also figured out what Diane's plan was, but assumed that his escape would be done behind-the-scenes.

However, I did have one annoyance with his escape. I actually found it quite annoying that I had to kill the reporter. I had gone through the game not killing a single citizen, yet here I had to senselessly kill him, merely through wrong-place syndrome. Plus, lets face it, the truth about some things would actually have benefited 47, no less his survivability.

JoeWamp
26th Jun 2006, 16:58
However, I did have one annoyance with his escape. I actually found it quite annoying that I had to kill the reporter. I had gone through the game not killing a single citizen, yet here I had to senselessly kill him, merely through wrong-place syndrome. Plus, lets face it, the truth about some things would actually have benefited 47, no less his survivability.

Ah, but 47 prefers to be a shadow, a myth, an urban legend. That reporter was too much of a danger to that. There's a cutscene earlier where Hitman kills the innocent that delivers the message. He leaves no witnesses.

I'll agree it's annoying in that almost every other level the player chooses who lives and who dies, and I personally go for SA rating on first play-through so no innocents are killed. But I understand the necessity in that situation. The reporter knew too much.

It would have been cool, though, if the player could choose to leave him alive - then have a newspaper front page load up @ the end w/ the reporter telling everything to show the negative consequence of letting him live.

DeathClaw991
26th Jun 2006, 18:04
If u would of Let him live then it would be stupid because in the next hitman game the Police and Other people would of Course know who you are...

the Reporter would have seen what u wear i guess?

what u look like

how u kill

what guns u use

what ammo u use

what ur Voice is like

all those things would make the game impossable to complete Because the report would of Gone and moved with that story

he would of got payed MILLIONS

ShadowReapr
27th Jun 2006, 03:22
All I'm saying is, in that situation, it may have been possible for 47 to choice which information gets posted, if you know what I mean. ;)

I just kind of felt sorry for the bloke. Plus, it would have been nice to read a final newspaper, 'slightly' influenced by yourself; "Police hunt Albino Assassins for a string of murders, including Vice President. "reporter's name" reports:"
In it there could have been an overall summary of your playthrough, from average rank, weapon of choice, kill-style etc. Then, at the end, a small anecdote: "The latest murder of these so-called Albino Assassins was the brutal slaughtering of Alexander Leland Cayne, a well-reknowned name in the business and political word, and his guards. I was having an interview with the departed when it happened, and was lucky to escape with my life."

No blame, no notoriety, no problem. ;)

Aye, but that is just postulative theorising. I still regret having to kill him, tt's hardly very ethical, relatively speaking.

nameless
27th Jun 2006, 15:30
We play a hitman who "can do whatever he's paid to do" So I'm having trouble seeing where your going with this :scratch:

Why would he give a **** about ethics? Dead men can't talk and as they go, "Better to be safe than sorry"

To quote the manual,

"Longevity in the profession is dependent on transparency in the world."

I don't like it either and I would try to avoid killing witnesses if possible, which is also the whole point of Hitman, but if a witness lives I have no choice but to take them out.

ShadowReapr
27th Jun 2006, 20:20
Ah, but while he's willing to take on any job, as a player the game provides many little pointers as to why we should want to kill our target, and why we should avoid killing others.

One example: Being English, I was not aware of what an American garbage truck implemented. The game re-enforces the ideal of sticking to the targets and not killing civilians by not only ruining our perfect rating, damaging our paycut, but by also providing a gut-wrenchingly painful sound when one dumps a body into that garbage truck.

Throughout the game, we are given alternate ways to achieve our goals without killing civilians, which continues to encourage the ideal of non-civilian-killing. Other than finding a lay-about costume, we are provided Sedatives. Comparatively, civilians and police have more varieties of face models than The Bodyguards, generic men-in-black automatons, making us less reluctant towards killing them. Not to mention, the bodyguards have sunglasses, the universal dehumaniser.

But why kill our targets? Directly opposite to civilians, the game provides character flaws which cement characters as Bad Guys. From the generally-killable drug dealers and guards, to excellently molded backstories of Targets. The tutorial involves us killing a man who not only led to the deaths of over 36 by neglecting safety, but then goes onto eliminate crucial reports and harbors drug dealers and who looks like a pimp.
The Opera House provides a first target who not only is a stuck-up, arrogant arse, but also has links to pedophilia.
The Mardi Gras level involves us primarily killing to protect a politician, but also killing one of the Albino Assassins, who do not share the same respectable rules you may try to uphold in your contracts.
The Mountain Retreat again provides targets who, for one reason or another, are not entirely likable folk. Some may take offence the the Playboy, but that in itself is not entirely worth killing him. The game continues to provide us the info that he spies, blackmails, and is a bit of a pervert. Secondly, Chad Bingham is a guy that abuses lap-dancers, rapes them, and, in one case, left a victim who I think was strangled, tinted blue through lack of oxygen.
The first Mississipi mission involves eliminating a captain who sexually harasses his employees, but also commited incest with his neice (hinted to have not been of her will), along with a gang of drug-dealing thugs.
Amendant XXV is quite explanatory; We are encouraged to kill the Vice President not only because of his links to the Franchise and their conspiracy, but also because he wants to kill the President.

I also believe Contracts was rife with things such as these, but I haven't played it.

Perhaps the most interesting is Heaven and Hell. The primary targets are pretty boring clich├ęs, but perhaps the most interesting hit in the game is The Devil. He is the one who can see through your disguise, speaks as intellectually as you do, and who wants a respectable duel to the death. He appealed to me the most, which made it a shame he was so easy to kill (to wit, was anyone else hoping for a sword fight?).

Personally, I don't like games which involve senseless killing, which is one of the reasons games such as Hitman appeal to me. The game contains numerous pointers which help rationalise the killing, yet the killing of the reporter isn't rationalised enough for my liking. It was, in a game where we expect multiple choice, exceptionally linear.

stator
27th Jun 2006, 21:41
ShadowReapr provides the best explanation. The International Contract Agency issued contracts on only the most vile individuals. While The Franchise will kill *anyone* for pay. This certainly points to some kind of "ethical code" for lack of a better term.

IMO: As for the desire to avoid killing if possible, I believe this is why the program that created 47 was built in the first place. Not so much for what 47would have in the way of skills, but for the one thing he would not have: A conscience.

nameless
27th Jun 2006, 23:21
Ah, but while he's willing to take on any job, as a player the game provides many little pointers as to why we should want to kill our target, and why we should avoid killing others.

We concur on this point already, as I have already stated, I avoid killing civilians unless necessary which 47, or any hitman, would do. The fewer the casualities, the less ruckus it would cause on the tabloids. However, the fewer the witnesses, the better the transparency.


ShadowReapr provides the best explanation. The International Contract Agency issued contracts on only the most vile individuals. While The Franchise will kill *anyone* for pay. This certainly points to some kind of "ethical code" for lack of a better term.

No actually they'll kill anyone so long as they can front the money but they of course prefer the more vile targets for global stability. For example, I could place an order at the agency to have the pope killed so long as I can front the money, which obviously would be a hefty sum:eek:

Remember the innocent postman? THe Agency sent him orders to kill the postman which 47 did without hesitation. Smith? Despite the past 47 wouldn't hesitate to pluck a bullet into his head even though Smith posed no threat to him. He only took the job once Smith paid him. As 47 have said already, "I can do whatever I'm paid to do." And he also killed his BIRD! Poor poor birdy....


Personally, I don't like games which involve senseless killing, which is one of the reasons games such as Hitman appeal to me. The game contains numerous pointers which help rationalise the killing, yet the killing of the reporter isn't rationalised enough for my liking. It was, in a game where we expect multiple choice, exceptionally linear.

Which is the whole point of Hitman is to go after the target and as the manual quotes, "The professional avoids the blood bath whenever possible."

However, it also notes that "if a witness lives, the professional's nototriety increases."

I'm not exactly saying your wrong in saying that it's wrong to kill an innocent reporter but the fact is that he's a witness and so long as he lives he's a threat to 47 (I'm defending 47 mainly by his views as a hitman). Killing the reporter was the best way to ensure complete anonymity without a chance of someone spilling the beans. It's who he is. He's a hitman and he'll do whatever he can to remain a myth. Besides, why aren't you complaining about the postman? That guy was completely clueless.

If it makes you feel better, one could simply say the reporter was at the wrong place at the wrong time, that and the priest too...what's a priest doing there in the first place anyways?:scratch: Besides, again, 47 had no problems putting a bullet into Smith's head, so why would he have trouble killing a reporter who poses an even more threat to his anonymity? What's to say someone down the road interrogates him for information?

I guess that's why I like the game because it's realistic. 47 avoids killing unnecessary people because it avoids garnering attention. But if a witness survives then he won't hesitate to take him/her out to remain anonymity. This game throws us into the role of a hitman.

stator
28th Jun 2006, 01:27
I agree with the "global stability" aspect of the Agency's choices of contract. But I disagree with your opinion of the Agency's ethics. They have a record that --as far as we know, is relatively good. When Agent 47 comments on being able to do whatever he is paid for, he is speaking for himself only. His loyalty to the Agency is predicated almost entirely on his trust in Diana.

Further, that postman was not an innocent.

Earlier in the game during a cut-scene when 47 is walking home, a faint smile appears, breaking his normally stoic expression. Then we are shown a waist high view of someone in a blue uniform chambering a round in their pistol. That was a postman's uniform. But that was no postman --he was just one of several assassins out to kill Agency operatives --most notably agent 47. He no doubt suited a real postman in order to make a delivery to 47's humble residence. Agent 47 walked home allowing the assassin to follow and learn his address (which is why 47 smiles briefly). 47 was expecting him and allowed this so he could later kill the assassin quietly in the privacy of his own home. Neat and clean.

I'm just really into the nuances of this game. Can you tell? :D

nameless
28th Jun 2006, 03:18
When Agent 47 comments on being able to do whatever he is paid for, he is speaking for himself only

Which has been my focus this whole time.

In the end 47's survival and anonymity is his primary concern. There's no point in arguing against that point. Anyone standing in the way is a target.


Further, that postman was not an innocent.

I still don't see how that holds more justification to kill him than a reporter (Unless the postman was an assassin or was bugged) who knows too much of 47 and his past, despite Alex's lies there were still truths in some of them.


Earlier in the game during a cut-scene when 47 is walking home, a faint smile appears, breaking his normally stoic expression. Then we are shown a waist high view of someone in a blue uniform chambering a round in their pistol. That was a postman's uniform. But that was no postman --he was just one of several assassins out to kill Agency operatives --most notably agent 47. He no doubt suited a real postman in order to make a delivery to 47's humble residence. Agent 47 walked home allowing the assassin to follow and learn his address (which is why 47 smiles briefly). 47 was expecting him and allowed this so he could later kill the assassin quietly in the privacy of his own home. Neat and clean.

......:scratch:

I'm sorry but he was in Paris. That cutscene and his mission in Paris is from a previous hitman game where that guy wounded 47 and he's in his apartment bleeding to death with SWAT members ready to break in. When we get to Flatline, Diana asks, "How's that wound healing?" In fact, "Curtains Down" is the prequel to Hitman: contracts.

Several missions later, THEN we get that postman coming in delivering the letter. His outfit was completely different than that guy who was cocking his gun (Considering his lighter outfit and the clips attached to his belt). Are you telling me that guy, assuming it was him, followed him all the way from Paris and waited several missions to give him a letter? That guy sucks.


I'm just really into the nuances of this game. Can you tell?

I think your making it hard on yourself.

stator
28th Jun 2006, 05:05
Not at all, I enjoy lively debate. I just don't believe that the Eidos writers would have 47 plug a mailman in the head for little or no reason. The story is driven by solid plot devices --why have a gta moment?

I also don't buy the "it's about being a hitman" reasoning being the driving force of the game. Not at this point in the series. At first maybe --even with the farfetched notion of cloned super-assassins. But not now, three games later. The creative minds must have realized that a character that doesn't evolve somehow is going to become very two dimensional --and therefore uninteresting.

Rasko
28th Jun 2006, 11:08
[QUOTE=nameless]

If it makes you feel better, one could simply say the reporter was at the wrong place at the wrong time, that and the priest too...what's a priest doing there in the first place anyways?:scratch: QUOTE]

Yeah but killing the priest definitely felt out of character (even watching 47 kill the postman felt wrong, but I can believe there was reason behind it). I mean, I have to question if there isn't a deeper issue here - perhaps some sort of statement by IOI? They hinted at their politics with the George Bush quotes, after all. At the end of SA, 47 leaves the crucifix that his dying friend - the priest Vittorio - gave him, behind, on the gate of the church. He gave up his attempt at that point to live a righteous life.

But killing the priest in BM is just so casual, no matter how you do it, there's no sensitivty to the act. Maybe a cut scene in which 47 confronts the priest and at least explains why it has to be done could have made a difference. I don't know, I just know it didn't feel right...and I'm a little suspicious :whistle:

nameless
28th Jun 2006, 15:44
Not at all, I enjoy lively debate. I just don't believe that the Eidos writers would have 47 plug a mailman in the head for little or no reason. The story is driven by solid plot devices --why have a gta moment?

THe justification behind the killing was "code Red" which apparently means that the Agency orders anyone carrying the message has to be killed. I don't know why but regardless it doesn't make 47 a senseless killer because there is at least SOME justification behind it. THough I don't understand this Code Red if it means the mailman was bugged.

For the priest and reporter, it was that they knew 47 was still alive.




I also don't buy the "it's about being a hitman" reasoning being the driving force of the game. Not at this point in the series. At first maybe --even with the farfetched notion of cloned super-assassins. But not now, three games later. The creative minds must have realized that a character that doesn't evolve somehow is going to become very two dimensional --and therefore uninteresting.

It is. We play a hitman, how hard is that to understand? Were not James Bond.

However, do note that if the game was about killing good people as well, well in majority, there wouldn't be alot of people like us playing it. So they have to make it so the targets are somewhat bad.

And another thing to note is that 47 is quite human, just not in the ways you think.

Remember the bird? He snapped the bird's neck to keep quiet, then he aims the gun at the intruder. The intruder turns out to be Diana, the camera cuts off their heads but you can still see 47's mouth, when Diana starts talking, 47's mouth opens up in the "Oh no! Tweetie! There was no reason to kill you!"

He grabs the folder and looks at Diana and if you look closely, his eyes seem watery, indicating he's crying I believe. I was wondering why his eyes looked like that in the first place but this seems most plausible.

So yes he is becoming interesting. ANd now he's starting a new life in China.

ShadowReapr
28th Jun 2006, 15:56
I believe I understand why 47 killed the postman. Think about it: You recieve every mission in a secluded way, from hiding missions in library books to simple under-the-door things. Now, if that is all you knew, and you would be relatively paranoid to begin with, you'd think something was a little off.

As for the reporter, I suppose I'll have to blame Cayne for being such a show-off. Damn him! Damn him to eternity!

Although, and it really does come down to whether 47 would of gone straight down to the cremation or somewhere else first, what would have happened if 47 didn't leap up so fast, and got off the process elsewhere. I suppose unfortunately it would have gone down as too risky for him, but I doubt there's a better alibi than a reporter saying you're dead.

nameless
28th Jun 2006, 23:04
I believe I understand why 47 killed the postman. Think about it: You recieve every mission in a secluded way, from hiding missions in library books to simple under-the-door things. Now, if that is all you knew, and you would be relatively paranoid to begin with, you'd think something was a little off.

There's a flaw with your analysis.

Since when has 47 ever been paranoid? The only reason he killed the mailman was because the Agency ordered him to which brings up my question as to why. The mailman is clearly clueless about 47 and so on. That's why I was curious about the "Code Red" which 47 read on the envelope to which he then shot the guy.

UnsavorySebbe
4th Jul 2006, 17:33
I really like the Ending, First time Ever u c Diana's face!