I can’t imagine why any client would pay out hundreds of thousands of dollars to have an innocent person killed by 47. Anyone who has a contract on their head has most likely done something to get on someone’s bad side.
Being innocent, and not getting one someone’s bad side is not mutually exclusive.
This is a flaw in the argument I see all the time and no one ever calls it out for some reason.
Yes, 47 is a badass assassin and Jimbo Jackson wouldn’t hire him to kill his cheating wife or something.
But the assumption that “innocent people can never be well guarded, and not have a hit that requires an elite assassin like 47” is downright idiotic.
You can be innocent and still get on someone’s bad side. I’m not the best writer so maybe I can’t think of a great example, but I’m sure that someone in a game studio would have no problem with this.
Example: Think of some giant celebrity do-gooder like Elon Musk but more focused on science and environmentalism. Invents some crazy-ass innovation that will make cars not need gas anymore. Let’s call him Telon Fusk.
This pisses off some rich-as-fuck Saudi Prince who makes his money from oil. And they know that Telon Fusk is heavily guarded and constantly has cameras and paparazzi on him, so a direct hit will just create chaos. SO…they hire the world’s most elite assassin to kill him stealthily and not draw any attention.
Solution: play contracts.
Player-made content doesn’t count. Lel.
@eeefaa I think it could really work well. But it would raise one of a few age-old arguments that have never been settled in gaming.
Should games be “morally good”?
In other words, are games allowed to ask the player to do morally reprehensible things?
In practically every AAA game out there, you are playing as a “good guy”. The only one where it’s obviously not the case is GTA. But that is so zany and ridiculous, it doesn’t count.
In GTA, you can mow down innocent people but that’s not the point of the game. It’s just a by-product of an open-world game design. Canonically, the most evil thing GTA has ever asked the player to do is gun down innocent police officers. Literally everyone else you kill in a GTA game is a mobster or hired gun or tied to organized crime in some way and thus “bad”.
And of course there a bunch of indie sidescrollers and pixelly games. But those are irrelevant here.
I’m talking about a game that captures gritty, realistic, moral-less killing and present it in an adult tone. The only examples I can think of are Manhunt, and Hatred. And look how fucking controversial those were…
I’ve had this debate a fuckton of times on numerous forums and it can really be quite engaging if you go about it properly with the right people.
Are games an art-form, and thus should be limitless in their design and execution? Or is it justifiable to “hold back” games from truly expressing themselves by limiting them to the confines of taste and societal morals?
Imagine a game where you are legitimately playing as Ted Bundy or Albert Fish. Hitman gameplay. Stalking out an area, finding out how to kidnap a target, then you see a cutscene where you drive him to a secluded shack and torture/murder him/her? Would a game like that be “allowed” to exist?