Probably too much time and effort for something that ruins SA
not necessarily, if they’re armed they have new behaviours you can exploit. you can get them isolated by giving them a gun or body to move, etc and they wouldn’t need a bodyguard
Making targets armed does not mean they should have the exact same guard behaviour. Can’t see a target stashing a weapon away into a box or dragging a body, does not make sense.
Solely talking about being armed here. As soon as this comes into play you’ve already lost SA.
it does make sense depending on who the target is. why would Cassidy not put a gun away himself? the targets don’t know they’re targets, there’s no reason they should act differently
Because he has a designated bodyguard, and a house full of normal guards.
Yes there is: gameplay
That’s not true. You could SA any armed target the same way you can SA a guard in contracts mode. If you get into a gun fight with the target then that’s your own fault.
I agree adding other guard behaviours like picking up guns and moving bodies wouldn’t make sense however.
That is not the point. It’s not about being able to get SA normally, it’s about this mechanic that the targets are “armed”. As soon as this comes into play, you have lost SA.
he only has a designated bodyguard because he isn’t armed, if he was armed he wouldn’t need one
also I think it’d make gameplay better to have more variety in target behaviours
I fail to see how this is the case I’m afraid.
Trying to edit and qoute on a phone sucks… But anyway I think it makes sense he would have a guard. Old man who was high up in rank of a strong political organisation. I can believe he has someone following him around.
He has a designated bodyguard for gameplay purposes, weither you see that or not. If this was not the case, you could just throw any weapon from a distance towards the target, and he will isolate himself, trivialising the contract. Never mind the fact if he didn’t have a designated bodyguard he would be all alone, trivialising everything.
This would not make the gameplay better.
We were talking about targets being “armed”. For this to play out and actually serve a function, the target would get his gun out and shoot at you: at this point youve already lost SA. If you kill him before he has a chance to react and make use of his “arms”, it does not add anything. Hope you see it now.
Ah yes I see now thanks. Although if you’re not doing an SA run it wouldn’t hurt. Could make all those unsilenced shotguns fun to use.
No it would not hurt at all. I started off this discussion with a reason why it isn’t implemented: probably too much time and effort for something that negates SA.
On a side note, are there any female guards anywhere in the game?
No, probably so they provide disguises every time.
Fair enough, I guess.
Also you save money this way.
So far we have three generic voices (done by multiple people): male civilian, female civilian, male guard.
You would have to raise the costs for these by ~33% if you would introduce female guards.
or just re-use the Voice Samples for the female asian Bodyguards from Codename 47
Alarm! Hey you! He’s Packing! We have a Situation here!
They already hired new VAs because people were complaining about the lack of regional accents. So I doubt hiring a bunch of female VA would be much of an issue .
Then again, maybe the additional VAs are the reason why we no longer have animated cut scenes. So if they hire even more people the cut scenes of HITMAN 3 will be a black screen with 47 narrating what happens.
If you lift up the diversity at guard voice-lines, this will also push the costs of introducing female guards. Because you would have to do the same with them as well.
My guess on female guards is less voice acting costs and more that they don’t want to remodel all the combat animations for a female model, as the positioning of female NPCs for various animations like raising and firing weapons, taking cover, and the like would be a great deal of work. They could totally do female security, and there are multiple places where it would make sense (Miami event security, Vermont state troopers, etc.), but it’s probably not something they could really prioritize highly enough to justify the cost and I understand IO had other priorities. I think it’d be cool and useful for gameplay purposes but we have to be realistic about what matters most and I think fixing the gameplay and making the maps great were the more important priorities.