At least Colorado had a mannequin arm to beat people and Miami seems to have either a prostetic or robot one for the exact same purpose.
The guy from Codename 47.
I’ve been away for few days. Anything new after the Colombia reveal?
They did confirm there’s a key to walk slow in the PC version. And it has gameplay purposes.
Pablo Ochoa, (Sorry buddy, but Ochoa even has the same scar tissue as Tony Montana) and the the Delgardos
https://youtu.be/dG9Fo0Morwo 4:40 when they start talking about new combat AI
“…try to flank you, try to outsmart you, we have a lot more KOs, a lot more debris…”
i wonder what Sven means by that.
Because, more broadly, the way they’re characterised and presented within the game doesn’t necessarily make them unique to the environment and setting. While the targets may be varied in terms of their description, appearance, and background, they largely operate within similar environmental parameters. I think this has a lot to do with IOI’s decision to have at least two (sometimes unrelated) targets for each level, and treating maps as more generic re-usable locations, rather than have them tied more atmospherically and tonally to the targets. It’s a bit like saying you have to take down Lee Hong and Vinnie Sinistra in the same hotel because they happen to be there and somehow know each other. You can claim the targets are different (and they are), but they’re still shaped by their surroundings.
Despite its flaws, Freedom Fighters stands out as a level for me because it has a more finely-tuned setting, while also focusing more on infiltration that’s linked directly to the target’s activities. I’m looking forward to Colombia for this reason.
While Ether was a client of ours, we know Strandberg profited from crime; it’s not a stretch to assume his illegal banking activities and involvement with overthrowing governments was tied up with terrorism. The broader point is that the targets feel like they’re part of the same intricate cabal, and I guess that’s story driven given the Shadow Client has been using us all along.
It doesn’t make the lines “less bad” but it does offer us an avenue of understanding how we may have gotten them. When you have a higher budget and are clearly hiring people from overseas, the expectations are different. More-so when you’ve decided to vastly increase the level of dialogue in-game. Whilst you occasionally got bad lines in the older games, there’s far more to choose from in HITMAN.
Something funny can be pretty cringey and awkward, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. I’m sure you don’t find all the “funny” NPC lines actually funny, and neither do I. I merely believe they overdid it; exacerbating the problem further by having almost everyone speak in an American accent, and I’m pretty sure 2/3 of the NPC voicework was done by one guy. So delivery also matters.
For me at least, one of the most annoying aspects of NPC dialogue is the commentary on your disguise: “Hey waiter… Hello Mr. Security Guard… Hello sssssssssaaailoooor!” – It’s bloody annoying.
I had a guard say to me “Are you hiding from the police? Are you a bad boy? Ahhhh… I bet you are! I like that!” – sure, humour is sometimes necessary, but it’s like some of the dialogue was taken from rejected stand-up shows.
i don’t get this point at all. i don’t like questioning people’s preferences, but your justification here seems off. are you sure you don’t like Colorado and Colombia just because they have a darker atmosphere? enjoying darker atmospheres is fine, but your justification in saying it somehow relates to the characters more is weird.
Sapienza rings a bell. the place where Silvio was raised and still resides. the place where he killed his mother. the place where he’s developing a virus that can kill anyone on the globe. he was shaped by a beautiful town yet bad people. and yet, they manage to fit an underground lab in there, which relates to the target’s activities.
Paris, a fashion show. which both Dalia and Novikov relate to, and have built their careers on. this relates to the targets. it’s what they are known for. and yet, their activities are still present in the same map. allowing you to inflitrate both their history and current activities.
Marrakesh, unfortunately one of the weaker relationship. the location is loosely related to the subject matter. yes, Claus has stolen from the people of Marrakesh, but unfortunately does little to convey the anger except for a useless mob area full of fake NPCs.
Bangkok is weak as well, similar to the faults of Marrakesh. people around target are related, doesn’t show thru the location.
Colorado shows a militia. training, doing tests on their next attack, planning for the future, hacking databases, and all relating to the targets, soldiers, etc. the map ties with Sapienza in relating to the targets, imo.
Hokkaido, where Soders is getting his heart transplant. cold and sterile, fits very well with the hospital location and Soders’ decisions. Yuki is forgettable, although she is somewhat related as a yakuza lawyer, meh.
and c47 was a much smaller game. you say it had less bad lines, but in truth, it was only that way because of its scale. it still took up an equal amount of the game’s experience as it does 2016’s.
funny, cringey, and awkward are very mutually exclusive for me. maybe not for you, but i would never even consider laughing at something cringey or awkward. and so what if i find all of the “funny” lines funny? are you gonna critique me for liking them? but really, the only one i’ve cringed at is the “why do i have wood?!” line. that one made me cringe. i don’t cringe at people saying “hello, officer!” or “very bright suit, sir!” it’s a greeting, i’m pretty sure it’s not meant for comic relief, just attempting immersion. and personally, it’s very funny to get an unexpected comment of a person off screen who caught me sneaking around. but i think we should get off the humor topic, it’s all personal taste.
Well don’t we like him for that?
SAY HELLO TO MY LITTLE FRIEND
You might like him for that reason (and you have a right too, I love Brian De Palma’s Scarface) but if we are discussing how well written the dialogue of those old games are and the only Ochoa quote you know is one from a thirty year old movie, a tired and overplayed quote at that then they have failed in writing.
Ochoa and the Jungle levels detract the most from any seriousness the first game was going for that is why they replaced him with a sex party and The Deadliest Game
I remember discussing this in another thread with Quinn a while back. I felt these stereotypes were not only understandable for the limitations of game design at the time (there’s only so much devs can reasonably do to establish a character whose set to die in the level he or she appears, this required over-the-top characters due to the inability to record endless hours of dialogue), but essential in the themes of the games. 47, as much as Diana might want to believe in these newer games, looks at every person in very plain, flat terms. You’re either a friend, a foe, or a possible witness. That is all he sees in people. Remember, this is the career he was designed for, not just by Ortmeyer, but by the games’ developers, all for the players. Every person’s a potential witness, a target to kill, or a civilian to protect or to avoid killing. He looks at everyone in terms of the briefings and intelligence he receives from Diana and the agency, which not only shows his thematic separation and distinction from humanity, but relates to how the player is meant to feel, being dropped into missions where they are simply tasked with eliminating a target npc.
Again, my interpretation is that we take the role of 47, so we view his world through his eyes. The world, for him, is one where you are killer or killed, and that becomes the viewpoint of the player. Survival of the fittest is how 47 sees things, because his profession and survival demand it, so he perceives all people at the peak of physical fitness as necessary. His limited understanding of humanity and the diversity of it, often clouds his
perceptions. His only understanding comes from limited briefings, and his lack of any real social skills, which help him to relate to or comprehend others, contributes to this. This can apply to almost any target.
Each of these stereotypes appear very differently when analyzed based on 47’s life experiences and personality, the mind of a killer, as I articulated above. They’re purposefully put to use in Blood Money and every other Hitman game, no matter how absurd the stereotypes are on their own, they reflect 47’s attitudes toward the world in his role as player character. The targets that are the least excusable, in my opinion, are the ones that appear to be rip-offs of existing characters like Tony Montana, though even those rip-offs could hint at a possible pop culture influence on 47, almost a statement of the violence commonly seen in movies and TV and how it can affect an unstable person in real life, seeing their horrendous crimes as something out of a movie, rather than for what they are: terrible deeds. This could be further preventing 47 from seeing the world in a truly rational frame of mind that isn’t set on murdering anyone.
That is Bull, look at Marrakesh. We have Reza Zeydan in a dilapidated school house, it is filled with miltary paraphernalia and look at the embassy it is sleek, modern and reflects Swedish focus on modernity. They reflect the first and third world. Look at Sapienza we have a bright town but it gives way to a cold and clinical lab. Like Caruso who is a bright man but lacks empatyh or De Santis who is beautiful but ruthless
If that is your thought process on this than I suggest you replay every single game in the series. It is shown that 47 has no opinions on his targets, he is not trained to think about why or even who, just how to kill. It is the central focus of these games. In fact this is reflected in Bangkok where a man pleads for his life and all he does is say “a contract is a contract”. (That whole back and fourth is better than anything in the old games, certainly more memorable kill as well)
We don’t see the world through 47’s eyes, in those old games we see the world through IO who at the time did not have the money, experience and/or the funds necessary for proper research into these other nations.
@Bjarne_IOI in the latest stream talks about how the development teams can now can go to Miami and take pictures of the Esplanade, to the point where they drew the suspicion of local authorities, they can talk to people now and get a better sense of the local culture. They now have the money and time to give us something beyond stereotypes, they have all the time and fiscal backing to give us the best HITMAN experiences possible for all types of Hitman players.
i don’t think 47’s “perception” of people is why the NPCs are like that. it’s just a design choice and it’s fine with me if it stays that way
stereotyping is generally not very interesting or appealing, especially at the extremes that BM goes to set them. and i would hope it’s not IO’s excuse that “that’s what 47 thinks”.
He views them as targets, witnesses, and civilians, so yes, he does have an opinion on them, and this opinion is relayed to players through a rating, 47 must kill targets, prevent witnesses from seeing him, and civilians are not meant to be touched. The key here is that he doesn’t let that opinion get in the way of doing what he is paid to do. He doesn’t see them as “good” or “bad,” “right” or “wrong,” but as people who he’s been tasked with getting rid of, people to hide from and avoid committing crimes in front of, and people to avoid harming in any capacity. Hence, why he sees them in such stereotypical, flat ways. He views them through briefings, not his own eyes or feelings, which only highlights how he’s out of touch with his humanity.
We play as him, so yes, we do. If he views the world as potential targets, witnesses, and possible casualties, and the player is specifically rated based on these same factors, expected to recognize and accept these conditions to be the top player, then yes, we do see through his eyes.
First of all, they still don’t do as much on-site research as it is, do they? Didn’t they use images found on the internet to construct many locations like Sapienza in Hitman 2016? Second, a creator does have impact on what we see in a game, that’s inevitable, but they created a character we play as, so we do, once again, see things through his eyes. A video game is a different type of art than, say, a painting, because we are in control of a character on the scene, we don’t just see it through our own eyes, so we see as much as what’s around him, what moving the camera and adjusting his line of sight allows us to see. In that same aspect, we affect his story and actions too, to a certain degree, which only complicates this artistic medium further.
And this is a improvement that makes sense now, but to apply what conditions are like now to what they were like back then doesn’t.
Well, it’s definitely changed over the years. Expansive dialogue is why. I don’t think it was a choice in design, as much as it was a limitation.
Stereotyping in general should be avoided when possible, but if that stereotyping has a purpose, and reflects the way 47 views the world, viewing people in the simplest terms possible (which, again, he does if he only sees someone as his next potential target, a view amplified by the contracts mode that says anyone can be his target), then I’d say stereotyping is appropriate given the themes on display.
If that’s the simplest, flattest way to view someone, then yes. He doesn’t connect with anyone on a meaningful level, and the player isn’t expected to. You’re there to kill someone, so he sees the world in black and white. There’s no gray. You seem to be forgetting that he also sees all men as bodybuilders, all Southerners as rednecks, black people in negative ways, and the list goes on and on.
So 47 sees every woman as either double D tittymonster or a fat lady? Bullshit, and games were doing much better character models on the PS2, look at Jak and Daxter.
You’re looking way too deep into it. How come he only sees it this way in Blood Money? How come there’s more diverse body types in future and previous games? Why would 47, who sees people as only targets or witnesses, also see them as offensive stereotypes? Isn’t that seeing it as more than a target or witness?
Or maybe, just maybe, that game you like is just lowbrow and is using stereotypes to create humour. What next? Are minstrel shows brilliant too Schultz? What about Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs?
“Oh you don’t understand, it’s just a satire bro!”
If we see the targets as 47 does than why are the targets stereotypes in the first five games but only now are realistic people. 47 only views people in a predatory way. Target, Civilian and Friend/Handler, like a Terminator but vastly better acting on David’s part
As for the budget constraints well as an writer the first thing they tell us is use what know and what we can do with what we are given. The level that is the least stereotyped in C47 is the Bath House and that is because Hungary is close to Denmark in comparison to Hong Kong or Colombia.
If I was to write about a book about an Italian immigrating to New York and escaping fascism it would suck because I am not Italian, not American, have little knowledge of the time and places. If I was to write a book about a Digger returning from Galipolli I could write that since my Great-grandfather was an ANZAC and kept diaries of his time serving, detailed ones too