I wish IO will bring more complexity and depth into mission stories

Sky’s the limit. The question is how exactly it could’ve gone further. I feel that Ludmila’s part of the story is pretty fleshed out, but Tyson could’ve gotten a little bit extra. Currently, you can only give him the drive by disguising yourself as the villa guard, but it would be nice to have a SO option at least. He does go through Ludmila’s bedroom, so it could potentially open an option to plant flashdrive there and set her up this way.

Yeah exactly. I thought a moment that we could be able to put the usb key in the drawer but it’s not possible. However it could have been too simple and unwise from Vetrova. Actually I tried to put a gun in the drawer to see if Williams would react to it but nothing happened.
Otherwise and like I said it would have been cool to say to Williams that the thief tried to call Vetrova.

If I had to guess, I would say that USB started out as a variation on Hector’s letter (an item obtainable in a secured area that grants you access to a target that does not visit that area) and then gradually spun off into a mission wide narrative. So, I would imagine that future missions would be able to push this concept even further.

Ideally, all future mission should have something of their own “main quest”. Where is is a series of opportunities that are all narratively connected, involve all targets and have their own unique branching structure.

I also hope that they will push this concept further and possibly introduce different endings and consequences to it.
Besides and even if the player doesn’t want to do a mission story, it encourages him to explore and he could be rewarded with a very solid narrative story into the mission if he finds one of those items.
I trust IO Interactive and I’m sure we’ll have great mission stories and more and more plots tied to the gameplay or the choices of the player in Hitman 3.

Although I agree with that, it can only work in the overall ending. Because each mission proceeds the next they can’t write more story based off the multiple different endings of each level, they can only realistically write a single narrative until the very end (in HITMAN 3) where the end of the entire story can give you a multiple endings choice. I would honestly love to see that. But they cant introduce that on every level because of the Undying Effect. What I mean by that is they brought the Undying back like we all knew they would, and they gave him an eye patch to indicate most players killed him with the pen. But what about all those players who killed him any other way, that “continued story” makes no sense to them, thats not how he died for them.

The other example I use would be if they had different endings for each level based around how you killed the targets or what targets you killed, it would make no sense for you to go from killing Viktor Novikov with a shotgun to the face in the middle of lobby, and that being 1 of the endings, but the next level comes out or you play it and people are like “did you hear the news? Apparently Viktor Novikov died of poison while he was at a fashion show” it would be so jarring to see different endings and the canon story only follow one while there is still story to go.

They can’t realisitcally make multiple branch stories for all 14 levels so far, if each level only has 2 endings (which lets be fair is not enough for what you are talking about realisitically) They would still have hundreds of different possible story thread connections that they would have to write and create story for maybe even cutscenes, as well as NPC dialogue options. It is too much to expect from their current team. Even AAA studios find it hard to do that, which is why they tend to put a choice at the end, or small choices through out that cultivate in a handful of different endings but not different story.

This came up in another thread

A bit of disagreement but I think the point is solid

That doesnt really change the over all story just more of how the mission is played which I am all for. I would also like more Splinter Cell esc missions here and there where going around and getting important data, hacking laptops changes the nature of the mission in real time. I would love to see more of that in the game. The people who dont want to “deal with the virus” can play the mission exactly how it starts, go in kill get out. But those of us who want a bit more out of it can discover and unlock these “Dynamic Objectives” which changes the mission. It would be cool if the over all story reflected this (kinda like how getting Mission Accomplished over Mission Completed in Star Fox changed what you do in the story giving you complete different paths as you play the level but also how you play the entire game.

This could be something cool to test out using the world of assassination once HITMAN 3 is done. I could see for example going to Sapienza to kill some target but while you are there you can discover some hidden truth which gives you an alternate target that you can kill instead. Killing this guy your next object will reveal you need to go to Miamai, where as the people who just killed the regular guy and left would be lead to go to Paris. Thats a crude base of what I am thinking but I think you get it

They can’t make better games without more money

That is not necessarily a question of resources, rather it is about efficiency in design. You can make Sgail with its six rigid isolated stories, or you can spend the same amount of resources creating the same amount of interconnected and flexible stories in Haven. You can even argue that Haven requires less resources because of the efficiency of the overlapping stories. Idle Hands story could’ve been its own separate thing, but by combining it with Vetrova’s con developers managed to cut a few corners by using the same set up for two separate stories.

Overlapping stories are more complex to create, because you have to account for all the interconnected options?

One thing is planning an event flow, another is to actually create it. Having to account for variables that you would never imagine could affect another event is half of the work and usually requires hours of playtesting.

I programmed a text-based choose-your-own-adventure game once, and dealing with a network of variables is huge work and not just an gradual checklist of on/off

1 Like

n0rric

I also hope that they will push this concept further and possibly introduce different endings and consequences to it.

Although I agree with that, it can only work in the overall ending. Because each mission proceeds the next they can’t write more story based off the multiple different endings of each level, they can only realistically write a single narrative until the very end (in HITMAN 3) where the end of the entire story can give you a multiple endings choice. I would honestly love to see that. But they cant introduce that on every level because of the Undying Effect. What I mean by that is they brought the Undying back like we all knew they would, and they gave him an eye patch to indicate most players killed him with the pen. But what about all those players who killed him any other way, that “continued story” makes no sense to them, thats not how he died for them.

Well mission stories are not all necessarily linked to the main story and I think that it is better like that.
I’m talking about having different endings and branches only in the mission stories, and not in the main plot.
And I think it’s easier for the devs to create a unique story for each mission instead of trying to create several stories and link them to the main one. Besides that if Hitman 3 is episodic again then they’ll have to take into account that some players won’t play all the missions so the main plot mustn’t be spread into the mission stories.

The other example I use would be if they had different endings for each level based around how you killed the targets or what targets you killed, it would make no sense for you to go from killing Viktor Novikov with a shotgun to the face in the middle of lobby, and that being 1 of the endings, but the next level comes out or you play it and people are like “did you hear the news? Apparently Viktor Novikov died of poison while he was at a fashion show” it would be so jarring to see different endings and the canon story only follow one while there is still story to go.

That would be too difficult and useless to do that in my opinion. The way targets die should not be discussed outside of the mission they’re in.

That is true, however, this is Hitman we’re talking about. People at IO already have to do a LOT of that just due to the nature of the game they are making. And even if they are separate, MS still do overlap quite a bit because they all converge on the same targets anyway. So the addedd complexity might not be that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

In the NoClip documentary Mattias Engstrom said that Paris is still the most complex level in terms of scripting. And Paris version of MS is very basic in comparison to Mumbai or Haven.

If you’re up for changing your mind you could develop a simple game with 5 choices (Giving 25 outcomes)

Oh, trust me, I know what a shitshow it can become. I once tried developing a three player choose your own adventure and that was a total disaster. But, nobody’s arguing here for endless multiplication of options. Well, at least, I’m not arguing for it. I am arguing for conceding mission stories. Fewer stories, with greater flexibility.

To use your example. Let’s say we cut down overall number of spesific stories down to three but allow their interactions. That would result in nine possible outcomes, which is more or less what you get with most Hitman levels anyway.

One of my favorite missions is “The Author” and that one essentially has only one story but it plays out almost any possible permutation of that simple set up, which results in one of the most natural feeling missions in both games.

1 Like