The trilogy tries to justify your 'hits by painting your victims as villains, and by virtue you as some form of neutral arbiter of justice. Ever since Hitman SA, I’ve enjoyed role-playing the hitman games as a cold-blooded psychopath trying to get his next pay check. I kill good, bad and the inbetween as long as the price is right. The new hitman games though make your killings feel more justified. It makes you feel more like a government assassin rather than a cold-blooded psychopath killing for money.
This has bothered during this entire trilogy and was encapsulated during the Mendoza mission where it was suggested that Diana didnt take contracts for purely money or power, but only when she believed there was some moral justification for it as well.
The fact that we have an overarching story also plays in to this - it’s hard to have an overarching plot if you’re killing randoms based on a paycheck. To me, these games would have been better and more immersive without a storyline. Instead, I would have preferred if IOI filled out each map with more backstory or information about each target
as well as deeper mission briefings up front. Not painting them as people that deserve it, simply providing more details about the people you’re doing hits on. Not making every target connect into some larger plot of revenge - to me that just blunts the role playing element.
All the hitman games had a somewhat sad excuse for an overarching plot in the past, but they were extremely minimal and nonsensical. They didn’t really break immersion and never made me feel like I was doing society a favor. In fact, the ferris wheel guy in Hitman blood money was almost sympathetic - he had a hit done on him because he made a mistake. He wasn’t evil.
Do you think Hitman games would have been better served without an overarching story and a greater focus on the non-connected plots of individual hits? What about making them more diverse in terms of having marks that really didn’t do anything wrong?