My play style, finally explained

That’s what I’m trying to get at. I base my “canon” off of 47’s character, on what he would and would not do, or when and where and why he might or might not do it. Ergo, some things are absolutely non-canon because he would not do them, but there are several things left over that could be interpreted as canon, and I simply trim away the former and say who knows at the latter. But I do so based on the character, which is the first and foremost place to begin such a debate, and not with the writers, who are interchangeable, contradictory, and can lose sight of the very character they’ve created.

My parameters are based off of how 47’s character had been presented, but even in following those, there are multiple options and no one single way of doing things.

It’s perhaps easier to simply state what things he wouldn’t do and what are not canon, than to make claims to what is, in that sense.

The term you’re looking for :slightly_smiling_face:

Recommend you use it more often so there will be fewer misunderstandings :wink:


Note the quote marks, dude. Used only because canon kills are so nebulous. Already know the term, but it doesn’t apply here, because it’s not what I believe vs what’s established; it’s what’s been established is what I believe vs what hasn’t actually been established but some mistakenly believe it has. :wink:

You may as well concede that it’s an opinion just to dumb it down for those of us who don’t possess your near-genius level of intelligence. It might save you (and us) from all of this repetition, and you can rest on your laurels knowing that we could never comprehend your masterful evidence synthesis and character analysis.

1 Like

I’m already there. I just shared this thread to answer the question people had about why I play so restrictively, and I basically backed it up with “because that’s how 47 would do it.” The only parts that are questionable is how much 47 would care about particular details, such as putting a wrench back where he got it, and yeah, there’s room for interpretation there.

Does it just drive you crazy that you can’t close the vault back up in NY?


It’s canon that 47 is not merely the best assassin, but a ghost as well. These parameters of play are, overall (some bits and pieces are interpretative, yes, but overall), just actions and inactions which would almost invariably be necessary for 47 to realistically remain a ghost.

It’s the name. You’ve framed “how 47 would do it” as “Heisenberg’s Parameters of Perfection”. I myself understand the name as being “my play style aligns with 47’s parameters of perfection”, but others probably had their jimmies rustled by your co-opting of “how 47 would do it”.

I love how you necro’d this thread 2+ months later just to say that.

I’m not getting at you or anything – more power to you. It’s just so genuinely petty; I love it.

Well, I’ve based this whole thing, indeed played WoA from day one, based off of how 47 would do it. Now, this is not exclusively how 47 would do it; there are other paths he might take if necessary, although I’ve managed to account for most of them. So, a person could still be playing how 47 would do it not strictly adhere to how I have it listed here. I named it such to differentiate the exact procedures I would use of 47’s repertoire to get a perfect outcome, and that was because I had been asked multiple times why I would or would not do this or that in other threads on the subject of how to approach a mission. While this list may not be the be all/end all of what 47 would do, everything that is in it is directly based on what he would do, so anyone who thinks otherwise is someone who has not been paying attention to the series.

With nothing substantial to back it up, too, that’s what was funny to me. I already covered the points he attempted to make.

A little bit, yeah. But, some things are completely out of our control and I have to account for that.