The Last Resort (First Impressions/spoilers)

  1. Any unlock that is not just a reskin can affect all the game mechanics in the map. So they make a bunch of reskins with every map, and they all are variations of something we have seen before. This is important for some players to be rewarded with some cool unlock, but it usually not important for game play. If there is some sort of required item, it is usually provided somewhere on the map, such as lethal poison.

  2. We could expect in some fantasy luxury resort like Disneyland, that the island workers are working behind the scenes below ground, and only to surface when needed.

Having said this, where the island workers sleep at night is not a consideration for game design. These are not meant to be realistic maps but maps designed for the purpose of game play. It is meant to be realistic enough to give you the immersive experience, but not meant to be substitute for reality.

1 Like

I cba to look back but, I’ve found the treasure. Here’s its location if you want to find it without the map.

You’ll need a shovel (there’s one in the basement of Tyson’s facility) It’s located on Steven’s private little island. There is a Tiki hut in the middle of it. Follow the heartbeats and Dig here. 47 will dig up a pirate’s chest with a sword and some coins inside.

Probably an unpopular view here, but a mission like this where one of the targets can give you a ‘mission’ of their own and you can complete it makes me wish there was at least one mission where there was a way to do an alternative where you don’t have to kill all targets (Dishonored style); especially in this one where the point of the mission is the servers and nobody is actually paying you to kill the three heads.

Would’ve been great if you could figure out a way to spare at least one target’s life… get a security key drive off Bradley instead of killing him, completing Ljudmila’s mission and then she leaves the island forever when she’s got what she wants. Just brainstorming here but surely there’s at least one circumstance where it’s a reasonable idea and a cool option, especially in these ‘off the books’ missions where you’re just trying to get info with Grey or whatever.

10 Likes

Considering Ljudmila’s plan involved wiping all the data of the Haven server, I doubt this is what 47 and his colleagues want.

1 Like

Like I said, the question is if it would be possible and reasonable if they chose to by design. They could simply have made her plan to wipe her own data, not everyone’s data. Or they could have it be more about her taking the money (although then they’d have to change the story slightly since it looks like Constant/Grey want the money for themselves, although they didn’t tell us) and it would’ve been fine.

3 Likes

I guess the closest to this is the Bank, where the 2 guys with the drives are semi-targets as they’re mentioned in the briefing but not labelled as targets. But I know that’s not what you mean and I agree with you, we’ll call them Dynamic Objectives.

Like in A Dance with The Devil you have 2 hidden targets. In H2 you’d expect to just kill the 2 targets, collect the data, and leave. However, having you learn something in-mission that alters your objectives is really cool.

So IO could implement a variety of Dynamic Objectives

  • Additional targets (would be cool but only really works for an initial suprise)
  • Spare targets (could be optional depending on what you discover in-game)
  • Additional objectives (e.g. you find out there is a file or something that is important so you should collect it)

These could spice up Mission Stories as being more than just ways to get to the targets. They would change what the mission is.

6 Likes

Not quite what I’m talking about, unless ‘Spare targets’ mean discovery of an intel item could render a target redundant

We’ve already had bonus objectives in Flatline, Dance mit Devil, Sgail, and now Colorado… that’s just ended up being ‘extra if you want it’. Not the same as ‘choose one or the other’

2 Likes

Yeah, spare as in you no longer NEED to kill them

2 Likes

Why would you want to kill less targets though? Thats just boring imo

1 Like

I suppose the ideal playthrough would be considered to have the least deaths. So avoiding killing a target could be considered better (flimsy logic there, I know)

But I think you’d want to not kill a target because it adds more variety to things, maybe if they’re a morally grey character you can choose to take the harder route that ends in sparing them.

3 Likes

Reason why I love hitman is routing and coming up with quick ways to kill targets. Having the option to kill less targets and having to do a side objective instead(which would feel like a fetch quest or something) is not something I find enjoyable.

Then again it’s just an option I guess. As long as you get a much lower score for not killing all targets and the side objective takes a lot more time to complete, I wouldn’t mind the addition for those who like it. I just wouldn’t use it

1 Like

Imo the bank mission would have been better if those guys were actual targets. Wasnt a fan of the whole vault gimmick either

4 Likes

Depending what the objective is you still have to use 80% of the same skills; to get to an objective you still need to do routing, still need to get past guards, still need to get through doors, still need to possibly do an illegal action in a populated room. But then objective might throw up new skills, like having to hold something in your hands to the exit

It’s all about how they design it; the Whittleton Creek clues are an example of how not to do non-target objectives; they were in quiet areas or as simple as knocking someone out, or stupidly involve you waiting a whole minute for a recording to play and Diana to shut up, etc etc.

4 Likes

I actually agree on this one, they’re not marked so theyre hard to go after, plus you can’t kill them because they’re not targets, so you can really just pacify and hid them.

This is where there should be Dynamic Objectives. The initial objectives would be to kill all 3, then you as a player can find out you don’t need to kill 2 of them, and spare them to just get the data. It would be optional, not really quicker and make the level have more than 1 target (so not so small).

But all of that means nothing to me if it doesn’t lead to a kill.

Like I said, I wouldn’t mind the option for those who would like, as long as the score for choosing to go for that instead of killing all the targets is significantly lower, and the side objective takes a lot time.

1 Like

I think it should just take longer, not have a lower score. You’ve still been a silent assassin, just less targets. If it takes longer too, you do get a lower score anyway so

2 Likes

Yeah that’s cool. Only thing that imo is a must is that your score would be waaaaaaay lower than when you killed them all

1 Like

Why tho? :joy: See here is where we don’t agree

Yes you still achieve sa, but you should get less point for the mission objectives part of the score.

1 Like

Only if you’re meant to be getting money to kill them, since there’s no money reward only score reward; but if that was the case then you shouldn’t be given the option not to kill them, probably

2 Likes