Its the concept of money, how can it be difficult to understand? Its the most logical thing. Absolutions contract mode was motivating, to get all th upgrades (which were expensive). If IO gets it right with the money progress system, it would by far be the better version, compared to unlocks. The question is if they can get it right.
EDIT: its not either or, they can have both, money as main currency, and unlocks for when you do special challenges. Divide weapons from suits for example. Unlock new outfit by challaenges, buy new weapons with currency.
No reason for me to play contracts in H2016/H2 (other than the trophies). Absolution did contracts right and gave users not only a levelling progression, but a true sandbox of selecting all outfits and weapons across ALL maps. I know I played contracts wayyyyy more than the story mode.
There were 5 customizeable weapons… 2 of which were useful for the traditional approach (the pistol and the sniper rifle) and the rifle needed to get high end upgrades just to be able to shoot vaguely close to how a sober professional would.
Expanding the selection means you have to decide things like:
Are the weapons going to be good to begin with, if so why bother upgrading? If not, then how do you prevent upgrading feeling like a chore you have to do before you start using the weapon? How much is going to be effecting game mechanics and how much will be cosmetic?
How are the weapons going to be distinct? Are they going to have the same upgrades but unique traits? Unique upgrade selections? If they have unique upgrade selections how do you communicate the end result to players?
How much budget do you want to allocate to this? Every weapon modification will need multiple iterations of design, testing, re-design, etc so scope creep can easily blow out your budget.
While it seems simple in theory, making something like this fun and engaging for the vast majority of players and not turn into tedious grind.
Weapons mods are engaging in competitive shooter games because you spend the whole game fully engaged with that weapon. Weapon mods are engaging in Battle Royale type games because the situation makes you grateful for any advantage you can get (even if it’s just placebo).
Hitman you already have to learn how to sneak, how to use disguises, how to manipulate scenarios, engineer accidents, work with explosives, do quiet takedowns, smuggle bodies, etc. Why should the average player want to add “how to customize their weapons” to the list?
Define “good”. The few variables I can think of in HITMAN has:
I would start with these variables and give all these a base amount. Enough to be satisfactory. A little more stronger than HWK21 attributes IMO. You progress to make your weapons better then be able to go back to replay a mission that you may not have had that feature/opportunity before. The chore side would be down to IOI choice of in game economy. Providing you can earn and purchase attachments at a fair rate, I doubt there would be a grind/chore feeling.
It would effect the game the same way current and previous installations have. Create opportunities with excessive distances and ammo types. In BM, not only I could do all the typical stuff, I could customise my M4 into a 100 round beast for the “No Witnesses” round. Chuck on a full slide fully automatic silverballers without the extended magazine because I prefer it. Maybe you need a long barrel to get the extra dropoff damage/range. Maybe you could purchase AP Rounds to snipe through 1 object, the bullets from Sniper Assassin would create new ideas and options. If you’re an aesthetic player, then you simply customise your gun as you see fit without caring for the stats of said weapon.
Well if the base attributes are different, it will affect them depending on the attachments you select. At the moment, the weapons are basically the same. They don’t feel like the player’s weapons; you’re not making them your own but rather taking a piece and seeing if it can fit in the puzzle of the world.
Unique traits such has hair trigger, faster reloading, skeletonized bodies/grips/hammers could change weight or ADS time. Add a cornershot camera to the weapons to be able to shoot around corners in precision aim. The world is your oyster with this. And balancing doesn’t have to be spot on as it isn’t PvP. As I said a meta item will always exist so no matter what you do, you might as well crate loads of options for the player to play with in a sandbox game.
In terms of communicating to the user, are you implying UI/UX or something else? Because in terms of UI/UX you would write descriptions of the traits and have the classic stat bars.
I can’t answer this as I don’t know the financials of IOI or WB. While I have understanding this all matters in development, as a general consumer, that’s not my problem. To be blunt. As a consumer, I should not need to worry nor care for this. Same reason why users look at 2 games and decide what is more worth their money. They don’t care how much it cost to make it, if one has more stuff they want, they’ll take it. So to many consumers, you say “well MGSV, GTA, COD, BF, Ghost Recon all have customiastion, why the hell not Hitman especially since it was there on PS2 and PS3.”
Budget aside, QA testers need to test the attachments work as intended and make sure the code hasn’t broken any existing content.
The same reason there are many players asking for this feature. I could argue MGSV has majority of them points yet adds customisation into the game, in which is actually hidden out the way as a surprise and reward to players who work to unlock it.
Okay so why do I want to bother upgrading? The weapon list is a toolbox - you reach in and you grab the tool. If the tool does the job fine at the start, why mess with it? Remember, I’m not handling the weapon in person - I’m using it via mouse to complete a game objective.
All of which need to be factored in at level design - so now do you make the base weapons in adequate for the opportunities in the map, or you get players getting pissed off that they should be able to snipe someone from x point but they can’t because the gun sucks.
So then you don’t need the rifle that does that, or rather it becomes just another generic rifle that is not special in any way.
But you’re not playing Sniper Assassin, so you don’t need them. You need the bullets in Sniper Assassin because you’re in a fixed location, so you can’t manipulate your targets routines or set explosives like you can in the regular game. If you can do this with a sniper rifle, then why bother even going into the area?
One of the major game design flaws Blood Money had was their often rather simply and intuitive ways to kill your targets and get a high score (if not Silent Assassin) without exploring or engaging with the level. Generally they were not as satisfying, and they highlighted how poorly protected the targets actually were, but they worked and felt natural so players did them.
They’re tools - they do the job. They’re never going to actually feel different because you’re never actually going to handle them, they just have different aesthetics and attributes.
Doing them as releases allows the development team to plan levels around what the player can do - because they control the loadout. Doing it as customization options bloats out development exponentially because the possible combinations have just gone up exponentially and you need to factor in for all possible combos.
It is absolutely your problem because it if you don’t understand this then you don’t have a basis to actually assess what you’re requesting or asking for. Just like if you go to buy a car you need to know what features are legally expected, what are standard and what are luxury - so when the car dealer quotes you a price you can understand exactly what you’re getting.
Moreso since you’re not shopping for a game, you’re proposing that a game should be changed because you’re imagining that these things would just happen and be a benefit. Imagine how are car dealer would deal with someone who walks in and wants Bond car features on their affordable coup, then responds with it’s not their problem whether it’s viable or not.
More to the point you should certainly not be posting in a topic on a forum for discussion of a game, then announcing it’s not your problem when the discussion occurs - that’s an exercise in bad faith and it’s bad for you, and bad for everyone else.
Most consumers actually just go “I enjoy the thing” or “I do not enjoy the thing” for everything from movies to games to porn to mattresses.
The “this feature should be standard because x has it and I’m going to announce it’s a problem it’s not in my thing” are generally a very loud, and very small minority who continually contribute to the toxicity of the games market through ignorance and entitlement. It’s more or less a unique problem to gaming, and one that I actively try to combat on this forum because this forum is for civilized conversation.
Car enthusiasts don’t demand to know why their ultra-safe station wagon doesn’t have a supercharged V12 like the latest supercar does, they discuss what features work best and how to combine them.
Artists don’t complain that the latest free art program doesn’t do video editing because the last five versions of Adobe PhotoShop have done so. They discuss which programs and tools best meet their needs.
Cineamaphiles don’t start threads complaining the latest romance film doesn’t use a new filter that the highest grossing action films did, therefore it sucks. They discuss what techniques work, what leads to various mistakes and who best overcame things.
The concept of “appreciation” in media and products is not one of writing an arbitrary checklist and then announcing everyone should have it because someone else has it - it’s a process of studying the thing and understanding the limitations, opportunities and seeing how they work together.
That’s where actual engaging conversation, civilized discourse and a greater enjoyment of the product comes from - being able to appreciate all the aspects of it rather than just the primal response that most consumers get when they move through it.
Reminds me of one of my favourite quotes in the last years, of the ex-Prime-Minister of Australia, Malcolm Turnbull. He said, regarding his mathematically impossible request to have “save encryption with backdoors”:
“The laws of Australia prevail in Australia, I can assure you of that. The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.”
Did edit it to underline the issue of your perspective:
“The needs of me prevail on the gaming market, I can assure you of that. The needs of others are very commendable, but the only need that applies on the gaming market is the need of me.”
Guess what Turnboll did not get. Save encryption with backdoors. Because he was to ignorant there are limits out of his reach.
Now guess what might happen to your demands if you act like him.
Too make it better than is already is would be the main reason. Speed runners would utilise the upgrades to extend the range of the weapon to make shave seconds off. Perhaps you needed to be in 5ft to get OHK. Extend that barrel and you got it in 10ft. Maybe you got into a pickle or not good at keeping it stealthy and needed to kill multiple guards, extended mag and/or quick ejection port would be ideal now.
Maybe you wanted to kill 2 guards with 2 nearby but haven’t purchased a silencer yet or better yet, got a mk I silencer that muffles it by 25% so the closer guards could hear. Maybe you wanted to create a distraction, good time to unscrew the silencer and bait shot. Or use a lower grade silencer.
This one. The art of repetition. I emboldened “should” because that’s a player expectation or want rather than designed to. Rather they can snipe from there, providing you brought the attachments that will help you, not guarantee nor deny you the ability. It doesn’t mean you can’t complete the mission, you just can’t get the range/damage dropoff you desired to without said attachments. You could still shoot if you tried, maybe take 2 or 3 shots, maybe a bit blurry/swaying due to the lack of 4x scope and grip/bipod. But just like Hitman, you make the decisions of what you want to bring next time.
Should I be able to get through a locked door with no lock pick? Should I be able to poison stuff with no poison. Of course not. Attachments only extend the ability to create such opportunities. Players feelings shouldn’t be pissed off provided they are notified through UI/UX of the pros and cons of attachments and the effect they can make on the environment.
Currently all I had to do was do 1 escalation and boom got the Ghost Sniper fully maxed out.
This is where my point for calibres comes in. If we had 50. BMG/308. Winchester etc. This wouldn’t be an issue. Then we have options:
Player can bring in a rifle that chambers in 50./308.
Player can purchase a variety of barrels and receivers that will allow the weapon to fire them bullets.
This allows players to use a variety of rifles they want to while achieving the same end goal. Instead of rather “I have to choose this gun because IOI made this one only”
Instead of choosing from a list of Jaegers, you make the Jaeger the tool you need. It would be special in its own right. Not to mention the different variations that the community could suggest to each other for each position.
This can be applied to many situations in it’s current form. Colorado for example. Water Tower, snipe all 4 targets, poof gone. Usually a sniper won’t need to go into the area they are sniping into anyways. Having an option of bullets could open new and exciting ways to assassinate targets.
The attributes are what makes them feel different in game though. Blood Money aim swaying as you mentioned, the recoil of the full slide silverballers. The audio of the AP rounds vs subsonic rounds and like the video you linked, can shoot doors (yeah I know H2 has that).
So my question to the video (other than how broken the rating system is on that lol) is:
Would the ammo chosen have made an impact to get the door open?
Did the Red Dot sight allow the run to be pulled off better?
Could this be done with a default silverballer?
Then explain why certain games if not every game (AAA) are valued at the same price? Yet you will get many comparisons across the board of games when they are valued at the same price. COD canned its Campaign and added a Battle Royale mode. It still retained the same 50 quid as typical. So on that basis, they are telling us the Campaign and a Battle Royale mode are both just as development costly.
Making fair comparisons on systems and features that were in predecessors is something a user is ought to make. Trying to weight up developments costs isn’t.
I’m (as in my person) more than happy to discuss everything freely. I’m not referring to the forum but as general consumption of the product. Development costs isn’t the worry of consumers but of the studio and publisher. Nor should I assume a link between the two either.
Not sure where I’ve been uncivil in this discussion, no one here are arguing or throwing insults. All I see is a healthy discussion taking place over a long period of time actually (since launch of H2016) on this feature. We are an example. Stating a fact of a missing feature isn’t toxic in the slightest. Cameras were a joke in HITMAN 1 and IO addressed that. The missing difficulties that were missing before were addressed too. If simply asking and making fair points is deemed “toxic” then why discuss any missing features if you “combat” it and call us “entitled”.
You don’t fix what’s not broken as they say. It perfectly fine appreciating a product, but there should be nothing wrong in talking about weak points and what could be added to make the product even better. Look at RDR Online, R* has changed stuff (kinda) in responses to the disliking of economy. It’s not being ungrateful or “toxic”, but being critical to the very product they love and want to discuss.
I think it is pretty clear at this point that people that champion money system are mostly doing it for the sake of immersion since it almost always comes up in tandem with weapon customization – also an aspect of the assassin fantasy. Why we are even talking about weapon customization in a game series that has been actively discouraging use of guns since 2002 is beyond me.
I really like the way that the current XP / Mastery system works. I understand the idea that a player that has played many Hitman games might want to go in and just save up for the stuff they want but every game that comes out is hoping to find a new player base as well.
Here’s why I think it works players old and new:
Removes confusing choice - I think games like Dishonored, Deus Ex and every single RPG game (for some reason Mass Effect is coming to mind) give you XP points or Money to spend on items or abilities. They can seem good at the time only to find out that later down the road you spent your XP points or money on something that wasn’t right for the job or speced your player for a different play style. Here you just play the game and stuff unlocks. Want it to unlock faster than knock out multiple challenges at once or go for more intense challenges. As @Jarbinger mentioned above. I believe most players don’t want to add weapon customization to their things to learn list. I’d add not wanting to learn what starting location is best, what remote explosive is best, what pistol is best. I’ll speak for myself. I don’t want to learn it! I want to play and get get cool stuff. Even if one of those things is a pistol I never fire and bring to a mission to throw on the ground to get a guard out of the way… I don’t mind because it’s a signifier I am one step closer to the next item I do want!
Removes buyers remorse - Continues on the previous idea. You never gave up any points, money or xp. Your xp didn’t go from 1000 to 0. The number is always going up and you are always unlocking things. You know there is a cap for each level that you can hit on the mastery track. Once you hit it you have all the stuff. Want more game then dig in the challenges and make your own fun! You’re not doing something for the money that you can’t spend on anything. You are doing it for the fun, challenge and discovery. Your infinitely increasing player number is your player profile!
Expanding your understanding - Having challenges of increasing complexity, difficulty and variety mean that when you go to complete them you can check your starting items available and closet starting location.
Don’t have an item you want to do that challenge and it’s tied to another location? Now you have to play that level a bit more, find areas you’ve never seen before, disguises you didn’t know about, overhear new conversations. All of this pushes you out of your comfort zone and most players resist that at first but, I believe, ultimately they like it! Now when an elusive target or contract appears on that map they will feel more confident to try it. This is what the developers want! They want players that just played story mode once through to come back for things like elusive targets, realize they could have used more unlocks, realize they don’t quite know the map and dive in again and again to get that stuff.
(this was one of the reason I believe Escalation Missions are an amazing tool for the players and developers)
Would a money system ruin the game?? Of course not! It just would be very different.
Afterthought… If there was a mode of HITMAN 2 that you could play called “Blood Money mode” that used a currency system… What would it be?
(restriction to the idea, anything you do in this mode doesn’t impact anything else in the game as for unlocks or xp)
One aspect yes for myself. And the ability to truly decide my items and how I would like them. Still missing weapons to this today. We have to wait to get a combination of stuff on a weapon.
Asking for features and explain why they would be an great addition =/= gets called entitled and saying the industry needs to cater to me. K whatever. Come back to me with counter points of the money system and customisation and we’ll talk instead of petty insults.
That’s player learning curve, some people get overwhelmed with content and tutorials and cannot cope with the influx of information. Hitman isn’t an RPG and I don’t think we are asking for 47 stats (although I liked the body armour and stuff in BM). Nothing would be restricted from you to the point that it is impossible to complete as you are describing. Like how you can complete every mission on your first go without having any unlocks. The difference is that it’ll be harder without (like non upgraded weapons) and as you earn/purchase items, things will get easier/or allow you do more things, just like unlocks. Difference is we have a choice of unlocks and how we want them to be. Didn’t buy a lockpick, just play the mission again and get some money, do some challenges for bonus money to buy more.
And that’s fine, you don’t have to use it, difference is, you would earn money and purchase the next thing you want. Not sure what there is to learn really, attachments change stats
But I’m getting XP Levels that gets me nothing now Why would you play after hitting level 20 across the board? Same reason you would keep playing and money stacks. Because you enjoy playing the game post full unlocks. Developers can add stuff the game that we could purchase in the future so doesn’t mean the money would go to waste permanently.
Challenges shouldn’t go away IMO. Nor replaced. I feel they’ve added a layer of as you said complexity and variety and I really welcome that. It furthers the player’s horizons and allows them to figure out and explore (especially the REDACTED ones).
I mean I guess if you’re afraid to explore but who would purchase an HITMAN game and not explore. The general locations of the targets give that information to the player to get across the map to them. I wouldn’t go far to say they are playing it wrong but rather they are limiting themselves for an unknown reason.
True, otherwise one can go for corps like Ubi or Rockstar. Where you want your god damn meal and the chef his god damn money. Even if they dislike each other. I am actually glad we have some kind of interaction. We get to know a bit more what to expect and they value us a bit more as users and not only as payer.
Better isn’t an objective measure - it’s a subjective concept.
I am not an expert, but my understanding is that the whole point of speed running is to overcome the particular challenges of individual games - so really an unlock system offers novelty and essentially provides the same aspects.
That was the theory in Blood Money but largely it had no real impact because when you get to that level of micro-managing mechanics it makes level and challenge design incredibly difficult to the level of potentially impossible.
This was also the theory in Blood Money, but the end result was it just made 47 look like a fundamentally incompetent assassin who didn’t pass his basic marksmanship classes. If you want fidelity, then pretty much any dedicated sniper rifle, or even battle rifle with a decent scope, should be able to do any shot from anywhere on a Hitman map.
But I’m supposed to be a genetically engineered super soldier who has the highest level of training available - why should he need 43 accessories in order to take a shot over 500 metres when a regular military marksman can make it without breaking a sweat?
The game is Hitman, not Hitmans’ inventory of tools that mean anyone could do it, the idea is to feel like a badass - no a weekend warrior with a platinum card.
That doesn’t make sense - it’s more akin to expecting the player to learn about the different kinds of locks, and lockpicks, and expect them to be happy that if they want to pick locks reliably they now have to take a the particular kind of kit that a real locksmith would use. Want to poison someone? Let’s get ready for a chemistry lesson! Everyone loves chemistry lessons!
To what extent? Dark Souls provides a UI/UX of the pros and cons of stuff… fucked if I can understand what the final outcome is on a case by case basis. Hitman it’s very simple - every time I take a gun it works like that gun.
Same. It’s awesome - it means if I want to do stealthy sniping hits I can and I have it because I went out of my way to go get it in a memorable way. The escalation was also pretty fun, but not so long that it outlived it’s welcome.
How would this experience be improved by me spending an hour reading up on attachments and options, then replaying missions in a way I don’t really want to - but gets me lots of money, so I can make an arbitrary rifle have the same qualities then never change that configuration?
Also, how many opportunities to make cash are there going to be? Because if you want a lot of weapons with a lot of customisation options that require enough work to feel like you earned them… that’s a lot of content that needs to be balanced for payout.
In order to get to the Water Tower on their first go - one must first go through the junk yard, past the explosives yard, past the shed where the injured strike team guy is recovering, etc. So you, on the way, generally overhear two to four opportunities to do the level - assuming you worked out from word go that the Water Tower was going to give you this opportunity to snipe all targets - and took one of the most direct routes.
Then, after you’ve sniped everyone with your Ghost Rifle, now you have to go down and get into the house and find the way to get into the tornado shelter. So you’re guaranteed by the end of the level to be aware of many opportunities and aspects of the level in advance, because of the design of this particular level. It’s made to drive engagement.
It wouldn’t work so well if you could say, just stop in the junk yard - then use Instinct to snipe through walls or kill indirectly with explosions then run around the edge to get into the house (or could just leave). When players get rewarded for that, it becomes a thing they start to expect - so you end up with players complaining about say Ark Society because they couldn’t just roll in, snipe and roll out.
The default unsilenced silverballer that is accurate to about half the distance of the shots required? Unlikely, that’s why the level designers aren’t able to anticipate that approach to levels - because they don’t have time to go over every possible configuration of meaningful differences in weapons and work out if there are any “cheat zones” where people can snipe, etc.
The simplest answer is that they aren’t - they have a base expected price that is a holdover from when video games were a much smaller industry and then they have other revenue streams such as in game micro-transactions, DLC, special editions, merchandise etc.
Part of why MMOBA, competitive FPS games and Battle Royale games are currently so popular with the big publishers is that they have very simple, low cost, revenue options once they achieve popularity. No need to design merchandise, approve spinoff products, etc. Just pay some people to design a bunch of skins and the cash ROLLS in.
No they’re saying that the customer base will pay that price for both types of game. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any sort of promise of hard ratio of development cost to price point - that would essentially go against everything that markets and economics work by.
Pretty much everyone knows that with cars, because they accept that a car loses a massive amount of value the moment it goes off the lot and that brands add value etc. Nobody walks in to a car dealership and asks them to put a V12 engine, SUV smart traction system and BMW logo on their Ford station wagon.
If you want information on that, you’d need to start learning about business and markets - where you have to factor in things like:
short term return on investment
long term return on investment
original development costs vs derivative work costs
licensing fees and opportunities
All so you can accept that developers have finite budgets and that cutting back on content is a critical part of decision making in literally every bit of media - you would, apparently, prefer to be angry that literally everyone spends less than infinite dollars.
They aren’t when consumers just enjoy the game or just decide the game isn’t for them.
They are when you start a discussion on how the game should be made/modified, because then you’ve moved into the real of critic and commentator - at that point you should make an effort to know what you’re talking about.
You just boldly declared that you don’t need to know or care about aspects of the game that are relevant to the topic in order to keep with your line that x is standard so by implication the lack of x is substandard. That’s not improving or progressing the conversation - that’s just stating your way needs to be accepted because you want it to be.
“I don’t care about x real and relevant issue” is never a healthy component of a discussion.
Also things like this are not healthy components to the conversation since this is the use of previous adjustments with the proposal that “people complained, the thing got fixed” is a cause/effect and not say that IO-Interactive had already been working on these and had them on the to do list (by y’know, development times and costs) to then declare that any complaint is equally valid regardless of approach or lack of rationality.
I’ve been asking you to make a fair point based on fair considerations - your response was to say you don’t care about those considerations and to then assert your idea is good anyway.
R* may also have had those changes planned in advance and simply needed the time to get them finished, also the existence of the complaints and feedback is not what determines the toxicity.
People posting a thread to discuss the mechanic that they want is not toxic. People dropping in to say “it’s in other AAA games so it should be in this game because” is in fact toxic because it implies an obligation to meet arbitrary standards based on nothing other than a weird comparison to different games.
If the idea is really good and simple like better camera controls, then the discussion of it should essentially turn into a pitch and nobody should feel the need to announce “This aspect isn’t my problem”. What tends to happen however, is people instead just opt to try to make it seem like a good idea by acting like it’s the standard and they’re hardly done by for not having it, because somehow others are expected to accomodate it.