Im a sucker for the Isle of Sgàil, and so i would love to see a sort of event or party gathering were you have to find something like if it eas Christmas themed maybe present or halloween maybe some ancient artifacts?
It would be either set at the same sorta sky as the holiday hoarders misson or the map would be day time maybe like the illusions of grandeur mission in Mumbai
3 Likes
I would say either Hawke’s Bay or Whittleton Creek. Something with more people out and about, some kind of holiday for WC or a celebration for HB.
4 Likes
Do you think there’s room for IOI to add one more story or bonus mission?
- Yes
- No
- It depends
0 voters
Depends would be on things like if it’s actually good, or if it adds more to the story, rather than just more for the sake of more.
If you answered yes, then:
When should such a mission take place in relation to the story?
- Before
- During
- After
0 voters
1 Like
There’s always “room”, if IOI has the time and personnel. If you’re asking if there’s room in the existing story, then probably? I don’t know that it matters if it adds to the story or even whether it fits into the existing plot. Landslide doesn’t “fit” anywhere in the narrative. The Icon is just an extra mission with no tie to anything. None of the Elusive Targets have anything to do with the Providence story line. They’re just extra bits of mission and they work mostly fine.
It wouldn’t matter if a potential extra mission happened before, during or after if it’s done correctly. Without knowing more detail on what such a hypothetical mission entailed, there’s no way to answer that.
3 Likes
Well, technically Landslide is like a prologue to World of Tomorrow, because of Caruso.
I put these polls forward because I still feel that IOI has not really utilized China to its potential in a mission, and there’s a city on the other side of China from Chongqing and the usual places (Bejing, Shanghai, Hong Kong), Urumqi, and it seems like an interesting place to show a different part of China, and it can even be relevant to the Providence story because it is considered a major location of scientific research. Plus, it is the city considered by Guinness to be the furthest located from any ocean, which would be an interesting bit of info the drop into a description of the place. So I started picturing if there could be a story-based reason to take us into the middle of Asia for a change, since we haven’t been there since H2:SA.
2 Likes
If IOI decided to add a new bonus mission, I would rather want to have it on an H3 map, bringing more content to the new maps.
1 Like
Stuff like the X-Files Easter egg in Berlin is awesome
5 Likes
By that same argument, technically any of the Elusive Targets that take place in Paris are like prologues because of Novikov and Margolis. Dartmoor Garden Show is like a sequel to the campaign mission because of Carlisle’s grave. That side mission in Whittleton Creek has the two main targets wandering around the map so they could be considered prologues too.
It made sense to include references to the actual targets in those maps solely because they were the same maps. They still don’t really have anything tangible to do with the actual plot of the game’s main campaign. They’re just fun side missions that really don’t add or subtract anything to/from the main plot.
Right, but they’re still part of the story. Not the war against the Shadow Client/Providence, but Landslide actually did occur before the events of WoT, which would not have happened the way it did if Caruso had not been emboldened to kill all his childhood bullies after successfully having Abiatti bumped off, unlike any of the ETs there which are basically non-canon what-ifs (as are all H1 and some H2 ETs, their mentions in actual missions just being Easter Eggs). And DGS really does take place after the events of the main story, and could not have if 47 hadn’t killed Alexa, so it is an epilogue showing what happened in the aftermath of one of his main targets dying, unlike any of the ETs that take place in Dartmoor, which are absolutely non-canon.
I don’t deny any of that but the point wasn’t that the stories did or didn’t fit within the timeline of the established narrative, it was that the stories didn’t actually have any bearing on the story. If those missions didn’t exist at all, the narrative of the 3-game trilogy would be no different.
We didn’t need to see Abiatti’s murder to understand why Caruso does what he does. Is it color for his motives? Sure, but it isn’t essential.
We didn’t need to see Dartmoor after the events surrounding Carlisle’s death. Is it an interesting epilogue of sorts? Sure, but it isn’t essential.
Your original question was whether there was room for additional side missions. The answer to that still is “it depends” on what the side missions actually are. If they are just “more color”, then sure, there’s plenty of room. If they are attempts to add actual plot details, then there may or may not be room. It would depend on what they are attempting to add.
As an example, imagine a potential side mission between Whittleton Creek and Sgail where 47 has to infiltrate an airport, find Janus’ coffin and put a tracker on it. While he’s there he has to bump off the Providence Herald who is in charge of transporting the casket in a way that’s accidental. Could that fit? Perhaps it could without retconning too much of the established timeline.
A different imagined side missions where 47 has to assassinate someone between the events of Dubai and Dartmoor would be silly though. There isn’t enough room between the two to fit more plot stuff into.
3 Likes
If it were to happen “during,” this is where a mission between Haven and Dubai would come in.
2 Likes
Who is really the sidekick?
- Diana
- 47
0 voters
1 Like
I’d argue both as Diana is 47’s handler and helper so she is sorta (not in a mean way ofc) controlling 47, telling him everything (sorta like Alfred in the Arkham games)
But then 47 is thebmain character AND he is also the one who acts out (ofc!) 
2 Likes
I don’t think either of them could be called a sidekick, really.
4 Likes
i think woa goes to a lot of effort to make them a duo. i’d say it’s pretty successful in that regard.
4 Likes
I could (not necessarily would) argue that from Blood Money onward, Diana is the one really in charge and 47 is her sidekick, as the stories that play out are mostly her doing, we just follow from 47’s perspective.
To look at it another way, if you take The Lord of the Rings as an example, Sauron is the main character, the entire story is really about him, even though he only really appears as a footnote, and we see his story from the Fellowship’s perspective. Now, imagine the Fellowship worked with Sauron and you get an idea of what I mean for the 47/Diana duo. Diana is the all-seeing but little-seen Sauron whom the story is really centered around, and 47 is the Fellowship whom our perspective follows.
I’ll grant that H1 and H2 (of both the series and the recent trilogy) do not really have that, as H1 is about Grey and H2 is about 47, but H3 is Diana’s story, really.
This is one perspective that I entertain, I don’t necessarily hold to this, but it’s interesting to think about. And if true, or close to true, that makes 47 closer to the sidekick of the main hero than the reverse.
3 Likes
Just because Diana is more in charge than 47 is, that doesn’t make 47 a sidekick. If Diana and 47 had the same basic role (assassin) and both were in the field, but Diana did the majority of the work and planning with 47 there in an auxiliary capacity, I’d agree that “sidekick” could be an accurate term, but that isn’t their relationship.
They have entirely separate roles to fill. Neither is the Robin to the other’s Batman. The “sidekick” doesn’t go out and do the job while the non-sidekick stays in the bat cave directing the show.
5 Likes
you could, but I don’t think it would be particularly compelling, especially given woa’s treatment of their relationship.
i don’t think the catalyst of a story has to be the main character. in fact, i’d say that was fairly rare.
i think you might be misunderstanding what is commonly meant by ‘main character’. it’s more or less a synonym for ‘protagonist’, which sauron isn’t; he’s an antagonist.
1 Like
The typical, but not the sole way of seeing it. In any event, the antagonist is whoever opposes the character who sets the plot in motion/the plot is set around. To go a little further off topic as an example, in Die Hard, the director has always maintained that Hans Gruber is the protagonist, as he’s the one moving the story, and John McClane is the antagonist, as he’s the one opposing him. It gets convoluted when you look at it past the idea of who is the “hero” and who is the “villain,” which are not always the same as protagonist and antagonist.
Anyway, back on the subject at hand, and to @schatenjager, while your points are valid, the questions is posed to mean more like if you were to look at it as a hero/sidekick dynamic, then who is the the real sidekick. I suppose I should have worded the question with more clarity. But, having said that, if it were such a dynamic, then what would your answer be.
I kinda have to disagree with this because Hans chose to involve McClane in his plot, he didn’t just jump in his way, and ironically that choice is what led to his downfall.
1 Like