I hear a lot about how the game was bastardized in order to make a deep, personal storyline.

What doesn't get mentioned enough (save for the Telegraph review) is HOW BAD THE STORY IS.

Christ people, we need to demand more. This is a meandering, cliche, absurd mess. The girl is a pointless MaGuffin that goes nowhere. The Agency comes off as goofy and sleezy as opposed to mysterious and efficient. Dexter is apparently a redneck scumbag who risks everything for a suitcase of money, but at the same time owns a state of the art private army and arms research and manufacturing complex? What. The. Fuck? And let's not forget all the predetermined events that happen in cutscenes that probably would play differently if you were in charge (killing Sanchez). Contrived, garbage writing.

What personal growth does 47 show? He slices his barcode and gets gritty for a while because... Flashbacks?

Good god. And remember, we were told as consumers that THIS was the reason we couldn't have open levels, traditional hits and weapon/equipment selection. This story was the "reason".

Biggest disappointment of the year, next to ME3.

Honestly, if they made a better game with a even shittier story, I would be way happier with it.

Also, ME3 was the best in the series even if the ending was total garbage.

Okay

I saw a few people say the story wasn't bad but most critics said it was stupid, even if they did like the game.

Hitman stories have always been horrible (have not yet played Blood Money) so I don't expect anything different.

Yeah, it was pretty fucking stupid that a billionaire would do all that for ten million.

Yeah, the story is extremly stupid........even for the low, low standards of video games.

The old Hitman games didn't have a great overarching story, but the levels themselfs told small, self contained storys that were pretty cool sometimes. Absolution does this sometimes too but, yeah the whole story is complete shit (like, when 47 realises, that apparently everybody knows where the girl is, but instead of bringing her somewhere else he just goes away and kills some guy. Yeah, that worked out fine, right?)

AC3, ME3, Hitman Absolution, Halo 4, All fantastic hits.

@Dallas_Raines said:

Yeah, it was pretty fucking stupid that a billionaire would do all that for ten million.

I'm laughing about this right now as I play. The money amounts being thrown around are cracking me up.

The shame here is that the Hitman games previously didn't have great stories by any means, often loose threads, but they worked fine. I thought Blood Money was everything a Hitman story should be. It allowed total freedom while having a decent thread to tie it together and in the end it had a surprisingly great payoff.

How did the gaming press get it wrong? Some didn't mention it. Some liked the story. Some didn't.

What I want to know is how does the Agency suddenly have all that cash and equipment to fund and equip their own gigantic paramilitary force? I thought the whole point behind them was to have 47 or 47-like agents quietly kill someone for a cut of the payment. You think the National Guard or police or someone would be a little angry with a private army (including color-coded uniforms) just appearing in their state?

For that matter, how did 47 know exactly which doctors to kill in that underground complex? Or which particular hicks belonged to Lenny's gang?

I know, "lol realistic storytelling in a Hitman game."

I've never played a Hitman game for story. Ever. This one tried to go all B-Movie/Grindhouse and failed (seems to be a trend in multiple forms of media these day). I still had fun with the game, it's still not as good as Blood Money at the end of the day, even though a few parts of the story game showed promise. I paid half price for it on the PC and I feel like it was still worth the money.

I dont get all the negativity toward this game

I think its a fine Hitman game and the Hitman story was never anything to write home about

At least he didnt team up with anonymous to take down evil corporations and not FoxNews

Demoskinos - why did Dexter "frame" 47 by putting a knife in his hand and then lighting the entire hotel on fire? Why did 47 use fiber wire on Sanchez and not put a bullet in his head (as I, as the player, would have done).

Why doesn't Dexter liquidate some of his abusurd assets for 10 million? Maybe lay off a third of his massive private security force?

I realize the girl was a 47 with a necklace kill switch. I get it. What I didn't get was any kind of emotional connection or payoff. As I said, she was a thing. A McGuffin. IE: Lazy writing.

@DocHaus: But this is the point - Ok fine, bad story and absurd scenarios. Whatever. Videogames.

But it was the whole excuse given by IOI for the compromises in this title. They removed almost every element from previous games that made it an open, experimental assassination simulator. Now it's a stealth game with smooth controls starring agent 47. And the story is utter garbage.

@Demoskinos said:

@sdharrison They mention that Dexter was starting to have financial issues. The 10 Million was a nest egg for him. Secondly they explain the girl perfectly she was made to basically be a more efficient assassin then 47. Thirdly Travis had basically gone rogue. The upper echelon of Agency management had NO idea about the reasons Diana defected or about the girl or 47. Him and Jade were doing their own thing.

Even with all that, the story is bad and shallow comic book style caricatures going trough terrible dialog and it's the worst excuse to turn half of the experience into a middling stealth game with mechanics from 2002.

I thought they nailed the major issues on this week's bombcast.

Those issues are:

• The game is no longer a sandbox assassination simulator and actively discourage experimentation.
• They replaced the core gameplay with generic stealth that is not very good
• the checkpoint system is bafflelingly terrible and a huge downgrade from mannual saving

@sdharrison: My last sentence wasn't a knock against you, but anticipating the response I would get for the preceding statements. I do agree with your sentiments though.

I do wish game stories were better.  It seems to make very little sense for a game that cost $50 to $100 million to have a non-sense story.  The good news is that many game critsis and sites (like GB) talk about their disappointments with game stories.  A few years ago that would not have happened, tens years ago you could not get a game critics to admit game stories mattered at all.

Got nothing against it. Just wish the blood pools were way better instead of a shitty puddle.

@pyrodactyl said:

@Demoskinos said:

@sdharrison They mention that Dexter was starting to have financial issues. The 10 Million was a nest egg for him. Secondly they explain the girl perfectly she was made to basically be a more efficient assassin then 47. Thirdly Travis had basically gone rogue. The upper echelon of Agency management had NO idea about the reasons Diana defected or about the girl or 47. Him and Jade were doing their own thing.

Even with all that, the story is bad and shallow comic book style caricatures going trough terrible dialog and it's the worst excuse to turn half of the experience into a middling stealth game with mechanics from 2002.

I thought they nailed the major issues on this week's bombcast.

Those issues are:

• The game is no longer a sandbox assassination simulator and actively discourage experimentation.
• They replaced the core gameplay with generic stealth that is not very good
• the checkpoint system is bafflelingly terrible and a huge downgrade from mannual saving

First off the story to me is wildly enjoyable simply because its totally straight up something Tarintino would write. There is a layer of cheese to it all but that is kind of the point. I think the stealth sections are very well done and actually HARD for a stealth game. Playing Suit Only on hard mode saw me retrying levels for nearly 3 hours sometimes to try to find the best path. If you know your ways around stealth games you should be playing on hard. Thirdly the straight stealth sections are an addendum to the classic hitman levels which there are PLENTY of. I'm all for the series evolving. Do we really want just more of the same Hitman we've had 4 times now? At what point does the Call of Duty syndrome kick in? There NEEDS to be change so the series doesn't get tired and they did it in the best way possible by keeping classic Hitman game play in with them having more linear point A to point B stealth sections. I will however give you the check point system thing. That is the biggest gripe I have with the game but it is a minor one.

What does the gaming press have to do with the game?

Also, ME3 was the best in the series even if the ending was total garbage.

Once again, the unified, single voice of the gaming media unanimously had the wrong opinion. Yep, happens all the time.

@DocHaus: Oh ya no offense taken - I did't take it that way. I was just taking off from your point

For about 15 minutes I really wanted this game, went to the store and they only had on a glass display thingamabob, then I thought "fuck it, not gonna ask a human to hand me the game for me to buy" and left the store.

Glad I didn't buy it then, all reports from after launch make this game sound extremely frustrating.

@mordukai said:

@pyrodactyl said:

Also, ME3 was the best in the series even if the ending was total garbage.

I will play a "Devil's Advocate" for ME3 on many of it's issues but to say it's the best in the series is plain out wrong and I'm sure most of the community will agree with me on that point.

Why?

Let's review all aspects of mass effect 3:

Gameplay: ME3 has by far the best core gameplay. The gunplay and general movement is way better, the loadout system enables you to customize your character to lean on guns or powers, the powers are more satisfying to use, etc.

Story and characters: I would say the story is on par with ME2. The character arcs are not as good but still great (legion, thane, liara, garus and they even redeem kayden). Anyway, the world shattering events that unfold totally make up for shortcomings in the character arc department.

Choices: If you listen to as much spoilercasts on this game as I have, you would realise that ME3 is where your choices have the most impact. They are also the biggest choices in the franchise.

As much as I love the 3 Mass Effect games, they all have their issues. ME1 has poor gameplay, is super janky and the levels were obviously assembled in an Ikea. ME2 was very mechanical with it's recruit missions, loyalty missions and story missions. The success rate of the suicide mission was calculated in a completly stupid and backward way. The terminator monster was SUPER STUPIDE. ME3 had pacing issues and the ending was probably written by a bunch of 6 year old.

With these issues in every game and the improvments made in the third game, saying ME3 is the best should not be such a controversial stance.

@Demoskinos said:

@pyrodactyl said:

@Demoskinos said:

@sdharrison They mention that Dexter was starting to have financial issues. The 10 Million was a nest egg for him. Secondly they explain the girl perfectly she was made to basically be a more efficient assassin then 47. Thirdly Travis had basically gone rogue. The upper echelon of Agency management had NO idea about the reasons Diana defected or about the girl or 47. Him and Jade were doing their own thing.

Even with all that, the story is bad and shallow comic book style caricatures going trough terrible dialog and it's the worst excuse to turn half of the experience into a middling stealth game with mechanics from 2002.

I thought they nailed the major issues on this week's bombcast.

Those issues are:

• The game is no longer a sandbox assassination simulator and actively discourage experimentation.
• They replaced the core gameplay with generic stealth that is not very good
• the checkpoint system is bafflelingly terrible and a huge downgrade from mannual saving

First off the story to me is wildly enjoyable simply because its totally straight up something Tarintino would write. There is a layer of cheese to it all but that is kind of the point. I think the stealth sections are very well done and actually HARD for a stealth game. Playing Suit Only on hard mode saw me retrying levels for nearly 3 hours sometimes to try to find the best path. If you know your ways around stealth games you should be playing on hard. Thirdly the straight stealth sections are an addendum to the classic hitman levels which there are PLENTY of. I'm all for the series evolving. Do we really want just more of the same Hitman we've had 4 times now? At what point does the Call of Duty syndrome kick in? There NEEDS to be change so the series doesn't get tired and they did it in the best way possible by keeping classic Hitman game play in with them having more linear point A to point B stealth sections. I will however give you the check point system thing. That is the biggest gripe I have with the game but it is a minor one.

No. There are no levels on par with previous Hitman open levels. Number one because even the levels with that reputation (terminus, chinatown) are actually very small with limited options. If Terminus were one giant open level with no elevator load, then it could MAYBE be considered close.

More importantly, a lack of loadout means that sniper rifles, mines, explosives, etc have to be conveniently placed. Gee, what a really lucky spot to have an agency Kazo - a drug dealers apartment with a perfect view of the target. Old Hitman levels were designed to be large, and flexible. So you could load out with bombs and get the job done, or load out with a sniper and find your own sniper nest.

So, purely from a DESIGN standpoint, none of the maps come close to classic open Hitman maps.

If you like the game, great man. Good on you - but I'm upset because IOI dealt a serious blow to the entire franchise. This isn't a Mario Brothers type situation where different mechanics and iterations can come out and sink or swim with little consequence. We waited 6 years and got a bastardization of what Hitman was at a fundamental level. Which just sucks for fans.

Huh.

Also, for any defenders of the game - can you explain a sequence to me?

What is going on when Dexter frames 47 by slashing a maids neck then sets fire to the hotel and leaves? There is no investigation of the corpse or knife by the police, yet they pull out the entire Chicago PD to hunt 47. This entire sequence is total nonsense. Beyond bad writing, and into random monkey at a typewriter material.

This would make sense if A: 47 wakes up in police custody and has to escape from jail, etc. or B: If Dexter just set fire to the building and escaped. But even then, it would make far more sense to just kill 47. And why did he want him framed to begin with? His only mission was to get the girl and make money, so why create an overly elaborate nonsensical disaster situation? Put a bullet in his head and move on.

This is just one part that flew so far off the pier I couldn't believe money changed hands at some point to facilitate writing, acting and animating it.

Even good video game stories are bad. It's like no one making video games reads literature. Or maybe it is just too hard to make traditional narratives within the confines of a game. I'm ok with that, but if that is the case then video games need to pivot away from trying to be like books and movies and tell their stories more like Journey or Left 4 Dead or something.

@FengShuiGod: Agreed - which makes the decision to utterly remake the essence of a franchise to service a poor story a.... Bad decision?

I just want to do a tiny part in making sure this game gets the hate it so richly deserves. H:A does not deserve the dignity of slinking off with a 4/5 or 7/10. It was a baffling failure and should be used as a teachable moment.

I really liked the gameplay. Much prefer scrounging up my equipment on the fly rather than getting a long list of guns, and getting penalized for picking the good shit. The story on the other hand was fucking atrocious.

Someone already asked this, but what does the gaming press have to do with the game?

The first post doesn't really give an example of what the press went wrong, but then goes to where it seems like IO got it all wrong, not the gaming press.

@sdharrison said:

@Demoskinos said:

@pyrodactyl said:

@Demoskinos said:

@sdharrison They mention that Dexter was starting to have financial issues. The 10 Million was a nest egg for him. Secondly they explain the girl perfectly she was made to basically be a more efficient assassin then 47. Thirdly Travis had basically gone rogue. The upper echelon of Agency management had NO idea about the reasons Diana defected or about the girl or 47. Him and Jade were doing their own thing.

Even with all that, the story is bad and shallow comic book style caricatures going trough terrible dialog and it's the worst excuse to turn half of the experience into a middling stealth game with mechanics from 2002.

I thought they nailed the major issues on this week's bombcast.

Those issues are:

• The game is no longer a sandbox assassination simulator and actively discourage experimentation.
• They replaced the core gameplay with generic stealth that is not very good
• the checkpoint system is bafflelingly terrible and a huge downgrade from mannual saving

First off the story to me is wildly enjoyable simply because its totally straight up something Tarintino would write. There is a layer of cheese to it all but that is kind of the point. I think the stealth sections are very well done and actually HARD for a stealth game. Playing Suit Only on hard mode saw me retrying levels for nearly 3 hours sometimes to try to find the best path. If you know your ways around stealth games you should be playing on hard. Thirdly the straight stealth sections are an addendum to the classic hitman levels which there are PLENTY of. I'm all for the series evolving. Do we really want just more of the same Hitman we've had 4 times now? At what point does the Call of Duty syndrome kick in? There NEEDS to be change so the series doesn't get tired and they did it in the best way possible by keeping classic Hitman game play in with them having more linear point A to point B stealth sections. I will however give you the check point system thing. That is the biggest gripe I have with the game but it is a minor one.

No. There are no levels on par with previous Hitman open levels. Number one because even the levels with that reputation (terminus, chinatown) are actually very small with limited options. If Terminus were one giant open level with no elevator load, then it could MAYBE be considered close.

More importantly, a lack of loadout means that sniper rifles, mines, explosives, etc have to be conveniently placed. Gee, what a really lucky spot to have an agency Kazo - a drug dealers apartment with a perfect view of the target. Old Hitman levels were designed to be large, and flexible. So you could load out with bombs and get the job done, or load out with a sniper and find your own sniper nest.

So, purely from a DESIGN standpoint, none of the maps come close to classic open Hitman maps.

If you like the game, great man. Good on you - but I'm upset because IOI dealt a serious blow to the entire franchise. This isn't a Mario Brothers type situation where different mechanics and iterations can come out and sink or swim with little consequence. We waited 6 years and got a bastardization of what Hitman was at a fundamental level. Which just sucks for fans.

I think you forget how Hitman worked... you almost NEVER loaded out with crazy shit. You always had to find agency drops IN the levels. Secondly, the levels with actual hits in them all have tons of options you just have to create them. I mean for god sakes the listed ways to kill the King of Chinatown are at least 12 ways. Even in point A to point B maps there are tons of ways to approach it. Once you get to the upper floors there are at least 4-5 viable paths to room 899. Hell, in the Rosewood level I kept having serious issues trying to get all of the fuses. So I finally said "Lets try something absolutely nuts just to see if it works" and I fired off a un-silenced pistol I got off a guard which ended up drawing everyone in the level from their normal posts allowing me to roll around in my suit grabbing the fuses off the tables without being seen. That was something that was COMPLETLY unscripted and just me trying to bend the game mechanics to my will and it worked and IF you get clever you can do some pretty damn impressive things.

Take this insane run on the Penthouse level. The dude got clever used the game mechanics to his benefit and found a insanely efficient path through the level. You just have to think outside the box.

You sure are right! The ubiquitous, single entity known as "The Gaming Press" didn't agree with you, and thus are all wrong. I mean, it's not like individuals have varying opinions and standards on games, and clearly every site gave the game the exact same score and wrote the same review. What's the point of having differing opinions and points of view if you're just going to dub everyone that doesn't agree with as being wrong.

@FengShuiGod: I'm eternally with David Jaffe saying that the story should be in service to the game play NOT the other way around. The thing that makes this medium interesting is the interactivity trying to be more like a movie services nobody. You can get a better movie watching a movie a better story reading a book. Games need to be games.

The story was really goofy. The characters they created are scummy scumbags full of scum. They are outrageous and stupid and I kinda enjoyed it. Maybe they were trying to make an emotionally effective and if they were they failed, but if they were in fact going for a Tarintinio esk feel then they nailed it. It definitely wasn't the driving force for me but it was kinda something to think about.

But still this game was disappointing to me. To be honest I actually did like it but there just wasn't enough "Hitman" in this Hitman game.

@ll_Exile_ll said:

You sure are right! The ubiquitous, single entity known as "The Gaming Press" didn't agree with you, and thus are all wrong. I mean, it's not like individuals have varying opinions and standards on games, and clearly every site gave the game the exact same score and wrote the same review. What's the point of having differing opinions and points of view if you're just going to dub everyone that doesn't agree with as being wrong.

By the large, the industry press did a poor job of being critical of this title in my opinion. I'm sorry if reading that offended you. Gaming press has these kind of problems on a regular basis. Fable 3 was a broken and incomplete disaster, but got off scott free because it was AAA title that simply got released and hyped.

@Demoskinos said:

@FengShuiGod: I'm eternally with David Jaffe saying that the story should be in service to the game play NOT the other way around. The thing that makes this medium interesting is the interactivity trying to be more like a movie services nobody. You can get a better movie watching a movie a better story reading a book. Games need to be games.

The thing is they didn't do that. The old Hitman games did that by having threads of a story that drew together very different, globe trotting missions. This one tries to have an actual, direct narrative and spends a substantial amount of time trying to do that. It fails in making it a good one.

There was nothing wrong with the story to Blood Money. It was perfect for what a Hitman game should be and the ending was surprisingly awesome.

Exactly. I would actually think more of H:A if it were JUST contracts mode, with selectable mele weapons and a few more open maps. That would be a better, less damaging entry in the series. I just can not fathom how a team of professional design veterans thought that this was a good direction to go in.

@sdharrison: The premise that Dexter is a sane individual who rationalises killing an innocent maid on the discovery of the legendary hitman is pushing it best. I thought it was very clear that Dexter relishes in the fact that he can kill a total bystander and frame 47 simply for kicks is something that he probably got a hard-on from. He does things because he can and wants to. Do we question the Joker when he burns piles of money while his criminal compatriot weeps at the possibilites? No, because Joker ultimately is unpredictable and in fiction, psychopaths usually are.

Let's say if you have a police force who obviously knows that this certain hotel belongs to a powerful arms dealer/manufacturer. You can't do anything about it because the higher ups grant him immunity. However, let's say a fire breaks out. As an investigative force, you would be very interested to cause it. Perhaps there might be some evidence left.

Look, I've played the game and you're right, the story is a mess. It's a game about a super assassin who plays dress up saving a school girl whose a mix of Talia al Ghul and Jason Bourne. Compared to Planescape Torment, this is utter trash. However, I think all Hitman games have bad stories and personally, I don't know why you feel like it assaulted you as badly as it did. The topics you brought up are nothing more than anthills next to mountain of crap of a story.

@ArtisanBreads said:

@Demoskinos said:

@FengShuiGod: I'm eternally with David Jaffe saying that the story should be in service to the game play NOT the other way around. The thing that makes this medium interesting is the interactivity trying to be more like a movie services nobody. You can get a better movie watching a movie a better story reading a book. Games need to be games.

The thing is they didn't do that. The old Hitman games did that by having threads of a story that drew together very different, globe trotting missions. This one tries to have an actual, direct narrative and spends a substantial amount of time trying to do that. It fails in making it a good one.

There was nothing wrong with the story to Blood Money. It was perfect for what a Hitman game should be and the ending was surprisingly awesome.

Well it might not have been "good" but I found it damn entertaining none-the less so mission accomplished in my book.

@kyokushin_nanaya: The problem is, the game design was MASSIVELY changed from previous Hitman entries in service of this garbage story. The story is so offensively bad, that it deserves to be singled out IMO. The gaming press has largely given the game a "gee whiz" pass on this pretty massive decision by the development team.

@sdharrison said:

Exactly. I would actually think more of H:A if it were JUST contracts mode, with selectable mele weapons and a few more open maps. That would be a better, less damaging entry in the series. I just can not fathom how a team of professional design veterans thought that this was a good direction to go in.

I could understand why the general direction could have seemed like a good idea. But even if they are going to do that, some aspects (story, checkpoints) are indefensible and I think the disguise suspicion is a major mistake that is a betrayal to what the series should be and what made it notable.

I got really annoyed with people bashing this game up until release as "Hitman: Conviction"... but in the end I think that's the game it is quite like, in a basic sense. Yes there are still open levels and Hitman mechanics, but it's so focused on cover based stealth now (like Conviction) that I can't help be disappointed. And some levels are straight up linear stealth like Conviction.

I do not think it is a bad game. It just isn't the game I wanted. Some aspects are indeed just bad though.

@Demoskinos said:

@ArtisanBreads said:

@Demoskinos said:

@FengShuiGod: I'm eternally with David Jaffe saying that the story should be in service to the game play NOT the other way around. The thing that makes this medium interesting is the interactivity trying to be more like a movie services nobody. You can get a better movie watching a movie a better story reading a book. Games need to be games.

The thing is they didn't do that. The old Hitman games did that by having threads of a story that drew together very different, globe trotting missions. This one tries to have an actual, direct narrative and spends a substantial amount of time trying to do that. It fails in making it a good one.

There was nothing wrong with the story to Blood Money. It was perfect for what a Hitman game should be and the ending was surprisingly awesome.

Well it might not have been "good" but I found it damn entertaining none-the less so mission accomplished in my book.

I guess it is trying to be funny... but I haven't laughed once. I did find some subtle humor in the old games (ether in panties, dressing as a clown and having a mom throw herself at you) but this one has humor like a guy says he has a boner when he dies... okay.

To each his own I guess.

The problem with your Jaffe statement I was trying to get at though is that in some way the level choice, settings, and design of the game must have been informed by the way they made the narrative direct in this game. This is opposed to say Blood Money or Contracts which were allowed to have missions that went virtually anywhere because the story was loose enough to accommodate that.

I didn't beat it because I really am disliking the gameplay but I thought a lot of the characters are pretty entertaining. They are all very trailer trash sort of types but the dialogue is good and the faces emote well.

That being said... still not gonna finish it because wow I really dislike the gameplayer. Thought most people liked the game up until the Bombcast started bashing it.

Videogamer.com gave it a 5/10 tho... I go there often. Should of listened to them. They hated it.

@sdharrison: That feeling you have now? Just think about the people, including myself, who have played Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory and then Conviction. Yeah, I know it feels bad to have your franchise torn apart, more so if it’s a problem with a series that you loved. However, I don't have the effort to rag on the game for the transformation, which in your opinion, has made the game worse. I feel that you give the story too much credit in ruining the game's mechanics. I feel that there were design decisions made first and then tack on a silly story because they needed one to show 47's background.

Ultimately, this game is split down the middle. There are some who think that this is a fine new entry to the franchise. That's fine because there are some changes which make more sense and the entry of Contracts mode is really quite interesting. I would be blind and very stupid to state the game doesn't look fantastic. If I really wanted to be an asshole, I could voice the opinion that improving the game visual fidelity is part of the reason why this game falls flat against its face.

Others, like yourself feel that this game is a complete and utter disservice to the previous games, and trust me, I can understand where you come from. Brad and Patrick would agree with your sentiments, and I would certainly nod my head in agreement. But to state that the story is the complete and utter basis of the ruination of the Hitman franchise (of which I am exaggerating) would be disingenuous to the fact that certain mechanics now are so completely different to the archetypical Hitman man that it makes the game "worse".

Opinions! none of them matter other than your own... at least that's how I think it works right? at least that's what I do.