What’s the best area from the last two games?
Kinda hard to choose from that list. The only levels I really disliked were Marrakesh, Colorado, and Columbia. Marrakesh because the targets felt too spread out from one another and a huge chunk of that level (the Market), felt like it wasn't really used.
Colorado because it felt too much like there was a "right" way of doing the level and because it was so one note.
Columbia for sort of a combination of those reasons. It was definitely more varied than Colorado, but the connecting parts of the level just felt like a large corridors of jungle.
@therealturk: agree 100% with Colorado and Columbia
Funny thing is I agree with Colorado being the low point of these games, but I really like Colombia. Colombia reminds me of Sapienza (probably the actual right answer) in that it feels like multiple distinct areas flowing into one another with multiple approaches and opportunities throughout.
I'd be curious to see the correlation between a level's difficulty and its general reputation amongst the player base. In my opinion, the more "fuck-with-able" a level is, the more I tend to like it. And I think I find that the easier missions--like Sapienza and Miami--offer more opportunities to do wild nonsense, as well as more ways to get away with that nonsense.
Missions with stricter fail-states, Colorado being chief among them, tend to encourage a more traditionally stealthy approach. And that's kind of not the way I want to play Hitman.
I'd be curious to see the correlation between a level's difficulty and its general reputation amongst the player base. In my opinion, the more "fuck-with-able" a level is, the more I tend to like it. And I think I find that the easier missions--like Sapienza and Miami--offer more opportunities to do wild nonsense, as well as more ways to get away with that nonsense.
Missions with stricter fail-states, Colorado being chief among them, tend to encourage a more traditionally stealthy approach. And that's kind of not the way I want to play Hitman.
I think I would be more OK with it if there were a bigger payoff for that level, but the assassinations are all kind of "meh" and outside of the scarecrow, the disguises aren't original enough to make for good comedy when things go real bad.
I'd be curious to see the correlation between a level's difficulty and its general reputation amongst the player base. In my opinion, the more "fuck-with-able" a level is, the more I tend to like it. And I think I find that the easier missions--like Sapienza and Miami--offer more opportunities to do wild nonsense, as well as more ways to get away with that nonsense.
Missions with stricter fail-states, Colorado being chief among them, tend to encourage a more traditionally stealthy approach. And that's kind of not the way I want to play Hitman.
I think I would be more OK with it if there were a bigger payoff for that level, but the assassinations are all kind of "meh" and outside of the scarecrow, the disguises aren't original enough to make for good comedy when things go real bad.
I think you're absolutely right. Like @efesell said, not enough room for "mishap stealth" in Colorado. I liked crushing people with the car lift, ended up daisy-chaining something like six or seven kills consecutively without suspicion with those means. But everything else feels very boilerplate.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment