Carnage, let's put this to bed, shall we?
I played Blood Money and enjoyed myself immensely, okay? I'm not trying to find fault with it. I understand the story quite clearly, so you don't have to recap it for me. What I am stating is that, from my perspective, it felt rushed and lacking in depth, as if the writers went "All right. We've got the missions down. How can we tie this all together?" The set pieces, each individual mission, were skilfully crafted and each excellent in their own right.
You felt greater depth was at work and for that, I congratulate you. You have a greater imagination than I. Good for you.
However, I do not feel that a game gains something by keeping the narrative out of the game proper. That saddens me just as it delights you because I enjoy taking an active role in a story as it evolves instead of seeing "...and then, after the grueling battle that nearly killed 47 and that never gets mentioned again..."(Before you get all riled up, yes, that happened between "Curtains Down" and "Flatline", and no, I'm not spoiling anything because, as I said earlier, it only gets mentioned as an aside, a throwaway point to accent the urgency of the narrative).
I would have been overjoyed to have a chance at experiencing the rush of that moment, fighting for 47's life with a grievous injury against an annoyed assassin trying to finish the job, but such is the price paid for a story that stays out of the active gameplay.
There are times when you can let a player change the narrative and times when you can't, Carnage, not without bringing the story to a premature conclusion. Where you see impotence as 47 is constantly denied his ultimate goal in Absolution, I see drawing out the moment to delicious and exciting effect. Would I have preferred that 47 actually catch up with Victoria and effect a decent rescue? Yes. Do I think the story was contrived in places? Yes again. As I said before, the story is good, not awesome. But at least it isn't completely outside of the gameplay save for one wonderfully gory set piece at the tail of the game and a completely avoidable reference in the seventh mission that, if explored, instantly kills 47.
I was able to accept that having just seen the rest of Hope, SD, going up in flame, the occupants in that church were soon to follow suit and that 47 could be forgiven for realizing that, giving subtlety a miss, and indulging in direct confrontation. You weren't. That's fine.
I played Blood Money and enjoyed myself immensely, okay? I'm not trying to find fault with it. I understand the story quite clearly, so you don't have to recap it for me. What I am stating is that, from my perspective, it felt rushed and lacking in depth, as if the writers went "All right. We've got the missions down. How can we tie this all together?" The set pieces, each individual mission, were skilfully crafted and each excellent in their own right.
You felt greater depth was at work and for that, I congratulate you. You have a greater imagination than I. Good for you.
However, I do not feel that a game gains something by keeping the narrative out of the game proper. That saddens me just as it delights you because I enjoy taking an active role in a story as it evolves instead of seeing "...and then, after the grueling battle that nearly killed 47 and that never gets mentioned again..."(Before you get all riled up, yes, that happened between "Curtains Down" and "Flatline", and no, I'm not spoiling anything because, as I said earlier, it only gets mentioned as an aside, a throwaway point to accent the urgency of the narrative).
I would have been overjoyed to have a chance at experiencing the rush of that moment, fighting for 47's life with a grievous injury against an annoyed assassin trying to finish the job, but such is the price paid for a story that stays out of the active gameplay.
Nope, because if I was playing that scenario, I would've done the same thing 47 did: get out my piano wire and attempt a nice clean quiet kill before sussing out the rest of the suite. However, had the game's writers left that to the player's control, one "oops" moment would've translated into "ah crap. Reload and I'll shoot the guy" instead of allowing the story to progress.
There are times when you can let a player change the narrative and times when you can't, Carnage, not without bringing the story to a premature conclusion. Where you see impotence as 47 is constantly denied his ultimate goal in Absolution, I see drawing out the moment to delicious and exciting effect. Would I have preferred that 47 actually catch up with Victoria and effect a decent rescue? Yes. Do I think the story was contrived in places? Yes again. As I said before, the story is good, not awesome. But at least it isn't completely outside of the gameplay save for one wonderfully gory set piece at the tail of the game and a completely avoidable reference in the seventh mission that, if explored, instantly kills 47.
No, Carnage. Your interpretation of 47, which does match mine, is one of the silent and traceless assassin. That does not mean he isn't able to kill openly or become a terrifying mass-murderer. That's his greatest draw as a character: that the player can superimpose a playing style of any kind onto him. I've watched players send him into the White House armed for bear, killing everything save the potted plants in the lobby while leaving a presumably non-existent agency to clean up the mess. That's acceptable as long as the player enjoying the game finds it so.
I was able to accept that having just seen the rest of Hope, SD, going up in flame, the occupants in that church were soon to follow suit and that 47 could be forgiven for realizing that, giving subtlety a miss, and indulging in direct confrontation. You weren't. That's fine.