The idea that anyone but the fans should be able, or quite frankly even allowed, to play this game is offensive to me. 
R.I.P Hitman series
- Thread starter veum
- Start date
I can't say that I am too bothered by the "dumbing down" of Hitman. I was never into the series that much anyway. They will want to make the game as accessible as possible to try and draw in a new crowd and generate more revenue. As long as the story is good I don't see the problem.
An integral part of Hitman has always been the trial and error approach to the missions. Finding out what to take, who to sedate and to pose as what person to get that silent assassin rating. I played every Hitman game and I enjoyed them very much but I always used a FAQ to get 100% (though i would play through the missions on my own first).
I wouldn't mind if they made Hitman a little bit more accessible and a little less frustrating. I really hope that they don't make the missions too linear and keep a more open approach. (maybe with more tips you can purchase or something?)
Still, not enough info. I'll watch my favourite bald guy with interest.
I wouldn't mind if they made Hitman a little bit more accessible and a little less frustrating. I really hope that they don't make the missions too linear and keep a more open approach. (maybe with more tips you can purchase or something?)
Still, not enough info. I'll watch my favourite bald guy with interest.
I don't understand what's so complicated about Hitman. Your target is pointed on the map and all you have to do is find a way to reach him. How is that hard? You have the choice of going in guns blazing or silently making your way to the victim, finding the right location to strangle him or her to death. HOW is that complicated? If someone is capable of finishing high school then they're capable of playing a Hitman game. Publishers should stop catering to morons who are incapable of completing the simplest of tasks.
Funny you would mention that. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/8905-The-Witcher-2-Assassins-of-Kings-Review]Woodsey said:
In all case I don't think this is a good news.
Let's face it - "dumbing down" a stealth-based game is like "dumbing down" a strategy game. The people that are going to be interested in the product in the first place are going to look for some sort of a challenge. Some franchises have survived casualisation, but most of the just went to the graveyard. I'll wait for a gameplay trailer and a demo before giving a verdict though.
Yep, already commented on the issue with that review (as a review in general) and what's annoying about the opinion put forward in it.Traun said:
Because whilst The Hobbit is a very good story, I don't consider flicking the pages a very fun or challenging game.Alucard 11189 said:
I think a lot of the issue here deals with the fact that the original Hitman games were difficult because they were designed to be that way, and many players loved how difficult they were, because it required quick thinking in many aspects of the game, especially if you wanted to get the perfect rating after every mission.
By simplifying the game the way they appear to be, many of the older, die-hard fans of the series are going to stop playing because it isn't as challenging as it used to be, paving the way for the new 'Hitman' generation to become arrogant in their own superiority by beating a more simple game that they believe the older, hardcore fans could not.
When you 'dumb down' a game the way IO seem to be, you leave too much room for interpretation of skill. One player may be fantastic at a stealth element, but crash and burn when faced with many opponents already aware of his presence. Others may excel at the mass-killing part, but fail when they needed to be stealthy. This is what made Hitman such a good game to play; if you wanted to beat the game, you usually needed some skill in each of these areas. The newer, simpler game, may include each element, but by simplifying it, the general effect of the game is similarly simplified.
When a game is designed, it should be done one of two ways:
1) With every player in mind, this way there are aspects of the game that most players can find a niche in, and enjoy the game.
2)With only one, maybe two, player niches in mind. These games are usually fanatically popular amongst whichever niche they were designed for, but are too far off the beaten path of 'generalized gaming' for normal players to grasp well enough to enjoy. (example: Myst)
Trying to take a game originally designed to cater to the (mostly) serious, analytical mind, and remove much of the analysis-aspect of the game in an attempt to expand your player-base, will not sit well with the original players, thereby creating this thread, and many others like it.
I have no problem with 'dumbing down' the newest Hitman game to cater to a wider audience, as I myself was good, but far TOO analytically minded to play effectively (I took WAAAAAY too much time on each mission. I even had escape routes planned through the programmed paths the AI walked). But most of the more hardcore players of the game will. It's not about 'you must cater to my needs and my needs alone', but more 'why the hell did you destroy such a good, challenging game series with a bastardized version?'
People these days just cannot adapt to a sudden, violent change in their gaming-way-of-life, it's too hard for them to grasp.
Edit: Please note. 'Difficult' is a subjective term, I found some missions so easy as to be laughable, while others were somewhat of a challenge.
By simplifying the game the way they appear to be, many of the older, die-hard fans of the series are going to stop playing because it isn't as challenging as it used to be, paving the way for the new 'Hitman' generation to become arrogant in their own superiority by beating a more simple game that they believe the older, hardcore fans could not.
When you 'dumb down' a game the way IO seem to be, you leave too much room for interpretation of skill. One player may be fantastic at a stealth element, but crash and burn when faced with many opponents already aware of his presence. Others may excel at the mass-killing part, but fail when they needed to be stealthy. This is what made Hitman such a good game to play; if you wanted to beat the game, you usually needed some skill in each of these areas. The newer, simpler game, may include each element, but by simplifying it, the general effect of the game is similarly simplified.
When a game is designed, it should be done one of two ways:
1) With every player in mind, this way there are aspects of the game that most players can find a niche in, and enjoy the game.
2)With only one, maybe two, player niches in mind. These games are usually fanatically popular amongst whichever niche they were designed for, but are too far off the beaten path of 'generalized gaming' for normal players to grasp well enough to enjoy. (example: Myst)
Trying to take a game originally designed to cater to the (mostly) serious, analytical mind, and remove much of the analysis-aspect of the game in an attempt to expand your player-base, will not sit well with the original players, thereby creating this thread, and many others like it.
I have no problem with 'dumbing down' the newest Hitman game to cater to a wider audience, as I myself was good, but far TOO analytically minded to play effectively (I took WAAAAAY too much time on each mission. I even had escape routes planned through the programmed paths the AI walked). But most of the more hardcore players of the game will. It's not about 'you must cater to my needs and my needs alone', but more 'why the hell did you destroy such a good, challenging game series with a bastardized version?'
People these days just cannot adapt to a sudden, violent change in their gaming-way-of-life, it's too hard for them to grasp.
Edit: Please note. 'Difficult' is a subjective term, I found some missions so easy as to be laughable, while others were somewhat of a challenge.
I think we're overreating to an article with little information. He don't know exactly what they're changing or what they're keeping. Wait for a more detailed article then gripe and howl for blood, ok?
Jesus fucking Christ. Why do they have to stick their dicks in every good franchise and fuck its brains out until the last remaining bits of revenue have sprinkled out.
Splinter Cell, once the most fantastic stealth-em-up in the history of me, now an attempt at eating from the same table as Call of Duty.
Splinter Cell, once the most fantastic stealth-em-up in the history of me, now an attempt at eating from the same table as Call of Duty.
Its just like DmC all over again *Cries* Booo...oh well, we can only send so many "Ill put a dead hamster in your mailbox" emails before we either get arrested or get bored...
Thank you!googleback said:As a long time fan that article actually makes me half happy, half concerned. The formula was great but the AI needed work as did the trial and error structure.
I love IO as a developer. but WHAT did they release after Square before!?
They managed to fuck up a chase thriller across shanghai with two of the most interesting characters in recent memory going right down the shitter...
consider me terrified that they've gone mental over at IO...
DON'T YOU DARE RUIN MY PRECIOUS HITMAN!