The vineyard, steamboat, wedding, and White House levels take place in locations that are familiar to us due to the prevalence of their real life counterparts-the enemies are merely gangsters, cops and soldiers, housed in recognizable architecture.
Considering Blood Money’s central character is a sociopathic, inhuman murderer, that is no small feat-the game-makers achieve it by making the player always feel as if they are an invader.īlood Money’s weakest missions are its most normal. To put it simply, this is a game where, without realizing, players consistently think and behave like their character. Anyone searching for answers to the question of ludonarrative dissonance (I have no idea why that term has become a joke, or why people are skittish about using it) would do well to play Hitman: Blood Money. Surreptitiously, Blood Money motivates players to think and act in ways that compliment its creators’ vision. It’s a game that encourages players to take concomitant responsibility for keeping its story and tone cohesive.
It values its players’ intelligence and attention above their enjoyment, and certainly above their egos. Hitman: Blood Money (2006) is not sycophantic. We must be provided with the necessary equipment and navigational tools so as not to become stuck (or even face considerable challenge), and regularly patted on the back, told that we are good, that we are the hero-we must know that it is our actions, and what we choose, that matters most. We, the players, must always be comfortable. An arsenal of science-fiction weaponry ensures our safety. On-screen objective markers tell us where to go. And yet, we master our surroundings, and our enemies within them, entirely. Their stories, almost always, involve Western troops on top secret missions behind enemy lines-myself and my AI squad mates are supposed to be interlopers, constantly vulnerable amid a foreign, hostile environment. War games have consistently failed at making me feel like an invader.
0 kommentar(er)
