doctorfrog on 8/2/2009 at 08:42
Quote Posted by DaBeast
In that sense wouldn't something like Mirrors Edge be branded as a puzzle game? Or rather wouldn't all games be a puzzle of some sort since by nature that's what they are?
To me a puzzle game is something like Sentinel or Kula World. If it features puzzles, like Resident evil or Tomb Raider that's fine, but I still wouldn't call it a puzzle game. If you understand the core gameplay mechanic and choose
figure it out instead of just enjoying the game experience as it is then wouldn't you be missing out on something? (ofc as long as you enjoy it thats fine too I guess, "each to his own" applies).
I haven't played any of the games you mention there, so I can't speak for them, and genre classifying is kind of pointless, so the debate doesn't really matter... but to address your question, I would say that those other games aren't necessarily puzzle games in the same way that Hitman is. Each Hitman mission is a small, self-contained bubble-world, with characters that act out a script, with unique behaviors. As you play the level, you start to manipulate or avoid these scripted behaviors to complete your mission. If you desire to perform a mission 'perfectly,' you then generally have to have a close-up and personal knowledge of this scripted behavior. The level becomes a puzzle in a way, like a Rubik's Cube, in which your goal is not the completion of your mission (which is of utmost importance to the character in the gameworld), but to get all the correct colors on the correct sides (which is important personally, and in the abstract).
Again, I haven't played Mirror's Edge or Tomb Raider, but I think that those games are instead just a mostly linear, one-way-to-completion levels, in which baddies are mostly just standing around waiting for you to 'activate' them. This fits 'action game' better than puzzle game, since it doesn't rely on an intricate manipulation of its elements to be completed.
Still, debating about genre isn't that interesting, and is kind of pointless. I'm just saying that I can see how Hitman transforms itself into puzzle game more than anything else (and some levels are more like this than others), it's just one based on manipulating scripted action rather than pushing blocks into holes.
Hell Kitty on 8/2/2009 at 22:52
What little of the first Hitman I actually played seemed very much to be a puzzle game, which was why it was such a huge disappointment for me.
I didn't return to the franchise until Blood Money, and it was exactly what I had hoped the first would be; you're just dropped into the level, you've got your target (and perhaps a few other objectives) and it's up to you to figure out how you're going to kill them, and you have a variety of options available to you. I've since played the second and third games, and they are more along the lines of BM than the original game.
So, if you enjoying figuring out what the developer wants you to do, possibly replaying a mission until you get it "right", stick with the first and don't bother with the rest.
If you enjoy the freedom to complete objectives as you see fit, ignore the first and play the rest. Especially Blood Money.
As has been mentioned, the Hitman series has always been console friendly, so that's not an issue.
Chade on 8/2/2009 at 22:59
Every game is some combination of a puzzle or a skill or a role playing game.
I think the Hitman series is considered a puzzle game because when you play it stealthily, your options are fairly discrete ... you have either done the correct set of discrete actions or not (it's not quite this black and white, but it is close) ... so the puzzle aspect of it is relatively out in the open.
gunsmoke on 9/2/2009 at 00:58
I hated Hitman 1. Hated it. Hitman 2 was such an improvement in every way possible. It was more 'think on your feet', than figure out what the devs wanted you to do. The pinnacle of this gameplay was in Blood Money. Contracts (HM3) was just an apology for making Hitman 1 so wonky, IMHO. :p I think the series is one of the few games that actually improves with each installment.
Scots Taffer on 9/2/2009 at 03:08
I think Blood Money should be bargain binning it by now, I'll pick it up. In my short playthrough at the time it came close to the excellence achieved in Silent Assassin.
gunsmoke on 9/2/2009 at 13:00
It is pricier than you might think, considering its age. I still see it for $30+ new and $20 used.
Jason Moyer on 9/2/2009 at 13:08
$30 just for Blood Money? I'm pretty sure I paid $15-20 for the trilogy pack (2/3/4).
Edit: Yeah, Amazon sells the trilogy pack for $9.22.
gunsmoke on 9/2/2009 at 13:12
I haven't checked online, I was speaking on store prices is my area.
theImmortalThief on 11/2/2009 at 09:37
I'd say that if you haven't played any of the previous Hitman titles, than just skip straight to "Blood Money", which in my opinion was a very good and most importantly, stable, game. But if you want to play the previous titles, just skip 1, because compared to the next installments it's pretty crappy.
The_Raven on 12/2/2009 at 15:18
I'm guess I'm weird, since I actually prefer Hitman 1 to Hitman 2. I have a feeling that something was lost when the series jumped to consoles. Never played Hitman: Contracts or Blood Money, though.
