Clarkson gone!

[Greyblades]

Let me break it down.
Do you agree that it a game designer choice to make everyone killable? I've been playing more than one shooter or sandbox game where you can find unkillable allies, or get a game over for killing the wrong civilian, so it's not something essential to the game play.
I haven't played the Hitman series, so I need to ask. Can you loose enough points to get a game over that way? Or is going gunzerker also a valid play style, although not optimal?
Are the strippers there to derive pleasure? Cheesecake if you like.
Are you rewarded, although only a minor reward if you move around a body after you've killed the person in question?

If you do place sexualised women (whom you derive pleasure from) in a game where killing them are a valid choice, what are the players meant to do when encountering them? (Whatever they want).
Is an enabling an encouragement or not?

I'm going to add that from what she previously said, she's pushing it as a concept rather than an absolute truth, similar to say the idea of tickle down economics or marxist history. It's obvious that the game isn't "murder stripper simulator 4". But on the other hand, it is enabling it for players who do want to do it, without any major downsides (like game over), are encouraging that behaviour, even if most won't do it.

Is that less or more than in the previous games? What does that tell you about the game's intentions? I can answer that question for you. That means that going on a killing spree has became a more valid play style. In Hitman 1 it wasn't. In the rest they are, to a different degree (Blood Money encourages you to not mixing them up, as an example).

1. I agree it is the creator's choice, but in this case I do not see an alternative. Making civillians invincible would a) ruin the immersion and b) mean that the player would have to restart every time one of them detected him or have to run away from the entire level's armed guards of which there are usually upwards of 30 and heavily armed and armoured, immensely frustrating when shooting the witness before he/she can scream is the logical option yet denied. Removing the civillians completly would also ruin the immersion as most of the levels are set in places that make no sense for thier absence, why would the streets of hongkong have be empty of civillians at all times?
2. Going a gunzerker route is only a valid option when you are able to do it, most levels you start out with a single pistol and 6 rounds, any attempt to go rambo with that will end with you dead quickly and the weaponry available in most levels are on the guards or hidden soemwhat deep into the level making the ability hard to achieve. Running around shooting willy nilly from the offset is a dangerous proposition on all but the easiest difficulties. And no you cannot lose due to a lack of points.
3. Dont know, ask the devs, the level is set in a strip club and it would be an odd strip club without them. You dont need to kill any of them to advance and you can go through the entire level without any of them even knowing you are there.
4. You are rewarded for taking the body to a crate or a cabinate and placing it in there. There is no direct reward or penalty for what you do with it in the mean time but practically the longer you mess around the more likely someone will come across you and raise the alarm.


Inclusion of ability is not inherently encouragement. To prove that you are meant to do something there has to be more the mere absence of built in restriction.

What does going on a killing spree becoming a more valid play style tell me about the game's intentions? Nothing, it only tells me the result not the cause.

The observation tells me capacity has changed, however it tells me nothing concrete about the reasoning or intent. We can insinuate all we want but until there is something certain the idea that the game wants you to kill indiscriminately, or worse discriminatorialy, is no more valid than the idea that the creators are so incompetent that they made the game that way because they were too stupid to make it otherwise.

If you could prove intent through insinuation the gate would be open to no end of absurdities from "you can kill a judge, you dont have to, you're not encouraged to, but you can thus this game encourages killing judges" to "you can kill every man in the game's existance and stand on a pile of thier bodies, you dont have to, you are certainly not encouraged to, but you can thus this game encourages killing all men and piling up thier bodies because it wanst the player to satisfy a primal desire for dominance."

There has to be more than capacity to kill and move npc's to prove the player is meant to "derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters" and the game does not provide more.

To become truth sarkeesian's idea requires more than mere insinuation and she does not have it thus making her proclimation that it is "meant" a falsehood.
That is the case for a lot of sarkeesian's objections to the gaming industry and a lot of the far left wing political correctness in general, but the hitman thing is the one that got me to realize how flimsy it all is.