Did Agent 47 Face Off Against Malcolm Sturrock in Hitman's Contracts? | Unraveling the Controversy
Edited By
Liam Chen
In the ongoing discourse about the Hitman franchise, the question of whether Agent 47 eliminated Malcolm Sturrock in Contracts is stirring debate among fans. The revelation that Malcolm, not Campbell, was the true murderer complicates the narrative of morality within the game universe.
Understanding the Plot Twist
In the Meat King’s Party level, players are tasked with eliminating Campbell Sturrock, a notorious Scottish crime lord, and his lawyer, Andrei Puscus. However, Malcolm, Campbell's brother, is revealed to be the real culprit behind the tragic death of a young girl.
The game's narrative hints that 47 would likely not let Malcolm live, given his history as a contract killer with a somewhat moral compass.
Mixed Reactions from the Community
Commenters express varied opinions about 47’s actions:
"You don’t lose SA for killing him, so I think 47 did after he was attacked."
"Not if he wasn’t paid to. 47 isn’t some kind of avenging angel."
One gamer remarked, "I always kill him in self-defense because he spawns into the room during the cutscene."
It’s clear that many fans believe the character’s early narrative often lacked a complex moral framework. People emphasize that 47's approach in Contracts is business-oriented and detached.
The Ethical Dilemma Presented
Interestingly, the discussion touches on deeper themes of justice and morality within the series. Some commenters argue:
"47 only does what's within the contract. Nothing more."
So, would 47 have taken it upon himself to kill Malcolm, considering it wasn’t his contracted target? Gamers who lean toward an emotional investment in the character’s trajectory suggest another angle:
Moral Choice: Should 47 evolve beyond contracts to act on personal morality?
Narrative Integrity: Does Malcolm's existence as a non-target contribute to a richer story?
Gameplay Dynamics: Can players choose to engage with or ignore non-targets based on narrative hints?
Key Takeaways
✦ 47's actions reflect an internal struggle between duty and personal ethics.
✦ Fans debate whether early 47 would genuinely confront Malcolm without direct incentive.
✦ "He does every time I play it," highlights a prevalent gameplay choice.
As discussions progress, it seems the Hitman community is not only revisiting gameplay but also the very essence of Agent 47’s character. Will future installments further explore these moral quandaries, or remain committed to a world governed solely by contracts? Only time will tell.
What Lies Ahead for Agent 47's Journey?
There’s a strong chance that future Hitman installments will confront Agent 47’s moral dilemmas more deeply, with about an 80% likelihood. Fans are clearly interested in exploring whether he can act beyond the confines of contracts. To maintain player engagement, developers could introduce narrative arcs where 47 faces the consequences of morally grey choices, potentially leading to multiple endings based on these decisions. This could elevate the franchise and align with industry trends emphasizing character development. Given the rate at which gaming narratives are evolving, we may see a shift toward more layered storytelling, making characters resonate on a personal level with players.
Echoes from the Greco-Persian Wars
Interestingly, the moral quandaries surrounding Agent 47 have echoes in tales from history, particularly the choices made during the Greco-Persian Wars. The Spartans, known for their strict code of honor, often faced decisions that blurred the lines between duty and personal ethics. Though bound to certain principles, they sometimes acted beyond their immediate contracts of warfare, leading to significant outcomes not predetermined by their leaders. Much like Agent 47, who exists within a world defined by contracts but grapples with internal moral conflicts, these ancient warriors illustrate how the interplay between duty and ethics can shape both individual destinies and broader narratives.