Was there originally going to be a dog, Max, in Hawkes Bay?

[Japanese Schoolgirl]

Dialogue seems to suggest this, but maybe they removed it as a dog would be too controversial?

[Kunovega]

You have that backwards.

There's no dogs in either game because it would be controversial

The dialogue about Max is a joke because of the community wondering why the previous game didn't have any dogs either.

[Harris]

I trust canines have nothing to do with that. It's just that the level features a sophisticated "smart" house while its security is nonexistant. So she mentions a dog specifically to provide a meta explanation why breaking and entering does not trigger an alarm or something like that.

[Japanese Schoolgirl]

Originally posted by Kunovega:

You have that backwards.

There's no dogs in either game because it would be controversial

The dialogue about Max is a joke because of the community wondering why the previous game didn't have any dogs either.

https://hitman.fandom.com/wiki/Dog

[Kunovega]

Originally posted by LimeyPolo:

Originally posted by Kunovega:

You have that backwards.

There's no dogs in either game because it would be controversial

The dialogue about Max is a joke because of the community wondering why the previous game didn't have any dogs either.

https://hitman.fandom.com/wiki/Dog

Notice my use of the word "game" singular. There was no dog in the previous "game"

Yes, I'm aware that many years ago previous games had dogs

That was my point, when Hitman (2016) launched players commented on the lack of dogs. When Hitman 2 (2018) (the game you are currently asking about) came out, they added the "Max" lines of the NPC looking for a dog as a joke in response to players looking for dogs in the previous game.

So no, the dog wasn't removed from "this game" due to controversy (which is what you asked), dogs were removed from the previous game (which this is a continuation of) and the "max" story is put in as a joke reference to this fact

Get it yet?

Max wasn't removed from this game for controversy, he was never going to be there, but the lines were put in as a joke because dogs weren't in the previous game either and players noticed

There's no dogs in either of the current games (Which are part of the same trilogy of current games). I doubt there will be any in the next one either.

[Japanese Schoolgirl]

Originally posted by Kunovega:

Originally posted by LimeyPolo:

https://hitman.fandom.com/wiki/Dog

Notice my use of the word "game" singular. There was no dog in the previous "game"

Yes, I'm aware that many years ago previous games had dogs

That was my point, when Hitman (2016) launched players commented on the lack of dogs. When Hitman 2 (2018) (the game you are currently asking about) came out, they added the "Max" lines of the NPC looking for a dog as a joke in response to players looking for dogs in the previous game.

So no, the dog wasn't removed from "this game" due to controversy (which is what you asked), dogs were removed from the previous game (which this is a continuation of) and the "max" story is put in as a joke reference to this fact

Get it yet?

Max wasn't removed from this game for controversy, he was never going to be there, but the lines were put in as a joke because dogs weren't in the previous game either and players noticed

There's no dogs in either of the current games (Which are part of the same trilogy of current games). I doubt there will be any in the next one either.

:( There will be dogs, shh.

[Duckilous]

Originally posted by LimeyPolo:

Dialogue seems to suggest this, but maybe they removed it as a dog would be too controversial?

What controversy? Killing dogs? That’s been a thing in video games for decades.

[Mr_Faorry]

Originally posted by Kunovega:

You have that backwards.

There's no dogs in either game because it would be controversial

Why would having dogs be controversial?

The game revolves around killing people, actual humans, and a humans life is worth far more than that of an animals, and that's just without needing to get into the whole "it's just a videogame it's not real" argument.
Also plenty of other games have dogs that you're required to kill like the recent TLOU2 which get praised to high heavens by games 'journalists' so it can't even be that to begin with.

[Kunovega]

Originally posted by Mr_Faorry:

Originally posted by Kunovega:

You have that backwards.

There's no dogs in either game because it would be controversial

Why would having dogs be controversial?

The game revolves around killing people, actual humans, and a humans life is worth far more than that of an animals, and that's just without needing to get into the whole "it's just a videogame it's not real" argument.
Also plenty of other games have dogs that you're required to kill like the recent TLOU2 which get praised to high heavens by games 'journalists' so it can't even be that to begin with.

Compared to the older games, do you see how much bending over they do to try and make 47 the good guy? The endless narrative of Diana reassuring you how evil your targets are?

ioi wants you to think of 47 like he's at least John wick a hitman with ethics, and he's not the guy who killed John Wicks dog (anymore)

This is a company that has to reassure you that they are a multicultural team that is all about diversity, every time you launch the game.

They can find excuses to kill bad people, they don't want to make people feel bad killing dogs.

Here's a quote from the last time this conversation came up about "Max is missing" and why there's no dogs in the current games:

Honestly I’d prefer “there’s usually a dog here but it’s missing” as a running joke, over there actually being a dog in the game.

I mean maybe if it’s a good dog & I can pet it, that would be ok. But if it’s a bad dog & I have to shoot it, absolutely not!

Those are the people ioi is pandering to to broaden the audience.

[Gerfreckle]

Originally posted by Kunovega:

Originally posted by Mr_Faorry:

Why would having dogs be controversial?

The game revolves around killing people, actual humans, and a humans life is worth far more than that of an animals, and that's just without needing to get into the whole "it's just a videogame it's not real" argument.
Also plenty of other games have dogs that you're required to kill like the recent TLOU2 which get praised to high heavens by games 'journalists' so it can't even be that to begin with.

Compared to the older games, do you see how much bending over they do to try and make 47 the good guy? The endless narrative of Diana reassuring you how evil your targets are?

ioi wants you to think of 47 like he's at least John wick a hitman with ethics, and he's not the guy who killed John Wicks dog (anymore)

This is a company that has to reassure you that they are a multicultural team that is all about diversity, every time you launch the game.

They can find excuses to kill bad people, they don't want to make people feel bad killing dogs.

Here's a quote from the last time this conversation came up about "Max is missing" and why there's no dogs in the current games:

Honestly I’d prefer “there’s usually a dog here but it’s missing” as a running joke, over there actually being a dog in the game.

I mean maybe if it’s a good dog & I can pet it, that would be ok. But if it’s a bad dog & I have to shoot it, absolutely not!

Those are the people ioi is pandering to to broaden the audience.

In some cases the whitewashing of 47 and the Agency is really obnoxious and excessive, but sometimes they don't do it at all. Like the Chinese businessman in A House Built on Sand is basically just giving industry secrets to a rival company, and you have to kill him. Hardly a heinous and despicable crime. I wish more were like that one, though. But IO isn't exactly good at nuanced writing.

[Mr_Faorry]

Originally posted by Kunovega:

Originally posted by Mr_Faorry:

Why would having dogs be controversial?

The game revolves around killing people, actual humans, and a humans life is worth far more than that of an animals, and that's just without needing to get into the whole "it's just a videogame it's not real" argument.
Also plenty of other games have dogs that you're required to kill like the recent TLOU2 which get praised to high heavens by games 'journalists' so it can't even be that to begin with.

Compared to the older games, do you see how much bending over they do to try and make 47 the good guy? The endless narrative of Diana reassuring you how evil your targets are?

ioi wants you to think of 47 like he's at least John wick a hitman with ethics, and he's not the guy who killed John Wicks dog (anymore)

This is a company that has to reassure you that they are a multicultural team that is all about diversity, every time you launch the game.

They can find excuses to kill bad people, they don't want to make people feel bad killing dogs.

Here's a quote from the last time this conversation came up about "Max is missing" and why there's no dogs in the current games:

Honestly I’d prefer “there’s usually a dog here but it’s missing” as a running joke, over there actually being a dog in the game.

I mean maybe if it’s a good dog & I can pet it, that would be ok. But if it’s a bad dog & I have to shoot it, absolutely not!

Those are the people ioi is pandering to to broaden the audience.

I see what you're saying but I don't think 'controversial' was the right word, you were closer to the mark here calling it 'pandering'.

Still I find it funny how they omit dogs yet you are still fully capable of killing security guards most of whom would just be regular dudes doing their job not caught up in whatever crimes the target is guilty of, and even further you can kill random civilians who have no connection whatsoever to anything, yet killings dogs is where they draw the line.

It's like whenever that one video pops up on reddit for the Nth time of some dude running into a burning building to save his dog how you always have those absolute ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ in the comments who act as if the dogs life is more important than the lives of the guy and the firefighters he's potentially endangering and will mass downvote anyone who 'dares' point out just how stupid an idea it is to run into a burning building just to save an animal.
Since when did animals become more important than people? Morons will be morons I guess.

Originally posted by Gerfreckle:

In some cases the whitewashing of 47 and the Agency is really obnoxious and excessive, but sometimes they don't do it at all. Like the Chinese businessman in A House Built on Sand is basically just giving industry secrets to a rival company, and you have to kill him. Hardly a heinous and despicable crime. I wish more were like that one, though. But IO isn't exactly good at nuanced writing.

Look at 'The Icon' mission for Sapienza, you're literally killing a guy because the company funding him doesn't want to break their contract with him and all he's guilty of is going overbudget with his movie. He's not committing any sort of crime at all and he's the only target like that in the current games and I believe in the entire franchise too (I may be forgetting one but every target in the previous games I can think of was a bad person of some sort too, they just didn't hammer it in like they do now).

[Japanese Schoolgirl]

Originally posted by Gerfreckle:

Originally posted by Kunovega:

Compared to the older games, do you see how much bending over they do to try and make 47 the good guy? The endless narrative of Diana reassuring you how evil your targets are?

ioi wants you to think of 47 like he's at least John wick a hitman with ethics, and he's not the guy who killed John Wicks dog (anymore)

This is a company that has to reassure you that they are a multicultural team that is all about diversity, every time you launch the game.

They can find excuses to kill bad people, they don't want to make people feel bad killing dogs.

Here's a quote from the last time this conversation came up about "Max is missing" and why there's no dogs in the current games:


Those are the people ioi is pandering to to broaden the audience.

In some cases the whitewashing of 47 and the Agency is really obnoxious and excessive, but sometimes they don't do it at all. Like the Chinese businessman in A House Built on Sand is basically just giving industry secrets to a rival company, and you have to kill him. Hardly a heinous and despicable crime. I wish more were like that one, though. But IO isn't exactly good at nuanced writing.

I do like the amoral nature to these crimes, actually - they're subtle and also morally ambiguous.

[Duckilous]

Originally posted by Mr_Faorry:

It's like whenever that one video pops up on reddit for the Nth time of some dude running into a burning building to save his dog how you always have those absolute ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ in the comments who act as if the dogs life is more important than the lives of the guy and the firefighters he's potentially endangering and will mass downvote anyone who 'dares' point out just how stupid an idea it is to run into a burning building just to save an animal.
Since when did animals become more important than people? Morons will be morons I guess.

I think it's more about how cynical people have gotten towards fellow humans while animals are seen as innocent regardless of the importance and priority of one's life.

[Tok'ra Operative]

In the Rotterdam missions of Hitman Codename 47, it is impossible to avoid killing dogs.