Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 17706]

I don't buy the scorned woman thing. She knew that Galahad was still looking for the answers that Malory sought, so even if she thought he was misguided, I don't think she'd immediately jump to some conclusion that Galahad was having romantic involvings with the rebel leader.

That whole thing just seemed so forced. She even acts like she still cares for Galahad in the prologue when he's trapped on the bridge after escaping the dungeon and is refusing to back down. Almost like that scene was created at the beginning and they forgot to go back and revise her demeanor.

 

[Veelk]

I think people are being unfair to Lady Igraine. The fact is that Galahad (bizarrely) never presented his case to her. Before or during his trial. Galahad basically gave her no reason to think he is anything except what he appears to be: a traitor. It's utterly asinine to say she 'lost faith' or 'is just angry he's got another ho' when Galahad himself doesn't even bother denying anything. Even Lafayette got a 'dude, this really isn't what it looks like', when literally no one else did. Maybe if he had said something, anything, to her, she'd have bought it, but she got nothing.

Continuing to trust Galahad in this manner would require her literally making up her own story of why Galahad is innocent of anything, because he gives her nothing. The bigger question is what the hell happened to Galahad having his testimony heard? We hear the case against him, but neither he nor his lawyer get to speak in defense. It's a really bizarre omission to make, because essentially this would come down to "do we have a test we can try to determine if Galahad's story checks out?" And....well, it's possible they just don't, but it'd be bizarre. You'd think the ability to morph tour entire body would leave some kind of tell you could find if you were looking for it, especially to scientists like Tesla. Give that mofo a blood sample or something.

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Just finished it. Didn't think much of the final two levels, but the ending with Grayson standing on the rooftop looking over the city was pretty awesome. They turned him into Batman! Loved the music during the final credits too.

Really enjoyed it on the whole, although I'm on my mobile and I'll write more detailed thoughts when I'm in front of a PC. It's probably a 7.5/10 for me. An excellent starting point with lots of issues to address in the (hopeful) sequel. Most of all, I want to be able to choose my own pace, to draw my own gun, to duck when I want, etc. Just little things like that which add to the feeling of freedom.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I think people are being unfair to Lady Igraine. The fact is that Galahad (bizarrely) never presented his case to her. Before or during his trial. Galahad basically gave her no reason to think he is anything except what he appears to be: a traitor. It's utterly asinine to say she 'lost faith' or 'is just angry he's got another ho' when Galahad himself doesn't even bother denying anything. Even Lafayette got a 'dude, this really isn't what it looks like', when literally no one else did. Maybe if he had said something, anything, to her, she'd have bought it, but she got nothing.

They've known each other for over a hundred years. He was her mentor. They are romantically involved. He just saved her life the other day. They've probably been through hell together countless times. He just lost his best friend (of multiple centuries) and mentor while attempting to unearth a conspiracy. It's obvious that he's a bit mad because of that, and wants to get to the bottom of what the rebels are up to. He murders the shit out of them on the bridge in a frenzy of vengeance while ignoring orders to back off.

There is absolutely zero reason for her to believe he was a traitor just because he was seen walking out of a rebel den in civilian clothing and then assaulting Lord Hasting's home. She would have to be absolutely insane to not give him the benefit of the doubt, even if he was being standoffish and didn't want to involve her. She flips out, arrests him, and argues for his execution just like that. She's completely mental. If that's her character, then fine, but they sure didn't show it.

 

[Veelk]

They've known each other for over a hundred years. He was her mentor. They are romantically involved. He just saved her life the other day. They've probably been through hell together countless times. He just lost his best friend (of multiple centuries) and mentor while attempting to unearth a conspiracy. It's obvious that he's a bit mad because of that, and wants to get to the bottom of the rebels. He murders the shit out of them on the bridge in a frenzy of vengeance while ignoring orders to back off.

There is absolutely zero reason for her to believe he was a traitor just because he was seen walking out of a rebel den in civilian clothing. She would have to be absolutely insane to not give him the benefit of the doubt, even if he was being standoffish and didn't want to involve her.

And all this makes him immune to corruption, instability, and treachery because...?

The evidence was circumstantial, but there was a shitton of it. And like I said, if he offered her ANY indication that he was anything except what he looked like, maybe she'd have believed him. But he gave her nothing. To still believe he is on the up and up in those conditions is not trust, it's fanaticism.

 

[Ishan]

They've known each other for over a hundred years. He was her mentor. They are romantically involved. He just saved her life the other day. They've probably been through hell together countless times. He just lost his best friend (of multiple centuries) and mentor while attempting to unearth a conspiracy. It's obvious that he's a bit mad because of that, and wants to get to the bottom of what the rebels are up to. He murders the shit out of them on the bridge in a frenzy of vengeance while ignoring orders to back off.

There is absolutely zero reason for her to believe he was a traitor just because he was seen walking out of a rebel den in civilian clothing and then assaulting Lord Hasting's home. She would have to be absolutely insane to not give him the benefit of the doubt, even if he was being standoffish and didn't want to involve her. She flips out, arrests him, and argues for his execution just like that. She's completely mental. If that's her character, then fine, but they sure didn't show it.

puts the whole dude my gf is crazy in perspective .... yeah no it was stupid. It just seemed pretty hamfisted setting up for a izzy galahad confrontation and eventual reunion in part 2.

EDIT: to above post yes def. If I know someone for 10 years and I see him/her acting off for a month my natural reaction is to still assume they're still the person they are and something is going wrong especially after something like losing his mentor. Changing my whole perspective of someone over a month after 10 years of knowing them is wacko. And given their long lifetime and mentorship that's more like 100 years . so its more like I know them 10 years and they act off for 3 days. The whole thing makes no sense.

And this even brings this thing out more. Were arguing whether things RAD as implying are feasible. With tlou the arguments were yeah we completely get how joel ellie bonded and how joel tess bonded and why he did the things he did already made sense. it was a grey area where things made sense but they were grey decisions you could discuss. Rather than this where half the ppl are already asserting it doesn't make sense.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

And all this makes him immune to corruption, instability, and betrayal because...?

Really?

She would be willing to accept that Galahad did a complete 180 in the course of a few hours? Went from seeking out rebels in an attempt to slaughter them and protecting Lord Hastings with his life to suddenly siding with them and attacking Lord Hastings because of corruption and instability? That is madness. Any thinking human would think he had a damn good reason for what he was up to.

 

[Veelk]

Really?

She would be willing to accept that Galahad did a complete 180 in the course of a few hours? Went from seeking out rebels in an attempt to slaughter them and protecting Lord Hastings with his life to suddenly siding with them and attacking Lord Hastings because of corruption and instability? That is madness. Any thinking human would think he had a damn good reason for what he was up to.

People have done so before, yeah. And I don't understand why you do not acknowledge the fact that Galahad denied none of this to her. And if "any thinking human" would have good reason to think that Galahad obviously must have a good reason, apparently the order is chock full of idiots and it's a wonder your singling Igraine out. She had more evidence than any of them.

 

[jet1911]

That whole thing just seemed so forced. She even acts like she still cares for Galahad in the prologue when he's trapped on the bridge after escaping the dungeon and is refusing to back down. Almost like that scene was created at the beginning and they forgot to go back and revise her demeanor.

Yeah. I found that extremly jarring back in context.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

The evidence was circumstantial, but there was a shitton of it. And like I said, if he offered her ANY indication that he was anything except what he looked like, maybe she'd have believed him. But he gave her nothing. To still believe he is on the up and up in those conditions is not trust, it's fanaticism.

People have done so before, yeah. And I don't understand why you do not acknowledge the fact that Galahad denied none of this to her. And if "any thinking human" would have good reason to think that Galahad obviously must have a good reason, apparently the order is chock full of idiots and it's a wonder your singling Igraine out. She had more evidence than any of them.

http://youtu.be/u4fio14dQhQ?t=13m7s

No way. Click that video.

She bursts in on him all wounded in the United India House and immediately turns a gun on him. He says, "wait, I can explain..." but she isn't having any of that. Totally just eats up everything Lord Hastings says instead. Galahad even says, "it's a lie." But nope. Fuck your trusty companion of centuries. Let's just listen to this old man instead. "Isi, listen to me. You're making a grave mistake." She ain't listening to that nonsense.

 

[Veelk]

http://youtu.be/u4fio14dQhQ?t=13m7s

No way. Click that video.

She bursts in on him all wounded in the United India House and immediately turns a gun on him. He says, "wait, I can explain..." but she isn't having any of that. Totally just eats up everything Lord Hastings says instead.

No shit she doesn't. He's literally in the middle of an attack. That is not the time for talking. She doesn't have a gun on him, she could be dead the next second. The time for talking is post capture. She's not a dog, she isnt' suppose to blindly follow Galahads orders in all circumstances. A guy saying "I can explain" is a bloody room doesnt' mean that's the appropriate time for that explanation. The bigger question is why the fuck did he seem to say nothing during his trial. It's the trial that where she condemns him, not the india house.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

No shit she doesn't. He's literally in the middle of an attack. That is not the time for talking. The time for talking is post capture. She's not a dog, she isnt' suppose to blindly follow Galahads orders in all circumstances. The bigger question is why the fuck did he seem to say nothing during his trial.

What???

Why would he say anything during that kangaroo court when he knows Lucan, a higher ranking knight with more clout than Galahad is at the heart of the conspiracy. He probably assumes that the corruption lies even deeper in the order.

If Isabel wouldn't have listened to him in the moment, then there is nothing for him to say in that court scene. She couldn't have saved him anyway.

 

[Schryver]

Stuff that would make a sequel better:

1. Light RPG elements. Let me upgrade my blacksight, my health, stealth etc. - Meh
2. Melee weapons and combos. - Sure
3. More lucid platforming. Not AC levels, but more and faster. - Yes plz
4. Better stealth sections. - Sure
5. Actual puzzles. - Yes plz
6. Weapon upgrading. Perhaps not R&C style, more like the new Wolfenstein style. - No thx
7. A well done bestiary. - Sure
8. Ability to skip cut scene. At least on their second viewing. - Doesn't bother me
9. Side missions. - NO

My thoughts above

 

[Ishan]

People have done so before. And I don't understand why you do not acknowledge the fact that Galahad denied none of this to her.

err because im dealing with something big on my own and don't want to talk about it ..... its a very natural reaction with ppl when dealing with big problems.

 

[nib95]

Really?

She would be willing to accept that Galahad did a complete 180 in the course of a few hours? Went from seeking out rebels in an attempt to slaughter them and protecting Lord Hastings with his life to suddenly siding with them and attacking Lord Hastings because of corruption and instability? That is madness. Any thinking human would think he had a damn good reason for what he was up to.

I don't know if it's a question of whether he had a reason for it or not, she most probably knew he did, albeit an anger motivated and not clear cut one, but it was still a betrayal either way. He disbanded from The Order and went about doing this himself, just like he did before, and that in itself is a betrayal of their Order. The Order is not a vigilante organisation, nor are they permitted to be, but Galahad doesn't see reason in that. He, like Mallory, feel they are above the law and bureaucracy. On top of which, he didn't inform her of anything because he didn't trust her, or because he wanted to protect her, either way that spells a lack of faith in Izzy, which she'll no doubt also harbour a grudge over, especially when Galahad has already rejected her in a romantic sense.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

I basically want them to turn this game into an adventure game, so...

 

[Veelk]

err because im dealing with something big on my own and don't want to talk about it ..... its a very natural reaction with ppl when dealing with big problems.

Well, that's his problem. Honest communication in any relationship is integral to trust. She wasn't important enough to fill in, then naturally that trust dies when evidence is turned against him. But I was referring to his trial. At that point, Galahad wasn't going anywhere, so he should have presented his case.

What???

Why would he say anything during that kangaroo court when he knows Lucan, a higher ranking knight with more clout than Galahad is at the heart of the conspiracy. He probably assumes that the corruption lies even deeper in the order.

If Isabel wouldn't have listened to him in the moment, then there is nothing for him to say in that court scene. She couldn't have saved him anyway.

Well, that's the thing. It makes very little sense for him not to say anything. If the Order is wholly corrupt...then who cares, he's condemned no matter what he does and the rest of the order already are in the know. Nothing gained, but nothing lost.

But if the order isn't corrupt for the most part, then there are going to be a lot of knights that check however they can to see if Galahad's story checks out.

And really, if there is ANY way to check if someone is a lycan or vampire (and I feel there should be, given the advanced technology they have at their disposal) then uncovering the truth becomes a simple matter. But for any of that to happen, Galahad has to speak up.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I don't know if it's a question of whether he had a reason for it or not, she most probably knew he did, albeit an anger motivated and not clear cut one, but it was still a betrayal either way. He disbanded from The Order and went about doing this himself, just like he did before, and that in itself is a betrayal of their Order. The Order is not a vigilante organisation, nor are they permitted to be, but Galahad doesn't see reason in that. He, like Percival, feel they are above the law and bureaucracy. On top of which, he didn't inform her of anything either because he didn't trust her, or because he wanted to protect her, either way that spells a lack of faith in Izzy, which she'll no doubt also harbour a grudge over, especially when Galahad has already rejected her in a romantic sense.

I think that's a fair enough explanation. If that's truly her character, I think they needed to do a lot more over the course of the game to establish how zealous she was about upholding the rigid code of the Order. She certainly didn't seem to have many objections in following Percival's lead in doing some rather unscrupulous operations.

If, for example, she had refused to follow along when boarding the Agamemnon because they didn't have express clearance to do so, then that would have matched up with her actions later.

Well, that's his problem. Honest communication in any relationship is integral to trust. She wasn't important enough to fill in, then naturally that trust dies when evidence is turned against him. But I was referring to his trial. At that point, Galahad wasn't going anywhere, so he should have presented his case.

He knew his fate was sealed with Lucan and Lord Hastings (and probably others) set against him. He was probably devastated that Isabel straight up arrested him instead of giving him a chance to explain in the United India House. I imagine he was just about ready to die at that point.

A guy saying "I can explain" is a bloody room doesnt' mean that's the appropriate time for that explanation. The bigger question is why the fuck did he seem to say nothing during his trial. It's the trial that where she condemns him, not the india house.

He's not just "a guy." You'd think their relationship (spanning a period longer than multiple human lives) and Galahad's reputation and actions up until then would have given him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[nib95]

I think that's a fair enough explanation. If that's truly her character, I think they needed to do a lot more over the course of the game to establish how zealous she was about upholding the rigid code of the Order. She certainly didn't seem to have many objections in following Percival's lead in doing some rather unscrupulous operations.

If, for example, she had refused to follow along when boarding the Agamemnon because they didn't have express clearance to do so, then that would have matched up with her actions later.



He knew his fate was sealed with Lucan and Lord Hastings (and probably others) set against him. He was probably devastated that Isabel straight up arrested him instead of giving him a chance to explain in the United India House. I imagine he was just about ready to die at that point.

Agree with all of these points. Though it's possible the death of Mallory may have changed her tune and grounded her a bit. But it's Ready at Dawn's job to better communicate that.

 

[Veelk]

He knew his fate was sealed with Lucan and Lord Hastings (and probably others) set against him. He was probably devastated that Isabel straight up arrested him instead of giving him a chance to explain in the United India House. I imagine he was just about ready to die at that point.

I wouldn't have realized Galahad is so emotionally fragile. So you're saying he's so utterly heartbroken, he doesn't feel it's worth saying the thing that would basically...fix everything?

He's not just "a guy." You'd think their relationship (spanning a period longer than multiple human lives) and Galahad's reputation and actions up until then would have given him the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah....none of which makes him immune to the aforementioned corruption, instability, and treachery. I very much imagine she'd have given him the benefit of the doubt if he had given her a doubt.

Your condemnation of Galahad relies on the argument that she didn't drop everything in a warzone where she can die at any moment just because Galahad told her to. Doing so wouldn't be loyalty, it'd be insanity.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

Well, that's his problem. Honest communication in any relationship is integral to trust. She wasn't important enough to fill in, then naturally that trust dies when evidence is turned against him. But I was referring to his trial. At that point, Galahad wasn't going anywhere, so he should have presented his case.



Well, that's the thing. It makes very little sense for him not to say anything. If the Order is wholly corrupt...then who cares, he's condemned no matter what he does and the rest of the order already are in the know. Nothing gained, but nothing lost.

But if the order isn't corrupt for the most part, then there are going to be a lot of knights that check however they can to see if Galahad's story checks out.

And really, if there is ANY way to check if someone is a lycan or vampire (and I feel there should be, given the advanced technology they have at their disposal) then uncovering the truth becomes a simple matter. But for any of that to happen, Galahad has to speak up.

It seemed more and more like anyone couldn't get a word in edge-wise because the Lord Chancellor loves hearing himself talk. I'm sure if Galahad tried he'd be interrupted almost immediately with threats of even more punishment.

 

[Veelk]

It seemed more and more like anyone couldn't get a word in edge-wise because the Lord Chancellor loves hearing himself talk. I'm sure if Galahad tried he'd be interrupted almost immediately with threats of even more punishment.

Well, we didn't really get to see that. And it's false anyway. The Knight commander basically spoke up against him, chancellor told him to stfu, and he didn't, so they had that whole trial. Either Galahad flat out didn't get a defense (which would make the whole thing moot, so I don't know why they bothered to go through it at all), or he simply didn't speak up. I'd guess the latter, because if it's the former, their justice is so fucked up as to be utterly pointless and might as well just declare anyone who is accused to be automatically guilty. Which might be possible, but the fade in and out presentation of the scene suggests they just cut out the parts that don't make Galahad cry. I mean, even in medieval times where you could determine whose right by stupid shit like trial by combat, the defense could always atleast give their version of events.

 

[indigo-cyclops]

Well, we didn't really get to see that. And it's false anyway. The Knight commander basically spoke up against him, chancellor told him to stfu, and he didn't, so they had that whole trial. Either Galahad flat out didn't get a defense (which would make the whole thing moot, so I don't know why they bothered to go through it at all), or he simply didn't speak up. I'd guess the latter, because if it's the former, their justice is so fucked up as to be utterly pointless and might as well just declare anyone who is accused to be automatically guilty. Which might be possible, but the fade in and out presentation of the scene suggests they just cut out the parts that don't make Galahad cry. I mean, even in medieval times where you could determine whose right by stupid shit like trial by combat, the defense could always atleast give their version of events.

As the game went on, and I saw how the Chancellor operated, I grew concerned that their justice system was fucked, haha. But good points.

 

[Die Squirrel Die]

Why is the onus on Ise to show that she still trusts Galahad, when he's the one who first acts in a way that would look like he doesn't trust her. She asks him to explain his actions (being spotted in the company of the rebel leader) and even straight up says that she's questioning her trust in him and he completely spurns her, before going off and doing even more dodgy looking stuff with the rebel leader.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I wouldn't have realized Galahad is so emotionally fragile. So you're saying he's so utterly heartbroken, he doesn't feel it's worth saying the thing that would basically...fix everything?

Why do you think anyone would have given him the time of day? Why would he? His most trusted companion wouldn't give him a chance to say anything when it really mattered. He knows the Lord Chancellor is against him. He knows that Lucan and Lord Hastings are traitors. He probably suspects that many more are, too. Who knows, there may even be some rule in these trials where the accused aren't allowed to speak. I don't recall them ever giving him the chance to defend himself. Even if he did say everything in convincing detail, why do you think they would believe him? Even if Isabel did believe him, she certainly didn't have the power to set him free. It was a sham of a trial, and he knew it.

Yeah....none of which makes him immune to the aforementioned corruption, instability, and treachery. I very much imagine she'd have given him the benefit of the doubt if he had given her a doubt.

This just doesn't make sense. He was literally pursuing a completely opposite objective mere hours before. To suddenly turn sides and team up with the people he moments ago held responsible for the death of his friend... you'd think he must have a pretty good reason, no? I argue that any reasonable person would.

Your condemnation of Galahad relies on the argument that she didn't drop everything in a warzone where she can die at any moment just because Galahad told her to. Doing so wouldn't be loyalty, it'd be insanity.

You mean Isabel? I don't even know what you're saying? Why would listening to what he had to say right there have been insanity? It's not like they hadn't fought their way out of worse. A few United India Company guards were nothing to give a damn about.

Why is the onus on Ise to show that she still trusts Galahad, when he's the one who first acts in a way that would look like he doesn't trust her. She asks him to explain his actions (being spotted in the company of the rebel leader) and even straight up says that she's questioning her trust in him and he completely spurns her, before going off and doing even more dodgy looking stuff with the rebel leader.

Oh, I don't know... because of everything he'd ever done over the centuries before those couple of hours?

Are things that binary with some of you folks?

Well, we didn't really get to see that. And it's false anyway. The Knight commander basically spoke up against him, chancellor told him to stfu, and he didn't, so they had that whole trial. Either Galahad flat out didn't get a defense (which would make the whole thing moot, so I don't know why they bothered to go through it at all), or he simply didn't speak up. I'd guess the latter, because if it's the former, their justice is so fucked up as to be utterly pointless and might as well just declare anyone who is accused to be automatically guilty. Which might be possible, but the fade in and out presentation of the scene suggests they just cut out the parts that don't make Galahad cry. I mean, even in medieval times where you could determine whose right by stupid shit like trial by combat, the defense could always atleast give their version of events.

There's zero reason to think they gave him a chance to speak in his own defense.

 

[Veelk]

Why do you think anyone would have given him the time of day? Why would he? His most trusted companion wouldn't give him a chance to say anything when it really mattered. He knows the Lord Chancellor is against him. He knows that Lucan and Lord Hastings are traitors. He probably suspects that many more are, too. Who knows, there may even be some rule in these trials where the accused aren't allowed to speak. I don't recall them ever giving him the chance to defend himself. Even if he did say everything in convincing detail, why do you think they would believe him? Even if Isabel did believe him, she certainly didn't have the power to set him free. It was a sham of a trial, and he knew it.

Yeah, but she'd have his story. If that's not really worth anything to him, then Galahad wouldn't have deserved her trust anyway. Again, it's hard to tell just how the corrupt the order is. If he makes his case and they have a way to test of someone is a halfbreed, then Galahad's guilt or innocence in the matter is a very simple and provable case. Anyone who is his friend or just an uncorrupt knight would fight to attain the truth of the situation. It's a pretty simple case.

This just doesn't make sense. He was literally pursuing a completely opposite objective mere hours before. To suddenly turn sides and team up with the people he moments ago held responsible for the death of his friend... you'd think he must have a pretty good reason, no? I argue that any reasonable person would.

Look up instability, and you will find that it has very little to do with rationality. Something being merely bizarre does not make it untrue, and certainly not enough that Igraine should risk dying over a potential lunatic over. Because that's exactly how Galahad was presented to her last they met, a raving, vengeful lunatic. If nothing else, the man is CLEARLY very dangerous. Getting him contained is the first priority whether you have doubts or not.

You mean Isabel? I don't even know what you're saying? Why would listening to what he had to say right there have been insanity? It's not like they hadn't fought their way out of worse. A few United India Company guards were nothing to give a damn about

Oh, I don't know... because of everything he'd ever done over centuries before those couple of hours?

Are things that binary with some of you folks?

Yeah, I meant isabel. And no, that's not a good enough reason. Also, in the bolded, you're arguing that she should be indifferent to his murdering of (from her perspective) totally innocent people? What, being a knight for several centuries entitles him to a few mass murders if he has the fancy? Jesus, dude, she's not his dog. Love doesn't mean she has unquestioning, absolute loyalty and trust to anything he ever says. That is, again, fanaticism. Dropping everything so she can hear his story IN THE FUCKING MIDDLE OF A BATTLEFIELD would be stupid beyond belief for so many reasons.

There's zero reason to think they gave him a chance to speak in his own defense.

That would be much more believable if he tried to speak and they didn't let him. If nothing else, it would expose the sham of the trial to anyone who has doubts about him. There is nothing to be lost by it, so there isn't any reason not to try.

 

[Die Squirrel Die]

Oh, I don't know... because of everything he'd ever done over the centuries before those couple of hours?

Are things that binary with some of you folks?

And what about the centuries of stuff that Ise had done before Galahad told her she knew less than nothing and to stay away from him, before slamming the door to the council chambers on her?

And 'some of you folks', is there any point continuing to have a discussion with you if you resort to condescension because someone disagrees with how you interpreted events?

 

[Deleted member 17706]

And what about the centuries of stuff that Ise had done before Galahad told her she knew less than nothing and to stay away from him, before slamming the door to the council chambers on her?

And 'some of you folks', is there any point continuing to have a discussion with you if you resort to condescension because someone disagrees with how you interpreted events?

How is "some of you folks" condescending? It's not, or at least it certainly wasn't mean to be.

It's not about interpretation of events, either. We're arguing about whether Isabel's actions were justified or rational. I feel that her reaction was not in line with the character that was presented to us in the game. It becomes downright absurd when you consider the context, which is that they are closer than any normal humans could possibly imagine. To throw all of that away just because Galahad spurned her indicates to me that she's insane, or it was perfectly in line with her character, but the developers simply chose not to ever show that side to us.

Dropping everything so she can hear his story IN THE FUCKING MIDDLE OF A BATTLEFIELD would be stupid beyond belief for so many reasons.

I don't buy it. It was only the three of them in that room when he first tried to explain. He was unarmed and she had a gun pointed at him. Even when Lords Hastings bursted in, it was still with only two guards. Everything in the game leading up to that showed us that two guards, or hell, even twenty guards, is nothing for these people to be concerned about.

 

[Veelk]

How is "some of you folks" condescending? It's not, or at least it certainly wasn't mean to be.

It's not about interpretation of events, either. We're arguing about whether Isabel's actions were justified or rational. I feel that her reaction was not in line with the character that was presented to us in the game. It becomes downright absurd when you consider the context, which is that they are closer than any normal humans could possibly imagine. To throw all of that away just because Galahad spurned her indicates to me that she's insane, or it was perfectly in line with her character, but the developers simply chose not to ever show that side to us.

I don't buy it. It was only the three of them in that room when he first tried to explain. He was unarmed and she had a gun pointed at him. Even when Lords Hastings bursted in, it was still with only two guards. Everything in the game leading up to that showed us that two guards, or hell, even twenty guards, is nothing for these people to be concerned about.

Yeah, I don't buy this interpretation that she is irrational at all.

If I start to see my dad acting erratic and crazy, while refusing to tell me whats going on, before walking I walk into a room where he is holding a bloody knife with dead people all around him, as much as I love him, as much as he has done for me all my life, my immediate reaction will not be "Well, okay, this looks bad, but why don't we sit down, get some tea, and you can tell me all about it" whether he tells me it isn't what it looks like or not. He can explain what happens once I know for sure he's not going to kill me too. Perhaps there is a perfectly good explanation and he's not actually a crazy murderer, but he can tell me all about it when he's apprehended.

Galahad had slaughtered armies at this point, they haven't secured the perimeter, and him being unarmed does not make him any less dangerous. What you are describing is simply not how any law enforcement agency operates. They don't sit down the criminals to discuss things with them in the middle of the crime. Not even ones they are buddy buddy with. It would be stupid beyond belief to do so for reason that should be obvious.

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

Interesting talk about Lady Igraine. I do think she turned against Galahad a little too easily, but in retrospect they did establish that she was a stubborn character early on. That and her emotional stake in this, I can sorta see how it could make her blind to everything else.

 

[jet1911]

Interesting talk about Lady Igraine. I do think she turned against Galahad a little too easily, but in retrospect they did establish that she was a stubborn character early on. That and her emotional stake in this, I can sorta see how it could make her blind to everything else.

Her and Galahad both acted dumb. He should just have told her that he found a shitload of crates full of vampires instead of the cliché "I can't tell you anything and I'll get angry if you try to get me to answer your questions!". She could have listend to him when he did try to explain though. Both reactions were out of character, from the little we saw of them interacting together, they seemed to have a stronger relationship than what is shown near the end of the game.

 

[Veelk]

Also, it's bullshit this is somehow supposed to be on Igraine to trust galahad against monumental evidence. How about Galahad tell her whats going on before going on his (by his own admission) sketchy mission where he could be mixed up in some shit. "I don't have the time to do so"? Fucking make time. If this goes south, Igraine could lose the person she loves most....which she does, because now he's voluntarily involved in this narrative that he is a traitor who now killed her brother. Imagine how THAT must feel. Trust runs two ways, and if he can't be bothered to open up to Igraine, she has no obligation to go out on a limb for him.

 

[ricardo_sousa11]

Just finished the game, and although as everyone knows by now, a lot is unanswered, but I believe it is so for a good reason.

I believe the Grail is either "Sangre de Dios" (Blood of God), hence giving the knights the hability of healing with their own blood. Although would not explain the lack of reflections on the mirrors.

OR

It is vampire blood, which seems reasonable. Being London a highly polutted, cloudy and foggy place, this would justify why they can walk on daylight. I also believe some of the members, may have been turned unknowingly (such as Laffayette, Galahad and Isi). The lack of reflections on the mirrors seem too obvious, taking in consideration the lenghts the game itself goes to be so photorealistic, and also placing reflections on glass, tin, copper or ceramic. IF it is vampire blood, and they are turning unknowingly, maybe they are a derivate of Vampire, and not a "full fledged" Vampire.

We need a DLC ! Thats what we need, that would explain the story further. Also I want to kill Lord Hastings !

*Also would have loved to have fought some vampires on the docks -.-

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Just finished the game, and although as everyone knows by now, a lot is unanswered, but I believe it is so for a good reason.

I believe the Grail is either "Sangre de Dios" (Blood of God), hence giving the knights the hability of healing with their own blood. Although would not explain the lack of reflections on the mirrors.

OR

It is vampire blood, which seems reasonable. Being London a highly polutted, cloudy and foggy place, this would justify why they can walk on daylight. I also believe some of the members, may have been turned unknowingly (such as Laffayette, Galahad and Isi). The lack of reflections on the mirrors seem too obvious, taking in consideration the lenghts the game itself goes to be so photorealistic, and also placing reflections on glass, tin, copper or ceramic. IF it is vampire blood, and they are turning unknowingly, maybe they are a derivate of Vampire, and not a "full fledged" Vampire.

We need a DLC ! Thats what we need, that would explain the story further. Also I want to kill Lord Hastings !

*Also would have loved to have fought some vampires on the docks -.-

Unfortunately, I think someone at RAD tweeted about the lack of character reflections being due to technical limitations.

 

[void666]

Just finished the game, and although as everyone knows by now, a lot is unanswered, but I believe it is so for a good reason.

I believe the Grail is either "Sangre de Dios" (Blood of God), hence giving the knights the hability of healing with their own blood. Although would not explain the lack of reflections on the mirrors.

OR

It is vampire blood, which seems reasonable. Being London a highly polutted, cloudy and foggy place, this would justify why they can walk on daylight. I also believe some of the members, may have been turned unknowingly (such as Laffayette, Galahad and Isi). The lack of reflections on the mirrors seem too obvious, taking in consideration the lenghts the game itself goes to be so photorealistic, and also placing reflections on glass, tin, copper or ceramic. IF it is vampire blood, and they are turning unknowingly, maybe they are a derivate of Vampire, and not a "full fledged" Vampire.

We need a DLC ! Thats what we need, that would explain the story further. Also I want to kill Lord Hastings !

*Also would have loved to have fought some vampires on the docks -.-

We were overthinking it. It's just "technical limitation".

https://twitter.com/AndreaPessino/status/569677172723417088

Edit: beaten

 

[ricardo_sousa11]

Unfortunately, I think someone at RAD tweeted about the lack of character reflections being due to technical limitations.

Really ?! But...it seems so obvious...I mean, the "forced" reflections on smaller things...why didnt they just remove the huge mirrors (specially in the beginning) ?! and force a silluette reflection on the small things ?!

Err...if thats so, then its probably just vampire blood on the grail.

 

[Chamber]

Interesting talk about Lady Igraine. I do think she turned against Galahad a little too easily, but in retrospect they did establish that she was a stubborn character early on. That and her emotional stake in this, I can sorta see how it could make her blind to everything else.

The direct contrast with Lafayette's reaction made her come off worse. Marquis and Tesla end up being closer to Grayson than his century long romantic interest. Sorry but I'm firmly in the "c'mon man" camp when it comes to Izzy. This aspect of the story was simply poorly told.

 

[Veelk]

The direct contrast with Lafayette's reaction made her come off worse. Marquis and Tesla end up being closer to Grayson than his century long romantic interest. Sorry but I'm firmly in the "c'mon man" camp when it comes to Izzy.

Well, Tesla is already a mole for the rebellion. He already knows. Can't really say he's acting out of faith in Galahad.

But this brings up an interesting point. Galahad is actually innocent of the crimes he is presented, but they have no reason to think so except a small sense of intuition that he might be actually be clean. What if he was a lunatic as he appeared?

Shouldn't the response be "come on, Marquis, you naive dope"

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Well, Tesla is already a mole for the rebellion. He already knows. Can't really say he's acting out of faith in Galahad.

But this brings up an interesting point. Galahad is actually innocent of the crimes he is presented, but they have no reason to think so except a small sense of intuition that he might be actually be clean. What if he was a lunatic as he appeared?

Shouldn't the response be "come on, Marquis, you naive dope"

No, because again, centuries of actions and behavior demonstrating otherwise... blah.

It's only natural to think he has a damn good reason to go from "Goddamn rebels I'm going to murder the fuck out of all of you for killing my friend while protecting the good Lord Hastings with my life" to "I'm going to team up with the leader of the rebels and kill Lord Hastings."

 

[Veelk]

No, because again, centuries of actions and behavior demonstrating otherwise... blah.

It's only natural to think he has a damn good reason to go from "Goddamn rebels I'm going to murder the fuck out of all of you for killing my friend while protecting the good Lord Hastings with my life" to "I'm going to team up with the leader of the rebels and kill Lord Hastings."

It is only natural to think that he has damn good reason if you are assuming that Galahad is rational. We know he is because we see him discover the conspiracy, but that is not how it looks like from the outside. You are literally not following the plotline presented in the game by ignoring this point. It is literally one of the things they accuse him of in the trial ("Making wild accusations"). The Order doesn't think he choose the rebel side merely out of a switch of loyalties, they are convinced the death of Percieval has caused Galahad to lose his damn mind.

And the only way they could verify this is if he gives his rationale for his actions. Which he doesn't do.

 

[Ishan]

It is only natural to think that he has damn good reason if you are assuming that Galahad is rational. We know he is because we see him discover the conspiracy, but that is not how it looks like from the outside. You are literally not following the plotline presented in the game by ignoring this point.

I would say given the number of ppl whove come down on the side of cmon man they messed izzy's reaction up. We've followed the plotline just fine. It just doesn't feel natural. Maybe with a couple more scenes of izzy galahad interactions yeah could be a sell. In its current states its not .

EDIT:

So wait your argument is the death of Percival which was caused by the rebels blowing up Percival has now made galahad decide to join them?? That is quite literally one of the best pieces of mental gymnastics to justify a point. If anything the opposite is true everyone knows he wanted to chase them down and now hes with them so something is up and needs more investigation

 

[Deleted member 17706]

It is only natural to think that he has damn good reason if you are assuming that Galahad is rational. We know he is because we see him discover the conspiracy, but that is not how it looks like from the outside. You are literally not following the plotline presented in the game by ignoring this point.

No, I am disagreeing that reasonable human beings would be so willing to throw away centuries of personal experience and evidence to the contrary just because of one single outburst over the course of a few hours.

Lafayette was one of these reasonable people. Isabel was not.

With that said, I do agree that Galahad was a dumbass for not simply talking about his suspicions with Isabel. It's not like he needed to drag her along with him on his covert mission.

So wait your argument is the death of Percival which was caused by the rebels blowing up Percival has now made galahad decide to join them?? That is quite literally one of the best pieces of mental gymnastics to justify a point.

This is exactly what I was trying to get at earlier. It doesn't point to him being irrational to do a complete 180 on who he is targeting, especially despite his justified prejudices against the rebels. It in fact demonstrates a very rational person exercising extreme restraint to not have blown the head off the rebel leader on sight. Instead of automatically assuming he is a traitor, I think most people would think he learned something huge that changed everything.

 

[Veelk]

I would say given the number of ppl whove come down on the side of cmon man they messed izzy's reaction up. We've followed the plotline just fine. It just doesn't feel natural. Maybe with a couple more scenes of izzy galahad interactions yeah could be a sell. In its current states its not .

There are a lot of narrative problems with The Order, but I just don't see how anyone can think that Izzy is being irrational. This might be inconvienent because the player and Galahad are one and the same, so her not trusting and being against Galahad is her being against them. Whether or not she has a good reason, if she's an antagonist, then she's an obstacle to the player. However, that does not make anything she does irrational.

No, I am disagreeing that reasonable human beings would be so willing to throw away centuries of personal experience and evidence to the contrary just because of one single outburst over the course of a few hours.

Lafayette was one of these reasonable people. Isabel was not.

With that said, I do agree that Galahad was a dumbass for not simply talking about his suspicions with Isabel. It's not like he needed to drag her along with him on his covert mission.

The bolded is the key word here. Grieving people are not rational. Hell, normal people aren't rational. Grieving people are especially so. Galahad has shown extreme tendencies since Mallory's death. The argument here is that he is NOT reasonable.

Lafayette has even less reason to trust him. He just knows the guy, and his only reason is that he doesn't seem the type. Which is no logical reason to make the assumption in the face of opposing evidence. Lafayette just happened to be right, but it wasn't because of reason, it was because of inuititon.

So wait your argument is the death of Percival which was caused by the rebels blowing up Percival has now made galahad decide to join them?? That is quite literally one of the best pieces of mental gymnastics to justify a point. If anything the opposite is true everyone knows he wanted to chase them down and now hes with them so something is up and needs more investigation

No, the argument as I saw it presented in the game is that Galahad had gone crazy and was looking for anyone to blame for Percieval's death. I mean, that's what the trial was about, no? Because if it is, then it's not just me your saying that did mental gymnastics, but the entire fucking order is full of complete idiots. No, I'm pretty sure they're saying Galahad had gone mad and went traitor, not that Galahad is so pissed at the rebels that he joined them.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

There are a lot of narrative problems with The Order, but I just don't see how anyone can think that Izzy is being irrational. This might be inconvienent because the player and Galahad are one and the same, so her not trusting and being against Galahad is her being against them. Whether or not she has a good reason, if she's an antagonist, then she's an obstacle to the player. However, that does not make anything she does irrational.

I think you're really reaching on this part and kind of insulting the intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you. We're not imbeciles who can't separate ourselves from Galahad. Honestly, I perceived him on pretty much the same level as any of the other main characters.

 

[Ishan]

No, I am disagreeing that reasonable human beings would be so willing to throw away centuries of personal experience and evidence to the contrary just because of one single outburst over the course of a few hours.

Lafayette was one of these reasonable people. Isabel was not.

With that said, I do agree that Galahad was a dumbass for not simply talking about his suspicions with Isabel. It's not like he needed to drag her along with him on his covert mission.

agree. Some have pointed out he wanted to protect her and lucan was a high ranking person he thought had the lord chancellors ear so that made sense instead as it was a keep it quiet sort of thing.

Lafayette was completely believable. Izzy nope. Unless you go with the shes all up in a twist cause she thinks hes with that rebel queen and jealous. I think they wanted to play up that angle and even that doesn't sell as well. And if we include that that's also kind of her being irrational due to her feelings for him. I cant really see any way she ends up being the fully reasonable person in this.

 

[Jabba]

Why do you think anyone would have given him the time of day? Why would he? His most trusted companion wouldn't give him a chance to say anything when it really mattered. He knows the Lord Chancellor is against him. He knows that Lucan and Lord Hastings are traitors. He probably suspects that many more are, too. Who knows, there may even be some rule in these trials where the accused aren't allowed to speak. I don't recall them ever giving him the chance to defend himself. Even if he did say everything in convincing detail, why do you think they would believe him? Even if Isabel did believe him, she certainly didn't have the power to set him free. It was a sham of a trial, and he knew it.



This just doesn't make sense. He was literally pursuing a completely opposite objective mere hours before. To suddenly turn sides and team up with the people he moments ago held responsible for the death of his friend... you'd think he must have a pretty good reason, no? I argue that any reasonable person would.



You mean Isabel? I don't even know what you're saying? Why would listening to what he had to say right there have been insanity? It's not like they hadn't fought their way out of worse. A few United India Company guards were nothing to give a damn about.



Oh, I don't know... because of everything he'd ever done over the centuries before those couple of hours?

Are things that binary with some of you folks?



There's zero reason to think they gave him a chance to speak in his own defense.

Zefah, this probably won't come out right but, the centuries thing you point out is really important. Anyone using blackwater, would have a quite different perspective of things. The problem people have when writing from this type of fictional perspectives not natural to humans in reality, is some of the time the writer breaks from it, ruining the immersion of said perspective.

Igraine should have given Gallahad the benefit of the doubt I agree with you. We are talking, ceturies of partnership in the worst of conditions. In all types of situations where at some point all your flaws you try to hide would definitely come to the surface. We are too flawed to hide such things for that long. In other words, she knows him and he her. Why the frenchman understood Gallahads actions and not Igraine is a mystery. It's almost as if Ru was thinking in the fictional perspective for Marquai and not Igraine. I'm of the opinion, after centuries, a partnership of any kind wouldn't have many illusions. Even if they are in love, many know newer love isn't the same as an older love. Now throw in hundreds of years instead of, say.......50. Gallahads actions and motives over centuries should not have vaporized from anyone within a few hours is correct imo. Igraine of all people should have seriously confronted Gallahad and then if he gave her nothing, carry on, but maybe there wasn't time to put it in. If I've made my point correctly, did Ru drop out on Igraines character possibly?

If there's a sequel, I think they need to keep reminding themselves of the fictional perspective of longevity. Not sure if this makes any sense though.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

The bolded is the key word here. Grieving people are not rational. Hell, normal people aren't rational. Grieving people are especially so. Galahad has shown extreme tendencies since Mallory's death. The argument here is that he is NOT reasonable.

He was acting irrationally and disobeying orders, but only to the extent to exact revenge against the rebels. He rescues Lord Hastings after the death of Malory. He then goes on a rampage murdering the rebels. For him to do a complete 180 hours later should indicate that something happened. Something changed his convictions. There was no reason to believe that he was just randomly lashing out at anyone. His actions were very targeted.

Lafayette has even less reason to trust him. He just knows the guy, and his only reason is that he doesn't seem the type. Which is no logical reason to make the assumption in the face of opposing evidence. Lafayette just happened to be right, but it wasn't because of reason, it was because of inuititon.

I don't think it's unreasonable to give someone the benefit of the doubt even if it flies in the face of the apparent evidence. Especially when you're known that person for a good long time and know them to be someone else.

 

[Veelk]

I think you're really reaching on this part and kind of insulting the intelligence of everyone who disagrees with you. We're not imbeciles who can't separate ourselves from Galahad. Honestly, I perceived him on pretty much the same level as any of the other main characters.

I'm not saying your idiots, but it's natural to be collaborative with the protagonist. It happens with non-interactive fiction as well.

He was acting irrationally and disobeying orders, but only to the extent to exact revenge against the rebels. He rescues Lord Hastings after the death of Malory. He then goes on a rampage murdering the rebels. For him to do a complete 180 hours later should indicate that something happened. Something changed his convictions. There was no reason to believe that he was just randomly lashing out at anyone. His actions were very targeted.

This argument is self defeating. "He's very rational in his irrationality!" Obsession is by definition not rational, and there are any number of things that could have happened that drove him to want to avenge Percival so much that he somehow came to believe Hastings is responsible. Maybe the rebels tricked him, or maybe he thought he saw something that wasn't there, or maybe he put forth his own mental gymnastics. Yes, it's makes little sense. That's exactly what the order themselves say. That the motherfucker is crazy. And the only way he could have proven to anyone that he had anything resembling good rationale is to tell them what it is, which he didn't.

I don't think it's unreasonable to give someone the benefit of the doubt even if it flies in the face of the apparent evidence. Especially when you're known that person for a good long time and know them to be someone else.

It pretty damn well is when the person in question could be a mass murderer on the likely chance he actually is what he says he is. Lafayette is literally risking the deaths of hundreds of people, including the order if Galahad is actually crazy.

 

[Ishan]

There are a lot of narrative problems with The Order, but I just don't see how anyone can think that Izzy is being irrational. This might be inconvienent because the player and Galahad are one and the same, so her not trusting and being against Galahad is her being against them. Whether or not she has a good reason, if she's an antagonist, then she's an obstacle to the player. However, that does not make anything she does irrational.



The bolded is the key word here. Grieving people are not rational. Hell, normal people aren't rational. Grieving people are especially so. Galahad has shown extreme tendencies since Mallory's death. The argument here is that he is NOT reasonable.

Lafayette has even less reason to trust him. He just knows the guy, and his only reason is that he doesn't seem the type. Which is no logical reason to make the assumption in the face of opposing evidence. Lafayette just happened to be right, but it wasn't because of reason, it was because of inuititon.

Alright, im not sure you quite understand how grieving ppl act irrationally. Its not like ppl go through something really emotionally effecting in their lives and completely flip their whole ideology of the world. Its many a times emotional outbursts eg anger , rage at everyone (not targeted in a total 180 direction) , brooding , cutting themselves off etc. And if anything makes ppl give them more or a leeway in what they are doing and time to understand it.

Its not like you turn from Gandhi to hitler cause your best friend died.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I'm not saying your idiots, but it's natural to be collaborative with the protagonist. It happens with non-interactive fiction as well.

The problematic part is the implication that you're somehow unique in succeeding at separating yourself as the player from Galahad's character where others are failing to do so. I don't think that is the case at all.