Support NeoGAF

[Veelk]

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.

That's all fine and good....except most people aren't dealing with their grief by going out and killing hundreds of people. The Gandhi-Hitler comparison doesn't work when he's already obsessed with killing ANYONE who might have had a hand in Mallory's death. I mean, for example, the rebels he was fighting on the bridge have nothing to do with it, but he's targetting his anger at them as well.

Again, this isn't just me saying it. It's the Order. It is utter insanity to just...assume a guy that he must have had a good reason that he is apparently not willing to give after he already killed several guards and tried to kill Lord Hastings. Since it was a trial, he was given a chance to defend himself, and he seems to have done nothing.

Besides, even if what you say is true and grieving people NEVER take that kind of response (I doubt this, but...)...how would the Order know that for sure?

Ugh, this whole thing is just a circle. Why do they think he's irrational? Because he's acting like a psychotic killer. But he's not! Well, how can they know that? Because he's psychotically killing people!

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.

Being aware of a psychological inclination helps guard you against it, yes. Much like how propoganda doesn't affect you as much if you're aware it's propoganda. It's not mind control, it's just the consequence of connecting a person to a character. But this isn't the point. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for not liking that Izzy turns against you. I'm just saying they have no claim to saying she's irrational.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Being aware of a psychological inclination helps guard you against it. Much like how propoganda doesn't affect you as much if you're aware it's propoganda.

And this is where you're presuming things about other people's knowledge simply because they don't agree with you. The whole insulting other people's intelligence thing.

 

[Veelk]

And this is where you're presuming things about other people's knowledge simply because they don't agree with you. The whole insulting other people's intelligence thing.

You're making a strawman here. All I said was that people have an inclination to side with a protagonist because he is their vehicle to the story being told and that might be the reason people tend to be irked with her. I don't object to people being irked at Izzy. Enemies of the protagonist, good and bad, are enemies of the protagonist, so it's natural to feel irked with her. I'm not saying anyone's stupid for being annoyed with her. But there isn't a good argument as I see it regarding her irrationality because she didn't blindly trust the psychotic looking guy in the middle of a battlefield where she might die if she so happens to be wrong based on a vague backstory that has nothing to do with how he's acting in this present moment. If Galahad had reached out to her in some way, this might be a completely different conversation, but asking her to trust him in the room of a house he has singlehandedly invaded where the walls are literally stained with the blood of the dozens of people he killed is ludicrous. Galahad isn't just some guy. He's beaten entire armies singlehandedly. If he's really gone, then taking her gun off him or hesitating for a second could mean her death. How far is this trust thing supposed to go? "Oh, he stormed a bridge and took on an army by himself, before being seen hanging out with the rebel queen. How very odd. And then he decided to kill several of our allies and attempt an assassination on our high lord. How utterly peculiar! Now he took my knife and has stabbed me multiple times in the throat, taken my blackwater and run off. Well, that's certainly unlike him! But he's Galahad, so he must have a good reason. Hopefully, he'll tell me before I bleed out."


The argument's for him are two fold. First,that it is irrational to join the rebels if he is angry about Percival's death. This is self defeating when the Order that is trying him themselves admit: Yes, he is mad. Irrational. They literally do not know what reasons he could have for doing what he did because either A. he has good reason for what he does and they don't know it or B. He doesn't and is mad. The only way they can get A is if he talks, which he didn't, so they are left with B. This is not an act of stupidity, it's just that they are left with nothing else. It's either they just write him off as crazy, or they have to make up reasons for him. And really, this is such a frustrating plot point because, whether it worked or not, atleast them hearing Galahad's version of events would have given them something to work with. If he said Hastings is a vampire, they could have thrown some garlic at the motherfucker. They could have even used this to condemn him. Mention somehow that Halfbreeds secretly made up the myth that garlic is effective against vampires themselves, so they have a way to work around being caught. That'd have been clever. As it stands, the order have nothing. Not even Galahad's word, since he isn't defending himself.

The other argument is that because he spent so many centuries as a true knight, it is illogical to think he'd turn against them. Except for one problem. That is exactly what happened. Not in the way the order thinks, but after centuries (or however long) of hating the Rebel scum, now he has come to respect them. This is even emphasized by the contrast of how he first interacts with Rani and Devi vs how they interact the next day. This argument is predicated on the idea that people can't change fundamnetal beliefs, or change them quickly, except that's exactly what happens in the game itself, even if it's not how the Order interpreted it. People changing, rapidly and unpredictably, is a fact of life, and it's kind of silly to insist that the Order blindly trust him just because of what he once was. No one in the order denies he's was a true knight. Their argument is that he is not one anymore.

So going over it, the only reason anyone has to trust Galahad is "Well....he doesn't seem the type to just go crazy, you know. Even though it looks like he did. And he isn't saying otherwise. And in any case, there are several dozens of people dead we need to account for. And he tried to kill one of our high lords. But I'm sure the guy's fine, lets just let him go." Yeah, good luck trying to present that defense in any court, kangeroo or not. Actually, no, the ONLY court this would work in is a kangeroo one, if the prosecution is on his side. Otherwise, no one in their right mind, regardless of their history, would go with this.

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

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.

True. I don't believe Galahad couldn't spare maybe 30 minutes to explain things, haha. Nevertheless, I'm okay with explaining all this as: 'people sometimes do stupid things', so it's not as glaring a point to me.

Also, Igraine absolutely couldn't shoot Galahad, so I'd say deep down, the trust is still there.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Um, what the hell, how in the world does Galahad not notice or comment on this? In chapter 4 of the game you find this in one of the hospital rooms.

This is very clearly a vampire.

 

[WeWereGiants]

I actually quite liked the story of this game, it's been a while since a "AAA" title had characters I genuinely liked.

Um, what the hell, how in the world does Galahad not notice or comment on this? In chapter 4 of the game you find this in one of the hospital rooms.

This is very clearly a vampire.

I actually didn't notice this, but you're right it is clearly a vampire.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

Um, what the hell, how in the world does Galahad not notice or comment on this? In chapter 4 of the game you find this in one of the hospital rooms.

This is very clearly a vampire.

He made a comment on my first run, and didn't quite catch it/remember it. Second run he didn't make a peep.

Don't think from what he said though the first time acknowledged it being a vampire (thought it was myself, looking at the teeth).

 

[hydruxo]

Um, what the hell, how in the world does Galahad not notice or comment on this? In chapter 4 of the game you find this in one of the hospital rooms.


This is very clearly a vampire.

Well they probably didn't want to spoil the surprise later on in Ch. 9 when vampires are revealed. Would've been lame if Galahad commented on it tbh, it's better left the way it is for people to figure out on their own.

 

[Future]

Man I agree with all the commentary on questioning what actually drove the hero to do some of those things

My first glimpse of this was when his mentor was killed and he decided to infiltrate white chapel. Rebel leader gives no evidence of anything and merely says "believe me" when explaining they had reasons. Dude has been in the order for centuries and had been fighting rebel scum up to this point, a point where rebel scum actually killed his mentor which is a rare event considering the black water

Instead of killing her on the spot, he agrees to follow her and the proceed to kill tons of guards that a second ago were on his side. Still no evidence proving anything

Then finds the vampires and then burns it all down without removing any proof of what he had found. The hero must have thought that the council would be as gullible as he when explaining this shit with no evidence whatsoever. At least TRY to bring something to the council before expecting them to believe him

Then again maybe he thought they'd believe him considering his long tenure as a part of the order. But they don't then, and they don't when he eventually does infiltrate Hastings residence. Including the girl who he was mentoring and seemed to have a romantic relationship. The woman they spend the earlier half of the game showing good rapport and General trust. A woman that would have died if it weren't for you a moment before. This woman not only leads the charge against you but vows to seek you out angrily when she learns you are still alive. A woman that heard you trying to explain that it wasn't as it seems and should trust you cuz you are a goddamn hero that has proved his worth multiple times

Yeah, not sure I got any of this at the end. Then tesla gets found out for helping you, only to be wounded and not killed for some reason since you get there way too late to save the day. Then the council leader lets you go knowing that you will probably become batman which will not only assist the rebels, but probably be the best rebel ever who knows the order like the back of his hand and is pretty much a one man army that kills wolves with pretty much only a knife and can kill the entire order if given the chance

No sir I don't get it

 

[Crossing Eden]

He made a comment on my first run, and didn't quite catch it/remember it. Second run he didn't make a peep.
Don't think from what he said though the first time acknowledged it being a vampire (thought it was myself, looking at the teeth).

I never noticed it on my first run, would be an odd bug if he doesn't say anything on subsequent playthroughs.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

You're making a strawman here. All I said was that people have an inclination to side with a protagonist because he is their vehicle to the story being told and that might be the reason people tend to be irked with her. I don't object to people being irked at Izzy. Enemies of the protagonist, good and bad, are enemies of the protagonist, so it's natural to feel irked with her.

If anything, yours is the strawman, Veelk. You keep talking about people disliking Isabel for being an enemy of the protagonist, but I haven't seen anyone post such a sentiment. It's all about her being illogical and counter to the character that was established in the game. It's not about her being an antagonist. I liked Alistair as a character up to the very end and didn't want to kill him despite the betrayal. I don't see myself as Galahad, and I imagine most other players don't, either.

I'm not saying anyone's stupid for being annoyed with her. But there isn't a good argument as I see it regarding her irrationality because she didn't blindly trust the psychotic looking guy in the middle of a battlefield where she might die if she so happens to be wrong based on a vague backstory that has nothing to do with how he's acting in this present moment.

The point is that you would give someone you've known and trusted for centuries the benefit of the doubt even if they are acting in what appears to be a very irrational manner in the immediate moment. You normally wouldn't shut them down and condemn them to die.

If Galahad had reached out to her in some way, this might be a completely different conversation, but asking her to trust him in the room of a house he has singlehandedly invaded where the walls are literally stained with the blood of the dozens of people he killed is ludicrous.

It's not about trusting him outright, but giving him the benefit of the doubt. Allow him to talk at the very least. Assume he had reasons for doing what he was doing instead of just throwing away your entire history together.

Galahad isn't just some guy. He's beaten entire armies singlehandedly. If he's really gone, then taking her gun off him or hesitating for a second could mean her death. How far is this trust thing supposed to go? "Oh, he stormed a bridge and took on an army by himself, before being seen hanging out with the rebel queen. How very odd. And then he decided to kill several of our allies and attempt an assassination on our high lord. How utterly peculiar! Now he took my knife and has stabbed me multiple times in the throat, taken my blackwater and run off. Well, that's certainly unlike him! But he's Galahad, so he must have a good reason. Hopefully, he'll tell me before I bleed out."

She didn't need to take her gun off of him to hear what he had to say. The part where he stormed the bridge was obvious. He wanted to get revenge for Malory. It's the part where he was hanging with the rebel leader and deliberately left his uniform behind that was strange. I think it's odd that she suddenly assumed he was a traitor instead of giving him a chance to explain.

I'm just gonna stop here...

I never noticed it on my first run, would be an odd bug if he doesn't say anything on subsequent playthroughs.

I forgot exactly what it was, but he said something about the corpse being burnt. Nothing implying that it was a vampire.

 

[Veelk]

If anything, yours is the strawman, Veelk. You keep talking about people disliking Isabel for being an enemy of the protagonist, but I haven't seen anyone post such a sentiment. It's all about her being illogical and counter to the character that was established in the game. It's not about her being an antagonist. I liked Alistair as a character up to the very end and didn't want to kill him despite the betrayal. I don't see myself as Galahad, and I imagine most other players don't, either,

People wouldn't make that argument in the first place. It's not a conscious effect, but it's pretty well documented. It happens, you just don't realize it unless you know about it and take mental measures to prevent it, and even then it slips through. And it's not mind control. It's just an inclination. Alistair being an enemy makes you inclined to regard him badly, but it's not a sure thing if there are other factors in place, like you liking his character.

The point is that you would give someone you've known and trusted for centuries the benefit of the doubt even if they are acting in what appears to be a very irrational manner in the immediate moment. You normally wouldn't shut them down and condemn them to die.

It's not about trusting him outright, but giving him the benefit of the doubt. Allow him to talk at the very least. Assume he had reasons for doing what he was doing instead of just throwing away your entire history together.

No, you wouldn't! Not if there is a mountain of evidence against them, and they offer no defense. Like, jesus, you keep hammering on that Galahad deserves this ridiculous and immense benefit of the doubt that no one sane would give him, but by this point he has been seen associating with rebels, abandoning his knighthood, brutally murdering dozens of allies, and attacking their lord without justifying ANY of it when given the opportunity in the trial. You're just crazy if you actually would ignore all that and give the insane superkiller a getaway on the miniscule chance that all this might not be what it seems. I don't care what your history is. I ask again, what in hells name would he have to do before Igraine could safely say "Yeah, I guess he did lost his mind and is a rebel."? When he tries to argue his insane sounding case wherein he has no evidence whatsoever to back his claims A verbal confirmation? When he's standing over her dead corpse? Because there is always room for doubt. No matter what he does, it is conceivable that it's not what it looks like. It's always possible. So, what, should she then still give him the benefit of the doubt as he's sliding the knife into her neck too? Or would that JUST enough proof that he might not be on the up and up? Because this is literally the length you are asking her to go to by telling her she ought to listen when he's not in custody. Galahad is a fucking one man army and he's against you, any moment this man is not in custody is a moment you could die. She is FUCKED if something happens as he's wasting time talking. And not just her, but her allies and family in the Order and innocents in the India Trading Company. That is the reality of the situation. So it's kind of messed up to view her as untrusting or disloyal because she's not willing to be killed for blind, fanatic trust against any and all evidence that presents itself to a person capable of death and destruction on a MASSIVE scale.

She didn't need to take her gun off of him to hear what he had to say. The part where he stormed the bridge was obvious. He wanted to get revenge for Malory. It's the part where he was hanging with the rebel leader and deliberately left his uniform behind that was strange. I think it's odd that she suddenly assumed he was a traitor instead of giving him a chance to explain.

Again, doing this in the battlefield is nearly suicidal. They haven't secured the perimeter. They don't know who else is in the house. Galahad is a monster of a fighter that could take them out at any second if left unchecked. And they could hear his story once they are sure he can't kill them as they are listening. I'm sorry, but I am simply not budging on this point. The middle of the arrest is NEVER the time to talk things out. Ever. Especially when they don't know whats going on. As any police officer, soldier, anyone, and they'll tell you the same thing: Secure target first, ask questions later. You are asking her to risk her life on the scarce chance that MAYBE Galahad has good explanation for this when they can go through the exact same thing once he's captured. That, my friend, is not in any sense reasonable. I don't even understand why you are so hard on about this point. So she doesn't let him speak during his capture. Big deal. He'd have his chance to speak when they have him in custody. Why is it so important that he does then and there? Nothing would have been lost except the present danger of Galahad himself. It's a crazy thing to demand. I don't understand why she would do it even if she harbored that benefit of the doubt.

And the implications of him abandoning his uniform before going off somewhere with the rebels are pretty frikken clear. Circumstantial evidence, yes, but it's more than merely 'odd'. Again, if Galahad explained himself....but he didn't, so she has to take the most likely assumption until she gets more evidence....which just damns him further. Disregarding that kind of evidence goes far beyond "benefit of the doubt". You're asking for fanatic trust that this particular man, for whatever reason, despite being heavily grieved, simply CANNOT turncoat.

Edit: and according to the next poster, she does give him the benefit of the doubt after the coat thing anyway. Galahad just rejects her reaching out for him to explain. Again, trust works both ways. He has to be open to her for her to trust what he says later. He isn't and in the meantime even more evidence piles up against him. So yeah, illogical actions on her part? She's not giving him the benefit of the doubt? Atleast acknowledge that you are asking more from her than that. Presuming that the trial didn't allow him to present his case, the only thing she could have done was try to ensure his voice was heard. Other than that, allowing him anything else would have placed herself and everyone she loved and cared for in great danger.

But yeah, I think this debate is over. I can't present my argument better than I have, and I think the same can be said for you. So...

 

[Arklite]

She didn't need to take her gun off of him to hear what he had to say. The part where he stormed the bridge was obvious. He wanted to get revenge for Malory. It's the part where he was hanging with the rebel leader and deliberately left his uniform behind that was strange. I think it's odd that she suddenly assumed he was a traitor instead of giving him a chance to explain.

I'm just gonna stop here...



I forgot exactly what it was, but he said something about the corpse being burnt. Nothing implying that it was a vampire.

Perhaps it's been mentioned but she does ask him to explain himself back at the base. She definitely gave him the benefit of doubt in that scene, even offering the explanation that Galahad was with the rebels because he might be doing clandestine recon, and mentioning nothing of the rebel relations to anyone until the trial. Galahad shuts her down and tells her to stay away from him, leaving her with some big doubts. Izzy's character was somewhat mishandled IMO, but I think she ultimately lashes out after feeling betrayed by Galahad's apparent rejection of her trust and of the order itself.

On the charred body, yeah he mentions it's a 'poor soul' who was burned and likely tortured. The skull is human.

 

[Paganmoon]

Re: Isabeu and Galahad discussion of the last few pages, lets not forget that before going to Lord Hastings house, just as Galahad is about to go talk to the Knight commander and Lord commander, he yells at Isabeu, something in the vein of "you know nothing, less than nothing", which in turn would probably piss Isabeu off immensely, so one more reason for her to be distrustful of Galahad, but I'd say it's taking it a bit too far by her wanting him executed

 

[Veelk]

Re: Isabeu and Galahad discussion of the last few pages, lets not forget that before going to Lord Hastings house, just as Galahad is about to go talk to the Knight commander and Lord commander, he yells at Isabeu, something in the vein of "you know nothing, less than nothing", which in turn would probably piss Isabeu off immensely, so one more reason for her to be distrustful of Galahad, but I'd say it's taking it a bit too far by her wanting him executed

I don't think she wanted him executed. I think she just found him guilty, and Lord Chancellor handed out the death penalty. Even if she doesn't want him dead, she can't deny the evidence that makes him in fact guilty. Or if you are referring to her mentionthat she'll hunt him to the ends of the earth, I think that just meant she wouldn't stop no matter what.

 

[doomquake]

Um, what the hell, how in the world does Galahad not notice or comment on this? In chapter 4 of the game you find this in one of the hospital rooms.

This is very clearly a vampire.

I remember this. He says something like "the poor soul burned completely up" or "they burned this poor soul completely" i didnt really look closer or put 2 and 2 together that its a vampire..damned.

 

[CosmicGroinPull]

Feck, I just realised that turning Izzy against him could be exactly what Galahad wanted. He could be doing the noble idiot thing to prevent her from being a target of the conspirators. To an extent, he's doing this for Lafayette too because he had the perfect chance to recruit him.

 

[EGM1966]

Um, what the hell, how in the world does Galahad not notice or comment on this? In chapter 4 of the game you find this in one of the hospital rooms.

This is very clearly a vampire.

Yah that's one of a number of odd moments. When I saw that I immediately thought - Vampire!

Galahad though clearly sees it as a normal person who's been tortured by the evil Rebels and comments on it as such.

I figured ok so the rebels are into torture. Funny though this body looks pretty odd and the stake's a bit of a odd way to torture someone and burning tends to kill not gain information but hey Galahads the expert.

Then later you realize it was a Vampire. On a second play through I notice boxes from the docks are there too and realize the Rebels had a base there, got some Vampires and killed 'em and Hastings had sent in Lycan Eldar and Snr other Lycans to clear the place out and the Vampire was a foreshadowing. It also explains rebels info.

But... Galahad should have spotted it. That was weak character behaviour. One of a number of times RaD have Galahad behave out to of character or not know things his character should from the evidence.

Still at least it tied together more elements of the plot and it is nice to see a game trust you can solve the plot from what you see with no lazy exposition. Pity they couldn't quite pull off marrying this to consistent character behaviour.

 

[Ishan]

Yah that's one of a number of odd moments. When I saw that I immediately thought - Vampire!

Galahad though clearly sees it as a normal person who's been tortured by the evil Rebels and comments on it as such.

I figured ok so the rebels are into torture. Funny though this body looks pretty odd and the stake's a bit of a odd way to torture someone and burning tends to kill not gain information but hey Galahads the expert.

Then later you realize it was a Vampire. On a second play through I notice boxes from the docks are there too and realize the Rebels had a base there, got done Vampires and killed 'em and Hastings had sent in Lycan Eldar and Snr other Lycans to clear the place out and the Vampire was a foreshadowing.

But... Galahad should have spotted it. That was weak character behaviour. One of a number of times RaD have Galahad behave out to of character or not know things his character should from the evidence.

Still at least it tied together more elements of the plot and it is nice to see a game trust you can solve the plot from what you see with no lazy exposition. Pity they couldn't quite pull off marrying this to consistent character behaviour.

hmm true. but i also wonder how common vampires are. gallahad is surprised the east india company is involved with vampires but doesnt seem surprised by the fact they exist so the order has some history of dealing with them knowing about them etc.

I think a good parallel would be what would galahhad do if he found a lycan body on the street. The whole game is a bit wierd about whats common knowledge about the order/half breeds(lycans) . so everyone seems to know of the order (law enforcement , ppl in power/money etc) ... and they have lycans running amock on london so its not like theyre some huge secret that they exist. so maybe its where they tend to flock when alive thats surprising. And if so would a dead lycan/vampire in a hospital be that surprising? Maybe doctors at the time just studied dead ones to understand them better or something ...

i agree tho this game could def have needed a lot of backstory and / or character development to flesh itself out.

 

[EGM1966]

hmm true. but i also wonder how common vampires are. gallahad is surprised the east india company is involved with vampires but doesnt seem surprised by the fact they exist so the order has some history of dealing with them knowing about them etc.

I think a good parallel would be what would galahhad do if he found a lycan body on the street. The whole game is a bit wierd about whats common knowledge about the order/half breeds(lycans) . so everyone seems to know of the order (law enforcement , ppl in power/money etc) ... and they have lycans running amock on london so its not like theyre some huge secret that they exist. so maybe its where they tend to flock when alive thats surprising. And if so would a dead lycan/vampire in a hospital be that surprising? Maybe doctors at the time just studied dead ones to understand them better or something ...

i agree tho this game could def have needed a lot of backstory and / or character development to flesh itself out.

Yah - agree. For example while I like figuring things out on info given (Hastings plot for example) too often the characters react knowledgeably but you're left in the dark. Galahad and Igraine are surprised an Elder is at the hospital. Why? What's odd about it? We're never even given any clues.

TBH I think it would have been better if RaD had inserted bit more dialogue here and there while you're doing stuff with further mild exposition.

I also think it would flow better to have Vampires be relatively new to Order, something they've heard of a bit recently but rarely encountered. That would make their reveal more interesting and explain lack of consistent knowledge. Would also make the Lycan and Vampire allegiance more interesting and something new.

I think there's a good core plot in place but the execution of exposition and certain character actions and behaviour is inconsistent.

 

[Paganmoon]

I don't think she wanted him executed. I think she just found him guilty, and Lord Chancellor handed out the death penalty. Even if she doesn't want him dead, she can't deny the evidence that makes him in fact guilty. Or if you are referring to her mentionthat she'll hunt him to the ends of the earth, I think that just meant she wouldn't stop no matter what.

I meant this, in the beginning of chapter 10:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz81gzOM6qg

Up to this point, Izi is still "open", she just wants answers, but the story is so poorly handled from this point so it all comes through as forced, that she "turns", and as others have said, I think it's a setup for her being the bad guy in the sequel.

And honestly, I think, with how it was setup for a sequel, and with the not so stellar reviews probably meaning they'll be doing some modifications for a potential sequel, with a longer campaign, MP, probably more "open world" etc. I think I'll be enjoying a sequel far less than I did this one.

 

[Carcetti]

My greatest gripe with the plot is that it relies totally on the worst horror/thriller/soap opera trope where someone doesn't simply say stuff they know about.

Okay, we know that the Order has been fighting werewolves for centuries so they have to have some way of testing who's a lycanthrope. Otherwise the werewolves could just go living their daily lives and nobody would know any better. So why doesn't Galahad go like 'you know lads, oi, this lord bigshot chap here is our greatest enemy, the super werewolf.' even once? Poke him with werewolf detector and all will be explained.

 

[doomquake]

I think these knights are so old and they've seen so much that they sometimes could care less..it seems..like regular cops

 

[golem]

Um, what the hell, how in the world does Galahad not notice or comment on this? In chapter 4 of the game you find this in one of the hospital rooms.

This is very clearly a vampire.

Simple answer: Galahad is an idiot.

 

[WordsintheWater]

Yah - agree. For example while I like figuring things out on info given (Hastings plot for example) too often the characters react knowledgeably but you're left in the dark. Galahad and Igraine are surprised an Elder is at the hospital. Why? What's odd about it? We're never even given any clues.

TBH I think it would have been better if RaD had inserted bit more dialogue here and there while you're doing stuff with further mild exposition.

I also think it would flow better to have Vampires be relatively new to Order, something they've heard of a bit recently but rarely encountered. That would make their reveal more interesting and explain lack of consistent knowledge. Would also make the Lycan and Vampire allegiance more interesting and something new.

I think there's a good core plot in place but the execution of exposition and certain character actions and behaviour is inconsistent.

What they needed to do to flesh some stuff out is have an encyclopedia of sorts that you could read when you're introduced to something new. Like what you said with the Elder being at the hospital and them never really explaining why he can't be there, they could have just added a simple note about it in the pause menu or something to help flesh some things out. As it stands it's left a lot of things to the imagination, not that I mind it too much, but I really don't know if I am right or wrong on a few things.

 

[Carcetti]

Simple answer: Galahad is an idiot.

That's actually the best explanation for the plot. Clearly all the elder knights are idiots, the older the stupider, so maybe they've just gone senile. Grail keeps the body in order but they're like very active 90-year old pensioners with guns.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Um, what the hell, how in the world does Galahad not notice or comment on this? In chapter 4 of the game you find this in one of the hospital rooms.

This is very clearly a vampire.

Well it's a dead one. The hospital having a vampire body to experiment on isn't necessarily suspicious.

 

[KC Denton]

Well it's a dead one. The hospital having a vampire body to experiment on isn't necessarily suspicious.

From the blood it looks far more like a fresh kill, probably from the rebels before they fled the hideout.

 

[Mets9]

Nevermind

 

[Ledhead]

Overall I really liked it. A few plot holes, but its been a long time since I played a game were the story was airtight. I kind of expected Gallahad to just yell "Lucan is a fucking lycan!" during his trial, but he stays silent.

 

[Demon Ice]

Overall a decent game, I liked the characters but wished they had actually finished the storylines regarding Izzy, the leader of the United India company, etc. Felt like the game had too many loose ends left at the conclusion.

Disappointed that they went with a Halo 4-style QTE boss fight. Would have loved a proper fight with Lucan in the wrecked Tesla lab.

Hopefully the game gets a sequel / some story DLC because I really love the setting and the lore. A horde / firefight style mode to get to use all the weapons some more would also be pretty cool.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

In order to "activate" comments from Galahad, you need to press L2 to zoom into something. He'll comment that way on what he's seeing. There's a tutorial for that and all.

 

[Elitist1945]

Wow I totally went into that room, saw it, and NEVER thought 'vampire'. It all makes sense thinking about it. Damn.

 

[hydruxo]

I just noticed on my second playthrough that early on in the game when Galahad notices Perceval talking to a shadowy figure in the street that it's the guy with the hooded cloak who helps Tesla save Galahad later on.

 

[raphier]

Um, what the hell, how in the world does Galahad not notice or comment on this? In chapter 4 of the game you find this in one of the hospital rooms.

This is very clearly a vampire.

He did make a comment. But it was underlooked

 

[Crossing Eden]

He did make a comment. But it was underlooked

Yea, didn't know you have to hold L2 for that. Odd. Also couldn't help but notice this resemblance.

 

[Sn4ke_911]

 

[Dictator93]

I really like this.

 

[Toxi]

Nice catch. I love seeing little easter eggs like this in video games.

 

[Brydo0]

Izzy being the villain feels like a bit of a stretch, she is obviously upset at him but I don't believe she'll be out for blood. Lafayette let Grayson go and obviously knows something is amiss, at the very least I could see Izzy being misguided in her trust and having a revelation at a mid-point in the sequel.

On the whole story telling note, scenes like Percival telling Grayson that they don't have time to discuss info on the Zeppelin are blood boiling. Similarly Grayson shutting Izzy down and not at least letting her know what is slightly going on (or at least acting like less of a dick) is contrived storytelling.

I'm 100% done with "I don't have time to explain, but I'll tell you later." as an acceptable plot note.

 

[NullPointer]

I'm 100% done with "I don't have time to explain, but I'll tell you later." as an acceptable plot note.

I hated it in Destiny but it does make more sense here, especially since by the end of the chapter where those words were said there could have been a breakthrough in Percival's investigations - but that opportunity literally blew up. And of course he had already been lightly accused of disloyalty. Bringing other people into that without proof seems needlessly dangerous if not dishonorable.

The need for unity among the knights makes sense when you consider that we're in a London without a queen (she's withdrawn or otherwise out of the public eye), devoid of authority outside of the knights and constables trying to rein in a rebellion. There is some sense to it anyhow.

Mostly I'm curious about "the anarchists". I haven't collected everything (by far), but they seem to be the most mysterious of the factions at work.

 

[semiconscious]

Feck, I just realised that turning Izzy against him could be exactly what Galahad wanted. He could be doing the noble idiot thing to prevent her from being a target of the conspirators. To an extent, he's doing this for Lafayette too because he had the perfect chance to recruit him.

hunh, i thought this was incredibly obvious ...

he has no clear idea of just how huge the conspiracy is, but he knows it's pretty damn huge, & powerful. so, yeah, he has no interest in endangering his friends. lafayette pretty much understands this. izzy doesn't (&, in a way, considering the implications, doesn't want to), &, seeing him running around with what's-her-name further damages her ability to even begin to...

it's the same reason he makes no defense at his 'trial': besides, he knows the whole thing's a charade, so why bother...

by going the 'understated' route, i thought it was written very well, actually...

 

[DrunkDan]

So I guess the mysterious hooded man is Sir Bors, the original knight that Lakshimi spoke of?

Galahad mentions that he hasn't been seen since the original search for the Grail and she also alludes to the fact that the knight who gave her blackwater wasn't dead when Galahad suggested she got it from a knight who had been killed.

 

[Brydo0]

I hated it in Destiny but it does make more sense here, especially since by the end of the chapter where those words were said there could have been a breakthrough in Percival's investigations - but that opportunity blew up.

As soon as that line was uttered my immediate thought was "Oh, Percival is going to die in this chapter". It's essentially Tombstone writing used in that context.

But I do agree with you, it does make sense, I just feel like a normal human being would (or at least myself) allude to something, rather than completely dismissing it til later.

 

[Jito]

Can anyone explain to me how the rebels got to Westminster and launched an all out assault on the heart of the government and the order without anyone noticing til they were right outside?

Why did Galahad have to brutally murder guards on the airship?

Why a game about werewolf hunters revolves around fighting rebels and generally shooting dudes?

 

[NullPointer]

Can anyone explain to me how the rebels got to Westminster and launched an all out assault on the heart of the government and the order without anyone noticing til they were right outside?

The Order isn't what it used to be.

 

[Brydo0]

Can anyone explain to me how the rebels got to Westminster and launched an all out assault on the heart of the government and the order without anyone noticing til they were right outside?

Why did Galahad have to brutally murder guards on the airship?

Why a game about werewolf hunters revolves around fighting rebels and generally shooting dudes?

Not sure.

Because they can't discern who are the real guards and "don't have time". Later in the chapter they do identify the rebels as they don't have patches on there uniforms. Definitely used to avoid full on stealthing the scenarios but they introduce that element later anyway so I was a bit confused by the end.

Probably the most disappointing part about the combat was the Half-Breed battles, I was really excited for more cinematic battles and especially the prospect of fighting them late at night on the streets.

 

[semiconscious]

But I do agree with you, it does make sense, I just feel like a normal human being would (or at least myself) would allude to something, rather than completely dismissing it til later.

not if you truly appreciated the implications, & the danger you'd be exposing your friend to. not until you had absolute, solid proof, anyway...

percival was just protecting galahad in the exact same way, as i mentioned above, that galahad was protecting izzy & lafayette. at least until he could confirm his suspicions...

 

[Triggerhappytel]

Why did Galahad have to brutally murder guards on the airship?

Why a game about werewolf hunters revolves around fighting rebels and generally shooting dudes?

Well, they know Hastings' life is in danger and don't have time to identify who's friendly and who's a spy, so it kind of almost makes sense, although I too did baulk a little at how vicious Galahad was to potential innocents.

I also agree that there's too much combat against people in this. In the next game RAD certainly need to address this aspect, although I appreciate we can't spend the whole game shooting werewolves or vampires.

 

[NullPointer]

not if you truly appreciated the implications, & the danger you'd be exposing your friend to. not until you had absolute, solid proof, anyway...

percival was just protecting galahad in the exact same way, as i mentioned above, that galahad was protecting izzy & lafayette. at least until he could confirm his suspicions...

And again, its not just protecting those close to the knights, but also a country itself already on the brink, with a rebellion that looks to have hidden support from within.