Exodus-Creed

I am a gamer, a photographer, a student, a writer, a drawer, a dreamer and yet I still hope for more. (I track the tag Exodus Creed for rp reasons.)

Set 3 of 3

So one of the most common goof shots I got where these mid-transition ones. Some of which are pretty cool. I’ve decided to post them in sets. Yes, some may contain SPOILERS… if you haven’t played the game.

Set 2 of 3

So one of the most common goof shots I got where these mid-transition ones. Some of which are pretty cool. I’ve decided to post them in sets. Yes, some may contain SPOILERS… if you haven’t played the game.

Set 1 of 3

So one of the most common goof shots I got where these mid-transition ones. Some of which are pretty cool. I’ve decided to post them in sets. Yes, some may contain SPOILERS… if you haven’t played the game.

So I’ve been playing Castlevania: Lords of Shadow 2… and I took a crap ton of screenshots. Most were awesome but, I got some that were the result of odd timing. Exhibit A.
hisforhannigram:

literally every episode of Hannibal.

hisforhannigram:

literally every episode of Hannibal.

idontfindyouthatinteresting:

OH MY FUCKING GOD

(Source: lecterwill, via isali3)

Anonymous asked: Garrett was never in Moira Asylum other than what we played. That vision where he's strapped to a chair was just him in Erin's place. Otherwise, why would the Baron refer to Garrett as if he was female? As for the Original Garrett, there's a rumor that Thief 4 Garrett is a descendant of the original. Other than that, Moira was just a place full of references to the older games.

sparkedsynapse:

exodus-creed:

sparkedsynapse:

Garrett was never in Moira Asylum other than what we played.

You have no proof of that.

That vision where he’s strapped to a chair was just him in Erin’s place. Otherwise, why would the Baron refer to Garrett as if he was female?

The Baron never once referred to Garrett as if he were female. Why would he? This game has been accused of “bad writing” but it’s literally impossible for it to be that bad. I think you probably just missed the fact that when he said, “I want the Primal out of the girl!” he was referring to Erin. Or maybe you didn’t, and horribly misinterpreted it.

Firstly, the Primal was never in Garrett. It was always in Erin. Of course they want the Primal out of the girl because it doesn’t “belong” to her and they need it to power their industrial revolution (which was a terrible idea but we’re not getting into that right now.)

During Chapter 5, Garrett mutters to himself, “You did steal the Primal that night…” once he realizes Erin is still alive. It was always in her, never in him. The most he had of it was a shard of the Primal stone in his eye - and the only reason he could Focus was because of his link to her. 

At most, they would need him because the Primal is corrupted and changed by emotion and the one thing in the entire world that altered Erin’s emotions the most was Garrett himself. If not that, then to conduct some kind of experiment with the shard in his Eye.

The idea that “Garrett was in Erin’s place” while clearly viewing a flashback of Erin walking around behind them - while she is clearly talking to him during the flashback - is so far-fetched not even the most expertly trained dog in the world would run to give it back to you.

There’s absolutely no basis for that flashback to be any different from the other ones - which were not just “trippy visions” but memories of the past.

As for the Original Garrett, there’s a rumor that Thief 4 Garrett is a descendant of the original. 

Rumors are meaningless, unless you’d like to state your source. The whole point of a rumor is that it’s uncertain, not factual and impossible to ascertain as true or not. We’re here in search of information and trying to piece together everything that happened; rumors don’t help us in any way, shape or form.

Also, I ask again, even if Garrett were a descendant of the original Garrett, (which would be cool, granted) would his best friend Basso also be a descendant of the original Basso? How ridiculous would that be? Unless Rhianna Pratchett herself comes out and states this to be truth, I highly doubt you’ll make too many people believe it.

Obviously there are going to be references to previous games, if indeed Thief is set in an alternate version of the original universe - which Eidos have said it is. Obviously there are bound to be references to Hammerites, the Trickster, the Shalebridge Cradle (Chapter 1: Lockdown - “The old man remembers the Shalebridge fires.”) But these things don’t necessarily mean that Thief 4 happens sequentially to the events of TDP, TMA and T:DS, they most likely mean that the same landmarks, beliefs and factions that exist or existed in the old Thief universe also happen to exist in this new one.

The conclusions I come to, I come to with support that may appear to be minimal - but at least it’s there, and not only is it there, it comes from the actual game itself. 

I’m sorry to take this tone, truly, but the things you’re saying don’t appear to have any basis except for your desire to say, “No.”

I’m more than willing to have my mind changed, if we see some proof, and some sources. 

You have no proof that he was, either.

I never said the Primal was in Garrett. The Thief went to the asylum to learn what happened to Erin. IF, he was ever committed himself there would have been some sort of commentary about it. There wasn’t.

"The idea that "Garrett was in Erin’s place" while clearly viewing a flashback of Erin walking around behind them - while she is clearly talking to him during the flashback-…"

EXACTLY.

Erin has the Primal and from the notes/her talking throughout the game, we know she was in pain. Why would the Baron/Staff allow her to stand there? She’s dangerous and they are acting like she’s not there unrestrained. Why, because when the memory originally took place Erin was strapped into the chair. The one Garrett is in. Otherwise, why didn’t she try to help him?

Garrett is viewing her memory from her perspective. What we saw was probably one of the experiments preformed on her in an attempt to remove the Primal.

Later in the game Garrett confronts the Baron.

He askes, “What did you do with Erin at the asylum?” Not, ‘Erin and I’. Also, if Garrett was meant to be the one strapped in the chair, why didn’t the Baron recognize him sooner? He was clearly in the room holding him still. In fact, the Baron doesn’t figure out Garrett’s connection to everything until he gets a good look at that green eye the Thief has. “If he were to find the final… Your eye! You were there, I remember now!” There being that night Erin ‘stole’ the Primal.

Erin was the one committed to the asylum after the mansion incident. Garrett was found by the Queen of Beggars and her people. He was unconscious and thought to be dead. If Garrett was found by the Baron’s men after the dust settled they most likely thought he was dead as well, leaving him to be carried away on one of the dead carts.

This is why Erin keeps saying, “Garrett, wake up.” Or expresses how she wanted to sleep too.

Alright, some of that has merit, but it’s still ridiculous as all hell.

One of the prime reasons for believing he was at the Asylum is that it conceivably explains where he’s been for an entire year. An entire year, Exodus! Like… What! 

Do you mean to say they just left his body at the Baron’s Mansion (which is where the Channeling took place) without burning or burying it, without making sure he was dead, for an entire year? A Master Thief, who wanted to steal from the Baron, no less? When the Thief-Taker General was already on site? That’s quite a bit crazier than anything else, unless you also want to explain that. 


Garrett: A year ago I was at the Northcrest mansion. Something went wrong… What happened to me?

Queen of Beggars: …When my beggars found you, after the accident, they thought you were dead! But you were not dead. So we healed your broken body, and brought you from The City to… to keep you safe while we waited. But then… Just after the gloom started, something began to wake you. It was time for you to return home.

—-

No, he wasn’t at the Baron’s place for a year. He was either buried under rubble or the blast threw him elsewhere. According to the convo above, the Queen and her people found him relatively quickly. Most likely during the confusion since the general population believed there was an attack. Or at least that’s how Basso’s refers to it -Mansion Attack-. They kept him safe while he healed.

In the comic that comes with the Master Thief Edition, there is a story that takes place within that missing year. It shows Basso getting caught by the Thief Take General’s men. The General is looking for Garrett, so aside from the obvious reason for wanting him -revenge for the leg-… it can be assumed that things were pretty hot following the blast.  

Garrett was moved out of the city until he began to wake. In the intro to Chapter one we see him in a cart being pulled by two beggars back into The City. Thus, ending his year long absence.

Anonymous asked: Garrett was never in Moira Asylum other than what we played. That vision where he's strapped to a chair was just him in Erin's place. Otherwise, why would the Baron refer to Garrett as if he was female? As for the Original Garrett, there's a rumor that Thief 4 Garrett is a descendant of the original. Other than that, Moira was just a place full of references to the older games.

sparkedsynapse:

Garrett was never in Moira Asylum other than what we played.

You have no proof of that.

That vision where he’s strapped to a chair was just him in Erin’s place. Otherwise, why would the Baron refer to Garrett as if he was female?

The Baron never once referred to Garrett as if he were female. Why would he? This game has been accused of “bad writing” but it’s literally impossible for it to be that bad. I think you probably just missed the fact that when he said, “I want the Primal out of the girl!” he was referring to Erin. Or maybe you didn’t, and horribly misinterpreted it.

Firstly, the Primal was never in Garrett. It was always in Erin. Of course they want the Primal out of the girl because it doesn’t “belong” to her and they need it to power their industrial revolution (which was a terrible idea but we’re not getting into that right now.)

During Chapter 5, Garrett mutters to himself, “You did steal the Primal that night…” once he realizes Erin is still alive. It was always in her, never in him. The most he had of it was a shard of the Primal stone in his eye - and the only reason he could Focus was because of his link to her. 

At most, they would need him because the Primal is corrupted and changed by emotion and the one thing in the entire world that altered Erin’s emotions the most was Garrett himself. If not that, then to conduct some kind of experiment with the shard in his Eye.

The idea that “Garrett was in Erin’s place” while clearly viewing a flashback of Erin walking around behind them - while she is clearly talking to him during the flashback - is so far-fetched not even the most expertly trained dog in the world would run to give it back to you.

There’s absolutely no basis for that flashback to be any different from the other ones - which were not just “trippy visions” but memories of the past.

As for the Original Garrett, there’s a rumor that Thief 4 Garrett is a descendant of the original. 

Rumors are meaningless, unless you’d like to state your source. The whole point of a rumor is that it’s uncertain, not factual and impossible to ascertain as true or not. We’re here in search of information and trying to piece together everything that happened; rumors don’t help us in any way, shape or form.

Also, I ask again, even if Garrett were a descendant of the original Garrett, (which would be cool, granted) would his best friend Basso also be a descendant of the original Basso? How ridiculous would that be? Unless Rhianna Pratchett herself comes out and states this to be truth, I highly doubt you’ll make too many people believe it.

Obviously there are going to be references to previous games, if indeed Thief is set in an alternate version of the original universe - which Eidos have said it is. Obviously there are bound to be references to Hammerites, the Trickster, the Shalebridge Cradle (Chapter 1: Lockdown - “The old man remembers the Shalebridge fires.”) But these things don’t necessarily mean that Thief 4 happens sequentially to the events of TDP, TMA and T:DS, they most likely mean that the same landmarks, beliefs and factions that exist or existed in the old Thief universe also happen to exist in this new one.

The conclusions I come to, I come to with support that may appear to be minimal - but at least it’s there, and not only is it there, it comes from the actual game itself. 

I’m sorry to take this tone, truly, but the things you’re saying don’t appear to have any basis except for your desire to say, “No.”

I’m more than willing to have my mind changed, if we see some proof, and some sources. 

You have no proof that he was, either.

I never said the Primal was in Garrett. The Thief went to the asylum to learn what happened to Erin. IF, he was ever committed himself there would have been some sort of commentary about it. There wasn’t.

"The idea that "Garrett was in Erin’s place" while clearly viewing a flashback of Erin walking around behind them - while she is clearly talking to him during the flashback-…"

EXACTLY.

Erin has the Primal and from the notes/her talking throughout the game, we know she was in pain. Why would the Baron/Staff allow her to stand there? She’s dangerous and they are acting like she’s not there unrestrained. Why, because when the memory originally took place Erin was strapped into the chair. The one Garrett is in. Otherwise, why didn’t she try to help him?

Garrett is viewing her memory from her perspective. What we saw was probably one of the experiments preformed on her in an attempt to remove the Primal.

Later in the game Garrett confronts the Baron.

He askes, “What did you do with Erin at the asylum?” Not, ‘Erin and I’. Also, if Garrett was meant to be the one strapped in the chair, why didn’t the Baron recognize him sooner? He was clearly in the room holding him still. In fact, the Baron doesn’t figure out Garrett’s connection to everything until he gets a good look at that green eye the Thief has. “If he were to find the final… Your eye! You were there, I remember now!” There being that night Erin ‘stole’ the Primal.

Erin was the one committed to the asylum after the mansion incident. Garrett was found by the Queen of Beggars and her people. He was unconscious and thought to be dead. If Garrett was found by the Baron’s men after the dust settled they most likely thought he was dead as well, leaving him to be carried away on one of the dead carts.

This is why Erin keeps saying, “Garrett, wake up.” Or expresses how she wanted to sleep too.

Garret, the master Thief