If you look at the gravestones in the “Untouchable” cutscene, you can find out that Diana’s parents died in 1989, before 47 escaped the asylum(1998).
Even without looking at small details, you can tell that Diana’s parents died a long ago from 1999 by comparing Diana’s appearance on the day her parents died and in the prologue cutscenes.
We do not have to read the comic to understand the timeline. You just need to pay closer attention.
Oh right, I forgot Diana pointed that out. It was Ether, not ICA like I said, that made the neurotoxin. ICA made the one in Blood Money. My mistake.
The Constant didn’t save 47, Diana did. This is basically another version of the Blood Money ending. Diana decides the only way she can protect 47 when the world closes in on him, is to “betray” his trust. Through out the trilogy we have seen The Constant grooming Diana with the hope of her joining Providence. She plays along knowing that she will be able to save 47 and together they can bring down Providence.
She doesn’t. She got his trust and uses that to influence his decision regarding 47 role. Providence is in procession of a drug that can repress 47 memories, giving them the ability to shape 47 to their needs. The Constant like most characters with his traits, believes that he’s won. 47 is a powerful tool.
Neither of them prepared the poison.
He knew that it wouldn’t kill him. Diana already convinced Edwards that they 47 was to valuable to kill and instead use the mind wipe serum on him.
I can resolve the whole debate presented by this thread with a point I can’t believe I didn’t bring up before.
Cop-out does not mean to be evasive or lazy or avoid responsibility. That’s a modern alteration to the slang that isn’t at all what the term meant before that alteration, which was an admission of guilt. It’s to imply a confession of an uncomfortable truth to get out of being hounded over a evasion of truth, like making a confession in an interrogation; hence, “copping-out.”
Example 1: “She wouldn’t sleep with me because I reminded her too much of her brother.” Sounds like a cop-out as most people think of it, right? It’s evasive, it’s providing justification to one’s self, it’s an excuse. But it’s not a cop-out, it’s precisely what it sounds like; evasion, justification, excuse.
Example 2: “She wouldn’t sleep with me because I’m an unattractive schmuck.” There, that’s a cop-out. It’s an admission of an uncomfortable truth to avoid being interrogated further on the subject.
The confusion arises when a confession carries with it a kernel of self-justification or evasion. Ditto if a self-justification or evasion carries a small kernel of truth.
With all that in mind, the answer is: no. The ending to H3 is most definitely not a cop-out in the manner suggested here.
??? The original phrase “Play Cop-Out” had nothing to do with cops, interrogation or even confession. And every single dictionary definition of the phrase is simply to avoid or neglect problems, responsibilities, or commitments. So… 
The definition you’ll find in dictionaries is the modern definition caused by popular usage.
No I’m saying the ORIGINAL meaning (Play Cop Out) meant to drink (Cop Out = Cup Empty).
Yeah, Play Cop-Out. I’m referring to just cop-out. Cop-out itself is a modernization and social evolution from a different phrase, the playing cop-out you are referring to from around the 1500s or so. Over time it separated, dropped “play” from it to become a separate word/phrase itself, and in that form, before being used to describe excuses or lazy avoidance, it referred to confessing.
No, sorry that’s wrong. “Cop out” IS derived from “Play Cop Out”. They’re not separate.
Derived from. Meaning it has changed from. People don’t say, “that’s a play cop-out,” or “he played cop-out,” they simply say “that’s a cop-out,” and in that form, that was its meaning before what it is now.
And you’re STILL wrong. Because once the “Play” was dropped, Cop-Out meant to take something for yourself. Had nothing to do with cops, interrogation, confession. Like you claimed. You do realize you’re argument is garbage, right? You’re taking a phrase that has multiple meanings and trying to isolate a single one that helps your point while disregarding other meanings that disagree with your POV. It’s dumb.
And on a side-note (on topic) am I the only one who doesn’t care about story lines in these games!? I just like the puzzle/strategy/execution elements. I couldn’t care less about the soap opera drama. Just give me sandbox levels and targets to kill and I’m happy. 
You’re being awfully judgmental about my reasonings, somewhat irrationally so. So my argument was slightly incorrect; other meanings for the phrase existed before the one I pointed out. Doesn’t mean that my point that that was its meaning before the current one isn’t true (you can look that up, it was prominent in the 50s), and my point that the original meaning of cop-out is so far removed from the one being used for the question this thread as made for, still stands; no, the ending wasn’t a cop-out. I simply have to amend my original point that there were, more definitions, and the one I gave as not the original. Nothing else I said was inaccurate in my statement. What the heck are you so worked up for?
The whole point of your “bombshell revelation” was to render this thread moot. Because the “original” definition according to you didn’t mean what people in this thread thought it meant. I pointed out multiple times how YOUR definition was equally derivative and actually NOT original. And instead of being like “ok cool, I was wrong, no big deal” you decided to dig in and move forward.
I think reading text on a screen (with no context) as opposed to in-person human discussion makes it seem like these debates are more serious than they actually are.
There have definitely been an influx of newer fans, YouTubers, and casuals on reddit these days making sweeping statements saying ‘no one ever played Hitman for story’. Which is historically untrue if you go back to earlier games, and also I think a lot of fans, on HMF at least, care about the story. These were the results of a poll on the subject I made on HMF earlier this year:
Personally, I don’t think anyone considers Hitman to be Shakespeare, but I enjoy the universe, 47’s character, and the whole immersion aspect of the game. Without an overarching narrative, I’m afraid the levels would feel kind of empty just like special assignments or escalations.
Amen to that. I didn’t become a fan of these games because of the storyline; I became a fan because of excelent level design, sandboxed maps, and innovative approach to stealth. The devs have been trying since Absolution to follow the trend of telling an ellaborate narrative via the Hitman franchise, but I don’t think it has worked (specially with Absolution). The reason for this I think, is because Agent 47 character was never designed to be anything other than a blank slate for the player. So that is only so much you can do. These games do not need anything more ellaborate than what Contracts had in terms of story, and if you feel like flexing a bit more than that, just do something like Blood Money.
On that, I can agree. While I enjoyed having an elaborate conspiracy encompassing the story, having that story drive where the trilogy went meant that we had to deal with retcons, hidden backstory connections, and the loss of the ICA, the true thorn in my side for the WoA. I miss the days when other people in the story cared about the conspiracy, but 47 didn’t and just wanted to know who to kill and where his pay was.
So basically it’s not a cop out ending.
There are a few things you could say. Diana betrayed 47 because he killed her parents, but very unlikely.
With “This is a kindness” she could have meant that he is finally free from the life of being an assasin as seen in Hitman 2 (Not 2018) in which he is in the church watering plants but he is forced to be dragged into the world of assasination as his best friend (at the time) got kidnapped. He never escaped the world of assasination and maybe poisoning him to then be left to rest in a forest would help him finally be free. This has a bit more chance of happening considering that The Constant, Arthur Edwards kind of says that when 47 wakes up for a moment. But instead he wants to use him for his own gain instead of letting him rest.
The last theory is that Diana faked the betrayal considering The Constant lured her to hus side by showing the contract and by coming to her office and calling her often. She may have used hallucinetic drugs in combination with sedative poison to fake betralay instead of using lethal poison. They may be on good terms because of this. Also, he is on a train that is headed to the asylum. Even though this is a reference to the first game, this could also be an explanation as to why. The Constant wanted Diana and 47 to be on his side to be “Untouchable” but he failed as instead of 47 waiting 47 srconds to inject the poison in himself, he killed (or poisoned) The Constant. Diana may have known The Constant wanted to do this so she betrayed him to get him in The Constant’s claws to then let 47 finish it. She knows how capable 47 is and getting him near him is the best way to end Providence for once and for all.
Those were all known theories. I think the last one is the most likely but the first isn’t near possible.