*spoilers inside for hitman 3*. is this also piss you off?

that lucas grey which was such a loved character with a great motive just died in the middle of the game like nothing?

i mean. during hitman 1 and hitman 2 the story was all about him. then killing him like nothing in hitman 3?

what was the real reason? maybe the voice actor quitting? because for me at least. i wanted grey to win.

why waste such a great character?


It gives 47 a motivation and put him at odds with the I.C.A. Pushing 47 towards the conclusion this trilogy have been building towards. It’s a classic story telling trope. Like Gandalf sacrificing himself to save the fellowship in Lord of the Rings or Luke Skywalker sacrificing himself to save the Resistance to hold back the First Order in The Last Jedi.

The reason for his death, is simply because the story asked it of him.


@Mini I’ve found your backup account


As if I need a backup account to tell everyone here again and again and again and again and again and again and… again how much they wasted Grey as a character and how unnecessary and stupid it was to kill him.

Everyone knows what I think and how much I disagree with @Norseman and everyone who shares his opinion and no one can convince me otherwise. I don’t need a backup account for this :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:


Was it technically needed? To reach the conclusion? No. Yet it was the road IO chose. The path they think served the story best. Sacrifice is a powerful and somewhat overdone trope in story telling.


@Agent2047 did you join this little underestimated club?


I think they just didn’t know what to do with Grey and decided to kill him off because they wanted the end to still be just 47 alone with Diana in his ear. A lot of the directions the story took were unnecessary, and could have been handled better, or gone completely differently. Grey being a long-lost clone/friend/brother to 47 was where it first started to fall apart. It was too easy an answer, and undid most of the unsettling nature of the Shadow Client that had been built up to that point.

But when they did decide to go that route and give 47 an actual field partner, he pretty much just became an alternate voice connection to Diana. And then the whole thing with ICA, that wasn’t really even on them, what happened to Grey, Edwards sent CICADA to do that. And it wasn’t even necessary to take the story where they went with the ICA anyway, I still haven’t forgiven them for that. So having Grey die in that way to make the story go in that direction wasn’t necessary because taking the story that direction seemed like some last minute idea to begin with, like they had no idea how it was gonna wrap up.

To be fair, there’s probably some truth there because of IOI’s ownership shakeup happening during the course of H2, so maybe the responsibility for where this story was going and how it got there fell on someone else and they just went with what got to the end easier, even if it was a bit sloppy. Notice how the entirety of H3 happens only because Edwards conveniently escaped, at the right time, in a manner that strains credulity, and somehow had things set up to take power from the Partners, without them having known about it. All very convenient; Shadows In The Water may very well exist just to make the premise of Grey’s men turning on him behind his back more plausible to explain Edwards’ escape.

So overall, the whole thing seemed rushed and contrived, resulting in the loss of Grey, ICA, and Olivia leaving. Seems to me, if they truly insisted on cutting ICA from the series (unacceptable under any circumstances, but whatevs), Freelancer would seem a lot more interesting if it were all four members of our anti-Providence team working together, letting you play as 47 with Diana as handler, or as Grey with Olivia as handler. What could have been.


If this is a sunset of a game.
If there will be a sequel, I’m sure they would’ve found a way to utilize the character.
Of course there might be a sequel even without Diana, but it will be not the same game anymore

Oh thinking about this, the opportunities and variations the missions could have had if we had all three of them as handlers in the Freelanders missions is quite exciting :face_holding_back_tears: Dianas missions being super professional, Olivias missions including high end technology and Greys missions being kinda unpredictable because he is a bit sloppy as a handler :sweat_smile:

And with everything else I agree with you @Heisenberg IMO It was sloppy writing and felt rushed. As if they had lost the thread at some point. And then they reheated old coffee with the whole “Diana betrays 47”-story that we already had in Blood Money and Absolution.


I still think that they pivoted on Grey after the Haven mission in Hitman 2. I know this has been debated before but the cut scene after Haven where the Constant disappears and Grey gets that text message right after and says everything is going according to plan has always felt (to me) like it was a setup for Grey to betray everyone. They dropped it when Hitman 3 came out and I have no proof other than the cut scene after Haven though. Maybe the character was too popular or they simply didn’t have a good way to resolve the issue. I don’t know.


Or that, having all three as handlers on different missions, though I still think I’d prefer playing as Grey with Olivia as his handler. It would make some of the missions with objectives that don’t seem very 47ish make more sense to have Grey do them.


You are right. Especially objectives with explosives or heavy weapons are more Greys style than 47s and it would have been nice that these ones would have been exclusively for him, because now playing these with 47 feels kinda wrong.


I suppose they could have had Grey go off on his story with Olivia once 47 destroyed Providence, but like you said, I think killing him off was a way of IOI closing off Grey’s story permanently alongside the WOA story reaching its final conclusion.

I suppose it always had to go back to just being 47 and Diana as they are the core of the franchise.


Exactly, I was going to mention just that.

I was wary of Grey at that point, wondering about possible betrayal or wheter I missed something.

While I thought Grey would die in Hitman 3, the when and how was a surprise to me. I thought, like others, he would betray 47 for Providence as assumed from the Haven Island scene, or he would sacrifice himself to end Providence.


I thought he would be revealed as Ort-Meyer’s long-lost son out for revenge on everybody, but whatevs.


Yeah that’s too bad that such an interesting character gets to die so fast and brutally mid-game :confused:

Wasted potential for such a character anyway, there was so much possible ideas to develop 47’s common past with him :+1:

I wished a better ending for Grey, maybe a face-off against 47 himself but eh, it is what it is i guess :person_shrugging:


This :pleading_face:


I should avoid this thread when I’m on my period…


I believe this too. It definitely seemed like they were going to build upon Grey’s possibly darker, ulterior motives.

It’s a direct lie when he says “Everything’s going to plan,” because the Constant escaping throws a wrench in their plans. It’s weird how we still don’t have an explanation for why he said that and IOI just glossed over that


While I appreciate the character love and desire for untapped story potential, put me in the camp of “his 3rd act sacrificial and information-revealing death made sense, I’m ok with it narratively, it’s a trope, and this is a spy thriller.”