The ICA made a Mass murder of civilians?

Yes that much is true. And to be fair I didn’t hate ABSOLUTION. I just kind of knew it never belonged.

I loved the controls, and still think it has the best idea behind Contracts Mode where you accumulate your own arsenal and money for playing it.

As others have already said, we never see the ICA directly killing anyone in Hope. Point in case: When Skurky shoot back at Travis, we saw an ICA goon taking aim and shooting him – in the leg. Then Skurky just limped away from the scene without anyone trying to kill him. I seriously doubt that Skurky would’ve survived the encounter if the ICA goons had the order to leave no witnesses. Then later during the Hope town festival we see people running away in terror when the ICA soldiers appear, but none of the soldiers actually fires a single shoot at the civilians. They didn’t even set up any barricades outside of the town to prevent people from escaping.

Even the fire that eventually burned down the town was an accident: Skurky was limping over the street in front of a bunch of ICA SUVs. They hit the brakes, the fuel truck driving behind them started skidding and crushed into a wall starting the fire.

Yes but it’s exactly what @Quinn pointed out. in this story ICA were evil already. They can shoot up an orphanage and it would fit the story.


This text will be blurred

I’m willing to accept that the events of Absolution happened, after all most of it is in like the space of one week in 2013 so I mean whatever.

I just don’t think it deserves serious discussion.

1 Like

You mean Hitman insignia - fleur de lis thing, not the ICA logo, right? (ICA logo is the triangle with skull). 2000’s tribal tattoo comparsion is pretty spot on, couldn’t put my finger on it before, but that’s exactly what it is :joy:

I agree that it is outdated looking af and it needs some major redesign. Till then, i really don’t mind if IOI uses it less and less (or stops using it entirely).

1 Like

I obviously don’t like Absolution’s dumb story, or anything else about it for that matter, but I think you’re taking it too far in the other direction. I do want a story in my Hitman games and for the targets to have a well-developed backstory to them. Just… Not the way Absolution did it.


But he never says that, he says that Absolution isn’t set in a “specific timeline.” Which means basically nothing.

The entire plot of Hitman since C47 has been complete nonsense, yet folks want to ignore Absolution? Bizarre. The trailer confirms that it’s all just one big mash-up. This justification for Abolution appearing in the trailer yet not actually being a part of the crazy Hitman plotine is truly bizarre to me, and is akin to folks being embarrassed about their crazy uncle and denying that he’s not part of the family when he actually is. It’s time to stop denying it and just move on.

(And I’m not even a fan of Absolution!)

Absolution is a good game, though I did not like the question of stealth.

ICA is a SECRET killer agency. Agent 47 works for ICA. Agent 47 is penalized by ICA for killing civilians, or being detected. ICA uses SUVs, helicopters and soldiers to invade a city, as well as blow up a hotel using Rocket Launchers and shoot civilians. Very discreet.

Another interesting question, no one outside the agency knows the face of 47 (no one alive, though). And in Absolution a lot of people know 47 face and hunt him.

Agent 47 is a badass, but in Absolution he is captured but escapes after.

The game is not bad, but it’s totally different from the Hitman franchise.


It means anything and nothing, but if removing ABSOLUTION from continuity wasn’t necessary, then why say it at all?

1 Like

Why accept the other games in the trailer but not the Absolution piece?

Either it’s all one plotline or it’s all separate. Pick one.

I do accept that piece! Dom Osmond dies in both Timelines!

What’s the problem?

And… if we are zeroing in solely on the “Legacy” cinematic… I just want to point out to people that this is how 47 appears in that cinematic when he kills Dom Osmond.

Two things:

  1. The suit is totally pristine and not burnt out and damaged like it was in ABSOLUTION. It also has gloves whereas gloves are not present in ABSOLUTION’s story timeline for the suit used at this time. The only outfits in ABSOLUTION’s “Hunter and Hunted” with gloves are the Chicago Police outfit and and the Chipmunk costume. 47 obviously doesn’t wear either in the cinematic.

  2. 47 kills Dom Osmond with a 1911. If I recall correctly, it is impossible for that to happen in ABSOLUTION’s story campaign timeline. 47 only has a revolver when he starts the mission in ABSOLUTION’s timeline and there is no 1911 anywhere on the map.


Excellent points. Infact, I’m gonna throw out a theory:

The Legacy cinematic isn’t a view of what objectively happened in each assassination, but rather, Lucas Grey’s interpretation of it.

  1. His VO is present throughout.
  2. We know Lucas Grey has thoroughly researched 47’s past kills, so of course he’d have an interpretation of how things went down in each case.
  3. Would explain @Soupienza’s points about the disparity between what we know to be true of the assassination and what we are presented with in the cinematic.

Drops mic

1 Like

In a sense it’s impossible actually to have a canonical objective way to kill the targets in cinematic form. Only the Hayamoto Jr. kill would match my first-and-canonical run of that hit.

My point though was that in reality the Dom Osmond kill presented in the Legacy cinematic was actually impossible… unlike the others which can all actually happen I think.

Oh yeah I know what you meant, but my theory still stands. Lucas could be spot on with the others but the Dom Osmond one. He’d have no way of knowing exactly what 47 was wearing or what exact weapon was used for the kill, just that it was a shot taken through a one way mirror. He’d be filling in the blanks himself. In which case, imagining that 47 was suited and using a Silverballer is obviously a fair conclusion given what he knows about 47.

1 Like

I would like to point out that the mansion where 47 kills Fernando Delgado also looks nothing like the one seen Blood Money. Does that mean Blood Money is also in a different timeline?


1 Like

Really? I thought it was similar enough. Any pics to compare?

It’s one thing to nitpick slight differences such as “The walls are not the same color” or something versus “The story event could not have happened.”

Watching gameplay of BM versus the Legacy Cinematic, the mansion appears to be very different in Delgado’s case, but it still looks like a clear allusion to the literal event from Blood Money. There is no direct contradiction. For example, you can still say it happened in Chile, in a Mansion on a balcony overlooking the great outdoors, and Fernando was playing a Cello and 47 garroted him.

The differences are incidental in that they are not things that are blatantly different on main characters or alter the setting too dramatically.

The criticism of the Delgado mansion change would be more appropriate if say the scenery was a winter location and not the tropics.

That’s not the same thing as what happens with the Osmond kill.

Absolution is like a benign tumor on Hitman lore. Sure, you can leave it there, it won’t interfere with the stuff that functions well, but look at the sight of it! Disgusting! So I’m all for simply removing it. You’ll find that it’s quite painless and aesthetically pleasing.


Sorry but that’s a weak argument.

“Absolution didn’t happened because in the cut scene 47 wore a different suit and used a different weapon. But Blood Money still happened, even though the place where he killed Don Fernando looked nothing like the original.”


That is not the same thing.

In the case of Chile, given the setting in Blood Money, that of a powerful druglord and a mansion, the fact is the mansion can be more or less extravagant (the Legacy cinematic version has marble statues and looks more opulent) and the scene can play out exactly the same without affecting the main actors. This is why there is no direct contradiction.

What you are pointing out is an inconsistency. The problem of the Dom Osmond kill is not mere inconsistency - it is a direct contradiction. There is a difference. :slight_smile:

In the case of the Dom Osmond kill, the differences result in improbable continuity beyond the event shown. For example, the suit being pristine and having gloves that 47 did not possess in the story. This not only is a difference in the kill event itself, it also means, that within a certain range of probability, the fire that nearly killed 47 also did not happen. Do you understand? The level of disparity is too big to wave away.

To say the non-existent Marble Bust in the Delgado Mansion in the Legacy Cinematic is of the same value of the non-existent 1911 in the Dom Osmond kill is also bordering on disingenuous. That’s like arguing the number of clouds in the sky in a still frame of an Avengers film is of the same value as Captain America’s shield bearing HYDRA’s symbol instead of the White Star.

Objects directly attributed to main actors are more valuable for consistency than background objects.

So no… It is not a weak argument. In the Delgado Mansion issue you can have the same debate but the simple answer is: “Sure, Don Fernando could have built a bigger mansion. How can he not?”

On the other hand you can’t say: “47 survived the fire then ran off and got a new suit (with a nice pair of gloves!) because going after Dom Osmond can wait.” That’s not going to get the same mileage. 47 wearing his tattered suit in “Hunter and Hunted” is key to supporting the rising stakes of the story. The event immediately preceding “Hunter and Hunted” is 47 just barely escaping from “Run for your Life” and demanding to know the whereabouts of Dom Osmond because of the stakes climbing in the previous chapter. But now, to maintain continuity with “Legacy” cinematic, your only real option is not just to change the suit - you have to also deny the existence of “Run for Your Life” - or you have to alter the story of that chapter dramatically for the purpose of forced continuity. How many other events you want to bet didn’t happen in this timeline? How do you like those odds?

The gun not existing is a gameplay limitation and to an extent is of lesser value, but significant because it is “the object for the deed” committed on screen. On another level 47 can only get the 1911’s in “Birdie’s Gift” which happens well after Dom Osmond has died. So storywise it could be another massive re-write just to force that to happen as well. It would be less of a problem if “non-named” 1911’s existed in ABSOLUTION but I don’t think they do. I’m not even going to go there. I’m just pointing out that you can replay the campaign as many times as you want you cannot kill Dom Osmond with a 1911.

The event did not happen. :smiley:

P.S.: I personally see nothing wrong with HITMAN: ABSOLUTION being treated like WB’s BATMAN NINJA timeline. It does not diminish anything.

1 Like