Sherlock Holmes Chapter One - A Gilded Cage Case All Endings | Accuse/Free Paul Vs Goliath Vs Arthur
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 ноя 2021
- #SherlockHolmes #SherlockHolmesChapterOne #Gameplay
Game description
In this story-driven detective thriller, a young Sherlock Holmes struggles to prove himself as he navigates an exotic, dangerous island in the Mediterranean to investigate the mystery of his mother’s death.
Buy the game,
-
PC,
store.steampowered.com/app/11...
-
PSN
store.playstation.com/en-us/p...
-
Xbox,
www.xbox.com/en-US/games/stor...
Genre: Action-Adventure
RELEASE DATE: 16 Nov, 2021
DEVELOPER: Frogwares
PUBLISHER: Frogwares
Channel Description
Hi awesome people and welcome to my channel! I am a one woman army, I record and edit videos all by myself and I try to bring you the highest quality possible of guides, walkthroughs, gameplays, cutscenes from games, easiest methods to defeat bosses, lots of tips & tricks, and soundtracks from select games with the permission of their respective owners to encourage people to buy their tracks/albums. You can find the little things here you can never find on other channels, so please do subscribe! :D I also have a gaming page on Instagram with over 50k followers where I do game reviews and lots of interesting things if you want to check it out! For business contact and PR inquiries including review codes for games & gaming related products for sponsorship/Influencing 👇
Shoot me a DM on Instagram @rubajaiousy
or click on the "For business enquiries" email 
Игры
![Veeze - F.A.F (ft. Rylo Rodriguez) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7hlz2S2GmIY/mqdefault.jpg)
I believe the TRUE ending of the case is: Imogen got darts from Paul and shot Goliath. My reasons to believe this are her strange attitude throughout the case, the way both Arthur and Paul have a plausible alibi, the fact that the people outside the gate who saw the elephant escape didn't see a person run out after it (meaning either Arthur/Paul waited so they won't be seen, OR Imogen ran into the house and started packing out of fear) and last but not least, the fact that when you accuse either Paul or Arthur, they don't admit to murdering Theodore.
Good theory but it's this kind of logical thinking that made me pick Lord Craven in the first case lmao. This game throws logic out the window sometimes
How do you explain someone making a mark on the wooden wall when the elephant ran out?
For an innocent girl who enjoys playing with dolls, it is impossible for her to be the culprit, and furthermore. The direction of shooting the arrow with stimulating substances from her room to the elephant is highly implausible. (Sorry for my bad english)
More evidence points to paul. He had access to stric nine drug which he smuggles. And his injury closely matched hole in wall. It also makes since that girl would cover for him cus she was covering for someone. Also he was missing in morning during timeframe.
For anyone who still needs help it’s Arthur. when you get the right option you get 80 currency but if you pick the other options they are 30 and this applies to other cases too. Hopefully I helped
if it is, it was done poorly and with a lot of mistakes, for example whoever it was that crashed through the shed hurt their right elbow, Paul is the only one with damage to her right elbow and Arthur has damage on his left elbow, also the Bosun's knife Arthur knows nothing about it and there's nothing to prove otherwise, meanwhile Paul knows exactly what it is and that it's dull, so it's obviously hers, and then there's a slip of the tongue when you ask Paul what she likes more about Imogen her or her father's money and Paul replies I don't know which is better especially now her father's gone.
I'm 99% sure it was supposed to be Paul but for some reason they switched last second and made it Arthur. Paul's motives and means just make way more sense, plus Imogen seems to be covering for someone the entire case and doesn't care that her father is dead.
Look at both Paul's and Arthur's reactions when they are absolved. Arthur is the one lol "I knew you were reasonable, I never intended..." to murder him???
Yeah but Paul's confidence starts to break when you accuse him. Stutters and gets flustered. I arrested Arther but only because he was closer lol. The only truly innocent one is the elephant
I’m just going to have to choose that neither shot Goliath with the dart. Neither confessed, they just both lost their confidence for a moment and stuttered. I think Imogen did it. There’s a perfect view of the pen from the house windows, she could have taken a dart from Paul, and she absolutely hated the elephant. I truly think she was just trying to kill the elephant. And once she saw it caused it to go into an act of rage and kill her father, and she was able to throw stones at it to get it to drop him, she ran upstairs and hysterically started packing. But that just leaves the fact that someone was behind the gate. And the only suspects are Paul and Arthur. Maybe Paul tried to sneak in to see imogen, saw what happened and ran off? Or maybe Arthur went to talk to Gilden about the site and saw what happened and ran off? I have no idea. But they both have the exact same evidence against them, they both have great reasons to want Gilden out of the way. The only thing that sticks out is Arthur reading a book on elephants
in the contract said that swift wont get but the sientific achivment of the digging outcome so he have no reason to killl goliath
I was a big fan of Frogwares' earlier Holmes games, but the problem with this one and the one before is that it's afraid to tell players they're wrong. A detective story or murder mystery is only a good story if there's a singular correct answer. If basically every answer is "correct," then that means none of them are, which makes the mystery pointless. Crime & Punishments did the same thing as this game, where you could reach different conclusions and accuse different people, but the game would at least later tell you if you were correct or not.
The real culprit was Arthur.
His plan wasn't to kill his partner, but to cause the elephant to misbehave so bad that his partner would finally get rid of the beast (as it was noted that the elephant was usually tame).
No beast, no ivory tower (or however that was called) for the elephant. Therefore, the archeological search could continue.
Unfortunately for Arthur, his plan backfired and the elephant killed the guy.
That is why you get a higher monetary reward for "properly solving the case" and also why, when you let Arthur go, he says: "it was never my-" logically completed to "intention to kill him."
I don't like how the game doesn't reveal the true culprit. They both have a motive, darts that could be used on the elephant and similar injuries that could put them at the scene. To go through such a lengthy case just for your decision to have no meaning what so ever is irritating.
I was thinking the same thing. I want to know who really did it 🤔
@@mehtac1714 Even the first case was a bit 50/50 I thought. They both could've easily done it but you can only find out for sure once you've accused one of them. I thought maybe because Luka was skinny and malnourished he wouldn't have had the strength to strangle the women but Lord Craven had the strength and temper not to mention he lied about being at the bar for quite some time. Overthinking can be bad for games like these I guess lol
Yea, seriously a bummer to just be like "there are two suspects who both have motives, who both have the exact same incriminating evidence, and the same injuries that could've been caused by the elephant." I hope all the cases aren't like this cuz this had literally zero pay off. Disappointing
I'm still looking for more clues, but still didn't figured it out. That you get more money for one option than other 2 tells that option should be right one, but still don't know why
@@VigilanteNZ um... No. It was cut and dry. Luka admits he is guilty. He had a storied criminal past with her. They both wore moth jewelry frim their gang. It was cut and dry. Why would husband hire a detective if he was guilty? That being said. I let luka escape. The woman was true culprit
both the culprits seemed to have strong alibis, i’m honestly not sure who was the real murderer! also all the scenes where they execute the elephant seemed like such a wrong choice, even sherlock had guilt on his conscience!
Probably why you only get a Trophy/Achievement on this case If you decide to spare the Elephant.
I'm still very convinced that the Gilden girl kinda did it or did it with Paul for some reasons. She's pretty despicable/weird in every ending, toward the elephant and she's sus af T_T I searched high and low for another outcome but could find it T_T
also her suddenly packing her bags to leave the country for a "romantic getaway" seems super sus. i think she and paul were both in on it cos they were sick of her dad and wanted a new life together
Guys the knife is the key evidence, the knife is the type sailors use. Also his character matches more than than Arthur
I literally just looked at the final options and disagreed with all of them which is a bit annoying and I don't know if that's intention as a young sherlock not considering more.
It was the letter from the Governer saying that they wanted him to give up the elephant and give it to Mr. Talihart who I think is the person Imogen mentioned coming in and moving in to take it off her hands along with an exchange where Imogen mentions a neighbour who seems to be part or the Cordona elite hating listening to Goliaths noise.
The most blaring piece that supports a third party is the use of the drug we know the criminal underworld has access to through Paul's smuggling activities. Both parties reference the drug but Arthur whom most people believe the killer doesn't have any of the drug at the site or has the detail of the space for the poison to be loaded as Paul's did which might be a mistake by Dev's as Arthur mentions it in this video. However there is a major discrepancy in the descriptions of the chemical analysis and the conclusion options offered by the mind palace. Specifically that a third party was involved and used the drug to induce it to rampage but makes no sense as it states that there was enough of the poison to kill a grown man, something Sherlock and Paul discuss saying that they don't know the amount required.
So if the intent was to make the elephant rampage, it wouldn't have been loaded to a deadly amount, leading me to believe that it was an assassination attempt gone wrong and the individual missed the victim and hit the elephant which seemed to be the actual prize of the killing knowing that Imogen would sell it for what I imagine is a small amount of its worth.
The elephant upon being shot picked the victim up to protect him where he slipped out of his dressing gown and got crushed, the elephant still carrying the gown and placing it "gently" on a tree as sherlock says which is supported by Arthur's book saying that elephants gave strong bonds with their owners and will mourn them.
In summary the Cordona elite hated his eccentricities and upset the Governer who either he or the older lady who hates him tried to have him whacked, get imogen out of the picture as a naive heiress and the elephant given to one of their friends in one swoop but assassin missed. A similar modus operandi of those who seem to be involved in his mother's death by staging accident or injury for those who rock the boat too much. Hell I wouldn't be suprised if some of the elites are in the club and learned Paul was a women when the victim hired the goons to attack her/him. Having lost to a women with society as it was back then would encourage them to expedite Paul and Imogen's departure to get him/her out of the picture.
I will be so mad if I'm right. But right now the closest to that I can choose is blame Goliaths but spare him.
If this is something like the true culprit being revealed later to make us feel guilty for the consequences of Paul or Arthur then that would suck as it only works when the player can't figure things out as otherwise it is just frustrating. If this is true later as I play, I will edit this comment and rant.
You explained perfectly why it was neither, and agree with your assessment. I believe it has been confirmed by one of the devs to be Arthur, though it being the Governor’s henchmen is far more intriguing. No matter what though, Goliath deserves to live, he good boi.
Well after doing some research, I can only have the explain that Frogwares team didn't put the effort of giving this case the logical touch because their teamwork are going through the war scenario on their country
more Paul than Arthur, Arthur has alibi
in the contract said that swift wont get but the sientific achivment of the digging outcome so he have no reason to killl goliath ..while paul will inherter alll so paul have more reason add that to his crminal nature and also add the fact that darts found on elphant skin has the same material like in paul's possession this will only lead us to the fact that paul did it deprived from love
lack of money
and to protect him self he have all reasons to do it
I'm 99% sure it was supposed to be Paul but for some reason they switched last second and made it Arthur. Paul's motives and means just make way more sense, plus Imogen seems to be covering for someone the entire case and doesn't care that her father is dead.
Ms. Gilden had no appreciation for Holmes from the jump. 😂
fue el viejito
So who really did it?I'm pretty sure it's Arthur though but still this game is so 50/50 lol
Arthur is the canon option, but I still think it was Paul personally.
its so BS to know that you spent hours figuring out the mystery only to have a 50/50 both could be the murderer ending. bleh
She is just awful or is it just me?
yeah she sucks
Not just you, I absolutely hate how spoiled she is 😂
this game is total crap, at the end of this case I uninstalled it. We have 3 options but it doesn't matter what we choose the evidence matches each one and we won't know if we chose well. Nice detective game haha
Game isn’t crap. You just don’t pay attention. It’s Arthur, because when you let him go, he says „I’ve never intended to…“ kill him. He just wanted to scare the elephant so Gilden would change his plans for his research & not built a bath there.
@@kirak1561 Yea but u fail to realize this only piece of potential admitance comes after you lock in your answer to accuse 1 or the other. The evidence lines up directly 1-1 with each other and there are reasons for both to be sus. Theres no way for the player to actually verify the alibi's which would be super easy to tell who was lying or any other evidence that would lean towards 1 or the other.
@@JimmiNutrin you get more reward with Arthur & there’s the line I’ve mentioned. It’s not so obvious as in previous games but it’s still there
@@kirak1561 Yea I get that it tells you that 1 is guilty but the whole point of a detective game is to find solid evidence that points to 1 over the other. You are taking them to justice and you don't want to roll the dice on which one is guilty with purely circumstantial evidence. In this mission specifically there is no damning evidence pointing to one or the other. It woulda been cool if they ended up using different drugs in their syringes, or if you could actually attempt to confirm their allibies, or see if they have different textures/brands on their darts to definitively point to one or the other so if you are a keen observer you can guarantee the correct conviction. But all of the evidence is circumstantial so you just roll the dice on what you think is the most correct and find out if you're right or wrong when its over. Arthur says I didn't mean to, insinuating that he was the culprit only AFTER you are locked in to accusing him, which just reinforces my point above. The issue isn't that the game doesn't tell you who did it, the issue is that there's not enough actual evidence for a player(no matter how observant) to have concrete proof for an accusation before its too late.
For example, the fact that we found that the elephant did in fact have a dart inside of him basically verifies that the elephant didn't act on its own volition so we can x that out of the equation, but the evidence for the main 2 culprits is circumstantial. The sailor said he was at the doctors due to getting jumped but there's no way to go to the doctor and verify this, arthur says he was at the dig site, but we cant ask the workers to verify if he was infact there, we cant ask the people clammoring at the crime scene if they saw one or the other. Arthur had a book about elephants which could indicate that he was working on something nefarious, but it could have been just as likely that he was getting more information about it to show the owner that the elephant needs things he cannot provide which would encourage him to move the elephant somewhere else which would also have the same result of saving his dig site without harming anybody.