I hope Arthur doesn't die at the end

[Safari]

 

 

 

 

Pretty obvious he dies, Rockstar kill off the protagonists in all their games now.

 

My guess is he dies and you take control of John Marston, same way how you took control of Jack at the end of RDR.

Not all there characters are dead but they are just split up between different universes and there not all connected in the same universe, for example GTA 1 and 2 are the 2d universe, GTA 3, VC and san Andreas are the 3d universe and GTA4 and V are the HD universe so theres no evidence of them dying if we are in the HD universe cause they don't excise in the HD universe. Also Niko went into hiding after the events of GTA4 not dying just keeping out of the laws eyes. Also R* expects people like you that don't think outside the box to agree and say yea since they killed off all the characters in a whole other series then its expected in this one (theres no evidence to support they are all dead). Also Why would we play as john thats pointless AF especially because he was built up on his own problems after the events of RDR2 like hunting down his former gang so we wouldn't even get a chance to explore the open world without being hit with another story. Do i think we will learn a lot about john of course but it wouldn't make sense for them to give us a brand new character and then have him killed off just to play as the character from the last game. R* are focusing on giving us players a great character and that Arthur not john, They might as well just let us play as john in this upcoming game if Arthurs just going to die off as if he's not a new character, also what about Arthurs gang what happens to them i doubt they all die, in fact i think Arthur and a few of his gang members do something for the government to redeem their crimes i mean it says so in the title RED DEAD REDEMPTION so maybe he has to redeem himself to get his freedom back or maybe something more important back. All I'm saying is that if Arthurs killed off it would be pointless and would be repetitive to the last game and R* tend not to be repetitive but different each time take every GTA they've ever made yes they all have criminals but each criminal has his own unique story. You tend to bring up a lot from there past games but did you note when returning main character come into the game there usually a small role or a medium role, for example when we saw Claude from GTA3 in GTA san Andreas he wasn't anything big he was just in a few mission revolving around racing. Not saying john will be a small role but not as big of a roll as we think trust me R* always take this route

 

 

Not sure why you're talking about previous GTA eras I was just referring to Rockstars most recent titles from around 2010.

 

RDR - JM killed.

 

LA Noire - CP killed

 

GTA V - Michael or Trevor can be killed

 

RDR2 - Arthur possibly killed

 

p.s. I probably read about 4 lines of what you wrote, but have a good day.

 

three characters out of all the other characters in previous R* games , lmao and you come to the conclusion Arthur will die. I was using GTA as an example as its there most known series of games to put a perspective in your head about how many characters where really killed and that would be 2, johnny from lost and damned, mike or trevor from GTAV. Did you miss all the other substantial points in my statement or do you just have a low attention span nip picking one point i made. You clearly know nothing about R* games titles

 

 

Yeah read what I said again. It's been a trend in their games since 2010 starting with RDR and considering their last outing followed this trend, theres reason to believe their next outing will also follow suit.

 

I've been playing games by Rockstar since '98, so unfortunately you're wrong kiddo.

 

And not reading your post has nothing to do with my attention span as DexMacleod pointed out. It's very likely that post was 95% waffle. At least learn to structure your posts properly and not cram a thousand words into one big paragraph, that way people might actually take the time to read them.

 

So what your telling me is that Arthur, a brand new character in the RDR series which we could explore and engrave as a favorite will just die and then we will play as john for some pointless reason? yes ALMOST every character has died since 2010 idk if we could count GTAV as it can vary, but you have to note that max didn't die not EVERY character has died since 2010. All I'm saying is your reasoning behind Arthurs death is weak. Also ill keep note to keep my wall of a paragraphs to a low so you can get the overall jist of what I'm saying.

Edited February 21, 2018 by Safari

[UAL]

 

 

 

 

 

Pretty obvious he dies, Rockstar kill off the protagonists in all their games now.

 

My guess is he dies and you take control of John Marston, same way how you took control of Jack at the end of RDR.

Not all there characters are dead but they are just split up between different universes and there not all connected in the same universe, for example GTA 1 and 2 are the 2d universe, GTA 3, VC and san Andreas are the 3d universe and GTA4 and V are the HD universe so theres no evidence of them dying if we are in the HD universe cause they don't excise in the HD universe. Also Niko went into hiding after the events of GTA4 not dying just keeping out of the laws eyes. Also R* expects people like you that don't think outside the box to agree and say yea since they killed off all the characters in a whole other series then its expected in this one (theres no evidence to support they are all dead). Also Why would we play as john thats pointless AF especially because he was built up on his own problems after the events of RDR2 like hunting down his former gang so we wouldn't even get a chance to explore the open world without being hit with another story. Do i think we will learn a lot about john of course but it wouldn't make sense for them to give us a brand new character and then have him killed off just to play as the character from the last game. R* are focusing on giving us players a great character and that Arthur not john, They might as well just let us play as john in this upcoming game if Arthurs just going to die off as if he's not a new character, also what about Arthurs gang what happens to them i doubt they all die, in fact i think Arthur and a few of his gang members do something for the government to redeem their crimes i mean it says so in the title RED DEAD REDEMPTION so maybe he has to redeem himself to get his freedom back or maybe something more important back. All I'm saying is that if Arthurs killed off it would be pointless and would be repetitive to the last game and R* tend not to be repetitive but different each time take every GTA they've ever made yes they all have criminals but each criminal has his own unique story. You tend to bring up a lot from there past games but did you note when returning main character come into the game there usually a small role or a medium role, for example when we saw Claude from GTA3 in GTA san Andreas he wasn't anything big he was just in a few mission revolving around racing. Not saying john will be a small role but not as big of a roll as we think trust me R* always take this route

 

 

Not sure why you're talking about previous GTA eras I was just referring to Rockstars most recent titles from around 2010.

 

RDR - JM killed.

 

LA Noire - CP killed

 

GTA V - Michael or Trevor can be killed

 

RDR2 - Arthur possibly killed

 

p.s. I probably read about 4 lines of what you wrote, but have a good day.

 

three characters out of all the other characters in previous R* games , lmao and you come to the conclusion Arthur will die. I was using GTA as an example as its there most known series of games to put a perspective in your head about how many characters where really killed and that would be 2, johnny from lost and damned, mike or trevor from GTAV. Did you miss all the other substantial points in my statement or do you just have a low attention span nip picking one point i made. You clearly know nothing about R* games titles

 

 

Yeah read what I said again. It's been a trend in their games since 2010 starting with RDR and considering their last outing followed this trend, theres reason to believe their next outing will also follow suit.

 

I've been playing games by Rockstar since '98, so unfortunately you're wrong kiddo.

 

And not reading your post has nothing to do with my attention span as DexMacleod pointed out. It's very likely that post was 95% waffle. At least learn to structure your posts properly and not cram a thousand words into one big paragraph, that way people might actually take the time to read them.

 

So what your telling me is that Arthur, a brand new character in the RDR series which we could explore and engrave as a favorite will just die and then we will play as john for some pointless reason?

 

 

Hate to break it to you but this is exactly what happened in RDR.

 

We played as John Marston for the first time who instantly became a fan favourite and an all time great Rockstar Games character. Then before we knew it he was killed off and we were given another character to play as.

 

Furthermore playing as John wouldn't be pointless as RDR2 is a prequel. Therefore It would actually make a whole lot of sense and many fans of RDR would welcome it seeing as he was such a popular character.

[Safari]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pretty obvious he dies, Rockstar kill off the protagonists in all their games now.

 

My guess is he dies and you take control of John Marston, same way how you took control of Jack at the end of RDR.

Not all there characters are dead but they are just split up between different universes and there not all connected in the same universe, for example GTA 1 and 2 are the 2d universe, GTA 3, VC and san Andreas are the 3d universe and GTA4 and V are the HD universe so theres no evidence of them dying if we are in the HD universe cause they don't excise in the HD universe. Also Niko went into hiding after the events of GTA4 not dying just keeping out of the laws eyes. Also R* expects people like you that don't think outside the box to agree and say yea since they killed off all the characters in a whole other series then its expected in this one (theres no evidence to support they are all dead). Also Why would we play as john thats pointless AF especially because he was built up on his own problems after the events of RDR2 like hunting down his former gang so we wouldn't even get a chance to explore the open world without being hit with another story. Do i think we will learn a lot about john of course but it wouldn't make sense for them to give us a brand new character and then have him killed off just to play as the character from the last game. R* are focusing on giving us players a great character and that Arthur not john, They might as well just let us play as john in this upcoming game if Arthurs just going to die off as if he's not a new character, also what about Arthurs gang what happens to them i doubt they all die, in fact i think Arthur and a few of his gang members do something for the government to redeem their crimes i mean it says so in the title RED DEAD REDEMPTION so maybe he has to redeem himself to get his freedom back or maybe something more important back. All I'm saying is that if Arthurs killed off it would be pointless and would be repetitive to the last game and R* tend not to be repetitive but different each time take every GTA they've ever made yes they all have criminals but each criminal has his own unique story. You tend to bring up a lot from there past games but did you note when returning main character come into the game there usually a small role or a medium role, for example when we saw Claude from GTA3 in GTA san Andreas he wasn't anything big he was just in a few mission revolving around racing. Not saying john will be a small role but not as big of a roll as we think trust me R* always take this route

 

 

Not sure why you're talking about previous GTA eras I was just referring to Rockstars most recent titles from around 2010.

 

RDR - JM killed.

 

LA Noire - CP killed

 

GTA V - Michael or Trevor can be killed

 

RDR2 - Arthur possibly killed

 

p.s. I probably read about 4 lines of what you wrote, but have a good day.

 

three characters out of all the other characters in previous R* games , lmao and you come to the conclusion Arthur will die. I was using GTA as an example as its there most known series of games to put a perspective in your head about how many characters where really killed and that would be 2, johnny from lost and damned, mike or trevor from GTAV. Did you miss all the other substantial points in my statement or do you just have a low attention span nip picking one point i made. You clearly know nothing about R* games titles

 

 

Yeah read what I said again. It's been a trend in their games since 2010 starting with RDR and considering their last outing followed this trend, theres reason to believe their next outing will also follow suit.

 

I've been playing games by Rockstar since '98, so unfortunately you're wrong kiddo.

 

And not reading your post has nothing to do with my attention span as DexMacleod pointed out. It's very likely that post was 95% waffle. At least learn to structure your posts properly and not cram a thousand words into one big paragraph, that way people might actually take the time to read them.

 

So what your telling me is that Arthur, a brand new character in the RDR series which we could explore and engrave as a favorite will just die and then we will play as john for some pointless reason?

 

 

Hate to break it to you but this is exactly what happened in RDR.

 

We played as John Marston for the first time who instantly became a fan favourite and an all time great Rockstar Games character. Then before we knew it he was killed off and we were given another character to play as.

 

Furthermore playing as John wouldn't be pointless as RDR2 is a prequel. Therefore It would actually make a whole lot of sense and many fans of RDR would welcome it seeing as he was such a popular character.

 

theres a big difference here lol, First off after the events of RDR2 john was stuck up on his own problems like killing his former gang so after the events of RDR2 there would be no after story free-roam but rather another story after the events of RDR2 as johns family was immediately taken and he was forced to hunt his former gang, it would be completely confusing after the events of RDR2 if we took control of john. Also John is a old character now returning to him would be pointless and wouldn't benefit our first character Arthur, for example we had a reason to be jack to avenge our fathers death. Arthur and john whats the correlation here? Also Why not just play as john throughout the game instead of playing as Arthur i mean if Arthurs just going to get killed off. Now you might be saying "well why not play as jack through the events of RDR1" well its simple first off jack didn't have problems as large as john and he was a kid, playing as him when john was brutally murdered made sense. Also if they want to welcome returning fans of the last game they could just drop a remastered RDR1 as a DLC or something instead of forcing Arthur to die and play as john. The DLC idea would also make R* a lot of money lol, sorry if this is a lot I'm bad at condensing my statements.

[DexMacLeod]

I wouldn't count LA Noir as an example as it was written by Team Bondi not Rockstar and with GTA V the ending where they all survive is the one that's considered canon.

 

I think the fact that they killed off the main character of the last game is reason enough to assume they won't repeat themselves in the sequel. What would be the point?

 

The game being a prequel doesn't make playing as John make sense as we'd be playing as him at a time when he wasn't really doing a whole lot.

[Holland_Hicks]

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility at all that Arthur dies at the end of the game, and you take control of John or some other character. That would be the most predictable outcome, but it just seems too lazy for Rockstar. If Arthur does in fact die, I doubt we would switch over to John. It would have to be a character that conveniently knows how to do all of the things that Arthur can, like shooting a bow and dual-wielding. I'm aware that just because John doesn't dual-wield or use a bow in the original RDR doesn't mean he didn't know how to before. I'm also aware that Jack learned everything John knew in a three year span, but that's just my two cents.

 

 

There was a leak from a while back that said Arthur would in fact die, and we'd take over as John, but if I had to guess I'd say Rockstar has since changed this. Who knows, maybe it's the reason for one or both of the delays.

 

[Safari]

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility at all that Arthur dies at the end of the game, and you take control of John or some other character. That would be the most predictable outcome, but it just seems too lazy for Rockstar. If Arthur does in fact die, I doubt we would switch over to John. It would have to be a character that conveniently knows how to do all of the things that Arthur can, like shooting a bow and dual-wielding. I'm aware that just because John doesn't dual-wield or use a bow in the original RDR doesn't mean he didn't know how to before. I'm also aware that Jack learned everything John knew in a three year span, but that's just my two cents.

 

 

There was a leak from a while back that said Arthur would in fact die, and we'd take over as John, but if I had to guess I'd say Rockstar has since changed this. Who knows, maybe it's the reason for one or both of the delays.

 

 

 

like you said it would be the easiest route for R* to take but the most bland, although going off a leak should be the last thing to make you come to these conclusions

 

Anyone can make a leak doesn't mean its correct.

[UAL]

People are acting like the start of RDR took place right after John got shot in the failed robbery in 1906.

 

Theres a whole time period between 1906 and 1911 that hasn't been explored. He left the outlaw life and started a family on his ranch.

 

I'm not saying its 100% going to happen I'm just saying theres plenty of narrative potential to play as John towards the end of the game IF Arthur gets killed off.

[Typhus]

 

John's death worked because he was a genuinely good man, and it tied into themes of government encroachment and the death of the old world. Arthur, by contrast, already seems like a total scumbag. His death wouldn't mean anything.

I'd much rather they have him kill Red Harlowe, to give that character some closure and emotional weight.

How tf does Arthur seem like a scumbag and how is he bland if you cant even tell me his purpose in the game. I honestly don't like people that are already judging the character in such a negative way after 2 trailers and 10 or so screenshots. I mean if thats your opinion then fine but have just a bit of an open mind... just a bit.

A "negative way"? How so? Acknowledging a character as a bad human being doesn't mean I dislike the character. Quite the contrary, before RDR2 was even announced I believe I made posts explaining that I wanted the sequel to focus on damnation rather than redemption, a slide into evil as opposed to a good man trying to live a new life. Arthur Morgan seems very much in that spirit, which is precisely what I wanted. So no, I am most certainly not negatively judging the character or the game, it actually looks like everything I wanted.

 

Which is why I'd love to see Arthur kill Red, just to hammer home that we're playing as a completely different beast to John Marston.

[Safari]

 

 

John's death worked because he was a genuinely good man, and it tied into themes of government encroachment and the death of the old world. Arthur, by contrast, already seems like a total scumbag. His death wouldn't mean anything.

I'd much rather they have him kill Red Harlowe, to give that character some closure and emotional weight.

How tf does Arthur seem like a scumbag and how is he bland if you cant even tell me his purpose in the game. I honestly don't like people that are already judging the character in such a negative way after 2 trailers and 10 or so screenshots. I mean if thats your opinion then fine but have just a bit of an open mind... just a bit.

A "negative way"? How so? Acknowledging a character as a bad human being doesn't mean I dislike the character. Quite the contrary, before RDR2 was even announced I believe I made posts explaining that I wanted the sequel to focus on damnation rather than redemption, a slide into evil as opposed to a good man trying to live a new life. Arthur Morgan seems very much in that spirit, which is precisely what I wanted. So no, I am most certainly not negatively judging the character or the game, it actually looks like everything I wanted.

 

Which is why I'd love to see Arthur kill Red, just to hammer home that we're playing as a completely different beast to John Marston.

 

Ok now thats some clarification i got the impression you were describing Arthur as disgusting, usually scumbag is thrown out towards people that are just a piece of sh*t and Arthur to me already seems like such a cool character not a "scumbag", I was just asking for your reasoning behind saying he was a scumbag but i must have misjudged your statement

[DexMacLeod]

People are acting like the start of RDR took place right after John got shot in the failed robbery in 1906.

 

Theres a whole time period between 1906 and 1911 that hasn't been explored. He left the outlaw life and started a family on his ranch.

 

I'm not saying its 100% going to happen I'm just saying theres plenty of narrative potential to play as John towards the end of the game IF Arthur gets killed off.

 

I don't know, I just don't see a decent narrative coming out of this. For one, John only barely had the ranch up and running when Redemption started and he wasn't all that good at it yet. This would put a pretty low ceiling on what we'd be able to do with it.

 

And secondly, if we're playing the bulk of the game as an outlaw it wouldn't make any sense to suddenly start playing as a former outlaw. Why would John roam about the countryside cleaning up Arthur's side quests if he's healing from his wounds, starting a family and building a ranch?

 

I posited awhile back that maybe we start the game as John and play through a sort of prologue as him and switch to Arthur after John is shot and left for dead. This is the only way that playing as John really makes sense to me. It gets him out of the way early so people can focus on the new character/story while also appeasing those fans who want to see that event unfold.

 

Also if that leaked map is indeed real it could explain why there's no roads/bridges connecting the old portion of the map to the new one. Because it's only accessible in the prologue.

[Spider-Vice]

People... quote trains. You don't even need to quote if you're responding to the person directly above.

[ghostly dude]

 

Because in RDR, John Marston finishes off the last of the Van Der Linde gang. Even if he's not dead by the end of RDR2, he's certainly dead by the beginning of RDR.

Its never specified whether Arthur is in their gang, in a very evidential leak it was said that Arthur was his own gang leader causing me to believe that Arthur wasn't only a part of the van der linde gang but his own gang with his own problems. Also it was specified in the story that after the gang broke up and john was left for dead he left with his family to work on the ranch until he was approached by government officials so where is the part in which he killed Arthur he wasn't approached by government officials until after he left to his ranch, I think it would be pointless to kill Arthur if they do it right he doesn't have to die.

I'm not saying that Marston is the one who kills him, just that if Morgan were alive during the events of RDR, it would make him another "loose end" to be taken care of. They seem to imply that Javier, Bill, Dutch and John are the only gang members left.

 

Pretty obvious he dies, Rockstar kill off the protagonists in all their games now.

 

My guess is he dies and you take control of John Marston, same way how you took control of Jack at the end of RDR.

It can't be that since John mentions in RDR that he's never been to New Austin before.

[UAL]

 

 

Because in RDR, John Marston finishes off the last of the Van Der Linde gang. Even if he's not dead by the end of RDR2, he's certainly dead by the beginning of RDR.

Its never specified whether Arthur is in their gang, in a very evidential leak it was said that Arthur was his own gang leader causing me to believe that Arthur wasn't only a part of the van der linde gang but his own gang with his own problems. Also it was specified in the story that after the gang broke up and john was left for dead he left with his family to work on the ranch until he was approached by government officials so where is the part in which he killed Arthur he wasn't approached by government officials until after he left to his ranch, I think it would be pointless to kill Arthur if they do it right he doesn't have to die.

I'm not saying that Marston is the one who kills him, just that if Morgan were alive during the events of RDR, it would make him another "loose end" to be taken care of. They seem to imply that Javier, Bill, Dutch and John are the only gang members left.

 

Pretty obvious he dies, Rockstar kill off the protagonists in all their games now.

 

My guess is he dies and you take control of John Marston, same way how you took control of Jack at the end of RDR.

It can't be that since John mentions in RDR that he's never been to New Austin before.

 

 

What does this even mean? RDR2 doesn't take place in New Austin.

[MARKUS.]

My guess is he dies and you take control of John Marston, same way how you took control of Jack at the end of RDR.

 

This is interesting... but I think will not be like that because it would be like a cliché. I think by some point of the game Arthur is going to be betrayed by Dutch (when he started to go insane, as John said) but... probably makes no sense because you are supposed to kill the traitor by the end of a R* game right? well... RDR ending was unexpected, this can have a different approach too. Maybe Arthur will get his redemption too, by another way... dead or alive

[DexMacLeod]

 

 

Because in RDR, John Marston finishes off the last of the Van Der Linde gang. Even if he's not dead by the end of RDR2, he's certainly dead by the beginning of RDR.

Its never specified whether Arthur is in their gang, in a very evidential leak it was said that Arthur was his own gang leader causing me to believe that Arthur wasn't only a part of the van der linde gang but his own gang with his own problems. Also it was specified in the story that after the gang broke up and john was left for dead he left with his family to work on the ranch until he was approached by government officials so where is the part in which he killed Arthur he wasn't approached by government officials until after he left to his ranch, I think it would be pointless to kill Arthur if they do it right he doesn't have to die.

 

I'm not saying that Marston is the one who kills him, just that if Morgan were alive during the events of RDR, it would make him another "loose end" to be taken care of. They seem to imply that Javier, Bill, Dutch and John are the only gang members left.

 

I got the impression that Javier, Bill, and Dutch were just the most notorious and ruthless members of the gang. The reason John's being forced to hunt them down is because the headlines will make the politicians look good come election time. Killing off the lower level gang members nobody's ever heard of doesn't really help them.

 

Maybe Arthur's just better at keeping his identity concealed and never became a famous outlaw and thus didn't warrant the kill order.

 

They could also have him "skip town" like others have suggested. Maybe have him state that he's leaving in the final cut scene but that he's got a few things to take care of before he leaves. From then on you can free roam for as long as you want before triggering the final mission and legit ending the game.

[L Del Rio]

I hope not. I hope Dutch doesnt kill him as one of the multiple endings..Dutch did kill some people unfair like

Edited March 1, 2018 by B_E_N_1992

[MARKUS.]

They could also have him "skip town" like others have suggested. Maybe have him state that he's leaving in the final cut scene but that he's got a few things to take care of before he leaves. From then on you can free roam for as long as you want before triggering the final mission and legit ending the game.

 

This idea is gold! You can trigger that cutscene (a final mission like Hunting Ross) with ending credits and later go back to the previous checkpoint and stuck there in a couple of scenarios, one of them being when you complete all the storyline + side missions (strangers...) and unlock it as "The Last One" in GTA V (but without doing minor activities and completing 100% tho )

 

Or just like VCS, the ending cutscene suggested that Vic and Lance leaves Vice City and they lay low until 1986. But after the mission, you appear downstairs in that building... Bare in mind that what happens outside missions, is not cannon

[AdmiralAmmunation]

As much as I feel like killing him would just be 'just cause its the main character dying so no matter what it'll be a big ending' kind of thing, if its John who fills that role afterward, it'd feel complete to me.

 

The thing is you can bet big money on him not making it out of this game alive. R* had a happy ending for GTA V (call the character's emotions what you want, they all end up rich and alive and their enemies dead), so thats a sign their new games that are some of the biggest games in the mainstream to the general audience are being made more for casual players like having a happy ending. However, RDR isn't R*'s shiny GTA Online that is gonna attract every little kid to it (it'll have an audience, just not as big as GTA.)

 

The story as we see it right now (which can change during 2) just makes sense and lines up for Arthur's death. He is nowhere in RDR, and The lawmen kill John Marston thinking he can no longer provide him anything and he is the final link to Dutch's Gang. Unless he runs off, people think he's dead and probably is by the time Marston is facing down a bunch of government-funded gun barrels.

 

The only other explanation is that he makes it out of RDR 2 alive, but is tracked down without John's help between then and RDR.

 

But this is R*. Especially as of late, not exactly the kings of giving the fans what they want.

 

...still not over my favorite GTA protag getting his head smashed in and every other character left from his story hat was cool getting slaughtered and his legacy being destroyed...

[PapasHota]

If he dies, he dies.

[Safari]

As much as I feel like killing him would just be 'just cause its the main character dying so no matter what it'll be a big ending' kind of thing, if its John who fills that role afterward, it'd feel complete to me.

 

The thing is you can bet big money on him not making it out of this game alive. R* had a happy ending for GTA V (call the character's emotions what you want, they all end up rich and alive and their enemies dead), so thats a sign their new games that are some of the biggest games in the mainstream to the general audience are being made more for casual players like having a happy ending. However, RDR isn't R*'s shiny GTA Online that is gonna attract every little kid to it (it'll have an audience, just not as big as GTA.)

 

The story as we see it right now (which can change during 2) just makes sense and lines up for Arthur's death. He is nowhere in RDR, and The lawmen kill John Marston thinking he can no longer provide him anything and he is the final link to Dutch's Gang. Unless he runs off, people think he's dead and probably is by the time Marston is facing down a bunch of government-funded gun barrels.

 

The only other explanation is that he makes it out of RDR 2 alive, but is tracked down without John's help between then and RDR.

 

But this is R*. Especially as of late, not exactly the kings of giving the fans what they want.

 

...still not over my favorite GTA protag getting his head smashed in and every other character left from his story hat was cool getting slaughtered and his legacy being destroyed...

Just because he isn't seen or mentioned within RDR1 doesn't mean he is dead. Its obvious R* weren't planning on making an RDR2 in 2010, but I'm sure they found a clever way to plug in and connect RDR2 to RDR1, if they didn't know how to connect these two games and create a prequel they could have easily made bully2, agent, maxpayne4 , GTAVI, and even a brand new title or they even could have done a RDR2 with completely different characters and story, R* had lots of possibilities and decided to choose the continuation of the van der linde gang thats why i feel this story will be way more complex and emotional than Arthur dying and john taking over, it seems to bland and obvious.

 

Back to what i was saying about them not having to add Arthur to Johns dialogue in RDR1 or even adding him physically within the game without him being dead.

 

1. We have no knowledge of what Arthur really is, a very evidential leak that predicted Arthur Morgans full name a year before the first teaser stated that Arthur is going to be his own gang leader following along side the van der linde gang, so he might just be his own gang leader participating in his own acts and problems within his own gang, but for some unknown reason working along side the van der linde gang... maybe to pay off debt, who knows.

 

2. You have to remember why the van der linde gang were killed off. They were killed off to get the governor Nate Johns elected. He bought votes, manipulated people into voting for him and got the van der linde gang the most notorious gang in the west killed off for the people to gain trust within his power. So theres no proof Arthur and his gang or Arthur himself was targeted.

 

3. The games called red dead REDEMPTION, it would be foolish if Arthur was just killed off only moments after or during his crime life, there would be no redemption within this games story if he hasn't even gotten the chance to gain or regaining something in acts of payment.

 

Arthur simply could have found his way out of this mess if he was even included in the first place, even if he was mixed up in this government mess this is the wild west there wasn't tracking devices during this time he could easily skipped town or laid low for a certain amount of time. Theres a lot more to this story than just "oh Arthur associated with the van der linde gang okay he dies and you play as john". theres way more to this story and I know R* will share this amazingly complex story to us on October 26th.

Edited March 3, 2018 by Safari

[Johnny Spaz]

It'd be stupid if they killed him off, John being killed was something that hit me hard, R* trying to replicate that would come off as cheesy and forced, I doubt they would do that, also John was a good man Arthur seems like a true criminal that doesn't give a sh*t about anything so it'd be difficult to feel bad for him.

[slimeball supreme]

I'm sure he'll be fine

[Dan390]

On 3/10/2018 at 12:34 PM, Johnny Spaz said:

It'd be stupid if they killed him off, John being killed was something that hit me hard, R* trying to replicate that would come off as cheesy and forced, I doubt they would do that, also John was a good man Arthur seems like a true criminal that doesn't give a sh*t about anything so it'd be difficult to feel bad for him.

This didn't age well

[Silver]

Makes me wonder if RDR3 happens, will the next protagonist die towards the end as well? I know the title of the series makes it kind of obvious what to expect, but does it have to be a tradition? I guess it depends on the story but it'd be nice to have a protagonist make it through the end and perhaps ride into the sunset for once.

[Lemoyne outlaw]

On 4/6/2025 at 3:12 PM, Silver said:

Makes me wonder if RDR3 happens, will the next protagonist die towards the end as well? I know the title of the series makes it kind of obvious what to expect, but does it have to be a tradition? I guess it depends on the story but it'd be nice to have a protagonist make it through the end and perhaps ride into the sunset for once.

i really hope not. at this point it almost feels like they're killing off protagonists just to make it emotional and sad. but if they keep doing it then it will lose all of that and we will become numb to it. that's why I'm really hoping none of the protagonists die in gta 6. i would love to be able to keep the characters that i played the whole store with even after the story ends. if they want to have an emotional/sad ending. they should figure other ways to do it besides killing off our protagonists. like have one of the side characters die. I'm not gonna lie. in the deal ending i was pretty sad to see roman die. but even as sad as it was at least i still had niko. so yes i think it would be great to have a story that lets us ride into the sunset. it shouldn't always be doom and gloom.

[Silver]

20 hours ago, Lemoyne outlaw said:

i really hope not. at this point it almost feels like they're killing off protagonists just to make it emotional and sad. but if they keep doing it then it will lose all of that and we will become numb to it. that's why I'm really hoping none of the protagonists die in gta 6. i would love to be able to keep the characters that i played the whole store with even after the story ends. if they want to have an emotional/sad ending. they should figure other ways to do it besides killing off our protagonists. like have one of the side characters die. I'm not gonna lie. in the deal ending i was pretty sad to see roman die. but even as sad as it was at least i still had niko. so yes i think it would be great to have a story that lets us ride into the sunset. it shouldn't always be doom and gloom.

Yeah, I'm sure you can have an emotional story about redemption (if they keep that title) without your protagonist dying at the end. It'd be a nice change of pace too since RDR has become synonymous with protagonists dying and having to play as someone else.

As much as I like the way Arthur's story ends, I always get some sort of whiplash once I get to play as John. On one hand it reinforces the impact of Arthur's death but in the other it makes it a bit difficult to readjust myself to this new situation.

[Lemoyne outlaw]

3 hours ago, Silver said:

As much as I like the way Arthur's story ends, I always get some sort of whiplash once I get to play as John. On one hand it reinforces the impact of Arthur's death but in the other it makes it a bit difficult to readjust myself to this new situation.

yes especially since most of chapter 6s missions are action filled. you go from charging the army at the oil factory and robbing an army train. to suddenly having no action and just quiet rides in the wilderness. this is why i mostly stop playing after arthurs last mission. the epilogue was cool. but john just pales into comparison to arthur. just like playing as jack in rdr1 was something people hated. i wish they gave you the option to still keep playing as arthur. even if he would be dead. it would be great to keep free roaming as him. and of course johns epilogue model is a joke and embarrassment. 

[Silver]

13 minutes ago, Lemoyne outlaw said:

yes especially since most of chapter 6s missions are action filled. you go from charging the army at the oil factory and robbing an army train. to suddenly having no action and just quiet rides in the wilderness. this is why i mostly stop playing after arthurs last mission. the epilogue was cool. but john just pales into comparison to arthur. just like playing as jack in rdr1 was something people hated. i wish they gave you the option to still keep playing as arthur. even if he would be dead. it would be great to keep free roaming as him. and of course johns epilogue model is a joke and embarrassment. 

I'm actually fine with John's more quiet set of missions, the change of pace is striking at first but I think it helps building up his character and journey. The difficult part for me readjusting after the switch is mostly because of the amount of time I've spent as Arthur prior. Not only am I fond of the character and his personality in general but I usually spend hours improving his stats, unlocking things, exploring the world, hearing his voice etc. As soon as I'm in control of John I really feel some kind of void — I truly lost my character. Even if I like John and I do eventually get used to the new status quo after some time, John still isn't Arthur, and John isn't exactly as mature and as experienced in this game as he is in RDR1 compared to Arthur which is something I enjoy about the protagonists I play.

 

I wish R* had done something similar to RDR2's Epilogue for Jack in the first one. The switch feels even more egregious to me, especially if you've completed all the random encounters as John prior. Jack only gets to take his revenge on Ross and that's it, the game's done.

[propanecocaine71]

3 hours ago, Silver said:

I'm actually fine with John's more quiet set of missions, the change of pace is striking at first but I think it helps building up his character and journey. The difficult part for me readjusting after the switch is mostly because of the amount of time I've spent as Arthur prior. Not only am I fond of the character and his personality in general but I usually spend hours improving his stats, unlocking things, exploring the world, hearing his voice etc. As soon as I'm in control of John I really feel some kind of void — I truly lost my character. Even if I like John and I do eventually get used to the new status quo after some time, John still isn't Arthur, and John isn't exactly as mature and as experienced in this game as he is in RDR1 compared to Arthur which is something I enjoy about the protagonists I play.

 

I wish R* had done something similar to RDR2's Epilogue for Jack in the first one. The switch feels even more egregious to me, especially if you've completed all the random encounters as John prior. Jack only gets to take his revenge on Ross and that's it, the game's done.

I personally loved the epilogue from start to finish, the sudden change in pace I agree is jarring at first but it's definitely intentional on Rockstar’s part.

I loved seeing beechers hope come together and john slowly becoming the man he is rdr1 even though in 1907 he's not quite there yet. 

 

I agree jack should've had more content in 1914, but I kinda like the fact that he's a almost a blank slate you can do whatever with. After revenge on ross I make my own little story by having him hideout in Mexico for a while committing robberies and other low honor acts, (mostly against lawmen because i feel like jack would have an irrational hatred of the law & government)  I eventually come back to America to pretend jack has some self reflection and decides to change and start helping people. 

[Silver]

1 hour ago, propanecocaine71 said:

I agree jack should've had more content in 1914, but I kinda like the fact that he's a almost a blank slate you can do whatever with. After revenge on ross I make my own little story by having him hideout in Mexico for a while committing robberies and other low honor acts, (mostly against lawmen because i feel like jack would have an irrational hatred of the law & government)  I eventually come back to America to pretend jack has some self reflection and decides to change and start helping people. 

On one hand it gives the player the ability to make up their own story about Jack which isn't a bad thing, Jack can become whatever the player wants him to be.

 

But on the other hand, I don't know. The lack of a Jack-specific storyline set before his revenge bugs me, especially after experiencing RDR2's more thorough epilogue. We only get to see the last moments of his revenge quest and nothing before that, how his life has been, what he's been up to before searching for Ross, if he's met people and made friends/enemies, what kind of a personality he has (judging by the way he shouts at his horse, he seems rather angry) — stuff that I personally would've liked to see just to make the epilogue feel a tad more complete and less jarring.