[Speculation Topic] Why Arthur is not mentioned in RDR1?

[ThroatSlasher2 2,068]

Because John Was Only After The Ones Who Went Crazy And Left Him For Dead. My speculation is that when John Is shot, Arthur Tried to save him but he couldn't somehow. Then he left the gang because of how Dutch and Others Went Crazy And Uncontrollable.

John was after the ones that were stupid enough to not stay hidden. He was only after Williamson at the beginning but once the trails of Escuella and Dutch got considerably warmer, that's when he was tasked with eliminating them. If Arthur is still alive by RDR1, the only reason he's not being hunted down is because he's done a good job remaining hidden, because I'm pretty sure Marston would not hesitate a second to gun him down if it meant saving his family.

[Cutter De Blanc 13,138]

I dunno, I think it just comes down to the really obvious answer of "because John, Bill, Javier, Edgar and Dutch didn't mention him."

and

"Because he hadn't been created yet"

[pjw 1,148]

Said it in General but I'll post it again here-

 

Well John does vaguely allude to other gang members in RDR. While talking to Ross, he says something like: "First it was Bill, then Javier, now Dutch. Then who?" Or something like that. To me that says that other gang members are still alive, but not a priority (or not as well known to the public) for John to track them down. Keep in mind that Bill, Javier, and Dutch were all in a close proximity to each other. Ross only cared about wiping out the members that could effect Nate Johns candidacy, so he would not send John off to track down some low level gang member who might have fled to the other side of the country. Not all the new gang members need to die in RDR II[/size]

By far the best theory I have seen. Rockstar probably deliberately left the history of Dutchs gang and the fate of its members ambiguous, knowing full well there was potential for a prequel. Given that they supposedly started working on RDR2 - in some capacity - immediately after RDR was released, they probably had plans for a prequel a long time ago. Edited May 22, 2018 by pjw

[Spitta_Vercetti 1,386]

More than half the characters in RDR 2 wasnt mentioned in the first one so I wouldnt read too deep into that narrative....

[LeonVegaSuarez 1,405]

You guys are overanalyzing this sh*t so much......

 

The simple answer is that when RDR1 came out the developers had not even thought once about Arthurt Morgan. They wrote the prequel story later.

[IAmArthur 0]

I do not think they created Arthur after Rdr since the game was developed 8 years ago, in 2010 the same date that Rdr came out, Rockstar already had the idea to continue with this saga

[Spitta_Vercetti 1,386]

You guys are overanalyzing this sh*t so much......

 

The simple answer is that when RDR1 came out the developers had not even thought once about Arthurt Morgan. They wrote the prequel story later.

I think its more about people trying to over analyze the possible ending to Arthurs story.....

[Synthetic_Soul 1,892]

It's not over analyzing at all.

 

It's just fun trying to come up with theories as to why John never mentions Arthur.

 

Of course we all know it's because he probably hadn't been created yet.

 

It's more of an imagination exercise to come up with possible lore and backstory as to why, seeing as how they were close friends in cannon regardless.

 

It's fun to think of "well why didn't John ever mention Arthur to ANYONE in passing?" That doesn't have to do with him dying. Even in death you sometimes mention friends in passing conversations.

[Dick Justice 2,463]

John was clandestine about his past throughout the entire game. During the entire first act, he only ever talks about Bill Williamson when probed by Bonnie or the Marshall. He doesnt mention Javier at all until he realizes that Bill had run off to Mexico. Whenever he talks about Dutch, he doesnt mention him by name, only referring to him as Our Leader, until much later on when Dutch is a part of the story.

 

These examples were all characters that feature prominently in Red Dead Redemption. So, with that knowledge, why would John talk about Arthur - alive or dead - when he barely even talks about the men hes actually chasing? Obviously Arthur hadnt been written yet, but John also had no reason to talk about him regardless of this.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Dick Justice

[1898 1,547]

​You guys are overanalyzing this sh*t so much......

 

The simple answer is that when RDR1 came out the developers had not even thought once about Arthurt Morgan. They wrote the prequel story later.

 

That's pretty much it right there.

 

He's now part of the RDR storyline but he didn't exist 10 years ago.

 

Mystery solved.

 

Edit: Utterly worthless post for failing to study the entire thread.

 

Ignore.

Edited May 23, 2018 by 1898

[Gray-Hand 684]

The OP acknowledged in the very first post in the thread that the reason that Arthur wasnt mentioned in RDR1 was because he hadnt been created when RDR1 was written. The whole point of the thread is just a mental exercise.