The End: 1906 or 1911?

[BretMaverick777]

Has Rockstar confirmed whether RDR2 will end in 1906, or 1911?   Or even some other year? 

 

Most of the speculation I've seen so far reasons that it will end in 1906 with the breakup of the gang.   But there's still plenty of ground to cover between then and RDR1's start in 1911, and I haven't been able to pin down any official word yet.   There's so much story left to explore in the aftermath of the gang's downfall, and almost all of it would require an expansion of the map into the one we're familiar with from RDR1.   And if that's the case, it leads me to believe that the big secret they're still trying to keep under wraps is that we WILL return to the RDR1 map in full.  Maybe as a DLC campaign, or maybe it unlocks at the "end" of RDR2.  

[dkunit]

I think a cool way to end the story would be to end right before the first one started. Don't know it would work, but the final shot would be John getting on the same river boat he got off of at the beginning of the first game.

[Cutter De Blanc]

They've said the story takes place in 1899. Everything else is speculation based on the previews.

[HEATHBARR420]

In my opinion there is no way the game can take place only in 1899 because it wouldn’t be a good prequel then, it wouldn’t tell the story proper as John left the gnag in 1906. I believe the game will take place through multiple years, probably ending in 1906 leaving us to fill in the blanks of the specifics, Of what happened 1906-1911, but one would assume John just stayed working on the ranch until the G men came knocking? 

[BretMaverick777]

22 minutes ago, HEATHBARR420 said:

In my opinion there is no way the game can take place only in 1899 because it wouldn’t be a good prequel then, it wouldn’t tell the story proper as John left the gnag in 1906. I believe the game will take place through multiple years, probably ending in 1906 leaving us to fill in the blanks of the specifics, Of what happened 1906-1911, but one would assume John just stayed working on the ranch until the G men came knocking? 

John's story might or might not be boring farm life down at Beecher's Hope from 1906-1911, but the throughlines that get Dutch to Cochinay, Bill to Ft. Mercer, and Javier to Mexico are probably a lot livelier and bloodier.  In particular, I'd like to know how a bunch of Apache ended up in the frozen north, and what they could have possibly been thinking in trusting a man like Dutch as their leader.

[HEATHBARR420]

Well, I think you talked about that in one of the other topics and I agree so, if the game continues into 1911, John is just gone, and we continue to follow Arthur? Bc after 1906 john doesn’t want to have anything to do with the gang, will John just leave the story in 1906 and we catch back up with him in a 1911 epilogue? What is your theory on how it will play out? 

[DustlnTheWind]

This is one of the most interesting things about this game; What happens to Arthur Morgan, a character who was not mentioned in RDR.  Arthur Morgan dying feels too easy and a copy of RDR so I'm excited to see how it plays out.

[Dick Justice]

This game is going to be so boring if all we see are the things we already know about. We don’t need to see John being shot on the ferry robbery in 1906 because we already know that happens. This is the story of the outlaw Arthur Morgan.

 

It’s not a prequel, “it’s a companion piece.” - Rob Nelson. 

 

I hope this game starts and ends in 1899.

Edited July 9, 2018 by Dick Justice

[jamesos]

Well considering the story is supposed to be about the fall of the gang (from what we've seen so far), I have a theory that the game will end with John getting shot on the ferry and Arthur dying on it. As to whether or not the game will continue with you playing as John, or if its perma death I don't know. I'd personally rather have it be perma death, because I feel it would be really gimmicky and predictable if Rockstar had you continue the game as John. I feel like its gonna be similar to the ending of Mafia 2, only with the main protagonist dying.

[BretMaverick777]

7 hours ago, Dick Justice said:

This game is going to be so boring if all we see are the things we already know about. We don’t need to see John being shot on the ferry robbery in 1906 because we already know that happens. This is the story of the outlaw Arthur Morgan.

 

It’s not a prequel, “it’s a companion piece.” - Rob Nelson. 

 

I hope this game starts and ends in 1899.

That's just it:  we DON'T know how it happens.  Or where. Or why John's supposed death would break up the whole gang.  

 

We only know *when.*

11 hours ago, HEATHBARR420 said:

Well, I think you talked about that in one of the other topics and I agree so, if the game continues into 1911, John is just gone, and we continue to follow Arthur? Bc after 1906 john doesn’t want to have anything to do with the gang, will John just leave the story in 1906 and we catch back up with him in a 1911 epilogue? What is your theory on how it will play out? 

Personally, I think there'll be not just one epilogue -- play John Marston at the ranch thru 1911 -- but 4.  Play as Dutch all the way to the Apaches in Cochinay, Bill raiding in New Austin, Javier hiring out his gun to Col. Allende in Mexico.  

 

At the VERY least, I believe both John and Dutch each will have an epilogue. Maybe Bill and Javier aren't important enough; but the very existence of a port of Beecher's Hope AND Cochinay to the RDR2 map plainly indicates that story will be told. 

[DexMacLeod]

Seems pretty unlikely that they would confirm anything about the end of the game before the game even releases but they've given a lot of hints that time will pass and if the story really is about the fall of the gang it seems it would have to until at least 1906.

 

Like Dick Justice said I think that could be pretty boring. It'd make the game essentially an adaptation of the stories we heard throughout the first game. I'd kinda rather they only spend maybe a third of the game on that and then make it about Arthur starting his own gang.

[SneakyDeaky]

My own half-hearted prediction:

Arthur is the first one of the gang to get out (alive). He realizes "This is all pretty much done" after a series of crazy robberies, a war with a rival gang and after months of being on the run from bounty hunters. My guess is Dutch slowly raises the stakes more and more as he tries to regain control over his destiny and I think there will be a spy in the gang, or potentially a old gang member will be hunting the gang, like The Wild Bunch, which will make Dutch more and more paranoid and even more determined to protect his ideology. 

His stubbornness will lead to bad decisions and conflict between him and Arthur. John Martson says in RDR 1 at one point "Then he went and killed a bunch of people unfair like." This probably happened closer to 1906, or I have to accept that John stayed with Dutch for years even though he knew it was wrong. I think it takes John a long time to realize how crazy Dutch has got while Arthur, who is much closer to Dutch, comes to this revelation a lot earlier than anyone else.

As BretMavarick777 has said a couple of times, I like the idea that Dutch was born into a wealthy family but became a black sheep. He's clearly educated; plays chess, listens to opera, and he even teaches some of the members of the gang how to read and write. I think when he was young he made a mistake and brought shame on his family. Or perhaps his family were corrupt and he became disillusioned, IDK, but he started to despise the bourgeois and the privileged and this fuels his resolve. I think some of the crazy robberies you do in the game will involve robbing the rich (to give to the poor .i.e. the gang) and it's the bourgeois and the train companies they own that hire the bounty hunters that are chasing the gang. Perhaps even an old family member, a cousin, or an uncle, will be out for his blood in this situation.

 

But the whole thing won't be about money, it will be about Dutch's fire, his passion, the same passion that is slowly destroying his real family, his gang.  My guess is a civil war of sorts breaks out between members who are tired of all this and the members who will continue to blindly follow Dutch into hell. Morgan splits away from the gang with a few members, those who want to just go into hiding, but Dutch's side will track them down leading to a showdown of sorts where a lot of the gang dies and Morgan just tries his best to escape. Perhaps he is killed, perhaps he gets away and lives a quiet life on a ranch in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps we switch to John after that.

If the leak is right, I guess we DO switch to John and I think it will be around 1900, 1901, I don't think the game will jump any further than that. I think the reason why we switch and why we don't jump too far forward in time is because you will have a lot of gang hideouts, trains, houses, banks that you can rob solo, and it makes no sense for Arthur to participate in those activities if hes dead of course or if he went into hiding. It also makes no sense for a reformed John Martson to be doing those things, so it won't be set after 1906. But hey you could still rob and kill who you wanted in the first game and it is still a game so I guess anything can happen.

[BretMaverick777]

2 hours ago, SneakyDeaky said:

My own half-hearted prediction:

Arthur is the first one of the gang to get out (alive). He realizes "This is all pretty much done" after a series of crazy robberies, a war with a rival gang and after months of being on the run from bounty hunters. My guess is Dutch slowly raises the stakes more and more as he tries to regain control over his destiny and I think there will be a spy in the gang, or potentially a old gang member will be hunting the gang, like The Wild Bunch, which will make Dutch more and more paranoid and even more determined to protect his ideology. 

His stubbornness will lead to bad decisions and conflict between him and Arthur. John Martson says in RDR 1 at one point "Then he went and killed a bunch of people unfair like." This probably happened closer to 1906, or I have to accept that John stayed with Dutch for years even though he knew it was wrong. I think it takes John a long time to realize how crazy Dutch has got while Arthur, who is much closer to Dutch, comes to this revelation a lot earlier than anyone else.

As BretMavarick777 has said a couple of times, I like the idea that Dutch was born into a wealthy family but became a black sheep. He's clearly educated; plays chess, listens to opera, and he even teaches some of the members of the gang how to read and write. I think when he was young he made a mistake and brought shame on his family. Or perhaps his family were corrupt and he became disillusioned, IDK, but he started to despise the bourgeois and the privileged and this fuels his resolve. I think some of the crazy robberies you do in the game will involve robbing the rich (to give to the poor .i.e. the gang) and it's the bourgeois and the train companies they own that hire the bounty hunters that are chasing the gang. Perhaps even an old family member, a cousin, or an uncle, will be out for his blood in this situation.

 

But the whole thing won't be about money, it will be about Dutch's fire, his passion, the same passion that is slowly destroying his real family, his gang.  My guess is a civil war of sorts breaks out between members who are tired of all this and the members who will continue to blindly follow Dutch into hell. Morgan splits away from the gang with a few members, those who want to just go into hiding, but Dutch's side will track them down leading to a showdown of sorts where a lot of the gang dies and Morgan just tries his best to escape. Perhaps he is killed, perhaps he gets away and lives a quiet life on a ranch in the middle of nowhere. Perhaps we switch to John after that.

If the leak is right, I guess we DO switch to John and I think it will be around 1900, 1901, I don't think the game will jump any further than that. I think the reason why we switch and why we don't jump too far forward in time is because you will have a lot of gang hideouts, trains, houses, banks that you can rob solo, and it makes no sense for Arthur to participate in those activities if hes dead of course or if he went into hiding. It also makes no sense for a reformed John Martson to be doing those things, so it won't be set after 1906. But hey you could still rob and kill who you wanted in the first game and it is still a game so I guess anything can happen.

Couldn't have said it better myself. 

 

Here's a random thought:  it might be the WOMEN in the gang who cause the breakup.  I don't think there's much question that Abigail is the one who talks John into going straight -- the outlaw trail is no life for a family.  I suspect she might even be the "spy" you mention -- cuts a deal with Edgar Ross to provide evidence for prosecution and maybe fake John's death to get him into a type of witness protection program in Beecher's Hope. The Marston story would essentially parallel Michael De Santa in GTA5. 

 

Plus, Sadie.  The trailers show her instilling doubt in Morgan at every turn.  Dunno if she would turn full snitch like Abigail, but she's probably the conscience Arthur needs to get out from under Dutch's spell. 

[Cutter De Blanc]

Dutch strikes me as a man who will hide behind his principles to excuse his misdeeds. If presented the option though, I will be staying loyal to Dutch.

[SneakyDeaky]

10 hours ago, BretMaverick777 said:

Couldn't have said it better myself. 

 

Here's a random thought:  it might be the WOMEN in the gang who cause the breakup.  I don't think there's much question that Abigail is the one who talks John into going straight -- the outlaw trail is no life for a family.  I suspect she might even be the "spy" you mention -- cuts a deal with Edgar Ross to provide evidence for prosecution and maybe fake John's death to get him into a type of witness protection program in Beecher's Hope. The Marston story would essentially parallel Michael De Santa in GTA5. 

 

Plus, Sadie.  The trailers show her instilling doubt in Morgan at every turn.  Dunno if she would turn full snitch like Abigail, but she's probably the conscience Arthur needs to get out from under Dutch's spell. 

An interesting idea about it being a woman, as I've been wondering who this woman is in the third trailer:

http://oi64.tinypic.com/msp4cg.jpg

For some reason it is not showing the pic even thought I use tinypic to embed pictures all the time, so whatever

She is clearly important enough to be in the trailer yet she wasn't mentioned in the previews. Does Arthur have a wife hidden away? Hows that going to work when he spends his life with a gang? There are pictures of him at a ranch looking quite pedestrian, too.

Edited July 10, 2018 by SneakyDeaky
For some reason it is not showing the pic even though I use tinypic to embed pictures all the time, so whatever here's a link http://oi64.tinypic.com/msp4cg.jpg

[BretMaverick777]

2 hours ago, SneakyDeaky said:

An interesting idea about it being a woman, as I've been wondering who this woman is in the third trailer:

http://oi64.tinypic.com/msp4cg.jpg

For some reason it is not showing the pic even thought I use tinypic to embed pictures all the time, so whatever

She is clearly important enough to be in the trailer yet she wasn't mentioned in the previews. Does Arthur have a wife hidden away? Hows that going to work when he spends his life with a gang? There are pictures of him at a ranch looking quite pedestrian, too.

The pic shows up fine on my feed. 

 

I'm positive that's Abigail talking John Marston into leaving the gang. 

[in the bag]

1 hour ago, BretMaverick777 said:

The pic shows up fine on my feed. 

 

I'm positive that's Abigail talking John Marston into leaving the gang. 

That was my first thought when I saw that clip too. The voice is definitely similar. We haven't seen enough to know for sure who she is though.

 

If true, time wasn't very nice to Abigail in the period following up to 1911 lol... 

[Cutter De Blanc]

Different girl. Different nose. Different mouth. Different eyes, different brow, no mole ect. ect.

Edited July 11, 2018 by Cutter De Blanc

[PhotomodePNG]

I don't like the idea of jumping trough time within the story. This breaks down the experience in my opinion. it will nevertheless be inevitable in this story?

 

Also, if we jump in trough time, the characters and world should change/age too?

Edited July 11, 2018 by Morgan

[BretMaverick777]

12 hours ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

Different girl. Different nose. Different mouth. Different eyes, different brow, no mole ect. ect.

12 years later. 

And 8 years' difference in graphics engines.   Hell, RDR2 John Marston looks a damn sight better than his RDR1 counterpart too. 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Morgan said:

I don't like the idea of jumping trough time within the story. This breaks down the experience in my opinion. it will nevertheless be inevitable in this story?

 

Also, if we jump in trough time, the characters and world should change/age too?

We're not talking about a major advance in time.  If RDR2 covers 1899-1906, that's only 7 years....not a whole lot of noticeable change.  And even if it goes all the way to 1911, that's, again 12 years.   A few older characters would start graying; Jack Marston would age from a pre-pubescent boy to a teenager; but otherwise, there's just not going to be any major changes in about a decade.   Even the important advances in technology -- telephones, automobiles, motion pictures -- are still little more than a novelty and a luxury in both the RDR2 era and RDR1. Especially on the frontier.   It will still be the Wild West.  

[Cutter De Blanc]

1 hour ago, BretMaverick777 said:

12 years later. 

And 8 years' difference in graphics engines.   Hell, RDR2 John Marston looks a damn sight better than his RDR1 counterpart too. 

 

But he still looks like John Marston. Other than the woman being a brunette, and having a similar shaped face, this woman doesn't look like Abigail.

[grope_4_that_date]

On 7/8/2018 at 11:33 AM, dkunit said:

I think a cool way to end the story would be to end right before the first one started. Don't know it would work, but the final shot would be John getting on the same river boat he got off of at the beginning of the first game.

 

Great idea.  This would have my vote, as it creates a tie in between both games and encourages players to buy / replay RDR1.

[BretMaverick777]

30 minutes ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

But he still looks like John Marston. Other than the woman being a brunette, and having a similar shaped face, this woman doesn't look like Abigail.

Well...I don't know.

There's differences, I agree, and similarities too.  Her lines seem perfect if it IS Abigail and they're directed at John, because the dialogue would be about talking him out of the gang.   Who else would it be?  An old flame of Dutch?  Dutch seems pretty square with Karen as his main squeeze instead of this random hottie....and we KNOW he's not EVER going straight (outlaws to the end).   An ex of Arthur?  Possibly.   But that would be too similar a storyline to John Marston's. And Sadie's clearly his gal pal.   Why can't it just be a better looking, better rendered Abigail, maybe with a new mocap and voice actress?

 

I mean, I'm not gonna go 100% on this....it's probable Abigail is already out of the gang.  Doesn't seem to be anyone in the camps or hideouts in the Rockstar trailers who looks like her; and at this point in the story (1899), with a 5-year old kid, it's highly unlikely either John or Dutch would let her bring a child along for the ride.  So it would make sense that she's in a safehouse somewhere with little Jack, and she tries to talk John into leaving the gang the few times he's able to visit.  

 

 

[Cutter De Blanc]

maybe it's Abigail's sister or something

the nose is a real sticking point for me, Abigail has a flatter rounder nose than this woman

Her eyes too, Abigail doesn't have such deep eye sockets

and I mean the real kicker is that Abigail has blue eyes and this woman has brown eyes