Did Marston Lie?

[Cuzzzin]

There are three things that we currently believe to be true about Red Dead Redemption 2... 

 

1) The gang had some involvement in The Blackwater Massacre or will witness the Blackwater Massacre at some point in the story

 

2) The gang will explore New Austin at some point in the story

 

3) John Martson does not leave the gang until 1906

 

So the question becomes, how can all of these things be true when John claims that the gang never made it down to New Austin until the events of the original game or when there is no sign of him having connections to the Blackwater Massacre? 

 

It is likely that the game will make it clear that Marston was just not involved in the Blackwater Massacre or that New Austin is not visited in the story mode by the gang, but just free to visit by Author.

 

But I want to propose something else: What if Martson actively lied in the original game? In context, a lot of his comments are going to essentially be bullsh*t in retrospect. His Robin Hood like description of the gang's actions are probably not going to hold up to the closer examination we'll receive during RDR2. The interactions with The Stranger show that John had a selective memory about the gang. 

 

So, is it possible that his comment that he and the gang did not visit New Austin maybe finessing the truth? Could it be possible that the new game will recontextualize Martson's comments about not having come this far south to avoid the fact that maybe John and the gang actually did take part in some unsavory activities in Bonnie's backyard. 

 

Even if we say that the game ends with the gang splintering and the bulk of New Austin activities being done by former Van der Linde members, it at best makes John's comments disingenuous. If Arthur and company were screwing around in the South, we could assume that John or Dutch would probably catch wind of it. Saying that the gang never made it down there is at best a lie by omission. 

 

I think that the likely conclusion we're going to have to come to is that Marston may not have actually been a reliable playable character. That the sequel might offer that the character we played as was being dishonest to the other characters and us the audience.

 

 

[Im2akillerfish]

It's possible that John never went there and assumes no-one did either, and a man trying to leave his past behind him probably wouldn't go around telling people "BTW, I was part of the Blackwater massacre where civilians died."

 

That said, I could see John lying to some extent. His go-to rection to annoyance seems to be "threaten with violent murder" and as Jack makes clear, John isn't exactly a model dad. Yet his worst moments tend to get downplayed by people. Don't get me wrong, I find John pretty likeable but at times I think "Woah, this guy is an asshole" even when I play as a good guy. 

[Captain_Jalapeno]

Great points OP. Seems like there will be no way around retconing to some degree. We'll just have to see how obvious it is, and how forgivable it is, because if they undo too much, its going to make the combined grand epic a joke and a stain on their writing prowess, making people once again question the decision to revisit this gang as opposed to just a new original western epic game. 

[BretMaverick777]

Some really great stories have been told by unreliable narrators.  John Marston may well fit into that category.

[Jabalous]

Why would he lie? There doesn't seem to be a benefit, or the inverse of benefit, for lying. He was clearly new to the area when he needed Jake to lead him through the road to Fort Mercer. He also appears to be not having knowledge about Tumbleweed during the first mission with Marshal Leigh Johnson. New Austin is intentionally being kept off screen because it involves certain story developments. It's likely to be inaccessible until a later time. 

[The Jungz]

I'm personally just wondering where were they all these years before the Blackwater massacre. They can't just have been hanging around the West Elisabeth area seen in RDR1 can they? Did they come from the Redemption Mountains?

[BretMaverick777]

10 minutes ago, Jabalous said:

Why would he lie? There doesn't seem to be a benefit, or the inverse of benefit, for lying. He was clearly new to the area when he needed Jake to lead him through the road to Fort Mercer. He also appears to be not having knowledge about Tumbleweed during the first mission with Marshal Leigh Johnson. New Austin is intentionally being kept off screen because it involves certain story developments. It's likely to be inaccessible until a later time. 

He had lots of reasons to lie.  To protect Jack and Abigail; to protect himself; hell, even to protect Dutch.  

[Haha365]

3 hours ago, Im2akillerfish said:

It's possible that John never went there and assumes no-one did either, and a man trying to leave his past behind him probably wouldn't go around telling people "BTW, I was part of the Blackwater massacre where civilians died."

This is what i think.  I mean i don't necessarily think they always keep tabs on each other. Part of their creed is freedom after all.

[Original Light]

Has it legitimately been confirmed that New Austin is an accessible area appearing in the game by R*?

 

I've only seen West Elizabeth being confirmed as a returning location (but if anyone can provide me with a reference, I'd be interested). 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Original Light

[Cuzzzin]

39 minutes ago, Original Light said:

Has it legitimately been confirmed that New Austin is an accessible area appearing in the game by R*?

 

I've only seen West Elizabeth being confirmed as a returning location (but if anyone can provide me with a reference, I'd be interested). 

There was this train puzzle in which the official product description lists New Austin

 

I believe it's also been buried in one of the most recent previews. 

[primethief147]

So ive been thinking about this alot and made a post on the reddit which got...mixed reactions. Without getting into potential spoilers it involves the gang going into new austin without john.

[CurieOlsson]

42 minutes ago, MatthewIRL said:

 

-'m fuzzy on everything John originally said about the gang, but if I recall correctly, the feds had hunted down and killed many of the original Vanderlinde gang before the events of RDR. Based on this, and based on how I think it would be best for the story to unfold, I suspect that by the end of the first act, something will happen to cause in-fighting.

 

The gang might then splinter--or at least ditch Marston during the botched robbery--midway through the second act, and the third act will involve either the dire consequences of the inevitable Massacre (which is likely to be the climax), or desperate circumstances snowballing into the Massacre or both.

 

Either way, with a second-act gang split, it seems reasonable to suppose that the remaining core gang will then make it to New Austin, not unlike John's second-act entry into Mexico. Of course, this all supposes that John "remembered" his story right.

 

I take it that Arthur will die in the end, either at hands of Dutch (upon losing his mind), Marston (in defense of his and his family's lives), or the Feds (in their post-Massacre hunt for the outlaws).

This ideia really looks promising, taking in consideration that the game might have actual passage of time, this can explain it all with no big issues. Marston was left (maybe around mid-game), the gang was hunted in the RDR2 region, Javier and Dutch made their way into central/south america, Bill stayed put in New Austin with some men and ended up joining local criminals to form his own gang, taking the reigns now that Dutch was out touristing somewhere. BUT, he still kept in contact with the former gang, as he and Javier ended up working together with the mexican army. And let's not forget that Dutch went all the way to Colombia after being hunted only go back to West Elizabeth without anyone noticing. Almost as if he left a web of former comrades to come back to. And all of that without Marston knowing. There is also a gap between 1906-1911, and that could be anyone's guess.
This is the most wildest, baseless speculation i have ever come to think of and actually write, but is the only way i see New Austin coming back.

[BretMaverick777]

2 hours ago, MatthewIRL said:

 

I'm fuzzy on everything John originally said about the gang, but if I recall correctly, the feds had hunted down and killed many of the original Vanderlinde gang before the events of RDR. Based on this, and based on how I think it would be best for the story to unfold, I suspect that by the end of the first act, something will happen to cause in-fighting.

 

The gang might then splinter--or at least ditch Marston during the botched robbery--midway through the second act, and the third act will involve either the dire consequences of the inevitable Massacre (which is likely to be the climax), or desperate circumstances snowballing into the Massacre or both.

 

Either way, with a second-act gang split, it seems reasonable to suppose that the remaining core gang will then make it to New Austin, not unlike John's second-act entry into Mexico. Of course, this all supposes that John "remembered" his story right.

 

I take it that Arthur will die in the end, either at hands of Dutch (upon losing his mind) or the Feds (in their post-Massacre hunt for the outlaws).

I agree with a lot of this, but I think you're misunderstanding the Blackwater Massacre.  That's the OPENING of the game, not the climax.  

[Cutter De Blanc]

I can't believe Dutch managed to botch two robberies in West Elizabeth

first the one at the intro then the one where John gets shot

Maybe they go back to try to get the money from the first job
 

[BretMaverick777]

17 minutes ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

I can't believe Dutch managed to botch two robberies in West Elizabeth

first the one at the intro then the one where John gets shot

Maybe they go back to try to get the money from the first job
 

Yeah, sounds like it's a full circle deal.  Second time around is in 1906, and John is left for dead, and Dutch presumed to die in a fire.  

[Cutter De Blanc]

Well, when he f*cks it up, he sure don't go small does he!?

First time: Leaves the whole take behind
Second time: Apparently dies in a fire

[Onholidayinmyhead]

1 hour ago, BretMaverick777 said:

I agree with a lot of this, but I think you're misunderstanding the Blackwater Massacre.  That's the OPENING of the game, not the climax.  

That was my understanding too. That the massacre prompts them to run to the Grizzlies. 

[BretMaverick777]

7 hours ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

Well, when he f*cks it up, he sure don't go small does he!?

First time: Leaves the whole take behind
Second time: Apparently dies in a fire

I'm thinking he did better when he was just knocking off liquor stores and gas stations

[LeonVegaSuarez]

I don't think it would be a retcon if some of the things John said in RDR1 are untrue or he was holding a lot of things back. I think it could be easily explained by John being almost ashamed of some of the things he did and really trying everything to leave that life behind.

[Original Light]

I think there's a possibility that the main story wont go into the New Austin territory, but Arthur will be able to roam it alone and complete miscellaneous side quests, explore certain hunting grounds, some challenges, and maybe gang hideouts. It definitely wouldn't be barren of things to do, but it potentially wouldn't have any main story missions set there.

 

The best example from another R* game I can find is Shoreside Vale in Grand Theft Auto 3. Only one story mission took place there, which was the final mission. It was a large piece of land, and was pretty much unused - it only had a few side missions (from the Payphone at that), emergency vehicle missions, the car collection garage, and that's it. 

It would definitely be interesting to explore New Austin. Seeing how things changed in 12 years would be fascinating, especially for people who played through the original Red Dead Redemption recently. Some settlements (such as MacFarlane's Ranch) may not even exist, or be a lot smaller. Tumbleweed may not be abandoned, but rather a thriving town. 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Original Light

[MarlboroMan1995]

Wonder if John knows anything about cold MacFarlane, who, died of a “gunshot to the head” in 1899.. buried at coots chapel.  

[Gunboat138]

The explanation is simpler than people are making it out to be.  

 

It's one of 3 things,

1. Dutch sends Arthur on a secret mission to new Austin, he's exiled, something to that effect, whatever, they're gonna get it right.  Although I do think they'll make Marston come off as a total sh*thead in this game, I don't think he lied about the gang never going to New Austin

 

2. No main story missions in New Austin.  Remember, there are the gunfighter cards, legendary animals, region specific game, etc that could just be part of the the open world.  With GTA V, they broke a lot of the things "they'll never do"(killing off meth head Johnny comes to mind) so we need to expect anything.  I feel like they get off on going off the beaten path, so anything is possible really.

 

3. There is no New Austin.  If not, oh well.  The evidence points twords yes, but they may have made a new desert, we'll only truly know in 27 days.  

[eastriver]

Here's the thing:

When RDR's script was written, Rockstar's writers didn't write up John Marston's lines with the assumption that he was lying. You think a writer came up said "John Marston has to lie here otherwise the story we're going to write years later won't make sense" No! As far as Rockstar's writers were concerned, Marston was being fully truthful.

Now that a prequel is being developed, it would be impractical to write a story for the prequel if none of the lines in the first game can conflict with the second game without seriously hurting the creativity of the script. Some of the lines in the first game are going to conflict with the second game's plot and some of the lines in the second game are going to conflict with the first game's plot. As far as Rockstar and the fans are concerned, those conflicts can simply be explained away with.

John Marston misspoke

John Marston was lying
John Marston was not remembering correctly
etc etc etc 

Rockstar is not like HBO, they're scripts are not airtight from errors like HBO's shows are lol.

Edited September 29, 2018 by IG_

[Im2akillerfish]

Hmm, One of Bonnie's brothers died in 1899 from a gunshot wound... maybe he died in the massacre, and John actually has seen Bonnie before? Maybe she was with her brother when he died?

 

Marston was likely wearing a mask, so Bonnie doesn't remember/recognize him, but Marston remembers seeing Bonnie mourning her brother's body. In worst case scenario, John killed the guy himself. John recognizes her when they meet, and doesn't tell her everything so she won't realize which gang John was part of. 

Edited September 29, 2018 by Im2akillerfish

[Len Lfc]

On 9/23/2018 at 8:02 PM, Cuzzzin said:

2) The gang will explore New Austin at some point in the story

Arthur could travel there, of his own business. Doesn't mean the whole gang did. There's always an explanation, in hindsight when you're looking back knowing everything, it seems so obvious.

[Rusty James]

9 hours ago, IG_ said:

Here's the thing:

When RDR's script was written, Rockstar's writers didn't write up John Marston's lines with the assumption that he was lying. You think a writer came up said "John Marston has to lie here otherwise the story we're going to write years later won't make sense" No! As far as Rockstar's writers were concerned, Marston was being fully truthful.

Now that a prequel is being developed, it would be impractical to write a story for the prequel if none of the lines in the first game can conflict with the second game without seriously hurting the creativity of the script. Some of the lines in the first game are going to conflict with the second game's plot and some of the lines in the second game are going to conflict with the first game's plot. As far as Rockstar and the fans are concerned, those conflicts can simply be explained away with.

John Marston misspoke

John Marston was lying
John Marston was not remembering correctly
etc etc etc 

Rockstar is not like HBO, they're scripts are not airtight from errors like HBO's shows are lol.

In RDR you simply had the perspective of Marston on the events of his life and the role he played in them. What is "truth" is a tricky subject, because people are biased and tend to shape their memories to fit a narrative that they like. If in RDR2 we learn that John was an unreliable narrator and that he was lying about some things, that is not lazy writing, in fact it's a fictional device used in many books and movies that are considered masterpieces.

[eastriver]

4 hours ago, Rusty James said:

In RDR you simply had the perspective of Marston on the events of his life and the role he played in them. What is "truth" is a tricky subject, because people are biased and tend to shape their memories to fit a narrative that they like. If in RDR2 we learn that John was an unreliable narrator and that he was lying about some things, that is not lazy writing, in fact it's a fictional device used in many books and movies that are considered masterpieces.

I'm not saying Rockstar are lazy writers, but writing the story of a video game is different from writing the story of a movie or TV show.

 

Rockstar themselves did not write RDR's script while also planning for the prequel's story that would come eight years later. It would have been impossible for Rockstar to create Marston as a character that is an unreliable narrator for the sake of explaining how the gang would end up in NA in RDR2-- because Rockstar had zero ideas or plans for RDR2's story when RDR1 was being developed. We know this interviews when Rockstar's writers talk about how they liked the story of Red Dead Redemption so much after the game finished development they immediately convinced Rockstar management to begin writing the story of a Dutch's gang (aka RDR2).

 

This isn't like a TV show where writers can write the script for season one but also plan how the script for season one will work into season two.

[Kilax]

Maybe Arthur was in Williamson's gang in New Austin after Dutch's gang fell apart. You know as John stated, when they all were in Dutch's gang no one was in New Austin, yet Bill found himself a place there after they fell apart. It seems pretty unlikely, but hey just another wild thought.

Also in promotional description it states that Arthur will have to choose between the gang that raised him or his own ideals which means we could get multiple endings like in GTA V, maybe depending on your choices or honor you aqcuired troughout the game.

[Jabalous]

I believe that R* will remain faithful to Redemption and follow what John said that the gang didn't visit New Austin (NA). However, and as some members have suggested, we might see the gang, or Dutch in particular, asking Arthur to venture into these unknown, dusty and lawless territories of NA to do some favors. Maybe they have connections there for things like weapons? Anyway, I personally believe that NA will be inaccessible due to destroyed roads and rails, much like Mexico in Redemption, until a certain point in the story when the gang collapses, then Williamson, and probably others, will seek NA for a hideout. John won't be part of that group.

Edited September 29, 2018 by Jabalous

[wagszilla]

1. Yes. Same year. 1899.
   • Blackwater Massacre in 1899 =/= Botched Robbery that ended the gang in 1906.
2. New Austin? Simple. John didn't go there.
   • Maybe Arthur doesn't even go there and it's RDO only. See point #5 below.
3. Yes. I don't remember the exact lines but John kind of paints the picture that it was a slow decline of the gang. Some left, some stayed, and then Dutch went big time crazy in 1906 likely because he was fully backed up against the wall and the law was on his ass.

Some thoughts:

1. It is mentioned that a lot of Dutch's gang consisted of Native Americans. Charles Smith is obviously a Native American. I bring him up for the obvious comparison but it also might hint that he's a badass of the gang. He shows his utility to the gang, Dutch maybe gets the idea of taking up common cause with the Natives from there moving forward. Trust loyal dogs instead of... Arthur types maybe? Or unreliable Irish traitors maybe?
2. I bring up Charles Smith for another reason. He teaches Arthur how to hunt. Besides being a glorified tutorial, this means that he and Arthur likely do not know one another. This suggests the gang, at least this iteration, is fairly new.
3. In the 2nd trailer Hosea Matthews starts a story of "How I met Dutch". While I think this is actually just a campfire story slapped into the trailer, it's possible that very few members of the gang know one another. They all know Dutch. So in 1899, we're really seeing the gang take it's place in infamy. Dutch is going for broke. Swinging for the fences. Back to the 2nd point. Arthur knows Dutch but it remains to be seen who else Arthur knows. 
4. I don't think the game will skip through time too much but it is possible. "Are you comin'... Buddy?" Dutch is breaking Arthur out of prison but comments suggest that Arthur was a "senior member" of Dutch's gang. Maybe this is Arthur and Dutch becoming reacquainted with one another after a long absence. The young boy in Trailer #2 "in black" could be John, that would be the biggest retcon considering age descriptions of John when his dad died in RDR, but possible. 
5. Speaking of John, John's ranch in Beecher's Hope is like two klicks from Blackwater. This suggests to me that John was not involved in the Blackwater Massacre, either. Seems a little too close to the hangman's noose to me. 
6. Speaking of John again, Dutch said "you always had a high opinion of yourself" and from the previews it's suggested that John isn't well liked. Maybe the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Abagail was always deprecating of John but having to "save the poor bastard's life", etc. means that these incidents were more frequent than you would like. Which gives us two options. Either John wasn't around during the Blackwater Massacre / early days of Dutch's gang and the gang has need of a new gun, enter John. Or John was sidelined either because his unpredictable nature or because his unpredictable nature had already landed him and/or the gang into trouble.
7. A final note about John. I get a sort of "aww shucks" quality about him. I don't think he has the intelligence to be a master manipulator which is why he's uncomfortable talking to Bonnie about his past. He probably matured a lot after leaving Dutch's gang. Dutch's last words are more profound than John has the intellectual capacity to grasp. He shrugs it off. Because he's a dunce.
   • The intelligent stuff in RDR were done by Irish (funny because he's an anarchic drunk) and the wise old man Landon Ricketts, who I think in not so many words, calls John stupid to his face. 
   • To put an even finer point on it: this is the guy that went to Fort Mercer and told Bill to come out and got gutshot because of it. Not exactly a Rhodes Scholar, this one. 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by wagszilla