Red Dead Redemption 2: Discussion & Speculation (Part 2)

[J.Dillinger Blackheart]

27 minutes ago, SuperKitsune said:

I doubt it. Rdr2  will stay all 1899 if you ask me.

Yeah i agree, if the story does span several years it doesn't mean its just going to just follw the events of what we know from RDR. That isn't creative at all and if so, Rockstargames are indeed turning into a Ubish*t style game dev. I don't see why they need to have the story span years just for the sake of sh*t we already know? That's lame on the developers part and its not interesting for story value, its purely just filler. 

Edited July 12, 2018 by J.Dillinger Blackheart

[greenrock]

one of the previews said there are no native americans in this game?

[luke73tnt]

13 minutes ago, J.Dillinger Blackheart said:

Yeah i agree, if the story does span several years it doesn't mean its just going to just follw the events of what we know from RDR. That isn't creative at all and if so, Rockstargames are indeed turning into a Ubish*t style game dev. I don't see why they need to have the story span years just for the sake of sh*t we already know? That's lame on the developers part and its not interesting for story value, its purely just filler. 

[BretMaverick777]

8 minutes ago, greenrock said:

one of the previews said there are no native americans in this game?

Charles Smith is a native.  I think there's at least one more in the gang.  Several place names derive from Lakota, Apache, and Cherokee.  

 

Personally,  I'm betting on an all-out Native American DLC at a later date

14 minutes ago, J.Dillinger Blackheart said:

Yeah i agree, if the story does span several years it doesn't mean its just going to just follw the events of what we know from RDR. That isn't creative at all and if so, Rockstargames are indeed turning into a Ubish*t style game dev. I don't see why they need to have the story span years just for the sake of sh*t we already know? That's lame on the developers part and its not interesting for story value, its purely just filler. 

Knowing the ending doesn't mean knowing the story.  At all.  The journey from 1906 to 1911 is still a complete mystery, and full of possibilities

[J.Dillinger Blackheart]

6 minutes ago, greenrock said:

one of the previews said there are no native americans in this game?

I don't believe that whatsoever. You have to keep in mind people only seen a 45 min demo, they're not going to see everything the game has to offer. There has been a Native American/tribe/presence in every game. If there's a native American in the gang you can rest assure there will be more of them in some way shape or form.

[SuperKitsune]

1 minute ago, BretMaverick777 said:

Charles Smith is a native.  I think there's at least one more in the gang.  Several place names derive from Lakota, Apache, and Cherokee.  

 

Personally,  I'm betting on an all-out Native American DLC at a later date

Pretty sure Charlie will be an adopted native though. His name being the biggest indicator.

[Haggis Basher]

1 hour ago, Emmi said:

... if the game naturally transitions into a remastered RDR1 I'm losing my mind!

OK if they did that even if it was another purchase I would be all in on that I would also  as you put it "loos my mind"

[J.Dillinger Blackheart]

3 minutes ago, BretMaverick777 said:

Charles Smith is a native.  I think there's at least one more in the gang.  Several place names derive from Lakota, Apache, and Cherokee.  

 

Personally,  I'm betting on an all-out Native American DLC at a later date

Knowing the ending doesn't mean knowing the story.  At all.  The journey from 1906 to 1911 is still a complete mystery, and full of possibilities

Who tf wants a game so f*ckin predictable, you can see the ending coming miles away. The story isnt in 1906.. We know dutch gang falls apart, we know john gets shot in 1906, this is Arthur's story..adding filler story content of sh*t we already know from the first game isn't how you do a story. 

[vKing]

29 minutes ago, J.Dillinger Blackheart said:

Yeah i agree, if the story does span several years it doesn't mean its just going to just follw the events of what we know from RDR. That isn't creative at all and if so, Rockstargames are indeed turning into a Ubish*t style game dev. I don't see why they need to have the story span years just for the sake of sh*t we already know? That's lame on the developers part and its not interesting for story value, its purely just filler. 

They have to do it this way tbh if not we won't be able to see the change in the gang. No passage of time = unrealistic arcs for the characters. There is already evidence of this in the screenshots where for example Javier has longer hair and his clothes are raggedy, or where John seems younger in some screens and then older in others of them. If the game would only take place in 1899 that means we won't be able to see what happened on that ferry John gets shot on in 1906. I think the game will end after this point because this is Arthurs story, not Johns. John is still going to be a big part of the story though.

 

But i agree with you to a certain extent, if they are going to do the north yankton bs they did with GTAV it will be annoying, especially if you're going to replay the game. Also i hope there will be no flashbacks as that can confuse players, even though the story/script is good. I want a natural, cohesive and comprehensive story progression that is easy to follow. 

Edited July 12, 2018 by vKing

[SuperKitsune]

3 minutes ago, J.Dillinger Blackheart said:

Who tf wants a game so f*ckin predictable, you can see the ending coming miles away. The story isnt in 1906.. We know dutch gang falls apart, we know john gets shot in 1906, this is Arthur's story..adding filler story content of sh*t we already know from the first game isn't how you do a story. 

100% agreed with this

[Spitta_Vercetti]

28 minutes ago, greenrock said:

one of the previews said there are no native americans in this game?

That can’t be true because one of the members of the Van Der Lindes is a native...

[PhotomodePNG]

27 minutes ago, J.Dillinger Blackheart said:

Who tf wants a game so f*ckin predictable, you can see the ending coming miles away. The story isnt in 1906.. We know dutch gang falls apart, we know john gets shot in 1906, this is Arthur's story..adding filler story content of sh*t we already know from the first game isn't how you do a story. 

The story needs to find a balance. We indeed need to see the change in the gang but it is the story of Arthur. So I agree with the fact that it would be a dissapointment if the story is all about events we already know.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Morgan

[J.Dillinger Blackheart]

5 minutes ago, vKing said:

They have to do it this way tbh if not we won't be able to see the change in the gang. No passage of time = unrealistic arcs for the characters. There is already evidence of this in the screenshots where for example Javier has longer hair and his clothes are raggedy, or where John seems younger in some screens and then older in others of them. If the game would only take place in 1899 that means we won't be able to see what happened on that ferry John gets shot on in 1906. I think the game will end after this point because this is Arthurs story, not Johns. John is still going to be a big part of the story though.

 

But i agree with you to a certain extent, if they are going to do the north yankton bs they did with GTAV it will be annoying, especially if you're going to replay the game. Also i hope there will be no flashbacks as that can confuse players, even though the story/script is good. I want a natural, cohesive and comprehensive story progression that is easy to follow. 

Unrealistic? Thus is a f*ckin game man. Along with aging means the times have to as well right. That means towns and places will have to change, NPCS, everything. Aging, clothing, scars and everything doesn't mean that has to be from years progressing, could be the story progression as well and just how the story moves along as these guys are on the run. I dont want some Rl Stein childrens book story that has no depth to it whatsoever and i can piece together everything that is "suppose" to happen effortlessly just because john maraton is in the game. A story should be creative, it takes nothing to say lets show john get shot for the 5th f*ckin time just for filler content. Lets put the blackwater massacre here, add some missions in between and we are done. Why hire writers and sh*t if you can come up with a easy ass story while taking a sh*t? Then call the story great in the same breathe?..NAH

[PhotomodePNG]

25 minutes ago, J.Dillinger Blackheart said:

Unrealistic? Thus is a f*ckin game man.

Just a game?  After October 26, it will be my new life man haha lol

Edited July 12, 2018 by Morgan

[vKing]

2 minutes ago, J.Dillinger Blackheart said:

Unrealistic? Thus is a f*ckin game man. Along with aging means the times have to as well right. That means towns and places will have to change, NPCS, everything. Aging, clothing, scars and everything doesn't mean that has to be from years progressing, could be the story progression as well and just how the story moves along as these guys are on the run. I dont want some Rl Stein childrens book story that has no depth to it whatsoever and i can piece together everything that is "suppose" to happen effortlessly just because john maraton is in the game. A story should be creative, it takes nothing to say lets show john get shot for the 5th f*ckin time just for filler content. Lets put the blackwater massacre here, add some missions in between and we are done. Why hire writers and sh*t if you can come up with a easy ass story while taking a sh*t? Then call the story great in the same breathe?..NAH

Hmm no, not everything has to change due to passage of time. As R said they had to "tone things down" because a lot of the features they had originally was too realistic and made the game tedious. But I still think the game will have natural time progression wether it be tied to story progression or in-game days passed, especially since R has said that they are trying to make this game as realistic as possible without making it boring. No one is saying that the story should be that simple or straightforward, what i said was that it has to be understandable. No flashbacks or time-jumping bs. R obviously has over 1000 people working on this game so there will definitively be a handful of talented writers working on the story extensively. But if you don't like the story or where it's headed then that is fine, that is your opinion. But then this game might not be for you.

[J.Dillinger Blackheart]

21 minutes ago, vKing said:

Hmm no, not everything has to change due to passage of time. As R said they had to "tone things down" because a lot of the features they had originally was too realistic and made the game tedious. But I still think the game will have natural time progression wether it be tied to story progression or in-game days passed, especially since R has said that they are trying to make this game as realistic as possible without making it boring. No one is saying that the story should be that simple or straightforward, what i said was that it has to be understandable. No flashbacks or time-jumping bs. R obviously has over 1000 people working on this game so there will definitively be a handful of talented writers working on the story extensively. But if you don't like the story or where it's headed then that is fine, that is your opinion. But then this game might not be for you.

Because i dont like the story the game isnt for me? LMFAO OK.. i didn't like Rdr story and i loved the game. You are ASSUMING the story goes the way you want it too chances ate it won't so dont act like you know where the story is going. you can miss me with that sh*t. Time jumping is going to have to happen ,what you think we going to have a f*ckin in game calendar ? Cmon man..A understandable story can be compelling as well.  realistic doesnt mean days of the week, this isnt a real life simulator. Time jumps will have to happen if we let you tell it, because

no way in f*ckin hell are we going from 1899 to 1906 or whenever going by a calendar or something lol. 

[pjw]

There's an inevitable element of predictability with prequels. You're always going to know many of the character arc destinations before hand, and are bound to have a general idea of the ending and the direction the story is heading in. What matters is whether or not the journey that leads to the destination is compelling. As long as that's the case, I'll be happy. Plus, there are lots of characters other than John, Dutch, Bill, and Javier whose fate we can't predict: plenty of room for surprises I think.  

Edited July 12, 2018 by pjw

[BretMaverick777]

1 hour ago, SuperKitsune said:

Pretty sure Charlie will be an adopted native though. His name being the biggest indicator.

Not "adopted"...."civilized."  In that era, natives were stripped of culture, tradition, language and names.  "Charles Smith" is a slave name, inflicted on him on the rez.  He'll probably revert back to his real identity when he joins/rejoins Dutch. 

1 hour ago, J.Dillinger Blackheart said:

Who tf wants a game so f*ckin predictable, you can see the ending coming miles away. The story isnt in 1906.. We know dutch gang falls apart, we know john gets shot in 1906, this is Arthur's story..adding filler story content of sh*t we already know from the first game isn't how you do a story. 

Actually...

This is Dutch's story. 

Just like RDR1.

We're just viewing it through the eyes of the men who bring about his downfall.  

 

The story isn't the ending.  It never was.  It's the journey. 

1 hour ago, J.Dillinger Blackheart said:

Unrealistic? Thus is a f*ckin game man. Along with aging means the times have to as well right. That means towns and places will have to change, NPCS, everything. Aging, clothing, scars and everything doesn't mean that has to be from years progressing, could be the story progression as well and just how the story moves along as these guys are on the run. I dont want some Rl Stein childrens book story that has no depth to it whatsoever and i can piece together everything that is "suppose" to happen effortlessly just because john maraton is in the game. A story should be creative, it takes nothing to say lets show john get shot for the 5th f*ckin time just for filler content. Lets put the blackwater massacre here, add some missions in between and we are done. Why hire writers and sh*t if you can come up with a easy ass story while taking a sh*t? Then call the story great in the same breathe?..NAH

Who tf ages that much in 7 years?  

 

We're talking a short span within a decade, not generational change, ffs

 

 

[Spider-Vice]

5 hours ago, Emmi said:

So GTA Online news incoming in 30 minutes ... I'm 100% sure!

Should've told you to bet your account

[Zello]

At least he didn't bring up his sources again.

 

 

Emmi has changed. I still wonder who his source is

[Big_Smiley]

1 hour ago, Morgan said:

Just a game?  After October 26, it will be my new life man haha lol

YAAAASSS

[PayneKiller75]

 

16 minutes ago, Spider-Vice said:

Should've told you to bet your account

Lol! Was going to say the same 

[Domand]

If the game doesn't span from 1899 to 1906, and just stays in 1899 then I wonder if there is a possibility that if they make another Rdr game, it will show the whole 1906 story as well. Unless thats too repetitive after this game or might not be interesting enough to players.

[TheSantader25]

39 minutes ago, Domand said:

If the game doesn't span from 1899 to 1906, and just stays in 1899 then I wonder if there is a possibility that if they make another Rdr game, it will show the whole 1906 story as well. Unless thats too repetitive after this game or might not be interesting enough to players.

I think they should stick to Arthur's story in RDR2 and release a DLC later to explain things about RDR.in that way everyone would be happy. 

[PhotomodePNG]

6 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

I think they should stick to Arthur's story in RDR2 and release a DLC later to explain things about RDR.in that way everyone would be happy. 

This would be so cool!

[luke73tnt]

50 minutes ago, Domand said:

If the game doesn't span from 1899 to 1906, and just stays in 1899 then I wonder if there is a possibility that if they make another Rdr game, it will show the whole 1906 story as well. Unless thats too repetitive after this game or might not be interesting enough to players.

I have no doubt that this game will span across a few years

[Cutter De Blanc]

Why has John knocked out Pearson, the cook!? I wonder if John will end up being one of the primary antagonists

[Auditore]

3 hours ago, Emmi said:

You are true ... I know it will never happen and I'm somewhat glad that R* isn't the kind of developer doing remasters of their old games. I rather want them to switch focus to their next projects ... I want them to announce Bully 2 next year!

After the main story you take control of John and you play all of RDR1's main missions without the filler missions.That's the only way i could see this happening.

[someonesleeping]

3 minutes ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

Why has John knocked out Pearson, the cook!? I wonder if John will end up being one of the primary antagonists

Is that Pearson the cook!?!?!?!

[Cutter De Blanc]

I thought we'd all but firmly established the big bear looking guy was Pearson. He's one of Dutch's gang at any rate, and John appears to have cold cocked him