Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Journey_95

[RDR2 Spoilers] What would you change about Red Dead Redemption's story in hindsight?

Recommended Posts

Journey_95

They likely didn't plan to make such a fantastic prequel to RDR. If you could go back and change the story of RDR1 now, what would you do differently? I think Arthur should matter more, it's weird that he is never mentioned (for the characters, we know it's because he didn't exist back then).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
feckyerlife
32 minutes ago, Journey_95 said:

They likely didn't plan to make such a fantastic prequel to RDR. If you could go back and change the story of RDR1 now, what would you do differently? I think Arthur should matter more, it's weird that he is never mentioned (for the characters, we know it's because he didn't exist back then).

That's why i am hoping we are getting a Remake of RDR1 for a DLC.. Too many new characters added without knowing what happens to them. Based on the first game you think the gang is mainly just Dutch,Uncle, Javier, bill, John and a couple other peons. But after playing this game you found out its much much more, that its really one giant big dysfunctional family.  John had a good relation with a lot of these guys, which makes RDR1 feel a bit hollow when it comes to the rest of the gang and him acting like the only ones he dealt with were those 4..  I havent finished RDR2 yet so im not sure how the story will grow ( i am in the middle/end of chapter 3). But as of right now i barely see any relationship with John and Bill like i do with john and javier. but when and going back looking at RDR1, with john chasing down javier makes some sense, but  the role Bill played feels like it would've been better suited for MIcah.

Edited by feckyerlife

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThroatSlasher2

I'd bring the journal back. I think it presents a whole new side to the protagonist we don't normally see in-game or during cutscenes. We have access to his inner thoughts and worries, which is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cutter De Blanc

I'd just like for Arthur to be able to explore the entire map

 

I clearly didn't understand the question 

Edited by Cutter De Blanc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason

John and other characters talking more about the gang and the other characters, not just Arthur but the girls too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DexMacLeod

I think the story still works just fine as it is. I don't think shoehorning references to RDR2 characters would really make sense. It certainly wouldn't impact the story much.

 

I guess if I changed anything it would just be to make it more clear that John wasn't recruited to hunt down every last living member of the gang, just the notorious, still active ones in the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The1raven

I would have much preferred a new story to the prequel, to be honest.  As soon as I realized it was Dutch and his gang, I was turned off.  I had a great deal of difficulty swallowing the fact that I was working for him.

 

I really liked John Marston in RDR1.  I think much less of him now.

 

I usually prolong the ending of a game, but I found myself just wanting this story to be over.  But hey, that's just me.  Sounds like most people really like working for Dutch.  Why, I don't know.  But I don't have to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gray-Hand

Arthur and the other gang members weren’t working for Dutch, they were working with Dutch and each other.

Edited by Gray-Hand
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Marston1911
1 hour ago, ThroatSlasher2 said:

I'd bring the journal back. I think it presents a whole new side to the protagonist we don't normally see in-game or during cutscenes. We have access to his inner thoughts and worries, which is great.

Spoiler

I thought it was sad the way it ended with Arthur and Mary, especially at the credits scene.

 

Maybe if John or someone had given her Arthur's journal at that point, she could have accepted the situation better.

Spoiler

Edited by Marston1911

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
silly_nate

The 1906 failed robbery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The1raven
4 minutes ago, Gray-Hand said:

Arthur and the other gang members weren’t working for Dutch, they were working with Dutch and each other.

Mmm, if that's what you want to tell yourself.  A whole lot of things were specifically pointed out to be "because Dutch said so" 

 

But honestly working WITH Dutch is even less attractive.  And working WITH Micah less attractive than that.

 

Yeah, changing the preposition doesn't make feel any better about it.  But thanks for trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gray-Hand

Nah.  Players on a football team do something “because the captain said so.”  

It doesn’t mean that they work for, or even play for the captain.  They play with the captain.

Dutch is the leader, and the most influential member, but he is just like any other member in that he is a servant of the gang (in fact, that is probably his main purpose in life).  The gang does not exist to serve him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
woggleman

RDR 1 is great as it is. Don't try and retroactively change a masterpiece because the sequel or prequel in this case is also a masterpiece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The1raven
4 minutes ago, Gray-Hand said:

Nah.  Players on a football team do something “because the captain said so.”  

It doesn’t mean that they work for, or even play for the captain.  They play with the captain.

Dutch is the leader, and the most influential member, but he is just like any other member in that he is a servant of the gang (in fact, that is probably his main purpose in life).  The gang does not exist to serve him.

You must have gotten a different version of the game than I. 

 

Because my Dutch not only constantly behaved like the King, but anytime someone did something not sanctioned by him, he said, "You betrayed ME!?"  Not "US".  Or at the very least got really pi$$y about it.

 

He consistently abandoned his "teammates" because he was unwilling to risk himself for anyone else.

 

If you think Dutch was a team player, I feel sorry you, because you've obviously never experienced a true team.  I mean toward the end, even many of the gang members were FINALLY realizing and pointing out that Dutch was only out for himself.

 

I mean it's great that you and so many others are so enamored with the story.  I honestly wish was.  Not that it wasn't good story telling and voice acting.  They did a great job of bringing a lot negative emotion to my surface.

 

But Dutch a team player?  Uh-uh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gray-Hand

Yeah, that’s what the whole story (and particularly Dutch’s character arc) is about - how Dutch went from being a good man and leader to a selfish villain and how the gang fell apart as a result.

The selfishness and paranoia only started to come through in the later stages of the game. Up until at least chapter 4, his primary concern is the welfare of the gang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The1raven
1 hour ago, Gray-Hand said:

Yeah, that’s what the whole story (and particularly Dutch’s character arc) is about - how Dutch went from being a good man and leader to a selfish villain and how the gang fell apart as a result.

The selfishness and paranoia only started to come through in the later stages of the game. Up until at least chapter 4, his primary concern is the welfare of the gang.

Actually that's just when some members of the gang started to notice.  It was there right from the start.  Maybe not so out in the open.  But definitely there.  Of course, I admit, I'm hypersensitive to Dutch's kind.  That's why I'm not bashing the story telling.  R* and Dutch's voice actor really conveyed the subtleties of his personality very well.

 

He was never a good man.  Just better at pretending to be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oldsport
9 hours ago, Gray-Hand said:

Arthur and the other gang members weren’t working for Dutch, they were working with Dutch and each other.

they are def working for dutch not with him. thats why hes always telling them to keep faith in him and asks whos with me and whos against me. i think thats obvious because dutch also doesnt contribute to the money box and when ur upgrading the camp, the ledger says something like "dutch wants a bigger tent".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AddamHusayin

Not really something I'd change about RDR1 but RDR2 regarding Agent Milton. I feel like he was kind of waste. Milton should have been a little more involved and killed by Ross instead. Why? In my opinion it would add to the fact that Ross is really only in it for the fame and glory of hunting down outlaws rather than for the good of the people. It would've been his dirty little secret and make him even scummier by just using Milton and stealing all the credit for hunting down Dutch's gang in 1899. I mean in 1911 he couldn't find the remaining gang members himself so he blackmailed a former gang member to do all the work for him, took all the credit, and betrayed him at that.

 

In RDR1 after a mission involving finding Dutch in Tall Trees. Ross says to John, "You know you'll probably get a medal for this. I know I shall". I just think it would have expanded on to his character who is clawing his way up to the top of food chain and will step on anyone to get to where he wants but here Milton was just his boss and we don't really get much interaction between them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oldsport

nah i dont think ross was that dirty. i dont think hed do something like that to a brother in blue who he came up under. to a scummy criminal like john, yeah but not his partner who most likely taught him the ropes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AddamHusayin
22 minutes ago, Oldsport said:

nah i dont think ross was that dirty. i dont think hed do something like that to a brother in blue who he came up under. to a scummy criminal like john, yeah but not his partner who most likely taught him the ropes

Maybe not going so far as to personally kill Milton but somehow undermine him or cause him to somehow get killed. For some reason I just thought there would be far more depth to Milton but he's pretty much just obligatory new Pinkerton character who just dies with little to no impact. He could've just shown up right there at the end for the first time. His only purpose is really to tell Arthur that Micah was the rat. Why he tells him this and in the manner that he does so is a little too convenient. I guess what I'm saying is it could've been executed better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jabalous
12 hours ago, silly_nate said:

The 1906 failed robbery

Was it actually said that it happened in 1906? We know the original Dutch gang disbanded in 1899, or say early 1900, but I remember from Redemption that the 1906 event was when Dutch thought to have been killed in a botched robbery, according to newspapers, but no indication that it was with his original gang. Either this, or there's actually a writing conflict. 

2 hours ago, AddamHusayin said:

Maybe not going so far as to personally kill Milton but somehow undermine him or cause him to somehow get killed. For some reason I just thought there would be far more depth to Milton but he's pretty much just obligatory new Pinkerton character who just dies with little to no impact. He could've just shown up right there at the end for the first time. His only purpose is really to tell Arthur that Micah was the rat. Why he tells him this and in the manner that he does so is a little too convenient. I guess what I'm saying is it could've been executed better. 

They're officials and lawmen, cold and disciplined. That's how Ross and Milton look and feel in both games. There is no need to create more drama about them. 

Edited by Jabalous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AddamHusayin
8 hours ago, Jabalous said:

Was it actually said that it happened in 1906? We know the original Dutch gang disbanded in 1899, or say early 1900, but I remember from Redemption that the 1906 event was when Dutch thought to have been killed in a botched robbery, according to newspapers, but no indication that it was with his original gang. Either this, or there's actually a writing conflict. 

They're officials and lawmen, cold and disciplined. That's how Ross and Milton look and feel in both games. There is no need to create more drama about them. 

You call kidnapping John's family even if he was an outlaw, blackmailing him, sending the army to attack his homestead which was surely illegal, disciplined? That's just cold like you said and spiteful since he betrayed John. I don't think people realize how low Ross went to find the former gang mates by blackmailing John into doing it for him because he couldn't find them himself. It's one thing to interrogate him about it but he definitely crossed the line there.

 

Are people just fine with how boring Milton is in RDR2? I expected a little more depth here but it's not that big a deal. I feel we could've done without him and the story wouldn't be much different as it is. I guess I'm just a tad bit disappointed in how it turned out regarding Milton.

 

I've been reading about the 1906 robbery and it appears that we all just assumed it was the same one that left John for dead so my bad. The reason is because a newspaper says it was believed that Dutch died in a fire during the robbery and hadn't been seen since and before RDR2 we all just assumed that was the same one John got left behind in because that was all we had to go on. If this is correct then technically rockstar didn't retcon it.

Edited by AddamHusayin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MatthewIRL
23 hours ago, Journey_95 said:

They likely didn't plan to make such a fantastic prequel to RDR. If you could go back and change the story of RDR1 now, what would you do differently? I think Arthur should matter more, it's weird that he is never mentioned (for the characters, we know it's because he didn't exist back then).

-Mentions of Sadie. Maybe an appearance. Even of one of the other gals.

 

-Mentions of Arthur.

 

-Either a different representation of Javier that's faithful to RDR2, or a re-work of Javier in RDR2 that's faitful to RDR. In RDR, he seems like some stereotypical asshole, but in RDR2, he was super chill. His only mistake was that he remained loyal to Dutch.

 

-Marston having more reverence for his gang. Up until his final moments IN the gang, Marston carried on about loyalty. The only ones who technically turned on him were Dutch and Micah. Javier and Bill went along with it in their last moments together only because of loyalty, but they never willingly turned on John at any point before that.

 

It's ironic, then, that John when was made to go after Bill and Javier in the first place, he didn't seem to question it, and they didn't seem to have much brotherly feelings toward him either. Especially with Javier, who was the one to convince Arthur to go up into the mountains to look for John. I feel like Rockstar dropped the ball in this area--they didn't make me dislike Javier and Bill enough to feel like hunting them down in RDR was justified. Sure, Bill was always a brainless ass, but there wasn't anything I outright disliked about him RDR2. I would even say his dumb-dog loyalty was endearing to some extent.

Edited by MatthewIRL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThroatSlasher2
12 hours ago, AddamHusayin said:

Not really something I'd change about RDR1 but RDR2 regarding Agent Milton. I feel like he was kind of waste. Milton should have been a little more involved and killed by Ross instead. Why? In my opinion it would add to the fact that Ross is really only in it for the fame and glory of hunting down outlaws rather than for the good of the people. It would've been his dirty little secret and make him even scummier by just using Milton and stealing all the credit for hunting down Dutch's gang in 1899. I mean in 1911 he couldn't find the remaining gang members himself so he blackmailed a former gang member to do all the work for him, took all the credit, and betrayed him at that.

 

In RDR1 after a mission involving finding Dutch in Tall Trees. Ross says to John, "You know you'll probably get a medal for this. I know I shall". I just think it would have expanded on to his character who is clawing his way up to the top of food chain and will step on anyone to get to where he wants but here Milton was just his boss and we don't really get much interaction between them.

I think this is brilliant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MatthewIRL
12 hours ago, AddamHusayin said:

Maybe not going so far as to personally kill Milton but somehow undermine him or cause him to somehow get killed. For some reason I just thought there would be far more depth to Milton but he's pretty much just obligatory new Pinkerton character who just dies with little to no impact. He could've just shown up right there at the end for the first time. His only purpose is really to tell Arthur that Micah was the rat. Why he tells him this and in the manner that he does so is a little too convenient. I guess what I'm saying is it could've been executed better. 

I'm not quite syre why you think there wasn't enough development considering that their interactions should have been as limited as they were with the gang currently on the run from them. Milton appears at SEVERAL points, and each time, he makes it quite clear that he's ruthless, intimidating, and far from generic. Cornering Arthur while fishing with Jack? Contronting the gang in Clemens Point? Killing Hosea in cold blood? Trying to gun them down at their most vulnerable in Lagras?

 

I guess that's not enough for some people to consider him as a developed villain. I'm not saying that he couldn't have been given more scree  time and more development (he could've), but considering that he more screen time than a lot of classic side villains have gotten, it was enough for me.

 

As far as Ross killing Milton, I just don't see it. Ross was always a d-bag, but he wasn't that kind of d-bag. He thought he was above outlaws, and that they were less than human, but I doubt he was as cold toward his "law-abiding" partners. And remember, at the time of RDR2, there wasn't much of a ladder to climb. He was a Pinkerton, not a fed. And although Pinkertons had a lot of free reign under their contracts in that time, they were under close scrutiny by the government at the time--to the extent that there were laws against Pinkertons also being government officials to avoid abuse of power.

 

By the time Ross became a BOI agent, he had already been hardened and chilled by the death of his partner at the hands of a gang far more persistent and ruthless than he had already seen up to that point. It's safe to say that when he became a BOI, that's when he had access to more power than he ever would have had as a Pinkerton, and the true extent of his cruelty set in because he became hellbent on using that power to destroy the gang that bested him and his partner.

Edited by MatthewIRL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Changing the story? Nah, but I wouldn’t have killed off Arthur this way. Tough guy who gets killed by a disease instead of taking a bullet like a man in another situation, or die of old age after you’ve completed the game 100%, is more honorful than kicking the disease can. 

Giving the player who has completed the story and epilogues (without the normal pre-endgame missions) and then play as Arthur to complete it 100%, then get a cinematic of Arthur dying at old age, in his bed at his ranch would do him much more honor. 

And when the player so wishes, he can continue roaming the lands as Arthur but a few years back in time. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MatthewIRL
18 minutes ago, McGhee said:

Changing the story? Nah, but I wouldn’t have killed off Arthur this way. Tough guy who gets killed by a disease instead of taking a bullet like a man in another situation, or die of old age after you’ve completed the game 100%, is more honorful than kicking the disease can. 

Giving the player who has completed the story and epilogues (without the normal pre-endgame missions) and then play as Arthur to complete it 100%, then get a cinematic of Arthur dying at old age, in his bed at his ranch would do him much more honor. 

And when the player so wishes, he can continue roaming the lands as Arthur but a few years back in time. 

 

He didn't merely die of the disease. He was *dying*, yes, but he died because he got pushed too far physically to fight the disease any longer--especially after that fight with Micah. Most healthy people would be critically wounded in a fight like that. The fact that Arthur held up as long as he did after back-to-back days of intense running and gunning is a testament to how hard he truly was.

 

He would've taken the bullet, and that was his plan up on that rock helping Marston escape--to go out fighting. Which, regardless, he did do.

 

Or if you were dishonorable, Micah does shoot Arthur in the head.

 

What you want is kind of an overdone cliché, even for a game that's based on a heavily clichéd genre. I appreciated that they switched up. TB back in the day was nothing to f*ck around with. Not even today, but now we have vaccines. TB is historically, THE most deadly infectious disease, and it has killed a billion people over the last 200 years. And to put it in more relevant context, it still killed more Native Americans in that time period than small.pox did after the American Government gave them contaminated blankets.

 

The idea that even the toughest could succumb is based in cold, hard reality, and I liked that part of the story a lot. Especially because it's presented as this both a consequence of his former bad ways, and last chance opportunity for atonement. And it's a fitting parallel to the unstoppable progress of civilzation that Dutch and the gang had been fighting against in their later years.

Edited by MatthewIRL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AddamHusayin
31 minutes ago, MatthewIRL said:

I'm not quite syre why you think there wasn't enough development considering that their interactions should have been as limited as they were with the gang currently on the run from them. Milton appears at SEVERAL points, and each time, he makes it quite clear that he's ruthless, intimidating, and far from generic. Cornering Arthur while fishing with Jack? Contronting the gang in Clemens Point? Killing Hosea in cold blood? Trying to gun them down at their most vulnerable in Lagras?

 

I guess that's not enough for some people to consider him as a developed villain. I'm not saying that he couldn't have been given more scree  time and more development (he could've), but considering that he more screen time than a lot of classic side villains have gotten, it was enough for me.

 

As far as Ross killing Milton, I just don't see it. Ross was always a d-bag, but he wasn't that kind of d-bag. He thought he was above outlaws, and that they were less than human, but I doubt he was as cold toward his "law-abiding" partners. And remember, at the time of RDR2, there wasn't much of a ladder to climb. He was a Pinkerton, not a fed. And although Pinkertons had a lot of free reign under their contracts in that time, they were under close scrutiny by the government at the time--to the extent that there were laws against Pinkertons also being government officials to avoid abuse of power.

 

By the time Ross became a BOI agent, he had already been hardened and chilled by the death of his partner at the hands of a gang far more persistent and ruthless than he had already seen up to that point. It's safe to say that when he became a BOI, that's when he had access to more power than he ever would have had as a Pinkerton, and the true extent of his cruelty set in because he became hellbent on using that power to destroy the gang that bested him and his partner.

Why should they have been limited in screen time? He's absolutely generic. Anyone can be a coldblooded person who kills others. It's like the difference between Heath Ledger's Joker and Jared Lehto's Joker. Ledger had kniving, intimidating, smart, had a plan and got the city to turn against batman and turned gotham's white knight into just another criminal like he planned. Lehto's Joker just hisses and laughs maniacally. Joker isn't just some crazy guy for the sake of it at least not when he's well written.

 

Compare Ross with Milton. He's just very by the numbers compared to Ross. John Marston and Ross even talk about a speech he just gave about flowers and going too far when shooting a man in the head. Marston doesn't understand and questions why Ross on why he thought it was noble to kidnaps a man's wife and son? Ross just responds that there are exceptions and contradictions. He's just a hypocrite obviously. I agree with your last part about being hellbent on power though. Later on I kind of just said that it wouldn't be him actually killing Milton but just undermining him to take credit for all his work which he so does like to do. I mean shooting Dutch's already dead body because it looks better in the report is noteworthy.

14 minutes ago, MatthewIRL said:

He didn't die of the disease. He was *dying*, yes, but he died because he got pushed too far physically to fight the disease any longer--especially after that fight with Micah. Most people would be critically wounded in a fight like that. The fact that Arthur held up as long as he did after back-to-back days of hard running and gunning is a testament to how hard he was. Or if you were dishonorable, Micah does shoot Arthur in the head.

 

What you want is kind of an overdone cliché, even for a game that's based on a heavily clichéd genre. I appreciated that they switched up. TB back in the day was nothing to f*ck around with. The idea that even the toughest could succumb is based in cold, hard reality, and I liked that a lot. And it's a fitting parallel to the unstoppable progress of civilzation that Dutch and the gang had been fighting against in their later years.

I always thought that a quote in RDR1 could've actually hinted at Arthur surviving. While in an automobile with Ross and Archer, John barks at them, "First it was Williamson, then Escuella, now Dutch, next it'll be someone else. When's it going to end!?" I mean obviously they didn't write it beforehand but I mean other more active gang members survived like Charles and Sadie even though they were lesser known and appear to have escaped. I always though that quote hinted Arthur may have lived but I am satisfied with how it turned out for him.

Edited by AddamHusayin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
49 minutes ago, MatthewIRL said:

He didn't merely die of the disease. He was *dying*, yes, but he died because he got pushed too far physically to fight the disease any longer--especially after that fight with Micah. Most healthy people would be critically wounded in a fight like that. The fact that Arthur held up as long as he did after back-to-back days of intense running and gunning is a testament to how hard he truly was.

 

He would've taken the bullet, and that was his plan up on that rock helping Marston escape--to go out fighting. Which, regardless, he did do.

 

Or if you were dishonorable, Micah does shoot Arthur in the head.

 

What you want is kind of an overdone cliché, even for a game that's based on a heavily clichéd genre. I appreciated that they switched up. TB back in the day was nothing to f*ck around with. Not even today, but now we have vaccines. TB is historically, THE most deadly infectious disease, and it has killed a billion people over the last 200 years. And to put it in more relevant context, it still killed more Native Americans in that time period than small.pox did after the American Government gave them contaminated blankets.

 

The idea that even the toughest could succumb is based in cold, hard reality, and I liked that part of the story a lot. Especially because it's presented as this both a consequence of his former bad ways, and last chance opportunity for atonement. And it's a fitting parallel to the unstoppable progress of civilzation that Dutch and the gang had been fighting against in their later years.

Last thing I know is someone asking how I’d change the story on hindsight. Next thing I know is a knowitall lecturing me on my thoughts. Sorry, partner, I didn’t sign up for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MatthewIRL
6 hours ago, McGhee said:

Last thing I know is someone asking how I’d change the story on hindsight. Next thing I know is a knowitall lecturing me on my thoughts. Sorry, partner, I didn’t sign up for that.

Relax, friend. Nobody was lecturing you. I was offering a different opinion on the matter, and out of respect to your intelligence, I provided what I thought was a succinct explanation of why I didn't agree with your way of looking at it. There's nothing wrong with disagreement.

 

This is an opinion thread, no? We do encourage healthy discussion, and by extension, healthy disagreement, do we not? There is no need to get worked up or call people names.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.