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. Diamond Casino & Resort
      2. DLC
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    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

Sign in to follow this  
Implicitly

Massive Thread: New Austin content? Blackwater? Who was Arthur's second love interest?

Recommended Posts

Implicitly

So, this post is going to be all over the place, but I'm curious regarding several things one being who was his second love interest, the second being the idea of the game narrative originally different to the story we have now, like where does New Austin come into all of this.

 

Anyways, awhile ago during an interview with Vulture, Dan Houser said this; 


 

Quote

The acting for Red Dead Redemption 2’s story mode is now complete, but as release day approaches, five hours of the 65-hour game are dumped. At one point, protagonist Arthur Morgan had two love interests, but “we decided one of them didn’t work,” says Dan. And whole missions were removed because “they were never going to work technically or be quite slick enough, or they felt superfluous. We removed a mission on a train where you had to deal with bounty hunters, because it was fun at first, but then it wasn’t. This part of the process is always about compromise and horse trading. Everyone always loses bits of the game they love.”

 

His commentary leaves me confused. He mentions whole missions were removed so it's obvious he's referring to Arthur's second love interest having whole missions with Arthur but then he makes a comment about a mission on the train dealing with bounty hunters. I can't tell if he's stating Arthur and his love interest deal with bounty hunters on a train, or he's just talking about a mission completely unrelated to Arthur's love interest. If he's referring to Arthur taking over a train that's bounty hunter flooded, it seems to me that is directly pointing to Sadie considering the fact that Sadie states in the current game how she wants to come robbing, and she's the only female who actually has whole missions with Arthur other than Mary.

 

Now there's one thing about Sadie that's interesting, it never made sense how her character out of the blue became best friends with Arthur to the point where they're closer friends than anyone else. Judging old teasers it seems like Sadie was way more relevant to the story until things were scrapped. There's even this photo of her with a bandanna riding with the gang that never even happens with Charles original design: https://imgur.com/a/McDcZJV - in the first official Gameplay footage, you can see Sadie riding with the gang through Blackwater. https://streamable.com/sibkb - Hosea is also there and there is the "WANTED" mechanic on the right side if you look at the mini-map the gang is being followed by law which you can see by the red followed by Micah and his boys. The only one missing from there is Lenny and Sean. They clearly were raiding something but this was evidently cut. There's also this where Sadie marches through Valentine with Arthur, Bill, Javier and Sean https://streamable.com/jclbx - this could've been the Rhodes scene though to avoid spoilers but Sadie is seen in these clothes around Sean in one of the original trailers but in the actual game Sadie never wears those clothes when Sean was alive. This main photo of Sadie that was teased is also taken in the Saint Denis saloon with her yellow shirt, proving she was probably a bigger part of the plot until it all got scrapped: http://reddead.wikia.com/wiki/File:Sadie_Adler.jpg

 

Now unrelated to Sadie/second love interest, it's discovered that Arthur was meant to go to New Austin. Here are some clips showcasing his scripted dialog:

  • https://streamable.com/7lnhw - Talking to a drunk man.
  • https://streamable.com/7lnhw - Arthur stating "this place is a living hell." He doesn't say this anywhere else in the game, so this is unique dialog.
  • He has scripted dialog in Tumbleweed, he orders the roast beef and Chili in NA which is only unique to NA proving he was also meant to go there. 
  • Animals unique only to NA can be drawn in full detail by Arthur and studied with his own handwriting along with points of interests and the dinosaur bone mission was originally recorded for Arthur to finish.
  • There is also this photo of the gang in 

 

The leaked map shows that NA wasn't apart of the plans either (Adler ranch was also located completely somewhere else and Hanging Dog Ranch was clearly suppose to be used as a camp btw):

9vw28pxl88321.jpg?width=1024&auto=webp&s

 

 

So since the map shows us NA wasn't there to begin with, where does New Austin fit in the story then? Was Arthur suppose to live in the end? (Originally I assumed he was, but from what the leaker spilled years before the announcement of RD2 we already told we swap to John and his life, so I assume Arthur was always meant to die?) But this doesn't explain why he has recorded dialog in NA unique to only Arthur, how would this all fit considering NA was never in the original plans?

 

The map also shows us multiple camp locations which were intended to be used. The leaker from years back told us there was a rat in the gang from day 1 which forced the group on the run and the main bit is constantly needing to change camps. So it's evident a big narrative of the story was absolutely changed.

 

Unrelated to New Austin. Blackwater is also teased:

 

  • Arthur breaks a horse in Blackwater: https://streamable.com/5wqc8
  • Arthur and man (this happens in current game) speak in Blackwater. Arthur even has a carcass on the back of his horse which is more proof that Arthur was meant to be in BW: https://streamable.com/1r2z5
  • The gang is riding through Blackwater: https://streamable.com/sibkb - Hosea and Sadie are apart of the chase same with Micah and his boys. The wanted mechanic/mini-map is proof this was cut content.
  • In the teaser you see the gang once again riding through the plains, Charles clothes design and hair is completely different: https://imgur.com/a/RWJNaG6

 

So where does Blackwater fit into all of this? You can absolutely tell this isn't them trying to trick people to avoid spoilers because the breaking the horse mechanic isn't a spoiler yet Arthur is doing in BW, same with the random event encounter, why would they even show that in Blackwater when that isn't even a spoiler?

 

So my question's are:

 

  • Was Sadie Arthur's second love interest and was missions with Sadie about 5-hours worth the original that got scrapped?
  • Was Arthur meant to go to Blackwater and New Austin judging by the valid proof? But what point in the story were they going to?
  • Was Arthur actually going to live in the end? (The issue is, the leaker who was right about everything said we'd be playing John, so John and his ranch building was always going to be the EP.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xerukal

Arthur going to NA could've been used as a good plot point following the increased severity of his TB. Going somewhere warm and dry, like the doctor recommended. Maybe a slight detour into New Austin territory was planned for the story at some point, hence the recorded lines and additional journal details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Implicitly

Since I'm a new member I can't edit my post. I'd like to add a few points.

 

  • Mary-Beth was definitely not Arthur's cut love interest which people suggest. She's 21 years old and she already has a romantic plotline which is with Kieran. Throughout the chapters she flirts with Kieran who is not only the same age as her, but she admits in Chapter 4 she had a "soft-spot in her heart" for Kieran and is the first person to freak out that he's missing and asks Arthur for vengeance while upset. Arthur doesn't flirt with Mary-Beth, it's a one-sided schoolgirl crushed that isn't mutual until Kieran comes along.
  • There is no way for the second love interest to be Charlotte even though she kisses Arthur on the cheek. Charlotte's mission is completely optional just like Hamish's and Rainfall's. It seems like to me Charlotte was just quickly added into place for Arthur's redemption arc near the ending. 5-hours of content isn't enough to build a love interest, plus it contradicts Arthur's entire PTSD plot where he refuses to date anyone normal because they will be killed. The same would happen with Charlotte, and Charlotte is a typical city girl, which isnt what Arthur is about. Charlotte also seems to be early 40's when you actually meet her for the first time, in the EP her hair is almost grey and she's looking as old as Hosea did before the EP while wearing her husband's pendant.
  • I don't think it's Eliza as Eliza was never a "love interest" she was a one-night stand during his younger years, so about mid-20's after his breakup with Mary Linton, he was sleeping around with Abigail around this time he was hitting it with Eliza.

 

I'm positive it was Sadie considering they go from 0-100 instantly. There is no explanation for how they become instant best friends, but the game surely teases it with the Rhodes flirting, him writing in his journal that he finds Sadie attractive, and the fact that we've already know Sadie has missing content regarding her character, so a lot of Sadie related thing was obviously scrapped. It would fit the reasoning of what Dan Houser said saying it was superfluous, and all of that. What's the point of him having a second love interest, and or, setting him with Sadie in the end if he's going to die?

 

Her character does a 180 near the end, and her official bio states she wants revenge for her husband but loyal to those she loves. Keyword would be love, and Sadie is only loyal to Arthur, not the gang and is seen loyal to him in the very end. I'm honestly positive that it originally was Sadie. 

Edited by Implicitly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harmonica

My reading of Houser's comments was that 5 hours of content including a second love interest were cut. Not 5 hours of missions involving the love interest. I also took it to mean that this 5 hours was cut fairly late in development, i.e. too late for other things to be totally re-written as would have had to happen if Sadie was the second love interest. We're talking about deleted content, not content that was totally reconceived a year or two ago. 

 

I have yet to see any compelling evidence that Sadie was the second love interest. It seems far more likely to me it was either Eliza via playable flashbacks or cut scenes like the one in the trailer. Or Charlotte who John says Arthur wrote fondly of despite him never actually writing anything about her at all - in fact, it's not even clear how John knew to go there. Either way, I doubt this second love interest was a big part of the story. Mary Linton takes up two missions in total. The second one probably took up the same or less.

 

Re: Sadie, some of her missions may have been moved around.  Bar the first two scenes, "Sadie Adler Widow" feels to me like it probably should have been in chapter 4 where it could have doubled as revenge for Kieran and would have led to her joining the gang in other missions much earlier, but they moved it to give Arthur more honour building opportunities in chapter 6. Who knows what else could have being moved as well. 

Edited by Harmonica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Implicitly
7 minutes ago, Harmonica said:

My reading of Houser's comments was that 5 hours of content including a second love interest were cut. Not 5 hours of missions involving the love interest. I also took it to mean that this 5 hours was cut fairly late in development, i.e. too late for other things to be totally re-written as would have had to happen if Sadie was the second love interest. We're talking about deleted content, not content that was totally reconceived a year or two ago. 

 

I have yet to see any compelling evidence that Sadie was the second love interest. It seems far more likely to me it was either Eliza via playable flashbacks or cut scenes like the one in the trailer. Or Charlotte who John says Arthur wrote fondly of despite him never actually writing anything about her at all - in fact, it's not even clear how John knew to go there. Either way, I doubt this second love interest was a big part of the story. Mary Linton takes up two missions in total. The second one probably took up the same or less.

 

Re: Sadie, some of her missions may have been moved around.  Bar the first two scenes, "Sadie Adler Widow" feels to me like it probably should have been in chapter 4 where it could have doubled as revenge for Kieran and would have led to her joining the gang in other missions much earlier, but they moved it to give Arthur more honour building opportunities in chapter 6. Who knows what else could have being moved as well. 

Eliza was never a love interest though. The game already establishes the narrative that Eliza was from his past during his younger days and it's established that she was nothing more than just a one-night stand, not love. The fact that it's during his younger days points to his days in his 20's slightly after Mary. Playable flashbacks aren't a love interest and I don't know how a bounty hunting on a train would fall into the category of Eliza and flashbacks.


I absolutely do not believe it was Charlotte, most seem to assume this because of the cheek kiss. I don't see how it's in Charlotte's nature to rob a train and deal with bounty's. Not to mention, I can't wrap my mind there ever being a plot revolving Charlotte when she meets Arthur right when he's just about to die and she has no idea he's a killer plus her husband just died upon their meeting. Sadie, Mary and Charlotte are all widows but Mary has been a widow for 2-years while Sadie was for 6 months. Charlotte is on day 1. Her refusing to move out of Annesburg is because of her husband which she tells Arthur. This contradicts with Arthur's plotline as well as Arthur refuses to date a normal women due to what happened to Eliza. 

 

I also don't think a lot of people realize that Charlotte is definitely in her early 40s when first meeting Arthur. In the EP she looks way older than Dutch and Black Belle, her hair is almost entirely grey and a pendant of her husband:

https://imgur.com/a/dxMPFyt

maxresdefault.jpg

 

I just don't understand how 5-hours of hunting rabbits type of plot would fit in the main story narrative. Also they said a lot of stuff was changed and moved around after removing content for better flow, and other reasoning. So I'd argue, they absolutely did change content in late development which is why the team was forced to work 100 hr weeks according to Dan.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
areyouchappin
4 hours ago, Implicitly said:
  • Was Sadie Arthur's second love interest and was missions with Sadie about 5-hours worth the original that got scrapped?

No, I don't think so. The second love interest in my opinion was Eliza, the woman Arthur had a child with when he was younger but Eliza and her son Isaac both ended up getting killed by robbers while Arthur was away with his gang. I think R* wanted to elaborate more on Eliza, Isaac, and Arthur's story but it would appear they changed their minds at the end and instead chose to kill her and Isaac off years before the game takes place.

 

The reason I don't believe Sadie was the love interest is because she is heavily mourning the sudden loss of her entire livelihood. All she cares about is killing the O'Driscols who ruined her life. By the time we see a newly reformed Sadie in the Epilogue, who might be capable of love again, Arthur has been dead for 8 years. I also don't believe Charlotte was the second love interest either, she also loved and was still mourning her husband and she had a very wealthy family back home that would have never approved of Arthur similar to Mary's family. Arthur wouldn't want that all over again.

 

I also don't think all 5 hours of the cut content was purely about the second love interest. It could have been other missions or events that R* felt was unnecessary to the overall plot. There is no proof at all that states the 5 hours of cut content was purely about a love interest, or that you and your possible second love interest were going to be robbing trains or dealing with bounty hunters.

 

Quote
  • Was Arthur meant to go to Blackwater and New Austin judging by the valid proof? But what point in the story were they going to?

Maybe at some point they expected to send Arthur to New Austin before they changed it or maybe he will still go to New Austin or Mexico in a DLC(but I highly doubt it).

 

New Austin is literally useless, even when playing as John.. once the Epilogue missions are done which is not many missions at all, New Austin is just as useful as it was when playing with Arthur. At this point, I personally think R* simply added New Austin just for the sake of having a "gigantic map."

 

Quote
  • Was Arthur actually going to live in the end? (The issue is, the leaker who was right about everything said we'd be playing John, so John and his ranch building was always going to be the EP.)

Maybe near the end of development, R* said, "Hey! let's go ahead and give Arthur TB from that mission with Thomas Downes" but then again maybe they didn't. We will never know for sure. If you ask me, I think Arthur was intended to die from the very beginning. Personally, I thought it was way too cliche for Arthur to die, it was so obvious he was going to die before the game was even released that R* should have made it a twist. I think Arthur should have left with John and died up in Canada from TB during the 8 year time jump. R* could have then had a flashback mission where you play as John, with Arthur as a supporting character.

 

 

 

Edited by areyouchappin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jje1000
58 minutes ago, Xerukal said:

Arthur going to NA could've been used as a good plot point following the increased severity of his TB. Going somewhere warm and dry, like the doctor recommended. Maybe a slight detour into New Austin territory was planned for the story at some point, hence the recorded lines and additional journal details.

It could have been an interesting mini arc within the plot- Arthur finally going out on his own, but realizing that he has people who need him more and returning home. Sort of like how he rejects running away with Mary L. after she asks him on the spot, saying that he has people he needs to take care of.

 

That being said, it could have also dragged on, and there are other ways of conveying those ideas in a more compact manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Implicitly
49 minutes ago, areyouchappin said:

No, I don't think so. The second love interest in my opinion was Eliza, the woman Arthur had a child with when he was younger but Eliza and her son Isaac both ended up getting killed by robbers while Arthur was away with his gang. I think R* wanted to elaborate more on Eliza, Isaac, and Arthur's story but it would appear they changed their minds at the end and instead chose to kill her and Isaac off years before the game takes place.

Eliza was never a love interest though. The narrative establishes she was nothing more than a hookup gone wrong during his younger days after him and Mary had broken up. Arthur was also sleeping with Abigail around this time but he stopped sleeping with Abigail when John came around and she caught feelings for John. Since it was in his early 20's it's safe to say they never were going to explore this side of the narrative because that was more than a decade ago. They never teased the plot with Issac either besides two crosses, that was it. I think the point of Eliza was a reminder on why he doesn't sleep around with people anymore, he has trauma which adds to who he is as a person. Not a romantic plot line. They wouldn't do it in flashbacks either because that's completely unrelated to the story and they would have to use a model of him 20-years younger.

Quote

 

The reason I don't believe Sadie was the love interest is because she is heavily mourning the sudden loss of her entire livelihood. All she cares about is killing the O'Driscols who ruined her life. By the time we see a newly reformed Sadie in the Epilogue, who might be capable of love again, Arthur has been dead for 8 years. I also don't believe Charlotte was the second love interest either, she was a nice woman but she had a very different but humble life back at home.

 

I also don't think all 5 hours of the cut content was purely about the second love interest. It could have been other missions or events that R* felt was unnecessary to the overall plot. There is no proof at all that states the 5 hours of cut content was purely about a love interest, or that you and your possible second love interest were going to be robbing trains or dealing with bounty hunters.

 

Maybe at some point they expected to send Arthur to New Austin before they changed it or maybe he will still go to New Austin or Mexico in a DLC(but I highly doubt it).

 

New Austin is literally useless, even when playing as John.. once the Epilogue missions are done which is not many missions at all, New Austin is just as useful as it was when playing with Arthur. At this point, I personally think R* simply added New Austin just for the sake of having a "gigantic map."

 

Maybe near the end of development, R* said, "Hey! let's go ahead and give Arthur TB from that mission with Thomas Downes" but then again maybe they didn't. We will never know for sure. If you ask me, I think Arthur was intended to die from the very beginning. Personally, I thought it was way too cliche for Arthur to die, it was so obvious he was going to die before the game was even released that R* should have made it a twist. I think Arthur should have left with John and died up in Canada from TB during the 8 year time jump. R* could have then had a flashback mission where you play as John, with Arthur as a supporting character.

 

 

 

I mean, they sort of do set it up with Sadie considering she's the only person other than Mary he writes about in his journal being attracted to. If they never intended for Sadie to be a potential love interest, I'm not sure why they would establish that he finds her attractive in his journal when nobody else has caught his eye while the wordplay makes a heavy change depending on your honor when you help her raid the O'Driscolls. If you have high honor she tells Arthur he's the best man she knows that isn't her husband, while low honor, she sees him only as a best friend and completely friendzones him. These are massive wordplay differences. You'd think if she was purposely written as a best friend only intention, wouldn't the high-honor dialog be her calling him a best friend then? The 'best man I known' is an open door for a romantic route. It just doesn't make sense how her and Arthur are instantly BFF's out of no where either and judging by the teasers. We've already see there is cut content with Sadie as she's seen riding alongside with Arthur many times. Even that one photo of them in the Heartland's just themselves riding early development days. Her character also starts taking care of Arthur near Chapter 6 and is afraid of losing him. If you do the RF's mission there is a recurring theme where Sadie tells Arthur more than once her and him is all they need and she says she's coming along with him with Eagle Flies but he won't let her so she tells him to stay safe. Why else the; "You and me is all we need" being a recurring theme after being abandoned by his gang/everyone he loves is said over and over if that wasn't going to be the intention?


Even her bio is a dead giveaway because the R* official bio for her says she's hellbent for seeking revenge for her husband but; "loyal to those she loves" love would be the keyword here, Sadie is only loyal to Arthur, not the gang. It's also unexplained why she goes seeking revenge for years during the EP when her goal was to kill only the O'Driscolls. She reminds John of their revenge promise which was made after what happened to Arthur. Why would Sadie seek revenge when she barely interacts with Micah besides the beginning, but that wasn't enough for her to want revenge. John had moved on until Sadie reminded him, and paid the consequence of Sadie's revengeful actions.

 

It just doesn't add up. There is absolutely residue of a romantic plotline because they absolutely do tease it from her calling him honey, and they do indeed flirt after Rhodes. Since the EP has more than a 5+ year gap and her character is moving on - if Arthur had survived, that is enough time to move on. I personally took it that they scrapped it solely because Arthur dies which would make no sense. There is still no explanation how they became BFF's out of the blue.

 

Even early photos of Arthur and Sadie shown them riding together through Heartlands or somewhere else, which doesn't happen in the game, proving there was more that was scrapped, even riding through WE. 

Edited by Implicitly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cutter De Blanc

I'm pretty sure I never heard the name Eliza mentioned at any point while playing,  much less finding out what happened to them, where does this come up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nutduster
54 minutes ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

I'm pretty sure I never heard the name Eliza mentioned at any point while playing,  much less finding out what happened to them, where does this come up?

 

I believe this is only brought up in optional mission dialogue and maybe Arthur's journal.  He had a love interest named Eliza well before the events of the game, they had a child together, and both of them died while Arthur was out being an outlaw.

 

Back to topic:

 

- I don't think the 5 hours of content were all the second love interest, nor do I think the train/bounty hunters mission has anything to do with that.  You're misreading the comments, I believe.  They cut 5 hours of content, and it included a) the second love interest, b) some other missions unrelated to that, and c) specifically, one mission on a train involving bounty hunters.

 

- I think it's moderately likely the love interest was Sadie, but if this truly was an 11th hour cut, they managed to cut it out pretty cleanly.  Don't really know and I don't think we'll figure it out unless someone finds hidden dialogue from this cut content, or Houser just comes out and says who it was.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was her and I would be even less surprised if it wasn't.

 

- Peering too closely at old trailers and leaks will just drive you crazy.  Games often don't take something like their final shape until VERY late in the development process.  They spend years before that building the map, writing and editing potential storylines, creating missions and minigames that are then pushed into appropriate places in the narrative later on, etc.  When you see things like "so-and-so wears X outfit or appears in Y city, but in the game they never do either," you're most likely seeing stuff that was just put together quickly for the purposes of making a trailer.  Most of what we now know as the game didn't even exist when the first trailer came out, except as raw materials (graphical assets, etc.).  Sometimes not even that much, which is why characters end up looking different occasionally.  So that old info can be like a Rorschach test: you see what you want to see, and there is a LOT to see, but maybe in the end it's just an ink blot.

 

- re: Arthur in New Austin... they may have had a notion of sending him there, or at least letting you go there, at some point during the story.  But it's also possible that the audio was recorded before the narrative was finalized just to cover their bases.  Let's say the original narrative did NOT allow Arthur to go to NA, and then they decided late in the process that he could go there after some mission or other.  It is easier to have the audio ready to go than to bring the actor back in to record more at that point.  Of course, it's just as likely that they DID mean for Arthur to go to NA, and then changed that for reasons we'll never know, too.  Bottom line: I am not sure we'll ever get more than educated guesses about their intentions in this area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
areyouchappin

 

2 hours ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

I'm pretty sure I never heard the name Eliza mentioned at any point while playing,  much less finding out what happened to them, where does this come up?

 

During a Rains Fall mission late in the game, you get a choice to talk about Dutch or Arthur's child. And then later on, if you have high enough honor, you can then hear a little bit more about Arthur including Eliza and Isaac when you meet with the Nun at the train station. If your honor wasn't high enough, you instead met with Reverend Swanson..

 

 

3 hours ago, Implicitly said:

Eliza was never a love interest though. The narrative establishes she was nothing more than a hookup gone wrong during his younger days after him and Mary had broken up. Arthur was also sleeping with Abigail around this time but he stopped sleeping with Abigail when John came around and she caught feelings for John. Since it was in his early 20's it's safe to say they never were going to explore this side of the narrative because that was more than a decade ago. They never teased the plot with Issac either besides two crosses, that was it. I think the point of Eliza was a reminder on why he doesn't sleep around with people anymore, he has trauma which adds to who he is as a person. Not a romantic plot line. They wouldn't do it in flashbacks either because that's completely unrelated to the story and they would have to use a model of him 20-years younger.

 

Eliza was a one-night stand that became a semi-important thing for Arthur. She knew who he was and what he did but she still accepted Arthur for himself(or his money) and not his lifestyle unlike Mary who is concerned with Arthur being in a gang. Although Arthur didn't promise Eliza anything, he told her he would do right by them. He only stopped to visit every few months and for only a few days at a time. This had to of went on for at least a while until "one day he went there" and there were two crosses outside the home, he then had to of did some form of investigation as he finds out they were murdered over $10 unless it was carved on their crosses. Arthur also states Isaac was a good kid which implies he had to of spent some amount of time with the child which also means time with Eliza. His relationship with Eliza is also further proven to be deeper than interpreted in the story when he says their deaths really effected him. Apparently so much so that Arthur has written off random sex entirely. If Eliza and Isaac were so minor to Arthur why would their deaths have "hardened him, after feeling that kind of pain."

 

Also, Eliza and Isaac could have happened at any point in Arthur's life after(or during) his relationship with Mary, but if R* decided to cut the content, they could have easily rewrote Eliza's, Isaac's and Arthur's narrative making it before the game's timeline but after Mary.. There is no definitive age for when Arthur met Eliza just that he was "younger.." the fact that he calls her and Isaac both "good kids" but not himself could have meant he was older than her maybe closer to 28 or 30 while Eliza was only 19.

 

With Mary on the other hand, it is hinted that her and Arthur were in their early twenties when they met, but their relationship was always on and off because of Arthur's criminal involvement and her family's disapproval of his lifestyle. And then Mary getting married permanently made her distant to Arthur until her husband's death. If you look at the photo of the much younger Hosea, Dutch and Arthur, Arthur is in the exact same outfit and looks the exact same as the other photo of a younger Arthur and Mary together.

 

 

Quote

I mean, they sort of do set it up with Sadie considering she's the only person other than Mary he writes about in his journal being attracted to. If they never intended for Sadie to be a potential love interest, I'm not sure why they would establish that he finds her attractive in his journal when nobody else has caught his eye while the wordplay makes a heavy change depending on your honor when you help her raid the O'Driscolls. If you have high honor she tells Arthur he's the best man she knows, while low honor, she sees him only as a best friend and completely friendzones him. You'd think if she was purposely written as a best friend only, wouldn't the high-honor dialog be her calling him a best friend then? It just doesn't make sense how her and Arthur are instantly BFF's out of no where either and judging by the teasers, we already see there is cut content with Sadie as she's seen riding alongside with Arthur many times. Her character also starts taking care of Arthur near Chapter 6 and is afraid of losing him. If you do the RF's mission there is a recurring theme where Sadie tells Arthur more than once her and him is all they need and she says she's coming along with him with Eagle Flies but he won't let her so she tells him to stay safe.


Even her bio is a dead giveaway because the R* official bio for her says she's hellbent for seeking revenge for her husband but; "loyal to those she loves" love would be the keyword here, Sadie is only loyal to Arthur, not the gang. It's also unexplained why she goes seeking revenge for years during the EP when her goal was to kill only the O'Driscolls. She reminds John of their revenge promise which was made after what happened to Arthur. Why would Sadie seek revenge when she barely interacts with Micah besides the beginning, but that wasn't enough for her to want revenge. John had moved on until Sadie reminded him, and paid the consequence of Sadie's actions.

 

It just doesn't add up. There is absolutely residue of a romantic plotline because they absolutely do tease it from her calling him honey, and they do indeed flirt after Rhodes. Since the EP has more than a 5+ year gap and her character is moving on - if Arthur had survived, that is enough time to move on. I personally took it that they scrapped it solely because Arthur dies which would make no sense. There is still no explanation how they became BFF's out of the blue.

 

Even early photos of Arthur and Sadie shown them riding together through Heartlands or somewhere else, which doesn't happen in the game, proving there was more that was scrapped.

 

Photos of characters/landscapes dressed differently or looking different in the final version of a game is very common. It doesn't necessarily mean something is missing or was cut, it meant something changed during development or something will be coming in the future to incorporate those changes or R* just simply wanted to release a lot more photos with a variety of different landscapes. For example; Saint Denise was supposedly named New Bordeaux before release..

 

Sadie "friend zoned" the entire gang the moment they picked her up, she had no purpose in life anymore, she was probably contemplating suicide until she realized Dutch's gang was mortal enemies with the O'Driscols, then it would turn out the gang was her best chance for redemption AND remaining "loyal to those she loves" (her dead husband). Until she finds out, that only Arthur, John, Abigail, Jack and a few other gang members were the only ones worth trusting and being loyal towards. Also, people are allowed be attracted to each other and not pursue them as a love interest.. Calling someone honey or sweetie is a common courtesy saying, plain and simple, it is definitely not an invitation for romance or love. When you help Sadie finish off the O'Driscols in Hanging Dog Ranch, there is a moment where she is still clearly hurt and mourning her husband's death and now that her revenge mission was over she now had no idea what to do.. it wasn't until years later where she finally reformed and decided that being a criminal wasn't really her thing. The way R* has the narrative right now, the possibility of romance with Sadie is about as likely as it would have been with Charlotte, as there is no proof that Sadie was actually suppose to be anything more than what she was already written for. Charlotte in a lot of ways is like a combination of Mary and Sadie, she is humble but from a well off family like Mary but her husband was taken from her due to the craziness of the wild frontier like Sadie. I just can't personally justify Sadie being a viable choice if I can't also say Charlotte is a viable choice... I'm not saying Sadie didn't maybe have some sort of attraction to Arthur, but R* made it pretty clear that this chick is all about revenge for her beloved husband's murder and then eventually "doing good, honest work the only way she knows how."

 

What ultimately makes sense to me is that Eliza was the potential candidate, but after R* saw her plot line not work out properly and also some other missions/events that may or may not be related to the second love interest not working right, R* pulled the plug and just removed that content, rewriting it to how it is now.

 

 

Edited by areyouchappin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cutter De Blanc

I always thought it was Tilly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Implicitly
34 minutes ago, areyouchappin said:

Eliza was a one-night stand that became a semi-important thing for Arthur. She knew who he was and what he did but she still accepted Arthur for himself(or his money) and not his lifestyle unlike Mary who is concerned with Arthur being in a gang. Although Arthur didn't promise Eliza anything, he told her he would do right by them. He only stopped to visit every few months and for only a few days at a time. This had to of went on for at least a while until "one day he went there" and there were two crosses outside the home, he then had to of did some form of investigation as he finds out they were murdered over $10 unless it was carved on their crosses. Arthur also states Isaac was a good kid which implies he had to of spent some amount of time with the child which also means time with Eliza. His relationship with Eliza is also further proven to be deeper than interpreted in the story when he says their deaths really effected him. Apparently so much so that Arthur has written off random sex entirely. If Eliza and Isaac were so minor to Arthur why would their deaths have "hardened him, after feeling that kind of pain."

It's said in the story he visited Eliza and Issac every several months which is in relation to providing for a family as she knew what he was. A one-night stand is still completely different than a love interest, his feelings for Mary make it evidently clear there was no love for Eliza. He was involved with their lives because he was a dad and having a family is what Arthur always desired. He's a family type of guy who takes responsibility. it doesn't go deeper than that and the game makes this clear. The reason he is traumatized because he carries the burden with guilt, he blames himself for making a simple mistake because if he had not made that mistake or had gotten involved they wouldn't of gotten murdered (which isn't even his fault, they were robbed). He refuses to sleep with anyone else because he's scared of making that mistake again because he knows his life and his involvement is too dangerous. Of course their deaths would effect him entirely. Arthur takes all deaths hard, but like, of course he's going to be destroyed it's it's his very own's son's death, he's not going to laugh it all. I don't see how this carves the narrative that they wrote up a plot of (5-hours long), that is barely anything regarding his son and one-night stand. You also forget that he was sleeping with Abigail until Marston came along and would've married Abigail if he hadn't been stuck on Mary. So, either he was sleeping with Abigail still while he had his son, or beforehand until his son came around because John came around.

 

Quote

 

Also, Eliza and Isaac could have happened at any point in Arthur's life after(or during) his relationship with Mary, but if R* decided to cut the content, they could have easily rewrote Eliza's, Isaac's and Arthur's narrative making it before the game's timeline but after Mary.. There is no definitive age for when Arthur met Eliza just that he was "younger.." the fact that he calls her and Isaac both "good kids" but not himself could have meant he was older than her maybe closer to 28 or 30 while Eliza was only 19.

Going by the photo of Mary and the Hosea, Dutch and Arthur picture, it's pretty evident that Arthur was mid-20s, and Eliza was 19. He broke off with Mary during their younger years, and then he started sleeping around.

 

Quote

 

With Mary on the other hand, it is hinted that her and Arthur were in their early twenties when they met, but their relationship was always on and off because of Arthur's criminal involvement and her family's disapproval of his lifestyle. And then Mary getting married permanently made her distant to Arthur until her husband's death. If you look at the photo of the much younger Hosea, Dutch and Arthur, Arthur is in the exact same outfit and looks the exact same as the other photo of a younger Arthur and Mary together.

 

I know about the photo, he was early 20s in both, or mid-20s. When he broke off with Mary, he started sleeping around. He wasn't much older than Eliza, and it was just a one-night hookup with no strings attached.

 

Quote

Photos of characters/landscapes dressed differently or looking different in the final version of a game is very common. It doesn't necessarily mean something is missing or was cut, it meant something changed during development or something will be coming in the future to incorporate those changes or R* just simply wanted to release a lot more photos with a variety of different landscapes. For example; Saint Denise was supposedly named New Bordeaux before release..

New Austin was cut, we have scripted dialog and the actors and developers even mentioned that a lot of missions had been cut and a lot of missions in the story were moved around when they were in different places. Saint Denis was named New Bordeaux originally until Mafia came along so they had to change it. Annesburg and Van'Horn were also swapped, Adler's ranch was in different places. This is all shown from the map and from the original leaker, it's made clear that there was a rat in the game from the very beginning and the camp would have to be moved in many locations, none which happens because the story was changed. Javier's VA even said scenes you see in the game were much different and constantly changing.

Quote

 

Sadie "friend zoned" the entire gang the moment they picked her up, she had no purpose in life anymore, she was probably contemplating suicide until she realized Dutch's gang was mortal enemies with the O'Driscols, then it would turn out the gang was her best chance for redemption AND remaining "loyal to those she loves" (her dead husband). Until she finds out, that only Arthur, John, Abigail, Jack and a few other gang members were the only ones worth trusting and being loyal towards. Also, people are allowed be attracted to each other and not pursue them as a love interest.. Calling someone honey or sweetie is a common courtesy saying, plain and simple, it is definitely not an invitation for romance or love. When you help Sadie finish off the O'Driscols in Hanging Dog Ranch, there is a moment where she is still clearly hurt and mourning her husband's death and now that her revenge mission was over she now had no idea what to do.. it wasn't until years later where she finally reformed and decided that being a criminal wasn't really her thing. The way R* has the narrative right now, the possibility of romance with Sadie is about as likely as it would have been with Charlotte, as there is no proof that Sadie was actually suppose to be anything more than what she was already written for. Charlotte in a lot of ways is like a combination of Mary and Sadie, she is humble but from a well off family like Mary but her husband was taken from her due to the craziness of the wild frontier like Sadie. I just can't personally justify Sadie being a viable choice if I can't also say Charlotte is a viable choice... I'm not saying Sadie didn't maybe have some sort of attraction to Arthur, but R* made it pretty clear that this chick is all about revenge for her beloved husband's murder and then eventually "doing good, honest work the only way she knows how."

 

What ultimately makes sense to me is that Eliza was the potential candidate, but after R* saw her plot line not work out properly and also some other missions/events that may or may not be related to the second love interest not working right, R* pulled the plug and just removed that content, rewriting it out of existence.

 

Sadie never friendzoned Arthur. There's a big wordplay difference during the time you kill the O'Driscolls with her. If you have low-honor she calls you a best friend. That's when she friendzones Arthur, if you have high-honor she says something extremely different which is more alluded to going anywhere which is her saying he's the best thing other than her deceased husband who she knows. If that was true, then the honorable wordplay would've been her calling him a best friend. The fact that they make that wordplay for low-honorable players speaks volumes. It also makes no sense how Arthur writes his attraction in regards to Sadie in his journal while nobody else catches his eye besides Mary if that wasn't there intention. Even near the end, Sadie's focus completely changes to protecting Arthur, you'd think for someone who doesn't have anything to live for, what explains her fear of losing Arthur, and or, getting revenge in the end against Micah then? Charlotte was never a viable choice because she doesn't know anything about Arthur's criminal activity and she's by far a lot older than Arthur. There is no evidence of anything cut-content being related to Arthur if it was Charlotte. Hosea makes it clear in the beginning that him and Bessie worked because Bessie knew exactly who and what he was and accepted him while he lived his outlaw lifestyle. This is plain and simple foreshadowing in regarding Arthur. The person who accepts Arthur is Sadie from the get-go, and her camp dialog is also telling Arthur he has a big heart and not a monster, while comparing Arthur to an honorable man/and her husband when her husband was the opposite of an outlaw, he was no killer when he himself believes he's a monster. This instantly slides with Hosea's foreshadowing in the beginning.

 

None of this answers the main question which is the fact that Sadie and Arthur become best friends out of absolutely no where. If nothing was cut between Sadie and Arthur, how do you justify their friendship becoming the closest out of the bunch just like that? I absolutely do not believe that Eliza was the candidate. A one-night stand isn't a love interest, that's very different and his love for Mary, even after his son's death is pretty evident there was never much to the Eliza-Issac story besides the big reveal in the end.

 

The reason for R* pulling the plug on the second love interest is for a few reasons; "didn't work, superfluous and they wouldn't work technically." Eliza doesn't fit this narrative of superfluous and not technically working. Charlotte doesn't fit this narrative either. The only one who would be a candidate for superfluous and not working technically would be Sadie, because just like you pointed out, she had her husband who she mourns, and there would be absolutely no point pairing both characters together when the plan was to kill off Arthur, making it superfluous and didn't work/not technical because of her scenario it'd only work if they never planned to kill him off. Which would fit the reasoning of scrapping. Even Mary doesn't end up with Arthur and her relationship with Arthur is set up to fail because it's pointless due to his ending which is done on purpose, but it's pretty obvious it was going to be an active love triangle. What do you think is the point of Mary then if there wasn't going to be an active-love triangle, how can that happen if Eliza was dead in his early young years, how would there even be 5-hours of content with Eliza when Eliza has been dead for an entire decade?

 

Charlotte only knew Arthur briefly, her husband died day 1. You bring up the point of Sadie mourning, yet absolutely believe Charlotte-Arthur were going to happen specifically when Charlotte was day 1 on death of her husband? He meets her when he's full blown coughing up blood and ready to die, there was never a "romantic plot" there, or anything remotely evidence of scrapping or even dialog that even points in that direction just her being grateful of saving her life. She is also by far older than Arthur, look at Charlotte in the EP.

 

As for the honey comments. The two flirt after Arthur takes Sadie out in Rhodes. She asks if he'll tell Dutch as Arthur tell's Dutch everything that goes on, he says; "Maybe if he asks.... OR maybe not." The flirting continues when he asks Sadie if he'll ride with him again, and she says; "If you can handle yourself" with her laughing. Sadie will not ride with anyone ever - this is shown and stated with John. The only person Sadie will ride with is Arthur. The theme of "only me and you" keeps popping up from Sadie's mouth when Arthur gets abandoned from his gang 3x. 

 

The residue of a scrapped relationship is literally there, which also explains how they instantly became BFF's out of no where. It also doesn't explain R's official bio for Sadie which is the statement of loyal to those she loves. Her loyalty is shown with Arthur to the very end as she didn't want to leave him until he made her leave which is shown during the optional RF mission. For someone who has nothing to live for, she's pretty hellbent on protecting Arthur and terrified of losing him while the others like Mary-Beth completely accepted he was dying and said; "I'm sorry" while Sadie kept telling him he'll be okay which is far from the truth.

 

6 minutes ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

I always thought it was Tilly

She was the baby of the group, about 18-19. She even gets mad when Arthur gets too close to her. Lol. 

Edited by Implicitly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
areyouchappin
12 minutes ago, Implicitly said:

It's said in the story he visited Eliza and Issac every several months which is in relation to providing for a family as she knew what he was. A one-night stand is still completely different than a love interest, his feelings for Mary make it evidently clear there was no love for Eliza. He was involved with their lives because he was a dad and having a family is what Arthur always desired. He's a family type of guy who takes responsibility. it doesn't go deeper than that and the game makes this clear. The reason he is traumatized because he carries the burden with guilt, he blames himself for making a simple mistake because if he had not made that mistake or had gotten involved they wouldn't of gotten murdered (which isn't even his fault, they were robbed). He refuses to sleep with anyone else because he's scared of making that mistake again because he knows his life and his involvement is too dangerous. Of course their deaths would effect him entirely. Arthur takes all deaths hard, but like, of course he's going to be destroyed it's it's his very own's son's death, he's not going to laugh it all. I don't see how this carves the narrative that they wrote up a plot of (5-hours long), that is barely anything regarding his son and one-night stand. You also forget that he was sleeping with Abigail until Marston came along and would've married Abigail if he hadn't been stuck on Mary. So, either he was sleeping with Abigail still while he had his son, or beforehand until his son came around because John came around.

It is never stated or even hinted at that Arthur was going to marry Abigail, he only wanted to be with Mary by the time R* finished writing the game, it was however stated that Abigail was a prostitute in the early years of the gang that any of the members could sleep with her. It was John who ultimately gained her affection and won her over(probably by getting her pregnant).

 

Eliza was a one night stand that became something more because she had Arthur's child, they knew they couldn't stay together because of Arthur's gang activity so they parted ways on good terms, Arthur even stays in contact with them..... how in the hell is this not a possible relationship? lol

 

You also keep implying that the 5 hours of cut content is 100% about the second love interest, which you have no proof or possible evidence to suggest that.

 

12 minutes ago, Implicitly said:

 

Going by the photo of Mary and the Hosea, Dutch and Arthur picture, it's pretty evident that Arthur was mid-20s, and Eliza was 19. He broke off with Mary during their younger years, and then he started sleeping around.

 

Why would Arthur call Eliza and Isaac kids but not include himself too if he was closer to her age... But then he'll tell Mary.. "we were both just kids back then.." I believe Arthur was much older then Eliza was.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Implicitly said:

 

I know about the photo, he was early 20s in both, or mid-20s. When he broke off with Mary, he started sleeping around. He wasn't much older than Eliza, and it was just a one-night hookup with no strings attached.

 

lol Yeah.. no strings attached right? Except their one night stand that produced a child that Arthur periodically feels compelled to visit and take care of...

 

 

12 minutes ago, Implicitly said:

 

New Austin was cut, we have scripted dialog and the actors and developers even mentioned that a lot of missions had been cut and a lot of missions in the story were moved around when they were in different places. Saint Denis was named New Bordeaux originally until Mafia came along so they had to change it. Annesburg and Van'Horn were also swapped, Adler's ranch was in different places. This is all shown from the map and from the original leaker, it's made clear that there was a rat in the game from the very beginning and the camp would have to be moved in many locations, none which happens because the story was changed. Javier's VA even said scenes you see in the game were much different and constantly changing.

 

All of this was part of the 5 hours of content that was removed or changed....

 

 

12 minutes ago, Implicitly said:

Sadie never friendzoned Arthur. There's a big wordplay difference during the time you kill the O'Driscolls with her. If you have low-honor she calls you a best friend. That's when she friendzones Arthur, if you have high-honor she says something extremely different which is more alluded to going anywhere which is her saying he's the best thing other than her deceased husband who she knows. If that was true, then the honorable wordplay would've been her calling him a best friend. The fact that they make that wordplay for low-honorable players speaks volumes. It also makes no sense how Arthur writes his attraction in regards to Sadie in his journal while nobody else catches his eye besides Mary if that wasn't there intention. Even near the end, Sadie's focus completely changes to protecting Arthur, you'd think for someone who doesn't have anything to live for, what explains her fear of losing Arthur, and or, getting revenge in the end against Micah then? Charlotte was never a viable choice because she doesn't know anything about Arthur's criminal activity and she's by far a lot older than Arthur. There is no evidence of anything cut-content being related to Arthur if it was Charlotte.

 

What she says is still pretty neutral either way you look at it, it doesn't insinuate or imply anything besides a heart felt thank you to Arthur for helping her out this whole time. She also doesn't interact 100% with the gang until she goes to Rhodes with Arthur during a mission.

 

There is also no evidence that Sadie is the second love interest, only the speculations and theories from fans just like with Charlotte and Eliza.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Implicitly said:

 

None of this answers the main question which is the fact that Sadie and Arthur become best friends out of absolutely no where. If nothing was cut between Sadie and Arthur, how do you justify their friendship becoming the closest out of the bunch just like that? I absolutely do not believe that Eliza was the candidate. A one-night stand isn't a love interest, that's very different and his love for Mary, even after his son's death is pretty evident there was never much to the Eliza-Issac story besides the big reveal in the end.

 

Sadie connected with all of the gang members who were "good" because they all held loyalty above all else. So, Hosea, Lenny, Sean, Mary-Beth, John, Abigail, Jack etc. I don't doubt she had an attraction to Arthur but this isn't written into the game at all, and it is even less hinted at through any sort of dialog. At least Charlotte actually kisses Arthur on the cheek... what did Sadie do... say some neutral words that could be taken in any direction? I still don't think Sadie or Charlotte are the second love interests.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Implicitly said:

 

The reason for R* pulling the plug on the second love interest is for a few reasons; "didn't work, superfluous and they wouldn't work technically." Eliza doesn't fit this narrative of superfluous and not technically working. Charlotte doesn't fit this narrative either. The only one who would be a candidate for superfluous and not working technically would be Sadie, because just like you pointed out, she had her husband who she mourns, and there would be absolutely no point pairing both characters together when the plan was to kill off Arthur, making it superfluous and didn't work/not technical because of her scenario it'd only work if they never planned to kill him off. Which would fit the reasoning of scrapping. Even Mary doesn't end up with Arthur and her relationship with Arthur is set up to fail because it's pointless due to his ending which is done on purpose, but it's pretty obvious it was going to be an active love triangle.

 

Charlotte, Sadie, and Eliza all fall into the category of "superfluous and doesn't work technically." But I think there is more evidence that Eliza is the candidate more so than Sadie or Charlotte.

 

They wrote the second romance out of the game because it is entirely unnecessary or "superfluous" in general.. There is no need for a second romance for Arthur that is why they cut it.

 

12 minutes ago, Implicitly said:

Charlotte only knew Arthur briefly, her husband died day 1. You bring up the point of Sadie mourning, yet absolutely believe Charlotte-Arthur were going to happen specifically when Charlotte was day 1 on death of her husband? He meets her when he's full blown coughing up blood and ready to die, there was never a "romantic plot" there, or anything remotely evidence of scrapping.

 

I have never said or believed that Charlotte was the second love interest, I said Eliza was. I only stated that Charlotte has a better chance of getting with Arthur than Sadie because of how R* wrote Sadie's character in the final version.

 

12 minutes ago, Implicitly said:

 

As for the honey comments. The two flirt after Arthur takes Sadie out in Rhodes. She asks if he'll tell Dutch as Arthur tell's Dutch everything that goes on, he says; "Maybe if he asks.... OR maybe not." The flirting continues when he asks Sadie if he'll ride with him again, and she says; "If you can handle yourself." Sadie will not ride with anyone ever - this is shown and stated with John.

 

Again.. people can be attracted to one another and not pursue a relationship.. Their flirting is also so tongue in cheek during that mission that it's too innocent to be taken seriously.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Implicitly said:

The residue of a scrapped relationship is literally there, which also explains how they instantly became BFF's out of no where.

The relationship COULD be there, in theory, but you are pulling some far fetched ideas to try and make this some sort of a possibility.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Implicitly
19 minutes ago, areyouchappin said:

It is never stated or even hinted at that Arthur was going to marry Abigail, he only wanted to be with Mary by the time R* finished writing the game, it was however stated that Abigail was a prostitute in the early years of the gang that any of the members could sleep with her. It was John who ultimately gained her affection and won her over(probably by getting her pregnant).

I never said he was going to marry Abigail. I said he slept with Abigail. He desires what John has which envy is shown. A family and a woman that loves him for who he is and sticks by him through it all. This is why Hosea's foreshadowing is important at the beginning. 

Quote

 

Eliza was a one night stand that became something more because she had Arthur's child, they knew they couldn't stay together because of Arthur's gang activity so they parted ways on good terms, Arthur even stays in contact with them..... how in the hell is this not a possible relationship? lol

She was a one night stand, there was no relationship. When you have a one night stand with someone, you're looking for just sex with no strings attached. If she never got knocked up, he would've never seen her again, or cared about her. Eliza has been dead for a decade. The only way it would work is if Eliza was alive in the year of 1899. There is no model for Eliza, they never had plans with Eliza. Not even flashbacks because there is no model made for her.

 

Quote

 

You also keep implying that the 5 hours of cut content is 100% about the second love interest, which you have no proof or possible evidence to suggest that.

Read his quote. At one point, protagonist Arthur Morgan had two love interests, but “we decided one of them didn’t work,” says Dan. And whole missions were removed because “they were never going to work technically or be quite slick enough, or they felt superfluous. We removed a mission on a train where you had to deal with bounty hunters, because it was fun at first, but then it wasn’t. This part of the process is always about compromise and horse trading. Everyone always loses bits of the game they love.” 

 

I bolded the word "and" for you, as he's adding to what he was saying about the second love interest, he's not talking about something else. I even asked this same question on the RDR2 subreddits and everyone said he's talking about whole missions being related to the second love interest. He's talking about why they cut the second love interest, because it came off as superfluous, same as the missions.

 

 

Quote

 

 

Why would Arthur call Eliza and Isaac kids but not include himself too if he was closer to her age... But then he'll tell Mary.. "we were both just kids back then.." I believe Arthur was much older then Eliza was.

Because a 19 year old a kid? A mid-20 year old is not a kid?

 

Quote

 

 

 

lol Yeah.. no strings attached right? Except their one night stand that produced a child that Arthur periodically feels compelled to visit and take care of...

Yeah, because Arthur accepts responsibility, genuinely likes helping people like the nun. Lol, you can absolutely love a child without having relationship feelings for the baby momma.

Quote

 

 

 

All of this was part of the 5 hours of content that was removed or changed....

Where is the evidence? There still isn't even a model for Eliza.

Quote

 

 

 

What she says is still pretty neutral either way you look at it, it doesn't insinuate or imply anything besides a heart felt thank you to Arthur for helping her out this whole time. She also doesn't interact 100% with the gang until she goes to Rhodes with Arthur during a mission.

What are you talking about? If you're implying the Rhodes bit, he was flirting with her, they both were flirting. Arthur tells Dutch everything that happens, he doesn't tell Dutch what she did even though it's a big mess she made and they tease it, she even says she wants to peek into his journal because her mind boggles. Why is Sadie interested in his journal and his personal thoughts? Why would she straight up tell John she rides with nobody but teases Arthur; "If you can handle it" because she's open to riding with him then?

Quote

 

There is also no evidence that Sadie is the second love interest, only the speculations and theories from fans just like with Charlotte and Eliza.

I know this. It's my personal opinion, and I say I lean more towards Sadie because the set up is absolutely there. You're telling me like it's a fact that it's Eliza when there is absolutely no evidence and none of that actually makes sense considering many facts like there not being a VA, there not being a model. Lmao, where is the 5-hours of content going to come from when the character is physically not alive? I love a good debate though.

 

Quote

 

 

 

Sadie connected with all of the gang members who were "good" because they all held loyalty above all else. So, Hosea, Lenny, Sean, Mary-Beth, John, Abigail, Jack etc. I don't doubt she had an attraction to Arthur but this isn't written into the game at all, and it is even less hinted at through any sort of dialog. At least Charlotte actually kisses Arthur on the cheek... what did Sadie do... say some neutral words that could be taken in any direction? I still don't think Sadie or Charlotte are the second love interests.

It is hinted, "aside from my husband, you're the best man I know." This is MASSIVE wordplay difference compared to calling him a best friend. If Sadie was written in the intention of being platonic, the higher honor option would be; "YOU'RE MY BEST FRIEND." But it isn't. Showing you that it's going to go somewhere else.

 

Uhm, a cheek kiss doesn't mean there's love. None of Charlotte's dialog ever pointed to attraction for Arthur. She's thanking him for saving her life and she's coughing up blood and dying of T.B. So, how are they going to have a wild relationship, Arthur and Charlotte when he's known Charlotte for only 1-day and he's coughing blood? What kind of Disney romance plot line is this? 5 hrs of love for one day? Lol

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

Charlotte, Sadie, and Eliza all fall into the category of "superfluous and doesn't work technically." But I think there is more evidence that Eliza is the candidate more so than Sadie or Charlotte.

Eliza is dead and has been for a decade. There is no model made for her. There is no VA. She was a baby momma nothing more from a one night hookup which stops Arthur from having love because he's traumatized of getting involved with anyone because of that burden which is the point of his character not because she was the love of his life which you're thinking, lol. Charlotte isn't even a candidate of being superfluous to begin with because she met Arthur when he's coughing up blood, knows absolutely nothing about him and she's day 1 of the widow life. You really think they would bother writing a romantic plot line of 5 hrs worth when he's coughing up blood and won't even go near her? Look at her age in the EP, she's older than Dutch!

 

Quote

 

They wrote the second romance out of the game because it is entirely unnecessary or "superfluous" in general.. There is no need for a second romance for Arthur that is why they cut it.

They wrote it out because it "didn't work" and because it technically will not work and because it's superfluous. Do not forget the other 2 major points. He doesn't even end up with Mary because he's dying, that's no coincidence. The reason they clearly kept Mary around when they were planning a love triangle is because she was never meant to end up with Arthur. Their relationship was doomed for the start, which caters to his dead ending. You can't have Arthur with Sadie because technically it will not work, because she's mourning, and he's going to die. "Technically won't work" --> because it wouldn't make sense for her to move on with him and then he dies just like that, it would f*ck up the entire story with Jake.

 

Quote

 

 

 

I have never said or believed that Charlotte was the second love interest, I said Eliza was. I only stated that Charlotte has a better chance of getting with Arthur than Sadie because of how R* wrote Sadie's character in the final version.

Yeah, and you're basements of Eliza is pure speculation as equal to Sadie and Charlotte. The idea of Eliza makes absolutely no sense at all though. Sadie's characters goes from terrified to losing Arthur, and taking care of Arthur near the end to scared of losing him telling him to keep going and trying to protect him when he's ill, if Sadie never loved Arthur, why is she so afraid of losing him and why does she seek revenge for him in the EP when she got what she wanted?

Quote

 

 

Again.. people can be attracted to one another and not pursue a relationship.. Their flirting is also so tongue in cheek during that mission that it's too innocent to be taken seriously.

Yeah, and the reason it isn't pursued because it got scrapped, what you're seeing is the left over contents of it. The fact that there is so much dialog of flirting, and teasing and Arthur having emotional aggressive reactions when anything bad happens to Sadie is evident where and what was going to happen. The fact that Hosea foreshadows that he needs someone who accepts him because he is an outlaw, and can't change points to Sadie. Sadie accepts Arthur instantly when originally she viewed him and the rest as a bunch of degenerates and her husband was better than she ends up comparing him to her husband. It's literally screaming at your face.

Quote

 

 

The relationship COULD be there, in theory, but you are pulling some far fetched ideas to try and make this some sort of a possibility.

 

That's what you're literally doing while implying it was Eliza, even though there wasn't even a model made for Eliza.... Is this some Charlie St Cloud film where he talks to his dead GF?

 

Remember, at the end of the day, this is all just an opinion, mine and yours. We obviously disagree so there is no point in arguing. I just lean on Sadie because everything points to Sadie, we'll only find out when interviews come out if they ever do or if PC data mining exposes it all. So we'll see. I was curious on what other's thought so as the point of this thread because in the beta thread I even saw people also saying it was Sadie and saying her stuff was cut so I assumed a majority would have more info adding to that theory. I mainly concerned about him and Blackwater/NA and why NA has dialog if he was never meant to go there, but where would NA fit in the narrative.

Edited by Implicitly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
areyouchappin

Honestly, I'm tired of arguing about theories because there is no evidence, proof, hints, nothing that states any other woman in the game was a second love interest for Arthur besides Mary. R* cut the content so we will never know the truth, we will never know if an Eliza/Isaac model was ever created or cut, we just can't know.. all we have is speculation.

 

I'm not saying you are wrong because you are entitled to your opinion, but my personal opinion is Eliza is the best choice, all they would have to do is change the dates of the back story and all of the sudden she could have been closer to the games time line and alive. Sadie could be a possibility but I just didn't feel ANYTHING towards her at all, I loved her character she was interesting and well written but I never felt anything other than the normal gang member camaraderie. Charlotte didn't get enough time to truly know Arthur, but in her interactions there was actually a couple of moments if Arthur's TB didn't get in the way... Even so, I still think Eliza would have been the second love interest, but I agree with R* that a second romance was useless to the plot and was right in removing it.

 

 

36 minutes ago, Implicitly said:

I never said he was going to marry Abigail. I said he slept with Abigail. He desires what John has which envy is shown. A family and a woman that loves him for who he is and sticks by him through it all. This is why Hosea's foreshadowing is important at the beginning. 

She was a one night stand, there was no relationship. When you have a one night stand with someone, you're looking for just sex with no strings attached. If she never got knocked up, he would've never seen her again, or cared about her. Eliza has been dead for a decade. The only way it would work is if Eliza was alive in the year of 1899. There is no model for Eliza, they never had plans with Eliza. Not even flashbacks because there is no model made for her.

Actually, you did say Arthur would have married Abigail if he wouldn't have been stuck on Mary..

 

" It's said in the story he visited Eliza and Issac every several months which is in relation to providing for a family as she knew what he was. A one-night stand is still completely different than a love interest, his feelings for Mary make it evidently clear there was no love for Eliza. He was involved with their lives because he was a dad and having a family is what Arthur always desired. He's a family type of guy who takes responsibility. it doesn't go deeper than that and the game makes this clear. The reason he is traumatized because he carries the burden with guilt, he blames himself for making a simple mistake because if he had not made that mistake or had gotten involved they wouldn't of gotten murdered (which isn't even his fault, they were robbed). He refuses to sleep with anyone else because he's scared of making that mistake again because he knows his life and his involvement is too dangerous. Of course their deaths would effect him entirely. Arthur takes all deaths hard, but like, of course he's going to be destroyed it's it's his very own's son's death, he's not going to laugh it all. I don't see how this carves the narrative that they wrote up a plot of (5-hours long), that is barely anything regarding his son and one-night stand. You also forget that he was sleeping with Abigail until Marston came along and would've married Abigail if he hadn't been stuck on Mary. So, either he was sleeping with Abigail still while he had his son, or beforehand until his son came around because John came around. "

 

 

Edited by areyouchappin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Meekail

Another thing that may lead to Sadie being possibly a love interest or at least be involved in some of the latter missions, is the scene in the launch trailer where Sadie says "Do as you're goddamn told." and there's a wagon full of explosives behind her. There's also another scene in the trailer with John and Arthur that pretty much has the same lighting as the Sadie scene, which could mean they were both from the same mission. It's most likely the mission where you blow up the bridge with John and maybe Sadie was originally a part of that?

 

The fact that this was in the launch trailer so close to release may suggest they just did it for the trailer, but it's still weird.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darealbandicoot
1 minute ago, Meekail said:

Another thing that may lead to Sadie being possibly a love interest or at least be involved in some of the latter missions, is the scene in the launch trailer where Sadie says "Do as you're goddamn told." and there's a wagon full of explosives behind her. There's also another scene in the trailer with John and Arthur that pretty much has the same lighting as the Sadie scene, which could mean they were both from the same mission. It's most likely the mission where you blow up the bridge with John and maybe Sadie was originally a part of that?

 

The fact that this was in the launch trailer so close to release may suggest they just did it for the trailer, but it's still weird.

 

Nah that's just for the launch trailer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyGanteks
Quote

The gang is riding through Blackwater: 

https://streamable.com/sibkb - Hosea and Sadie are apart of the chase same with Micah and his boys. The wanted mechanic/mini-map is proof this was cut content.

 

Besides Lenny and Sean missing, there's also no Trelawny. And we know he was scouting Blackwater to find where Sean was held, so he could've still gone his own way at that point like he does in the final game.

This could have been a chapter 2 mission where they all go together to free Sean, and Sadie became, well, Sadie at that point too, rather than Chapter 3 where she gets up on her feet only after going with Arthur to Rhodes.

It would probably explain her showing up in Valentine with the gang, which is either chapter 2 or 3. And maybe in that Rhodes mission she had with Arthur, we had her becoming a slight love interest for Arthur somehow, thus the mission probably played slightly differently too.

 

Honestly, it does make more sense for the whole gang to go save Sean and then have a huge freakin party at camp, rather than just a few people like he's irrelevant. If he wasn't that important, why the huge party all of a sudden? People at camp rarely mentioned him before i did the mission to rescue him. Also, we had a party just as big when Jack was saved, and they all went storming the Braithwaite's mansion when trying to locate him. It would've made gang unity seem stronger to have a mission like that in chapter 2 to contrast it's full collapse in chapter 6, but for some reason they didn't make it like this in the final game.

 

I also do still wonder how the Hanging Dog Ranch came to play as a caravan camp though. Was it a chapter 0/prologue temporary stop before Colter? How big was the original prologue and chapters 0/1?

Or maybe it was an after Chapter 6 camp in the original chapter 7/epilogue, especially as it's close to Adler Ranch and the Wapiti was probably way up north in the part of the map we didn't see. And as we know Sadie hates the O"Driscols for killing her husband and that's where they hanged around, this could've become the camp of whatever was left of the gang at that point, with the mission with Sadie and Arthur clearing it being different.

 

Even though they leaked publicly at approx the same time, i think the leaked map was taken much earlier in development than the reddit leak which was pretty much fully correct.

Edited by AndyGanteks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Implicitly
2 hours ago, AndyGanteks said:

 

Besides Lenny and Sean missing, there's also no Trelawny. And we know he was scouting Blackwater to find where Sean was held, so he could've still gone his own way at that point like he does in the final game.

This could have been a chapter 2 mission where they all go together to free Sean, and Sadie became, well, Sadie at that point too, rather than Chapter 3 where she gets up on her feet only after going with Arthur to Rhodes.

It would probably explain her showing up in Valentine with the gang, which is either chapter 2 or 3. And maybe in that Rhodes mission she had with Arthur, we had her becoming a slight love interest for Arthur somehow, thus the mission probably played slightly differently too.

Holy nice catch! In the trailer there is a scene where Sadie is gathered around the fire, Hosea is telling his tale how he met Dutch. It was clearly a deleted scene. She's wearing her Chapter 6 outfit which she never wore when Sean was alive. The fire scene they're gathered around is when they're in the Horseshoe Overlook camp. Like you said, this explains why she shows up in Chapter 2-3. Nelson said that missions/story was cut and rotated around which is why things are out of place. I think this validates that a lot regarding Sadie was scrapped.

 

The same thing happened with Micah too, there was that leaker who leaked the entire game years ago and was hands down perfectly right. He said that the game starts off running from the Pinkertons solely because of a rat in the gang from the very beginning. This is why with Milton it's out of place and why there is confusion on there being a rat till later and why explanations like how the Pinkertons showed up to Saint Denis asap never made sense because gathering the leaker's info, the narrative/plot was scrapped and what we're seeing is the scattered aftermath of the missions being rotated.

2 hours ago, AndyGanteks said:

 

Honestly, it does make more sense for the whole gang to go save Sean and then have a huge freakin party at camp, rather than just a few people like he's irrelevant. If he wasn't that important, why the huge party all of a sudden? People at camp rarely mentioned him before i did the mission to rescue him. Also, we had a party just as big when Jack was saved, and they all went storming the Braithwaite's mansion when trying to locate him. It would've made gang unity seem stronger to have a mission like that in chapter 2 to contrast it's full collapse in chapter 6, but for some reason they didn't make it like this in the final game.

Exactly and Blackwater is dangerous. Now that I think about it, there's the official gameplay footage showing the gang running through BW which you're aware of, maybe that was them all off to rescue Sean???

2 hours ago, AndyGanteks said:

 

I also do still wonder how the Hanging Dog Ranch came to play as a caravan camp though. Was it a chapter 0/prologue temporary stop before Colter? How big was the original prologue and chapters 0/1?

Or maybe it was an after Chapter 6 camp in the original chapter 7/epilogue, especially as it's close to Adler Ranch and the Wapiti was probably way up north in the part of the map we didn't see. And as we know Sadie hates the O"Driscols for killing her husband and that's where they hanged around, this could've become the camp of whatever was left of the gang at that point, with the mission with Sadie and Arthur clearing it being different.

 

Even though they leaked publicly at approx the same time, i think the leaked map was taken much earlier in development than the reddit leak which was pretty much fully correct.

This is the question that's hard for me to ever figure an answer. I think someone found that the Grizzlies was much larger than originally. It's odd how Adler ranch is in a completely different place. I do know that the leaker did mention the main point of having to move camp to camp a lot which was the big feature which explains why there's so many options. If you remember, Davey also has as entire model. What was the point of making Davey a model for 5 seconds if there wasn't more in the beginning?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jabalous

Many great thoughts, and I actually was wondering about the same in regard to the marketing material showing Arthur and the gang active in Great Plains and Blackwater. An earlier plan might have been to begin the game before the gang escaped to the Grizzlies and while they were still active in West Elizabeth (WE), but for some reason it got scrapped and we instead started inside the blizzard on the mountains. This portion of the story remains the most likely candidate for a story DLC. As for the inclusion of New Austin (NA), I don't think the plan was not to include it just because the early leaked map didn't show it. If you think about it, WE and NA are two states that are connected by land in Redemption, so the logical thing is to include NA since there was no way to change the geography or block us from going there without breaking the canon. 

Edited by Jabalous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jimbatron

Sadie would be my best bet as the cut down 2nd love interest that didn’t work.

 

There is a clear chemistry going on by “Mrs Sadie Adler - Widow” in Chapter 6 which seems to have grown very rapidly. You can see why they might have cut it for not working because Sadie being too traumatised it maybe made it more right for her to struggle to form a strong bond and become more of the one woman band we see in the Epilogue.

 

Mary-Beth Gaskill is probably the next best possibility - asking Arthur to dance in Chapter 2, being a constant confidant etc. It definitely felt like there was an undercurrent of something there, but that probably wouldn’t have failed to work with the story early on. The problem with a Sadie relationship is that it would have to develop later - by which time

Arthur got his tuberculosis diagnosis - which especially back then would have been a romance killer

 

I don’t buy the cut love interest was a ? Character like Charlotte. The 65 down to 60 hours implies to me it was core story mode - if you include optional encounters it’s much longer than 60 hours of gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyGanteks

I too think the cut prologue chapter existed with the gang active around Blackwater etc, but i don't think those videos and screens from the op were a part of it, simply because the gang only meets Sadie when in Colter. How would they meet her, a normal fine family woman before the Blackwater robbery. So those screens/videos cut were chapter 2 and 3 maybe. That one where Arthur is fighting someone in Blackwater though, that could go either way.

 

The way i'm thinking, it went something like this.

 

1) Original game concept, as in the map which leaked. There was a larger prologue, Arthur had a 2nd love interest(within the gang). Story played differently but had many similar or same missions as of now. The ending was either different too, or you only had access to Tall Trees and Great Plains afterwards, but not NA. New Austin didn't exist like Mexico doesn't. Thieves Landing as shown on the leaked map was out of bounds and only for show(like El Presidio ended in the final game) but you couldn't access it. Either they made your canoe drown, or the invisible sniper hit you. Guarma had a different map and was much bigger too. You were able to take gang members to missions and free roam and Tall Trees & Great Plains possibly weren't locked, only Blackwater was and only until the epilogue. Suspicions of a rat were present from the prologue and the betrayal didn't happen after Guarma but rather from the start(it might still be, but thanks to cut chapter/missions we can't tell for sure)

2) Sometime later, they weren't happy with the story. Mountains and rivers had to be moved, expanded. New Austin was added because they felt it makes sense. However more conflicts in the story arose with that addition. To make it all fit somehow, they decide to shorten the prologue, lock New Austin, kill off Armadillo, remake Guarma and that chapter, delete the second love interest and the whole of RDR 1 map was not accessible until the epilogue. It might've caused the ending to change too, depending if it was any different before. Possible reason for all delays was they had a lot of work sorting out all the loopholes and rerecording lines. Finally, another leak detailing the online modes is revealed. RDO was decided to launch as beta and improve over time because a lot of resources and time was spent getting the story mode right and they couldn't afford any more delays.

Edited by AndyGanteks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harmonica

If they changed the setting of certain missions for the trailers to avoid spoilers then they may have inserted characters into scenes for marketing purposes as well. I recall them getting some flak 2 years ago because the first teaser poster didn't feature a female silhouette amongst the gang members. So maybe there was a note to make sure a strong female character featured strongly in the rest of the marketing. And given that Sadie features mainly in the second half of the game, they may have had no choice but to put her into earlier scenes to avoid spoilers. 

 

I dunno. Sadie is fairly major character in the game as it is. I find it hard to believe they cut out several additional hours of missions involving her, or that they ever intended her to be a romantic interest to Arthur, especially when he already has one in the game up until chapter 4. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Implicitly
3 hours ago, Jabalous said:

Many great thoughts, and I actually was wondering about the same in regard to the marketing material showing Arthur and the gang active in Great Plains and Blackwater. An earlier plan might have been to begin the game before the gang escaped to the Grizzlies and while they were still active in West Elizabeth (WE), but for some reason it got scrapped and we instead started inside the blizzard on the mountains. This portion of the story remains the most likely candidate for a story DLC. As for the inclusion of New Austin (NA), I don't think the plan was not to include it just because the early leaked map didn't show it. If you think about it, WE and NA are two states that are connected by land in Redemption, so the logical thing is to include NA since there was no way to change the geography or block us from going there without breaking the canon. 

I believe there is also a picture someone found in the Beta thread of the gang out in WE so they absolutely did escape to WE but scrapped it and going by what the leaker told us constantly being on the run due to a rat in the game from the very beginning, it's good representation of like what you said, it got scrapped.

 

That's true about NA. I always thought NA would be in the beginning def not the ending tbh because we already knew his fate before RD2 was even announced so it 100% had to be beginning, maybe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Implicitly
2 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

Sadie would be my best bet as the cut down 2nd love interest that didn’t work.

 

There is a clear chemistry going on by “Mrs Sadie Adler - Widow” in Chapter 6 which seems to have grown very rapidly. You can see why they might have cut it for not working because Sadie being too traumatised it maybe made it more right for her to struggle to form a strong bond and become more of the one woman band we see in the Epilogue.

Yeah and there's no explanation on how they became close which is a big hole, it made no sense, it was just instant out of the blue with Sadie taking over. I think they scrapped it cause they were killing him off so what was the point. Seems like they only kept Mary Linton around when they originally intended a love triangle because Mary's story works perfectly with Arthur's death plot because Mary is sneakily set up to never end with Arthur because the game reminds you they're incompatible from the beginning. If anyone re-watches the scene when Hosea goes hunting with Arthur, Hosea will tell the story of him and Bessie and saying that they worked because she loved him because she purely accepted him and knew exactly what he was. She didn't join the gang either, but they made it work all because it came down to acceptance. Hosea reminds Arthur there was never an escape from the outlaw life. This is strong foreshadowing regarding Mary and Arthur, but it also applies to John and Abigail. Mary can't accept Arthur because he's an outlaw and his lifestyle. John and Abigail and Hosea and Bessie purely worked because both women accepted John and Hosea for what they were. John's life is a living flashback of Hosea's life, he tries to escape from the outlaw life John, but cannot, just like Hosea. This is where you can absolutely tell R*'s plan was to set Arthur with someone who accepted him for who he is because the foreshadowing is showcase of Mary/Arthur being impossible as Hosea and John are examples. 

 

They do this with Sadie, she accepts him for who he is and there is camp dialog of her accepting him and saying he isn't a cold-blooded killer that it's all act an act. She compares him to her husband via honorable when her husband was never a killer and she's sympathetic because she knows his life because she's apart of it too.

 

So, I always just took it as they cut it cause a love interest in general won't make sense since he just dies anyway.

2 hours ago, Jimbatron said:

 

Mary-Beth Gaskill is probably the next best possibility - asking Arthur to dance in Chapter 2, being a constant confidant etc. It definitely felt like there was an undercurrent of something there, but that probably wouldn’t have failed to work with the story early on. The problem with a Sadie relationship is that it would have to develop later - by which time

I use to assume it was Mary Beth but then you can dance with Karen and Tilly, Mary-Beth and Karen all have sit down talks with Arthur and then I found out Mary had a romantic plotline with Kieran already, then at Chapter 6 she flees the gang without even saying goodbye to Arthur, just dipped and I was like oh, that def erases Mary-Beth out of the picture, plus the decade + age gap. 

2 hours ago, Jimbatron said:
  Reveal hidden contents

Arthur got his tuberculosis diagnosis - which especially back then would have been a romance killer

 

 

I don’t buy the cut love interest was a ? Character like Charlotte. The 65 down to 60 hours implies to me it was core story mode - if you include optional encounters it’s much longer than 60 hours of gameplay.

Yeah I don't either. The fact that we've already seen bits of Sadie showing her full gunslinger out, and cut scenes like another user pointed out with Sadie in her Chapter 6 clothes with Sean next to her leads me to believe all the content with Sadie was scrapped and it definitely has something to do with Arthur. I assume Sadie / Arthur were meant to go to BW + NA. We've already seen scrapped content with Sadie from what we know, and her character instantly becomes BFF's with Arthur. It definitely has to be Sadie. I think people think it's Charlotte cause she gives him a kiss even though that kiss and their dialog doesn't even imply anything romantic while Sadie and Arthur flirt. You'd think if Sadie was suppose to be Platonic, why would R* make them flirt, and make the low honor dialog calling him a best friend, if they were meant to be platonic the higher honor would've been he's a best friend.

 

So yup, I agree.

 

1 hour ago, Harmonica said:

If they changed the setting of certain missions for the trailers to avoid spoilers then they may have inserted characters into scenes for marketing purposes as well. I recall them getting some flak 2 years ago because the first teaser poster didn't feature a female silhouette amongst the gang members. So maybe there was a note to make sure a strong female character featured strongly in the rest of the marketing. And given that Sadie features mainly in the second half of the game, they may have had no choice but to put her into earlier scenes to avoid spoilers. 

 

I dunno. Sadie is fairly major character in the game as it is. I find it hard to believe they cut out several additional hours of missions involving her, or that they ever intended her to be a romantic interest to Arthur, especially when he already has one in the game up until chapter 4. 

He was suppose to have two, I think it was suppose to be a love triangle, but because he was going to die anyway, they scrapped it and Mary's fit's completely with his death because they were doomed from the start if that makes sense. It just doesn't make sense how they build up flirting with Sadie and Arthur, and all of that if that wasn't their intention.

 

I know about the switching they do to throw people off but the bits they teased with them in Blackwater isn't switched around, it's evidently scrapped mission/content. He was suppose to be in BW and Sadie is shown down there too with him, so def something is up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Implicitly
2 hours ago, AndyGanteks said:

I too think the cut prologue chapter existed with the gang active around Blackwater etc, but i don't think those videos and screens from the op were a part of it, simply because the gang only meets Sadie when in Colter. How would they meet her, a normal fine family woman before the Blackwater robbery. So those screens/videos cut were chapter 2 and 3 maybe. That one where Arthur is fighting someone in Blackwater though, that could go either way.

 

The way i'm thinking, it went something like this.

 

1) Original game concept, as in the map which leaked. There was a larger prologue, Arthur had a 2nd love interest(within the gang). Story played differently but had many similar or same missions as of now. The ending was either different too, or you only had access to Tall Trees and Great Plains afterwards, but not NA. New Austin didn't exist like Mexico doesn't. Thieves Landing as shown on the leaked map was out of bounds and only for show(like El Presidio ended in the final game) but you couldn't access it. Either they made your canoe drown, or the invisible sniper hit you. Guarma had a different map and was much bigger too. You were able to take gang members to missions and free roam and Tall Trees & Great Plains possibly weren't locked, only Blackwater was and only until the epilogue. Suspicions of a rat were present from the prologue and the betrayal didn't happen after Guarma but rather from the start(it might still be, but thanks to cut chapter/missions we can't tell for sure)

2) Sometime later, they weren't happy with the story. Mountains and rivers had to be moved, expanded. New Austin was added because they felt it makes sense. However more conflicts in the story arose with that addition. To make it all fit somehow, they decide to shorten the prologue, lock New Austin, kill off Armadillo, remake Guarma and that chapter, delete the second love interest and the whole of RDR 1 map was not accessible until the epilogue. It might've caused the ending to change too, depending if it was any different before. Possible reason for all delays was they had a lot of work sorting out all the loopholes and rerecording lines. Finally, another leak detailing the online modes is revealed. RDO was decided to launch as beta and improve over time because a lot of resources and time was spent getting the story mode right and they couldn't afford any more delays.

This sounds very fitting. The sea turtle finding I think also exposes that Guarma was 100% going to be free world gameplay and it absolutely was bigger like you said, because Chapter 5 the way it is right now makes no sense, characters are pointless, the whole thing is just a mess. Never made sense how you go from open world gameplay to being railed roaded in. I wonder if the entire gang was suppose to get lost in Guarma then since it was evidently going to be free roam and a huge map and Dutch kept telling everyone they're going to Tahiti. It would 100% make more sense for them all to wound up there. 

 

I just took a look at the map, so Adler ranch originally was very close to Hanging Dog ranch, which was originally to be used as a camp and since it's filled with O'Driscolls, maybe Sadie and Arthur were going to take over it? It would also explain why in the cut bits she's wearing her early start clothes and she's seen in Valentine with them so she had a big play in the narrative from the very start.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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