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

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. Los Santos Summer Special
      2. The Diamond Casino Heist
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

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

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

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

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

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Typhus

Unpopular Opinions about RDR2

Recommended Posts

BoulderFaceplant
49 minutes ago, Shadowfennekin said:

About John taking the money.... what was he supposed to do? Just leave it there or give it to the feds? lol

The guy has a family and needed to provide for them, the money was long thought lost anyways so I don't see the problem. 'canonically' he probably got enough to pay off the ranch, gameplay wise it was that amount to allow for you to do whatever you want(Cause you lose all Arthur's cash)

Off the top of my head? Let Charles have it. He would’ve given it to his Native American brethren to help them rebuild and move forward. They sure could’ve used it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironside
1 hour ago, BoulderFaceplant said:

Off the top of my head? Let Charles have it. He would’ve given it to his Native American brethren to help them rebuild and move forward. They sure could’ve used it. 

I was always of the understanding that John, Charles and Sadie split the money and gold after American Venom!? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BoulderFaceplant
6 hours ago, Ironside said:

I was always of the understanding that John, Charles and Sadie split the money and gold after American Venom!? 

All of the gold should’ve gone to Charles and his people. That actually would’ve been a great way to end the thematic thread about the natives that was recurring throughout the story. And to keep it appropriately tragic, maybe the money ends up squandered by corrupt leaders. 

 

My my point is that John shouldn’t have gotten such a luxurious amount of money. It makes him less sympathetic, even if his moral character isn’t much different either way. 

Edited by BoulderFaceplant
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironside
2 minutes ago, BoulderFaceplant said:

All of the gold should’ve gone to Charles and his people. That actually would’ve been a great way to end the thematic thread about the natives that was recurring throughout the story. And to keep it appropriately tragic, maybe the money ends up squandered by corrupt leaders. 

 

My my point is that John shouldn’t have gotten such a luxurious amount of money. It makes him less sympathetic, even if his moral character isn’t much different either way. 

I will not argue about the points you make, I even mostly agree with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Jungz

Having just started a RDR1 playthrough for the first time in two years, I am baffled at how different John acts in RDR as opposed to RDR2.

 

Instead of being this bumbling socially awkward muppet, he's this menacing, calm and collected, ice cold killer. He's pretty much Arthur but without the need to punch and scream at everyone. I've lost some respect for RDR2 for treating such an iconic character this way. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darealbandicoot
4 hours ago, ThroatSlasher2 said:

Having just started a RDR1 playthrough for the first time in two years, I am baffled at how different John acts in RDR as opposed to RDR2.

 

Instead of being this bumbling socially awkward muppet, he's this menacing, calm and collected, ice cold killer. He's pretty much Arthur but without the need to punch and scream at everyone. I've lost some respect for RDR2 for treating such an iconic character this way. 

Sssshhhh don't say that! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason

Eh, there's what, a good 10 years between RDR2 John and RDR1 John? Nothing unusual about him being a more mature, composed and collected individual after that span of time IMO, he's simply an older and more experienced man. His family is also being held hostage in RDR1, so he's got no reason or want to f*ck about, and he has no one to back his play in RDR1. I think them showing John before he was a character capable of being the great, ruthless protagonist he was in RDR1 was pretty cool personally.

 

Personally, I was very meh on how multiple members of the gang turned on Arthur and sided with Micah so quickly, especially Dutch. A lot of the story development regarding that happened a bit too quick once Guarma started.

Edited by Jason
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironside
11 minutes ago, Jason said:

Eh, there's what, a good 10 years between RDR2 John and RDR1 John? Nothing unusual about him being a more mature, composed and collected individual after that span of time IMO, he's simply an older and more experienced man. His family is also being held hostage in RDR1, so he's got no reason or want to f*ck about, and he has no one to back his play in RDR1. I think them showing John before he was a character capable of being the great, ruthless protagonist he was in RDR1 was pretty cool personally.

 

Personally, I was very meh on how multiple members of the gang turned on Arthur and sided with Micah so quickly, especially Dutch. A lot of the story development regarding that happened a bit too quick once Guarma started.

I actually agree with this, especially the part about Arthur’s so called friends turning on him. This is one of the main reasons I actually dislike the last chapters of the game as the plot suddenly moves at the speed of light instead of the more realistic speeds of earlier chapters. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnnyb17
5 hours ago, ThroatSlasher2 said:

Having just started a RDR1 playthrough for the first time in two years, I am baffled at how different John acts in RDR as opposed to RDR2.

 

Instead of being this bumbling socially awkward muppet, he's this menacing, calm and collected, ice cold killer. He's pretty much Arthur but without the need to punch and scream at everyone. I've lost some respect for RDR2 for treating such an iconic character this way. 

Gotta disagree here man. I felt Rdr2 set up a great character arc for John you can literally see him grow up during the course of both games. People change dude. 

 

I feel they nailed it. 

Unpopular opinion:

 

i loved guarma! The music, the constant state of dread contrasted by being on a beautiful island was awesome. 

 

The music while fighting off the spanish troops is just amazing, plus the scene with the capitan and the shotgun 

 

just great work

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jason

I don't dislike Guarma, it's a cool part of the game, I just felt it had some meh story elements. It was the start of Dutch losing trust in Arthur and siding with Micah on everything which again I thought happened too quick, and it had one or two dumb things like Dutch giving gold to a woman, shooting her, and then saying he gave her the last of the gold so he doesn't have anymore lol. It's, IMO, the weakest chapter in the game but still fun.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Johnnyb17
1 minute ago, Jason said:

I don't dislike Guarma, it's a cool part of the game, I just felt it had some meh story elements. It was the start of Dutch losing trust in Arthur and siding with Micah on everything which again I thought happened too quick, and it had one or two dumb things like Dutch giving gold to a woman, shooting her, and then saying he gave her the last of the gold so he doesn't have anymore lol. It's, IMO, the weakest chapter in the game but still fun.

Oh for sure there are a lot of head scratching moments in that chapter I will agree. The old lady part definitely. Like did they just leave that gold bar with her corpse?Frustrating oversight from the writers. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Jungz
6 hours ago, Jason said:

Eh, there's what, a good 10 years between RDR2 John and RDR1 John? Nothing unusual about him being a more mature, composed and collected individual after that span of time IMO, he's simply an older and more experienced man. His family is also being held hostage in RDR1, so he's got no reason or want to f*ck about, and he has no one to back his play in RDR1. I think them showing John before he was a character capable of being the great, ruthless protagonist he was in RDR1 was pretty cool personally.

 

Personally, I was very meh on how multiple members of the gang turned on Arthur and sided with Micah so quickly, especially Dutch. A lot of the story development regarding that happened a bit too quick once Guarma started.

I love what they did to his character arc during Chapter 1 through 6. It made him a much better character and it's truly remarkable to see how far he's come. I love to see his gears start to spin when Jack gets kidnapped. You can see the birth of the man he'll later become. However, he feels way too similar when you get to play him in the epilogue. It's like he's still the gullible 26 year old outcast he was. 

 

Everything is so different about him, from his stare to the way he speaks to his mannerisms. In 1911, he screams "I got this". In 1907, he screams "what's happening?".

 

One quote that really reminds me of 1911 John's attitude is when he bluntly asks Mr. Dickens (at Pronghorn) if he's married to which the latter declines. John replies : "That don't surprise me."

That's the kind of cold, quickly thought, comeback John would spit at the ones nagging him. I feel we needed more of this because right now, I'm really struggling to call epilogue John the same character as RDR John.

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironside
26 minutes ago, ThroatSlasher2 said:

I love what they did to his character arc during Chapter 1 through 6. It made him a much better character and it's truly remarkable to see how far he's come. I love to see his gears start to spin when Jack gets kidnapped. You can see the birth of the man he'll later become. However, he feels way too similar when you get to play him in the epilogue. It's like he's still the gullible 26 year old outcast he was. 

 

Everything is so different about him, from his stare to the way he speaks to his mannerisms. In 1911, he screams "I got this". In 1907, he screams "what's happening?".

 

One quote that really reminds me of 1911 John's attitude is when he bluntly asks Mr. Dickens (at Pronghorn) if he's married to which the latter declines. John replies : "That don't surprise me."

That's the kind of cold, quickly thought, comeback John would spit at the ones nagging him. I feel we needed more of this because right now, I'm really struggling to call epilogue John the same character as RDR John.

You do have a point, or many even. I do agree that the John in RDR is way “cooler” for lack of words, compared to the RDR2 epilogue. This may come out as harsh, but I find John to be way too much comic relief and person with no own will in the epilogue compared to the not so well educated but witty gunslinger that he is in RDR. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cutter De Blanc

On the one hand his portrayal in this game gives John's character more depth

 

On the other, that depth comes off as "he's actually kind of a dunderheaded deadbeat who generally makes poor choices in life"

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BoulderFaceplant
23 hours ago, ThroatSlasher2 said:

Having just started a RDR1 playthrough for the first time in two years, I am baffled at how different John acts in RDR as opposed to RDR2.

 

Instead of being this bumbling socially awkward muppet, he's this menacing, calm and collected, ice cold killer. He's pretty much Arthur but without the need to punch and scream at everyone. I've lost some respect for RDR2 for treating such an iconic character this way. 

I agree. 

 

What’s  funny is that he acts a lot more like RDR1 John during stranger mission cutscenes- as you said, basically Arthur but with less shouting. Obviously this is because he’s following the same script as Arthur would, but my point is this should’ve been John for the duration of the Epilogue. 

 

That and he just looks less mean. His wrinkles aren’t really there. His eyes have a softer look to them. It doesn’t ruin anything per se, but it does take the edge away. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Jungz
9 hours ago, BoulderFaceplant said:

I agree. 

 

What’s  funny is that he acts a lot more like RDR1 John during stranger mission cutscenes- as you said, basically Arthur but with less shouting. Obviously this is because he’s following the same script as Arthur would, but my point is this should’ve been John for the duration of the Epilogue. 

 

That and he just looks less mean. His wrinkles aren’t really there. His eyes have a softer look to them. It doesn’t ruin anything per se, but it does take the edge away. 

The only thing that turns me off of playing those side-missions with John is he uses Roger Clark's motion capture and his lips movements. But that's a different subject.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ClaudeTheMan

It's f*cking boring and the gunplay sucks.

Edited by ClaudeTheMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caffeination

I do agree that RDR1 John’s stoic and observant nature was cool, but... I think that made him two-dimensional. There’s more to a character than being a homage to many spaghetti western movies.

 

In RDR2, sure, upon controlling John, we’re introduced to his struggles with family issues instead of casual one-liners towards goons, but... all that character development made him feel like a real person to me!

 

I do have some issues with the Prologue, but they’re all minor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bpm81
On 11/6/2019 at 1:33 PM, ThroatSlasher2 said:

Having just started a RDR1 playthrough for the first time in two years, I am baffled at how different John acts in RDR as opposed to RDR2.

 

Instead of being this bumbling socially awkward muppet, he's this menacing, calm and collected, ice cold killer. He's pretty much Arthur but without the need to punch and scream at everyone. I've lost some respect for RDR2 for treating such an iconic character this way. 

it makes total sense that he's like that in part 1 because of what he's learned from Arthur.  In part 2 we're watching him grow up  If you view them sequentially it's a logical progression of the character.  He's settled with his family built his own ranch and is then snatched out of that life and back into his old one of course he's going to be more hardened and no nonsense

Edited by bpm81
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Jungz
22 minutes ago, bpm81 said:

it makes total sense that he's like that in part 1 because of what he's learned from Arthur.  In part 2 we're watching him grow up  If you view them sequentially it's a logical progression of the character.  He's settled with his family built his own ranch and is then snatched out of that life and back into his old one of course he's going to be more hardened and no nonsense

More hardened and no nonsense, sure.

 

Magically no longer a dumbass and a goof head? Not so much.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bpm81

how can he remain the same boneheaded goof if he's hardened and no nonsense carrying out a mission against his will to try and save his family.  He was immature in part 2 but it wasn't like he was a total dingus like Bill

Edited by bpm81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Jungz

In RDR2, John can't even tell his fake name right to half the people he meets, making himself known as Jim "John" Milton. That's Bill Williamson level of idiocy. 

 

In RDR, he basically tells Landon Ricketts to go f*ck himself when he comments on his aim. He's so calm and self assured. No way RDR John would slip up and tell his real name if he was in hiding. He's uneducated but not stupid.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xerukal

I only remember "Jim John" being a thing with one person in the Epilogue, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironside
On 11/10/2019 at 9:16 PM, Xerukal said:

I only remember "Jim John" being a thing with one person in the Epilogue, though. 

Well, he says it on several occasions. He makes mistakes regarding his name when talking to the boss among the farmhands, the guy working at the post office, at the bank office he is known as “the man with two names and no past”. Mr Geddys seems to also know about Jim-John and I guess the boss of the farmhands tells him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xerukal
45 minutes ago, Ironside said:

Well, he says it on several occasions. He makes mistakes regarding his name when talking to the boss among the farmhands, the guy working at the post office, at the bank office he is known as “the man with two names and no past”. Mr Geddys seems to also know about Jim-John and I guess the boss of the farmhands tells him.

Right. I haven't played the Epilogue in ages so I must have forgotten. Mr. Geddys was the only one I remembered. 

 

In retrospect, it is kind of silly. But I get the feeling they just wanted to make it a running joke. :p 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BoulderFaceplant

I really don’t like it that John decides to go after Micah. That, above any other moment, should’ve been a part of the game where the player could choose what happens. Even then it’s problematic, and here’s why:

 

Lets say that John doesn’t squander Arthur’s sacrifice. Since the events have to line up with RDR1, the government clearly hunts him down one way or another. This alone takes the wind out of Arthur’s sacrificeand mucks up what could’ve been a bittersweet ending.

 

RDR2 feels like it wants to tell this story: Arthur spent his life torn between having a family and being in a gang. By the end, he had been in the gang too long to save himself. But by shedding his outlaw loyalties at the last minute, he managed to give John, Jack, and Abigail the life he never got to live. 

Then you get to the mid-credits scene with Ross, and pop in RDR1, and the whole thing takes a U-turn: 

Actually the law caught up with John anyway and ruined the Marstons’ lives. 

 

It doesn’t feel right. Arthur redeems himself, but things kinda go to sh*t either way. It takes away from his sacrifice, while being too hopeless for its own good. The story induces cynicism and apathy upon repeat playthroughs. 

 

I get the sense that this is exactly what the writers were thinking, and why they made it John who squanders the golden opportunity. But frankly, this lessens the impact of Arthur’s sacrifice too. John gets hunted down either way, and now he looks like a doofus. 

 

This paradox is another reason why this particular story shouldn’t have been a prequel. 

Edited by BoulderFaceplant
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Jungz

I kinda like it cause at this point in the story, all I wanted to do was obliterate Micah and I had totally forgotten (or disregarded) Arthur's warnings about revenge and what it ultimately brings you.

 

Then when you kill him, you realize you've effectively murdered John as well. I think it's kinda brilliant.

 

And as for Arthur's sacrifice being squandered away, I think it kinda makes sense. Both he and John are complete failures.Life long f*ck ups. Both men ended their lives wishing for Abigail and Jack to lead a better life and they both failed at that. And they couldn't have prevented it really.

 

John dooms himself because of his brotherhood for Arthur and his undying respect for the gang. He kills Micah not for himself (unlike Sadie) but in honor of those who perished. Arthur's act of saving John effectively provided the latter with the motivation to kill Micah. 

 

And John tried as hard as he could (in RDR, not gonna count the epilogue cause its a loaf of sh*t) to make sure Jack was allowed to grow up into the man he wanted to be. But despite his best efforts, the one thing Jack sought the most was his father's approval. He desperately wanted to impress John and was destined to follow in his footsteps, especially with him out of the picture.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eshaal

Lack of colour in the menu system is my biggest gripe with the game. 

 

Example,. in the progression section, why not use full blown colour instead of cheap looking Grey/White images, and Yellow for Legendary? Why not use actual pictures full of vibrant colour? 

 

More use of colour information when scouring animals for hunting,. Red for 1 Star, Yellow for 2*, and Green for 3* - just makes life that much easier instead of trying to count white starts on a grey backdrop! 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironside
4 hours ago, Eshaal said:

Lack of colour in the menu system is my biggest gripe with the game. 

 

Example,. in the progression section, why not use full blown colour instead of cheap looking Grey/White images, and Yellow for Legendary? Why not use actual pictures full of vibrant colour? 

 

More use of colour information when scouring animals for hunting,. Red for 1 Star, Yellow for 2*, and Green for 3* - just makes life that much easier instead of trying to count white starts on a grey backdrop! 

 

 

 

 

Not a bad idea, at least the hunting part is something that could be improved on. Sadly the game is plagued by far worse things than wrong color schemes right now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BoulderFaceplant
10 hours ago, ThroatSlasher2 said:

I kinda like it cause at this point in the story, all I wanted to do was obliterate Micah and I had totally forgotten (or disregarded) Arthur's warnings about revenge and what it ultimately brings you.

 

Then when you kill him, you realize you've effectively murdered John as well. I think it's kinda brilliant.

 

And as for Arthur's sacrifice being squandered away, I think it kinda makes sense. Both he and John are complete failures.Life long f*ck ups. Both men ended their lives wishing for Abigail and Jack to lead a better life and they both failed at that. And they couldn't have prevented it really.

 

John dooms himself because of his brotherhood for Arthur and his undying respect for the gang. He kills Micah not for himself (unlike Sadie) but in honor of those who perished. Arthur's act of saving John effectively provided the latter with the motivation to kill Micah. 

 

And John tried as hard as he could (in RDR, not gonna count the epilogue cause its a loaf of sh*t) to make sure Jack was allowed to grow up into the man he wanted to be. But despite his best efforts, the one thing Jack sought the most was his father's approval. He desperately wanted to impress John and was destined to follow in his footsteps, especially with him out of the picture.

The problem with all of this is that Arthur’s efforts get squandered, except for Abigail (kind of), and maybe Jack (I’ll get back to him in a moment). I suppose it’s up to personal preference, but for me, it just makes me care less about the “redemption” story. You can say it redeems Arthur’s moral character, but not really. He’s already done his most virtuous and noble acts in the Chapter 6 Money Lending and side missions. His moral redemption is complete already, so if there’s going to be this big musical interlude and literal passing of the hat, then at this point it needs to be a practical victory. Otherwise it’s redundant, and sits in the shadow of the good things he did the other day. 

 

Then there’s the fact that this is a video game. I’m not saying that each quest needs to end with victory, but overall, the player does need to be rewarded with narrative victory from time to time. And with nearly every mission involving the player getting Arthur and co deeper into trouble, the payoff really should be a positive thing. 

 

Now here’s the big problem with John going after Micah. He looks so goddamn stupid. It would be one thing if he was just angry at Micah, if his rage blinded him and he just wanted Micah to die. But no. Somehow, after all of his Chapter 6 advice from Arthur about leaving the past behind and not chasing revenge, John actually believes that killing Micah is what Arthur would want. It makes John come off as a bona fide moron. Go play RDR and then tell me John Marston could misread someone’s intentions so completely. 

 

Speaking of RDR1, I have some gripes there too. Honestly, the redemption theme always struck me as pretty weak in that story. John is the same moral character he is in that barn, that he was coming off the boat to Fort Mercer. He doesn’t have a redemption arc. He just gets a gun pointed to his head and hunts down his gang, then goes back to life as usual before getting shot for it. AND THEN Jack, the once-innocent boy, goes and kills Ross. The only arc we get is Jack, and it’s not so much redemption as it is corruption.

 

Worse yet, Jack isn’t given any closure. What happens to him? I know the story is over, but some kind of hint would’ve been nice. Is he an outlaw now? Is he abandoning the ranch? Does he get killed? If RDR2 had to be about anyone featured in the first game, it should’ve been Jack. 

Edited by BoulderFaceplant

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.


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

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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