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. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    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 IV 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 SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

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

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

Mysterious hero

Red Dead Redemption 2 Retcons and Continuity errors

Recommended Posts

Mysterious hero

The title says it all. I have always wanted to do a list of the changes and errors between the first two Redemption games, mostly because these are my favorite games of all time, but also because I loved the stories. I am surprised that there hasn't been a list dedicated to this so I guess it's up to me. Alright, here we go:

 

-To start out simple, John going to New Austin. In the first game, John tells Bonnie that he and his gang never went to the New Austin state. While true for the gang (except for Dutch and Hosea), John has canonically been there twice, once with Sadie and once with Jeremy Gill.

 

-John also tells Bonnie that he has been farming for three years (1908). The GOTY guidebook for RDR1 states that he has been trying to farm for three years. Yet in RDR2, he gets his farm in 1907.

 

-The MacFarlane barn is not there in RDR2, despite Bonnie telling John that her father built the barn when she was a little girl. Even if you say that the New Austin map was made for 1899, that would make her 15, hardly qualifies for a little girl.

 

-In the first game, a couple of newspapers mention that Dutch was thought to have died in a fire after a bungled robbery in 1906. Yet in RDR2's epilogue, which takes place in 1907, this bungled robbery is not mentioned. The newspaper also mentions that he has been on the run since 1899 and that law enforcement is still searching for him, even though he is thought to be dead according to the first game.

 

-The Strange Man implies that the robbery where Dutch shoots the girl was the same robbery John got shot and left behind on, judging by the tone of his voice when he says "same one you got shot on". Yet in RDR2, the ferry robbery happened at the beginning of the game, and John was left behind during a train heist.

 

-John tells Landon Ricketts about an event where Dutch went out and "shot a bunch of people unfair like". This event is never seen nor mentioned in Red Dead Redemption 2.

 

-During "Gates of El Presidio", John's says something to Javier along the lines of "What you and Dutch did was wrong, and the way you left me was wrong". Not "You left me and that was wrong" but "What you and Dutch did was wrong". What exactly did Javier and Dutch do? Did it have anything to do with the event above?

 

-In the same mission, Javier alludes to John's daughter by saying "I hope you, your wife and your children rot in hell", suggesting that she was alive during John's time in the gang. She is never seen nor mentioned in RDR2.

 

-John implies that no one in the gang cared for him and that they left him as soon as they had the chance. John even tells Landon Ricketts that "they all gone crazy anyhow". Yet in RDR2, Arthur and Sadie help John and his family get out of the gang and Charles even helps John build the house in Beecher's Hope. They only gang members who opposed John were Micah, Dutch, Bill, Javier, and if you stretch it, Joe and Cleet.

 

I wanted to put up the Blackwater Massacre, since the wiki states that 37 people died during the massacre, 22 outlaws and 15 police/civilians. However, I read all the newspapers in the first game, the only references to the massacre are from the articles concerning Landon Ricketts, who survived the massacre. My question is, where did the wiki get the body count? Is it from some in-game dialogue or from some RDR 1 website? Or is it another fallacy that the wiki created that has no actual bearing in-game. It wouldn't be the first time.

Edited by Mysterious hero
Fixing Grammar mistakes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jje1000

I think that some of John's statements have a bit of wiggle room in that he's recalling memories, and they aren't always correct. That being said, there's definitely lots of little continuity issues that I agree that could have easily been resolved with just tiny changes to the writing- which makes if very puzzling why these exist if Rockstar already has access to the original RDR1 script.

 

 

I think it's entirely possibly that John's daughter is born and dies sometime immediately after the end of RDRII.

 

There's a small encounterable scene in the epilogue where John asks Abigail about her sewing, and says that it would be better if they had someone more to sew for, or something to that extent. Abigail's about to respond, but then decides not to- maybe it could imply that she knows that she might be in the early stages of pregnancy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
9 hours ago, jje1000 said:

I think that some of John's statements have a bit of wiggle room in that he's recalling memories, and they aren't always correct. That being said, there's definitely lots of little continuity issues that I agree that could have easily been resolved with just tiny changes to the writing- which makes if very puzzling why these exist if Rockstar already has access to the original RDR1 script.

I think that explanation could work for the year he got his farm. He does specifically say "three years or so", so it's possible. If he got his farm around, say, mid 1907, and if RDR 1 starts around early 1911, that could mean he is rounding it up to three years. As for John going to New Austin, I don't think he would forget going there twice. I guess an explanation is he HAS been there, he just doesn't know the area very well.

 

9 hours ago, jje1000 said:

 

I think it's entirely possibly that John's daughter is born and dies sometime immediately after the end of RDRII.

 

There's a small encounterable scene in the epilogue where John asks Abigail about her sewing, and says that it would be better if they had someone more to sew for, or something to that extent. Abigail's about to respond, but then decides not to- maybe it could imply that she knows that she might be in the early stages of pregnancy?

Maybe, but if she was born and died on Beecher's Hope, where's her grave? You could make the argument she died a stillborn and didn't have a name, but you would think her family would still bury her. Plus it still wouldn't make since because Javier knows of her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
donnits

To add to the mess that New Austin makes: In RDR1, John asks what Tumbleweed is, despite RDR2 allowing him to be a bounty hunter for the sheriff. How can Tumbleweed even become that dilapidated in only 4 years from RDR2 to RDR1?

 

My main gripe is how John left the gang in RDR2. It lines up so poorly with how RDR1 implied it went down. He was supposed to be the only one to see truth about the gang and then get left for dead on the ferry robbery around 1906~. Instead, he's shot and/or left for dead on THREE different heists in RDR2 in 1899 - the ferry (which was moved to 1899 and merged with the Blackwater Massacre), the Saint-Denis bank (which I thought was the left for dead moment in my first playthrough) and the final train robbery. In RDR1, he was the odd-man-out in the gang, but in RDR2, he's actually just on one side of a civil war within the gang. He's also not just left for dead, but actually hunted down and shot at by his gang according to RDR2. And can I add how dumb it is that he's broken out of a federal penitentiary? Like, it may not have been provable that he ran in a notorious gang in RDR1's canon, but in RDR2's, he literally breaks out of prison before he is to be hanged. He's wanted for life, he shouldn't be buying property in his real name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
3 minutes ago, dognuts said:

To add to the mess that New Austin makes: In RDR1, John asks what Tumbleweed is, despite RDR2 allowing him to be a bounty hunter for the sheriff. How can Tumbleweed even become that dilapidated in only 4 years from RDR2 to RDR1?

John going to Tumbleweed is probably not canon. R* needed to add content to New Austin so that it doesn't turn into a barren landscape. IMO, the only times he canonically goes there is with Sadie and with Jeremy Gill. About dilapidation of Tumbleweed, in the first game you can find a grave there for Grace Blankenship, died May 15th,1907, which means that Tumbleweed was still around during that time.

 

12 minutes ago, dognuts said:

 

My main gripe is how John left the gang in RDR2. It lines up so poorly with how RDR1 implied it went down. He was supposed to be the only one to see truth about the gang and then get left for dead on the ferry robbery around 1906~. Instead, he's shot and/or left for dead on THREE different heists in RDR2 in 1899 - the ferry (which was moved to 1899 and merged with the Blackwater Massacre), the Saint-Denis bank (which I thought was the left for dead moment in my first playthrough) and the final train robbery. In RDR1, he was the odd-man-out in the gang, but in RDR2, he's actually just on one side of a civil war within the gang. He's also not just left for dead, but actually hunted down and shot at by his gang according to RDR2. And can I add how dumb it is that he's broken out of a federal penitentiary? Like, it may not have been provable that he ran in a notorious gang in RDR1's canon, but in RDR2's, he literally breaks out of prison before he is to be hanged. He's wanted for life, he shouldn't be buying property in his real name.

I think they changed from a Ferry robbery to a Train robbery because it would be easier to show him getting left behind on moving train than on a boat. If they did it on a Ferry, then they would probably have to do it off-screen, similar to how he got captured in the bank, but obviously that would be anti-climactic.

 

Speaking of the Saint Denis Bank Robbery, what was the point of him getting arrested? It doesn't really add anything to the plot, other than him getting more disillusioned with Dutch. In the first game, the robbery he got left behind is NEVER mentioned to specifically be a bank robbery, contrary to popular belief. I think they put that there to preserve continuity that isn't even there, since many people belief that it was a bank job for whatever reason. Also, like you said, it creates plot holes, like him using his real name when buying property.

 

As for the 1906 date, that was never directly mentioned to be the date John left, but it was implied.

 

-In the mission "Father Abraham", John mentions that hasn't been much of a father to Jack. If he left in 1906, this would make sense, because he still had loyalty to the gang. But if he left in 1899, then he would have had 8-9 years to father Jack.

 

-In the same mission, he mentions to Luisa "We tried to hide the bad from him growing up but he saw things he shouldn't have seen". In 1906, Jack would be 11. The context of that quote implies Jack saw gang activity. This line makes no since if he was only 4 when they left the gang.

 

-How does Jack remember things from when he was 4? Sure that's when kids start to form memories, but they usually get fuzzy when you grow older. He remembers staying up and listening Dutch and Bill telling stories about their robberies, yet he doesn't remember getting kidnapped, staying at Angelo Bronte's mansion, Kieran's headless body, or the gunfight with the pinkertons.

 

-Small one, but him leaving in 1906 and getting a farm in 1908 makes more sense than him leaving in 1899, going to the Yukon, coming back to West Elizabeth in 1907 for whatever reason despite being wanted there and then getting a farm.

 

-The strange man states that the Ferry Raid was "a few years back", a "few" typically means 3-5 years. Keep in mind, at the time of writing of RDR1, the Ferry Raid was supposed to be the same robbery John got shot and left behind on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a z

As long as Rockstar doesn't get rid of the spirit of the story in the previous Red Dead Redemption, I'd be quite happy if they did things that improve the overall Red Dead experience.  So, let John be okay traveling in New Austin before his main story starts.  Update several lines of dialog in a remastered version.  Take it further and add more things like MacFarlane's Barn during the Epilogue for example.  Make the Epilogue be a solid bridge to the remastered version.  

 

Create one more story DLC that takes place between the Epilogue and the Remaster.  I can show him getting caught, why he was coming off the ferry at the beginning.  Perhaps he was forced to hunt down Karen or someone else from the gang in Saint Denis.  Also, have a period of time when Abigal has a daughter who dies.  Or could that be a daughter with a different woman?

 

Sorry for the tangent... I've been thinking about the continuity conflicts for awhile and it's nice to see a thread about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BoulderFaceplant

Plot holes like this - and the unmentioned and significant characters of Sadie, Charles, and, ahem, ARTHUR - should be rectified in any sort of remake. 

 

Goddamn do I hope we get a remake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obsi
10 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

-In the mission "Father Abraham", John mentions that hasn't been much of a father to Jack. If he left in 1906, this would make sense, because he still had loyalty to the gang. But if he left in 1899, then he would have had 8-9 years to father Jack.

 

-In the same mission, he mentions to Luisa "We tried to hide the bad from him growing up but he saw things he shouldn't have seen". In 1906, Jack would be 11. The context of that quote implies Jack saw gang activity. This line makes no since if he was only 4 when they left the gang.

 

-How does Jack remember things from when he was 4? Sure that's when kids start to form memories, but they usually get fuzzy when you grow older. He remembers staying up and listening Dutch and Bill telling stories about their robberies, yet he doesn't remember getting kidnapped, staying at Angelo Bronte's mansion, Kieran's headless body, or the gunfight with the pinkertons.

 

John considering he hasn't been much of a father could mean that he wasn't physically present much (quantity), or that he wasn't fatherly enough  (quality)....

 

4 year olds definitely see, understand and remember a lot more than some people give them credit for  (ask any parent).  By about the age of 2, a child is absorbing a lot of what is going on around them.  Jack would have potentially seen gang members coming back to camp after being shot, Kidnapping Kieran, the attack on Shady Belle, the attack on Lakay...  and I can't recall where Jack was in the final camp, so he might have seen something there too.  Not to mention being present while gang talk is happening (which I know isn't "seeing" but contributes as well).  He will have known very well that bad stuff was happening.

 

I still have memories from when my sister was born, and I was 3 then... that was 40 years ago.  Memories do fade as you get older, but if you've actively remembered them over time then you still remember (even if it's remembering that you had that memory -- if that makes sense).  So an 11 year old would have memories from when they were 4, no problem - if the memories were strong enough.   However, the brain also has the ability to forget stuff that is painful (or trivial) - so it's entirely possible that Jack would remember the fond memories of listening to his "uncles" telling stories around a nice warm campfire (he's probably not remember the content of the stories, just that it happened)... yet not remembering the scary stuff he'd rather not remember.  Although he appears to have enjoyed his time at Bronte's (he didn't consider himself kidnapped), so you'd think being taken away from a camp to go stay in a mansion would be a unique enough situation to remember......even as a pleasant memory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JavierC
On 2/15/2019 at 10:23 PM, Mysterious hero said:

 

-The Strange Man implies that the robbery where Dutch shoots the girl was the same robbery John got shot and left behind on, judging by the tone of his voice when he says "same one you got shot on". Yet in RDR2, the ferry robbery happened at the beginning of the game, and John was left behind during a train heist.

In the first pages of the Arthur journal, he says that John was indeed shot there (the blackwater robbery where Dutch kills Heidi McCourt).

 

Why he was fighting wolves in the mountains a couple days later? Who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
12 hours ago, Obsi said:

 

4 year olds definitely see, understand and remember a lot more than some people give them credit for  (ask any parent).  By about the age of 2, a child is absorbing a lot of what is going on around them.  Jack would have potentially seen gang members coming back to camp after being shot, Kidnapping Kieran, the attack on Shady Belle, the attack on Lakay...  and I can't recall where Jack was in the final camp, so he might have seen something there too.  Not to mention being present while gang talk is happening (which I know isn't "seeing" but contributes as well).  He will have known very well that bad stuff was happening.

 

I still have memories from when my sister was born, and I was 3 then... that was 40 years ago.  Memories do fade as you get older, but if you've actively remembered them over time then you still remember (even if it's remembering that you had that memory -- if that makes sense).  So an 11 year old would have memories from when they were 4, no problem - if the memories were strong enough.   However, the brain also has the ability to forget stuff that is painful (or trivial) - so it's entirely possible that Jack would remember the fond memories of listening to his "uncles" telling stories around a nice warm campfire (he's probably not remember the content of the stories, just that it happened)... yet not remembering the scary stuff he'd rather not remember.  Although he appears to have enjoyed his time at Bronte's (he didn't consider himself kidnapped), so you'd think being taken away from a camp to go stay in a mansion would be a unique enough situation to remember......even as a pleasant memory.

It just seems odd though that Jack remembers Dutch and Bill telling stories and Arthur's fishing trip, yet doesn't remember anything traumatic. I don't think that he would just forget those things, if anything those types of memories would stick with him for life.

 

John tells Luisa that Jack saw bad things growing up. I emphasized in bold because the words "growing up" implies that Jack saw some bad things all throughout his childhood, not just some things he saw in when he was 3-4. In the context of the original game, this makes sense, since it's implied John left the gang in 1906, which would make Jack 11 years old. However, RDR2 establishes that John left when Jack was only 4 years old. So what bad things did Jack see between 1899-1907? Okay sure, there was that one time with his dad shooting those guys in self defense, but Jack's dialogue and Abigail leaving John immediately seems to suggest that that was the first time he saw John kill someone. Plus Jack seems like a normal kid, if socially awkward, so it's not like he's quiet because he's traumatized from when he was 4 years old.

3 hours ago, JavierC said:

In the first pages of the Arthur journal, he says that John was indeed shot there (the Blackwater robbery where Dutch kills Heidi McCourt).

I know, but in the context of the first game, the Ferry Raid was THE robbery John got shot and left behind on. However when RDR2 was being written, they changed it to being a train robbery. Conveniently, The Strange Man only said that John was shot, not left behind, so they could easily retcon that.

 

3 hours ago, JavierC said:

 

Why he was fighting wolves in the mountains a couple days later? Who knows.

Dutch mentions that he ordered Micah and John to go out scouting. However, John got attacked by wolves during the night and couldn't fight back, due to his injured arm. That begs a question, why would Dutch send an injured man out scouting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RJX74
On 2/16/2019 at 8:12 PM, Mysterious hero said:

John going to Tumbleweed is probably not canon. R* needed to add content to New Austin so that it doesn't turn into a barren landscape. IMO, the only times he canonically goes there is with Sadie and with Jeremy Gill. About dilapidation of Tumbleweed, in the first game you can find a grave there for Grace Blankenship, died May 15th,1907, which means that Tumbleweed was still around during that time.

.

John will tell Sadie that he met the Sherrif of tumbleweed, no matter what. I hadn't been there, and John told her that.

 

Also, a newspaper in 1907 says Dutch is in Tall Trees, so some people knew he was alive.

Edited by RJX74

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boozey St John
21 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

It just seems odd though that Jack remembers Dutch and Bill telling stories and Arthur's fishing trip, yet doesn't remember anything traumatic. I don't think that he would just forget those things, if anything those types of memories would stick with him for life.

 

John tells Luisa that Jack saw bad things growing up. I emphasized in bold because the words "growing up" implies that Jack saw some bad things all throughout his childhood, not just some things he saw in when he was 3-4. In the context of the original game, this makes sense, since it's implied John left the gang in 1906, which would make Jack 11 years old. However, RDR2 establishes that John left when Jack was only 4 years old. So what bad things did Jack see between 1899-1907? Okay sure, there was that one time with his dad shooting those guys in self defense, but Jack's dialogue and Abigail leaving John immediately seems to suggest that that was the first time he saw John kill someone. Plus Jack seems like a normal kid, if socially awkward, so it's not like he's quiet because he's traumatized from when he was 4 years old.

Some children and even adults repress very traumatic memories/events. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a z

Ugh, not having Cochinay in the game feels so out of touch and rushed.  It would've been awesome to see this as an established mining operation and as Arthur you're the one that causes it to fail.  Even to the point it was one of Dutch's failed missions and he returns to this place many years later when John finds him.

 

tumblr_o5v89zRFOr1ue0xevo1_500.jpg

 

Where the cave started

Spoiler

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cutter De Blanc

I tried for an hour to get into there, you can just climb up into the f*cking thing? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SneakyDeaky

It was marked as a gang hideout in the leaked map, I suspect it may have been a Skinner brothers camp originally and I don't have any clue why Rockstar removed it. 8 years could just be a little bit too long to make a game like this, because I think Rockstar ended up second guessing themselves about a lot of stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Equatecurl
On 2/18/2019 at 6:31 PM, alz said:

Ugh, not having Cochinay in the game feels so out of touch and rushed.  It would've been awesome to see this as an established mining operation and as Arthur you're the one that causes it to fail.  Even to the point it was one of Dutch's failed missions and he returns to this place many years later when John finds him.

 

tumblr_o5v89zRFOr1ue0xevo1_500.jpg

 

Where the cave started

  Hide contents

 

 

The locations from the first game are so lazily presented in this. I appreciate new austin and I don’t really care but just saying

Edited by Equatecurl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 12:51 AM, RJX74 said:

John will tell Sadie that he met the Sherrif of tumbleweed, no matter what. I hadn't been there, and John told her that.

Interesting. The only thing I remember is Sadie telling John that he should go to Tumbleweed to help the sheriff, not that he has been there. There is some weird dialogue oversight that I noticed in that if you do any bounty mission as Arthur, John will say that he started bounty hunting. Maybe it has something to do with that?

 

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 12:51 AM, RJX74 said:

 

Also, a newspaper in 1907 says Dutch is in Tall Trees, so some people knew he was alive.

While the first game does mention that there has been rumored sighting of Dutch, in the second game it's mention that Dutch has been on the run since 1899 and that law enforcement is still looking for him and that he has a big bounty, implying that the general public knows that Dutch is alive. However in the first game, the general public thinks Dutch died in a fire in 1906. Why would law enforcement be searching for a man who is long thought to be dead?

 

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 4:58 PM, Boozey St James said:

Some children and even adults repress very traumatic memories/events. 

What about the experience at Angelo Bronte's mansion? In one of the first missions of the epilogue, John says "Your a long way from Angelo Bronte's mansion, Jack" to which Jack responds "What was that, sir?", suggesting that he doesn't remember the mansion at all. That wouldn't be a traumatic memory, Jack didn't think it was a kidnapping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RJX74
3 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

Interesting. The only thing I remember is Sadie telling John that he should go to Tumbleweed to help the sheriff, not that he has been there. There is some weird dialogue oversight that I noticed in that if you do any bounty mission as Arthur, John will say that he started bounty hunting. Maybe it has something to do with that?

 

Huh, I looked up a video, and you're right, he doesn't always say it.

 

I finished a lot of bounties as Arthur, so many that's why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boozey St John

@Mysterious hero

 

Remember when Jack was kidnapped? He wasn't treated terrible or tortured, in fact, Jack even says that he had his own room and bed and ate spaghetti (And it was delicious too)! He even refers to Bronte as "Papa Bronte". 

I think since he was so young, he was blissfully unaware of the situation. 

 

Then again, I don't work or write for R* nor am I a psychologist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pumpkin Zone
On 2/15/2019 at 10:23 PM, Mysterious hero said:

-The Strange Man implies that the robbery where Dutch shoots the girl was the same robbery John got shot and left behind on, judging by the tone of his voice when he says "same one you got shot on". Yet in RDR2, the ferry robbery happened at the beginning of the game, and John was left behind during a train heist.

If you replay the mission where you and Javier go find John on the mountain Javier mentions that John got shot during the ferry raid. Heidi McCourt is confirmed to be the girl that Dutch shot on that ferry as well. It's slightly muddled, but it still lines up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jutland
On 2/19/2019 at 1:22 AM, SneakyDeaky said:

8 years could just be a little bit too long to make a game like this

Ha, very true.

 

Having too long a product lifecycle can cause problems in some industries, because the original people who worked on the vision have all left, replaced by newcomers who don’t value or understand the product in quite the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AddamHusayin

Most of these are semantics. The whole robbery being inconsistent is a misconception. In the first game it was implied that the failed ferry raid at blackwater where Heidi McCourt was killed by Dutch and John got shot was the same as the failed robbery that John got shot and left by the gang from. It may have been intended to be the same at the time by Rockstar but even though they are 2 separate events in RDR2 it doesn't conflict because RDR1 never said both events were the same. Besides that John gets shot on both robberies anyways.

 

1907 is about 3 years later it's1910. Oh 1911 it's 4 years. Oh no such a huge pothole. Please, it's close enough. Case closed.

 

The whole John going to New Austin is just for gameplay purposes because if they stopped you from exploring people would complain even more than they are now about how supposedly "dead" New Austin is. Compared to RDR1 yeah, but it's really just a bonus for us. John canonical only dips his feet into Pike's Basin for a few minutes which hardly counts as having been to New Austin. Next.

 

I was disappointed by the fact that the daughter is never mentioned or anything in RDR2. Missed opportunity to shed some light on that. And yes, the McFarlane barn not being built is a plot hole. It should already be built.

 

What do you mean what did Dutch and Javier do? They straight up left him to die during the train robbery and then they turn against him and Arthur back at the camp when it was revealed that Micah was a rat. "What you did was wrong, and the way you left me was wrong". Couldn't be closer to the dialogue..

 

With all that said there are still plenty of inconsistencies and plot holes that shouldn't have happened like John saying in RDR1 that he hasn't seen Dutch since he left him to die which isn't true if you play RDR2 all the way. Oops. Rockstar dun goofed lol

 

 

Edited by AddamHusayin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
6 hours ago, AddamHusayin said:

Most of these are semantics. The whole robbery being inconsistent is a misconception. In the first game it was implied that the failed ferry raid at blackwater where Heidi McCourt was killed by Dutch and John got shot was the same as the failed robbery that John got shot and left by the gang from. It may have been intended to be the same at the time by Rockstar but even though they are 2 separate events in RDR2 it doesn't conflict because RDR1 never said both events were the same. Besides that John gets shot on both robberies anyways.

I guess you can say its less a retcon and more of a change of story. Originally it was the ferry robbery but they changed it to being a train robbery, likely to make John getting left behind more believable.

 

6 hours ago, AddamHusayin said:

 

1907 is about 3 years later it's1910. Oh 1911 it's 4 years. Oh no such a huge pothole. Please, it's close enough. Case closed.

A continuity error is still a continuity error, big or small.

 

6 hours ago, AddamHusayin said:

The whole John going to New Austin is just for gameplay purposes because if they stopped you from exploring people would compliance even more than they are now about how supposedly "dead" New Austin is. Compared to RDR1 yeah, but it's really just a bonus for us. John canonical only dips his feet into Pike's Basin for a few minutes which hardly counts as having been to New Austin. Next.

He also canonically goes as far as Rio Bravo with Jeremy Gill.

 

6 hours ago, AddamHusayin said:

What do you mean what did Dutch and Javier do? They straight up left him to die during the train robbery and then they turn against him and Arthur back at the camp when it was revealed that Micah was a rat. "What you did was wrong, and the way you left me was wrong". Couldn't be closer to the dialogue..

But listen closely to the dialogue when he says "What you and Dutch did was wrong and the way you left me was wrong". He says "What you and Dutch did was wrong" and then says "and the way you left me was wrong". He's not saying "You and Dutch left me and that was wrong" but seems to be mentioning two different events. Maybe"What you and Dutch did was wrong" was join Micah during the standoff at Beaver Hollow?

 

6 hours ago, AddamHusayin said:

With all that said there are still plenty of inconsistencies and plot holes that shouldn't have happened like John saying in RDR1 that he hasn't seen Dutch since he left him to die which isn't true if you play RDR2 all the way. Oops. Rockstar dun goofed lo

John never said that. Dutch tells John "Your the master now" to which John retorts "I've been my master since you left me to die". That doesn't imply that John hasn't seen him since the train robbery, it just means that he has been more in control of his own life, away from Dutch.

16 hours ago, Boozey St James said:

@Mysterious hero

 

Remember when Jack was kidnapped? He wasn't treated terrible or tortured, in fact, Jack even says that he had his own room and bed and ate spaghetti (And it was delicious too)! He even refers to Bronte as "Papa Bronte". 

I think since he was so young, he was blissfully unaware of the situation. 

That was the point I was trying to make. It seems weird that he wouldn't remember Angelo Bronte's mansion when he was 12, since that was a unique enough situation to remember. Plus it was a happy memory, not a traumatic one, so it's not like he would repress the memory.

 

11 hours ago, Pumpkin Zone said:

If you replay the mission where you and Javier go find John on the mountain Javier mentions that John got shot during the ferry raid. Heidi McCourt is confirmed to be the girl that Dutch shot on that ferry as well. It's slightly muddled, but it still lines up.

I mean they got all their bases covered, Dutch and co robbed a ferry, Dutch shot a girl, John got shot. But the original implied that that was THE robbery he got shot and left behind on. But it's less of a retcon and more of a story change.

Edited by Mysterious hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
éX-Driver
On 2/19/2019 at 9:27 PM, Mysterious hero said:

 

 

While the first game does mention that there has been rumored sighting of Dutch, in the second game it's mention that Dutch has been on the run since 1899 and that law enforcement is still looking for him and that he has a big bounty, implying that the general public knows that Dutch is alive. However in the first game, the general public thinks Dutch died in a fire in 1906. Why would law enforcement be searching for a man who is long thought to be dead?

 

 

To be fair, it’s not unheard of to find out a criminal has long been dead during a search. The law could in say 1908 get information [misinformation] about Dutch dying in a fire in 1906, and it becomes a simple matter of “that explains why we couldn’t find him.” He’s *presumed* alive in 1907, and at some point between 1908 and 1911 the law is given false information about him dying in 1906 and is thus presumed dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
16 hours ago, éX-Driver said:

To be fair, it’s not unheard of to find out a criminal has long been dead during a search. The law could in say 1908 get information [misinformation] about Dutch dying in a fire in 1906, and it becomes a simple matter of “that explains why we couldn’t find him.” He’s *presumed* alive in 1907, and at some point between 1908 and 1911 the law is given false information about him dying in 1906 and is thus presumed dead.

That makes sense. Still weird that they don't mention the robbery though.

Edited by Mysterious hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jabalous

Based on some evidence and observation, it's more than likely that R* wasn't planning to do a prologue while the story of Redemption was being written, so making Marston a newcomer to New Austin is a wrong they couldn't make right in Redemption 2, and instead they ended up adding a couple of missions for him that go as far as to Tumbleweed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cutter De Blanc
38 minutes ago, Jabalous said:

Based on some evidence and observation, it's more than likely that R* wasn't planning to do a prologue while the story of Redemption was being written, so making Marston a newcomer to New Austin is a wrong they couldn't make right in Redemption 2, and instead they ended up adding a couple of missions for him that go as far as to Tumbleweed. 

How couldn't they make it right? John's trip to Pike's Basin feels completely shoehorned into the story, that bounty guy could have been anywhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
happygrowls
8 minutes ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

How couldn't they make it right? John's trip to Pike's Basin feels completely shoehorned into the story, that bounty guy could have been anywhere

I think if they only included West Elizabeth as a returning area from RDR1 there would've been an outcry about New Austin not being in the game, it's very likely New Austin was added in late in development, considering the 2014 leaked map had only WE on it. Rockstar are masters at tiny details, but overlook some obvious ones occasionally. whatever50710 does a good job of spotting some of Rockstar's tiny mistakes in their games. It may be nitpicking but it's interesting to see some quite obvious mistakes in a well polished environment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
3 hours ago, happygrowls said:

I think if they only included West Elizabeth as a returning area from RDR1 there would've been an outcry about New Austin not being in the game, it's very likely New Austin was added in late in development, considering the 2014 leaked map had only WE on it. Rockstar are masters at tiny details, but overlook some obvious ones occasionally. whatever50710 does a good job of spotting some of Rockstar's tiny mistakes in their games. It may be nitpicking but it's interesting to see some quite obvious mistakes in a well polished environment.

The reason for New Austin being in the game is because it would be impossible to block off unless they use invisible barriers, which isn't R* style. I don't really blame R* for minor errors relating to New Austin, since the game NEEDED to be set in West Elizabeth in order to work as prequel to the original game. I'm sure they thought long and hard about it. The reason why John goes there is because they needed to use the environment for something. They couldn't find a good reason for Arthur to go there that didn't feel forced and obviously the gang can't go there, as that would break continuity. And due to the failed Ferry Raid in Blackwater, story wise they have no reason to go to NA. This actually fixes a plot hole. In the context of the original game, the gang has zero reason not to go to NA, it's practically the wild west, they could've thrived there for years. RDR2 gives a pretty good reason why they never went there, because they were wanted in West Elizabeth.

Edited by Mysterious hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cutter De Blanc

What do you mean it would be impossible to block it off? Invisible sniper blocks it off for Arthur already

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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.


  • 3 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 3 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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