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

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

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

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

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

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

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

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

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

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

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

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

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

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

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

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

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

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

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

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

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

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Mysterious hero

Red Dead Redemption 2 Retcons and Continuity errors

Recommended Posts

Mysterious hero
Posted (edited)
 

Abigail in RDR1 talks about how she’s been “cooking the same thing for 15 years in the hope of poisoning John”

Yet in RDR2, it’s Pearson who does the cooking

 

Hosea is literally the Co-leader of the van der Linde gang but he never gets mentioned in RDR1 or even referred to, much like Arthur, Susan Grimshaw, Sean, Lenny, Micah and the rest of the ‘new’ gang members from RDR2

Abigail helps Pearson with cooking, you can occasionally see this during camp and when Arthur returns from Guarma.

 

The first game occasionally alludes to the other gang members. They just weren't important at the task at hand, since Ross wanted the active members of the gang, Dutch and Bill. There is an interesting dialogue I found in the mission "The Truth Will Set You Free", at one point Ross insults John by saying "If you wish to argue the finer points of ethics, I suggest you learn to read first" to which John retorts "I suggest you learn to shoot people in the front, not the back". In a retrospective sense, this could be an indirect reference to Milton killing Hosea.

Edited by Mysterious hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JupeShot92

The fact that the town of Thieves Landing hasn't been built yet in 1907. In the first game the place looked freakin ancient, all rotten wood and overgrown moss and stuff. Theres no way that town has been around for only four years at most.

 

In the Nuevo Paraiso chapter in the first game John talks about Javier a lot, he says he was always a torn man, a cynic who wanted to be a romantic and that he had a lot of passion but no love for anyone except Dutch. He also says that Abigail always thought he was a creep. In the second game you don't get any indication of any of that, he just seems like a charming nice guy. John also says that when Dutch went crazy Javier took it harder than anyone and went crazy himself. It was as if everything he had believed in turned out to be sh*t. Theres no real evidence of that except a couple of missable camp interactions where he gets a little emotional and lectures people about loyalty. Javier is criminally underutilized in this game, we learn more about him in the first game even though he only appears in one mission.

 

John is kind of dumb in the second game too. I don't usually have any problem with characters who aren't that bright, not eveyone has to be a genius but John was rather wise in the first game if not intelligent so its kind of inconsistent.

 

The most glaring thing from the first game that is barely touched upon in the second game though is the fact that Dutch and the gang were implied to have some kind of quasi-communist philosophy, or at least that was the excuse Dutch was using to rob and kill at the time. John is always mentioning that they used to steal from those who had too much and redistribute it to those who had too little. And from the way John talks about Dutch it sounds as though he was trying to start an American communist revolution, he says "He saw that the system of power was rotten; That good people had been crushed for too long. And he believed that change could only suceed if it was brutal and relentless. Make America what he thought it was supposed to be." And then theres the fact that Javier Escuella, a former communist revolutionary was part of the gang and greatly admied Dutch's ideals. Professor Macdougal even says that Ross told him about John's history with Dutch and describes it as "some kind of Robin Hood-oedipus-communist tale of naivety and betrayal. The only times any of this is touched upon in the second game is in that newspaper clipping about Arthur's first bank job where it says they gave the money to the poor and a bit of camp dialogue where Arthur says "Remember when we used to give the money away?" and John says "We ain't done that in a long time." I get that it's supposed to be the dying days of the gang but they could have at least talked about their glory days a little more, it would have been an interesting thing to explore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
13 hours ago, JupeShot92 said:

The fact that the town of Thieves Landing hasn't been built yet in 1907. In the first game the place looked freakin ancient, all rotten wood and overgrown moss and stuff. Theres no way that town has been around for only four years at most.

 

In the Nuevo Paraiso chapter in the first game John talks about Javier a lot, he says he was always a torn man, a cynic who wanted to be a romantic and that he had a lot of passion but no love for anyone except Dutch. He also says that Abigail always thought he was a creep. In the second game you don't get any indication of any of that, he just seems like a charming nice guy. John also says that when Dutch went crazy Javier took it harder than anyone and went crazy himself. It was as if everything he had believed in turned out to be sh*t. Theres no real evidence of that except a couple of missable camp interactions where he gets a little emotional and lectures people about loyalty. Javier is criminally underutilized in this game, we learn more about him in the first game even though he only appears in one mission.

 

John is kind of dumb in the second game too. I don't usually have any problem with characters who aren't that bright, not eveyone has to be a genius but John was rather wise in the first game if not intelligent so its kind of inconsistent.

 

The most glaring thing from the first game that is barely touched upon in the second game though is the fact that Dutch and the gang were implied to have some kind of quasi-communist philosophy, or at least that was the excuse Dutch was using to rob and kill at the time. John is always mentioning that they used to steal from those who had too much and redistribute it to those who had too little. And from the way John talks about Dutch it sounds as though he was trying to start an American communist revolution, he says "He saw that the system of power was rotten; That good people had been crushed for too long. And he believed that change could only suceed if it was brutal and relentless. Make America what he thought it was supposed to be." And then theres the fact that Javier Escuella, a former communist revolutionary was part of the gang and greatly admied Dutch's ideals. Professor Macdougal even says that Ross told him about John's history with Dutch and describes it as "some kind of Robin Hood-oedipus-communist tale of naivety and betrayal. The only times any of this is touched upon in the second game is in that newspaper clipping about Arthur's first bank job where it says they gave the money to the poor and a bit of camp dialogue where Arthur says "Remember when we used to give the money away?" and John says "We ain't done that in a long time." I get that it's supposed to be the dying days of the gang but they could have at least talked about their glory days a little more, it would have been an interesting thing to explore.

R* made New Austin with 1899 in mind. They just decided to reuse the map for 1907, that's why there are so many inconsistencies.

 

It is really unfortunate that Javier was underused in RDR2, as he was one of the more interesting characters. His change from a nice, charming, cynical yet helpful man to a backstabbing, sleazy rat could have been interesting to see, but I guess Micah's character got in the way of that.

 

John's 26 in this game, of course he's not going to be as wise as he was at 38.

 

By 1899, they stopped doing that, since at that point they needed to help themselves before they could help anyone else. I agree, I think talking more about their glory days of helping other people would've have been much better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lance_Vance89
On 3/15/2019 at 8:22 PM, Mysterious hero said:

John claims that Uncle barely knew Dutch and Bill, yet if you play RDR2, that clearly isn't true.

Know is a pretty subjective word. The feeling I get from RDR2 is that Dutch doesn't notice Uncle that much.

On 3/15/2019 at 8:22 PM, Mysterious hero said:

John mentions that Bill left him to die

Maybe John felt that way. It wasn't about which individuals that decided on leaving John. He felt betrayed and abandoned by most of them.

On 3/15/2019 at 8:22 PM, Mysterious hero said:

John tells Javier "Abigail always thought you was a creep". In RDR2, Javier is obviously not the creep

Again, we have a subjective feeling. Abagail my have felt that Javier was a creep. Maybe he was a creep when Arthur wasn't around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JupeShot92
On 3/31/2019 at 11:04 PM, Mysterious hero said:

R* made New Austin with 1899 in mind. They just decided to reuse the map for 1907, that's why there are so many inconsistencies.

 

It is really unfortunate that Javier was underused in RDR2, as he was one of the more interesting characters. His change from a nice, charming, cynical yet helpful man to a backstabbing, sleazy rat could have been interesting to see, but I guess Micah's character got in the way of that.

 

John's 26 in this game, of course he's not going to be as wise as he was at 38.

 

Yeah I got the feeling that was why there were so many inconsistentcies. It sucks.

 

I'm of the opinion that Javier should have taken Micha's place as the kind of devil on Dutch's shoulder character but I guess Rockstar thought it necessary to have an antagonist that you can kill at the end.

 

I always felt that John was smart in the first game because of Dutch's influence though. He even seems kinda dimwitted in the epilogue, I just have trouble believing he got so much smarter in the four years betwwen then and the first game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Lance_Vance89 said:

Know is a pretty subjective word. The feeling I get from RDR2 is that Dutch doesn't notice Uncle that much.

 

Maybe John felt that way. It wasn't about which individuals that decided on leaving John. He felt betrayed and abandoned by most of them.

 

Again, we have a subjective feeling. Abagail my have felt that Javier was a creep. Maybe he was a creep when Arthur wasn't around.

To be fair, when John says "You barely knew them", Uncle replies "I did too know them". I think originally Uncle wasn't meant to be a member or even an associated of the van der Linde gang, just a friend and drinking buddy of John's.

 

I doubt that. John would tell Bill "shouldn't have betrayed me, Bill" or something along those lines if it was about feelings. Instead John says "You shouldn't have left me to die, Bill" and Bill says "Well nobody wanted you around, John". I think it's just a good old fashioned continuity error.

 

Maybe he was indeed a creep when no one was around, who knows. I think it was because R* didn't have a grasp on Javier's character until the second game as he was basically a stereotype of the "slippery little Mexican" with that over-the-top accent and the huge, oversized sombrero. When they finally wrote him to being an actual character, I guess they decided that him being creepy didn't fit the personality they were going for, so they gave that attribute to Micah. Micah feels like a composite character of what Bill and Javier were implied to be, angry and violent like Bill, slippery and creepy like Javier.

Edited by Mysterious hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero

I found something interesting in regard to Marston's elusive daughter.

 

In RDR1, if you go up to the attic of the house in Beecher's Hope, you can find a baby cradle, right between the grandfather clock and the box with a lantern on it.

 

This may mean that the Marston daughter lived on Beecher's Hope, but if that is the case, where is her grave? Also why didn't they get rid of the cradle? Also why don't they mention her at all during the homestead chapter? Why doesn't Dutch mention her in "Great Men are Not Always Wise" when he was talking about John's family? Maybe she wasn't born yet, but then why does Javier say "children" during "Gates of El Presidio" when R* could have easily made Javier say "child" if they wanted to emphasize that she was born after John left the gang? So many questions unanswered. I don't think that we will ever get what R* intentions were for the Marston Daughter when they were writing RDR1, since no matter what your hypothesis is for when she was born, nothing will add up perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vinewood Villain
Posted (edited)

RDR1’s writing was more “dark” and slightly nihilistic at times, at least that’s how I remember it. 

 

RDR2 was more sanitized and Hollywood if that makes sense. It’s still well-written, but it glosses over a lot of details and gets straight to the point at times. RDR1’s script took its time having the characters commentate on the world, be it the hardships of frontier life or the steadily advancing government. RDR2 still touches on this, just not as much. It’s more about loyalty and free-will characterized by a gang of bandits. 

 

John’s daughter: I think Rockstar was simply too lazy to include that in the story. It’s probably a retcon. 

 

Hell, I consider half of John’s character a retcon in that game. He’s way too optimistic post-epilogue. I get that he finally settled down but RDR1 John could really be a mean bastard, it’s a jarring comparison. RDR2 John is almost chivalry at times, it can come across as corny. He sounds way too genuine and interested in side missions/NPC interactions, maybe Whiethoff half-assed it, I don’t know. RDR1 had a noticeably better performance that’s for sure.         

 

 

Edited by Vinewood Villain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DoctorMike
2 hours ago, Vinewood Villain said:

RDR1’s writing was more “dark” and slightly nihilistic at times, at least that’s how I remember it. 

 

RDR2 was more sanitized and Hollywood if that makes sense. It’s still well-written, but it glosses over a lot of details and gets straight to the point at times. RDR1’s script took its time having the characters commentate on the world, be it the hardships of frontier life or the steadily advancing government. RDR2 still touches on this, just not as much. It’s more about loyalty and free-will characterized by a gang of bandits. 

 

John’s daughter: I think Rockstar was simply too lazy to include that in the story. It’s probably a retcon. 

 

Hell, I consider half of John’s character a retcon in that game. He’s way too optimistic post-epilogue. I get that he finally settled down but RDR1 John could really be a mean bastard, it’s a jarring comparison. RDR2 John is almost chivalry at times, it can come across as corny. He sounds way too genuine and interested in side missions/NPC interactions, maybe Whiethoff half-assed it, I don’t know. RDR1 had a noticeably better performance that’s for sure.         

 

 

Agreed, also, John in RDR1 mentioned how much of a bad guy he was during his time with Dutch’s gang, people said he depopulated an entire town, and he talks about how tough and scary he was, Bill also mentions how he was Dutch’s favorite, and the gang’s smartest guy

In RDR2 however, he’s the opposite, he was the dummy and the one getting into trouble most of the time

They made Arthur and Hosea (both were NEVER mentioned by either Javier or Bill or even Dutch) the wisest guys of the gang, and they made Arthur the gang’s tough guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crazedZ10

For a guy who says he will "kill or the gang and die for the gang" its pretty freaking dumb how Arthurs reluctant to help find John during the second mission. I mean it's not like he's been missing for over 2 days in a dangerous blizzard with no food, water or shelter while also recovering from a gunshot wound, oh wait. Not to mention he has a worried child as well 

 

"so you're just going to let the boy be made an orphan"...oh Arthur 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
15 hours ago, Vinewood Villain said:

RDR1’s writing was more “dark” and slightly nihilistic at times, at least that’s how I remember it. 

 

RDR2 was more sanitized and Hollywood if that makes sense. It’s still well-written, but it glosses over a lot of details and gets straight to the point at times. RDR1’s script took its time having the characters commentate on the world, be it the hardships of frontier life or the steadily advancing government. RDR2 still touches on this, just not as much. It’s more about loyalty and free-will characterized by a gang of bandits. 

RDR1 definitely had a more darker and realistic tone. The first game gets it's themes around much better than the second game does, it's done with much more subtly and preciseness.

 

16 hours ago, Vinewood Villain said:

John’s daughter: I think Rockstar was simply too lazy to include that in the story. It’s probably a retcon. 

The reason she wasn't included was because she wouldn't fit the story. She couldn't have died before the game since John claims that she died years after he left the gang. Her being around during the story wouldn't fit since it would ruin John's character arc of him being a deadbeat father. She could have been born and died between 1899-1907, but it would have felt shoehorned in since it would have came out of nowhere with no build up. So she was most likely born between 1907-1911. My question is, what was R* original plan for the Marston Daughter? Was she conceived during John's time in the gang or after? Javier dialogue and the lack of grave at Beecher's Hope suggests the former, but the baby cradle and her lack of mention in "Great Men are Not Always Wise" suggests the latter.

 

16 hours ago, Vinewood Villain said:

Hell, I consider half of John’s character a retcon in that game. He’s way too optimistic post-epilogue. I get that he finally settled down but RDR1 John could really be a mean bastard, it’s a jarring comparison. RDR2 John is almost chivalry at times, it can come across as corny. He sounds way too genuine and interested in side missions/NPC interactions, maybe Whiethoff half-assed it, I don’t know. RDR1 had a noticeably better performance that’s for sure.         

It makes sense he more optimistic in the epilogue, he just settled down with a roof over his head, a roof he built. He felt accomplished. When his family gets taken away and he is separated from the house he built with blood, sweat, and tears, he is a lot more solemn and rude, because of the possibility that his entire effort would be for nothing. As for the side missions, in the second game, he is always looking for jobs to pay off his bills, so he would be more interested, while in the first game, his main priority is to get his family back ASAP. I never played the side missions as John anyway, I always played them as Jack, it just makes more sense that way. I think Wiethoff did a fine job for RDR2. Look at the scene where he screams "You left me! You left me to die!" you can hear the genuine anger in his voice that would be hard to pull off, I remember thinking "That's some great voice acting". Did he phone it in at times? Maybe. But for the most part, I think he did fine.

 

14 hours ago, DoctorMike said:

John in RDR1 mentioned how much of a bad guy he was during his time with Dutch’s gang,

I mean he was a bad guy. He robbed people under the pretense of "Robin Hood", he murdered in cold blood at times, and he was a deadbeat father.

 

14 hours ago, DoctorMike said:

people said he depopulated an entire town

I've never heard anyone say that John depopulated a town. Source?

 

14 hours ago, DoctorMike said:

Bill also mentions how he was Dutch’s favorite, and the gang’s smartest guy

He was Dutch's favorite, it's a big plot point in the beginning. The characters often bemoan how Dutch coddles John too much, like when he left the gang for a year and came back with no problem from Dutch. Arthur point out that if it was anyone else left the gang like that, they wouldn't have came back in that easily. At one point Arthur even says "Listen John, I was the prize pony once, now I'm the workhorse". It's only after he starts questioning Dutch is when John starts to become the "workhorse" and Micah becomes "The Prize Pony" so to speak.

 

Bill never said that John was the gang's smartest guy, if anything he said the opposite, calling John "weak-minded". Bill only said that John uses "them fancy words", which is just there to highlight Bill's lack of intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DoctorMike
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

RDR1 definitely had a more darker and realistic tone. The first game gets it's themes around much better than the second game does, it's done with much more subtly and preciseness.

 

The reason she wasn't included was because she wouldn't fit the story. She couldn't have died before the game since John claims that she died years after he left the gang. Her being around during the story wouldn't fit since it would ruin John's character arc of him being a deadbeat father. She could have been born and died between 1899-1907, but it would have felt shoehorned in since it would have came out of nowhere with no build up. So she was most likely born between 1907-1911. My question is, what was R* original plan for the Marston Daughter? Was she conceived during John's time in the gang or after? Javier dialogue and the lack of grave at Beecher's Hope suggests the former, but the baby cradle and her lack of mention in "Great Men are Not Always Wise" suggests the latter.

 

It makes sense he more optimistic in the epilogue, he just settled down with a roof over his head, a roof he built. He felt accomplished. When his family gets taken away and he is separated from the house he built with blood, sweat, and tears, he is a lot more solemn and rude, because of the possibility that his entire effort would be for nothing. As for the side missions, in the second game, he is always looking for jobs to pay off his bills, so he would be more interested, while in the first game, his main priority is to get his family back ASAP. I never played the side missions as John anyway, I always played them as Jack, it just makes more sense that way. I think Wiethoff did a fine job for RDR2. Look at the scene where he screams "You left me! You left me to die!" you can hear the genuine anger in his voice that would be hard to pull off, I remember thinking "That's some great voice acting". Did he phone it in at times? Maybe. But for the most part, I think he did fine.

 

I mean he was a bad guy. He robbed people under the pretense of "Robin Hood", he murdered in cold blood at times, and he was a deadbeat father.

 

I've never heard anyone say that John depopulated a town. Source?

 

He was Dutch's favorite, it's a big plot point in the beginning. The characters often bemoan how Dutch coddles John too much, like when he left the gang for a year and came back with no problem from Dutch. Arthur point out that if it was anyone else left the gang like that, they wouldn't have came back in that easily. At one point Arthur even says "Listen John, I was the prize pony once, now I'm the workhorse". It's only after he starts questioning Dutch is when John starts to become the "workhorse" and Micah becomes "The Prize Pony" so to speak.

 

Bill never said that John was the gang's smartest guy, if anything he said the opposite, calling John "weak-minded". Bill only said that John uses "them fancy words", which is just there to highlight Bill's lack of intelligence.

I don’t remember some of the lines very well, so I must have mistaken the “fancy words” part...

I did remember hearing some NPCs saying that he depopulated and entire town

He was a bad man but he wasn’t really the asshole he always claimed to be in RDR2

Edited by DoctorMike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
8 hours ago, DoctorMike said:

I did remember hearing some NPCs saying that he depopulated and entire town

 

He was a bad man but he wasn’t really the asshole he always claimed to be in RDR2

That's interesting, do you know what the NPC's specifically said?

 

He deliberately left his wife and child for a year, came back and acted like that never happened. If that's not something a terrible person would do, I don't know what is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeakyLine
On 3/12/2019 at 11:11 PM, Darealbandicoot said:

The Frontera Bridge in Rio Bravo is mentioned by Jeremy Gill yet the bridge doesn't appear at all in the game. The Frontera Bridge is the railway bridge that connects Mexico to New Austin. 

I'd suppose it exists, it just isn't in there gameplay wise. Think like the tunnel in GTA 3. Canonically it goes to Upstate Liberty, and the average Liberty City citizen knows Upstate Liberty exists. But you, as a player, can't access it.

 

Or New Hanover being just over the impassable riverside mountains in Red Dead Redemption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darealbandicoot
2 hours ago, LeakyLine said:

I'd suppose it exists, it just isn't in there gameplay wise. Think like the tunnel in GTA 3. Canonically it goes to Upstate Liberty, and the average Liberty City citizen knows Upstate Liberty exists. But you, as a player, can't access it.

 

Or New Hanover being just over the impassable riverside mountains in Red Dead Redemption.

That's different though. Red Dead Redemption wasn't made with a sequel containing the map in mind 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cutter De Blanc

I just wanna know why Armadillo's Saloon is too tall to climb on top of now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JavierC
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

I just wanna know why Armadillo's Saloon is too tall to climb on top of now

Because how dare you look for fun in a place where we dont want you to says Rockstar.

Edited by JavierC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cutter De Blanc
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, JavierC said:

Because how dare you look for fun in a game where we dont want you to says Rockstar.

I remember it being a great place to camp online, but it wasn't impregnable by any means. I'd always feel cool when I'd snipe the guy killing people from the roof of it. Just a weird design choice

Edited by Cutter De Blanc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BallinBallas
1 hour ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

I remember it being a great place to camp online, but it wasn't impregnable by any means. I'd always feel cool when I'd snipe the guy killing people from the roof of it. Just a weird design choice

I am seriously baffled by the design choices they make lol. absolutely no rhyme or reason for a ton of it.

Share this post


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

I am seriously baffled by the design choices they make lol. absolutely no rhyme or reason for a ton of it.

Like the Macfarlane bar. I have no idea why they removed the barn. Bonnie clearly stated in the second mission that the barn was built by her pa when she was a little girl, yet it's not there in 1899 or 1907. I would like to say maybe they forgot, but they got minor bits of continuity correct, like the gang not going to New Austin, John using an alias, the Bureau keeping tabs on John, Tumbleweed still being populated around 1907, ect. So I guess they removed it... because they can?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crazedZ10
11 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

Like the Macfarlane bar. I have no idea why they removed the barn. Bonnie clearly stated in the second mission that the barn was built by her pa when she was a little girl, yet it's not there in 1899 or 1907. I would like to say maybe they forgot, but they got minor bits of continuity correct, like the gang not going to New Austin, John using an alias, the Bureau keeping tabs on John, Tumbleweed still being populated around 1907, ect. So I guess they removed it... because they can?

If you're going to do it,  do it right. And that's the problem with new Austin it's not right. I will never understand why they designed it for 1899. 

I think there's just too much change with the old map. There was no need to cut the train line connecting to New Austin. Manzinita should of been an actual town, At least put the trapper there you know. And tall trees is too condensed, there used to be nice amounts of land in between the rows of trees, I cant explain it well just boot up rdr1 and ride around tall trees,  it feels completely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vinewood Villain

Is the layout of Tall Trees even the same in RDR2? The trees are completely different, Rockstar tried to replicate the Redwoods. And there’s a sh*t ton of boulders to the East near the river that crosses to RDR2’s map. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BallinBallas

I also think it’s funny that there’s only one gang left in New Austin; the Del Lobos. If the West is dying, why is there more outlaw gangs in 1911 compared to 1899? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
Posted (edited)

I wouldn't be surprised if New Austin was a last minute addition, because they couldn't find a way to block off the area without using snipers and invisible walls or they wanted more map variety beyond grasslands, snowy mountains, and swamps.

 

- For starters, on the leaked map from a few years back, New Austin wasn't on there except for Thieves landing, which it may have had a role that functioned similarly to El Presidio in the final game, just being there as a callback to the first game.

 

- There are no real side quests there, other than bounty hunting and looking for collectibles.

 

- Barring the Jeremy Gill side quest "Fisher of Fish", there are no cut scenes that take place in NA.

 

- In the mission "An Honest Day's Labors", they never mention New Austin by its name. Sadie says that they need to go "south", refers to Armadillo as "that town", and she says that the bounty is "down there". The dialogue in general would work just as fine if the mission was set in West Elizabeth.

 

- There just so happens to be a outbreak in both time frames. The scarlet fever outbreak of 1899 and the cholera outbreak of 1907. It's possibly that before the addition of New Austin, these would be the "in-story" reason for why Arthur/John never voluntarily go there.

 

I guess when R* finally added New Austin, they had the idea for Arthur to go there. So they added outfits, drawings, dialogue and their initial story reason for Arthur going to NA was that he was going there to treat his tuberculosis. But then they realized that him leaving the gang behind with a crazy leader wouldn't make any sense. Obviously the gang can't go to NA due to continuity reasons and combined with the fact that they are wanted in Great Plains, going to New Austin made absolutely no sense. Unable to find a good reason for Arthur to go to NA, they decide to block out Arthur from going to there and made the area unavailable until the epilogue. Since John was always going to be the playable protagonist of the epilogue according to a leak, I presume that, before the decision to disallow Arthur to go to New Austin was in place, John going there was always gonna be a "gameplay and story segregation" kind of deal. But when NA was regulated to the epilogue and thus had no missions tied to the area , R* realized that they needed to use the area for at least one mission or else it would feel out of place. So they decided to put the aforementioned Sadie bounty quest in New Austin. Unfortunately, this creates a continuity error of John going to NA, since he told Bonnie in the first game that he has never been there. He goes there a second time in the side quest "Fisher of Fish". It's possible that R* decided to ignore the canon and intended to add more side quests related to the area, but due to time or budget constraints, they never got the chance.

 

I also might have an explanation for why Arthur has a cut scene for the side mission "A Test of Faith" but not one for "Fisher of Fish". For "A Test of Faith", it's possible that before they added NA, the dinosaur bones were only located in West Elizabeth, New Hanover, The Grizzlies, and Lemoyne. When they added NA to the map, they then decided to place some of the dinosaur bones there. Since "A Test of Faith" was created before the decision to add NA, they already had a cut scene for Arthur. However, "Fisher of Fish" was created after the decision to add NA and likely after the decision to lock Arthur from going to NA. The final cut scene for "Fisher of Fish" is the only cut scene in the entire game that features New Austin.

 

It's telling that New Austin was a last minute decision by just looking at the map. It's very clear that they designed the area for 1899 in mind. Either because they wanted to redesign the area for 1907 but due to time constraints they never got the chance or thought that no one would notice and would hand wave the issues as "Cholera Outbreak problems".

Edited by Mysterious hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BallinBallas
8 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

 

 

I also might have an explanation for why Arthur has a cut scene for the side mission "A Test of Faith" but not one for "Fisher of Fish". For "A Test of Faith", it's possible that before they added NA, the dinosaur bones were only located in West Elizabeth, New Hanover, The Grizzlies, and Lemoyne. When they added NA to the map, they then decided to place some of the dinosaur bones there. Since "A Test of Faith" was created before the decision to add NA, they already had a cut scene for Arthur. However, "Fisher of Fish" was created after the decision to add NA and likely after the decision to lock Arthur from going to NA. The final cut scene for "Fisher of Fish" is the only cut scene in the entire game that features New Austin.

I agree with everything you’ve said, but Arthur actually does have a cutscene for Fisher of Fish. It can only be accessed through a save editor, and It has his own recorded dialogue.  https://twitter.com/Darealbandicoot/status/1105660618466574337?s=20

Share this post


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

I agree with everything you’ve said, but Arthur actually does have a cutscene for Fisher of Fish. It can only be accessed through a save editor, and It has his own recorded dialogue. 

Interesting. So they created "Fisher of Fish" after including New Austin but before restricting it Arthur. Arthur's mouth isn't moving, which makes it clear that this cut scene wasn't finished. Also Roger Clark's voice acting during the cut scene was quite awful, which may prove that R* decision to make NA unavailable to Arthur was an early decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
silly_nate

To add to what @Mysterious hero said, there’s cacti in The Heartlands. Now I’ve never been to Arkansas, Oklahoma, etc. but I don’t think there’s cacti in the plains. Especially because Great Plains doesn’t have cacti lying around in either game. So before NA was added, Heartlands was probably supposed to give off the desert vibe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crazedZ10
6 hours ago, silly_nate said:

To add to what @Mysterious hero said, there’s cacti in The Heartlands. Now I’ve never been to Arkansas, Oklahoma, etc. but I don’t think there’s cacti in the plains. Especially because Great Plains doesn’t have cacti lying around in either game. So before NA was added, Heartlands was probably supposed to give off the desert vibe.

 

at the end it shows the heartland's and it looks a lot more like plains than grasslands. definitely prefer the trailer look

Share this post


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

To add to what @Mysterious hero said, there’s cacti in The Heartlands. Now I’ve never been to Arkansas, Oklahoma, etc. but I don’t think there’s cacti in the plains. Especially because Great Plains doesn’t have cacti lying around in either game. So before NA was added, Heartlands was probably supposed to give off the desert vibe.

I honestly would have preferred it to be more plains/desert mix like originally intended & just scrap NA entirely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crazedZ10
2 hours ago, BallinBallas said:

I honestly would have preferred it to be more plains/desert mix like originally intended & just scrap NA entirely. 

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Cumberland forest have more yellowish dry grass compared to the bright green Heartlands?

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.