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

Cutter De Blanc
On 4/21/2019 at 1:11 PM, Vinewood Villain said:

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. 

General layout seems roughly the same. That big rock gully in the middle of the forest I use as a landmark in both games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BallinBallas
31 minutes ago, crazedZ10 said:

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

I believe so 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero

I think I would have preferred the plains/deserts mix for The Heartland than the grassland that we got. I think the states this time around lack the personality that the first game's states had. New Austin, Nuevo Paraiso, and the first half West Elizabeth had their own distinct feelings and themes. New Hanover, Ambarino, and the second half of West Elizabeth feel same-y. Lemoyne is the only new state that has a personality and themes tied to it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BurnettVice

It would've been cooler exploring NA with Arthur instead of John. It's weird that the barn is missing at McFarlane's ranch. I figured Leigh Johnson would show up in Armadillo.  Still sucks that R* never bothered to mention Marston's daughter at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
26 minutes ago, BurnettVice said:

Still sucks that R* never bothered to mention Marston's daughter at all.

Marston Daughter is a bit of a paradox, even in the first game. The first game couldn't make up its mind whether or not she was born during or after John's time in the game.

 

Some evidence points to her being born during John's time in the gang. Javier's dialogue, a lack of a grave at Beecher's Hope, and a lack of mention of her in the homestead chapter (meaning her death was a while ago).

 

Some evidence point to her being born after John's time in the gang. Dutch not mentioning her during "Great Men Are Not Always Wise" when talking about John's family and the baby cradle up in the attic of Beecher's Hope (Meaning not only did she die recently, but she lived on Beecher's Hope).

 

RDR2 confirms that she was born and died after John's time in the gang. When exactly she was born and died, however, is unknown. It's possibly she died in the interim between 1899 to 1907 or 1907 to 1911.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
éX-Driver

The more I read about obvious retcons, the more I come to the conclusion that setting the game around the downfall of the Gang to be a mistake. Not only does setting it so close to the time period of Redemption 1 open up dozens of plotholes as to why characters/events/locations of 2 aren’t mentioned in 1, it ultimately makes the game based on the ‘death of the west’ idea that 1 was also based on. 

 

I bet in 30 minutes using some basic established lore I can rewrite the basic synopsis to be better:

It’s stated in-universe that between 1880 and 1899 were the ‘golden days’ of the gang. And more specifically, between 1887-1899 they canonically robbed nearly 40 banks. This gives us a good timeline for the plot. So here we go.

it’s the year 1889. Dutch Van Der Linde, assisted by his right-hand-man Hosea Matthews, are travelling across the west hitting up banks and living the good life. The players play as Arthur Morgan, a 26-year-old gunslinger of the Van Der Linde gang. He’s young, brash, and is as quick to anger as he is good on the trigger. The story follows them and the rest of the VDL gang as they try to rake up as much money as possible. Arthur has a hard time seeing the bigger picture, and tends to cause more trouble than necessary. The plot follows him as he matures as a shootist and as a man. As he learns he can’t just shoot first and ask questions never. That doing so will get the people around you killed.

 

Much like the current plot, have several major characters get killed, but with more than one being directly caused by Arthur’s poor decision making. The story starts lighthearted and fun but gets darker and more serious as it goes on, reflecting Arthur’s change in outlook as he goes from irresponsible and childish to jaded and dejected. The last mission is the classic ‘one big score’, but during it Arthur is pushed over the edge, and decides he can’t really justify this life any more. Afterwards players have more money than they know what to do with, and the gang is better than ever before in terms of money. But epilogue dialogue in the camp makes it obvious Arthur is on the verge of leaving, and Dutch is on the verge of kicking him out for being irresponsible. And the rest of the gang either distrusts Arthur or outright dislikes him. Maybe even have a cutscene that takes place 20 years later where it shows John killing a now middle-aged Arthur, expanding on the fact that John had to hunt down his old gang members. And that he killed Arthur just prior to Redemption 1’s story. [though for fun, have a nonstandard non-canonical epilogue where if players donate enough money and do enough labour around the camp, the gang apologises for distrusting Arthur and everything goes back to normal using dialogue from the early parts of the game when everyone was mostly happy with him. Just a little happy ending for the players that really want it]

 

They could’ve kept the locations the same, and some major plot points and characters the same. Even the botched Saint Denis escape. But instead of Guarma, they end up stranded in an expanded and fleshed-out Mexico. Unable to cross the border into New Austin because of a border dispute between the US and Mexico. If players attempt to cross, they get yeeted by the magic snipers. 

Beyond that, have all the camp stuff remain. But have things like chores and money donations mandatory to continue the story. If you don’t do them, have certain story missions locked until donation requirements are met. Forcing players to be outlaws to make money for the gang. Make money hard to come by outside of the major story robberies. 

 

Setting the game in ten years earlier means we can experience the height of the old west, rather than the death of it. The game can be geared towards encouraging players to be dishonourable rather than honourable. The added benefit would John’s only been in the gang for 4 years, and is barely 16 years old. With the establishment that Arthur leaves the gang shortly after the game is set and for Hosea to have died when John barely knew him, it makes far more sense for John to have never mentioned them in Redemption 1. It also leaves enough time for the mystery of the VDL gang’s downfall to remain, and for the lore surrounding John’s adulthood to not need to be modified/worked around. Not nearly as many loose ends, and we get to experience things from a different perspective compared to the first. Also we get to explore the old map in a completely different time period. 

Share this post


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

it ultimately makes the game based on the ‘death of the west’ idea that 1 was also based on. 

The themes are differ somewhat. In RDR1, the wild west has already died a while ago. John Marston is a man that still holds values from 30 years ago. In RDR2, the transition between the wild west and civilization is happening. Basically, in RDR1, the wild west is dead, while in RDR2, the wild west is on the brink of death.

 

14 hours ago, éX-Driver said:

 

I bet in 30 minutes using some basic established lore I can rewrite the basic synopsis to be better:

It’s stated in-universe that between 1880 and 1899 were the ‘golden days’ of the gang. And more specifically, between 1887-1899 they canonically robbed nearly 40 banks. This gives us a good timeline for the plot. So here we go.

it’s the year 1889. Dutch Van Der Linde, assisted by his right-hand-man Hosea Matthews, are travelling across the west hitting up banks and living the good life. The players play as Arthur Morgan, a 26-year-old gunslinger of the Van Der Linde gang. He’s young, brash, and is as quick to anger as he is good on the trigger. The story follows them and the rest of the VDL gang as they try to rake up as much money as possible. Arthur has a hard time seeing the bigger picture, and tends to cause more trouble than necessary. The plot follows him as he matures as a shootist and as a man. As he learns he can’t just shoot first and ask questions never. That doing so will get the people around you killed.

 

Much like the current plot, have several major characters get killed, but with more than one being directly caused by Arthur’s poor decision making. The story starts lighthearted and fun but gets darker and more serious as it goes on, reflecting Arthur’s change in outlook as he goes from irresponsible and childish to jaded and dejected. The last mission is the classic ‘one big score’, but during it Arthur is pushed over the edge, and decides he can’t really justify this life any more. Afterwards players have more money than they know what to do with, and the gang is better than ever before in terms of money. But epilogue dialogue in the camp makes it obvious Arthur is on the verge of leaving, and Dutch is on the verge of kicking him out for being irresponsible. And the rest of the gang either distrusts Arthur or outright dislikes him. Maybe even have a cutscene that takes place 20 years later where it shows John killing a now middle-aged Arthur, expanding on the fact that John had to hunt down his old gang members. And that he killed Arthur just prior to Redemption 1’s story. [though for fun, have a nonstandard non-canonical epilogue where if players donate enough money and do enough labour around the camp, the gang apologises for distrusting Arthur and everything goes back to normal using dialogue from the early parts of the game when everyone was mostly happy with him. Just a little happy ending for the players that really want it]

I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem like an interesting story to me. What is the purpose of the story? What's the antagonist? What are the themes? I never found the appeal of being in the prime of the wild west. There's a reason why many wild west stories are set in the mid - late 1890's to early 1900's. Because seeing outlaws adapting to a new way of life is more interesting. That's why movies like Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid and the Wild Bunch have great stories, seeing the characters progress into a brave new world. In RDR1, we went from using revolvers dating back as far as the 1870's for the entire game, to a 1903 pistol that was the best weapon in the game next to a anachronistic 1920's mauser . It was unfamiliar, yet strangely amazing. That's more interesting then being an outlaw in the 1880's.

 

Also, John only needed to hunt down Dutch and Bill. Just them, no one else, Javier was just a bonus. John killing Arthur before RDR1 would make zero sense.

 

14 hours ago, éX-Driver said:

They could’ve kept the locations the same, and some major plot points and characters the same. Even the botched Saint Denis escape. But instead of Guarma, they end up stranded in an expanded and fleshed-out Mexico. Unable to cross the border into New Austin because of a border dispute between the US and Mexico. If players attempt to cross, they get yeeted by the magic snipers. 

In they were gonna set it in 1889, then they could have changed the locations. The reason why West Elizabeth was included was because they wanted to include the Blackwater Massacre of 1899. For that reason, New Austin wouldn't be included either. In the first game, it's heavily implied that John has never been to Mexico . Also magic snipers are the most immersion breaking things ever, even more immersion breaking than invisible walls.

 

15 hours ago, éX-Driver said:

Beyond that, have all the camp stuff remain. But have things like chores and money donations mandatory to continue the story. If you don’t do them, have certain story missions locked until donation requirements are met. Forcing players to be outlaws to make money for the gang. Make money hard to come by outside of the major story robberies. 

I agree.

 

15 hours ago, éX-Driver said:

Setting the game in ten years earlier means we can experience the height of the old west, rather than the death of it. The game can be geared towards encouraging players to be dishonourable rather than honourable. The added benefit would John’s only been in the gang for 4 years, and is barely 16 years old. With the establishment that Arthur leaves the gang shortly after the game is set and for Hosea to have died when John barely knew him, it makes far more sense for John to have never mentioned them in Redemption 1. It also leaves enough time for the mystery of the VDL gang’s downfall to remain, and for the lore surrounding John’s adulthood to not need to be modified/worked around. Not nearly as many loose ends, and we get to experience things from a different perspective compared to the first. Also we get to explore the old map in a completely different time period. 

Well, RDR2 does encourage players to play dishonorable at the beginning, then towards the end of the game play honorably.

 

In RDR1, there are several allusions to there being other members of the Van Der Linde gang. John doesn't mention them often because the gang broke up 12 years ago and we don't need to go after them because the BOI only wants Dutch and Bill. Plus some dialogue could, retrospectively, be a reference to Arthur. One that springs to mind is in the mission "Political Realities in Armadillo", when John tells the Marshall "you know, I hear you speak, somehow I am reminded of how some of the people I have respected most in my life had a problem with authority", which you could take as a reference to the old guard, Dutch, Hosea, and Arthur.

 

Seeing the gang at their peak is less interesting than seeing them at their downfall. Also, if we were setting the old map at 1889 instead of 1911, then Blackwater would be nothing more than an outpost. Again, they included West Elizabeth for the Blackwater Massacre, which is also why they set the game in 1899.

Share this post


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

The themes are differ somewhat. In RDR1, the wild west has already died a while ago. John Marston is a man that still holds values from 30 years ago. In RDR2, the transition between the wild west and civilization is happening. Basically, in RDR1, the wild west is dead, while in RDR2, the wild west is on the brink of death.

 

I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem like an interesting story to me. What is the purpose of the story? What's the antagonist? What are the themes? I never found the appeal of being in the prime of the wild west. There's a reason why many wild west stories are set in the mid - late 1890's to early 1900's. Because seeing outlaws adapting to a new way of life is more interesting. That's why movies like Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid and the Wild Bunch have great stories, seeing the characters progress into a brave new world. In RDR1, we went from using revolvers dating back as far as the 1870's for the entire game, to a 1903 pistol that was the best weapon in the game next to a anachronistic 1920's mauser . It was unfamiliar, yet strangely amazing. That's more interesting then being an outlaw in the 1880's.

 

Also, John only needed to hunt down Dutch and Bill. Just them, no one else, Javier was just a bonus. John killing Arthur before RDR1 would make zero sense.

 

In they were gonna set it in 1889, then they could have changed the locations. The reason why West Elizabeth was included was because they wanted to include the Blackwater Massacre of 1899. For that reason, New Austin wouldn't be included either. In the first game, it's heavily implied that John has never been to Mexico . Also magic snipers are the most immersion breaking things ever, even more immersion breaking than invisible walls.

 

I agree.

 

Well, RDR2 does encourage players to play dishonorable at the beginning, then towards the end of the game play honorably.

 

In RDR1, there are several allusions to there being other members of the Van Der Linde gang. John doesn't mention them often because the gang broke up 12 years ago and we don't need to go after them because the BOI only wants Dutch and Bill. Plus some dialogue could, retrospectively, be a reference to Arthur. One that springs to mind is in the mission "Political Realities in Armadillo", when John tells the Marshall "you know, I hear you speak, somehow I am reminded of how some of the people I have respected most in my life had a problem with authority", which you could take as a reference to the old guard, Dutch, Hosea, and Arthur.

 

Seeing the gang at their peak is less interesting than seeing them at their downfall. Also, if we were setting the old map at 1889 instead of 1911, then Blackwater would be nothing more than an outpost. Again, they included West Elizabeth for the Blackwater Massacre, which is also why they set the game in 1899.

• they differ, but not enough to warrant a new game. Which was my point.

 

• the purpose is much the same as the current one. To experience what Dutch’s gang was actually like, to raise the veil on the history of John and Dutch. Not only that, but to experience a different perspective compared to Redemption 1. The antagonist would Arthur himself. Him learning he doesn’t enjoy this life. Growing out of it. Don’t you think the trope of ‘random twist villain’ is played out and boring? Why does every game need some comrade that turns out to be a rat/moustache twiddling baddie to be ‘good’? Why can’t it be a coming-of-age type story where the experience is what makes it good? Why does it need some final boss battle? It’s not the NES era anymore. Haven’t you ever watched a movie or read a book without an antagonist? Not everything needs one. The theme is ‘the height of the old west’. 

And there’s a reason some of the best Old West movies are set between 1860 and 1880. Dollars trilogy being the most prominent examples. The reason ‘the death of the west’ became such a popular trope was because people got sick of the 50s and 60s movies that took place during the height of it. People wanted a new perspective. But I’d argue that the death of the west has become played out as a theme, and that playing the era straight and romantic is now the interesting and new idea. 

 

• it’s never stated how many people John had or hadn’t hunted down before Exodus in America starts, just that by the start of Redemption he had to get Bill and Dutch. It’s never explained why he arrived in Blackwater by ferry, considering he lives in the great plains. Maybe he had just finished killing some other former gang member across Flat Iron, and they steamed him directly across the lake.

 

• I agree they could’ve changed the locations. I was deliberately trying to reuse as much of the actual game as possible, rather than come up with something completely different. If I was going to do that, I would’ve just not made it about Dutch’s gang.

just to see New Austin and WE in 1889 would’ve been reason enough to include it. To see what it looked like before civilisation crept in. If you think the 1880s was boring, then you know nothing about the 1880s. It honestly seems like you prefer it set in a more modern era so that it’s more relatable. Nothing wrong with that, it’s just they’ve already done it before. 

I never said anything about John going to Mexico. I meant Arthur, Dutch, and some other 1-2 gang members. 

I agree the snipers are ridiculous. But at least them being border military patrols makes some in-universe sense, compared to how they were used in the game we got. But rethinking it, a better idea is having the US army stationed across the border. And if you cross it, you get neverending waves of 20+ crack shot soldiers running you down and shooting at you. So, thanks for critiquing that because it caused me to come up with a better alternative. 

 

• you’re not really, though. In chapter 2, we’re told to not cause trouble so we can lay low. No more than highway robberies in remote areas. In chapter 3, we’re basically told to not even do that so we can fit in in Rhodes. By chapter 4, any notion of being criminals goes out the window outside of the story missions. After Guarma, Arthur canonically turns his back on petty crime.

 

• of course there’s allusions to other members. But it’s painfully obvious people like Arthur and Micah and Hosea didn’t exist at the time of writing Redemption 1’s story. They simply had too big of an impact on the scenario to go unmentioned. It’s a major plothole. Hosea’s death is the reason Dutch finally went over the edge. Micah being the devil on his shoulders is the reason Dutch even went that way in the first place and turned on his own gang members. Arthur is the only reason John is alive, he directly saved John’s life no less than 3 times. AND sacrificed himself to help John escape. AND is the person who forced Dutch showed his true colours. Arthur arguably had the single biggest impact on the gangs’ dissolution. 

 

• what is or isn’t interesting is wholly dependant on writing. Don’t get caught in the fallacy of “it’s too long ago to be interesting”. A good part of the reason why Redemption 1 had such staying power a story is because of the mystery of the events that led to it. It really played out like a 60s spaghetti western. Taking away the mystery of it and humanising the main characters of 1 with 2 takes the mystique out of it. 2 on its own is great, but it does so at the expense of 1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, éX-Driver said:

• the purpose is much the same as the current one. To experience what Dutch’s gang was actually like, to raise the veil on the history of John and Dutch. Not only that, but to experience a different perspective compared to Redemption 1. The antagonist would Arthur himself. Him learning he doesn’t enjoy this life. Growing out of it. Don’t you think the trope of ‘random twist villain’ is played out and boring? Why does every game need some comrade that turns out to be a rat/moustache twiddling baddie to be ‘good’? Why can’t it be a coming-of-age type story where the experience is what makes it good? Why does it need some final boss battle? It’s not the NES era anymore. Haven’t you ever watched a movie or read a book without an antagonist? Not everything needs one. The theme is ‘the height of the old west’. 

And there’s a reason some of the best Old West movies are set between 1860 and 1880. Dollars trilogy being the most prominent examples. The reason ‘the death of the west’ became such a popular trope was because people got sick of the 50s and 60s movies that took place during the height of it. People wanted a new perspective. But I’d argue that the death of the west has become played out as a theme, and that playing the era straight and romantic is now the interesting and new idea. 

 

• it’s never stated how many people John had or hadn’t hunted down before Exodus in America starts, just that by the start of Redemption he had to get Bill and Dutch. It’s never explained why he arrived in Blackwater by ferry, considering he lives in the great plains. Maybe he had just finished killing some other former gang member across Flat Iron, and they steamed him directly across the lake.

 

just to see New Austin and WE in 1889 would’ve been reason enough to include it. To see what it looked like before civilisation crept in. If you think the 1880s was boring, then you know nothing about the 1880s. It honestly seems like you prefer it set in a more modern era so that it’s more relatable. Nothing wrong with that, it’s just they’ve already done it before. 

I never said anything about John going to Mexico. I meant Arthur, Dutch, and some other 1-2 gang members. 

 

• you’re not really, though. In chapter 2, we’re told to not cause trouble so we can lay low. No more than highway robberies in remote areas. In chapter 3, we’re basically told to not even do that so we can fit in in Rhodes. By chapter 4, any notion of being criminals goes out the window outside of the story missions. After Guarma, Arthur canonically turns his back on petty crime.

 

• of course there’s allusions to other members. But it’s painfully obvious people like Arthur and Micah and Hosea didn’t exist at the time of writing Redemption 1’s story. They simply had too big of an impact on the scenario to go unmentioned. It’s a major plothole. Hosea’s death is the reason Dutch finally went over the edge. Micah being the devil on his shoulders is the reason Dutch even went that way in the first place and turned on his own gang members. Arthur is the only reason John is alive, he directly saved John’s life no less than 3 times. AND sacrificed himself to help John escape. AND is the person who forced Dutch showed his true colours. Arthur arguably had the single biggest impact on the gangs’ dissolution. 

 

• what is or isn’t interesting is wholly dependant on writing. Don’t get caught in the fallacy of “it’s too long ago to be interesting”. A good part of the reason why Redemption 1 had such staying power a story is because of the mystery of the events that led to it. It really played out like a 60s spaghetti western. Taking away the mystery of it and humanising the main characters of 1 with 2 takes the mystique out of it. 2 on its own is great, but it does so at the expense of 1. 

What would the story's overall narrative be though? Arthur realizing that he doesn't like being an outlaw isn't enough to carry an entire story. Plus that is what his character arc is in the actual game, except in your version it's in the height of the old west. I mean I can see where you coming from, you want it to be a prequel about the Van Der Linde Gang without ruining the mystic of the first games backstory. But I don't think that "height of the old west" is a good enough theme to explore, because what is there to explore? That life was hard back then? We already knew that. While the Dollar movies were fantastic, the were great because of their tongue-and-cheek nature, not their story or characters. While the theme of "The wild west becomes the civilized west" is quite overused, it's a great theme because it shows how a huge transitional period can have a effect on the population, industry, and environment.

 

John was meant to only hunt down Bill because he was causing trouble down in New Austin. When Bill went to Mexico to seek out Javier for protection, John realizes that he has to capture both Bill and Javier. When John finally captures Javier, John asks Agent Fordham if one his commitments is cleared, Fordham tells John nothing is cleared and that he now needs to go find Dutch. That's why John is angry at the beginning of "Bear One Another's Burden", he thought that by capturing/killing Javier, that would clear his obligation of capturing Dutch. Javier wasn't meant to be on the list, he was just a bonus. Ross wants to get Nate Johns elected governor, so he only wants Dutch and Bill, Bill because he causing trouble down in New Austin and Dutch because he is in West Elizabeth. If John killed Arthur at the beginning of RDR1, why would Fordham tell John that "Nothing is cleared"? Also in the same mission, John says "First it was Bill, now it's Dutch, after Dutch it will be someone else, when will it end?" which not only proves that there were more members of the gang and that Javier wasn't on the list, but also proving that Bill was John's first target. As for the intro, I assume that Ross arrested John, Abigail, and Jack and sent them to the Saint Denis jail. There, he gives John a "comply or die" speech, either hunt down Bill and Dutch or be executed . John chooses to hunt down his friends. Ross tells him to meet him and his protégé at the Blackwater docks. Jack and Abigail are then transported to Sisika Penitentiary. John then takes the Morningstar to Blackwater. Cue RDR1 intro.

 

I know what that 1880's were like, because we already played it: New Austin. RDR1 may be set in 1911, but New Austin felt like it could be set in 1881. Traveling from New Austin to West Elizabeth was like traveling from 1881 to 1925. It was awesome. If we saw what New Austin was like in the actual 1880's, it would be like RDR2 New Austin, everyone would be dying of Cholera and Scarlet Fever. How would seeing West Elizabeth and New Austin uncivilized be interesting? To see how far they come? I mean...cool. I find the personification of the past (New Austin) and the future (West Elizabeth) more interesting. John not going to Mexico or New Austin while some of the gang does falls into that prequel trap of "while it doesn't contradict anything, it feels incongruent". Its like in "Revenge of the Sith" when C3PO's mind was wiped so that he doesn't recognize Obi-Wan Kenobi in "A New Hope". It feels forced is what I'm saying.

 

You do some pretty awful things in chapter 2, beat a man nearly to death, force people to give you back money, rob indiscriminately. That's when the gang is at the height of it's freedom. The game is basically telling you to go crazy. In chapter 3, yeah the game tells you to calm a bit because you need to fit in. But then by chapter 4, the game tells you go back at it since now you need to leave the country. In chapter 6, the game then tells you that you should do good deeds, help the church in Saint Denis, kick Strauss out, refuse to take payment, but if you don't want to you don't have to. Could the game have done a better job? Yeah. But it gets its message across.

 

The reason why Arthur and Hosea aren't mentioned is because they died a decade ago, its time to move on from the past. I mean, in the first game John mentioned that he has a daughter and.... that's it, she is rarely ever mentioned again. Even when John returned to his family, they never talk about her. Why? Because she's dead, no reason to mention her. Same logic applies to Arthur and Hosea. As for Micah, why would they mention him? He didn't cause Dutch to go insane, Dutch himself did. He listen to Micah, a man who has been with them for only a few months, then Arthur, a man who has been with him for years. Micah was just a typical outlaw who took advantage of Dutch's stupidity. Now if RDR2 was made before RDR1, would these characters been mentioned? Yes most definitely.

 

"It's to long ago to be interesting"... I don't get this. I don't see how I wouldn't like stories from long ago. 1911 was 108 years ago, which is a long time ago, unless your Zeus. But yeah, your correct, it might interest me if it has fantastic writing. But your modified story doesn't really hold my interest personally. What made RDR1's story interesting wasn't the ambiguity of John's backstory. I think if anything, people wanted that particular backstory to be filled. Despite being the driving point of the story, his background of being an outlaw was quite underdeveloped. Bill was the typical dumb criminal and Javier was Speedy Gonzales. Dutch was the only gang member with depth, so everyone wanted to see more of him and see how far he fell. Sure it ruins the mystique of the original, but at the better cost of developing characters. Seeing John go from a person who hated his wife and didn't even consider his son to be his own to a person who was willing to sacrifice his life for their safety is much better than the game telling you "Yeah, John was an awful father, but he's trying". Some things just need to be shown.

Edited by Mysterious hero

Share this post


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

What would the story's overall narrative be though? Arthur realizing that he doesn't like being an outlaw isn't enough to carry an entire story. Plus that is what his character arc is in the actual game, except in your version it's in the height of the old west. I mean I can see where you coming from, you want it to be a prequel about the Van Der Linde Gang without ruining the mystic of the first games backstory. But I don't think that "height of the old west" is a good enough theme to explore, because what is there to explore? That life was hard back then? We already knew that. While the Dollar movies were fantastic, the were great because of their tongue-and-cheek nature, not their story or characters. While the theme of "The wild west becomes the civilized west" is quite overused, it's a great theme because it shows how a huge transitional period can have a effect on the population, industry, and environment.

 

John was meant to only hunt down Bill because he was causing trouble down in New Austin. When Bill went to Mexico to seek out Javier for protection, John realizes that he has to capture both Bill and Javier. When John finally captures Javier, John asks Agent Fordham if one his commitments is cleared, Fordham tells John nothing is cleared and that he now needs to go find Dutch. That's why John is angry at the beginning of "Bear One Another's Burden", he thought that by capturing/killing Javier, that would clear his obligation of capturing Dutch. Javier wasn't meant to be on the list, he was just a bonus. Ross wants to get Nate Johns elected governor, so he only wants Dutch and Bill, Bill because he causing trouble down in New Austin and Dutch because he is in West Elizabeth. If John killed Arthur at the beginning of RDR1, why would Fordham tell John that "Nothing is cleared"? Also in the same mission, John says "First it was Bill, now it's Dutch, after Dutch it will be someone else, when will it end?" which not only proves that there were more members of the gang and that Javier wasn't on the list, but also proving that Bill was John's first target. As for the intro, I assume that Ross arrested John, Abigail, and Jack and sent them to the Saint Denis jail. There, he gives John a "comply or die" speech, either hunt down Bill and Dutch or be executed . John chooses to hunt down his friends. Ross tells him to meet him and his protégé at the Blackwater docks. Jack and Abigail are then transported to Sisika Penitentiary. John then takes the Morningstar to Blackwater. Cue RDR1 intro.

 

I know what that 1880's were like, because we already played it: New Austin. RDR1 may be set in 1911, but New Austin felt like it could be set in 1881. Traveling from New Austin to West Elizabeth was like traveling from 1881 to 1925. It was awesome. If we saw what New Austin was like in the actual 1880's, it would be like RDR2 New Austin, everyone would be dying of Cholera and Scarlet Fever. How would seeing West Elizabeth and New Austin uncivilized be interesting? To see how far they come? I mean...cool. I find the personification of the past (New Austin) and the future (West Elizabeth) more interesting. John not going to Mexico or New Austin while some of the gang does falls into that prequel trap of "while it doesn't contradict anything, it feels incongruent". Its like in "Revenge of the Sith" when C3PO's mind was wiped so that he doesn't recognize Obi-Wan Kenobi in "A New Hope". It feels forced is what I'm saying.

 

You do some pretty awful things in chapter 2, beat a man nearly to death, force people to give you back money, rob indiscriminately. That's when the gang is at the height of it's freedom. The game is basically telling you to go crazy. In chapter 3, yeah the game tells you to calm a bit because you need to fit in. But then by chapter 4, the game tells you go back at it since now you need to leave the country. In chapter 6, the game then tells you that you should do good deeds, help the church in Saint Denis, kick Strauss out, refuse to take payment, but if you don't want to you don't have to. Could the game have done a better job? Yeah. But it gets its message across.

 

The reason why Arthur and Hosea aren't mentioned is because they died a decade ago, its time to move on from the past. I mean, in the first game John mentioned that he has a daughter and.... that's it, she is rarely ever mentioned again. Even when John returned to his family, they never talk about her. Why? Because she's dead, no reason to mention her. Same logic applies to Arthur and Hosea. As for Micah, why would they mention him? He didn't cause Dutch to go insane, Dutch himself did. He listen to Micah, a man who has been with them for only a few months, then Arthur, a man who has been with him for years. Micah was just a typical outlaw who took advantage of Dutch's stupidity. Now if RDR2 was made before RDR1, would these characters been mentioned? Yes most definitely.

 

"It's to long ago to be interesting"... I don't get this. I don't see how I wouldn't like stories from long ago. 1911 was 108 years ago, which is a long time ago, unless your Zeus. But yeah, your correct, it might interest me if it has fantastic writing. But your modified story doesn't really hold my interest personally. What made RDR1's story interesting wasn't the ambiguity of John's backstory. I think if anything, people wanted that particular backstory to be filled. Despite being the driving point of the story, his background of being an outlaw was quite underdeveloped. Bill was the typical dumb criminal and Javier was Speedy Gonzales. Dutch was the only gang member with depth, so everyone wanted to see more of him and see how far he fell. Sure it ruins the mystique of the original, but at the better cost of developing characters. Seeing John go from a person who hated his wife and didn't even consider his son to be his own to a person who was willing to sacrifice his life for their safety is much better than the game telling you "Yeah, John was an awful father, but he's trying". Some things just need to be shown.

• Why does a theme need to be explored? Why can’t we relish the time period? Why does it need to critique anything? We explore the world. Whether the Dollars film were tongue-in-cheek or not is a matter of debate. They were very much thematically like other films of the era, except better. They were actually like old Samurai flicks rewritten for an American audience. Your “nothing to see” quip applies to 1899 or 1911 too. What am I supposed to get from those time periods? Oh look, there’s telegraph lines in the town. Really exciting. See how that’s a poor argument?

 

•fair enough, my one sentence for a 30 second cutscene that would be an homage to Mafia 1 wouldn’t make sense to a few lines in Redemption 1. I can’t remember enough of the script to know which exact lines it might conflict with, so toss it out if it doesn’t work. It wasn’t the main body of my original point.

 they state Jack and Abigail are in a safehouse, or imply they are under police protection/supervision. They never state how they were taken or when John learnt about it, and I reckon that was deliberate. It doesn’t make much sense for them to go to Beecher’s Hope, take all 3 across the lake to St Denis only to have to take John back. Why not just take Jack and Abigail in an ambush when John was out, and have the FOB waiting for him when he returned? Tell him what they told him when he got off the paddlesteamer. It’s a glaring continuity error that they made him arrive in Blackwater by boat, and it might’ve just been a continuation/callback to the intros they had been using in GTA for a few years and nothing more. We don’t know.

 

• and how is seeing West Elizabeth in 1925 interesting? How is comparing 1920s Blackwater to 1880s Armadillo more interesting than comparing 1920s BW to 1880s BW? Like you said: to see how far we’ve come? alright... cool. What you said is the exact same scenario, but with the town names changed. Again, it seems to stem from your personal opinion that the modern era is more interesting. Which you’re entitled to have, but it doesn’t make you more right. 

 

• it makes as much sense as some of the gang going to Guarma and some not. 

 

• “you beat a man nearly to death” and are given a ton of sh*t by the gang for making too much noise when they’re trying to lay low because the law was hot on their tail. They had literally just escaped a high profile botched robbery, the whole point of being in Horseshoe Overlook was to try and get some heat off whilst Dutch tries to come up with a plan (tm) on what to do next. Every time you do more than hold up a stagecoach you get sh*t for it. The robbery we do is put off until Chapter 3, after the gang has already left the area because they made too much noise and attracted the Pinkertons to where they were. Forcing them on the run. The entire game is us trying to lay low and keep on the run, with everything getting worse and worse because a new breed of lawman is running us down. I find it strange you can recite word for word off-the-cuff lines from the first game yet can’t remember basic plot points from the second. 

 

John’s daughter also died as a baby. It sucks to say, but kids dying was a good bit more common back then. It happened, the family moved on. It was life back then, she had changed his life little. I can maybe understand him not mentioning Hosea, but Arthur? Like I said, Arthur saved John’s life 3 times just over the course of Redemption 2. Risked his life to fight through a snowstorm to find John stranded on a mountain and saved him from being mauled by wolves. Then he and Sadie break into a highly guarded prison to save him from hanging. And finally, in the defining moment of the plots of both games, Arthur was the only person to stand with John when the gang fell apart. And he sacrificed his life so John could live and take care of his family. You don’t forget that kind of sh*t. You don’t “move on” from that. Your best friend tells you “go on without me, I’ll hold them off long enough for you to escape”, and you’ll basically worship him for the rest of your life. 

 

• because you’ve stated as such. “1880s wasn’t as interesting as the 1910s.” There’s not too many ways that can be interpreted. 

 

• I’d argue it was what made it so good. It was written like a classic western. A mysterious man with only one driving motivation, set out to kill the members of his old gang. Which itself is mysterious in its backstory. Rockstar deliberately kept from revealing too much about John’s backstory to try and keep it as shrouded in the dark as possible. It was an artistic choice that contributed a large part of the narrative of the original game. 

Yes, people begged to learn more about John. But it’s the same sort of mindset that causes people to ask what The Man With no Name’s real name is. Imagine if Sergio Leone came out years later and said his name was Michael Johnson or something. It would spoil it. There were a bunch of novels that discussed at length his childhood and backstory, and it ruined the mystique of it. A Fistful of Dollars doesn’t carry quite the same weight when you know canonically that one of his best friends when he was younger was a shoe fetishist and that as a kid he was just a normal ranchhand. Some things just need to be left in the dark.

 

Of course, Redemption 2 doesn’t ruin Redemption 1. It just spoils the narrative. It just turns the game into a ‘spot the callback’ fest. To be honest, I think making Redemption 2 a prequel in general was a bad choice. It shouldn’t have had any ties to Redemption 1, and it shouldn’t have been called Redemption 2. It should’ve been a standalone title. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, éX-Driver said:

• Why does a theme need to be explored? Why can’t we relish the time period? Why does it need to critique anything? We explore the world. Whether the Dollars film were tongue-in-cheek or not is a matter of debate. They were very much thematically like other films of the era, except better. They were actually like old Samurai flicks rewritten for an American audience. Your “nothing to see” quip applies to 1899 or 1911 too. What am I supposed to get from those time periods? Oh look, there’s telegraph lines in the town. Really exciting. See how that’s a poor argument?

 

 they state Jack and Abigail are in a safehouse, or imply they are under police protection/supervision. They never state how they were taken or when John learnt about it, and I reckon that was deliberate. It doesn’t make much sense for them to go to Beecher’s Hope, take all 3 across the lake to St Denis only to have to take John back. Why not just take Jack and Abigail in an ambush when John was out, and have the FOB waiting for him when he returned? Tell him what they told him when he got off the paddlesteamer. It’s a glaring continuity error that they made him arrive in Blackwater by boat, and it might’ve just been a continuation/callback to the intros they had been using in GTA for a few years and nothing more. We don’t know.

 

• and how is seeing West Elizabeth in 1925 interesting? How is comparing 1920s Blackwater to 1880s Armadillo more interesting than comparing 1920s BW to 1880s BW? Like you said: to see how far we’ve come? alright... cool. What you said is the exact same scenario, but with the town names changed. Again, it seems to stem from your personal opinion that the modern era is more interesting. Which you’re entitled to have, but it doesn’t make you more right. 

 

• it makes as much sense as some of the gang going to Guarma and some not. 

 

• “you beat a man nearly to death” and are given a ton of sh*t by the gang for making too much noise when they’re trying to lay low because the law was hot on their tail. They had literally just escaped a high profile botched robbery, the whole point of being in Horseshoe Overlook was to try and get some heat off whilst Dutch tries to come up with a plan (tm) on what to do next. Every time you do more than hold up a stagecoach you get sh*t for it. The robbery we do is put off until Chapter 3, after the gang has already left the area because they made too much noise and attracted the Pinkertons to where they were. Forcing them on the run. The entire game is us trying to lay low and keep on the run, with everything getting worse and worse because a new breed of lawman is running us down. I find it strange you can recite word for word off-the-cuff lines from the first game yet can’t remember basic plot points from the second. 

 

John’s daughter also died as a baby. It sucks to say, but kids dying was a good bit more common back then. It happened, the family moved on. It was life back then, she had changed his life little. I can maybe understand him not mentioning Hosea, but Arthur? Like I said, Arthur saved John’s life 3 times just over the course of Redemption 2. Risked his life to fight through a snowstorm to find John stranded on a mountain and saved him from being mauled by wolves. Then he and Sadie break into a highly guarded prison to save him from hanging. And finally, in the defining moment of the plots of both games, Arthur was the only person to stand with John when the gang fell apart. And he sacrificed his life so John could live and take care of his family. You don’t forget that kind of sh*t. You don’t “move on” from that. Your best friend tells you “go on without me, I’ll hold them off long enough for you to escape”, and you’ll basically worship him for the rest of your life. 

 

• because you’ve stated as such. “1880s wasn’t as interesting as the 1910s.” There’s not too many ways that can be interpreted. 

 

• I’d argue it was what made it so good. It was written like a classic western. A mysterious man with only one driving motivation, set out to kill the members of his old gang. Which itself is mysterious in its backstory. Rockstar deliberately kept from revealing too much about John’s backstory to try and keep it as shrouded in the dark as possible. It was an artistic choice that contributed a large part of the narrative of the original game. 

Yes, people begged to learn more about John. But it’s the same sort of mindset that causes people to ask what The Man With no Name’s real name is. Imagine if Sergio Leone came out years later and said his name was Michael Johnson or something. It would spoil it. There were a bunch of novels that discussed at length his childhood and backstory, and it ruined the mystique of it. A Fistful of Dollars doesn’t carry quite the same weight when you know canonically that one of his best friends when he was younger was a shoe fetishist and that as a kid he was just a normal ranchhand. Some things just need to be left in the dark.

 

Of course, Redemption 2 doesn’t ruin Redemption 1. It just spoils the narrative. It just turns the game into a ‘spot the callback’ fest. To be honest, I think making Redemption 2 a prequel in general was a bad choice. It shouldn’t have had any ties to Redemption 1, and it shouldn’t have been called Redemption 2. It should’ve been a standalone title. 

If there is nothing to explore, then why set it in the height of the old west? We just enjoy the moment? What would be interesting to see, the lawlessness of the time? Basically what I am asking is, how different would the story be if it was set in 1889 then if it was set in 1899? I'd argue that by the early 1890's the wild west was more or less civilized. In 1899, we see how a huge transition period can effect so many elements. Instead of farms, it's factories. Instead of horse carriages, it's motorcars. Instead of sending letters, we use a phone. Instead of living by your wits, it's living with laws and safety.

 

That was just my hypothesis. I think R* did it because it looked cool as a intro, not for any story reason.

 

It's not necessarily "look how far they came" but rather "look how much technology can have an effect on everything". When you go to Armadillo, it's like going to the 1880's, bandits everywhere, people farming, people looking for gold, with a tough sheriff and his dimwitted deputies protecting the towns. When you go to Blackwater, it's the complete opposite. No bandits, people working in factories, everyone making money, the big law enforcement body there to protect you. It's almost like time travel, going to New Austin is like going 30 years back to the past, while going to West Elizabeth is like going 30 years forward to the future. We don't need to see these states in their uncivilized period because there would be nothing to them, they would just be there. Getting rid of the reason for those towns existence would just make them pointless. Tumbleweed for example. Tumbleweed was supposed to be nothing more than a town that was abandoned due to a lack of railway. Now its there because... reasons.

 

To be fair, Guarma is by far the weakest section of the game, gameplay and story wise.

 

I don't remember the gang giving Arthur gruff for making "too much noise". Hosea does to Dutch when they are about to rob a Cornwall train, but that's about it. In "Eastward Bound" Dutch tells the gang "Go out there and see what you can find", doesn't exactly sound like lying low now doesn't it? The whole point of the game isn't that they are trying to lie low, its that their time as outlaws have passed and that Pinkertons will be one step ahead of them. I mean, you shoot up and kill half a town, publically beat a man nearly to death, free your friend from bounty hunters, become sheriffs, kill a member of the mafia who has control of the police department, kill a famous oil tycoon, blow up a bridge, and rob several banks, trains, and ferries. The van der Linde gang wouldn't know lying low if it hit them over the head with a rock.

 

We don't know if John's daughter was a baby when she died. She could have been a kid when she died. Before RDR2 release, there was even speculation that she was older than  Jack. We had very little information on her back then, hell we have little information on her now. John not mentioning Arthur is more due to the writing of the second game, as it was a mistake to make Arthur a huge part of John's character arc.

 

A wild west story set in the 1880's is great, if it's written well. Your particular story with the van der Linde gang in their prime just isn't my cup of tea. I personally find the 1910's more interesting than the 1880's, due to the transitional period.

 

I think John Marston was supposed to be a deconstruction of the "lone wandering gunslinger/bounty hunter":

-The first thing you see is a scar faced man named John hunting down a known criminal, Bill Williamson.

-Bill and John appear to know each other.

-We don't know John's exact reasons for hunting down Bill, maybe its for money or revenge.

-He gets shot and saved by a farmer named Bonnie.

-He tells Bonnie the reason why he is hunting down Bill: He wants to save his wife and son.

-He tells Bonnie that he was apart of a well known gang and that Bill was apart of that gang.

-He is ordered to track down his former friend and either kill or capture him. After he does that, he will then get his family back.

 

R* made the backstory vague because they probably realized they could potentially get a second game from Dutch's gang, not because they wanted John's past to be shrouded in mystery. Characters like Bill and Javier were poorly developed, despite their potential. John's backstory not being a highlight of the story wasn't because they wanted him to be mysterious, because he was supposed to be a deconstruction of those times of characters like the Man With No Name. RDR1 story is about a man out of time. The details of his backstory weren't important, the only thing that was important is that he was a outlaw during the wild west, but is now adapting to a new world.

 

I think the second game featuring the van der Linde game wasn't a mistake at all. You get to see characters from the first game in a different light. But I understand where you are coming from. It's sorta like seeing a monster in a movie. Maybe you want to see what it looks like for curiosity sake or maybe you don't because it would ruin the scare factor. It's pure preference.

Edited by Mysterious hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GinsengElixir
On 3/14/2019 at 12:06 AM, PapasHota said:

I think it would be better if Dutch was the playable character in chapter 1-6 arthur would work much better as a supporting character because he isnt interesting enouch to carry the story.

Whaaaat.

 

I respectfully disagree. Dutch is far better as a character we can't play as. Arthur being an everyman was very intentional by R*. It juxtaposed with him being a ruthless robber/killer brilliantly. Afterall a major theme in RDR2 is being two people in one, and the struggle between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
2 hours ago, GinsengElixir said:

Arthur being an everyman was very intentional by R*. It juxtaposed with him being a ruthless robber/killer brilliantly. Afterall a major theme in RDR2 is being two people in one, and the struggle between the two.

Just because it's intentional, it doesn't mean its good. Arthur shouldn't be an everyman, because he's not one. He's an outlaw. Even towards the end of the story, he's still an outlaw that is trying to do good.

Share this post


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

Just because it's intentional, it doesn't mean its good. Arthur shouldn't be an everyman, because he's not one. He's an outlaw. Even towards the end of the story, he's still an outlaw that is trying to do good.

I guess whether it worked or not is subjective. I liked it because he didn't look or behave like a stereotypical outlaw archetype. 

Share this post


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

I guess whether it worked or not is subjective. I liked it because he didn't look or behave like a stereotypical outlaw archetype. 

I wish he DID act like a stereotypical outlaw at the beginning of the game, as he would enjoy the outlaw life due to the power it gives him, but by the end of the game he realizes all the harm and death he has caused. That would make his redemption much more interesting. Just like how John is a deconstruction of the "quiet, lone wandering gunslinger/bounty hunter", Arthur could have been a deconstruction of the "outlaw with a code". Instead in-game, he is the typical "jerk with a heart of gold" who hates the outlaw life but does it anyway because he has no other options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UpTheDowngrade

To me, Arthur is just seems too inclusive and open-minded for being an uncivilized outlaw killer from the 1800's. God, that side mission with Sean and Mary-Beth, where he's trying soo hard to stick up for her, speaking for her every single time Sean said anything. Usually R* are pretty aware of this type of thing, and thought they would have a character call him out for that desperate, unchecked white knighting. I get that we was meant to be an everyman, and be relatable to most peoples' sensibilities, but he just came across as kind of a wimp, and it didn't really line up with the time period and gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GinsengElixir

Hmm, he was a white knight to the women he knew. Mary-Beth was like his little sister. But then look at how he speaks to Mrs.Downes when he first goes to their ranch - he tell Thomas Downes to sell her, then he basically says,'what you looking at woman'. There are plenty of examples of him being utterly savage, plenty of examples of him making death threats to innocent people - the stable hand being one such example, which was both scary and humourous. As for him being a wimp? Nah, come on. Why can an outlaw not be inclusive and open-minded? I will agree sometimes the game veered into SJW territory but it was usually balanced out in a variety of ways. Him being open minded gave the character depth, rather than just being an evil outlaw stereotype who we can't like and who suddenly has a conscience for no reason.

2 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

I wish he DID act like a stereotypical outlaw at the beginning of the game, as he would enjoy the outlaw life due to the power it gives him, but by the end of the game he realizes all the harm and death he has caused. That would make his redemption much more interesting. Just like how John is a deconstruction of the "quiet, lone wandering gunslinger/bounty hunter", Arthur could have been a deconstruction of the "outlaw with a code". Instead in-game, he is the typical "jerk with a heart of gold" who hates the outlaw life but does it anyway because he has no other options.

It WAS a deconstruction of the outlaw with a code though..the only thing is we never got to see Arthur in his outlaw prime, when he was truly living the outlaw life.

 

But anyway, they were never straight up outlaws. The Van der Linde gang were known for taking wealth and re-distributing it to those in need. They were never after power or money, atleast not before the events of RDR2, and probably not during that time period either. They were more like anarchists fighting for freedom. If you think about it there is not one gang member who is money hungry, not even Micah.

 

Arthurs whole thematic journey is about a man who can't decide whether he is good or bad, and even at the end of the game we can surmise that lived as both good and bad. I wouldn't be interested in playing as an O'Driscoll turned good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UnexpectedParole
16 hours ago, GinsengElixir said:

Hmm, he was a white knight to the women he knew. Mary-Beth was like his little sister. But then look at how he speaks to Mrs.Downes when he first goes to their ranch - he tell Thomas Downes to sell her, then he basically says,'what you looking at woman'. There are plenty of examples of him being utterly savage, plenty of examples of him making death threats to innocent people - the stable hand being one such example, which was both scary and humourous. As for him being a wimp? Nah, come on. Why can an outlaw not be inclusive and open-minded? I will agree sometimes the game veered into SJW territory but it was usually balanced out in a variety of ways. Him being open minded gave the character depth, rather than just being an evil outlaw stereotype who we can't like and who suddenly has a conscience for no reason.

It WAS a deconstruction of the outlaw with a code though..the only thing is we never got to see Arthur in his outlaw prime, when he was truly living the outlaw life.

 

But anyway, they were never straight up outlaws. The Van der Linde gang were known for taking wealth and re-distributing it to those in need. They were never after power or money, atleast not before the events of RDR2, and probably not during that time period either. They were more like anarchists fighting for freedom. If you think about it there is not one gang member who is money hungry, not even Micah.

 

Arthurs whole thematic journey is about a man who can't decide whether he is good or bad, and even at the end of the game we can surmise that lived as both good and bad. I wouldn't be interested in playing as an O'Driscoll turned good.

 

I'll agree Arthur was a white knight to those he knew. I'll agree he showed brutality and savagery to "those not his own".

I'll even agree that the story sometimes veered into sjw territory even though I don't care for the term. It did drift into what is meant by that.

 

But I'll disagree with the rest. Dutch's gang were straight up outlaws. Mac and Davey were hard, hard men. As was Arthur. They stole. They killed. The beat. They robbed. And they did it to "live free". Which is actually just "To live like we want <and do what we want when we want> not subject to your laws."

There is no cannon evidence that they actually redistributed any wealth on a consistent basis. They did it a few times, sure.

But no Robin Hood gang takes the proceeds from it's thievery and hides it in a box. They give it away. 100% of the gang's share of all missions were controlled by and retained by Dutch. Arthur even says "It has been a long time since we helped anybody."

 

Dutch was a master manipulator, and controlling the press like that would also benefit them. He would have used it to control the gang too. The specific times he takes Arthur aside to call him son. Or to get Arthur and Hosea aside to ensure that they know they are special to make sure they support his next selfish plan. The giving things away to appear good was a tool not a lifestyle.. I could go on for hours about Dutch's manipulative control over the group and how they only thought they were different than Colm O'Driscoll's gang . Kieren points this out on the way to 6 point cabin to make the Social Call. In fact, I might just make a large separate post about that.

-But the main difference between Dutch and Colm is how they needed to be seen. One simply one chose to rule by fear and the other needed to be seen as a savior. The women were a status symbol and disguise for Dutch that Colm didn't need. Dutch preyed upon the young and desperate and even taught people to read to bind them to him. I can tell you which is easier to break from. As Kieren Arthur and John can all attest. But disregarding that women and kids slept in Dutch's camp at night, and Dutch pretends to love his crew, what really separates the two gangs? 

 

Micah was very money hungry. Aside from the sadist pleasure of hurting folks <and not getting into trouble for anything> that was his main driving force.  What about the Blackwater money? He asked about the blackwater money at nearly every opportunity. His entire purpose in the game was to trim the gang down to a few very tough fighting men, so that his share of the profits would be a larger percentage  and the expenses taken from the spoils would be less therefore increasing the profit. Why pay(support / feed / privide for)  camp women to cook and clean laundry when you can just buy, steal or intimidate what you need from the people whom you run into? Especially if you still have to pay for prostitutes anyway?

What do you thing Micah was if not money hungry?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crazedZ10

I love RDR1, I love it a lot more than 2. But if it didn't exist we could of gotten a much better game and a much better map this time round

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero

Going back to this threads roots of discussing Retcons and Continuity Errors, there is one thing that I have always wanted to discuss:

The Blackwater Massacre of 1899.

 

There has been a debate of whether or not The Ferry Robbery and the Blackwater Massacre of 1899 are the same event. When seeing through the lines, it's very clear that these are intended to be the same event. Both take place in 1899, both are a shootout, both left many dead, and both take place in Blackwater. Plus, the Pinkertons stay in Blackwater for the remaining of 1899. In 1907, the bartender in Blackwater can say "You should seen the massacre of '99, I thought we would never recover" or something along those lines, no other shootout in Blackwater is mentioned in the game, which confirms that the Ferry Robbery and the Blackwater Massacre are the same event or atleast related. There are two reasons why many people don't believe these are the same event: the presence of Landon Ricketts and the body count.

 

For some reason, Landon's involvement in the massacre is never mentioned or alluded to. I thought at first maybe R* forgot, but in one of the newspapers, regarding the cigarette cards with gunslingers on them, alludes to Landon killing the Butcher Brothers. In the first game, it's always mentioned in the newspapers that Landon was famous two events  "killing the Butcher Brothers in 1896 and his involvement in the Blackwater Massacre of 1899", so it's very clear that R* didn't forget. My guess? They may have quietly retconned Landon's involvement in the massacre. Since John meets Landon for the first time in 1911, I guess they thought it would be odd that Landon wouldn't recognize John back in 1899 and vice versa. Either that or they thought that it would be weird that Landon wouldn't know about John's involvement in the massacre, considering John was a wanted man and well known member of the Van Der Linde gang.

 

 Now for the body count. If you didn't know, the wiki has stated for the longest time that 37 men died during the massacre, specifically 22 outlaws and 15 lawmen. Although we don't know much about the Ferry Robbery, the things we do makes this body count seem unlikely. 15 lawmen might be plausible, but 22 outlaws isn't. According to the game, only three members of the Van Der Linde gang died, Jenny Kirk, and the Callander Brothers, Mac and Davey. Davey died at Colter, which means he wouldn't be counted in the death toll, since how would the authorities know? This leaves Jenny and Mac. We know Mac was very injured so he likely never made it out of Blackwater and although the circumstances around Jenny's death are vague, according to Arthur's journal she "got killed" which suggest she died in Blackwater as well. Which means the authorities know two members of the Van Der Linde gang died, so who were the other twenty? There have been several theories to fill in the blanks, such as the Van Der Linde gang hiring mercenaries to help, outlaws hired to protect the cash, yellow journalism, ect.

 

However the explanation might be more simple. The body count was a complete fallacy that the wiki made up. I have been investigating this for a while, talking to the wiki admins and they have no idea where the source came from. They were also very sketchy about it. I asked one admin where the source for the body count is and they said pre-release RDR1 material. When I asked if they were sure, they never responded to me again. So I went and personally edited the wiki page to remove the body count. So far, no one has changed it back, which might confirm that the body count was fake. However, I'm wondering if anyone knows where the body count might be stated, whether it would be dialogue from RDR1, or any outside material. It's not in the newspapers, I checked. I just want to know whether or not the wiki could have been potentially giving out false information that unfortunately was ingrained in many people's minds. The wiki has, many times, given out false info so I hope that this isn't another case of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UnexpectedParole

 

I'll add to that ret-con.

 

Jenny is buried north of Colter. So it would be hard to have her counted in the Black Water massacre deaths as well. Like Davey, she was hauled out, how did anyone else know to count her? She would have been wounded only.

 

Not to mention that I used to believe that the gang came down from the NW corner of the map to enter Colter from the NW (since her grave would be on the path at that point, going to Colter). But in the mission with Javier to save John actually has him exploring north up the River, which doesn't make sense if they came down from that way. It looks like Micah went north and east past Colter up towards Adler ranch, and John went north and west to spider gorge. That means the gang must have come up from the south ? (through the mining camp the O'Driscolls held ??) or up past Wallace station? The pocket watch and pipe lost "in blackwater" are found south of hanging dog ranch.

 

But that doesn't make any sense of the wagon train 's route out of Blackwater to Colter, and West Elizabeth north of the Upper Montana not being in lockdown if the Pinkertons were 'hot on their trail' until the snow in the mountains held them back. The Pinkertons hauled back to WE south of the River to put lock down there.

 

No continuity.

Share this post


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

 

I'll add to that ret-con.

 

Jenny is buried north of Colter. So it would be hard to have her counted in the Black Water massacre deaths as well. Like Davey, she was hauled out, how did anyone else know to count her? She would have been wounded only.

To be fair, it's possible that one of the gang members quickly retrieved her body not too long after the massacre. Sorta like Lenny and Hosea.

 

Regardless, the body count appears to be a complete fallacy that the wiki made up so I don't think it matters.

3 hours ago, UnexpectedParole said:

Not to mention that I used to believe that the gang came down from the NW corner of the map to enter Colter from the NW (since her grave would be on the path at that point, going to Colter). But in the mission with Javier to save John actually has him exploring north up the River, which doesn't make sense if they came down from that way. It looks like Micah went north and east past Colter up towards Adler ranch, and John went north and west to spider gorge. That means the gang must have come up from the south ? (through the mining camp the O'Driscolls held ??) or up past Wallace station? The pocket watch and pipe lost "in blackwater" are found south of hanging dog ranch.

 

But that doesn't make any sense of the wagon train 's route out of Blackwater to Colter, and West Elizabeth north of the Upper Montana not being in lockdown if the Pinkertons were 'hot on their trail' until the snow in the mountains held them back. The Pinkertons hauled back to WE south of the River to put lock down there.

According to a wanted poster for Dutch, the gang entered the Grizzles through Big Valley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UnexpectedParole
4 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

To be fair, it's possible that one of the gang members quickly retrieved her body not too long after the massacre. Sorta like Lenny and Hosea.

 

Regardless, the body count appears to be a complete fallacy that the wiki made up so I don't think it matters.

According to a wanted poster for Dutch, the gang entered the Grizzles through Big Valley.

 

And that is your Ret con then.  Even if they grabbed her body and carried her away, which I'll give you. How did she get buried north of Colter when Davey died just before Colter and got buried in Colter? I'm pretty sure she was buried before chapter 1.

 

Unless the "Grizzlies" is the mountain range? not "Grizzlies West" which contains Colter.,  That would allow the gang to go NW of Hanging Dog ranch and enter the territory west of Ambarino, to come back in the NW corner of the map. (Where there are a lot of features that are designed and have been explored by others.) Heading into Colter from the NW. Which still doesn't Jive with John's mission.  So, as pointed out, the continuity is a bit junk. ?

 

What am I missing? 

 

Share this post


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

 

And that is your Ret con then.  Even if they grabbed her body and carried her away, which I'll give you. How did she get buried north of Colter when Davey died just before Colter and got buried in Colter? I'm pretty sure she was buried before chapter 1

They buried her in Spider Gorge, then headed towards Colter, Davey died on the way there, Davey was buried in Colter. I don't see the problem here. The circumstances behind Jenny's death is vague, except that "she got killed" according to Arthur's journal. Regardless of who died at Blackwater, I don't think it matters. I'm about 50% sure that the "22 outlaws, 15 lawmen" death toll is something the wiki made up.

Edited by Mysterious hero

Share this post


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

Which still doesn't Jive with John's mission.  So, as pointed out, the continuity is a bit junk. ?

It's mentioned that John went out scouting. Meaning John was likely looking out for Pinkertons or supplies. So the continuity is fine.

Edited by Mysterious hero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crazedZ10
Posted (edited)

So during the mission "Our best selves" (The final train robbery), Why did the gang ride through the center of town, past a whole load of cops (who don't say a word) when they could of just rode alongside the tracks and then waited by the station? 

 

 

Edited by crazedZ10
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
crazedZ10

The barn at Adler ranch in online has the mahogany bay Tennessee Walker, however when Arthur asks her about it in chapter 1 she claims that it belonged to the O'Driscoll's and she doesn't care what happens to it...

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.