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

    1. GrandTheftAuto.net - Website Re-Launch

    1. GTA Online

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

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

      1. Events
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

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

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA 6

    3. GTA V

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

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

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

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

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

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    11. Top Down Games

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

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

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

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

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. 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
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Mysterious hero

Red Dead Redemption 2 Retcons and Continuity errors

Recommended Posts

JavierC
On 4/26/2019 at 11:53 PM, éX-Driver said:

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. 

I love it, and would liked to see something like this instead, Simple plots turn into epic stories real easy.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mirror Park Resident
On 4/28/2019 at 6:54 AM, Mysterious hero said:

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.

 

A reason I never got. Why should a West Elizabeth candidate for governor care about what happens in New Austin? It's unclear in RDR1 if NA and WE are states, just counties or whatever. Then RDR2 sets them (along with other 3) as states. Oookay.

Edited by Mirror Park Resident
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oisinkelly2003

I also found one that only applies to RDR2 (from my knowledge). 
 

At the very start of the game while you ride out to try and find supplies (you know, you, Micah and Dutch find the cabin with Sadie Adler not long after riding for a bit), Arthur mentions something along the lines that the heavy storm will slow down the Pinkertons that are on the Van der Linde gang’s tail.

 

It is also mentioned much further in the game by Dutch that Leviticus Cornwall is the one who’s paying the Pinkerton agency to track down and get rid of the Van der Linde gang. I believe Dutch mentions this not long before you kill Leviticus himself.

 

However, here is the error. Also early on in the game, the gang raids an O’Driscoll hideout and kills a high number of O’Driscoll gang members in the process. They then loot the bodies and the hideout, and therefore find Dynamite. When Arthur, Dutch, Micah, Bill and the others reunite in the centre of the O’Driscoll hideout they had just raided and looted, Dutch reads out the O’Driscoll gang’s plans to rob a train (you later do this). Dutch reads out “Leviticus Cornwall” in a weird way, implying that he hasn’t heard of the name before, on the O’Driscoll’s plans. This also implies that Dutch and his gang have never robbed, attacked or done anything to Leviticus. Hosea also explains to Dutch and Arthur that Leviticus is, something along the lines of, a “sugar-dealer, oil-man”.

 

So with all this taken into account for, why would the Pinkertons be on the Van der Linde gang’s tail if, at the time, the gang had never done anything to Leviticus Cornwall whatsoever, (remember that Leviticus Cornwall is the one who funds the Pinkerton agency’s ‘war’ against the Van der Linde gang)?

 

Plot error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
56 minutes ago, oisinkelly2003 said:

I also found one that only applies to RDR2 (from my knowledge). 
 

At the very start of the game while you ride out to try and find supplies (you know, you, Micah and Dutch find the cabin with Sadie Adler not long after riding for a bit), Arthur mentions something along the lines that the heavy storm will slow down the Pinkertons that are on the Van der Linde gang’s tail.

 

It is also mentioned much further in the game by Dutch that Leviticus Cornwall is the one who’s paying the Pinkerton agency to track down and get rid of the Van der Linde gang. I believe Dutch mentions this not long before you kill Leviticus himself.

 

However, here is the error. Also early on in the game, the gang raids an O’Driscoll hideout and kills a high number of O’Driscoll gang members in the process. They then loot the bodies and the hideout, and therefore find Dynamite. When Arthur, Dutch, Micah, Bill and the others reunite in the centre of the O’Driscoll hideout they had just raided and looted, Dutch reads out the O’Driscoll gang’s plans to rob a train (you later do this). Dutch reads out “Leviticus Cornwall” in a weird way, implying that he hasn’t heard of the name before, on the O’Driscoll’s plans. This also implies that Dutch and his gang have never robbed, attacked or done anything to Leviticus. Hosea also explains to Dutch and Arthur that Leviticus is, something along the lines of, a “sugar-dealer, oil-man”.

 

So with all this taken into account for, why would the Pinkertons be on the Van der Linde gang’s tail if, at the time, the gang had never done anything to Leviticus Cornwall whatsoever, (remember that Leviticus Cornwall is the one who funds the Pinkerton agency’s ‘war’ against the Van der Linde gang)?

 

Plot error.

This thread is for listing the retcons, revisions, and continuity errors between Red Dead Redemption 1 and 2, not plots holes.

 

But to answer your question, the Pinkerton's are after the Van der Linde gang because of the failed ferry heist at the beginning of the game. After the gang robs the train, the Pinkerton Detective Agency starts getting funding from Leviticus Cornwall to go after the Van der Linde gang.

 

Robbing Leviticus Cornwall's is one of the reasons for why the Pinkerton Detective Agency is after the Van der Linde gang, not the reason.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darealbandicoot

Most likely mentioned before but the mountains in the Tall Trees area along with Cochiney is such a mess. It looks nothing like the RDR1 version and the "cave" entrance is a joke. Also, the cliff Dutch falls from doesn't match up with the RDR2 landscape at all, or even exists. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnthMUFC-Champs

In my opinion, Red Dead Redemption 2 is the best title Rockstar Games have made which ultimately makes these minor errors within the story even more significant and annoying than what they already are. I have to disagree with some of the posts on this topic though, I believe the overall story and theme of the title is fine and I'm happy they went in the direction they did.

Rockstar Games should of made it a priority to make sure these retcons and continuity errors didn't occur and to work on implementing plot lines mentioned in the first Red Dead Redemption. Most of the things mentioned could of been easily avoided had proper research taken place with New Austin also being left out of the game as originally intended. As for John not specifically mentioning some of the members of the gang by name within the first title, it can be explained by taking into account the time that has lapsed and the hectic period John was going through. His family were also being held and he is tasked with tracking down the remaining outlaws still active, hence him still referring to them specifically within the story of the Red Dead Redemption. Let's also take into account that when John, Sadie and Charles tracked down and killed Micha, part of that story was complete and they all had moved on with things hence both Sadie and Charles leaving after the epilogue.  

Edited by AnthMUFC-Champs
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duhillestpunk

That whole Blackwater thing is so darn confusing and really annoying at this point. I don’t get it. What EXACTLY went down that day? We hear so much information both old and new as well as added information to said old and new info thus making it extremely confusing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
48 minutes ago, Duhillestpunk said:

That whole Blackwater thing is so darn confusing and really annoying at this point. I don’t get it. What EXACTLY went down that day? We hear so much information both old and new as well as added information to said old and new info thus making it extremely confusing.

The Blackwater Massacre is a complicated topic. But essentially, it was merely a background event to explain why Landon Ricketts' moved to Mexico. The only thing we really knew about the massacre was that it was a gunfight between outlaws and lawmen. 

The second game added some context. It's revealed that the Van der Linde gang was apart of the massacre and that a botched ferry heist is what sparked the massacre. As for what exactly went down? Who knows. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jabalous
22 hours ago, AnthMUFC-Champs said:

In my opinion, Red Dead Redemption 2 is the best title Rockstar Games have made which ultimately makes these minor errors within the story even more significant and annoying than what they already are. I have to disagree with some of the posts on this topic though, I believe the overall story and theme of the title is fine and I'm happy they went in the direction they did.

Rockstar Games should of made it a priority to make sure these retcons and continuity errors didn't occur and to work on implementing plot lines mentioned in the first Red Dead Redemption. Most of the things mentioned could of been easily avoided had proper research taken place with New Austin also being left out of the game as originally intended. As for John not specifically mentioning some of the members of the gang by name within the first title, it can be explained by taking into account the time that has lapsed and the hectic period John was going through. His family were also being held and he is tasked with tracking down the remaining outlaws still active, hence him still referring to them specifically within the story of the Red Dead Redemption. Let's also take into account that when John, Sadie and Charles tracked down and killed Micha, part of that story was complete and they all had moved on with things hence both Sadie and Charles leaving after the epilogue.  

There's no confirmation that NA was originally not going to be included, and no, the leaked map isn't an evidence. I believe that leaving a desert biome, which is essentially the most Western area in the game, for retcon purposes would've been a bad decision. I think that it was planned from the start, but it wasn't worked on until later in development, postdating the leaked map. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Petko
On 10/28/2019 at 3:11 AM, Darealbandicoot said:

Most likely mentioned before but the mountains in the Tall Trees area along with Cochiney is such a mess. It looks nothing like the RDR1 version and the "cave" entrance is a joke. Also, the cliff Dutch falls from doesn't match up with the RDR2 landscape at all, or even exists. 

And Cochinay doesn't even show up on the HUD. On the other hand Nekoti Rock shows up on it but you have to get there through the glitch. Those areas were some of the coolest places in RDR1.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duhillestpunk
17 hours ago, Jabalous said:

There's no confirmation that NA was originally not going to be included, and no, the leaked map isn't an evidence. I believe that leaving a desert biome, which is essentially the most Western area in the game, for retcon purposes would've been a bad decision. I think that it was planned from the start, but it wasn't worked on until later in development, postdating the leaked map. 

That and you also have to think. Gamers would’ve complained had New Austin not been in the game. Just like how people are complaining about Mexico. I think it’s cool they added it but really there’s no need for it. You can just sense it was rushed. I mean isn’t the New Austin part of the map the 1899 version? It’s like they left it without updating to 1907 and then thought “hey there’s cholera” so that’s why the map is so empty. Still I wouldn’t have minded if it wasn’t included. Hell I barley went back to New Austin after checking it all out.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jabalous
7 hours ago, Duhillestpunk said:

That and you also have to think. Gamers would’ve complained had New Austin not been in the game. Just like how people are complaining about Mexico. I think it’s cool they added it but really there’s no need for it. You can just sense it was rushed. I mean isn’t the New Austin part of the map the 1899 version? It’s like they left it without updating to 1907 and then thought “hey there’s cholera” so that’s why the map is so empty. Still I wouldn’t have minded if it wasn’t included. Hell I barley went back to New Austin after checking it all out.

The Cholera angle is part of the Redemption universe's lore and Drew MacFarlane talked about it, among other diseases that swept across the area, when John Marston was working with them. The newspapers of 1899 also had headlines that covered the diseases and natural disasters that swept across New Austin. The 1907 version fits within the narrative. 

Edited by Jabalous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JumpingKentFlash
On 10/29/2019 at 3:41 AM, Mysterious hero said:

The Blackwater Massacre is a complicated topic. But essentially, it was merely a background event to explain why Landon Ricketts' moved to Mexico. The only thing we really knew about the massacre was that it was a gunfight between outlaws and lawmen. 

The second game added some context. It's revealed that the Van der Linde gang was apart of the massacre and that a botched ferry heist is what sparked the massacre. As for what exactly went down? Who knows. 

The ferry heist - Is that then the wreck of the Serendipity?

 

Just wait until RDR3. The start of the gang and the last mission is the Blackwater Massacre.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alexlecj
On 4/24/2019 at 5:49 AM, Mysterious hero said:

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.

My guess is she was a non-viable child (inevitable death after birth) that existed some time between 1907 and 1911.

 

"I had a daughter, but she died."

"I have a son at home and a daughter in heaven."

 

These are the only sentences, in the course of two games, that specifically mention John having a daughter, and he never elaborated on that.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duhillestpunk

Some of these continuity and retcon errors are really annoying and stupid as well as being noticeable. One that comes to mind is... McFarlane's Ranch. Seriously did rockstar think we were that stupid to not notice the barn house missing. That’s not even something minor. That barn is big as sh*t there’s no way somebody who has played the first game would miss it. It’s so odd.

  • Like 6

Share this post


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

The ferry heist - Is that then the wreck of the Serendipity?

No. The Serendipity was a different boat. It wrecked sometime between 1907 - 1911.

 

8 hours ago, Alexlecj said:

My guess is she was a non-viable child (inevitable death after birth) that existed some time between 1907 and 1911.

 

"I had a daughter, but she died."

"I have a son at home and a daughter in heaven."

 

These are the only sentences, in the course of two games, that specifically mention John having a daughter, and he never elaborated on that.

You also forgot Javier's line:

"I hope you, your wife, and your children rot in hell".

That was clearly meant to have implied that the Marston daughter was around during John's time in the gang. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darealbandicoot
13 hours ago, Duhillestpunk said:

Some of these continuity and retcon errors are really annoying and stupid as well as being noticeable. One that comes to mind is... McFarlane's Ranch. Seriously did rockstar think we were that stupid to not notice the barn house missing. That’s not even something minor. That barn is big as sh*t there’s no way somebody who has played the first game would miss it. It’s so odd.

Also Theives Landing having a VERY aged saloon and shops in 1911 lol

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
silly_nate

Since we’re on this topic I’ll just go ahead and say that a lot of returning areas are different in some way. 

 

- Tall Trees has redwood trees instead of the other trees it had in Redemption 1 

- Blackwater church is different 

- there’s a farm house with a windmill in south east Great Plains that wasn’t there in Redemption 1

- Macfarlane’s house is different 

- Tumbleweed Mansion 

- Thieve’s Landing 

- Rio Bravo has red sand & boulders 

Edited by silly_nate
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnthMUFC-Champs
On 10/29/2019 at 8:54 AM, Jabalous said:

There's no confirmation that NA was originally not going to be included, and no, the leaked map isn't an evidence. I believe that leaving a desert biome, which is essentially the most Western area in the game, for retcon purposes would've been a bad decision. I think that it was planned from the start, but it wasn't worked on until later in development, postdating the leaked map. 

I mean there isn't any official confirmation but I personally believe that most evidence points towards it being an afterthought. If you look at almost every in-game map made by Rockstar Games, from Liberty City to San Andreas they all have a balanced shape to them and look pretty well rounded. The early leaked map for Red Dead Redemption 2 mirrored this pattern however when New Austin was tagged on it completely destroyed the balance which explains why it looks as if it shouldn't be there. Separating the new map from the old would of been pretty easy to do also, they kept the player from going to West Elizabeth at the start of the original Red Dead Redemption so it's safe to assume the same could be done again but this time keeping the player from entering New Austin. 

I think it's pretty obvious as many have already stated that they probably decided to tag it on later in development in fear that some players would complain that it had been left out of the game plus it helped them to boast about the map size too. Unfortunately they made the wrong decision because instead we got a barren New Austin that served hardly any purpose to the game instead of expanding other areas such a Guarma for example. It also served as a major error to the overall plot and timeline of the Red Dead Redemption universe as well. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoJiiva

I recently played RDR1 recently and there were a few things that stood out to me. One John mentions the gang never made it out to New Austin which was true. The other was John said he didn't know the area well which me implies he's at least been to New Austin before in some capacity. Now In RDR2, the main "story" missions never actually take him right into New Austin, he only went as far as Hennigans Stead and even then the missions never made John pass through Macfarlanes ranch.

 

When it comes to continuity, In my opinion you should look at just the main story. Everything else outside that is just bonus for the player and shouldn't be considered Canon. 

 

Also, its possible that New Austin was designed for 1899 and never received a 1907 update like West Elizabeth did. So everything we see there was likely made to be seen as Arthur but was cut and the map was left as in stuck in 1899 when you finally gain access to it as John.

Edited by XenoJiiva
  • Like 5

Share this post


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

I recently played RDR1 recently and there were a few things that stood out to me. One John mentions the gang never made it out to New Austin which was true. The other was John said he didn't know the area well which me implies he's at least been to New Austin before in some capacity. Now In RDR2, the main "story" missions never actually take him right into New Austin, he only went as far as Hennigans Stead and even then the missions never made John pass through Macfarlanes ranch.

 

When it comes to continuity, In my opinion you should look at just the main story. Everything else outside that is just bonus for the player and shouldn't be considered Canon. 

 

Also, its possible that New Austin was designed for 1899 and never received a 1907 update like West Elizabeth did. So everything we see there was likely made to be seen as Arthur but was cut and the map was left as in stuck in 1899 when you finally gain access to it as John.

"How well do you know New Austin?"

"I don't. We talked about coming down here many times, but we never made it".

 

That line of dialogue outright states that John has never been to New Austin, which means that he has never been to there until now. I'm guessing R* retconned it so that he has been there before, but he just doesn't know the area very well, considering he was canonically only down there twice.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darealbandicoot
3 hours ago, XenoJiiva said:

I recently played RDR1 recently and there were a few things that stood out to me. One John mentions the gang never made it out to New Austin which was true. The other was John said he didn't know the area well which me implies he's at least been to New Austin before in some capacity. Now In RDR2, the main "story" missions never actually take him right into New Austin, he only went as far as Hennigans Stead and even then the missions never made John pass through Macfarlanes ranch.

 

When it comes to continuity, In my opinion you should look at just the main story. Everything else outside that is just bonus for the player and shouldn't be considered Canon. 

 

Also, its possible that New Austin was designed for 1899 and never received a 1907 update like West Elizabeth did. So everything we see there was likely made to be seen as Arthur but was cut and the map was left as in stuck in 1899 when you finally gain access to it as John.

Thats exactly what happened. New Austin in RDR2 is the 1907 version. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mokrie Dela
On 11/1/2019 at 8:33 PM, Mysterious hero said:

"How well do you know New Austin?"

"I don't. We talked about coming down here many times, but we never made it".

 

That line of dialogue outright states that John has never been to New Austin, which means that he has never been to there until now. I'm guessing R* retconned it so that he has been there before, but he just doesn't know the area very well, considering he was canonically only down there twice.

How well do I know Paris? I don't.

 

I went to Paris last year but I don't know it. While I'd naturally think the statement would mean he'd never been there, it doesn't necessarily mean that. in the bounty Hunter mission with Sadie, she leads him to pikes basin. To John it cpuld have been anywhere. I don't remember anyone saying specifically where they were. She led him to the desert and after the mission if it was me I probably wouldn't have thought about it then ultimately forgot the place, where it was or how I got there. Same cpuld apply to the fisher of fish mission. John's led there and possibly didn't note or care where they went. So a few years later when he eventually heads to new Austin, and is asked how well he knows the area, it's perfectly plausible he'd simply fail to recollect that it was there he'd been or if he had been, it's unlikely he'd have much reason to remember where he'd gone. 

 

I went to a Chinese restaurant a few years ago for a Christmas meal with my old work. Then a year or 2 later after my local favourite shut down and we were looking for an alternative, we found this other place and when we went I didn't realise it was the same one I'd been to previously. 

It's possible lol

  • Like 7

Share this post


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

How well do I know Paris? I don't.

 

I went to Paris last year but I don't know it. While I'd naturally think the statement would mean he'd never been there, it doesn't necessarily mean that. in the bounty Hunter mission with Sadie, she leads him to pikes basin. To John it cpuld have been anywhere. I don't remember anyone saying specifically where they were. She led him to the desert and after the mission if it was me I probably wouldn't have thought about it then ultimately forgot the place, where it was or how I got there. Same cpuld apply to the fisher of fish mission. John's led there and possibly didn't note or care where they went. So a few years later when he eventually heads to new Austin, and is asked how well he knows the area, it's perfectly plausible he'd simply fail to recollect that it was there he'd been or if he had been, it's unlikely he'd have much reason to remember where he'd gone. 

 

I went to a Chinese restaurant a few years ago for a Christmas meal with my old work. Then a year or 2 later after my local favourite shut down and we were looking for an alternative, we found this other place and when we went I didn't realise it was the same one I'd been to previously. 

It's possible lol

That's...... what I've been saying. He's been out there but he doesn't know the area too well. He even asks Jeremy Gill if Rio Bravo is out in the desert, which proves that he barely knows the area of New Austin. 

But in the context of Red Dead Redemption 1, he has never been to New Austin. 

 

Basically:

Pre-RDR2 release: He's never been to New Austin until 1911.

Post-RDR2 release: He's been to New Austin twice in 1907, but he doesn't know the area very well until 1911.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cutter De Blanc

Is it supposed to be canon that John is both Legend of the East and Legend of the West? I dont know how that sh*t is supposed to work out :whuh:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThroatSlasher2
2 hours ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

Is it supposed to be canon that John is both Legend of the East and Legend of the West? I dont know how that sh*t is supposed to work out :whuh:

It ain't canon for me. I've completed the game 4 times but the only one that truly counts is the one where my Arthur died wearing his velvet shotgun coat.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fangbae

In RDR1 Abigail says she can't read yet she can be seen reading a book in camp in RDR2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mysterious hero
15 minutes ago, fangbae said:

In RDR1 Abigail says she can't read yet she can be seen reading a book in camp in RDR2

The epilogue of Red Dead Redemption 2 makes it clear that Abigail can't read.

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.