When would it have made sense to mention Arthur in RDR 1?

[BTNH]

Obviously the reason that Arthur was never mentioned in RDR 1 was because there were no plans for a prequel back then, and if there were, a character named Arthur Morgan was certainly not in the game's universe.

 

That being said, upon reflecting on the first game when would it narratively had made sense to mention Arthur? If you were involved in hypothetically remastering RDR 1 and were given the task of tweaking some dialogue to mention Arthur, at what point would you have done it?  

 

As far as the game goes, you can easily defend why Arthur was never mentioned because.. why would he be? John was simply tasked to capture his old gang members, it's not like he's tracking Bill down at the start to reminisce about their time over the campfires. John is also pretty cagey about revealing too much of his past, evident by his conversations with Bonnie. Additionally, it makes absolutely no sense to mention Arthur aside from the following parts of the game:

 

1. The beginning when John reaches Fort Mercer, tries to get Bill, and is shot.

 

2. Captures Bill.

 

3. When he first interacts with Javier and he escapes.

 

4. His final interaction with Dutch.

 

5. Resuming his life with his family.

 

The first 3 examples would probably be kinda weak and be a forced reference. John could maybe have mentioned Arthur when he found Javier but it isn't necessarily important to mention him there. Resuming life with his family? Possibly could have fitted in a reference here and I could accept someone arguing why and how he should have been referenced too in a particular cut-scene. That said, you have to remember this is 12 years on and all John wants to do is focus on his family and leave the past behind.

 

The reason why I left out his final interaction with Dutch is because I believe this is the only time Arthur could be referenced in a powerful, poignant way. After all these years, Dutch finally scumbles to reality uttering the words he probably knew for a long time but never wanted to admit, a lack of acceptance which led to the breakup of his gang and the deaths of many, "our time has passed." This scene is especially more powerful now, as John knows that despite Dutch's madness at the end, his actions with Micah in 1907 saved John and gave him a chance to move on with his life despite his tragic end. Personally, I think it would have made sense to mention Arthur here. If RDR 1 was to be remastered and there were to be a few changes in dialogue, I would say its a safe bet that Arthur would have been mentioned during this cut-scene. 

[HeyThereFriend]

The only place that really stands out to me now without mention of Arthur is in the intro with Bill and John.

 

"Well things are different now John, I'm in charge...no more Dutch...and no more you"

 

I think this should of been "Well things are different now John, I'm in charge...no more Dutch, no more Arthur...and no more you"

 

Arthur was Dutch's right hand man and was involved in every major situation along the entire way, before the game and very much during the game. Arthur often did have power and told others in the gang what to do, so with Bill saying he has the power now, it's odd that he would mention John as if he had more power than Bill and not mention someone who definitely did have more power within the gang than him and that's Arthur.

 

I also think during the meeting between Javier and John that Micah should have been mentioned, John definitely should throw it in Javier's face that he trusted Dutch and Dutch trusted a rat that ended the gang.

[Oldsport]

1. javier : john let me go, you wouldnt even be alive if it wasnt for me and arthur. 

2. at cochinay : john: me and arthur was right about you dutch, your delusional

[Gray-Hand]

Given that the last time Bill, Javier and Dutch we’re together, Arthur was there as well, it would make sense for Arthur (or other gang members) to get a mention at that point.  There had been no closure to their relationship, so going over the unresolved issues of the past would make sense, and Arthur was central to that.

 

If I were to redo RDR1, I would add scenes to increase the direct interaction between John, Javier and Bill to really put across the mutual sense of betrayal they felt towards each other and the sense of shame they felt towards themselves.

[Cutter De Blanc]

"Damn Landon,  you shoot as good as Arthur Morgan"

[Gray-Hand]

Replace the strange man with the ghost of Arthur Morgan.

[Jimbatron]

There’s a lot of points where John has philosophical conversations - Bonnie, Marshal Johnson, Luisa, Landon, Abraham etc. It would perhaps make sense for him the reference the man who was obviously his role model, as a lot of Johns perspective seems to have been profoundly influenced by Arthur’s advice towards the end of RDR 2.

[JavierC]

"I understand why the people I highly respected had a problem with authority."

 

That's an actual quote in RDR by John and in my canon he's talking about Dutch and Arthur. 

[RyuNova]

I would have loved Arthur to have met Bonnie.

 

Thinking about it RDR1 John is very much like Arthur in the way he is very respectful to the people that he likes. John has a bubbling anger just underneath the surface thats obvious while Arthur has a cold, calm and collected rage. John would shoot you while Arthur would beat you to death with his fists.

[Markellief006]

Spoiler

I think if rockstar ever wanna bring out rdr3....i think it would be a sequel probably because we know what happened to the Van Der Linde gang and the fates of all the gang members....the only one left is Jack Marston....so I think they would prefer a script about future of rdr universe or go way back....pre 1899 which probably shows those ferry job event and maybe even go back and show Young Dutch, Hosea And Arthur morgan and the formation of the Van Der Linde gang....idk, I know that rockstar never disappoints gamers, especially fans of these wild west era type games like me for sure..i guess the future will probably tell us what rockstar has planned out for the Next Red Dead game

 

[pariah87]

5. and have it be Jack say something like, remember when Arthur took me fishing etc.

[Old Man With No Name]

Maybe he could mention Sean too. When he met the guy named "Irısh" in RDR1

4 hours ago, pariah87 said:

5. and have it be Jack say something like, remember when Arthur took me fishing etc.

Jack says that in the epilogue john & jack fishing mission.

On 3/16/2019 at 2:41 AM, HeyThereFriend said:

The only place that really stands out to me now without mention of Arthur is in the intro with Bill and John.

 

"Well things are different now John, I'm in charge...no more Dutch...and no more you"

 

I think this should of been "Well things are different now John, I'm in charge...no more Dutch, no more Arthur...and no more you"

What about Hosea? Why nobody mentions him? He is important as Arthur. Hosea and Dutch raised marston. Hosea taught jack to read.

[TheLastOutlaw1911]

I Would say the start of the game during the conversation between bill and john. 

[Hunterh-O]

Not mentioning Arthur in the first redemption actually makes sense. 

During the epilogue, John and Abigail always mention or try not to mention the past. "That life is over." "No more talk about that time."

And mentioning Arthur  makes it sad for John to talk about him. 

[Mr. Jabe]

In light of the events of RDR2, I actually think Micah's lack of reference in the original is more conspicuous than Arthur's. Much of the dialogue in RDR1 regarding the old gang is in allusion to how and why it fell apart, with Dutch pretty much taking the sole blame. I think it is arguable though that Micah plays as significant a role in the downfall as any other. There is a reason John puts everything on the line to go after him for revenge in the epilogue, only happening upon Dutch coincidentally. To have done that and felt that strongly about him and his impact on what happened, only to not once mention him in reflection..... that stands out to me more so in the context of what gets spoken about in the original. 

 

Ultimately Rockstar were in a bit of bind with the story of RDR2. Whether to be beholden to the precedent of events laid out in the original or throw caution to the wind somewhat in service of this "new" story. I am glad they threw that caution in regards to Arthur and his role in the narrative. But with Micah I can't help but feel he detracted from what should have been the strength of Dutch's antagonism in RDR2 whilst creating a rather large referential vacuum in retrospect of the original. In spite of being an enjoyably dislikable villian! 

 

 

[Dan_1983]

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't John tell someone in a RDR cutscene that a good friend helped him leave the gang? Been a long long time since I played it.

[Mr. Ando]

I want to believe RDR2 is an alternative take on the story and we'll get a RDR1 remaster more close to the story told in the second game, maybe even with a happier ending.

[Darealbandicoot]

On 6/10/2020 at 7:58 AM, Dan_1983 said:

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't John tell someone in a RDR cutscene that a good friend helped him leave the gang? Been a long long time since I played it.

Nope. He left after Dutch, Bill and Javier left him to die when he got shot in a robbery. 

[Dan_1983]

6 hours ago, Darealbandicoot said:

Nope. He left after Dutch, Bill and Javier left him to die when he got shot in a robbery. 

Yes I know why he left, but I read he mentions that a good friend helped him leave. Could be rumour though. I haven't played in a long time so don't remember much dialogue.

[Lemoyne outlaw]

i know this is a little off topic. but during the mission where john meets irish. when he saves him from his former friends. irish says you dont know who your dealing with. and john says that he has met enough men like him to last a lifetime. so i figure this would be a good time to mention sean.

[Mysterious hero]

On 6/11/2020 at 7:07 PM, Dan_1983 said:

Yes I know why he left, but I read he mentions that a good friend helped him leave. Could be rumor though. I haven't played in a long time so don't remember much dialogue.

John never said anything like that. It's just a rumor people made up because they desperately wanted Arthur to be mentioned in the first game for continuity's sake.

Edited June 23, 2020 by Mysterious hero

[Dan_1983]

6 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

John never said anything like that. It's just a rumor people made up because they desperately wanted Arthur to be mentioned in the first game for continuity's sake.

Cool. Thanks for clarifying.

[éX-Driver]

Can’t remember any specific lines of dialogue or scenes, but there’s 2-3 times where John either says or implies he was alone in the gang and made the choice by himself to leave because he saw first-hand how a gang of outlaws would turn their back on someone the instant they’re no longer useful. Those scenes could be rewritten to instead allude to Art, if not namedrop him. 

 

On 6/9/2020 at 12:30 PM, Mr. Jabe said:

Ultimately Rockstar were in a bit of bind with the story of RDR2. Whether to be beholden to the precedent of events laid out in the original or throw caution to the wind somewhat in service of this "new" story. I am glad they threw that caution in regards to Arthur and his role in the narrative. But with Micah I can't help but feel he detracted from what should have been the strength of Dutch's antagonism in RDR2 whilst creating a rather large referential vacuum in retrospect of the original. In spite of being an enjoyably dislikable villian! 

 

 

This is why I’m adamant in my belief that they picked the wrong era to set the game. 1899 and the fall of the gang is simply too close and too relevant to the plot of Redemption 1 to allow itself to stand on its own merit without requiring a lot of chicanery for continuity reasons. Had they set it a decade prior in say 1889, it would’ve been distant enough that what happens wouldn’t really need to adhere to the lore of 1. There’d be enough time between 1 and 2 that the mystique of the descent of Dutch and the gang would’ve been maintained. In 1889, John was only about 16, and had only been in the gang for less than 4 years at that point. Arthur dying in 1889 would’ve meant John would’ve spent comparatively little of his gang life around him, and thus wouldn’t’ve formed much of a connection. It would make sense he wouldn’t mention or even really remember him much. 

 

Same goes for Micah. Micah corrupting Dutch in 1889 would mean John would not have really experienced the gang when Dutch still supposedly believed in his ideals. John would’ve seen Micah as just another gang member, believing him and his ideals to be normal for that lifestyle. John would’ve been just like Bill and Javier; just another expendable gunman. It would make his eventual abandonment of the gang and his pursuit of redemption that much more poignant. Rather than being a misguided good soul, he would’ve been a legitimately bad man trying to make amends for his past actions.

[Mr. Jabe]

On 6/24/2020 at 3:00 AM, éX-Driver said:

This is why I’m adamant in my belief that they picked the wrong era to set the game. 1899 and the fall of the gang is simply too close and too relevant to the plot of Redemption 1 to allow itself to stand on its own merit without requiring a lot of chicanery for continuity reasons. Had they set it a decade prior in say 1889, it would’ve been distant enough that what happens wouldn’t really need to adhere to the lore of 1. There’d be enough time between 1 and 2 that the mystique of the descent of Dutch and the gang would’ve been maintained. In 1889, John was only about 16, and had only been in the gang for less than 4 years at that point. Arthur dying in 1889 would’ve meant John would’ve spent comparatively little of his gang life around him, and thus wouldn’t’ve formed much of a connection. It would make sense he wouldn’t mention or even really remember him much. 

I do believe that somewhere along the line, whether from the start of developing the story or part way through, Rockstar became wedded to the idea of Arthur playing a role in John escaping from his outlaw life with his family. No matter what sort of Arthur you are, honourable or dishonourable, or what choices you make you end up playing a crucial part in where and how the Marstons end up. Even if you go back for the money at the end you will have already helped rescue Abigail and have sent her on her way to reunite with Jack. 

 

If the game's story purely revolved around the gang then it could well and maybe should have been set 10 years prior. Especially in regards to making outstanding references (or lack thereof) in the original more permissible, like you say. And I do think a desire to depict the gang was the initial inspiration for RDR2. But even during the course of the narrative itself you can see how Arthur's personal journey gradually takes centre stage over the wider story of the gang, particularly once Chapter Six starts. The culmination of which is his sacrificial but redemptive act to help the Marstons seek a better life. The gradual change of focus onto Arthur probably reflected the writers' own change in terms of what they wanted to emphasise with the narrative and it is with that culminating event in mind that I think this particular story had to be set more closely to the time of the first game.  

Edited June 25, 2020 by Mr. Jabe

[brain_bank]

When Bill says “No more Dutch! And no more you”. He could’ve said “No more Dutch! No more Arthur! And no more you!”