Just finished the game. Some thoughts about it, and a question about story of the first game (Spoilers!)

[ElvenNeko]

Just finished this game and want to say - this is the first Rockstar title (from those i played) that i ended up really loving intstead of "well, it's not a bad game". Of course, it's my personal tastes, but the game seems like a really massive step ahead for them in most of the aspects. I will not describe every single amazing thing that was done in this game - because at this point you all already know all of them, so i will just focus on things that left the most impression for me:

 

(Howdy, partner! Land ahead is the spoiler territory. If you ignore the title and this warning, it's your own damn fault!)

 

Gameplay and world. I will start with positives -

 

First thing that i instantly liked - were the forests. I am a huge forest lover, any green massive always takes my breath away, and i must say - this game easily enters the top 3 best forests i ever saw in video games. And since irl i am unable to explore nature, having the ability to go trough such an amazingly beautiful places in game feels me with joy. All sounds, lights, animals - everything about nature in this game is an amazing expirience. Exploration in this game were really rewarding. The only thing that made me sad - is realisation how small Guarma was, since jungle are my favorite biome and island were looking simple amazing from the shoreline, i was already imagining how i will explore all this giant massive of green, but... oh well.

 

Second thing that i enjoyed - is that all side missions were never a boring fillers of fetch quests, even things like bounty hunting had it's own stories to tell and fun events to live trough. Also seeing some consequences from side quests later in game, and even in the story were rather surprising, that's a sign of a very dedicated writing.

 

Shooting and fighting... well, let's just say it's one of the games where i wasn't bored at shooting enemies even at the very end. And this is a thing that's rare for me, especially for a game this long and with such a tiny range of available weapons. I even spent most of the time just using my pistols, and, through i cannot even say why - it was very, very entertaining, almost every gunfight were a hell of a show.

 

But there were also a negative sides -

 

Huge parts of the map were never used in any missions at all. The only reason to go there are exploration, but... sometimes there are just nothing to find there. Also the game has vast choice of cold-protecting clothes, but... they are somehow never useful trough entire game, except if you will want to explore rather small corner of the map with snow?

 

Camp is a fun concept, and random conversatings with gang members are awesome. But upgrading it does not feels rewaring at all. The amount of supplies that appear are tiny, you have to waste time picking them and even pay a lot to restock... it's easier and cheaper just to fast travel to town and get exactly what you need at lower price. Fast travel is actually the only super-cool upgrade, when the rest feel more or less useles, especially things like tents that improve mood... is it even having any effect at all? What's even worse - in chapter 6 all upgrades are gone anyway, despite it's being quite a long chapter. It feels like camp management were poorly designed or implemented in the last moment, without having a clear goal in mind, just to fill the checkbox.

Btw, the ability to come up to any random citizen and say nothing but "howdy partner" or "seems like hard work" seems rather pointless as well. I get that recording various dialogues with locals are waste of resourses, but why do it at all then? Saying very same thing to everyone around hardly brings any value to the game.

 

Why many missions in game giving player plenty of choices, the others are exact opposite of that. For example, when i chased thief in the city, i found out that he is basicly ignores everything - when i tried to shot him (in the leg, just to stop), shots went right trough, and when i catched up with him on the roof and tried to use my lasso, so i could give him up to the authorities or question myself... yep, it didn't worked either. I felt rather cheated. What's even worse - is that in mission about negotiations with Favors his man eventually opened fire at me, i shoot back and killed Favors the missions were failed... because i killed Favors? Seriously? At this point Arthur already knew his true nature and there were literally no reasons to leave the man alive, except to use him in a story later, and thus a really lame losing condition were born. Some of the other missions had simillar expirienced with being too artificially limited, and there were also... not very well designed ones. I found especially funny when i fell out from horse, my allies kept on moving ahead, and before i could get back up i lost because "you abandoned your gang". Maybe it was they who abandoned me lol? There was also a guy lost in the woods who asked me to escort him back to the town, but he moved at the speed of a snail and i failed mission at the very end by moving too much away from him. Town were already clearly visible, but the dude just turned around and started walking away, saying that something like "fine, leave me to the wolves". Then escort missions can fail if you will have a falling horse incident, and let's not forget that the very final mission of epilogue (shootout on the mountain) will be failed if... your horse dies >_<

 

Weapon storage system. Not only it was quite uncomfortable to scroll trough all your weapons (why could you not just pick loadout in the same way you can load entire suit on your horse?), but also for some damn reason game removed weapons from me at every single opportunity it had. Starting a new mission? Better call your horse because you have only your pistols. And if you not lucky enough, even one of those pistols will be swapped to a starting one. Mission not allowing to call horse? Well too bad for you! Why? What is the point of buying and upgrading weapons if game constantly takes them away from you? It was so irratating, and for no good reason.

 

Final thing was the tank controls. It were not THAT bad, but often i did stupid things in combat because of it, and had many accidents with horse stomping people because it were turning in circles or doing anything else i didn't want it to do. Also searching boxes, etc were especially painful due to slow animations and interaction windows that were not really easy to... interact with.

 

Now about the story:

 

That was a biggest surprise from me. Note that i haven't played first RdR game, as well as some others, but rest of stories made by this studie felt goofy and entierly forgettable to me. Actually, GTA4 were one of the few games i failed to finish just because of how much of a boring drag it's story were.

 

But i can safely say that RdR2 easily deserves a place among the best when it comes to storytelling. It is funny, it is dramatic, it is entertaining, and, most importantly - it has good direction and delivers it's messages properly, in a very wholesome expirience. Even side quests were made with much love and passion, every time trying to bring some new expirience just when you thought that you already seen all this game has to offer. A story like that is a huge step ahead for RS, it felt like it was written by a different people than the ones who were doing the writing before. I hardly ever saw someone who would improve their writing so much and so fast, shey should be really proud of that.

 

But i also felt like there were 3 huge missed opportunities i wanted to discuss.

 

First - was the family conflic and kidnapping the child. To be honest, i still don't understand the logic of that...Braithwaite clearly were more or less intelligent. They somehow knew about gang's actions and true identiy, but what they are doing about it? Sneaking into their camp, kindapping a kid and selling it.... for real? Not attacking from the ambush (since there are a ton of them, and only a bunch of bandits), not reporting them to the law, but... taking away the child, not even to harm to hold hostage, but just to... sell? It does not make sense to me.

Trough this entire mission i had one theory: What if none of the families were actually aware about gang's true identity and intentions, but some shadowy figure (for example, certain Pinkerton agent, but it also could be someone else, for example someone who hated both families) shared some information with Grays, pushing them to setup the ambush, as well as made his agents (disguised as Braithwaite) kidnap a kid, to force the gang into open conflict with them?

I thought that it's going to be exactly like that until the very end of the mission, because everyone in Braithwaite were denying stealing a kid. And in the very end, when old lady admitted selling him to some random dude... it just didn't made any sense to me again. Her entire family were destroyed, she were planning to end her life as well, there was simply not a single reason for her to tell them the truth, giving a chance to resque the kid.

And now imagine if it was like i suggested above... gang raids and burns down the manor, destroying everyone inside (and maybe taking casualties in the process), only to find out that they had no idea about any kid and never did any kidnapping? When they will realize that they were played by a thrid side, used as a tools to destroy the Braithwaite, and Dutch in his righteous rage were played like a fiddle, because he haven't thought for at least a second that there is no reason to kidnap a kid from gang of outlaws, so he didn't even tried to track the kidnappers, for example?

That would show how impulsive thinking gets advantage over rationality in Dutch, and well as give Pinkertons some meaningful role in the story (Because honestly they were displayed as a clowns, who would enter the camp of the gang without any backup, threat them, and then... give time to pack up and run away? Where is the logic in all that?).

 

Second thing were blowing the bridge. What i very much expected - is that after bridge will be blown, a train will appear and it's speed will be so high that it will be unable to stop, collapsing at the bottom of the canyon. Arthur rushing to help the passengers, only to see that majority of them are dead or crippled, and there were a lot of families with children onboard. And all of this for what, just to create a distraction for Dutch's plan? This could be one of those moments where Arthur keeps realizing how much collateral damage are they making that Dutch does not care about.

Instead, we are having empty train to fall down from that bridge during the robbery, but... it does not make sense? San Deni were the last stop. The train's driver went past it at full speed... But where was he heading? The road ahead were cut by the destroyed bridge, and machinist should be aware about it since government sent additional supplies because of the bridge's destruction. Yet still train headed towards that bridge? Why?

 

Thrid thing were fist fight with Mikah. If would be quite poetic if Arthur, while not being able to win the fight still would cough blood on Mikah's face, infecting him with tb. Then his speech about "i won anyway" would have additional meaning, allowing the game to have a very different ending in the epilogue: after John storms trough all the Mika's troops, he ambushed by the man himself and about to be executed, but severe seisure makes Mikah drop the gun and fall to the ground. Realzing that he is dying, John would have the choice - to finish him off, or walk away, saying something like "You ain't worth the bullet, Arthur already killed you", leaving him to slow and painful death in the snow, and listening to Mikah scream in desperation things like "come back, coward, and finish the job!".

Instead, we have something that i can't quite explain: if Micah camps Arthur near the cave, "knowing" that he will be back for the money, how does he chase him on the mountain? Are him and Dutch somehow capable of being in both places at once, so no matter where you go you run into them? This kinda makes the last choice 100% irrelevant, because it seems like you are chosing between greed and helping a friend, but instead John survives in any case, and you fight Mikah in any case. What's the point of the choice then? Just to have a different arena of final combat? They could at least make a different ending sequence depending on that choice, where Arthur never meets Mikah and dies when saving John from the Pinkerton forces.

What's even worse, it seems like all that your reputation affects is that Mikah either finishes you or walks away? And that's all? Not talking about me expecting it to have some more meaninful impact on the ending, but what could be the reason for Mikah to just withdraw if he were clearly a sadist who also wanted to kill Arthur for a long time? It makes no sense to me.

And then there were Dutch, who's actions i can hardly explain. First, he simply walks away from Mikah (without even taking the money, if it's the cave ending). But ok, let's say he were shocked by Arthur's death and lost faith in Mikah. But then the two somehow getting reunited again, and having all this money just... stashed in a box for no good reason? What happened with their escape plan? There were enough money for a full gang, so how could just a two people not find that enough for their needs? And then, when Dutch shoots Mikah (despite having him as an ally, so they must have made peace or something), he just... walks away again, leaving the money behind? What's with him, constantly walking away?

 

And now, the epilogue.

That part of the game were a bit disappointing to me, mostly because it made John a protagonist. Now please keep in mind that i could not play first game and haven't read anything about it's story before today to avoid possible spoilers (i wasn't sure how two games are connected), so when i played the game i had no idea that John is a protagonist from the first game. For me he was just another gang member, and, to be honest... he had that "default protagonist" blank personality without any strong defining traits, that made me not really care about him or his obnoxious and rather stupid wife - even irish guy played a very small part of the story left better impressions than John.

But my main problem was that there were Charles and Sadie among the survivors as well, and both of them were extremley likeable characters about whom i cared a lot more than about Marston family. I would be really happy to play as any of them, especially Sadie because she is an incredible likeable lady, who once already proved as being capable to lead and protect the gang, and could as well play the same role as John did in gathering the survivors again, but in a more interesting way than just setting up a farm. I supose i were pretty happy to find out that both of them are still important part of the story, but still sad that i could not play as any of them.

Of course, when i read the short summary of RdR plot today i understood why we played as John and why he was such a nessesary part of the story, but i still wish they would gave him more importance in the rdr2 story, so he would seem less like secondary character and there would be a reason to care about him for those who haven't played first game. Also the epilogue itself were pretty nice, especially the part about making the ranch. But i still wish they would at least made a "Sadie in South America" dlc)

Yet there is something in the plot of first game i still not fully understand, so maybe someone here who actually played it would help me with explaining it? If i understood it correctly, after the events of the epilogue Mikah body is found by the Pinkertons, and it is allowing them to trace down John. Then they kidnapping his family (are bureau even ok with their agents acting like that?), and forcing John to track down and kill Dutch. Then the agent releasing the family and letting them live in peace for a bit, only to change his mind sometime later and attack the ranch, and John for some reason decides to suicide instead of taking a fight? Is all of that correct? Because if it is, i am not sure that i understand the motivation of either John or the agent here. Maybe short story summary on wiki is missing some important details that would explain it?

[Darealbandicoot]

OK so, the first and second game's depiction of John couldn't be more different. In the first game John is wise and has a totally different personality and backstory to an extent. In fact, EVERYONE in RDR1 is much more realistic than any character in RDR2. In RDR2 John is borderline retarded, whines when Arthur insults him, and is a deadbeat dad that honestly in the context of the game is justified in believing Jack isn't his, in RDR1 he could stomp Arthur into the ground with his intelligence. My best advice is to play RDR1 and you'll see differences in storytelling and characters immediately. 

 

The reason John sacrificed himself for his family was because he genuinely loved them and knew that if he lived, the government would always hunt them down. Abigail, Jack, Dutch, Bill, Uncle and Javier couldn't be any more different. Instead of being comedy relief, a nag, a meme character that spouts lumbago or plan etc. they were actual people with their own motivations and backstories 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Darealbandicoot

[ElvenNeko]

Sadly without having a console it's not possible to play that game.

But why is he being hunted in first place, since he fufilled his agreement with the agent? And what were stopping him from simply moving away from the country (he had all the money of the gang, so they were a non-issue)?

[ViktorFekete]

3 hours ago, ElvenNeko said:

Now about the story:

 

First - was the family conflic and kidnapping the child. To be honest, i still don't understand the logic of that...Braithwaite clearly were more or less intelligent. They somehow knew about gang's actions and true identiy, but what they are doing about it? Sneaking into their camp, kindapping a kid and selling it.... for real? Not attacking from the ambush (since there are a ton of them, and only a bunch of bandits), not reporting them to the law, but... taking away the child, not even to harm to hold hostage, but just to... sell? It does not make sense to me.

Trough this entire mission i had one theory: What if none of the families were actually aware about gang's true identity and intentions, but some shadowy figure (for example, certain Pinkerton agent, but it also could be someone else, for example someone who hated both families) shared some information with Grays, pushing them to setup the ambush, as well as made his agents (disguised as Braithwaite) kidnap a kid, to force the gang into open conflict with them?

I thought that it's going to be exactly like that until the very end of the mission, because everyone in Braithwaite were denying stealing a kid. And in the very end, when old lady admitted selling him to some random dude... it just didn't made any sense to me again. Her entire family were destroyed, she were planning to end her life as well, there was simply not a single reason for her to tell them the truth, giving a chance to resque the kid.

And now imagine if it was like i suggested above... gang raids and burns down the manor, destroying everyone inside (and maybe taking casualties in the process), only to find out that they had no idea about any kid and never did any kidnapping? When they will realize that they were played by a thrid side, used as a tools to destroy the Braithwaite, and Dutch in his righteous rage were played like a fiddle, because he haven't thought for at least a second that there is no reason to kidnap a kid from gang of outlaws, so he didn't even tried to track the kidnappers, for example?

That would show how impulsive thinking gets advantage over rationality in Dutch, and well as give Pinkertons some meaningful role in the story (Because honestly they were displayed as a clowns, who would enter the camp of the gang without any backup, threat them, and then... give time to pack up and run away? Where is the logic in all that?).

 

Second thing were blowing the bridge. What i very much expected - is that after bridge will be blown, a train will appear and it's speed will be so high that it will be unable to stop, collapsing at the bottom of the canyon. Arthur rushing to help the passengers, only to see that majority of them are dead or crippled, and there were a lot of families with children onboard. And all of this for what, just to create a distraction for Dutch's plan? This could be one of those moments where Arthur keeps realizing how much collateral damage are they making that Dutch does not care about.

Instead, we are having empty train to fall down from that bridge during the robbery, but... it does not make sense? San Deni were the last stop. The train's driver went past it at full speed... But where was he heading? The road ahead were cut by the destroyed bridge, and machinist should be aware about it since government sent additional supplies because of the bridge's destruction. Yet still train headed towards that bridge? Why?

 

Thrid thing were fist fight with Mikah. If would be quite poetic if Arthur, while not being able to win the fight still would cough blood on Mikah's face, infecting him with tb. Then his speech about "i won anyway" would have additional meaning, allowing the game to have a very different ending in the epilogue: after John storms trough all the Mika's troops, he ambushed by the man himself and about to be executed, but severe seisure makes Mikah drop the gun and fall to the ground. Realzing that he is dying, John would have the choice - to finish him off, or walk away, saying something like "You ain't worth the bullet, Arthur already killed you", leaving him to slow and painful death in the snow, and listening to Mikah scream in desperation things like "come back, coward, and finish the job!".

Instead, we have something that i can't quite explain: if Micah camps Arthur near the cave, "knowing" that he will be back for the money, how does he chase him on the mountain? Are him and Dutch somehow capable of being in both places at once, so no matter where you go you run into them? This kinda makes the last choice 100% irrelevant, because it seems like you are chosing between greed and helping a friend, but instead John survives in any case, and you fight Mikah in any case. What's the point of the choice then? Just to have a different arena of final combat? They could at least make a different ending sequence depending on that choice, where Arthur never meets Mikah and dies when saving John from the Pinkerton forces.

What's even worse, it seems like all that your reputation affects is that Mikah either finishes you or walks away? And that's all? Not talking about me expecting it to have some more meaninful impact on the ending, but what could be the reason for Mikah to just withdraw if he were clearly a sadist who also wanted to kill Arthur for a long time? It makes no sense to me.

And then there were Dutch, who's actions i can hardly explain. First, he simply walks away from Mikah (without even taking the money, if it's the cave ending). But ok, let's say he were shocked by Arthur's death and lost faith in Mikah. But then the two somehow getting reunited again, and having all this money just... stashed in a box for no good reason? What happened with their escape plan? There were enough money for a full gang, so how could just a two people not find that enough for their needs? And then, when Dutch shoots Mikah (despite having him as an ally, so they must have made peace or something), he just... walks away again, leaving the money behind? What's with him, constantly walking away?

 

And now, the epilogue.

That part of the game were a bit disappointing to me, mostly because it made John a protagonist. Now please keep in mind that i could not play first game and haven't read anything about it's story before today to avoid possible spoilers (i wasn't sure how two games are connected), so when i played the game i had no idea that John is a protagonist from the first game. For me he was just another gang member, and, to be honest... he had that "default protagonist" blank personality without any strong defining traits, that made me not really care about him or his obnoxious and rather stupid wife - even irish guy played a very small part of the story left better impressions than John.

But my main problem was that there were Charles and Sadie among the survivors as well, and both of them were extremley likeable characters about whom i cared a lot more than about Marston family. I would be really happy to play as any of them, especially Sadie because she is an incredible likeable lady, who once already proved as being capable to lead and protect the gang, and could as well play the same role as John did in gathering the survivors again, but in a more interesting way than just setting up a farm. I supose i were pretty happy to find out that both of them are still important part of the story, but still sad that i could not play as any of them.

Of course, when i read the short summary of RdR plot today i understood why we played as John and why he was such a nessesary part of the story, but i still wish they would gave him more importance in the rdr2 story, so he would seem less like secondary character and there would be a reason to care about him for those who haven't played first game. Also the epilogue itself were pretty nice, especially the part about making the ranch. But i still wish they would at least made a "Sadie in South America" dlc)

Yet there is something in the plot of first game i still not fully understand, so maybe someone here who actually played it would help me with explaining it? If i understood it correctly, after the events of the epilogue Mikah body is found by the Pinkertons, and it is allowing them to trace down John. Then they kidnapping his family (are bureau even ok with their agents acting like that?), and forcing John to track down and kill Dutch. Then the agent releasing the family and letting them live in peace for a bit, only to change his mind sometime later and attack the ranch, and John for some reason decides to suicide instead of taking a fight? Is all of that correct? Because if it is, i am not sure that i understand the motivation of either John or the agent here. Maybe short story summary on wiki is missing some important details that would explain it?

For the first, Chapter 3 serves as a kind of turning point in the story. I guess that both the Braithwaites and the Greys at leats suspected, that the gang is off. Beau Grey even mentiones this in the first encounter with Arthur. Dutch's plan to play them aginst each other and come up on top did not work, in fact it backfired in that respect that it was no money at the end of the day (well the Braithwaites got destroyed anyway). If you see into it, Chapter 1 is a tutorial and escape, Ch2 is a breathing room, Ch 3 is mostly a neutral but a turning point for sure, Ch 4 is decline, Ch 5 is a plot device (more on that I wrone in another thread), Ch 6 is... you know what it is. But the Clemens point is where the first fragmentations take form. 

 

The second, I think the whole chapter is just Arthur doing things to see the end of the story. At that point he knew all too well what his fate would be, and wanted to secure the path and possibilities of the persons he held dear. I don't think that it mattered for him too much an empty train or a bridge. 

 

The third is a little bit tricky. Yes, you lose everything. And this is what I think the developers wanted you to feel. At that point, you have a lot of money, all weapons, fine horses, a gang and all this stuff, and it is gone down the toilet. The different outcomes are like you said are not really different, and the final outcome is the same anyway. Again, the intention here was to make it feel, to have an impact. I guess the meaningful impact was this, that you lose everything, and you can do nothing to prevent this.

As for Dutch walking away, he came to realize that Arthur was right, and he did horribly wrong. He walking away signifies the end of the Van der Linde gang. In this, it is really Micah who is kind of not really straightforward. I'm pretty sure that his plan was to get the Blackwater money which is allegedly 150k (hence his questions all the time in this respect) and then make a deal with the feds to turn on Dutch (the only person who knew where this money was), and then disappear. This also means that the 20k money you get at the end of epilogue is not the Blackwater money (cause it would make no sense for them just to sit on it), or Dutch only recently got together with Micah and they did a few raids together. But Dutch too in the end lost everything which had any meaning to him: his gang, his loyal "sons" (at the end he realized that Arthur and John didn't betray them, it was the other way around), that's why after the death of Micah he just walked away again. This also signifies that his constant rambling and complaining for money was just a ruse, as he lived for the outlaw life and money mattered to him little. The only thing he had was his life which was now empty and meaningless, and this is why in the first game he is just a wreck (although I did not play with the first game).

 

As for the epilogue, I think that I am the only person on Earth who enjoyed every minute of it. I don't know what John is in RDR1 like, but I was under the impression that he is just a "boy" and after the death of Arthur and all this he kind of grew up, wanted a new life for himself and changed. One thing I agree, Abigail and the kid were super irritating, I wanted to shoot Abigail, she is just a stupid goose. But I like the other gang members. Epilogue was fun. Building a home, trying to find a way, struggle and play. Sadie, Charles and Uncle were good too. As I said I did not play RDR1 so I don't know the story, but I guess the aim of the agents was to kill every last one of the former band John and Abigail included. And he couldn't run away. This is clear in RDR2 too. Everywhere they go, civilization (and the law) follows them (hence Hosea's constant remarks). It was not abount money. At that point, they couldn't outrun them or disappear. They just had to die, they had too much of a history of outlaw-ing.

[ArthurFleck]

If GTA IV and RDR were bad and RDR 2 had clear message and better story and characters I have nothing to say to you 
well I do you clearly don't know anything about writing a story.
Oh and rdr 2 characters are different because in first redemption Houser/Rumpries wrote different story and later change it for prequel/sequel that's why John is compeltly off his character, and arthur and redneck feminazi ain't exist in game, because they just didn't simply exist in amazing RDR and we're just playing they role in rdr2.  
- to be sure rdr 2 is a great game but definetly not for characterization and story.

3 hours ago, ViktorFekete said:

 

Abigail and the kid were super irritating, I wanted to shoot Abigail, she is just a stupid goose. But I like the other gang members. Epilogue was fun. Building a home, trying to find a way, struggle and play. Sadie, Charles and Uncle were good too.

So nagging wife who don't want to live with criminal on run is goose and psychotic twat who kill without anyone critize her is good. Nice to know ...

[ViktorFekete]

7 hours ago, ArthurFleck said:

So nagging wife who don't want to live with criminal on run is goose and psychotic twat who kill without anyone critize her is good. Nice to know ...

Abigail was complaining about everything. John didn't really have a choice in those situations. He tried to change.

[Alexlecj]

15 hours ago, Darealbandicoot said:

OK so, the first and second game's depiction of John couldn't be more different. In the first game John is wise and has a totally different personality and backstory to an extent. In fact, EVERYONE in RDR1 is much more realistic than any character in RDR2. In RDR2 John is borderline retarded, whines when Arthur insults him, and is a deadbeat dad that honestly in the context of the game is justified in believing Jack isn't his, in RDR1 he could stomp Arthur into the ground with his intelligence. My best advice is to play RDR1 and you'll see differences in storytelling and characters immediately. 

 

The reason John sacrificed himself for his family was because he genuinely loved them and knew that if he lived, the government would always hunt them down. Abigail, Jack, Dutch, Bill, Uncle and Javier couldn't be any more different. Instead of being comedy relief, a nag, a meme character that spouts lumbago or plan etc. they were actual people with their own motivations and backstories 

"they were actual people with their own motivations and backstories"

 

Which they are in Red Dead Redemption 2.

[ArthurFleck]

6 hours ago, ViktorFekete said:

Abigail was complaining about everything. John didn't really have a choice in those situations. He tried to change.

Well she's ex pro and he is outlaw, but at bright side she gave him a lot of chances to be better before, he turn into simp and find the only way to buying a ranch for her, instead of you know change sooner and be done with it, or be who is always been and just let her go with boy for there own sake. Still much better than old De Santa that was class A trash, I would kick into face right after first mission.

[billiejoearmstrong8]

21 hours ago, ElvenNeko said:

 

 

Thrid thing were fist fight with Mikah. If would be quite poetic if Arthur, while not being able to win the fight still would cough blood on Mikah's face, infecting him with tb. 

 

 

I've just got to say that the reason for this is Arthur was too much of a man to do that. It would've been a pussy move, more along the lines of something Micah would do, and would go against everything he'd learned and decided towards the end of the game. He wasn't going to try and get petty revenge in an underhand way at that point, giving the last of his strength to try and smash his face in a "fair" (if not for his illness) fight was more his style.

 

14 hours ago, ArthurFleck said:

If GTA IV and RDR were bad and RDR 2 had clear message and better story and characters I have nothing to say to you 
well I do you clearly don't know anything about writing a story.
Oh and rdr 2 characters are different because in first redemption Houser/Rumpries wrote different story and later change it for prequel/sequel that's why John is compeltly off his character, and arthur and redneck feminazi ain't exist in game, because they just didn't simply exist in amazing RDR and we're just playing they role in rdr2.  
- to be sure rdr 2 is a great game but definetly not for characterization and story.

So nagging wife who don't want to live with criminal on run is goose and psychotic twat who kill without anyone critize her is good. Nice to know ...

How is John off? It's set 12 years earlier and it was already established in RDR1 that he was a reckless dumbass when he was younger.

Edited November 26, 2020 by billiejoearmstrong8

[ArthurFleck]

10 minutes ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I've just got to say that the reason for this is Arthur was too much of a man to do that. It would've been a pussy move, more along the lines of something Micah would do, and would go against everything he'd learned and decided towards the end of the game. He wasn't going to try and get petty revenge in an underhand way at that point, giving the last of his strength to try and smash his face in a "fair" (if not for his illness) fight was more his style.

 

How is John off? It's set 12 years earlier and it was already established in RDR1 that he was a reckless dumbass when he was younger.

Well in RDR he is angry, more gentleman, straight with his wife, is overly less romantic and more clever, in RDR 2 he is borderline retarded, and overly act like a prick, that's a character trails that has nothing to do with age.

[Darealbandicoot]

6 hours ago, Alexlecj said:

"they were actual people with their own motivations and backstories"

 

Which they are in Red Dead Redemption 2.

Not really. They're totally different characters who behave like memes 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I've just got to say that the reason for this is Arthur was too much of a man to do that. It would've been a pussy move, more along the lines of something Micah would do, and would go against everything he'd learned and decided towards the end of the game. He wasn't going to try and get petty revenge in an underhand way at that point, giving the last of his strength to try and smash his face in a "fair" (if not for his illness) fight was more his style.

 

How is John off? It's set 12 years earlier and it was already established in RDR1 that he was a reckless dumbass when he was younger.

Arthur not killing Micah is just plot armour. Arthur fought dirty with Tommy kicking him in the balls to get the advantage so that argument is out the window. 

 

 

It was never established John was a reckless dumbass at all in RDR1. He was depicted as being cocky in his youth sure but RDR2 makes him borderline retarded and retcons his backstory and personality.  Also he acts worse 4 years before the events of RDR1 than the 12 years you mentioned. 

Edited November 26, 2020 by Darealbandicoot

[billiejoearmstrong8]

Becoming more mature and responsible and less of a cocky prick are certainly attributes that can come with age. And John doesn't seem very intelligent in either game tbh

 

29 minutes ago, Darealbandicoot said:

Not really. They're totally different characters who behave like memes 

Arthur not killing Micah is just plot armour. Arthur fought dirty with Tommy kicking him in the balls to get the advantage so that argument is out the window. 

 

Earlier in the game he might've but he's supposed to have changed a lot. Even then deliberately infecting someone with TB is still much more of a scumbag thing to do than pulling some dirty moves in a fight. Having him act as sh*tty and snake-like as Micah wouldn't have been a good look for him as his final act before he dies after everything about learning and changing.

Edited November 26, 2020 by billiejoearmstrong8

[Alexlecj]

11 minutes ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Becoming more mature and responsible and less of a cocky prick are certainly attributes that can come with age. And John doesn't seem very intelligent in either game tbh

The mission "Cowards Die Many Times" is especially painful to experience.

 

42 minutes ago, Darealbandicoot said:

Not really. They're totally different characters who behave like memes

Abigail is still the same person, obsessed by the will to change and trying to set her kid for a decent life. "You're a [insult] man, John Marston" does not define her character.

Uncle is pretty much the same lazy old expert complainer, only he sticks more with the lumbago excuse.

[ElvenNeko]

Quote

Earlier in the game he might've but he's supposed to have changed a lot. Even then deliberately infecting someone with TB is still much more of a scumbag thing to do than pulling some dirty moves in a fight. Having him act as sh*tty and snake-like as Micah wouldn't have been a good look for him as his final act before he dies after everything about learning and changing.

He is a rational man. He knew if Mikah wins, everyone else will be in danger as well, since he might want to get rid of all competition for the money, as well as people who could rekognize him. And he was really angry at him for betrayal. Knowing that he cannot win, at the end of the fight he as well might do that, just to ensure that he dies either way. His goal were to help the ones he cares about, not to act noble or whatever else.
Also, same even could just happen by accident, because they grabbed each other so many times in a fight it's hard to believe this didn't happened.

[billiejoearmstrong8]

41 minutes ago, ElvenNeko said:

He is a rational man. He knew if Mikah wins, everyone else will be in danger as well, since he might want to get rid of all competition for the money, as well as people who could rekognize him. And he was really angry at him for betrayal. Knowing that he cannot win, at the end of the fight he as well might do that, just to ensure that he dies either way. His goal were to help the ones he cares about, not to act noble or whatever else.
Also, same even could just happen by accident, because they grabbed each other so many times in a fight it's hard to believe this didn't happened.

Interesting, looking at it those ways maybe it could work (although I think it would have to be clearly framed one of those ways rather than being framed as an act of spite/revenge - plus I think TB isn't actually that contagious and usually requires prolonged exposure to someone who has it so it might be a bit of a stretch that it was lucky enough to result in infection just that one lucky time when it already happened so poetically by chance with Downes/Arthur). Then John wouldn't have to avenge him though carrying on the cycle, so I think I still prefer it as it is.

[ElvenNeko]

The thing is - i did not suggested changing the epilogue. John would not know that Mikah is sick, and everything would unfold as before, except the very ending, where instead of Dutche's rather unnessesary presence John would have a choice to finish Mikah or to go away, letting him die slowly in the snow after telling him that Arthur did killed him.

[AgroDaCheese]

The thing about Arthur deliberately infecting Micah before his death, is the fact that it could work... In the Low Honor endings for Arthur. As is it's namesake, Low Honor would mean that Arthur doesn't have the honor to fight fair, and instead resorts to dirty tricks; it only makes sense that Arthur would infect Micah as a sort of 'I'm taking you down with me' kind of scenario.

 

Now, here is my rendition of what should've been the Low Honor ending:

 

Low Honor, Go for the Money Ending

After a while of Arthur and Micah's bloody knife duel in the scorching surroundings of the former camp, Arthur is unable to slash Micah's eye and instead stumbles. Micah tackles Arthur to the ground, and after their struggle with the knife, Micah overpowers Arthur and stabs him in the chest.

 

Micah: It looks like you've lost, Black Lung.

Arthur: I didn't lose.

Micah: That's winning?

Arthur: No...

 

Arthur strongly grabs Micah's collar and spits a large blood cloud over his face.

 

Arthur: ...but that is.

 

Micah quickly stands up and covers his face with his hands, trying to wipe the blood from his face, but still doesn't completely understand what just happened. Arthur starts laughing rather maniacally, but is unable to do so with the knife in his chest.

 

Micah: What's so funny?

Arthur: Oh nothing, Black Lung.

 

Micah's eyes would widen as he would then understand what Arthur had done to him. He would be a dead man walking from then on.

 

 

The rest of the scene would play out rather the same with Dutch coming into the scene and Micah stabbing Arthur in the back. I'm not exactly sure how Micah having TB would play into the Epilogue, but it would definitely incentivize more people towards playing Low Honor, rather then just having it there for the sake of being the bad guy.

I'm also not sure how Arthur would go about infecting Micah in the Low Honor, Help John Ending.