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

    1. GTANet.com

    2. GTANet 20th Anniversary

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico 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. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

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

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

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

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

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. 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. Design Your Own Mission
      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. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

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

    2. Support

      1. Court House
    3. Suggestions

Questions about end game?


Frag Maniac

Recommended Posts

I made a manual save before even taking on the Red Dead Redemption mission, so I could first try the choice where Arthur goes back for the gold. I was assuming from some chat I read and the final cutscenes during the end credits that at some point, the law was going to raid John Marston's homestead in Beecher's Hope. I spent some time mopping up things in the end game, like legendary fish, but still no raid on the homestead.

 

So I have to ask, is there a raid on Marston's homestead at Beecher's Hope? In my Google and YouTube searches I found someone say John and Abigail were buried at the end of RDR 1, so I'm now wondering if the raid happened at the end of that game. If so, it seems like crap writing to resurrect two main characters like that for RDR2, unless RDR2 is a prequel, and I'm pretty sure it's not.

 

Another thing I want to ask is does the so called good ending, where you choose to help John instead of going back for the gold, add any missions or raids post credits? About the only thing worthwhile I see in the completion log is I'm missing one of the 6 gang hideouts.

Edited by Frag Maniac
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TwistOfLime21 said:

Red Dead 2 is a prequel.

Really, then why is Arthur pretty old in RDR2, and I thought I heard he was younger and cockier in RDR1? The story in places also kinda leads you to believe his relationship with Mary some time ago happened in RDR1.

 

So I guess that means no raids post credits in RDR2? Were those scenes in the credits with lawmen about them investigating events in RDR1 then?

 

I can see now why some think there won't be a RDR3.

Edited by Frag Maniac
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruh, Arthur does not appear in RDR1. You got mixed up everything.

 

And that credit scene is just nothing but a nice story connecting detail and explanation, how John got caught. Nothing's happening after completing the epilogues in RDR2 though.

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

Bruh, Arthur does not appear in RDR1. You got mixed up everything.

 

And that credit scene is just nothing but a nice story connecting detail and explanation, how John got caught. Nothing's happening after completing the epilogues in RDR2 though.

 

OK, thanks for the input guys. You must understand though having not played RDR1, and having avoided most chat on either game prior to playing RDR2 to avoid spoilers, I didn't have much to go on, and it's definitely not clear in the way the story was told in RDR2 that it's a prequel to RDR1.

 

I'm still not sure how if at all they plan to pull off a RDR3, especially one that links to any characters in the first two games. At the end of RDR2 I got the feeling they were testing the waters to get a feel for player's reactions to Sadie. I mean she's tough, can fight pretty good, and likes to take charge. Problem is she's married before the events in RDR2, and would be too old in anything chronologically following RDR1.

Edited by Frag Maniac
Link to post
Share on other sites
billiejoearmstrong8

It's written in a way where all the prequel/story stuff makes total sense if you've played RDR1 (even though it's still accessible as a game/story on its own, it's still written with the assumption that most people have played RDR1 first I think). The scenes in the credits (some of them anyway) are a lead in to the RDR1 story. I highly recommend playing it, it's amazing for a 2010 game and holds up really well.

 

As far as another Red Dead game they could do another prequel that takes place before the events of RDR2, or I guess they could do a sequel with a different RDR2 character that takes place in a different location around the same time as RDR1. They said Sadie was going to be a bounty hunter in South America though, that's not really the best set up for a western game. Another choice would be continuing Jack's story after RDR1, people say it's too late by then but idk, if they could write cowboy stuff taking place in 1911/1914 I'm sure they still could a few years later, it didn't totally finish overnight and might be interesting to see him do some newer styles of crime (famous criminals like John Dillinger come to mind). Or they could do another western story with totally new characters set any time they want. There's plenty of options.

Edited by billiejoearmstrong8
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

It's written in a way where all the prequel/story stuff makes total sense if you've played RDR1 (even though it's still accessible as a game/story on its own, it's still written with the assumption that most people have played RDR1 first I think). The scenes in the credits (some of them anyway) are a lead in to the RDR1 story. I highly recommend playing it, it's amazing for a 2010 game and holds up really well.

 

As far as another Red Dead game they could do another prequel that takes place before the events of RDR2, or I guess they could do a sequel with a different RDR2 character that takes place in a different location around the same time as RDR1. They said Sadie was going to be a bounty hunter in South America though, that's not really the best set up for a western game. Another choice would be continuing Jack's story after RDR1, people say it's too late by then but idk, if they could write cowboy stuff taking place in 1911/1914 I'm sure they still could a few years later, it didn't totally finish overnight and might be interesting to see him do some newer styles of crime (famous criminals like John Dillinger come to mind). Or they could do another western story with totally new characters set any time they want. There's plenty of options.

 

Well of course I would have played RDR1 a long time ago, had it been available on PC. Like a lot of PC players, I don't buy consoles because I suck at using gamepads, especially for aiming in shooters. So for that reason, I think R* really dropped the ball assuming most would have played both. It's not so much that assumption being incorrect as disregarding those whom only play on PC as if they're insignificant that bothers me.

 

As for Sadie as a protagonist at the time that parallels RDR1, that could definitely work if they just start in South America, and end in the US. South America, especially Argentina, has some of the most skilled horsemen in the world (Gauchos). Don't forget we already saw a small chapter on the tropical island Guarma near Cuba in RDR2, so despite R* traditionally using US locations, they do sometimes go elsewhere.

 

When you think about it, South America ties into the outlaw west of the US in ways in real life. Bolivia for example was used by Ubi for GR Wildlands, a very good game, and they had a little back story about Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid's ventures there. Like I said, South America doesn't have to be the place for the whole game, just maybe a starting location to add depth and tie into RDR2. It would make for a unique and good Prologue chapter I think. I really like Sadie Adler as a character, and feel she'd be a great protagonist. Her voice actor Alex McKenna does her very well too.

Edited by Frag Maniac
Link to post
Share on other sites
billiejoearmstrong8
1 hour ago, Frag Maniac said:

 

Well of course I would have played RDR1 a long time ago, had it been available on PC. Like a lot of PC players, I don't buy consoles because I suck at using gamepads, especially for aiming in shooters. So for that reason, I think R* really dropped the ball assuming most would have played both. It's not so much that assumption being incorrect as disregarding those whom only play on PC as if they're insignificant that bothers me.

 

As for Sadie as a protagonist at the time that parallels RDR1, that could definitely work if they just start in South America, and end in the US. South America, especially Argentina, has some of the most skilled horsemen in the world (Gauchos). Don't forget we already saw a small chapter on the tropical island Guarma near Cuba in RDR2, so despite R* traditionally using US locations, they do sometimes go elsewhere.

 

When you think about it, South America ties into the outlaw west of the US in ways in real life. Bolivia for example was used by Ubi for GR Wildlands, a very good game, and they had a little back story about Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid's ventures there. Like I said, South America doesn't have to be the place for the whole game, just maybe a starting location to add depth and tie into RDR2. It would make for a unique and good Prologue chapter I think. I really like Sadie Adler as a character, and feel she'd be a great protagonist. Her voice actor Alex McKenna does her very well too.

I think RDR2 still works well if you haven't played RDR1 (certainly playing it in chronological order instead of release order could be an interesting alternative experience of the games/story, and there's nothing in RDR2 that's nonsensical just because you haven't played RDR1). I just mean if you have played RDR1 every detail in RDR2 that relates to it (and otherwise might just be insignificant) does make sense/fit together/add to the overall story of the two games. It is a shame about the PC thing but I think it's still fair that they included plenty of stuff specifically with RDR1 players in mind, and they didn't do it in a way that excludes new players.

 

Now you have me thinking Sadie as protagonist could work! I like her as well and that could be good. 

Edited by billiejoearmstrong8
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

...and they didn't do it in a way that excludes new players.

Not excludes, confuses. It's very easy to get mislead how it ties into RDR1, unless you've played RDR1, and only those whom haven't would know that. I just think the writing overall could have been much better. It's bad enough you play a character whom somehow miraculously plays the hero, even in the toughest battles at the end where he can hardly keep from keeling over with TB attacks, unless of course there's a battle to be fought, then dies with no feeling of accomplishment to the player in the end. And the end game as Marston is even worse, I even hate how he greets people while riding.

 

I'm not really surprised I don't like the writing though, because it's every bit as nonsensical and immature as it was in GTA V. Dan Houser needs to get off his high horse, step out of the way, and hire some decent writers.

Edited by Frag Maniac
Link to post
Share on other sites
billiejoearmstrong8
10 hours ago, Frag Maniac said:

Not excludes, confuses. It's very easy to get mislead how it ties into RDR1, unless you've played RDR1, and only those whom haven't would know that. I just think the writing overall could have been much better. It's bad enough you play a character whom somehow miraculously plays the hero, even in the toughest battles at the end where he can hardly keep from keeling over with TB attacks, unless of course there's a battle to be fought, then dies with no feeling of accomplishment to the player in the end. And the end game as Marston is even worse, I even hate how he greets people while riding.

 

I'm not really surprised I don't like the writing though, because it's every bit as nonsensical and immature as it was in GTA V. Dan Houser needs to get off his high horse, step out of the way, and hire some decent writers.

I think if there was stuff that was actually confusing (not just insignificant) in regards to the RDR2 story if you hadn't played RDR1 that might be bad writing. But it's not unreasonable that you have to have played RDR1 to understand how some otherwise insignificant stuff ties into RDR1, it is a prequel not a standalone story and if someone wants to understand the entire story of the two games without playing one of them its on them to research it. 

 

I disagree that the writing is bad. But Dan Houser left Rockstar earlier this year lol. So you won't have to worry about his writing any more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I think if there was stuff that was actually confusing (not just insignificant) in regards to the RDR2 story if you hadn't played RDR1 that might be bad writing. But it's not unreasonable that you have to have played RDR1 to understand how some otherwise insignificant stuff ties into RDR1, it is a prequel not a standalone story and if someone wants to understand the entire story of the two games without playing one of them its on them to research it. 

 

I disagree that the writing is bad. But Dan Houser left Rockstar earlier this year lol. So you won't have to worry about his writing any more. 

The problem with having to research too much about a game or previous game in a series is you can easily stumble into spoilers. IMO it's the responsibility of the developer to include simple content that makes, at the very least, the chronology of the two installments clear. There are many game series that do this, RE for one has the little "Previously on RE" intros you can watch. They also could have done it via a brief intro cutscene that states the story takes place before the events of RDR1. I mean ANYTHING other than just blatant assumption that we all know, based on the multitude of people whom played RDR1 on console.

 

So YES, it is very unreasonable, because it didn't have to be that way. They could have easily avoided that problem.

 

JESUS CHRIST my prayers have been answered, good riddance Houser! 😃 

Hopefully the writing will get back to the grittier, more mature and realistic tone it had in GTA IV and Max Payne 3.

Edited by Frag Maniac
Link to post
Share on other sites
billiejoearmstrong8
9 hours ago, Frag Maniac said:

The problem with having to research too much about a game or previous game in a series is you can easily stumble into spoilers. IMO it's the responsibility of the developer to include simple content that makes, at the very least, the chronology of the two installments clear. There are many game series that do this, RE for one has the little "Previously on RE" intros you can watch. They also could have done it via a brief intro cutscene that states the story takes place before the events of RDR1. I mean ANYTHING other than just blatant assumption that we all know, based on the multitude of people whom played RDR1 on console.

 

So YES, it is very unreasonable, because it didn't have to be that way. They could have easily avoided that problem.

 

JESUS CHRIST my prayers have been answered, good riddance Houser! 😃 

Hopefully the writing will get back to the grittier, more mature and realistic tone it had in GTA IV and Max Payne 3.

Is there really anything that doesn't make sense in RDR2 without prior knowledge of RDR1 though? It just doesn't tell you about/spoil RDR1, which I think is correct. RDR2 still works on its own, if you've already played RDR1 that just enriches it, and if you choose to play RDR1 afterwards RDR1 is enriched by having played the prequel first, it works whatever way. I think the only confusion you had came from hearing some random incomplete info about RDR1, which isn't really their fault.

 

I mean, Houser wrote GTA IV and Max Payne 3 too. So I dunno why he'd be singled out as the problem. He was the lead writer of every great Rockstar game as well as any that might be considered not so good, so I wouldn't assume it'll have a positive effect. 

Edited by billiejoearmstrong8
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2020 at 10:00 PM, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Is there really anything that doesn't make sense in RDR2 without prior knowledge of RDR1 though? It just doesn't tell you about/spoil RDR1, which I think is correct. RDR2 still works on its own, if you've already played RDR1 that just enriches it, and if you choose to play RDR1 afterwards RDR1 is enriched by having played the prequel first, it works whatever way. I think the only confusion you had came from hearing some random incomplete info about RDR1, which isn't really their fault.

 

I mean, Houser wrote GTA IV and Max Payne 3 too. So I dunno why he'd be singled out as the problem. He was the lead writer of every great Rockstar game as well as any that might be considered not so good, so I wouldn't assume it'll have a positive effect. 

It wasn't just about info I was mislead by reading chat, like I said, there are characters you have no clue were in RDR1, for one, because they talk about Arthur and John having known each other for some time. Most not knowing anything about RDR1 would assume that they were both in RDR1, because again, they made no mention at all in the intro that this game predates it. It's not so much I was missing tie ins, as you incorrectly assumed, it's that I was lead to believe there WERE some where there weren't.

 

If you have to ask if there's really anything that doesn't make sense in RDR2 without having played RDR1 though, it seems obvious you played both, and therefore are not seeing it from the perspective of those whom haven't. I mean hell, just a few posts ago you said " it's not unreasonable that you have to have played RDR1 to understand how some otherwise insignificant stuff ties into RDR1, it is a prequel not a standalone story", making it clear you think not having played RDR1 first puts you at a disadvantage, even expecting players to "research" what went on in RDR1, really? Yet now you say RDR2 stands on it's own.

 

And yeah, I know Houser took part in the writing of GTA IV and Max Payne 3, but since then his writing is shallow and meaningless by comparison. It's time for him to step down. It happens to a lot of creative minds. Once they get a certain amount of money, it just starts feeling like a cash grab instead of anything with substance.

 

Look, I understand you see little to no flaws in the writing, and you're entitled to that opinion, but I as well am entitled to mine. Some of us aren't going to give them unconditional love and instead, speak out about the glaring flaws we see, regardless what anyone else thinks.

Edited by Frag Maniac
Link to post
Share on other sites
billiejoearmstrong8
1 hour ago, Frag Maniac said:

It wasn't just about info I was mislead by reading chat, like I said, there are characters you have no clue were in RDR1, for one, because they talk about Arthur and John having known each other for some time. Most not knowing anything about RDR1 would assume that they were both in RDR1, because again, they made no mention at all in the intro that this game predates it. It's not so much I was missing tie ins, as you incorrectly assumed, it's that I was lead to believe there WERE some where there weren't.

 

If you have to ask if there's really anything that doesn't make sense in RDR2 without having played RDR1 though, it seems obvious you played both, and therefore are not seeing it from the perspective of those whom haven't. I mean hell, just a few posts ago you said " it's not unreasonable that you have to have played RDR1 to understand how some otherwise insignificant stuff ties into RDR1, it is a prequel not a standalone story", making it clear you think not having played RDR1 first puts you at a disadvantage, even expecting players to "research" what went on in RDR1, really? Yet now you say RDR2 stands on it's own.

 

And yeah, I know Houser took part in the writing of GTA IV and Max Payne 3, but since then his writing is shallow and meaningless by comparison. It's time for him to step down. It happens to a lot of creative minds. Once they get a certain amount of money, it just starts feeling like a cash grab instead of anything with substance.

 

Look, I understand you see little to no flaws in the writing, and you're entitled to that opinion, but I as well am entitled to mine. Some of us aren't going to give them unconditional love and instead, speak out about the glaring flaws we see, regardless what anyone else thinks.

What I'm saying is I don't think there's anything about RDR2 that doesn't make sense (eg they could've left out info about some of the characters that's pertinent to understanding who they are on the assumption that you already learned that info about them in RDR1, but they didn't do that, the characters all make sense and the story works as a standalone I believe). They don't need to tell you who's in RDR1 or not, since either you've already played it so you already know, or you'll play it afterwards and find out the next part of the story, or you won't ever play it and the RDR2 story will stand on its own, ending with John becoming a rancher and settling down with his family. Since RDR2 is the first part of the story chronologically informing players of anything about RDR1 wasn't necessary. 

 

I don't understand how it could be possible that a prequel isn't enriched by having played/seen the original story vs not? The best you can hope for in that situation is that the prequel still works as a standalone, not that it's exactly as good whether you've seen the original or not and knowing stuff from the other game adds nothing whatsoever to the experience. It goes the other way as well, playing RDR2 first would enrich the experience of playing RDR1.The games adding to each other is unavoidable. As far as I can tell RDR2 does work/makes sense as a standalone so I don't really see the problem (unless there are specific things that are confusing that I'm not aware of since I didn't experience it without RDR1 - don't know what they are though). 

 

And yeah whether the writing is good or not is entirely subjective, everyone's entitled to their opinion on that.

 

Edited by billiejoearmstrong8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that all sounds like an opinion based on assumptions of what those whom didn't know it was a prequel should think. Again, it's only all the more obvious you played both, especially where you end a sentence saying "I think".

 

All they had to do was make it clear in the intro you are playing an installment that predates RDR1, without that it's easy to draw false conclusions, and again, only those whom didn't play RDR1 and don't know RDR2 is a prequel would know that.

 

It may seem like a small, insignificant thing to you, but you never experienced the feeling of being mislead by the lack of a contextual base. It only added to the feeling of wasting time on a story where you spend most of the time playing a protagonist who's only remembered as having unfulfilled dreams, largely due to falling into Dutch's influence. They try to play it up at the end like Arthur was some saint when John reminisces with former gang members and the gal he taught to hunt, but he was just as much a ruthless outlaw as the rest of them, and admitted so many times himself. It's a game that really doesn't have a solid base character to ground itself with, someone the player can believe in. Just a lot of bad decisions and a wasted life. That's not only Arthur's epitaph, it actually can rub off on the player, making them feel they wasted their time with it. Then again, ever since Max Payne 3, it seems most of R*'s fanbase are happier wasting their time horsing around, than getting involved in a worthwhile story. In the end, that was Houser's game developing epitaph, the almighty cash grab.

Edited by Frag Maniac
Link to post
Share on other sites
billiejoearmstrong8
10 hours ago, Frag Maniac said:

Well that all sounds like an opinion based on assumptions of what those whom didn't know it was a prequel should think. Again, it's only all the more obvious you played both, especially where you end a sentence saying "I think".

 

All they had to do was make it clear in the intro you are playing an installment that predates RDR1, without that it's easy to draw false conclusions, and again, only those whom didn't play RDR1 and don't know RDR2 is a prequel would know that.

 

It may seem like a small, insignificant thing to you, but you never experienced the feeling of being mislead by the lack of a contextual base. It only added to the feeling of wasting time on a story where you spend most of the time playing a protagonist who's only remembered as having unfulfilled dreams, largely due to falling into Dutch's influence. They try to play it up at the end like Arthur was some saint when John reminisces with former gang members and the gal he taught to hunt, but he was just as much a ruthless outlaw as the rest of them, and admitted so many times himself. It's a game that really doesn't have a solid base character to ground itself with, someone the player can believe in. Just a lot of bad decisions and a wasted life. That's not only Arthur's epitaph, it actually can rub off on the player, making them feel they wasted their time with it. Then again, ever since Max Payne 3, it seems most of R*'s fanbase are happier wasting their time horsing around, than getting involved in a worthwhile story. In the end, that was Houser's game developing epitaph, the almighty cash grab.

If you hadn't read incomplete information about RDR1 none of this would matter. It would just be a story on its own about Arthur, the downfall of the gang, and the avenging of Arthur's death. It's doesn't lack contextual base, it's the first part of the story and all the characters and plotlines are introduced and explained. Either you've played RDR1 so you know instantly that it's a prequel when it says it's 1899, or you haven't so the story takes place on its own, or continues with RDR1 if you choose to play it. You can't expect them to account for you having read partial spoilers of the other game, the story is designed for people who either know the rest of the story or don't, not people who have a misconception of the rest of the story based on incorrect info they've picked up.

 

The reason I say "I think" this is I've never seen anyone who just played RDR2 complain that the story doesn't make sense somehow because of not being aware of things from RDR1. You don't need to know what happens later in the story for the beginning of the story to make sense. It just enhances it since you already know some of the characters from their later selves and there's foreshadowing. To give one example without spoiling too much, that time Arthur and Dutch are cornered on a ledge and Dutch gives a speech before they both escape by jumping in the river is a big RDR1 reference/foreshadowing moment, so having played RDR1 enhances it. But it also still works just fine as a scene on its own. It's my impression that that's also the case for the game as a whole. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2020 at 7:27 PM, Frag Maniac said:

I would have played RDR1 a long time ago, had it been available on PC

Unfortunately, I guess it will never come to PC, because it´s known that the code is a mess and is written as sh*t, I guess that´s another hint of why it has never had a remake, the only option I see for them to port RDR1 to PC is a remake of the original using the NA and West Elisabeth assets from RDR1 and finish Nuevo Paraiso (Mexico) that is in RDR2 but without any building, but if you glitch there in RDR2 you can see very low resolution paths and other things, I think it should be "easy" for them if they want to do it of course

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

If you hadn't read incomplete information about RDR1 none of this would matter. It would just be a story on its own about Arthur, the downfall of the gang, and the avenging of Arthur's death. It's doesn't lack contextual base, it's the first part of the story and all the characters and plotlines are introduced and explained. Either you've played RDR1 so you know instantly that it's a prequel when it says it's 1899, or you haven't so the story takes place on its own, or continues with RDR1 if you choose to play it. You can't expect them to account for you having read partial spoilers of the other game, the story is designed for people who either know the rest of the story or don't, not people who have a misconception of the rest of the story based on incorrect info they've picked up.

 

The reason I say "I think" this is I've never seen anyone who just played RDR2 complain that the story doesn't make sense somehow because of not being aware of things from RDR1. You don't need to know what happens later in the story for the beginning of the story to make sense. It just enhances it since you already know some of the characters from their later selves and there's foreshadowing. To give one example without spoiling too much, that time Arthur and Dutch are cornered on a ledge and Dutch gives a speech before they both escape by jumping in the river is a big RDR1 reference/foreshadowing moment, so having played RDR1 enhances it. But it also still works just fine as a scene on its own. It's my impression that that's also the case for the game as a whole. 

Again, you fail to see because you knew going in. What I'm talking about also has more to do with this game being RDR TWO, not one, than anything about chat I read. That combined with no hint whatsoever by the devs that these events predate RDR1 is the sole reason for the confusion you keep errantly blaming on chat I read. I mean JEEZ, I think a 5 year old could get that! And with that, I'm going to say this is becoming a pointless discussion, because you aren't seeing obvious facts like that. Just agree to disagree and go on unconditionally adoring all R*s stuff already.🙄 You are clueless about what I'm talking about because you, like most R* fanboys, insisted on being spoon fed all the details before playing RDR2.

Edited by Frag Maniac
Link to post
Share on other sites
billiejoearmstrong8
1 hour ago, Frag Maniac said:

Again, you fail to see because you knew going in. What I'm talking about also has more to do with this game being RDR TWO, not one, than anything about chat I read. That combined with no hint whatsoever by the devs that these events predate RDR1 is the sole reason for the confusion you keep errantly blaming on chat I read. I mean JEEZ, I think a 5 year old could get that! And with that, I'm going to say this is becoming a pointless discussion, because you aren't seeing obvious facts like that. Just agree to disagree and go on unconditionally adoring all R*s stuff already.🙄 You are clueless about what I'm talking about because you, like most R* fanboys, insisted on being spoon fed all the details before playing RDR2.

I just don't really get what you wanted them to do differently or why it matters whether it's a prequel or not if you have no plans to play the other game, it's just a standalone story in that case. Btw I do agree that "Red Dead Redemption 2" is a stupid name for a prequel. But still don't see why it matters in terms of actually playing RDR2/following the story of RDR2.

 

Dunno what you mean with your last sentence either :lol:. I wasn't spoon fed details, I just played RDR1 first, which obviously gives some additional meaning and insight into some of the things in RDR2. By the same token I've seen many people who played RDR2 and then RDR1 say the same thing, that they believe seeing the preceeding events first gave extra meaning and insight to RDR1. But suit yourself! You don't have to like it. I was only curious what in particular you thought they should've done differently. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now I know you're paying little attention to what I'm saying and only focusing on your part in the conversation, because I said multiple times what they could have easily done to avoid such confusion for those whom haven't played both. Yet here you are acting like you don't know what I want them to have done.🙄

 

About the only worthwhile thing you said there is RDR2 is a bit of a senseless title. RDR Beginnings, RDR The Early Years, RDR Origins, anything but RDR2 would have been far more insightful.

 

And the meaning of spoon fed should be obvious too, it simply means having played RDR1 first, you have been given all the info you need to see the chronology of events, and without the "research" you were suggesting those whom haven't played both should be OK with. (contextual base).

 

I now can't stress enough how meaningless this back and forth is since you don't pay attention to anything but your own words.

Edited by Frag Maniac
Link to post
Share on other sites
billiejoearmstrong8
9 hours ago, Frag Maniac said:

 

And the meaning of spoon fed should be obvious too, it simply means having played RDR1 first, you have been given all the info you need to see the chronology of events, and without the "research" you were suggesting those whom haven't played both should be OK with. (contextual base).

 

 

The chronology of events in RDR2 makes sense without having played RDR1. The characters and setting are introduced at the beginning, with the gang in the snow and the caption that says it's 1899, and then the story unfolds ending with Arthur's death and then John avenging it and hoping to settle down as a rancher. RDR1's events haven't happened yet and are only relevant when you go on to play it, if you choose to. But yeah it is meaningless because I still don't understand what you think you were missing when playing RDR2 that you would still have been missing if you hadn't heard incomplete RDR1 spoilers that gave you a misconception about the story. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

...I still don't understand what you think you were missing when playing RDR2 that you would still have been missing if you hadn't heard incomplete RDR1 spoilers that gave you a misconception about the story. 

Maybe because thinking is something you do in a very biased way. You clearly need things being repeated multiple times and still don't get it. Stop trolling me and leave it be already. You can't even see you're heavily contradicting yourself. You start out admitting having played RDR1 is beneficial to understanding relationships in RDR2, and even admit the title RDR2 is misleading, then you go brain dead and act like nothing at all is confusing.

 

I mean JEEZ, you're more confusing than the game, get a clue! I'm not asking for your opinion in my thread, I don't need it, and you are not being constructive here. If anything you're just being a passive aggressive troll.

Edited by Frag Maniac
Link to post
Share on other sites
billiejoearmstrong8
2 hours ago, Frag Maniac said:

Maybe because thinking is something you do in a very biased way. You clearly need things being repeated multiple times and still don't get it. Stop trolling me and leave it be already. You can't even see you're heavily contradicting yourself. You start out admitting having played RDR1 is beneficial to understanding relationships in RDR2, and even admit the title RDR2 is misleading, then you go brain dead and act like nothing at all is confusing.

 

I mean JEEZ, you're more confusing than the game, get a clue! I'm not asking for your opinion in my thread, I don't need it, and you are not being constructive here. If anything you're just being a passive aggressive troll.

 

It's absurd that you think it's possible that playing the other game before the prequel won't inevitably add something to the experience of playing the prequel. As I've said, of course it can't be exactly as good if you don't have the benefit of that. The best you can hope for is that it still makes sense and is good as a standalone game without it. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but I've been led to believe from reading what many other people who started with RDR2 have to say that it does, and was curious to know why you think it doesn't. I don't know what you wanted them to do short of writing out the entire story of RDR1 for you at the start of the game. It's not their fault you read incomplete spoilers that gave you false expectations of what would happen in RDR2.

 

Anyway I'll do as you wish and leave this now. Maybe someone who has only played RDR2/played RDR2 first will come and agree with you. I doubt it though, since the issue you have with the game that you've described here was caused by reading incomplete spoilers (which also gave you a biased perspective while playing that those just going blindly into RDR2 didn't have). Maybe we've just misunderstood each other I dunno, all the best to you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2020 at 12:47 PM, Frag Maniac said:

like most R* fanboys, insisted on being spoon fed all the details before playing RDR2

Says the guy complaining that RDR2 doesn't give you any hints that it takes place before RDR1, when in fact the f*cking opening intro states "1899," as well as the in game newspapers, and characters throughout the story saying "1899" lol.

 

Based on the very specific and thorough answers people have given you, yet you're still spinning around in circles "so confused," I find it hard to believe you're not just here taking the piss out of everyone.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, cp1dell said:

Says the guy complaining that RDR2 doesn't give you any hints that it takes place before RDR1, when in fact the f*cking opening intro states "1899," as well as the in game newspapers, and characters throughout the story saying "1899" lol.

 

Based on the very specific and thorough answers people have given you, yet you're still spinning around in circles "so confused," I find it hard to believe you're not just here taking the piss out of everyone.

 

So tell me how knowing it takes place in 1899 is supposed to mean anything when I've not played RDR1, and therefore don't know when it took place? This is just more validation of what I'm saying, that those whom have been spoon fed such details somehow assume we all have.

 

And no one asked you to be here, so if you find my opinions so off putting, you don't NEED to be here. Just more trolling it appears.

Edited by Frag Maniac
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Frag Maniac said:

 

So tell me how knowing it takes place in 1899 is supposed to mean anything when I've not played RDR1, and therefore don't know when it took place? This is just more validation of what I'm saying, that those whom have been spoon fed such details somehow assume we all have.

 

And no one asked you to be here, so if you find my opinions so off putting, you don't NEED to be here. Just more trolling it appears.

The back of the box of RDR1 literally states it takes place in 1911, but I digress. I’m just laughing at you now.
 

It seems your problem stems from you having second-hand knowledge of RDR1 like stated in your first couple of posts. That’s your fault, not ours, not the writers, not anyone.

 

You could have easily played RDR2 with no knowledge of RDR1, and it would work. You could have played RDR1 once, years ago, and only remember highlights of it, and regardless that RDR2 being sequential in name alone, you’d still know that it takes place before RDR1 with the handful of non-spoon fed details it gives you.

 

You’re complaining about people needing to be spoon fed stuff, but I’m getting the idea you’re just projecting. You seem to be the one that wants these details spoon fed to you. Instead of just playing the game, you tried to look up end game details, and ended up finding stuff about RDR1 which just confused you even more when it didn’t happen in RDR2, on top of not knowing which game’s events take place first.

 

Yeah, it’s not your fault you had no idea that RDR1 takes place after RDR2. But it is your fault that you played RDR2 and then at some point decided to look up end game spoilers and just confuse yourself. You never played RDR1? Okay, than take three minutes to read the plot summary on Wikipedia.

 

RDR2 works both as a standalone game with no prior knowledge of RDR1, and as a supplement/prequel for people who have played RDR1. Your problem lies in the fact that you found plot details for RDR1 and assumed they belonged to RDR2. Which is strange enough as it is, but hey, not everyone can have average reading comprehension—gotta have those couple that bring the average down, y’know? Haha

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cp1dell said:

The back of the box of RDR1 literally states it takes place in 1911, but I digress. I’m just laughing at you now.

 

And you literally can't seem to get that not having played RDR1, I had no access to such info. Who's laughing at who? No confusion there, you're as clueless as the one you're defending.

 

This is the brain dead mentality of R* fanboys, they can't grasp the obvious. So I have to ask, if there's really this abundance on non spoon fed details in RDR2 that it took place before RDR1, why would you start out by giving such an idiotic example of reading the box of RDR1 to find out, a game I've said numerus times I did not play?

 

You guys all talk in circles as if everyone plays everything R* puts out, rather obtuse.

 

To any mods or admins that may be reading this, please close the thread, your fanboys are only humiliating themselves, and they don't even realize it.

Edited by Frag Maniac
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 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.