I love RDR2 but John Marston should have been handled better

[FanEu7]

RDR2 is one of my favourite games ever but after replaying it again I really wish that John Marston was handled better.

 

Rockstar portrayed him too often as a "damsel in distress" type and he lacked depth compared to the original RDR. He didn't have many memorable moments either apart from the ending. 

Edited December 22, 2020 by FanEu7

[The Artist]

11 minutes ago, FanEu7 said:

RDR2 is one of my favourite games ever but after replaying it again I really wish that John Marston was handled better.

 

Rockstar portrayed him too often as a "damsel in distress" type and he lacked depth compared to the original RDR. He didn't have many memorable moments either apart from the ending. 

Agreed I didn't like what they done with John. I think they wanted to show his character development from a stupid loser to the hardened guy we see in rdr. But he could have had more memorable moments in the story. Bill and Javier were wasted too.

[FanEu7]

8 minutes ago, StuntMaster100 said:

Agreed I didn't like what they done with John. I think they wanted to show his character development from a stupid loser to the hardened guy we see in rdr. But he could have had more memorable moments in the story. Bill and Javier were wasted too.

 

They focused too much on the new characters like Sadie and Charles, they were fine but I was hoping for more for John, Bill and Javier.

At least Arthur, Dutch and Hosea were handled really well

[The Artist]

1 minute ago, FanEu7 said:

 

They focused too much on the new characters like Sadie and Charles, they were fine but I was hoping for more for John, Bill and Javier.

At least Arthur, Dutch and Hosea were handled really well

Charles was alright but Sadie was a bad character though. Suddenly becomes a killer out of nowhere. Would have liked more of Lenny too.

[Ryo256]

44 minutes ago, FanEu7 said:

I was hoping for more for John, Bill and Javier.

Agreed. If you are gonna make a prequel and show original game's characters in the gang then at least develop them first before anyone else.

Personally I think RDR2 would have been better off with its own narrative. Arthur could have carried the game on his own. Dutch could have gotten a great death scene for his antagonist role if he wasn't protected by the plot of RDR1. 

 

47 minutes ago, StuntMaster100 said:

Charles was alright but Sadie was a bad character though.

I wouldn't have minded Sadie that much if she wasn't so.....over-exposed in the game. At the very least, she shouldn't have been in the epilogue. Also her attitude and voice needed some adjustment too.

[Wylyth1992]

3 hours ago, StuntMaster100 said:

Charles was alright but Sadie was a bad character though. Suddenly becomes a killer out of nowhere. Would have liked more of Lenny too.

I don't think it was out of nowhere. I mean, she watched her husband get killed, and it is heavily implied that she was raped. Stuff like that can negatively affect your psyche, and different people respond differently. Not to mention that when you meet her in Red Dead Online she makes it perfectly clear that she can, has, and will kill to protect herself and her husband. So she is not new to killing.

And as for Lenny, I think how he died was a good way of taking the player off guard. You see, the previous three deaths (Sean, Kieren, and Hosea) were all in cutscenes, so, having Lenny dying during gameplay is basically them saying "Hey, anyone in the gang other than Abigail, Bill, Dutch, Jack, Javier, and John can die at any time."

Edited December 22, 2020 by WFD1992

[LegitimatePride]

On 12/22/2020 at 12:08 PM, FanEu7 said:

 

They focused too much on the new characters like Sadie and Charles, they were fine but I was hoping for more for John, Bill and Javier.

Absolutely this, especially the latter. I mean, I like some of the new characters, but the fact that they had more care given and instead BIll and Javier were again given very little screentime when they already had small screentime in RDR1 is just disappointing, Imo Rockstar failed at using both of these characters.

 

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by LegitimatePride

[Lemoyne outlaw]

yea i really did not care for john as much. in fact i much prefer the new characters to the old ones. not to mention the fact that a lot of returning characters had new actors. which ruins the nostalgia.

[billiejoearmstrong8]

29 minutes ago, Lemoyne outlaw said:

yea i really did not care for john as much. in fact i much prefer the new characters to the old ones. not to mention the fact that a lot of returning characters had new actors. which ruins the nostalgia.

It's only Javier, Abigail and Uncle right? And Jack but he was a child in RDR2 so that doesn't really count, they couldn't have used an adult man to do a child's voice. Imo Uncle and Abigail's voices are improved in RDR2. Abigail's voice acting in RDR isn't very good, she often says things in an unnatural way where it's obviously being read from a script/memorised, but in RDR2 she's voiced/acted well. Uncle's isn't bad but is nothing special, whereas in RDR2 both of his actors did very well (one bringing his personality to life, the other doing those awesome campfire songs). I don't think the original actors would've been up to the job of their expanded roles in 2. Bit of a shame Javier's accent is so different but you barely even hear him speak in RDR1 so there wasn't much to get attached to. I don't think anything is ruined by it. 

[Badman_]

He was poorly handled indeed, but I just don't bother anymore. R* ain't gonna do anything about it unfortunately.

[Algonquin Assassin]

I guess this is the risk you take with making a prequel. It’s like Lance in Vice City. He has a cool, confident, almost arrogant swagger about him, but in VCS he’s a complete dweeb.

 

If there’s something I don’t like about John in RDR2 and this may not necessarily matter to some people I don’t really like how we get to find out how he got the facial scars.

 

For me in RDR1 that was his trademark and made him stand out and I loved the ambiguity always wondering how he got them.

 

Finding out he got attacked by some wolves even to the point he was embarrassed by it kinda of ruins that aspect about him IMO whereas I always assumed he didn’t give a sh*t how he got them by being involved in a bar brawl or something to do with rolling with Dutch back in the day.

 

Again it’s only small, but it was something that I noticed that bothered me during my first play through.
 

 

Edited December 28, 2020 by Algonquin Assassin

[HOW'S ANNIE?]

I think 1899 John was okay, he genuinely felt like a younger version of John from RDR 1. You forget, like he mentions in the first game, he was once young and dumb.

 

It's 1907 John that I had a problem with. It seemed as if over the course of eight years he didn't mature at all. He's still as big of a, if not an even bigger, dumbass than he was in 1899.

[Cutter De Blanc]

I kind of get the impression that they were trying to ruin his legendary iconic status in the eyes of fans

[Alexlecj]

On 12/23/2020 at 3:49 PM, LegitimatePride said:

Absolutely this, especially the latter. I mean, I like some of the new characters, but the fact that they had more care given and instead BIll and Javier were again given very little screentime when they already had small screentime in RDR1 is just disappointing, Imo Rockstar failed at using both of these characters.

 

 

Bill had a lot of screentime, I thought, especially in chapter 3.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 12:33 PM, HOW'S ANNIE? said:

I think 1899 John was okay, he genuinely felt like a younger version of John from RDR 1. You forget, like he mentions in the first game, he was once young and dumb.

 

It's 1907 John that I had a problem with. It seemed as if over the course of eight years he didn't mature at all. He's still as big of a, if not an even bigger, dumbass than he was in 1899

John in 1911 almost got killed because of the most obvious setup I've ever seen (Cowards Die Many Times). His vocabulary is better in RDR but Bonnie's right on his account: John Marston is a stupid man.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Alexlecj

[Cutter De Blanc]

Like he just thought he was gonna call out Bill Williamson from inside his giant heavily protected fort and Bill would just come with him, John's always been a bit of a dunderhead its true

Edited January 5, 2021 by Cutter De Blanc

[Badman_]

1 hour ago, Cutter De Blanc said:

I kind of get the impression that they were trying to ruin his legendary iconic status in the eyes of fans

 

RDR1 was John's game but RDR2 is Arthur's game. I'm pretty sure they somehow downgraded John so that he wouldn't rob the spotlight from Arthur.

 

49 minutes ago, Alexlecj said:

John in 1911 almost got killed because of the most obvious setup I've ever seen (Cowards Die Many Times). His vocabulary is better in RDR but Bonnie's right on his account: John Marston is a stupid man.

 

I don't know if stupid is the right word. I think stubborn is more accurate. Arthur and John are both stubborn men because they live their lives by moral codes that often cloud their judgement. In RDR2 Arthur can clearly see that Dutch's poor decisions are causing the downfall of the gang but he won't admit it to himself or to others because of loyalty. Abigal is also constantly telling John to let go of his unreasonable principles.

Edited January 1, 2021 by The Wolf Man

[Ryo256]

The thing is in RDR1, most of the content is straightforward and effective. John might make a mistake at one point and try to adjust. But the game doesn't focus too much on it and moves on.

In RDR2, just like everything, they over-exposed him and it leads to John making mistakes, constantly talking about them over and over again to the point it really ruins him in my view. There only so much "What am I supposed to do?" that a man can take. Sadie also steals too much of his screentime, rather than him developing into a bounty hunter on his own accord, he gets spoon-fed by her.

Also they kinda ruined Abigail and Jack in RDR2. They played their role in RDR1 as John's motivation but now again, after RDR2 over-exposed them, they come off as either generic or annoying and I can only pity John for what he got stuck with. Now I wonder are they really worth fighting for in RDR1?

[Copcaller]

Eh idk I didn't mind his portrayal he was young made mistakes and was finding himself. Like he mentioned in 1 dutch had long lost his way but the gang was too blinded by loyalty and nostalgia to admit it. I like how he wasn't the perfect husband and father immediately and had to grow into it made him more realistic and relatable. 

[XerostarTG]

On 1/2/2021 at 10:16 AM, Copcaller said:

Eh idk I didn't mind his portrayal he was young made mistakes and was finding himself. Like he mentioned in 1 dutch had long lost his way but the gang was too blinded by loyalty and nostalgia to admit it. I like how he wasn't the perfect husband and father immediately and had to grow into it made him more realistic and relatable. 

John, at 26 years old (in a time period of America where you are likely to die at the age of 36 to 45 and you must smarten and mature up really quick), with a young son: participated in a botched robbery, ran off with his gang into the mountains (where they were having a blizzard) and then proceeded with an attempt to run away from his consequences (as he had done with Jack; so it seems [that whole year long away thing]). John was a fool and a coward. At 26 years old in RDR2 it makes no sense for him to be acting the way he did both in circumstance (time period, age, lifestyle [though apparently his lifestyle his sit on his ass, according to RDR2]) and who he his as a character. I loved John, but RDR2 did him absolutely wrong (and I do not see RDR2 as a true story to the timeline). Your last sentence I agree with.

 

Also smaller note: I do not see Dutch as losing his way in RDR2, he lost his character due to uninventive writing. They seemingly did not want to touch up on the philosophy of Dutch for some reason, it is just a whole lot of us vs. them. John defended that they only robbed from people who "needed" robbing, but in RDR2 we see only selfishness from Dutch (in a subversive way) and the gang. I could write a bit more on Dutch, but I will let that be that. Also Micah feels like the worst character they could have chosen to subvert Dutch; it felt out of place (I also believe Micah should have died in the Saint Denis Robbery; no idea if anyone has found info on that theory though).

[DarkDayz]

11 hours ago, XerostarTG said:

John, at 26 years old (in a time period of America where you are likely to die at the age of 36 to 45 and you must smarten and mature up really quick), with a young son: participated in a botched robbery, ran off with his gang into the mountains (where they were having a blizzard) and then proceeded with an attempt to run away from his consequences (as he had done with Jack; so it seems [that whole year long away thing]). John was a fool and a coward. At 26 years old in RDR2 it makes no sense for him to be acting the way he did both in circumstance (time period, age, lifestyle [though apparently his lifestyle his sit on his ass, according to RDR2]) and who he his as a character. I loved John, but RDR2 did him absolutely wrong (and I do not see RDR2 as a true story to the timeline). Your last sentence I agree with.

 

Also smaller note: I do not see Dutch as losing his way in RDR2, he lost his character due to uninventive writing. They seemingly did not want to touch up on the philosophy of Dutch for some reason, it is just a whole lot of us vs. them. John defended that they only robbed from people who "needed" robbing, but in RDR2 we see only selfishness from Dutch (in a subversive way) and the gang. I could write a bit more on Dutch, but I will let that be that. Also Micah feels like the worst character they could have chosen to subvert Dutch; it felt out of place (I also believe Micah should have died in the Saint Denis Robbery; no idea if anyone has found info on that theory though).

 

This is an interesting take, although I strongly disagree with all of it. I am interested to know how you'd have written John and Dutch in this game. I am in agreement about Micah. I could have wrote a few long paragraphs on why I think the above is all ok - but that's pointless I don't want an argument. Just want to know your perspective on how they could have approached it better.

 

Edited January 5, 2021 by darkdayz

[billiejoearmstrong8]

On 1/1/2021 at 8:43 PM, Cutter De Blanc said:

I kind of get the impression that they were trying to ruin his legendary iconic status in the eyes of fans

 

What would be their motive for doing that?

 

In RDR1 he isn't just a legend/icon, he has faults, is shown to not be super smart, and it's acknowledged that he did some dumb things when he was younger and has matured. I think in RDR2 they simply attempted to show his younger, dumber, more reckless self, and him becoming more mature/responsible/skilled by the epilogue. It's showing him before he became a legend.

 

Also part of it is showing that the gang really wasn't so legendary/that it was more a cult of personality. It might hurt more to actually see that in RDR2 but how great and noble it and Dutch really were was already in question in 1 and we already knew the final outcome of it from 1, so I don't think 2 really spoils anything in that regard either. 

[billiejoearmstrong8]

11 hours ago, XerostarTG said:

John, at 26 years old (in a time period of America where you are likely to die at the age of 36 to 45 and you must smarten and mature up really quick), with a young son: participated in a botched robbery, ran off with his gang into the mountains (where they were having a blizzard) and then proceeded with an attempt to run away from his consequences (as he had done with Jack; so it seems [that whole year long away thing]). John was a fool and a coward. At 26 years old in RDR2 it makes no sense for him to be acting the way he did both in circumstance (time period, age, lifestyle [though apparently his lifestyle his sit on his ass, according to RDR2]) and who he his as a character. I loved John, but RDR2 did him absolutely wrong (and I do not see RDR2 as a true story to the timeline). Your last sentence I agree with.

 

 

The first thing John does in RDR1 is walk up to a heavily guarded fort and stand there while three people have guns pointed at him and tell one of them he's after him, promptly getting himself shot and nearly killed. He's not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed in RDR1 either. I think that's kind of his appeal, he's badass, tries his best and is skilled at many things but he's not perfect and intelligence isn't his strongest suit. 

Edited January 5, 2021 by billiejoearmstrong8

[XerostarTG]

10 hours ago, darkdayz said:

 

This is an interesting take, although I strongly disagree with all of it. I am interested to know how you'd have written John and Dutch in this game. I am in agreement about Micah. I could have wrote a few long paragraphs on why I think the above is all ok - but that's pointless I don't want an argument. Just want to know your perspective on how they could have approached it better.

 

 

Well the way I would have rewritten everything would have been making some changes to other characters, like Arthur (nothing too unexpected/out of character for him [I think he was a fine character just ruined by some writing]). Showing how John, Arthur, and Dutch all really relate (as well as interactions with Jack; since Jack does call Dutch: Uncle Dutch).

 

Dutch:

 

Instead of having Dutch being all kicked back, while the gang does most of his dirty work (thinking must be some really hard work for Dutch, lol; reading books under the shade, too) I think he should have been deeply invested with his family. I say family because I think that one thing that should have been done was showing that the gang saw themselves as a family. Dutch knew that outsiders, even the innocent and commons, would look quite lowly on them as a "ruffian gang"; this would be a part of his personal philosophy (not quite directly connected to his rich vs. poor philosophy; though they [the different thoughts that he has] do of course interact/correlate; otherwise, everything likely would have fallen apart (ideologically).

 

John:

 

I think that they should have kept John's original backstory, but have the whole "he was almost hanged before Dutch saved him" story as a smaller story that happened after he became part of the gang. This would have been a better way to have him become more mature at a younger age, although foolish (since all youth are foolish one way or another), and keep the Marston that we got in RDR2 "away" (so to speak). John should have really been shown to have taken after Dutch, though not so much (maybe because of how much Arthur [in my "rewrite" of the characters] takes after Dutch and John has a bit of childish jealousness; something that was never truly resolved among the two [opposed to John being so cowardly and ungrateful and Arthur being a bit stingy].

 

Arthur: 

 

Arthur (as I have already said) should have taken after Dutch a bit more, in smaller ways. Being the "enforcer" that we got, while also being a "caring strong arm" of the van Der Linde "family/gang". Arthur, for me, just needed a better ending; rather than giving him the cliché "redemption by death" write off.

 

Others:

 

I also would have cut other characters of the gang out. Hosea (even though he is my favorite gang member) = Dutch's soft and compassionate side. Sean = John's not sitting on his ass side and the slightly funny side. Once I saw that there were almost 25 - 30 gang members (6 times the amount of what was originally told to us), I knew that there was "member inflation" where certain members take characteristics that should have gone to more prominent members, but ended up going to others for no specific reason. From what I could interpret back then (2010 - 2018) Dutch had a family (that also had their distinct ideology and maybe even a culture), Dutch now seems to have had a mobile small town (full of blind idiots). As I have already said Micah should have died (or just be cut out entirely).

 

Now I am going to say a actual story change (that with everything else [above] would kind of "fall" into place/together):

 

1) The beta hunters believe that Arthur was originally going to have Eliza and Isaac in the mountains and that Isaac would die. I agree with this, both from a caring for our protagonist perspective and also how he could have related to John in this moment. In RDR1 John said he had a daughter but she died. Where is her grave? Where did she die? Well I would have written that would also die in the mountains. This would allow Arthur and John to relate, it would also make John realize that things that he might care about can die/go away.

 

"Some trees die [ie. their daughter], others flourish [ie. Jack]. You know that nothing in life aint fair". - John Marston to Abigail in RDR1

 

He could lose Abigail, Dutch, Jack, for all I care his horse or bedroll at any moment, and once their gone he cannot say words/do things he should have said/done when they were around; this would make John mature further and not show John to be a coward, fool, or ungrateful. He would stand firmly on his beliefs and who/what he cares about (this would pave way to the gang's/Dutch's fall, but also his path to being the John Marston we saw in RDR1). Also in my RDR2 rewrite as a kind of easter egg I would have Abigail say this to John (the tree thing), just to be bittersweet.

 

2) I would have had the game start off in Cochinay (why is it even accessible in RDR2). To have bit of a poetic start to the game (the game starts; where the gang truly ended). I also would have Dutch make remarks about living in a cave (I believe he does in RDR2 though I am not too sure) yet again as a cheeky easter egg.

 

3) Blackwater Massacre and 1906

 

The big thing that set the story of RDR2 off should not be the Blackwater Massacre. Why? John never makes mention of it. I think he would have been honest, by 1911, about it. Also Landon Ricketts was at the Blackwater Massacre (I believe that is what made him ran away to California and then Mexico), seeing as John was shot we might as well assume Landon shot John (quite coincidental, maybe cool, but it would not make sense). I also would have likely set the game to start in 1896 (to avoid a lot of lore inconsistencies, since the only thing we know about that year is: Jack about 1 - 2 years old, and Landon Ricketts killed the Butcher Brothers in Blackwater) with the gang being in great mood, but something happens in the area north of New Austin (so bringing in new states/territories) and the gang must flee (they do not want to go south east due to tough terrain and Landon's recent killing of the Butcher Brothers), so they head north east instead, since, although a lot of rough mountains, there are not nearly as many trees in Ambarino, as there are in Tall Trees (I would also change this states [Ambarino] name [Anamota maybe], but you get the idea of the terrain aspect). However they have the blizzard, things get rough; Isaac and John's daughter die, but thankfully the law [note: Not Pinkertons] is thrown off. I would have the game have split in time, Arthur gets TB he has to head west (New Austin, Mexico, and other west ward states) he gets a suspicious feeling about how the times might change (in terms of society; also Dutch is still fine he does not go crazy until later and knows of Arthur's illness) and tells John the whole run and don't look back thing. Forward to 1906, you play as John and Dutch is now crazy, this would really let you see what Arthur was warning John about (though Arthur should have given his warning to Dutch) and seeing how the large changes to the west are really crushing Dutch making you feel sorry for him since only an hour ago (real world time) it could have been 1896 and he was fine. Then the Bank Robbery of 1906 happens on the Serendipity (a cruise ship carrying passengers, but the Pinkertons are placing a large sum of cash to lure out Dutch/any other outlaw gangs in West Elizabeth to see if the area still needs "modernization").

 

Now for the other person's comment:

 

10 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

 

The first thing John does in RDR1 is walk up to a heavily guarded fort and stand there while three people have guns pointed at him and tell one of them he's after him, promptly getting himself shot and nearly killed. He's not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed in RDR1 either. I think that's kind of his appeal, he's badass, tries his best and is skilled at many things but he's not perfect and intelligence isn't his strongest suit. 

 

This moment was not a particularly smart thing to do for John. I think John was truly hoping his former "brother" would listen to him, since John only wants to get back to his family or at least ensure their safety. He was showing that he was willing to do anything, and honestly maybe John did try to get himself killed. I will explain my reasoning:

 

1) He does not want to kill his former family (more on this in 2); they matter a lot to him and he knows Jack has some care for them

 

2) He just might have been hoping that his death would immediately be a "catalyst" for the gov. to release his family. "Bill they want to kill us all", John knew that they wanted to kill him; he may have even known that they were just simply going to kill him no matter what, so his death to him was inevitable and he was just hoping that they would be released regardless. John seems quite a bit lost whenever he wakes up at MacFarlane's Ranch probably thinking that he was dead. He was probably hoping, too. See as he had lived, he was grateful that he was saved, and then accepted that his attempt was stupid. So he mans up, and does his job; fighting to live another day [with his family]. He was trying to avoid killing his former family, while hoping that his wife and child are released (so the gov. does their own dirty work).

Edited January 6, 2021 by XerostarTG

[Shadowfennekin]

Eh, he was handled fine. It's Bill and especially Javier I'm frustrated with how they were handled, they're hardly involved with the story(Especially Javier, Bill goes on a few missions at least while Javier's only notable moment after the prologue is getting captured by the Guarma cartel lol). When you heard RDR 2 was a prologue, you'd think that we'd get to see more of the RDR 1 characters but nah... only Dutch really gets focus.

 

I'd have liked to see more Javier, especially as RDR 2 actually made him more of an interesting character while in RDR 1 he felt like a stereotypical Mexican gangster, primarily due to the fact he was only around for 1 mission

 

I still find it BS that they didn't even get ending slides like all the other surviving characters who were absent from the epilogue 

Edited January 6, 2021 by Shadowfennekin

[Mysterious hero]

19 hours ago, XerostarTG said:

In RDR1 John said he had a daughter but she died. Where is her grave? Where did she die? Well I would have written that would also die in the mountains. 

But according to the first game, John's daughter died sometime after he left the gang.

"I had a daughter, but she died. Years before that, I rode in a gang".

 

The big thing that set the story of RDR2 off should not be the Blackwater Massacre. Why? John never makes mention of it. I think he would have been honest, by 1911, about it.

The second game revealing that the gang was responsible for the Blackwater Massacre was a neat addition IMO. Yeah, John never mentions that he was a part of the massacre, but then again, he rarely brings up the finer details of his past. It was the Strange Man who brought up the Ferry Robbery (which was retconned to be the massacre) so it's not a stretch. 

 

 Forward to 1906

I wonder, why 1906 specifically?

 

Edited January 7, 2021 by Mysterious hero

[XerostarTG]

1 hour ago, Mysterious hero said:

 

 

(Your quote is not appearing for me for some reason [in the quote box]).

 

In all honesty the having a daughter after he rode with the gang, would be a/the only retcon I would accept (though I do still prefer faithfulness to lore). Yet again it is only really to have a: 1) Relative moment with Arthur (for John) and for the player [who is playing Arthur] to see how these two can relate in smaller ways (though for John, as I had written above, it would be a big thing making him mature just a bit more).

 

I get that you may like the Blackwater Massacre start (as do many others, I believe) but I just think that it was a lazy thing of R* to do and simplified the lore. I stand firm on my Landon Ricketts comment (and you have not said anything to debate that; not trying to sound all angry and argumentative) since John also says that he heard stories of Landon as a boy (so likely the 80s- to early 90s) and says it quite fondly (I believe with a small smile) so he likely looks up to Landon and, as a boy, likely saw some kind of picture of Landon (ie. the cigarettes card, likely old newspapers) and would remember how he looks.

 

1906 is chosen because that is the original year John was left by the gang/left the gang. It was quite known by a fair majority of RDR fans before RDR2 that there was the Botched Bank Robbery of 1906 (I believe there are small mentions of it in the newspaper too of RDR, so if you want to find a quick mention just search there) and that is what [originally] destroyed the gang.

[Mysterious hero]

On 1/6/2021 at 10:58 PM, XerostarTG said:

 

(Your quote is not appearing for me for some reason [in the quote box]).

 

In all honesty the having a daughter after he rode with the gang, would be a/the only retcon I would accept (though I do still prefer faithfulness to lore). Yet again it is only really to have a: 1) Relative moment with Arthur (for John) and for the player [who is playing Arthur] to see how these two can relate in smaller ways (though for John, as I had written above, it would be a big thing making him mature just a bit more).

 

I get that you may like the Blackwater Massacre start (as do many others, I believe) but I just think that it was a lazy thing of R* to do and simplified the lore. I stand firm on my Landon Ricketts comment (and you have not said anything to debate that; not trying to sound all angry and argumentative) since John also says that he heard stories of Landon as a boy (so likely the 80s- to early 90s) and says it quite fondly (I believe with a small smile) so he likely looks up to Landon and, as a boy, likely saw some kind of picture of Landon (ie. the cigarettes card, likely old newspapers) and would remember how he looks.

 

1906 is chosen because that is the original year John was left by the gang/left the gang. It was quite known by a fair majority of RDR fans before RDR2 that there was the Botched Bank Robbery of 1906 (I believe there are small mentions of it in the newspaper too of RDR, so if you want to find a quick mention just search there) and that is what [originally] destroyed the gang.

----In all honesty the having a daughter after he rode with the gang, would be a/the only retcon I would accept (though I do still prefer faithfulness to lore). Yet again it is only really to have a: 1) Relative moment with Arthur (for John) and for the player [who is playing Arthur] to see how these two can relate in smaller ways (though for John, as I had written above, it would be a big thing making him mature just a bit more----

 

I don't know. I think it's a good decision for Isaac and Eliza to be cut from the game and relegate them to the backstory. And while I do think that the Marston Daughter should've appeared in the epilogue (or at least have her death play a major role), I don't think she should die or even be born during John's time in the gang. Keep in mind, John and Abigail's relationship is in hot water due to Jack. John doesn't want the responsibility to be a father and he's also skeptical about Jack being his son due to Abigail's..... (ahem) "profession". They're already having trouble raising one child, so it's highly unlikely they would have another.

And I also think having Arthur's son die alongside John's daughter lacks subtlety. We, as the audience, can logically connect the parallels between Arthur and John without the game spelling it out to us. 

 

----I stand firm on my Landon Ricketts comment (and you have not said anything to debate that; not trying to sound all angry and argumentative) since John also says that he heard stories of Landon as a boy (so likely the 80s- to early 90s) and says it quite fondly (I believe with a small smile) so he likely looks up to Landon and, as a boy, likely saw some kind of picture of Landon (ie. the cigarettes card, likely old newspapers) and would remember how he looks----

 

Who's to say that John and Landon saw each other during the massacre? John was likely wearing a mask conceal his identity, so Landon didn't recognize him. The Pinkertons didn't even know who John was:

Milton: Who are you?

John: Rip Van Winkle.

Milton: Huh. Good day sir.

And even if Landon saw John's face during the massacre, then it would seem preposterous that Landon would recognize John on the spot twelve years later.

 

And I doubt that John would recognize Landon. He'd be too occupied with being in a gunfight with the Pinkertons and Blackwater Police. The most he'd remember from the massacre would be getting shot in the arm and Dutch shooting Heidi McCourt, not thinking "Oh man, I was getting shot at by the Landon Ricketts".

Even if he did recognize Landon in Mexico (which he probably didn't. There's a lot of cases of people not recognizing well-known celebrities on the street. Plus, Landon was in his 50's or 60's, John would only see pictures of him in his 30's or 40's), then it's likely he's just feigning ignorance. 

 

----1906 is chosen because that is the original year John was left by the gang/left the gang. It was quite known by a fair majority of RDR fans before RDR2 that there was the Botch Bank Robbery of 1906 (I believe there are small mentions of it in the newspaper too of RDR, so if you want to find a quick mention just search there) and that is what [originally] destroyed the gang----

 

This is a common misconception. John never stated that he left the gang in 1906. In fact, he implied it was around a decade ago, according to the mission Great Men Are Not Always Wise:

"I still don't know why the government still gives a damn about what me and Dutch did ten years ago".

 

As for the botched bank robbery of 1906 that broke up the gang.... well that's not true either. According to The Strange Man:

"She (Heidi McCourt was girl Dutch Van der Linde shot in the head on that raid on the ferry a few years back. Same on you got shot on".

Later, John says this in a conversation with Landon Ricketts:

"I left the gang after the gang left me. Left to die after I'd been shot. I got shot in a robbery. They left me, so I left them".

 

The implication here is that, originally, John was suppose to be shot and left to die during the ferry robbery. However, the second game retconned it so that they are two separate events. Technically speaking, nothing is contradicted. John never specified what type of robbery he was shot on and The Strange Man never specified that he was left behind during the ferry robbery. Thus, the developers were able to conveniently make them two separate events.

 

As for the 1906 robbery, the newspaper says this:

"Dutch Van der Linde himself has not been seen nor heard from in several years and despite claims of sightings, is thought to have perished in a fire following a bungled robbery in 1906". 

Here, it's never said that John or even other gang members participated in this robbery, just Dutch. The implication seems to have always been that John left the gang sometime around the early 1900's, while Dutch continued his escapades up until 1906. This more or less lines up with how we see him in 1907.

 

I also wanted to address this point:

----I would have had the game start off in Cochinay (why is it even accessible in RDR2). To have a bit of poetic start to the game (the game starts; where the gang truly ended). I also would have Dutch make remarks about living in a cave (I believe he does in RDR2 though I am not too sure) yet again as a cheeky easter egg----

 

This goes back to my point about subtlety. There are a lot of points in Red Dead Redemption 2 where the game beats you over the head with "Hey! Remember the first game?" On the other hand, the prequel also gave a lot more nuance to the plot of the original without being too overt.

 

Why is Dutch attacking Blackwater specifically? Because that's where the gang's downfall started.

Why does an idiot like Bill know how to run a gang? Because he was in the army and likely has experience leading a squad.

Why does Archer Fordham have a strong dislike of John at first? Because his mother was a victim of the Blackwater Massacre, which was caused by the Van der Linde gang.

Why is Ross treating John rather harshly? Because he saw first hand how much destruction the gang caused.

 

Those are the best parts about the prequel. It added more subtext to the first game. 

Edited January 8, 2021 by Mysterious hero

[Alexlecj]

50 minutes ago, Mysterious hero said:

This is a common misconception. John never stated that he left the gang in 1906. In fact, he implied it was around a decade ago, according to the mission Great Men Are Not Always Wise:

"I still don't know why the government still gives a damn about what me and Dutch did ten years ago".

Never heard that one.

 

Is it when you chase after Dutch with the Bureau and the dialogue is cut out because they spot the damaged automobile?

[Mysterious hero]

13 hours ago, Alexlecj said:

Never heard that one.

 

Is it when you chase after Dutch with the Bureau and the dialogue is cut out because they spot the damaged automobile?

Yes. In the first game, there is extra dialogue if you fail a mission.

[DarkDayz]

On 1/6/2021 at 7:46 AM, XerostarTG said:

Well the way I would have rewritten everything would have been making some changes to other characters, like Arthur (nothing too unexpected/out of character for him [I think he was a fine character just ruined by some writing]). Showing how John, Arthur, and Dutch all really relate (as well as interactions with Jack; since Jack does call Dutch: Uncle Dutch).

 

Dutch:

 

Instead of having Dutch being all kicked back, while the gang does most of his dirty work (thinking must be some really hard work for Dutch, lol; reading books under the shade, too) I think he should have been deeply invested with his family. I say family because I think that one thing that should have been done was showing that the gang saw themselves as a family. Dutch knew that outsiders, even the innocent and commons, would look quite lowly on them as a "ruffian gang"; this would be a part of his personal philosophy (not quite directly connected to his rich vs. poor philosophy; though they [the different thoughts that he has] do of course interact/correlate; otherwise, everything likely would have fallen apart (ideologically).

 

 

Firstly mate, thanks for writing this up, appreciate the time you took to do it. Hope you don't mind but I'd like to discuss further with some of my points, which are of course subjective based on my taste. But hopefully I can sway you on some of them because I think the writing is quite masterful given the constraints they laid upon themselves by making the game a prequel to RDR1.

 

Dutch is the gang leader, I think that's enough justification for him not to do some of the mundane tasks in between key moments where he is involved. This is the entire point of having gang members and trusted guns. I think his contribution during main missions were of a good balance. I also thought this fit his persona quite well of being a literate man, it helped to sell his status of the leader. Secondly, if that were not enough for you, the narrative lets you know countless times throughout the game that the Pinkerton's are after Dutch and Dutch alone, which is why he spends so much time at camp not doing much.

 

In terms of family, I also feel like the balance was right there, especially if you spend time to consume the dialogue options presented outside of missions at camp. I think it was my fourth playthrough where I spent a bit more time in Colter in Chapter 1. There for the first time I listened in on a conversation with Dutch and Hosea, where Dutch tasked Hosea with burying Sadie's husband, which I thought was very noble. Countless moments like this happen throughout the first few chapters when Dutch still exhibits some sort of sanity. Many conversations where he displays behaviours that are quite selfless, with an attempt to contain the unity within his tribe and paint the picture of a family. The best moment for that being when Jack get's kidnapped, I thought this was Dutch's best moment in the game, making his downfall all the more heart-breaking in the end. There is no doubt in my mind that Dutch was a good man and cared deeply for his people before he went off the rails.

 

 

On 1/6/2021 at 7:46 AM, XerostarTG said:

John:

 

I think that they should have kept John's original backstory, but have the whole "he was almost hanged before Dutch saved him" story as a smaller story that happened after he became part of the gang. This would have been a better way to have him become more mature at a younger age, although foolish (since all youth are foolish one way or another), and keep the Marston that we got in RDR2 "away" (so to speak). John should have really been shown to have taken after Dutch, though not so much (maybe because of how much Arthur [in my "rewrite" of the characters] takes after Dutch and John has a bit of childish jealousness; something that was never truly resolved among the two [opposed to John being so cowardly and ungrateful and Arthur being a bit stingy].

 

Arthur: 

 

Arthur (as I have already said) should have taken after Dutch a bit more, in smaller ways. Being the "enforcer" that we got, while also being a "caring strong arm" of the van Der Linde "family/gang". Arthur, for me, just needed a better ending; rather than giving him the cliché "redemption by death" write off.

 

 

I do not quite understand what you mean by his original backstory. All I can think of is that Dutch is portrayed as previously being a father figure to him in the events of RDR1. I still think this rings true when you consider the stories other gang members told of the time in the gang prior to 1899. When Dutch first took in Arthur and John. That's twenty years of gang history we do not know much about, RDR2's gang timeline only covers two years. Hosea and Arthur speak of this a few times throughout the game, as well as Arthur and Charles. It's quite clear Dutch was a father figure to both of them in the beginning, and I don't think the story of RDR2 takes away from that at all.

 

I think although foolish, I do not believe that makes him childish in the events of RDR2. Being a father myself, it's easy to know of the challenges and sacrifices one has to make when having a child. I think John's behaviours are quite realistic. What's important for me is that through Arthur he stepped up to the plate and provided a family a life. I admire his arc in the story and I don't think it subtracts anything from the events or the character of John we see in the first game.

 

As for Arthur, I think he's perfect honestly. With the exception of a few mechanical technicalities of player behaviour not matching narrative behaviour. This is a game issue for me more than a character issue (Ludonarrative dissonance.) In terms of his ending, as I said at the beginning about having constraints, realistically Arthur had to die. Everyone knew he was going to die before they even played the game. The game even goes as far as to let you know he's going to die. The magic in story is how they get to that conclusion, and (with the exception of Guarma) they did an amazing job.

 

 

On 1/6/2021 at 7:46 AM, XerostarTG said:

Others:

 

I also would have cut other characters of the gang out. Hosea (even though he is my favorite gang member) = Dutch's soft and compassionate side. Sean = John's not sitting on his ass side and the slightly funny side. Once I saw that there were almost 25 - 30 gang members (6 times the amount of what was originally told to us), I knew that there was "member inflation" where certain members take characteristics that should have gone to more prominent members, but ended up going to others for no specific reason. From what I could interpret back then (2010 - 2018) Dutch had a family (that also had their distinct ideology and maybe even a culture), Dutch now seems to have had a mobile small town (full of blind idiots). As I have already said Micah should have died (or just be cut out entirely).

 

Yeah I agree. But for me it's a necessary evil. I especially think Hosea could have been a better character with a more tactical use throughout the game, almost like an elder, the only guy that Dutch listens to. They kind of touched on that, but not really deep enough for me. Let's not even get started about Trelawney. 

 

On 1/6/2021 at 7:46 AM, XerostarTG said:

1) The beta hunters believe that Arthur was originally going to have Eliza and Isaac in the mountains and that Isaac would die. I agree with this, both from a caring for our protagonist perspective and also how he could have related to John in this moment. In RDR1 John said he had a daughter but she died. Where is her grave? Where did she die? Well I would have written that would also die in the mountains. This would allow Arthur and John to relate, it would also make John realize that things that he might care about can die/go away.

 

"Some trees die [ie. their daughter], others flourish [ie. Jack]. You know that nothing in life aint fair". - John Marston to Abigail in RDR1

 

He could lose Abigail, Dutch, Jack, for all I care his horse or bedroll at any moment, and once their gone he cannot say words/do things he should have said/done when they were around; this would make John mature further and not show John to be a coward, fool, or ungrateful. He would stand firmly on his beliefs and who/what he cares about (this would pave way to the gang's/Dutch's fall, but also his path to being the John Marston we saw in RDR1). Also in my RDR2 rewrite as a kind of easter egg I would have Abigail say this to John (the tree thing), just to be bittersweet.

 

 

Interesting. I think this could absolutely be added without much impact on the wider narrative present in the game. Definitely. I do feel like one big gaping hole in the tale of the Van Der Linde gang is John's daughter, experiencing that trauma would have been a great way to even further sell the idea of John changing gears for his family and as you say - make him and Arthur more relatable - even if you didn't have Arthur's kids in the mountain.

 

 

On 1/6/2021 at 7:46 AM, XerostarTG said:

2) I would have had the game start off in Cochinay (why is it even accessible in RDR2). To have bit of a poetic start to the game (the game starts; where the gang truly ended). I also would have Dutch make remarks about living in a cave (I believe he does in RDR2 though I am not too sure) yet again as a cheeky easter egg.

 

3) Blackwater Massacre and 1906

 

The big thing that set the story of RDR2 off should not be the Blackwater Massacre. Why? John never makes mention of it. I think he would have been honest, by 1911, about it. Also Landon Ricketts was at the Blackwater Massacre (I believe that is what made him ran away to California and then Mexico), seeing as John was shot we might as well assume Landon shot John (quite coincidental, maybe cool, but it would not make sense). I also would have likely set the game to start in 1896 (to avoid a lot of lore inconsistencies, since the only thing we know about that year is: Jack about 1 - 2 years old, and Landon Ricketts killed the Butcher Brothers in Blackwater) with the gang being in great mood, but something happens in the area north of New Austin (so bringing in new states/territories) and the gang must flee (they do not want to go south east due to tough terrain and Landon's recent killing of the Butcher Brothers), so they head north east instead, since, although a lot of rough mountains, there are not nearly as many trees in Ambarino, as there are in Tall Trees (I would also change this states [Ambarino] name [Anamota maybe], but you get the idea of the terrain aspect). However they have the blizzard, things get rough; Isaac and John's daughter die, but thankfully the law [note: Not Pinkertons] is thrown off. I would have the game have split in time, Arthur gets TB he has to head west (New Austin, Mexico, and other west ward states) he gets a suspicious feeling about how the times might change (in terms of society; also Dutch is still fine he does not go crazy until later and knows of Arthur's illness) and tells John the whole run and don't look back thing. Forward to 1906, you play as John and Dutch is now crazy, this would really let you see what Arthur was warning John about (though Arthur should have given his warning to Dutch) and seeing how the large changes to the west are really crushing Dutch making you feel sorry for him since only an hour ago (real world time) it could have been 1896 and he was fine. Then the Bank Robbery of 1906 happens on the Serendipity (a cruise ship carrying passengers, but the Pinkertons are placing a large sum of cash to lure out Dutch/any other outlaw gangs in West Elizabeth to see if the area still needs "modernization").

 

It's definitely interesting. John doesn't make mention of it sure, but we are dealing with a prequel here and I think it's just a side effect of it not being fleshed out at the time of the first game. There is enough mentions of it though in RDR1, specifically talking about Heidi McCourt, which you could argue is the only true motivating factor behind the whole narrative of the second game. As for how the game starts, I think it's great. I am always one to prefer the fallout as opposed to the explosion and the Massacre was the only thing really that fits for that. I think mechanically it works for a game as well because you therefore are starting at the bottom, after something has gone wrong. Arthur's kids being present at the beginning and then dying. I mean this is great, but that causes all kinds of narrative headaches in terms of his motivation of doing good. He's doing it because he hasn't much time left and is rushing to make things right, not because his family dies. I think that's also more realistic and emotionally charged. Anyway, thanks!