Jump to content

RDR III – A Narrative Overview


Guest

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Space Cowboy said:

I am honestly surprised so many people here would like another game with the Van Der Linde gang instead of a new cast of characters.


I am not in favour of either. I am indifferent. My argument really is the work they have done to unify the narratives of both games and seemingly ignoring Red Dead Revolver in the series’ chronology. It makes it very difficult for me to foresee the next title not being RDRIII and a continuation of the story in some way making the ultimate gaming trilogy. It would feel almost odd to do anything else at this point, at least for me and only relevant to the next game.

 

It’s like them releasing Star Wars Episode III and it has nothing to do with the prior two. Weird.

 

I think the possibility of a completely new story and new characters will only happen after the next game, and that’s if they think it’s appropriate to further explore the genre past the next game. Which I think they won’t personally. I think they’ll be done after the next one.

 

But that said, there are ways to unify it and still get what you’re asking for. Reliving the years of RDRI but from the perspective of Sadie and her journey. That’s something I’d like. Obviously it would have no affiliation with anything revolving around Dutch or the map we know.

 

Edited by DarkDayz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agent Edward
1 hour ago, DarkDayz said:


I am not in favour of either. I am indifferent. My argument really is the work they have done to unify the narratives of both games and seemingly ignoring Red Dead Revolver in the series’ chronology. It makes it very difficult for me to foresee the next title not being RDRIII and a continuation of the story in some way making the ultimate gaming trilogy. It would feel almost odd to do anything else at this point, at least for me and only relevant to the next game.

 

It’s like them releasing Star Wars Episode III and it has nothing to do with the prior two. Weird.

 

I think the possibility of a completely new story and new characters will only happen after the next game, and that’s if they think it’s appropriate to further explore the genre past the next game. Which I think they won’t personally. I think they’ll be done after the next one.

 

But that said, there are ways to unify it and still get what you’re asking for. Reliving the years of RDRI but from the perspective of Sadie and her journey. That’s something I’d like. Obviously it would have no affiliation with anything revolving around Dutch or the map we know.

 

I think the next Red Dead game will be the last one too, GTA will always exist of course, but alongside it perhaps Rockstar will move to a sci-fi franchise like Half-Life or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I always liked about Jacks story is that whatever happens to him after he kills Ross is up to the players interpretation, and I think its a perfect final moment in the timeline in 1914. 

 

Jack also appears to be quite disturbed (rightly so) when you play as him during shootouts with lines like: 

  • I hate lawmen more than anything!
  • I got nothin' to live for, anyway!
  • My ma would turn in her grave.
  • I wasn't always like this, miss.
  • This what I've become? A horse killer?

Even if Jacks story played out 25 years prior so it still takes place in "the wild west", it wouldnt really be realistic to give him a redemption-arc since he himself blew the chance he got when he went back for Ross - something none of the people who cared for him would've wanted. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigBoyBertram
25 minutes ago, Jisoo said:

What I always liked about Jacks story is that whatever happens to him after he kills Ross is up to the players interpretation, and I think its a perfect final moment in the timeline in 1914. 

 

Jack also appears to be quite disturbed (rightly so) when you play as him during shootouts with lines like: 

  • I hate lawmen more than anything!
  • I got nothin' to live for, anyway!
  • My ma would turn in her grave.
  • I wasn't always like this, miss.
  • This what I've become? A horse killer?

Even if Jacks story played out 25 years prior so it still takes place in "the wild west", it wouldnt really be realistic to give him a redemption-arc since he himself blew the chance he got when he went back for Ross - something none of the people who cared for him would've wanted. 

 

EXACTLY!

 

Most people that are interested in a Jack Marston game just want an early Mafia type game with maybe a section where you get to be in WWI. It's an interesting time period, but it shouldn't be a Red Dead game, at least not a game following Jack Marston. 

 

Some things are better left unsaid, and what happens to Jack Marston is one of those. The point of Red Dead Redemption's ending and why it was so powerful was because he threw away his future to do something that didn't even satisfy him in the end. No game set after he kills Ross would ever be as coherent and impactful. 

  • Like 2
  • Bruh 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agent Edward
9 hours ago, BigBoyBertram said:

 

EXACTLY!

 

Most people that are interested in a Jack Marston game just want an early Mafia type game with maybe a section where you get to be in WWI. It's an interesting time period, but it shouldn't be a Red Dead game, at least not a game following Jack Marston. 

 

Some things are better left unsaid, and what happens to Jack Marston is one of those. The point of Red Dead Redemption's ending and why it was so powerful was because he threw away his future to do something that didn't even satisfy him in the end. No game set after he kills Ross would ever be as coherent and impactful. 

But thinking about it, Jack is the only character who appears in all time periods of Redemption 1 and Redemption 2: 1899, 1907, 1911 and 1914. Indirectly Jack is the main character of both games, he is one of the only three remaining gunslingers from the Van der Linde gang who survives alongside Charles and Sadie, in my opinion he deserves a game of his own. Also the game being set between 1914 and 1918 don't mean Jack has to fight in World War 1, he is a outlaw and could very well don't give a damn if he is recruited or not.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BigBoyBertram
26 minutes ago, Edward RDRIII said:

But thinking about it, Jack is the only character who appears in all time periods of Redemption 1 and Redemption 2: 1899, 1907, 1911 and 1914. Indirectly Jack is the main character of both games, he is one of the only three remaining gunslingers from the Van der Linde gang who survives alongside Charles and Sadie, in my opinion he deserves a game of his own. Also the game being set between 1914 and 1918 don't mean Jack has to fight in World War 1, he is a outlaw and could very well don't give a damn if he is recruited or not.

 

Honestly man, I'd just worry they'd mess it up. Red Dead Redemption ended so perfectly I'd hate for that legacy and impact to be diminished. But yeah, it is pretty interesting that Jack is the only character to be in every time period, except for one other character.  Do you know who that character is? Edgar Ross. SPOOKY

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jisoo said:

What I always liked about Jacks story is that whatever happens to him after he kills Ross is up to the players interpretation, and I think its a perfect final moment in the timeline in 1914. 

 

Jack also appears to be quite disturbed (rightly so) when you play as him during shootouts with lines like: 

  • I hate lawmen more than anything!
  • I got nothin' to live for, anyway!
  • My ma would turn in her grave.
  • I wasn't always like this, miss.
  • This what I've become? A horse killer?

Even if Jacks story played out 25 years prior so it still takes place in "the wild west", it wouldnt really be realistic to give him a redemption-arc since he himself blew the chance he got when he went back for Ross - something none of the people who cared for him would've wanted. 

 

18 hours ago, BigBoyBertram said:

Some things are better left unsaid, and what happens to Jack Marston is one of those. The point of Red Dead Redemption's ending and why it was so powerful was because he threw away his future to do something that didn't even satisfy him in the end. No game set after he kills Ross would ever be as coherent and impactful. 

 

Yes exactly that. After RDRI and RDRII respectively, Jack's decision becomes really unlikeable and his character is unsalvageable really. I wouldn't want to play as him even if I could.

 

8 hours ago, Edward RDRIII said:

But thinking about it, Jack is the only character who appears in all time periods of Redemption 1 and Redemption 2: 1899, 1907, 1911 and 1914. Indirectly Jack is the main character of both games, he is one of the only three remaining gunslingers from the Van der Linde gang who survives alongside Charles and Sadie, in my opinion he deserves a game of his own. Also the game being set between 1914 and 1918 don't mean Jack has to fight in World War 1, he is a outlaw and could very well don't give a damn if he is recruited or not.

 

American's did not join nor draft into WW1 until 1917 anyway, so they do have three years to play with. A lot of people state that the war starts right as RDR1 ends, but for some reason unbeknownst to me, they have literally no idea that it takes place in Europe and Woodrow Wilson pledged neutrality, until the German's were ruthless in submarine warfare and Woodrow Wilson practically had no choice but to declared war on Germany in 1917. American public opinion wasn't shared, they did not want to join. In May 1917, because of a lack of trained volunteers, the Selective Service Act was passed which required all men in the U.S between the age of 21-30 to register for military service. Within a few months of that, they had 100 million registrations in response. By the end of the war in 1918, this number grew to 24 million men. Because of the nature of the age criteria, 21 year olds would be conscribed first, 22 and so on. So Jack would be fairly high up on the priority list if he did register, which personally I don't think he would have. The number for American's who actually served is 4.8 million despite 10 million registrants, 2.8 of those were through the Selective Service Act. With all that said we can't say for sure if Jack would have actually got involved, hell, he was 19 in 1914, which probably puts him around 21-22 at time of conscription which is an ideal age. However, he had survival skills and could have easily dodged the draft, which I think he would have given his hatred for the government. He spent his entire life running from the law, and then watched them kill everyone he loved in cold blood. I just don't think that's a good motivation to sign up to the army.

 

Edited by DarkDayz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agent Edward
7 hours ago, BigBoyBertram said:

 

Honestly man, I'd just worry they'd mess it up. Red Dead Redemption ended so perfectly I'd hate for that legacy and impact to be diminished. But yeah, it is pretty interesting that Jack is the only character to be in every time period, except for one other character.  Do you know who that character is? Edgar Ross. SPOOKY

Oh yeah, I forgot about Ross, what I think Rockstar could do with Jack is turn him into a weapons, drugs or vehicles smuggler. RDR1 touches on the opium drug deals with one of its side missions, there's also the World War 1 weapons and vehicles being exported to other countries even before the americans joined the war, the vehicles weren't that good yet, which still gives horses more use than them on rough terrains, but the weapons were getting even more powerful than the ones his father and Arthur were used to, which would let us see how Jack with his gunslinger skills would make the best of them, he don't got nothing left to loose, which could make him more violent than any of the Van der Linde gang characters, a mix between Arthur and Micah, depending of the situation. This RDR3 would take place from the Yukon, which he already went there before with his family, all the way to the Baja California Sur, exploring the western coast of the three main countries of North America.

Edited by Edward RDRIII
Comment corrected.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agent Edward
50 minutes ago, DarkDayz said:

 

 

Yes exactly that. After RDRI and RDRII respectively, Jack's decision becomes really unlikeable and his character is unsalvageable really. I wouldn't want to play as him even if I could.

 

 

American's did not join nor draft into WW1 until 1917 anyway, so they do have three years to play with. A lot of people state that the war starts right as RDR1 ends, but for some reason unbeknownst to me have literally no idea that it takes place in Europe and Woodrow Wilson pledged neutrality, until the German's were ruthless in submarine warfare and Woodrow Wilson practically had no choice but to declared war on Germany in 1917. American public opinion wasn't shared, they did not want to join. In May 1917, because of a lack of trained volunteers, the Selective Service Act was passed which required all men in the U.S between the age of 21-30 to register for military service. Within a few months of that, they had 100 million registrations in response by the end of the war in 1918, this number grew to 24 million men. Because of the nature of the age criteria, 21 year olds would be conscribed first, 22 and so on. So Jack would be fairly high up on the priority list if he did register, which personally I don't think he would have. The number for American's who actually served is 4.8 million despite 10 million registrants, 2.8 of those were through the Selective Service Act. With all that said we can't say for sure if Jack would have actually got involved, hell, he was 19 in 1914, which probably puts him around 21-22 at time of conscription which is an ideal age. However, he had survival skills and could have easily dodged the draft, which I think he would have given his hatred for the government. He spent his entire life running from the law, and then watched them kill everyone he loved in cold blood. I just don't think that's a good motivation to sign up to the army.

 

If anything his hatred for the system could just make him into a brand new Dutch van der Linde, either mostly alone by himself or creating a gang not to fight change anymore, because change has already came, but simply to get rich and give others like him, which lives have been ruined by the government, a chance to fight back and survive from it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Edward RDRIII said:

Oh yeah, I forgot about Ross, what I think Rockstar could do with Jack is turn him into a weapons, drugs or vehicles smuggler. RDR1 touches on the opium drug deals with one of its side missions, there's also the World War 1 weapons and vehicles being exported to other countries even before the americans joined the war, the vehicles weren't that good yet, which still gives horses more use than them on rough terrains, but the weapons were getting even more powerful than the ones his father and Arthur were used to, which would let us see how Jack with his gunslinger skills would make the best of them, he don't got nothing left to loose, which could make him more violent than any of the Van der Linde gang characters, a mix between Arthur and Micah, depending of the situation. This RDR3 would take place from the Yukon, which he already went there before with his family, all the way to the Baja California Sur, exploring the western coast of the three main countries of North America.

 

6 hours ago, Edward RDRIII said:

If anything his hatred for the system could just make him into a brand new Dutch van der Linde, either mostly alone by himself or creating a gang not to fight change anymore, because change has already came, but simply to get rich and give others like him, which lives have been ruined by the government, a chance to fight back and survive from it.

 

Honestly I just don't see Jack surviving past 1920. The luxury his father and Arthur had is that Dutch steered them right in their young foolishness and they had a unit to protect them should anything go wrong. His days were always numbered as far as I'm concerned. We have to remember that Arthur and John ran with a gang for 20 or so years for them to hold their own like they do. John literally only started teaching him to use a weapon before the end of the game. I just don't see Jack living long. When you think of it he probably should have died soon after his mother. The only reason he didn't is so that there was someone to play after John died if we're honest, plot convenience.

 

Edited by DarkDayz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agent Edward
9 hours ago, DarkDayz said:

 

 

Honestly I just don't see Jack surviving past 1920. The luxury his father and Arthur had is that Dutch steered them right in their young foolishness and they had a unit to protect them should anything go wrong. His days were always numbered as far as I'm concerned. We have to remember that Arthur and John ran with a gang for 20 or so years for them to hold their own like they do. John literally only started teaching him to use a weapon before the end of the game. I just don't see Jack living long. When you think of it he probably should have died soon after his mother. The only reason he didn't is so that there was someone to play after John died if we're honest, plot convenience.

 

Now you're underestimating him too much, John taught him the essential surviving skills. Also, if Dutch managed to start a gang of his own and become a "shield" for Arthur and John, why can't Jack do the same and become this shield to his people too? Dutch wasn't always old and experienced, he ran away from home still as a kid and managed to survive until he was 56 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/28/2022 at 6:22 AM, Edward RDRIII said:

Now you're underestimating him too much, John taught him the essential surviving skills. Also, if Dutch managed to start a gang of his own and become a "shield" for Arthur and John, why can't Jack do the same and become this shield to his people too? Dutch wasn't always old and experienced, he ran away from home still as a kid and managed to survive until he was 56 years old.


Yeah you’re probably right. But I think Dutch by nature of his upbringing is far more intelligent than the gang or Jack. At least before desperation got him. I just don’t think Jack is smart. We see he isn’t a few years before we play as him in some of Johns last missions, and then that bad decision he made. It’s not so much about his ability to survive, just his foolishness and probability of getting himself into a situation that nobody could walk away from.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agent Edward
8 hours ago, DarkDayz said:


Yeah you’re probably right. But I think Dutch by nature of his upbringing is far more intelligent than the gang or Jack. At least before desperation got him. I just don’t think Jack is smart. We see he isn’t a few years before we play as him in some of Johns last missions, and then that bad decision he made. It’s not so much about his ability to survive, just his foolishness and probability of getting himself into a situation that nobody could walk away from.

 

I'm sure John and Arthur also made some poor choices and had to be saved by Dutch or Hosea when they still were young too, Dutch saved John from being killed after he killed a man when he was just 12 years old, you normally don't get born with enough intelligence and skills for a lifetime, you earn them with time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Edward RDRIII said:

I'm sure John and Arthur also made some poor choices and had to be saved by Dutch or Hosea when they still were young too, Dutch saved John from being killed after he killed a man when he was just 12 years old, you normally don't get born with enough intelligence and skills for a lifetime, you earn them with time.


Exactly that and it’s my original point. Jack at 19 does not have said mentors and protection. He’s alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agent Edward
4 hours ago, DarkDayz said:


Exactly that and it’s my original point. Jack at 19 does not have said mentors and protection. He’s alone.

Neither had Dutch back then, so perhaps he have to rely on luck or find someone older than him, like Hosea was to Dutch, to teach him what he needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2022 at 5:52 PM, Edward RDRIII said:

Neither had Dutch back then, so perhaps he have to rely on luck or find someone older than him, like Hosea was to Dutch, to teach him what he needs.

 

I guess I'm clutching at nothing here. But it's just my opinion.

 

Anyway, side note...

 

How do you think Dutch survived for so long on his own. It's interesting what he got up to until he met Hosea. Especially in and around Chicago during that time period.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DarkDayz said:

 

I guess I'm clutching at nothing here. But it's just my opinion.

 

Anyway, side note...

 

How do you think Dutch survived for so long on his own. It's interesting what he got up to until he met Hosea. Especially in and around Chicago during that time period.

 

I guess he was forced to develop his fancy words early to survive without combat experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Väinämöinen

R* is going to finish the trilogy at somepoint, i get a feeling that Sam Houser can't live with himself if he doesn't finish the RDR trilogy. And im quite sure it is going to be another prequel.

 

I don't see the story taking place right before the Blackwater heist, although it is an interesting idea to have Mac Callander as a protagonist and betraying the gang for 30 pieces of silver. Maybe Davey was in on it too but he just got caught in the crossfire and died. Good idea though.

 

Both games has been more in the "fall"-category, than in the "rise"-category. So i think that the 3rd part must be dedicated on rise of the Van Der Linde gang. Dutch or Hosea as a protagonist would be pretty awesome but i think that there is going to be a new character. New protagonist who would probably be the 2nd recruit in the gang since Arthur was the 1st, other members would be younger Pearson/Strauss/Uncle, John a as teenager, Callander brothers, Miss Grimshaw, Annabelle, Bessie and maybe Eliza or Mary GILLIS. Couple of new characters could be part of the gang as well and first encounters with Sean, Swanson & Trelawny.

 

The story would set between 1887-1889, when the Van Der Linde gang gain their notority. First bank heist in 1887 would be one of the missions in the game and that would later lead up to a major gang war against the O'Driscoll's. Because Colm and his brother was also going to rob the same bank and to enrage the O'Driscoll's even more, Dutch gives the gold to the poor and after that this becomes cat and mouse game. Van Der Linde keeps following the O'Driscoll's from the distance and always rob's the bank before the O'Driscoll's does, or steals the money or the gold from the stash what O'Driscoll's use(this latter one is taken from a deleted scene from the Good, the Bad & the Ugly). Annabelle and the new protagonist dies and some minor characters as well in the last chapter. Young Arthur becomes protagonist and in the final mission the gang hunt's down the O'Driscoll brothers, kills the brother but Colm manages to escape with tail between his legs.

 

Whole new map naturally and i would hope that the new protagonist is more ruthless. Only "flaw" that Arthur and John have is that they are too nice guys after all, every time i play the honor meter is full. I can't commit heinous crimes with them.

Edited by Väinämöinen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking the writers did a great job in giving us little pieces of information and lore regarding the characters past which can be expanded upon in RDR3. Most of it is optional via the campfire conversations and just random dialogue, and a lot of it I didnt find until my 3/4th playthrough. Its unclear if they had RDR2 in mind when writing RDR1, but its likely they atleast had a rough idea how RDR3 will be when writing RDR2. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jisoo said:

Generally speaking the writers did a great job in giving us little pieces of information and lore regarding the characters past which can be expanded upon in RDR3. Most of it is optional via the campfire conversations and just random dialogue, and a lot of it I didnt find until my 3/4th playthrough. Its unclear if they had RDR2 in mind when writing RDR1, but its likely they atleast had a rough idea how RDR3 will be when writing RDR2. 

 

They started thinking about RDR2 about a month before RDR1 released iirc, but they still made some changes to the lore, if RDR2 followed RDR1's lore 100% its story would be set in 1906 instead of 1899 (with its epilogue set around 1910 instead of 1907), John's daughter would exist (maybe she still exists off screen at some point) and West Elizabeth's railroad would be finished and connected to New Austin, those are the main things which comes to my mind right now, but there's probably one or another I forgot. I don't really mind those lore changes by the way, they're really minor and understandable, and before someone mentions MacFarlane's Ranch barn missing from RDR2, that's probably just a oversight imo, I'm not the kind of guy to get crazy about a missing barn, trust me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lemoyne outlaw
On 10/11/2022 at 8:59 AM, Väinämöinen said:

Whole new map naturally and i would hope that the new protagonist is more ruthless. Only "flaw" that Arthur and John have is that they are too nice guys after all, every time i play the honor meter is full. I can't commit heinous crimes with them.

arthur and john were nice guys to people in their own gang. but when you see how they act towards strangers they get very mean. they rob so many innocent folks. from the bank robberies. stagecoach robberies. and train robberies. not to mention them killing so many lawmen and soldiers. they are not nice guys in the eyes of the law. sure they do some good things here and there. but i wouldn't call them nice guys. arthur literally beats up a professor because mayor lemieux was using fake paintings. and he wanted them in a museum. i love arthur and john. but to call them good guys is a bit silly. i feel like we played two very different games. 

  • Like 1
  • Realistic Steak! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Lemoyne outlaw said:

arthur and john were nice guys to people in their own gang. but when you see how they act towards strangers they get very mean. they rob so many innocent folks. from the bank robberies. stagecoach robberies. and train robberies. not to mention them killing so many lawmen and soldiers. they are not nice guys in the eyes of the law. sure they do some good things here and there. but i wouldn't call them nice guys. arthur literally beats up a professor because mayor lemieux was using fake paintings. and he wanted them in a museum. i love arthur and john. but to call them good guys is a bit silly. i feel like we played two very different games. 

Arthur can literally kill every single enemy in Chapter 1 just to not leave a single possible witness of the things they do up in Ambarino, depending of the players choices he can be much worse than what the games makes you do obligatorily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/11/2022 at 10:52 PM, Edward RDRIII said:

John's daughter would exist (maybe she still exists off screen at some point)

When is it most likely she was born and died? When I replayed RDR1 a few months ago I noticed when you jail Javier, he says to John "I hope your wife and children rot in hell". Continuity error? Javier last talked to John in 1899. She obviously isnt alive in 1911, but was she born and died between 1899 and 1907 or between 1907 and 1911? If the latter, why doesnt she have a grave?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Jisoo said:

When is it most likely she was born and died? When I replayed RDR1 a few months ago I noticed when you jail Javier, he says to John "I hope your wife and children rot in hell". Continuity error? Javier last talked to John in 1899. She obviously isnt alive in 1911, but was she born and died between 1899 and 1907 or between 1907 and 1911? If the latter, why doesnt she have a grave?

John didn't believe Jack was his son for a while (and he isn't lol), so if he had a daughter with Abigail prior to 1899 he wouldn't think she is his daughter just the same. So either John had a daughter with other woman before 1899 or with Abigail after 1907, considering they never mention her at all during the game, so it definitely didn't happen between 1899 and 1907.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Edward RDRIII said:

So either John had a daughter with other woman before 1899 or with Abigail after 1907, considering they never mention her at all during the game, so it definitely didn't happen between 1899 and 1907.

There is a chance he had a daughter with another woman prior to 1899 when he was away from the gang who died very young, and that made him indirectly return to Jack and the rest. I dont think Abigail ever mentions having another child and whenever John speaks about her, Abigail isnt around. 

 

What contradicts that is in the mission Women and Cattle he says "I had a daughter, but she died. Years before that I rode in a gang", implying years has passed between his time in the gang and his daughters passing. Obviously this is super nitpicky, but I think its an interesting plotpoint that was never touched on in RDR2.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jisoo said:

There is a chance he had a daughter with another woman prior to 1899 when he was away from the gang who died very young, and that made him indirectly return to Jack and the rest. I dont think Abigail ever mentions having another child and whenever John speaks about her, Abigail isnt around. 

 

What contradicts that is in the mission Women and Cattle he says "I had a daughter, but she died. Years before that I rode in a gang", implying years has passed between his time in the gang and his daughters passing. Obviously this is super nitpicky, but I think its an interesting plotpoint that was never touched on in RDR2.

So maybe it happened when he fled the gang for 1 year, interesting... You know why this is the correct answer? Because John and Abigail never talk about her on RDR1 when they're together, not even Jack ever mentions her, John only mentions her to Bonnie, it's his secret from his time away from the gang.

Edited by Edward RDRIII
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John mentions her to Luisa in the mission Father Abraham too (this is the first time we hear Jacks name).

Its probable that more gang members have children outside the gang/deceased. With the exception of Jack and Mary-Beth Williams in GTA Vice City stories, theres no kids present in Rockstar' games and they would need to be limited to cutscenes or handled the way Jack is. I quite liked when Arthur spoke about Isaac in chapter 6, although Rains Fall hunger for ginseng kinda ruined it lol

  • KEKW 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Jisoo said:

John mentions her to Luisa in the mission Father Abraham too (this is the first time we hear Jacks name).

Its probable that more gang members have children outside the gang/deceased. With the exception of Jack and Mary-Beth Williams in GTA Vice City stories, theres no kids present in Rockstar' games and they would need to be limited to cutscenes or handled the way Jack is. I quite liked when Arthur spoke about Isaac in chapter 6, although Rains Fall hunger for ginseng kinda ruined it lol

Yeah, Rains Fall the ginseng harvester lol. I didn't remember he also mentioned her to Luisa, anyway what you think about this theory? Do you think he had a daughter when he fled the gang before 1899 with other woman or in some other time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever since playing it in 2010 I always imagined she died right before the game took place, but I think all three options are possible. Atleast theres no indisputable evidence to disprove them.

 

Been thinking of starting my 6th playthrough and 5th 100% of RDR2. Whenever I play I often start to think about their backstories and what the characters went through prior to 1899. Perhaps one day we will get the answer to some of it if its indeed set around 1890 with the gang. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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.