What didn't you like about RDR2?

[Sneaky Queeky]

I don't like that the default poker players in camp are always John, Uncle and Pearson. You can play with Strauss, Susan and Swanson, but to have any of them play you have to start the poker game while one of John, Uncle or Pearson are not in camp/busy at a mission. 

 

I have only managed to get Swanson in one game in all these years. It's just nice to have different dialogue for once. 

Edited June 9, 2023 by SneakyDeaky

[Dmk86BG]

Since you mentioned Pearson…
I wish there were more missions with Pearson.
Another thing they could have done better...

[billiejoearmstrong8]

On 6/9/2023 at 9:44 AM, SneakyDeaky said:

I don't like that the default poker players in camp are always John, Uncle and Pearson. You can play with Strauss, Susan and Swanson, but to have any of them play you have to start the poker game while one of John, Uncle or Pearson are not in camp/busy at a mission. 

 

I have only managed to get Swanson in one game in all these years. It's just nice to have different dialogue for once. 

I've played poker with Lenny before as well. No idea of the conditions needed for it though. 

[billiejoearmstrong8]

I just found out if you take too long (like, a few moments) to make the choice of whether to go with John or go back for the money in Arthur's final mission, it f*cking chooses for you! And in my (low honour) playthrough at least it chooses the worse option that I didn't want of going back for the money! Why would they do that????????????? I just wanted to wait for dramatic effect and to see if there was more dialogue. Now I have to reload the save and start the whole mission again ruining the atmosphere. What an incredibly stupid thing to include. Heaven forbid someone wants to think about the most important choice in the game for a few moments.

[Sneaky Queeky]

On 6/13/2023 at 5:06 PM, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I've played poker with Lenny before as well. No idea of the conditions needed for it though. 

Yeah, I forgot to mention Lenny. You actually get a fetch quest from him during Poker I think. 

[Totallycasual]

I hate that my weapons kept getting put away each time was on my horse for more than 10 seconds, what made it even more infuriating is that the system would forget your weapon and ammunition preferences all the time so you were constantly needing to reselect your choices.  On the same kind of beef, i hate it when story missions start and they take your favorite weapons away and equip you with sh*tty non modded/customized versions of a weapon that you already had, just let us do story missions with the weapons we have equipped, if we start with a loadout that makes completing a mission impossible, that's our fault and we can just restart. 

 

I know that your preferences are meant to be locked in via the menu at the gun store, it just never seemed to work for me. 

[Dmk86BG]

In most cases, this is fixable. But the bad thing is that  on some missions the game just chooses the weapons by itself.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is some kind of bug. Because everything is random.
And it can happen in the middle of a mission, after loading a save…
You can improve things to some extent. Leave some of the weapons in the stash, those you intend to use - on the horse. This will reduce the chances of switching weapons to ones you don't like. At least they won't be without upgrades.
 

Edited June 17, 2023 by Dmk86BG

[drdrimes]

I don't like that the only high stakes card game available is a rigged one in a mission, I wanna be a degenerate gambler, not some money saving grub. If I want to gain what I lost, I'll rob outlaws or a train

Edited June 17, 2023 by Drimes

[Sneaky Queeky]

Not enough ladders in St Denis. I want to climb and run around on those great, detailed buildings. The recent thread posted here showing a player having to go to fun but crazy lengths to have to scale some of the buildings there just kind of depressed me. 

 

I like climbing stuff. I still play ASS CREED because I like the parkour, not because I think Ubisoft has ever written a story that could hold my attention for more than a couple hours. 

 

It also ruined so many photo opportunities and free roam combat with the law. 

 

[AgroDaCheese]

The game is unfinished. No, I will not elaborate.

[Agent Edward]

On 6/24/2023 at 3:12 PM, AgroDaCheese said:

The game is unfinished. No, I will not elaborate.

No need, this is exactly why, despite being my favorite game ever, RDR2 is still a 9,5/10 for me, from small cut things such as being able to equip quivers on Arthur and horseshoes on his horses to bigger things such as the Gaptooth Breach mine being unfinished, just like Guarma. RDR2 should've been released in 2019, 1 year later, but Take-Two probably were having none of it and wanted Rockstar to switch their focus to GTA6 as soon as possible by 2018, it's still a better game than RDR1, but with a lot of unifished/cut content.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Edward RDRIII

[Sneaky Queeky]

On 6/9/2023 at 9:44 AM, SneakyDeaky said:

I don't like that the default poker players in camp are always John, Uncle and Pearson. You can play with Strauss, Susan and Swanson, but to have any of them play you have to start the poker game while one of John, Uncle or Pearson are not in camp/busy at a mission. 

 

I have only managed to get Swanson in one game in all these years. It's just nice to have different dialogue for once. 

I just managed to get Susan, Strauss and Swanson to play poker, because I started it right at the moment John was telling a story at the campfire, which included Pearson and Uncle, so there's one way to get it to work. 

 

Susan wiped the floor with me and told me to go and play dominos with Tilly. 

[Emmi]

1) That they lied or tricked us into believing that the story takes Arthur and the gang to New Austin, Blackwater, etc. by showing scenes from that in the pre-release footage (even in the gameplay trailer!).

2) John Marston being made into Arthur Marston as soon as the player controls him. I will never understand this decision.

3) No official option to close the winter coat.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Emmi

[The-Ghost]

On 6/9/2023 at 9:49 AM, Dmk86BG said:

Since you mentioned Pearson…
I wish there were more missions with Pearson.
Another thing they could have done better...

and Miss Grimshaw 

[Ballbreaker_]

The campaign is way too long.

 

I liked the Epilogue, but it's unnecessary. Chapter 1 and 5 could've been cut in half.

 

The story is mostly about Chapter 6, with Arthur battling tuberculosis and finding redemption. This is where we should've spent most of our gameplay time.

[Lemoyne outlaw]

1 hour ago, FamousActor_ said:

The story is mostly about Chapter 6, with Arthur battling tuberculosis and finding redemption. This is where we should've spent most of our gameplay time.

if you're saying that we should have spent most of the game in roanoke ridge. then I'm saying oh heck no to that. roanoke is easily the worst part of the map. it doesn't feel western at all. and at that point of the story a lot of gang members have died. and the camp is so depressing. plus the murfree broods are such a stupid and annoying gang. at least the odriscoll gang and lemoyne raiders are interesting gangs to fight. i can't imagine spending the whole game in chapter 6.

[Agent Edward]

12 hours ago, Lemoyne outlaw said:

if you're saying that we should have spent most of the game in roanoke ridge. then I'm saying oh heck no to that. roanoke is easily the worst part of the map. it doesn't feel western at all. and at that point of the story a lot of gang members have died. and the camp is so depressing. plus the murfree broods are such a stupid and annoying gang. at least the odriscoll gang and lemoyne raiders are interesting gangs to fight. i can't imagine spending the whole game in chapter 6.

I always laugh when I see someone saying that a place don't look western just because it isn't a open area or a desert lol, but I agree that the game shouldn't be mostly based in Chapter 6's post-diagnosis redemption theme, it's surprising enough that Arthur managed to fight for so long after getting sick during one single chapter, now imagine how unrealistic it would be if he spent half of the game or more fighting in this state.

[Lemoyne outlaw]

5 hours ago, Edward RDRIII said:

I always laugh when I see someone saying that a place don't look western just because it isn't a open area or a desert lol

you didn't fully read my post. where did i say that a place doesn't look western just because it's not a desert or open? what part of roanoke feels western? yes you are right. not every western has to have a desert or open area. big valley and tall trees are a perfect example of it. big valley is neither a desert or open area. but when i go to big valley i automatically feel like I'm in the west. in fact epilogue 1 is such a great chapter because you finally get to spend a lot of time out west after spending a lot of time in the east. even strawberry feels more like a western town than annesburg or van horn. from the trees and the snow covered mount shann. even lake owanjila looks a lot like the lake tahoe area.

 

there is very little if anything at all that makes roanoke feel western. roanoke looks and feels more Appalachian. i grew up near the Appalachian Mountains. and from the many times i went there i can easily tell that roanoke looks a lot like it. roanoke looks like a countryside in the east. big valley looks like a countryside in the west. they both look different. but hey if you think roanoke feels western let me know what part of it does. maybe it will open my eyes up to something i never saw or paid attention to.

[Ballbreaker_]

On 7/17/2023 at 8:30 PM, Lemoyne outlaw said:

if you're saying that we should have spent most of the game in roanoke ridge. then I'm saying oh heck no to that. roanoke is easily the worst part of the map. it doesn't feel western at all. and at that point of the story a lot of gang members have died. and the camp is so depressing. plus the murfree broods are such a stupid and annoying gang. at least the odriscoll gang and lemoyne raiders are interesting gangs to fight. i can't imagine spending the whole game in chapter 6.

 

I believe the whole point of the game is that the gang's behavior is moving them further away from their place in the west. They're actually going in the opposite direction, closer and closer to

civilization.

 

You might personally dislike the setting of Chapter 6, but you can't fight against the story you're being told since the beginning.

Edited July 24, 2023 by FamousActor_

[Agent Edward]

9 hours ago, FamousActor_ said:

 

I believe the whole point of the game is that the gang's behavior is moving them further away from their place in the west. They're actually going in the opposite direction, closer and closer to

civilization.

 

You might personally dislike the setting of Chapter 6, but you can't fight against the story you're being told since the beginning.

Also, if we pay attention every camp we end up at in every chapter before the epilogue is in a lower altitute terrain, which represents the gang's integrity slowly sinking, from Colter (high in the mountains) all the way to Lakay (literally in the mud), eventually reaching its ultimate damnation in Beaver Hollow's cave, which is where Arthur dies (his death obviously represents the death of the original Van der Linde gang). It's a pretty clever writing from Rockstar's part.

[Lemoyne outlaw]

On 7/24/2023 at 12:41 PM, FamousActor_ said:

 

I believe the whole point of the game is that the gang's behavior is moving them further away from their place in the west. They're actually going in the opposite direction, closer and closer to

civilization.

 

You might personally dislike the setting of Chapter 6, but you can't fight against the story you're being told since the beginning.

but i CAN fight against it. i can always skip it. my past few playthroughs of my story i have just skipped chapter 6 and started over again. chapter 6 is such a slow and boring chapter to get through. sure arthur inevitably dies. but since i own the game i can choose where i want to be in the story. i can even make my own story. i can choose to keep arthur from going to the downes ranch. there is a lot of freedom in this game.

[Jeansowaty]

I wish Javier and Bill weren't such wasted potential. They're two of the three surviving gang members in the first game and in RDR2 instead it's mostly Sadie and Charles, I genuinely am tired of these two and I hoped Javier and Bill would've been more prominent. Instead Bill was just dumbed down to "haha he gay haha funny Marion he so stupid" jokes and Javier's role was tampered by his freaking voice actor but beyond being the epic Mexicano he also doesn't have much going on for himself.

 

Also I would've liked it better if Dutch was a bit more inspired and not just rehashing all his dialogue he had in the first game. On one hand I do like it since it is quite poetic and shows what a fraudulent con the man is but on the other hand... they seriously didn't have to overdo it. Like that speech at the cliffs where he and Arthur fall down into the water, it takes away SO MUCH from his final speech during ATTWSYF... still an impressive character and def one of my favorites ever written by R*.

 

One thing I genuinely hate is that Micah is such a piece of sh*t right off the bat and that we just KNOW this f*ck will sell you out and be a constant thorn to your side, yet you gotta wait like one hundred missions until you kill him. Showing who the main bad guy is right from the beginning is imo bad writing and unfortunately R* has been guilty of this quite many times so far, maybe that is why I love how subversive GTA4 was with Darko and Dimitri, you start the game and you think Dardan will be the bad guy, then it's Vlad, then Faustin, and BOOM, f*cking Dimitri of all people. And the whole "first it's Florian then it's Darko" plotline. Even the first RDR was better with Ross, whom we knew he's a piece of sh*t, but did we fully expect he would betray Marston? From what I read most folks were shocked at how TLETSBD turned out.

 

I'm not going to start about John's looks during the epilogue. Dear God. How drunk or high do you have to be to focus more on the sizes of horse testicles than the f*cking look of the secondary protagonist. Like yeah Jack in the first game also reused John's body but he looked very distinctive on the face and it clearly was the same boy we saw earlier, "Arthur Marston" looks nothing like John and that hybrid we play as is just ugly. I'm glad mods can fix this at least... but nonetheless this leads me to another issue...

 

John is such a freaking doofus in this game it makes it sometimes hard to believe it's the same John we play as in the first game. He sure changed a lot and matured. I guess R* purposefully wanted to dumb John down in favor of Arthur which... is sorta questionable not gonna lie. His gung ho nature ultimately led up to the first RDR and got him killed of course, but I won't lie I found it silly that the death of MICAH of all folks led to the BOI looking for John. I don't even know why, just sounds far-fetched to me I guess.

 

This turned out to be an essay but truth to be told these are relatively minor nitpicks in a big game which is thoroughly enjoyable, no questions about that. I can only hope future R* games will have the same level of... everything all around in them so to say. But my complaints mostly stem from Rockstar's lack of respect towards its own lore they established in prior games when I look at it.

[Lemoyne outlaw]

7 hours ago, Jeansowaty said:

I wish Javier and Bill weren't such wasted potential. They're two of the three surviving gang members in the first game and in RDR2 instead it's mostly Sadie and Charles, I genuinely am tired of these two and I hoped Javier and Bill would've been more prominent. Instead Bill was just dumbed down to "haha he gay haha funny Marion he so stupid" jokes and Javier's role was tampered by his freaking voice actor but beyond being the epic Mexicano he also doesn't have much going on for himself.

 

Also I would've liked it better if Dutch was a bit more inspired and not just rehashing all his dialogue he had in the first game. On one hand I do like it since it is quite poetic and shows what a fraudulent con the man is but on the other hand... they seriously didn't have to overdo it. Like that speech at the cliffs where he and Arthur fall down into the water, it takes away SO MUCH from his final speech during ATTWSYF... still an impressive character and def one of my favorites ever written by R*.

 

One thing I genuinely hate is that Micah is such a piece of sh*t right off the bat and that we just KNOW this f*ck will sell you out and be a constant thorn to your side, yet you gotta wait like one hundred missions until you kill him. Showing who the main bad guy is right from the beginning is imo bad writing and unfortunately R* has been guilty of this quite many times so far, maybe that is why I love how subversive GTA4 was with Darko and Dimitri, you start the game and you think Dardan will be the bad guy, then it's Vlad, then Faustin, and BOOM, f*cking Dimitri of all people. And the whole "first it's Florian then it's Darko" plotline. Even the first RDR was better with Ross, whom we knew he's a piece of sh*t, but did we fully expect he would betray Marston? From what I read most folks were shocked at how TLETSBD turned out.

 

I'm not going to start about John's looks during the epilogue. Dear God. How drunk or high do you have to be to focus more on the sizes of horse testicles than the f*cking look of the secondary protagonist. Like yeah Jack in the first game also reused John's body but he looked very distinctive on the face and it clearly was the same boy we saw earlier, "Arthur Marston" looks nothing like John and that hybrid we play as is just ugly. I'm glad mods can fix this at least... but nonetheless this leads me to another issue...

 

John is such a freaking doofus in this game it makes it sometimes hard to believe it's the same John we play as in the first game. He sure changed a lot and matured. I guess R* purposefully wanted to dumb John down in favor of Arthur which... is sorta questionable not gonna lie. His gung ho nature ultimately led up to the first RDR and got him killed of course, but I won't lie I found it silly that the death of MICAH of all folks led to the BOI looking for John. I don't even know why, just sounds far-fetched to me I guess.

 

This turned out to be an essay but truth to be told these are relatively minor nitpicks in a big game which is thoroughly enjoyable, no questions about that. I can only hope future R* games will have the same level of... everything all around in them so to say. But my complaints mostly stem from Rockstar's lack of respect towards its own lore they established in prior games when I look at it.

yes i agree to most of this.

 

as someone who played rdr1 on day one. i was so excited to get to know more about bill and javier. and while they do get an occasional appearance. it's not very common and there isn't as much story about them as there are the other gang members. sometimes i even forget they exist. it feels like javier is there just to have other characters be racist towards him. and it sucked that they had to bring in a new actor for him. i wish they could have more use in the story. i was hoping having javier in the game would give it that nuevo paraiso feel. but sadly it' never happened. bill is a good character. but he hardly gets any time to shine. and usually he gets made fun of for being dumb. they could have done better for these two.

 

i think it's okay that micah was a jerk from day 1. he's not pretending to be someone he's not. unlike most of the gang members. (charles literally says he doesn't kill for fun. only when he needs to. but a few minutes later he kills a hunter just because he left bison to rot. charles is mostly a good character. but that always annoyed me in that mission.) micah makes the missions and events he's in funny and entertaining. he is much more interesting than the stereotypical character that acts like a friend then betrays you a few hours later like dimitri or jerry martinez. although I'm still a bit skeptical of him being the rat. why would this tough badass one man army need to work with the law? micah is a hardcore unafraid outlaw. it seems hard to believe that he would talk to the pinkertons unless he planned on screwing them over too. i really wished we could have had a micah dlc. it would have been cool to see his backstory. and what he was up to after 1899.

 

totally agree about epilogue john. how on earth did they get him so wrong? rdr2 is one of if not the most detailed game i have ever played. but they couldn't even make a good quality 1907 john? i would have loved to be a fly on the wall when they decided that 1907 john was good enough to ship with the game. i also agree with how different johns personality is in this one. it's hard to believe that in 12 years he will be fighting in the Mexican revolution. even uncle in rdr2 is so different. in rdr1 he is a lot more quiet and down to earth. rdr2 uncle talks all the time and acts like an idiot. why would anyone ever think uncle is red harlow? this is the same guy who moons reverend swanson and gets himself captured by the skinners.

[Jeansowaty]

9 hours ago, Lemoyne outlaw said:

yes i agree to most of this.

 

as someone who played rdr1 on day one. i was so excited to get to know more about bill and javier. and while they do get an occasional appearance. it's not very common and there isn't as much story about them as there are the other gang members. sometimes i even forget they exist. it feels like javier is there just to have other characters be racist towards him. and it sucked that they had to bring in a new actor for him. i wish they could have more use in the story. i was hoping having javier in the game would give it that nuevo paraiso feel. but sadly it' never happened. bill is a good character. but he hardly gets any time to shine. and usually he gets made fun of for being dumb. they could have done better for these two.

 

i think it's okay that micah was a jerk from day 1. he's not pretending to be someone he's not. unlike most of the gang members. (charles literally says he doesn't kill for fun. only when he needs to. but a few minutes later he kills a hunter just because he left bison to rot. charles is mostly a good character. but that always annoyed me in that mission.) micah makes the missions and events he's in funny and entertaining. he is much more interesting than the stereotypical character that acts like a friend then betrays you a few hours later like dimitri or jerry martinez. although I'm still a bit skeptical of him being the rat. why would this tough badass one man army need to work with the law? micah is a hardcore unafraid outlaw. it seems hard to believe that he would talk to the pinkertons unless he planned on screwing them over too. i really wished we could have had a micah dlc. it would have been cool to see his backstory. and what he was up to after 1899.

 

totally agree about epilogue john. how on earth did they get him so wrong? rdr2 is one of if not the most detailed game i have ever played. but they couldn't even make a good quality 1907 john? i would have loved to be a fly on the wall when they decided that 1907 john was good enough to ship with the game. i also agree with how different johns personality is in this one. it's hard to believe that in 12 years he will be fighting in the Mexican revolution. even uncle in rdr2 is so different. in rdr1 he is a lot more quiet and down to earth. rdr2 uncle talks all the time and acts like an idiot. why would anyone ever think uncle is red harlow? this is the same guy who moons reverend swanson and gets himself captured by the skinners.

The whole Red is Uncle theory is so f*cking idiotic I don't even crack a smile when seeing it, mostly because how people take it for granted without understanding the lore. Red in Revolver is young, in his early 20s and the game is set in the 1880s. By 1899 he would be around Arthur's age... and even if Revolver is to the Redemptions like SA is to IV and V. Different continuity. 

 

Charles imo is basically the same trope as Little Jacob and Cesar. The good guy who's good to the protag because he's good. Did I forget to say he's the good guy? Oh yeah, he's the good guy. I'm sorry but I find characters like that a tad overrated because all they got going on is them being a friend/prop to the player characters. Charles is fine but he's... genuinely boring to me often, but that's just me. I just wish Micah was a little bit less predictable to be the bad guy. Like, sure make him a dick but also make Arthur get along with him at first a bit, not make Artie this moral high authority in comparison to him even though you can be also low honor just like Micah. The whole rat/law plot however just makes me realize how impactful it is as people still talk about it to this day. Really cool lol.

 

Uncle changing, I'd say it's kind of for the better for once. In RDR1 he's very grumpy and you can sorta understand John's contempt for him but in 2 he's entertaining as all hell and I genuinely had a good laugh thanks to the f*ck. If Roman Bellic never settled down and instead became a booze drinking con to his 50's he'd be Uncle basically.

[BoulderFaceplant]

At this point, I’m very conflicted on RDR2. It’s easy to view it as a masterpiece upon your first playthrough, but the cracks show pretty wide the second time around. 

- At a certain point, it gets boring and predictable that everything is Micah’s fault. I know he’s supposed to be the demon on Dutch’s shoulder, but they lay it on so thick that it undermines what they seem to be trying to say about the changing world necessitating the death of the outlaw. We’re supposed to see the destruction of Dutch’s gang as inevitable, but Micah’s role in it overshadows that goal. They didn’t fall apart because the world changed, so much as because of Micah influencing Dutch to make terrible decisions. 

- Choices are given to the player at weird junctures, and denied at obvious ones. What version of Arthur would go after the money? Even if he’s low-honor, he’s dying and has no use for it. How about instead giving us the choice whether to go after Micah as John? There’s a debt ledger in the journal- I suspect they at least toyed with the idea of an alternate ending where you refuse to go along and instead work in the postgame to pay off the house. That absolutely should’ve been kept. 
- Sadie Adler isn’t nearly as poorly executed as Micah, but her development sticks out as contrived, at least early on. 
- The limiting of cores and item carrying capacity basically encourages the player to bulldoze through the story, only to have the rug pulled from under them with compromised cores when Arthur gets sick. He’s the more charismatic protagonist, yet we’re heavily incentivized to get his part out of the way before we really dive into the world. 
- On a similar note, there is a whole open world to explore and earn money from, yet the game imposes zero camp donation goals for story progression. Dutch repeatedly emphasizes the need for the gang to spread out and do their thing to gather money and resources, so I suspect this was another great idea that got canned.

- There are several missions that are grueling in their linearity and forced slowness. What feels captivating the first time around becomes a chore in subsequent playthroughs.

- The music is simply inferior throughout. RDR1 has very dynamic and unique-sounding tunes that really cement it as a quintessential Rockstar game. 

[billiejoearmstrong8]

On 7/18/2023 at 7:02 PM, Lemoyne outlaw said:

you didn't fully read my post. where did i say that a place doesn't look western just because it's not a desert or open? what part of roanoke feels western? yes you are right. not every western has to have a desert or open area. big valley and tall trees are a perfect example of it. big valley is neither a desert or open area. but when i go to big valley i automatically feel like I'm in the west. in fact epilogue 1 is such a great chapter because you finally get to spend a lot of time out west after spending a lot of time in the east. even strawberry feels more like a western town than annesburg or van horn. from the trees and the snow covered mount shann. even lake owanjila looks a lot like the lake tahoe area.

 

there is very little if anything at all that makes roanoke feel western. roanoke looks and feels more Appalachian. i grew up near the Appalachian Mountains. and from the many times i went there i can easily tell that roanoke looks a lot like it. roanoke looks like a countryside in the east. big valley looks like a countryside in the west. they both look different. but hey if you think roanoke feels western let me know what part of it does. maybe it will open my eyes up to something i never saw or paid attention to.

I think although Roanoke Ridge might take some visual influence from Appalachia its equivalent real life location and main influence is the Ozark mountains region. Lemoyne aka Louisiana to the south and the Lannahechee River aka Mississippi River on the eastern border indicates it being the Ozarks/Arkansas. But yeah even then it's the most eastern part of what can be considered "western" irl and the most eastern area of the game.

Edited August 10, 2023 by billiejoearmstrong8

[Lemoyne outlaw]

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I think although Roanoke Ridge might take some visual influence from Appalachia its equivalent real life location and main influence is the Ozark mountains region. Lemoyne aka Louisiana to the south and the Lannahechee River aka Mississippi River on the eastern border indicates it being the Ozarks/Arkansas. But yeah even then it's the most eastern part of what can be considered "western" irl and the most eastern area of the game.

i have never been to the Ozarks so maybe it could be similar. but i know when I'm in Roanoke i automatically feel like I'm in eastern Tennessee again.

[BoulderFaceplant]

I don’t like how they handled John Marston. In RDR1 we get the sense that he honed his social acumen and razor sharp wit over years of running in a gang. Now we’re supposed to believe he just picked it up in the four years between games. 

[billiejoearmstrong8]

On 8/10/2023 at 9:07 PM, Lemoyne outlaw said:

i have never been to the Ozarks so maybe it could be similar. but i know when I'm in Roanoke i automatically feel like I'm in eastern Tennessee again.

Oh yeah I'm sure it could take some influence from it. I just think "geographically"/in terms of how far east it is it's mostly the Ozarks.

[Sneaky Queeky]

On 8/11/2023 at 4:47 PM, BoulderFaceplant said:

 social acumen and razor sharp wit 

Are we talking about the same John Marston here!?