Current Events > Replaying RDR2 makes me feel sad *Major Spoilers*

(+) Yeah! (+)

Nooo Arthur! Don't beat up Thomas.
Noo Arthur! Don't break Micah out of jail.

Things are so happy for 5 minutes in Chapter 2. I felt so sad when Chapter 3 starts and you can feel everything start to get worse each day and never get better again.

Testament to the writing and acting that I walk around camp, not wanting to progress the story anymore because Sean and Lenny are about to die and everyone is about to be miserable.

Whatever happened to Karen in the end anyway? She just vanishes. I guess we assume she drank herself to death but it's weird that she's literally the only gang member that has no closure.

There's also some nagging questions replaying it. From the opening of the game it feels like Micah has been betraying Dutch. The only times things don't fuck up is when he is not around.

It's established Micah pushed Dutch into the Blackwater Ferry trap
Micah pushed Dutch into the O'Driscol trap.
Micah wore all white during the Saint Dennis trap.
Micah put tons of suspicion on John and Abigail.
A lot of Micah's dialogue foreshadows that he is working against Dutch.

Everything goes well for the gang when he's in prison and then Pinkertons show up the moment he is released.

But then Not Agent Ross who has no reason to lie says they picked up Micah after Guarma and Micah has nothing to do with Pouring Forth Oil IV where the law knew you were coming.

So.... all that foreshadowing was complete coincidence? It's odd.

What I find amusing with Micah is how quick story telling wise they threw him under the bus in that he was gonna be the asshat character with little to no redeeming qualities. Gta and red dead are full of characters that are bad people but get along with and actively help the MC. Micah nope you just know he's gonna be shit the whole time

Sufferedphoneix posted...

What I find amusing with Micah is how quick story telling wise they threw him under the bus in that he was gonna be the asshat character with little to no redeeming qualities. Gta and red dead are full of characters that are bad people but get along with and actively help the MC. Micah nope you just know he's gonna be shit the whole time

I liked that too

There was actually something refreshing about the fact it wasn't a bluff. Micah really is that much of an asshole.

Maze_ posted...

I liked that too

There was actually something refreshing about the fact it wasn't a bluff. Micah really is that much of an asshole.

I realized it when he dropped the n word or used some other derogatory term for one or the gang mates.

I was like yep. He's gonna be the one

I only played through it once but I accidentally discovered Arthur developed tuberculosis before it is explained in the game. Kinda depressed me moving forward cause then I knew he was going to die and never get better.

I will also say I got real tired of Dutch constantly saying "We just need one more big job! We just need one more... we just need one more. "

ScarfForLife posted...

I only played through it once but I accidentally discovered Arthur developed tuberculosis before it is explained in the game. Kinda depressed me moving forward cause then I knew he was going to die and never get better.

Lots of people survive TB

Even back then. Who says Arthur dies?

ScarfForLife posted...

I will also say I got real tired of Dutch constantly saying "We just need one more big job! We just need one more... we just need one more. "

I mean you were supposed too >_>

Maze_ posted...

Lots of people survive TB

Even back then. Who says Arthur dies?

I mean you were supposed too >_>

I actually got both spoiled. I know that wasn't clear in the way I worded it, so my apologies. But I was spoiled that he got tuberculosis and then eventually died.

Maze_ posted...

Lots of people survive TB

Even back then. Who says Arthur dies?

Yeah I wondered if a twist was going to be that Arthur actually lived. Maybe just retired with his hacky cough. Maybe faked his death. But just out of the scene.

Yeah it's cool how the entire tone of the game changes over the course of it. When the camp has its parties everything feels so joyous. By the time Micah's random friends start hanging around it's just downright depressing being at the camp.

Also I think it's wild that after Arthur kicked Strauss out of the camp, you find out he was picked up by the Pinkertons almost immediately and didn't say a fucking word.

DipDipDiver posted...

Yeah it's cool how the entire tone of the game changes over the course of it. When the camp has its parties everything feels so joyous. By the time Micah's random friends start hanging around it's just downright depressing being at the camp.

Also I think it's wild that after Arthur kicked Strauss out of the camp, you find out he was picked up by the Pinkertons almost immediately and didn't say a fucking word.

Was that the debt collector guy? I liked Arthur's reasoning. The rest of the gang at least had the balls to rob people without hiding their intentions. Stauss's way is not only cowardly it leaves people feeling like a idiot. Get robbed at gunpoint you lose your money but at least you feel like you didn't have a choice afterwards

Another thing I thought was cool is in the epilogue, when John finally catches up to Micah. Dutch comes unexpectedly walking out of the cabin, and Micah says they've teamed up again. Except when John asks Dutch why he's there, Dutch says "Same thing as you I reckon."

So unless Dutch thought John was there to team up with Micah, which he wouldn't have, it means Dutch 100% intended to kill Micah.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

Was that the debt collector guy? I liked Arthur's reasoning. The rest of the gang at least had the balls to rob people without hiding their intentions. Stauss's way is not only cowardly it leaves people feeling like a idiot. Get robbed at gunpoint you lose your money but at least you feel like you didn't have a choice afterwards

Yep

And even though Arthur did it in anger it was probably the best thing he could have done for Strauss tbh

And I like that Strauss was still loyal after that

Sufferedphoneix posted...

Was that the debt collector guy? I liked Arthur's reasoning. The rest of the gang at least had the balls to rob people without hiding their intentions.

Uncle, Tilly, Mary-Beth, Reverend, Abigail...

Maze_ posted...

Uncle, Tilly, Mary-Beth, Reverend, Abigail...

They didn't rob people the way Strauss did. Think Arthur didnt like that Strauss hit up people in need of money where as typically the rest of the gang went after people that wherent exactly hurting for money. Maybe not rich but it wasn't going to ruin them

You guys should check out the Strange Man channel on YouTube

https://youtube.com/c/StrangeManChannel

Every single thumbnail looks like clickbait but the videos are actually legit af. Dude does his homework and presents solid evidence for all the hidden stuff and references he finds, and does a lot of deep dives on obscure story details that you might have never had any idea about.

DipDipDiver posted...

Yep

And even though Arthur did it in anger it was probably the best thing he could have done for Strauss tbh

And I like that Strauss was still loyal after that

I get Arthur's anger. Bit late but I understand it. He beat up and killed a man and wrecked a family cause of it. Family was already struggling

I also named my horse "Boah" so when Arthur goes "You're a good boy, you're alright boy" I can pretend he's calling the horse by it;s name

DipDipDiver posted...

You guys should check out the Strange Man channel on YouTube

I second this. Excellent videos

I've started replaying the first one and it has an extra layer of depth after playing 2.

DipDipDiver posted...

You guys should check out the Strange Man channel on YouTube

This too.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

I get Arthur's anger. Bit late but I understand it. He beat up and killed a man and wrecked a family cause of it. Family was already struggling

And if you were pretty thorough about playing the game, this is after having several more run-ins with that family where Arthur gets to see just how bad things ended up for them, and he even tries to help them

ScarfForLife posted...

I will also say I got real tired of Dutch constantly saying "We just need one more big job! We just need one more... we just need one more. "

Have some GODDAMN FAITH!

Southernfatman posted...

I've started replaying the first one and it has an extra layer of depth after playing 2.

RDR1 was so goofy in tone though it's kinda weird going back to it after 2.

John and Dutch barely reference the events on RDR2 save for 1 or 2 scenes. Javier appears once and is completely different, Bill lost half his weight and you meet dudes like Irish and German.

Also kinda weird that John never seeks Charles or Sadie's help when his family is kidnapped. I mean Sadie broke John out of prison once already.

Southernfatman posted...

I've started replaying the first one and it has an extra layer of depth after playing 2.

This too.

Yeah it does. I didn't give a fuck about the people John where hunting down in the first one. After playing 2 then replaying 1 it had more impact

DipDipDiver posted...

And if you were pretty thorough about playing the game, this is after having several more run-ins with that family where Arthur gets to see just how bad things ended up for them, and he even tries to help them

And if you play the game throughly but out of order it's possible to do this out of order and find her as a disease ridden hooker after you've given her and her son money for a new life XD

Maze_ posted...

RDR1 was so goofy in tone though it's kinda weird going back to it after 2.

I think that's because 1 is influnced by spaghetti westerns which are relatively more over the top and full of tropes while 2 is like a modern day deconstructionist western which is more serious and self reflecting.

John and Dutch barely reference the events on RDR2 save for 1 or 2 scenes. Javier appears once and is completely different, Bill lost half his weight and you meet dudes like Irish and German.

It is a bit different. I take it as there was no need to discuss the past much between John and Dutch. Javier is a bit of jump, but I see it as him losing his way and falling hard to where he's almost pathetic. Makes it more tragic when you look back on his early days. Bill just lost weight and became more of a sicko, which is also a bit tragic. Maybe if he had gotten a little more credit and was less derided all the time maybe wouldn't have gotten so bad. Characters like Irish go back to the spaghetti western influence. Plus 2 has some goofy characters too.

Also kinda weird that John never seeks Charles or Sadie's help when his family is kidnapped. I mean Sadie broke John out of prison once already.

I think he wouldn't want to involved them because Ross and the government were so treacherous and untrustworthy. If I remember right Charles goes to Canada and Sadie talks about going to South America or somewhere like that.

Sufferedphoneix posted...

Yeah it does. I didn't give a fuck about the people John where hunting down in the first one. After playing 2 then replaying 1 it had more impact

It makes the story a lot more tragic.

I tried replaying RDR1 but it feels so stiff and weird after 2. It doesn't look bad, in fact it still looks pretty damn great. But playing it, especially the horse riding, just feels completely off after experiencing 2.

FurryPhilosifer posted...

I tried replaying RDR1 but it feels so stiff and weird after 2. It doesn't look bad, in fact it still looks pretty damn great. But playing it, especially the horse riding, just feels completely off after experiencing 2.

#At least you don't unequip your big guns half the time you dismount >:(

Worst part of RDR2

FurryPhilosifer posted...

I tried replaying RDR1 but it feels so stiff and weird after 2. It doesn't look bad, in fact it still looks pretty damn great. But playing it, especially the horse riding, just feels completely off after experiencing 2.

It takes a bit to get back used to it. Speaking of horse riding, now I have to take care and not accidentally shoot my horse in the head while fighting on horseback. That used to happen a good bit back in the day.

Maze_ posted...

#At least you don't unequip your big guns half the time you dismount >:(

Worst part of RDR2

It's very annoying. Don't know what they were trying to do there.

Southernfatman posted...

It's very annoying. Don't know what they were trying to do there.

I think the idea is that if you get ambushed you get thrown off your horse and lose your big guns.

But why on Earth they automatically do it half the time you dismount by choice, I have no idea.

I too found the difference in tone jarring between the two games. I replayed RDR1 immediately after finishing RDR2 for the first time, and John doesnt even feel like the same guy. Plus the writing in general just doesn't feel as well thought out, and there are entire legs of the story where it makes no sense for John to be doing what he's doing

DipDipDiver posted...

I too found the difference in tone jarring between the two games. I replayed RDR1 immediately after finishing RDR2 for the first time, and John doesnt even feel like the same guy. Plus the writing in general just doesn't feel as well thought out, and there are entire legs of the story where it makes no sense for John to be doing what he's doing

Plus the Mexico portion, while not bad and there's no one mission that stands out as awful, just drags on and on and on and on.

I think Guarma in RDR2 is so short because Mexico was so damn long in RDR1

On my replay I stopped in chapter 2 prior to releasing Micah and have just been free roaming and enjoying life for like 3 years lol

Maze_ posted...

I think Guarma in RDR2 is so short because Mexico was so damn long in RDR1

I remember when I made it to Guarma for the first time I was really excited because I thought it was going to be like a whole other map to explore, but you only there for like 10 minutes lol

I was disappointed that you play at John at the end of 2. It makes perfect sense, but that's why I wasn't excited for it. The first game had that "oh wow, I get to keep playing as a new character??" moment. Whereas 2 was just "I bet it's jo- yep it's john". Plus, he didn't feel as fun to mess about with as Jack did at the end of 1.

What I mean is, post 1 jack was a true wandering outlaw. Whereas post-2 John is a family man with a farm to run. You can say that's the point. Him running off and hunting bears or doing bounty missions is why Abigail was always so pissed off. The gameplay element plays into the plot. He's meant to be a family man farming, but instead he keeps running off to shoot everyone in San Denis or something. But it still just didn't feel as free and open, from a narrative standpoint. Which yes again might be the point, but doesn't make it any less distracting. My friend frequently starts new games just to have more fun points of the game to mess about at. I think the perfect way to do it would be to have the John epilogue, BUT THEN cut to Javier and play as him. Maybe even switch? Quite an ask I know. But you'd get that surprise, and an outlaw to mess about as, as opposed to John.

The entire plot was lacking in twists or surprises really, everything largely went exactly as you'd expect. The TB and Guarma were "huh, didn't expect this to happen", but there was no "oh my GOD" like (RDR1 spoilers) John dying or getting to play as Jack.

DipDipDiver posted...

I too found the difference in tone jarring between the two games. I replayed RDR1 immediately after finishing RDR2 for the first time, and John doesnt even feel like the same guy. Plus the writing in general just doesn't feel as well thought out, and there are entire legs of the story where it makes no sense for John to be doing what he's doing

John is a bit more wise with age and more of a smart ass. I like it though even if it's a bit different. And with many games, the story gets a bit wrangled up by the gameplay itself.

Maze_ posted...

Plus the Mexico portion, while not bad and there's no one mission that stands out as awful, just drags on and on and on and on.

I think Guarma in RDR2 is so short because Mexico was so damn long in RDR1

That's true. Mexico takes too long. Going there for the first time with Far Away playing is one of the coolest parts of the series though. Apparently the Guarma section was going to be bigger and longer, but got cut short due to deadlines and such. I'm partly conflicted with that since it's a different place to explore, but even during my first time I was rushing through it because I wanted to get back.

FurryPhilosifer posted...

I was disappointed that you play at John at the end of 2. It makes perfect sense, but that's why I wasn't excited for it. The first game had that "oh wow, I get to keep playing as a new character??" moment. Whereas 2 was just "I bet it's jo- yep it's john". Plus, he didn't feel as fun to mess about with as Jack did at the end of 1.

What I mean is, post 1 jack was a true wandering outlaw. Whereas post-2 John is a family man with a farm to run. You can say that's the point. Him running off and hunting bears or doing bounty missions is why Abigail was always so pissed off. The gameplay element plays into the plot. He's meant to be a family man farming, but instead he keeps running off to shoot everyone in San Denis or something. But it still just didn't feel as free and open, from a narrative standpoint. Which yes again might be the point, but doesn't make it any less distracting. My friend frequently starts new games just to have more fun points of the game to mess about at. I think the perfect way to do it would be to have the John epilogue, BUT THEN cut to Javier and play as him. Maybe even switch? Quite an ask I know. But you'd get that surprise, and an outlaw to mess about as, as opposed to John.

The entire plot was lacking in twists or surprises really, everything largely went exactly as you'd expect. The TB and Guarma were "huh, didn't expect this to happen", but there was no "oh my GOD" like (RDR1 spoilers) John dying or getting to play as Jack.

I dunno

Uncle actually doing some work at the end was a surprise

Southernfatman posted...

John is a bit more wise with age and more of a smart ass. I like it though even if it's a bit different. And with many games, the story gets a bit wrangled up by the gameplay itself.

Tbh I thought he felt a bit shallow in comparison to the character writing in 2, and most of his dialog was just threatening to kill people if they didnt help him

I mean in defense of the writing, John's family is kidnapped, the government is fucking with him, half the people he meets try to kill him and another 25% are also fucking with him.

He also has a painful fresh bulletwound in his gut from his former friend and has to cook his own dinners.

It's easy to see why he's tearse with the remaining 25%

Maze_ posted...

I mean in defense of the writing, John's family is kidnapped, the government is f***ing with him, half the people he meets try to kill him and another 25% are also f***ing with him.

Yeah this is my take. In 2 he's young and bored and running with a gang. In 1, he's being forced to hunt down his former friends and been separated from his family. He doesn't want to get up to crazy shenanigans, he wants to find the people he needs to kill and go home.

I felt bad about kicking Strauss out of camp because I'd accidentally ran into Algie Davison in free roam before the collection mission and ended up antagonizing him and killing him.

Well yeah, and the game also came out during a totally different era and it's reflected in the writing as well. What I mean is there's no real nuance to the way the characters in RDR1 are written. It isn't just John. They're a step up from where GTA was at the time, but RDR2 is a completely different ballpark compared to that

Micah being labeled as the main antagonist in the wiki irritates me. He wasn't the main antagonist, he just outlived the one pulling his strings.

Irony posted...

Micah being labeled as the main antagonist in the wiki irritates me. He wasn't the main antagonist, he just outlived the one pulling his strings.

Micah was absolutely the main antagonist.

I'm still bummed they won't remake the first game as dlc. The bones for the game already exist. They would just need to remake the missions.

RenescoStCewl posted...

I'm still bummed they won't remake the first game as dlc. The bones for the game already exist. They would just need to remake the missions.

"Just". They could barely feign interest in keeping their next potential money maker RDO updated, there's no way modern Rockstar would bother remaking RD1 in RD2.

I had an idea for RDR 3 that some people seemed to enjoy on the RDR Reddit

The game is played by an entirely new character that has no connection the the gang originally. it starts in 1897, and you learn about this character and his family or his gang or whatever. I never really fleshed out who you would play as. But eventually, during the black water heist that is always talked about but never shown, and has no real answer to what happens, youre there. Not directly involved, but you see what happens, and maybe figure out what went wrong or something like if Micah was a double agent or whatever. Your story continues throughout the years (your character ages as the game progresses) and you run into characters from Dutchs gang that kinda fill in the gaps of where everybody else was while Arthur was out doing his thing.

you hear references of things from the previous games in the newspaper and the townsfolk and such, all while telling the story of your new character.

eventually the game ends in the future, maybe even as far as the 1920s so you truly get to see the death of the cowboys and all that and you eventually run into, meet, and become friends with Jack Marston, who is now a writer writing about the stories of his father, Arthur, and Dutchs gang.

I think its a pretty cool idea. It would be next to impossible to make a prequel with the same crew where you play as Arthur because of things like Arthur learning how to hunt and use his bow with whatshisname. Story wise it wouldnt make sense. This would be a way of explaining more about their story without ruining the continuity.

I've heard some people suggest Mac Callander could work as the RDR3 protagonist

but personally I'm not sure what another prequel can add

Maze_ posted...

I've heard some people suggest Mac Callander could work as the RDR3 protagonist

but personally I'm not sure what another prequel can add

Well thats why I kinda want it to be a half prequel half continuation. Maybe your character is the one who finally tames and settles down with Sadie. Maybe you and jack end up ending up together what a twist that would be

the huge holes in black water are really the only reason there is more story to tell. Maybe you end up finding the money in black water. That would be crazy.

If they make a 3 I want it to be set in the heyday of the west and not have anything to do with the Van der Lind gang besides a reference or two maybe. Or I'd even like a sequel where you play as Jack as a prhoibition era bank robber like John Dillinger or someone like that with maybe a Chicago based city where you get mixed up in an Irish/Italian gang war.

MICHALECOLE posted...

Well thats why I kinda want it to be a half prequel half continuation. Maybe your character is the one who finally tames and settles down with Sadie. Maybe you and jack end up ending up together what a twist that would be

the huge holes in black water are really the only reason there is more story to tell. Maybe you end up finding the money in black water. That would be crazy.

Maybe RDR3 can be about a woman

The internet rage alone would be a hoot