-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Red Dead Redemption 2 |OT2| For A Few Hours More
- Thread starter More_Badass
- Start date
Nah, quite liked that. I meant:
The choice between going back for the money or helping John.
I played honourably, so unless there were quite drastic changes to cut-scenes leading up to that moment when playing dishonourably, it seems hugely out of place. If they could change cut-scenes to that extent - which I wouldn't put past them - they could've chopped that choice. Morgan was adamant on saving John up to that point, so it was unnecessarily jarring.
Micah and Dutch turning up was a bit "Huh?" too, but neither were too detrimental.
Absolutely incredible. I hope John finds Micah and fucks him up.
Fucking Pinkertons killed my horse, Silas, though... 😭
I played honourably, so unless there were quite drastic changes to cut-scenes leading up to that moment when playing dishonourably, it seems hugely out of place. If they could change cut-scenes to that extent - which I wouldn't put past them - they could've chopped that choice. Morgan was adamant on saving John up to that point, so it was unnecessarily jarring.
Micah and Dutch turning up was a bit "Huh?" too, but neither were too detrimental.
Absolutely incredible. I hope John finds Micah and fucks him up.
Fucking Pinkertons killed my horse, Silas, though... 😭
Oh that, I actually enjoyed Guarma, too, though most people apparently didn't.
Yeah, that did seem weirdly out of character. I helped John, so I wouldn't know how that other choice would have played out. Although I'd say that since the major plot points are set, it's probably more similar than we think.
Spoilers for the choice
There are four different ways Arthur's ending plays out based on honor and that choice
- High honor, Arthur saves John - best ending
- High honor, Arthur goes back for the money
- Low honor, Arthur saves John
- Low honor - Arthur goes back for the money - worst ending
- High honor, Arthur saves John - best ending
- High honor, Arthur goes back for the money
- Low honor, Arthur saves John
- Low honor - Arthur goes back for the money - worst ending
What happens in each of them?
I though the only difference is basically that with low honour Micah kills Arthur as opposed to leaving him to die.
It's basically how violently Arthur dies.
With low honor, Micah straight up murders him (shooting him in the face and laughing at his corpse in the worst ending) and you see the wolf in the rain as Arthur's spirit animal vision thing
With high honor, the tuberculosis gets Arthur in the end (watching the sunrise in the best ending) and you see the deer as Arthur's spirit animal vision
With low honor, Micah straight up murders him (shooting him in the face and laughing at his corpse in the worst ending) and you see the wolf in the rain as Arthur's spirit animal vision thing
With high honor, the tuberculosis gets Arthur in the end (watching the sunrise in the best ending) and you see the deer as Arthur's spirit animal vision
Yeah, I thought Chapter 5 was a nice little diversion.
Honestly, they're small niggles really. The entire experience has been great so far. The story is very good and smartly driven by a - on the whole - distinctive and surprisingly deep cast. The set-piece missions throughout the game have been engaging, with the last few particularly getting my old heart pumping.
I wish the controls had been improved from GTAV, but I was expecting classic R* controls going in, so that's no skin off my nose. In fact, I thought the reviews and previews (coupled with past experience with R* games) prepared me pretty well. Easily sits with their best. Shame they're such a shitty company...
Having started the next bit, I'm very intrigued on where it goes from here. Plus, I can finally tuck into RDO properly.
My only complaint about chapter 5 was that it felt half finished. I would've liked it to be way more fleshed out and open to explore. It was a nice change of pace, but the tempo felt a bit too high, because you were channeled from mission to mission immediately.
I also finished Chapter 6 few days ago !
Absolutely agree that it's a fucking incredible game. Arthur Morgan is a good man and is one of the best protagonist in gaming. Also, props for Roger Clark for delivering phenomenal acting consistently, especially considering the amount of line Arthur had.
I wonder if the next game would be Redemption 3 or a new installment in the Red Dead series (kinda like Revolver->Redemption).
I replayed this a week ago and completely forgot about it. Yeah, shit was intense.
Fucking same, man.
I really liked his cheeky, brotherly relationship with Arthur ☹️.
The facial mo-capping was excellent in places. It just gave you everything, you know?
I wanted RDR to follow the GTA style before release, but was pleasantly surprised with this. Not sure there's much more story to tell though, so some fresh faces would be good.
Having said that, I have to admit that I wouldn't be against a Langdon Ricketts focused game...
Right, it's one of those false choices that Rockstar puts in their games. SImilarly, in GTAV they gave you the choice of choosing to kill Michael or Trevor, or go down together (where you survive). It was such a stupid decision, just tacked onto give the game "multiple endings," but the one *true* ending was to go down together (I originally chose to kill Michael, stupidly, because I figured if we went down guns blazing we'd all die, and I had stuff I wanted to keep playing). That false choice story ending actually kinda ruined GTAV for me, it prevented "the good ending" from having a lasting impact on me because I originally chose "a bad ending," And it forced this storyline out of nowhere that made no sense.
Similar in RDRII, even if you're have low honor, most of the cutscenes nd conversations play out the same, so that false choice at the end doesn't really make sense.
Agreed, I liked the change of pace, but it felt rushed. It seems like they were going to set up a major story down there originally, but then just thought "oh shit this is getting long in the tooth, let's wrap it up..." and cut it. In the end it's disappointing because it's like the water level in Uncharted 3, a gameplay sequence that doesn't push the story at all, but adds an extra 1-2 hours to the game. Overall I still liked it as a cool change of pace and something that completely surprised me... Impressed that in this world of leaks you can still have surprises in games, but it seemed half-done.
I was dying for a Landon Rickets prequel to RDR, set in Mexico, and we never got it. SImilarly, I was dying for a Sadie Adler prequel/contemporary story in RDR2 and I'm sure we'll never get it. Rockstar has gold bars to sell, aint no time for story DLC.
Still I was kinda happy with Undead Nightmare, it was a great addon, but I was still hoping for some more expansion of a canon story.
Yeah, agreed on both fronts.
GTAV's ending would've been far more impactful if they had the balls to see it through and have Option C end with everyone dying (or not an option at all).
RDR2's is just... odd. Don't know anyone who thought it was compelling or congruent with the lead up. Ah well. Like I said, minor misstep really.
Just have to wait for RDR3, I guess?
I have been playing RDR2 since februari, doing every quest, exploring every inch of the map… Even didn't get back to camp for three months, just to find out if they would say anything about it.
Man, never realized i liked Arthur so much! So sad that he's gone. And then suddenly you play as John 8 years later. Everything is leading up to RDR1.
Never, ever imagined that we get half the map of RDR1 after 'the end'! I only thought Blackwater and Great Plains where accessible. Tears in my eyes to see the desert, Tumbleweed, Armadillo is such beautiful graphics. Still remember a lot of tracks from part 1. It's gonna take me another month to explore every inch of it!
How did Dan Houser progress so much from GTA V's writing to RDR 2's writing, its like he's a totally different writer now? a much stronger writer
Even before release, I had an inkling that we'd end up as John. What I didn't expect was to feel so bittersweet about getting to play him again.
Like, I loved John in RDR1. He was incredibly well acted and I never thought he'd ever be outdone, but Arthur is just... I think he's one of the best realised characters in gaming... and I really fucking miss him.
Like, I loved John in RDR1. He was incredibly well acted and I never thought he'd ever be outdone, but Arthur is just... I think he's one of the best realised characters in gaming... and I really fucking miss him.
I think GTAV was pretty well written, though the constant need to be edgy, childish, and immature -- a staple of the GTA series -- persists through most of it. RDR doesn't have that same requirement to be edgy and immature, so they can cut out the elements that give you the doucheshivers.
Like, in GTA, every sports team is a homoerotic joke ... all of them ... any reference to sports at any moment in any of the GTA games is a joke about homoeroticism, and it's just like, guys, we get it, you hate sports and think all sports dudes are in the closet, cool, we got the joke 15 years ago in GTA:SA. Likewise with political jokes; I think the Housers follow a sort of Bill-Maher-esque political jabbing... Like, they're certainly more to the left politically, but try to take the piss out of the left as much as they take the piss out of the right, and this forces some really lame jokes into the games.
I think there's some really quality writing in GTAV, but just about every character is a caricature of a character, which forces some lame ass writing into the game. RDR doesn't take that approach with *every* character, just some of the unusual characters (like, say, Seth or the Professor from RDR1, or in RDR2... maybe some of the 'Strangers and Freaks' which are all minor characters). In GTAV, every character but Michael and Franklin are stereotypical shells of characters, they're just caricatures of characters. The vapid wife, idiot son, Trevor's littany of morons, all of the bad guys are fucking insufferable douchebag idiots, etc.
RDR takes a more serious approach with its characters. Dutch is actually a character, not a caricature. Sadie, Arthur, Abigail, etc., are all characters, not caricatures of characters. This frees them up to make them into realistic characters with actual motivations, not superficial bull shit, which I think liberates their writing from the insufferable douchiness of a lot of the GTA series. But, still, I think there's examples of great videogame writing in GTA. Like, RDR2 is definitely the best written mainstream game, but GTAV isn't far behind, and GTA:SA is fairly close behind that, etc.
Like, in GTA, every sports team is a homoerotic joke ... all of them ... any reference to sports at any moment in any of the GTA games is a joke about homoeroticism, and it's just like, guys, we get it, you hate sports and think all sports dudes are in the closet, cool, we got the joke 15 years ago in GTA:SA. Likewise with political jokes; I think the Housers follow a sort of Bill-Maher-esque political jabbing... Like, they're certainly more to the left politically, but try to take the piss out of the left as much as they take the piss out of the right, and this forces some really lame jokes into the games.
I think there's some really quality writing in GTAV, but just about every character is a caricature of a character, which forces some lame ass writing into the game. RDR doesn't take that approach with *every* character, just some of the unusual characters (like, say, Seth or the Professor from RDR1, or in RDR2... maybe some of the 'Strangers and Freaks' which are all minor characters). In GTAV, every character but Michael and Franklin are stereotypical shells of characters, they're just caricatures of characters. The vapid wife, idiot son, Trevor's littany of morons, all of the bad guys are fucking insufferable douchebag idiots, etc.
RDR takes a more serious approach with its characters. Dutch is actually a character, not a caricature. Sadie, Arthur, Abigail, etc., are all characters, not caricatures of characters. This frees them up to make them into realistic characters with actual motivations, not superficial bull shit, which I think liberates their writing from the insufferable douchiness of a lot of the GTA series. But, still, I think there's examples of great videogame writing in GTA. Like, RDR2 is definitely the best written mainstream game, but GTAV isn't far behind, and GTA:SA is fairly close behind that, etc.
the character writing in GTA V was ace, but the satire and the plot in general were kind of bad, still one of my all time favorite games
RDR 2 is clearly a more serious game though
Michael and Trevor's relationship was a great hook, but Franklin - though easily the most likeable - was a bit underdeveloped in comparison. Great performances all around, mind.
maybe i missed it, but does anyone get the feeling that Arthur didn't like John in the beginning of the game?
Absolutely. There are at least two full conversations between Arthur and other gang members about John leaving for a year, walking out on Abigail and Jack as well as the gang as a whole. Both of these things clearly bother Arthur. The bond they begin to share as they realize Dutch is going mad is a major story arc.
Not exactly a hidden plot point.
Yeah, it's a significant part of the early story in the game.
John is portrayed as immature, not trusted, not responsible. He abandoned Abigail when Jack was a baby, disappeared on the gang for a while, and so people like John and Micah can't trust him, while Dutch has a soft spot for him as an orphan or whatever he was. A lot of the side-story in the game is John maturing and becoming someone Arthur trusts more than other members of the gang. The climax of the game and the two chapters after the climax bridge the gap for how John matures and becomes someone you can trust.
I feel like there was also some innuendo about Arthur and Abigail having a sort of romance... but in RDR1, it's frequently mentioned how Abigail was a warm bed for a lot of the gang members prior to John knocking her up and her settling down with John (which she has a very tempestuous relationship with John when he returns as well).
I liked the spin they put on John in RDRII, making him seem pretty dumb, prone to stupid decisions... You're seeing John from Arthur's perspective in RDR2, and so it helps add some depth to him as a character in RDR1, and can also help explain why John is such a dolt throughout most of RDR1.
I almost get the feeling that despite both being orphans. Arthur seems more educated than John
I felt there was something meta about how Arthur saw John as Dutch's 'favourite son'; his 'golden child'. RDR1 is beloved by many, even after all these years, and RDR2 had some big shoes to fill, especially in the protagonist department. That seems to kind of parallel Arthur's, I guess, jealousy towards John (?) even though he'd not been around for year. At least, that's what I took from it.
I fell down a YouTube rabbit hole after watching this video; seeing the actors who played the characters talking candidly about the experience is much more entertaining than I anticipated. It helps that Roger Clark (Arthur) and Benjamin Byron Davis (Dutch) are really funny guys. Roger Clark is Irish, so he was putting on an accent to play Arthur, but Benjamin Byron Davis just used his regular speaking voice; it's so weird hearing Dutch's voice coming out of a giant man.
They seem like nice dudes, though I don't know whether I want to give Benjamin a little slap or hug him.
Thanks for sharing, great watch.
Such an incredible performance in this game from Roger Clark. I genuinely don't remember his accent ever faltering in the game. And of course Davis was great. I also remember his performance as Dutch in the first RDR making a pretty big impression, despite his limited screen time.
this is a nerdy question
Do you guys think Charles could of bested a Prime Arthur in a fight?
Do you guys think Charles could of bested a Prime Arthur in a fight?
Last edited:
Yeah. Arthur was a brawler in a big brutish way. Charles was big but he looked like he had some finesse too; Arthur couldn't just overwhelm him with size, so the extra agility favors Charles. But Arthur would also fight dirty and pull a knife or gun if he thought he would lose. Just a straight up fist fight? I'm taking Charles.
it's interesting that Charles could theoretically be a greater fighter, but Arthur is a greater enforcer
Arthur is still a better enforcer than Charles it seems though
So I'll be picking this up on Steam when it releases in December. Is there any indication on when in December it's releasing though?
Do not quote me on this as I can't recall where I read this, but I think some of the new changes Valve made to their policy for games (to try to lessen another Metro Exodus situation of a game being advertised/sold on STEAM and then being pulled for another store) said somewhere that a game can only be delayed 30 days before it has to be released on STEAM if it's already out on another store. That would put it by Dec 5th.
That said, that may have only affected games that already have STEAM pages, which Red Dead Redemption II does not have as of yet.
I could also be completely remembering the entire thing wrong and none of this is true.
That said, that may have only affected games that already have STEAM pages, which Red Dead Redemption II does not have as of yet.
I could also be completely remembering the entire thing wrong and none of this is true.
I remember reading this somewhere as well. Maybe Eurogamer?
I was assuming 30 days but your point about existing pages is something I hadnt thought about. Guess we'll see soon enough.
It only affects games that had steam pages, to stop a situation like Metro Exodus.
So, I'm currently playing through the game and probably getting near towards the end (I should be close to the end of chapter 6) and I have some questions that will determine my progression - I guess, I'll put everything into spoilers:
As for the game itself I'm growing a little bit tired of it, now that I feel like I traveled through the entire map several times with no further implication what to explore next and now that I have hunted enough and done enough of those challenges the gameplay really starts lacking after riding from one story mission to the next one, but I have to admit that the story is getting much more intense and it is enough to draw me back in!
So, I know that there are epilogues in this game ( I don't know what they consist of though, so please don't spoil me), but are those also points of no return? I have been going through every sidequest that would pop up on my map, but is there still something I should actively seek out before reaching the end of the game? Interesting hidden sidequests or stuff that you would normaly not run into and that can't be reached after certain story points? For example I haven't found all the bodies of the serial killer yet - I think one is still missing - stuff like that? So that I would reconsider doing story missions, but focus on the other stuff instead now.
As for the game itself I'm growing a little bit tired of it, now that I feel like I traveled through the entire map several times with no further implication what to explore next and now that I have hunted enough and done enough of those challenges the gameplay really starts lacking after riding from one story mission to the next one, but I have to admit that the story is getting much more intense and it is enough to draw me back in!
As far as a point of no return, there's a mission in Chapter 6 called "Our Best Selves." It's technically not the last mission in the game, but that's the one that starts you down a path where you will no longer be able to free-roam through the end of the main quest.
As far as side quests go, have you met the Veteran, Hamish Sinclair? If not, go look for him around O'Creagh's Run. He only shows up in Chapter 6 and his questline is definitely worth doing. There are additional side quest chains that need to be completed before the end of Chapter 6 or they disappear forever; Do Not Seek Absolution in Annesburg, Money Lending and Other Sins for Strauss, Help a Brother Out and the following quest for the clergy in Saint Denis, Of Men and Angels in Saint Denis (this one unlocks one of the best cutscenes in the entire game, so definitely look for it), and if you start the quest series the WIdow of WIllard's Rest, you need to complete it before finishing Chapter 6 or it disappears (if you don't start it, it will remain available later though).
Just spent 30 minutes just riding around on my horse. Wasn't even galloping or anything. Just slowly moving along taking in the environment and sound. Been going through some personal things lately, but that 30 minutes was really peaceful and nothing else mattered in those moments. It was nice.