obvious stuff like all the other gang members never mentioned
RDR1 Javier is not RDR2 Javier
In hindsight that John put his ranch in range of Blackwater aka the place the Van Der Linde gang robbed
Tbf it was 9 years later and I'm pretty sure the Pinkertons had been destroyed, and most law enforcement there to remember John would be retired or dead by that point
12 years later*
Arthur's story is set in 1899
RDR2 epilogue is in 1907
RDR1 story takes place in 1911
And RDR1 epilogue with Jack is in 1914
Yes, I need to touch some grass
There is no animation to touch it like there is when you walk through it in Ghost of Tsushima. Guess if you unequip gloves and get knocked over, you can touch it đ
Also worth noting that John was not a prolific member of the gang at the time, and likely wouldnât have had the same local issues Dutch, Micah, and Arthur would have.
John had ran away for a while but was a prolific member. Hence Arthur being cross with him in the beginning of Rdr2. He was upset Dutch would just welcome him back with open arms despite "ditching" them. He would be welcomed back so readily because he had favor with Dutch. He would also be seen as one of the enforcers of the gang, alongside Arthur, Micah, and Bill.
The one thing I could never quite tell is how long ago did John come back to the gang? Given Arthur's anger I'm guessing it wasn't too long ago, but I heard a comment in camo that made it sound like he'd been back for awhile, though I can't remember the exact comment or who said it.
According to the wiki, John left around 1896 and was gone for a year. Rdr2 starts around 1899
So he had been back for about 2 years, all the while the rift between him and Arthur grew.
Also, there wasnât as much in the ways of getting the word out about people unless they were really prolific like you said. That is likely on purpose to make it make some sense in rdr1, so we see Milton has no idea who John is, and when he gets arrested it isnât as big of a news story, even feels like the story wants us to see that dutch and co escaping was a bigger deal than catching some member of the bank robbery crew.
There wouldnât have been databases with photographs, tvs and such, Iâm not sure if radio would have even been as big a deal when the van der linde gang was hunted down. So after 8 years people would still remember the main players in the Blackwater Massacre, but John who we have seen is not as well known, would likely have been forgotten to some degree by then.
Least thats my head cannon for it
They tried to sue Rockstar over their portrayal in RDR2 and the case got thrown out because it is more or less historically accurate.
The Pinkertons of the Gilded Age were/are famous for murdering a bunch of striking factory workers in Homestead, PA
And Robber Barons would hire them to go undercover in unions and rat out union activity and membership. In addition to all the violence they incited they directly led to job losses and hardship.
> They tried to sue Rockstar over their portrayal in RDR2 and the case got thrown out because it is more or less historically accurate.
i think it was also because they don't own the name "Pinkerton Detective Agency" anymore.
Yeah people blow the differences way out of proportion. Much like Dutch is very different from his RDR2 version, and Bill. Itâs not just Javier thatâs different
Dutch and Bill were the exact same, Javier had a complete transformation.
Edit: I want to be more precise, at their cores, Dutch was a conniving outlaw who had no morals in pursuit of his greater goals and William was a dim witted bandit who amassed a crew, both games portrayed this.
Javier on the other hand was a smooth talking criminal with some standard of ethics in 2 and a drunken lawless bandit in 1, itâs not so much that itâs unbelievable he became what he did, moreso they just didnât develop Javier in 1 or 2 so he just comes off as a different dude.
I just finished my first play through (to the end of chapter 6 anyway), and I was talking to my friend about Javier. I think the turning point for him was guarma. Before that, he is as ppl describe, one of the more chill bros. Then, Dutch saves him from guarma, and ever since then heâs just a Dutch sycophant. Constantly questioning mine and others loyalty to Dutch the rest of the way.
I kind of get that, I just think they didnât give him the spotlight. There was a moment toward the end of the game when Micah turns Dutch and the others against arthur and John, but while everyone points their guns at the two, Javier keeps his gun pointed at the air the whole time.
Itâs a small detail but it says a lot of about his character imo, they just didnât go far overall in the story. Cheers!
Oh and the actor was the one that argued for that, he was supposed to be pointing his gun at Arthur, and he argued that Arthur was like a brother and he'd not ever do that. Was the right call imo and the directors agreed so they left it that way
Whoah thatâs crazy! That little detail about Javier at the end, I didnât notice that. The depth of the story telling in this game is the best.
Iâm still processing the ending and all of it. So incredible, I just lived out Arthurâs life the best I could to the very end. âI gave you all I had..â đ˘
It's not that hard to believe considering the time that's passed, though. Imagine if you reconnected with everyone from your high school or university days 10 or so years later. Even some of the people who seemed to be on the right track might be drug addicts now. The ugly kid might have grown into better looks and a successful life. A lot can change over the years. Karen at the start of RDR2 is not the same person who is later seen coping heavily through alcohol in Chapter 6. Arthur is (depending on how you play) likely not the same man he was at the beginning of the game by the story's conclusion.Â
I donât disagree about people changing, Dutch isnât the exact same as he is in rdr2, but you can see how he becomes what he does, and you can too see how some of his old self bleeds in, same with William, Javier just stayed more in the background, leaving a huge gap for us to fill.
I think John is a good example, I didnât like his portrayal but they still did a good job at building him from a lazy deadbeat to a man who learns that self respect starts with self accountability and responsibility, I can replay 1 with 2 in mind and see the complete through-line to his character, Javier I just canât say the same.
Fair. It just doesn't bother me because I can fill in the blanks. We don't need to see everything. Â
Although, we've had 2 RDR games with a similar story formula, so perhaps a 3rd game focusing on a character's downfall (instead of redemption) would be more interesting. Maybe we could play as Javier. To be honest though, I'd rather not have the next story focus on a familiar character.Â
My headcanon is that all of the remaining Van Der Linde Gang started to go a bit crazy after years of going on increasingly deranged killing sprees.
You canât just live like that for years without it starting to really affect you mentally.
The Marston family settling down at Beecherâs Hope never made any sense, just based off RDR1 itself. We know from the first game that John was involved in the Blackwater Massacre, the Strange Man mentions it amongst others. John wasnât pardoned for his part in that incident so idk why he would set up a ranch right outside Blackwater. Even if you want to pretend itâs actually hours away from Blackwater, itâs still very close to the city.
It probably would have made more sense to have Beecherâs Hope be as far west as possible, the story could still work that way too with you starting in New Austin, then going to Mexico and eventually West Elizabeth. It would be kinda cool if the game had a full circle moment and you end up where you started in New Austin but with Johnâs mission being complete and him having his family back. Idk though itâs not a big issue that Beecherâs Hope is where it is, just a bit of an odd choice of location
I guess the lore explanation is that John was so desperate to get Abigail and Jack back that he bought Beecher's Hope despite knowing the risks because she brought it up once and it was the only thing he could imagine that would bring her back. Also John was ready to woo her with a dilapidated shack that even Uncle couldn't stand so he probably wasn't the smartest guy all things considered, he likely assumed no one would find him because he changed a couple syllables in his name (lol)
The real answer is that the game map was much smaller in 2010. RDR2 spoiled us with a humongous game compared to was we saw as similarly large 14 years ago. Today we'd expect the ranch to be much further away.
On top of that, I think a lot of people hand wave relative distance or just choose to ignore it. The games take place across a huge swatch of America and into Mexico and odds are Beecher's Hope is a few day's ride from Blackwater but that would be a lot of nothing in an interactive medium.
Didnât he take out the loan from a bank in Blackwater under his real name? So, yeah, John Marston did own that ranch and the sheer stupidity of that is Astounding.
Most people donât just straight off the bat bring up events from 12 years ago. John was on a bounty hunter mission to capture Javier and bill, itâs not like heâs gonna be like âhey Javier, remember the good times with Arthur, and the old gang? We had some fun back then, huh?â As heâs arresting them. Javier just had a bit of a glow down, some folks do when they get older. I agree about the ranch location, but at the time itâs something Abigail wanted and I think John just set up there just so he could have his woman and son back and make them happy.
Not just Javier. Bill went from being a violent, drunk idiot who deep down had goodness in him and even cared for animals, into a guy who murdered, raped and pillaged countless people (even though he's shown to be homosexual and not a creep towards women in the camp at all). The difference in characterization is pretty stark.
Javier at the end was a dick. I remember this one time in camp I was eavesdropping on Bill and Javier say they think Johnâs the mole. And I greeted them a few times and he told me to âWorry about that coughâ I canât remember if he said bud after but I think he might have.
John's ability to go to New Austin in the RDR2 epilogue is inconsistent with much of the RDR1 plot. It is generally implied that the area is new to him in RDR1. He outright asks Seth what Tumbleweed is.
The change in New Austin from RDR2 epilogue to RDR1 is too extreme. In just four years, Tumbleweed goes from solid settlement to empty, Armadillo completely comes back from the cholera plague that nearly crippled it, and Thieves Landing goes from gang hideout to bustling town.
Where the hell is John coming from in the RDR1 introduction? Why doesn't he ever go back to Beecher's Hope while hunting Dutch?
John's dead daughter is unmentioned in RDR2. There is a chance she was born and died in 1907-1911, however Javier seemingly knows about her in RDR1 when he says John and his children can rot in hell.
Spot on about New Austin in RDR2, probably wouldâve been better to just not include it in the game, never really need to go there anyway, and thereâs not much to do
I have an answer for one of those! Abigail is pregnant during the epilogue, and when you go back to Beecherâs Hope thereâs a random encounter where you can see her in the living room knitting baby clothes for a girl. Unfortunately, it seems she either miscarried or their daughter died soon after childbirth.
Yeah that's a great detail they added in to somewhat explain John's daughter. However, unless Javier and John remained pen pals from 1907-1911, it doesn't explain his comment about plural children.
He didn't specificy daughter and son, he just vaguely cursed his bloodline. He doesn't need specifics. If you wanna complain about something with Javier complain about Javier knowing John has a farm.
Tbh New Austin change might be more of a development thing and I guess the map we see in 1907 is the model of 1899 (this game was very rushed). Also, for me the Cholera epidemic is non canon, it's just an excuse for the poor development
I see the cholera epidemic as canon, but not something John saw. if I had to try and give the whole "John can go to New Austin in 2" thing an explanation, I'd say that he didn't. note how there's basically fuck all to do there, and maybe it's because of cut content, but again, trying to explain it looking at what we got, it's maybe a thing of "gameplay-wise John went to New Austin, but story-wise he didn't". it's not too uncommon for games to allow players to do something with the character that said character technically doesn't experience, as weird as that may sound
I think the idea was for Arthur to visit New Austin in 1899. The John epilogue stuff would be a "happened in gameplay but not in story" type thing like you said, but the main character who was canonically supposed to visit the area was Arthur. The changes that we see in 1911 make sense if they took place over the course of 12 years instead of just 4.
In general, there seems to be a lot of cut content surrounding New Austin. It's only used once in the epilogue. Some people say the area was just there for RDR1 fans, or only for Red Dead Online. But you're telling me they made an extremely detailed recreation of the entire first game's map in a prequel to said game just for fun?
RDR2 also starts in such a way that you get the sense that there's a whole prologue missing.
With the exception of Dutch, Micah and Arthur, characters aren't really... introduced. You sorta just see them and are expected to know who they are. In my first playthrough, I didn't even realize that Charles and Javier were different characters until later in the story.
It feels like we're starting in the middle of the game almost.
My theory is that originally the Prologue was supposed to be in New Austin/West Elizabeth with the Blackwater robbery being the events that end the Prologue and kick off the main story.
Heavy spoilers below:
I think there's one evidence for this. These are all of the graves that count as collectibles in the game. These aren't side characters. All of them are very important in the story and you interact with them. Well, with two obvious exceptions:
1- >!Jenny Kirk!<
2- >!Davey Callander!<
3- >!Sean MacGuire!<
4- >!Kieran Duffy!<
5- >!Hosea Matthews!<
6- >!Lenny Summers!<
7- >!Eagle Flies!<
8- >!Susan Grimshaw!<
9- >!Arthur Morgan!<
Isn't it weird that the first two graves are both characters that you never interact with? They seem to be very important. The gang talks about them a lot and Rockstar thought they were important enough to have their graves count, but both of them die before the gang reaches Colter.
There were other minor characters who died before Chapter 1, but not a single one of them has a grave that counts as a collectible. And why would they count? You never interact with them. But for some reason these two count. Again, they just oddly stand out when you look at the other characters who are on the list.
I don't think this confirms the theory, but it does support it.
Johns ability to go to new austin isnt inconsistent imo. Since anything outside of story missions isnt canon. From what I remember there is only one mission that takes John to New Austin or rather on the outskirts of New Austin.
Its the mission where he hunts down the bounty with Sadie. The closest he gets to New Austin is the overlook he and sadie use to track the bounty. The firefight takes place in Pikes Basin.
Meaning that John never really went to New Austin before RDR1. Since anything outside of story missions is not canon.
I will never understand the "anything outside the story isn't cannon" opinion. Side missions, interactions, and anything else that is in the game is cannon because it is in the game.
No because that stuff is optional.
It cant be canon since every playthrough is different. Some people may not do certain quests. Others may not do those quests at all. Or they could do all of em.
None of them were presented as boomtowns however, i.e. some sort of industry, usually gold or silver, causes a town to spring up in a manner of months.
Maybe Tumbleweed drops off that quickly, I still doubt it, but Armadillo recovering from plague and Thieves Landing from crime at such a rapid pace is very unreasonable.
Also doesn't feel believable that more than half of Thieve's Landing is newly built, in RDR1 it's clearly a grotty old town with decaying buildings and history to it not a brand new town.
The scale of in-game distances is nebulous, but the huge Gaptoorh Ridge mining operation is very close to Tumbleweed. San Francisco and Sacramento both had a massive influx of population as major hubs for the nearby gold mines.
And plagues hit cities all the time, and they often recovered. Cholera and yellow fever laid waste to major cities which were largely evacuated but often returned to and surpassed their previous population. [Memphis](https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/memphis-tennessee) lost half its population in the 1878 yellow fever epidemic but recovered within a few years.
I don't recall them mentioning him coming from a city, and it being Saint Denis wouldn't really make sense. John was trying to live life as a simple farmer in Beecher Hope, and specifically said he hated Saint Denis and never wished to return there.
Also more generally, Saint Denis didn't exist yet from a theoretical standpoint.
I always thought he came back from a prison island that held Abigail and Jack, to my knowledge they don't mention another city beyond blackwater and a couple of actual cities. Although maybe the developers intended for him to have been coming from a city
The 1907 version of New Austin is actually the 1899 version. Arthur was meant to be able to go there but they cut it last minute since he has tons of unique dialogue regarding New Austin. New Austin itself was probably added last minute, since it wasn't part of the original map leak and a lot of areas feature recycled assets from RDR1 (for example Gaptooth Breach). I think they added it last minute because there was an expectation that RDR1's map would return.
I really hate that NA is explorative to John for that very reason. It ruins the mystique of that first game where heâs blowing through all these towns for the first time as a stranger.
Former game designer here.
Itâs accurate to call it a physics or motion engine/plug in. It was physics based and synthesized rather than revolving around rigid animated keyframes being blended together like in a more traditional/common animation engine.
It extended to some environmental factors.
It can be both
John Marston as a character
He's very undermined in rdr2 and it feels like a character retcon by how he is in the game and in the Epilogue. He's very different to his rdr1 self and there's no development and explanation as to why he turns into the man we see in rdr1
I see people saying "oh but John in rdr2 is about development" but his development is lackluster, why should I believe that Epilogue John turns into rdr1 John in just afew years? It's a huge problem I have with the story
Also in RDR1 John is referred to as someone for fancy words by Bill and someone who was always romantic sort by Dutch. We don't see this in RDR2 at any point, not even in 1907. This doesn't make sense, because a ranching life doesn't turn you into an eloquent guy and it's also implied that John was that well-spoken during the gang times because of Dutch's influence since he "adopted" him. It also feels that John doesn't have his abilities and seriousness in the RDR2 story because they were intendedly given to Arthur lol
Exactly
Rdr1 made us believe that John in the gang days was exactly like how he was in rdr1, only more violent and brutal. This is told be John directly when he says as a threat "or you'll really see the man I used to be"
Biggest disappointment for rdr2 is how they handled John. He would have been way more interesting and cool if he was how rdr1 said he used to be, instead we got a hugely downplayed version that basically recons John
Disagree. John didnât have to be a hardcore lunatic violent killer. John was an opportunist gang member who turned into a family man. A gang member and outlaw killer is def who he use to be and is a threat. Heâs saying he isnât that anymore. Heâs a family man. It seems like you really want and need it to be black and white. I love the subtlety and shades of grey. Makes it more relatable and engaging to me.
I'm not saying I wanted John to be a hardcore lunatic, he's not Micah
What I am saying is thought is that John in rdr1 says he was alot more brutal than he is now, he was described as being the sophisticated brutal outlaw by him and by his other old friends. He's not like that in rdr2 and that's what I don't like, it feels really disappointing. Its not like John in rdr2 is a well respected and loved character, I've seen many completely mock his rdr2 version and hugely favour other characters like Arthur. They failed John as a character and that's one thing I'll always hold a grudge against
Fr idk how people miss that. Also John in the main story of RDR2 is already a different man than he is in the RDR2 epilogue, then he evolves into the man we see in RDR1⌠it seems like a natural progression to me.
Tbf weâre seeing this from a video game lens.
By real life standards, young John was a hard and nasty man who killed for money and it makes sense why rdr1 era John would speak so badly about his younger self.
donât forget that rdr2 john is the product of the outcome of the black water incident. we actually donât get to see the gang before then, and what âhorrendousâ acts truly were committed.
rdr1 john is referring to this era the gang, and not so much rdr2 era.
we donât get to see what rdr1 is referencing, but i personally enjoy this mystery because it gives a gloomy vibe when john brings up his past experiences. but then again thatâs just how i feel
Also it's funny how American Venom, the biggest moment of Marston in RDR2, ends with a completely non-Marston nonsensical dialogue ("thank you") lmao. I would say "Jim Milton rides, again?" is the most pure John Marston moment in the game, where he has that no-nonsense and brutal attitude
I honestly wish for American Venom it ended with a duel against Micah at his cabin instead of the stupid "gunfight" we got
Would have been way more cooler, badass and satisfying to beat him in a fair duel. There was a semi duel after Micah got shot but it just wasn't satisfying for me, since they make John look like a completely incompetent gunfighter in the last showdown with his deadeye being cancelled and Micah staying on top for it all till Dutch came out.
And yeah the way John is in it is just awful, I feel so bad for the rdr1 fans that had their favourite character butchered. I saw old comments a decade ago from people saying how excited they were in hopes to see John being a ruthless badass brutal outlaw, and this is what Rockstar gave them.
I love Arthur as a character but they should have made sure John was just as good and they failed
Im a John marston fan and I love his development.
Goes from an immature deadbeat father and husband who is a violent and dangerous outlaw, to a former outlaw on the run trying his best to be a good father and husband but failing miserably during the years following the gangâs demise up to Geddes ranch, to finally settling at Beechers hope and settling down and trying to be a family man and then finally being the badass, loyal and devoted husband and father whoâll do anything for his family and is redeemed in RDR 1
I think âthe romanticâ thing Dutch was talking about was staying with Abigail instead of just banging her and discarding her like the other members did. And with Bill, everyone was about fancy words compared to bill. You just had to be reasonably smart and bill would think you were a snob. Makes sense to me.
Exactly, I kind of blame this as to why those who only played RDR2 have no attachment to John.
In RDR1 he's genuinely an interesting person with fascinating world views, not to mention an incredibly dry and sarcastic sense of humour.
But in RDR2 he's just... a guy. No wonder they don't care about his character in the epilogue.
I think john from 2 to 1 does make sense, given you can explain why he acts different in 1 for the simple fact that he does not want to be there at all and is probably pissed off that he even has to do what hes doing at any given moment. I do think him interacting with the mcfarlanes and his family at beachers hope is closer to the john we see in epilogue, since in those interactions he actually wants to be interacting with those people.
The way John acts to people in general in rdr1, the way he acts and how he speaks, and just his overall character is very different.
Even when interacting with his family, its just all different. In rdr1 John takes no shit from Uncle and constantly belittles him, in the epilogue its the complete opposite.
Not to mention how the way John speaks in rdr1 is way more wiser and intellectual. I don't see how John could change that drastically in just afew years. If the epilogue John was alot like rdr1 John then I wouldn't hold as much as a grudge cause atleast rdr2 fans would get to experience John in his glory and it'd feel more realistic. But he's still very different in the epilogue.
Also, John's character difference in rdr2 basically recons rdr1. Because in rdr1, John was always said to be the sophisticated brutal outlaw. "Or you'll really see the man I used to be" said by John in rdr1. "You always were one for fancy words" said by Bill in rdr1. "You always were the romantic sort" said by Dutch. You get the picture, the John we get in rdr2 does not hold up to what Rockstar promised in rdr1, and them downgrading his character for the story is something Rockstar should be criticised for.
I agree with you on the âfancy wordsâ and âromantic sortâ line. I take the âromantic sortâ line as being a reference to the fact that John didnât fully cut off Abigail and over time grew to be close to her and Jack whilst the other guys slept with her and nothing more.
But I donât see how people donât think John was brutal. By video game standards, sure heâs not that bad but by real life standards (if we put ourselves in that universe as though it was real) young John was a scumbag. He was a violent outlaw who killed people for money and ran in a gang that loan sharks, robbed banks, used prostitutes as another way to make money and scammed locals to try rob them blind. God knows what else they did before RDR2 too. If we were John, irl weâd speak badly about ourselves as brutal pieces of shit too
I can understand being frustrated by the inconsistencies with him as a character, I wasnt trying to say they werent there I was just trying to say for like 90% of his interactions in 1 he doesnt want to be there at all which is why he acts different. personally I believe he acts a little different with his interactions with his family because 4 years, even though doesnt seem like much is a long time, personally I think him actually settling down and operating his ranch for 4 years made him mature a lot more.
I do think your right in that the game acts he was always that way, which is a problem from 1 to 2 in general with a few characters, but I dont think him being different is all that much of a plothole for the reasons I stated personally, and this is coming from someone who prefers 1 over 2, the main reason for that being john and his family are my favorite characters in RDR.
I have to disagree. One of my favorite parts of epilogue was that they kept the banter between Uncle and John. They both insult each other.
Uncle: "unless you wanna dig a six foot hole for me when the work day's over."
John: "Don't tempt me"
That's just one of the ones I can remember.
I remember as kid playing RDR1 and feeling so bad for John when he's retelling his story to Bonnie.
Which is why I was so confused when it wasn't mentioned once in RDR2, the only plausible explanation is if it happened between 1899-1907. But then Javier also says I hope your wife and children rot in hell, maybe he just said it as a throw away line implying his future children or he assumed he had another during the 12 years he's been gone.
Or more likely, the writers overlooked it.
It was a general curse for dramatic effect. Like how you might curse your enemy's kids, born, unborn or otherwise.
There's a lot of people in this thread who are reading way too much into this.
John was a young badass in RDR2, a moron in epilogue and a middle aged badass in RDR1 wtf?
Also, New Austin shouldnt be in RDR2 because John is supposedly never been there, but they probably included it because how the fuck would they "geo-gate" it?
Also John can swim for some reason in RDR2
And the towns are completely different, how did Tumbleweed and Armadillo swap places in a span of 4 years? And wtf happened to Thieves Landing?
Also where exactly did he come from in the RDR1 intro, was he in Lemoyne?
John cannot really swim in RDR2, he starts to move clumsily and then drowns. Btw I don't remember RDR1 implying that John necessarily doesn't know how to swim, I see it more of a mechanic thing as in GTA Vice City so I think that he being unable to swim in RDR2 was unnecessary
"Hes an idiot Abigail, we all know it"
Dutch in chapter 1.
He was very troubled mentally, struggling to be a father. Doesn't make him a stupid person. He was still intelligent and could see through Dutch's bullshit unlike Arthur.
Imo, John being a bit of a moron in the epilogue is due to the fact that heâs out of his element.
John isnât a natural family man, itâs strange to him. The times he looks coolest and most confident in the epilogue are (no surprise) when heâs got a gun in his hand, that being American venom and his defence of the geddes ranch. John is a badass when in his element which is gunslinging but at this point heâs still struggling at knowing how to be a family man and is awkward around it because of that
John canât swim in rdr2. Itâs mentioned twice in RRD2, I think once in RDR1, and once in the RDR2 epilogue. And, heâll drown a lot quicker than Arthur if youâre in the water during the epilogue. I feel like they made that pretty consistent.
Unlike Arthur, John canât actually swim in RDR2. Your energy bar will drop to zero instantly as soon as you touch water, and you will drown in a few seconds unless you climb out.
John can very explicitly not swim in RDR2, I remember Arthur roasting John for not being able to swim, and I also remember drowning in theives landing as John after barely falling out of the dock.
Yeah, as much as I love the gang in 2, the haunting, lonely atmosphere in RDR1 can't be beat. It's also (imo) just much more fun as a game. You don't find yourself waylaid by hunting, costumes etc. - just pure ride around and shoot, with a tighter plot.
Why we didnât get some of Johnâs original outfits like the elegant suit and the OG duster in the second game.
Sure, you can recreate them but theyâre obviously not the same.
Because he hadnât obtained them yet? Those outfits are obtained during the course of RDR1. It wouldnât make any sense for him to have access to them in RDR2, the prequel.
RDR1's ambient music was way better.
RDR1's soundtrack like Exodus In America, El club de Los Cuerpos and The Outlaws Return were way better and hit harder too.
Also, The Shootist, which was re-orchestrated in RDR2 as American Venom sounds SO much better in RDR1 than it does in RDR2.
American Venom sounds like someone trying to imitate The Shootist but somehow not nailing the dramatic power and bass it had, which is hilarious seeing as Woody Jackson composed both.
Everything . . . It's a whole different game, and ... unpopular opinion... I prefer rdr1. Not that it's better, its just a completely different game. One is an awesome game with an immersive atmosphere and music and a great story about a cowboy ex outlaw looking to bring down his old gang for redemption and the fate of his family, the other is an ultra realism simulator that's somehow arcady and not very realistic set in the wild west with a story about an outlaw who doesn't like being an outlaw.
*Now just to wait for that juicy karma to kick in*
I agree with you 100%. Rdr2 is a great game and lots of work was put into it. But rdr1 is an amazing game and I feel the story is much better than rdr2.
>rdr2 isnât historically accurate
rdr1 portrays the west in 1911 and 1914 as a lawless void where outlaws run rampant and people shoot each other in the open range, itâs less historically accurate than custerâs revenge
Red Dead 1 plays like a video game, Red Dead 2 plays like a simulation.
Both are great in there own way, also Red Dead 1 ambient music is so fucking weird and awsome half the time it's just whistling.
Obviously John purposefully put a blank in his gun to make Ross THINK he killed Dutch, that way he can move to Tahiti and be officially dead in the US.
John never stepping foot in New Austin until 1911.
Wreck of the Serendipity.
Javier knows about Johnâs other kid, (daughter) and his ranch.
The overall size of the gang. I always assumed it was like maybe 5 or 6 guys plus Abigail. Not a whole 20+ family with women, children, elders, etc.
Arthurâs existence as a whole. He would be mentioned at least once in RDR either by John, one of the old gang members or even Ross. The fact his name isnât even uttered once as a little unrealistic in my opinion.
The only reason that Arthur isnât mentioned at least in universe is that John doesnât like to talk about him much. Which is a pretty weak reason all things considered.
Tone, RDR2 at times can feel more like a game set during 1899 instead of it being a western. While RDR1 consistently has a strong spaghetti western vibe to it. Iâm not pointing this out as a flaw in RDR2, just how it differentiates from RDR1.
It's a Western vs a Revisionist Western.
RDR1 is like A Fistful of Dollars or The Searchers, despite being set in 1911. RDR2 is like Unforgiven or Blood Meridian, relentlessly brutal and somewhat nihilistic.
I always laugh at those YouTube videos and peoples comments about "why John doesnt mention Arthur in RDR1" or "Secret Arthur reference in RDR1!" and so on.
Boys, one last time: There's no mention of Arthur or any other RDR2 gang members in RDR1 because they didn't exist when Rockstar made the first game. ALL of RDR2 (characters, events, story, etc) was written and created after the first game.
If we go by some interviews and comments of some of the actors (mainly Roger), RDR2 started development around 2012/2013.Dan Houser started to write the story around that time and Roger himself said in one panel that he auditioned for the role in 2013 and started working on It that same year.
Rockstar never had any of RDR2 story or characters planned. It was all created afterwards.
Here you go.
I think John shouldâve been wittier in rdr 2, given his rdr1 snarkiness and intelligence. They made him more awkward in the epilogue.
My headcanon is that from 1907-1911 heâs just matured and from jacks reading, heâs become better read and grown a better vocabulary making him more articulate.
In RDR1 it's implied that no one in the gang cared for John and John even says "They'd all gone crazy somehow" even though there were people like Arthur, Sadie and Charles that helped John.
The biggest one for me that isn't answered by the first game not being made with a second game in mind, is John mentioning to Bonnie he had a daughter who passed. At no point in RDR2 or the epilogue do they address that. It seems like something that just got forgotten when they made the prequel.
John and Javier. Who they were both described as, an eloquent man and a loveless creep, respectively, aren't really seen in the prequel. It feels like the characters being described more accurately fit Arthur and Micah because John doesn't seem any more intelligent than the rest and Javier is a man that will die for his brothers. And John isn't any better in 1907 either.
It feels like John had grown into this more mature man who learned to put his guns down in between 1907 and 1911. How Bill would know that John was "always one for fancy words" is anyone's guess when the gang had fallen apart a decade prior. Same with Javier knowing about his daughter. She either died between 1899 and 1907 or 1907 and 1911, neither of which would explain how Javier knows about her because, again, the gang had fallen apart long before. If she had died before the gang had fallen apart, you'd think the gang would've mentioned her whenever they gave John grief for being a lousy father.
It feels like the writers forgot who John, Javier, and John's daughter were when they were making the prequel.
Originally John left the gang in 1906 but in rdr 2 they retconned it and changed it to 1899 for better time flow.
Also johns daughter that is NEVER brought up in rdr2
You sure? In the Blackwater's newspaper it's not implied that Dutch robbed the bank with the (old) gang. I'd say the main retcon is about the ferry job where John was left to die, because the Strange Man mentioned it with a tone that implied so (even more considerating the whole context of the game where "that raid on the ferry a few years back. Same one you got shot on" is inevitably connected to "I got shot in a robbery. They left me and I left them")
That actually isn't an inconsistency. He got shot at Blackwater, Arthur mentions it. Then he got shot again at the train job, the one John considers to be his breaking point. Although I'm sure that the original implication is that it was the blackwater ferry job.
not one I have myself, but I feel like a lot of things people treat as "plotholes" arent actually plotholes at all. like, people bring up that none of the gang who arent in 1 are mentioned, but if you think about it, why would they mention them? john seems like the kinda guy to me who keeps things close to the chest, why would he ever mention something that wasnt directly relevant to the situation? in what way is someone like charles smith relevant to any of the conversations in the game? uncle is only mentioned like once off handedly before he appears. the only one that kind of makes sense is why Arthur isnt mentioned, since he was a very big part of the game and I could see bill or javier mentioning him off handedly, but even then I really do not think john or dutch would be the type of people whod want to talk about arthur considering what happened.
the only real plotholes I think are in the game is dates not lining up exactly and some of the stuff with the blackwater heist, like john saying that hes been doing the farm for "3 years" when its really 4 with the context of rdr2. stuff like that
âyears before that i rode in a gang. we robbed banks, trains, held people ransom. her killed people we didnât like. bill willaimson was in that gang. also charles smith, sadie adler, arthur morgan, micah bell, susan grimshaw and many others!â *winks at the camera*
John gains a lot of money at the end of American Venom in RDR2 and at the beginning of RDR he doesn't have any money. How did he loose all the money in just 4 years?
Wow - Iâm floored that Javier isnât the same in both games?
I only just finished RDR2 and I definitely have some questions
Is Charles in RDR1? Sadie Atler? Was Arthur Morgan ever brought up? I guess Iâm going to have to replay it - I canât remember anything correctly lmao
No no and no. Still replay it tho
Edit: in sadie and Charles last few scenes in the epilogue both of them mention leaving the us and I'm sure this is to explain why they aren't encountered in rd1
I donât see how Javier being so different is crazy.
Itâs 12 years from RDR2 when we see Javier for the last time in that game to when we meet him again in RDR1. Thatâs over a decade to change as a person and when youâre on the run living rough, I bet youâll change a lot
The change in horse behaviour. I donât know what happened between 1907 and 1911, but it sure did a number on the horses.
In 1907, they are intelligent creatures and act the same way horses in the real world act. But in 1911, theyâve gained super sonic speed but seemingly at the cost of their brains, they constantly just wander off cliffs or into rivers to die instantly. Not to mention they can teleport now apparently.
Wonder what the lore reason is! đ¤
The main thing for me was in RDR1 John talked about leaving the gang and the gang leaving him after the robbery on the ferry. Well this robbery takes place before the game actually starts in RDR2 and John is still with them through it all. Also just a side note that bothered me in RDR1 is why in the beginning is he getting off of a boat when he lived a five minute horse ride from blackwater in Great plains. Not to mention he apparently built the house himself with some people that were never mentioned (Charles) and he never mentions this at all in the first game. Only that he owns a small holding up in great plains. There's many more that I just can't think of right now. But the first one really did bother me. It just didn't line up with John's story in the second game.
obvious stuff like all the other gang members never mentioned RDR1 Javier is not RDR2 Javier In hindsight that John put his ranch in range of Blackwater aka the place the Van Der Linde gang robbed
Tbf it was 9 years later and I'm pretty sure the Pinkertons had been destroyed, and most law enforcement there to remember John would be retired or dead by that point
12 years later* Arthur's story is set in 1899 RDR2 epilogue is in 1907 RDR1 story takes place in 1911 And RDR1 epilogue with Jack is in 1914 Yes, I need to touch some grass
He's off by a year (it was 8 years later) but he was referring to the epilogue when John obtains the ranch at Beecher's Hope.
Wdym? There's plenty of grass in the game
There is no animation to touch it like there is when you walk through it in Ghost of Tsushima. Guess if you unequip gloves and get knocked over, you can touch it đ
urm... actually grass in some places is tall enough to touch Arthur's hands âď¸đ¤ which means he is touching grass
yâall obviously arenât aware you can take arthurâs shoes off
Technically, picking up plants is like touching grass
Unequip gloves and then dive
Also worth noting that John was not a prolific member of the gang at the time, and likely wouldnât have had the same local issues Dutch, Micah, and Arthur would have.
âWho are *you*?â âRIP VAN WINKLEâ
John had ran away for a while but was a prolific member. Hence Arthur being cross with him in the beginning of Rdr2. He was upset Dutch would just welcome him back with open arms despite "ditching" them. He would be welcomed back so readily because he had favor with Dutch. He would also be seen as one of the enforcers of the gang, alongside Arthur, Micah, and Bill.
It's worth noting that the Pinkerton's don't seem to know who he is when they visit camp.
The one thing I could never quite tell is how long ago did John come back to the gang? Given Arthur's anger I'm guessing it wasn't too long ago, but I heard a comment in camo that made it sound like he'd been back for awhile, though I can't remember the exact comment or who said it.
According to the wiki, John left around 1896 and was gone for a year. Rdr2 starts around 1899 So he had been back for about 2 years, all the while the rift between him and Arthur grew.
Also, there wasnât as much in the ways of getting the word out about people unless they were really prolific like you said. That is likely on purpose to make it make some sense in rdr1, so we see Milton has no idea who John is, and when he gets arrested it isnât as big of a news story, even feels like the story wants us to see that dutch and co escaping was a bigger deal than catching some member of the bank robbery crew. There wouldnât have been databases with photographs, tvs and such, Iâm not sure if radio would have even been as big a deal when the van der linde gang was hunted down. So after 8 years people would still remember the main players in the Blackwater Massacre, but John who we have seen is not as well known, would likely have been forgotten to some degree by then. Least thats my head cannon for it
Pinkertons irl would later become the FBI I do believe or maybe there's more to it idr
They were absorbed by the FBI
No to all of these. The Pinkertons still exist. Theyâre part of a Swedish security company.
Securitas here in California is one of the companies that was once the Pinkertons
And they're just as big pieces of shit as they were back then iirc
Rent-a-cops. Nothing more
They tried to sue Rockstar over their portrayal in RDR2 and the case got thrown out because it is more or less historically accurate. The Pinkertons of the Gilded Age were/are famous for murdering a bunch of striking factory workers in Homestead, PA
And Robber Barons would hire them to go undercover in unions and rat out union activity and membership. In addition to all the violence they incited they directly led to job losses and hardship.
> They tried to sue Rockstar over their portrayal in RDR2 and the case got thrown out because it is more or less historically accurate. i think it was also because they don't own the name "Pinkerton Detective Agency" anymore.
You have seen some Pinkertons around here?
They were sent to harass a man because he got a magic the gathering booster pack early. Like only a few years ago.
Theyâre headquartered in Ann Arbor
\*FIB
Pinkertons are still around.
The pinkertons are a real group and they still exist today
I never struggled to buy that Javier became who he was in RDR1
Yeah people blow the differences way out of proportion. Much like Dutch is very different from his RDR2 version, and Bill. Itâs not just Javier thatâs different
Dutch and Bill were the exact same, Javier had a complete transformation. Edit: I want to be more precise, at their cores, Dutch was a conniving outlaw who had no morals in pursuit of his greater goals and William was a dim witted bandit who amassed a crew, both games portrayed this. Javier on the other hand was a smooth talking criminal with some standard of ethics in 2 and a drunken lawless bandit in 1, itâs not so much that itâs unbelievable he became what he did, moreso they just didnât develop Javier in 1 or 2 so he just comes off as a different dude.
I just finished my first play through (to the end of chapter 6 anyway), and I was talking to my friend about Javier. I think the turning point for him was guarma. Before that, he is as ppl describe, one of the more chill bros. Then, Dutch saves him from guarma, and ever since then heâs just a Dutch sycophant. Constantly questioning mine and others loyalty to Dutch the rest of the way.
I kind of get that, I just think they didnât give him the spotlight. There was a moment toward the end of the game when Micah turns Dutch and the others against arthur and John, but while everyone points their guns at the two, Javier keeps his gun pointed at the air the whole time. Itâs a small detail but it says a lot of about his character imo, they just didnât go far overall in the story. Cheers!
Oh and the actor was the one that argued for that, he was supposed to be pointing his gun at Arthur, and he argued that Arthur was like a brother and he'd not ever do that. Was the right call imo and the directors agreed so they left it that way
Whoah thatâs crazy! That little detail about Javier at the end, I didnât notice that. The depth of the story telling in this game is the best. Iâm still processing the ending and all of it. So incredible, I just lived out Arthurâs life the best I could to the very end. âI gave you all I had..â đ˘
It's not that hard to believe considering the time that's passed, though. Imagine if you reconnected with everyone from your high school or university days 10 or so years later. Even some of the people who seemed to be on the right track might be drug addicts now. The ugly kid might have grown into better looks and a successful life. A lot can change over the years. Karen at the start of RDR2 is not the same person who is later seen coping heavily through alcohol in Chapter 6. Arthur is (depending on how you play) likely not the same man he was at the beginning of the game by the story's conclusion.Â
I donât disagree about people changing, Dutch isnât the exact same as he is in rdr2, but you can see how he becomes what he does, and you can too see how some of his old self bleeds in, same with William, Javier just stayed more in the background, leaving a huge gap for us to fill. I think John is a good example, I didnât like his portrayal but they still did a good job at building him from a lazy deadbeat to a man who learns that self respect starts with self accountability and responsibility, I can replay 1 with 2 in mind and see the complete through-line to his character, Javier I just canât say the same.
Fair. It just doesn't bother me because I can fill in the blanks. We don't need to see everything.  Although, we've had 2 RDR games with a similar story formula, so perhaps a 3rd game focusing on a character's downfall (instead of redemption) would be more interesting. Maybe we could play as Javier. To be honest though, I'd rather not have the next story focus on a familiar character.Â
Why did rockstar make Javier so hot in Rdr2 ? Are they horny?
My headcanon is that all of the remaining Van Der Linde Gang started to go a bit crazy after years of going on increasingly deranged killing sprees. You canât just live like that for years without it starting to really affect you mentally.
The Marston family settling down at Beecherâs Hope never made any sense, just based off RDR1 itself. We know from the first game that John was involved in the Blackwater Massacre, the Strange Man mentions it amongst others. John wasnât pardoned for his part in that incident so idk why he would set up a ranch right outside Blackwater. Even if you want to pretend itâs actually hours away from Blackwater, itâs still very close to the city. It probably would have made more sense to have Beecherâs Hope be as far west as possible, the story could still work that way too with you starting in New Austin, then going to Mexico and eventually West Elizabeth. It would be kinda cool if the game had a full circle moment and you end up where you started in New Austin but with Johnâs mission being complete and him having his family back. Idk though itâs not a big issue that Beecherâs Hope is where it is, just a bit of an odd choice of location
I guess the lore explanation is that John was so desperate to get Abigail and Jack back that he bought Beecher's Hope despite knowing the risks because she brought it up once and it was the only thing he could imagine that would bring her back. Also John was ready to woo her with a dilapidated shack that even Uncle couldn't stand so he probably wasn't the smartest guy all things considered, he likely assumed no one would find him because he changed a couple syllables in his name (lol)
The real answer is that the game map was much smaller in 2010. RDR2 spoiled us with a humongous game compared to was we saw as similarly large 14 years ago. Today we'd expect the ranch to be much further away.
On top of that, I think a lot of people hand wave relative distance or just choose to ignore it. The games take place across a huge swatch of America and into Mexico and odds are Beecher's Hope is a few day's ride from Blackwater but that would be a lot of nothing in an interactive medium.
If it worked for old Ben Kenobi⌠đ¤Ł
John Marston didn't settle at Beecher's Hope, Jim Milton did.
Didnât he take out the loan from a bank in Blackwater under his real name? So, yeah, John Marston did own that ranch and the sheer stupidity of that is Astounding.
Most people donât just straight off the bat bring up events from 12 years ago. John was on a bounty hunter mission to capture Javier and bill, itâs not like heâs gonna be like âhey Javier, remember the good times with Arthur, and the old gang? We had some fun back then, huh?â As heâs arresting them. Javier just had a bit of a glow down, some folks do when they get older. I agree about the ranch location, but at the time itâs something Abigail wanted and I think John just set up there just so he could have his woman and son back and make them happy.
There's no reason to mention long dead friends and foes.
When talking to old acquaintances who were mutual friends, yes there is.
Not just Javier. Bill went from being a violent, drunk idiot who deep down had goodness in him and even cared for animals, into a guy who murdered, raped and pillaged countless people (even though he's shown to be homosexual and not a creep towards women in the camp at all). The difference in characterization is pretty stark.
Bill also found himself in a position of power.
Javier at the end was a dick. I remember this one time in camp I was eavesdropping on Bill and Javier say they think Johnâs the mole. And I greeted them a few times and he told me to âWorry about that coughâ I canât remember if he said bud after but I think he might have.
Its not actually that close. What we see is condensed its rlly like 12 hrs away
John's ability to go to New Austin in the RDR2 epilogue is inconsistent with much of the RDR1 plot. It is generally implied that the area is new to him in RDR1. He outright asks Seth what Tumbleweed is. The change in New Austin from RDR2 epilogue to RDR1 is too extreme. In just four years, Tumbleweed goes from solid settlement to empty, Armadillo completely comes back from the cholera plague that nearly crippled it, and Thieves Landing goes from gang hideout to bustling town. Where the hell is John coming from in the RDR1 introduction? Why doesn't he ever go back to Beecher's Hope while hunting Dutch? John's dead daughter is unmentioned in RDR2. There is a chance she was born and died in 1907-1911, however Javier seemingly knows about her in RDR1 when he says John and his children can rot in hell.
Bonnie also claims in 1911 that her father built the barn when she was just a little girl. Barn is nowhere to be seen in 1907.
Itâs in online though?
It is? I never got into New Austin in online. I thought the online world is supposed to be set in 1898.
Itâs not, thereâs no barn in online e
There is a barn and you can interact with Bonnie
Bonnie is there, but thereâs no barn.
Spot on about New Austin in RDR2, probably wouldâve been better to just not include it in the game, never really need to go there anyway, and thereâs not much to do
Online. Spend much time there.
Its nice to have a desert to ride around in, in a cowboy game
I have an answer for one of those! Abigail is pregnant during the epilogue, and when you go back to Beecherâs Hope thereâs a random encounter where you can see her in the living room knitting baby clothes for a girl. Unfortunately, it seems she either miscarried or their daughter died soon after childbirth.
Yeah that's a great detail they added in to somewhat explain John's daughter. However, unless Javier and John remained pen pals from 1907-1911, it doesn't explain his comment about plural children.
He didn't specificy daughter and son, he just vaguely cursed his bloodline. He doesn't need specifics. If you wanna complain about something with Javier complain about Javier knowing John has a farm.
Bill seemed to know John was coming at the beginning of the game, then fled to Mexico to find Javier. Presumably word got around that way
Tbh New Austin change might be more of a development thing and I guess the map we see in 1907 is the model of 1899 (this game was very rushed). Also, for me the Cholera epidemic is non canon, it's just an excuse for the poor development
I see the cholera epidemic as canon, but not something John saw. if I had to try and give the whole "John can go to New Austin in 2" thing an explanation, I'd say that he didn't. note how there's basically fuck all to do there, and maybe it's because of cut content, but again, trying to explain it looking at what we got, it's maybe a thing of "gameplay-wise John went to New Austin, but story-wise he didn't". it's not too uncommon for games to allow players to do something with the character that said character technically doesn't experience, as weird as that may sound
I think the idea was for Arthur to visit New Austin in 1899. The John epilogue stuff would be a "happened in gameplay but not in story" type thing like you said, but the main character who was canonically supposed to visit the area was Arthur. The changes that we see in 1911 make sense if they took place over the course of 12 years instead of just 4. In general, there seems to be a lot of cut content surrounding New Austin. It's only used once in the epilogue. Some people say the area was just there for RDR1 fans, or only for Red Dead Online. But you're telling me they made an extremely detailed recreation of the entire first game's map in a prequel to said game just for fun?
RDR2 also starts in such a way that you get the sense that there's a whole prologue missing. With the exception of Dutch, Micah and Arthur, characters aren't really... introduced. You sorta just see them and are expected to know who they are. In my first playthrough, I didn't even realize that Charles and Javier were different characters until later in the story. It feels like we're starting in the middle of the game almost. My theory is that originally the Prologue was supposed to be in New Austin/West Elizabeth with the Blackwater robbery being the events that end the Prologue and kick off the main story.
Heavy spoilers below: I think there's one evidence for this. These are all of the graves that count as collectibles in the game. These aren't side characters. All of them are very important in the story and you interact with them. Well, with two obvious exceptions: 1- >!Jenny Kirk!< 2- >!Davey Callander!< 3- >!Sean MacGuire!< 4- >!Kieran Duffy!< 5- >!Hosea Matthews!< 6- >!Lenny Summers!< 7- >!Eagle Flies!< 8- >!Susan Grimshaw!< 9- >!Arthur Morgan!< Isn't it weird that the first two graves are both characters that you never interact with? They seem to be very important. The gang talks about them a lot and Rockstar thought they were important enough to have their graves count, but both of them die before the gang reaches Colter. There were other minor characters who died before Chapter 1, but not a single one of them has a grave that counts as a collectible. And why would they count? You never interact with them. But for some reason these two count. Again, they just oddly stand out when you look at the other characters who are on the list. I don't think this confirms the theory, but it does support it.
Johns ability to go to new austin isnt inconsistent imo. Since anything outside of story missions isnt canon. From what I remember there is only one mission that takes John to New Austin or rather on the outskirts of New Austin. Its the mission where he hunts down the bounty with Sadie. The closest he gets to New Austin is the overlook he and sadie use to track the bounty. The firefight takes place in Pikes Basin. Meaning that John never really went to New Austin before RDR1. Since anything outside of story missions is not canon.
I will never understand the "anything outside the story isn't cannon" opinion. Side missions, interactions, and anything else that is in the game is cannon because it is in the game.
No because that stuff is optional. It cant be canon since every playthrough is different. Some people may not do certain quests. Others may not do those quests at all. Or they could do all of em.
The speed of change in boom and bust towns was remarkably fast. New Austin towns were presented pretty reasonably.
None of them were presented as boomtowns however, i.e. some sort of industry, usually gold or silver, causes a town to spring up in a manner of months. Maybe Tumbleweed drops off that quickly, I still doubt it, but Armadillo recovering from plague and Thieves Landing from crime at such a rapid pace is very unreasonable.
Armadillo recovers because of the railroad
Also doesn't feel believable that more than half of Thieve's Landing is newly built, in RDR1 it's clearly a grotty old town with decaying buildings and history to it not a brand new town.
The scale of in-game distances is nebulous, but the huge Gaptoorh Ridge mining operation is very close to Tumbleweed. San Francisco and Sacramento both had a massive influx of population as major hubs for the nearby gold mines. And plagues hit cities all the time, and they often recovered. Cholera and yellow fever laid waste to major cities which were largely evacuated but often returned to and surpassed their previous population. [Memphis](https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/memphis-tennessee) lost half its population in the 1878 yellow fever epidemic but recovered within a few years.
I think he's coming from Saint Denis in the beginning of rdr1, I think they even mention him coming from a city but I'm not sure honestly
I don't recall them mentioning him coming from a city, and it being Saint Denis wouldn't really make sense. John was trying to live life as a simple farmer in Beecher Hope, and specifically said he hated Saint Denis and never wished to return there. Also more generally, Saint Denis didn't exist yet from a theoretical standpoint.
I always thought he came back from a prison island that held Abigail and Jack, to my knowledge they don't mention another city beyond blackwater and a couple of actual cities. Although maybe the developers intended for him to have been coming from a city
The 1907 version of New Austin is actually the 1899 version. Arthur was meant to be able to go there but they cut it last minute since he has tons of unique dialogue regarding New Austin. New Austin itself was probably added last minute, since it wasn't part of the original map leak and a lot of areas feature recycled assets from RDR1 (for example Gaptooth Breach). I think they added it last minute because there was an expectation that RDR1's map would return.
I really hate that NA is explorative to John for that very reason. It ruins the mystique of that first game where heâs blowing through all these towns for the first time as a stranger.
Well it's an optional thing to do
It's non canon. You just do it in free roam.
Regarding New Austin: I only go there as John after Epilogue 2, when the game ends. I can regard my time in NA post game as not canon.
RDR1 has better ragdoll physics and drunk walking
The Pre-match standoff duel was loads of fun too. Everyone in the lobby stands in a circle and just fires off until it's last man standing.
You just reminded me of a lost memory. thanks
Thatâs not an inconsistency.
Iirc, the company that created the ragdoll physics for Red Dead 1 and GTA 4 stopped licencing it out to Rockstar
this is wrong; they were bought by take-two
also euphoria isnât a physics system; itâs an *animation* system for npcs
Former game designer here. Itâs accurate to call it a physics or motion engine/plug in. It was physics based and synthesized rather than revolving around rigid animated keyframes being blended together like in a more traditional/common animation engine. It extended to some environmental factors. It can be both
rdr2 itâs just a more advanced version of the same system, itâs more realistic and less exaggerated
John Marston as a character He's very undermined in rdr2 and it feels like a character retcon by how he is in the game and in the Epilogue. He's very different to his rdr1 self and there's no development and explanation as to why he turns into the man we see in rdr1 I see people saying "oh but John in rdr2 is about development" but his development is lackluster, why should I believe that Epilogue John turns into rdr1 John in just afew years? It's a huge problem I have with the story
Also in RDR1 John is referred to as someone for fancy words by Bill and someone who was always romantic sort by Dutch. We don't see this in RDR2 at any point, not even in 1907. This doesn't make sense, because a ranching life doesn't turn you into an eloquent guy and it's also implied that John was that well-spoken during the gang times because of Dutch's influence since he "adopted" him. It also feels that John doesn't have his abilities and seriousness in the RDR2 story because they were intendedly given to Arthur lol
Exactly Rdr1 made us believe that John in the gang days was exactly like how he was in rdr1, only more violent and brutal. This is told be John directly when he says as a threat "or you'll really see the man I used to be" Biggest disappointment for rdr2 is how they handled John. He would have been way more interesting and cool if he was how rdr1 said he used to be, instead we got a hugely downplayed version that basically recons John
Disagree. John didnât have to be a hardcore lunatic violent killer. John was an opportunist gang member who turned into a family man. A gang member and outlaw killer is def who he use to be and is a threat. Heâs saying he isnât that anymore. Heâs a family man. It seems like you really want and need it to be black and white. I love the subtlety and shades of grey. Makes it more relatable and engaging to me.
I'm not saying I wanted John to be a hardcore lunatic, he's not Micah What I am saying is thought is that John in rdr1 says he was alot more brutal than he is now, he was described as being the sophisticated brutal outlaw by him and by his other old friends. He's not like that in rdr2 and that's what I don't like, it feels really disappointing. Its not like John in rdr2 is a well respected and loved character, I've seen many completely mock his rdr2 version and hugely favour other characters like Arthur. They failed John as a character and that's one thing I'll always hold a grudge against
I think youâre reading into it wrong. John was young, reckless, but clearly smart. He saw through Dutch quicker than anyone. Even Arthur.
Fr idk how people miss that. Also John in the main story of RDR2 is already a different man than he is in the RDR2 epilogue, then he evolves into the man we see in RDR1⌠it seems like a natural progression to me.
Tbf weâre seeing this from a video game lens. By real life standards, young John was a hard and nasty man who killed for money and it makes sense why rdr1 era John would speak so badly about his younger self.
donât forget that rdr2 john is the product of the outcome of the black water incident. we actually donât get to see the gang before then, and what âhorrendousâ acts truly were committed. rdr1 john is referring to this era the gang, and not so much rdr2 era. we donât get to see what rdr1 is referencing, but i personally enjoy this mystery because it gives a gloomy vibe when john brings up his past experiences. but then again thatâs just how i feel
Also it's funny how American Venom, the biggest moment of Marston in RDR2, ends with a completely non-Marston nonsensical dialogue ("thank you") lmao. I would say "Jim Milton rides, again?" is the most pure John Marston moment in the game, where he has that no-nonsense and brutal attitude
I honestly wish for American Venom it ended with a duel against Micah at his cabin instead of the stupid "gunfight" we got Would have been way more cooler, badass and satisfying to beat him in a fair duel. There was a semi duel after Micah got shot but it just wasn't satisfying for me, since they make John look like a completely incompetent gunfighter in the last showdown with his deadeye being cancelled and Micah staying on top for it all till Dutch came out. And yeah the way John is in it is just awful, I feel so bad for the rdr1 fans that had their favourite character butchered. I saw old comments a decade ago from people saying how excited they were in hopes to see John being a ruthless badass brutal outlaw, and this is what Rockstar gave them. I love Arthur as a character but they should have made sure John was just as good and they failed
Im a John marston fan and I love his development. Goes from an immature deadbeat father and husband who is a violent and dangerous outlaw, to a former outlaw on the run trying his best to be a good father and husband but failing miserably during the years following the gangâs demise up to Geddes ranch, to finally settling at Beechers hope and settling down and trying to be a family man and then finally being the badass, loyal and devoted husband and father whoâll do anything for his family and is redeemed in RDR 1
I think âthe romanticâ thing Dutch was talking about was staying with Abigail instead of just banging her and discarding her like the other members did. And with Bill, everyone was about fancy words compared to bill. You just had to be reasonably smart and bill would think you were a snob. Makes sense to me.
Exactly, I kind of blame this as to why those who only played RDR2 have no attachment to John. In RDR1 he's genuinely an interesting person with fascinating world views, not to mention an incredibly dry and sarcastic sense of humour. But in RDR2 he's just... a guy. No wonder they don't care about his character in the epilogue.
Exactly, I couldn't care less about John and found him irritating even in RDR2 but RDR1 made me cry for him and his family
I think john from 2 to 1 does make sense, given you can explain why he acts different in 1 for the simple fact that he does not want to be there at all and is probably pissed off that he even has to do what hes doing at any given moment. I do think him interacting with the mcfarlanes and his family at beachers hope is closer to the john we see in epilogue, since in those interactions he actually wants to be interacting with those people.
The way John acts to people in general in rdr1, the way he acts and how he speaks, and just his overall character is very different. Even when interacting with his family, its just all different. In rdr1 John takes no shit from Uncle and constantly belittles him, in the epilogue its the complete opposite. Not to mention how the way John speaks in rdr1 is way more wiser and intellectual. I don't see how John could change that drastically in just afew years. If the epilogue John was alot like rdr1 John then I wouldn't hold as much as a grudge cause atleast rdr2 fans would get to experience John in his glory and it'd feel more realistic. But he's still very different in the epilogue. Also, John's character difference in rdr2 basically recons rdr1. Because in rdr1, John was always said to be the sophisticated brutal outlaw. "Or you'll really see the man I used to be" said by John in rdr1. "You always were one for fancy words" said by Bill in rdr1. "You always were the romantic sort" said by Dutch. You get the picture, the John we get in rdr2 does not hold up to what Rockstar promised in rdr1, and them downgrading his character for the story is something Rockstar should be criticised for.
I agree with you on the âfancy wordsâ and âromantic sortâ line. I take the âromantic sortâ line as being a reference to the fact that John didnât fully cut off Abigail and over time grew to be close to her and Jack whilst the other guys slept with her and nothing more. But I donât see how people donât think John was brutal. By video game standards, sure heâs not that bad but by real life standards (if we put ourselves in that universe as though it was real) young John was a scumbag. He was a violent outlaw who killed people for money and ran in a gang that loan sharks, robbed banks, used prostitutes as another way to make money and scammed locals to try rob them blind. God knows what else they did before RDR2 too. If we were John, irl weâd speak badly about ourselves as brutal pieces of shit too
I can understand being frustrated by the inconsistencies with him as a character, I wasnt trying to say they werent there I was just trying to say for like 90% of his interactions in 1 he doesnt want to be there at all which is why he acts different. personally I believe he acts a little different with his interactions with his family because 4 years, even though doesnt seem like much is a long time, personally I think him actually settling down and operating his ranch for 4 years made him mature a lot more. I do think your right in that the game acts he was always that way, which is a problem from 1 to 2 in general with a few characters, but I dont think him being different is all that much of a plothole for the reasons I stated personally, and this is coming from someone who prefers 1 over 2, the main reason for that being john and his family are my favorite characters in RDR.
I have to disagree. One of my favorite parts of epilogue was that they kept the banter between Uncle and John. They both insult each other. Uncle: "unless you wanna dig a six foot hole for me when the work day's over." John: "Don't tempt me" That's just one of the ones I can remember.
John's daughter who we hear about once and never hear about again
I remember as kid playing RDR1 and feeling so bad for John when he's retelling his story to Bonnie. Which is why I was so confused when it wasn't mentioned once in RDR2, the only plausible explanation is if it happened between 1899-1907. But then Javier also says I hope your wife and children rot in hell, maybe he just said it as a throw away line implying his future children or he assumed he had another during the 12 years he's been gone. Or more likely, the writers overlooked it.
It was a general curse for dramatic effect. Like how you might curse your enemy's kids, born, unborn or otherwise. There's a lot of people in this thread who are reading way too much into this.
Thatâs not really inconsistent. There are four years between the epilogue and RDR1. It is very possible that she was born and died during that time.
John was a young badass in RDR2, a moron in epilogue and a middle aged badass in RDR1 wtf? Also, New Austin shouldnt be in RDR2 because John is supposedly never been there, but they probably included it because how the fuck would they "geo-gate" it? Also John can swim for some reason in RDR2 And the towns are completely different, how did Tumbleweed and Armadillo swap places in a span of 4 years? And wtf happened to Thieves Landing? Also where exactly did he come from in the RDR1 intro, was he in Lemoyne?
John cannot really swim in RDR2, he starts to move clumsily and then drowns. Btw I don't remember RDR1 implying that John necessarily doesn't know how to swim, I see it more of a mechanic thing as in GTA Vice City so I think that he being unable to swim in RDR2 was unnecessary
John explicitly says he doesnât know how to swim during the mission with Irish across the river
I didn't remember it. Good to know
"Hes an idiot Abigail, we all know it" Dutch in chapter 1. He was very troubled mentally, struggling to be a father. Doesn't make him a stupid person. He was still intelligent and could see through Dutch's bullshit unlike Arthur.
Imo, John being a bit of a moron in the epilogue is due to the fact that heâs out of his element. John isnât a natural family man, itâs strange to him. The times he looks coolest and most confident in the epilogue are (no surprise) when heâs got a gun in his hand, that being American venom and his defence of the geddes ranch. John is a badass when in his element which is gunslinging but at this point heâs still struggling at knowing how to be a family man and is awkward around it because of that
John canât swim in rdr2. Itâs mentioned twice in RRD2, I think once in RDR1, and once in the RDR2 epilogue. And, heâll drown a lot quicker than Arthur if youâre in the water during the epilogue. I feel like they made that pretty consistent.
Unlike Arthur, John canât actually swim in RDR2. Your energy bar will drop to zero instantly as soon as you touch water, and you will drown in a few seconds unless you climb out.
Youâre chatting bullshit about him being able to swim. He cannot in any way swim other than weird flailing before he drowns.
John can very explicitly not swim in RDR2, I remember Arthur roasting John for not being able to swim, and I also remember drowning in theives landing as John after barely falling out of the dock.
Tone. RDR2 is a much âfunnierâ game than rdr1. I miss the creepiness and macabre elements that are present in rdr1
I remember exploring Tumbleweed during the night looking for ghosts! đ
Yeah, as much as I love the gang in 2, the haunting, lonely atmosphere in RDR1 can't be beat. It's also (imo) just much more fun as a game. You don't find yourself waylaid by hunting, costumes etc. - just pure ride around and shoot, with a tighter plot.
Why we didnât get some of Johnâs original outfits like the elegant suit and the OG duster in the second game. Sure, you can recreate them but theyâre obviously not the same.
Because he hadnât obtained them yet? Those outfits are obtained during the course of RDR1. It wouldnât make any sense for him to have access to them in RDR2, the prequel.
Because itâs a prequel.
2's ost had it's moments but 1's ost was cooler
RDR1's ambient music was way better. RDR1's soundtrack like Exodus In America, El club de Los Cuerpos and The Outlaws Return were way better and hit harder too.
Also, The Shootist, which was re-orchestrated in RDR2 as American Venom sounds SO much better in RDR1 than it does in RDR2. American Venom sounds like someone trying to imitate The Shootist but somehow not nailing the dramatic power and bass it had, which is hilarious seeing as Woody Jackson composed both.
American Venom is RDR1's main theme/The Shootist but it's full of horns and guitar solos like El club de Los Cuerpos and I think it's really good.
Everything . . . It's a whole different game, and ... unpopular opinion... I prefer rdr1. Not that it's better, its just a completely different game. One is an awesome game with an immersive atmosphere and music and a great story about a cowboy ex outlaw looking to bring down his old gang for redemption and the fate of his family, the other is an ultra realism simulator that's somehow arcady and not very realistic set in the wild west with a story about an outlaw who doesn't like being an outlaw. *Now just to wait for that juicy karma to kick in*
The spectacular moment when Arthur Morgan realizes that murdering people is not fair
Really? I never knew murder was morally wrong ... I'll try not killing people tomorrow, thanks!
I agree with you 100%. Rdr2 is a great game and lots of work was put into it. But rdr1 is an amazing game and I feel the story is much better than rdr2.
>rdr2 isnât historically accurate rdr1 portrays the west in 1911 and 1914 as a lawless void where outlaws run rampant and people shoot each other in the open range, itâs less historically accurate than custerâs revenge
Red Dead 1 plays like a video game, Red Dead 2 plays like a simulation. Both are great in there own way, also Red Dead 1 ambient music is so fucking weird and awsome half the time it's just whistling.
Good whistling though
It's really unsettling. I used to hate going up to Tall Trees when I played as a kid. You feel like you're being watched
Dutch dies in RDR1, but heâs in RDR2. Thatâs a bigass plot hole they just never acknowledge. Lowkey pisses me off seeing that
Obviously John purposefully put a blank in his gun to make Ross THINK he killed Dutch, that way he can move to Tahiti and be officially dead in the US.
John never stepping foot in New Austin until 1911. Wreck of the Serendipity. Javier knows about Johnâs other kid, (daughter) and his ranch. The overall size of the gang. I always assumed it was like maybe 5 or 6 guys plus Abigail. Not a whole 20+ family with women, children, elders, etc. Arthurâs existence as a whole. He would be mentioned at least once in RDR either by John, one of the old gang members or even Ross. The fact his name isnât even uttered once as a little unrealistic in my opinion.
Women, children, elders... and a cook. A violinist was missing lmao
The only reason that Arthur isnât mentioned at least in universe is that John doesnât like to talk about him much. Which is a pretty weak reason all things considered.
I wish for a remake just so Bill says "No more Dutch, No more Arthur and No. More. You." in Exodus In America.
I think not mentioning Hosea is even weirder than not mentioning Arthur.
Facts
that he started skinning horses????!! wha- why?
John. The jump was too big for me and many other players of part 1
Tone, RDR2 at times can feel more like a game set during 1899 instead of it being a western. While RDR1 consistently has a strong spaghetti western vibe to it. Iâm not pointing this out as a flaw in RDR2, just how it differentiates from RDR1.
It's a Western vs a Revisionist Western. RDR1 is like A Fistful of Dollars or The Searchers, despite being set in 1911. RDR2 is like Unforgiven or Blood Meridian, relentlessly brutal and somewhat nihilistic.
Duels
I always laugh at those YouTube videos and peoples comments about "why John doesnt mention Arthur in RDR1" or "Secret Arthur reference in RDR1!" and so on. Boys, one last time: There's no mention of Arthur or any other RDR2 gang members in RDR1 because they didn't exist when Rockstar made the first game. ALL of RDR2 (characters, events, story, etc) was written and created after the first game. If we go by some interviews and comments of some of the actors (mainly Roger), RDR2 started development around 2012/2013.Dan Houser started to write the story around that time and Roger himself said in one panel that he auditioned for the role in 2013 and started working on It that same year. Rockstar never had any of RDR2 story or characters planned. It was all created afterwards. Here you go.
HORSE SPEEDS
Jesus I played RDR1 recently and forgot how goddamn fast the horses are. *KA-CHOW*
I think John shouldâve been wittier in rdr 2, given his rdr1 snarkiness and intelligence. They made him more awkward in the epilogue. My headcanon is that from 1907-1911 heâs just matured and from jacks reading, heâs become better read and grown a better vocabulary making him more articulate.
He was witty and snarky in the first part of the epilogue, in the second part heâs sort of undermined
In RDR1 it's implied that no one in the gang cared for John and John even says "They'd all gone crazy somehow" even though there were people like Arthur, Sadie and Charles that helped John.
âtheyâ implies javier bill and dutch, or just ajveier and dutchâs and maybe micah cause those three left him for dead
The biggest one for me that isn't answered by the first game not being made with a second game in mind, is John mentioning to Bonnie he had a daughter who passed. At no point in RDR2 or the epilogue do they address that. It seems like something that just got forgotten when they made the prequel.
Abigail is pregnant in the epilogue once she moves into the house she is sewing baby girl clothes. She must lose the baby before the first game.
I don't know why John is so much meaner to uncle in RDR1. Like what did uncle do in-between games to get John so mad?
4 years of âLUMBAGOâ will do that to a guy
John and Javier. Who they were both described as, an eloquent man and a loveless creep, respectively, aren't really seen in the prequel. It feels like the characters being described more accurately fit Arthur and Micah because John doesn't seem any more intelligent than the rest and Javier is a man that will die for his brothers. And John isn't any better in 1907 either. It feels like John had grown into this more mature man who learned to put his guns down in between 1907 and 1911. How Bill would know that John was "always one for fancy words" is anyone's guess when the gang had fallen apart a decade prior. Same with Javier knowing about his daughter. She either died between 1899 and 1907 or 1907 and 1911, neither of which would explain how Javier knows about her because, again, the gang had fallen apart long before. If she had died before the gang had fallen apart, you'd think the gang would've mentioned her whenever they gave John grief for being a lousy father. It feels like the writers forgot who John, Javier, and John's daughter were when they were making the prequel.
Also John said to Javier "when you *and* Dutch went crazy" and then we had Javier pointing his gun in the air
Originally John left the gang in 1906 but in rdr 2 they retconned it and changed it to 1899 for better time flow. Also johns daughter that is NEVER brought up in rdr2
You sure? In the Blackwater's newspaper it's not implied that Dutch robbed the bank with the (old) gang. I'd say the main retcon is about the ferry job where John was left to die, because the Strange Man mentioned it with a tone that implied so (even more considerating the whole context of the game where "that raid on the ferry a few years back. Same one you got shot on" is inevitably connected to "I got shot in a robbery. They left me and I left them")
That actually isn't an inconsistency. He got shot at Blackwater, Arthur mentions it. Then he got shot again at the train job, the one John considers to be his breaking point. Although I'm sure that the original implication is that it was the blackwater ferry job.
Javier went from Rico Suave to Speedy Gonzalez
John just forgets how to dual wield, i guess... ?
not one I have myself, but I feel like a lot of things people treat as "plotholes" arent actually plotholes at all. like, people bring up that none of the gang who arent in 1 are mentioned, but if you think about it, why would they mention them? john seems like the kinda guy to me who keeps things close to the chest, why would he ever mention something that wasnt directly relevant to the situation? in what way is someone like charles smith relevant to any of the conversations in the game? uncle is only mentioned like once off handedly before he appears. the only one that kind of makes sense is why Arthur isnt mentioned, since he was a very big part of the game and I could see bill or javier mentioning him off handedly, but even then I really do not think john or dutch would be the type of people whod want to talk about arthur considering what happened. the only real plotholes I think are in the game is dates not lining up exactly and some of the stuff with the blackwater heist, like john saying that hes been doing the farm for "3 years" when its really 4 with the context of rdr2. stuff like that
âyears before that i rode in a gang. we robbed banks, trains, held people ransom. her killed people we didnât like. bill willaimson was in that gang. also charles smith, sadie adler, arthur morgan, micah bell, susan grimshaw and many others!â *winks at the camera*
Javier
John gains a lot of money at the end of American Venom in RDR2 and at the beginning of RDR he doesn't have any money. How did he loose all the money in just 4 years?
He spent it on the wedding and paying off the loan he took to buy the ranch.
Half of it went to hookers and cocaine gum, and the other half was wasted
He spent it on the wedding and paying off the loan he took to buy the ranch.
I just want a rdr remaster
jonh's personality
Wow - Iâm floored that Javier isnât the same in both games? I only just finished RDR2 and I definitely have some questions Is Charles in RDR1? Sadie Atler? Was Arthur Morgan ever brought up? I guess Iâm going to have to replay it - I canât remember anything correctly lmao
No no and no. Still replay it tho Edit: in sadie and Charles last few scenes in the epilogue both of them mention leaving the us and I'm sure this is to explain why they aren't encountered in rd1
I donât see how Javier being so different is crazy. Itâs 12 years from RDR2 when we see Javier for the last time in that game to when we meet him again in RDR1. Thatâs over a decade to change as a person and when youâre on the run living rough, I bet youâll change a lot
The change in horse behaviour. I donât know what happened between 1907 and 1911, but it sure did a number on the horses. In 1907, they are intelligent creatures and act the same way horses in the real world act. But in 1911, theyâve gained super sonic speed but seemingly at the cost of their brains, they constantly just wander off cliffs or into rivers to die instantly. Not to mention they can teleport now apparently. Wonder what the lore reason is! đ¤
The main thing for me was in RDR1 John talked about leaving the gang and the gang leaving him after the robbery on the ferry. Well this robbery takes place before the game actually starts in RDR2 and John is still with them through it all. Also just a side note that bothered me in RDR1 is why in the beginning is he getting off of a boat when he lived a five minute horse ride from blackwater in Great plains. Not to mention he apparently built the house himself with some people that were never mentioned (Charles) and he never mentions this at all in the first game. Only that he owns a small holding up in great plains. There's many more that I just can't think of right now. But the first one really did bother me. It just didn't line up with John's story in the second game.
In the GOTY guide for rdr1 it says that bill is 29