@@faridagasiyev7042 I'll say that RDR2's greatest missed potential. It finally gave us a story and world vehicle (in the gang camp) that would've allowed them to explore these RDR1 characters fully only for the game to sidelined and retcon their personalities and roles in the gang. The only character that was left unaffected by this and benefited immensely from a prequel status was Dutch, he's how John, Bill and Javier should've been portrayed; consistent with RDR1's backstory for them and their roles in the gang while also showing how they gradually became the people from that game.
@@anthonydejesus8528 Tbf, all of them had minor roles in RDR1 and didn't have time to be fully seen for who they were like in RDR2. Regardless, it still wasted these better versions of Bill and Javier by sidelining them and focusing on the new characters like Sadie, Lenny and Charles instead.
Same but it was also pleasant to see a friendly side to them. In the first game we still very rarely see them on screen compared to all the other characters of the game so it was nice to see how much different things were 12 years prior
That’s why I’m glad I couldn’t get into RDR1 and stopped playing early in the game so I didn’t remember none of the characters when I was playing RDR2. So idek Dutch was a bad man until the end of RDR2
Really one of the most clever workarounds was Dutch giving the same speech as he gave to John before he kills himself to the Army when he jumps off that cliff with Arthur. It sorta represents that Arthur had been on Dutch's mind for all those years and he could no longer escape the guilt.
Plus the other more apparent workaround that we all know about of course but where John confides in his family and Uncle that bringing up Arthur feels sad and pointless and that it's all in the past--nothing more could be said of his friend and he could never repay the sacrifice that Arthur made for him with words.
Javier is just being portrayed as extremely loyal to van der Linde in Rdr 2. Who knows maybe sticking side by side with Dutch turned him equally insane
Even the best guys irl will sometimes turn around to be worst fakest ppl u have ever met some ppl just not show their true intentions until it’s time to show it
Javier is a good character he didn't shoot marston when he was stunned and he didn't point at john and arthur in rdr2 at the end and he was bad things to john cause he got angry that john kidnapped him
I really think that Bill is such an underrated character he was dumb, loyal and just a senior gun in red dead 2 but in red dead 1 straight away you see how much he has changed and leads the Del Lobo gang staying in a massive hideout and is the most wanted man aside from Dutch in the game
Fun fact, that final speech Dutch gave John there, is the same speech Dutch gave when he and Arthur were running off from the army during Eagle Flies mission before they jumped off into the river
"Dutch wanted you dead. We all did." hits different after seeing Dutch's reaction to John being broken out of prison and later showing up after the train job
@@KYLE1654-v7mI like happy satisfying endings. You know why? Because a mission name "Redemption" exists and it fucks up your whole existence, and then when you think you got a happy ending after "American Venom" there's a whole game called "Red Dead Redemption" and fucks up everything again.
@@albozru1eThat's not the point. Often times prequel games fail to de-age the character models in a way that looks right, regardless of what the actor looks or sounds like.
Number 2 had such an upgrade in the graphics department too making it in a sense even more of a challenge. Well except for Uncle and his lumbago. Hell I think he looked older in 2 lol.
Bill would’ve let Arthur in since Arthur wouldn’t have worked for the feds, the only reason John does is because his family is collateral but they have no leverage over Arthur. Arthur would’ve just been another outlaw and therefore no real threat to Bill. Bill already knew John was working for the feds at this point and plus his suspicion of John ratting on the gang would be confirmed in this moment (Bill and Javier didn’t know Micah was actually ratting they both run away during the final shootout at Beaver Hollow and never learned the truth)
@@charles_the_conqueror Bill definitely didn't respect Arthur in the end. I just finished the story for the 2nd time yesterday. The entire time at Beaver Hollow, all of Arthur and Bill's interactions are him giving Arthur shit for "doubting" and not being loyal anymore.
In a fucked up round about way, just as Dutch would, the final scene with john is almost like dutches final goodbye to arthur. It's so crazy and genius rockstar pulled off rdr2's story so perfectly in harmony with rdr1. Dutch is talking to Arthur through John in that final scene. In his final moments, after exhausting all of his clever mindgames, Dutch is forced to accept all of his own failures. After everything is said and done, he says his final words to Arthur through John, and accepts everything he's done up to that point. And then even in death, Dutch continues to hold on to every ideal about the world changing for the worse, and justified everything he has done. Even in the end, he stayed the same Dutch he has always been, from the beginning. Genius, just genius.
I disagree that Rockstar pulled off RDR2 in perfect harmony with RDR1. It's an amazing story but only a decent prequel. The reason I think this scene works so well is because Dutch is the only character who's perfectly consistently written and portrayed across both games, and so his final monologue feels like the perfect culmination to his arc and development that we saw unfold across RDR2. The continuity and OG players from RDR1 like John, Bill and Javier were all retconned and sidelined in favor of new characters and telling a new story.
It's not really genius, it's just good storytelling. I'm not taking anything away from the writers, cause it's a good tale. But honestly, all the writers did was skip straight to the last lines of RDR1 and base a story off that.. it's how story writing works. To make it fit well is the art, and well they did 'alright'.. but it's not exactly a complicated story.
No, he was talking to John, telling him that he’s as good as dead too. “When I’m gone.. they’re just gonna find another monster.” He meant the Pinkertons are going to get John next, and they did. That’s also why he said “our” time is past instead of just “my” time has passed or something else along those lines.
i have a theory, since we know he hit his head on the boat to guam, i imagine he had hallucinations of Arthur, afterall Arthur's the one he raised and knew the longest(after Hosea), so i imagine his guilt made him see Arthur in his last image, a poor man with TB about to die, but he doesnt sound like it, and all Arthur does is questioning him, doubting, as Dutch alllways thought, they have full convos and such too, this is his punishment, and finally, the doubting and such turned out to be worries from Arthur, and he saw that before he jumped
Shows their moral standpoint at the finale of their lives, Arthur expends what little he has left to ensure the prosperity of his brother, while Dutch lives selfishly knowing he betrayed his sons and brothers.
The way javier changed chapter 1 going out in the mountains and rescuing John and then leaving him behind in chapter 6 then finally trying to kill him and hating him in rdr1
Him and Bill never learned that Micah was the rat. They ran before he was exposed, and still thought it was John who did it and backstabbed Dutch. That's the main reason for their hostility.
I think it's very telling that Javier & Bill went south to Mexico and Charles went up to Canada. The most wicked characters went down south the join the Devil, while Charles went up north to live a more an honorable life adjacent to God. Meanwhile, Dutch remained in the same place he became his true self and turned wicked. This symbolizes the state of outlaws at the turn of the 20th century. Bill & Javier leave for Mexico as a way of turning back the clock and staying within the realm of the outlaw life. While Charles leaves for Canada as a way of embracing the future. Dutch is himself an amalgation of the two- he is stuck as an outlaw and doomed to wander as a modern Cain, however as your see in RDR1 he now embraces certain mechanisms of the future. His staying in Blackwater also shows how he is trapped in time. Blackwater is where his life had reached its climax- he changed from an outlaw, his own version of Robin Hood, into a ruthless, money-hungry murderer. Blackwater was the main point of contention within his gang. For him to remain there shows that he never moved on from his gang, nor his outlaw life. Whether he had the money to escape never truly seemed to matter for him. For the thing he had to escape the most was his own nature. Dutch staying in Blackwater symbolizes his innability and refusal to change as well as his innability to accept the changes of the world around him. Blackwater itself is a perfect metaphor for him. The town is gradually adapting to the wave of the 20th century, with new buildings sprawling alongside the older ones. The symbology and metaphors within this game are incredible and as a writer it amazes me how intricate the details are. Red Dead Redemption is as much a video game as it is a movie, book, or comic. Every detail is masterfully woven in to the story and years later I am still picking apart the pieces of this beautiful story. If you got to the bottom of this comment, I commend you 😅 I know it was a long tangent lol
People complaining that Arthur wasn't mentioned in the first game etc. The fact is he didn't need to be. The first game's story is centered on John dealing with who's left alive in the gang. Then getting what was always going to come to him in the end. Not mentioning even Arthur in the old game doesn't create plot holes etc. John is hunting the remains of his gang as his family is held hostage by the government. There's no reason to talk in detail about who's not part of his mission. Bill, Javier, and Dutch weren't going to reminisce with John around campfires with John about specific dead gang members while he's hunting them. Let it go and enjoy the games and their stories for what they were.
When he first met Bill , Bill canon wise would have mentioned Hosea and Arthur instead of John since they were actually in charge and John was just a senior gun. I think that’s the only time where Arthur could me mentioned
Yeah, not to mention to Bill and Javier, Arthur really wasn't that important in the first place. Of course, he's important to John (a man who doesn't like to talk about his past in detail, and certainly not with strangers, who comprise the majority of characters he interacts with in RDR1) and he's important to Dutch (who is an antagonist who only appears in the final act of the game). The fact of the matter is, Arthur is important to US, but it's not likely these men would be talking about him every chance they get, and certainly not in the situations they find themselves in.
in RDR2 arthur is called "uncle", and in RDR1 you have "uncle" at the farm. is it arthur? because in the secret ending of RDR2 arthur survives and is standing on top of the farm.
Thanks for this. I was starting to replay rdr1 after finishing rdr2 but decided to find something like this instead, being my only reason to replay. You saved me a ton of time. :)
@@Nobodynotable1 Still dosent mean playing the first isn't an experience in itself. Honestly it could just be bias since i grew up on these games, but i never think its worse to play the og's over the first games. Of course they're worse, but great in their own way.
@Mike Fitzgerald rag doll animation and the way npc react to getting shot is way better In the first game. You shoot them in the arm, they can’t use that arm. Shoot their knees out and they can’t walk. Shoot their foot and they’ll walk with a limp. It also still had fatal arteries shots as well, the game was far ahead of its time and is worth a play. And imo Rdr John is better than rdr2 Arthur
This is the reason why you should play this before RD2. Not because it’s the second game, but because of how Bill, Javier, and Dutch were such likable characters and we saw a bigger picture to how/why they went down a dark path. Not only that but understanding how John influenced from Arthur (making his character in RD1 have so much more meaning) It would be hard and depressing it would to play as John with his brothers and later have to kill them, let alone watching Dutch commit suicide with “Our time has passed, John” and then John gets betrayed by Ross, who was there since the beginning. It’s already a dark and depressing story but imagine having to play through this in chronological order.
Nah, I much preferred playing the 2 before the 1 because having to capture/kill your comrades is much more impactful, especially the suicide of Dutch. In the 1, you meet Dutch in only four missions, and you hear little of him before. Having known him throughout RDR2 makes you feel more emotions when he dies in RDR1, like with Bill and Javier. Especially with the speech he makes just before killing himself.
You know those movies that like to start off with the uhh… fucking ending and then a character does a flashback or time rewinds? (Any story like this is dogshit) That’s how playing RDR1 first would feel like
I watched this game pretty much immediately after I finished RDR2 and I must say, I'm glad I didn't see or watch this before I did the sequel. Everything just makes sense and even this very encounter with Bill, I instantly realized that this isn't the same drunken idiot Bill from RDR2. Javier was whatever, but Dutch especially shocked me how he shot the girl in the bank with no hesitation and just kept mocking John. Dutch grew to be a bastard as I played RDR2, but he still remained somewhat likable at least until the Beaver Hollow chapter. In RDR1, he's just a complete douchebag.
@@_MaZTeR_ imo it was more impactful playing RD1 first because we got to see why Dutch became this way. And it wasn’t just a cliché “He used to be good.” it was the fact that he was always greedy and narcissistic but it didn’t start showing until everyone started to doubt him. There are moments where you can catch it subtly throughout the second game.
Until he’s running away and then caught he immediately reverts to “puto” and insulting his family. Javier didn’t care for John anymore at this point it’s shown he stopped caring for John in chapter 6 of the 2nd game and here he’s only being friendly because he has a gun to his face
@@josephstalin2606 John arrogantly, although rightfully so, deflected each of Javier’s attempts to reminisce. After being taunted that you’re going to be hung, slammed into the concrete of a jail cell and insulted as if the brotherhood you shared meant nothing (it’s widely understood Javier is the only gang member who actually gave a shit about John after the finale of rdr2), you’d be pretty pissed too.
@@lordogordo9407 Attempts to reminisce? You mean manipulate? You also realize Javier was one of the ones to actually leave John behind too and he had no problems doing so he just silently follows Dutch and Micah and let’s them blatantly lie to Arthur’s face. Javier didn’t care for John after rdr2 at all and him pointing the gun upwards was because he didn’t want to aim at Arthur, not John. Either way when the cutscene ends you see Javier pointing at John anyways so it’s a common misconception that he didn’t aim at all towards them. As for rdr1, Javier had a gun pointed at him the entire time, he was willing to say anything like “come on you wouldn’t shoot your own brother” not even apologizing for leaving John for dead, and then going as far as to offer up Bill instead (what happened to loyalty?) and even lying about Dutch “being in Columbia and I’ll take you straight to him” which is a blatant lie because nobody knew Dutchs location until he showed up just outside Blackwater so Javier was clearly lying and playing on Johns emotions to get the upper hand. Once Javier has a chance at running away he starts being his true self insulting John and his family and then immediately reverts back to “come on brother don’t do this” when he’s tied up. Once he’s in the cell and has no escape he calls John a “puto” and curses his family. He’s not a good guy at all he just did a good job manipulating the player into thinking so, just like Dutch
@@josephstalin2606 You speak as if Javier had any other choice given the circumstances. He was definitely trying to manipulate and use John’s emotions against him in an attempt to be spared, but when the voice actor himself cooperates with Rockstar to portray the character in a manner that shows he gives a shit about John and Arthur, calling him a bad person is naive
@@lordogordo9407 The fact that you say yourself that the voice actor took creative liberties for the second game, and had to fight just to make Javier seem more of a “good guy” literally proves my point how Javier was never meant to be one in the first place, he was meant to be a scumbag like Bill and Dutch were and the first game (a game the 2nd voice actor had no control over) shows just that. Even in the 2nd game Javier still left John for dead and if it’s something he was truly remorseful for he would’ve apologized to John but he doesn’t even do that, he instead tries to lie to him by saying “we thought you were dead” which Johns reaction after proves he knows Javier is just lying. And did John really have any choice himself? It was between a man who betrayed him and left him for dead and his own family, but John was supposed to just reminisce with Javier and let him go? No bud that’s not how that works. John clearly has wisen up and doesn’t fall for the manipulative bs anymore which is why he coldly deflects Javier Also, don’t get confused, Javier only cared for Arthur between him and John. I suggest you watch more Beaver Hollow camp interactions because he seems upset that Arthur doesn’t have much faith but in a disappointed way whereas he gets into an argument with John and tells him to get his head straight. And then leaves John for dead. The reason he didn’t point the gun is because he saw Arthur still as a brother, but John had been basically cut off from the gang by that point. You don’t realize that Javier has different relationships with Arthur and John so yes he seemed nicer in the 2nd game because we play as Arthur, once we switch to Johns perspective you see the man Javier was to him
AHHAHAHAHAHH holy smokes you’re right, I wonder what he thinks about Ray slow and all these other new guys the John Matt, kind of one of the conversation between our invisible Arthur and John
Even though we all knew Dutch went crazy and all but it’s so insane seeing how he was the type man to always try to avoid harming children and innocent women and yet in this game he just straight up shoots a young innocent woman in the back of the head with no remorse. He became ruthless
Well on the black water heist, the one that puts the gang on the run at the beginning of RDR 2, they mention that dutch killed a woman for no reason, meaning his downfall was already started
I need remake only for one line at 1:58 “No more dutch, no more arthur and no more you” I clearly get it that John doesn’t like to talk about his past, clearly stated by abigail in RDR2, but come on… why doesnt billl, Javier or Dutch mentions him.
That line would make even less sense if that happened. The context was "Now I'm in charge!" and then Bill listing off those who used to be in charge. John was always a foot soldier apparently, and Hosea would be excluded for some reason.
@@ApricityGlowJohn was kinda more valued than bill tho all the leaders were pretty cool with John. But they all kinda thought bill was dumb so it makes a little sense imo but it’s obviously they just didn’t have a plan for what happened before
I get the idea that they also don't like thinking about Arthur, whether out of spite for their perception of him as a traitor or (more likely) out of regret and not willing to admit or think too much about that they were wrong and kept on going with their way of life for nothing (especially Dutch).
I didnt play red dead 1 before going into Red Dead 2, so I had no idea that dutch, bill, and JAVIER would go bad. This honestly broke my heart. Damn you rockstar
Thats what made him so dangerous, all those years of being put down by all of his peers which just worsened his insecurities about his masculinity and his temper imo
His uncertainty in the second game makes his demeanor in the first game make a lot of sense. By Chapter 6, he is so lost, that by 1911, he has succumbed to a lower point.
I think my biggest gripe with RDR2 is how, despite being a great character, I feel like Dutch had more potential. Him unraveling and showing his true nature as the world closes in is really fun to watch and I do think they did a wonderful job... but I still have this feeling that they leaned too heavily on his charisma and not enough on his intellect. What I think is really fascinating about Dutch in 1911 is how he's completely hollowed out but obviously not a stupid man. Even John, years later, sticks by a lot of what Dutch taught him in his formative years and clearly quotes him every time he needs a quip or some hand-me-down philosophy. In RDR2, however, Dutch is kinda insecure about his intellect and apparently just quotes from books he reads while doing nothing at camp. He gets hissy at Lenny when he doesn't like Miller's writing, I mean he just comes off as insecure, like he knows deep down he's faking it. This does not make him a worse character but I just feel like that reading is distinct to RDR2-Dutch, where I always felt that RDR1 Dutch was more an animalistic killer but certainly not a dumb one. I don't know, I just feel like somewhere in an alternate universe we got a more lucid Van Der Linde, who was a bit more impressive. More of a Herman Melville type who was well-learned from life experience and curiosity, who let cynicism hollow him out rather than paranoia and delusions of grandeur. I just see him as more genuinely convincing in RDR1 despite him literally only doing evil shit for no reason. That either says something terrible about my character or there's a change in *vibes* from 1 to 2. Maybe making a more convincing Van Der Linde would have been a bad idea, you don't wanna actually convince the epic gamers that they should be flower-loving killers, or wear entirely too little clothing in the snow. Long comment lmao
To your last sentence there, I get the impression in RDR2 that we’re seeing a version of Dutch that is quickly unraveling. From the beginning of the game he’s all insecurity and chasing after sunk costs, and he gets really snippy with Arthur when he questions him even as far back as the Grizzly mountain camp. He’s a man who is still fooling himself that the gang’s best days are ahead of them. My headcanon for the character is that during RDR2 he truly was falling apart: he was surrounded by people he cared about and who cared about him, but he could see their trust in him eroding and it just forced him to make even greater and more reckless gambits. Meanwhile, RDR1 Dutch is a man on autopilot: he’s leading a pack of nameless, faceless bandits through the death rattle of the Old West. Way more lucid for sure, but also just going through the motions because he accepted long ago that his day is done.
@@geneparmesan8748 Hey thanks for responding, seriously. I don't think the Dutch we got is like *wrong* or anything, I'm just kinda nitpicking and wondering about how else he could have been written. Because, I don't quite agree that Dutch was on full autopilot with faceless bandits. Dutch's gang in 1911 was almost entirely native americans that he manipulated to his doctrine of rebellious chaos. I think in many ways Dutch is similar to Captain Ahab in his crusade against an abstract concept. I guess the only real bone I have to pick is simply that I don't think making him vain and a hypocrite was really that needed lmao I don't really have much else to argue. I just played the first game when I was like 13 years old and it always stuck with me how not entirely feral this weird man on the mountain was. That somewhere behind him there was a kind of revolutionary who understood what was wrong in the world but let himself be consumed by the hatred for it, by cynicism and simply the rush of conflict. A soldier without a war, an old gun in peacetime. I guess I was slightly disappointed that in his hayday he was just some lying dork that liked the idea of manifest destiny. I still really like that dork and his arc though ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ That dragged on, sorry about that. What a cool game, eh?
I think you’re right about Dutch being insecure. In RDR1, he didn’t care about it anymore because he had nothing else to lose. In RDR2, he had a facade to maintain in order to keep his gang under control. In RDR1, he kept fighting because that was all he knew and did not trust anyone, just wanted to destroy his enemies.
I think the perception between games is different due to going from an ally of Dutch to an enemy of Dutch, of cource as his enemy and how he has changed he comes off as a lot more methodical, merciless, and cunning but as his peer it's easier to notice where his persona cracks
Dutch really appears crazy and miserable in rdr1 when all shiny and leader in 2, But was mad all along, the moments he said the word "plan" for the 3rd time in rdr2 i knew it was over x)
The 1st encounter with Bill is kind of sad, John is trying to level with him but like Dutch he's gone mad and John realizes there is no saving them. But I hope if they go for a part 3, we can see what ends up of Charles. He's a really mysterious character and he ends up going North with Rains Falls
21:08 Dutch to John: You can't erase the past John, Killing me won't make it go away. John to Dutch in RDR2's final mission: Killing me won't solve nothing Dutch The analogy between the two encounters, both on the top of a snowy mountain, with Dutch saying "We gotta stop meeting like this" in RDR1, and with the whole RDR story beginning in a Snowy Mountain and ending on the same place, GENIUS.
This. Decanonize the first game so more can be done with the remake. Updated voices, updated dialogue so that Arthur and Micah are brought up, you could even encounter Sadie Adler in Mexico in a side mission as that is where she says she's headed in the epilogue. They could even give Jack Arthur's jacket in the epilogue or even expand on his story after he kills Ross.
@@GoodOlRollArthur Fanboys are so annoying. Leave the first game alone. So tired of my favorite game ever being disrespected by people who have only played the second game or played it first. Let The characters from the first game be their own characters, let the story of the first game be it's own story with its own new characters and don't drag John and his own game to elevate Arthur once again. Also Sadie said South America, that's not Mexico. Which is good, I couldn't stand her. Definitely wouldn't want her in a remake
@@gageowo9527 I'm no Arthur fanboy friend. In fact, I'm all for them portraying John as the badass he was in the first game. That being said however, the two games do not mesh well together plot-wise. Some updated dialogue is needed. Arthur doesn't need to be elevated but the way the characters just avoid talking about him or Micah or what happened on Mount Hagan is off-putting. Seeing Sadie in Mexico is just a fun idea, but I'd be just as fine with her not being present.
I always thought it was strange how John is so nonchalant about everything like you straight fight in a mexican revolution and it’s like nothing to him after playing rdr2 you see why the gang brought mayhem everywhere they went
Of all things rdr2 showed I think thats the best. John is such a terminator it's nice to see it wasnt just out of nowhere. He was half groomed as arthur was to be a gang enforcer.
It’s because it’s not really his fight, he jumps from side to side multiple times until he’s betrayed by the government and forced to find help with the rebels. He’s only really fighting just for information on Javier and Bill and once he gets that he leaves Mexico. This is also just a part of the war not the whole thing since Reyes says that after Allende he will march his army to the capital and fight there which John obviously wasn’t present for
I remember playing red dead 1 all summer going into my senior year of high-school. I was so satisfied with it that when rd2 came out i didnt even care. 5 years later, i just started playing rd2 and its great. But red dead 1 will always be my favorite of the series, probably because of my nostalgia and playing as john.
It was more Hosea than anything that held the group together. He kept Dutch in check and listened to Arthur. Once he died and Dutch got that head injury, Dutch progressively became more unhinged.
John: "Bill, I implore you, think about this" Bill: "You implore me? You implore me?" I'm almost %100 sure that this dialogue took place between Arthur and Dutch aswell, around the last parts of the game. Dutch also had this very arrogant tone in his voice while saying "you implore me?".
I kinda want games to be more like that I jus can’t get into gameplay if I can run around taking bullets to the head and jus take a medicine to heal and then kill like 20 people with dead eye. I wish ur npc allies actually were really helpful and the enemy npcs were really dangerous
Man dude it’s Ben so long I remember it all now the desert the mountains the fort crazy I forgot about it just not the desert part but this brings it all back wow thanks for this awesome back to the future video literally feel like I’m back when this first came out and replaying it for the first time the graphics and all 😂👍🏻😭🤙🏻👏🏻🙏🏻
Dutch broke my heart. I never played the first Red Dead but when I see those cutscenes it just makes me so emotional. Red Dead 2 is sad...but Red Dead 1 is hopeless.
I've beaten both red dead one and red dead. 2 twice and personally I feel after beating the second game. I think the first game is perfect as it is for its time needs to be re made so I can play out a little more cohesive with the second game. It's not mentioning Arthur, it's the no Sadie. No, Charles, know anybody from the gang. Several people survived and could have reappeared in red dead. One even Pearson, for example, or Karen, could have showed up as her whereabouts is unknown. You couldn't even seem Tilly and saint Denise. The first game's fantastic and one of the best games ever made but the second surpasses it by a long shot. And I really want a remake of the first game with updated graphics and tweeked story and missions.
Yeah they really should have remade RDR 1 and added a few bonus missions involving some of the old characters (Charles, Pearson, Tilly, Mary Beth, Karen, etc) and conversations about Arthur/the camp. Missed opportunity. 😢
That dude at 15:45 on the far left had the best most open shot ever. Dutch was like 5 feet away from him, the angle provided a wide opening for his head without harming the girl, and he was too distracted talking to John. What an idiot.
It's like RDR1 was written for RDR2. Everything fit in just perfectly. My impression Is that Rockstar's writers already had a cheap backstory of the gang, but they put everything in a far background for another story. Maybe there was even an idea for Arthur Morgan, but there was no complete character for sure. All they did in RDR2 was taking the original backstory and just improve It with the main character point of view. The story Is too solid, they already knew how to write RDR2, they just added things later. Both games are masterpieces, the best of Rockstar's portfolio in my opinion, together with GTA IV and San Andreas.
"We gotta stop meeting like this" Did he mean at gunpoint, or up on the mountains? And Dutch still doesn't have much to say after Arthur died. He can still pick up a few boys with nowhere left to go, but he admits he's mostly playing with John for sport and he's aimless, adrift, and looking for a place and time to die. I think he was serious about shooting that girl at the bank being a "gift" to John- it was Dutch's way of telling John he can kill him with no regrets.
it cant be stated enough how badly they need to do a remake to this game. after the way they ended RDR2, the story needs a redo and it deserves one too
Leave the first game alone. It's not its fault the second game created a bunch of retcons and plot holes, remaking the first game to cater to the second is flatout disrespectful and forcing mentions of Arthur Hurts John as a character by not letting him be his own entity in his own game.
"Ive come for you" "Nobody has to be killed" "You must think im an idiot." I agree bill. He literally stated he was there for you, and back then, with the reputation and past they have, that pretty much means someones dying. Maybe a capture. Maybe. But john knew it wouldnt go down like that.
My first play through of rdr2 I thought Dutch’s mental deterioration after that trolly car accident is what led to the gangs downfall but in my 2nd play through I realized Dutch was just a snake oil salesman who justifies his horrible actions behind the code. Dutch was always able to stay one step ahead of everyone, you can find prewritten note(s) of speeches he tells everyone to calm their nerves and keeps pedaling thee whole “I got a plan” thing to ppl and the real reason the gang broke up was because ppl in the group who actually believed the code wised up about him. The code was a honorable belief but it was being told by the wrong person trying to justify their desire to fight change and organization.
Sad they never mentioned Arthur in the first one since he didn’t exist. A nice little nod to him would’ve been better than just an ambiguous “You’ve forgotten a lot of important people, John”.
Sometimes i wonder about if Arthur were alive still, would john still hunt him down too? I think he'd track Arthur down, but not to kill him (not that he could) but i believe he'd try to team up with Arthur again and maybe even take down ross.
i feel like forcing arthur into rdr1 really cheapens his character - his entire story in rdr2 was slowly realising and growing over time into a more honourable man, while losing everything he once stood for, and he ends by sacrificing himself to save john and his family putting him into rdr1 and having john hunt him down ruins all that - he doesnt sacrifice himself, he just becomes another target for john to find, a more honourable one, sure, but ultimately a target
