Thread:Raziel Reaper/@comment-2008429-20190320204110/@comment-2008429-20190321204842

JamesTheNerdKing wrote: I've removed the cholera death rumor from the page. Rockstar has effectively screwed up a few things in the Redemption canon. The boat robbery that was botched took place in 1899 instead of the presumed date of 1906, and John wasn't left for dead in the boat robbery in RDR II, despite RDR I explicitly stating he was left for dead on it and it was the gang's last robbery. Aside from that, Rockstar made Javier's comment towards John about "children" seem odd, since Javier never learns about Marston's daughter. It is possible though that he simply misspoke. Personally, I believe that the daughter is probably born in late 1907 (after the epilogue/wedding, making it John's only child not born out of wedlock) or early 1908, and died shortly afterward, possibly within a month to a year after it's birth. Rockstar could've at least had Abigail announce a pregnancy at the end of the game, but instead it seems like they forgot about the daughter, as if she were just a passing remark designed to add a little more to John's backstory. It is intresting isn't it? I don't know if I would go as far to say that they messed the canon up but it's intresting to note what Rockstar decided to focus on in the story of Red Dead Redemption 2. Compared with how the backstory was originally hinted at in the first game.

While never directly stated in the orignal game, it's obvious that the Blackwater Boat Robbery was meant to be the moment John was shot and left for dead. John Marston is clearly operating with the logic that he was left to die on that Blackwater boat after he was shot. Obviously RDR2 ignores that.

A few things don't add up at all. Like how does Dutch know John married Abigail? He mocks John for marrying a "whore". But how could he have possibly known that if RDR2 shows they married years after the gang broke up? When running away Javier might yell "Go back to your farm John!" Which doesn't make sense because how the hell would Javier know that John became a rancher? He never met John again since the gang broke up and besides he went back to Mexico. Those are the two biggest things that make zero sense and have no possible explanation.

And of course Javier's dialogue implying he might have known John's Daughter. Ehhh you could sort of excuse it, possibly. He might have just been generalizing John's family while he was threatening him. It's not very direct but it's still worth mentioning that he doesn't just name Jack but instead says "children".

You really have to wonder if John's daughter was ever going to be a part of RDR2. They had to have thought about it. Why they didn't include her? Who knows? I fully expected her to either show up or at least be hinted at in the epilogue. But nope nothing at all. Not even a mention or easter egg. It's very odd. After the release of RDR2. The only way it makes the most sense now is if she died during childbirth or at least as an infant between 1907-1911. If she died from birth or was a miscarriage, it might explain why she apparently has no given name. But even then, that's only speculation. We'll probably never found out now. Rockstar doesn't seem to be intrested in giving us answers.