@GoldenPegasus5 you're my source here

While some details of it were discovered to be true, it also contains a glaring amount of obviously false information.

My theory was that some degenerate had taken some information from a post that contained actual accurate/unfinished details to make their additions seem more legitimate.

i dont see any of them as "obviously false", and I think its possible that the game was more degenerate earlier in development, especially with rockstar's staff getting reshuffled and the so-called toxic work culture being amended. perhaps the leaker was so sour due to being one of the more hardcore/degenerate staff members. i dont know. but either way, i dont think it can be simply stated to be "debunked" without actual evidence. stuff being too shocking cannot count.

@Baguetteboing

On second thought, I'm sure R* would have allowed for players to witness violent, on-screen rape. Par for the course, that totally seems up their alley.

In all seriousness; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Contrary to the apparent prevailing mindset in the media sphere that every claim is true until it is thoroughly debunked, the burden of proof lies with those making the claims.

There were a few leaks containing information that turned out to be true prior to the release of the game and what all those had in common aside from that was the fact that they didn't contain wildly graphic and off kilter rubbish.

@H. Roosevelt That was the best part from the notes, though. (I am not insane).

you have to clarify on-screen rape because in rdr2 you literally get raped. the game includes cannibalism, gore, dismemberment, implied sexual torture (with the murfee brood), incest, etc, and the studio has definitely dipped into that kind of territory in previous games. its really not that outlandish. obviously its a step up from the raw anal sex from gta 5, but i really doubt the scene itself would be on-screen. i think, like some have suggested, it would simply be heavily implied, or you would see sadie appear with a bloody mouth and a guy hunched over in pain, and you can put the pieces together.

i agree with the idea that that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so where is your extraordinary evidence that its a hoax? why is it not "unconfirmed" or something, why is it simply "this is fake" or "confirmed to be a hoax" based on what? and yes i read every single note. i personally think its believable. it always seemed to me that the game was missing a lot of features/story beats typical of rockstar, and that there is a lot underneath the surface that was simply scrapped. stuff like arthur's dead son seem totally tone-deaf but also tie in to the much darker vision i think the game originally had.

while i have read the entire leak, it seems you didnt do me the courtesy of reading the page i linked and the words that i pointed out.

this is a statment. the burden of proof lies on the person stating it. the literal BURDEN OF PROOF lies on the person saying the statement was "PROVEN".