Do you guys think Jack Marston eventually lived a happy life despite the loss of his family? I know it's mostly implied that Jack became an outlaw after killing Ross. Jack taking vengeance on Ross has the implications that Jack didn't go on to live a normal, moral life like his parents wanted. But I would like to think that years after killing Ross. Jack eventually turned his life around. But maybe that's me wishing all the suffering Arthur and John went through wasn't for nothing.
4,643
pages
ALL POSTS
All posts by Rvb forever
Yeah, New Austin's status as a state was pretty shaky in between games. Even West Elizabeth was treated as the same state as New Austin, bounty wise, in the first RDR. Then in RDR 2 suddenly they are both different states. The jurisdiction between the states hasn't exactly been consistent. You can just chalk it up to the writers making a mistake or taking liberties with what the title marshal means.
The daughter clearly doesn't exist during the events of Red Dead Dead Redemption 2, She is never mentioned or talked about by anyone at any point. In the first game John mentions she died after a lengthy amount of time after he left the gang. At the very least she died after the year 1899. Logically, it's most likely she died between 1907-1911. Thus explaining why she is never talked about in Red Dead Redemption 2, Also she did not die of a fever, that's an old rumor. Not fact.
You can also infer that she likely died very young. Likely in childbirth specifically. Given that she apparently has no given name and does not have a grave marker. Infant fatalities as a result of complications during childbirth at the time were not given grave markers. If the parents did not name a baby before it died in childbirth they would bury the baby without a grave marker. That was very common for the time. But I stress, that's conjecture not fact.
I think the community is taking all of these Red Dead Revolver references too seriously. The campfire stories about Red Harlow are more or less Easter eggs. I wouldn’t presume that Rockstar put them in as serious, canonical fact.
Dan Houser and Rockstar has said multiple times that Revolver and Redemption are two different universes. They’ve been pretty clear about it.
Even if she never killed anyone (that we saw) her presence in the gang is enough. A gang that has killed tons and tons of people. Abigail would be an accessory to murder by association alone. Her culpability would have to be determined by a court of law.
Honorable Arthur makes the most sense. The game is called Red Dead Redemption after all.
@Equivalent-Ambition How ironic. Then Rockstar must have taken the quote from our wiki. Because Ross uses the same line in a RDR2 newspaper. As if he’s quoting something that was said in the first game. Something he apparently never actually said.
Rockstar has said multiple times that Revolver is in it’s own canon separate from Redemption. Even before the release of the first Redemption game they were careful to make this distinction.
It is hinted multiple times in both Redemption games that Red Harlow is merely a myth or some sort of old west legend. People only talk about him in reference to stories and other tales. By far the biggest piece of evidence to this is Jack literally reading a book that is strongly hinted to be Red Harlow’s story.
At best, Red Harlow is a myth or a tale from the old west in the Redemption universe. Akin to a tall tale or fairy tale.
At worst, none of this is even canon to the Redemption games and it’s simply easter eggs left for old fans of Red Dead Revolver and everyone is taking these references far too seriously.
There isn’t much more you could say about this then that.
(Edited by Rvb forever)
When does Edgar Ross say “Everyone will eventually pay for what they’ve done.” in the first Red Dead Redemption? I know Ross says it in a newspaper in RDR2 but his article has made references to him saying it in the first game. I don’t remember him ever saying it in RDR1. Maybe it was in optional dialogue?
Hosea dying got me but even worse, Lenny dies in the blink of an eye. His death feels like you suddenly got smacked in the face.
The gunfight outside the Saint Denis bank. I wish the mission was longer. Pinkerton snipers, a Gatling gun, blowing a hole in a brick wall, running on the rooftops. I loved it.
@LoreEnthusiast I played Revolver for a few days but not nearly as much as the Redemption games.
This post is geared towards those of us who played the first game ten years ago on release. I have a lot of fond memories of playing the first game, some of which I’ll share now.
I’ll never forget that when I did the second horse racing mission for Nigel West Dickens. It was a huge pain in the ass. Firstly my horse wasn’t fast enough for the race so I kept losing the mission. Finally I found a Bronco to use then won the race with it. But then outside my house at the time, there was a huge thunderstorm and it actually killed the power immediately after. Unfortunately I didn’t have autosave on so that cost me a few hours of gameplay. I never played the game without auto save being on ever again.
I remember my friends and I playing online and during a laggy game, we found an invincible Bobcat just outside of Bearclaw camp and we followed it all over the map. We had never seen a Bobcat before and the fact that it was invincible to every shot we fired made us think we found some sort of mythical creature like the old Bigfoot rumors from San Andreas.
Speaking of myths and rumors. We would also go ghost hunting in Tumbleweed. Nothing ever happened of course but I can still remember that dog barking even though no dog was ever in town. Also there was a glitch that allowed you to dig up some of the graves in the cemetery and we definitely did that.
Anyone remember that one mission where you have to go to that cabin by Lake Dan Julio for Irish? And if you called your horse by the cliff, Your horse would always throw itself off the cliff? Making the spurred to victory achievement really hard to get?
I have a lot of fond memories of leading a posse in multiplayer and all the posse wars players would get into. Having massive, lobby sized gun fights at El Presidio, Fort Mercer, Cochinay. Gun shots, people throwing dynamite, cannonball explosions. Going on for days in game. Like it was the Alamo. Nothing was more satisfying than taking over a fort from another players posse then recruiting the same people you just fought into your own gang. Then going after another gang with an even larger army.
I’ll close the post with this. Nothing beat finishing the mission “And the Truth Will Set You Free.” And getting that objective “Go home to your family.” After hours of playing the game, to finally see that. Then riding to John’s house for the very first time with the song Compass playing. That just felt amazing. That was definitely a big moment for me.
So what are your best memories of playing the first Red Dead Redemption?
(Edited by Rvb forever)
I just listened to John O 'Creagh's original dialogue. Wow, it's crazy how much he sounds like RDR 1 Uncle. I would have preferred his performance.
Even though Arthur and Sadie were only friends. I think Sadie understood Arthur’s pain more then anyone else. They both lost loved ones to random violence. I would say Sadie.
Let’s be honest. It won’t be fixed. Rockstar doesn’t listen to the community unless it comes to glitches.
@Equivalent-Ambition Good point. Makes no sense that Abigail looks the same. Something must have happened in development that stopped them from keeping John’s hair. I wonder what went wrong.
They’re had to be a reason why this was the case. If you look in a lot of the Epilogue mission images that can be found in the pause menu. So many of them depict John with his original hair. The obvious implication of this being that these images are likely a screenshot from an older version of the game where John kept his hair, instead of using a black version of Arthur’s. As seen in the image below.
So frankly, what the hell happened? Why did the developers apparently remove John’s original playable hair? Considering the game was in development for eight years, you think that would’ve been plenty of time for them to add hair growth to John’s original hair and make it playable but evidently they couldn’t do that.
(Edited by Rvb forever)
Anyone else feel this way? In the first game Uncle was just a grumpy, lazy old man. In the prequel he’s this energetic, nonstop joke machine who doesn’t like work. It’s also bizarre to me that he was a member of Dutch’s old gang. I can’t see why anyone would tolerate him and nothing in Red Dead Redemption implies Uncle even knew Dutch or the gang. It feels like lazy writing to me that the writers just shoved Uncle into the gang to explain how he knew John. When Uncle has practically no reason to be there.
I always assumed Uncle was just an old friend of John’s. Before Red Dead Redemption 2, I always imagined Uncle worked at the orphanage John ran away from when he was a kid and that’s how they knew each other. John tells Jack that Uncle was “Old when I was young.” which seemed to back up that assumption that John knew Uncle since his youth And why John calls him “Uncle” in the first place. I kind of wish my explanation was canon because it makes way more sense to me.