Howdy folks. I have decided to resign as a bureaucrat, my blog is below for anyone who'd like to read:
Your mum
I've always really liked Algernon's Revolver most for the ornate, pocket pistol kind of vibe, pretty unique in that regard. It doesn't suit Arthur or John - looks like it'd either belong to an upper class woman or maybe a rich mobster - but if anything that makes me like it even more. And I like duelling with it because it reminds me of the scene in For A Few Dollars More where Colonel Mortimer uses the Derringer to win the duel in the tavern.
I always use John's Cattleman Revolver when playing as John because I like the idea of him still using it, but of course I love adding Micah's Revolver to my collection. I also like the Rare Rolling Block Rifle but only use it as Arthur.
I don't really use the gunslingers' weapons at all, really, but I'd say Calloway's is probably my favourite out of them.
Howdy folks. I have decided to resign as a bureaucrat, my blog is below for anyone who'd like to read:
Rains Fall, in my opinion. He had to endure so much, saw so much death and misery. Nothing good happened for him :(
Fussar is an incredibly cruel warlord-like capitalist, Allende seems more evil in other ways. Not only is he harsh to workers in Mexico (evidently), he also endorses mass rape and destruction of villages, innocent or not, and even betrays Bill right at the end. I'd have to say Allende is the crueler, more evil one of the two.
I think Hosea's death, although destabilising for his mental state, was too late to be a factor. I also think Micah wasn't the main reason (though, again, probably still contributed a bit), because Dutch remained how he was after splitting with Micah and took a liking to him right from the start anyway. The head injury in the train robbery is a fat red herring, in my opinion - there's no evidence it had any impact on his own given that he was already going mad and plenty of other things happened soon afterwards anyway that they can be used to explain his behaviour.
I think it was a result of years of intense yet ever-increasing stress and pressure. Being a very wanted outlaw with lots of people to protect, constantly having to be on look-out, couldn't trust people easily, etc. is bound to have worn him down and make him get more desperate as the West was slowly ebbing away. It seems like Colm also went mad to some extent given the erraticism of his decisions, incredible capacity for ultra-violence and inability to be reasoned with. Micah went mad by 1907 after being the baddest outlaw in the West for years, Bill couldn't handle the pressure of being a gang leader and also went mad by 1911. Seems that it happens to a lot of characters.
John doesn't attribute anything to Dutch's madness in RDR 1, implying that it was a slow process, which would certainly favour this explanation. He also talks about power a lot, claiming to Drew MacFarlane that it's (paraphrased:) "like a drink, the more you have, the more you want". He also remains suspicious of Reyes' desire for power over Mexico and clearly seems to have formed an overall opinion that people are corrupted by power and can't handle it. Given how much of a major figure Dutch was in his life, it's not implausible for John to have formed this opinion, among potentially many others, from watching his mentor.
A lot did. I like John's trust sidearm, Micah's are really cool, and then Javier and Dutch had really great-looking weapons too imo.
Hosea's look basically the same as John's but as he doesn't have the gunslinger association, they don't seem as cool as John's. Sadie's revolver is the same colour scheme but newer and more decorated; alright, but there are better gang weapons in the game, I'd say.
It's literally confirmed by Rockstar that Revolver and Redemption are separate canons, therefore he does not physically exist in the Redemption universe. It's not disputable, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that many people are sick of this question.
He's in my top 3 with Geralt of Rivia and Edward Kenway. I like him more than John, even if John's story is more interesting.
Is he the best of all time though? That would be a big claim to make, especially as he's only in one game. I think he's very good but would stop short of saying best ever.
None of these!
Was going to say Dutch but he really does have some tough competition. Allende, Ross and Fussar are my rival top 3 with Dutch for most evil, primarily because those three appear to be evil for evil's sake - they don't have any other underlying reasons for their behaviour.
Bill and his gang do some terrible things in RDR 1 but Bill is dumb and mad, Colm likewise, plus Dutch is a genuine threat to some extent so he has an underlying reason to hate him anyway, Favours also did terrible things but it was motivated mainly by insecurity and a desire to prove himself, Milton was trying to do some good in eliminating an outlaw gang, was just doing his job, and also retained a small shred of integrity by never breaking the law, so again, he isn't quite as bad as some others. Arthur was never really evil at all imo.
It's objective fact that he isn't, as confirmed by Rockstar.
Would be cool in theory but they'd be so out of date by 1899, would probably have different, specialist ammunition, there's no reason why Arthur/John would know how to load one - which would also take ages - that they wouldn't make a lot of sense in practice.
But I guess they could put one in Online for a laugh? They had the blunderbuss in Undead Nightmare for RDR 1 so could always continue that idea in some way.
Yeah, when Micah skilfully shot loads of people in quick succession, including the sniper on the roof who ambushed and killed Sean. As implied when I said "ambushed", it wasn't Micah's (or anyone else's) fault that Sean died.
As said in an above reply, people only deny his skill because they hate him and that's quite petty. If you're one of them, be better than that.
Old Boy is dead and Hera would be Sadie's horse at that time, so neither of them are valid options.
The Count is basically a White Arabian, but Baylock would be pretty cool.
As Roosevelt said and gave evidence for, Guarma became exploited by corporations instead of its governor, so it didn't change all that much. There would, at least, not be a full-scale rebellion going there.
Not like Guarma matters at that point anyway, it's hardly unique. Besides, it's not our job as the player to defeat capitalism and save the world or whatever, so I'm glad the gave us closure on what happened there but I think being unable to visit it again is a good thing.
None of them?
Dutch and Micah are both evil, especially Micah.
Bill was never really able to see sense and was incredibly insecure, desperate to prove himself and get revenge on the people who made him feel bad when really that was a him problem. His gang's actions in RDR 1 show that he became deranged and nihilistic, much like Dutch, and as such I'd call him evil too, albeit eventually.
I can forgive Javier's actions in 1899 as he did try to stay neutral. In RDR 1 though, he works for Allende, is presumably an ally of Bill, and overall seems to be a shadow of his former self - having failed to even seek redemption and an embodiment of decadence.
Dutch proves himself to be pretty decent but he's clearly not Micah's level imo.
You can't get many good horses at the start of the game except for the White Arabian, which I never go for anyway. I usually just stick with an American Paint you can steal from Chez Porter after the mission with Javier and keep that until at least Chapter 3.
Then, in Chapter 4, I get the Missouri Fox Trotter and keep it for the rest of the game.
I don't think there is an objective "canon" ending, but people can have their own personal ending, the one that's canon for them. That's fine as long as they don't try and argue that everyone else is objectively wrong.
Personally, I think high honor Arthur works better story-wise and, because of that, I'd have to go with that and helping John as my canon one, if I chose at all, as I think it fits with chapter 6 the best imo. But, I think Micah killing Arthur is more realistic and also more atmospheric, plus it means Arthur dies an outlaw's death, so helping John with low honor is a good choice as well, as far as I'm concerned.
Overall though, I don't massively favour one of others. I would say my least favourite by a long way is going back for the money with low honor (although Arthur being stabbed in the back is quite an appropriately-symbolic death), but the other three are all feasible.