All posts by BarrelBoy06

Laughable.

Part of it is the title. Red Dead Redemption. The protagonists redeem themselves by dying as new, better men. Their sins are then payed for in full. Also, it would be weird that Arthur and John never communicate or mention each other if he was alive. Given their improved relationship by the end of the game, I feel like Arthur might even help John find work.

Make sure they’re not on your horse or in the weapons locker. I have sometimes had a similar issue, where it seems like I don’t have my old weapons anymore, but usually they’re on my horse or in the locker and I just forgot to check.

I understand the desire to see more, but I don’t think we should. As has been said before on the wiki, the story’s been told. They don’t need to keep spinning it out into more games, because there’s no narratively satisfying way to keep doing so. We saw the downfall of the gang, we saw the era where what few members were left tried to move on, and we saw John having to hunt his brothers down at government gunpoint. Arthur’s dead, John’s dead, Jack’s life fades away into time and he becomes a writer (as seen in the books in Franklin’s house). To pretend otherwise and pretend that they can all live happily ever after and if it wasn’t for that darn o’l Micah everything would be fine, is just a disservice to the story. The Red Dead series is about people being forced to move on and find, we’ll, redemption, not live in the past. In Arthur’s words, “We’re thieves in a world that don’t want us no more.” There’s no way they can keep living. Benjamin Davis, Dutch’s actor, has said that he thinks Dutch never really cared about Tahiti, that was just a carrot to dangle in front of the gang, to just keep them moving a little longer. I don’t think there really was any chance that the gang could’ve made it to Tahiti.

There’s still a lot of time left to go. I wouldn’t jump the gun just yet.

People didn’t used to be pansies who couldn’t handle it.

That’s just too bad, isn’t it? You’re lucky you were born as recently as you were, or you’d have a real problem on your hands. Good luck out there, sounds like you need it.

Yeah, they do. But generally, adults are expected to have some maturity and temper their emotions a little bit.

You cried? Chill. Just play it more, it shouldn’t take long.

I would assume that he means he has disdain for these ideas. I, too, think they are misguided.

Thank you.

…sure.

The issue is that you’re letting them get away. They can’t get away. That’s the whole point. People don’t get to ride off into the sunset in Red Dead Redemption. The whole point of the first two games was that these characters’ lives don’t work anymore. It’s a bygone era. And they are forced now to pay for what they did. That’s one part of why I don’t like Sadie Adler. She’s arguably the most vicious and murderous person in the gang. She kills without need, she kills with a vendetta, she’s better at it than she reasonably should be, and she faces no punishment. No recourse. Arthur and John did some bad things, and even when they renounce it and do their best to live a good life and find their Redemption, they pay for what they did. John gets used like an asset for the government, before being blasted to bits on his own land. Arthur is chased down like game and only his disease (another ill-gotten commodity) manages to outpace the Pinkertons. So what happens to Sadie, who goes out of her way to instigate huge gunfights and chase people down because of their association, who at every turn has some other tryhard violent outburst to showcase her StrongFemaleCharacter-Ness, who flat out tells a sheriff she killed somebody she didn’t need to? Nothing. She really does get to ride off into the sunset. At least Charles kept a low profile. He was from murky enough of a background, and once the gang collapsed, it seems like he blended in with the Wapiti and became a street fighter. Sadie became a bounty hunter, constantly dealing with the law, and nobody ever thought maybe this Sadie Adler was the same Sadie Adler from that notorious gang that the government was hunting down. Or if they did, she probably killed them effortlessly and without consequence too. This is all to say that a Redemption character who gets away isn’t a very good Redemption character. The tragedy is the appeal.

@Fwjueq on tiktok But that’s just it. There was no real character development. She just spontaneously decides that she’s gonna start murdering people. She doesn’t train, she doesn’t fail, and she overcomes every situation that comes her way with minimal effort. She and her husband together could apparently not manage to fend off a small band of roughly ten O’Driscolls at their own home. Jake took a dirt nap (or a fire nap, I guess) and Sadie cowered in the wine cellar. She spends a chapter or two whining about it and moping around, being ungrateful to the gang and moody, before finally threatening to kill Pearson because he dared ask her to help pitch in around the camp, doing what the rest of the women in the camp (and the world at the time) were doing by helping maintain the living space while the men went off to work, or in this case, break the law a bunch. Arthur agrees to take her shopping, and on the way she invades Pearson’s privacy by reading his private letters. Then she almost immediately blows the gang’s cover by pulling out a gun and asking when she’s supposed to shoot the shopkeeper. Then she comes back in a stupid outfit, instigates a fight with the Lemoyne Raiders, somehow ends up winning (even though the Raiders are arguably, since they’re former military, more dangerous than the O’Driscolls that she and her husband both couldn’t beat), and rides back to camp as jolly as can be, from which point onwards she presumably also refuses to help out around camp. Later on she kills three grown, hardened, armed men twice her size with one knife. Yeah, sure Jan. She then continues to act with impunity and bend reality around her for the rest of the game, murdering people en masse and unnecessarily with no consequence, while everyone in the game bends over backwards to suck her metaphorical dick. Arthur has several entries talking about her in his journal. And who shows up again in the Epilogue but Sadie? She flat out tells a Sherrif that she killed one of her fellow bounty hunters and faces no consequences. She then goes to help John with his quest for revenge against Micah, gets stabbed in the stomach, and then quickly and quietly treks up and over multiple mountaintops and slopes with this seemingly mortal injury in order to help John in the fight at the end. There’s an epic standoff between John, Micah, and Dutch, an estranged father and son and the traitor who put the wedge between them…and Sadie. She’s there too. She’s some random stranger who the gang gracefully decides to take under its wing, to which she acts in gratefully and rudely the entire time, suddenly and without warning becomes a ruthless killer without ever facing consequences of any type, and never seems to face any struggle that she can’t survive with ease. She goes out of her way to hunt down O’Driscolls whenever she can in a vain quest for revenge, despite Arthur and Dutch (pre-crazy) both realizing and teaching the gang that revenge is a fool’s game. Revenge gets John killed. He hunts down Micah and, ultimately, pays for it with his life. Sadie does the same thing several times, and she gets to retire to South America and ride off into the sunset, as the feminists behind the screen touch themselves thinking about how strong and independent she is, and how she’s so much better than the rest of the gang. Because apparently she is. The universe has decided that she is never to face any consequences. Is there ANY justification for this? Well, she gives some weak excuse that she and her husband “Shared the work”. Hmm. They shared the work. Work shared is apparently equal to capacity for murder, ladies. So if you ever want to become a ruthless killer unbound by reality, just share the work with your husband. There ya go. Now please, H. Roosevelt, give me another temporary ban for huwting some feewings.

@Dermander True. She was also the most accurate to how most female outlaws actually were in the West. Less fiery goddesses of death, like Sadie, and more matriarchal figures / communal prostitutes, like Susan and Abigail.

Sadie at 58%? Lol

A lot of people here are misunderstanding the point. I’ve seen a lot of people say that the hatred for her is unfounded because “she’s a badass”. This reflects a frankly childish lack of understanding towards the game and character. Red Dead Redemption is not a series about being “badass”. It’s not about running into every situation guns-blazing, shooting first and asking questions later. It’s about the death of the time period where that was even possible. It’s about outlaws struggling to survive in a world that’s cast them aside as time goes on, never stopping for anybody. It’s about being forced to abandon those ways. Arthur and John aren’t engaging protagonists because they’re really good at shooting people, it’s because of their philosophies and the way they must change in a world that doesn’t want them anymore. She never learns, never faces consequences, never changes, never feels bad for the people she’s killed in cold blood. Sadie is a merciless gunslinger who kills without remorse, and with a vendetta. She consistently ignores the moral message that revenge is a fool’s game, and never faces any consequences for it. She goes from hiding in the cellar, not being able to defend her house from a small band of O’Driscolls, to murdering them en masse the same way as Arthur, the best member of the gang as far as guns, who has been training for upwards of two decades is forced to do. Only, Arthur has an interesting personality and philosophy. Sadie doesn’t. Micah, the villain, is a MUCH better-written character that Sadie is. Some people here don’t seem to understand that, either. When people say, “Micah is a better character than Sadie”, they don’t mean that Micah is nicer, or more morally grounded, or a better person. They mean that he’s consistent, effective, and well written. Sadie fails miserably compared to him. At one point, she straight-up tells a Sheriff that she killed one of her fellow bounty hunters, and he doesn’t do anything to her. Literally professes to the law that she murdered a man, and the law doesn’t do anything to her. She’s only in the game to appease the woke mob. She’s frustratingly badly written, sticks out like a sore thumb, she rejects the morals that the game tries to talk about, she never gets punished for anything she does, and the game would work much better without her.

Ooh, that’s a really hard question. I really like that little Hobbit Hole-looking house.

Ask them if they think that Dead Eye is a real power that Arthur and John have. To my knowledge, Dead Eye isn’t referenced by them or anyone else (aside from lines like “Just a good shot, I guess…”), and given that they’re pretty closely tied to their characters, I’d love to know what they think.

I like my Springfield and Carbine the most out of all my weapons.