All posts by Sathana

@Leprechaunlauch A lot of articles wouldn't be necessary just because of the level of unnecessary but great detail in RDR2. Surely the more the better no?

If Micah had've died because Arthur left him there and if Arthur still collected debt then both would die. Arthur's death would have negatively affected the gang but it wouldn't have destroyed it because they could survive with minus one important member. If Micah hadn't have survived then the lack of his destructive actions would have saved the gang, because it's basically them which did the most damage. So Micah dying would have effected more people and would have changed the direction much more.

For red dead 2 "Revenge is a dish best eaten" is my favourite. However I think the first games' soundtrack was more rounded and just better. Still they're both masterpieces and are ingrained into both games.

Robert Freeman

@WestVirginiaLoner I played RDR1 first and I personally think it's better to play that first. That's because I believe it gives you context as to the real world time in which the game was made, and makes you develop an understanding of John's character that is important for the second game. To be honest either way has its benefits, playing the second game first makes you understand the universe in a decent way, but I don't regret playing the first one first at all.

Uncle.

GTA is a very fun and quite well made game with a good story. However, it is also very unrealistic in some obvious ways, a handheld minigun and railgun for example, or crashing one plane into the back of another plane without crashing the second one, it's a little ridiculous. The maps of the worlds don't add up very well together, with some GTA games being set in copies of San Francisco and New York, and the real life counterparts being constantly mentioned in RDR 1 & 2. Red dead is definitely a little more serious and realistic, there are some unrealistic parts, but in the end of the day it is a more story driven game with a focus on very realistic graphics and setting, whereas GTA is quite based around being fun. The main argument for them being in the same universe is the various moments in which they overlap, like the stone hatchet and double action revolver in GTA online or a book written by J. Marston in GTA, but I think those are just cool but not very important easter eggs, knowing rockstar.

Sounds way less cool than a dramatic showdown at the top of a snowy mountain where you get revenge once and for all.

Red dead 1 & 2 tied.

Low Honour is more fun because you have the freedom to do what you want but high honour gives a better ending.

@Wintergel I was joking, I don't think a single person with even a little intelligence could see Micah was an asshole. Sorry for the long break.

Your right about the banks especially, mainly because every bank in the game has an interior like Armadillo, Blackwater, Saint Denis, Rhodes and Valentine but you still can't rob them.

RDR2 is my favorite game, but I have to say it feels like Rockstar did their best to not add any of the classic Outlaw activities into the free-roam, and the ones that they did work awfully. You can't rob banks outside of missions, whenever you try to hold up a stagecoach they just take out their weapon even though you have a gun aimed at them and all you need to do is pull the trigger while they clumsily whip out a shotgun and say some stupid dialogue like: I'll shoot you like a sick hound! You can only rob trains without getting a wanted level if you go into tunnels, and you can't commit any crime anywhere apart from grizzlies west without being seen by a witness in 5 seconds. You could be galloping through the plains without seeing a single NPC for 5 minutes but as soon as you commit a crime then they're everywhere you look.

Edgar Ross is the most important villain in the franchise, and I have to say I hate him more than Micah.

I really like the Idea of Jack starring in RDR3 and it being about the aftermath of the west, but I also think it would be cool if it were about a member of the gang who's also a member of other gangs at different points. The reason I think it should be multiple gangs is because we've already seen the gang die in every possible way and it would get tiring just playing a game which is only foreshadowing.

Unpopular opinion but I thought Micah was actually wrongly bullied by Arthur, Arthur and John didn't trust Dutch, and Micah was only defending his leader. Arthur got what was coming.

I think John's death had a special impact for anyone played RDR1 first, it was the first death of a character you actually spent more than 20 in game minutes with in the entire franchise. But that being said Arthur's death was a lot grander and epic, and Micah's and Edgar Ross's felt very righteous. But I personally feel Dutch's death had something specifically important to it, after playing RDR2 it really feels like the very end of the Van Der Linde Gang. Unfortunately a lot of people haven't played RDR1 and didn't actually witness any of the Deaths in that game therefore they can't really structure a valid opinion on the best Deaths in the series.

In my opinion the game should not be set set before rdr2 unless it's about the old gunslingers, which shouldn't be a redemption game rather than a red dead game as the redemption games should strictly have something to do with the van Der Linde gang, rdr2 was about the van Der Linde gang and rdr1 was about John's story afterwards. If rdr3 were about the van Der Linde gang history again it would feel like rdr2, It would have the same basic gameplay concepts and many of the same story narratives, as well as that it would be set when the gang were disillusioned by Dutch, it would feel like everything you do in the story is in vein, and i personally can't see that being nearly as good as it's predecessors. The reason I think the next game shouldn't be about the old gunslingers is because I think the redemption story should be finished as a trilogy. I don't think it should be about Jack Marston becoming a 20s Gangster because that's just one of the most unclean transitions I can think of, going from three Western games (I know red dead revolver is unrelated but it's red dead) to gangster. But a game set around 1915 to 1918 about the end of the west with Jack Marston would work well, there is no specific date the west ended, in one way it ended in 1890 and in another in ended pretty much anywhere in the 1910s, which would work seeing as there's plenty of late westerns set then. I think Rockstar specifically left Charles and Sadie alive in case they wanted to set a game after the events of rdr2.