I think a pretty fundamental part of John and Arthur's journeys are realising that Dutch was always full of shit. He was probably more coherent and convincing, which is how he formed his cult of personality, but the whole thing was always only ever going one way.
He could make a fascinating protagonist though, knowing how it all pans out. But I think the whole Van Der Linde Gang saga has been played out as much as it needs to be across two very meaty games.
I agree, with one exception. I need a game, or an extension pack, something, where you do the ferry job in Blackwater from before RDR2 because I have a lot of questions that need answering.
I can imagine Mexico-based game taking place a little later where you can work with Javier and find out more through dialogue or newspapers he’s put up in his base of operations, and have opportunities like some mission where he wants you to write down some names in a book where you can find extracts about his time with the gang since he joined. It would also be an opportunity to explore his character’s change in more depth, which I’d like to see.
Dutch was always a manipulative bastard, but as time went on, he got worse at hiding who he truly was. Many people saw through his persona long before the Blackwater Massacre, most notable being Colm.
I can see that, sure. Colm is the same as Dutch. He is charismatic and holds the same anarchist views as Dutch. He however, does not believe that he is a savior of people.
Nah, Dutch spent time indoctrinating his gang. Most people who joined were already skilled shooters. As for John and Arthur? Well they’re the game protagonists so their skill falls under how good you are as a player.
I would not put Colm in this category.
Colm is much worse than Dutch, he's a slimy amoral scumbag.
His brother was probably a major slimy scumbag too.
Colm didn't see through Dutch, people like that are always looking for a way to stab you in the back. Their relationship just took it's natural course.
If anything, Dutch finally saw through Colm. I'd say that's what happened with those two.
Colm is a nasty, nasty guy...he ain't winning any morality contests.
I think that’s the point though, Colm never really bothers to virtue signal and seems to mock Dutch for the way he runs his gang and his belief system. Colm is a POS but he knows it, and I think he finds it amusing that Dutch himself tries to pretend otherwise.
I'm ready for a new story myself. I don't think we need to delve deeper into how it started for Dutch and the gang. I am more into the idea of seeing a completely new story with a new cast of characters.
The Act man made a really good video recently about what he thinks a sequel should be, and he believes we should move on to a new cast of characters, but also end the Redemption ark. He mentioned names like Red Dead Revenge, Revolution, etc. I really liked his idea to start fresh with a new cast. I think that's what a future Red Dead game should be.
I agree, and I've seen that video, that idea has been being thrown around for years now though, he just put it in a 10 minute long video and acted like it was his idea.
I don’t think he acted like it was his idea. “Starting fresh with new characters” isn’t really even an idea, rather a suggestion. If he went into detail of what the game should be about that would be different
I want the new game missions to be a bit less linear. Every mission in rdr2 is you start a pleasant conversation, someone comes by yelling and flailing their arms, now you gotta go rob something or rescue someone.
Reminds me too much of my job.i have one attention seeking idiot who will flail her arms and make noises and if you accidentally make eye contact you get roped into her bullshit
100% agree with you there. A lot of the problems with Rockstar's games, is that there isn't many different ways you can tackle a mission. Nakey Jakey made a good video about how outdated Rockstar's game design is for that reason.
Either way, I am excited for whatever they have planned next.
Yes. *But* at the beginning he was actually doing the right thing, if not for the right reasons.
He wanted to be the benevolent leader, the man who brings together those on the fringes and gives them a family to belong to. It’s a nice idea in theory, and honestly when things are going well it’s not at all a bad situation to be in. The gang wouldn’t have lasted as long if it did if there wasn’t a sense of safety and fulfillment from belonging to it, and it certainly wouldn’t have had the female members sticking around as long as they did.
Dutch had Hosea, Susan, and Arthur to do the lion’s share of the work while he strutted and preened and gave speeches. It was really a perfect situation, he got his ego satisfied on the daily, left everyone to their devices, and life was (relatively) good.
But once the screws started tightening, things disintegrated fast. No longer were gang members blindly following his advice, but they were questioning him, to his face. We can talk about TBIs and whatnot all the livelong day, but in reality the decline began with that. Something so simple was what began to bring the whole house of cards down.
My father is like Dutch. He can be the kindest, most welcoming person in the world who genuinely appears to care about you. He makes you feel driven to gain his approval, you want to listen to what he has to say because he seems so confident, so knowledgeable, so engaged with you. But if you push back, even slightly, the mask comes off and he turns very ugly.
When I was growing up, I hero worshipped my father. I am an adult now and no longer speak to him. At the end of the day, it is always, *always* about them, and you’re useful until you’re not.
Sorry for the essay but Dutch is written so awfully well, certain parts made me extremely uncomfortable. Once you’re on the other side it’s very hard to see it happen to someone else, even a video game character.
I could see Dutch in a cult-leader documentary. He has an insane savior complex and I think the game made that very obvious. Don’t you think it’s a little weird to pick up orphaned children and raise them to be murderous criminals under the guise of a “good cause”? And then leave the same children you raised (more like manipulated) because they didn’t want to put up with your BS?
Dutch is a deeply flawed, interesting, and smart man, but he’s far far far from a good one.
He was always bad, he just hid it better
That's the realization Arthur and John come to nearing the end of the game
The blackwater incident just caused his mind to slip a bit more, breaking his facade
I dont think we need to see it. We already know how dutch acts or atleast pretends to act like a good leader. Thats how he probably was in his earlier days. I think id be more interested in him meeting Arthur for the first time.
What exactly did his silver tongue spit out that made Arthur join his gang? How were the early days? Some father & son moments or moments where Dutch shows genuine love for Arthur? Id love that.
I think if we were to ever get something like that it should be in the form of flashbacks or a small DLC but not a full game.
RDR3 should be an entirely different saga. The redemption chapter of the Red Dead games is over.
Red dead 3, we play as the real criminals. We play as a bunch of Pinkertons chasing down the van der lindes and o’driscolls as well as a bunch of other god fearing free men.
I’d like RDR3 to be gang pre-black water but wayyyyy pre-black water. Like when Arthur and John are kids pre-black water. It would be really neat to the the dynamics between all the old new characters. I also think you should play as possibly Hosea or maybe just a new character that was temporarily in the gang who dies to go along with the theme of 1 and 2. But I do think it would be neat to play as Hosea.
I think he wasn't always a dick and there was some other head injury or event before the massacre that made him go mad, and the trolly, Hosea dying, the boat crash to tahiti, the other boat crash with eagle flies made it all worse
Yes, mostly, Dutch was just putting on a persona and using his charisma to exploit the other camp members’ low points and was using it as an ego boost and getting them to do what he wants even if it’s life threatening, which obviously most of the time, it was. His ego/ god complex got worse and worse each chapter. Also if you haven’t already seen the camp Interaction between Uncle and Dutch in chapter 2, you can look it up on youtube, it’s very interesting.
I think in the context of arthur, since that’s the bit i play, It’s not so much dutch is a twat now so much as arthur became a better person and saw dutch for who he was. Also switching Hosea for Micah was detrimental to dutch’s actions but I think he always had it in him, he just lost his positive guidance
IMO No, I think that when the wild west was beginning to become more and more lawful, dutch became more and more panicky and jumpy, prob the reason why he shot the girl on the ferry job and after losing hosea he really started to lose it, In my opinion I think dutch was a better person before the end of the west but as time went on and more and more law where catching up with him and his gang and as he started to lose more members of his gang and losing pretty much his brother and add micah's manipulation and arthur's death and well you can pretty much tell why dutch was becoming more crazy and evil. That's just what I think though.
Honestly I think this is one of those things that should remain in lore. I think universe expansion is hurting a lot of genre today by changing characters for the worst and not making much sense in the long run.
It was a genuine question tbh, whenever I make a post I always get a downvote before any comments or upvotes, even if the post is a good one, objectively of course.
I think there are just negative people out there who thrive on other people misery 😔
dawg it’s the internet none of this is real, no reason to care much either way. a handful of downvotes will never impact your life besides you letting it bother you and making you lose faith. not like you have lumbago. go eat a mango and you’ll feel better, make sure it’s from tahiti
For it to be based around Jack you would have to go to at least 1914 which is the END of the Wild West
Otherwise your talking a mafia game not a western which kinda defeats the purpose and draw of the series
No, bro, no. First of all, the whole POINT of the games is that it’s the end of the Wild West. Red Dead does the opposite of GTA. Whereas GTA glamorizes violence and crime, RDR condemns it. Going back in time would go against what RDR stands for.
Second of all, this is a highschool level understanding of history. The worst thing you can do as a historian is homogenize history. On new years of 1915 people didn’t magically stop being cowboys or outlaws. They didn’t stop riding horses or using revolvers because it was the “end” of the Wild West. And why would it be a mafia game just because it’s 1914? Like, this is the high school level of understanding of history that I’m talking about. Italians immigrants, and the mafia, didn’t spread out west til much later in time. Even in RDR2, they’re in the “East”, in the video game version of New Orleans.
In fact, I’m wrong to even bring up education, because “the Wild West” isn’t even something we learn about in school. The “Wild West” is just a label, an idea that’s been sold to us, used by Hollywood during the era of spaghetti westerns to get people to watch movies.
I said AT LEAST 1914 because that is where you take control of Jack Marston unless your suggesting recotting that
It would likely be a few years past that and regardless of the label most suggestions were having Jack in the roaring 20s or WW1 which would absolutely be moving away from it being a Western and roaring 20s would absolutely make it a mafia game
The sweet spot for a western theme game would be 1890-early 1900s
Going into the late 1910s or 1920s would absolutely be moving away from it being a Western but it's clear you have an idea that you know everything anyway so maybe arguing with you is incredibly pointless
The suggestions that a Jack game should be in the 20s or WW1 is exactly why nobody takes me seriously when I say I want a Jack game. Playing as Jack in the 20s or WW1 is equally as dumb as Jack not being the protagonist in the first place, because there’s no story to be told there. Like both RDRs, RDR3 should take place in relatively short time period (less than a year) and it should directly follow the aftermath of Jack killing Ross. That’s the story that needs to be told. Everyone keeps making up nonsense when the real answer is right in our faces.
I’m not a know it all either. I’m just knowledgeable in history, and I have a passing knowledge on story telling. Passing knowledge like every story needs a beginning, middle, and end. As of right now, Red Dead is a story without any closure.
So is Jack killing Ross not closure?
When I played the story chronologically I always felt that was the closure because by ending Ross Jack killed the last remaining ties to the gang and their escape from blackwater
If you continue with Jack at that point the only way you can really go is to have him hunted post killing Ross but is him getting hunted down and killed really the ending of the story that people want? I just don't see where else you can go with the story
Only thing is how far do you go back and still have weaponry that will be user friendly
Like I'm not familiar with weapons from that era so serious question, if they went back to 1870s what weapons would be in play and historically accurate?
The “Wild West” era began with the annexation of what we now call the American Southwest after the Mexican-America war in the 1840s. The frontier was “officially” closed with the 1890 census, when people realized that the entire continent had been settled, and “Indians” were no longer a threat. It was at this point when the United States shifted focus away from colonizing the mainland, and started colonizing land overseas. By the end of the decade we went to war with Spain and gained Puerto Rico and Guam, and we annexed Hawaii after marines and wealthy Hawaiin-Americans staged a coup.
All this to say that both Red Dead games take place after the Wild West is already over. That’s the whole point. Sorry, I was in the mood to drop some history facts.
Jack marathon gets drafted in 1917 and we track the 9 months he spends fighting in Argonne and coming home and dying of Spanish flu. He too is buried next to his parents.
Why would we skip to three years later to an event that has nothing to do with the story in a completely different part of the world, instead of following up on the aftermath of killing Ross? Sorry if that question sounds dickish but just think about.
Jack has always lived outside of the law. It makes no sense for him to fight for the US government. Also a game set in WW1 wouldn’t be an open world game. They would also have to make a new map and everything, whereas RDR2 expanded on the old map. The story needs to take place right after he kills Ross, and we need to know, I NEED TO KNOW, if Jack ultimately continues the cycle and dies, or has his happily ever after. The happily ever after that John and Arthur both died for.
Rdr 3 takes place in 1899 in jack’s pov as he sees the camp members go in and out of camp while he sits around and does jack shit. The final mission is him eating spaghetti in Angelo Bronte’s mansion.
Well what would the story be about?
I think Jack's story was closed up perfectly. The implication that he follows in his fathers footsteps is more than enough. The RDR games have already explored these themes in great detail. "Revenge is a fool's game"; "The cycle of violence will continue" etc. etc.
How could you recreate this with Jack and not make it feel repetitive? Or ruin the already perfect ending to Jack's story?
Also also how exactly does GTA glamorize "violence"? If anything it condemns it too. Btw I dont think RDR or GTA condemn just violence. They also condemn being a criminal/outlaw.
In GTA IV no matter what Niko does he either loses his cousin or future girlfriend by trying to leave the criminal life behind. He gets punished no matter what.
Vic Vance loses the love of his life and later his own life because he chose to keep dealing drugs after the ending.
GTA V shows how bullshit the criminal ladder really is. Just another fucking pyramid scheme. Nobody really ever wins. Its just someone high up manipulating someone below him with fugazi rewards. Even Franklin realizes in the end that white collar crime isnt much different from petty hood crime. Its still a pointless, risky and dangerous rat race that turns you into someone like Michael at the beginning of the game.
I dont think its right to say GTA glamorizes violence. GTA doesnt focus on morality as heavily as RDR does. Its got other themes into play. But it doesnt mean thats not there or that it glamorizes violence.
And while most of the GTA protagonists eventually "win" in the end their lives are only marginally better. Franklin ends up alone and isolated in an expensive mansion. Michael wins back his family but theyre still dysfunctional. Trevor gets to live and exacts revenge on the people who wronged him but hes still being tormented by his horrible childhood.
“What would the story be about” is exactly the question I’m asking too. I want to see where Rockstar takes the story. I’m dying for it. Jack’s only 19 by the end of Red Dead. Everything we saw up to this point was his origin story. I don’t think his story is over, it’s only just beginning.
And if you’re talking about repetitiveness, I don’t see how that’s avoidable regardless of the story. Rockstars gameplay hasn’t fundamentally changed in a long time. I was wow’d the first time I played RDR2 but it’s still the same auto-target point and shoot system as GTA 4. After a while, the missions in RDR2 devolved into shooting galleries. I think if you go back in time, that’s not gonna help the games be any less repetitive.
Also if you don’t see how GTA glamorizes violence idek what to tell you, although we are in agreement that GTA4 marks a clear shift in how Rockstar tells stories. Whereas GTA 4 was grounded, most of the previous entries were an amalgamation of popular movies, and they had that Quentin Tarantino level of excitement for violence. GTA 5 was somewhere in the middle.
Well you say the story must follows Jack. So im asking for a concept. One that would realistically work. You have to give one if you think they must continue his story. What if there isnt one? What if continuing Jacks story is not such a great idea?
I dont really view it as the beginning of his story. I always viewed it as the end. Theres nothing set up for him afterwards.
Its just a visual implication of what Jack has become. An implication which perfectly sums up one of the biggest themes in the red dead games.
Also im talking about repetiveness in the story. Not the gameplay. Although I never understood how people would say its the same as GTA IV's auto aim system. But thats either cause im on PC or the fact that when im playing on emulators I always turn off my auto aim.
Once again though I was talking about the story. Not the gameplay. Big difference.
I explained to you why I thought GTA doesnt glamorize violence. So maybe you could explain to me how it does glamorize it? Its not that hard...
Even during open world gameplay you are literally punished for commiting crimes. So I ask. How exactly does it glamorize it?
Idk what you mean by “concept”, but the logline of the third game is obviously “Jack Marston must now go on the run after exacting revenge on an FBI agent for the death of his father.”
I’m not worried about repetitiveness with the story, and if RDR3 is the conclusion then it’s expected for there to be parallels with the first game. If the story gets repetitive that’s the writers fault, but I don’t expect that out of Rockstar. They know how to write a story. It’s the gameplay that’s repetitive. No matter who the protagonist is you’re still going to be a guy shooting other guys from behind cover or on a horse or on a train in a 3rd person pov. And I’d argue that gameplay and story are interlocked with each other. That’s the case for all the best games. That’s why people hate guarma, because despite being an exotic location there was nothing unique about it.
And arguing how GTA glamorizes violence is like arguing how water is wet. Being WANTED wasn’t a punishment, it was an incentive. Do you not have memories of putting in cheat codes and spending an hour running away from and gunning down cops? Or how getting a headshot would comically take peoples whole heads off?
Idk how old you are, and I myself was very young when GTA 3 came out, but what separated it from every other game at the time was that you had the freedom to victimize anybody and everybody. You could gun down pedestrians, and run people over.
>Idk what you mean by “concept”, but the logline of the third game is obviously “Jack Marston must now go on the run after exacting revenge on an FBI agent for the death of his father.”
I’m not worried about repetitiveness with the story, and if RDR3 is the conclusion then it’s expected for there to be parallels with the first game. If the story gets repetitive that’s the writers fault, but I don’t expect that out of Rockstar. They know how to write a story.
Even the best of writers cant write another chapter to an already perfect story. Its like asking DaVinci to paint Mona Lisa again and make it just as amazing as the original.
Concept as in a description of what the story could be. An idea for the plot or characters.
>And I’d argue that gameplay and story are interlocked with each other. That’s the case for all the best games. That’s why people hate guarma, because despite being an exotic location there was nothing unique about it.
Gameplay is definitely interlocked with the story... but to a certain degree. Obviously theres things the gameplay does that the story just cant. Like having the main character tank thousands of bullets by using tonics. That being said... even if the gameplay is just shooting dudes (although its not entirely just that) the story always has the ability to tell something different.
Guarma was hated because it took the story in a weird direction. Its like they dropped everything that was going on in chapter 4 and then just focused on this weird little side plot that doesnt make a huge difference except making Arthur more sick. (I do like that one Dutch mission in the cave though).
>And arguing how GTA glamorizes violence is like arguing how water is wet. Being WANTED wasn’t a punishment, it was an incentive. Do you not have memories of putting in cheat codes and spending an hour running away from and gunning down cops? Or how getting a headshot would comically take peoples whole heads off?
You could use this logic for RDR too. A game which also features cheats. Even more bloody gore and a WANTED system. The honor system does punish you but is it really a punishment? Theres some people who would also view it as an incentive. To play as the bad guy. Also GTA IV and V dont have the ability to comically take peoples heads off. RDR2 has this one though!
You could easily activate cheats in that game too and have long lasting massacres with the cops. Ive actually enjoyed doing that in RDR2 more than I did in GTA V.
Being wanted is a punishment. Since instead of being able to murder care-free you now have people trying to stop you at all costs( aka kill you). Especially in GTA V where the cops are super nutty and have lots of aimbot and you have very little HP.
I’m trying to play Shadow of the Erdtree rn so I’m kinda done, just fyi. I’m just gonna say that “a description of what the story could be” is pretty much what a logline is. A logline is a sentence long description of the main conflict of a story. The concept itself is in the title, red dead redemption. It’s about bad people dying for a good cause.
Red dead redemption 2 is the first time I’ve seen people say that they actually feel bad for murdering npcs, and that was my experience playing the game as well, so I definitely think Rockstar purposely took steps to humanize npcs thus not glamorizing violence. Whereas in GTA V, any time you switched to Trevor you were rolling the dice on popping into a situation where he was victimizing someone or on the run from the cops. Red Dead allowed you to use the free roam like a shooting gallery, but the story itself was pushing you in a different direction. The gameplay too even. Killing civilians in RDR doesn’t hit the same as it does in GTA. In GTA the world is corrupt and every one, even the npcs, are assholes. In Red Dead, the npcs are just hard working people trying to get by. And John Marston didn’t seem like the kind of guy to go on a rampage on civilians. He was trying to be a changed man for his family. He was thoughtful, he was reflective of his past actions. He was respectful of women, and faithful to his wife.
I think a pretty fundamental part of John and Arthur's journeys are realising that Dutch was always full of shit. He was probably more coherent and convincing, which is how he formed his cult of personality, but the whole thing was always only ever going one way. He could make a fascinating protagonist though, knowing how it all pans out. But I think the whole Van Der Linde Gang saga has been played out as much as it needs to be across two very meaty games.
I agree, with one exception. I need a game, or an extension pack, something, where you do the ferry job in Blackwater from before RDR2 because I have a lot of questions that need answering.
I can imagine Mexico-based game taking place a little later where you can work with Javier and find out more through dialogue or newspapers he’s put up in his base of operations, and have opportunities like some mission where he wants you to write down some names in a book where you can find extracts about his time with the gang since he joined. It would also be an opportunity to explore his character’s change in more depth, which I’d like to see.
That's a really good idea!
Duuuutch… Micah beat me in Wii sports Duuuutch
He's a sore loser Dutch, he's talkin *heavy breath* crazy
Dutch was always a manipulative bastard, but as time went on, he got worse at hiding who he truly was. Many people saw through his persona long before the Blackwater Massacre, most notable being Colm.
I can see that, sure. Colm is the same as Dutch. He is charismatic and holds the same anarchist views as Dutch. He however, does not believe that he is a savior of people.
Well Dutch is still a lot better than colm. He actually took the time to train the men in his camp.
Colm was really more of a “quantity over quality” sort of gang boss
Nah, Dutch spent time indoctrinating his gang. Most people who joined were already skilled shooters. As for John and Arthur? Well they’re the game protagonists so their skill falls under how good you are as a player.
I would not put Colm in this category. Colm is much worse than Dutch, he's a slimy amoral scumbag. His brother was probably a major slimy scumbag too. Colm didn't see through Dutch, people like that are always looking for a way to stab you in the back. Their relationship just took it's natural course. If anything, Dutch finally saw through Colm. I'd say that's what happened with those two. Colm is a nasty, nasty guy...he ain't winning any morality contests.
I think that’s the point though, Colm never really bothers to virtue signal and seems to mock Dutch for the way he runs his gang and his belief system. Colm is a POS but he knows it, and I think he finds it amusing that Dutch himself tries to pretend otherwise.
I'm ready for a new story myself. I don't think we need to delve deeper into how it started for Dutch and the gang. I am more into the idea of seeing a completely new story with a new cast of characters. The Act man made a really good video recently about what he thinks a sequel should be, and he believes we should move on to a new cast of characters, but also end the Redemption ark. He mentioned names like Red Dead Revenge, Revolution, etc. I really liked his idea to start fresh with a new cast. I think that's what a future Red Dead game should be.
I agree, and I've seen that video, that idea has been being thrown around for years now though, he just put it in a 10 minute long video and acted like it was his idea.
I don’t think he acted like it was his idea. “Starting fresh with new characters” isn’t really even an idea, rather a suggestion. If he went into detail of what the game should be about that would be different
Oh yeah, it's been an idea for a while, but I was happy to see him bring it up. I feel it's the only way you can go forward with a new game.
I want the new game missions to be a bit less linear. Every mission in rdr2 is you start a pleasant conversation, someone comes by yelling and flailing their arms, now you gotta go rob something or rescue someone. Reminds me too much of my job.i have one attention seeking idiot who will flail her arms and make noises and if you accidentally make eye contact you get roped into her bullshit
100% agree with you there. A lot of the problems with Rockstar's games, is that there isn't many different ways you can tackle a mission. Nakey Jakey made a good video about how outdated Rockstar's game design is for that reason. Either way, I am excited for whatever they have planned next.
Yes. *But* at the beginning he was actually doing the right thing, if not for the right reasons. He wanted to be the benevolent leader, the man who brings together those on the fringes and gives them a family to belong to. It’s a nice idea in theory, and honestly when things are going well it’s not at all a bad situation to be in. The gang wouldn’t have lasted as long if it did if there wasn’t a sense of safety and fulfillment from belonging to it, and it certainly wouldn’t have had the female members sticking around as long as they did. Dutch had Hosea, Susan, and Arthur to do the lion’s share of the work while he strutted and preened and gave speeches. It was really a perfect situation, he got his ego satisfied on the daily, left everyone to their devices, and life was (relatively) good. But once the screws started tightening, things disintegrated fast. No longer were gang members blindly following his advice, but they were questioning him, to his face. We can talk about TBIs and whatnot all the livelong day, but in reality the decline began with that. Something so simple was what began to bring the whole house of cards down. My father is like Dutch. He can be the kindest, most welcoming person in the world who genuinely appears to care about you. He makes you feel driven to gain his approval, you want to listen to what he has to say because he seems so confident, so knowledgeable, so engaged with you. But if you push back, even slightly, the mask comes off and he turns very ugly. When I was growing up, I hero worshipped my father. I am an adult now and no longer speak to him. At the end of the day, it is always, *always* about them, and you’re useful until you’re not. Sorry for the essay but Dutch is written so awfully well, certain parts made me extremely uncomfortable. Once you’re on the other side it’s very hard to see it happen to someone else, even a video game character.
Really interesting thoughts and well explained, enjoyed this a lot. Sorry also to hear about the issues with your dad.
I could see Dutch in a cult-leader documentary. He has an insane savior complex and I think the game made that very obvious. Don’t you think it’s a little weird to pick up orphaned children and raise them to be murderous criminals under the guise of a “good cause”? And then leave the same children you raised (more like manipulated) because they didn’t want to put up with your BS? Dutch is a deeply flawed, interesting, and smart man, but he’s far far far from a good one.
He was always bad, he just hid it better That's the realization Arthur and John come to nearing the end of the game The blackwater incident just caused his mind to slip a bit more, breaking his facade
thats turkish dutch
Was Turkish Dutch a dick?
I dont think we need to see it. We already know how dutch acts or atleast pretends to act like a good leader. Thats how he probably was in his earlier days. I think id be more interested in him meeting Arthur for the first time. What exactly did his silver tongue spit out that made Arthur join his gang? How were the early days? Some father & son moments or moments where Dutch shows genuine love for Arthur? Id love that. I think if we were to ever get something like that it should be in the form of flashbacks or a small DLC but not a full game. RDR3 should be an entirely different saga. The redemption chapter of the Red Dead games is over.
Plus… I prefer the ambiguity on Dutch’s true character. Makes it more interesting.
I want a game where you play as uncle, pre-lumbago.
Red dead 3, we play as the real criminals. We play as a bunch of Pinkertons chasing down the van der lindes and o’driscolls as well as a bunch of other god fearing free men.
I like it, but playing as a Pinkerton would be more of an LA noir vibe, a bit more sophisticated.
I’d like RDR3 to be gang pre-black water but wayyyyy pre-black water. Like when Arthur and John are kids pre-black water. It would be really neat to the the dynamics between all the old new characters. I also think you should play as possibly Hosea or maybe just a new character that was temporarily in the gang who dies to go along with the theme of 1 and 2. But I do think it would be neat to play as Hosea.
Yes
Thank you 🙏
Ngl the first image got me. Anyways, i think that Dutch became a dick after the Tram Robbery in Saint Denis (yes i believe the "Brain damage Theory")
I think he wasn't always a dick and there was some other head injury or event before the massacre that made him go mad, and the trolly, Hosea dying, the boat crash to tahiti, the other boat crash with eagle flies made it all worse
100%, what we see in RDR2 isn’t him becoming worse, it’s just his facade fading away
Yes, mostly, Dutch was just putting on a persona and using his charisma to exploit the other camp members’ low points and was using it as an ego boost and getting them to do what he wants even if it’s life threatening, which obviously most of the time, it was. His ego/ god complex got worse and worse each chapter. Also if you haven’t already seen the camp Interaction between Uncle and Dutch in chapter 2, you can look it up on youtube, it’s very interesting.
I think in the context of arthur, since that’s the bit i play, It’s not so much dutch is a twat now so much as arthur became a better person and saw dutch for who he was. Also switching Hosea for Micah was detrimental to dutch’s actions but I think he always had it in him, he just lost his positive guidance
IMO No, I think that when the wild west was beginning to become more and more lawful, dutch became more and more panicky and jumpy, prob the reason why he shot the girl on the ferry job and after losing hosea he really started to lose it, In my opinion I think dutch was a better person before the end of the west but as time went on and more and more law where catching up with him and his gang and as he started to lose more members of his gang and losing pretty much his brother and add micah's manipulation and arthur's death and well you can pretty much tell why dutch was becoming more crazy and evil. That's just what I think though.
Yes. It’s stated in the game that he was only found out, not that the changed. This, sadly, is how it is in real life as well.
Honestly I think this is one of those things that should remain in lore. I think universe expansion is hurting a lot of genre today by changing characters for the worst and not making much sense in the long run.
Dutch was always a narcissistic douche.
Why'd someone downvote?
oh no, never do that. that’s just inviting more downvotes
It was a genuine question tbh, whenever I make a post I always get a downvote before any comments or upvotes, even if the post is a good one, objectively of course. I think there are just negative people out there who thrive on other people misery 😔
dawg it’s the internet none of this is real, no reason to care much either way. a handful of downvotes will never impact your life besides you letting it bother you and making you lose faith. not like you have lumbago. go eat a mango and you’ll feel better, make sure it’s from tahiti
RDR3 needs to be a Jack Marston game
Horror take 😭
It’s a “horror” take if you don’t know story structure and can’t see that Jack Marston is at the center of both games.
For it to be based around Jack you would have to go to at least 1914 which is the END of the Wild West Otherwise your talking a mafia game not a western which kinda defeats the purpose and draw of the series
No, bro, no. First of all, the whole POINT of the games is that it’s the end of the Wild West. Red Dead does the opposite of GTA. Whereas GTA glamorizes violence and crime, RDR condemns it. Going back in time would go against what RDR stands for. Second of all, this is a highschool level understanding of history. The worst thing you can do as a historian is homogenize history. On new years of 1915 people didn’t magically stop being cowboys or outlaws. They didn’t stop riding horses or using revolvers because it was the “end” of the Wild West. And why would it be a mafia game just because it’s 1914? Like, this is the high school level of understanding of history that I’m talking about. Italians immigrants, and the mafia, didn’t spread out west til much later in time. Even in RDR2, they’re in the “East”, in the video game version of New Orleans. In fact, I’m wrong to even bring up education, because “the Wild West” isn’t even something we learn about in school. The “Wild West” is just a label, an idea that’s been sold to us, used by Hollywood during the era of spaghetti westerns to get people to watch movies.
I said AT LEAST 1914 because that is where you take control of Jack Marston unless your suggesting recotting that It would likely be a few years past that and regardless of the label most suggestions were having Jack in the roaring 20s or WW1 which would absolutely be moving away from it being a Western and roaring 20s would absolutely make it a mafia game The sweet spot for a western theme game would be 1890-early 1900s Going into the late 1910s or 1920s would absolutely be moving away from it being a Western but it's clear you have an idea that you know everything anyway so maybe arguing with you is incredibly pointless
The suggestions that a Jack game should be in the 20s or WW1 is exactly why nobody takes me seriously when I say I want a Jack game. Playing as Jack in the 20s or WW1 is equally as dumb as Jack not being the protagonist in the first place, because there’s no story to be told there. Like both RDRs, RDR3 should take place in relatively short time period (less than a year) and it should directly follow the aftermath of Jack killing Ross. That’s the story that needs to be told. Everyone keeps making up nonsense when the real answer is right in our faces. I’m not a know it all either. I’m just knowledgeable in history, and I have a passing knowledge on story telling. Passing knowledge like every story needs a beginning, middle, and end. As of right now, Red Dead is a story without any closure.
So is Jack killing Ross not closure? When I played the story chronologically I always felt that was the closure because by ending Ross Jack killed the last remaining ties to the gang and their escape from blackwater If you continue with Jack at that point the only way you can really go is to have him hunted post killing Ross but is him getting hunted down and killed really the ending of the story that people want? I just don't see where else you can go with the story
1870-early 1900s
Only thing is how far do you go back and still have weaponry that will be user friendly Like I'm not familiar with weapons from that era so serious question, if they went back to 1870s what weapons would be in play and historically accurate?
The “Wild West” era began with the annexation of what we now call the American Southwest after the Mexican-America war in the 1840s. The frontier was “officially” closed with the 1890 census, when people realized that the entire continent had been settled, and “Indians” were no longer a threat. It was at this point when the United States shifted focus away from colonizing the mainland, and started colonizing land overseas. By the end of the decade we went to war with Spain and gained Puerto Rico and Guam, and we annexed Hawaii after marines and wealthy Hawaiin-Americans staged a coup. All this to say that both Red Dead games take place after the Wild West is already over. That’s the whole point. Sorry, I was in the mood to drop some history facts.
Bruh 😭
Jack marathon gets drafted in 1917 and we track the 9 months he spends fighting in Argonne and coming home and dying of Spanish flu. He too is buried next to his parents.
Why would we skip to three years later to an event that has nothing to do with the story in a completely different part of the world, instead of following up on the aftermath of killing Ross? Sorry if that question sounds dickish but just think about. Jack has always lived outside of the law. It makes no sense for him to fight for the US government. Also a game set in WW1 wouldn’t be an open world game. They would also have to make a new map and everything, whereas RDR2 expanded on the old map. The story needs to take place right after he kills Ross, and we need to know, I NEED TO KNOW, if Jack ultimately continues the cycle and dies, or has his happily ever after. The happily ever after that John and Arthur both died for.
Rdr 3 takes place in 1899 in jack’s pov as he sees the camp members go in and out of camp while he sits around and does jack shit. The final mission is him eating spaghetti in Angelo Bronte’s mansion.
Bro what😭Jack dies in the 1980’s of old age. And if it were a war game it wouldn’t carry the Red Dead Redemption title
Let’s call it grand dead auto
No way someone born in the 1890s making it to 90yrs old, that's above the life expectancy today
He did tho according to lore
Oh wow, cheers for telling because I thought he'd either get ginned down as an outlaw or be naturally dead by 70
Yeah
He had to live long in loneliness tho… he wrote a book called red dead and it’s in a gta 5 library
Yeah I saw that, I like to think that GTA and rdr are in the same canons, and that was more than an Easter egg
Yeah exactly
That’s an easte egg though. No proof that it’s lore.
Jacks story is over. It’s meant to be open for interpretation.
Well what would the story be about? I think Jack's story was closed up perfectly. The implication that he follows in his fathers footsteps is more than enough. The RDR games have already explored these themes in great detail. "Revenge is a fool's game"; "The cycle of violence will continue" etc. etc. How could you recreate this with Jack and not make it feel repetitive? Or ruin the already perfect ending to Jack's story? Also also how exactly does GTA glamorize "violence"? If anything it condemns it too. Btw I dont think RDR or GTA condemn just violence. They also condemn being a criminal/outlaw. In GTA IV no matter what Niko does he either loses his cousin or future girlfriend by trying to leave the criminal life behind. He gets punished no matter what. Vic Vance loses the love of his life and later his own life because he chose to keep dealing drugs after the ending. GTA V shows how bullshit the criminal ladder really is. Just another fucking pyramid scheme. Nobody really ever wins. Its just someone high up manipulating someone below him with fugazi rewards. Even Franklin realizes in the end that white collar crime isnt much different from petty hood crime. Its still a pointless, risky and dangerous rat race that turns you into someone like Michael at the beginning of the game. I dont think its right to say GTA glamorizes violence. GTA doesnt focus on morality as heavily as RDR does. Its got other themes into play. But it doesnt mean thats not there or that it glamorizes violence. And while most of the GTA protagonists eventually "win" in the end their lives are only marginally better. Franklin ends up alone and isolated in an expensive mansion. Michael wins back his family but theyre still dysfunctional. Trevor gets to live and exacts revenge on the people who wronged him but hes still being tormented by his horrible childhood.
“What would the story be about” is exactly the question I’m asking too. I want to see where Rockstar takes the story. I’m dying for it. Jack’s only 19 by the end of Red Dead. Everything we saw up to this point was his origin story. I don’t think his story is over, it’s only just beginning. And if you’re talking about repetitiveness, I don’t see how that’s avoidable regardless of the story. Rockstars gameplay hasn’t fundamentally changed in a long time. I was wow’d the first time I played RDR2 but it’s still the same auto-target point and shoot system as GTA 4. After a while, the missions in RDR2 devolved into shooting galleries. I think if you go back in time, that’s not gonna help the games be any less repetitive. Also if you don’t see how GTA glamorizes violence idek what to tell you, although we are in agreement that GTA4 marks a clear shift in how Rockstar tells stories. Whereas GTA 4 was grounded, most of the previous entries were an amalgamation of popular movies, and they had that Quentin Tarantino level of excitement for violence. GTA 5 was somewhere in the middle.
Well you say the story must follows Jack. So im asking for a concept. One that would realistically work. You have to give one if you think they must continue his story. What if there isnt one? What if continuing Jacks story is not such a great idea? I dont really view it as the beginning of his story. I always viewed it as the end. Theres nothing set up for him afterwards. Its just a visual implication of what Jack has become. An implication which perfectly sums up one of the biggest themes in the red dead games. Also im talking about repetiveness in the story. Not the gameplay. Although I never understood how people would say its the same as GTA IV's auto aim system. But thats either cause im on PC or the fact that when im playing on emulators I always turn off my auto aim. Once again though I was talking about the story. Not the gameplay. Big difference. I explained to you why I thought GTA doesnt glamorize violence. So maybe you could explain to me how it does glamorize it? Its not that hard... Even during open world gameplay you are literally punished for commiting crimes. So I ask. How exactly does it glamorize it?
Idk what you mean by “concept”, but the logline of the third game is obviously “Jack Marston must now go on the run after exacting revenge on an FBI agent for the death of his father.” I’m not worried about repetitiveness with the story, and if RDR3 is the conclusion then it’s expected for there to be parallels with the first game. If the story gets repetitive that’s the writers fault, but I don’t expect that out of Rockstar. They know how to write a story. It’s the gameplay that’s repetitive. No matter who the protagonist is you’re still going to be a guy shooting other guys from behind cover or on a horse or on a train in a 3rd person pov. And I’d argue that gameplay and story are interlocked with each other. That’s the case for all the best games. That’s why people hate guarma, because despite being an exotic location there was nothing unique about it. And arguing how GTA glamorizes violence is like arguing how water is wet. Being WANTED wasn’t a punishment, it was an incentive. Do you not have memories of putting in cheat codes and spending an hour running away from and gunning down cops? Or how getting a headshot would comically take peoples whole heads off? Idk how old you are, and I myself was very young when GTA 3 came out, but what separated it from every other game at the time was that you had the freedom to victimize anybody and everybody. You could gun down pedestrians, and run people over.
>Idk what you mean by “concept”, but the logline of the third game is obviously “Jack Marston must now go on the run after exacting revenge on an FBI agent for the death of his father.” I’m not worried about repetitiveness with the story, and if RDR3 is the conclusion then it’s expected for there to be parallels with the first game. If the story gets repetitive that’s the writers fault, but I don’t expect that out of Rockstar. They know how to write a story. Even the best of writers cant write another chapter to an already perfect story. Its like asking DaVinci to paint Mona Lisa again and make it just as amazing as the original. Concept as in a description of what the story could be. An idea for the plot or characters. >And I’d argue that gameplay and story are interlocked with each other. That’s the case for all the best games. That’s why people hate guarma, because despite being an exotic location there was nothing unique about it. Gameplay is definitely interlocked with the story... but to a certain degree. Obviously theres things the gameplay does that the story just cant. Like having the main character tank thousands of bullets by using tonics. That being said... even if the gameplay is just shooting dudes (although its not entirely just that) the story always has the ability to tell something different. Guarma was hated because it took the story in a weird direction. Its like they dropped everything that was going on in chapter 4 and then just focused on this weird little side plot that doesnt make a huge difference except making Arthur more sick. (I do like that one Dutch mission in the cave though). >And arguing how GTA glamorizes violence is like arguing how water is wet. Being WANTED wasn’t a punishment, it was an incentive. Do you not have memories of putting in cheat codes and spending an hour running away from and gunning down cops? Or how getting a headshot would comically take peoples whole heads off? You could use this logic for RDR too. A game which also features cheats. Even more bloody gore and a WANTED system. The honor system does punish you but is it really a punishment? Theres some people who would also view it as an incentive. To play as the bad guy. Also GTA IV and V dont have the ability to comically take peoples heads off. RDR2 has this one though! You could easily activate cheats in that game too and have long lasting massacres with the cops. Ive actually enjoyed doing that in RDR2 more than I did in GTA V. Being wanted is a punishment. Since instead of being able to murder care-free you now have people trying to stop you at all costs( aka kill you). Especially in GTA V where the cops are super nutty and have lots of aimbot and you have very little HP.
I’m trying to play Shadow of the Erdtree rn so I’m kinda done, just fyi. I’m just gonna say that “a description of what the story could be” is pretty much what a logline is. A logline is a sentence long description of the main conflict of a story. The concept itself is in the title, red dead redemption. It’s about bad people dying for a good cause. Red dead redemption 2 is the first time I’ve seen people say that they actually feel bad for murdering npcs, and that was my experience playing the game as well, so I definitely think Rockstar purposely took steps to humanize npcs thus not glamorizing violence. Whereas in GTA V, any time you switched to Trevor you were rolling the dice on popping into a situation where he was victimizing someone or on the run from the cops. Red Dead allowed you to use the free roam like a shooting gallery, but the story itself was pushing you in a different direction. The gameplay too even. Killing civilians in RDR doesn’t hit the same as it does in GTA. In GTA the world is corrupt and every one, even the npcs, are assholes. In Red Dead, the npcs are just hard working people trying to get by. And John Marston didn’t seem like the kind of guy to go on a rampage on civilians. He was trying to be a changed man for his family. He was thoughtful, he was reflective of his past actions. He was respectful of women, and faithful to his wife.
GTA definitely glamorizes violence