What did Yea Forums think of Red Dead Redemption 2's story? Good or disappointing?

Super Mario Boom Boom Snuggie Daycare 10

Fantastic, Arthur is a good boah and Micah Belle is the best piece of shit character Rockstar has ever written. Truly the jewiest cowboy.

Like all open-world Rockstar games, I played the shit out of it but did not finish it (and got the ending spoiled before I even bought it)

Attached: horse game.webm (960x408, 3M)

>Written by a woman

Attached: Leo.jpg (678x590, 69K)

Women never cease to amaze with how vapid they can make their arguments

>Here's the writer for the article

guess this proves Red Dead Redemption 2 is a game women will never understand

Attached: Screenshot_20190227-210248_Chrome.jpg (1079x1124, 299K)

It's all Micah's fault and I hated that piece of shit from the start. Abigail, Sadie, Karen, Mary-Beth, Molly, and even Ms. Grimshaw were all waifu material.

Rockstar's best writing in years but also severely missing the humor from the GTA games. I guess that's a given from the tone of the game

Really good. Can't imagine a fan of the original being disappointed in the narrative

As someone who finds GTA's humour unfunny and obnoxious I appreciated that greatly

the story was shit.

>lets go east
>we need more money
>plan big heist
>oh shit everything went wrong
>lets go east
>rinse and repeat

game wasn't bad overall, but people keep acting like it's the best story in a game ever and it's simply not.

I have no idea why people like it or the characters, I dont think theres a single conversation I was foreced to listen to that I want to hear ever again.

10/10

Overall the actual story was great, my only real complaint is how frequently missions “go wrong” and end in a shootout. I wouldn't have minded this if at least some of the missions had alternate paths where you could avoid combat if you did things right. Especially the stealth missions, being perfectly stealthy shouldn't have led to the same outcome as going in guns a blazing. Other than that the only other thing that bugged me was how quickly it cuts from death to epilogue. It wasn't a game ruiner or anything, but it was definitely jarring to basically smash cut from an emotional moment straight to YO DRIVE THIS WAGON!

You know it's about the characters more than anything?

only character with any sort of development who was Arthur which was basically

>oh fuck im dying
>time to be a good guy now

Dutch betrays his entire family that he's been with for years for some scumbag who just joined the gang because

>oh boy hes going crazy

wow so good

The game should have been longer to flesh these ideas out more

agreed everything after guarma felt rushed when it should have be flesh out more, and everything before guarma drug on too long

Fantastic on all fronts, my only complaint being that Micah should have been less in your face about being the bad guy until a little later in the game, especially considering the game at least implies he was only actively working against the gang after Guarma. Arthur is one of my favorite protagonists of the last decade, his adventure and his demise were fantastic, and managed to make John an even better character retroactively.

Pro tip, you can do those missions in the Epilogue. You can even do a few of them as Arthur and then get a little bit of extra dialouge when you do the rest as John.

To do this though they would have to have more segments where you are lying low and not murdering half of the population of a city in every mission

The pinkertons were so hot on their trail that it would be retarded to keep dragging the story out much longer after the bronte thing

You'd be surprised, most of the react videos seem to be women

youtube.com/watch?v=Buv6Qum1Yoo

but the humor is still there
just well hidden unlike in GTA
two UFO encounters, two bigfoots and some more stuff

>twitch thots play manly games and cry crocodile tears to make men donate more
they are brilliant in at least one regard

Arthur has some pretty funny dialogue, but he's about the only one. The story is definitely taken way more seriously, but I actually enjoyed that for a change.

Disappointing, I was spoiled by Yea Forums so maybe I would have liked it more if I didn’t know what was going to happen to Arthur but the overall progression was pretty wonky and unconventional I guess.

what's wrong with women writers?

Attached: female writer.jpg (643x949, 154K)

>implying women can't enjoy video games
>implying they aren't overtly emotional

c'mon son

From the beginning they made Micah off as the guy that betrays you. I mean it was pretty telling how Arthur literally says in the first minutes of the game that he doesn’t trust Micah or like him.

Red Dead Redemption 3 or fresh Red Dead title?

Liked it a lot.

>not posting the one video where the girl cries over her horse

Redemption saga is over. Time to to move on when the next game drops in 2028

>literally only one (UNO) real bank robbery mission and its a main story mission
>another one is dlc or you get from having the overpriced special edition
>the Saint Denis bank heist results in you failing the heist and every other mission involving a heist ends up in failure

Great outlaw game for sure.

Really great for a video game, anyone who thinks it's amazing outside of the context of being a game is fucking stupid though.

Story was very long winded, but the characters are amongst the best the medium has to offer.

literally better than 85% of modern Hollywood trash

Look at this virgin, aint popped your cherry yet son?

The story, characters, animations, world, atmosphere, sound design, music etc. are easily some of the best I have ever experienced in all of vidya. Easily one of the best stories in any medium last year.

Unfortunately it fails at the most basic of game design decisions, mechanics, and fundamentals all for the sake of the story and "realism". They should have just made this "game" a TV series or movie or something and not a game.

>. They should have just made this "game" a TV series or movie or something and not a game
wouldn't have made as much money

source

It was better than all the best film oscar nominees

Breath of the wild

I thought that Arthur's character arc and Dutch's slow descent into madness were both quite good.

A lot of other factors felt a bit spread thin as the story progressed. The first few chapters were great, but with so many characters and conflicts to juggle all at once a lot of them got sidelined in favor of Dutch and/or Micah dragging you into yet another pointlessly chaotic situation to kill countless nameless mooks. I really wish that all the gang members had gotten more of a send-off within the main story beyond disappearing off-screen one by one. I thought it was a shame that Sadie was one of the few characters who gets so much focus in the end. She was nearly the weakest written members of the group, characterized around having a cool loyal badass around despite her acting like an unstable lunatic who gets away with shit that we're supposed to hate Dutch and Micah for.

Attached: 874873.jpg (1280x712, 96K)

Reminder:

>stupid story line that has you failing at everything and looking incompetent
>obvious villain from the start, Arthur literally says he doesn’t trust Micah
>barely any bank heists
>get wanted if you murder someone out in the middle of nowhere where nobody can possibly know you did it
>npcs randomly spawn if you commit a crime outside a settlement just so they can run to the sheriff
>randomly spawning bounty hunters
>trains are only ever used in cutscenes or missions, they aren’t random like in RDR
>barely any bounty hunting contracts
>no horseshoe mini game
>lots of mini games were cut in general
>they cut out gold panning and buying properties even it would make sense to do that for story purposes, not for gold panning though
>”whoah Dutch got crazy stupid because he killed a single random girl and hit his head”

Nice.

Attached: 39ECA0DE-627D-49B4-8249-4D77505EF496.jpg (500x483, 33K)

you almost got me, then I remembered it has no writing

>aliens and big foot are "funny"
Okay

The retarded story and characters are the biggest detriment for the game. The gameplay was top tier although I never played RDR1 so I wouldn’t know if its a downgrade in quality.

I thought it was great and slightly disappointing. Felt a bit aimless but I still thought it was very kino

I wanted amain character that DOESN'T DIE

I’m not gonna go through her streams but it’s the first girl. She cute.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=s9-jWVm1CxE

>>trains are only ever used in cutscenes or missions, they aren’t random like in RDR
>>barely any bounty hunting contracts
Huh? You can rob trains outside of missions and even drive them

Story is probably the best part of the game, right along with cut scenes and dialogues. It's a movie after all, it has to have a good story

I didn't think Micah was the traitor simply because it seemed like there were already countless reasons to hate the guy. He was a dumb violent bastard that no one trusted or liked from day one. I didn't see the narrative point in making him responsible for absolutely everything that went wrong.

Attached: just one more score.jpg (1455x818, 141K)

>>get wanted if you murder someone out in the middle of nowhere where nobody can possibly know you did it
This doesn't happen.

Boring

>gameplay was top tier
>he liked the shitty bounty system, clunky sub menus, shitty aiming, clunky movement, pointless side activities, no design in the overworld encouraging you to explore, failure when not following the scripted paths in missions, pointless rpg-lite systems, shitty sidequest design
based and rockstar of david pilled

You must be underage then if you couldn’t see that coming. Granted they threw a left ball with trying to make it seem like Molly was the traitor but soon after she is killed characters will still comment that there’s another traitor and it’s obviously Micah like it was from the start.

>The gameplay was top tier
>hold square to see animation
>hold touchpad to travel for 10 minutes
>shoot 200 of the same enemies every mission
>top tier gameplay
You done goofed, zoomer

I liked the rpg systems in the game and the horse riding is the best in any game zoomer.

I thought it has the most organic overworld of any game I've played.
>come back to camp one evening
>uncle sitting around the campfire
>starts singing
I ended up sitting around for fifteen minutes of real time just having a blast singing with my pals and drinking. It really hurt when it all went to shit. Arthur is maybe the most attached I've gotten to a character. It's hard to play the prologue because the world feels empty without him.

No more Redemption title. It's time to close the book of Van Der Line's gang tale and open a new tale with new Red Dead title. I want my peak 1870's Wild West dammit.

People talk as if Micah was a super over the top villain, when really he was probably the closest the game ever came to showing what a real outlaw would have been like. Dutch's gang are a bunch of hypocrites for thinking they were any better.

No you are the zoomer.

i dont know OP, i dont play juden propaganda.

>Dutch's gang are a bunch of hypocrites for thinking they were any better
It is though. Once they realize that and want out, it's too late.

I'm saying that I thought it was too obvious to make Micah the traitor because he was already such a one-note baddie that we already had enough reasons to want to kill him. Hell I don't know why Arthur didn't shoot him in the back of the head the second he blew their cover and willingly forced him to murder half a town to get a pair of pistols back.

They at least started off with good intentions, giving money to poor people and only robbing government establishments. I don't think Dutch ever cared about anyone but himself though, and never had any intention of taking the gang to Tahiti.

The difference is that the people in the gang did criminal shit but still cared about eachother, never betraying each other and treating each other like family. They did criminal shit purely for the betterment of the gang and each other since they have no other place to go and can't really do much else to earn money.

Micah was just a selfish piece of shit who didn't care about anyone in the gang except for himself. Everything he did was motivated purely for his own self-interests instead of the betterment of others. The game has a pretty strong "individual vs. the whole" and loyalty thing going on.

>the horse riding is the best in any game
You haven't played a lot of games then.

that's because until the Blackwater Fiasco the Gang was mostly kinda robin hood-ish, at least they always mention that
Also only Bill used to steal to the gang, and even then he actually returned back what he took(as mentioned in one convo between him and Uncle) but Micah? Micah lied his way in the gang until everything went to hell

I suspected there would be a twist and Micah would end up being a good guy, I actually kinda liked him until that dynamite robbery in Van Horn.

Why does John Marston wear leather gloves all the time even when it's hot af?

A story isn't bad because it's "predictable" or good because it's unpredictable you drooling retards

>le story is bad because a theme happens repeatedly

Arthur, Dutch, and John all develop.

Fucking no. With how repetitive and unrewarding and bland the gameplay is, the main story is a slog as is. Around the beginning of chapter 4 I was wishing I could just skip all the riding and shooting and just watch the goddamn story finish

He's probably autistic

Attached: CDAA8F2D-D5C1-442D-9B25-5490B8623795.jpg (685x816, 129K)

Sounds like communism

Eh

I would have preferred Chapter 2, 3 and even 4 be twice as long as they already were.

Red Dead Redemption 3, you play as young Hosea and see the gang at it's height in the glorious early years. Then close the trilogy.

Chapters 2 and 3 maybe because they're peak adventure and comfy vibes. I guess it also plays in that the story takes a really downward moody road, which amplifies the feel of tedium and frustration

it's gonna be Dutch

I want to see this. The prime years of the west

I'd play that

Pls no

Micah literally blindly kills innocent people just for the sake of killing lmao. Dutch's gang are outlaws and killers but they had a code. They are absolutely a cut above Micah.

I'm a fan of stories that take tragic turns like this, in movies at least. But for RDR2 the final part of Arthur's story, after returning from Guarma, is mired down in a very depressing mood. Before that shit it was fairly light hearted and silly, but suddenly the main character is a total no fun allowed moralfag. I wanted to high five Dutch when he was tricking the indians, but Arthur was being such a bitch. Where's the loyalty?

Attached: 49409562_2038099069619442_7469806640166862848_o.jpg (1920x1080, 131K)

What are some more kino games?

That would be dumb. You can't really attach yourself to Dutch like you could Hosea. Dutch is a great character but he works best when observed from another character's point of view.

>Where's the loyalty?
Dutch left it bleeding on the side of the road.

Attached: FARM HAN-.png (1920x1080, 1.71M)

You mean cinematic games? Strong character driven games? Or just good games in general?

That word's lost specific meaning.

>You mean cinematic games? Strong character driven games?
Those two

It was great. Fanservice to RDR1 fans just right and expanded the lore while being respectful to the original.

Attached: 1542950774547.jpg (322x480, 29K)

It starts to go downhill once Sean dies. That was the first real "We're not gonna be okay" feeling and the depression just piles on more and more from there

>arthur never fucked her titties

Attached: hitler-disgusted.jpg (711x540, 52K)

Micah was absolute human garbage compared to anyone in the gang except for maybe Dutch and Bill. Everyone had a belief and they followed it, Micah was the reason the Blackwater job went bad as well, he was probably a rat even back then.

Dutch isn't as bad until he turns on the ones Micah dislikes. Then again, everything went Micah's way and any chance Arthur had of working things out with Dutch went out the window when Hosea and Lenny died.

RDR, the Uncharted games, Sleeping Dogs come to mind.

Uncharted is made by The Last of Us guys, right? I didn't like The Last of us, wondering if Uncharted would be similar

Dutch's gang must have killed thousands of lawmen over the course of it's twenty year existence.

The point of no return was Dutch leaving Arthur/John to die. After that working things out was an impossibility.

>finding Bonnie's husband

Attached: Arthur.jpg (1452x1180, 401K)

Uncharted is an incredibly fun shooter actually. It has cutscenes but they dont feel like forced cutscenes that hit every 10 steps. Last of Us is also not that bad, but there are way too many scripted moments.

>Everyone had a belief and they followed it
A deluded belief in the idea that robbing and killing is somehow noble. At least Micah was honest with himself, and never bought into Dutch's self righteous nonsense.

Haven't played Last of Us but I thought the Uncharted games were a blast.

Pyre's good, if the tags "Fantasy sport-based visual novel with RPG elements" don't immediately send you running for the hills.

Attached: Pyre_Sandra and the Reader.png (1100x1000, 751K)

For real: where did the people at Camp take a poop?

Attached: 9540860.png (661x611, 704K)

RDR2 has a great story, and is a good game that was bogged down with enough flaws to only end up a solid 8/10. However, Rockstar patched New Austin and their RDO retardation is retroactively harming the singleplayer, making it a 7/10.

I don't think that was her husband. (assuming you're talking about the guy on the beach)

John's mouth

Kel, no they haven't. It's implied they get more violent starting with the ferry job. Dutch starts going down more hyper violent roads with his ideas. If you actually read the journal entries you would know that Hosea focused more on scams and Arthur worked with him on those. Their goal was to scam other criminals, head west, buy land and settle down. Dutch ruins that by wanting to be le epic rebel gunslinger man.

In the lake

the note is explicitly meant for a rancher named Bonnie.
only one Bonnie is known, and that's Bonnie Macfarlane

That's not what they thought retard lmao. They saw it as doing what they had to do to survive. Arthur considers himself a bad man even at the start of the game.

No one ever thought they were noble, they all agree they're bastards and a lot of them always point out how they're hypocritical. The gang members didn't kill people for no reason, even Bill managed to hold himself back and he was a drunk dumbass.

Dutch and Micah both wanted violence, Dutch probably loved the idea of killing all those indians just for '''''''''smoke''''''

I'll probably finish it someday.

I know, it's the same Bonnie Macfarlane, but the note made it sound as if he was just an admirer, not her husband.

Modern Telltale was a love it or hate it kind of thing, but I stand by Tales from the Borderlands having better story and characters than it had any feasible right to have.

Attached: rhys-tales.jpg (1920x1080, 389K)

In the trees next to camp. You just dig a hole, squat, shit and then cover it with dirt. This what you have to do if you have a deep woods job like logging or tree planting.

It was pretty good

Attached: Red Dead Redemption 2 (19).png (1920x813, 1.48M)

RDR2 has everything going for it except for compelling, responsive core gameplay.
Shame that Rockstar has had such a hard time with it but apparently employees are legit afraid to question upper management on anything. Really big egos that will end your career if you even mention something not being up to snuff, ESPECIALLY gameplay components.

Explains how divided gameplay feels, very open and free open world stuff but very restrictive mission design.

>I'm afraid
almost cried, doing the strangers really added to the game

Dutch at least deluded himself that he was helping the natives. When Bill refers to them as savages on the boat when they're going to Bronte, Dutch gets visibly mad. Wouldn't be surprised if in RDR3 we learn that Dutch's sweetheart Annabel was part or entirely native.

Attached: 1543150382630.jpg (1920x1080, 407K)

I could definitely believe that as the reason some features ended up the way they are. Especially that weird automatic course change thing the horses do while riding through the woods. I honestly felt disgusted everytime the horse went the opposite direction of the one I was holding the joystick. The automatic horse jumping eas also weird. I can't even list the amount of times my horse jumped a fence or rock I was too close to despite it not even being in the direction I was going.

>Dutch at least deluded himself that he was helping the natives
That's debatable. I think he had a romanticized image of them and their separation from modern society's control, but I don't think he was going to lose much sleep over all the natives he was getting killed for the sake of making noise and calling attention away from him.

In a campfire conversation as other anons have pointed out, Micah was egging Dutch on to commit violence that was uncharacteristic of him like killing Heidi McCourt on the Blackwater ferry. Dutch probably had it in him to commit shit like that but held back because of Hosea and Arthur keeping him in line whileas Micah was feeding his dark side.

Attached: 1547934132458.jpg (600x877, 73K)

>suddenly
Arthur is expressing doubt throughtout the entire game. It's not a sudden thing, he's a constant doubter. I kinda feel like they made Arthur that way because the feeling that something's gonna go wrong with a job soon is making Arthur even more relatable to players who played RDR1 and know the Van Der Linde Gang is no more.

Attached: 1548277028931.jpg (1920x1080, 376K)

i mean its a R* game...
you only get placative "movie writin" with these guys

Attached: 1535391857289.jpg (956x711, 166K)

Women in general seem to like Arthur as a character a lot probably because he's handsome and manly as fuck but also has a soft, vulnerable side. He's a bad boy with a heart of gold. Men want to be him, women want to fuck him, almost a perfect character.

Attached: 1536274898793m.jpg (1024x576, 103K)

>where's the loyalty
Buried with everyone who died because Dutch couldn't let go

He might have meshed well when it was just the three originals but the gang is too big now and has been going on for a while, everyone wants out except maybe Dutch

can someone explain to me why everyone just accepted the strawman "I'm silly" tier forced political bs?

Attached: 1550982736621.png (200x211, 54K)

It also reflects how fast the gang and Dutch is changing. All of Arthur's doubts have their roots in his faith in the old Dutch. He constantly quotes Dutch's old philosophy at Dutch in order to disagree with him. It's the saddest irony of the game: Arthur IS loyal. He's loyal to the Dutch he believed in.

Disappointing with RDR2, needed more ways to kill socialists.
Forced to join the left on decisions, dont like non sandbox sandbox. Especially the forced ideology.

Attached: Ocasio Loves White Meat but Shes Still a Commie.jpg (477x713, 44K)

Good I love strong jaws on women

thats Himmler...

Rope burn, saddle burn, hot steel...
Why do motorcyclists wear kevlar gloves, or blacksmiths?

I liked it, but I felt the pace of the story went a little too fast. By the time you get to the Saint Denis it feels like the story is pretty much over.

RDR was always political.

Really the only reason Arthur is so liberal in this game is because he's completely brainwashed by Dutch.

I didnt, and didnt buy the game as a result.
Just upvoted the feminist killing videos.

RDR1 wasnt.
The Kalergi Agenda this reeks of.
Pandering to the mind virus carriers.

>forced to join the left on decisions
So uhh treating women and black people like human beings is too leftist for you?
Even as someone who thinks blacks are clearly more criminal than other ethnicities I think that people calling Rockstar SJW because Arthur doesn't approve of racism and can treat black people like human beings is ridiculous and embarrassing.

Attached: 1548277564767.jpg (1920x1080, 425K)

Oh they did latch the new austin glitch? Guess I'm never updating my game then.

The chapters feel really episodic and serialized in a way. They all follow a typical 3 act structure. By the time you get to san denis the fatigue really starts to settle in, which is emphasized by the fact that by that time everyone is tired and exhausted and they just want it all to be over with while getting edged by Dutch.

>was always political
Can you point me where in the first game there was something as stupid as what they shoved into this game?
I'm getting a PS4PRO as soon as possible, but despite all the good I hear about RDR2 I'm legitimately skipping this title because of them. It's literally too shitty and out of place.

>trying to 'humanize' literal mass murderers

Why are these games so cringey

the story is cringe and the game is disappointing
and it seems everyone forgot about the online too

Arthur is a good boy who wants to hang out with his friends, I think he probably hates being alone and that made him realize the only friends he has are those people in the gang, he could've left it all behind to go with the love of his life, but decided to stick around even though things got really bad.

The saddest thing about the ending is realizing he probably thought he would've been able to get back to John and escape, but he was just happy he was able to save John instead.

It's hilariously cringy that Yea Forums considers a non-rascist protagonist to mean the game has a "leftist agenda" for sure.

>because Arthur doesn't approve of racism and can treat black people like human beings is ridiculous and embarrassing.
That's not the reason you idiot, that guy might have a specific problem with the lack of choices, but most people just complain about it's strawman tier garbage.

Are mass murders not humans?

normally you would have a point, but the game has the word "redemption" in it. Its an open question on whether or not Arthur and John are redeemed despite all the crimes.

I loved it nothing more American than a virtuous outlaw. Shows what a cluster fuck American culture is.

As far as Arthur knew John was dead/captured after getting shot during the last train robbery and Dutch didn't come back with him.

Arthur only really returns to the camp to warn Dutch that Micah was the rat after Milton told him out of pure loyalty if you ask me.

Like what?

for most of the game you are in a leftist leaning anarchist group. You don't even know what you are mad about.

You realize like half the characters were raised as children by a gang to kill people and all of them grew up in the most armed and violent culture in modern history?

>strawman tier garbage
Such as?
The only one I could really think of was the eugenics guy.

The feminists in Rhodes were annoying but even then it wasn't like Arthur was siding with them, he was helping out Beau Gray to protect his girlfriend. My biggest gripe with that mission was that the driving section was dull and didn't have any real gameplay to it.

Attached: 1545753862997.jpg (750x1072, 104K)

Dont bother with it.
If it ever comes out on PC, the mods we can make will be spicey enough to remove them...in glorious ways.

Absolutely amazing. People say TLOU had an amazing when if it was a TV show, it would have been trash. If RDR2 was a show, there'd be Emmys and Golden Globes everywhere, a big part of it due to more time for characterization for some of the other people.

New Austin is atmospheric as fuck.

Attached: 1549205800899.jpg (1920x1080, 317K)

Why do you associate treating women and black people as human beings as leftist?
And the term "racism" did not exist until Leon Trotsky coined the word for his own nefarious reasons.
Just around the time the founder of Planned Parenthood started her eugenics program.

Attached: Klanbake.jpg (600x477, 103K)

me: Forced to join the left on decisions, dont like non sandbox sandbox. Especially the forced ideology.

>for most of the game you are in a leftist leaning anarchist group. You don't even know what you are mad about.

You just answered my problem with the game with agreeing with me.
Erm, thanks.

>pic
now post the Republican
that was a very legendary thing the triple K did there, going to both conventions to intimidate them
not that it worked, as Roosevelt won the primaries anyway

>why do you associate treating women and black people as human beings as leftist?

Because those are the things Yea Forums generally screeches about when it comes to calling RDR2 ''leftist propaganda''. I personally would see treating people fairly as a universal human thing and not aligned with a specific political identity but that's Yea Forums for ya.

Attached: 1543150690962.jpg (1920x1080, 345K)

What colour is the sky in your head?
I like the way you assumed I am "racist" because I am not leftist.
How very tolerant and non judgemental of you, or should I say, how very left of you.

Tweet tweet for Byrdy!

Attached: Byrd.jpg (750x433, 59K)

>Forced to join the left on decisions
you mean a person that is in such a gang would actually act upon his praxis? shit
The mere presence of the gang and the people who are made up of it should've given you some insight into Arthur's character. This isn't an rpg

You just invalidated your first statement with your second.
You tarred everyone with the same brush, then proclaimed you hate people that tar with the same brush.
But thats leftism for ya

It is though.
Thats the point of a sandbox.
You know I have become a multi millionaire on GTA 5 PC many time over without breaking the law.
Even driving within the speed limit.
Thats the whole point of sandboxes, they are RPGs.

Obviously the eugenics guy. It's pretty disgusting they'd shove this into the game while South Africa is going the way it is.
Good idea.

Hopefully someone will make a full conversion to an anti Plaasmorde game.
That would be sweet.
Fortresses made of tyres against the Orcs.

>that's leftism for ya
It's funny because I'm mostly right leaning but I guess if you're not an edgy reactionary you're not right wing enough or whatever. I never said all of Yea Forums does this or that, I said that's what I have generally observed to be the case.

Attached: 1550174286822.png (857x481, 525K)

what do you mean? None of the 'forced' politics in the game are anachronistic at all. Arthur may be quite tolerant of other's genders / races, but that certainly wasn't unheard of back then, especially since he was raised by Dutch, who sees himself as an enlightened thinker.

I take another column.
I prefer Evola.
Which means I respect the diversity of other cultures.
But if they all merge, there is no diversity.
#RideTheTiger

Not him, but when did you feel like the game forced you to be a leftist?

better than 1. arthur is the hero we needed but didn't deserve

This is what you're actually mad about. That this isn't a good rpg where you can be socialist killing cowboy. Which I get but there wasn't really much in the game that suggested you could do that. Which is why I think its kind of dumb to say the game is disappointing for something that was shown to almost do the exact opposite.

>who sees himself as an enlightened thinker

Were they huffing there own farts too back then?
Does Arthur know his horse puts out carbon emissions, or did he buy a hybrid?

'He's British of Course" Quest was cringe.

>Does Arthur know his horse puts out carbon emissions, or did he buy a hybrid?
No, but do you realize racial tolerance was actually in vogue with some people back then? Especially in parts of Europe. It's established that Dutch is quite well read, so it's not far fetched to assume he'd be influenced by these liberal European thinkers.

But RDR1 I could do that.
I could do whatever I wanted.
And there was no need for political inserts, you can make your own damned way without modern day ideology.

How so? Was it the man dressing as a woman? You realize that was played for laughs right? He didn't even bother to shave his moustache.

Well, I'm British. We ended it as soon as we discovered slavery existed.
In vogue...ugh.

>modern day ideology.
I don't think there was much of that in RDR2, at least not that I can remember. Everything in there was more or less appropriate for the time period.

Its what Arthur says if you stick around.
Clear political agendas put in.

What's he say, I can't quite remember?

In RDR1 you are quite literally forced to join a self-labeled socialist revolution and John is very socially conscious much like Arthur. You don't clearly know RDR1 well at all.

He's mad that RDR2 wasn't the Nigger Lyncher Simulator he was hoping for, ergo it's leftist.

My god you're literally like triggered sjw.

Attached: 1542476786210.jpg (680x1280, 150K)

Not really, or you would have heard people speaking their minds.
And it would have offended EVERYONE today.

When he starts talking about "Maybe a person like yourself will have the most important job in the country".
That was clearly agitprop.
I play games to escape politics, I dont want it in my hobby.
Now I just play things like Ride 3 or Homeworld: Remastered.
Escapism is no longer escapism.

>go out of your way to find interesting VIDEO GAME things
>not entertaining
>*buurp* boy i love living in the united states arthur!
>haha yeah dutch jeez
>HILARIOUS
kill all americans from age 0-72

If I wanted a nigger lyncher simulator, I would play Nigger Lyncher Simulator.
"Socially Conscious", so thats a purely leftist ideology?
And what if I dont want to be your brand of "socially conscious"?
What if my "Social Conscious" level is at 6.5/10?
Who decides what "social conscious" is?
And how are they the ones to hold the mantle of Godly perfection?

Arthur mostly gives a shit about his money and in fact what Arthur's saying could be interpreted as an anti-tranny thing when he says ''maybe sometime in the future the best female will actually be female'' kek. But idk that dude just sounds like he's looking for reasons to hate the game.

Just finished my 4th playthrough about 2 hours ago. It's definitely in my top 5 games of all time.

Attached: RDR2 John.jpg (1920x1080, 536K)

What are some examples of things you found anachronistic?

I just dont think its a patch on the first.
And you can respond to me directly, whats up with this third person view on Yea Forums?

>autistic people still cant understand sarcasm and satirical comedy
either that or you are literally being targeted by video games

>And what if I don't want to be your brand of ''socially conscious''?
To me it sounds like the clear choice for you is to pick another game, one that's more suited to your sensibilities.

Attached: DrlrRHzUwAAWZUx.jpg (638x1200, 180K)

>anachronistic events
You hear the word "nigger" a thousand times on the street a day or on the stereo.
You might think a few people would say it in the game and mean it?

>You might think a few people would say it in the game and mean it?
but they do

Is Ableism a common practice of yours?

I did, RDR1.
I'm just telling people that dont want to pay for prop and want to escape politics for a while and just ride some fucking horses and be a cowboy in the wild west, this aint for you.

>is being superior to inferior people common for you
yes

Not anymore.

I heard a lot of people saying nigger in Lemoyne user.

When?

>and want to escape politics for a while and just ride some fucking horses and be a cowboy in the wild west, this aint for you.
thats weird because i got 200 hours out of the game and didnt think about politics once. im not america so i have an advantage though
maybe YOU should be a little less obsessed, RDR2 is the PERFECT game for riding around doing nothing and just being a dumb hick cowboy

I can agree with that.
Its why I hate socialists.

Micah says it, lenny says it, hosea says it, NPC's ingame say it, some side content and cutscene NPC's say it
maybe play the game user

Don't forget helping mexicans in a socialist revolution in RDR1

Have a youtube link?
Or is it someone scratching a wax cylinder over a "lit beat"?

>RDR1
What the fuck you're on about? RDR1 has politics same as RDR2. You LITERALLY JOIN A SOCIALIST REVOLUTION as a MANDATORY part of the plot you big faggot. And let's not forget professor McDougal in chapter 3.

Attached: DsT6SzSV4AAv-Ql.jpg (638x1200, 150K)

RDR1 is the perfect game for being a cowboy.
The difference is...options.

Played it on a mates system.
I aint buying it, unless it comes out on PC so I can mod it heavily and get some sweet graphics/FPS.

>Have a youtube link?
Here's a video of Lenny saying it. I distinctly remember NPC's in Lemoyne saying it from time to time as well. Did you play the game?

youtube.com/watch?v=pZL7w0YOy_M

Only problem I had with dutches descent into madness was the game pretty much already starts off with him practically at that point. Right on the very first mission when your in the mountains and you hear how Dutch shot some girl during their heist or whatever it was, and Arthur said it didn’t sound like him.

I was hoping this would have been a bit earlier and more in their glory days rather than them getting to the end of their era.

Also the story made John look pretty weak. You save him so many damn times. And then you think of how he tried using the excuse that they ditched him during their botched heist, to justify his reasoning for hunting everyone down in RD1. Javier and Bill weren’t that bad of people or at least no worse than John.

And I felt so disappointed that I didn’t get to be the one to kill that agent.

That was a nationalist revolution.
Marx wasnt exactly staple reading for Mexicans in the late 1800's.

Nationalist revolution.

alright

>to justify his reasoning for hunting everyone down in RDR1
The only reason John does it is because the feds have his family. He just wants them so he can go back to his family. And Bill runs a gang that terrorizes the neighbourhood, including the incident where they hang Bonnie because you nabbed Norman Deeks.

i think thats the expectation of the game, cause you play the winter tutorial and everyones like "man what a gay fluke we're almost dead cause of ONE mistake fuck man" and then they make it out ok, so the player is like "wew crisis avoided time to be a cowboy" and then obviously the rest of the game happens

I guess I thought that the bit about Dutch killing that girl on the ferry worked alright because the whole situation was kept so vague. Blackwater in general was clear foreshadowing of an early beginning of the end feeling for the gang and for players who know Dutch will lose it in the end, but for the characters there's still a sense of not knowing how or why things went so wrong, and that everyone came out on the other end of the chaos worse for wear despite how well-meaning and noble Dutch still acts in the first chapter or two.

>that was a nationalist revolution
Reyea himself is constantly referring to it as a socialist thing. He even compliments that John Marston would make a fine socialist.

>actually ok with helping in a natsoc mexican revolution
What a sjw opinion

"Peckerwood idiots."
Seems like he started it..
He deserves to be called it, he already had a chip on his shoulder.

welcome to future Yea Forums, the 16 year olds of 2019 are here

I am totally fine with it.
In fact, I want everyone to go back to their own land.
Africa for Africans, America for Americans, Europe for Europeans, Asia for Asians.
Nationalism for everyone!

>I want everyone to go back to their own land.
but would you help them actually achieve it?

Ok I forgot that detail about Bills gang, it’s been a long time. And yeah I know that he was obviously doing it for his family but he brought that situation up so many times about them leaving him. I thought that was going to be a bigger moment in the game too but felt like it kinda wrapped up pretty quick

Where did I ever assume you were racist in that post? Are you delusional?

>America for americans
Native americans?

Attached: 1550152946871.jpg (1920x1080, 260K)

I dont even know if thats an insult or whom it is aimed at.
Generation Zyklon are pretty right leaning.
The most since 1930s actually.
I have hope in Gen Z.

best story in video games

Yeah, by not letting them in my country in the first place and spreading nationalist ideas.
I'm pro Wakanda.
Race based nationalism. 100% cool with that.

>who insult is aimed at
mainly 16-21 year old americans who have no opinion on anything important

Because you assumed that I did not believe in racial equality, the fact you used the statement meant it.
Or you would have no reason to type it.

You mean people who don't agree with you or point where you are wrong?

Homie where the fuck did I ever say that? My post wasn't even addressed to anyone in particular and it only described a reaction to the game. You are jumping at shadows that you perceive as boogeymen.

>Yeah, by not letting them in my country in the first place and spreading nationalist ideas.
You're ignoring what John actually does in RDR1 and that's what I'm asking.

There's the biggy, you know how many tribes the Navajo killed to take their land?
You can keep going back as far as you like.
Do the Navajo owe the Lakota?
Do the Spaniards owe the Incans?
This is pretty good.

youtube.com/watch?v=J8RiNRMPZjo

how is someone meant to agree with me or point out if im wrong when im merely laughing at them for not knowing the difference between nat and natsoc?
i think you might be one of those people

I can agree there mate.

Its been years since I played RD1 desu, waiting for a good emulator to finally arrive.
And desu, I was also a bit of a lefty back then, then I got older, and the more insane they went on the left, the more right I have had to go.
"As the pendulum swings" is the saying.

If we gave back all the Native tribe borders, 95% of North America would still be under control of the USA and Canada.
So its not really a bad idea.

Attached: 1353540367740.jpg (1920x1080, 260K)

I reevaluate my favorite games all the time and this has happened to me as well

I was watching an amusing and informative discussion about when the first people landed in The US, they thought it was controlled by one leader, and were kind of mind blown that everyone was at war with each other.
The Teton Sioux tribe are interesting.
Navajo are only remembered to this day because their sheer brutality to non Navajo.
To say "Native Americans" as one classification is like classifying an Englishman like me next to a French man.
Close in proximity, closer than most native tribes, but TOTALLY different people.
I like our diversity between the French and English.
They are a pain in the arse, but they are alright.
I'd take 1 Frenchman over 50 Moroccans.
Europe was more diverse when we had more eye colours.

>To say "Native Americans" as one classification is like classifying an Englishman like me next to a French man.
no its more like comparing a geordie and a londoner, yes they are both english, and they ARE both english, but obviously theyre different
they still ARE all native americans user

Its weird, I was always a pretty poor kid, as in I would get the console that was out 4 years after everyone else got it.
So I was playing Halo 3 just before Reach came out.
Or I was playing Amiga when everyone was buying Playstations.
Then I got into PC gaming, couldnt afford a good PC, was mainly laptop games, Company of Heroes etc...
Now I have a bit of money and built myself a sick gaming rig, I had bought all the games with the highest specs so I could "keep up with the Jones'" for once.
Then after playing a load of the new games, I ended up playing things like Homeworld and Atilla: Total War.
All my expensive steam games that need this water cooled system are sitting there...unplayed.
Old games were just better.

im only 22 but its obvious you're like 19 or something, cmon man try to be less gay in public

Good point, i'm a northerner, and Southerners are MILES away in the head than us.
Its also amusing that our open borders crowd and Pro-EU lot are all middle class that come from leafy areas on the coast or inland without a slight hint of cultural enrichment.
Then we get lumbered with their bad voting choices.
They dont send the "New Europeans" to Brighton or Southampton.
We get stuck with them...literally...with knives.

38 mate.
Think 19 year olds get up at 6 am?

The difference between Arthur and John is that Arthur secretly abhorred violence and John secretly loved it. Arthur died a good man, John didn't. Prove me wrong.

Attached: 1542003081053.png (675x675, 152K)

eh my only opinion is that southeners will cry about anything

>Think 19 year olds get up at 6 am?
in 1st world countries they do yeah
>36
>as a poor kid i got halo 3 just before reach came out
so you were a poor kid 10 years ago but a 38 year old adult now?
very embarrasing posts my friend please leave

Arthur beat the shit out of multiple people when he really didn't have to, and was generally a dick to multiple people when it wasn't needed. John did the same thing to, but not as much.
And a lot of it comes down to player choice, so basically your theory is retarded.

I was getting up at 5 when I was 14. I don't know what age has to do with it.

Attached: 1407382971880.jpg (1218x914, 200K)

I would definitely say that Arthur was a better man than John but I don't think I would go so far as saying that John was a bad man. I also don't think loving violence makes you a bad man or even that It's necessarily a negative thing.

What times are you referring to?

not him, he didnt insinuate john was a bad man, simply that he enjoyed his job (shootin gunz)
also in response to the thrid guy, it IS down to player choice but JOHN MARSTON has a very clear character outline aka "what he would do"

Not in England mate.
Unless they are in the service.
I'm a lecturer, I have to hear the excuses.
And yeah, I classed myself as a kid when I was 28, well, I didnt then, but I do now.
I'm also trying to relate, as I dontknow your general ages.
I could talk about X-com on the RM Nimbus or Bullfrog Software and the epic Syndicate games, or even back to when I learned to code on the Sinclair Spectrum playing Treasure Island Dizzy on the C64.
My first ever owned game "Ant Attack" on the 48k.
35 years of gaming here.
I'm trying to relate. Basically.

Attached: Syndicate.jpg (1440x1080, 236K)

Arthur did it because he thought looking out for the gang, his family, was the greater good. John looked for trouble throughout his life because it's the only thing that excites him, it's written all over his character if you've got two brain cells to rub together. But besides that, morality isn't some average you accumulate over the course of your life. Arthur died trying his best to make something good out of his last moments and give someone else a second chance. John made excuses for himself up to the very moment the law came for him, when he opened fire and endangered his family instead of going quietly.

Loan shark jobs up until chapter 6
What indicates that John enjoys killing any more than Arthur did?

Teens sleep a lot.
Mainly due to things like growing etc...
Late teens are on the piss a fair bit, as you do.
That involves hangovers.

john = says fuck
arthur = does not say fuck
its clear who the good guy is

Attached: 1546580435446.jpg (785x688, 105K)

>wrote "im trying to relate" twice
stop being so fucking pathetic. thats the initial reason i called you out for being a 19 year old, for cringinly seeking approval of anonymous autistic people on the internet
talk about the stuff you know and THATS IT. dont be a gay cunt and go "so is that ok? :(("
get a diary and move to america if you're gonna be like that

Oh, and yeah, Southerns are fairies.

So Arthur looking out for the gang and killing his way to his goal which was getting John and his family out alive, is somehow different than John killing to get his family out alive at the end of 1? You're argument is vague and holds no weight, both Arthur and John are great characters and basically one in the same. According to 2's lore, the reason John acts the way he does in 1 is due to what Arthur did for him and his family. Claiming that Arthur was any more moral than John was makes zero sense.

>What indicates that John enjoys killing any more than Arthur did?
Arthur regrets his actions and John doesnt, thats what im thinking

>Arthur regrets his actions
yeah especailly if you play as a psycho, the talks with the girls show that he hates what he is

>What indicates that John enjoys killing any more than Arthur did?
The fact that John is an awkward, shuffling, distant loser until the second a gun is fired and he goes full chimp mode and starts whooping and hurling insults like he can't get enough of it. Also, replay RDR1 and take note of how often John threatens to maim or kill someone if they even slightly get on his nerves. He also attempted to gun down the strange man when his back was turned.

>endangered his family instead of going quietly
Armed men show up at your door start shooting at you without even pretending to arrest you, I think in that case John is forgiven for assuming they could potentially kill his family as well as him. They could've decided to hang Abigail and shoot Uncle and leave Jack as an orphan. Hell, they might've hanged Abigail for all we know she died pretty fast after John and she wasn't old.

Attached: 1543768351682.jpg (1068x1080, 281K)

>its early calm down
"Called me out", God do I hate that term.
I'm not seeking approval from anyone, its an user board.
I entered the thread to see if the game had improved or if the politics remained.
It obviously has.
Looks like I need to visit here more than I do /pol/ from now on.
Maybe give my 19 year olds opinion about great 80s classic games and become a Sinclair General.

i didnt do it on my playthrough but apparently despite moral or outlaw playthrough, at mirrors arthur will go full r9k no matter what and call himself a disgusting loser in 100 different ways

Abigail died of TB unironically

Nobody gives a fuck about how old you are.

>Can you point me where in the first game there was something as stupid as what they shoved into this game?
herbert moon?

The only reason Arthur "regrets his actions" is because of TB, he knows he's gonna die so he tries to make up for all the bad things he's done. John is actually a good guy throughout the entirety of 1 from the start, and 2's story even enhances that as it shows how he's trying to go straight and his main focus is his family.
They're both basically the same character when you break it down.

>I'm not seeking approval from anyone
>I'm also trying to relate, as I dontknow your general ages.
honestly i would have prefered a dumb 19 year old to a cringey unsalvageable 40 year old
sorry sir but we are quite literally speaking different languages

Then why am I being called a 19 year old all the time? I don't get it.

Attached: Ant Attack.jpg (1600x1200, 406K)

Colonial Africa would like a word with you.

Attached: 151563251.jpg (768x384, 31K)

>The fact that John is an awkward, shuffling, distant loser until the second a gun is fired

Attached: john.png (498x260, 73K)

Seriously? So she's the only one Arthur infected.

>The only reason Arthur "regrets his actions" is because of TB
>bro hes only acting like that cause of the things happening to him in his life, dumb faggot
despite this i agree with your post so im guessing you missed the point of the original post
also this is the second time i've typed this but "john is more violent" and "john is more evil" are not the same thing:
sums it up pretty well

Arthur flat out admitted to the writer of the Jim Boy Calloway novel that if he's gonna shoot someone he tries to do it when their back is turned. Also both of these-
>John is an awkward, shuffling, distant loser until the second a gun is fired and he goes full chimp mode and starts whooping and hurling insults like he can't get enough of it
>how often John threatens to maim or kill someone if they even slightly get on his nerves
Both of those fit Arthur almost even more than John, did you even play the games?

My first time on the board here at Yea Forums.
I read this and thought I should visit.

Attached: V and Political Agitators.jpg (1024x598, 69K)

I'm genuinely not trying to be condescending but you don't understand the two of them. They appear to be the same on the surface but the violent thug Arthur is very clearly and demonstrably an act he puts on. Upstanding farmer is an act John puts on, violent thug is the real John through and through. Play RDR1 through again, John is a great character but he wasn't a good man. He probably wishes he was different but that's about it. Did you think Dutch's speech about being unable to change your nature didn't actually mean anything in relation to John?

They tried.
They want us to come back.
Zimbabwe is offering us free land.

Attached: Empire of Dust.jpg (800x450, 42K)

>Both of those fit Arthur almost even more than John, did you even play the games?
Arthur avoids violence way more than John does. Even in the "spare Jimmy Brooks" scene, Arthur is clearly playing up his epic bad guy schtick just to scare Jimmy, he was never going to track him or hurt him after that point. John would have probably pistol whipped the guy like he did Irish.

>anons life story and justifications
>some gay discord shit with no context or anything
just leave already

>"john is more violent" and "john is more evil"
I know you're not saying John is more "evil", but he's still not anymore violent than Arthur was. Arthur (depending on player choice) has much more opportunity to be extremely violent, and even in parts where it doesn't come down to player choice like kicking the shit out of Thomas Downes. The fact that you're honestly trying to say that John is more violent than Arthur is fucking hilarious

They can also have extremely similar deaths depending on the choices you make. Neutral ending Arthurs death is a lot like Johns death in the first game.

I think you had to be a violent person back then, to live.
Pretty much the way its always been.
Now Peel's boys pretend to do the job for us instead.

What about every loan shark mission, the Thomas Downes beating, the fact that he kills innocents multiple times throughout his story while John doesn't?

>thomas downes
>first chapter of the game
>judging characters life outlook at this stage and ignoring everything else
well i'll just let the other 2/3 people calling you retarded to keep doing it cause it wont take 4 of us

I honestly felt insulted when the game tried to tell me micah was only a snitch after Guarma.
They kind of gave you the feeling all along that arthur wasnt the only one that milton approached.
Micah even planned the bad Blackwater job but I can chalk that up to his excessive violence, chapter 1 to pissing off Cornwall, and chapter 2 for the gang pissing off everyone at every turn.

But what about st denis? As things go sour they give you the impression the pinkertons already knew about their plan to rob the bank. Granted, the mayor knew who they were... but they seemed a little too prepared to deal with the situation.

I just think I would have liked it if they said he was a plant from the beginning... he was only in the gang 6 months and that was when things got bad.

I also find it hard to believe Dutch trusting him. Why trust some conveniently violent asshole you know for 6 months and not the loyal friend of 20 years? Should have been through with him as soon as he was told micah was the snitch, but instead he lets him kill grimshaw without a fucking word.

If I had to guess they were gay lovers, buttfucking each other on the snowy mountain for warmth.

John isn't more violent, they're about on par with each other. John just enjoys the thrill of a shootout more and views his killing as justified and thus allows himself to openly take pleasure in it.

The context is in the image.
Its about leftist propagandists attacking this board and /news/ in order to sew division.
They are giving up on /pol/.
It even states that you lot are easier to convert to their "cause".

This. If Arthur had had a good upbringing, he probably could have made something of himself. He's clearly quite introspective, and doesn't enjoy the outlaw life as much as he's convinced himself he does. John likely would have gravitated towards the outlaw life no matter what his upbringing was like. The end of RDR2 has John constantly getting himself into trouble, despite his apparent desire to give up the outlaw lifestyle. It's clear he's somewhat addicted to it though.

>the violent thug Arthur is very clearly and demonstrably an act he puts on
Wow you are fucking retarded.

Arthur writes that he thinks debt collecting is disgusting, and I don't remember him ever going out of his way to kill innocents over the course of the game. John also mowed down several lawmen doing their jobs and killed dozens of innocents offscreen, you know

st denis was because of italian gangster, was it not?
also dutch didnt trust him at all (left him at the end of the game, let him crawl his way back in just to shoot him once he helped dutch get the blackwater money(dutch wasnt after the money but the job itself))
did you play the game or

Wow you never read a single journal entry and possibly have autism besides

>not him, he didnt insinuate john was a bad man,
He did, he said that John didn't die as a good man which implies that he died as a bad one.
>loan shark jobs
Did you even read his journal entries? As if it wasn't clear from the dialogue alone that Arthur hated beating people, as if it wasn't clear from how those questlines end, it is made completely crystal clear in his journal that Arthur finds the whole business detestable.

You're proving my point for me, Arthur was a violent asshole until he got sick and realized how big of a piece of shit he was. Just because he lived a solid few weeks trying to redeem himself doesn't make him any better of a man than John, who's death came quick and sudden with no prior warning. And he still happened to redeem himself by the end just by wanting to become a good man, not just because he got deathly ill

bumping this cause this is the truth

Which is why RDR1 was better.
Arthur looks down on himself if he likes to kill.
Don't give me the option to do it if you are going to have moral digs at me for it (developers).
RDR3 will have anti gun demonstrators.
And you'll get penalty points for shooting people.
And voting booths...

hes completely right though
john is a genuine hardass whose whole family has died and now he has 1 family left and he'll kill anyone in his way
arthur is some cunt in a family of cunts intimidating thieves into handing over thier loot, as a day job
play the game retard

It’s very good for a video game

>hello, i did NOT play these games. i repeat, i did NOT play these games
"tb doesnt matter lol" is not an argument, character development is character development
despite that being a pretty autistic flaw in your argument, its not even the worst one. the worst one is that in RDR1 John basically new from day 1 that he wasnt escaping the law and he was done for either way, its literally in the opening cutscene of the game. so john had so long to think about his upcoming death that he had time to revolutionise mexico

kino

>B-but his journal entries!
How is this even an argument when John didn't keep a journal in 1? You really think John enjoyed all the violence just because he didn't keep a diary of him whining about regretting it all?

Johns redemption was his killing.
John>Arthur.

Not him but John and Arthur are very different. I haven't played the first RDR in a while but as I remember John never seemed concern with the greater morality of his actions and doesn't really reflect on it, nor does he ever seem conflicted in what he's doing in a moral sense. Arthur does though. He reflects on the morality of his actions both in dialogue an din the journal and seems conflicted about his existence constantly.

Johns killing outlaws, rapists, overzealous mexican soldiers and the ignorant socialist rebels they fight. He doesn't have a reason to feel bad, well as bad. Arthur kills outlaws but also lawmen and the occasional innocent if they get in his way. It makes sense he wouldn't think to highly of himself for those kills.

>Arthur looks down on himself if he likes to kill.
not really the impression i got but i only watched on youtube, i myself did neutral/good playthrough
i didnt get the impression he was looking down on himself, just questioning nature and the will of man etc, "what was the point of it all" etc etc etc

>so john had so long to think about his upcoming death
John had no idea the government was gonna kill him after doing what they wanted, you're just spewing your own head-canon at this point.

This is completely false. Arthur displays regret for his actions from the very beginning of the game.

That's because he's doing everything for his family, and will stop at nothing to protect them. Arthur never had anyone he loved held against his will, with an entire government agency forcing him to do their bidding or else harm befall his loved ones.

I think John enjoys violence because he enthusiastically yells it out and has killed or attempted to kill multiple characters onscreen in cold blood out of his anger towards them and for no reason besides

>John had no idea the government was gonna kill him after doing what they wanted
this is honestly extremely embarrasing if you HAVE played RDR1. not only is it in the opening cutscene but its basically the major theme of the whole game, how john is on a leash and no matter how many jobs he does its always "just 1 more ;) i still know where your wife lives btw ;)"

>Arthur flat out admitted to the writer of the Jim Boy Calloway novel that if he's gonna shoot someone he tries to do it when their back is turned.
Not him but this was clearly bullshit dude. Arthur is constantly putting on bullshit "tough guy" acts the entire game and the act changes based on who he's talking to. You can't be an autist and pretend that everything that comes out of his mouth is 100% word of God truth, if you do that you will completely fail to understand the character and will run into constant contradictions.

Bronte tipped off the Pinkertons and the local police to the gang's tail and after Bronte got murked the St Denis bank was the only real value target in the city. It wasn't hard to guess what the gang was gonna do.

Attached: 1550157360115.jpg (1920x1080, 362K)

I don't know, if you had the moral compass of guilt, you probably wouldn't kill innocent people.
Maybe once on accident.
John just didnt give a fuck in RDR1, and you were not busted as soon as you lassoed some NPC you want to put on train tracks.
I liked the more random spawning in RDR1.
Seemed more realistic.
And another user pointed out the trains, thats another one.
It felt more like a "living" game.

You are fucking dumb, he went back to living his life on the ranch at the end of the game. He had no clue they were gonna show up to kill him, especially after he did what they wanted.

There's also a chance it was just a cheap and epic "wild west deconstruction" that Rockstar couldn't pass up. As if we need to be told honorable duels didn't happen

The indigenous had real civilizations and populated the entire continent. There were nations and cities, much how we perceive the Inca, Aztec, and Mayan rather than loose tribes.

Vast majority of them died from eastern hemisphere diseases brought by explorers. We only perceive things differently because of accounts from settlers who arrived decades later when they were all dead and the land was now unpopulated.

What the fuck are you on about? Because John didn't keep a journal we're somehow supposed to ignore all of Arthur's entries? That doesn't make any goddamn sense

Does he ask those questions if he plays the "good" playthrough?

>john and uncle literally say some shit like "yep here they come"
>HE HAD NO CLUE GUYS
i think you are unironically the only person, real or fictional, who was surprised

>That's because he's doing everything for his family, and will stop at nothing to protect them.
So is Arthur lol
>Arthur never had anyone he loved held against his will, with an entire government agency forcing him to do their bidding or else harm befall his loved ones.
Irrelevant.

>You are fucking dumb, he went back to living his life on the ranch at the end of the game
He went back to failing to adjust to modern life and connect with his family, yes. Because he's a fucking thug. The distance between him and his family was so purposefully painful I have to wonder what you stand to gain by defending John's honor like this

>that time he wasted 3 spics for pestering him

Attached: 1522745108416.jpg (209x249, 4K)

His best friends are literal con-men, he sneaks into a boy and his fathers house and robs their entire life-savings along with their stage-coach. You really think shooting people in the back is above him? And he openly admits it, sure he's acting tough but he's being honest about how big of a piece of shit he knows he is. Just because "deep down he's good!" doesn't make him any less of a piece of shit, especially considering his actions.

No, I'm saying it's redundant to think that John didn't regret his violent actions when there's no indication that he did or didn't in 1. There is no journal like in 2 to tell you his thoughts, so how can you assume he enjoys the violence?

>>Arthur never had anyone he loved held against his will, with an entire government agency forcing him to do their bidding or else harm befall his loved ones.
>Irrelevant.
>john marstons entire life story is irrelevant when comparing john and arthurs life
imagine being autistic

I watched a documentary on Mach Pichu, there was a funny kid in it showing the film maker the walls of the local town.
He said "This wall was built by the Inca, this wall was built by the Incapable."
I thought that was funny as fuck.
But nobody seems to want to kick the latinos out of Southern America.
They dont have to apologise 24/7.
Odd.

not him but, its never brought up so THAT IS the answer. The devs never had john showing remorse because he doesn't. its his particular set of skills that may be the only reason jack and abbi got out AT ALL. he dies with basically no regrets. these are things we KNOW

>He went back to failing to adjust to modern life and connect with his family, yes. Because he's a fucking thug.
That doesn't mean he didn't try.
>i think you are unironically the only person, real or fictional, who was surprised
Yes John was definitely anticipating the moment Ross told him his family was home, that he would come back to his door step with the army a few weeks later.

>His best friends are literal con-men, he sneaks into a boy and his fathers house and robs their entire life-savings along with their stage-coach. You really think shooting people in the back is above him?
This is a literal non-sequitur. Also, I'm not saying it is or isn't. I'm saying that that piece of dialogue isn't a reliable indication.
>And he openly admits it, sure he's acting tough but he's being honest about how big of a piece of shit he knows he is
Asserting a statement with 0 evidence
>Just because "deep down he's good!" doesn't make him any less of a piece of shit, especially considering his actions.
Arthur himself wouldn't disagree with you. I would characterize Arthur as good though and say that he has a good nature but was raised to be a violent criminal.

I personally am not sold one way or the other that John enjoys the violence but the other user is trying to make a positive case that he does from how he acts in the game, he isn't making an argument based on lack of evidence. You need to get your logic straight dude.

>Yes John was definitely anticipating the moment Ross told him his family was home, that he would come back to his door step with the army a few weeks later.
you actually wrote this sarcastically but its unironically what happens in the game

Hypocrites defending a game with female outlaws and a cuck protagonist who works for feminists.

>missing the point this hard
You don't have to imagine when you're even more autistic yourself.

i agree with you mostly and arthur definitely has a tough guy act, and hes basically just doing a job in a sense, compared to rdr1 john who is deep in it
i dont think "shoot some cunt in the back" was a tough guy pretense. it honestly seems it was more of a joke than anything. and the other dude is right, its quite literally true, arthur would have no qualms about shooting some dickhead in the back

Yes John goes back home and resumes his life as a rancher knowing that days later an army will show up to kill him

Not him but fuck off bro, if he was anticipating that why wouldn't he move his family and leave? Your argument is retarded

as with every R* story, it's shit.

The Greek origin of the word Redemption comes from lutroo, meaning "to obtain release by the payment of a price."
Maybe the story uses the definition rather than the biblical definition?

>hurr what is basic poetry

I guess at that point I would disagree that shooting someone in the back in the heat of battle is dishonorable behavior. But also this makes no sense in the context of dueling. Literally in that fucking questline Arthur duels everyone straight up lmao

Both Arthur and John play up the tough guy act and taunt their enemies. Literally the only difference between the 2 is that you have Arthur's journal to show just how much he regrets his acts.

>trying to use a thematic/metaphorical aspect of the story to justify a logical discontinuity
You're a retard, stop trying to analyze art.

>Literally in that fucking questline Arthur duels everyone straight up lmao
you dont have to do this, you can definitely kill the dickhead on the train early, ironically enough by shooting him in the back

Supposedly the Yucatan is named such because when Spaniards came and asked where they were it was the Mayan word for "I cant understand you"

Both characters are homosexuals that won't even touch working girls, and are sympathetic towards non whites. Cucks.

Christ you are a genuine faggot. John wasn't being poetic by any means, and he definitely was not expecting Ross to send people to kill him after doing what he asked.

It's clear from the dialogue alone that Arthur regrets his actions, the journal only emphasizes it and concretizes it so autists can't make a tone-deaf argument otherwise.

john is definitely not acting. at the time of RDR1 there are like 3 people he enjoys talking to on the planet and one of them is uncle for fucks sake.

>stop using story to explain the story
ok retard

Those aren't canon actions though.

>John wasn't being poetic by any means
hahahahaha actually autistic
rockstar are the ones being poetic you gay cunt

I was too busy cooking and eating food constantly to not look like a concentration camp victim, brushing and feeding my horse constantly to stop it from looking like a concentration horse camp victim, and cleaning my guns every 15 minutes to pay any real attention to the story

>>stop using story to explain the story
>I am literally incapable of differentiating between theme and plot!
Retard

>It's clear from the dialogue alone that Arthur regrets his actions
Not until he's sick though, he doesn't regret shit before then. And that's not a bad thing from a story standpoint. It's just different from John's sudden death and it was cool seeing him try to redeem himself knowing he was going to die eventually.

It is pretty ridiculous how quickly your horse gets dirty

>Those aren't canon actions though.
hmmm true but also in that case i wouldn't use them on either side of the argument either
anyway the arthur statement is some shit like "id always TRY to shoot them in the back" or some offhand shit, its not like LOL DUELING FOR FUCKING FAGS GET SHOT RETARD

You're beyond fucking retarded, we are debating whether or not John (the character not the writers dumbass) knew he was eventually going to be killed. Not whether or not Rockstar wrote it to be predictable or not.

>why thing happen
>because storywriters wanted thing to happen
>OMG BRAINLET
suicide

>cant read rest of the thread
oh ok
he did
is that ok?

dutch literally tells him theyre coming for him next after he dies

What indicated to you that John knew he was gonna be killed when he returned to his ranch at the end of 1? Please explain.

>Not until he's sick though, he doesn't regret shit before then.
Are you a retard? He literally does, you're ignoring the post you're supposedly responding to. Arthur thinks of himself as a bad man from day one in the story and constantly shows disgust with his actions throughout even early chapter 2 missions, as well as trying to dissuade Dutch from choices that will lead to violent outcomes literally since the fucking prologue mission where you fight Colm's men for the first time. That regret was always there, it didn't just magically appear when he got sick.

And you really think John listened to some shit that Dutch spewed to him before he jumped off a cliff?

a broken clock is right twice a day

I'm going to the get the last word in here, you are an unironic brainlet pls consider gun in mouth

Still doesn't stop him from doing bad things, he only acknowledges it early on, he doesn't start regretting and trying to make up for it until late game.

Why do people say it's a wild west game when it clearly isn't?

John fucks a hooker pretty consistentlyin both games.

Abigail expresses her doubts about them leaving John in peace but I guess John just had to try. What bugs me is that John is in extremely good terms with Reyes who went on to win the Mexican Cil War, why not cash in the favors he did Reyes and get land from Mexico and be untouchable to U.S law enforcement?

Attached: 1550180766968.jpg (1920x1080, 140K)

Not an argument, John had no clue Ross was coming back for him or else he wouldn't have just stuck around. He did what they wanted and he expected to be left alone, that's not to say he was really surprised when they showed up, but he definitely wasn't expecting it.

hahaha!
I love little stories like that.
If any pure blood Mayan are still about, they must laugh their arses off...or cry.

>muh outlaw but don't wanna deal with the consequences of killing others and robbing their shit. Now everybody feel bad for me as I slowly die.
Not attacking you but the whole theme of the story is cliche and retarded.

>arthur telling john thier time is over
>dutch telling john thier time is over
>believing john is stupid enough to think its over when they literally came to him and told him to kill his fellow outlaws
i realize john is kind of a buffoon in the second game but hes not the same idiot in the first game

>Tricking Indians
Because anybody who was educated knew that it was like selling sunscreen to a leper. It was extremely cruel and eventually lead to the deaths of hundreds of misguided young men.

I fucking hate you stupid racists who don't know shit about anything.

John isn't allowed to have sex with hookers in RDR1. But he can kill innocent people.
Arthur isn't allowed to have sex with hookers in RDR2. But he can kill innocent people.
>sex bad
>murder good

>I honestly felt insulted when the game tried to tell me micah was only a snitch after Guarma.
He was a snitch the whole time. In the very beginning of the game if you choose the "Trap?" option when talking to Dutch this is the dialogue:
>So, do you think Blackwater was a trap?
>That many men? Oh, they knew we were coming.
Later in the game when Milton says "we picked him up after you boys came back from the Caribbean" he means that he personally contacted Micah for the first time. However, Micah had almost certainly been feeding information to the feds the entire time he was in the gang. There must have been a rat since Blackwater and the only possible candidate is Micah, who joined right at that time. All throughout the game the law seems to be one step ahead.
>Pinkertons somehow knew that the gang was at Horseshoe Overlook
Marston train robbery mission dialogue:
>Do you think they knew we were coming? Law showed up awful fast. Just like that ferry job.
>I dunno. I've had a bad feeling since Blackwater.
You can put together that Micah is a rat at this point in the game alone without playing further.

I'll ask again. Was there any actual indication during the late game of 1 that John knew they were coming back for him?

Because most people are not autistic and realize that the game intentionally appeals to the ye olde wild west niche.

Attached: 1543291670926.jpg (1171x1078, 724K)

Sex in media is infinitely more damaging to a populace than violence in media. Stop with your retard meme logic.

Could it have worked out between them if Arthur ran off with her?

Attached: Red-Dead-Redemption-2_20190228212828.png (3072x1315, 3.24M)

As I literally just explained to you, he regrets it the entire time. The only reason he continues to do "bad things" is because of his loyalty to the gang. This is made clear repeatedly. If Arthur didn't think of the gang as family he would be out of the outlaw life and would be with Mary.
Nah, you are just looking at with an incredibly simplistic point of view.

John is an even bigger buffoon in the first game, he walks straight into multiple obvious traps, perfect example being DeSanta leading him to the church in Chuparosa

Yes, but Arthur never would have.

"Gun" on Gamecube was great.
Ever play it?
Use people as human shields, throat slitting, body hiding.
Was pretty sweet.

Attached: Gun Gamecube.jpg (365x273, 20K)

>The only reason he continues to do "bad things" is because of his loyalty to the gang
ONCE AGAIN, how is that any different from John doing bad things to protect his family? If anything it's an even more justifiable reason that Arthur's loyalty to the gang.

This. John comes off as much more intelligent in RDR2. In RDR he comes off as an unintelligent but practical man who simply does what he feels he has to. A simple man.

And yet the people with the better ability of violence write history, and survive it.
Hate nature, because its survival of the fittest.
And your moral code means shit when it comes to Lord of The Flies time.

nope and if youre autistic ass cant read between the lines then thats on you sorry sweaty

Just because it was predictable writing to the player, doesn't mean that John saw it coming. You're a fool.

Cringe and soipilled.

John doesn't have sex with hookers because he is married to Abigail and is loyal to her.

Arthur not having sex with hookers is annoying because it cucks the roleplay potential away from the player big time without reasonable justification. Arthur pining after Mary might be one reason but the game is bad at justifying it because you get too few scenes with Mary during the game.

Attached: 1547642004393.png (421x444, 151K)

john knew he was dead the moment the feds showed up after 4 years

War and humans are not a part of nature so shut the fuck up you Brian dead fucker.

A gun removes nature, ideology removes nature. There was nothing natural about anything. It was young men who lost everything and were egged on by a conman to essentially commit suicide.

Stop posting your stupid rhetoric. What the fuck are you even trying to convey. That because someone happened to have a gun while another was armed with a bow that makes them naturally better? Makes no sense.

>ONCE AGAIN, how is that any different from John doing bad things to protect his family?
It isn't? The difference is that Arthur consistently displays evidence of inner conflict, regret, and disgust at what he feels he must do and he does so due to the moral implications of his actions. John only displays these things on two occasions: one is if the player chooses to kill Javier, which results in John shedding a tear. The other is in John's hesitancy to kill Dutch when he is cornered on the mountain. On both of these occasions John's conflict comes from his personal attachment to Dutch/Javier and not from any moral conflict he sense. Dutch even tries to engage him in a conversation about morality and John basically tells him he doesn't think about it and is just doing what he has to.
>When they kill me they'll just find another monster. They have to. They have to justify their wages.
>That's their business, Dutch.

>Cringe and soipilled.
Your opinion is the soi opinion though? You just spouted the classic leftist soiboi position on the matter.

Give it a rest dude, you need to get over it. You're in every thread bitching about how you can't bang hookers in this game. You need to get laid in real life, I mean Jesus Christ.

I'll admit I was pissed at how sexless Arthur was but as you play through the story you understand that he's extremely depressed and isn't some hog wild cowboy. He fell in love many times and they all ended tragically which made him dear every Loving again.

Look up that horse ride with the Indian Chief about the son he lost. It really puts you into his perspective that Arthur isn't interested in anything but acting as some force of nature or some said army knife for the gang. He lives to work and he doesn't see a point in living for himself.

So what is even the point of arguing whether John or Arthur is the better person? Imo they are about the same level, only difference being that Arthur seems more disgusted with things they have done while John's regrets are more to do with the consequences to his previous actions.

At least neither of them wasted their time with sophistry on the 4channel

>war and humans are not a part of nature

Attached: 1521496698205.gif (560x480, 2.66M)

Proofs?
This leads back to the point that Arthur's journal is one of the only examples of him showing any actual regret for his actions. According to 2's lore, John started to keep a journal but since it's not present in the original game we can't get a sense of what John was thinking throughout the game. Another factor is that John is alone throughout pretty much the entirety of 1 without anyone to talk to, whereas you have the talks in 2 with Karen, Tilly, Mary-Beth that showcase his remorse. Just because it's not spelled out to you in 1, doesn't mean John doesn't have any remorse for his actions.

Nope, ever hear of "Mad Jack Churchill"?
A bow can beat a rifle.
And war is part of human nature, what do you think the first tool we ever created would have been used for?
All the tech you have right now, where does it come from?
Military.
Opposable thumbs, do you think they evolved from sewing soi fields or better grip of clubs?
The Yakuza chop off fingers to this day to reduce your ability to wield a sword if you speak when you shouldnt.

>Brian dead

Attached: LoB.jpg (629x340, 28K)

>you Brian dead fucker.
Who is Brian and why is user fucking his corpse?

>One guy happened to be standing slightly closer to a bomb shell while another was a distance away
>This proves that the man who didn't get hit by the bomb shell survived because nature intended him to survive aka his genetics helped him secure his survival
Is this what your saying?.

I think he looks on the bright side of life.

youtube.com/watch?v=SJUhlRoBL8M

You can get a sexy bath from a big titties girl, though.

Do you think they touch Arthur's pee-pee when they reach under the water?

>You need to get laid in real life
I've been together with my current girlfriend for 3 months now and I'm meeting her tomorrow. I still am a bit bothered about my badass cowboy guy having to be a sexless cuck or get gay raped. I greatly enjoyed

Attached: 1542477905037.png (1920x1080, 2.43M)

Meticouls gameplay... Fuck off user

>This leads back to the point that Arthur's journal is one of the only examples of him showing any actual regret for his actions.
Problem is this point is completely false and Arthur shows a ton of regret through dialogue.
>We're bad men.
>You are a good man, Arthur!
>Now lying, that is a sin.
>You should think more about eternity.
>Well I hope its hot and terrible Mrs. Downes, otherwise I'll feel I've been sold a bill of lies.
>You ain't as thick and dense as all that Arthur!
>Maybe you don't know me as well as you think you do.
>I feel I can trust you sir.
>Well you clearly don't know me very well.
Also there is tons of implications in dialogue that Arthur detests the outlaw life and his actions. What immediately comes to mind is the conversation with John in Of Sheep and Goats where he is trying to subtly tell John to leave the outlaw life.
>Another factor is that John is alone throughout pretty much the entirety of 1 without anyone to talk to
He talks to people all the time. Bonnie, the sheriff, Irish, etc. etc. What are you even talking about? Half the damn game is John talking to someone while the player controls a horse. He never expresses the remorse or regret that Arthur does.
>Just because it's not spelled out to you in 1, doesn't mean John doesn't have any remorse for his actions.
It's not that "its not spelled out". You're twisting words. It's not even INDICATED.

Congrats on the gf, please stop shitting up these threads with the same old tired hooker complaint all the same

You are looking at too small of a scale. The people getting bombed are losing population and their gene pools and culture are reduced. Assuming it isnt going both ways the people doing the bombing are fine and are surviving better.

Animals constantly compete for territory
As well as the right to breed. have you ever even watched a nature show?

Kys, just kys

True. Nobody likes tired old hookers.

It sure looked like it

>I greatly enjoyed
I greatly enjoyed the game but that doesn't mean I don't have anything to complain about it. Overall it's an incredible experience.

Maybe the guy not standing near the bombshell had the sense to look up and see a UAV and move out the way.
Nature.

Half of those quotes aren't from Arthur, and the ones that are don't really indicate that he "detests the outlaw life and his actions".
Also the fact that you're really comparing conversations with people that John had just met compared to the conversations Arthur had with people he knew and was close to for years just shows how far you're reaching.
>It's not that "its not spelled out". You're twisting words. It's not even INDICATED.
The fact that John sacrificed his life for his wife and kid is a pretty big indicator that he regretted and wanted to make up for his actions. Sorry there isn't a journal to tell you his exact thought process since your too dumb to understand the entire point of his character arc.

How many times has violence in the real world been linked to videogames versus rape? You're implying that consensual sex is worse than killing somebody. It's legal in some countries and RDR is rated M. You sound like a leftist faggot.

Also true, just saying he offers poor reasoning for why war doesn't meld well with natural selection.

I don't complain about the hookers as much as I used to and I certainly did not initiate the argument or talk about it in ''every thread''.

Attached: 1512044389137-1.jpg (488x348, 77K)

>The fact that John sacrificed his life for his wife and kid is a pretty big indicator that he regretted
no he did it so his family could be free, if he escaped they would just be hunted down forever, putting them in danger

Well that's just disgusting, how could they include something like that?

Also, the fact that most animals have built in weapons.
Some have active camo and some spiders have tactical planning.
Some even go long out of their way to attack from behind.

youtube.com/watch?v=UDtlvZGmHYk

We have weapons via brainpower.
And knuckles.

That is what I meant by the word "sacrificed" you dumbass, and he wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't for his prior actions. He took responsibility for what he did and tried to make up for it.

I totally agree, I was adding to your side of the argument.
Natural selection at work.

Because it's hot you homo. You're either a child or baiting.

youre implying he regretted it, dumbass

>Half of those quotes aren't from Arthur
Are you a retard? Obviously I'm drawing attention to Arthur's responses to the quotes. Do you think this is a numbers game or some shit? If I put in 50 Arthur quotes of him calling himself bad will that convince you? You're illogical, I'm not even sure what the point of continuing to argue with you is.
>don't really indicate that he "detests the outlaw life and his actions".
Yes they do lol
>I'm a bad person and I deserve to burn in hell
>"This man clearly doesn't regret anything"
Please turn on your brain.>The fact that John sacrificed his life for his wife and kid is a pretty big indicator that he regretted and wanted to make up for his actions.
How? This isn't necessarily true at all, it's a non-sequitur. John caring about Abigail and Jack doesn't equate to regretting his past, how is this even a functional point to you? There is no logic chain here lmao
>Sorry there isn't a journal to tell you his exact thought process since your too dumb to understand the entire point of his character arc.
What I'm really sorry about is the fact that I appear to have found myself talking to a chimp who somehow learned how to type.

Sure feels like you do.

But it's inappropriate

The truth is, since you're shilling for a corporation and not getting anything out of it like money and such, you're most likely a virgin and a cuck. Your personal attacks are moot and that wasn't even me. With that being said, there's absolutely no reason for Rockstar to have working girls in the game if you can't interact with them. If they want to force you to play it their way then they should get rid of the M rating and not allow the players to kill innocent NPCs. It's contradictory. The game comes off as being marketed towards younger audiences.

I meant he regretted his actions over the course of his life, not that he regretted sacrificing himself. Sorry if I worded it badly.

>How many times has violence in the real world been linked to videogames versus rape?
Jesus Christ. Are you one of those retards who thinks there's a causal relationship between playing violent games and being a gangbanger or some stupid shit? How many times has this shit been disproven? Are you literally a soccer mom from 2005?
>You're implying that consensual sex is worse than killing somebody.
No, I'm not brainlet. Please read carefully and stop making blanket reactionary assumptions.
>You sound like a leftist faggot.
And you sound like a retard who can't understand things outside of his herd mentality frame. You also sound like a faggot to boot.

ok faggot

Attached: 1550165523860.jpg (1920x1080, 421K)

the gameplay was WAY worse than story

You're the one that mentioned sex in the media is more harmful than violence, leftist. Apparently there's a correlation to rape in the real world and videogames.
Personally I don't see the link between the two. Are you against sex in GTA too?

An interesting study would be to see the games collections of murderers.
I would wager that EA Sports gamers would be at the top of the pile.

But you admit to being that same guy?
This is the first rdr thread I've been in here, but im having trouble believing you over the other guy.

Hope she slobs on your knob man you need something better to do.

>A couple off-hand comments/jokes about how Arthur's a bad guy
>"They clearly indicate that he regrets everything and detests his entire life as an outlaw!"
You're reading to deep into every little thing he says
>John caring about Abigail and Jack doesn't equate to regretting his past, how is this even a functional point to you?
How the fuck does him sacrificing himself to save his family not show his regret for past actions? He was making up for putting them in that position in the first place, if anything, the fact that he cares enough for them to do something like that is the ultimate indicator of his regrets.
>What I'm really sorry about is the fact that I appear to have found myself talking to a chimp who somehow learned how to type.
You're the fucking retard posting simple off-hand quotes like "we're bad men" as if they mean Arthur is a suicidal emo who wants to shoot himself for being a bad guy.

>can't fuck Karen
>can't fuck Mary Beth
>can't fuck Sadie
>can't even get a handy from the bath women
immersion ruined

Does Rockstar want me to play the game my way or their way? Hard to tell.

>You're the one that mentioned sex in the media is more harmful than violence
Yes, thank you for pointing out an obvious truth already known to both of us. You have a keen eye.
> Apparently there's a correlation to rape in the real world and videogames.
Personally I don't see the link between the two.
Who the fuck brought up rape? You argue like a damn schizo. I never mentioned rape and it has nothing to do with my argument.
>Are you against sex in GTA too?
>point out a true observation that sex in media is more damaging than violence in media to society
>HURR DURR YOU MUST BE AGAINST THIS AND THAT HURR
Its like you can't even open your faggot mouth without inventing a new strawman.

fuck off the gameplay was awful

You're literally too retarded to be worth debating, post your obligatory "you conceeded!!" post and move along.

>YOU MUST BE AGAINST THIS AND THAT
Please tell me and everybody else in this thread what the difference is between having sex with hooker in 1899 and having sex with a hooker in the 21st century is.

Also, why is it ok to have a sex with a hooker in GTA, but wrong in RDR?

>Please tell me and everybody else in this thread what the difference is between having sex with hooker in 1899 and having sex with a hooker in the 21st century is.
Ooh I know this one, listen up everybody. It's a two century difference!

>Hope she slobs on your knob man
Oh yeah, she's a champ in sucking dick. Really sweet in general too.

The bath women seem to be implied to give you a touch on the weewee when you select the leg rub option but they should let the girl rub on the leg for longer.

I'm not the only guy that complains about not being able to have sex with hookers in RDR2 but I do admit I have brought it up a lot of times in the past. Overall I like the game a ton though, shot up into being one of my all time favorites.

Attached: 1548277688990.jpg (1920x1080, 326K)

Wow, you are an even bigger faggot than I expected. What a pussy ass way of admitting that you were wrong and have no argument.

Attached: 151572086411.gif (190x200, 2.56M)

No AIDS in 1899.

I didn't say it was right or wrong in either one you retard, holy kek. I said that sex in media is more damaging than violence in media. I've never seen someone miss the point this hard, post your IQ

Hard to feel sympathy for a mass murderer.
Realistic stories in shooters were a mistake.

I hope that user learned a valuable lesson. If you engage with retarded autists, they'll talk in circles and deny all arguments you bring to the table until they outlast you and claim victory. Shame he got suckered into wasting his time. You will now claim we're the same person but if he has any sense he won't post again to prove you wrong

Good boy

i hope you get into a car crash avatarfag

You say "murderer" but I say a Social Justice Paladin. SJP if you will.

Attached: cowboy_wisdom_c.jpg (3873x1986, 1.17M)

Not him, but I'm interested in hearing your reasons that sex in media is actually more harmful. He is unable to find the right way to get you to explain these points so I'm just gonna ask you to elaborate. I dont really want to argue about it, just want to hear your point of view. IMO normalizing sexuality is better for a humans mental health than repressing it. I dont believe this has to be mutually exclusive from guiding sexuality with morality either.

I can't tell you how nice it is to encounter a sane human once in a while. Thanks for being you user. Definitely learned my lesson. Pearls before swine, right?

Your extreme butt-hurt is only making me grow stronger, please continue

Attached: Tom Cruise 4.jpg (500x333, 35K)

It's my fault anyway user. I was the idiot who started the morality debate and set him to screeching, but I gave up halfway through the chain and went to play Dragon's Dogma. At least you tried

The retard said that implementing sex in RDR2 is a bad thing, because it's "harmful". Yet, having sex in GTA is perfectly ok. Personally, I think both scenarios in both games are ok and fit the theme of a criminal/outlaw. I'm just trying to understand his logic.
I mentioned GTA. I asked you since you're against sex in RDR, are you against sex in GTA?
you replied with this:
>HURR DURR YOU MUST BE AGAINST THIS AND THAT HURR
This green text literally implies that you aren't against sex in GTA. So, back to the original question: why is having sex with hookers in GTA ok, but having sex with hookers in RDR bad?

Not that user but you 2 (if not a samefag) are embarrassing yourselves

cringe

Attached: Tom cruise (2).jpg (3000x1887, 923K)

I have been here 13 years, butbarely come here anymore because of this shit. This shithole takes sophistry to a new level.

Unlikely since I don't own a car and use public transport. I have to drive in my job occasionally but only short distances generally.

Attached: 1548276205520.jpg (1920x1080, 535K)

I think you need to re-read your own posts and re-evaluate what you think is cringey, because you being this upset after backing out yourself is extremely cringey, and pretty funny.

imagine being so deprived of attention in real life you shit up innocent threads on a indian totem pole appreciation website with shitty opinions and the same 3 images

now this is actually cringe-worthy.

Appreciate the curiosity and non-judgmental attitude. The brief case I'll make is as follows.
Sex in media is more damaging than violence in media because sex in media actively degrades the sexual morality of the population exposed to it. This in turn weakens monogamy and marriage. This is a bad thing for society because marriage is the center of the social contract that the tribe makes with the individual man. Here are some quick points:
>The instinctual desire of a man, and his preferred end-game, is to find a loyal wife and raise a family with her. Society, the tribe, civilization etc. capitalize on this by making him a deal: if the man utilizes his productive energies for the good of the tribe, the tribe will then arrange that situation for him. Weakening the tribe's ability to uphold their half of the deal weakens man's investment in the tribe.
Indeed this is why so many men are "checking out" of the workforce today. If a good wife and a family doesn't seem like a reasonable expectation then there is little incentive to engage in production.
>We also know from various studies that the best environment for a child to be raised in (best, as in most conducive to health, success, and emotional contentedness) is a two-parent household, with a mother and father who are in a loving relationship. Therefore damaging monogamy also damages children.
This has been noted by various cultures for thousands of years. Even in the Bhagavad Gita, Krisha tells Arjuna that if the sexual morals of society decays bad offspring will result and the end fruit will be that society's decline and downfall.
>Women who have multiple partners before marriage are significantly more likely to divorce their spouse and also significantly more likely to report lower life satisfaction and happiness later in life than their less promiscous counterparts.
Turns out what is good for men is also good for women, and also good for society at large. Cont.

A little long, but one of the best. Arthur is probably the best protagonist that a game has produced.

Attached: 1550154894759.jpg (1920x1080, 285K)

For these and other reasons, which follow similar logic, sex in media is harmful to society because it encourages a loosening of sexual morals. However if I had to have a position on sex in media I would say it should be fine for adults but I would advise keeping it away from impressionable kids.
If you're curious look up how porn is used as a weapon to destablize nations and cultures as a great example of how destructive it can be over long periods of time.
To turn to violence in media, I would put forth the notion that it is actually a positive thing. Men naturally have a desire to participate in violence and that desire results in our modern sports and our representations of violence. This helps to discharge our natural violent tendencies, which is also why you see stats that the majority of people who play violent games (practically fucking everyone) never go on to commit a violent crime. There is no causal relationship here. This is why men wrestle, box, engage in physical or violent contest with each other, etc. It is healthy and beneficial to express these desires but in the right context.

>Half of those quotes aren't from Arthur
I know it's pretty late in the game but yeah. Arthur always rubs off as though he hates the situation he's stuck in.

Attached: Red-Dead-Redemption-2_20181118124307.png (2560x1440, 2.93M)

Not sure if you tards know how to read timestamps, but yes he was another poster. I was thanking someone for being a rational human, don't give a shit what brainlets like you lot think.

Here's a lot of image md5's to filter if you want to stop seeing his posts
pastebin.com/r6Ep94dN

Best to stop responding to him

Also, the last thing I'll say is this:
>normalizing sexuality is better for a humans mental health than repressing it
Showing a ton of sex in media all the time isn't "normalizing it" and understanding that it should be kept back at time in place isn't "repressing it". That would be like saying that me not beating my coworker to death is "repressing violence" and that I should do so to "normalize it".
The truth about humanity is that all of our drives and desires are good so long as they are channeled appropriately. Violence, sex, anger, compassion, none of these things are good or bad in and of themselves. Rather they should be understood as forces that should be applied to correctly to reach desired outcomes. Sometimes it is right to do violence, often it is not. Sometimes it is right and good to be sexually free, other times it is not. The case I'm making is that traditional notions of sexual morality are beneficial for the goals of society and that our ancestors were much more wise in these matters than we suppose.
Thanks for reading/considering.

cringe

I know you probably feel better about yourself with that recent blog post of yours, but playing videogames doesnt release violent or sexual tension. It's a fucking videogame and immersion is what matters here. Your entire post is invalid and hypocritical, because you're completely ok with sex and porn in GTA.
Nice try though, leftist faggot lmao

>killing good
>sex bad
>kill your enemies
>leave their women unharmed
Pic unrelated
Retard of the year award. kek

Attached: The_landing_of_Vikings_on_America.jpg (366x480, 55K)

>a regurgitated amalgam of every maintream western film made in the past 40 years
I wish

I had a feeling this was what you meant.

Call me an idealist, but I don't think that normalizing sex needs to mean we are weakening monogamy. Granted there are sure to be people who are unable to fight nature and want lots of partners, it's just the way we evolved.

reminder that Yea Forums worships a game with shitty gameplay, empty open world with shitty tedious sidequests only because of a butt

>passe
>amalgam
you use these words as if you understand them. Also user, you do realise the Western Genre is one of the most strict in its form and execution? The themes of man in nature, but at the same time against nature. Man's lust for gold. Enough never being enough. Freedom or death. Each outlaw must fight his own demons. Even the white hat for Micah and the black hat for Arthur that always represented the law and the outlaw. Westerns are like Haiku, they are very strict in their form, so to say its an amalgam of Western is to say it's the best creafted Western in the last 40 years, not that its cliched.

Only zoomers defend this game. No sane adult is in favor of forced walking and pressing RT twice to fire your gun. There's a reason why it didn't win GOTY.

>Call me an idealist, but I don't think that normalizing sex needs to mean we are weakening monogamy
I wish I could agree with you and I used to but the statistics tell a very different story my friend. I was actually swayed to this belief by another poster on Yea Forums a while ago. Used to have your mindset.
Appreciate you being polite and considering. If you want to discuss this further I'm down, if not I'd encourage you to keep this argument in mind and see if its proven or disproven by your own experience and research.

Lmao Iike now you brought it back to that same strawman.
You sure showed him. Can I book you for parties?

>Truly the jewiest cowboy
I knew there was something I couldn't put my finger on about him. Thanks for scratching my itch user.

>Karen
She's a side piece and game for a laugh, for sure. Would not mary though. Lest I was up for the challenge of taming those tittays and getting here to live the good motherly life, that is.

at this point zoomers just do what Yea Forums wants them to do
just like basedboys, cucks, normies, chads, roasties, etc...

It's the only worthwhile thing in this game. It's so good in fact, that it carries the entire game. If only the mission design, gunplay, and basically every other feature wasn't shitty, it would be a game worth remembering.

theres this game called Read Dead Redemption 1

this, autistic people cant into subtext and need everything spelling out apparently
WELL ABIGALE LETS GO HOME, I HAVE DEEP ROOTED FEARS THAT THE MARSHALLS WILL COME FOR US BUT DESPITE THIS I WILL RAISE YOU AS BEST I CAN

agree, immersion falls under story for me, so while i like it as a cowboy sim and its an 8/10 in my book, stomping around and shooting people doesnt carry the game at all. guns are literally tools to be used when needed, i feel no desire to actively try and kill people
i spent my last days in rdr2 just looking for landmarks and cool screenshot locations