My position is that there’s no statute of limitations on spoilers, particularly when it’s so easy to spoiler-tag stuff. Just because ESB came out in 1980 and has the most known twist of all time, does that make the expression on these kids’ faces any less precious? Shouldn’t they get the chance to be surprised?
That’s precisely the problem. If it was a sequel, the events of the first one would be a given.
Fine fine, took me a few seconds to edit.
Thanks! No worries, but spoilers are like my pet peeve, so sorry if I came off a bit strongly.
I disagree, I believe it’s silly to do this silly spoiler dance beyond a certain point, I think a viewer/reader/player should take personal responsibility for their own comfort level with spoilers. If you’re extremely spoiler-phobic, take steps to avoid them.
Having said that, there are reasonable steps that people can take. I think we would all agree that open spoilers for RDR2 would be uncool, considering we’re all playing along. But we’ll also be playing at individual paces, so someone might mention things that someone else hasn’t seen. Take reasonable care.
But this is a sequel - it’s got a 2 in the title, for Christ’s sake, and I’m willing to bet it makes thematic references to the first game. If you’re spoiler phobic enough to worry about events from the first game in this thread, then I would propose that this thread is not for you.
I felt the rage. ;)
Edward Scissor Bands.
Humphrey Bogart doesnt end up with Ingrid Bergman at the end of Casablanca, and Rosebud is a sled. There, now it’s all out there on the table.
I thought this article in Vox was interesting in light of the characters in RDR2. The article is a bit graceless, as Vox articles tend to be, but this is an interesting point:
The image of the white cowboy reproduces and romanticizes the mythic iconography of settler colonialism and white supremacy. After all, we know that most cowboys weren’t heroic and that a very large number of them were Latino or black. We know that the land that the cowboy worked had been stolen from Native Americans. The myth was created to obscure all of that.
I really like Charlie as a character, kind of wish he’d been the main character instead of Arthur. His struggle to work out his identity feels authentic. It seems like Rockstar has made a significant effort toward authenticity in how it’s portraying people.
There actually is a whole thread for this, if that’s what floats your boat.
Crap, I think I’ve been hit with the missing characters bug, I don’t see John or Abigail anywhere in the camp in chapter two. What I’m not clear about is whether this will cause any real problems - sounds like others who reported the bug say the characters will return for missions that require them, then disappear again.
I feel like putting spoilers for a previous game in the sequel’s thread is fine, given the only people that would come to said thread either already played it or don’t plan on playing it.
In the rare situation where someone has yet to finish RDR but they are actively going to try it, they should NOT be in the follow up game’s thread at all. Especially if said game is a damned prequel.
No, I get this. It’s mentioned a million times.
But the character model used for Dutch sure as hell does not look like he’s significantly older than Arthur.
There is that. Also, I feel like Arthur has this gruff old man voice, like he’s been yelling at the top of his lungs for thirty years, plus he just looks weathered like an actual cowboy. Like someone else mentioned, I feel like we’re intended to see a disparity in the lives of the two men, even though they’re in the same gang.
Don’t forget the 10 packs a day he smokes for the collectible cards. ;)
It sounded like he was only 5 years older, from the wiki info @lordkosc posted. That seems possible to me. You slick back Arthur’s hair and give him a shave and except for maybe worse complexion than Dutch, he doesnt’s look older to me, at least.
That reminds me, I finally was catching up on Old Man Logan (comic) last night and I found myself reading Logan in Arthur’s voice, it was perfect.
So, let me get this straight. I’m forced to go on a mission to, we’ll just say ‘save’ someone, and in so doing you end up with a $300 bounty that effectively either walls you out of an entire area of the map, or pretty much robs you of your entire stash of cash? What the hell kind of game design is that? It’d be one thing if you got some money out of it to pay it (or at least most of it) off, but damn.
The little things are really starting to turn me off of this game. Which I hope reverses, as RDR may be my favorite game of all time.
Yeah , but the game gives you at least 2 decent opportunities, at least it did for me, shorty after that mission you mentioned to earn $300-600 in cash in areas where I didn’t have a bounty on my head.
You have to admit that for the events that caused that $300 bounty, I actually expected to have the area be listed as wanted dead or alive. :P
I actually went up that way in my game before paying off the bounty, and it was tense as hell, you could see teams of 3-4 bounty hunters roaming the roads and area, and it was fun to work my way past them.
I actually really like the bounty. It’s an incentive not to kill people unnecessarily, something Rockstar has never done before. You can get out of that mission with a lower bounty if you avoid shooting as much as possible.
I think I came away from it with like a $150 bounty that I was able to pay off almost right away.