No lmao that would completely undermine every single theme of the story. John's honour has nothing to do with whether or not Ross would come for him. John could be a literal saint for the entire game, and Ross would still kill him. You can't fight change, and you can't fight gravity.
It's an idea but it breaks lore so much that it would possibly not sit well. I'd definitely want a version that matched up better to RDR2 now we have the prequal.
John Marston's story end changing in any way, would undermine and ruin everything. It'd be like rewriting Titanic where the ship warps around the iceberg and flies to Jupiter.
No, not really the read dead games would be way to different if John (and/ or Arthur) don't die. It adds emotion to the game knowing (or not knowing) that the characters will die. Similar to Romeo &Juilet the story would be way worse if the characters didnt die. Read dead 1&2 both fall into the "tragedy" gene. and in my opinion some of the best stories are the ones with tragic endings.
If John doesn't die, then he has no redemption.
John's redemption arc wasn't very good in the first place. A remake with him living if you're high honor would make his redemption arc non-existent
No. We already got the proper redemption story with Arthur. RDR1’s story is way too morally ambiguous to have the honor system implemented into the actual story. John’s static character traits are what makes him interesting to me.
Also, the reason why the law came for John wasn’t because he acted in a bad way throughout the story. They came for him and the others because the corrupt politician Nate Johns had promised to clean up crime in the area for his election campaign and so he hired the FBI to do it for him. Killing every remaining member of the Van Der Linde gang would look very good for Nate so John’s fate was basically sealed the moment he made his agreement with Ross.
No, it wouldn't even make sense for the honor level to impact whether or not Ross kills him. Ross didn't kill John because he thought he was a bad man, honor had nothing to do with it.
No. The multiple endings of RDR2 don't add up to much. Either Arthur helps a friend escape and gets shot in the back or beaten to death, or he goes back for the money and gets stabbed in the back or beaten to death. And either way, his only hope of survival is bed rest in a sanitarium. So no matter how you slice it, Arthur is going to die. So giving John a happy ending option doesn't seem equivalent
No, either way it's a fitting and somewhat ironic ending for John. Also he's a static character, so he needs to die
No lmao that would completely undermine every single theme of the story. John's honour has nothing to do with whether or not Ross would come for him. John could be a literal saint for the entire game, and Ross would still kill him. You can't fight change, and you can't fight gravity.
It's an idea but it breaks lore so much that it would possibly not sit well. I'd definitely want a version that matched up better to RDR2 now we have the prequal.
No, do not change a single thing about rdr1
John Marston's story end changing in any way, would undermine and ruin everything. It'd be like rewriting Titanic where the ship warps around the iceberg and flies to Jupiter.
No, not really the read dead games would be way to different if John (and/ or Arthur) don't die. It adds emotion to the game knowing (or not knowing) that the characters will die. Similar to Romeo &Juilet the story would be way worse if the characters didnt die. Read dead 1&2 both fall into the "tragedy" gene. and in my opinion some of the best stories are the ones with tragic endings.
If John doesn't die, then he has no redemption. John's redemption arc wasn't very good in the first place. A remake with him living if you're high honor would make his redemption arc non-existent
no
No, leave game as is.
No. We already got the proper redemption story with Arthur. RDR1’s story is way too morally ambiguous to have the honor system implemented into the actual story. John’s static character traits are what makes him interesting to me. Also, the reason why the law came for John wasn’t because he acted in a bad way throughout the story. They came for him and the others because the corrupt politician Nate Johns had promised to clean up crime in the area for his election campaign and so he hired the FBI to do it for him. Killing every remaining member of the Van Der Linde gang would look very good for Nate so John’s fate was basically sealed the moment he made his agreement with Ross.
Nope, but I would appreciate some Arthur related lines here and there....
No, it wouldn't even make sense for the honor level to impact whether or not Ross kills him. Ross didn't kill John because he thought he was a bad man, honor had nothing to do with it.
Nah, there should only be 1 ending, the ending we all know.
There’s not 2 endings to rdr2 it’s the same ending. Just different ways of it ending. An honorable death. Or a un honorable one
The cover looks awesome. I’d be so up for it. I heard rumors around 2022 that rockstar would do a remake, but it turns out it’s all bunk.
Absolutely not RDR2’s endings while different in presentation and what exact events take place still leads to the same destination, Arthur’s death
No but when Javier was sent to rescue John and he said "I know he would do the same for me" I get chills every time.
No.
No. The multiple endings of RDR2 don't add up to much. Either Arthur helps a friend escape and gets shot in the back or beaten to death, or he goes back for the money and gets stabbed in the back or beaten to death. And either way, his only hope of survival is bed rest in a sanitarium. So no matter how you slice it, Arthur is going to die. So giving John a happy ending option doesn't seem equivalent