Why are the MAJOR Antagonists RARELY seen in the game? | Red Dead Redemption 2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- Why are the major antagonists of Red Dead Redemption 2 such as Colm O'driscoll, Leviticus Cornwall, and Agent Milton and Detective Ross. I wish we seen more of them or at least more of Colm O'Driscoll.
Join the discord here:
/ discord
Follow me on twitter:
/ cynicalgaming13
Follow me on instagram:
/ cynic.the.original
Consider supporting me on Patreon & checking out the unique perks that come with it:
/ cynictheoriginal
![DDG & G Herbo - Nosey [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9Ra0Zc2NlQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I think most of these antagonists are Dutches antagonists, not necessarily Arthur’s but Arthur just got stuck in the middle of it. I’d argue the true antagonists of the gang are Dutch and Micah.
Exactly arthur even writes saying colm essentially wasn’t his fight, sure he didn’t like him but he never felt that hatred or desire to kill him. That’s pretty much the same with the rest of the villains outside Dutch and Micah, Arthur didn’t care about them that much he was more focused internally on trying to keep the gang safe and to try escape the law
@@Ededdneddy9 exactly. The antagonists were always part of the main story if you pay attention. The others were only minor antagonists that could have been avoided if it hadn’t been for Dutches leadership
@@nickh495 To be completely and utterly honest, yeah. I mean Cornwall is an antagonist but he doesn't appear for more than 10 minutes in all of the game, his name and company is mentioned a lot, especially with the missions of Rains Fall and Eagle Flies, obviously, but apart from that he's not THAT important. The only reason Cornwall is antagonistic towards the gang is because Dutch "thought" it was a good idea to rob from a wealthy, successful and powerful businessman that hired a private agency to kill him, and in the way the other members of the gang. Dutch and Colm are like water and vinegar, they despise each other and they've been fighting for a LONG time, I remember in one of the side activities you can do with some gang members, you can fish with Javier near the camp in Chapter 3, in that Arthur tells a little bit of background about Dutch and Colm's disputes, it talks about how Colm and Dutch were kind of neutral towards each other, even friendly. With the pass of time, Colm became dirtier and more vile, Dutch still had some morals and lines he wouldn't cross. Supposedly, Colm r@ped and killed people, that's mentioned when he's going to get hanged. Javier mentions about The O'Driscoll killing a wagon full of "children" and "women".
@@Ededdneddy9 the only reason he wanted Colm dead was because it would have made Dutch happy and when he doesn't really like Dutch anymore he stops caring about Colm's gang like being able to say no to finishing them off
They're the main Antagonist besides Milton
Abigail had to kill Milton, he was just about to tell Arthur she’d been the rat from the start. it’s over looked but Milton actually says that Mica’s only been talking since guarma.
Video idea: What if chapter 3 never went wrong? (you could basically make a video on this for every chapter but i'm using chapter 3 as an example) so like what if the gang played the Grays and the Brathwaite's and stole all their money, gold etc. Jack would have never been kidnapped by the Braithwaite's, chapter 4 probably wouldn't happen. The pinkertons wouldn't find the camp as fast. All that stuff would be interesting to think about. Hell, you could do this for any portion of the game, what if Blackwater didn't go wrong, what if John never took revenge on Micah. I think this would be crazy to think about.
If Blackwater went right and no one died then they’d all be living their best lives far out west and would probably all retire and that’s that. If John never went after Micah then the entirety of RDR1 would never happen, John would be happily living with his family on their ranch although he might have some trouble paying off the bank loan, although bounty hunting with Sadie seemed to be going well for him so I imagine he’d just be doing that until the loan was paid
Doesn't really work though cause in the end there was no gold. There's like, a single gold bar that MIGHT be the family gold, it was never enough to actually do anything with
Short answer, Micah and Dutch are the true antagonists of the game and their always lurking around slowly getting built up narratively by the smaller antagonists sprinkled throughout the game.
Cornwall's face when his nemesis Wheatroof starts bankrolling the gang:
Main antagonist was the gang members themselves that's why
colm is also seen when he kidnaped arthur
Well at least the Lemoyne raiders are absolutely everywhere.
Bruh Dutch is there the whole game
Rufus appears in more games than Arthur
Rufus>>>>Arthur
Because the main antagonist of the game is actually time/progress. That's why even though you kill these "main antagonists" it's still a lost cause. I think if they were constantly there in the game, you'd feel much more accomplished when they died, but that's not really what the game is about. Killing Cornwall is insignificant, there will always be another man hungry for absolute power. Killing Milton means nothing, he's just one agent. There's Ross and any number of other agents to fill that role. Not seeing the physical antagonists all that much is simply a nod to the fact that you can't see what you're actually fighting against. Arthur's TB is just a smaller example of the main theme of the game. You can't see it, but the result is inevitable, just like their entire way of life. Dutch says you can't fight gravity. You can't fight time, either.
We can't fight change.... We can't fight nothing. My whole life, all I ever did was fight
Nice expleniation
Colm's death should mean a lot because it was essentially the end of the O'Driscolls, but they aren't even a threat, especially at that point
Better yet because time means change
"You can't fight change" means way much more with rdr2 context
Spot on
Imagine if, when cornwall died, his brother wheatwall came for revenge.
nah im more worried about oatwall
Nah nah it'd be wheatbrick
Wheatfloor
@@pelinalwhitestrake9306 Barleyroof
Oatroof
Honestly, Dutch is the main antagonist. He may not be the direct enemy, but he does cost the majority of problems you have to face throughout the game
As Arthur said, "we saw Colm swing okay but the whole thing ain't gonna save us." It wasn't the old days anymore where Colm was the gang's biggest problem
I think the lack of screen time makes the antagonists more mysterious and therefore feel more threatening. For example, we barely get to meet Colm, but his presence is felt throughout the game. We see the psychological effect he has on Dutch and Kieran's death shows us how heinous Colm can be. It's up to the player to fill in the gaps and picture how monstrous the villains really are. Not only that, but the lack of screen time makes their actual appearances feel more grand and memorable.
it's common sense like if you're the leader of a gang and there is rival gang near your location you don't show up most of the time like "hey guy i'm the leader, put a bullet in my head"
I just picture Ross and Milton arguing constantly. Ross always gave off the vibe of being an asshole to work with.
I think one moment for Colm worth mentioning is Kieran’s death. Yeah, Colm wasn’t directly shown, but it served as another reminder of what a heartless bastard Colm was.
With very few exception, Kieran wasn’t a violent man, he was peace loving and he liked looking after the horses. To murder him in such a cold fashion, it was bound to make many hate the man even more than before.
Kieran technically was a traitor to the o Driscoll
@@theoutsiderjess1869
I don't think he was ever loyal to them, to begin with. It would be like if he let Arthur get killed, at the Cabins, it was forced on him. After that point, though, Arthur gave him an out, he chose to stay with them.
Kieran was never loyal but he was still part of the O Driscols. Doesn't matter how or why he was a part of but he was there. He then disappeared and was found to be hanging out with the Dutch Gang. Kieran is now a Traitor in Colm's eyes. Just look at real life Gangs to know how Traitors are dealt with. @@VGamingJunkieVT
I would love to have seen a more in depth representation of Fussar's tyranny. Guarma could've been rdr2's Mexico. If we saw the actual destruction inflicted on the population of Guarma by Fussar and his greed he wouldve been a much better villain.
Micha Bell is Arthur Morgan’s opposite and main antagonist . Dutch is John’s opposite and main antagonist. Micha represents the worst of Arthur and Dutch represents the worst of John. Arthur and John’s character growth throughout the story is them fighting their own instincts so they don’t become like Micha and Dutch.
Micah is absent for most of Chapter 2 and is pretty much idle in 3 and 4. It’s really not until Chapter 6 when he’s in your face and at his most insufferable.
To me Micah is the main antagonist and is always in the game. The rest are minor antagonists so they don't need much more time than that
to me the whole o’driscolls rivalry only persists when we’re in their territory. the farther the story goes along post Kieran’s death it makes sense why they’re absent. and another reason is that fighting them just didn’t matter after a certain point
Micah wasn’t an antagonist until late chapter 5/ chapter 6
Dutch is the real antagonist. Micah is just the comic relief.
dutch is the antagonist, the others are pretty much just plot devices to make dutch insane
@@lucasludwig2347 Dutch is a supporting character (even if he turns out bad). He is not a villain and not even an antagonist
In main R* games you rarely interact with major antagonists anyway (except when they're "mission givers" or "friend of a mission giver" i.e. Big Smoke and Dimitri).
Dude haven't u seen, in rdr2 leaks the game was supposed to have John as the main antagonist and he gives each mission to Arthur and then Arthur gives it to dutch and therefore the van DER linde gang is actually supposed to be the John Marston gang
@@waadi3ach569What?
@@LedZedd yeah not my fault ur completely oblivious to the leaks
@@waadi3ach569Asks a question for clarification, gives a dickish response 💀
@@waadi3ach569Go back under your bridge.
Maybe the real villains were the times changing.
I'm pretty sure all of this can be summed up by The Boss's quotes in MGS3. Or Dutch's demise in the first game
Maybe we're the real villains😭😭😭
I think Abigail being the one to kill Milton actually did symbolize how bad he was. She wasn't a killer she was a thief.
I think that the mods that make the O'Driscolls more common across the map along with their ambushes really makes their presence more felt. The vanilla game has these things but not enough to the extent of mods.
After you kill a bunch off them in Six point cabin, then when they want to rob you and there small camps and you go in chapter 4 to there hideout for taking revenge for Kieran (I don't that everytime) Also the doctor business in Valentine would be closed because off us. There presence is felt enough. I feel more Pinkerton checkpoints would make more sense afther the Strawberry and Valentine shootout.
@@Kvs-vf9ntyes, the pinkertons NEEDED to be more common in freeroam
The gang itself is its own antagonist. Through their bar fights and Micah's little killing spree in Strawberry, the Pinkertons have no problem locating them in Chapter 2, causing them to move Southward. Dutch thought he was smarter than the Grays and Braitwaithes. He should have played one side or the other, not try to fool them both at the same time. He underestimated the size of their resources and their connections which is why they ended up infront of Bronte. Bronte made the mistake of underestimating them but only because of how dumb the Braithwaithes made him sound. By Chapter 6, Dutch is just throwing more wood on the fire, not caring if he's put too much on it already.
In my first playtrough, i tought that Colm just accepted his fate, but, then, i realised how much teror was in Colm's body when he realised he was going to die..
Ross, Milton, Cornwall, and Fussar were never the villains. The real villains presented themselves in the later chapters when the gang members started to turn on each other. When Dutch conforms to Micah's debauchery and pressure and other gang members, like Bill and Javier follow suit, that is when Arthur realizes he was fighting alongside what he had wanted to destroy for all his life.
“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”
― Friedrich W. Nietzsche
Short answer: Because Dutch, and Arthur’s inner demons as represented by Dutch, are the primary antagonists.
Milton, Cornwall, Colm, etc all serve to show Arthur what Dutch’s influence has to offer him. Milton as the lawman and Colm as the man who met his fate at the end of a lawman’s rope are clear representations of the risks that Dutch’s lawman lifestyle poses. Cornwall is a representation of Dutch’s ambitions. Arthur can either choose Dutch’s ambitious plans as a lawman, or he can choose a simpler, more honest life, like what Hosea wanted but gave up, what Sadie lost, and as offered by Mary.
Dutch is the main antagonist. Every other antagonist (Mary is technically an antagonist because she is a direct obstacle to Arthur’s path and choices) serves to show specific facets of the conflict between Arthur and Dutch.
Edit: Quick addition: Colm’s relative absence from the game IS what makes his death so powerful. You don’t like him because Dutch has a bad history with him, but as the player he’s kinda insignificant. That allows the player to focus on, and empathize with, Colm’s fear and despair at the end, instead of reveling in sweet justice the way the player might with Mrs Braithwaite. You see a pathetic terrified man, and you see that following in Dutch’s footsteps as a criminal could eventually make Arthur into a pathetic, terrified man as well.
I think the story demonstrates how other people's mistakes and problems end up being your own problems if you go along unquestioningly.
By chapter 6, Arthur almost has that detachment and independence to make his own choices and whilst he can't outrun his path, you can see his own identity and agency develop as he stands as his own man.
This is something common in games and i think most media in fiction.
The main antagonist spends most of the time unseen until the protagonist can defeat them.
Because they're not the main antagonists of the game. The main antagonists are the dying Old West catching up to the gang, and Micah/Dutch.
I played rdr2 like crazy when it first came out but took a couple years off after being disappointed with online but lately I’ve gotten back into it heavily and playing story again and these videos have helped scratched the itch I’ve had getting back into all of it great videos man
I would suggest when you're in Chapter 3 and played the New South, and the mission with Sadie to make a save so you can allways come back to there where the gang's still happy, and at a beautifull location. Or if you want the full gang there just save before the mission off being captured by the O'driscolls. Then Micah can't annoy anyone because he needs to give the mission and the whole gang is at camp. I personally have a safe there afther the horse job with John and Javier, and the burning the field job. It's because I need the bandit equipment for my outfits. Also I didn't explore Saint Denis yet, just explored west Elizabeth a bit, Amberino full and like a bit more than half off New Hannover.
It's allways fun to play in chapter 3 when everything finally can be done. The best camp location too imo.
I actually agree with this video.
I know that people are defending the game saying they weren't major villains etc.
But i feel like people tend to overlook rdr2's flaws in general. It's an amazing game and one of my personal favorites.
But this is one of those flaws. Those villains had no impact on me whatsoever. When they died i didn't feel anything. I wasn't satisfied in anyway.
Compared to to the first game Dutch's impacted me because of what he represented. The way he goes without shooting at john showed that there was still care in him, not only that but he tries to warn him. And ross' death was one of the most satisfying death i had the pleasure to participate.
Maybe there were too many villains to focus on but i think the game is long enough to give them a couple more scenes and more satisfying endings (getting to actually some of them ourselves like ross).
Anyway great video and i really enjoyed the ideas and solutions you were giving.
Another most likely explanation would because: we only see the story play out when only Arthur is present. Obviously since we play as Arthur throughout the story, we only see what he sees. Which isn’t rare for most video games. Like, we don’t see the three antagonizing that much cuz Arthur didn’t see them. We don’t see how Jack got kidnapped because Arthur never saw it. We don’t see how John and Hosea were captured because again, Arthur never saw it.
So the point is is that this game relies only on what the character we play as sees, sometimes not letting us see something we could since it’s not shown to the player
Colm and all the others are Dutch’s antagonists, Arthur is just stuck in the middle of it. Micah was an enemy of Arthur sure, but he gets killed by John. Arthur’s antagonist is himself and figuring out what man he wants to be with the time he has left before dying from TB. That’s the entire point of the story, if you paid attention. Colm, Cornwall, Milton etc. are just plot tools really.
Micah is the only true antagonist. There are other “villians,” but they’re just shitty people that Dutch hates, yk? They’re there to show us who Dutch is, and how he handles his emotions. Also, there’s a theme of all the villains falling into apathy, and the heroes rising to empathy. Milton just shoots an old guy cuz he’s so mad he just doesn’t care. Dutch shoots Cornwall cuz he’s so mad he just doesn’t fucking care.
That's easy, I think. It's because dutch is the true main antagonist, and you see him pretty much for the whole story... The conflict is man vs man, man vs nature, man vs himself..... It was written well
the real antagonist was Dutch, Micah slowly poisoning him and turning him from reason and against arthuer and the gang
I think its not that bad, that Abigail shoots Milton, it shows how weak Arthur has become and that he might be the One needing help, although he is the one helping the Others constantly. Its also a bit of reversed poetic justice, as Edgar Ross will later be the one to kill Abigails Husband John and she killed Milton (obviously, Ross didnt know that)
It's also symbolic in a biblical sense because for the wicked to be killed by a woman is considered a punishment from God.
Abagail and Jack were the least experienced criminals of the gang. Yet Abagail killed Milton and Jack killed Ross.
I would’ve like to see them more but not for them to see us more, if you see what I’m saying.
Outside of Colm, I don’t think running into these protagonists more would benefit the storyline.
Do you mean antagonists?
I don't think it benefits any character. I think part of their ambiguous nature is what makes them more compelling.
Micah and Dutch are the main antagonist. And they got plenty of screen time
I feel like the only person thats an actual antagonist to Arthur is a certain Rat
Because in reality they aren’t the antagonists, or just not the primary antagonists.
The primary antagonist is Micah. He is the character diametrically opposed to Arthur in every way (more obvious with high honor, but still there in low honor).
The main antagonist are in the game the whole time, be it in person or symbolically. For starters Dutch and Micah are the two main baddies for obvious reasons. But the other two antagonist is the changing world, pushing the outlaw way of life out favor and us (the gang) collectively standing to appose this progress presented in the changing society and the Pinkertons themselves. All the while hurting a lot of people in the process. The whole point all along was to show us that we were the agents of our own undoing and we were every bit as bad as our enemies. Notice everyone that made it out alive did so because they reformed and found an honest way of life? Everyone else died the way they lived.
Was there even an O'Driscoll equivalent to arthur morgan ?
Pfft. Yeah right. Theres only one Arthur Morgan, and no equals
Yeah it was Tom
The fat man Sadie kills
Either Paul or fat Tom
All these antagonists are really Dutch’s. Arthur’s antagonists are time, having wasted his life, Micah, and eventually Dutch. These antagonists, and his inability to deal with them are just the sources of pressure that push Dutch over the edge
It's because there are far too many antagonists -
Colm, Cornwall, Milton, Ross, Micah, Dutch, Cathrine Braithwaite and her sons, Sherrif Gray and his family, Fusar, Bronte, Archibald Mcgregor, Colonel Favours, the Murfree gang and the Lemoyne Raiders are all enemies/antagonists abd theres not enough time in the game to have a compelling story with all of them. At least in RD1 its only Dutch, Bill, Javier, De Santa, Allende and Ross
Before even watching the video, I can already tell you that my opinion is that it leaves up their ruthlessness up to your imagination. It’s like in Jaws where you don’t know what the shark looks like, and you picture this giant monster that can eat people in a single bite. Another story that reflects this is the monkey’s paw, but you never get to see the threat at the end. Your imagination can cook up a much worse image than any story could in its own.
Honestly, I'd call the overarching antagonist, the main antagonist is Leviticus Cornwall. Even though he died before the climax, because he funded the Pinkertons, had vested business interests with Fussar, had a tight grip on Mayor Lemieux and therefore influenced Bronte as well as the Braithwaites, and commissioned Colonel Favours to get the Wapati Land. Just about everything ties back to Cornwall. So, I consider him like Le Chiffre from Casino Royale. The initial force behind everything, even after he dies, his actions cause problems for the protagonists later on in the story.
Colm and Milton are not the main antagonists of the game, they are secondary antagonists. The main antagonists are obviously Micah and Dutch
I think in the case of Colm. Less is more. You hear about this guy so much, you fight his men so many times that it builds this anticipation of how bad he could be so when you finally do meet him, he lives up to his reputation as a ruthless son of a bitch. Then when Kerian's death happens, that seals the deal, we don't need anymore reasons to hate him
The reason is obvious, because it is realistic.
The Pinkertons were going to arrest them, they caught up to them or caught them in their only interactions.
Colm was a mortal enemy, whenever they saw each-other it was going to be blood.
Bronte, the Gray Family, and The Braithewaite family are uber rich and are far more significant in their own world than the gang.
Cornwall is seen quite a bit considering his world position, and we only see him due to business dealings and railroad construction in the region.
I don't think you're supposed to enjoy Colm's death. Dutch is going out of his way to put down a man he shouldn't be bothering with, he's pushing towards the depths of revenge because he can't let go.
What you felt, that fear and unease as Colm was sentenced to swing, I think that's what you're *supposed* to feel the most. The cold blade of revenge against his neck and the hollowness that comes from it for anyone who isn't invested in the actions emotionally the way Dutch and Sadie are.
They weren't the main antagonists; change was. Time. Progress.
_"You can't find change, you can't find gravity."_
the real villian is Uncles Lumbago 😢
Whilst we hardly see colm, Cornwall, or the pinkertons in the game, the shadow of these characters is cast over the whole game. You don't need to have a lot of screen time to have an impact on the narrative. take saruman in the two towers. He has less screen time than in fellowship of the ring, but he has more impact on that plot than on fellowship.
They aren't the main antagonists, we are. They're inept side characters hoping to be half as dangerously unstable as our gang is. Across four states we commit massacre after massacre, always over nonsense, never leaving a community better when we leave, always making things worse. Sure, we help the occasional individual, but by and large we ruin lives. The people we don't directly kill or rob have families that can and will confront you about it later in the game. From Arthur's perspective we don't like the way Milton and Ross handled business, but they were indisputably the good guys, and we were definitely the baddies. Hattie McCourt. The Downes. The families of the men lost in the Valentine massacre. Those men themselves. Railroad workers and passengers, lawmen doing their duty to the community. The people of Rhodes. The Grays and Braithewaits(Both groups of terrible people, but living mostly in a balance, keeping each other in check.). The people of Saint Denis and the families of the people lost. The bank's customers, who had uninsured money in those banks. Guarma was a matter of survival, forgivable, laudable even. But then they come back and go right back to robbing and murdering with impunity. We get outraged by the consequences of our actions because we didn't even consider the things we'd done. Not really, not even with Arthur reminding us constantly. Were there other antagonists? Sure, absolutely. But none so terrible as ourselves, none so destructive, none so outraged at the concept of the law chasing them for their brazen life of crime. The main antagonists were incredibly present, we lived in their camp, walked in their shoes, saw them at their deepest and most vulnerable moments.
When you kill each of them, it leads to nothing positive. I'd go as far as to argue Ross is the only one where this isn't true. When Colm is executed, the gang still falls apart, Cornwall? Gang falls apart, Milton gang falls apart, Micah, John gets a couple of years then he's used by the Government to hunt down Bill, Javier and Dutch, each of them are killed, John's usefulness had run its course so he was put down. But once Jack got vengeance against Ross. It closed the final chapter. The death of Ross has the only positive ending
"I never liked him much" I always loved that line delivered by Colm. You can FEEL the pain that line gives to Dutch that someone has moved on from something, which is something Dutch can't do.
I wholeheartedly believe Milton wasn't evil and was just doing his job and constantly getting tormented by cornwall to get the job done.
There's something milton says to cornwall that I think is extremely overlooked.
"We are doing all we can within the confines of the law."
To me, this shows that Milton had morals and actually cared about his job and not just the money he was getting. He wanted to get Dutch, but he wanted to do it the right way.
He also tells Dutch, "I'm a fan of society, flaws and all." After he says society is flawed.
He acknowledges that society has flaws, but believes its still better and safer than "the wild west"
In Milton's mind, he was just doing his job, hunting a gang of dangerous criminals, and he only became more unhinged towards the end of the game out of frustration and due to Cornwall breathing down his neck.
It makes all sense it's Abigail who silences Milton. I think more than Micah, she has more reasons to betray the gang, considering that there was in fact a rat - which is not proven and Milton words are probably just that, words -, considering she escapes the robbery of st denis unarmed, milton and ross find Arthur after Abigail asks Arthur to do something with Jack - is that just pure chance or were the Pinkertons so close to the trail of the gang in order to fin Arthur fishing so near the campsite they failed to discover? It can also be a redemption of Abigail, after she understands the Pinkertons are not to be trusted as much as the gang - the difference at this point is that ones use a badge and the gang not really, but at the end they're all murderers and hedonistic characters, as we'll continue to see in RDR1 and what the FBI does to John, using him and after the job done gunning him down. RDR2 is a very complex game, reason why it's so good, and in fact, as Arthur puts it in Annesburg when speaking to Micah and Dutch, they turned so sloppy they don't need a rat; just follow the blood trail on wherever the gangs passes on, Strawberry, Valentine, St Denis, Annesburg. In a way, all or almost all gang members are the traitor. And I also think that's what the dead rat represents in the epilogue after John killing Micah. Rockstar made a brilliant job, and all started in Blackwater where no one per se had reasons to betray the gang and yet is the first time Rockstar signals the existence of a rat. There's no way Micah would be rat by then as he, alongside Dutch, is the most individualist and self driven character with all hedonistic traits accomodated right there. Also nor Abigail at this point has no reason to do such, nor Pearson, Williamson or any any member - maybe the Callendar boys we know so few about, but they seem to lack the interest also and where not the brains but brute force, enforcers, in the gang - as that is somehow cleared during the game when they're referenced. Nice video. Cheers.
Because Red Dead Redemption isn’t a franchise about heroes and villains. There are good and bad people sure but the real antagonist in Red Dead redemption is the oppressive systems of power that drive both outlaws and lawmen to do evil things. You can kill Micah bell or Agent Ross but that won’t really change much
These are antagonistic forces but they are not the true antagonists of the story. For the protagonists they have very clear cut rivials to John Marston its Dutch Van Der Linde and to Arthur Morgan it’s Micha Bell. Dutch and Micha are the main opposing forces close to the protagonists but with opposite ideals and philosophies. They are the true opposing character dynamics in the game. Focusing the story on the gang which should be the case as it allows for great character depth for the main cast and removes any muddying of the waters of who we should be most invested in. This is all clear in the chapter 6 final where Morgan and Bell faces off followed by Marston returning and facing off with Dutch setting up for two climatic face offs which the story built up to.
I mean, the old van der linde gang members rarely appeared in rdr1. It’s just kind of a thing that most of the major antagonists don’t appear that often in these games. Barring exceptions like Ross in rdr1 and Milton and Micah in rdr2.
Nah main antagonist is Time itself, obviously the group was gettin on fine prior to the events of rdr2 we play right after a pretty rough couple of months, rdr1 your going after to ur old gang workin for the government, somthing u fought so steer clear of, throughout the entire game the narrative is that the Wild West is coming to an end, and the industrial era’s begging?… Idk just a tho ught
in short: Because they are not the real antagonists. The main "enemies" of our protagonist are Dutch (or namely: his inability to adapt and change or to simply give up) and progress, both in terms of his progressing illness and world around him.
It’s kinda the same in RDR 1, you spend a bunch of time looking for Bill, then when you get em, he’s immediately sent to the ground face first for execution
A take on this that's not as deep. The fact that they simply are supposed to lay low they stay out of the way. You're wanted from the beginning. The main antagonists lack of appearance is a direct result of being a gang on the run from the law.
because we basically play as the criminals. While we follow certain rules and codes. We are still doing bad things. I mean I shot alot of law enforcement. People that protects us normal folks.
I never considered Colm or Cornwall a mayor antagonist but rather small anoying rabbits I have to skin and cook on the way. Micah just steals the show from them.
It would be super cool if rockstar for rdr3 if it was a prequel to get to talk to these guys, especially Cornwall… seeing him as a young entrepreneur would be awesome
It’s because Dutch and Micah are the main villains, and Colm wasn’t important to Arthur.
Because they won't last long if they were, Bronte tried being seen a lot, what good it did him?
Because they're not the major antagonists. Dutch and micah are 😅
technically the main antagonists are the first people you see after the first cutscene
When I first played the game I hella thought colm was John idk why
The main antagonist appears very regularly. It's just not O'Driscoll, Milton or whomever. The main antagonist is Dutch.
Dutch is a supporting character turning bad. Not a villain and not even an antagonist for the story
Because the O'Driscolls are not the main antagonists in the game.
I'm a simple man, I see great Red Dead content, I subscribe, but it's CRIMINAL that you don't have more than 50K subscribers, incredible engaging content dude.
We see the major antagonists all the time. Dutch and later Micah.
look at it this way:
Milton gets killed by one of the ladies. Not any of the vicious outlaw killers of the gang; one of the least threatening ladies. That's pretty humiliating a death. I approve.
Abby kills Milton and Jack kills Ross. The least experienced criminals of Dutch’s gang are the ones to eventually kill the crooked law enforcers after the gang.
You get to see Colm a 4th time too when he kidnaps Arthur!
I feel like Dutch and Gary from Bully are related lmaooo
Thats because arthur can kill them without problem
rarely seen? i’ve recon we’ve had too much micah already
The hanging scene was the best scene I've ever seen in any rock star game. It's just so real. So emotional and well done. I absolutely loved it. I agree if we saw him more, it would have been Even more impactful
What do you mean? Dutch and Micah are seen all the time!
Personally I think the antagonist weren’t in the game very often becasue the gang itself Dutch specifically was the antagonist the whole time. Think about it
Because the actual main antagonists are in camp with you
i wonder if colm was as good of a gunslinger as dutch
wasnt Dutch van derlyn the main antagonist ?
It makes sense u dont just see ur ops every day
The major antagonist is Mr. Bell 🤢
Simple.
The gangs main enemy was themselves.
Who needs villain if your homie fill the role😅
Ironically enough colm in his 3 appearance was a much smarter leader than Dutch Ironically enough Dutch should have let the odrisscoll's rob the train cause if they did the heat would have been off them and they could have layed low cleanly make money then get the blackwater money sooner
It was the same way with Dutch in Red Dead 1
Ik this is a dumbass nitpick but i keep hearing youtubers call that machinegun a gatling gun cause tge characters referred to it as such, its not lol. The reason they call it a gatling is cause the maxim machinegun and the concept of a machinegun is extremely new being maybe 10 years old by the games depiction. Meanwhile the gatling gun has been a widespread weapon and known since the 1860s so when the maxim came out machinegun wasnt really in the lexicon of many outside the military and it was commonly just referred to as a gatling still but it isnt a gatling gun its just a name do to tge gatling being more recognised at the time, actial gatlings are in the first red dead however.
Which looking back its odd since by 1911 the machinegun was becoming widespread and the gatlint basically didnt exist anymore while 1899 is more in the ballpark of where id expect to see it like at least make the machinegun at shady bell and the civil war fort maxims. I was dissapointed at its lack of inlcusion in rdr2 tbh especially since they kinda botched the machinegun giving it an incredibly lame sound for shooting taking away from some.of the fun of using it
This is a nitpick id normally have myself, so i get it. I get where you’re coming from and it does make a lot of sense. I should pay more attention to the model of the gun itself. That should be the giveaway of what weapon it really is.
I find it kind of interesting how Rockstar tends to handle 'antagonists' in it's games. In GTA 3 she is your girlfriend who betrays you and then just reappears in the last like 3 or so missions at the end to sneer at you after like 17 other people have tried to have you killed for multiple other reasons. In GTA 4 it's Either Dimitri who has betrayed EVERYONE he comes across but if you FINALLY get sick of him and end him like you want to near the end of the game, then it's a secondhand mob boss you just rarely interact with who is the 'final boss'. There's this weird degree of separation that Rockstar tends to put between you and the antagonists. Like they make them so OBVIOUSLY someone we want to kill, but keep you from doing so.......but at the end.....I can't say I ever really felt anything when you do get to kill them....maybe BECAUSE of that 'seperation' they put? Hard to say if that's a negative towards how Rockstar handles it's antagonists, or if it's intentional, meant to invoke this feeling for a reason. It's hard to say.