Did Leviticus Cornwall & Angelo Bronte HAVE to Die?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 мар 2024
- Did Leviticus Cornwall & Angelo Bronte have to die in red dead redemption 2? Death of Angelo Bronte & Leviticus Cornwall red dead redemption 2.
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 
Игры
What I always found kinda sad but also poetic. Is if Dutch and the gang had let Colm rob Cornwalls train at the start, it would've been the O'Driscolls he hunted down. The gang could get away while they were busy going after Colm
What a wise remark, i think this is definitely something most of us didn’t realize.
Yea but that game doesn't sound as fun as what we got
True but the Pinkertons would've gone after the gang eventually due to the Blackwater Massacre.
Had they not done that boat job they wouldn’t of had to rob Cornwalls train and wouldn’t have to deal with the pinkertons
@@lemarjames9546 if they had just followed upon hosea and arthurs lead on something big they would not be in the mess in the first place and would of possibly made them rich out of it.
I love the detail when you come into Saint Denis in the epilogue. The building that read “cornwall” becomes “mcknight”
Never noticed that that's awesome
11:47 the saint denis bank was Hosea’s idea…not Dutch’s even before starting a mission, Dutch says “I dont like it..” and then “I dont know”
It’s Hosea who insists that they should do it, cause they planned it properly and the problem with previous robberies was poor planning, but not this time
If Bill worked with hosea I think they could have pulled it off
@@theoutsiderjess4869fr
I’ve JUST replyed this mission (i’m in guarma now), and before the robbery Dutch and Hosea were arguing about WHEN to rob that bank- at night or day. Dutch wanted to rob it at night, on what Hosea said “we have to rob it in the midday, cuz we won’t be able to even get inside without making much noise”
It wasn't even that, it would have gone south either way. The Pinkertons knew they were coming. Had the Pinkertons not been there, the robbery probably would have gone smooth
I think Bronte needed to, for the possible success of the bank robbery. Cornwall could have been avoided, had Dutch left him alone, but that was never going to happen.
Bronte didn’t need to d*e. The law and the Pinkertons was gonna find out they was going to hit the bank next after the shootout with the O’Driscoll’s and the Trolley robbery. Also when you go to Kidnap Brontë I think you can find a letter to the chief of police to send mass men at the trolley so he probably told the Pinkertons as well. The gang should’ve just went with Hosea plan and just left Saint Denis area and possibly go up north
Foolishness
I think Bronte's death was the main reason why the bank heist went down like it did. Killing the biggest mob boss of the whole city is a shit ton of unnecesary heat, and the worse part is that they just showed up at his house and started blasting, no wonder the pinkertons were able to track them down
Cornwall funded the Pinkertons, his death was more necessary than a mob boss saying “if you don’t work for us, leave the city”. Plus the death of Bronte was why the pinkertons were all over the robbery.
I’d say the reverse.
Neither *had* to die, but there were genuine benefits to their deaths despite ultimately just being Dutch's revenge missions. Bronte's death ensured he and his men couldn't interfere the bank heist (if they were even going to respond to it in time), but it would've drawn unnecessary noise so ultimately we don't really know if it aided, hindered, or didn't even affect the heist. Cornwall's death wasn't necessary as I don't think the Pinkertons efforts were going to slow down after the bank heist nor was there enough time of the gangs time left for them losing a large funder to particularly matter, but killing Cornwall didn't really draw any attention that would've gotten their new camp found sooner, it was quite inevitable that the Chapter 6 camp wasn't going to last long. If Dutch wasn't so revenge driven then it's possible his plan of getting paid by Cornwall could've worked, if they had gunned down the men on the boat and taken Cornwall into the cabin to threaten (or something along those lines) so ultimately I don't think Cornwall's death had a real impact on the remaining events of the gang.
Cornwall's death triggered the US government to make the Pinkertons part of it. This made the Pinkertons more powerful and made it easier to hunt the gang down with far greater resources.
Dutch killed Cornwall cause he was starting to anger him in chapter 6 I think of it as Dutch knowing its pretty much over but not wanting to admit it while also getting rid of the people that are causing him problems. He knew the pinkertons would still be after him but cornwall hired them
Bronte set us up to either be killed or imprisoned with that trolley job. He had to go
But killing Bronte made the City on High Alert causing the attention of the pinkertons to divert to Saint Denis, and possible Bronte had connections to them as well so Bronte prolly already told on em
Guido Martelli's bone to pick with some Van Der Linde members that were recognized wasn't nearly as bad of a response than if Bronte lived from the 7-8 years post gang break up. Cornwall's death did mean that the Pinkerton's/Bureau of Investigation lost a rich benefactor but gained the backing of the U.S Government so it didn't change much in the way of Ross' continued obligation to hunt down the remaining members of the gang. I'd say that Bronte at least shifted the balance of power for Saint Denis were as Cornwall just stopped Ross from being harassed by a business tycoon.
"I had a good damn plan!" Dutch van der Linde
What goddamn plan Dutch? Tahiti? Timbuktu?!
"Dutch Plan Der Linde"
@@eastsidereviews727oh i loved John on the last heist “that sound good to ya’ll?”
“As good as the other times i heard it”
you always got a plan dutch
@@eastsidereviews727you stole my line lol
Dutch: “MONEYYY ARTHURR. WE JUST NEED MONEY”
Arthur with $10000+: 👁️👄👁️
Watching the video rn. Cornwall is debatable. He was the main funding for the pinkertons, but just because cornwall is dead doesn't mean his money is gone as well. As for Bronte, the entire mansion raid was pointless because Dutch just killed him in the end. Why??? I feel like if Dutch REALLY wanted to leave the US, he could have held him ransom for a large sum of money, or held Bronte hostage till he gave them safe passage out of the US.
In the end, if Dutch never hit the train in chapter 1 none of this would have happened. The entire game just shows actions have consequences.
Yeah but if Cornwall is dead the vendetta against Dutch specifically is weakened. The railroads get renamed and keep going, but they stop hunting down Dutch. Nothing is gonna stop Cornwall from spending all the money he can to hunt Dutch down, even though I agree Dutch wanted this outcome
We’re forgetting about the blackwater massacre though i mean Javier told Arthur it was Pinkertons who set the trap so the pinkertons were already after Dutch especially for executing that girl on the boat
Bronte death was inevitable.The moment Bronte told Dutch about the Bank or Train Station it was pretty clear that Bronte was lying to Dutch.It didn't matter if Dutch tried the Bank job first,Bronte already planned to get rid of him.Keeping Bronte ransom was not going to work.That would draw too much attention and would be a dead end for the gang.
Killing Cornwall was also needed in my Opinion.he was the one funding the pinkertons to hunt Dutch so it makes sense by killing him,a big amount of funding would stop and this would give Dutch a chance to escape before Pinkertons would find another One who would fund them.
Both deaths needed to happen since there was no other way out.Bronte death so the bank job can happen without any trap(it sadly wasn't the case) and Cornwall death so the Pinkertons would get less funds and eventually giving Dutch enough time to escape.
What was sad was,Dutch's plan as insane as it sounded did work in the end.it was the gang in-fighting which ruined his plan.
A case of what goes around comes around
I know the amount of money he could of got from Bronte he rich man.
This reminds me of what Dutch said about the government before he died that they would just find another monster when he died, that was Dutch he’s always go find another monster he just couldn’t stop fighting
😂😢😮
I’m a fighter, John
If Dutch instead of killing Bronte, kept him captured, he would have something to bargain when Hosea got caught.
He could also bargain the money but milton being the greedy one he is would kill him anyway
"there's your deal dutch"
honestly this comment is unrelated but i'm tired of it
milton teached ross. it wasn't revenge driven for ross to kill john, "enjoy your fishing kid while you still can"
@@KeyUploads Maybe, but Bronte wasnt an ordinary hostage, his life was a lot more worth than money.
Milton had the edge when they got Hosea, given the fact Dutchs's gang were trapped in the bank. This is why he doesnt want to cut any deal with Dutch, he had no reason, to him, it was finally over. If that situation was real life, the entire gang wouldve died.
That mission in valentine where Cornwall calls him out and then just leaves makes no sense whatsoever. Why would he just take off. They couldn't ended things there
that would be boring, Rockstar don't do boring 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@bobbybaratheon4647 Boring? Maybe not ended shit but he calls him out dutch comes out and then right before he leaves and let's dutch slip away makes no sense. He had dutch them cornered.
Cornwall is not a gunslinger, he didn't want to get shot lmao
@@jegr3398fr😂
When it came to Bronte, I would say it was Dutch's ego that got the best of him on that. Considering Bronte was a powerful man i Saint Denis, there was no reason for Dutch to even try to outright trust him, especially with how the gang encountered Bronte due to the situation with the Braithwaite and getting Jack back. It seem like Dutch was really desperate in getting money, but was very careless with the Trolley Station, and when he found out that there wasn't anything to be gained, his ego was really bruised by someone he thought he had an understanding with especially when you escape the city and Dutch says, "What did I do to him?" Dutch was going to have his revenge either way on Bronte one way or another.
Both men were bad, and there were positives from their removal, but these ends do not meaningfully help the gang.
Offing Bronte put Saint Denis on high alert (among other missions) for future violent criminals, hence the damning rapid and intense response.
Offing Cornwall accomplished much of the same from the Pinkertons. Even with Cornwall gone, the money from rail transportation, mining, and oil remain, ensuring that said Pinkertons remain funded and determined to eradicate that which threatens the capital.
I think you should do a hypothetical video of what if Cornwall accepted his deal? How that would have worked?
I think that outcome is interesting, but I don't think Cornwall would ever had accepted any sort of deal, because of how little he thought of Dutch and the gang. To him, they were just annoying flies buzzing around him.
However, even if Cornwall did make a deal, he would go back on it and ambush the gang. There's no other type of way that it could end for the gang. At least, happy ending.
I think Bronte is debatable, if the gang had just left Saint Denis, that probably would’ve been the end of it, but they needed the bank robbery, Cornwall had to go cause his ego was never going to let him stop hunting the gang, but ultimately because of Dutch’s ego, both had to die cause Dutch was never going to leave either of them alone
I'm gonna go insane if i hear "saduh-ee" one more time.
You could argue both ways. If the goal was to lay low and slip away, then killing either those two was very foolish. Cornwall would have been the one that "had to die", because he was funding the Pinkertons efforts to track down the gang. Dutch's ego and pride was the driving force to kill Bronte after the trolley station setup. The Grey's and Braithwaite's ambush in Rhodes and the kidnapping of Jack forced the gang to attack both, which led the Pinkertons to them....again highlighting the justification to remove Cornwall. Other factors such as Cornwall's deliberate corruption of officials to drive the Natives off their lands also gives justification to target him. Bronte was merely the result of Dutch being made a fool of and is why Hosea vehemently opposes the idea of attacking him and is the ONE point Arthur's blind loyalty failed him the most as this was the final turning point towards the inevitable doom of the gang.
I don't quite see how him killing Cornwall is really "avoidable" other than them choosing the disappear option. One way or another, Cornwall is bankrolling a huge operation to hunt Dutch down like a dog and kill him. While I think Dutches offer for peace with Cornwall isn't really just, he does offer a peaceful solution to which Cornwall rejects and declares his men to attack on it. That being said, I agree that this was Dutches preferred outcome (as he says) he wanted to kill Cornwall, but Cornwall was coming for him no matter what, and he would throw any amount of resources at that.
They had the option to stop robbing him.
Cornwall had to go.there was no other way.He was the one paying the pinkertons to follow Dutch and i don't think Cornwall would ever stop until he got Dutch.Dutch deal to Cornwall was the only thing Dutch could offer since he had nothing to pressure Cornwall.Dutch thought by killing Cornwall he would have less pinkertons on his tail for a short time which would be enough for him to escape.we have to remember that in chapter 6 Dutch was running out of time.there was no option to plan something carefully.
Bronte also had to go.He was the one that lied to Dutch about the train station and since he knew that the gang wanted to make some money,he was propably the one that told the pinkertons about Saint Denis Bank.Dutch though by taking out Bronte,he would have a real chance to take the Bank.Too bad he didn't count on Bronte telling the Pinkertons to propably guard the bank for a while.
All in all,Under the time limit the gang was, these two had to go.there was really no other way since Dutch knew his gang would either be captured soon or he would get enough money to escape before that happens.
I just had an encounter after the failed trolly mission and angelo’s men tried to kill me. soo yea screw that guy.
The way Dutch killed Cornwall was actually bad ass 😂
Real
No it wasn't. It was plain dumb.
Dutch was a savage. But irl erbody on the boat gun must’ve jammed or sum cuz Dutch was right in front of dude 😂
@@johnaustin209 But it was badass tho
@@gamingwolf6735Not.
John even said during the Saint Denis Heist 'Never should have gone after Bronte, Dutch'. Understandable because, Bronte already ratted Dutch out to the authorities, meaning after the failed Trolly heist the Police and Pinkertons knew that Dutch was near Saint Denis and alive, but they weren’t sure if he escaped to another place after that or if he still was near Saint Denis. Once Dutch killed Bronte, the authorities knew exactly that Dutch is alive and well, and that he probably plans to rob some place in Saint Denis, the bank was the easiest guess but i think they were pretty much roaming the entire city for Gang members. With Cornwall I’m not too sure but i think since he was the one paying the pinkertons, they probably did the right thing killing him, but most definitely at the wrong place and the wrong time, because they had to kill much more people than just Cornwall this way. I think if they opted to just snipe Cornwall and secretly steal those papers at night, it probably would have worked much better.
Its nice that he made a post into a video
“You made me look stupid”
That’s why he killed Cornwall and Bronte.
I believe Bronte should have been left alone but Cornwall needed to die for the Pinkerton to stop following the gang.
Umm, the Pinkertons didn't stop and weren't going to stop. They were seconded to the US government. Killing Cornhole caused more problems than it solved because it just put an even bigger target on their backs. Killing Cornhole would be like killing JP Morgan or John D Rockefeller, do honestly think the government and powers that be are going to let that slide? Killing Bronte on the other hand wouldn't really bother many outside of St Denis.
I'd say Cornwall's view of Dutch mirrored Dutch's view of Bronte. Cornwall's empire was threatened by Dutch, the same way Dutch's pride/ego was bruised by Bronte. Cornwall would have hunted them relentlessly until he had destroyed the gang.
You call them!! Call them, now!!
Ifeel like a large mistake made by Dutch is letting his feeling control him when they got Bronte on the boat. Bronte could have been the best tool to dissapear, if Dutch remains calm or at least not drown Bronte they could have held him hostage, I'm sure there was someone who would have gave them maybe 20 or 30000$ for him alive and they could have gon to Tahiti. The bank robbery didn't needed to happen so Hosea and Lenny would have lived
I think they just could a worked for Bronte and integrated into the new age of crime but then that doesn't work to have the plot go as planned
i personnaly think if dutch had seen the trolli station was a trap, is to hit both at once the main show would be the bank but the trolli as a distraction
doing all of this before killing bronte would have probably been the ideal option but no one would be able to predict brontes trap but it was kinda obvious
So, on the poll you put out I immediately chose yes so, I think that just means I’m with Dutch on these things instinctively
The real question that needs asking is why is Leviticus' last name Cornwall?
Did his ancestors build walls of corn?
Did they wall corn off?
Are the Cornwalls a corn oil farm?
Did they cornhole walls?
These are the questions we need answers to.
I don’t think they should’ve killed Cornwall because once they did someone would probably just replace him. And now that the gang have shown themselves to be a giant threat (even more than before), the pinkertons would chase them to the ends of the earth
Brontë needed to go but I think Milton had a personal vendetta against Dutch regardless if Cornwall was alive or not
For all the effort the devs put into this game and making the world feel so alive and Arthur's actions so consequential, and with the fact that I've done the mayor's missions after Bronte's death and no mention was ever made of him, I'm thinking that was an intentional choice as to indicate Bronte was an upstart who never really mattered in the long run, and that San Denis was and remains in the hands of its French-American elites.
Bronte had to die because in Dutch's mind he had made Dutch look like a fool with that Trolley station robbery. Cornwall was the sort of person Dutch always hated, a rich man with everything Dutch always wanted.
You should also do a hypothetical video on what if Dutch and gang decided to take Bronte’s place, as in, became the plug of Saint Denis organized crime?
I don't know about the Bronte, but Cornwall would haunt them for the rest of their lives and give them trouble.
I always thought to myself what if dutch just didnt rob the train and let colm and his gang do it would have colm been killed by the pinkertons and we could of escaped to tahiti under the cloud of the pinkertons and cornwall going after colm
In my opinion, killing Leviticus Cornwall & Angelo Bronte was unnecessary and definitely stupid if this is what Dutch meant by "lying low". But that aside, I think it was based because *f*ck the rich and f*ck the competition* 🤘😎🤘!
Bro finally improved his microphone quality
Cornwall: “get out here now”
Dutch: *gets out
Also Cornwall: “deal with these nonsense” *runs away
Bronte didn't have to go Because once he died his second in command just took over and the Van Da Linde gang became so despided because of his murder. So much so that 7 years later, Just Charles and John being together for a few minutes stirred up the attention of Bronte's men. And Dutch saying he knows just how Bronte operates, followed a misrepresention of said operation, shows just how Dutch fews himself and the gang. He thinks if he were to die, the Van da linde gang would disparce because they lack a leader, much like how he thought The Saint Denis Mafia would fall without Bronte. In reality, if Dutch were to die, all attention and Authority would go to Hosea or Arthur much like it moved to Bronte's second in command. Granted if it the role of leader was given to Hosea, he would just focus on giving everyone new lives.
yeah, but extending the perspective, if no one ever had after Al Capone the Mafia today may very well would be reigning in the US. Bronte was the lead man and the gang did not have the knowledge nor the resources to take it's place, fact that could have bought them a lot of political capital even to deal with the Pinkertons, that could have made of Milton a scapegoat for the company's failures in getting the gang and dutch, as soon Cornwell is dealt with. As said by someone, when you return during the Epilogue to St Denis, there's no more Corwell's name on is former enterprises, which might lift a veil he was a lonesome man with just greed and really no one else but those on his pockets - so no one to seek and fund his revenge no more and, again, the Pinkertons could have made of Milton a very convincing scapegoat. Bronte is different because as sure as the earth is flat (I'm kidding) the gang was in no position to fill his role. If they were, well history would be much different - reason why there's only one in the game, no matter how intricate it is and make us imagine other scenarios over and over or searching for reasons or the primordial reason for the gang demise. Cheers.
Both would have been far more use as hostages to barter. The gang could have gotten massive ransoms and left the country before retaliation.
I dont think both had to die. Both are just pointless conflict. Every chapter is just them biding time and causing chaos to a new town until Pinkertons got on their trail. Only Cornwall had his money for Pinkertons but killing him doesn’t really solve much, they are still hunting down outlaws regardless.
Pinkertons are a private company so if Cornwall was killed earlier their would've been less money and incentive. They would've also has less supplies and manpower to take down the gang.
The only reason Cornwall wanted them gone was the train robbery they should've never robbed that train with the pinkertons hot on their tails
To boost Dutch’s ego and his insanity, yeah… Both men had to die. No brain injury, not Micah’s fault, Dutch played everyone like a fiddle, he didn’t give a damn about no one. He was too far gone, even in the beginning of RDR2.
I wonder if it could have been possible to wait for the oddiscolls to rob the train then rob them so it would have been them we robbed instead of Leviticus so he would have been after them idk just a thought prob not plausible tho
Dutch let his jealousy and ego get the best of him with Bronte. Also Dutch killing Cornwall I think he was just at his wits end and didn’t care about the extra trouble since they were already in a hole so he just did it.
I think some of the outcomes of characters simply came down to checking of a social justice checklist (the grays and brwths) , and I'm cool with it. I just wish there was more to do in that are in post epilogue. Getting honor penalized for killing a ped type who was shooting at me that happened to be on this list annoyed me a bit bc of what the underlying message was... a flawed world view and surrendering to social pressures instead of delivering a diverse immersive experience... but then mods corrected a lot of the game out of the box.. At least they give you a choice to kill the mayor or not - it's when the choices are decided by external pressures that it detracts from the play style you want form a character perspective.
That's Facts
If Dutch had a gang size like colm he could’ve made assassination attempts without even being there. But due to him choosing quality>quantity&being one of the most wanted men in America choosing to kill Cornwall&Bronte was an objectively bad move.
Of course, it was revenge. Dutch comes across as the sort who would engage in revenge despite claiming it was a fool's game (I've never played RDR1 but it is my understanding he's a SOAB in that, vindictive, self-important) and that comes across in RDR2. The worst kind of 'politics' is the politics of the gun. Most men who crave power and who see others in their way will resort to removing those obstacles, and consider that removal a trophy (Ma. App. Psychology) in 1899, what with the state of the world, and both men's abuse of power it was only a matter of time before they were killed by either their own men, a spouse or rival, or somebody like Dutch. I find it amazing that the gang was shocked in both instances when Dutch committed murder - but it was coming, and that was very evident right from the beginning. Dutch was thwarted at every turn, and saw them as being obstacles to his 'monumental plans' so they had to go.
You have to remember that most sociopaths don't actually believe the content that they produce and only produce it to be the center of attention; or to retain control over others. Dutch van der Linde was in a very real sense A CULT LEADER and it amazes me that nobody seems to realize this simple premise.
Dutch’s EGO is why they are dead , but no they did not have to die , Dutch needed to plan better .
Lore of Did Leviticus Cornwall & Angelo Bronte HAVE to Die? Momentum 100
I always think what if Cornwall actually gave Dutch the vessel and ten thousand dollars? So he didn't have to die and Dutch sucessfully made it to Tahiti
Rdr2 could be made into a great western movie given the right person directs it and follow the game's storyline to the T
I think Bronte had to go but Cornwall didn't have to die
Cornwall should have been left alone he was eventually going to cut the Pinkerton's funding for not having results. Bronte is a yes and no, yes for the bank. No on killing if they left San Denis.
I actually say yes to both. Dutch was right about Bronte being a threat to the bank job, although he lied about that being his primary motivation and the bank job turned out to be a bad idea anyway. Cornwall didn't seem like a guy who ever let go of grudge and would have eventually had drowned the gang with his infinite resources even if they hadn't made too many other powerful enemies by thst point. Really though, by the time Cornwall is killed, it didn't make any difference. Dutch knew that deep down but was well into his "fuck it" stage.
Both could have died or lived. About the gang, independently of wacking Cornwell and Bronte, if they were smart they would have immediately gone south to Mexico with the few they had and left the Blackwater booty as if never existed. They could have done some jobs in Mexico, moving south again, on and on to places where they weren't known: there was no interpol database at the time. After they could just head west towards Europe (I believe that is nothing of interest from them on the Caribbean and they could be linked to their past much easier), or even the then Colonies of Africa where they would have a lot of ground and surely liberty. To the East I agree with Strauss, Australia would be a great destination, same language, a lot of land and cattle, people were not the so-called crême de la crême of the Brtitish Empire but rather started as a penal colony where Brit "bad citizens" and enemies were sent to. They would also be isolated from most things that could link them to their past in a land with more sand than people - even today - so even a bigger West: reminding the members sometime felt the liberties of the west, New Austin, small cities like Armadillo and Tumbleweed and a lot of land to be free (reason why el lobos were so spread, hard to find, a keen to do whatever they pleased). But the game has it's history and is what it is and we can't change it, no matter how many times we think should that have been robbed/killed, should they have move faster from hide out to hideout, what caused in fist instance the demise of the gang? Blackwater? but wasn't that robbery already a tarp, meaning they were already being chased? were there a rat? no? Pearson? but why before being on the run? Abigail to protect Jack? she does seem surprised the Pinkertons found Arthur in the river with Jack, and Jack could have been in peril so it makes no sense, also it makes no sense she would turn rat before Blackwater. Micah? Micha's only puropose is to be the guy to hate in the game, the supposed antagonist, but he thought only of himself (The strawberry incidents prove it even further) and would have no reason to betray nobody unless the exchange was convenient - and, say what you want - Milton words mean nothing as he surely could be manipulating all three (Arthur, Sadie, Abigail) in believing that in fact he knew something, it could pretty well be just a bluff to spoke those 3 even more. Nor Abigail shooting him proves she was the rat (I believe there was never a rat, it was just an idea sold us by R* that worked wonderfully) as she view now Arthur as the man who saved both John and Jack, a friend in which she could trust - and she could, as he went for her on Van Horn. The game needed to have an end (before RDR1 that happens after in time sense and made the choices for RDR2 much more difficult so no loopholes were created) and an end revolving about redemption, in this case, Arthur's redemption. The game could have gone million ways, and the doubt of choices is always on our minds, and that's the brilliance of the game per si, a work of art on the gaming world and beyond it. We became so attached to same characters, one more others less, that we forget it's a game not reality, but many hard bearded men cried, like I also did, when Arthur died, already in commotion after Arthur say goodbye to a dead Buel (in my case), without almost no one reminded that Arthur was and continue to be to that point a cold heart murderer, even to help John escape how many did he killed, how many families in game lost their husband and father? To shut my trap as I'm already too long, R* made a hell of a game that messed with the inner feelings like an ideocracy of players who got deep in a so immersive of a game including in our own line of beliefs, likes and dislikes for something that at the end is a sum of 0 and 1, but so well webbed together many, as I did, completely fell for the game and the game become like another reality rather than just entertainment. R* made of us they playground with this fabulous work. Still can't believe is did not won the Best Game of the Year. Maybe will gain the best of the XXIth century till now. Cheers and my apologies for being so extensive in my comment.
Both were avoidable.
Bronte would've been a minor problem had dutch not try to play the Braithwaites and the greys.
Cornwall was entirely avoidable.
I think in multiple way Bronte NEEDED to die. For one he went after rhe child of a gang member , a big no no , showing him to honestly have worse morales of the gang. I trily think the gang, even dutch towards the end of the game, would have gone after a child. So this is one morale way Bronte needed to die , he messed with the child and deserved a point he the "needing to die camp". Another point for morale resssons , he wronged the gang multiple times , building off the kidnapping of a gang memebrs child , he used them for pwrsonal bussiness then sold them out after the fact.
Red dead redemption 2's morale teachings addresses loayalty , bronte already started off in a negative but he then betrays , if there was any, loyalty to the gang. Personally i think the gang would HAVE to kill bronte after the trolly station and botched bank job. He crossed the game , if we go off a 3 strike system , hes out for sure. Add to that HE GOT MY BOIS HOSEA AND LENNY KILLED, that alone would warnt the gang destorying the mans life.
Truly bronte's death Had to happen, just on the principles of the gang , its not entirely revange in my eyes but justice, which they arent mutlally exclusive you can have revamge and justice at the same time. Plus Bronte was kinda a dick so , just for fourth wall reasson , it was a satisfying death and warnted.
Now on to Cornwall, no as a short answer , long answer its debatable. Cornwall is the driving force of the game , the gamg vexing him spured his crusade against them which to a gree is justifiable. Atleast if he wasent a complete trash human beiging. For story pay off ot was fitting for him to die but the problem woth dutch killing him like he did. It brought alot of weight down on them , the pinkertons failed one of their clients and it lead to their desth, so the pinkertons HAD to finish the gang after Cornwalls death.
In the wise words of joshua Graham from fallout new vegas "we cant expect God to do all the work "
Couldn't they have hold Bronte hostage or force him to give them enough money to disappear after they caught him?
I believe that by beavers hollow Cornwall needed to go. The gang had just coat him too much money and been to much of anuisance for someone of his ego to let go.
That said, the gang should have taken out milton and ross aswell. That way, the Pinkerton's would think twice about how many resources and man power would be wasted hunting the van Der Linde gang. Sure they probably would have sent abother agent but i doubt they would have been as tenacious or aggressive as milton was and ross in rdr1. The govt. would have likely let the gang fall into obscurity because they're not really being affected much.
The army would still be a problem if dutch still chose to get involved with teh wapiti tribe, which was always a losing battle unfortunately 😢.
Will there be a RDR 3 ???
i think dealing with Bronte was more justified, he always rubbed me the wrong way
arrogant despicable man
also a crime boss that the world would be better off without
Cornwall though, was not a bad guy per se, the gang caused him many troubles and there was no need to kill him
He was a bad guy Cornwall was a piece of shit lmao he ruined annesburg and van horn with his business he destroyed the towns with greed and refused to pay miners.
He was just as much of a scumbag like dutch. However unlike dutch he was a coward and unwilling to do it himself
Cornwall HAD to die as for bronte they could of skipped town and move on
Thats like killing JP Morgan, no one is going to allow that to slide. You get more trouble, not less.
Angelo Brontë definitely
Tahiti
wow
you have max hair and beard length 💀💀💀💀
Cornwall yes Bronte no they could've stayed away from the city Bronte wouldn't hunt them Cornwall would still have the Pinkertons hunt them
They hunted them with Cornwall dead. Cornwall was too big a target with too much influence.
Not really but i hate all of them so yes
pls shave ur arthur