When talking about Red Dead 2, I really couldn’t agree with you stance on Eagle Flys and Rains Falls. To me they were built to show the two sides found within Arthur. The violent side that wanted to fight against a world that has wronged him and a benevolent side where Arthur wants to accept his world and leave it as good as possible. To say Rockstar simply did “native cliche here” is disingenuous to these characters. The conversations between Arthur and Rain Falls was probably some of the best in the game and seeing Dutch manipulate Eagle Flys in a much similar way he manipulates Arthur was an amazing contrast.
Also kinda shows the beginning of Dutch’s relationship with the native Americans. In Rdr1 the native Americans are Dutch’s henchmen essentially. Cool connections all over these games
Agree but the pacing really slowed because of it which kind of contrasted a little from the fast paced parts of chapter 6 and that was a little annoying
@@thatguydiego5337 In a gameplay context I agree with you, but in a story context I thought the pacing to be brilliant. It's Red Dead Redemption after all, and Arthur had to redeem himself (at least on the honorable path). The pacing was great in that regards.
Tbh I'm not sure what they could have done to demonstrate the more ugly side of the time period than what was already shown in the game. What would you have them do? Just straight up depict a lynching in grizzly fashion? I feel like that would have just been gratuitous. Both Lenny and Tilly have discussions with Arthur where they talk about the hardships and discrimination faced by black people in the south, and Lenny heavily implies that they lynch and kill black people regularly. Micah is openly racist towards all of the minority members of the gang. Javier gets called a greaser, and several other racial slurs throughout the game. Theres the side quest in Rhodes with the black doctor that explores racial violence and discrimination. There's the quest involving the former slave catcher that explores the horrors of slavery. Theres the depiction of the sufferagette movement and discrimination against women at several points through the game. And there's the depiction of Native genocide and movement from their lands. I get the feeling that this guy kinda rushed through the story without paying attention to details like this. Both Red Dead games are best played slowly and patiently in order to absorb all of the small details that come together to create a larger picture that is the ending of the wild west time period. Just because the game doesn't necessarily hold these aspects of life back then up to your face and shout "look at how terrible things were back then!" Dosen't mean that sentiment isn't there. After all you're play from the perspective of Arthur, a white man living in a white man's world. And eventhough he's not racist himself, these issues aren't something he has to face on an everyday basis. Like Lenny says while discussed racial discrimination with Arthur: "With all due respect Mr. Morgan, you wouldn't notice."
Exactly..either the guy who made this video didnt play this game enough or just missed those parts I dunno. I'm with you though.. if u want to be educated on that time period go watch some documentaries this game is about being in a gang in the west..and that's the story it tells. It doesnt have to be educational lol I thought that was so dumb that he went there..that and the voice actor thing 🤦♂️
Good points. It's disturbing how some people, like the guy running this channel, want to have everything reflect the way they see the world and the past. Seems like the guy has a real problem with white people for whatever reason
It is not Rockstars job, or any video games for that matter, to educate you about the setting of their game. They told the story they wanted to tell and we do not expect any more then that because it's not mandatory for them to do so. But you know what, because I played RDR, I CHOSE to go read more about the real wild west. Something that may not have been intended by R* but I went out and did it anyway. This idea that games need to "educate" is nonsense and I'm getting annoyed with reviewers thinking this is objectively a bad thing
So you are basically ok with an open world game not having that good of an open world. In that case, RDR 2 should have been linear, like The Last of Us if the game was just about " muh deep storeh"
@@themessenger1390 You're correct that it's not R* job to educate the audience in the setting of their games, though this does mean that the game itself can be held to scrutiny for this reason, in the form of analysis. Like this video does. And like how the previous comment pointed out, part of what makes a good open world is having the detailing of that world told to the reader, whether it be implicit or explicit. If this doesn't exist, the world doesn't have depth. This is the problem with your analysis - it ignores the fundamental principles needed to make a good, fleshed out open world. Critiquing a series based on their decisions or lack thereof is entirely acceptable if constructive. Telling people not to criticise part of a game only because it makes you angry isn't a justified reason, especially if the critique is constructive. I love both RDR 1 and 2, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore when people point out actual issues they have. Nothing is above criticism.
@@AshuriAikawa So, what did you want? The towns should have been more racist and bigoted to reflect the reality? That doesnt sound very fun in my video game. Realistic or not.. its irrelevant to the realization of an open world.
To be honest i have ZERO problems with people of one colour voiceing charactors of another, anymore than i have any issue with woman typically voicing male children/teens in cartoons.
My only gripe is Rockstar’s reasoning to hire this particular actor. It almost seems like they’re just settling with someone ambiguous enough rather than actually doing their homework on the subject matter. I like to think this is where they falter, because their way of thinking just seems very backwards and bigoted for what should be a very diverse and complex character. Then again they could’ve just kept their mouths shut and stated that they hired based on talent of depicting a character
I do agree with this, but on the other hand it also can whitewash things. So im torn. If all your characters are native americans and they are voiced by all white people, why not hire native american vocie actors and support them ya know?
Agreed... because there is always a touch of hypocrisy when it comes to this. What about when a voice actor of color voices a white character? A good example of this is Ashley Williams in Mass Effect, voided wonderfully by Kimberly Brooks, an African-American, while the model used for Ashley was Erica Cerra, who is Italian.
Eh, when it comes to voice acting I don’t find the race of the actor really matters. Like Kratos has been played by two different black men, but Kratos himself is Greek, yet I couldn’t imagine any other voice coming out of that man. I feel the same way about Charles, I would never have guessed his actor’s race.
I feel like I’m the only person who actually enjoyed the Mexico portion of Red Dead Redemption. I was very interested in the political commentary and its critique of both the tyrannical military dictatorship and the socialist revolutionaries who would later become tyrants themselves. Reyes in particular was an interesting and often comically satirical character. Also, I thought John being used and exploited by both sides was thematically appropriate and just fun to watch and play. I get the idea that John comes across as weak because of this, but I always viewed that as intentional and just a facet of his character. And that mission where you storm the palace and take down Allende and Bill is one of my favorites. Just my opinion.
I don't disagree that RDR1 (and RDR2 to a vastly lesser extent) could have handled certain elements of that time period more thoughtfully but I also can't ignore that RDR1 was very much a love letter to the old spaghetti western. It certainly has a lot more dialogue than you might find in one of those films but it is still drawing from the same thematic well and is going to focus on the imagery and feel of those fairly straightforward films. There is also a argument to be made that when you are telling a story based in even a fairly detailed historical setting, you are not always going to touch on specific social, racial, sexual, or political issues. Sometimes it is just not the direction that the story is going to take and sometimes the characters may simply not have a perspective that would allow for exploration of such concepts in a way that can satisfy a modern audience that is actively looking for such things in various games, films, TV shows, etc. RDR2 is a good example. In that game, Arthur himself is not really concerned with the reality of race after the Civil war. It is only when Lenny talks to him about it that he really starts to think. I think that is a particularly good touch. Arthur doesn't have to be awkwardly shoehorned into a narrative position where he will strongly care about racial issues in the south but he is around people who have a very good reason to have a strong perspective in that time period.
Perfectly said, I appreciate commentary and well-presented ideas as much as the next guy but sometimes it just isn't the vision of the creator. In the case of both RDR games, they're clearly much more interested in personal human themes like vengeance, family, and the cycle of revenge, and the feeling of displacement rather than giving a prespective on world issues like slavery, economy, and racism in the way a GTA game might and even satarize though there are definitely some background subtexts of such matters.
@@movieworld717 But what I'm not grasping is that there actually is alot of moments that deal the racial injustice, of the time period in RDR2. I'm not sure what they could have done to demonstrate the more ugly side of the time period than what was already shown in the game. What would you have them do? Just straight up depict a lynching in grizzly fashion? I feel like that would have just been gratuitous. Both Lenny and Tilly have discussions with Arthur where they talk about the hardships and discrimination faced by black people in the south, and Lenny heavily implies that they lynch and kill black people regularly. Micah is openly racist towards all of the minority members of the gang. Javier gets called a greaser, and several other racial slurs throughout the game. Theres the side quest in Rhodes with the black doctor that explores racial violence and discrimination. There's the quest involving the former slave catcher that explores the horrors of slavery. Theres the depiction of the sufferagette movement and discrimination against women at several points through the game. And there's the depiction of Native genocide and movement from their lands. I get the feeling that this guy kinda rushed through the story without paying attention to details like this. Both Red Dead games are best played slowly and patiently in order to absorb all of the small details that come together to create a larger picture that is the ending of the wild west time period. Just because the game doesn't necessarily hold these aspects of life up back then up to your face and shout "look at how terrible things were back then!" Dosen't mean that sentiment isn't there. After all you're play from the perspective of Arthur, a white man living in a white man's world. And eventhough he's not racist himself, these issues aren't something he has to face on an everyday basis. Like Lenny says while discussed racial discrimination with Arthur: "With all due respect Mr. Morgan, you wouldn't notice."
@@MrZomBie775 I agree with you here. I think the game world being more explicit would be... less fun in some ways? For instance you mention the idea of showing a lynching. Would be more "realistic" and interesting on a historical level but doesn't exactly make the game more fun for me as a person of color. I did run into some Lemoyne Raiders who had a man hanging from a tree as part of some elaborate ambush. I think touches like these allude to the real history of the south, without being so in-your-face.
Rdr1 makes stereotypes to tell a story and if anything rdr1 is more realistic then rdr2. Rdr2 ends with the hero killing the bad guy to live a happy life, and where good people get to live happy lives and bad guys pay for there sins. Rdr2 is more of a black and white world. While rdr2 is more grey is almost every one you team up with in the game are not good people and all the good people in the rdr1 die while the bad people get rewarded like the mexico rebellion leader is a power hungry man and wins the rebellion rdr1 in my opinion is more of a complex story
I actually disagree that Rockstars take on the west in RDR1 is a bad thing. I think it is purposefully going for a hollywood style romanticised version of the west. The whole game is basically a love letter to the spaghetti western and the world itself shows that. Not to mention that they do show SOME racism with the professor so it’s not like they completely act like it doesn’t exist.
Its weird he even mentioned race at all because racism against Natives is shown heavily throughout both games and how they were used. Sexism is shown through both too, with many men in power abusing them and John and Arthur point these out. Even our white male protagonists are somewhat ignorant throughout showing that most people acted that way back then. Hes acting like the game should be about those problems during the wild west but not only is that not entirely historically correct but it doesnt fit the theme of the romanticized spaghetti western. For a guy who gets a hard on for themes in every video, he seemed to have missed that
@@DANtheMANofSIPA Agreed, I don't agree with criticizing a game for something that's it's not. Both games' center their themes on personal human ideas like loyalty, betrayel, feelings of displacement and the cycle of vengeance rather than world/political problems like slavery and racism.
It fits the game and type though with that character. A professor would say stuff and be into that sorta thing round that time. Its not in your face though. Rdr2 its in your face and characters are only there just for the racism factor. Its annoying and out of place for the time. The klan being dumb though and random is a nice touch. That would have been perfect
It goes for the romanticized version while also taking it apart completely. I found the game to be very similar to the Sopranos in how it completely deconstructed the Mafia genre and showed you that there was absolutely nothing glamorous about any of it. All the characters in both Red Dead 2 and the Sopranos have to do hard graft to bring money to the table.
I don’t know about “refusing” to find an indigenous person considering the development for RDR2 was crunch metropolis. Besides, I know video games and movies make it seem easy but hiring the right actors for any specific character is always a challenge to some extent and chances are the devs will always take the first chance if they find someone with the right voice at first sight. All things considered, Charles’ voice actor was excellent enough to where most people didn’t have an issue with it and I honestly can’t imagine anyone else playing that part. Would it have been nice if the voice actor was the same general ethnicity as Charles? Sure, but I have no clue as to whether it would have turned to be a better performance considering Charles’ voice actor gave it his all to make Charles come alive at least for me.
@no info Crunch is a sign of bad management and clashing visions on what the game should have (even if they're unnecessary but are there just cuz the market does it)
While I do understand some of your criticisms of the game, I truly was blown away by what Rockstar acheived with this game. The slow animations and meaninglessness of open world activities added to a sense of impending dread for me and I know this may sound hyperbolic but the story in my opinion is probably the best I have ever experienced in any game and I felt so incredibly attached to Arthur Morgan as a character, that I felt almost like I was mourning a real person when he died. Perhaps it is because I am someone who values story over gameplay, that's always been the kind of gamer I have been but I was blown away by the story, world, and main protagonist of this game. In all honesty I can think of a game that has affected me on a more visceral and emotional level.
Jimmy murphy I agree and I actually didn’t find gameplay that bad. I’m like u who values a truely great story over shooting mechanics as good as cod. I also actually found the hunting robberies poker etc some of the best moments of the game. And while I agree Arthur is clunky it for me still doesn’t take away from the way I view this game. I believe it to be a 9.5/10 and I believe this to be one of the top 3 games of this generation
Story actually makes no sense at times. Why did Arthur not immediately kill those Two Pinkertons while fishing with Jack? He ends up murdering hundreds of them anyway in cartoonish shootouts. 🙄
@@AsianBoah Not really. Arthur can slow down time with dead eye and kill them fast Letting them lived endangered Jack. They did try to gun down the whole gang with a machine gun
Okay you really lost me at the end there with that actor stuff. Why does it matter who a character is voiced by? If they play the character well and portray who the character is then why should the color of there skin matter? It shouldn’t matter
I appreciate the time and thoughtful wording that went into making this video. I will say though that it was difficult to watch this video because of how unorganized it was. Felt like you were jumping from one topic to the next. Also I feel like you said a lot, but also so little. In NakeyJakey's RDR2 video he said a lot, but it never felt like filler. Essentially I remember more things from that video's topics than I do with yours. There are parts from your video that were good and I will remember, but specific parts than others. Basically this video didn't need to be as long as it is, but still could've been as long and in depth length as it needed to be. I'd recommend watching the Act Man, his videos on video games are structured perfectly. One thing I will say is I would disagree about John not showing what he means by his threats. John is on a mission to save his family with very little resources, so he needs all the help he can get regardless of being moral or not. So by John having no choice to let the bad people that screw him over live, he sees that while they are bad people they do help John in the end, thus making him realize that maybe redemption is possible. It just takes time to understand ones flaws, than shooting one where they stand. Overall keep on improving and keep up the good work!
dude great comment 👏👏👏 also the act man's analysis are the best. He makes me change my mind about games I didn't know I could ever like. Structure is key, yes. But the actman not only does that but also really explains and persuades you and makes you understand why that game design tactic is totally stupid or genius. Love it haha
2 года назад+2
@@pablochamber411 that's because the act man relies on hyperbole and subliminally making people feel stupid for disagreeing. Don't get me wrong, it's entertaining, but if I'm watching the act man it's to turn off my brain or laugh. I'm not going there to feel in any way engaged, immersed, or stimulated. He plays the character of a douche which makes for great short term entertainment but means there is only so much I can listen to before I start getting exhausted
Red Dead Redemption 1 and 2 don’t want more from you than it gives. They are fun and worth playing. It isn’t conflictive at all and is easy to immerse yourself. I work for camp because I care about the characters. The gameplay and story don’t conflict. They are both amazing masterpieces. They are both equally great, and both games have equally great stories.
I honestly feel like most people's criticisms of the RDR games' story and gameplay come down to a lack of patience on the player's part, and aren't the games' fault.
Even with nakey jackey's video that does address the gameplay faults of rockstars games, at the end of the day, I pretty much, didn't care about those things? RDR2's central narrative, or the writing in general, is easily my personal favorite out of every game I've ever played. I think Arthur Morgan is the best protagonist in videogames. The story is STEEPED in dramatic irony, and that irony works regardless if you played the first game or not. Like Witcher 3, this was a game where I wanted to take my time in and relish everything it had to offer. It basically gave me the game I thought I was going to get with the first one. RDR1 isn't a game I love (mainly due to the Mexico section), so not only do I think RDR2 is a better game than the first, I think it EASILY surpasses its predecessor in pretty much every way. It's so thematically rich that it feels like the game rockstar have been building towards since GTAIV. With rockstars current and older design philosophy, this feels like the best possible game they could make. So much so, that if rockstar doesn't innovative their games after RDR2, I won't be so forgiving this time. If that happens I hope that gamers and critics become more critical of them as well. GTAIII changed the industry and was the game that got me into this medium in the first place. But now Rockstar is a company that needs to pull off a BREATH OF THE WILD with their next release. A title that not only reinvents their game design, but also gaming in general. They have the money and talent to do so
Even jakey's video on R*'s game design had a lot of holes in it tbh; parallels drawn out of thin air, picking faults on extremely minor things, using ridiculous examples etc. Is Rdr2's mission design very linear at times? Yes it is. But I dont think the answer to fix it is to completely move away from linear design and comparing the npc interactions to new vegas is just ridiculous. Most AAA games have some linearity in their campaign missions compared to the open world, i dont get what the problem in that is. A better answer is to provide more options within the campaign missions to spice things up rather than opting for a systemic breath of the wild approach
I agree. I would like to add that RDR2 wants to show you things that you would otherwise miss if you had more freedom of choice. Do i think that the game is too strict at times? Yes! The amount of times I failed cause I "abandoned" someone is too many to count and in general they restrict player freedom too much in the open world (cops knowing exactly where you are after committing a crime in the depths of Ambarino), but, as another RUclipsr who discussed this said (in regards to raiding the Braithewate manor) "if you're trying to sneak in through the back, you're already missing the point".
This vid definitely overthinks it lol. If the story is good, I'll forget about the clunky controls. If the Ragdolls are impressive and if the gunshots are loud and immersive, I'll forget about being annoyed at how slow my character aims their darn gun.
I really liked this video, but man some of your social statements are dumb especially the one about Charle's voice actor. I'm Latino, but I don't speak spanish so should I be allowed to play a Latino character from some part of Mexico or Central America?
depends on if you're a competent voice actor who pulls off the role, since realistically that's what matters most instead of this weird political BS no one cares about
The difference between RDR1 and RDR2 is that in the original game you're winning the whole way through, succeeding at all your challenges, and then WIN THE GAME, before you die. And then someone avenges your death and you play as them in the epilogue. In the latest game, you lose, and lose, and lose, things get worse and worse, including relationships, deaths, your own sickness, and then you die. And then someone avenges your death and you play as them in the epilogue. Red Dead Redemption is a real Spaghetti Western genre piece. The Great American Novel, a "love letter" as some have noted. Red Dead Redemption 2 takes the sepia away and says "this is how life really is." The Great American Reality Show where tragedy and drama and catchphrases and lush CGI are what get ratings.
SPOILER ALERT: Also; I think Dutch's narcissism got the best of him about mid game. Many of the gang members had more allegiance to Arthur than to Dutch and he saw this (E.G.: see the fate of miss Grimshaw). They all saw Arthur on a daily basis ACCOMPLISHING what Dutch would only talk about during in his dramatic, PRE-REHEARSED speeches. Dutch was the bark. Arthur was the bite. One extremely overstated. One extremely understated. Something that will make ANY dictator or cult leader psychotic is someone else getting THEIR attention. I think this is why Dutch left Arthur at the oil factory to die; To eliminate him as a rival to his own authority. That's why he left Arthur ALONE on that mountain. Had Arthur not been SOO loyal to a FAULT; he could have easily gathered the support of Charles, Lenny, Grimshaw, Sadie, Hosea, John, probably Pierson, and most of the girls, before confronting Dutch (earlier on when he saw Dutch deteriorating and listening to Micah more and more). This would have resulted in a VERY different ending and completely changed the events of RDR1.
The Honor System is a battle of Good and Evil inside John and Arthur's head. It is not an objective God shaming or praising their actions. So in my opinion, its a narrative mechanic, not just a game-a-fied pointless system. It tells different stories for different types of players. Does RDR2's story make it very unlikely that anyone will play as an evil Arthur? Yeah, but at least you still have consequences to your actions. Grappling with that mechanic throughout the game gives you a better idea of what it means for Arthur to be moral right or wrong.
I found it similar to the Sopranos. Tony gets shot, is given a golden opportunity to become a better man. You see him act it for a while, then it all goes down the toilet and you really see the ugliness of it all. Red Dead 2 does it similar. But personally for me, I think what really would have made 2 better, would have been if they had Guarma replaced with New Austin. The same group, Javier, Dutch, Arthur, Bill and Micah, all wind up fleeing into the West with nothing and it would have been even better for Dutch to lose his mind there from the romanticism he placed on the West. It would have perfectly made sense for only those 5 to end up there, with absolutely nothing, no weapons, food or money. One of the issues I had with Guarma was at the end of the day, Dutch’s actions were fairly justified considering he was ensuring their survival. The whole Chapter could have been them in a bloody battle for gold against The Del Lobos, some O’Driscolls and even the prospectors and the army considering the battles for Gold would have been fairly similar to the drug wars of the 80s. Would also have been a great way to make some bad honorable choices in contrast to Chapter 6’s honorable ones. You had Armadillo with its Cholera outbreak etc and Fort Mercer could have been a great addition to it. Now don’t get me wrong, Guarma is still a cool chapter and all and it’s visually stunning. But I do feel they wasted a really good part of the map as well with New Austin.
The characters they portray are not. It's important to have accurate representation of characters and fairness in the hiring process. Marginalised communities have difficulties acquiring roles, thus meaning that more effort needs to be made to ensure actual fairness and accessibility for jobs. They're not known as marginalised for no reason. I mean no offense to you, but your statement is a very surface level analysis of a wider, systemic problem in society. I urge you to please look into this issue further instead of making blanket statements without thought. Thank you.
@@AshuriAikawa Offense very much taken. To say that I have put no thought into my statement is extremely presumptuous. Do not confuse brevity with thoughtlessness. I have looked into this issue very thoroughly and what I've found is a tangled mess of vapid untestable, and therefore, unprovable theories that don't hold up to the slightest of scrutiny and only persist because of the fear people have of contradicting them (just like most of all other social science).
@@AshuriAikawa2 years later and you still didn't fire back. guess you knew they had you there, huh? if you meant "no offense", you wouldn't be on such a high-horse and ended your rant with a shit-eating "thank you"
@RedHatGuyYT I've had comments off until a few months ago. But looking at what they said, they basically said, "I disagree with you and don't like that you think differently to me." That's all they said, they gave no counterargument, their comment was worthless. For them to have "got" me, they'd have needed to have written something with substance-which they very much didn't. It's been a long time since I wrote my comment and cannot recall much to what I was talking about, but at the very least, the response it got was a blanket statement and had no value. If you think it does, you clearly also know very little lmao. Nice try, though.
I get the feeling Dutch hitting his head was a parallel to the real life Henry VIII. Thought to be a good leader with few issues until he had a head injury and quickly became a tyrant and a monster to the people he ruled over. There’s been arguments by historians whether or not he was always evil and the injury revealed his true colors or if the injury itself made him mad. Sounds a lot like Dutch
@@Jaetheeintrovert How is that lazy? If the more talented voice actor was white, you pick them, regardless of their race or gender or anything. Jack is voiced by a woman for Christ's sake, they didn't get a five year old boy to do it because kids aren't good voice actors.
Hey David, I always find your videos very interesting and this video was no exception. It’s fascinating that you found rdr2 existential crisis inducing because I had the complete opposite experience. I played the game for hours on end, hunting animals to unlock the exclusive clothing available at the trapper, doing all the stranger missions, playing way too many games of poker, grooming my character’s hair and beard, making regular contributions to the camp’s funds and food supply, scouring the open world for all it’s peculiarities, and hanging around with my fellow camp mates. I did all of this despite me knowing that the gang was going to dissolve and Arthur wasn’t going to make it. As I’m writing this I am finding it difficult to find the reasons why I did this. I think one of the reasons I did this is because I have been holding off getting rdr2 since it came out because I wasn’t really in the mood for playing any video games at the time (2018 was a bit of a rough year for me) and so when I finally bought it, I was in the right frame of mind to enjoy the game and all it had to offer. The second reason I can think of is that I was truly invested into Arthur and the gang. A large part of me wanted to see Arthur and the gang be happy that it blinded me from the inevitable. I even believed in Dutch (despite having played rdr1) and so I felt just as crushed and lost as Arthur did when he saw everything that he had believed in crumble before his eyes. I have never played a game where I hoped things would turn out differently despite knowing the outcome and I think this is rdr2’s greatest triumph and what makes it such an interesting game to talk about. Sorry for the long rambling comment, I’ve been dying to talk about rdr2 ever since I completed it recently. Will you be making any videos on film or music in the future? It would be great to see. I really appreciate the effort you put into your videos so I’m excited to see what comes next. Congrats on the engagement and see you later!
Hey Matt. This comment was really nice - thanks for taking the time to write it all out . As far as the existential dread, while this was important in my subjective experience with the game, it was exactly that - subjective. I can understand your reasoning for feeling otherwise, but for some reason the length/tediousness of some of the slower paced parts of RDR2 really emphasized this feeling of 'They're all going to die anyway, what's the point?" Which is really kind of dumb because they are all just digital renderings of people and the meaning is what you make. If anything it's a testament to the world building and character design that I felt that way. I felt as if this was a real story. Real people. As far as your part two - its always interested me so much to see how experiences affect one's interpretation of media. It's impossible to look at a game objectively, so it's sort of mature and wise of you to recognize internally that you would not have the same experience with the game until your were in a better mindset. I'd love to explore this more in my videos in the future, as it certainly affects my interpretation of the games I play. Thanks for the kind words. If you want to talk more about RDR or anything, you can always reach me on twitter @davidoztv. It might be a better conversation on twitch however, twitch.tv/mrdavidoz.
Matt I agree with u fully I couldn’t stop grooming Arthur and feeding my beautiful Missouri foxtrotter named Arthur. I loved looking after my guns hunting every legendary animal and doing all the side quests I could possibly do. I spent hours just in my camp interacting with the other members of the gang and I believe as much as one can in a video game I grew to genuinely like them (Micah excluded). For me rdr2 was the game of the generation due to its outstanding detail and my favourite feature the way I somehow grew to love and genuinely care for my horse. The worst part for me was the movement controls (shooting I was fine with) but even then I found with some degree of editing the settings that was ok. The missions I do understand what Dave meant about the consistent structure and outdated design but even tho in chapter 3 they were becoming tedious once chapter 4 began i was glued to the screen and how the gang was going to go down. Overall o believe this game to be an incredible achievement for gaming as a whole and I am truly glad I got to play this. If u made it this far thanks for listening to my rant but I hope I c where I am coming from
Sorry for bad grammar Ik im late as hell but u just wanted to let you know this is one of the best comments I've ever read in terms of grammar. and the fact that I also did the same thing I spent countless hours hunting exploring or just taking in the sights. and I have way to many pictures of the landscapeof rdr2. and my favorite part author I loved his character and how he became a good man in the end.
Idk but i completely disagree about the open world i found it very engaging almost eeriely so and the way i changed how i interacted with it as arthur developed as a character has stuck with me
Yeah I mean ok video games are supposed to be fun but I don’t really have a problem with the game making me ask questions. IMO the best creations are those that make you think in ways that aren’t ramming an argument down your throat. The game allows me to have fun and think at the same time. But that just me
24:27 Here's another take: John Marston is dressed in a BIKER GANG OUTFIT from GTA because he is a 2010 AUDIENCE SURROGATE in a world where GTA IV: The Lost and Damned exists. Look at him again. That's a black cut-off biker's vest, and flared pinstripe biker pants, and biker boots. He's a hillbilly motor-biker who jumped in a time machine and became the horse-riding protagonist for a risky Rockstar Western Genre game where it was imperative that players recognized and identified with the protagonist. John Marston is anachronistic in two ways: he's out of time in 1899, but he's also out of time in his appearance in the place where the story occurs - that's why all the NPCs call him a "city feller". Why would they do that? Because he represents the player, or at least, a character the player would recognize from a city in GTA. Because while the character John Marston as we learn is absolutely NOT a city feller, he also initially looks not much like the classic Western Clint Eastwood type -- there's too many modern touches on his outfit -- until he gets his poncho in Mexico and starts melding into the genre character he was intended to be. The game was shrewdly designed to ease in modern players who didn't have the knowledge of Western tropes, but in fact is a crash course in all of them throughout each Act, as it traverses the Classic, Spaghetti and Revisionist Western genres. And we know this Western 101 Video Game Experiment by Rockstar Games worked on modern players, because Red Dead Redemption 2 exists.
Good analysis, but why does Rockstar “need” to educate people on the actual American West? That’s what school and a higher education is for. There is a magnitude of books on the 1800s. Simply put this is a story that is made in homage to spaghetti westerns of the 1960s. Games like these are a form of entertainment, and can peak one’s interest of the time period and then that person may decide “Hey, I wanna study up on this time period.” Red Dead Redemption doesn’t need me to show racism and it’s impact during the 1800s. It just needs to have a story ( and it has one, damn good one I might add) and good gameplay design (which is a mixed bag with most R* games).
If there was a Indian/Black actor playing a Japanese character in the game you wouldn’t bat an eye . your comments are unfair , and are essentially reverse racism by saying the voice actor must be the same color in real life. It’s a video game buddy . No one could have done a better performance with the character Charles Smith than Noshir Dalal. If any character deserves a spin off game it’s him . It’s unfair of you to judge his performance by his race .
Oh. I always just assumed Dutch read some book glorifying Tahiti so that would be why he brings it up so much. Tahiti is a pretty sounding name. But your point about Dutch using Tahiti as a manipulative method is great.
The Guarma section is a slog gameplay wise but story wise it’s probably the most important chapter honestly. The scene when Dutch murders the old woman right in front of Arthur was the moment Arthur finally catches wind of Dutches true motives. I think deep down Arthur has suspected Dutch’s narcissistic ways for awhile. This scene is really where Arthur starts to shift his motivations to himself and the other members who aren’t in Dutch and Micah’s back pockets.
To be honest, it’s a very slow game and it takes a lot of patience, but for me, I love that. You can take in all of the moments/characters thoroughly and I love that
How did this move to SJW nonsense? Maybe rockstar just made a great game with a great story. No statements, no political narratives, no commentary on current culture at all. If they were trying to say something, then maybe the massive success of RDR and GTA tells us everything we need to know. People, gamers, do not want preachy political nonsense in their games. Especially if it’s the SJW variety.
I dont agree with a lot of your OPINIONS on these games. Especially the sjw bs about the voice acting, I mean who...just... why... But I respect the work you put into this video and some of your opinions are spot on. That being said the work alone is enough for a thumbs up and comment from me.
Could never wrap my head around your stance on these games just being “ok”, ignoring the beautiful writing the core games are a benchmark for open world design, side quest, random encounters, and immersion at its finest
I've watched this a few times. I think you made your biggest point pretty quickly. You are looking to sit down for a couple hours after work to play and have fun. This won't get much accomplished in either game unless you rush from story mission to story mission. Of course the experience wont have the depth or richness that one is rewarded with if they take their time. RDR2 is not a game for a person that has 1-2 hours to play unless you can get enjoyment from the seemingly monotonous elements like hunting, fishing, playing cards, etc. I think you make a lot of valid points. But it also seems to me that you just aren't a slow game kind of person. I just can't picture the creator of this analysis having played/liked games such as The long dark. Probably one of the slowest games I have played. In which case it would kind of be like a person that has a distaste for racing games to review Forza horizon 4 because of it's open world. But I digress. I think, redemption 1 or 2 are both what you make of them. Especially rdr2. I have put FAR too many hours into the hunting element alone than I would want to admit. I enjoy the fishing. I use hollowpoints EXCLUSIVELY meaning I am crafting them pretty regularly. I actually enjoy the campfire activities. There is so much dialogue and small stuff in redemption 2 that just hanging around camp talking to people can be meaningful and offer a lot more insight into their current circumstances. It's not the best comparison to make but it's kind of like Skyrim in that, you can rush from main mission to main mission if you choose; Or you can spend a lot of time doing everything from side missions to reading libraries of written lore to collecting herbs and aimless dungeon diving. Games of this scope are what you make of them. I have always been a bit of a completionist myself. I think a lot of elements were left intentionally inert so that you can participate in the elements you like and appreciate and leave the ones you don't care for (except camp slowdown, screw that dumbness!). I think rockstar was trying to create a HYBRID form of media in rdr2. Part game, part multi season drama, part comic book. I think they wanted it to be an "experience". I can't say this with certainty but that's the impression I get with so many elements like the "cinema mode" when riding. In the end ALL games are subjective and everyone is entitled to their opinions. Clearly I enjoyed RDR2, took it as slow as possible, and found it to be a very rewarding and somewhat (surprisingly) emotional experience. I appreciate the thought and effort that went into this analysis! Thanks!
I sign my name under each and every word in this comment! Edit: Except for "slow walk at camp". Doesn't bother me much. I find that it adds to the "cinematic experience" aspect of the game.
@@diggininthecrates91 Slow walking is cool. but it shouldn't be forced, i'm not forced to lead my horse but sometimes I get off my horse and lead it when I feel like it. Camp should be the same
@@sibusiso2841 I get it. But that forced slow walk has a reason to be. It's so you can catch all the conversations etc. between characters. A lot happens at camp, that enhances the story. The same reason for which you aren't allowed to fast travel a good chunk of the game, so you can take in everything the open world has to offer. PS.: Man RUclips comments is something else. A simple exchange can last years, and still be a healthy one.
Idk about you but I actually appreciated the lengths and lines the developers writing the story went with the racial profiling. Back in that time Mexicans from Mexico didn't like white people all that much. Around that time Mexicans saw white people in Mexico as pests mucking around their country. Or "stupid gringos." Whatever... Much like all other cultures back in these past times. we can all agree there was much more open hate and racism on all sides. When you have Mexicans Messing with you stealing your hat calling you a "Cowboy Gringo" it puts you in that awkward position of "wow I'm in a foreign place where I'm not welcome" I feel it sets the tone perfect for the setting it puts you in your place right off the bat telling you that you're not seen as welcome here. Max Payne 3 did the exact same thing with max in Brazil not know wtf anyone is saying and he's getting pissed at these gangsters saying "don't you understand.. that I.. don't speak.. your fucking language!" I think you let personal biased and offenses get in your way of getting what they story was actually trying tell. My advice just don't be such a ❄️ you'll probably enjoy and understand life and things more often... 😆
I enjoyed this video essay, but. Dude, understand that being gang/bounty/rough dude is a job for John. His loyalty and faithfulness to Abigail are his private life and personality.
Hi David, I found your channel earlier when trying to find an in depth GTA 4 analysis and after watching your video on GTA, I have just finished watching this. You're a very entertaining content creator and the amount of thought and effort you have put into your work is so greatly appreciated. Truly great work you have earned a subscriber from New Zealand 😄🇳🇿 hope life is well friend ♥️
I remember loving both games from an experience point of view, however mine is granted much different from your own Being a guy with ADHD on school holidays, still living with my parents, I had much more time to play and less stress on getting a "bang for my buck" as put in the video. I found it actually pretty therapeutic to walk around beechers hope and just, fill the water troughs, feed the chickens, stock the wagon with eggs and shovel cow shit in the barn (Which I doubt I'd ever do irl XD) And I also enjoyed part 1 enough for the fact that I found it a generally moving, and realistic end for John to get torn to Swiss cheese and for Jack to continue the cycle. But, part 2 also recontextualized the first for me (went back and played the first a second time), adding to the feeling that part 1 was a bittersweet conclusion of the story of a righteous gang falling to pieces and the moral relativism of the world closing in on those who remain. I found it somewhat satisfying Moving to another point without any reason (get ready for that) I found Dutch's concussion as more an interesting way to suspend the disbelief on the way, namely for the characters who probably lack the time for hindsight. Arthur actually comments on this later on saying something along the lines of "either that bonk on the head made him lose it, or it's just made him fly his true colours a bit higher" Mainly fodder for the question, and to make it so that they didn't have nothing bad happen in that crash, which would make no sense. Dutch being at first glance one of the worst people to have been injured to ramp tension a bit Unto the Eagleflies and Rainsfall predicament, I think it's more that they're expected to portray Rainsfall in a certain way, especially by the communities who'd be looking for fairness. They were socially obligated to have the elder of the Lakota be an old truely wise pacifistic man. And that dragged Eagle Flies to be the polar opposite, the hot-headed one pulling them into deeper conflict. Yes I'm lazy pulling the "SJW's suck" card, but I'm giving an excuse, not saying that it wasn't disappointing. On Charle's VA I take the strance of many-a-other commenter here that it wasn't a problem, and that any other "solution" would be inherently racistly selective. Assuming this argument is actually relevant to what was being said. Other than that, nice video and I definitely enjoyed the breakdown & introspection on storytelling mechanics.
I like long videos so gave this a hopeful chance I was finding a hidden gem in your channel. Guess not. Bashing the games for not being ¨SWJ¨ enough was barely bearable but feels you weren´t willing to sink the time into the world and only wanted to progress through the story. RDR2 is a super slow thing if you had a great time only doing story missions I don´t see the issue with the wild world simulation it´s attached to it.
You’re making great content dude. Keep it t up as long as it makes you happy. Just found your channel and subscribed. Went on a road trip and binged the lions share of your content. You made 400 miles seem like a Sunday drive. Thank you.
The closest thing to the Red Dead Redemption series in modern Western cinema is 3 : 10 to Yuma (2007). In classic Western cinema, you must watch The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976). This review doesn't make as much sense if you consider the game in the context of those movies. The criticisms of the dialogue and characters like West Dickens evaporate because they're direct homages to actual Western genre history. You know what? My love for this game runs so deep, that I'm totally able to enjoy this video and disagree as much as agree, and still grin watching the scenes as they go by. Thanks for sharing your work!
I've got to say I've never seen an analysis i agree with less but respect more so I give you great respect for so eloquently delivering your opinions. Well done sir.
While watching this video, I literally imagined a minimum of like 600k subs. It's crazy how high quality this content is with such a small following. Big thumbs up.
so ive been binge watching youre analysis videos and dude, we gotta link up and just talk like philosophy. you sound like the perfect person for these kinds of conversations
Having agreed with most of what you said and disagreed with a couple, everything, including stuff i disagreed with, was so well thought out and well explained, and it really shows how much research was done for such a massive video. I learned a lot not only about how i feel about the games but there actual significance to what i care about in story based games. This video was super well written and holy cow did it explain so much i didnt understand about rdr and rdr2, love this series and huge props!!
Boy you really came at this game from a modern ADHA trailer-cut perspective. When I think of RDR1 now having played it so many times, I do NOT think of the finale with Dutch. I think of the action tactile experience of playing the game, and the conversations on horseback.
You'll appreciate RDR2 more as you get older, it's an all-timer, I'm 32 but on my 6th playthrough? It gets better each time because you learn how to play it better, or more in your liking, but to have such a well presented narrative requires sacrifice, yeah.
I dunno if a college professor, a man literally attached to the maintenance of the status quo is a good source for a valid criticism on revisionist history.
I believe the driven tragedy of both games is jack. I think he is a grossly overlooked key to understanding one of the key points the game drives. That the slow churning sands of time and the lumbering forward momentum of civilization have their collateral. Jack was the subject of 2 generations of martyrdom and infact wished to be the very thing that had been such a instrument of tragedy in his life. Through the powers that be 2 generations of people (literally 10s of people) indirectly or directly gave their life so jack could live a normal life. But the government and overall civilization had to trim the fat to move forward. However turned jack into a zeitgeist. A man far behind the times doomed to suffer in some way by the same hand that killed his father and Arthur etc. Jack is the tragedy. Because he was the only one that never even wanted the wild west till he found it had enveloped him. And we are simply left to speculate that he went on briefly and died savagely. Doing what he was forced to do.
Loved the vid man, its also nice to know about your life, the little things you say, I dunno It kind of gives me hope, all of us young folk trying to make a living and finding our place. Keep it up man 🤙🏻
Gotta say man, as an audience member just joining in, get the advertising for your previous videos and who you are out of the way at the beginning. I skipped an entire 80 seconds while you were rambling and felt I didn't miss much.
I think one of the best things about Red Dead Redemption is that though the story that is being presented is clearly set in a bygone era, the themes of watching what you knew as the world die, fighting change, and the cycle of revenge are timeless. They didn't focus on the most timely problems of the Wild West era because they wanted to tell a story that could work in any period. When they did add problems from the period, the themes that it served were similarly timeless. Obviously the Mexican Revolution happened a long time ago, but Rockstar using it to point out how those who fight tyranny can often be tyrants themselves allows for the narrative of the story to remain timeless. There are other pieces of media that focus on the worst parts of the west. With Red Dead Redemption, Rockstar chose to tell a story that uses the west to depict timeless themes, and it made for a far more compelling piece of media, in my opinion.
While I appreciate commentary and well-presented thematic ideas as much as the next guy, sometimes it just isn't the vision of the creator. In the case of both RDR games, they're clearly much more interested in personal human themes like vengeance, family, and the cycle of revenge, and the feeling of displacement rather than giving a prespective on world issues like slavery, economy, and racism in the way a GTA game might and even satarize though there are definitely some background subtexts of such matters.
I watch a lot of video essays like this, and I’ve watched about 4 other ones by davidOZ and at first I was like “okay I don’t exactly agree but this is interesting” and now at this point, I just think he has bad opinions. I don’t mean offense but seriously man, loosen up.
THICC VIENER I believe on the surface it is, but as Arthur and John mature, they realize redemption is foolish, and focus on what makes life truly meaningful. When Arthur dies at the end of RDR2, he is at peace not because he got his redemption, but because he ended up leaving a life of morality and love. Think about the dialogue between Arthur and the nun or Arthur and the Native American chief.
I made Arthur tie up a woman and blow her brains out with a shot gun. Just for pure enjoyment. Rockstar allows players to do this. Explain how this can be redeemable.
@@clawmansegele1988 "but because he ended up leaving a life of morality and love" which in a greater sense is why Arthur achieved redemption not because he left the outlaw life or stopped robbing and killing because the truth is: he never stopped.
I think Rockstar made a great leap towards actually making the players feel guilty for their actions while allowing free will for the players, and i feel like this was a turn in the right direction
I’ve played both games over 10 times and red dead redemption 2 is my favorite game of all time, followed closely by the first. But they are absolutely flawed, and is that really such a bad thing? Videogames don’t have to be one thing, they don’t have to be built around fun, they don’t have to be for everyone, if you don’t like red dead or it’s prequel, just don’t play them. They aren’t for you. Of course I am by no means being bitter towards the creator of the video, i respect his opinions and the video was entertaining. I don’t think that this video shouldn’t exist. But I hear so many people complain about the games, specially the second one, because it’s too slow or tedious. Or too realistic. But I love the realism, I don’t mind the tedium and I don’t mind the slow because I like to immerse myself in the game as much as possible. I’ve played through GTA 5 4 times, and I’m the type of person who doesn’t rampage or run over pedestrians or anything like that. I don’t play gta for the killing or gameplay, I play for the story and I play red dead redemption for the same reasons because rockstar make some of the greatest stories and worlds in videogames
Why should it be required to show the ugly side of history? It most likely would have distracted us from the main story. It had hints of the ugly in RDR2 but thankfully Rockstar didn't ruin it by going to far on it. Sorry dude, but the Native Americans were not innocent people either. Any human is capable of becoming cruel. Also, the Mexico chapter in the game was good at pointing out how flawed humanity is.
I don’t agree with his stance on the whole native argument, but I do agree with how RDR2 does feel a lot sanitized. John in RDR1 says that the gang did some ugly, despicable, and downright atrocious things during his time in the gang. Yet, it feels like a contradiction to have RDR2 try and paint them as one big happy family trying to do well when John outright says in the first game that their old life was just an excuse to go around killing and robbing people. Painting their whole "family" dynamic as something that was superficial and shallow.
I have said this on multiple videos The key differences to me: RDR1: The gritty, unforgiving, dull and true setting matches Johns personality so well as he is all of those things. The story is extremely personal. And that’s a strength this game has. The setting and the character rub off on one another like we’ve never seen before. It’s about a man doing everything in his power to get his family back. We see him form his own connections and take on 2 countries in America and Mexico. Taking on governments, Armies, gangs, outlaws This life was meant to be done with, all this killing. But John marston not only takes on all of these foes but wins and succeeds in getting his family back. And before his death becoming the last great gunslinger/Bounty hunter of the Wild West. Becoming famous, feared and respected in America and Mexico. RDR2: Varied, Interesting, colourful yet dangerous. This perfectly matches Arthur’s personality. And where the latter was a more personal, gritty story. This was like an epic ensemble. Like the magnificent 7, wild bunch etc. This game to me represents hope and dreams of the gang. And of course the shining light that is Arthur Morgan. “Shine light into darkness” Arthur is a man who is artful and had a big heart but he’s had to put those aspects of himself aside so he can be there for his gang. He may have lost himself slightly but by the end he becomes the best version of himself while also fighting off TB Both games bounce of eachother greatly and the love o have for the redemption series is incredible. Definitely the best fictional story ever made
i think i should clarify that when you say punching, roping, or shooting the eugenics guy in saint denis will all result in losing honor points, that that's not true. it's possible that it could've been patched, but every time i see him i shoot him, and not only is there no loss of honor, it's the only character i've seen in the game that you can kill in front of a policeman and not get any wanted level for. anyway, this is a great video and i really appreciate all the work you've put into this series.
I can back this up, I was just playing RDR2 again this past week, a couple days ago I passed that guy in Saint Denis. I punched him the first time and got no honor loss or wanted level. When I rode back through again later, he was still there, so I shot him and rode away without any issues again.
Even if the Honor loss was there, murder is still murder. Doss the eugenicist deserve it? Maybe so. It is an interesting moral question. From my own standpoint though, murder is still murder.
25:11 Had this game in my collection for ages before I put it on. Thought it was about revenge. As he doles out the information to Bonnie at the start you realise it is reluctant Redemption. That's when I realised it was my kind of story and kept playing. I appreciate the Bonnie sequences for that reason.
You're exactly right about the Tulsa Killings! I only found out by watching 2019's Watchmen on HBO and then I looked it up after seeing a Tik Tok about it. Thought I was the only one who was never taught about it in school
Huge fan man! I found you while listing to other channels video essays and you getting recommended to me! Its also rad that your a fellow oklahoman and yeah its wild how in Oklahoma history they only teach us about the romanticized parts like the land run and completely ignore the race riots and etc.
Great video man. RDR2 was the last game i really got into before starting full time work so I took a week off to play it and it took me 3 months and playing nearly every day to platinum it. I almost can’t believe I platinumed it. Not sure I’m gonna want to touch it again for a while but it was an experience for sure. Arthur is my favourite rockstar protagonist next to Niko
I'm a PC only gamer, and so only played RDR2, and only quite recently too. I went into the game knowing very little of the game or franchise, but I very quickly found myself almost entirely unable to empathise or sympathise with any of the main characters. Dutch was - to me - so blatantly a flawed character from the beginning, particularly in the twisted justifications he gives for his actions and orders, and therefore by extension the people who willingly follow him were also complicit in his flawed dream for them. Still, the game was great if only for the beauty in it's world-building, and I'd highly recommend it to anyone.
I agree with giving a Native actor the opportunity to play the role. They deserve to be given that opportunity and make money as well. Instead of being lazy and just taking a white voice actor to play a Native American. I liked the deep analysis, you taught me things I didn't even realize. I suggest organizing the video into sections because it felt like you were jumping from one topic to the next then back to another topic (and that's how my brain works too so I even confused myself by overthinking).
@@bigt100 it's called proper representation Would you like idris elba as tony soprano? No Now shut the fuck up and educate yourself ( And yes I'm native and black)
@@murdasippislim But it's voice acting, in RDR's case. You don't see the person behind the voice, why should it matter as long as they're a good actor?
I really like your intro about impending death and how we still choose to watch long gaming videos because, I honestly could care less this shit interests me more than the news HAHA
Actually, you can shoot the eugenics preacher in St Denis without fear of consequences. Kidnapping him, or fighting with him often leads to police getting involved, not always, but usually. But, simply putting a casual bullet in his head and quickly holstering your gun, right in full view of a cop, will startle everyone, but that’s it. Try it? What I would like to know is, what would you suggest they change for the third Red Dead game? If they ever decide to make a third, what would you tell Rockstar they should do differently, if you had chief developer status? I understand your complaints, and there were one or two things I hadn’t thought of before in there, that I will ponder for some time to come. I’ve seen so many highly praising videos that it would be forgivable to imagine there’s no such thing as a negative or even critical review or analysis of the games. I really enjoyed your insights and I’m glad to hear some intelligently thought out criticism. I’d like to know which way you would take the story? Would you go further back in time, to a pre-prequel? Later in time, with other characters? Or abandon these characters for a fresh take on the west, in a wholly different time period? Would you prefer to fix these games, or have a fresh start on a new game? If so, understanding what’s, “wrong,” with the games, what would you build on, add, change, and introduce?
This analysis is actually fairly poor, really similar to the GTA 4, especially the “republicans like Alex Jones” comment. I’m absolutely no fan of Jones, but I do know misrepresentation and willful ignorance when I see it, regardless of what garbage Jones has come out with. This video also adds to the issue. Bringing up the race of Charles actor, and completely misrepresenting what both games are actually about, shows that this guy wants a completely different game tailored to his fancy. Neither game is about the depiction the genocide of the Native American tribes, they just happen to be in the story because of the time period. 2 doesn’t glamorize either side , it just shows the ugliness for what it is, but the focus is still on Arthur and his redemption (or lack of, depending on your honor). It’s to show the sadness of the violence and Dutch’s downfall. The final battle on the oil refinery is the moment where it sets in when you come to realize how much blood has been spilled.
What I took away from this game is the story, the narrative, despite everything been said and shown, for me, Dutch is the main star of this game, I think Dutch is the most unique well crafted philosophical morally and emotionally unstable antagonist, I loved him, and I was mesmerized by him as pixels on the screen, with a ground soundtrack and a voice actor bringing a truly believable sort of not real-real character, i think him starting to lose his cool time over time, to not lead by example and act against what he preached, in a way, he might be anyone of us anyday at anytime, and if anybody is reading this, try putting Dutch side by side with heath’s Joker, think about it, and as we “can not fight gravity” sometimes all we need is a little.. Push.
1:33:46 Many voice actors don't get to choose or know who they're voice acting for. It's a despicable part of this industry, and so it really falls more onto the developers rather than the voice actors for this.
I know of two examples that would fit this comment really well. From my understanding the man who voiced Kratos in God of War (2018) didn't know he was voicing Kratos, and the woman who voiced Agent Torque in X-Com: Chimera Squad thought she was voicing a vampire the entire time and was surprised she was voicing a snake person.
I hope in future you will structure your essays with an outline before you write it. It should be digestible in parts, especially when you're pushing close to 2 hours. My advice is to write the essay after you write the outline. Part 1 intro part 2 themes and characters part 3 plot etc etc. That way the essay doesn't go all over the place, I had some trouble following your point and often caught myself doing other shit besides listening.
@@frogglen6350 well he didn't say he did skip parts, just that the video should be more clearly defined when it is 2 hours long about video games. The video is just all over the place and the point is unclear and most of the time just criticizes to criticize because the game doesn't deliver him what he wants exactly..
i know its not perfect but rdr2 is one of my favorite games ever. i love the characters, the world, and the story. its basically impossible to create a perfect game but thats something rockstar can do better with if they come out with a third. god i hope they do.
I disagree heavily about the lack of interactivity in RDR2. Every tiny detail that didn't need to be there really brought me further into the world. I spent more time hunting in that game than actually doing missions. Shit, my poker time alone must be around 10 hours. At the same time I played through this during lockdown, so a very different time from when you played through it
When talking about Red Dead 2, I really couldn’t agree with you stance on Eagle Flys and Rains Falls. To me they were built to show the two sides found within Arthur. The violent side that wanted to fight against a world that has wronged him and a benevolent side where Arthur wants to accept his world and leave it as good as possible. To say Rockstar simply did “native cliche here” is disingenuous to these characters. The conversations between Arthur and Rain Falls was probably some of the best in the game and seeing Dutch manipulate Eagle Flys in a much similar way he manipulates Arthur was an amazing contrast.
Totally agree. And in generell one cannot speak of cliche because the whole story is unique
Never thought how these 2 characters contrast off Arthur but now that you mention it it makes total and added a layer to Arthur's arc for me.
Also kinda shows the beginning of Dutch’s relationship with the native Americans. In Rdr1 the native Americans are Dutch’s henchmen essentially. Cool connections all over these games
Agree but the pacing really slowed because of it which kind of contrasted a little from the fast paced parts of chapter 6 and that was a little annoying
@@thatguydiego5337 In a gameplay context I agree with you, but in a story context I thought the pacing to be brilliant. It's Red Dead Redemption after all, and Arthur had to redeem himself (at least on the honorable path). The pacing was great in that regards.
Tbh I'm not sure what they could have done to demonstrate the more ugly side of the time period than what was already shown in the game. What would you have them do? Just straight up depict a lynching in grizzly fashion? I feel like that would have just been gratuitous. Both Lenny and Tilly have discussions with Arthur where they talk about the hardships and discrimination faced by black people in the south, and Lenny heavily implies that they lynch and kill black people regularly. Micah is openly racist towards all of the minority members of the gang. Javier gets called a greaser, and several other racial slurs throughout the game. Theres the side quest in Rhodes with the black doctor that explores racial violence and discrimination. There's the quest involving the former slave catcher that explores the horrors of slavery. Theres the depiction of the sufferagette movement and discrimination against women at several points through the game. And there's the depiction of Native genocide and movement from their lands.
I get the feeling that this guy kinda rushed through the story without paying attention to details like this. Both Red Dead games are best played slowly and patiently in order to absorb all of the small details that come together to create a larger picture that is the ending of the wild west time period.
Just because the game doesn't necessarily hold these aspects of life back then up to your face and shout "look at how terrible things were back then!" Dosen't mean that sentiment isn't there. After all you're play from the perspective of Arthur, a white man living in a white man's world. And eventhough he's not racist himself, these issues aren't something he has to face on an everyday basis. Like Lenny says while discussed racial discrimination with Arthur: "With all due respect Mr. Morgan, you wouldn't notice."
Exactly..either the guy who made this video didnt play this game enough or just missed those parts I dunno. I'm with you though.. if u want to be educated on that time period go watch some documentaries this game is about being in a gang in the west..and that's the story it tells. It doesnt have to be educational lol I thought that was so dumb that he went there..that and the voice actor thing 🤦♂️
👌 perfectly said
Good points. It's disturbing how some people, like the guy running this channel, want to have everything reflect the way they see the world and the past. Seems like the guy has a real problem with white people for whatever reason
@political_rat yeah all he talks about is “ludonarrative freaking dissonance
yes it feels like I went through an hour of a guy whining about details he missed inside the video game he played.
It is not Rockstars job, or any video games for that matter, to educate you about the setting of their game. They told the story they wanted to tell and we do not expect any more then that because it's not mandatory for them to do so. But you know what, because I played RDR, I CHOSE to go read more about the real wild west. Something that may not have been intended by R* but I went out and did it anyway. This idea that games need to "educate" is nonsense and I'm getting annoyed with reviewers thinking this is objectively a bad thing
So you are basically ok with an open world game not having that good of an open world.
In that case, RDR 2 should have been linear, like The Last of Us if the game was just about " muh deep storeh"
@@frogglen6350 you lack reading comprehension don't you?
@@frogglen6350 do you know how to read?
@@themessenger1390 You're correct that it's not R* job to educate the audience in the setting of their games, though this does mean that the game itself can be held to scrutiny for this reason, in the form of analysis. Like this video does. And like how the previous comment pointed out, part of what makes a good open world is having the detailing of that world told to the reader, whether it be implicit or explicit. If this doesn't exist, the world doesn't have depth.
This is the problem with your analysis - it ignores the fundamental principles needed to make a good, fleshed out open world. Critiquing a series based on their decisions or lack thereof is entirely acceptable if constructive. Telling people not to criticise part of a game only because it makes you angry isn't a justified reason, especially if the critique is constructive. I love both RDR 1 and 2, but that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore when people point out actual issues they have. Nothing is above criticism.
@@AshuriAikawa
So, what did you want? The towns should have been more racist and bigoted to reflect the reality? That doesnt sound very fun in my video game. Realistic or not.. its irrelevant to the realization of an open world.
To be honest i have ZERO problems with people of one colour voiceing charactors of another, anymore than i have any issue with woman typically voicing male children/teens in cartoons.
Yeah, bringing race to it is just dumb
I kind of agree with him. Of it's just voice acting and it's not due to racism then why not?? He has a good point.
My only gripe is Rockstar’s reasoning to hire this particular actor. It almost seems like they’re just settling with someone ambiguous enough rather than actually doing their homework on the subject matter. I like to think this is where they falter, because their way of thinking just seems very backwards and bigoted for what should be a very diverse and complex character. Then again they could’ve just kept their mouths shut and stated that they hired based on talent of depicting a character
I do agree with this, but on the other hand it also can whitewash things. So im torn. If all your characters are native americans and they are voiced by all white people, why not hire native american vocie actors and support them ya know?
Agreed... because there is always a touch of hypocrisy when it comes to this. What about when a voice actor of color voices a white character? A good example of this is Ashley Williams in Mass Effect, voided wonderfully by Kimberly Brooks, an African-American, while the model used for Ashley was Erica Cerra, who is Italian.
Eh, when it comes to voice acting I don’t find the race of the actor really matters. Like Kratos has been played by two different black men, but Kratos himself is Greek, yet I couldn’t imagine any other voice coming out of that man. I feel the same way about Charles, I would never have guessed his actor’s race.
Great point!
Seth Prestenback giannis antetokounmpo
ImReallyPoppin😤 Yeah, what?
True
It doesn't.
I feel like I’m the only person who actually enjoyed the Mexico portion of Red Dead Redemption. I was very interested in the political commentary and its critique of both the tyrannical military dictatorship and the socialist revolutionaries who would later become tyrants themselves. Reyes in particular was an interesting and often comically satirical character. Also, I thought John being used and exploited by both sides was thematically appropriate and just fun to watch and play. I get the idea that John comes across as weak because of this, but I always viewed that as intentional and just a facet of his character. And that mission where you storm the palace and take down Allende and Bill is one of my favorites. Just my opinion.
Same, it is my favorite chapter of rdr 1
Caesar I agree. I feel like people with any significant historical knowledge can enjoy the Mexico portion and most of both games in particular
I liked it too but I think it does sort of drag on slightly too long
I enjoyed the Mexico portion so much so when I went back to America it felt weird
Not much commentary when saying the obvious.
I don't disagree that RDR1 (and RDR2 to a vastly lesser extent) could have handled certain elements of that time period more thoughtfully but I also can't ignore that RDR1 was very much a love letter to the old spaghetti western. It certainly has a lot more dialogue than you might find in one of those films but it is still drawing from the same thematic well and is going to focus on the imagery and feel of those fairly straightforward films.
There is also a argument to be made that when you are telling a story based in even a fairly detailed historical setting, you are not always going to touch on specific social, racial, sexual, or political issues. Sometimes it is just not the direction that the story is going to take and sometimes the characters may simply not have a perspective that would allow for exploration of such concepts in a way that can satisfy a modern audience that is actively looking for such things in various games, films, TV shows, etc.
RDR2 is a good example. In that game, Arthur himself is not really concerned with the reality of race after the Civil war. It is only when Lenny talks to him about it that he really starts to think. I think that is a particularly good touch. Arthur doesn't have to be awkwardly shoehorned into a narrative position where he will strongly care about racial issues in the south but he is around people who have a very good reason to have a strong perspective in that time period.
Vvvvvvvvvvfvvfvvv f vvvffvvv f2f vfvvfv8fvff dv f2f vvvvvvvvvv f2f vvvvvf dv f vv f2f fvvvvvvfv8vv8vvvvvv
Perfectly said, I appreciate commentary and well-presented ideas as much as the next guy but sometimes it just isn't the vision of the creator. In the case of both RDR games, they're clearly much more interested in personal human themes like vengeance, family, and the cycle of revenge, and the feeling of displacement rather than giving a prespective on world issues like slavery, economy, and racism in the way a GTA game might and even satarize though there are definitely some background subtexts of such matters.
@@movieworld717 But what I'm not grasping is that there actually is alot of moments that deal the racial injustice, of the time period in RDR2. I'm not sure what they could have done to demonstrate the more ugly side of the time period than what was already shown in the game. What would you have them do? Just straight up depict a lynching in grizzly fashion? I feel like that would have just been gratuitous. Both Lenny and Tilly have discussions with Arthur where they talk about the hardships and discrimination faced by black people in the south, and Lenny heavily implies that they lynch and kill black people regularly. Micah is openly racist towards all of the minority members of the gang. Javier gets called a greaser, and several other racial slurs throughout the game. Theres the side quest in Rhodes with the black doctor that explores racial violence and discrimination. There's the quest involving the former slave catcher that explores the horrors of slavery. Theres the depiction of the sufferagette movement and discrimination against women at several points through the game. And there's the depiction of Native genocide and movement from their lands. I get the feeling that this guy kinda rushed through the story without paying attention to details like this. Both Red Dead games are best played slowly and patiently in order to absorb all of the small details that come together to create a larger picture that is the ending of the wild west time period.
Just because the game doesn't necessarily hold these aspects of life up back then up to your face and shout "look at how terrible things were back then!" Dosen't mean that sentiment isn't there. After all you're play from the perspective of Arthur, a white man living in a white man's world. And eventhough he's not racist himself, these issues aren't something he has to face on an everyday basis. Like Lenny says while discussed racial discrimination with Arthur: "With all due respect Mr. Morgan, you wouldn't notice."
@@MrZomBie775 I agree with you here. I think the game world being more explicit would be... less fun in some ways? For instance you mention the idea of showing a lynching. Would be more "realistic" and interesting on a historical level but doesn't exactly make the game more fun for me as a person of color.
I did run into some Lemoyne Raiders who had a man hanging from a tree as part of some elaborate ambush. I think touches like these allude to the real history of the south, without being so in-your-face.
Rdr1 makes stereotypes to tell a story and if anything rdr1 is more realistic then rdr2. Rdr2 ends with the hero killing the bad guy to live a happy life, and where good people get to live happy lives and bad guys pay for there sins. Rdr2 is more of a black and white world. While rdr2 is more grey is almost every one you team up with in the game are not good people and all the good people in the rdr1 die while the bad people get rewarded like the mexico rebellion leader is a power hungry man and wins the rebellion rdr1 in my opinion is more of a complex story
I actually disagree that Rockstars take on the west in RDR1 is a bad thing.
I think it is purposefully going for a hollywood style romanticised version of the west. The whole game is basically a love letter to the spaghetti western and the world itself shows that. Not to mention that they do show SOME racism with the professor so it’s not like they completely act like it doesn’t exist.
Its weird he even mentioned race at all because racism against Natives is shown heavily throughout both games and how they were used. Sexism is shown through both too, with many men in power abusing them and John and Arthur point these out. Even our white male protagonists are somewhat ignorant throughout showing that most people acted that way back then. Hes acting like the game should be about those problems during the wild west but not only is that not entirely historically correct but it doesnt fit the theme of the romanticized spaghetti western. For a guy who gets a hard on for themes in every video, he seemed to have missed that
@@DANtheMANofSIPA Agreed, I don't agree with criticizing a game for something that's it's not. Both games' center their themes on personal human ideas like loyalty, betrayel, feelings of displacement and the cycle of vengeance rather than world/political problems like slavery and racism.
It fits the game and type though with that character. A professor would say stuff and be into that sorta thing round that time. Its not in your face though. Rdr2 its in your face and characters are only there just for the racism factor. Its annoying and out of place for the time. The klan being dumb though and random is a nice touch. That would have been perfect
It goes for the romanticized version while also taking it apart completely. I found the game to be very similar to the Sopranos in how it completely deconstructed the Mafia genre and showed you that there was absolutely nothing glamorous about any of it. All the characters in both Red Dead 2 and the Sopranos have to do hard graft to bring money to the table.
In rdr2 theres even the whole mission with lenny where you go to the house with the white supremacists
I don’t know about “refusing” to find an indigenous person considering the development for RDR2 was crunch metropolis. Besides, I know video games and movies make it seem easy but hiring the right actors for any specific character is always a challenge to some extent and chances are the devs will always take the first chance if they find someone with the right voice at first sight.
All things considered, Charles’ voice actor was excellent enough to where most people didn’t have an issue with it and I honestly can’t imagine anyone else playing that part. Would it have been nice if the voice actor was the same general ethnicity as Charles? Sure, but I have no clue as to whether it would have turned to be a better performance considering Charles’ voice actor gave it his all to make Charles come alive at least for me.
The race of voice actors don't matter and if you think so you're racist
Buffoonus Troglodytus if you breathe you’re a racist nowadays it seems
@no info Crunch is a sign of bad management and clashing visions on what the game should have (even if they're unnecessary but are there just cuz the market does it)
the first time I heard Charles voice I couldn't stop thinking about all the Goons from other games (particularly Spider-Man)
@Werner Pfeifenberger This didn't age exactly well with the recent culture overhauls at Rockstar showing it isn't exactly unavoidable.
While I do understand some of your criticisms of the game, I truly was blown away by what Rockstar acheived with this game. The slow animations and meaninglessness of open world activities added to a sense of impending dread for me and I know this may sound hyperbolic but the story in my opinion is probably the best I have ever experienced in any game and I felt so incredibly attached to Arthur Morgan as a character, that I felt almost like I was mourning a real person when he died. Perhaps it is because I am someone who values story over gameplay, that's always been the kind of gamer I have been but I was blown away by the story, world, and main protagonist of this game. In all honesty I can think of a game that has affected me on a more visceral and emotional level.
Jimmy murphy I agree and I actually didn’t find gameplay that bad. I’m like u who values a truely great story over shooting mechanics as good as cod. I also actually found the hunting robberies poker etc some of the best moments of the game. And while I agree Arthur is clunky it for me still doesn’t take away from the way I view this game. I believe it to be a 9.5/10 and I believe this to be one of the top 3 games of this generation
Totally agree with you! But I was also blown away by the weight physics and gameplay.
Story actually makes no sense at times.
Why did Arthur not immediately kill those Two Pinkertons while fishing with Jack? He ends up murdering hundreds of them anyway in cartoonish shootouts. 🙄
@@frogglen6350 it wouldn't make sense in the story side of things, as Arthur don't want to endanger Jack.
@@AsianBoah
Not really. Arthur can slow down time with dead eye and kill them fast
Letting them lived endangered Jack. They did try to gun down the whole gang with a machine gun
- (Looks at title) Wow, those games are kinda lo... (Looks at video lenght) JESUS CHRI-
7
Long man good!
Okay you really lost me at the end there with that actor stuff. Why does it matter who a character is voiced by? If they play the character well and portray who the character is then why should the color of there skin matter? It shouldn’t matter
I appreciate the time and thoughtful wording that went into making this video. I will say though that it was difficult to watch this video because of how unorganized it was. Felt like you were jumping from one topic to the next. Also I feel like you said a lot, but also so little. In NakeyJakey's RDR2 video he said a lot, but it never felt like filler. Essentially I remember more things from that video's topics than I do with yours. There are parts from your video that were good and I will remember, but specific parts than others. Basically this video didn't need to be as long as it is, but still could've been as long and in depth length as it needed to be. I'd recommend watching the Act Man, his videos on video games are structured perfectly.
One thing I will say is I would disagree about John not showing what he means by his threats. John is on a mission to save his family with very little resources, so he needs all the help he can get regardless of being moral or not. So by John having no choice to let the bad people that screw him over live, he sees that while they are bad people they do help John in the end, thus making him realize that maybe redemption is possible. It just takes time to understand ones flaws, than shooting one where they stand.
Overall keep on improving and keep up the good work!
Thanks for taking the time to write out some thoughtful respectful criticism. Always looking to improve!
Most of Act Man's videos on games, especially the positive ones, are awfully vapid compared to those of many other analysts.
@@noxanneballadynasowacka6125 Yeah well that's just like, your opinion, man.
dude great comment 👏👏👏 also the act man's analysis are the best. He makes me change my mind about games I didn't know I could ever like. Structure is key, yes. But the actman not only does that but also really explains and persuades you and makes you understand why that game design tactic is totally stupid or genius. Love it haha
@@pablochamber411 that's because the act man relies on hyperbole and subliminally making people feel stupid for disagreeing. Don't get me wrong, it's entertaining, but if I'm watching the act man it's to turn off my brain or laugh. I'm not going there to feel in any way engaged, immersed, or stimulated. He plays the character of a douche which makes for great short term entertainment but means there is only so much I can listen to before I start getting exhausted
Red Dead Redemption 1 and 2 don’t want more from you than it gives.
They are fun and worth playing.
It isn’t conflictive at all and is easy to immerse yourself.
I work for camp because I care about the characters.
The gameplay and story don’t conflict.
They are both amazing masterpieces.
They are both equally great, and both games have equally great stories.
I honestly feel like most people's criticisms of the RDR games' story and gameplay come down to a lack of patience on the player's part, and aren't the games' fault.
You seem insecure
Even with nakey jackey's video that does address the gameplay faults of rockstars games, at the end of the day, I pretty much, didn't care about those things? RDR2's central narrative, or the writing in general, is easily my personal favorite out of every game I've ever played. I think Arthur Morgan is the best protagonist in videogames. The story is STEEPED in dramatic irony, and that irony works regardless if you played the first game or not. Like Witcher 3, this was a game where I wanted to take my time in and relish everything it had to offer. It basically gave me the game I thought I was going to get with the first one. RDR1 isn't a game I love (mainly due to the Mexico section), so not only do I think RDR2 is a better game than the first, I think it EASILY surpasses its predecessor in pretty much every way. It's so thematically rich that it feels like the game rockstar have been building towards since GTAIV. With rockstars current and older design philosophy, this feels like the best possible game they could make. So much so, that if rockstar doesn't innovative their games after RDR2, I won't be so forgiving this time. If that happens I hope that gamers and critics become more critical of them as well. GTAIII changed the industry and was the game that got me into this medium in the first place. But now Rockstar is a company that needs to pull off a BREATH OF THE WILD with their next release. A title that not only reinvents their game design, but also gaming in general. They have the money and talent to do so
Even jakey's video on R*'s game design had a lot of holes in it tbh; parallels drawn out of thin air, picking faults on extremely minor things, using ridiculous examples etc. Is Rdr2's mission design very linear at times? Yes it is. But I dont think the answer to fix it is to completely move away from linear design and comparing the npc interactions to new vegas is just ridiculous. Most AAA games have some linearity in their campaign missions compared to the open world, i dont get what the problem in that is. A better answer is to provide more options within the campaign missions to spice things up rather than opting for a systemic breath of the wild approach
I agree. I would like to add that RDR2 wants to show you things that you would otherwise miss if you had more freedom of choice. Do i think that the game is too strict at times? Yes! The amount of times I failed cause I "abandoned" someone is too many to count and in general they restrict player freedom too much in the open world (cops knowing exactly where you are after committing a crime in the depths of Ambarino), but, as another RUclipsr who discussed this said (in regards to raiding the Braithewate manor) "if you're trying to sneak in through the back, you're already missing the point".
I think GTA 6 will be that game theyve been working up to, I truly believe it's gonna be crazy
This vid definitely overthinks it lol. If the story is good, I'll forget about the clunky controls. If the Ragdolls are impressive and if the gunshots are loud and immersive, I'll forget about being annoyed at how slow my character aims their darn gun.
I really liked this video, but man some of your social statements are dumb especially the one about Charle's voice actor. I'm Latino, but I don't speak spanish so should I be allowed to play a Latino character from some part of Mexico or Central America?
depends on if you're a competent voice actor who pulls off the role, since realistically that's what matters most instead of this weird political BS no one cares about
Damn, right after I’ve watched an hour long critique of RDR2
Which one?
Whitelight’s, but this was also very satisfying.
The difference between RDR1 and RDR2 is that in the original game you're winning the whole way through, succeeding at all your challenges, and then WIN THE GAME, before you die. And then someone avenges your death and you play as them in the epilogue. In the latest game, you lose, and lose, and lose, things get worse and worse, including relationships, deaths, your own sickness, and then you die. And then someone avenges your death and you play as them in the epilogue. Red Dead Redemption is a real Spaghetti Western genre piece. The Great American Novel, a "love letter" as some have noted. Red Dead Redemption 2 takes the sepia away and says "this is how life really is." The Great American Reality Show where tragedy and drama and catchphrases and lush CGI are what get ratings.
Red dead redemption 2 is a horrible representation of "how life really is"
45:10 just a reminder for myself on where to continue watching
SPOILER ALERT: Also; I think Dutch's narcissism got the best of him about mid game. Many of the gang members had more allegiance to Arthur than to Dutch and he saw this (E.G.: see the fate of miss Grimshaw). They all saw Arthur on a daily basis ACCOMPLISHING what Dutch would only talk about during in his dramatic, PRE-REHEARSED speeches. Dutch was the bark. Arthur was the bite. One extremely overstated. One extremely understated. Something that will make ANY dictator or cult leader psychotic is someone else getting THEIR attention. I think this is why Dutch left Arthur at the oil factory to die; To eliminate him as a rival to his own authority. That's why he left Arthur ALONE on that mountain. Had Arthur not been SOO loyal to a FAULT; he could have easily gathered the support of Charles, Lenny, Grimshaw, Sadie, Hosea, John, probably Pierson, and most of the girls, before confronting Dutch (earlier on when he saw Dutch deteriorating and listening to Micah more and more). This would have resulted in a VERY different ending and completely changed the events of RDR1.
The Honor System is a battle of Good and Evil inside John and Arthur's head. It is not an objective God shaming or praising their actions. So in my opinion, its a narrative mechanic, not just a game-a-fied pointless system. It tells different stories for different types of players.
Does RDR2's story make it very unlikely that anyone will play as an evil Arthur? Yeah, but at least you still have consequences to your actions. Grappling with that mechanic throughout the game gives you a better idea of what it means for Arthur to be moral right or wrong.
I found it similar to the Sopranos. Tony gets shot, is given a golden opportunity to become a better man. You see him act it for a while, then it all goes down the toilet and you really see the ugliness of it all. Red Dead 2 does it similar.
But personally for me, I think what really would have made 2 better, would have been if they had Guarma replaced with New Austin. The same group, Javier, Dutch, Arthur, Bill and Micah, all wind up fleeing into the West with nothing and it would have been even better for Dutch to lose his mind there from the romanticism he placed on the West. It would have perfectly made sense for only those 5 to end up there, with absolutely nothing, no weapons, food or money. One of the issues I had with Guarma was at the end of the day, Dutch’s actions were fairly justified considering he was ensuring their survival. The whole Chapter could have been them in a bloody battle for gold against The Del Lobos, some O’Driscolls and even the prospectors and the army considering the battles for Gold would have been fairly similar to the drug wars of the 80s. Would also have been a great way to make some bad honorable choices in contrast to Chapter 6’s honorable ones. You had Armadillo with its Cholera outbreak etc and Fort Mercer could have been a great addition to it.
Now don’t get me wrong, Guarma is still a cool chapter and all and it’s visually stunning. But I do feel they wasted a really good part of the map as well with New Austin.
Voiceactors are faceless.
Not defined by race
The characters they portray are not. It's important to have accurate representation of characters and fairness in the hiring process. Marginalised communities have difficulties acquiring roles, thus meaning that more effort needs to be made to ensure actual fairness and accessibility for jobs. They're not known as marginalised for no reason. I mean no offense to you, but your statement is a very surface level analysis of a wider, systemic problem in society. I urge you to please look into this issue further instead of making blanket statements without thought. Thank you.
@@AshuriAikawa Offense very much taken. To say that I have put no thought into my statement is extremely presumptuous.
Do not confuse brevity with thoughtlessness.
I have looked into this issue very thoroughly and what I've found is a tangled mess of vapid untestable, and therefore, unprovable theories that don't hold up to the slightest of scrutiny and only persist because of the fear people have of contradicting them
(just like most of all other social science).
@@AshuriAikawa2 years later and you still didn't fire back. guess you knew they had you there, huh?
if you meant "no offense", you wouldn't be on such a high-horse and ended your rant with a shit-eating "thank you"
@RedHatGuyYT I've had comments off until a few months ago. But looking at what they said, they basically said, "I disagree with you and don't like that you think differently to me." That's all they said, they gave no counterargument, their comment was worthless. For them to have "got" me, they'd have needed to have written something with substance-which they very much didn't. It's been a long time since I wrote my comment and cannot recall much to what I was talking about, but at the very least, the response it got was a blanket statement and had no value. If you think it does, you clearly also know very little lmao. Nice try, though.
I thought I failed a QuickTime event when John was shot in rdr1
Lol
I thought I messed up original Halflife and the whole game was a result of my mistake.
I get the feeling Dutch hitting his head was a parallel to the real life Henry VIII. Thought to be a good leader with few issues until he had a head injury and quickly became a tyrant and a monster to the people he ruled over. There’s been arguments by historians whether or not he was always evil and the injury revealed his true colors or if the injury itself made him mad. Sounds a lot like Dutch
Sorry about your masochistic white guilt but these games don’t need to instill your critical theory nonsense.
@@kaicenatbackupacccnot that lynchings were absent from the red dead series anyway
I tried listening to this analysis high and I'm like wtf did he say? Lol gonna have to take this in sections
Lmao same
Exactly alot of his points were like...... what the fuck
??
He likes using big words in place of actual substance
@@Marston9413 nice reference
For the thing with the voice actor of Charles' race... it's something called acting. Get used to it.
So was black face dude
@@basedchimera5859 Black face was used for the intent to be racist, whereas video game acting isnt.
It's also called being lazy if you decide to have a white person voice act for a native American 🙄
@@Jaetheeintrovert maybe, but who knows they may have been searching for months and couldn't find the right person for the role.
@@Jaetheeintrovert How is that lazy? If the more talented voice actor was white, you pick them, regardless of their race or gender or anything. Jack is voiced by a woman for Christ's sake, they didn't get a five year old boy to do it because kids aren't good voice actors.
Hey David,
I always find your videos very interesting and this video was no exception. It’s fascinating that you found rdr2 existential crisis inducing because I had the complete opposite experience. I played the game for hours on end, hunting animals to unlock the exclusive clothing available at the trapper, doing all the stranger missions, playing way too many games of poker, grooming my character’s hair and beard, making regular contributions to the camp’s funds and food supply, scouring the open world for all it’s peculiarities, and hanging around with my fellow camp mates. I did all of this despite me knowing that the gang was going to dissolve and Arthur wasn’t going to make it. As I’m writing this I am finding it difficult to find the reasons why I did this. I think one of the reasons I did this is because I have been holding off getting rdr2 since it came out because I wasn’t really in the mood for playing any video games at the time (2018 was a bit of a rough year for me) and so when I finally bought it, I was in the right frame of mind to enjoy the game and all it had to offer. The second reason I can think of is that I was truly invested into Arthur and the gang. A large part of me wanted to see Arthur and the gang be happy that it blinded me from the inevitable. I even believed in Dutch (despite having played rdr1) and so I felt just as crushed and lost as Arthur did when he saw everything that he had believed in crumble before his eyes.
I have never played a game where I hoped things would turn out differently despite knowing the outcome and I think this is rdr2’s greatest triumph and what makes it such an interesting game to talk about.
Sorry for the long rambling comment, I’ve been dying to talk about rdr2 ever since I completed it recently. Will you be making any videos on film or music in the future? It would be great to see.
I really appreciate the effort you put into your videos so I’m excited to see what comes next. Congrats on the engagement and see you later!
Hey Matt. This comment was really nice - thanks for taking the time to write it all out .
As far as the existential dread, while this was important in my subjective experience with the game, it was exactly that - subjective. I can understand your reasoning for feeling otherwise, but for some reason the length/tediousness of some of the slower paced parts of RDR2 really emphasized this feeling of 'They're all going to die anyway, what's the point?"
Which is really kind of dumb because they are all just digital renderings of people and the meaning is what you make. If anything it's a testament to the world building and character design that I felt that way. I felt as if this was a real story. Real people.
As far as your part two - its always interested me so much to see how experiences affect one's interpretation of media. It's impossible to look at a game objectively, so it's sort of mature and wise of you to recognize internally that you would not have the same experience with the game until your were in a better mindset. I'd love to explore this more in my videos in the future, as it certainly affects my interpretation of the games I play.
Thanks for the kind words. If you want to talk more about RDR or anything, you can always reach me on twitter @davidoztv. It might be a better conversation on twitch however, twitch.tv/mrdavidoz.
Matt I agree with u fully I couldn’t stop grooming Arthur and feeding my beautiful Missouri foxtrotter named Arthur. I loved looking after my guns hunting every legendary animal and doing all the side quests I could possibly do. I spent hours just in my camp interacting with the other members of the gang and I believe as much as one can in a video game I grew to genuinely like them (Micah excluded).
For me rdr2 was the game of the generation due to its outstanding detail and my favourite feature the way I somehow grew to love and genuinely care for my horse.
The worst part for me was the movement controls (shooting I was fine with) but even then I found with some degree of editing the settings that was ok. The missions I do understand what Dave meant about the consistent structure and outdated design but even tho in chapter 3 they were becoming tedious once chapter 4 began i was glued to the screen and how the gang was going to go down. Overall o believe this game to be an incredible achievement for gaming as a whole and I am truly glad I got to play this.
If u made it this far thanks for listening to my rant but I hope I c where I am coming from
Sorry for bad grammar
Ik im late as hell but u just wanted to let you know this is one of the best comments I've ever read in terms of grammar. and the fact that I also did the same thing I spent countless hours hunting exploring or just taking in the sights. and I have way to many pictures of the landscapeof rdr2. and my favorite part author I loved his character and how he became a good man in the end.
Idk but i completely disagree about the open world i found it very engaging almost eeriely so and the way i changed how i interacted with it as arthur developed as a character has stuck with me
Agreed, all his points about the gameplay and open-world conflicting with the narrative are exactly WHY I found the world immersive.
Yea and there was a lot of strangers and side missions u were almost never bored
I’m so glad someone is on the same exact page as me, these games are extremely existential and lonely and make me ask so many questions of life...
Yeah I mean ok video games are supposed to be fun but I don’t really have a problem with the game making me ask questions. IMO the best creations are those that make you think in ways that aren’t ramming an argument down your throat. The game allows me to have fun and think at the same time. But that just me
Oh yay, another chosen reviewing these games.
😂 "Chosen" 😂
24:27 Here's another take: John Marston is dressed in a BIKER GANG OUTFIT from GTA because he is a 2010 AUDIENCE SURROGATE in a world where GTA IV: The Lost and Damned exists. Look at him again. That's a black cut-off biker's vest, and flared pinstripe biker pants, and biker boots. He's a hillbilly motor-biker who jumped in a time machine and became the horse-riding protagonist for a risky Rockstar Western Genre game where it was imperative that players recognized and identified with the protagonist. John Marston is anachronistic in two ways: he's out of time in 1899, but he's also out of time in his appearance in the place where the story occurs - that's why all the NPCs call him a "city feller". Why would they do that? Because he represents the player, or at least, a character the player would recognize from a city in GTA. Because while the character John Marston as we learn is absolutely NOT a city feller, he also initially looks not much like the classic Western Clint Eastwood type -- there's too many modern touches on his outfit -- until he gets his poncho in Mexico and starts melding into the genre character he was intended to be. The game was shrewdly designed to ease in modern players who didn't have the knowledge of Western tropes, but in fact is a crash course in all of them throughout each Act, as it traverses the Classic, Spaghetti and Revisionist Western genres. And we know this Western 101 Video Game Experiment by Rockstar Games worked on modern players, because Red Dead Redemption 2 exists.
Good analysis, but why does Rockstar “need” to educate people on the actual American West? That’s what school and a higher education is for. There is a magnitude of books on the 1800s. Simply put this is a story that is made in homage to spaghetti westerns of the 1960s. Games like these are a form of entertainment, and can peak one’s interest of the time period and then that person may decide “Hey, I wanna study up on this time period.” Red Dead Redemption doesn’t need me to show racism and it’s impact during the 1800s. It just needs to have a story ( and it has one, damn good one I might add) and good gameplay design (which is a mixed bag with most R* games).
If there was a Indian/Black actor playing a Japanese character in the game you wouldn’t bat an eye . your comments are unfair , and are essentially reverse racism by saying the voice actor must be the same color in real life. It’s a video game buddy . No one could have done a better performance with the character Charles Smith than Noshir Dalal. If any character deserves a spin off game it’s him . It’s unfair of you to judge his performance by his race .
yeah i rolled my eyes when this dude called the mexico arc racist then said poc later
garbage
Oh. I always just assumed Dutch read some book glorifying Tahiti so that would be why he brings it up so much. Tahiti is a pretty sounding name.
But your point about Dutch using Tahiti as a manipulative method is great.
The Guarma section is a slog gameplay wise but story wise it’s probably the most important chapter honestly. The scene when Dutch murders the old woman right in front of Arthur was the moment Arthur finally catches wind of Dutches true motives. I think deep down Arthur has suspected Dutch’s narcissistic ways for awhile. This scene is really where Arthur starts to shift his motivations to himself and the other members who aren’t in Dutch and Micah’s back pockets.
just came across this video after getting back into rdr2 and it’s amazing
To be honest, it’s a very slow game and it takes a lot of patience, but for me, I love that. You can take in all of the moments/characters thoroughly and I love that
How did this move to SJW nonsense?
Maybe rockstar just made a great game with a great story.
No statements, no political narratives, no commentary on current culture at all.
If they were trying to say something, then maybe the massive success of RDR and GTA tells us everything we need to know.
People, gamers, do not want preachy political nonsense in their games.
Especially if it’s the SJW variety.
I dont agree with a lot of your OPINIONS on these games. Especially the sjw bs about the voice acting, I mean who...just... why... But I respect the work you put into this video and some of your opinions are spot on. That being said the work alone is enough for a thumbs up and comment from me.
Thank you for recognizing that even if you don't agree about certain parts. Hope to see you around.
Could never wrap my head around your stance on these games just being “ok”, ignoring the beautiful writing the core games are a benchmark for open world design, side quest, random encounters, and immersion at its finest
Missed yoyr videos dude!
I've watched this a few times. I think you made your biggest point pretty quickly. You are looking to sit down for a couple hours after work to play and have fun. This won't get much accomplished in either game unless you rush from story mission to story mission. Of course the experience wont have the depth or richness that one is rewarded with if they take their time. RDR2 is not a game for a person that has 1-2 hours to play unless you can get enjoyment from the seemingly monotonous elements like hunting, fishing, playing cards, etc. I think you make a lot of valid points. But it also seems to me that you just aren't a slow game kind of person. I just can't picture the creator of this analysis having played/liked games such as The long dark. Probably one of the slowest games I have played. In which case it would kind of be like a person that has a distaste for racing games to review Forza horizon 4 because of it's open world. But I digress. I think, redemption 1 or 2 are both what you make of them. Especially rdr2. I have put FAR too many hours into the hunting element alone than I would want to admit. I enjoy the fishing. I use hollowpoints EXCLUSIVELY meaning I am crafting them pretty regularly. I actually enjoy the campfire activities. There is so much dialogue and small stuff in redemption 2 that just hanging around camp talking to people can be meaningful and offer a lot more insight into their current circumstances. It's not the best comparison to make but it's kind of like Skyrim in that, you can rush from main mission to main mission if you choose; Or you can spend a lot of time doing everything from side missions to reading libraries of written lore to collecting herbs and aimless dungeon diving. Games of this scope are what you make of them. I have always been a bit of a completionist myself. I think a lot of elements were left intentionally inert so that you can participate in the elements you like and appreciate and leave the ones you don't care for (except camp slowdown, screw that dumbness!). I think rockstar was trying to create a HYBRID form of media in rdr2. Part game, part multi season drama, part comic book. I think they wanted it to be an "experience". I can't say this with certainty but that's the impression I get with so many elements like the "cinema mode" when riding. In the end ALL games are subjective and everyone is entitled to their opinions. Clearly I enjoyed RDR2, took it as slow as possible, and found it to be a very rewarding and somewhat (surprisingly) emotional experience. I appreciate the thought and effort that went into this analysis! Thanks!
I sign my name under each and every word in this comment!
Edit: Except for "slow walk at camp". Doesn't bother me much. I find that it adds to the "cinematic experience" aspect of the game.
@@diggininthecrates91 Slow walking is cool. but it shouldn't be forced, i'm not forced to lead my horse but sometimes I get off my horse and lead it when I feel like it. Camp should be the same
@@sibusiso2841 I get it. But that forced slow walk has a reason to be. It's so you can catch all the conversations etc. between characters. A lot happens at camp, that enhances the story. The same reason for which you aren't allowed to fast travel a good chunk of the game, so you can take in everything the open world has to offer.
PS.: Man RUclips comments is something else. A simple exchange can last years, and still be a healthy one.
Abigail wouldn't be able to avenge jack if that happened as she had died in between the ending and the post game with Jack
Idk about you but I actually appreciated the lengths and lines the developers writing the story went with the racial profiling. Back in that time Mexicans from Mexico didn't like white people all that much. Around that time Mexicans saw white people in Mexico as pests mucking around their country. Or "stupid gringos." Whatever... Much like all other cultures back in these past times. we can all agree there was much more open hate and racism on all sides. When you have Mexicans Messing with you stealing your hat calling you a "Cowboy Gringo" it puts you in that awkward position of "wow I'm in a foreign place where I'm not welcome" I feel it sets the tone perfect for the setting it puts you in your place right off the bat telling you that you're not seen as welcome here. Max Payne 3 did the exact same thing with max in Brazil not know wtf anyone is saying and he's getting pissed at these gangsters saying "don't you understand.. that I.. don't speak.. your fucking language!" I think you let personal biased and offenses get in your way of getting what they story was actually trying tell. My advice just don't be such a ❄️ you'll probably enjoy and understand life and things more often... 😆
This video deserves more recognition. It’s masterclass analytical skills with a some poetry thrown in.
Thank you so much. It is really good to see some positivity on this video; I appreciate you!
Oh hell yes. Two of my favorite video games ever. Watching this now!
I enjoyed this video essay, but. Dude, understand that being gang/bounty/rough dude is a job for John. His loyalty and faithfulness to Abigail are his private life and personality.
Hi David, I found your channel earlier when trying to find an in depth GTA 4 analysis and after watching your video on GTA, I have just finished watching this. You're a very entertaining content creator and the amount of thought and effort you have put into your work is so greatly appreciated. Truly great work you have earned a subscriber from New Zealand 😄🇳🇿 hope life is well friend ♥️
I remember loving both games from an experience point of view, however mine is granted much different from your own
Being a guy with ADHD on school holidays, still living with my parents, I had much more time to play and less stress on getting a "bang for my buck" as put in the video.
I found it actually pretty therapeutic to walk around beechers hope and just, fill the water troughs, feed the chickens, stock the wagon with eggs and shovel cow shit in the barn (Which I doubt I'd ever do irl XD)
And I also enjoyed part 1 enough for the fact that I found it a generally moving, and realistic end for John to get torn to Swiss cheese and for Jack to continue the cycle.
But, part 2 also recontextualized the first for me (went back and played the first a second time), adding to the feeling that part 1 was a bittersweet conclusion of the story of a righteous gang falling to pieces and the moral relativism of the world closing in on those who remain.
I found it somewhat satisfying
Moving to another point without any reason (get ready for that) I found Dutch's concussion as more an interesting way to suspend the disbelief on the way, namely for the characters who probably lack the time for hindsight.
Arthur actually comments on this later on saying something along the lines of "either that bonk on the head made him lose it, or it's just made him fly his true colours a bit higher"
Mainly fodder for the question, and to make it so that they didn't have nothing bad happen in that crash, which would make no sense. Dutch being at first glance one of the worst people to have been injured to ramp tension a bit
Unto the Eagleflies and Rainsfall predicament, I think it's more that they're expected to portray Rainsfall in a certain way, especially by the communities who'd be looking for fairness.
They were socially obligated to have the elder of the Lakota be an old truely wise pacifistic man. And that dragged Eagle Flies to be the polar opposite, the hot-headed one pulling them into deeper conflict.
Yes I'm lazy pulling the "SJW's suck" card, but I'm giving an excuse, not saying that it wasn't disappointing.
On Charle's VA I take the strance of many-a-other commenter here that it wasn't a problem, and that any other "solution" would be inherently racistly selective. Assuming this argument is actually relevant to what was being said.
Other than that, nice video and I definitely enjoyed the breakdown & introspection on storytelling mechanics.
I like long videos so gave this a hopeful chance I was finding a hidden gem in your channel. Guess not.
Bashing the games for not being ¨SWJ¨ enough was barely bearable but feels you weren´t willing to sink the time into the world and only wanted to progress through the story. RDR2 is a super slow thing if you had a great time only doing story missions I don´t see the issue with the wild world simulation it´s attached to it.
You’re making great content dude. Keep it t up as long as it makes you happy. Just found your channel and subscribed. Went on a road trip and binged the lions share of your content. You made 400 miles seem like a Sunday drive. Thank you.
You're awesome, thanks for saying that
The closest thing to the Red Dead Redemption series in modern Western cinema is 3 : 10 to Yuma (2007). In classic Western cinema, you must watch The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976). This review doesn't make as much sense if you consider the game in the context of those movies. The criticisms of the dialogue and characters like West Dickens evaporate because they're direct homages to actual Western genre history. You know what? My love for this game runs so deep, that I'm totally able to enjoy this video and disagree as much as agree, and still grin watching the scenes as they go by. Thanks for sharing your work!
I've got to say I've never seen an analysis i agree with less but respect more so I give you great respect for so eloquently delivering your opinions. Well done sir.
While watching this video, I literally imagined a minimum of like 600k subs. It's crazy how high quality this content is with such a small following. Big thumbs up.
so ive been binge watching youre analysis videos and dude, we gotta link up and just talk like philosophy. you sound like the perfect person for these kinds of conversations
I disagree with your charles gripe its voice acting and they simply got the best person for the job
Having agreed with most of what you said and disagreed with a couple, everything, including stuff i disagreed with, was so well thought out and well explained, and it really shows how much research was done for such a massive video. I learned a lot not only about how i feel about the games but there actual significance to what i care about in story based games. This video was super well written and holy cow did it explain so much i didnt understand about rdr and rdr2, love this series and huge props!!
Boy you really came at this game from a modern ADHA trailer-cut perspective. When I think of RDR1 now having played it so many times, I do NOT think of the finale with Dutch. I think of the action tactile experience of playing the game, and the conversations on horseback.
I just listen to this like a podcast and I love it. This video is amazing.
You'll appreciate RDR2 more as you get older, it's an all-timer, I'm 32 but on my 6th playthrough? It gets better each time because you learn how to play it better, or more in your liking, but to have such a well presented narrative requires sacrifice, yeah.
RDR and RDR2 are both games I love to play after work. It’s like escaping reality…or like being back on the farm which I miss every day…
Really glad I found your channel, your work deserves some extra eyeballs mate!
Hey, same to you! Subbed. Thanks for the kind words!
I dunno if a college professor, a man literally attached to the maintenance of the status quo is a good source for a valid criticism on revisionist history.
I believe the driven tragedy of both games is jack. I think he is a grossly overlooked key to understanding one of the key points the game drives. That the slow churning sands of time and the lumbering forward momentum of civilization have their collateral. Jack was the subject of 2 generations of martyrdom and infact wished to be the very thing that had been such a instrument of tragedy in his life. Through the powers that be 2 generations of people (literally 10s of people) indirectly or directly gave their life so jack could live a normal life. But the government and overall civilization had to trim the fat to move forward. However turned jack into a zeitgeist. A man far behind the times doomed to suffer in some way by the same hand that killed his father and Arthur etc. Jack is the tragedy. Because he was the only one that never even wanted the wild west till he found it had enveloped him. And we are simply left to speculate that he went on briefly and died savagely. Doing what he was forced to do.
Well done man. Keep it up.
The pastor on the train in rdr1 at the beginning is the same dude who did the voice of the ammunation guy from GTA San Andreas.
Take it. Hold it. Love it.
Loved the vid man, its also nice to know about your life, the little things you say, I dunno It kind of gives me hope, all of us young folk trying to make a living and finding our place. Keep it up man 🤙🏻
Gotta say man, as an audience member just joining in, get the advertising for your previous videos and who you are out of the way at the beginning. I skipped an entire 80 seconds while you were rambling and felt I didn't miss much.
I think one of the best things about Red Dead Redemption is that though the story that is being presented is clearly set in a bygone era, the themes of watching what you knew as the world die, fighting change, and the cycle of revenge are timeless. They didn't focus on the most timely problems of the Wild West era because they wanted to tell a story that could work in any period. When they did add problems from the period, the themes that it served were similarly timeless. Obviously the Mexican Revolution happened a long time ago, but Rockstar using it to point out how those who fight tyranny can often be tyrants themselves allows for the narrative of the story to remain timeless.
There are other pieces of media that focus on the worst parts of the west. With Red Dead Redemption, Rockstar chose to tell a story that uses the west to depict timeless themes, and it made for a far more compelling piece of media, in my opinion.
While I appreciate commentary and well-presented thematic ideas as much as the next guy, sometimes it just isn't the vision of the creator. In the case of both RDR games, they're clearly much more interested in personal human themes like vengeance, family, and the cycle of revenge, and the feeling of displacement rather than giving a prespective on world issues like slavery, economy, and racism in the way a GTA game might and even satarize though there are definitely some background subtexts of such matters.
I watch a lot of video essays like this, and I’ve watched about 4 other ones by davidOZ and at first I was like “okay I don’t exactly agree but this is interesting” and now at this point, I just think he has bad opinions. I don’t mean offense but seriously man, loosen up.
You completely missed the main centerpiece of the entire series; Redemption. The game is about redemption and you’ve critiqued everything around it.
THICC VIENER I believe on the surface it is, but as Arthur and John mature, they realize redemption is foolish, and focus on what makes life truly meaningful. When Arthur dies at the end of RDR2, he is at peace not because he got his redemption, but because he ended up leaving a life of morality and love. Think about the dialogue between Arthur and the nun or Arthur and the Native American chief.
I made Arthur tie up a woman and blow her brains out with a shot gun. Just for pure enjoyment. Rockstar allows players to do this. Explain how this can be redeemable.
@@clawmansegele1988 "but because he ended up leaving a life of morality and love" which in a greater sense is why Arthur achieved redemption not because he left the outlaw life or stopped robbing and killing because the truth is: he never stopped.
I noticed tht 2 his points were soo off I was like WHAT?!?
I think Rockstar made a great leap towards actually making the players feel guilty for their actions while allowing free will for the players, and i feel like this was a turn in the right direction
You deserve more views just continue man you gonna get it
I’ve played both games over 10 times and red dead redemption 2 is my favorite game of all time, followed closely by the first. But they are absolutely flawed, and is that really such a bad thing? Videogames don’t have to be one thing, they don’t have to be built around fun, they don’t have to be for everyone, if you don’t like red dead or it’s prequel, just don’t play them. They aren’t for you. Of course I am by no means being bitter towards the creator of the video, i respect his opinions and the video was entertaining. I don’t think that this video shouldn’t exist. But I hear so many people complain about the games, specially the second one, because it’s too slow or tedious. Or too realistic. But I love the realism, I don’t mind the tedium and I don’t mind the slow because I like to immerse myself in the game as much as possible. I’ve played through GTA 5 4 times, and I’m the type of person who doesn’t rampage or run over pedestrians or anything like that. I don’t play gta for the killing or gameplay, I play for the story and I play red dead redemption for the same reasons because rockstar make some of the greatest stories and worlds in videogames
Why should it be required to show the ugly side of history?
It most likely would have distracted us from the main story. It had hints of the ugly in RDR2 but thankfully Rockstar didn't ruin it by going to far on it.
Sorry dude, but the Native Americans were not innocent people either. Any human is capable of becoming cruel.
Also, the Mexico chapter in the game was good at pointing out how flawed humanity is.
I don’t agree with his stance on the whole native argument, but I do agree with how RDR2 does feel a lot sanitized. John in RDR1 says that the gang did some ugly, despicable, and downright atrocious things during his time in the gang. Yet, it feels like a contradiction to have RDR2 try and paint them as one big happy family trying to do well when John outright says in the first game that their old life was just an excuse to go around killing and robbing people. Painting their whole "family" dynamic as something that was superficial and shallow.
I have said this on multiple videos
The key differences to me:
RDR1: The gritty, unforgiving, dull and true setting matches Johns personality so well as he is all of those things. The story is extremely personal. And that’s a strength this game has. The setting and the character rub off on one another like we’ve never seen before.
It’s about a man doing everything in his power to get his family back. We see him form his own connections and take on 2 countries in America and Mexico. Taking on governments, Armies, gangs, outlaws
This life was meant to be done with, all this killing.
But John marston not only takes on all of these foes but wins and succeeds in getting his family back.
And before his death becoming the last great gunslinger/Bounty hunter of the Wild West. Becoming famous, feared and respected in America and Mexico.
RDR2: Varied, Interesting, colourful yet dangerous. This perfectly matches Arthur’s personality. And where the latter was a more personal, gritty story. This was like an epic ensemble. Like the magnificent 7, wild bunch etc.
This game to me represents hope and dreams of the gang. And of course the shining light that is Arthur Morgan.
“Shine light into darkness”
Arthur is a man who is artful and had a big heart but he’s had to put those aspects of himself aside so he can be there for his gang. He may have lost himself slightly but by the end he becomes the best version of himself while also fighting off TB
Both games bounce of eachother greatly and the love o have for the redemption series is incredible.
Definitely the best fictional story ever made
RDR2 has alot of problems in my opinion
i think i should clarify that when you say punching, roping, or shooting the eugenics guy in saint denis will all result in losing honor points, that that's not true. it's possible that it could've been patched, but every time i see him i shoot him, and not only is there no loss of honor, it's the only character i've seen in the game that you can kill in front of a policeman and not get any wanted level for. anyway, this is a great video and i really appreciate all the work you've put into this series.
I can back this up, I was just playing RDR2 again this past week, a couple days ago I passed that guy in Saint Denis. I punched him the first time and got no honor loss or wanted level.
When I rode back through again later, he was still there, so I shot him and rode away without any issues again.
Even if the Honor loss was there, murder is still murder.
Doss the eugenicist deserve it? Maybe so. It is an interesting moral question. From my own standpoint though, murder is still murder.
I tried to watch this video but, it shows he never actually payed attention to this game while playing it.
25:11 Had this game in my collection for ages before I put it on. Thought it was about revenge. As he doles out the information to Bonnie at the start you realise it is reluctant Redemption. That's when I realised it was my kind of story and kept playing. I appreciate the Bonnie sequences for that reason.
You're exactly right about the Tulsa Killings! I only found out by watching 2019's Watchmen on HBO and then I looked it up after seeing a Tik Tok about it. Thought I was the only one who was never taught about it in school
12:16 he insists upon it... *insists*
can't wait to watch!
Huge fan man! I found you while listing to other channels video essays and you getting recommended to me! Its also rad that your a fellow oklahoman and yeah its wild how in Oklahoma history they only teach us about the romanticized parts like the land run and completely ignore the race riots and etc.
i think trevor is chaotic evil. there is nothing redeemable about him
Then what about Michael and Franklin
@@Kleptocracy154 Michael = Neutral evil
Franklin = Lawful Evil.
They all evil
@@Ryuxunyeah and we love 'em all the same
Great video man. RDR2 was the last game i really got into before starting full time work so I took a week off to play it and it took me 3 months and playing nearly every day to platinum it. I almost can’t believe I platinumed it. Not sure I’m gonna want to touch it again for a while but it was an experience for sure. Arthur is my favourite rockstar protagonist next to Niko
Michael>
I'm a PC only gamer, and so only played RDR2, and only quite recently too. I went into the game knowing very little of the game or franchise, but I very quickly found myself almost entirely unable to empathise or sympathise with any of the main characters. Dutch was - to me - so blatantly a flawed character from the beginning, particularly in the twisted justifications he gives for his actions and orders, and therefore by extension the people who willingly follow him were also complicit in his flawed dream for them. Still, the game was great if only for the beauty in it's world-building, and I'd highly recommend it to anyone.
This guy is one of those college left wing nut. Asking a 2010 video game to touch on every political problem possible. Smh
You: *says 18 big fancy words to make your point*
Me: *farts* & the same point is made
I agree with giving a Native actor the opportunity to play the role. They deserve to be given that opportunity and make money as well. Instead of being lazy and just taking a white voice actor to play a Native American.
I liked the deep analysis, you taught me things I didn't even realize. I suggest organizing the video into sections because it felt like you were jumping from one topic to the next then back to another topic (and that's how my brain works too so I even confused myself by overthinking).
Tht doesnt matter if ur good your good no one gives asf what race u r your an ACTOR thts apart of your job to "ACT"
It’s called acting for a reason...
@@bigt100 it's called proper representation
Would you like idris elba as tony soprano?
No
Now shut the fuck up and educate yourself
( And yes I'm native and black)
@@murdasippislim bitch shit up dont no one give a fwk about "representation" and im black Italian and indian
@@murdasippislim But it's voice acting, in RDR's case. You don't see the person behind the voice, why should it matter as long as they're a good actor?
I really like your intro about impending death and how we still choose to watch long gaming videos because, I honestly could care less this shit interests me more than the news HAHA
Actually, you can shoot the eugenics preacher in St Denis without fear of consequences. Kidnapping him, or fighting with him often leads to police getting involved, not always, but usually. But, simply putting a casual bullet in his head and quickly holstering your gun, right in full view of a cop, will startle everyone, but that’s it. Try it?
What I would like to know is, what would you suggest they change for the third Red Dead game? If they ever decide to make a third, what would you tell Rockstar they should do differently, if you had chief developer status? I understand your complaints, and there were one or two things I hadn’t thought of before in there, that I will ponder for some time to come. I’ve seen so many highly praising videos that it would be forgivable to imagine there’s no such thing as a negative or even critical review or analysis of the games. I really enjoyed your insights and I’m glad to hear some intelligently thought out criticism.
I’d like to know which way you would take the story? Would you go further back in time, to a pre-prequel? Later in time, with other characters? Or abandon these characters for a fresh take on the west, in a wholly different time period? Would you prefer to fix these games, or have a fresh start on a new game? If so, understanding what’s, “wrong,” with the games, what would you build on, add, change, and introduce?
This analysis is actually fairly poor, really similar to the GTA 4, especially the “republicans like Alex Jones” comment. I’m absolutely no fan of Jones, but I do know misrepresentation and willful ignorance when I see it, regardless of what garbage Jones has come out with. This video also adds to the issue. Bringing up the race of Charles actor, and completely misrepresenting what both games are actually about, shows that this guy wants a completely different game tailored to his fancy. Neither game is about the depiction the genocide of the Native American tribes, they just happen to be in the story because of the time period. 2 doesn’t glamorize either side , it just shows the ugliness for what it is, but the focus is still on Arthur and his redemption (or lack of, depending on your honor). It’s to show the sadness of the violence and Dutch’s downfall. The final battle on the oil refinery is the moment where it sets in when you come to realize how much blood has been spilled.
What I took away from this game is the story, the narrative, despite everything been said and shown, for me, Dutch is the main star of this game, I think Dutch is the most unique well crafted philosophical morally and emotionally unstable antagonist, I loved him, and I was mesmerized by him as pixels on the screen, with a ground soundtrack and a voice actor bringing a truly believable sort of not real-real character, i think him starting to lose his cool time over time, to not lead by example and act against what he preached, in a way, he might be anyone of us anyday at anytime, and if anybody is reading this, try putting Dutch side by side with heath’s Joker, think about it, and as we “can not fight gravity” sometimes all we need is a little..
Push.
1:33:46
Many voice actors don't get to choose or know who they're voice acting for. It's a despicable part of this industry, and so it really falls more onto the developers rather than the voice actors for this.
I know of two examples that would fit this comment really well. From my understanding the man who voiced Kratos in God of War (2018) didn't know he was voicing Kratos, and the woman who voiced Agent Torque in X-Com: Chimera Squad thought she was voicing a vampire the entire time and was surprised she was voicing a snake person.
Im sorry, naughty dog and Nintendo are top tier? Good bye
I hope in future you will structure your essays with an outline before you write it.
It should be digestible in parts, especially when you're pushing close to 2 hours.
My advice is to write the essay after you write the outline. Part 1 intro part 2 themes and characters part 3 plot etc etc.
That way the essay doesn't go all over the place, I had some trouble following your point and often caught myself doing other shit besides listening.
But if you're just gonna skip parts, why even bother with the video?
@@frogglen6350 well he didn't say he did skip parts, just that the video should be more clearly defined when it is 2 hours long about video games. The video is just all over the place and the point is unclear and most of the time just criticizes to criticize because the game doesn't deliver him what he wants exactly..
i know its not perfect but rdr2 is one of my favorite games ever. i love the characters, the world, and the story. its basically impossible to create a perfect game but thats something rockstar can do better with if they come out with a third. god i hope they do.
The gameplay design is not outdated
Definitely not
I disagree heavily about the lack of interactivity in RDR2. Every tiny detail that didn't need to be there really brought me further into the world. I spent more time hunting in that game than actually doing missions. Shit, my poker time alone must be around 10 hours. At the same time I played through this during lockdown, so a very different time from when you played through it