At 15:30, you say detrimental as opposed to instrumental, which effectively means the opposite of what you intended. Aside from that small mistake, it's a fantastic video and I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more recognition. Editing is on par with much more popular essayists.
Great video my man, rdr2 changed my perspective of morality as well. I played it during a time I was feeling like a bad person, but it helped me to understand that good and bad is a spectrum. It helped my during my therapy and set me on a course to become a better man. I'm glad it helped other people as well
Funny enough, what you said about the western movies you watched with your dad as a kid also fits into what RDR2 and No Country For Old Men are talking about with "reminiscing over the good old days". You say how those movies gave you the impression that the west was all good guys and bad guys but even back then they weren't all like that. There are plenty of classic westerns that deal with the harshness of the times and morality. The Wild Bunch, Unforgiven, The Good The Bad and The Ugly (I mean it's literally in the title).
Arthur's and John's individual stories, though fictional illustrate two universal truths about life, regardless of our social/economic background, race, religion, or what have you, and that is: #1: Your actions have consequences, and affect other people. #2: Despite your circumstances, who you are is what you choose to be. Your choices are what make you who you are, and you can always choose to do what's right.
i never really watched that movie but I'll give it a watch soon but you made me see that the world really wasn't all that different back in the day and somehow it kind of nice knowing literally everyone struggle with things regardless of who they are. Rdr2 also left me thinking about how even bad man could be a good man. Really nice vid.
1st off, the Honor system is something that gets blurred at times within the RDR community. The reason why is because of RDR2s prioritisation of how Rockstar chose to write off the Honor system in correspondence to a 'morality-like' system, and how that equates to an established character like Arthur Morgan within the narrative and gameplay (free roam). The Honor system isn't determined by Good and Evil (this also correspondence towards Redemption as in the title and how the nature of the term 'paradox' comes into play with that) because originally from the 1st game, it was supposed to expand the already establishment of Johns' character, so that means you can make John however you want and it will still tie into his established character whether if you look at John at his basis level or whatever, that's what the 'Honor' system determined... now RDR2s Honor system certainly works as an idea however there's contradictions to that idea that is made within the context of the game since it is by no means a 'perfect' system that gets the job done, you can maintain High Honor, save fishies and greet the whole of Saint Denis but you in free roam can kill domesticated animals, women, men, even teenagers while still maintaining 'High Honor' - this can be done at any time except for Chapter 1 for obvious reasons but the point is that the contradiction stems from how your actions in Free roam gets determined via the Honor system but in the story itself, it doesn't because you kill so much lawmen that in Free roam, you'll get the lowest Honor level very very easily, any form of robberies count as well, so this idea that you set in correspondence with Arthur Morgans within your video gets contradicted but not in a good way since even with the contradictions of the Honor system in RDR2, the Honor system doesn't determine 'morality' - however, Sister Cauldron is also a part of that contradiction because even with the realisation of the BS that Arthur rethinked to himself when he got diagnosed with TB and suddenly making Good Deeds as how many players choose to do that, he still says that he's a 'bad man' this is where Sister Cauldron comes into play and it's where the contradiction (that is not in a good written way) happens once again, she equates to Arthur that Good or Bad does not get tallied up to determine if a person is good or bad in the end but this is where the contradiction happens, since how does that tailor towards Arthur's opportunity of suddenly becoming a 'good man' because of how Arthur 'saw his life' more clearly; so was this viewpoint acknowledged when Arthur got diagnosed with TB or the meeting with Sister Cauldron. This idea not only contradicts but it also gives the player a false sense of perception of what it's trying to do here... and last off, how does Sister Cauldron legit 'determine' in actuality in the end just because all she have seen of Arthur is him helping ppl and smiling.
@@thehawkdiesel also 'change' is something that gets blurred at times or it's all BS. I often find 'change' and something such as 'corruption' to be applicable to each other since how do you actually 'determine' a change within a human being, this is something that RDR1 touches upon on how intentionally contradictory it is for 'change' to exist yet Dutch says 'we can't fight change' however the paradox comes within the fact that 'we can't fight our own nature' - so in what way can you actually determine 'change' at all, when John gets to Abigail and they talk, John says 'we did change' however that's something John doesn't think about in regards to what Dutch said which later on becomes clear when both John and Abigail are on a wagon together, and John says 'maybe we can't change, but at least we can try' - I think this equates towards the fact that just because the 2 Red Dead games have 'redemption' in their name, does not mean that objectively both protagonist achieve redemption. The title in the game serves as a mere catalyst that isn't supposed to be taken in a literal form since John himself says 'maybe we can't change, but we can at least try'
Incredibile video pal! I honestly hope i can see more content from you in the near future
The out of spite desire to be as literate as possible without college should be studied
I think this is your cleanest edited video to date
Carrying the fire. Standing unshaken.
I see the line drawn between RDR2 and No Country. Great video partner! 🤠
At 15:30, you say detrimental as opposed to instrumental, which effectively means the opposite of what you intended. Aside from that small mistake, it's a fantastic video and I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more recognition. Editing is on par with much more popular essayists.
Great video my man, rdr2 changed my perspective of morality as well. I played it during a time I was feeling like a bad person, but it helped me to understand that good and bad is a spectrum. It helped my during my therapy and set me on a course to become a better man. I'm glad it helped other people as well
Funny enough, what you said about the western movies you watched with your dad as a kid also fits into what RDR2 and No Country For Old Men are talking about with "reminiscing over the good old days". You say how those movies gave you the impression that the west was all good guys and bad guys but even back then they weren't all like that. There are plenty of classic westerns that deal with the harshness of the times and morality. The Wild Bunch, Unforgiven, The Good The Bad and The Ugly (I mean it's literally in the title).
A theme within a video about themes. lol
Arthur's and John's individual stories, though fictional illustrate two universal truths about life, regardless of our social/economic background, race, religion, or what have you, and that is:
#1: Your actions have consequences, and affect other people.
#2: Despite your circumstances, who you are is what you choose to be. Your choices are what make you who you are, and you can always choose to do what's right.
I dig the analysis and editing, respect 💯
This is honestly one of the better videos I’ve ever seen, I cannot wait for your video on John
this has 500 views? Just finished it and I'm shocked. I was thinking 500K maybe. Great work.
Love the content, I hope you make it big one day
Now this is some deep insight
Bro, let me just thank you for making something positive and thought provoking in the sea of negativity that is my RUclips feed.
i never really watched that movie but I'll give it a watch soon but you made me see that the world really wasn't all that different back in the day and somehow it kind of nice knowing literally everyone struggle with things regardless of who they are. Rdr2 also left me thinking about how even bad man could be a good man. Really nice vid.
No country for Old men is worth the watch! The characters are super memorable, and awesome theme overall in that movie.
Best movie ever
Great video dude
Phenomenal!!!
🔥🔥🔥
"promo sm" 😁
1st off, the Honor system is something that gets blurred at times within the RDR community. The reason why is because of RDR2s prioritisation of how Rockstar chose to write off the Honor system in correspondence to a 'morality-like' system, and how that equates to an established character like Arthur Morgan within the narrative and gameplay (free roam). The Honor system isn't determined by Good and Evil (this also correspondence towards Redemption as in the title and how the nature of the term 'paradox' comes into play with that) because originally from the 1st game, it was supposed to expand the already establishment of Johns' character, so that means you can make John however you want and it will still tie into his established character whether if you look at John at his basis level or whatever, that's what the 'Honor' system determined...
now RDR2s Honor system certainly works as an idea however there's contradictions to that idea that is made within the context of the game since it is by no means a 'perfect' system that gets the job done, you can maintain High Honor, save fishies and greet the whole of Saint Denis but you in free roam can kill domesticated animals, women, men, even teenagers while still maintaining 'High Honor' - this can be done at any time except for Chapter 1 for obvious reasons but the point is that the contradiction stems from how your actions in Free roam gets determined via the Honor system but in the story itself, it doesn't because you kill so much lawmen that in Free roam, you'll get the lowest Honor level very very easily, any form of robberies count as well, so this idea that you set in correspondence with Arthur Morgans within your video gets contradicted but not in a good way since even with the contradictions of the Honor system in RDR2, the Honor system doesn't determine 'morality' - however, Sister Cauldron is also a part of that contradiction because even with the realisation of the BS that Arthur rethinked to himself when he got diagnosed with TB and suddenly making Good Deeds as how many players choose to do that, he still says that he's a 'bad man' this is where Sister Cauldron comes into play and it's where the contradiction (that is not in a good written way) happens once again, she equates to Arthur that Good or Bad does not get tallied up to determine if a person is good or bad in the end but this is where the contradiction happens, since how does that tailor towards Arthur's opportunity of suddenly becoming a 'good man' because of how Arthur 'saw his life' more clearly; so was this viewpoint acknowledged when Arthur got diagnosed with TB or the meeting with Sister Cauldron. This idea not only contradicts but it also gives the player a false sense of perception of what it's trying to do here...
and last off, how does Sister Cauldron legit 'determine' in actuality in the end just because all she have seen of Arthur is him helping ppl and smiling.
bruh i hive up with this stupod HUAQWEI YOUTUGE FREZZING UP WHEN IM TYPING AN ESSAAY THAT I WAS PASIONATET ABOUT... HWUQIQUAQ
@@godzillazfrictiondont let RUclips get in the way of your passion friend. Do what you must 🤠
@@thehawkdiesel also 'change' is something that gets blurred at times or it's all BS. I often find 'change' and something such as 'corruption' to be applicable to each other since how do you actually 'determine' a change within a human being, this is something that RDR1 touches upon on how intentionally contradictory it is for 'change' to exist yet Dutch says 'we can't fight change' however the paradox comes within the fact that 'we can't fight our own nature' - so in what way can you actually determine 'change' at all, when John gets to Abigail and they talk, John says 'we did change' however that's something John doesn't think about in regards to what Dutch said which later on becomes clear when both John and Abigail are on a wagon together, and John says 'maybe we can't change, but at least we can try' - I think this equates towards the fact that just because the 2 Red Dead games have 'redemption' in their name, does not mean that objectively both protagonist achieve redemption. The title in the game serves as a mere catalyst that isn't supposed to be taken in a literal form since John himself says 'maybe we can't change, but we can at least try'