I believe so too. I think her death may have hardened him to become the man we know and love. As much as I like John in RDR2, he just seems too optimistic and enthusiastic in the way he speaks, completely different from the John we know in the first game (besides his physical body structure).
It wouldn't make sense that they'd bury her in New Austin when John in RDR1 says he'd never been there and literally needs a tour guide at the start to show him around to Fort Mercer.
@@Andermander429 Agreed. RDR2 sort of fails as prequel on these two regards. They sidelined John's development and changed his personality to that of a foolish and enthusiastic cowpoke. And they clearly forgot about his daughter's existence based on the answer Rob Wietohff got when he asked about it. When she should've been in the main story and her death a pivotal moment that hardens John into being world-weary and distrustful, when he always was an idealist, like Dutch says.
I always thought they didn't include her in RDR2 because they changed alot of details From RDR1 to fit the new RDR2 Story...John's scars, Macfarlane Ranch, Tall Trees...ect. many small details or even bigger details aswell were changed. but in RDR2 Epilogue I remember hearing John mention their time in the Yukon after1899. so could be she's buried up north somewhere.
Same. RDR2 largely retcons the first game's canon to fit its new story, and they clearly forgot about details like John's daughter. When Rob Weitohff even asked about it on set, they basically just gave him a non-answer *"ah, she died"* which as great of a story as RDR2 is, shows how little care went into making it a consistent prequel. In RDR1, John's daughter death was a pivotal tragedy that helped shape him into who he was and it should've been a part of RDR2's story to signal his development. Instead of dropping the plot point and leaving it to the fans to decide when and how she died.
@@FraGua592 But John retorts that the real story is already more than convincing and at camp, everyone knows John got them from a wolves attack, so he didn't bother to come up with a different story.
I think John's daughter is a case Rockstar retconned so much of the first game's canon and completely forgetting about this little but crucial bit of John's past. Based on RDR1, she should've been at least born during the John's time gang and her death should've been a pivotal moment in the prequel's story that hardens John into being more world-weary and distrustful.
@Sleepy I don’t understand why we have to hold RDR1 accountable for mistakes the 2nd game made. They just had to follow the lore of the first game and they didn’t because they both wanted to make a story about a new gang and a prequel to RDR1
@Sleepy As a purist, I disagree. If RDR1 gets a remake, the last thing I want is core story or gameplay changes. As @Kopantis said, it had an established story and lore that shouldn't be altered because the prequel failed to follow it and went in its own direction. RDR2 is a great story, but a subpar prequel that mainly retcons the first game's characters and lore, so it didn't feel like they exceeded the expectations of what the gang was like as much as they changed them into something else.
@@kopanitis Right on! I dislike this mentality where since most people didn't play RDR1 or it's an old game, they think its story and lore should change to accommodate a prequel that wasn't particularly bothered with being consistent to it. RDR2 should've been written around complimenting the first game in the first place, not the other way around imo.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt... They changed the direction a few times and there was a HUGE cut content. We don't know if they considered to show her or not during development. Of course it would have been amazing to see how this girl's birth and death would have impacted the Marston family!
@Sleepy You do realize I said RDR2 DID retcon major things like characters and vital lore, not just trivial things like McFarlane's Ranch or New Austin. Those are things RDR2 could just fix itself if they ever do a remaster since it wasn't intended to be this way but Rockstar ran out of time. But you talk of story and themes when that's mainly where RDR2's most egregious retcons occur; John, Bill and Javier's characters, relationships and central roles in the gang's downfall is sidelined and they're changed into completely different people. The gang went from a small ruffian band of violent revolutionaries to a village of misfits just trying to survive, which wouldn't bother me if the OG characters weren't sidelined for the new members or the central idea of the gang as freedom fighters seeking to change America was focused on or the timeline which is messed up to suit its story. It's okay if you don't mind these changes, but they're absolutely retcons that if one is familiar with the first game - detracted from certain elements. I wouldn't mind if the little inconsistencies were recontextualized in a remake to fit RDR2 but not the core plot points or characterization that DEFINED the first game's version of the RDR story, but RDR2 neglected and changed.
Maybe like when his daughter was maybe 1 years old maybe she died maybe in a gun fight at the Marston’s home and they killed her or she died due to a sickness maybe like you said idk it’s just theories I have and I have a lot more RDR theories!
I think the sasquatch ate his infant daughter which is why he's so aggressive towards them and knows what theyre capable of doing in undead nightmare hench *YOU EAT BABIES*
There's no ultrasounds? I'm pretty sure they had a dead baby in their hands If they ever make a red dead 3 I definitely like some flashback sequence with Jack
I don't think it's an oversight. Rockstar is known to be very detailed heavy in their games. I don't know what year the daughter would have been born but I know she definitely exists It's not an oversight
It is 1899 to 1907 because at the beginning of the epilogue they say they were robbed and barley got out with their lives that why a grave is not on beechers hope
But if Arthur still had a living child, he wouldn't be the way the he was in the story though. The whole point is it hardened him and made him believe that you don't get to live a bad life and expect good things to happen to you.
My theory is (I haven’t finished the video so I’m unsure if it comes up, nor have I found this online) but I believe when John abandoned the gang for a year. He met a woman who he thought was his chance to go straight and put his criminal past behind him. The woman would become pregnant and give birth to her & John’s daughter. Given time, the woman would pass as would their daughter. It can be up to your imagination. This loss hit John hard and realized that Abigail & Jack are still out there. So he returns to the gang and they accept him. Maybe at one point in private he confides to Javier that he did have another family. Hence why in RDR1 Javier curses John and his children, not child. Who knows what happened, but that’s what I choose to believe
Another video based on awful theories not paying attention to the timeline: 1. The weirdest theory of all about John's horse's name. Why wouldn't someone name their horse in honor of a lost child/family member? Especially at this time in history when horses are very crucial to survival, people took them seriously. Even now people name pets after others. 2. The worst chronology mistake videos on this topic make. Everyone insists that because there's no burial plot for her on the ranch she no longer exists in RDR2 but you BUILD the ranch in the epilogue of RDR2! There were 8 years since the end of main story and the epilogue where the Marston's where nomads. She could have been born and died then and been buried wherever they were. No grave at the ranch means nothing since WE build it. 3. Do you even know how miscarriages work???
I would say it was before the events of red dead 2. Since apprently Abigail was fucked by all the other gang members. That the daughter she had shortly died after wards. But not to sure how that would fit in with the story. It would actually be nice thay rockstar would put some effort into other game beside gta online. Remake red dead 1 with the red dead 2 game engine. Make the story fit with everything we know about red dead 2. Give us alternate ending for both red dead 1 and 2. I mean there is so much that can be done with dlc that would fix alot and give fans what they want. Which is basically choice in the matter of the story they want to play. Short instances to save the members that get killed. Have some semblance of everything being a choice. But that's just me I guess. We will never get what is needed because rockstar and many other developers don't listen.
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
Classic zonker W
She died somewhere between 1907-1911 and was buried in new Austin for some reason and Jack put his necklace on her grave
I believe so too. I think her death may have hardened him to become the man we know and love. As much as I like John in RDR2, he just seems too optimistic and enthusiastic in the way he speaks, completely different from the John we know in the first game (besides his physical body structure).
It wouldn't make sense that they'd bury her in New Austin when John in RDR1 says he'd never been there and literally needs a tour guide at the start to show him around to Fort Mercer.
@@Andermander429 Agreed. RDR2 sort of fails as prequel on these two regards. They sidelined John's development and changed his personality to that of a foolish and enthusiastic cowpoke. And they clearly forgot about his daughter's existence based on the answer Rob Wietohff got when he asked about it. When she should've been in the main story and her death a pivotal moment that hardens John into being world-weary and distrustful, when he always was an idealist, like Dutch says.
@@themadtitan7603 what I thought was John didn’t go just Abigail and Jack went to bury the Marston Daughter
@@Cheez_Doodlezz Maybe. But somehow I find John and Abigail not going together to bury their daughter together unlikely.
I always thought they didn't include her in RDR2 because they changed alot of details From RDR1 to fit the new RDR2 Story...John's scars, Macfarlane Ranch, Tall Trees...ect. many small details or even bigger details aswell were changed. but in RDR2 Epilogue I remember hearing John mention their time in the Yukon after1899. so could be she's buried up north somewhere.
Same. RDR2 largely retcons the first game's canon to fit its new story, and they clearly forgot about details like John's daughter. When Rob Weitohff even asked about it on set, they basically just gave him a non-answer *"ah, she died"* which as great of a story as RDR2 is, shows how little care went into making it a consistent prequel. In RDR1, John's daughter death was a pivotal tragedy that helped shape him into who he was and it should've been a part of RDR2's story to signal his development. Instead of dropping the plot point and leaving it to the fans to decide when and how she died.
Rob is the GOAT
ive seen you somewhere do you know mossy sparks
for John's scars there is an explanation: Arthur in rdr2 when he goes to save him from the wolves tells him to tell a better story for the scars
@@FraGua592 But John retorts that the real story is already more than convincing and at camp, everyone knows John got them from a wolves attack, so he didn't bother to come up with a different story.
I swear there’s a line of dialogue in the epilogue where John says something like “Soon we’ll have more mouths to feed” or something like that.
Lmao no way john literally saying i just Fword abigail
I think John's daughter is a case Rockstar retconned so much of the first game's canon and completely forgetting about this little but crucial bit of John's past. Based on RDR1, she should've been at least born during the John's time gang and her death should've been a pivotal moment in the prequel's story that hardens John into being more world-weary and distrustful.
@Sleepy I don’t understand why we have to hold RDR1 accountable for mistakes the 2nd game made. They just had to follow the lore of the first game and they didn’t because they both wanted to make a story about a new gang and a prequel to RDR1
@Sleepy As a purist, I disagree. If RDR1 gets a remake, the last thing I want is core story or gameplay changes. As @Kopantis said, it had an established story and lore that shouldn't be altered because the prequel failed to follow it and went in its own direction. RDR2 is a great story, but a subpar prequel that mainly retcons the first game's characters and lore, so it didn't feel like they exceeded the expectations of what the gang was like as much as they changed them into something else.
@@kopanitis Right on! I dislike this mentality where since most people didn't play RDR1 or it's an old game, they think its story and lore should change to accommodate a prequel that wasn't particularly bothered with being consistent to it. RDR2 should've been written around complimenting the first game in the first place, not the other way around imo.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt... They changed the direction a few times and there was a HUGE cut content.
We don't know if they considered to show her or not during development.
Of course it would have been amazing to see how this girl's birth and death would have impacted the Marston family!
@Sleepy You do realize I said RDR2 DID retcon major things like characters and vital lore, not just trivial things like McFarlane's Ranch or New Austin. Those are things RDR2 could just fix itself if they ever do a remaster since it wasn't intended to be this way but Rockstar ran out of time.
But you talk of story and themes when that's mainly where RDR2's most egregious retcons occur; John, Bill and Javier's characters, relationships and central roles in the gang's downfall is sidelined and they're changed into completely different people. The gang went from a small ruffian band of violent revolutionaries to a village of misfits just trying to survive, which wouldn't bother me if the OG characters weren't sidelined for the new members or the central idea of the gang as freedom fighters seeking to change America was focused on or the timeline which is messed up to suit its story. It's okay if you don't mind these changes, but they're absolutely retcons that if one is familiar with the first game - detracted from certain elements.
I wouldn't mind if the little inconsistencies were recontextualized in a remake to fit RDR2 but not the core plot points or characterization that DEFINED the first game's version of the RDR story, but RDR2 neglected and changed.
Maybe like when his daughter was maybe 1 years old maybe she died maybe in a gun fight at the Marston’s home and they killed her or she died due to a sickness maybe like you said idk it’s just theories I have and I have a lot more RDR theories!
Solid choice using Christian's version of hurt.
his covers are fantastic
Guess I didn’t have to wait that long
I think the sasquatch ate his infant daughter which is why he's so aggressive towards them and knows what theyre capable of doing in undead nightmare hench *YOU EAT BABIES*
You seem like the type to wear tinfoil hats and only use pagers
There's no ultrasounds? I'm pretty sure they had a dead baby in their hands
If they ever make a red dead 3 I definitely like some flashback sequence with Jack
i love the intro
I don't think it's an oversight. Rockstar is known to be very detailed heavy in their games. I don't know what year the daughter would have been born but I know she definitely exists It's not an oversight
Javier was cursing the future so "children" could refer to any kids john might have later
I always assumed it was some type of prevalent disease they had throughout that time
It is 1899 to 1907 because at the beginning of the epilogue they say they were robbed and barley got out with their lives that why a grave is not on beechers hope
So Arthur said he had a son I wish he had a daughter instead and when Arthur died she came with john and eventually died
But if Arthur still had a living child, he wouldn't be the way the he was in the story though. The whole point is it hardened him and made him believe that you don't get to live a bad life and expect good things to happen to you.
@@themadtitan7603exactly
My theory is (I haven’t finished the video so I’m unsure if it comes up, nor have I found this online) but I believe when John abandoned the gang for a year. He met a woman who he thought was his chance to go straight and put his criminal past behind him. The woman would become pregnant and give birth to her & John’s daughter. Given time, the woman would pass as would their daughter. It can be up to your imagination. This loss hit John hard and realized that Abigail & Jack are still out there. So he returns to the gang and they accept him. Maybe at one point in private he confides to Javier that he did have another family. Hence why in RDR1 Javier curses John and his children, not child. Who knows what happened, but that’s what I choose to believe
Great intro
misread the title as I was scrolling and I thought it said "The Mystery of John Marston's Daughter (SHE'S DEAD)
thank you for the credit 🤠
no problem!
A+ song choice
Nice touch with having Hurt by Johnny Cash the song. Which cover is this?
christian larsson i think, it should be in the description
6k subscribers already...
I joined the discord 😎
Great video 74/10
6.66k subs
How dear you start the video with this seen
AHHHHH
@@OwanHopper hhhhhhha
Hhhhhhhhahhhhhhh
Another video based on awful theories not paying attention to the timeline:
1. The weirdest theory of all about John's horse's name. Why wouldn't someone name their horse in honor of a lost child/family member? Especially at this time in history when horses are very crucial to survival, people took them seriously. Even now people name pets after others.
2. The worst chronology mistake videos on this topic make. Everyone insists that because there's no burial plot for her on the ranch she no longer exists in RDR2 but you BUILD the ranch in the epilogue of RDR2! There were 8 years since the end of main story and the epilogue where the Marston's where nomads. She could have been born and died then and been buried wherever they were. No grave at the ranch means nothing since WE build it.
3. Do you even know how miscarriages work???
Hello, song name?
johnny cash - hurt (christian larsson cover)
I would say it was before the events of red dead 2. Since apprently Abigail was fucked by all the other gang members. That the daughter she had shortly died after wards. But not to sure how that would fit in with the story.
It would actually be nice thay rockstar would put some effort into other game beside gta online.
Remake red dead 1 with the red dead 2 game engine. Make the story fit with everything we know about red dead 2.
Give us alternate ending for both red dead 1 and 2.
I mean there is so much that can be done with dlc that would fix alot and give fans what they want. Which is basically choice in the matter of the story they want to play.
Short instances to save the members that get killed. Have some semblance of everything being a choice.
But that's just me I guess. We will never get what is needed because rockstar and many other developers don't listen.
w
First
Inferior video, this is what happens when you put Kinimod in charge. Unsubbed 😡
What?
@@burninsherman1037 You'll never understand
I feel bad for you kid clot
kini had nothing to do with this video 😭
Kid Clit ur still subbed I saw lmao