Epilogues too?

I think nearly every decision Rockstar made with this game has been risky and bold AF and yet they delivered on every front but most of all Im amazed first by how they made a brilliant character out of Arthur, how they wrapped his story up and then by how they handled Marston. They could have failed at so many tricky points on that route but they didn't. Particularly the epilogues and Marston gameplay, like... It's like you watch a long ass show, then the last episode ends, credits roll but somehow you find yourself transported into that world (and have left the real one), like, forever embedded into it somehow and your only option is to bring things to some form of logical conclusion (the farm building), then do side stuff and just keep inhabiting that space in a way that no other game lets you.

Also i find Wild Hunt's moment to moment story elements to be much better than the its narrative as a whole, while RDR2 is brilliant at both at all times imo. Like think about how steadfast and unchanged Geralt remains coupled by the fact that most of the main campaign is chasing Ciri. Episodes of Wild Hunt's story are genious, but the overarching stuff in it is rather impotent.


By being so much about change to me RDR2 is simply more powerful and meaningful in more ways while Wild Hunt is more iconographic if that makes sense

i was strong

two lives in fact

I'm really impressed by how much freedom Rockstar gives the player, yet how much they push the player into their vision of how the narrative goes.

One thing I expect YouTubers to analyze to death is how the narrative changes after Arthur's diagnosis. For most of the early chapters, I made my Arthur bad. Or at least, more villainy than my John was in RDR1. It made sense considering Arthur's more gruff nature compared to John (at least in my eyes).

But once Arthur learns he's gonna die, it's brought up a lot in cutscenes, and the character clearly tries to be more honorable in general, with the final debt collection mission being the prime example. But I even found myself changing the way I played as well. I noticed that I stopped robbing people randomly, I stopped jacking stagecoaches, and I paid off the bounties I accumulated in New Hannover.

I got the "good" ending, I think, where Arthur dies watching the sunset. But then in an almost Saving Private Ryan-esque twist, I feel like I have to "earn" Arthur's sacrifice for John when I enter the epilogue.

The other major change is obviously when the epilogue ends. At this point, not only is the main map still open but the game then opens up to the New Austin area from the original game. Granted, I'm sure that'll be used for RDO or possible DLC, but still.

It's narratively important for John because the game puts the player in this position where they have the ranch, and everything they've built, the duties and responsibilities of farming, the family, and they end up with over $20,000. They have "everything", but is it enough? Is it really what John or the player wants? There's a whole world out there begging for John to return to the wilderness.

I can't think of many open-world games that did this successfully; putting the gameplay or the world in opposition to the player in so many different ways. Not in a cruel way or incompetent way, but in a way that forces the player to make a moral decision about how to play the game, and not just the choices they make in the story.

What a fucking masterpiece.

It makes a Red Dead Remastered so much more imperative in my mind, because it would be fascinating to jump right into that story after this one.

Right??

I also was surprised first by getting "exactly" what I wanted (Marston back) but then also by how in a way I got to "regret" wanting it and getting it because the game only lets you get what you want by paying the price of Arthur's life.

Also, for those that have played it, a lot of it is very MGS4 to me, especially in Ch6 obviously, like, if you got to play with Big Boss at the end lol.

But what you said I thought about too, not so much during my playthrough but when looking videos on youtube and comparing my -mostly cosmetic- choices about Arthur. In a way this has always been like that in GTA games, where you can "style" your protagonist, but what's special here is how Arthur is both much more defined and developed character than any character in a GTA game, but at the same time the game allows you to put your own mark on him in subtle ways and thus create a very personal/intimate interpretation that is only visible to you (others may only guess) and very specific to your current playthrough and what felt right at certain moments. It's just unique how that was achieved without some grand "branching narratives", "crazy-deep dialogue options" thing.

It also very uniquely motivates you to keep playing after Epilogue 2 even just by how it almost feels wrong not to go and finish every fucking thing Arthur started or did just because he kinda died for your opportunity to keep playing.