The main antagonist is the Wheel that Arthur broke, I have reason for this too. If arthur didn’t break the wheel, Hosea him and Charles wouldn’t have shown up late so Bill Javier and Charles wouldn’t go to the bar like usual. The gang meets Thomas downes only bc he stopped the fight between arthur and Tommy. If arthur didn’t meet Thomas downes that day, strauss wouldn’t have been able to lend him money, leading to there not being a debt= No Tuberculosis which would mean that even if the gang somehow fell apart, arthur would have most likely been fine and able to whoop Micah’s ass in the final showdown.
baby gronk x Kai tag team rizz up livvy dunne in Ohio while skibidi is trying to goon to level 3 hawk tuah gyatt but the sigma is mewing and locked in on his winter arc and not gooning💪
Well you can always argue that it started even sooner. The train robbery led Cornwall to invest in the Pinkertons and everything after I think can be blamed on that. Sure, Micah could have been the cause with Blackwater or something of that sort, but I think Leviticus’ pride/rage after being robbed was the biggest driving factor for the gang’s downfall.
Technically no because even after his “redemption” he still killed Pinkertons who were just lawmen, sure he did it in self defense but he also should know he caused himself to be put in that situation and have taken responsibility, jack and practically everyone else was safe, so he did not have any real reason to keep fighting them off, he was gonna die regardless
I think Arthur has great character development but due to john being present in two games, he has more time to show his changes. John in RDR 2 is more stressed, more scared of death, he's young, unsure of himself, tries to avoid responsibility and slowly becomes the Family loving man we know and love in the epilogue, to RDR 1, who would absolutely do anything to bring them back. He no longer stutters like he does in RDR2, he is confident, deadly and overall just Fearless. John showing up at fort mercer clearly to get himself killed so that Ross would let his family go shows that he has no fear of dying and how Selfless he has become. His development has to be one of the most impressive character developments of all time.
I think across those games, Arthur had more screen time, & from chapter 1 to late chapter 6, you wouldn’t think that that is even Arthur because of how big his changes are if you weren’t the one watching it all unfold
1. Dutch, he let micah manipulate him and went against everything he originally stood for. 2.Yes, obviously. 3. No, Arthur committed hundreds of crimes that couldn’t be made up for even with his good acts at the end of his life. 4. John, we know about most of his life and we still don’t know a ton about Arthur’s 5. Micah, he’s the reason dutch became the way he was at the end.
The majority of the crimes the gang committs is against the government and giant businesses and other than the Strauss mission it’s very rarely just normal people and when that does happen Arthur tries his best to pay them back later in the story and if you rob a person outside of the story that’s not canon so canonically I believe he was redeemed
The Main Antagonist is usually someone who is the main Nemesis to the Main Protagonist, Micah in the end is ultimately Arthur's true Enemy, Arthur's final moments are a boss fight with MICAH, not Dutch, not Milton, Micah, Arthur consistently despises Micah throughout the story, and Micah is not only the final Boss fight in Arthur's story but in John's Epilogue too, Micah is by most definitions the "Main Antagonist" of the game as he morally corrupts Dutch who is in many ways the "Central Character" of the Plot and leads to the gangs demise by being the Rat, Micah is the Joker (Main Antagonist), Dutch is Harvey Dent (Central Character) and Arthur is Batman (Main Protagonist) if that analogy makes sense
Wrong. Arthur is not the main protagonist and Micah is not the main antagonist. The second game builds off the first game. Throughout both games we follow John and Dutch, the Arthur and Micah storyline is there to add depth to the story and create a new narrative for the player to follow while gaining knowledge on the background from the first game. Dutch is there during the final fight between Arthur and Micah and the final standoff between John and Micah and then in 1911 we have the standoff between John and Dutch. Dutch is obviously the main antagonist.
@@Rychu-zo1pwof rdr2 yes, but we're talking overall in both games and the main protagonist between both is John, because rdr2 is going into the backstory of rdr1 and how John got to where the pinkertons found him, hunted down his former gang members dutch ultimately being the whole reason he left the gang in the first place and then when he dies and Jack's vengeance
@@Rychu-zo1pwArthur is a much better protagonist and better written but John is the main one in the storyline and dutch is the main antagonist in the storyline
No, the whole series doesn't belong to John. John is the main character of RDR1. Arthur is the main character of RDR2. The epilogue is there to connect the two games nicely. It's not even open to discussion that Arthur is a much more developed character. Just playing the game is enough to understand this. Arthur Morgan is the most humane and deepest character ever created in any game. John was a corny spaghetti western character in RDR1. John deepened in RDR2. RDR1 was my favorite game until RDR2 came out. It's normal for John fans to not accept it, because Arthur is far superior to John in every way. What needs to be done is to understand this and love both games and characters. Not to compete like children. On one side is the reality created by Rockstar, on the other side is the dream world of little fanboys. Simple as that.
@Cqdlass383 Talking about denial, leaving all discussion out, huh? that's funny. The series is still up to John and his family, you just need to see what was Arthur's biggest succes in the game.
@@Cqdlass383 There are far deeper and more complex characters than arthur lmao, it's not like his story is something rlly complex i agree is done amazingly but not even close to the most complex characters in gaming
@@EL1X10 yes it's funny, that's why you couldn't say anything. My answer contains a lot of evidence, contrary to your comment. There are two games in the series and you say they are both about John, not Arthur, right? okay genius bro, if you have free time from important things, play the game again. Then you'll understand that the main game is not an epilogue. But judging by your answers, you don't really understand what you read, so you may have difficulty playing the game 😀
Rdr3 is a must have. The developer sais the story a gone, everything would said the circle get closed. I don't think so. Rdr2 is the story for rdr1. Now they can tell us the story before rdr2 in rdr3. How come the dutch gang together? What does Arthur do before meet dutch and the others. The peak must the robbery at blackwater. A story with jack in rdr3 would be whack. Normally every game which have more than 1 part tell us story (when they did) time after time. But in rdr the story was tellen us backwards. That"s the greathes thing of this game
@SasXhdd the main actor would be Arthur. Dutch and the gang come together would be side act. This is the point how can the story tell us in rdr3. I think the story from rdr1 is gone with rdr2. My point is the time where we can play the game. Actually there is no dlc for rdr2 or something else, it must be third part of the game.
@@bw5486 He’s saying John is also relatable, since in the first game, John does whatever it takes to get his family back, a motivation many fathers and husbands would admire. Arthur is also reliable since he cares a lot about his friends who he sees as family, and he wants to protect them. So no he isn’t biased, he just wants John to be more included.
You're correct Dutch Van Der Linde is the main Antagonist. But I wouldn't say he was directly the reason Arthur and John died. Yes having them grow up into gang members ultimately lead to their demise. But directly Micah and Tuberculosis combined killed Arthur (Or Just Micah if u had Low Honor) while Edgar Ross and his men killed John.
I think RDR3 should be a prequel about Mac Callander and about him doing shit in a bunch of western states then saving his brother and Arthur and the game ends with him dying in custody and then you play as Arthur in the BlackWater massacre.
In my opinion I think John Marston Is a more developed character. Ive worked for Rockstar since 2001 and Sam, Ken, Kevin and Steve and the 1600 people who worked on Red Dead Redemption 2 have said that Rob's Character is more developed than Rogers.
I got into a debate recently precisely about whether Arthur deserved some kind of happy ending and this was the opinion: As much as a bad ending. Because truly, his actions deserve punishment. He killed and robbed countless people, however, he helped and spared several people as well. In the High Honor route, playing right, Arthur does not go further than necessary to complete his goals and those of the gang. His priority and that of many others like John, Charles and Uncle was not to kill those who did not deserve it as far as they could avoid it. The first train is already an example. He spares the three guards who have already surrendered, without needing to hurt anyone else. But it still doesn't simply excuse him from his actions, which is why I say that a good ending could come to him just as much as a bad one. He is an anti-hero in the High Honor route. A good man who lived a bad life. It is complicated.
John was undeveloped in rdr2, he was always made fun of and always in need of being saved like a dead weight yet in rdr1 they made him look like he was badass, intelligent, and Dutch's favorite during his time with the gang. Imagine if he was introduced sitting down tired surrounded by wolves he killed instead of crying for help in rdr2. Still the same scene but its badass and doesn't make him look pitiful
I think Dutch is more fault because he let himself get manipulated by somebody no experience with leading, and made him take more risk without caring for others which ultimately led to its downfall
My personal answers, as someone who loves both games: 1 - In Red Dead 2, it's Micah. In 1, it's Edgar Ross. They're the direct opposites to the protagonists, and the reason why the conflicts happen, at least in their eyes. 2 - No. It will either go too far past, where it doesn't matter; or too far into the future, when it's no longer Wild West. They shouldn't spin-off either. At most, follow Jack Marston. 3 - No. 15 minutes being a good man doesn't make up for a life of crimes - Specially if you're as violent as Arthur. That's a question Abigail actually directly brought up in Red Dead 1! 4 - John Marston, of course. John's got two whole games to himself compared to Arthur's one. Even if at times John's writing feels inconsistent, static, or regressive (In 2 in specific. He's way better written in 1.) 5 - Dutch, Dutch, and Dutch! Micah didn't rat out until Guarma, while Dutch was fucking everything up since chapter 1! Everyone calls it out too!
honestly i feel like rdr3 could bond all of the rdrs together and basically show how duthc met all the characters, and how he started going crazy, also how Hosea was trying to keep the group together.
The main antagonist of the whole story: Ross Should there be an rdr3: yes, maybe as one of (or both of) the Callander boys, maybe ending with the blackwater massacre Does Arthur’s redemption make up for his crimes: no, it does make up for his sins Who’s more developed: John, look at John at the beginning and then end of rdr2, hardly even the same person, Arthur also did develop greatly, John also had another game to develop in Who’s more at fault for the gangs demise: Dutch, for letting Micah get in his ear and generally becoming a worse person
I find it very hypocritical that Arthur’s redemption just so happens to coincide with his tuberculosis diagnosis. It’s like studying last minute for an exam and expecting to get good grades.
here’s my unbiased opinions 1. out of all the villains listed it the video id say micah because he put things in ditches head and was possibly a rat to the pinkertons 2. personally j think that there should be an rdr3 because jacks story feels way to ubresolved 3. no because giving away money doesn’t repay for killing and robbing others because murder is a sin that should never be forgiven other than self defense 4. i think that it’s john because of all that he went through with the wolves, the gang, and the government through the span of the series 5. i think micah because he put things in ditches head and persuaded dutch to do stuff that led to the downfall of the gang
1 Dutch 2 no the story is over 3 Arthur killed hundreds of people maybe thousands, he doesn’t get excused from that because of a few good deeds, 4 Arthur has much more development considering the details we get about his love life, his son and previous girlfriend, his loyalty and past, and his journal which gives us a look into his mind 5 neither, the gang was going to fall apart one way or another but I suppose it happens much more violently due to Dutch and his recklessness and ego
I’m not making a argument but number 4 your wrong as John way more developed as we got RDR1 which gave us John whole life story after killing Micah and he talk a lot about his past life of how he fell in love which then he had jack and he talk about his experiences with the gang members before he kill them and also in RDR2 we played a little of John Marston and what he did after Arthur died then we also had RDR undead nightmare which was all revolves around John so John was way more developed than Arthur since we only had a little and John also had a journal in RDR1
The antagonist cannot be the pinkertons as they are just an agency in place of police. It cannot be Dutch as twisted as he was, the whole time, originally he wanted the best for all of them. Not Micah either as he was just a puppet in turning the gang against eachother. It has to be the damn wheel.
1. Micah, most of what happened to John and Dutch in RDR1 (from what i saw it since i haven't played the first one) are result of the epilogue, where John went after Micah, Arthur's final battle in every ending is against Micah, he manipulated Dutch in every way he could, and he was the one who pretty much sold the gang to the goverment. 2. I think it's already confirmed that RDR3 is happening, but i think that the story of the gang is already finished, especially since RDR1 is basically John hunting down his former partners to save his family and dying at the end, and Jack avenged him in his part, the only two ways i can see an RDR3 happening is telling the origin of the gang or telling more about Red Harlow after the events of Red Dead Revolver. 3. Legally no, of course not, he's still a criminal, but morally yes, i keep remembering the story of the thiefs that were crucified with Jesus Christ (i didn't wanted to bring this story at a videogame edit, but i coudn't help that Arthur's fate reminded me of that story, sorry 😅😅😅), where one of them confessed his crimes and regretted all of it at the very end of his life and Jesus still forgave him at that moment and said he would go to heaven with Him, so i believe Arthur's redemption makes up for it at the end. 4. Like i said, i haven't played RDR1 so i don't really know John's development in that game, so i'm going with Arthur, especially since the few things i saw of RDR1 made me think John is more "cold-blooded" killer than Arthur. 5. I would say Micah, i know the gang's days were already numbered, but still, Micah not only accelerated those days, Dutch just couldn't see it until his death in RDR1.
I hope RDR3 takes place in the past. Maybe a Young Arthur during the prime days of the Wild West. RDR2 and RDR1 are set at a time when the Wild West was already over.
1. Greed. Dutch was greedy putting his gangs life at risk doing asinine jobs and scores for the slightest amount of money. The pinkertons were greedy wanting to take down the gang by any means necessary also regardless of casualties 2. Yes. The dynamics in storytelling that differ this series from say GTA is so unique that a 3rd entry would be incredible 3. No. But it definitely paints him in a much better light to those around him and after he’s gone he’s remembered more fondly of for his good deeds rather than his crimes. 4. John. He went from a guy who abandoned his gang and his family, to returning and trying his best to get out of the criminal life for the sake of his family. Thanks to Arthur he was able to give his family a decent life for a while and even helped the Pinkertons to ensure his family’s saftey, although the also had ulterior motives that eventually led to John’s death. 5. Dutch. No matter how much of a rat Micah was Dutch allowed himself to be manipulated by him, while at the same time Dutch filled his entire gangs heads with lies and false hopes
1. The Pinkertons (Milton, Ross, Archer) mainly Ross timeline wise, he was wreaking havoc from 1899 - 1914. Though you could make a plea for Dutch. Him being a self employed Guardian for so many people, to then turning on them and becoming what he always swore not to be is why he has one of the greatest betrayals in fiction. 2. Yes absoluetly, the Red Dead brand hasn't even touched the surface of what it is capable and have the potential to be. 3. No definitely not, there's no moral authority that can determine what a bad deed and what a good deed is worth. So his redemption is for him and him only. 4. Arthur for sure, there isn't even a question about it. We see Arthur go through way more trauma, we see him sacrifice the most, we see him learn from his mistakes and admit, and we see him be vulnerable which we never see John be ever. 5. Definitely Micah, he infiltrated the ranks to steer Dutch down the wrong path, which could've been easily avoided would've Micah been absent. In chapter 6, Dutch had been through so much stress and trauma that he was a puppet to whoever showed themselves as trustworthy enough.
In my opinion, it's both dutch and micah who led the gang to its downfall. Micah was the rat, manipulating dutch, and dutch turned crazy and psychotic, making irrational decisions throughout the last couple of chapters we have with arthur.
the actual main villain is the money that drives man crazy and would make them do such things as sacrificing your own " child ", betrayins your friend, and kill people
Well, Milton was just doing his job trying to take down a group of killers and thieves. Milton wasn’t really a bad guy, it was Ross more than him. Dutch and Cornwall are the main antagonists.
Hard pill to swallow but Arthur doesn’t make up for his sins because he kills 1000s of Pinkerton, Cornwall guards, and Cuban soldiers, and st Denis cops
Last question is dutch for letting micah in, John for the most character development, Main antagonist was Dutch, being responsible for the gang and making the choices that led to the gangs demise. And i would like a RDR3 but would it ruin the already perfect game trilogy? And lastly, Arthur's redemption is based on if you are high or low honor
The main villain is Tahiti
Hey this trolley goes to Tahiti ha 😅
ahhh yes
They shoulda chose Australia
Just have a little faith
Charles, the French painter, was right next to Tahiti. Arthur could have met a friend down there.
The main villain is the donation box not working
Well well that must suck no fast travel for u
@Rickgrimes-coltpython I'm talking about how the donation box has no impact on the story, no matter how much you donate
@Rickgrimes-coltpythonyou need to use the ledger not the donation box if u want to activate fast travel
The main villain is time, the days of the old west are over
@Rickgrimes-coltpythonfor real I tell all my friends hey you should upgrade before you die as Arthur I say so many times and they don’t listen
The main antagonist is the Damn wheel
"Ah i broke the god damn wheel" 🗣️🗣️🗣️🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥‼️‼️‼️
Damm wheel 🗣️🔥🔥
Anyone else just randomly put on the Arthur accent when they read damn wheel without even thinking about it😂😂😂
didnt even think about it until i read your comment but yes 😂 @vinnievinnie-sj5kr
"ahh I broke the damp wheel"
The main antagonist is the Wheel that Arthur broke, I have reason for this too. If arthur didn’t break the wheel, Hosea him and Charles wouldn’t have shown up late so Bill Javier and Charles wouldn’t go to the bar like usual. The gang meets Thomas downes only bc he stopped the fight between arthur and Tommy. If arthur didn’t meet Thomas downes that day, strauss wouldn’t have been able to lend him money, leading to there not being a debt= No Tuberculosis which would mean that even if the gang somehow fell apart, arthur would have most likely been fine and able to whoop Micah’s ass in the final showdown.
baby gronk x Kai tag team rizz up livvy dunne in Ohio while skibidi is trying to goon to level 3 hawk tuah gyatt but the sigma is mewing and locked in on his winter arc and not gooning💪
Holy shit
@jbrickfilms5966 real
Well you can always argue that it started even sooner. The train robbery led Cornwall to invest in the Pinkertons and everything after I think can be blamed on that. Sure, Micah could have been the cause with Blackwater or something of that sort, but I think Leviticus’ pride/rage after being robbed was the biggest driving factor for the gang’s downfall.
can't believe i just red the entire shit
Arthur’s redemption legally didn’t make up for his crimes but it did make up for his sins
Did it though lol he killed and robbed countless people
No it didnt he killed hundreds if not thousands of innocent people and lawmen just doing thier job
@@theojake so did a guy that went to heaven in the bible
Technically no because even after his “redemption” he still killed Pinkertons who were just lawmen, sure he did it in self defense but he also should know he caused himself to be put in that situation and have taken responsibility, jack and practically everyone else was safe, so he did not have any real reason to keep fighting them off, he was gonna die regardless
@kian_the_superbb that’s different lol
I like to believe that the main antagonist isnt a person, but the concept of time moving past the age of the outlaw.
Absolutely right that’s even said in the intro and often referred to across both games “Our time has passed”
That’s good
I think Arthur has great character development but due to john being present in two games, he has more time to show his changes.
John in RDR 2 is more stressed, more scared of death, he's young, unsure of himself, tries to avoid responsibility and slowly becomes the Family loving man we know and love in the epilogue, to RDR 1, who would absolutely do anything to bring them back. He no longer stutters like he does in RDR2, he is confident, deadly and overall just Fearless. John showing up at fort mercer clearly to get himself killed so that Ross would let his family go shows that he has no fear of dying and how Selfless he has become. His development has to be one of the most impressive character developments of all time.
I think across those games, Arthur had more screen time, & from chapter 1 to late chapter 6, you wouldn’t think that that is even Arthur because of how big his changes are if you weren’t the one watching it all unfold
@Hambone42 yeah, RDR 2 is a pretty long Game.
1. Dutch, he let micah manipulate him and went against everything he originally stood for.
2.Yes, obviously.
3. No, Arthur committed hundreds of crimes that couldn’t be made up for even with his good acts at the end of his life.
4. John, we know about most of his life and we still don’t know a ton about Arthur’s
5. Micah, he’s the reason dutch became the way he was at the end.
Everything but rdr3 coz what would the plot be?
@@rolandomanrriquez108 Landon Rickets would be great
@@rolandomanrriquez108it could be anything bro. You ever heard of GTA? It’s a completely different story every game.
"he let Micah manipulate him" bro dyk what manipulation is
The majority of the crimes the gang committs is against the government and giant businesses and other than the Strauss mission it’s very rarely just normal people and when that does happen Arthur tries his best to pay them back later in the story and if you rob a person outside of the story that’s not canon so canonically I believe he was redeemed
The Main Antagonist is usually someone who is the main Nemesis to the Main Protagonist, Micah in the end is ultimately Arthur's true Enemy, Arthur's final moments are a boss fight with MICAH, not Dutch, not Milton, Micah, Arthur consistently despises Micah throughout the story, and Micah is not only the final Boss fight in Arthur's story but in John's Epilogue too, Micah is by most definitions the "Main Antagonist" of the game as he morally corrupts Dutch who is in many ways the "Central Character" of the Plot and leads to the gangs demise by being the Rat, Micah is the Joker (Main Antagonist), Dutch is Harvey Dent (Central Character) and Arthur is Batman (Main Protagonist) if that analogy makes sense
Wrong. Arthur is not the main protagonist and Micah is not the main antagonist. The second game builds off the first game. Throughout both games we follow John and Dutch, the Arthur and Micah storyline is there to add depth to the story and create a new narrative for the player to follow while gaining knowledge on the background from the first game. Dutch is there during the final fight between Arthur and Micah and the final standoff between John and Micah and then in 1911 we have the standoff between John and Dutch. Dutch is obviously the main antagonist.
@ohyeahyeah1068 also wrong, the main protagonist of rdr2 is Arthur and the antagonist is micah
@@Rychu-zo1pw do you have the ability to read?The whole question and discussing was about the whole series ,not just the 2nd game
@@Rychu-zo1pwof rdr2 yes, but we're talking overall in both games and the main protagonist between both is John, because rdr2 is going into the backstory of rdr1 and how John got to where the pinkertons found him, hunted down his former gang members dutch ultimately being the whole reason he left the gang in the first place and then when he dies and Jack's vengeance
@@Rychu-zo1pwArthur is a much better protagonist and better written but John is the main one in the storyline and dutch is the main antagonist in the storyline
John is the more developed, the whole series is still of it's own.
No, the whole series doesn't belong to John. John is the main character of RDR1. Arthur is the main character of RDR2. The epilogue is there to connect the two games nicely. It's not even open to discussion that Arthur is a much more developed character. Just playing the game is enough to understand this. Arthur Morgan is the most humane and deepest character ever created in any game. John was a corny spaghetti western character in RDR1. John deepened in RDR2. RDR1 was my favorite game until RDR2 came out. It's normal for John fans to not accept it, because Arthur is far superior to John in every way. What needs to be done is to understand this and love both games and characters. Not to compete like children. On one side is the reality created by Rockstar, on the other side is the dream world of little fanboys. Simple as that.
@Cqdlass383 Talking about denial, leaving all discussion out, huh? that's funny.
The series is still up to John and his family, you just need to see what was Arthur's biggest succes in the game.
@@Cqdlass383 There are far deeper and more complex characters than arthur lmao, it's not like his story is something rlly complex i agree is done amazingly but not even close to the most complex characters in gaming
@@EL1X10 yes it's funny, that's why you couldn't say anything. My answer contains a lot of evidence, contrary to your comment.
There are two games in the series and you say they are both about John, not Arthur, right? okay genius bro, if you have free time from important things, play the game again. Then you'll understand that the main game is not an epilogue. But judging by your answers, you don't really understand what you read, so you may have difficulty playing the game 😀
@@Cqdlass383 Sure.
Rdr3 is a must have. The developer sais the story a gone, everything would said the circle get closed. I don't think so. Rdr2 is the story for rdr1. Now they can tell us the story before rdr2 in rdr3. How come the dutch gang together? What does Arthur do before meet dutch and the others. The peak must the robbery at blackwater. A story with jack in rdr3 would be whack. Normally every game which have more than 1 part tell us story (when they did) time after time.
But in rdr the story was tellen us backwards. That"s the greathes thing of this game
All the redemption is done. its good we have a mystery before gang and i see no point in dutchs story because dutchs story is done.
@SasXhdd the main actor would be Arthur. Dutch and the gang come together would be side act. This is the point how can the story tell us in rdr3. I think the story from rdr1 is gone with rdr2. My point is the time where we can play the game. Actually there is no dlc for rdr2 or something else, it must be third part of the game.
but we don't need a story about how the gang came together, we already know most of it
We already know all the main events from before rdr2. Rdr3 would have to be a different gang
Where’s Godzilla is he ok???
john definitely is the more developed character
These are actually rly good questions, usually these type of videos give "iS unCLe REd HarLoW" type questions but these actually got me thinking
The wolves that ate part of johns brain
I would say Arthur is more developed as we feel like we can relate to him
You obviously have not played red dead redemption one
@@mrbanana2504and you’re obviously biased because you prefer that game
@@bw5486 He’s saying John is also relatable, since in the first game, John does whatever it takes to get his family back, a motivation many fathers and husbands would admire.
Arthur is also reliable since he cares a lot about his friends who he sees as family, and he wants to protect them.
So no he isn’t biased, he just wants John to be more included.
The main villian: the inability to change
A 1920’s Jack in Chicago during Prohibition is my dream RDR3
It’s the damn plan😂😂
The main antagonist is the one who he contracted turbeculosis from
The main villain is the new Austin sniper 💀
Agent Milton
Yes
No :(
Arthur
Micah
The main villain is Dutch, he was the antagonist in both of the games and he is the reason both protagonist die.
You're correct Dutch Van Der Linde is the main Antagonist. But I wouldn't say he was directly the reason Arthur and John died. Yes having them grow up into gang members ultimately lead to their demise. But directly Micah and Tuberculosis combined killed Arthur (Or Just Micah if u had Low Honor) while Edgar Ross and his men killed John.
dutch , he listend to micah
*"Should there be a RDR3?"*
Obviously.
*"What should it be about?"*
Uhhh...
My boy Arthur is regrouping in hell sadly
I think RDR3 should be a prequel about Mac Callander and about him doing shit in a bunch of western states then saving his brother and Arthur and the game ends with him dying in custody and then you play as Arthur in the BlackWater massacre.
The main antagonist is the lumbago
In my opinion I think John Marston Is a more developed character. Ive worked for Rockstar since 2001 and Sam, Ken, Kevin and Steve and the 1600 people who worked on Red Dead Redemption 2 have said that Rob's Character is more developed than Rogers.
And he's supposed to. I mean, he's the actual protagonist of Redemption
Is there gonna be a rdr3¿
Ryder, you better answer this man’s questions, or were going to have issues.
@@scionicx629Ryder. You Shermhead!
"Can't Stop Me, Ninja Style"
Arthur didnt want make up his crimes. He wanted to do as much as he could and he did it🫡 best story ever
Micah drove Dutch crazy, it was Micah’s fault
The true antagonist is Thomas MF DOWNES!! I knew I hated him since the fight with Tommy
The main villain is the goddamn honor system
I got into a debate recently precisely about whether Arthur deserved some kind of happy ending and this was the opinion: As much as a bad ending.
Because truly, his actions deserve punishment. He killed and robbed countless people, however, he helped and spared several people as well. In the High Honor route, playing right, Arthur does not go further than necessary to complete his goals and those of the gang. His priority and that of many others like John, Charles and Uncle was not to kill those who did not deserve it as far as they could avoid it. The first train is already an example. He spares the three guards who have already surrendered, without needing to hurt anyone else.
But it still doesn't simply excuse him from his actions, which is why I say that a good ending could come to him just as much as a bad one. He is an anti-hero in the High Honor route. A good man who lived a bad life. It is complicated.
John was undeveloped in rdr2, he was always made fun of and always in need of being saved like a dead weight yet in rdr1 they made him look like he was badass, intelligent, and Dutch's favorite during his time with the gang. Imagine if he was introduced sitting down tired surrounded by wolves he killed instead of crying for help in rdr2. Still the same scene but its badass and doesn't make him look pitiful
The main antagonist is the the train station. The fault of the hand is Dutch
I think Dutch is more fault because he let himself get manipulated by somebody no experience with leading, and made him take more risk without caring for others which ultimately led to its downfall
The last question was definitely Micah
Micah is the antagonist but dutch man... he fkced up pretty hard
My personal answers, as someone who loves both games:
1 - In Red Dead 2, it's Micah. In 1, it's Edgar Ross. They're the direct opposites to the protagonists, and the reason why the conflicts happen, at least in their eyes.
2 - No. It will either go too far past, where it doesn't matter; or too far into the future, when it's no longer Wild West. They shouldn't spin-off either. At most, follow Jack Marston.
3 - No. 15 minutes being a good man doesn't make up for a life of crimes - Specially if you're as violent as Arthur. That's a question Abigail actually directly brought up in Red Dead 1!
4 - John Marston, of course. John's got two whole games to himself compared to Arthur's one. Even if at times John's writing feels inconsistent, static, or regressive (In 2 in specific. He's way better written in 1.)
5 - Dutch, Dutch, and Dutch! Micah didn't rat out until Guarma, while Dutch was fucking everything up since chapter 1! Everyone calls it out too!
rdr3 would definitely be about how Arthur or John got to where they are in rdr2 and rdr1 in greater detail
There was no antagonist. There were only enemies.
it could end with 2
but seeing what jack does after rdr1 would be awesome
Rumors of Red Dead 3 being about young Arthur Morgan.
The main antagonist of rdr2 is Micah
The main antagonist of rdr1 is Ross
I feel RDR3 should be about Dutch and Hosea meeting for the first time and how the gang got together...
Micah is the villain, assuming that Dutch went crazy and wasn’t just a psycho the whole time
Technically Milton, mentally Micah.
honestly i feel like rdr3 could bond all of the rdrs together and basically show how duthc met all the characters, and how he started going crazy, also how Hosea was trying to keep the group together.
Man antagonist was the guy that coughed on Arthur
The main antagonist is that storm that micah said it don't look right
The real antagonist is Dutch because he forgot the damn quarter
The main antagonist of the whole story: Ross
Should there be an rdr3: yes, maybe as one of (or both of) the Callander boys, maybe ending with the blackwater massacre
Does Arthur’s redemption make up for his crimes: no, it does make up for his sins
Who’s more developed: John, look at John at the beginning and then end of rdr2, hardly even the same person, Arthur also did develop greatly, John also had another game to develop in
Who’s more at fault for the gangs demise: Dutch, for letting Micah get in his ear and generally becoming a worse person
Dutch for trusting Micah
The main antagonist is money, just like in real life.
Mycobacterium tuberculosis is the main antagonist
The main villain in tuberculosis
I find it very hypocritical that Arthur’s redemption just so happens to coincide with his tuberculosis diagnosis.
It’s like studying last minute for an exam and expecting to get good grades.
Rd3 jack living as a outlaw like his paw
The main antagonist is the pinkertons..without pinkerton Micah wouldnt rat out and john wouldnt die
I dont think there should be an rdr3 but a game in the same universe, but you're playing as Jack in ww1
Dutch is to blame for allowing Micah to ruin the gang and ignoring the right thing
We dont need rdr3 we need an rdr1 remake
The last guy you kill on the game
here’s my unbiased opinions
1. out of all the villains listed it the video id say micah because he put things in ditches head and was possibly a rat to the pinkertons
2. personally j think that there should be an rdr3 because jacks story feels way to ubresolved
3. no because giving away money doesn’t repay for killing and robbing others because murder is a sin that should never be forgiven other than self defense
4. i think that it’s john because of all that he went through with the wolves, the gang, and the government through the span of the series
5. i think micah because he put things in ditches head and persuaded dutch to do stuff that led to the downfall of the gang
The antagonist was the GAWDAM WHEEL
We need a prequel of this prequel, with the life of arthur in the past, and the epilogue would be the blackwater robb that started rdr2
You know what would be cool is that they would make a rdr3 and you can play as young Arthur morgan
nah but i have question how do you kill the legendary rat rodent in the red dead redemption mission
1 Dutch
2 no the story is over
3 Arthur killed hundreds of people maybe thousands, he doesn’t get excused from that because of a few good deeds,
4 Arthur has much more development considering the details we get about his love life, his son and previous girlfriend, his loyalty and past, and his journal which gives us a look into his mind
5 neither, the gang was going to fall apart one way or another but I suppose it happens much more violently due to Dutch and his recklessness and ego
I’m not making a argument but number 4 your wrong as John way more developed as we got RDR1 which gave us John whole life story after killing Micah and he talk a lot about his past life of how he fell in love which then he had jack and he talk about his experiences with the gang members before he kill them and also in RDR2 we played a little of John Marston and what he did after Arthur died then we also had RDR undead nightmare which was all revolves around John so John was way more developed than Arthur since we only had a little and John also had a journal in RDR1
2. Yes because who wouldn't love a new rdr?
If there is a RDR3 it should keep the “past” theme going and we play as a teenage Arthur Morgan
The antagonist is Micah double action revolver 💀
1. Dutch Van Der Linde
2. No
3. Brain says no, heart says yes
4. To me personally, John
The antagonist cannot be the pinkertons as they are just an agency in place of police. It cannot be Dutch as twisted as he was, the whole time, originally he wanted the best for all of them. Not Micah either as he was just a puppet in turning the gang against eachother. It has to be the damn wheel.
1. Micah, most of what happened to John and Dutch in RDR1 (from what i saw it since i haven't played the first one) are result of the epilogue, where John went after Micah, Arthur's final battle in every ending is against Micah, he manipulated Dutch in every way he could, and he was the one who pretty much sold the gang to the goverment.
2. I think it's already confirmed that RDR3 is happening, but i think that the story of the gang is already finished, especially since RDR1 is basically John hunting down his former partners to save his family and dying at the end, and Jack avenged him in his part, the only two ways i can see an RDR3 happening is telling the origin of the gang or telling more about Red Harlow after the events of Red Dead Revolver.
3. Legally no, of course not, he's still a criminal, but morally yes, i keep remembering the story of the thiefs that were crucified with Jesus Christ (i didn't wanted to bring this story at a videogame edit, but i coudn't help that Arthur's fate reminded me of that story, sorry 😅😅😅), where one of them confessed his crimes and regretted all of it at the very end of his life and Jesus still forgave him at that moment and said he would go to heaven with Him, so i believe Arthur's redemption makes up for it at the end.
4. Like i said, i haven't played RDR1 so i don't really know John's development in that game, so i'm going with Arthur, especially since the few things i saw of RDR1 made me think John is more "cold-blooded" killer than Arthur.
5. I would say Micah, i know the gang's days were already numbered, but still, Micah not only accelerated those days, Dutch just couldn't see it until his death in RDR1.
I hope RDR3 takes place in the past. Maybe a Young Arthur during the prime days of the Wild West. RDR2 and RDR1 are set at a time when the Wild West was already over.
If they for some reason EVER do a RDR3 it should follow Jack somehow
I always thought Micah would turn out like one of those disney movie villians that turn good near the end...
😭😭
thomas downes.
1. Greed. Dutch was greedy putting his gangs life at risk doing asinine jobs and scores for the slightest amount of money. The pinkertons were greedy wanting to take down the gang by any means necessary also regardless of casualties
2. Yes. The dynamics in storytelling that differ this series from say GTA is so unique that a 3rd entry would be incredible
3. No. But it definitely paints him in a much better light to those around him and after he’s gone he’s remembered more fondly of for his good deeds rather than his crimes.
4. John. He went from a guy who abandoned his gang and his family, to returning and trying his best to get out of the criminal life for the sake of his family. Thanks to Arthur he was able to give his family a decent life for a while and even helped the Pinkertons to ensure his family’s saftey, although the also had ulterior motives that eventually led to John’s death.
5. Dutch. No matter how much of a rat Micah was Dutch allowed himself to be manipulated by him, while at the same time Dutch filled his entire gangs heads with lies and false hopes
The main antagonists are the players
1. The Pinkertons (Milton, Ross, Archer) mainly Ross timeline wise, he was wreaking havoc from 1899 - 1914. Though you could make a plea for Dutch. Him being a self employed Guardian for so many people, to then turning on them and becoming what he always swore not to be is why he has one of the greatest betrayals in fiction.
2. Yes absoluetly, the Red Dead brand hasn't even touched the surface of what it is capable and have the potential to be.
3. No definitely not, there's no moral authority that can determine what a bad deed and what a good deed is worth. So his redemption is for him and him only.
4. Arthur for sure, there isn't even a question about it. We see Arthur go through way more trauma, we see him sacrifice the most, we see him learn from his mistakes and admit, and we see him be vulnerable which we never see John be ever.
5. Definitely Micah, he infiltrated the ranks to steer Dutch down the wrong path, which could've been easily avoided would've Micah been absent. In chapter 6, Dutch had been through so much stress and trauma that he was a puppet to whoever showed themselves as trustworthy enough.
Arthur meatrider
@@Darkestnoir4cry more
ngl I think John in rdr1 is fucking stale as shit, and bro arthur is handsome. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
@@_sim0nn637 thats your opinion, if you wanna be a meatrider thats totally valid 😊👍.
We need red dead where outlaws aren’t ending
"What really happened down on that boat?"
In my opinion, it's both dutch and micah who led the gang to its downfall. Micah was the rat, manipulating dutch, and dutch turned crazy and psychotic, making irrational decisions throughout the last couple of chapters we have with arthur.
The main villain is time, the days of the old west are over by that time
the actual main villain is the money that drives man crazy and would make them do such things as sacrificing your own " child ", betrayins your friend, and kill people
The main antagonist is the goddamn wheel
If he didn't get TB he'd have never changed his ways
dAM WHEEL BRUH is antagonist
The main antagonist is ✨The Unruly Bastard✨
We not finna talk about jack holding a Tommy gun
-Milton.
-Of course.
-Partially it really doesn't matter as he did good and understood his wrong doings.
-Arthur.
Well, Milton was just doing his job trying to take down a group of killers and thieves. Milton wasn’t really a bad guy, it was Ross more than him. Dutch and Cornwall are the main antagonists.
Rdr3 should be about the how the van der linde gang was formed and about blackwater massacre
Hard pill to swallow but Arthur doesn’t make up for his sins because he kills 1000s of Pinkerton, Cornwall guards, and Cuban soldiers, and st Denis cops
I’ve never heard these questions until now
At the end of the day dutch didnt have to listen to micah
Rd3 should be about the boat robbery they kept talking about in chapter 1. Or as dutch and Hosea when they were young
Micah is the villain in rdr2 because tge storry ends with his death
Last question is dutch for letting micah in, John for the most character development, Main antagonist was Dutch, being responsible for the gang and making the choices that led to the gangs demise. And i would like a RDR3 but would it ruin the already perfect game trilogy? And lastly, Arthur's redemption is based on if you are high or low honor
The antagonist is Tuberculosis