• AXLplosion
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Agreed. The writing and acting of RDR2 are amazing, but as a whole, the story of the game kind of felt empty in the end. I think I might revisit the game later to see if I’ll enjoy it more, but I just don’t see Arthur as that great of a character from a narrative viewpoint. After the first couple times Dutch’s “plans” failed I started to really question why Arthur, or any of the other gang members really, would continue trusting him so blindly. I think that may have broken my immersion even more than the restrictive mission design where I also murdered like a thousand people.

    • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah like the interactions between the side characters that you get to hear at camp or on missions were far more interesting than anything Arthur had going on. Dutch was a stand out as well. If you think about it, and given the context of the first game, RDR2 is really about Dutch. He might not be the protagonist but he’s more of a main character than Arthur was, and had a more compelling character arc, even if the “character growth” was the inverse of what you’d expect.

      The only plot line with Arthur that actually portrayed any interesting development was the side plot of the mother and son whose father you basically killed. That plot line, and more like it should have been part of the main plot.