🕹 Your browser is holding you back. Level up here: https://operagx.gg/NakeyJakey3 Sponsored by Opera GX!god the chainsmokers went crazy on angry birdBall C...
Problem is the game tries to paint him as either a good guy or a bad guy based on the honor system, but he’s not a good guy or a bad guy or complex guy either. He’s not much of a guy at all. His only driving force in the entire game is a blind trust in his father figure. The only internal conflict he has in the entire game is the extremely late realization in his forties that his “dad” isn’t an all-knowing benevolent entity, but is a flawed, self-serving human just like everyone else, and that he needs to learn to think for himself for once. And once he reaches the stage of independent thought, we’re already done playing as him lol.
I think his character would be much more compelling if Arthur made this transition after the first act, and not the final hour of gameplay. An RDR2 where Arthur has been freed of his entirely being’s reliance on Dutch and a conflict with Dutch taking a bigger role in the plot.
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.
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.
He is the protagonist because the story revolves around him as the main character. I’m not saying you should like the game or the character. Him being the protagonist is independent on whether you like him as a character or the game. Protagonist literally means main character of a story, which he objectively is.
Problem is the game tries to paint him as either a good guy or a bad guy based on the honor system, but he’s not a good guy or a bad guy or complex guy either. He’s not much of a guy at all. His only driving force in the entire game is a blind trust in his father figure. The only internal conflict he has in the entire game is the extremely late realization in his forties that his “dad” isn’t an all-knowing benevolent entity, but is a flawed, self-serving human just like everyone else, and that he needs to learn to think for himself for once. And once he reaches the stage of independent thought, we’re already done playing as him lol.
I think his character would be much more compelling if Arthur made this transition after the first act, and not the final hour of gameplay. An RDR2 where Arthur has been freed of his entirely being’s reliance on Dutch and a conflict with Dutch taking a bigger role in the plot.
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.
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.
He is the protagonist because the story revolves around him as the main character. I’m not saying you should like the game or the character. Him being the protagonist is independent on whether you like him as a character or the game. Protagonist literally means main character of a story, which he objectively is.
I don’t think that Arthur being the protagonist of the game is in question here fella. He’s in the cover of the game.
Well, you were before you edited your comment
Incorrect lol. I never said Arthur wasn’t the protagonist. That would be silly.