>RDR2
>Arthur is the most important of the gang members to John
>Everyone literally remembers Arthur.
>John, Uncle, Jack etc. all mention him.
>Abigail cries when he's mentioned
>RDR1
>Absolutely no mention of such member as Arthur.
Why did they do this?
It makes no fucking sense.
Didn't really come up
Welcome to why most prequels suck. They never have this shit planned out.
every character in RDR is an australian aboriginal where its offensive/frowned upon to say the name of people who have died
why would john mention arthur at all? dumbass he's fucking DEAD
Mentioning John's past with Arthur would've spoiled RDR2. Rockstar was only thinking ahead here.
Because Arthur is shit
cope
My headcanon is John doesnt do it on purpose as a way of not looking back like Arthur told him to although he admits to thinking about Arthur from time to time.
I like it. It adds to the tragedy that he's just a picked-apart body on a hilltop. You could even say that John wanted to leave it all behind, but had to exorcise his demons first. Arthur was just a memory.
To be honest Dutch and John stories are pretty much perfect, it really does feel like they were set up from the start. In fact in RDR1 Dutch feels weirdly underrepresented, it's like they're just getting you interested in him rather than properly exploring his character.
Damn it's almost like they didn't plan on making a prequel back in 2010
>put a racist depiction of a Bandito in your game
>decide to expand him in prequel by completely changing his character
>his motivations still make no fucking sense
>he's just a picked-apart body on a hilltop.
He's got a grave in the epilogue. Someone retrieved the body and gave it a proper burial.
But they knew they were making a prequel after.
Why not do something which fits into preexisting lore better?
Saddie talks about it, it was either her or someone else in the gang don't remember
>Why did they do this?
>It makes no fucking sense.
Red Dead Redemption 2 was made after Red Dead Redemption 1
Charles buried him
it was charles you stupid fucking zoomers. jesus fucking christr can u pay attention to the story for 3 FUCKING SECONDS? LITERALLY KILL YOURSELVES
look:
i would have understood it if the time skip had been like 20 something years not 8
irl you don't bring up your dead friends and family constantly, especially to people you don't know. It's like John said, "i don't talk about him much. But I think about him."
Well John doesn't mention Charles or Sadie either and they're still alive, right? He doesn't mention any members of the gang that aren't already in RDR1 right? Why would Arthur be any different?
John mentions in the epilogue he refuses to talk about Arthur because it makes him extremely upset remembering how it all ended and what he did for him. Even years later he isn't dealing with it well.
Arthur's death probably fucked John up harder than even the gang falling apart.
You see him slowly sliding down because he can't comprehend a world where Dutch was wrong. The whole point is that Dutch poisons these people and when the gang started to fall apart, it just speed up. The Gang wasn't a gang, it was a Cult. It makes a lot more sense when you think about it like that..
this
fuckin spergs on this site
I thought it worked because they already established John as being a guy who didn't like discussing his past outside of when he was basically forced to, and even then it was usually only what was relevant to his mission.
when the game was announced I was sure I've read that Arthur was mentioned ONCE and only ONCE in the first game.
I thought it was really cool and was really disappointed when I realized it wasn't.
I'm really surprised Rockstar hasn't announced RDR1 remake yet, assuming it's a real thing.
There's 12 years between RDR1 and 2.
They did as best as they could. There's a line where John essentially wants to stop talking about Arthur because he's dead and he wants to leave him in the past. That's all they really did to explain it.