WE ALL HAD HER

Better question is why do Javier and Dutch dress like complete shit in RDR1. Also, where did John's grey hairs and Abigail's personality go?

RDR2 isn't canon.

Dutch killing Micah is the worst scene in RDR2. Makes 0 sense. Arthur's death should've been the last we saw of him.

Dutch turns into some twisted deranged mountain dweller, all of the old gang just degenerate into awful ways like Bill running a gang of rapists and murderers.
How so, pardner?

It was funny to me how much Dutch decried modern civilization yet depended on it so much. Dutch was a grown man still living a child's dream.

I liked it. It showed that he realized the mistakes he'd made had led to the gang's destruction. I think it's what broke him and turned him into the lunatic you meet in Red Dead 1.

He's trying to get under John's skin by calling him a cuck

RDR2 contradicts and undermines RDR1 so hard it's hard to even consider it canon. Because all it does is massively retcon RDR1 into something else entirely. Just disregard that piece of shit. Arthur's arc was the only good thing about it and they could've done it without forcing a prequel story.

Attached: redhead.jpg (844x850, 96.86K)

No it makes no sense. Dutch isn't supposed to display that type of insight at that point of the story. RDR1 clearly portrays him as a lunatic with no sense of good/wrong. He even tells John that he'll forever remain what nature made him i.e a monster.

ngl knowing that John married a whore made me respect him less
Dutch should've ended his misery

john's a pathetic sack of shit

You dont marry used goods
At best you make her a concubine or whatever is called in your country

>Dutch isn't supposed to display that type of insight at that point of the story.
Says who? There's a 5 year gap between the RDR2 epilogue (1906) and the ending of RDR1 (1911). Dutch is clearly cognizant of how his actions have affected those he once called family, and it's not that much of a stretch to believe that seeing his surrogate son appear again to take revenge on Micah would cause him to reevaluate what he's done, where he ended up, and how he got there. I view Dutch shooting Micah as Dutch essentially washing his hands of his past, which turns him into the delusional loose cannon he is at the end of RDR1.

it literally makes no sense. RDR1 portrays Dutch as a psychopath with no sense of guilt or compassion. It's needless and ultimately self-harming to suddenly portray Dutch as a character that also undergoes moments of insight and clarity and whatnot. His ending speech of RDR1 is that he simply can't change no matter how much the world does. Your explanation is some really loose shit to justify Houser's sniffing their own farts.

Dutch regretted what happened and rdr2 and killed micah.
Dutch is still a nut who literally can’t quit his addiction to crime.
John is sent to hunt him down years later.
Living the outlaw life this long has driven him nuts.
Makes sense to me.

Well yeah, years later he 'came after him'. From Dutch's perspective, John is working for the complete antithesis of what he and his gang stood for and what he taught John. People change, I'm sure you can think of an instance where you forgave someone but later was rubbed the wrong way again. But in this case now John is out to kill him via the government 'the man' and that's all he sees.

Yes he's a psychopath in RDR1. In RDR2 he's not at that point yet. RDR2 is as much Dutch's journey as it is Arthur and John's. He's an incredibly charismatic man who once genuinely cared for the people who followed him. RDR2 shows him slowly losing that quality until he's willing to betray his "family" if it means he can continue to live life on his own terms. Shooting Micah is honestly in character for him at that point. Also, he pre-writes and practices his speeches, which you can see him do in camp. He gives that 'you can't fight fate' speech to a bunch of random soldiers before he and Arthur jump into a river to escape. His speeches aren't necessarily what he believes, but what he wants others to think he believes.

>RDR1 portrays Dutch as a psychopath with no sense of guilt or compassion.

I disagree.

youtu.be/k8lhipg2mlw

Rewatch his final moments.

I have watched this cutscene a billion times. Dutch never ever expresses regret. He merely expresses the state of his nature in a world that is fast leaving the likes of him behind.

RDR1 simply portrays him as a charismatic psycho. There is no "journey" of Dutch. He's always been that way. Only John didn't realize it until the bank robbery that went to shit.

If your former protege starts working for your enemy and hunts you down, throwing out some insults is the least you would do.

Dutch didn't kill Micah for John. Dutch killed Micah for Arthur. That's the whole reason Dutch was actually there, he LITERALLY says so.
>What are you doin here, Dutch?
>Same as you, I suppose.

John just gave him the best opportunity to kill Micah in that moment. When John thanks Dutch after, it's all in the look Dutch gives him. It wasn't for John.

Fuck Rockstar for retroactively belittling Dutch’s final speech.

I agree that he's a psycho in RDR1. It's RDR2 that shows he used to be different, or at least used to be good at faking it. At the end of the epilogue of 2, his journey is "complete" and he becomes the Dutch we know from RDR1. He's also shown to cut bait when someone becomes a burden on his way of life (he leaves Arthur behind more than once in 2, and he leaves John for dead at the end of the story as well), so if Micah's past is beginning to catch up to him and is causing problems for Dutch, it would also be in character for him to dust Micah for that reason alone.

>caring about sonygroid moviegames, or any console game at all
Can we go back to 2004 Zig Forums where these people get banned for not fitting in?

Attached: casuals.png (308x336, 51.58K)

Dutch showing up in the epilogue ruined it.

what would you think of someone getting with a woman who whore herself to ear a living in irl?

>when you realize the epilogue of the game was supposed to change depending on your Honor
>if you were a good Arthur you played as John
>if you were a bad Arthur you played as Dutch

Oh what we could have had

I don't think he really had a choice considering he knocked her up.

There is no journey for Dutch. That was only retroactively forced in with RDR2 and it only undermines Dutch's ending speech in 1 about his constant character in a changing world that is getting rid of the likes of him. Let's face it, this ending speech is so much better without taking into consideration all the retarded shit in RDR2.

Either pity or disgust, depending on the man and prostitute

he left for a year so clearly he did

Really?

In RDR1? At that point he's already a family man so of course he would.

>THAT MAKES JOHN A BETTER MAN THAN US
>villain literally mocking john being a cuck because in no reality would that make him a better man than them
>sois playing: Yeah! I knew they would shed a good light in the end on poly relationships :)

I don't entirely disagree. I didn't like that they reused his RDR1 speech in 2 because I did feel it cheapened it. But I did like the fact that they fleshed Dutch out so much in RDR2, I felt it turned him into more of a tragic character rather than just a run of the mill evil outlaw bad guy.

High-class escorts and decently popular porn stars I have no issue with since they're usually clean and know it's all business.

Whoever came up with the story for rdr2 is a retard with no good ideas. I was waiting for a dramatic conclusion/twist at the end to explain why the group broke up and why they betrayed John and I was severely disappointed
Such a shit story

I'm pretty sure Abigail stopped doing tricks once she got pregnant.

Arthur isn’t even mentioned in the first game. Huge retcons all around