Arthur's drawings are shaded and detailed, handwriting is neat

>Arthur's drawings are shaded and detailed, handwriting is neat
>John's drawings are doodles, he also needs to draw lines to write straight
It's the little details that count

Attached: rdr2.jpg (460x215, 52.45K)

>lasso a random person
>take them to the river
>put them down in the water, they start drowning
>take them out, they cough up water
>run away
>"Don't worry, I'll come back for ya!"

The little things.

>if you put them in shallow water they try their hardest to get their head out of it to avoid drowning

>It's the little details that count
Not really when you're still stuck with terribad gameplay by day's end. Redemption 1 had a greater impact while doing so much less.

draw your gun and double tap the holster gun button next time you play

dilate

>get busted
>gang members come to the rescue and bribe the cops with liquor to get you out of jail

NakeyJakey was right about RDR2

>an 1800s cowboy sympathises with and fights for the rights of blacks, women's suffrage, and anti-slavery
It's the little details that count.

Don't forget

>have to micromanage food, horse energy and sleep and all that shit to mimic a simulator
>game still uses auto aim where you kill 100 baddies through instant dead eye aim
Damn this immersion is amazing

Damn why did you play your arthur as such a faggot?

Pirating it as we speak.

The only thing I really didn't like was how they made the KKK so comically incompetent. Not for any Zig Forums meme reasons, it just felt silly and out of place. If they had made them properly bad and integrated them properly it would have been better as opposed to cartoon villains.

Arthur is the better protag. RDR2 is better than 1. Thread closed.

Different user, haven't played, but do you actually have a choice?

>gang dialogue almost never repeats and has a dozen different lines per character per chapter of the game
>all for different variances like whether you've contributed to the camp, how often you're around, recent missions you've done etc etc
This really went a long way towards making the characters believable and real. I'll always hold that even though the gameplay is largely the same antiquated Rockstar formula, the narrative and technology was a milestone for gaming. This game is what journalists tried to insist TLOU was.

Well, cowboys were pretty much ancaps, they sympathize in that they all hate the government.

Sick

RDR1 and 2 even has a better version of "revenge is bad" than TLOU2.

>they made the KKK so comically incompetent
> If they had made them properly bad and integrated them properly it would have been better as opposed to cartoon villains.
KKK wasn't even around in 1899, at least not in the form presented in the game. The white ghost outfits and burning crosses didn't take off until mid 1910's.

True, but the point I was making was if you are going to include them at all, do it much better

Those people existed but Arthur is more progressive than people in the 60s. Lmao.

no

>1800s
It was close to the 1900. Dilate, chud.

They're sidequest, you can choose not to do them, that's about it.

>It's the little details that count
If the little details count so much to rockstar then tell me:
How did arthur learn to draw like that?
Also when did he have time to learn to draw like that?

>important character who was a total bro dies in a mission
>Arthur talk about it for 2 lines
>takes up 1 page writing about how Sadie was so badass and don't need no man and how he wouldn't want to be her ennemy and how she was like a one-man army (except she was a one-woman army) and she was really cool and badass screaming in her horrible chainsmoker voice and shooting and doing dumb reckless shit that would've gotten any other character killed or kicked out of the camp at the very least
it's the little things

outcasts, cowboys and bandits and frontier people would have all been more open minded than wealthy urbanites. Cowboys were extremely frequently black freedmen, and needs of frontier people and fringe groups allowed women and coloured people more opportunities to climb the social ladder than they otherwise would have had. This is further compounded by the fact that Dutch's gang is a utopian cult. end your miserable existence and cease your Zig Forumsfaggotry

All that shit is meaningless. Rockstar went for sheer volume instead of refining and polishing their basic gameplay features. Riding is still mash x endlessly and shooting defaults to an immersion killing auto aim. This game had poor direction. Housers should stick to just writing.

Arthur didn't really come across too much of a modern liberal or anything. He hated slavery and didn't like people who hated blacks because he grew up on an outlaw gang with outcasts including blacks. The suffrage thing he didn't care about even if it was hands down the worst mission in the game of riding them around at a snail's pace and listening to them. Mostly Arthur hated cities, hated the government, and loved solitude in the wilderness, hunting and camping. He also hated and distrusted most people but had a soft spot for some. Could he have stood to be more offensive by today's standards? Sure. But it's not as bad as people say.

>Also when did he have time to learn to draw like that?

not anything has to be explained but I think is obvious that Arthur is old enough and probably had a journal for a few years before RDR2 to easily knows how to sketch comfortably. After all he's not drawing anything, he's sketching.

John on the other side, the first journal he had was the one from Arthur (I think, in the camp he didn't have one) so take a guess. John is probably a high illiterate in general.