Rockstar sets out to make the best story they've written yet

> Rockstar sets out to make the best story they've written yet
> immediately write the most cartoony, moustache-twirling villain they could possibly write
What the fuck was their problem?

Attached: micah.jpg (445x525, 30.96K)

they had 50,000 writers was the problem

nothing about him is moustache-twirly is there a part you are specifically referring too?

>evil
>white hat
>gov't rat
Misunderstood hero future lawyer, just need mo money for dem programs.

Micah was a shit villain and a psychopath. All he cared about was being an edgy hardcore cowboy with his own loyal subjects. He didn't like bowing to Dutch or standing in Arthur's shadow. He wanted to be the big bad leader and cowboy, also he acted like he was more philosophical and intelligent than everyone else when he caused more problems for the gang than anyone else.

The only part of Micah's story that was stupid was that he was only the traitor after Guarma.
It would've made more sense he was a rat from the start, and did all he did thinking he could get away with it by bringing dutch and the others in.

they succeeded

i liked micah
i'm a survivor perfectly encapsulates what they were going for i think

Is there anything more moustache twirly than literally kicking the dog (and eventually killing him), referring to the ill protagonist as Black Lung (admittedly, absolutely hilarious and made me laugh nearly every time with how over the top it was) and constantly mocking him about his impending death? Not to mention that he's just so over the top at everything. When Sean dies, he can't just dismiss it as a part of life, he has to go up to the body and kick it for whatever reason, for example.

If you believe the Reddit leaks (which I don't), he was originally a Robin Hood type who betrayed the gang to save people. Apparently, this was too sympathetic and Shitstar made him an obvious shitbag instead.

The story was a clusterfuck top to bottom. If anything a clear villain helped it
>i heard the term 'mouthe-twirling' once so im gonna use it without any thought

He's literally the only normal guy for that era and setting.

Literally the worst written character in this entire decade, not exaggerating every single writer who worked on RDR2 should feel bad

>bad guy does bad stuff
Wow

I personally liked that he didn't really have a lot going for him besides being the biggest degenerate piece of shit bastard man in the west. It was entertaining having him just go over the goddamn line with everything.

RDR2 story was copied from The lost and damned

I think I could have wrote a better prequel to RDR 1 in one hour then the shit they came up with. For a story driven game, the story was not that creative.

whole game i was hoping theyd set a red herring and that he wasnt the bad guy because that would be too obvious and above rockstar's acumen.... welp

There's a difference between "bad stuff", which is what every single other gang member does (on a spectrum), and running the stereotype gauntlet for "stock cartoon villain".

Well you've got to make the villain worse if the heros are bad guys

The thing is he’s an actual full blown psychopath as evidenced by the fact that he got his son to help him steal from and murder people and all his other evil shit, combined with the fact that he was raised under the Wild West outlaw mentality. In that sense I actually think it’s pretty realistic, a psychopath outlaw who grew up under what was essentially violent anarchy would be a massive, uncaring asshole basically constantly.

he and Arthur murdered an entire town. Was that good writing?

>cartoony, moustache-twirling villain
Uh, what? He's literally your typical outlaw. Whereas the gang started out as this trio stealing money and giving it to the poor, and then becoming this group of misfits who helped each other scope out and commit robberies so they could all head out west and be free--he was the only one that was your standard outlaw and killer. There's nothing "moustache twirly" about him.

No, I agree there. I thought some of those "shoot the whole town" missions were a bit much, but they had to add game play. Also thought it was a bit dumb that cold odriscoll had literally 400-500 boys. I do think the character and story writing was fine though, just the some gameplay seemed unrealistic in comparison a realistic story.

Name a better written game this decade with better music and characters

RDR2 was a classical western compared to the critical spaghetti western of RDR1. Micah fits as he's a classical western villain.

red dead redemption

That's not even my biggest problem, that'd be fine if Arthur wasn't trying really hard throughout the entire game to hold the moral high ground over him when he participated in it willingly, and honestly does the same to other towns on the regular anyways.

> 's literally your typical outlaw
Anyone else in the gang is a better example of the typical outlaw. Micah doesn't have a single redeeming quality. He kicks the dog, murders indiscriminately, is mildly racist, is sexist, is completely moral-less, mocks people about their impending death etc etc etc. I expect people whose exposure to the American West is stereotypes and movie tropes to believe he's well written because second thoughts aren't usually given to villains, but in what was supposed to be Rockstar's greatest story yet, I expected someone at least mildly believable.

In the American West, Micah would have been shot in the back of the head while drinking a million times over. He's way too antagonizing and he should have been toned down a bunch.

>Dutch just yeets Cornwall in the middle of town

Attached: 1602856519616.jpg (413x395, 84.12K)

They both transition well into one another

For me it's more that he's the hugest douche in the gang that isn't in RDR1, made more obvious when characters from RDR1 are way more nuanced than in that game.

Attached: 1592528319604.jpg (441x441, 83.62K)