I just finished RDR2 after a 3 month break and I don't get the story. Spoilers ahead.

[Marcus Brutalius]

So, I picked up RDR2 today where I left it off in December (mission where you blow the bridge up with John), I'm now in Epilogue II and I feel kind of lost about the story.
I don't think I've forgotten about too many things, but I feel the writing really fell of the cliff at this point, or is it just me?
There were several times during my playthrough where I felt I came accross certain continuity problems, for example Sadie Adler or Hossea's death, but the ending of Arthur's arc really made me scratch my head.
I feel really dumb for asking this, but what was Rockstar going for with this story? For the most part I thought they would put their own clever twist
on the whole gangster trope of gangster core values getting corrupted in the end- akin to Michael Corleone killing his own brother for betraying him, but it doesn't make sense at all in RDR2:
- the gang is like a mafia family and one of their core values is loyalty to said family
- throughout the game several members of the family die, but the impact feels sort of weak, as if
Rockstar wanted to say: "they're all morons and hypocrites, they only care for themselves"

Now here's what I don't get:
- so, the gang is basically history after the train raid and then the Pinkertons attack: why would Micah go after Arthur and John in this situation?
Their whole late game conflict felt forced and meaningless. Arthur knows he's going to die and Micah was always trying to save his own ass, so what's the point?
- why would John make a huge deal about Dutch "leaving him to die" when it happened during a fast and hectic train raid? They didn't give two shits about some of the other characters. I don't think that any member of the gang was characterized in a way that they would expect their gang-mates to stop a heist in order to help another fella out. I mean, maybe I got RDR1 wrong because I thought it was about John getting some sort of revenge, but if that's not the case then the premise of RDR1 was also kind of weak and telling the prequel-story arc didn't make things better.

The story feels too fleshed out for it's own good loosing focus in the process. I know they were trying to put a lot of effort into showing Dutch's descent into madness, but was he really that mad? I thought there was one scene that felt completely out of character, but important to the plot: him not helping Arthur at the oil field raid.
That scene was intended to have some meaningful impact, while I felt it was out of place. Yes, the conflict between Arthur and Dutch was rising, but in no way was it plausible to me that Dutch would leave Arthur back in that situation standing there looking at him. They weren't fighting about some treassure, they were still trying to get out of all of it. There were no real stakes in their conflict.
Maybe I'm missing something, but at this point I've got to say that while some aspects of RDR2's writing are raising the bar for video games the actual story is pretty weak. Or, let's put it this way - you can tell much more interesting stories set in the Wild West or gangster stories in a much more time efficient way.
RDR2 feels less than a Wild West epic movie but more like a high quality TV series with several seasons and all the issues a format like this brings with it. This game also feels too much like GTAV's story retold in the wild west if you ask me. What are your thoughts on the story, now that the dust has settled?

 

[DominicanGlory]

Most overrated game of the gen. Easily.

 

[Van Bur3n]

Indeed. The story starts to become convoluted greatly towards the end of chapter 6, with the pacing feeling off because the game is rushing to the gang's downfall, and Micah's motives making no sense whatsoever. It's the most disappointing part of the game for me. I found everything fine up until the end parts when the Native Americans start getting involved.

 

[Marcus Brutalius]

Indeed. The story starts to become convoluted greatly towards the end of chapter 6, with the pacing feeling off because the game is rushing to the gang's downfall, and Micah's motives making no sense whatsoever. It's the most disappointing part of the game for me. I found everything fine up until the end parts when the Native Americans start getting involved.

Click to shrink...

What was the whole Abigail giving the key to Arthur thing about? That felt like the dumbest thing ever put in a video game, once you start the epilogue. So Arthur gives John his bag but not the key to the money? WTF?

 

[marimo]

I think you kinda missed the whole "redemption" theme of both games

 

[Chick3n]

why would John make a huge deal about Dutch "leaving him to die" when it happened during a fast and hectic train raid? They didn't give two shits about some of the other characters. I don't think that any member of the gang was characterized in a way that they would expect their gang-mates to stop a heist in order to help another fella out.

Click to shrink...

Because Dutch raised John and Arthur. He was a father to them. Leaving them to die is what opened their eyes to the fact that either Dutch had changed or was full of shit from the beginning.

 

[Marcus Brutalius]

I think you kinda missed the whole "redemption" theme of both games

Click to shrink...

Maybe that's true. Care to elaborate?

Because Dutch raised John and Arthur. He was a father to them. Leaving them to die is what opened their eyes to the fact that either Dutch had changed or was full of shit from the beginning.

Click to shrink...

I get what you're saying, but this is exactly what I'm talking around: the story runs too much in circles to make that obvious
1. When Arthur gets captured by the gang - no one questions why he was ambushed and Dutch not
2. When John is captured by the police only Sadie and Arthur go to rescue him

Maybe those things already hinted at what you're saying, but the simple fact that you have hours of storytelling between the events I've mentioned here and the actual end-game makes this hard to believe. This type of writing only creates a huge amount of disbelieve in what the story tries to establish. At this point I don't even know what to think about Dutch and Micah. Do I think they're antagonists? No. I don't even think they're big assholes. As all of the other characters they operate in certain established boundaries. Which is fine, but my gut-feeling was saying "wait, this doesn't really make any sense in the bigger context"

 

[Orochinagis]

I dont remember any memorable scene except for the lenny hangover and how pissed I became when John became self aware noticing his actions were inmoral and tried to be good all of sudden

 

[HamCormier]

... how pissed I became when John became self aware noticing his actions were inmoral and tried to be good all of sudden

Click to shrink...

When was that?

 

[tiebreaker]

Yeah, John's stuff was confusing to me too.

 

[SamWilson]

Most overrated game of the gen. Easily.

Click to shrink...

 

[Alienous]

RDR1 wasn't really about revenge, it was about John protecting his family and feeling no loyalty to his former friends.

I would say that the game gets lazy about its storytelling. It uses shortcuts to portray characters as villains, and nearer to the end it starts steering strongly into setting up elements of RDR1.

Dutch's thing is that he only really respects Hosea's judgement outside of his own, and Arthur could filter his input through Hosea. With Hosea gone Dutch only has loyalty towards his followers, and his reckless plans were were beyond reproach.

 

[carlsojo]

Yeah I never really understood the praise for the story.

 

[marimo]

Maybe that's true. Care to elaborate?

Click to shrink...

RDR1 is about John trying to finally get free of the life so he can take care of his family. He goes after Dutch because he's being forced to by the feds, who have kidnapped Abigail and Jack. He clearly also has built up resentment against Dutch from years ago but his primary motivation is to redeem himself.

RDR2 is about dying (Arthur but also the Wild West itself) and how it forces you into self reflection, and how foreknowledge of your death puts a deadline on redemption. Arthur tries to earn his redemption by rebelling against Dutch when it's become clear to Arthur that Dutch is out of control, so that Arthur can save the remaining gang members. The point of all those deaths was to establish that everyone's life was in danger the longer they followed Dutch.

 

[PerrierChaud]

RDR2 is just a succession of deus ex machina, I don't think you should read too much on it. Rockstar doesn't really know how to write a decent story that would match their otherwise magnificent sense of dialogue.

 

[supremeplatypus]

Thing about Dutch is that he pretty much is a delusional but highly charismatic man who is only tempered by Hosea who's the only man who can stand up to Dutch's stupid plans at steer him into a more rational direction since Dutch clearly respects Hosea highly enough to let him do that. He just doesn't respect Arthur and John enough to actually listen to them. Dutch clearly resents Arthur at the end because he perceives Arthur as having "betrayed" him so it makes sense that Dutch would leave Arthur to die at this point.

 

[GymWolf86]

it's a game that deliver with his great characters and their evolution and not with the actual plot (that is pretty simple and sometimes stupid).

 

[Cudpug]

The story is pretty shoddy, despite being well-written. So the characters and dialogue are strong, but the core story is bad.

The first couple of chapters are fine, but the second half of the game is messy. Guarma onwards, I felt like I had absolutely no reason to be sticking around following Dutch's ridiculous plans, and it became increasingly frustrating to have to play through endless failed missions and stupid scenarios that were doomed to end in gunfights. I have no idea why you get involved in the Native American conflict - it largely seemed like filler - and by the end I really felt Arthur was dumb for having even a shred of loyalty to Dutch.

The game shows Dutch's descent so quickly, it doesn't do enough to justify why you're fighting for him in the first place.

 

[SoundCheck]

I'm going to take advantage of your thread to speak of how disappointing the narrative in the sidequests were for me. Many missions have the same eccentric, exaggerated character in a isolated context that ignores the world (Mason, chatenauy, the electric chair guy, the robot scientist). The sidequests could have been so much better if they used the general theme of death of wild west and the dawn of a new world, while showing the effects of this in the people of the world. Instead is always the funny guy in a strange situation.

 

[Bakercat]

Micah went after Arthur and John because they were the only real threats to him getting on Dutch's good side. Arthur after watching Dutch's true motivation and personality finally coming out, plus knowing that John and his family might have a chance of a good life that he himself wanted with Mary decided to give John that opportunity before his death came. John felt betrayed because both him and Arthur were raised by Dutch and considered him their father. Him not stopping the raid to help him or come search for him afterwards, plus the craziness that had been going on lead to him understanding why Arthur wanted him to leave the gang before shit went south.

 

[Marcus Brutalius]

RDR1 is about John trying to finally get free of the life so he can take care of his family. He goes after Dutch because he's being forced to by the feds, who have kidnapped Abigail and Jack. He clearly also has built up resentment against Dutch from years ago but his primary motivation is to redeem himself.

RDR2 is about dying (Arthur but also the Wild West itself) and how it forces you into self reflection, and how foreknowledge of your death puts a deadline on redemption. Arthur tries to earn his redemption by rebelling against Dutch when it's become clear to Arthur that Dutch is out of control, so that Arthur can save the remaining gang members. The point of all those deaths was to establish that everyone's life was in danger the longer they followed Dutch.

Click to shrink...

Thx, yeah seems I forgot about some things in RDR1, but too be honest maybe that's because RDR1's story didn't have that much of an impact on me as well. It's kind of funny hearing people often say how sad they were about both character's deaths (or seeing youtubers cry when reaching that point) when it's pretty obvious that this shouldn't be the case. No matter how you twist and turn it - all Rockstar characters are huge assholes. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, but in the same way people criticize RS for sticking to the same gameplay routine, same thing can be said about their stories. A good gangster movie like Godfather, Good Fellas, Once uppon a time in America will put you in this weird spot where you sometimes feel a sliver of sympathy for charcters you should absolutely despise by usual moral standards. Those movies give the viewer some sort of relief at the end because the bad guys get what they deserve and not only that...you simply don't want a Joe Pesci ending for yourself. Rockstar hasn't really found a good formula when it comes to something like this. They're portrayal of "bad guys" is too gamey: Arthur killing a thousand dudes then helping some native Americans or John + family still makes him a really really bad person. The concept of redemption presented in these games feels a little too banal to me or at least I don't feel like I'm to daft to not get it. But maybe the whole theme just isn't my cup of tea. Redemption is a religious concept while Rockstar is all about Nihilism - there is certainly a disconnenct here and I don't think it's intentional.

 

[Marcus Brutalius]

sorry dp

 

[Diarrhea Day-Lewis]

The story has its flaws but I feel like dropping any story heavy game for extended periods will damage the experience.

I really grew to care about Arthur, Charles, Sadie, etc. I spent an amazing 60 hours with them in story mode.

I remember wishing that I was just playing John again at the beginning and over the course of the game and with the ending, Rockstar made me feel guilty about that

Ultimately, the story is about Arthur finding redemption by helping another man get a shot at the life he could never have himself.

I do think dropping story games and starting again can affect it. Of course that's not to say it's without flaws but if you play the whole story straight through, of course with side stuff, maybe some the characters would mean more or connect idk.

I played it over 3 weeks, loved almost every second.

 

[RockGun90]

The story is pretty shoddy, despite being well-written. So the characters and dialogue are strong, but the core story is bad.

The first couple of chapters are fine, but the second half of the game is messy. Guarma onwards, I felt like I had absolutely no reason to be sticking around following Dutch's ridiculous plans, and it became increasingly frustrating to have to play through endless failed missions and stupid scenarios that were doomed to end in gunfights. I have no idea why you get involved in the Native American conflict - it largely seemed like filler - and by the end I really felt Arthur was dumb for having even a shred of loyalty to Dutch.

The game shows Dutch's descent so quickly, it doesn't do enough to justify why you're fighting for him in the first place.

Click to shrink...

But that's the whole point of Chapter 6. To show that Arthur needs to let go of the past and realize that Dutch is full of it. He's obsessed with loyalty because that is what Dutch taught him. Arthur even tries to convince himself it's just Micah whispering in Dutch's ear that makes him act the way he does, but it's when he abandons John and Abigail that he realizes Dutch just cares about himself and he can't deny it anymore, otherwise Dutch will get them all killed.

 

[Diarrhea Day-Lewis]

Those movies give the viewer some sort of relief at the end because the bad guys get what they deserve and not only that..

Click to shrink...

I mean, both RDR2 and RDR1 do that?

Arthur can also die in a more pathetic way depending on certain actions.

Athur's Redemption: Standing up against Dutch and helping another man have a shot of a life with his family

John's Redemption: Stopping the potential crimes his former gang buddies could continue to inflict on the community.

Ultimately, you can say both get what they deserve. Arthur does alone with an awful disease and John dies the way so many of his victims have and the cycle begins anew with Jack turning into John, which can be viewed as even more punishment inflicted on Marston. Just imo

 

[Hogendaz85]

Not enough nano machines or clones. Maybe if Mickey had been there with a keyblade would the story have made sense. Dang Darn damn.
At least it made more sense than 90 percent of games

 

[Marcus Brutalius]

The story has its flaws but I feel like dropping any story heavy game for extended periods will damage the experience.

I really grew to care about Arthur, Charles, Sadie, etc. I spent an amazing 60 hours with them in story mode.

I remember wishing that I was just playing John again at the beginning and over the course of the game and with the ending, Rockstar made me feel guilty about that

Ultimately, the story is about Arthur finding redemption by helping another man get a shot at the life he could never have himself.

I do think dropping story games and starting again can affect it. Of course that's not to say it's without flaws but if you play the whole story straight through, of course with side stuff, maybe some the characters would mean more or connect idk.

I played it over 3 weeks, loved almost every second.

Click to shrink...

Don't get me wrong, I got those connections when I played this game for 4 weeks straight last year(even spent 2 hours at the camp party), but as I've said, there were several instances where I felt a huge disconnect. And those summed up over the course of the game. Like Milton showing up so close to the camp when Arthur went fishing. This story needed to focus on another heavy anchor to carry it tbh - the most obvious thing would be the money from the BW job.

The story is pretty shoddy, despite being well-written. So the characters and dialogue are strong, but the core story is bad.

The first couple of chapters are fine, but the second half of the game is messy. Guarma onwards, I felt like I had absolutely no reason to be sticking around following Dutch's ridiculous plans, and it became increasingly frustrating to have to play through endless failed missions and stupid scenarios that were doomed to end in gunfights. I have no idea why you get involved in the Native American conflict - it largely seemed like filler - and by the end I really felt Arthur was dumb for having even a shred of loyalty to Dutch.

The game shows Dutch's descent so quickly, it doesn't do enough to justify why you're fighting for him in the first place.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, this perfectly sums up how I feel about the story. You spend so much time with those characters that certain things feel too sudden.

 

[ShinobiBk]

I think there were too many characters.
Like when Molly got shot, I had completely forgotten she was in the game.

Also, 'this is a bad idea Dutch, but I'm gonna go along with it anyway' got super tiring after the umpteenth time of seeing it

Less said about Guarma the better

 

[Charismagik]

It was a story about a guy with a lot of plans

 

[Marcus Brutalius]

Off my own topic: can we all agree that the scene where you watch Charles fight that other dude has the best mocap in a video game to date? Yeah, I know it's technically a cutscene, but it uses the game's engine. For some reason this really impressed me.
Shit looks sooo real. I hope that one day we'll get a fighting game with this animation qualtity.

 

[BossAttack]

Yes, the story is pretty weak and needlessly convoluted/padded. But hey, that's Dan Houser. The man just isn't a very talented writer and doesn't understand the word subtly.

 

[Alastor3]

The story has its flaws but I feel like dropping any story heavy game for extended periods will damage the experience.

I really grew to care about Arthur, Charles, Sadie, etc. I spent an amazing 60 hours with them in story mode.

I remember wishing that I was just playing John again at the beginning and over the course of the game and with the ending, Rockstar made me feel guilty about that

Ultimately, the story is about Arthur finding redemption by helping another man get a shot at the life he could never have himself.

I do think dropping story games and starting again can affect it. Of course that's not to say it's without flaws but if you play the whole story straight through, of course with side stuff, maybe some the characters would mean more or connect idk.

I played it over 3 weeks, loved almost every second.

Click to shrink...

This is exactly me word for word and it took me 3 weeks also.

 

[Hugare]

"One last job" at nauseum.

There's no "story". There's some great character development throught the game with Arthur, and some rushed development with Dutch almost at the end, and that's that.

Really, the game's progression feels so inconsequential most of the time. They keep spinning without ever moving along with the story. I think that's the whole point, them being terrible outlaws, but I was full of Dutch's shit waaay before Arthur.

 

[Diarrhea Day-Lewis]

Like Milton showing up so close to the camp when Arthur went fishing.

Click to shrink...

While it isn't explicitly said (does everything need to be) I take that as Micah already working with Milton so they always knew where they were, just waiting to get the most of their undercover rat.

Also, that river is where RDR ends with Jack so it was set that place deliberately

 

[Calvarok]

I definitely remember running into similar problems in gtav. The back half of rockstar games feels often to me like it doesnt justify its own existence particularly well.

 

[Marcus Brutalius]

While it isn't explicitly said (does everything need to be) I take that as Micah already working with Milton so they always knew where they were, just waiting to get the most of their undercover rat.

Also, that river is where RDR ends with Jack so it was set that place deliberately

Click to shrink...

Uh, I was talking about the fact that they met 300meters away from the camp. If Micah told them where to find them why didn't they attack the camp immediately. It makes no sense and breaks the immersion.

 

[Diarrhea Day-Lewis]

Uh, I was talking about the fact that they met 300meters away from the camp. If Micah told them where to find them why didn't they attack the camp immediately. It makes no sense and breaks the immersion.

Click to shrink...

Ah, my mistake

But again, why kill them when they can wait for them to steal more money to loot from them when they eventually do attack or wait for them to expose additional criminals they work with? Just my idea. Didn't bother me all that much. The crew takes out the family that runs that one town and runs in with the powerful guy in New Orleans and even kill Dutch's rival so they essentially helped the Pinkertons do their work for them

 

[Marcus Brutalius]

Ah, my mistake

But again, why kill them when they can wait for them to steal more money to loot from them when they eventually do attack or wait for them to expose additional criminals they work with? Just my idea. Didn't bother me all that much. The crew takes out the family that runs that one town and runs in with the powerful guy in New Orleans and even kill Dutch's rival so they essentially helped the Pinkertons do their work for them

Click to shrink...

I think that's a little bit to much overthinking right there. They clearly wanted Dutch and made an offer to Arthur at the river.
If a rat told them vaguely where to find the gang, it's not very realistic that they run into Arthur but are unable to find a camp with 20 people in it. Just for comparisson: have you ever run into a bounty hunter horde? They can cover quite a big area.

 

[Mao Rome]

Most overrated game of the gen. Easily.

Click to shrink...

Why is this guy getting warned? he can't express he thinks this game is overrated?

 

[Deleted member 1635]

The story is pretty shoddy, despite being well-written. So the characters and dialogue are strong, but the core story is bad.

The first couple of chapters are fine, but the second half of the game is messy. Guarma onwards, I felt like I had absolutely no reason to be sticking around following Dutch's ridiculous plans, and it became increasingly frustrating to have to play through endless failed missions and stupid scenarios that were doomed to end in gunfights. I have no idea why you get involved in the Native American conflict - it largely seemed like filler - and by the end I really felt Arthur was dumb for having even a shred of loyalty to Dutch.

The game shows Dutch's descent so quickly, it doesn't do enough to justify why you're fighting for him in the first place.

Click to shrink...

What? Arthur obviously disagreed with Dutch and was looking for a way out, but keep in mind that he got picked up by Dutch and Hosea as a kid and had basically been following them ever since. It's clear how torn he was seeing where Dutch was going and wanting to get out while still feeling he needed to remain loyal.

Why is this guy getting warned? he can't express he thinks this game is overrated?

Click to shrink...

I mean, it's basically a post saying, "shit sucks, lol" as a response to someone who obviously spent a bunch of time writing up a long post with thoughts and questions. I'm guessing he didn't even read the post before posting it.

If he had elaborated on why he thought the game is the most overrated this generation, especially in the context of this thread's topic (the story), then there would not have been a warning.

 

[vestan]

The story feels too fleshed out for it's own good loosing focus in the process. I know they were trying to put a lot of effort into showing Dutch's descent into madness, but was he really that mad? I thought there was one scene that felt completely out of character, but important to the plot: him not helping Arthur at the oil field raid.

Click to shrink...

Maybe not 'mad' but Dutch was definitely a megalomaniac that hated losing control. The game does a good job of illustrating this to you in multiple points, especially when he kills that old lady. Also here's a piece of dialogue at the camp that you may have missed.

- why would John make a huge deal about Dutch "leaving him to die" when it happened during a fast and hectic train raid? They didn't give two shits about some of the other characters. I don't think that any member of the gang was characterised in a way that they would expect their gang-mates to stop a heist in order to help another fella out.

Click to shrink...

Did you miss the part where John found out that Dutch did the same thing to Arthur too. They both knew he was starting to lose their trust in him and that pissed them off. The old Dutch would have moved heavens and earths to save them, in fact he does that throughout the game like saving Sean. As important as the money was, the lives of John and Arthur would've been way more important to old Dutch. He seems them as 'disposable' now that he has Micah and the other blind followers.

Dutch leaving John isn't so much about him leaving him to die, it's about confirming John and Arthur's suspicions surrounding Micah's influence on Dutch destroying the decades of trust they've built up. They aren't 'family', anymore. That's the key bit. You have to remember that Dutch is basically a father to both John and Arthur, taking them in when they were children. Imagine if your mom/dad decided to leave you to rot somewhere. You wouldn't like it, would you? They're outlaws, yes, but to the Dutch Van Der Linde game, family is #1. They can't simply be stoic heisters that have nothing to do with each other which I'm assuming is the kind of impression you got from them. John and Arthur getting pissed at Dutch at this point is absolutely justified

Why is this guy getting warned? he can't express he thinks this game is overrated?

Click to shrink...

Because it's quite literally a drive-by post. Guy doesn't even attempt to answer OP's questions and just shits out his 'opinion' as soon as he reads RDR2 in the title. Doesn't offer anything of substance.

 

[BoxManLocke]

Yeah the game takes an insane amount of time establishing the main characters and their motivations (which is a good thing), but when the time comes to really move the story forward RDR2 just rushes to the finish line like crazy, and the change is just jarring. When the script tries to inject drama in the final chapter it feels really shallow most of the time because there are so many scenes that feel straight up missing, especially for Dutch and his relationship with Arthur and John, and by the end the guy is almost turned into a mute so the story can end faster.

Also making Micah a fleshed out character with believable motivations and a real personality would have helped the story tremendously. Instead Micah feels like a character that's straight out of a mediocre AAA game from 10 years ago.

 

[Marcus Brutalius]

Yeah the game takes an insane amount of time establishing the main characters and their motivations (which is a good thing), but when the time comes to really move the story forward RDR2 just rushes to the finish line like crazy, and the change is just jarring. When the script tries to inject drama in the final chapter it feels really shallow most of the time because there are so many scenes that feel straight up missing, especially for Dutch and his relationship with Arthur and John, and by the end the guy is almost turned into a mute so the story can end faster.

Also making Micah a fleshed out character with believable motivations and a real personality would have helped the story tremendously. Instead Micah feels like a character that's straight out of a mediocre AAA game from 10 years ago.

Click to shrink...

Yes, I feel the same about Micah. To draw a simple comparisson: let's take the character Waingro from the movie Heat.
He is by no means a fleshed out character, but just like Micah you know the first moment you see him that he means trouble.
The big difference here is that Waingro is used as a simple but clever plot device in the last act of the movie, while Micah is all over the place - on the one hand he acts like Waingro from Heat on the other hand people argue that he's the driving force that steers Dutch into a certain direction although Micah clearly gives no fucking shit about the whole gang-family thing.
As I've said the loot from the BW job should have been an integral part/plot device of the story till the end, so that Micah could've been incorporated as a more believable character.

And I still can't get over that Arthur gets captured by the O'Driscolls scene. So Arthur, Micah and Dutch meet the O'Driscolls, Arthur gets captured and tortured and never talks to Dutch about the incident and this funny coincidence of him getting ambushed at his sniping position? And while taking Arthur out they could've easily captured Dutch as well to get information about the loot. Yeah, ok. No, this was really bad writing no matter how hard you try to reinterpret this scene with extra information.

 

[eso76]

was rising, but in no way was it plausible to me that Dutch would leave Arthur back in that situation standing there looking at him. They weren't fighting about some treassure, they were still trying to get out of all of it. There were no real stakes in their conflict.

Click to shrink...

Arthur had been questioning Dutch's actions for a while by then, and turning other members of the gang against him.
Dutch just thought that would be the perfect way to get rid of him by leaving him to be captured/killed during the conflict.

You could say it takes Arthur way too long to realise Dutch doesn't give two shits about anyone, and yeah, his actions could have used some more subtlety maybe, or the game could have done a better job establishing their relationship and father/son dynamics (besides Arthur telling us) for us to better understand why Arthur doesn't (want to) realise sooner. As it is there's no real conflict for the player, no controversy over Dutch's real intentions. But you also have to keep in mind we, unlike the protagonist, already know his true identity from RDR1.

The only thing that didn't really make sense to me was a) Dutch being with Micah until the very end and b) suddenly deciding he'd kill him when John and Sadie show up.

 

[Deleted member 23046]

The game is highly polished on details, showing a great panel of classical merits of the US (team) screenwriting, and I think it's where people identify (with reason) the game like well written because full of great moments (what we could call "The Trevor effect") sided with an astonishing art and technical direction

But when you focus on its lines of strenght without being emotionally invested, the story is awkwardly confused, producing an incoherent moral and illogical characters behaviors, with a narration oscillating between crude nihilism and gluey sentimentalism, as disturbed by auto-spoilers and deus ex machina.

The same for GTA V, where Franklin is underwritten and with a ridiculous choice offered to him at the end (it could have been great with the same possibility for each).