[QUOTE="Wakanoid"]Well, I didn't like it. But I did like it. I mean I was sad and felt ugh. But I didn't expect it AT ALL. Which really shocked me, and I like being shocked... So, yeah. :P yeah it was shocking for sure,but do you think they were right or did they have anyother choice,and was it right to kill him?
[QUOTE="DJ_Magneto"]During the "Rancher" mission period, before you finish the final mission, did you ever just sit in the house and watch the family go about their business? It was cool. Everyone was in the house by night fall. The wife in the kitchen cooking something. Jack by the fireplace reading or playing the harmonica. Uncle, sitting at the table being his usual awnry self. Everyone in bed by around 10 I think. Then everyone was up around 6 AM and walked to whatever area they were meant to be to kick off their next mission. Uncle fixing the silo or in the barn, Jack shooting birds or sitting under a tree, the wife sweeping the porch. This also led me to believe that John would survive, because I wondered how they would "hide" or handle his family at the end of the game when all that was left was to free roam with John. I figured the family would go about their business at the ranch just like this. So when the ending went about the way that it did, it was even more jarring for me, but again, still appropriate IMO. that is true,im with you on that,the whole game's point was that john went on the adventure to save his family and get his life back to normal but changing that in a second is annoying,i still think there should have been options for the players,for example in a duel you can just kill the guy or you can shoot his gun out of his hand and not kill the guy.that the options im talking about,they could have simply gave options to either kill the government's men and maybe loose a family member or simply kill him as they did.My opinion that is:D
[QUOTE="bulletsword"]The ending was pretty great and Rockstar surprised me with how far they could go with the presentation. Honestly, they really catered to the "games as art" perspective more than I thought. The story pacing was pretty good and the dead eye segment at the end actually made it feel much closer to a western film (and a really well done one at that). I can understand if people don't get why Rockstar threw in Dead Eye at the end, but if John Marston is going out without a fight (even though he is certain that he has to die, then he's not John Marston. I don't see anything wrong with him dying after redeeming himself. I thought it was a good idea to replace John with his son. He's kind of annoying mostly due to his voice acting, but as a character, he's not horrible. Plus, with an ending like that, keeping John alive for the sake of playing after the ending sounds wrong. And when you think about it, the ending is a downer ending in every way possible and is pretty damn appropriate for the context. John's entire mission revolved around redeeming himself and preventing his family from ever being involved with outlaws, crime, and violence. Then Jack ends up becoming the very thing John was trying to prevent him from being. Even though Jack can be a pretty good guy if the player chooses, one thing's for sure: Jack has undoubtedly contradicted his father's philosophy. Combine that with the death of the old west and there's absolutely no way RDR could have ended happily and I'm glad Rockstar had the balls to make it bittersweet. I don't expect Jack to return for a direct sequel. The timeline is moving towards the first World War and the old west starts dying out towards the 20s. ok lets go back,think about it if we say john had to die then the story would have ended and there was no way the game could have continued to be played and would have stoped going on. as we know in GTA games after beating the game you should be able to play back and continiuing playing.this one sacrifices the main hero and shakes the ending and by force has to creat another charachter in order for the game to keep on going?so what then?i have to say it is a new kind of ending for sure.but what other choices did they have?after john gone?
I'm kinda happy they killed John at the end. I mean I hate when I'm watching a movie or something and the hero always lives. It's so predictable. I think that's why I really like the ending of RDR. I really didn't see that coming.
DJ_Magneto
that is true-but replace him with his son?thats a joke for kids.i think It's all about legacy. John's legacy. Everything he did in this game was for his family and redemption for the bad things that he did in his posse days. And everything he taught to Jack on those last Rancher missions were for Jack to carry on when he was gone. You don't see the appropriateness of that? yes i do the appropriateness of that,it showed that john was really a father more than the outlaw,and he really cared about his family,but we dont know halfthe story we started with the government wanting something from john and john did it for them,then at the last scene we go back to the government ment that kill john,so the game was started by force and basically had to end with force no ulturnative,but still we had choice of being good and have honor or the opposite of that,so tell me what is the meaning of that?that seems pointless to me,i just think its a bit dumb to make an outlaw , a father and kill him to make him a hero.its seems fair,but i dont like it.it messes with you,in a way.
I'm kinda happy they killed John at the end. I mean I hate when I'm watching a movie or something and the hero always lives. It's so predictable. I think that's why I really like the ending of RDR. I really didn't see that coming.
MrBubbles59
that is true-but replace him with his son?thats a joke for kids.i think
yeah i forgot about his facial hair,lol,i think that the next red dead game is gonna have this jak in it matured,but do we like that?and is he gonna die too and his son is gonna follow?as i said before the death of john bad for the series,and it was too early
you are right they where but there was just one other mission that you could have done to finish it up,and it was to get revenge.and i did,but right after that,i felt so what if i killed him.but hey atleast it felt good to kill him and get revenge.lol
i understand what you are talking about and i get your point,maybe rockstar wanted all the attension on the ending,good or bad as you said.
yeah you are correct about the thing you said about jack.but it seems that we waisted a lot of time becoming john,and all of a sudden we are jack,and where does that gonna take Rstar's red dead series to,i dont know.
another point i wanted to say was that why did the PS3 version had 1 more outfit than the xbox version?and can you really get 100% on that game if you dont have internet access?it seems impossible
Log in to comment