The Red Dead Redemption games have some of the most expansive and in-depth storytelling ever attempted by Rockstar in an open-world setting. Both games are packed full of philosophy, mythological references, bizarre side characters, and themes fans are still dissecting over two years after the release of the second game.
There’s one common criticism of the Red Dead Redemption games when they’re looked at as a pair, however. It regards an omission from the first game that seems to make little sense in light of the events of Red Dead Redemption 2. When looking at the themes of both titles, this omission actually has strong ties to one of the main conflicts permeating all of Red Dead Redemption.
When Arthur Morgan was announced as the main player character of Red Dead Redemption 2, fans were quick to guess that like John Marston in Red Dead Redemption, he would not survive until the end of the story. While John’s sudden death came as a shocking twist for players of the first game, the fact that nobody by the name of Arthur Morgan was ever even mentioned in the first Red Dead Redemption had fans guessing that Arthur would die in the prequel long before the game released.
This has been criticized by some fans for a couple of reasons. First, the fact that Arthur was never mentioned in the first game made his creation for Red Dead Redemption 2 seem like a bit of a cop-out in the eyes of some fans of the franchise. The second game shows that Arthur was immensely important in the lives of both John and Dutch Van Der Linde, but his name doesn’t come up once as John hunts down the former members of the Van Der Linde gang. Arthur’s omission also made his death a far less surprising moment than John’s death in the first game.
However, there are some strong reasons that the far slower build to Arthur’s death, and the choice to create a character who would appear to be completely erased from the plot of the first game, fits perfectly into the themes of Red Dead Redemption. John Marston’s death may have been shocking and sudden, but Arthur’s is a clear inevitability from the moment he gets his tuberculosis diagnosis. From that moment on, Dutch and Arthur are thrown into stark contrast.
Dutch Van Der Linde refuses to except that his idealized version of the Old West is dying. The fact that his account of the Old West never really existed in the first place makes it clear, in part, that this perspective comes from his refusal to admit that he cannot live the life he has lived forever. The Van Der Linde gang will one day be arrested, killed, or disbanded. When cornered in Red Dead Redemption 2, Dutch tells a US Army captain that “you can’t fight change,” but his inability to ever truly admit that to himself is his greatest flaw.
In contrast, the remainder of Arthur’s story is about accepting his eventual and absolute erasure from history. Unlike Dutch, Arthur is able to truly accept that he cannot fight change. However, he can come come to accept that his eventual erasure doesn’t undermine his ability to act in the present any more than it had his whole life. For all his talk of freedom, Dutch is a prisoner to his fear of change. Dutch implores Arthur to help him rob “just one more train,” but Arthur knows that there’s “always a goddamn train.”
This line cleverly appears to reverse the characters’ roles — it is Dutch who is making an appeal to the finite, while Arthur’s line is the one that suggests they could live their way of life forever. In the context of Arthur’s diagnosis, however, it becomes a clear condemnation of Dutch’s worldview and the gang leader’s lack of perspective. Both Arthur Morgan and Dutch have been dying from the day they were born, but it is Arthur’s diagnosis which allows him to finally see that truth. Neither of them, nor any of their acts, no matter how legendary, will ever be truly immortalized.
Rockstar could have chosen any of the members of the Van Der Linde gang who appeared in Red Dead Redemption to be the player character in the prequel. It could have been interesting to play as a character who players know from the beginning that John Marston would eventually kill in the first game. That choice could have dealt with the inevitability of death, but it would not have drawn out the true implications of death in the same way that creating a new character like Arthur did.
His total absence from the first game, even in name, shows an appreciation for the true obliterating power of time that Arthur is confronted with in Red Dead Redemption 2 in a way that John’s sudden and violent death never forced the first game’s protagonist to appreciate.
Arthur’s death is not one that can be avenged, and the hunt for Micah Bell which takes place after his death shows the inability of some of his former friends’ to accept that. This puts the vengeance that Jack Marston enacts on John’s behalf in the first game into an even more tragic light. Ultimately, John’s death can be avenged, but it cannot be redeemed in any meaningful way. Avenging someone after their death shows the first inkling of the inability to accept change that ultimately doomed Dutch.
From the moment the player realizes that Arthur is dying they are faced with a choice. They can play out the rest of Arthur’s life attempting to do good where they can, or they can nihilistically repeat the evil of Arthur Morgan‘s past. Either choice can seem like it doesn’t really matter in the face of Arthur’s death, especially in the light of Arthur’s total erasure from the franchise’s in-universe future. Ultimately however, this is the choice every person faces whether they know they are facing their imminent death or not.
Red Dead Redemption is available for PS3 and Xbox 360. Red Dead Redemption 2 is available now for PC, PS4, Stadia, and Xbox One.
![\"IT電腦補習](\"http://itteacheritfreelance.hk/test/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/logo2-2.png\"){kind=logo}
www.itsec.hk
www.itsec.vip
www.itseceu.uk
Leave a Reply