r/reddeadmysteries • u/Gunnar-da-homie • Sep 18 '22
Theory Theory that Arthur was originally supposed to survive the ending of Chapter 6 Spoiler
I've been doing my first low honor playthrough the past week and as I was doing the last mission as Arthur where you rob the train. When I was riding with John a certain line of dialogue triggered that can only be triggered if you have low honor. In which Arthur mentions once they get the money, Arthur plans to slip away and lay low somewhere warm and dry in the west in hopes to help cure his tuberculosis.
Now as some of you probably know according to the games files, Arthur was originally meant to be able to enter New Austin and Blackwater but was cut from the game. Most believe that the cut content was that Prologue was supposed to take place in Blackwater and New Austin, which is why some side missions such as "The Noblest of Men, and a Woman" include cut content from new Austin, such as where you would find a gunslinger by the name of "Frank Heck" in the saloon in Tumbleweed. (more information on that here: https://youtu.be/ZYBhlpofMw4?t=118)
However that wouldn't make much sense considering that side mission starts in valentine AFTER the blackwater massacre so Arthur would have no way of getting to New Austin and finishing the side mission. This case is similar to the side mission "A Test of Faith" in which the player, playing as either John or Arthur must collect 30 Dinosaur Bones, 8 of which are in New Austin and cannot be found as Arthur unless you were to use a glitch or a mod, as the invisible sniper kills you when you enter New Austin as Arthur.
So my theory is that Arthur was originally planned to survive the ending of chapter 6 and live in New Austin either by faking his death or changing his alias similar to how John changed his to "Jim Milton". This could also explain why Arthur isn't mentioned in RDR1 as he would by lying low under a new name.
Another theory is that it could've been planned for Arthur to lay low in another warm dry climate like Mexico in order to evade the law in the United States, which could explain why Mexico was also originally planned to be in the game, with it being in the game's files as well. Mind you it couldn't have been possible for John to be able to go to Mexico, for he mentions never being in Mexico before in RDR1.
In conclusion this was my theory to how Arthur was originally supposed to survive the ending of chapter 6. Any thoughts, feedback, questions, etc, are greatly appreciated, this is my first real theory as well as my first post on this subreddit so let me know what you guys think! š¤ š
EDIT: I made a seperate comment explaining a few other possible theories and unanswered questions to this that u guys might have so make sure to check that out if you want! ā¤
185
u/BigDavesRant Sep 18 '22
Interesting theory, but I disagree. I absolutely believe that Arthur was supposed to go to New Austin and Mexico, but just as a longer part of the main story line before eventually dying. My reasoning is very simple. I knew before any details were announced that whomever the protagonist was, they were going to die. The way they killed John at the end of RDR1 makes this abundantly clear to me and it just seems obvious that the protagonist in any RDR game will always meet their fate at the end Just my two cents. :)
43
u/Contra_Payne Sep 18 '22
Very well said. I view RDR 1 and 2 as an unavoidable fate for the Protagonists. The line "You people venerate savagery and you will die savagely!" is apt. Even Jack, at the end of RDR1 I feel is doomed to a sad fate. For all his father and mother tried to give him an opportunity and avoid following their footsteps, we see that he was unable to ultimately break the cycle of vengeance.
23
u/HanSoloHeadBeg Sep 18 '22
should also be noted that every explanation for Arthur not being mentioned in RDR is nullified by the fact that he hadn't been invented yet.
10
u/Suspicious-Topic-185 Sep 19 '22
THIS right here is what I hold close when I hope about RDR3 being made. The Character who you end up being hopefully may not have been thought of in RDR2 so it will all be new instead of these āoh I hope itās Jackā etc etc.
EDIT to add- I think this makes sense? I hope yāall get the jist.
3
u/basedtrashcomp Mar 30 '23
since RDR2 is technically RDR3 itself, (meaning the third Red Dead game) I don't believe the next one will have anything to do with these characters or their story. The Van Der Linde gang's story is over and done, I believe the next Red Dead [Redacted] will be with a new protagonist in a different era, hopefully 1860's-1870's with the West was truly Wild
1
14
u/Gunnar-da-homie Sep 18 '22
Responded to this and a couple other people in a seperate comment below, trying to explain a couple things a bit better than before aswell as some unanswered questions ā¤
32
u/RainAccomplished2637 Sep 18 '22
Steal a horse and buggy In St Denis. I managed 3 new Austin dinosaur bones as Arthur before the sniper got me
7
u/RoryFoxey Sep 18 '22
Why specifically St Denis?
6
u/RainAccomplished2637 Sep 18 '22
St Denis is where I found the one I used there is a YouTube video showing how to do it. Not my video
4
2
u/I-am-the-milkman PS4 Dec 08 '22
You can get all of them and get a unique cutscene with the dinosaur bone collector
66
u/Ok_Material1904 Sep 18 '22
Wow man, this theory just came from a little line of dialogue... Good job!
25
u/KyloRenIrony Sep 18 '22
Some things a lot of people in the comments seem to be forgetting: A. Games can have multiple endings B. John says in RDR1 that his gang never made it to New Austin, meaning that a prologue could not logically happen there C. Games go through a LOT of changes throughout development, both story and map wise. Just because this ending wouldn't fit with the story we got doesn't mean it wouldn't have at some other point in development
20
u/Staygone1 Sep 18 '22
I agree with you. I feel like when the developers made the challenges and requirements to beat the game to 100% they originally meant it all to be done by Arthur, just a bonus you got the play as John in the epilogue and get some more story for him as heās the main in RDR1, and they eventually just had to decide to let Arthur die.
21
Sep 18 '22
A doctor says this to you, and I immediately thought āoh thatās how you get to New Austinā but sadly thatās not what happened. I likely wouldāve preferred it.
54
u/Shadiezz2018 Sep 18 '22
I kept telling my self that he was still alive only for Charles coming in and crashing any hope i had that he is alive when he said that he went back and buried him
Or in my head canon that Charles was lying because Arthur told him to lie about his death and he still lives somewhere dry...since we never see him die
That's what i keep telling myself every time i think about it so that i don't cry
57
u/Venriik Sep 18 '22
My Arthur got shot in the face. So, pretty much dead.
26
u/Charaderablistic Sep 18 '22
He was shot yes, but still alive on a farm. Where he romps and plays
15
1
3
27
9
u/Blackwater256 Xbox One Sep 18 '22
If Arthur was ever meant to go to New Austin, it wouldāve definitely happened in some kind of prologue before Chapter 1. There is no way he wouldāve been able to sneak down to New Austin in Chapter 6. John couldnāt even go down there until several years later.
3
u/Gunnar-da-homie Sep 18 '22
Responded to this and a couple other people in a seperate comment below, trying to explain a couple things a bit better than before ā¤
74
u/erniellie Sep 18 '22
Dude the point of a spoiler flair is to not have the spoiler in the title š
42
u/sassy_cheese564 Sep 18 '22
The game has been out for almost 5 years. Spoilers are far game at this point. Until you finish it, keep off social media then. š¤·āāļø
9
u/erniellie Sep 18 '22
Fair - I've actually completed it. Was trying to be sensitive towards others. Thanks for the advice though!
-1
u/sassy_cheese564 Sep 18 '22
Point still stands. People complaining about spoilers when itās been out for awhile, stay off social media till you finish otherwise donāt complain when things are spoiled for you.
6
u/superpuzzlekiller Sep 18 '22 edited Sep 19 '22
So no need for spoiler warnings in any RDR2 subs at all anymore?
3
u/sassy_cheese564 Sep 18 '22
Considering the game has been out for 4+ years itās redundant.
-1
u/superpuzzlekiller Sep 18 '22
Noted. So people can go spoiling all games 4 years old+. No spoiler tags or warnings necessary. Good to know
11
u/sassy_cheese564 Sep 18 '22
Eh past a certain point any and all content is fair game. If you donāt want things spoiled for you whether itās games, movies/shows etc literally stay off social media. Considering thatās where itās likely to be spoiled for you.
-9
u/superpuzzlekiller Sep 18 '22
So Iām not a dick if I spoil something for some lil kid that just started playing the game. Good to know.
12
u/sassy_cheese564 Sep 18 '22
I mean Iām not gonna intentionally spoil it for someone but by this point donāt whine when you see something that spoils it for you. Stay off social media until you catch up.
7
u/GreenFuckFrog Sep 18 '22
If you'd deliberately go out of your way to spoil someone, yeah you'd be a dick. But if said kid would find his way on a forum which consists of people discussing a game that's been out for quite a while, then that's just a life lesson.
1
u/BigDavesRant Sep 18 '22
Wow. I donāt understand the downvotes. I agree with you. Sometimes there are games that I donāt play until several years after they are released and I would hate to have them spoiledā¦ BUT.. I also understand the argument about s stating off this sub if you havenāt played/completed the game. Sometimes people are late to the party and Iām in full support of spoiler tags no matter how old the game is.
→ More replies (0)1
u/indiemike Sep 18 '22
Four years isnāt very long.
2
u/basedtrashcomp Mar 30 '23
it's pretty long in the gaming world the game is about as old now as GTA 5 was when RDR2 came out and I promise you if someone mentioned Trevor dying in one of the endings back then literally nobody would've cried "spoiler" about it.
regardless, if you haven't finished RDR2 in 2023 what are you doing on the reddead sub?
0
u/sassy_cheese564 Sep 18 '22
Long enough when you counter in the pandemic. Either way, if you havenāt played or watched something to where itās currently at then stay off social media till you do. Or donāt join a group relating to that show and then be surprised when people post spoilers.
1
-3
u/superpuzzlekiller Sep 18 '22
Would you spoil a book that came out 50years ago even if I just discovered the author and just started reading it now?
12
u/sassy_cheese564 Sep 18 '22
Books aināt the same as video games. But either way, itās been out for 50 years. Be prepared for people to spoil it for you especially if it was/is still super popular.
Iāve seen people literally complain about spoilers about the titanic movie.
1
u/superpuzzlekiller Sep 18 '22
Thatās not what I asked. I just asked if you would spoil a book a just started reading, even if it came out 50 years ago.
7
u/sassy_cheese564 Sep 18 '22
And I literally answered it. 3rd sentence.
-3
u/superpuzzlekiller Sep 18 '22
Itās a yes or no question which you LITERALLY did not answer.
11
u/sassy_cheese564 Sep 18 '22
It doesnāt have to be a yes or no answer. Iām not gonna intentionally spoil shit for someone. BUT if you come across a spoiler or someone mentions it in passing donāt whine and bitch about it. Thatās why I said people need to stay off social media till they are caught up.
Like someone who knows nothing about the game but has just started playing, coming on a specific form about the game. Seeing a spoiler is bound to happen sooner or later. Upon seeing one donāt whine about it when you made the choice to join that page/group where spoilers will be present.
-1
1
u/RIP_Mustangberger Sep 19 '22
Well if that's the case, Arthur dies Arthur dies Arthur dies Arthur dies Arthur dies Arthur dies Arthur dies arthur dies.
3
u/sassy_cheese564 Sep 19 '22
Thereās a big difference between intentionally spoiling something for someone and not having sympathy for someone who goes on social media before they catch up and itās spoiled for themā¦
2
u/Naturally_Fragrant PS4 Sep 20 '22
He was already dead. A ghost all along, and he never even knew it.
12
u/DeadSeaGulls Sep 18 '22 edited Sep 18 '22
Not a chance.
Everyone that played the first game knew how the second game would end. It's the entire theme of the plot. The redemption is only earned through the sacrifice of life. John stayed and fought impossible odds to give his family time to escape. Arthur dies fighting impossible odds and inevitable death to give John time to escape. The player option to go back for money would be to fail that redemption.
Rockstar cutting content and restricting the map for arthur was likely more an issue with deadlines and budget.
edit: and they obviously mirrored the first game with the epilogue as the 'next in line'. Jack in rdr1. John in rdr2. If there is an rdr3, further prequel or otherwise, I'd bet my paycheck that it follows the same format and the main character does not survive into the epilogue and you pick up as another player.
Like if we played as Arthur's dad, lyle, maybe you die trying to save your son but your sacrifice goes unnoticed, so the redemption is only an "A for effort" just like arthur and johns redemptions where neither succeed at preventing the next in line from following the same path. And then you'd play the epilogue as Hosea in the days of the early gang with young arthur doing hood rat shit. Or as young arthur himself just starting his outlaw life.
1
u/Gunnar-da-homie Sep 18 '22
Responded to this and a couple other people in a seperate comment below, trying to explain a couple things a bit better than before aswell as some unanswered questions ā¤
10
Sep 18 '22
I donāt think he was supposed to survive, He was probably just able to access the whole map minus Blackwater
9
u/Gunnar-da-homie Sep 18 '22 edited Sep 18 '22
To answer a few questions, I totally believe that there was originally a plan to have Arthur and the gang accessible in some sort of prologue near Blackwater, but that still doesn't explain how certain side missions that would or wouldve required Arthur going to New Austin become available after the area became restricted.
Another question I wanted to answer is how could Arthur get to Blackwater and New Austin after chapter 6. And my theory to that question is perhaps the Pinkertons moved away from that area completely towards Annesburg since Dutch's gang had fallen apart, that being an inevitable part of the story regardless of whether Arthur dies or not, aswell as the fact pinkertons had already moved into Van Horn anyways during chapter 6.
As far as Arthur's redemption and meaningful death I just wanna remind everyone this is my theory on how Arthur couldve possibly survived chapter 6, not the entire game as a whole. I think it couldve been a possibility for Arthur to have died a bit later in the game rather than survive completely.
Though as far as the plan for Arthur's unfortunate death. I'm open to the possibility that perhaps it was a 50/50 chance on whether he would live or die. And that they would make that choice for the story whether they were able to finish the New Austin/Mexico content first wich they obviously didn't. I dont wanna go as far as to say Arthur's death was a "backup plan" or anything but I feel like they might have had both possibilitys for Arthur's fate planned since the beginning. Or like I said previously possibly kill him off later in the game.
8
u/Blackwater256 Xbox One Sep 18 '22
Ok, a few things here.
My best guess is that it was similar to how it is in the final version. Arthur can start some of the side missions, but only John can finish them. Arthur could start the side missions when he has access to Blackwater and New Austin, but it becomes inaccessible beginning Chapter 1 until the epilogue.
I honestly doubt the Pinkertons wouldāve moved away from Blackwater. The gang stole $150,000 (the modern equivalent of $5,352,487 as of 2022) from that ferry, causing a giant massacre in the process. Not only that, but there was always the possibility that the gang would try to retrieve the money, which the gang considered multiple times (courtesy of Micah). Iām sure the Pinkertons knew this, hence the Blackwater lockdown persists in Chapter 6.
Arthur was always planned to die. It was pretty much a given even before the game released. Itās well known by now that you canāt be the protagonist of a Red Dead Redemption game and not die at the end. The only real difference between the beta version and the final version wouldāve been the Blackwater prologue, thatās it.
2
u/Gunnar-da-homie Sep 18 '22
I can see some of this being the case aswell absolutely, all though I do stand by my statement about pinkertons possibly moving, considering they never actually knew they didnt get away with the money.
As far as the pinkertons knowledge they did cause the massacre that's true, but also got away with all the money so It wouldnt be much of a stretch in my opinion to say they would move out of blackwater completely in order to persue the gang near Annesburg, since they dont have much reason for being in Blackwater at that point in time anyways.
1
u/Blackwater256 Xbox One Sep 18 '22
Even if they didnāt know that the gang had the money stashed in town, the town would still be in high alert in case they ever tried to come back. Just because the gang fled the area after a massacre doesnāt mean the town shouldnāt be on lockdown.
5
u/DeadSeaGulls Sep 18 '22 edited Sep 18 '22
I think you're blatantly ignoring the entire character arc and theme of the story so that you can try and shoehorn in a weird theory that can much easier be explained by deadlines and budget constraints. What's "later in the game" than the end of the game? Arthur was always going to die, and you were always going to be john in the epilogue. if the story was slightly changed so that arthur made it to new austin after beaver hollow, then arthur would just die there instead (though a significant part of arthur's journey is that he goes to progressively worse climates for his TB. From horseshoe to the humid south, to a literal swamp, to ship wrecked in storm, to a damp cave. Going to a nice and dry climate later in the game breaks from that entire theme which was intended to escalate his TB with each move. )
You'd have to rewrite the entire story to make your theory fit, based on a single line of dialog and a side mission.5
u/Gunnar-da-homie Sep 18 '22
Relax man, I'm not trying to shoehorn in anything. In a western game with literal vampires and aliens I dont think anything is meant to be taken this seriously, Its just something I wanted to share with this community cause I thought it would be interesting to talk about, that's what this whole subreddit is for. I'm not saying any of this is a fact it's literally just a small game theory that's fun to think about. Nothing serious or personal dude.
3
u/Disastrous_Ad4560 Sep 18 '22
Random question. But your theory made me think of Arthur in rdr1, is he mentioned at all in that game?
9
u/Gunnar-da-homie Sep 18 '22
Nah unfortunatley rockstar hadn't written the character yet otherwise he probably would've been mentioned for sure
2
u/MidwestKid2323 Sep 18 '22
Iām not sure if he was meant to survive. The cut content was most likely acted out by the VAās and they have not hinted at an alternate ending.
Dan Houser probably wanted Arthur in New Austin but rewrote the story later in production due to budget constraints. New Austin only has a few legendary animals, fish, and other necessary items to complete the game 100% and then may have put them there because they wanted to make sure players had to progress to the prologue to 100% the game.
2
2
u/queer_quadrilateral Sep 18 '22
No, that's not even a little bit right. He was simply supposed to be able to enter New Austin. There's pinkerton patrols there waiting for him in the final game even though he can't see it. Not everything is that complicated to where the entire ending would need to be changed for what in reality was just a late stage content block.
1
u/Gunnar-da-homie Sep 18 '22
Responded to this and a couple other people in a seperate comment below, trying to explain a couple things a bit better than before aswell as some unanswered questions ā¤
3
u/Rilla_Gorilla44 Sep 18 '22
I think you need to use more punctuation. Every paragraph is just a run on sentence šš
5
u/Gunnar-da-homie Sep 18 '22
Lmao aw man really? I ain't used to typing out paragraphs this long when it comes to stuff like this, I was really hoping I put enough commas. š
1
-2
u/Loopro Sep 18 '22
Idiot! Your spoiler tag doesn't do shit if you put the spoiler in the title. CHANGE IT!
1
1
ā¢
u/Kaineferu š¤ Sep 19 '22
Mods do not remove someone else's comment just because you disagree with them. The report button is not a tattle button.