I just wish that Ross had more screentime. They could have done it like what they did in San Andreas with Tennpenny where he basically showed up throughout the whole game to tease CJ. It would've been interesting to have seen more of John and Ross' conversations throughout the whole game considering their moments in the West Elizabeth chapter is one of the biggest highlights of that chapter.
@@fredster594 Yeah I agree. I suppose they wanted to just save him and Archer for the third act to keep things fresh but a "main villain" could have more presence throughout the game. My gripe with the villains is that they don't show up most of the time. You barely see Bill and Javier in acts 1&2. My guess is that they wanted to to flesh out those characters in a prequel but then they ended up making RDR2 which mainly developed Dutch and left Javier and Bill in the sidelines, leaving their characters permanently lacking.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef If there is one flaw of RDR1 that I think RDR2 improved upon a lot from its predecessor, it would have to be the characters being more grounded and humanized. RDR1 simply had WAY too many GTA esque goofy parody characters that detracted way too much time from the much more memorable and likable characters such as Leigh Johnsson, Bonnie McFarlance, Landon Ricketts, Edgar Ross and Archer. Any scene with Harold MacDougal, Colonel Allende or Irish could have been better spent on developing much better characters such as Drew McFarlane, Bill Williamson, Javier Escuella, Edgar Ross and Archer Fordham. While RDR2 isn't perfect with the game simply having WAY too many characters that barely do jack shit in the main story, I do at least appreciate that even the more minor characters have more depth with the help of the optional camp events at least. With the only exception of course being John Marston because he fucking sucks in RDR2.
one of the few time john was in a serious discussion and was losing the debate. he and arthur would of agreed with the flower analogy if charles said it to them back in the end of rdr2 but because he hates him for taking his family...all he can do is insult the analogy even tho its true. dutch will use deadly force on innocents who disagree with his criminal anti-civilization anarchy ideals. only good point john made was the taking of his fam. but even ross was aware n honest enough to admit the contradiction of fighting fire with fire while condemning dutch's fire. but ross is doing it to get rid of dutch. dutch does it because he wants to get away with crime
Im sorry but yall are insane if you think ross is correct here. He acknowledges that the laws are imperfect and enforces them anyway. He talks about the people of the town as if they are scum to be rid of. He is not a man of the law. Sherriff johnson was a man of the law. He actually cared about the town and the people in it. Im not saying John is morally correct either, but he has more morals than ross who commits the same crimes or even worse while hiding behind the power of the government. John was obviously a cold blooded killer but atleast he didnt stab people in the back who he thought was beneath him. Atleast he was honest about who he was. West Dickens being just one example. Good lord Im so glad criminal ross got what he deserved. Like cmon he does the exact same thing tenpenny does. He lets criminals go in exchange for them doing the dirty work of law enforcement. He says the alternative is a man with a gun vs another man with a gun that crap happens under his watch anyway.
Ross always talked about John gunning down innocents in cold blood yet he did the same thing to John at the farm, I mean John wasn't ever innocent but he redeemed himself and earned a normal life, but Ross stopped it
@@astroarguello1521 Yeah wow I didn't think of that, the Mexico trip is a solid example of how unethical he was. Sending an agent into a neighboring country's civil war is one thing but he was sending an outlaw who he considered to be a bloodthirsty killer. What a conniving suit.
Ofc the laws are not perfect they are still not today but what he said? What´s the alternative? Live like hell. It´s better to have those unperfect laws than having a man shooting you down just because you wearing a hat he don´t really like. I think you missed the point of this dialogue, the point is to find balance and keep order. You probably enforce or encourage a law that you might not agree too or not really care about but you know that´s what keeps order. Like you know you cannot steal, but it´s handy but you also don´t want this person to be able to steal from you so you start to like that law not because you believe it but because it suits you and keeps things more or less in order, even though crimes still occur people know what happens if they break the law and that discourage them.
Edgar Ross and Milton are probably the only Rockstar antagonists that I actually like because they actually are somewhat complex and morally grey. Most of their other antagonists are basically just pure cartoon evil that betrays the main character in the end in an attempt to make them super unlikable and to replicate Officer Tennpenny, but at least Tennpenny had charisma and a reason to be evil since he was a corrupt police officer instead of being evil for the sake of being evil. People often say that Micah is a fantastic villain but he's really nothing special and him being the rat is extremely predictable and doesn't any sense that it just feels rushed. Micah is nothing special from what we've seen from other Rockstar antagonists except that he has more screentime than the others. Don't get me wrong, Ross and Milton aren't perfect. The morally grey aspect kinda gets thrown out the window once Ross betrays John and Milton unfortunately doesn't have that much screentime but at least they tried.
@@rdr.erased Like the scene in RDR2 where Sean killed a man on a mission in cold blood after talking so kindly to him as a friend. Or like how Arthur killed a stable owner to steal horses. Milton and Ross were right to arrest them. Even though I like and sympathise with our main characters, it's undeniable that they were bad people that did bad things. Ross and Milton were right... but it's still sad though
@@fredster594you’re absolutely correct, Micah is way too static and obvious as the villain it’s annoying that they didn’t see his betrayal coming. Not even a betrayal really - you never wanted to be on his side in the first place. It honestly would have been more interesting had he changed throughout the story from trustworthy to not, or vice versa - have him surprisingly turn around and have someone less obvious be the rat.
i agree. he is using bad means for good ends. gangs and crime land is still worse than imperfect civility. getting rid of dutch with johns help was smart but he didnt need to kill john. prison sentence would have been enough. but it was 1911. not 2023 and john arthur dutch all killed, robbed, assaulted many innocents.
Based off the title, Ross was a man of the law...believe it or not, John Marston, as fun as it was to play in his shoes, was NOT the good guy...but he WAS a man seeking redemption (hence the title of the game). The only time John was in a good place was by the end of the game...and by then it didn't matter anymore.
Ross would be right and is right about Dutch, but he is wrong about the alternative to civilization. At least western civilization that he upholds as it was what sought to wipe out the Indigenous population.
what is the alternative to civilization tho? native had their own civilizations before european ones came? civilization comes in different culture types. mayans and incans all dealt with their criminals too.
ah yes. just make a cool comment and now killing to take someones money or horse is the same as killing those criminals to protect future victims. indeed criminal gangs are the same a law enforcement.
@@streetplaya23 I mean, not to get political, but look at modern-day law enforcement. Historically, Ross is one of the first of the Pinkertons, and if you don't know who they are, feel free to Google it.
marston has abandoned his son n wife for a year, done all kinds of unsspeakable crime . marston is scum too tho. he is not perfect. yes keeps his word more than ross but ross dont go around killing and robbing innocents thats what seperates him from john. there a few actual good ppl in the game.
none of what u said debunks the fact that more ppl would be dead and suffering in chaos over an imperfect rule of law. ur comment is example of what lenny said to dutch and his ideals, all style no substance. it sounds poetic but aint true. "its own chaos"=way less dead folk and small percentage of ppl being criminal victims vs chaos=anyone can just form a gang and take u or loved ones life or belongings and its just post apocalytic. no. civilization is better period. its negative are far smaller than no rules chaos wasteland where u could get torture etc by skinners infront your family because of some poetic sounding shallow words
Probably one of my favorite RDR1 cutscenes and that's a high mark.
Edgar Ross solidified himself as a great villain in this very cinematic.
I just wish that Ross had more screentime. They could have done it like what they did in San Andreas with Tennpenny where he basically showed up throughout the whole game to tease CJ. It would've been interesting to have seen more of John and Ross' conversations throughout the whole game considering their moments in the West Elizabeth chapter is one of the biggest highlights of that chapter.
@@fredster594 Yeah I agree. I suppose they wanted to just save him and Archer for the third act to keep things fresh but a "main villain" could have more presence throughout the game.
My gripe with the villains is that they don't show up most of the time. You barely see Bill and Javier in acts 1&2.
My guess is that they wanted to to flesh out those characters in a prequel but then they ended up making RDR2 which mainly developed Dutch and left Javier and Bill in the sidelines, leaving their characters permanently lacking.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef If there is one flaw of RDR1 that I think RDR2 improved upon a lot from its predecessor, it would have to be the characters being more grounded and humanized. RDR1 simply had WAY too many GTA esque goofy parody characters that detracted way too much time from the much more memorable and likable characters such as Leigh Johnsson, Bonnie McFarlance, Landon Ricketts, Edgar Ross and Archer. Any scene with Harold MacDougal, Colonel Allende or Irish could have been better spent on developing much better characters such as Drew McFarlane, Bill Williamson, Javier Escuella, Edgar Ross and Archer Fordham.
While RDR2 isn't perfect with the game simply having WAY too many characters that barely do jack shit in the main story, I do at least appreciate that even the more minor characters have more depth with the help of the optional camp events at least. With the only exception of course being John Marston because he fucking sucks in RDR2.
one of the few time john was in a serious discussion and was losing the debate. he and arthur would of agreed with the flower analogy if charles said it to them back in the end of rdr2 but because he hates him for taking his family...all he can do is insult the analogy even tho its true. dutch will use deadly force on innocents who disagree with his criminal anti-civilization anarchy ideals. only good point john made was the taking of his fam. but even ross was aware n honest enough to admit the contradiction of fighting fire with fire while condemning dutch's fire. but ross is doing it to get rid of dutch. dutch does it because he wants to get away with crime
The thing is....ross is not actually a full blow villain. J.M is not a good person either.
Im sorry but yall are insane if you think ross is correct here. He acknowledges that the laws are imperfect and enforces them anyway. He talks about the people of the town as if they are scum to be rid of. He is not a man of the law. Sherriff johnson was a man of the law. He actually cared about the town and the people in it. Im not saying John is morally correct either, but he has more morals than ross who commits the same crimes or even worse while hiding behind the power of the government. John was obviously a cold blooded killer but atleast he didnt stab people in the back who he thought was beneath him. Atleast he was honest about who he was. West Dickens being just one example. Good lord Im so glad criminal ross got what he deserved. Like cmon he does the exact same thing tenpenny does. He lets criminals go in exchange for them doing the dirty work of law enforcement. He says the alternative is a man with a gun vs another man with a gun that crap happens under his watch anyway.
Johnson is a good example of a contrast to Ross. Because they're both dedicated to upholding law and order but their morality is very opposed.
Ross always talked about John gunning down innocents in cold blood yet he did the same thing to John at the farm, I mean John wasn't ever innocent but he redeemed himself and earned a normal life, but Ross stopped it
@BrainMeltGaming bro he greenlit a white guy shooting up mexico to find one guy lol
@@astroarguello1521 Yeah wow I didn't think of that, the Mexico trip is a solid example of how unethical he was. Sending an agent into a neighboring country's civil war is one thing but he was sending an outlaw who he considered to be a bloodthirsty killer. What a conniving suit.
Ofc the laws are not perfect they are still not today but what he said? What´s the alternative? Live like hell.
It´s better to have those unperfect laws than having a man shooting you down just because you wearing a hat he don´t really like.
I think you missed the point of this dialogue, the point is to find balance and keep order.
You probably enforce or encourage a law that you might not agree too or not really care about but you know that´s what keeps order.
Like you know you cannot steal, but it´s handy but you also don´t want this person to be able to steal from you so you start to like that law not because you believe it but because it suits you and keeps things more or less in order, even though crimes still occur people know what happens if they break the law and that discourage them.
Ppl often just hate villains bcs they angaisnt the protagonist but Ross was actually right in rdr1 apart from betraying john
I felt that with Milton, and there is the fact that our protagonists rob and kill
Edgar Ross and Milton are probably the only Rockstar antagonists that I actually like because they actually are somewhat complex and morally grey. Most of their other antagonists are basically just pure cartoon evil that betrays the main character in the end in an attempt to make them super unlikable and to replicate Officer Tennpenny, but at least Tennpenny had charisma and a reason to be evil since he was a corrupt police officer instead of being evil for the sake of being evil. People often say that Micah is a fantastic villain but he's really nothing special and him being the rat is extremely predictable and doesn't any sense that it just feels rushed. Micah is nothing special from what we've seen from other Rockstar antagonists except that he has more screentime than the others.
Don't get me wrong, Ross and Milton aren't perfect. The morally grey aspect kinda gets thrown out the window once Ross betrays John and Milton unfortunately doesn't have that much screentime but at least they tried.
@@rdr.erased Like the scene in RDR2 where Sean killed a man on a mission in cold blood after talking so kindly to him as a friend. Or like how Arthur killed a stable owner to steal horses. Milton and Ross were right to arrest them. Even though I like and sympathise with our main characters, it's undeniable that they were bad people that did bad things. Ross and Milton were right... but it's still sad though
@@fredster594you’re absolutely correct, Micah is way too static and obvious as the villain it’s annoying that they didn’t see his betrayal coming. Not even a betrayal really - you never wanted to be on his side in the first place. It honestly would have been more interesting had he changed throughout the story from trustworthy to not, or vice versa - have him surprisingly turn around and have someone less obvious be the rat.
i agree. he is using bad means for good ends. gangs and crime land is still worse than imperfect civility. getting rid of dutch with johns help was smart but he didnt need to kill john. prison sentence would have been enough. but it was 1911. not 2023 and john arthur dutch all killed, robbed, assaulted many innocents.
Of course Edgar was, that's why I made sure we had an understanding in the end when it came to that😂
Based off the title, Ross was a man of the law...believe it or not, John Marston, as fun as it was to play in his shoes, was NOT the good guy...but he WAS a man seeking redemption (hence the title of the game).
The only time John was in a good place was by the end of the game...and by then it didn't matter anymore.
and RDR 2 showed in action how brutal and cruel the gang could become and not just Dutch but everyone
Y'all have to remember John was an anti-hero. He's just as guilty as the rest of the gang. He wasn't a good-guy, but he was trying to be a GOOD guy.
Extremely competent character, very well written.
Ross would be right and is right about Dutch, but he is wrong about the alternative to civilization. At least western civilization that he upholds as it was what sought to wipe out the Indigenous population.
Those are part of the rules though. John ain't fighting the indians for anything
@@elliottbaker201 Red Dead Dedemption clearly demonstrates how something can be legally sound yet, not morally right.
what is the alternative to civilization tho? native had their own civilizations before european ones came? civilization comes in different culture types. mayans and incans all dealt with their criminals too.
Oh, spare me the lecture, Ross, we both kill for money, you just do it in a suit.
Whatever you do, look good doing it 🥂
ah yes. just make a cool comment and now killing to take someones money or horse is the same as killing those criminals to protect future victims. indeed criminal gangs are the same a law enforcement.
@@streetplaya23 I mean, not to get political, but look at modern-day law enforcement. Historically, Ross is one of the first of the Pinkertons, and if you don't know who they are, feel free to Google it.
Ross is very right, and John has a right to be mad, but ross should have kept his word, that’s what separates ross and John
marston has abandoned his son n wife for a year, done all kinds of unsspeakable crime . marston is scum too tho. he is not perfect. yes keeps his word more than ross but ross dont go around killing and robbing innocents thats what seperates him from john. there a few actual good ppl in the game.
Yes, civilization is better than the alternative of Chaos... but not when there are so many overlapping rules that it becomes its own chaos.
none of what u said debunks the fact that more ppl would be dead and suffering in chaos over an imperfect rule of law. ur comment is example of what lenny said to dutch and his ideals, all style no substance. it sounds poetic but aint true. "its own chaos"=way less dead folk and small percentage of ppl being criminal victims vs chaos=anyone can just form a gang and take u or loved ones life or belongings and its just post apocalytic. no. civilization is better period. its negative are far smaller than no rules chaos wasteland where u could get torture etc by skinners infront your family because of some poetic sounding shallow words
The alternative, Mr. Ross, is *freedom*
I guess he just miss Milton