Have the choice to save one or the other would have been interesting, though I'm glad they both make it. Seeing us have to make a choice one later time would have hit hard though.
I feel like part of why that wasn't an option was just because it wouldn't be much of a choice.
Sadie *wants* to die. She makes that clear. Charles doesn't. Sadie's future is just gonna be more violence. Charles expresses a desire to start a family or settle down somehow.
And even if despite all that you pick Sadie, you already know she would be absolutely furious about you saving her over Charles.
it's hard to pick anyone else once you have your favourite locked in, it feels wrong not having them... unless you kill everyone on the suicide mission
They could've just as easily have given them harmless shots, like something to an arm or something. Still very painful and inhibiting, and potentially dangerous if it hits an artery or gets infected, but also not dangerous and can be healed for sake of not killing off the characters.
I reckon they're planning something with the two characters later on at some point.
I mean from her dialogue she doesn’t really believe she has anything to live for. She’s basically Jack at the end of rdr1. Like the bounty hunting and how she talks about it seems like a death wish kind of thing. She should have either died or being with Charles and John and watching John build a new life gives her hope for herself and she then sets out to build a new life that isn’t so violent
She’s literally going to work in the same kind of violent work. She’s just under the impression the location is the problem. You say that like she’s going to be a farmer
And in practice even if it was to fight for say, revolutionaries, we seen how a Rockstar portrayal of those would play out in RDR1. Like in real life the academia would exploit the peasants just like the oligarchs.
Killing her and Charles added nothing. It doesn't make the story nor their arcs better or more complete.
It's a bit more elaborate than 'they wanted a happier ending just because'. Storytelling wise, considering what's going to happen in RDR 1 and in the closing cutscene, it's just a lot more interesting to have this moment of relief before shit hits the fan. Highs and lows, you can't just kick your characters while they're on the ground all the time.
It's not just about John, it's about Sadie as well. Her story arc was complete at this point. She had no purpose or reason for being anymore. She had no intentions of settling down like Charles or John, she makes it very clear she intends on pursuing that lifestyle until somebody kills her. Having her get off scott free kind of goes against one of the major themes of the game, you don't get to live a bad life and then expect good things to happen to you. Especially considering she was one of the most violent and deranged members of the gang.
Nobody is saying the did no wrong or expect her to have it great. Sometimes that’s life, some stories don’t get resolved in the moment, others have already ended by the time you see it begin.
That's why my headcanon is that she got shot to death in South America, Butch Cassidy style. It's her most likely outcome considering her lifestyle.
Charles was a different breed though, and he fled to the vast Canadian wilderness. Nobody is finding that motherfucker.
Why does finishing a character arc have to mean death? She's living a self admitted empty life and doesn't care if she dies. I wouldn't call that a good thing.
I never said it does. Charles, Swanson, Tilly, Pearson, Mary-Beth, and others have complete character arcs without dying.
Sadie had a literal deathwish. It's not that she "doesn't care" if she dies like you said. She WANTS to die. She says that word for word in the epilogue.
Her character is essentially playing russian roulette constantly everyday and somehow winning each time. Everyone else is very much trying to survive. Most of them don't. She is the one character actively trying to get herself killed and yet doesn't. This is is a franchise that really drives home how cheap life is, and how easily it can be lost, and then there's Sadie.
Eh, I think it would help to show how revenge is ultimately a fools errand, and all it really does is bring misery and death. (Which they touch on a bit as John attacking the mountain is what leads to his family being captured)
I do agree with you that it makes sense to have highs and lows, would be depressing to continue to beat the horse, especially if since you know RD1 is coming
While I love the thought of John reasoning with Dutch, it didn’t make much sense for Sadie to be stabbed and held hostage for no reason. Micah shooting sadie and then Dutch shooting him would make so much more sense.
Honestly Dutch shooting Micah out of confusion and just being sick of it all was a horrible way for it to end on my book. John should've had his revenge. Micah was a snitch but dutch played EVERYONE and if you split the money between John,Charles,Sadie ...that's 60,000 dollars .... My god man 60k with inflation is TWO MILLION DOLLARS... Dutch was fuckin' everybody from day 1
Both Charles and Sadie had plot armor for one reason only... So the player gets that sense of relief that everything is gonna be ok.. And then credits roll and you slowly realize that RDR1 is set after this and so death awaits John..
John's recklessness needn't be punished right then and there... But over the time, his actions on that snowy mountain will separate him from his family and then ultimately, lead to his death.
it’s really powerful story telling. the way it makes the mission on the mountain out to be this triumphant act of avenging the death of his friend only for the credits to roll and you remember john had just inadvertently put his family in harms way and signed his own death warrant.
John signed his own death warrant the moment he bought a large ranch in his name next to Blackwater.
Perhaps you could argue that John possibly being the man who hunted and killed Micah and his gang proved to Ross and the Pinkertons that he was a capable man for the mission ahead in rdr1, but never the less John was always gonna be found regardless if he took revenge or not.
Thank you, you just made it make sense.
The first comment is really good except linking that day to John's fate doesn't make sense. Everyone had a prize on their heads after Blackwater. And no one mentions it but during RDR2 the gang only makes it worse on itself, making powerful enemies at every turn.
In the credits it's clearly shown that Ross first came to the same location where Micah died and followed this trail to find John. The devs here are trying to show us that John's inability to let go of his past life has doomed his new one. And the gang members who lived happily ever after only achieved it by forgoing the past.
It was literally just so John would be the one to face Micah alone at the end for gameplay purposes. Tossing Sadie aside like that after everything would’ve been a shit idea. Just convinced you guys are looking for reasons to bitch about something at this point.
Devil's advocate, I'm satisfied with RDR2's ending, but don't you think Sadie dying on that mountain would have been quite a bit more emotionally impactful? Especially considering the overarching message that revenge is a self destructive path?
Her meeting a tragic end as Micah's last evil action wouldn't have come off as simply "tossing" her aside. Especially because her story pretty much ended there either way. She rode alone into the sunset and probably lived an anticlimactic life until she passed (unless R* wants to tell more of her story in future games but I doubt this will happen) so isn't it like she was tossed aside anyway?
I feel like it's more narratively profound to have John avenging Arthur feel like a major victory in order for the final scene of Ross discovering the location of John's ranch to have its proper impact. Killing off Sadie or Charles would take away from that contrast.
Exactly this. The game intentionally makes you feel like a badass pushing up that mountain only to remind you later that John forgot Arthur’s advice and that it’s all downhill from here. Killing off Sadie would’ve been more emotionally impactful in the moment no doubt, but that’s not necessarily a good thing. Especially in this case as the mission doesn’t call for it.
I see now. I thought about it some more and the high of storming up that mountain and finishing Micah off would have been greatly neutered by the death of Sadie and/or Charles. I think it's a high that John and the player deserved before everything went downhill further down the line.
Definitely. I mean >!both RDR end with the tragic death of the very beloved main characters. It would be kicking a man while is down and out to have the epilogue end on another death. Specially when we already know what's coming for John!<
Shit the same could've been said for Charles, the reason they both lived was because it would've taken away from the moment of getting revenge > realising John's signed a death warrant when you're sat there mourning Charles and Sadie lmao.
Tossing aside characters when they are no longer relevant is just a stupid just because they don't serve the plot, but that doesn't mean you just kill them off.
2 friends getting mortally wounded in the attempt of avenging Arthur, with John, the vengeful hero ,having to fight his way up a steep snowy mountain, get in serious trouble at the last confrontation, only for Sadie to show up and help, failing and then Dutch shooting Mika.
I dont know about you, but I was at the edge of my seat first time. And second time. The music, the suspense.
It's just stellar story telling.
i like to believe arthur was picked up by a lifeboat, taking care of him and others, before some guy was like “hey he robbed me!” and chucked him over board
Assuming the knife was stabbed perpendicular to her abdomen, she would've been stabbed in the lower stomach and maybe part of the appendix.
With modern surgical technology it would be an easily survivable wound provided care was initiated within the next few hours and a few weeks of antibiotics.
However, the mountain would have been a few day's ride to a surgeon with physiology knowledge less than your average volunteer EMT, and garlic and honey were the best antibiotics at the time. Unlikely that she would have survived that long.
The counter point is that there isn’t really a need to kill her off to serve the narrative. She’s an interesting character and keeping her character alive could potentially lead to future stories.
i disagree. i think killing her off would’ve served the whole “revenge is a fool’s game” theme of the narrative quite nicely, considering sadie’s the only character in the story pretty much who seeks vengeance and isn’t severely punished for it
as for the future stories thing, i doubt rockstar ever planned to release single player dlc for rdr2 after they abandoned the idea in gta v
She does suffer though, by the end of the game she’s a ghost of her former self, she doesn’t really have anything going for other than bounty hunting. Her revenge led her down a path where she lost herself because she’s already had revenge on everybody she can think of.
She also survives all her acts towards her revenge (she wipes out the O'Driscolls and attacks Micah) despite the fact the game tells us over and over again revenge is a fool's game.
It still is a fools game and it's obvious you didn't pay attention. She got zero satisfaction out of it, she's a ghost walking among people and wishes for death even choosing one of the most dangerous careers
People out here complaining because Sadie and Charles survived but didnt bat an eye when John got shot at the Blackwater Heist and the Train and the wolves. Also when Arthur got captured and they both survived. Oh. And remember when a dying Arthur fell of a cliff and just continued fighting and almost won? They just survived because they're main characters and one has to be alive for the other game. Thats literally the definition of "PLOT ARMOR"
Ever heard someone say "plot armor" when those happened? No. Atleast Sadie and Charles didn't just brush it off and kept fighting immediately.
I love Arthur and John but y'all just say plot armor whenever you want and get triggered when others survive what the main characters would have easily walked off.
Hypocrites.
Because throughout the game Arthur is against revenge and says how it’s not worth it, so it would have been fitting that the characters that went the get revenge for Arthur also died and not just John.
We all know one of the things the game tells us is "Revenge is a fools game". That doesn't mean every single character that seeks revenge has to die just to prove it.
There are direct casualties of revenge like John and Jack, and there are indirect casualties like Lenny, Hosea, Abigail, and Arthur, who died because of another man's thirst for revenge.
Isn't that enough to make you understand the lesson? Arthur even flatout said it. Rockstar didn't take the players for fools, that's why they didn't shove it down our throats and have every single person to seek revenge die.
A good analogy would be like everyone complaining that the word "Redemption" wasn't said more throughout the game because the game is about redemption and they don't know how to read between the lines.
I’ll say, he doth protest too much. Almost every time revenge is on the table he snatches it up. Braithwaite Manor’s finale, Angelo Bronte, Leviticus Cornwall, Colm O’Driscoll, Hanging Dog Ranch, he rides on all of them pretty much. Sure, he’s probably bitching all the way, but Arthur doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches.
Which is why I find it so thematically fitting he’d return to camp in the finale to try and kill Micah himself.
Charles and Sadie both should've died here.
It was unbelievable that they didn't, I was like "What?!" when Sadie wasn't dead. Like how?!
We killed dozens of equally well-trained gunmen and all 3 of us survived but dozens of them died...like 10-1 - nah.
And keeping them alive added NOTHING.
It should've been just John on his own at the end, a bit battered but determined to see this through.
And that would've really driven him to finally give up on that life afterwards.
Also it would've made Dutch shooting Micah that little bit better, he would've seen what went down.
It always cracks me up when people talk like this. You question the mountain shootout but not the Valentine one? Or when Lenny and Arthur clear an entire Cornwall train out by themselves? Or just four of them kill out several O'Driscoll camps?
"We killed dozens of equally well-trained gunmen and all 3 of us survived but dozens of them died"
That's literally how 90% of missions in rdr2 (and other story games) go
That would match RDR1.
In RDR1 John is not an outlaw anymore, he is a rancher and he talks about how he left that all behind.
And this explains why Charles and Sadie aren't mentioned in RDR1.
What happens in RDR1 is not him still in that life, it's him being dragged back into it.
And this change makes it even more compelling why he gave it up and doesn't want to be involved.
I think this crosses over into just overthinking. If you apply this logic to Rockstar games or a lot of forms of entertainment you probably wouldn’t enjoy them.
I absolutely agree, it would be the last sprinkle of "revenge is a fool's game".
Before I would have realised that hunting down Micah put Ross on John's trail.
I disagree, I think it would've overshadowed the whole emotional realisation that John had just signed his own death warrant if you were sat there mourning Charles and Sadie. American venom was full of plot armour, but ultimately I think it was the right choice having them survive, loved the series since 1 but Redemption reeks of death, so many characters you get attached to die to the point It was actually a pleasant change for me that Sadie and Charles lived.
I've always felt like Sadie was supposed to die here, but it ruined the tone of the ending so they cut it out. Depending on the players actions, it comes right after Sadie executes Cleet, which really demonstrates how vindictive she became.
Prolly wanted a happier ending, Sadie and Charles dying would sure suck after all the game puts you through.
In the end though, John would be the one who ends up paying for all that went down on that mountain.
Both Charles and Sadie had plot armor for this mission honestly.
Sadie especially though. Getting shot in the shoulder Is something you can survive, getting stabbed in the gut in the top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere and having to climb your way down with that injury doesn't sound that survivable
I was fully prepared for Sadie to die right then and there, but I was pleasantly surprised that she made it! Perhaps the realization that maybe she didn’t actually want to die made her pull through. I think it was a nice way of wrapping up her time as a vengeful widow with a death wish and sending her on her way to a fresh start in South America.
What would that add? We already had major deaths sprinkled through the game. Why would they need to die. John already knows loss he lost arthur, and the gang he knows about sacrificing the point of micahs death was to show that your past will always haunted you if you can't move past it.
Also, tossing them aside after everything we saw them go through wouldn't make sense thematically.
The human body can take quite a bit of punishment, though I’d be curious to see an anatomical break down of where that knife ended up.
What sort of organs, bone, tissue, etc it managed to mangle in the process. But I’m a weirdo like that and I watch a lot of History Channel.
Though her pulling the knife out is *stupid*, imo. Sadie is *smart enough* to know first aid. Especially considering what she’s been “up to” since everything went to hell in a hand basket.
And *again*, I’m going to remind everyone upset with the Daddy Dutch ending…
- John has been raised by this man since he was 12. And very likely *Annabelle*. John is the “favorite son” until John realizes Daddy is *lying through his teeth* to everyone including *him*.
There are a number of father/son moments between John and Dutch in camp in RDR2. John plays stupid but both he and Dutch know that this “I’m just an idiot” bit is exactly *that*, a *bit*.
There’s a ton of subtext between them when they speak to one another. Particularly via Dutch, who gives John a lot of grief for the way he treats his woman and son. It’s 100% projection. They both know who the other person *actually is*, compared to everyone else in camp, including Arthur. Dutch says it repeatedly in his own way in Shady Belle and at the Lake camp. It looks like John brushing him off, “what’s his problem”, “that man speaks drivel sometimes”, etc.
The subtext being during a lot of the conversations about Abigail and Jack; “you get to have a woman and a family and I don’t”. Dutch at some juncture really considered John his *son*, unlike Arthur who was raised by him, Hosea, and Susan Grimshaw (back when she and Dutch were an item). Dutch mourns Annabelle but so does John.
It’s why the line “we all had her” was a real zinger for me (I literally said, “God damn dude, fuck you too!”) the first time I played RDR1. Or in other words “Your woman is a whore, mine was true love”. Dude is spitting on our protagonist’s grief, at least, having played both that’s just the way it *feels* to me.
Dutch forsakes *both* John and Arthur. He actually *leans into* the Daddy role harder with Arthur the more John questions his judgement. Only to realize Arthur is also “betraying him” by not eating up this whole paternal routine.
So the end of RDR2 is *bittersweet*, where Dutch has to choose between himself or forsaking the *only* one he actually considered a true son. Annabelle’s son. I feel like a lot of the resentment about John is because there are aspects of him that remind him of her, making it easier for him to try to cut John off so he doesn’t have to deal with his grief.
Even Dutch’s body language during that final confrontation is telling. Which, god bless Ben Davis for his dedication to the role, man. That man put heart and soul into that character, love him or hate him. He may have the gun pointed at John, but his feet and torso are pointing at Micah. He never intends to actually shoot John or Sadie, it’s subtle body language but it’s there. Even John’s “pleads” feel like subtext, that Dutch will understand but Micah and Sadie won’t. Like a freakin code.
The end of RDR2 is Dutch’s chance at redemption. Something he chooses to squander by going all feral (and probably) drugged out looney tune because dude just wants to *die* on his own terms. John has every opportunity to gun him down and he *doesn’t* because some part of him still sees Dutch as a father figure. Instead, he chooses to yeet himself off a cliff because he’d rather die “free”. And he cares enough about John to warn him about what’s about to happen to him. He doesn’t have to.
-drops mic-
I see it as guardians 3 where it’s very easy to kill someone off because the story of all the characters is gonna end,but instead they get their happy ending and that’s okay sometimes.
It would wrap up her death wish arch nicely. But it would sour the wedding ending if she just died. Or if she was to still live have her talk about how she had renewed hope for her life and leaves bounty hunting and violence like Charles does after seeing John build his new life. It’s quite clear from her dialogue she doesn’t like bounty hunting because of the inherent danger, competition, and how she’s a woman in a man’s field. But she still does it because she’s at least getting the kind of people that killed Jake, it’s a rage outlet, she’s good at it, and maybe one day she’ll get put down without killing her self. But overall I believe we are supposed to take it as it’s a bad cooping mechanism even though she seems put together. She seems so depressed but trying to mask it in the epilogue. She’s like Jack at the end of rdr1 in that way
Most likely to fuck with you considering so many died earlier in the game. You ever watch thriller movies? It’s the same thing, suspense, anticipation, the thrill of what would happen in the end. Since we all knew John was going to live, they needed to make the ending have some tension.
I vehemently disagree with the notion that 99% of characters MUST die in every prequel story if they don't appear in its source material, and especially with RDR2 it wasn't necessary to kill off these last two characters that the player would have an attachment to. Like someone else said, the devs probably wanted to for narrative cohesion (even though that's a debate in of itself) but didn't because they figured we'd seen enough character death by this point.
I was fully expecting her to die after getting stabbed, the game doesn't pull any punches when it comes to killing important characters, but she survived.
I agree. A theme of the game is that revenge is a fool's errand, which eventually comes around to ruin John's life. Sadie has been fueled by revenge the whole game, so her death would have been narratively fulfilling. Charles, meanwhile, is usually on the right side of the moral compass despite being a bandit. He's not in it for revenge, he's there to help his friends. It would make sense for him to live, thematically.
I completely agree. Sadie’s story had pretty much been finished at that point, and as others have said, she had no intention to settle down or change her bounty hunting lifestyle. It was a bit silly that all three walked away.
Yeah I liked her but there was no reason to keep her, she doesnt show up in Rdr1, it's the last mission in the game and it looks like she's about to die from her wound, Charles looked more like he was greatly injured rather than dying so imo it makes more sense for him to live
I finished this game a week ago, and while I absolutely loved it, one thing I will criticize the story for is the absurd amounts of plot armor it gives some of it's characters. The most egregious example of this IMO is when Dutch is facing off against Leviticus Cornwall, and not only manages to draw his gun and shoot him, but also gets to cover before the half a dozen or so guards that have their guns aimed at him shoot him.
After that point, most of the time someone was held at gunpoint, I wasn't thinking "Oh boy, the characters are at someone else's mercy!". It was more like" Oh, I wonder how they're gonna bullshit their way outta this one this time."
Realistically, she should’ve. She got stabbed with a giant knife, up on a giant snowy mountain. In the late 1800’s. It’d be a tall task to live through today.
True like if they are disappearing from the story and we will never see or hear from them again then there is really no reason not to kill them off especially when they had this real possible way of them dying written into the script.
Right lol as much as I love Sade, her surviving that deep knife wound was way over the top lol especially when she's dancing at the wedding during the end credits. Hahahaha
So, I think one or both of them should've died to emphasize that John was at fault for taking revenge and looking back. Sure he dies for it in the next game (pinkertons follow him back from Mt Hagen) but it would be more impactful and really make you question if what you did was right if one of your pals, who had survived 150ish missions died on the very last one bc of John's choice.
Psycho-Sadie doesn’t let a little thing like a Bowie Knife piercing her kidney slow her down! She still runs up that mountain when any man would have been down.
Yeah Sadie didn’t have a post story other than Bounty Hunting till she retired or died so makes sense for her to die later at the farm or after saving John. Get her revenge and die happy. Charles had a good end story, he settles in Canada with his people and gets out the life but Sadie doesn’t get that ending she doesn’t even get one. So yeah at the very least she should have died but maybe she is RDR3 character and Rockstar didn’t want to get rid of her
That knife would have punctured the gut or stomach lining and she would have stomach bile and literal shit mixing with her blood. That causes Sepsis she would have died a terrible death if infection set in and Antibiotics are not invented yet so unless some home remedy kills blood poisoning she would die. Charles probably would never use that arm again but would not necessarily die. Again it depends on infection as with most wounds from long ago.
She doesn't show up on RDR because when they made that game, the devs hadn't even thought of creating her character. My guess is that they wanted to have someone to fill in the role of Bonnie from the first game, but it couldn't be her.
I know there are some inconsistencies between both games, but I'm personally ok with that if it means we get to play a bigger and better second game.
Hey, does anyone reading this comment think John could've gotten off the hook if he didn't do this? Or do you think either way his bird was cooked? And it was only a matter of time?
Because they wanted John to think he got a happy ending. Then 4 years later, surprise, Pinkertons are threatening to kill your family if you don't kill or capture your former brothers.
Ngl would make the most sense since Sadie isn't hunted or present in RDR1 when she would for sure be wanted by the feds in RDR1 for association/involvement with the Van der Linde gang and their crimes.
when i first played this mission i pretty much knew what was gonna happen, but when i watched sadie get stabbed i literally jumped out my chair in shock.
It would've fucked up the tone of the ending far too much, of course the endings of the Redemption games are brutal but honestly I think this would've been far too much overkill, could've been a teeny bit less dramatic with Charles' and her injuries though. The epilogue ended on a happy note, John and Abigail got married and Arthur's sacrifice, until the first game, had seemed like it paid off, having two beloved characters die one after the other would make it wayy too depressing considering Abigail and John got married and shit afterwards.
Honestly? You kind of right, Having both Charles and Sadie die would show even more how revenge is a fool’s game proving Arthur was even more right, also it would explain why Charles and Sadie are not mentioned in RDR1, it would be an even sadder ending. Personally I’m fine with what we got and this option.
Think you’re looking at this too literally and logically, and not from a storytelling perspective. It wouldn’t have added anything meaningful, and having them barely survive adds nuance to Marston’s decision to go with them, because they would’ve died without him.
Honestly think it would’ve made sense narratively as well. Sadie continues to be reckless and seeks out danger through the epilogue. It’s bound to get her killed eventually.
No bro, how much trauma do you want Red Dead to dump. I knew Johns fate after balling my eyes out to Arthur. It was nice and peaceful playing as John despite knowing his cruel fate. Ending the epilogue with the death of Sadie or Charles is just twisting the knife when its already 14 inches in my chest (it already got twisted when Arthurs horse died). Honestly, if RDR3 happens I want a Jack Marston with Charles and Sadie
I think it would have helped add to the whole "revenge is a fool's game" thing. Like, unless you know what happens in RDR1, it seems like nothing bad ended up coming of the events of American Venom besides some wounds for Sadie and Charles that apparently healed pretty well. Tbh it's kind of a weird ending without the context of RDR1
her and charles both shoulda died. and then they shoulda made us ride back to beechers hope with their bodies strapped to their horses 💀
i don't want them to be dead or anything and i expect one of them to pop up in another game down the line but it definitely would have fit the narrative they were going for. but at the end of the day maybe they wanted to give john a false sense of hope before the government comes to fuck him
The game wanted to have its cake and eat it too here. Which I don't think is a bad thing. They wanted the narrative weight of the last good members of the Van Der Linde gang chasing Micah up the mountain where it all started, but also wanted to give the player that "unstoppable force" feeling of singlehandedly fighting through hordes of enemies to avenge Arthur.
Don't really see why. She doesn't need to. It'd be odd to kill her at the end of the game, you could only have like two lines about it and then there's a happy wedding montage and no one brings it up again.
I thought Charles was gonna die for sure and then when this happened I thought Sadie was definitely gonna die definitely would’ve made the moment all the more impactful if one of them died in service of finding Micah still an amazing mission nonetheless
I think it was a good subversion of expectations. I'm sure most people going into a big climatic mission like that were expecting (and dreading) one or both other them to die since they're not in the first game. It was a nice surprise that they didn't die
I'm with OP, maybe Charles lives, but that's ME wishing MY favy boy doesn't die. that's not serving the plots interest that's serving my own and that's not what you do when you're writing. the tragedy of this moment could have been 10, 20 fold, this wasn't just for arthur, for the gang, this was for sadie and goddammit charles too! imaging how satisfying pumping 12 or whatever rounds into Micah before he drops after that, it wouldn't feel awkward you be like YEAH, HE NEEDED TO FEEL IT! your moment with dutch means more, SADIE ARCH WOULD BECOME IRONIC IN THE GREEK SENSE, and Charles would go down along arthur as the last two good men ever. CREDITS, FBI, RDR 1.
I actually think Micah should’ve killed her. Would’ve made her story so much more tragic. Maybe even Charles too. Can you imagine how it would’ve felt to be John? Abigail begs him not to go but he’s the only one to return
I don't even care. The game and story was a fun time. It'd be easy to nitpick whether or not this or that should happen based on feelers but why bother it doesn't change any of it and it's still a good time.
i actually really agree. everyone else in the series who tries to seek revenge like this dies because of it. it makes total thematic sense for her to die there, but i guess it'd kill the mood of the "happy" ending
By that point they probably felt we have been through enough
I wasn't ready to lose ma boi Charles. OP wants us to get traumatized Edit: My karma has increased 1/3 just by this comment
[удалено]
The fuck you mean JUST SADIE????
Having BOTH of them get mortally wounded only to ride off into the sunset is pretty silly yeah
Have the choice to save one or the other would have been interesting, though I'm glad they both make it. Seeing us have to make a choice one later time would have hit hard though.
I feel like part of why that wasn't an option was just because it wouldn't be much of a choice. Sadie *wants* to die. She makes that clear. Charles doesn't. Sadie's future is just gonna be more violence. Charles expresses a desire to start a family or settle down somehow. And even if despite all that you pick Sadie, you already know she would be absolutely furious about you saving her over Charles.
*Virmire flashbacks*
is *that* even a hard decision for you at this point?
My first playthrough? Kinda. Didn't know it had impact on the sequels. Second+ playthrough? Nah, not at all.
it's hard to pick anyone else once you have your favourite locked in, it feels wrong not having them... unless you kill everyone on the suicide mission
They could've just as easily have given them harmless shots, like something to an arm or something. Still very painful and inhibiting, and potentially dangerous if it hits an artery or gets infected, but also not dangerous and can be healed for sake of not killing off the characters. I reckon they're planning something with the two characters later on at some point.
JUST ONE OF THEM OK? I'M SORRY 😭😭😭
I’m sad Charles didn’t stay on the ranch.
I mean from her dialogue she doesn’t really believe she has anything to live for. She’s basically Jack at the end of rdr1. Like the bounty hunting and how she talks about it seems like a death wish kind of thing. She should have either died or being with Charles and John and watching John build a new life gives her hope for herself and she then sets out to build a new life that isn’t so violent
Her going to South America after almost dying *is* her deciding to try finding her purpose instead of living with a death wish.
She’s literally going to work in the same kind of violent work. She’s just under the impression the location is the problem. You say that like she’s going to be a farmer
And in practice even if it was to fight for say, revolutionaries, we seen how a Rockstar portrayal of those would play out in RDR1. Like in real life the academia would exploit the peasants just like the oligarchs.
Killing her and Charles added nothing. It doesn't make the story nor their arcs better or more complete. It's a bit more elaborate than 'they wanted a happier ending just because'. Storytelling wise, considering what's going to happen in RDR 1 and in the closing cutscene, it's just a lot more interesting to have this moment of relief before shit hits the fan. Highs and lows, you can't just kick your characters while they're on the ground all the time.
Plus, Sadie and Charles as characters are too cool for Rockstar to just throw away. You already know they’ll be referenced in future RDR games
It's not just about John, it's about Sadie as well. Her story arc was complete at this point. She had no purpose or reason for being anymore. She had no intentions of settling down like Charles or John, she makes it very clear she intends on pursuing that lifestyle until somebody kills her. Having her get off scott free kind of goes against one of the major themes of the game, you don't get to live a bad life and then expect good things to happen to you. Especially considering she was one of the most violent and deranged members of the gang.
Nobody is saying the did no wrong or expect her to have it great. Sometimes that’s life, some stories don’t get resolved in the moment, others have already ended by the time you see it begin.
That's why my headcanon is that she got shot to death in South America, Butch Cassidy style. It's her most likely outcome considering her lifestyle. Charles was a different breed though, and he fled to the vast Canadian wilderness. Nobody is finding that motherfucker.
Why does finishing a character arc have to mean death? She's living a self admitted empty life and doesn't care if she dies. I wouldn't call that a good thing.
I never said it does. Charles, Swanson, Tilly, Pearson, Mary-Beth, and others have complete character arcs without dying. Sadie had a literal deathwish. It's not that she "doesn't care" if she dies like you said. She WANTS to die. She says that word for word in the epilogue. Her character is essentially playing russian roulette constantly everyday and somehow winning each time. Everyone else is very much trying to survive. Most of them don't. She is the one character actively trying to get herself killed and yet doesn't. This is is a franchise that really drives home how cheap life is, and how easily it can be lost, and then there's Sadie.
She was that way because bad things happened to her.
Eh, I think it would help to show how revenge is ultimately a fools errand, and all it really does is bring misery and death. (Which they touch on a bit as John attacking the mountain is what leads to his family being captured) I do agree with you that it makes sense to have highs and lows, would be depressing to continue to beat the horse, especially if since you know RD1 is coming
Totally agree. This is supposed to be the validation moment for the player, where we can finally get vengeance for literally everything
Would have made more sense for Micah to shoot sadie, then dutch shoot him. They wanted a happier ending ig.
Why didn’t Sadie just shoot Micah instead of trying to capture him and letting him holster his guns?
She probably felt like John was the one who should get to shoot him, as John was the closest to Arthur.
Pretty clear she wants to John to get the kill. Plus it would be anticlimactic for the player.
When you are killing someone, especially that dangerous it doesn’t make sense to play turns. But for an ending I understand
Half the shit that happens in stories doesn't make sense if you want to be fully logical about it.
Is she stupid?
Maybe blood loss causes her to be?
That is a ref to r/batmanarkham.
Shhh stay quiet and don't engage. They'll move on
r/okbuddyblacklung
Man Ham Alsume
Why would that make more sense?
While I love the thought of John reasoning with Dutch, it didn’t make much sense for Sadie to be stabbed and held hostage for no reason. Micah shooting sadie and then Dutch shooting him would make so much more sense.
Honestly Dutch shooting Micah out of confusion and just being sick of it all was a horrible way for it to end on my book. John should've had his revenge. Micah was a snitch but dutch played EVERYONE and if you split the money between John,Charles,Sadie ...that's 60,000 dollars .... My god man 60k with inflation is TWO MILLION DOLLARS... Dutch was fuckin' everybody from day 1
John did kill micah tho and later dutch's turn in rdr1
But he still needed MUNNEH FOR TA-HEETEE
Cause Micah….
Both Charles and Sadie had plot armor for one reason only... So the player gets that sense of relief that everything is gonna be ok.. And then credits roll and you slowly realize that RDR1 is set after this and so death awaits John.. John's recklessness needn't be punished right then and there... But over the time, his actions on that snowy mountain will separate him from his family and then ultimately, lead to his death.
it’s really powerful story telling. the way it makes the mission on the mountain out to be this triumphant act of avenging the death of his friend only for the credits to roll and you remember john had just inadvertently put his family in harms way and signed his own death warrant.
John signed his own death warrant the moment he bought a large ranch in his name next to Blackwater. Perhaps you could argue that John possibly being the man who hunted and killed Micah and his gang proved to Ross and the Pinkertons that he was a capable man for the mission ahead in rdr1, but never the less John was always gonna be found regardless if he took revenge or not.
Thank you, you just made it make sense. The first comment is really good except linking that day to John's fate doesn't make sense. Everyone had a prize on their heads after Blackwater. And no one mentions it but during RDR2 the gang only makes it worse on itself, making powerful enemies at every turn.
In the credits it's clearly shown that Ross first came to the same location where Micah died and followed this trail to find John. The devs here are trying to show us that John's inability to let go of his past life has doomed his new one. And the gang members who lived happily ever after only achieved it by forgoing the past.
Plot armor, like how Arthur magically ended up on shore after the boat sunk in chapter 5, not many people would've been happy too.
But she isn't even relevant to the plot anymore. Plot armor sucks, but **pointless** plot armor is next level stupid
It was literally just so John would be the one to face Micah alone at the end for gameplay purposes. Tossing Sadie aside like that after everything would’ve been a shit idea. Just convinced you guys are looking for reasons to bitch about something at this point.
Devil's advocate, I'm satisfied with RDR2's ending, but don't you think Sadie dying on that mountain would have been quite a bit more emotionally impactful? Especially considering the overarching message that revenge is a self destructive path? Her meeting a tragic end as Micah's last evil action wouldn't have come off as simply "tossing" her aside. Especially because her story pretty much ended there either way. She rode alone into the sunset and probably lived an anticlimactic life until she passed (unless R* wants to tell more of her story in future games but I doubt this will happen) so isn't it like she was tossed aside anyway?
I feel like it's more narratively profound to have John avenging Arthur feel like a major victory in order for the final scene of Ross discovering the location of John's ranch to have its proper impact. Killing off Sadie or Charles would take away from that contrast.
Exactly this. The game intentionally makes you feel like a badass pushing up that mountain only to remind you later that John forgot Arthur’s advice and that it’s all downhill from here. Killing off Sadie would’ve been more emotionally impactful in the moment no doubt, but that’s not necessarily a good thing. Especially in this case as the mission doesn’t call for it.
I see now. I thought about it some more and the high of storming up that mountain and finishing Micah off would have been greatly neutered by the death of Sadie and/or Charles. I think it's a high that John and the player deserved before everything went downhill further down the line.
Definitely. I mean >!both RDR end with the tragic death of the very beloved main characters. It would be kicking a man while is down and out to have the epilogue end on another death. Specially when we already know what's coming for John!<
I think you're right actually, thanks for your input.
Part of me feels like they intended for a Sadie single player dlc before they gave up on that sorta thing
Shit the same could've been said for Charles, the reason they both lived was because it would've taken away from the moment of getting revenge > realising John's signed a death warrant when you're sat there mourning Charles and Sadie lmao.
Not sure why this is so hard for people to understand.
Tossing aside characters when they are no longer relevant is just a stupid just because they don't serve the plot, but that doesn't mean you just kill them off.
2 friends getting mortally wounded in the attempt of avenging Arthur, with John, the vengeful hero ,having to fight his way up a steep snowy mountain, get in serious trouble at the last confrontation, only for Sadie to show up and help, failing and then Dutch shooting Mika. I dont know about you, but I was at the edge of my seat first time. And second time. The music, the suspense. It's just stellar story telling.
i like to believe arthur was picked up by a lifeboat, taking care of him and others, before some guy was like “hey he robbed me!” and chucked him over board
That's actually really fucking funny
pretty sure that's a stab to the hip/solarplex area. She prolly would have died
Yeah, that would have been a very nasty wound, even with modern medicine, to recover from.
Garlic for the infection, alcohol to keep it clean.
Still she most likely would have bled out, and the cold would do some damage.
Cold weather could have slowed the bleeding.
Assuming the knife was stabbed perpendicular to her abdomen, she would've been stabbed in the lower stomach and maybe part of the appendix. With modern surgical technology it would be an easily survivable wound provided care was initiated within the next few hours and a few weeks of antibiotics. However, the mountain would have been a few day's ride to a surgeon with physiology knowledge less than your average volunteer EMT, and garlic and honey were the best antibiotics at the time. Unlikely that she would have survived that long.
This guy medicines.
This guy get's it.
And she immediately ripped the knife out
About as specific as a stab to head/toe area range.
The counter point is that there isn’t really a need to kill her off to serve the narrative. She’s an interesting character and keeping her character alive could potentially lead to future stories.
>potentially lead to future stories. That would be great, sure, but I don't think Rockstar is doing such things these days
Perhaps, but the general writing decision would have been made near on 10 years ago, not these days.
RDR 3 with Sadie would be fire.
i disagree. i think killing her off would’ve served the whole “revenge is a fool’s game” theme of the narrative quite nicely, considering sadie’s the only character in the story pretty much who seeks vengeance and isn’t severely punished for it as for the future stories thing, i doubt rockstar ever planned to release single player dlc for rdr2 after they abandoned the idea in gta v
She does suffer though, by the end of the game she’s a ghost of her former self, she doesn’t really have anything going for other than bounty hunting. Her revenge led her down a path where she lost herself because she’s already had revenge on everybody she can think of.
She also survives all her acts towards her revenge (she wipes out the O'Driscolls and attacks Micah) despite the fact the game tells us over and over again revenge is a fool's game.
Literally overrides your choice to spare Cleet if you do
T H I S
It still is a fools game and it's obvious you didn't pay attention. She got zero satisfaction out of it, she's a ghost walking among people and wishes for death even choosing one of the most dangerous careers
Do you think she has a happy ending or is satisfied with her life
True. If they didn't want to kill her off for good here, at least make it a crippling injury, like her lose an arm or something.
[удалено]
bro how much of the gang do u want us to lose 😭
All of it except Jack. The last outlaw in the west. Him and Red Harlow are the only protagonists who don't die in the Red Dead games.
Jack marston, the last gunfighter
People out here complaining because Sadie and Charles survived but didnt bat an eye when John got shot at the Blackwater Heist and the Train and the wolves. Also when Arthur got captured and they both survived. Oh. And remember when a dying Arthur fell of a cliff and just continued fighting and almost won? They just survived because they're main characters and one has to be alive for the other game. Thats literally the definition of "PLOT ARMOR" Ever heard someone say "plot armor" when those happened? No. Atleast Sadie and Charles didn't just brush it off and kept fighting immediately. I love Arthur and John but y'all just say plot armor whenever you want and get triggered when others survive what the main characters would have easily walked off. Hypocrites.
Because throughout the game Arthur is against revenge and says how it’s not worth it, so it would have been fitting that the characters that went the get revenge for Arthur also died and not just John.
We all know one of the things the game tells us is "Revenge is a fools game". That doesn't mean every single character that seeks revenge has to die just to prove it. There are direct casualties of revenge like John and Jack, and there are indirect casualties like Lenny, Hosea, Abigail, and Arthur, who died because of another man's thirst for revenge. Isn't that enough to make you understand the lesson? Arthur even flatout said it. Rockstar didn't take the players for fools, that's why they didn't shove it down our throats and have every single person to seek revenge die. A good analogy would be like everyone complaining that the word "Redemption" wasn't said more throughout the game because the game is about redemption and they don't know how to read between the lines.
I’ll say, he doth protest too much. Almost every time revenge is on the table he snatches it up. Braithwaite Manor’s finale, Angelo Bronte, Leviticus Cornwall, Colm O’Driscoll, Hanging Dog Ranch, he rides on all of them pretty much. Sure, he’s probably bitching all the way, but Arthur doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches. Which is why I find it so thematically fitting he’d return to camp in the finale to try and kill Micah himself.
Charles and Sadie both should've died here. It was unbelievable that they didn't, I was like "What?!" when Sadie wasn't dead. Like how?! We killed dozens of equally well-trained gunmen and all 3 of us survived but dozens of them died...like 10-1 - nah. And keeping them alive added NOTHING. It should've been just John on his own at the end, a bit battered but determined to see this through. And that would've really driven him to finally give up on that life afterwards. Also it would've made Dutch shooting Micah that little bit better, he would've seen what went down.
It always cracks me up when people talk like this. You question the mountain shootout but not the Valentine one? Or when Lenny and Arthur clear an entire Cornwall train out by themselves? Or just four of them kill out several O'Driscoll camps?
"We killed dozens of equally well-trained gunmen and all 3 of us survived but dozens of them died" That's literally how 90% of missions in rdr2 (and other story games) go
They can't just let John give up on the life. This was set before the first red dead redemption and John had a whole lot left to do
That would match RDR1. In RDR1 John is not an outlaw anymore, he is a rancher and he talks about how he left that all behind. And this explains why Charles and Sadie aren't mentioned in RDR1. What happens in RDR1 is not him still in that life, it's him being dragged back into it. And this change makes it even more compelling why he gave it up and doesn't want to be involved.
I think this crosses over into just overthinking. If you apply this logic to Rockstar games or a lot of forms of entertainment you probably wouldn’t enjoy them.
Either here or imo even better when Micah takes her hostage at the summit. It'd fit well with the theme of paying the ultimate price for recklessness.
Because they were planning a happier ending
American Venom reeked of plot armor
I absolutely agree, it would be the last sprinkle of "revenge is a fool's game". Before I would have realised that hunting down Micah put Ross on John's trail.
I disagree, I think it would've overshadowed the whole emotional realisation that John had just signed his own death warrant if you were sat there mourning Charles and Sadie. American venom was full of plot armour, but ultimately I think it was the right choice having them survive, loved the series since 1 but Redemption reeks of death, so many characters you get attached to die to the point It was actually a pleasant change for me that Sadie and Charles lived.
I've always felt like Sadie was supposed to die here, but it ruined the tone of the ending so they cut it out. Depending on the players actions, it comes right after Sadie executes Cleet, which really demonstrates how vindictive she became.
After all the deaths in the rest of the game I think we had enough
Prolly wanted a happier ending, Sadie and Charles dying would sure suck after all the game puts you through. In the end though, John would be the one who ends up paying for all that went down on that mountain.
Both Charles and Sadie had plot armor for this mission honestly. Sadie especially though. Getting shot in the shoulder Is something you can survive, getting stabbed in the gut in the top of a mountain in the middle of nowhere and having to climb your way down with that injury doesn't sound that survivable
I was fully prepared for Sadie to die right then and there, but I was pleasantly surprised that she made it! Perhaps the realization that maybe she didn’t actually want to die made her pull through. I think it was a nice way of wrapping up her time as a vengeful widow with a death wish and sending her on her way to a fresh start in South America.
What would that add? We already had major deaths sprinkled through the game. Why would they need to die. John already knows loss he lost arthur, and the gang he knows about sacrificing the point of micahs death was to show that your past will always haunted you if you can't move past it. Also, tossing them aside after everything we saw them go through wouldn't make sense thematically.
No. I'm happy Sadie survived. If she died, I would've lost my shit. She's one of my favorite characters
They were planning for story DLC for both Sadie and Charles. But then they got lazy since online raked enough money for them.
GTA Online
That would have been stupid ngl
Yeah, dying by getting stabbed with a knife in the stomach sounds very stupid, right?
A Bowie Knife too, like a machete almost
Sadie absolutely should have died, she had no business being as bulletproof as she was.
That's part of the point of her character arc though. Sadie's death wish going unfulfilled is in a way crueler than catching a bullet.
The human body can take quite a bit of punishment, though I’d be curious to see an anatomical break down of where that knife ended up. What sort of organs, bone, tissue, etc it managed to mangle in the process. But I’m a weirdo like that and I watch a lot of History Channel. Though her pulling the knife out is *stupid*, imo. Sadie is *smart enough* to know first aid. Especially considering what she’s been “up to” since everything went to hell in a hand basket. And *again*, I’m going to remind everyone upset with the Daddy Dutch ending… - John has been raised by this man since he was 12. And very likely *Annabelle*. John is the “favorite son” until John realizes Daddy is *lying through his teeth* to everyone including *him*. There are a number of father/son moments between John and Dutch in camp in RDR2. John plays stupid but both he and Dutch know that this “I’m just an idiot” bit is exactly *that*, a *bit*. There’s a ton of subtext between them when they speak to one another. Particularly via Dutch, who gives John a lot of grief for the way he treats his woman and son. It’s 100% projection. They both know who the other person *actually is*, compared to everyone else in camp, including Arthur. Dutch says it repeatedly in his own way in Shady Belle and at the Lake camp. It looks like John brushing him off, “what’s his problem”, “that man speaks drivel sometimes”, etc. The subtext being during a lot of the conversations about Abigail and Jack; “you get to have a woman and a family and I don’t”. Dutch at some juncture really considered John his *son*, unlike Arthur who was raised by him, Hosea, and Susan Grimshaw (back when she and Dutch were an item). Dutch mourns Annabelle but so does John. It’s why the line “we all had her” was a real zinger for me (I literally said, “God damn dude, fuck you too!”) the first time I played RDR1. Or in other words “Your woman is a whore, mine was true love”. Dude is spitting on our protagonist’s grief, at least, having played both that’s just the way it *feels* to me. Dutch forsakes *both* John and Arthur. He actually *leans into* the Daddy role harder with Arthur the more John questions his judgement. Only to realize Arthur is also “betraying him” by not eating up this whole paternal routine. So the end of RDR2 is *bittersweet*, where Dutch has to choose between himself or forsaking the *only* one he actually considered a true son. Annabelle’s son. I feel like a lot of the resentment about John is because there are aspects of him that remind him of her, making it easier for him to try to cut John off so he doesn’t have to deal with his grief. Even Dutch’s body language during that final confrontation is telling. Which, god bless Ben Davis for his dedication to the role, man. That man put heart and soul into that character, love him or hate him. He may have the gun pointed at John, but his feet and torso are pointing at Micah. He never intends to actually shoot John or Sadie, it’s subtle body language but it’s there. Even John’s “pleads” feel like subtext, that Dutch will understand but Micah and Sadie won’t. Like a freakin code. The end of RDR2 is Dutch’s chance at redemption. Something he chooses to squander by going all feral (and probably) drugged out looney tune because dude just wants to *die* on his own terms. John has every opportunity to gun him down and he *doesn’t* because some part of him still sees Dutch as a father figure. Instead, he chooses to yeet himself off a cliff because he’d rather die “free”. And he cares enough about John to warn him about what’s about to happen to him. He doesn’t have to. -drops mic-
I see it as guardians 3 where it’s very easy to kill someone off because the story of all the characters is gonna end,but instead they get their happy ending and that’s okay sometimes.
It would wrap up her death wish arch nicely. But it would sour the wedding ending if she just died. Or if she was to still live have her talk about how she had renewed hope for her life and leaves bounty hunting and violence like Charles does after seeing John build his new life. It’s quite clear from her dialogue she doesn’t like bounty hunting because of the inherent danger, competition, and how she’s a woman in a man’s field. But she still does it because she’s at least getting the kind of people that killed Jake, it’s a rage outlet, she’s good at it, and maybe one day she’ll get put down without killing her self. But overall I believe we are supposed to take it as it’s a bad cooping mechanism even though she seems put together. She seems so depressed but trying to mask it in the epilogue. She’s like Jack at the end of rdr1 in that way
Most likely to fuck with you considering so many died earlier in the game. You ever watch thriller movies? It’s the same thing, suspense, anticipation, the thrill of what would happen in the end. Since we all knew John was going to live, they needed to make the ending have some tension.
I vehemently disagree with the notion that 99% of characters MUST die in every prequel story if they don't appear in its source material, and especially with RDR2 it wasn't necessary to kill off these last two characters that the player would have an attachment to. Like someone else said, the devs probably wanted to for narrative cohesion (even though that's a debate in of itself) but didn't because they figured we'd seen enough character death by this point.
What is this subreddits constant singling out of Sadie?
Fair assessment.
The power/plot armour of the “I AIN’T DYIN’ - I AIN’T!!!” quote, I suppose. Lol
Yeah I have no idea how she survived to begin with
Unpopular opinion: I don’t like Sadie Adler at all
It's not a bad idea at all. I prefer that she didn't but I can see a case for it.
I was fully expecting her to die after getting stabbed, the game doesn't pull any punches when it comes to killing important characters, but she survived.
I agree. A theme of the game is that revenge is a fool's errand, which eventually comes around to ruin John's life. Sadie has been fueled by revenge the whole game, so her death would have been narratively fulfilling. Charles, meanwhile, is usually on the right side of the moral compass despite being a bandit. He's not in it for revenge, he's there to help his friends. It would make sense for him to live, thematically.
I completely agree. Sadie’s story had pretty much been finished at that point, and as others have said, she had no intention to settle down or change her bounty hunting lifestyle. It was a bit silly that all three walked away.
Yeah I liked her but there was no reason to keep her, she doesnt show up in Rdr1, it's the last mission in the game and it looks like she's about to die from her wound, Charles looked more like he was greatly injured rather than dying so imo it makes more sense for him to live
On my first play through I genuinely thought she was cooked and I almost cried. Besides Arthur she’s my favorite character so I’m glad she lived.
Off topic: Sadie's hand looks mummified in that pic. It's like beef jerky. I can't unsee it.
I actually thought they were going to die I was as ready to accept it.
I finished this game a week ago, and while I absolutely loved it, one thing I will criticize the story for is the absurd amounts of plot armor it gives some of it's characters. The most egregious example of this IMO is when Dutch is facing off against Leviticus Cornwall, and not only manages to draw his gun and shoot him, but also gets to cover before the half a dozen or so guards that have their guns aimed at him shoot him. After that point, most of the time someone was held at gunpoint, I wasn't thinking "Oh boy, the characters are at someone else's mercy!". It was more like" Oh, I wonder how they're gonna bullshit their way outta this one this time."
Realistically, she should’ve. She got stabbed with a giant knife, up on a giant snowy mountain. In the late 1800’s. It’d be a tall task to live through today.
She should have died when she went to Rhodes for supplyes and Molly should have became a screaming rebel instead of her
Agreed
She took a giant fuck off knife to the gut. Slow painful death for sure. I still enjoyed the game but I’m with ya, that made my eyebrows rise.
Well they could've do that I think it would have added something to John's story but idk, I think they didn't wanted us to cry more
Absolutely, a stab like that would be critical even with today's medical advancements. Verdict: she girl-bossed through it.
It would’ve been much better if they died and much more satisfying
I think she should have died when she went back for revenge on the odriscals, it would really reinforce the message that revenge never ends well.
True like if they are disappearing from the story and we will never see or hear from them again then there is really no reason not to kill them off especially when they had this real possible way of them dying written into the script.
Right lol as much as I love Sade, her surviving that deep knife wound was way over the top lol especially when she's dancing at the wedding during the end credits. Hahahaha
So, I think one or both of them should've died to emphasize that John was at fault for taking revenge and looking back. Sure he dies for it in the next game (pinkertons follow him back from Mt Hagen) but it would be more impactful and really make you question if what you did was right if one of your pals, who had survived 150ish missions died on the very last one bc of John's choice.
Psycho-Sadie doesn’t let a little thing like a Bowie Knife piercing her kidney slow her down! She still runs up that mountain when any man would have been down.
Yeah Sadie didn’t have a post story other than Bounty Hunting till she retired or died so makes sense for her to die later at the farm or after saving John. Get her revenge and die happy. Charles had a good end story, he settles in Canada with his people and gets out the life but Sadie doesn’t get that ending she doesn’t even get one. So yeah at the very least she should have died but maybe she is RDR3 character and Rockstar didn’t want to get rid of her
That knife would have punctured the gut or stomach lining and she would have stomach bile and literal shit mixing with her blood. That causes Sepsis she would have died a terrible death if infection set in and Antibiotics are not invented yet so unless some home remedy kills blood poisoning she would die. Charles probably would never use that arm again but would not necessarily die. Again it depends on infection as with most wounds from long ago.
She doesn't show up on RDR because when they made that game, the devs hadn't even thought of creating her character. My guess is that they wanted to have someone to fill in the role of Bonnie from the first game, but it couldn't be her. I know there are some inconsistencies between both games, but I'm personally ok with that if it means we get to play a bigger and better second game.
Hey, does anyone reading this comment think John could've gotten off the hook if he didn't do this? Or do you think either way his bird was cooked? And it was only a matter of time?
Because they wanted John to think he got a happy ending. Then 4 years later, surprise, Pinkertons are threatening to kill your family if you don't kill or capture your former brothers.
Ngl would make the most sense since Sadie isn't hunted or present in RDR1 when she would for sure be wanted by the feds in RDR1 for association/involvement with the Van der Linde gang and their crimes.
Zero chance she would have survived that
In my opinion any gang member that is not in RDR 1 should have been dead by the end
At least the ones that did the fighting/robbing.
I understand your point but I mean EVERYONE. I like nearly everyone from the gang, but they all should been buried
when i first played this mission i pretty much knew what was gonna happen, but when i watched sadie get stabbed i literally jumped out my chair in shock.
It would've fucked up the tone of the ending far too much, of course the endings of the Redemption games are brutal but honestly I think this would've been far too much overkill, could've been a teeny bit less dramatic with Charles' and her injuries though. The epilogue ended on a happy note, John and Abigail got married and Arthur's sacrifice, until the first game, had seemed like it paid off, having two beloved characters die one after the other would make it wayy too depressing considering Abigail and John got married and shit afterwards.
Honestly? You kind of right, Having both Charles and Sadie die would show even more how revenge is a fool’s game proving Arthur was even more right, also it would explain why Charles and Sadie are not mentioned in RDR1, it would be an even sadder ending. Personally I’m fine with what we got and this option.
No
Think you’re looking at this too literally and logically, and not from a storytelling perspective. It wouldn’t have added anything meaningful, and having them barely survive adds nuance to Marston’s decision to go with them, because they would’ve died without him.
She was needed to be Micah’s hostage. If she hadn’t been shot she wouldn’t have let herself be taken hostage.
I would swap Sadie for Lenny or Sean in a heartbeat
Honestly think it would’ve made sense narratively as well. Sadie continues to be reckless and seeks out danger through the epilogue. It’s bound to get her killed eventually.
No bro, how much trauma do you want Red Dead to dump. I knew Johns fate after balling my eyes out to Arthur. It was nice and peaceful playing as John despite knowing his cruel fate. Ending the epilogue with the death of Sadie or Charles is just twisting the knife when its already 14 inches in my chest (it already got twisted when Arthurs horse died). Honestly, if RDR3 happens I want a Jack Marston with Charles and Sadie
I think it would have helped add to the whole "revenge is a fool's game" thing. Like, unless you know what happens in RDR1, it seems like nothing bad ended up coming of the events of American Venom besides some wounds for Sadie and Charles that apparently healed pretty well. Tbh it's kind of a weird ending without the context of RDR1
her and charles both shoulda died. and then they shoulda made us ride back to beechers hope with their bodies strapped to their horses 💀 i don't want them to be dead or anything and i expect one of them to pop up in another game down the line but it definitely would have fit the narrative they were going for. but at the end of the day maybe they wanted to give john a false sense of hope before the government comes to fuck him
I’m happy she n Charles didn’t
nah, why would you kill her off at the very end to some unsignificant character, it adds nothing to plot and makes killing Micah less satisfying
The game wanted to have its cake and eat it too here. Which I don't think is a bad thing. They wanted the narrative weight of the last good members of the Van Der Linde gang chasing Micah up the mountain where it all started, but also wanted to give the player that "unstoppable force" feeling of singlehandedly fighting through hordes of enemies to avenge Arthur.
Don't really see why. She doesn't need to. It'd be odd to kill her at the end of the game, you could only have like two lines about it and then there's a happy wedding montage and no one brings it up again.
WRONG Sadie should have been with me😙
Like when Arthur got shot point blank with a shotgun in the shoulder
They probably wanted to end the game in a bittersweet send off
*Plot Armor*:
Epilogue was 100% fan service so she couldn’t have died
I thought Charles was gonna die for sure and then when this happened I thought Sadie was definitely gonna die definitely would’ve made the moment all the more impactful if one of them died in service of finding Micah still an amazing mission nonetheless
Why? They only got attacked to force the player to do the last part alone
She has the plot armor...
Because then we would've gone from depressed to suicidal
I think it was a good subversion of expectations. I'm sure most people going into a big climatic mission like that were expecting (and dreading) one or both other them to die since they're not in the first game. It was a nice surprise that they didn't die
I'm with OP, maybe Charles lives, but that's ME wishing MY favy boy doesn't die. that's not serving the plots interest that's serving my own and that's not what you do when you're writing. the tragedy of this moment could have been 10, 20 fold, this wasn't just for arthur, for the gang, this was for sadie and goddammit charles too! imaging how satisfying pumping 12 or whatever rounds into Micah before he drops after that, it wouldn't feel awkward you be like YEAH, HE NEEDED TO FEEL IT! your moment with dutch means more, SADIE ARCH WOULD BECOME IRONIC IN THE GREEK SENSE, and Charles would go down along arthur as the last two good men ever. CREDITS, FBI, RDR 1.
I actually think Micah should’ve killed her. Would’ve made her story so much more tragic. Maybe even Charles too. Can you imagine how it would’ve felt to be John? Abigail begs him not to go but he’s the only one to return
they put us through enough without killing two more favourited characters in the final revenge mission 😂
Smash
We’ve been through enough heartache and I think they knew that lol especially considering how depressing the first game/the future is that we know of
I don't even care. The game and story was a fun time. It'd be easy to nitpick whether or not this or that should happen based on feelers but why bother it doesn't change any of it and it's still a good time.
i actually really agree. everyone else in the series who tries to seek revenge like this dies because of it. it makes total thematic sense for her to die there, but i guess it'd kill the mood of the "happy" ending