Red Dead Redemption/Headscratchers

Super Drowning Skills

 * You'd think after doing it decently for three other games, Rockstar wouldn't have gone back to using Super Drowning Skills.
 * Without them, getting to Mexico would probably not have been that much of a challenge. But it makes you wonder why they just could not have used the old method of making you target numero uno of the Mexican army and enforcement the moment you cross the border, instead of having an badass expert survivor like John die from getting a wet throat.
 * They could've simply had nothing for you to even do there. No mini games or shops available or anything...
 * Or a compromise: John can swim in the game, but the current is too strong to swim through (notice how the raft was swept away) and thus makes him drown.
 * They could have at least made death by drowning more interesting than an instant death screen. Some futile flailing in the water would have been funny.
 * Or at least given us a short timer. Just because John can't swim doesn't mean he's made of cotton candy. They could have let us flounder for a few seconds with a little bit of control. This would give us the option of recovering from accidentally falling into water without risking breaking the game.
 * I found the constant drowning incredibly annoying, but from an historical perspective it makes sense. I wouldn't expect a bandit who has grown up in the desert to be able to swim. Few people in general knew how to swim back then.
 * I also factored in two other things: 1. John is carrying around quite a few weapons, that and all the equipment he's carrying around (basic bits and pieces for setting up a tent, etc) would make him sink like a stone if he fell into deep water, and even if John could swim, he probably couldn't go against the current of the fast flowing river which would throw him around like a ragdoll. So they decided to just make you die instantly instead of making you go through the long process of watching John get dragged down the river, torn up by jagged rocks, and eventually dieing.
 * This still floats into Fridge Logic territory when it is specifically mentioned in the game that the final heist John had with Dutch's gang before he left it was on a boat. John had to leap off of said boat and swim to shore to survive as the authorities had ambushed him and shot him. This means that John can probably stay afloat for a short while but isn't a very good swimmer. Besides the majority of the water in the game is composed of rivers with strong currents, in real life it would be extremely difficult to swim against currents like that.
 * This troper assumed that it was because the water was made to look a lot more realistic in this game. Look at the river and compare it to GTA IV: it's a lot more realistic with waves and splashes. This added realism meant sacrificing swimming.
 * A bit of Fridge Brilliance here. People back in 1911/1914 didn't know how to swim that much, if at all. If they got into deep water, they would either sink or flail around until their arms got tired and they sink. I'm assuming you guys actually got into a situation where Marston landed squarely in deep water, because I usually just wade across shallow parts of the water, only getting out when it gets to my waist. Lesson learnt. Be cautious around water, then resume hetic, mad dashing ride.
 * People back in 1911/1914 didn't know how to swim that much, if at all. Where are you getting this information? It's not like we invented swimming 50 years ago, it was depicted in cave paintings for god's sake.
 * I think that troper meant folks that do not live near water. Yes, if you live near the water, you're gonna have some knowlege of swimming (i.e., dogpaddling to keep afloat), but if you spent your life having never had contact with a body of water larger than a puddle (and there are folks who live in this environment), then it's gonna be just a little bit more difficult. I mean, there were stories of men sinking like lead once they entered the ocean when their ship was sinking. Clearly they didn't live near a body of water.
 * A lot people assume this was neccessary for Game Play's sake. Under NO condition it was. Just adding some instant-kill animals (with automatical re-spawn if killed) on the frontiers water would've been enough. It's quite amaizing they didn't think about it, since the Border Patrol strategy is very well-known.
 * Piranhas, Cocodriles or Stingrays would've been nice. They are a little bit out of place in the Mexico-U.S.A borders, but they still make more sense than Super Drowning Skills, and would've allowed to swim in other palces.
 * Alligators have been sighted as far west as Texas and as far north as Arkansas. Depending on where RDR takes place it's not totally inconceivable that gators might have infested the local waters.
 * Or just adding a strong current instead of Animals. It would have still killed you on the frontiers, but would've allowed you to swim on other places.

Herbert Moon

 * Okay, what's the deal with Herbert Moon? I can't go to Armadillo without him crying, "Help! Help! It's Herbert Moooooonn!!!" and when I approach him he introduces himself then explains he's been robbed. Once is okay. Twice is so-so, but you'd think that after the tenth time Herbet runs up to me screaming for help before going on his "I'm Herbert Moon and I've just been robbed!" thing that he'd (a) Realize that we already know who he is and (b) find some way to not be robbed so dang easily. I'm tempted to just ignore him now. Even worst, if you killed him, he just respawns. Is he like The Adoring Fan from Oblivion or something?
 * Same reason you find random people getting chased by wolves or people willing to bet their money on a shooting contest: It's simply a random encounter and it was programmed for him to introduce himself that way every time. Also, if he, along with any other shop NPC, didn't respawn, that makes some items Lost Forever
 * This troper once foiled a robbery attempt for Mr. Moon and delivered the defeated despoiler for some face-kicking justice. After that, I immediately walked to the saloon to play poker, and who should be sitting there but...Herbert Moon! Clearly, he has cloning tech, which makes his last name a bit of fridge brilliance for fans of Sam Rockwell.
 * Alright, explanations. First, he's constantly mentioning his name is Herbert Moon because he is a fucking megalomaniac. Hear to him talk. He's only talking about Jews and himself. Second, he plays poker at the same time because he there is a separate NPC playing poker for every shopkeeper.
 * Also, he's probably constantly being robbed because noone likes the bastard.

Animals And Hunting

 * Since when do cougars hunt in packs?
 * I've only seen solo cougars myself, though I hear they hunt in packs in the multiplayer free roam, which I think is just a balancing thing.
 * They do hunt in packs in single player, but only rarely and the most I've ever seen together is two with a third joining in purely by chance.
 * Behold! The cougar apocalypse!
 * They sometimes seem to come in twos; do cougars pair bond? Sometimes they spawn in the same area as a wolf pack, and then you're well and truly screwed.
 * I've seen cougars team up with wolves in the game.
 * This is true, I myself was trying to get the Master Hunter rank where you kill 5 wolves with your knife and after I kill all 5 of them a damn cougar comes out of no where and attacks me and when I try to escape on my horse it kills my horse and mauls me to death. Cougars are the Goddamned Bats AND Demonic Spiders of this game, good God man!
 * Cougars are nasty. They sometimes roam in pairs, and every now and then the third will spawn while you are busy skinning the first two. There is a glitch in the game that spawns infinite cougars at one point (I believe it is on multiplayer).
 * That's no glitch. Like the other legendary animals, the Tanner's Reach hunting ground keeps spawning cougars until you've killed enough for the jaguar to appear.
 * Why must my previous weapon be swapped to the knife every time I skin something? I realize he uses the knife for a second, but it shouldn't require you to keep the knife as the selected weapon. There have been so many times when I've gotten done skinning something, go do something else and get attacked by animals or bandits, and I take out my knife instead of my gun and get killed before I realize what's going on. On that note, why didn't they make the weapon radial button pause the game? You can change your weapon immediately from the pause menu anyway. I guarantee "quick change" would be a lot quicker if I didn't have to worry about getting mauled by a bear while I switch to my buffalo rifle.
 * Why can't you get meat from the birds? I mean, you get meat from other animals that I wouldn't expect people to eat, but you don't even get it from chickens? All you get is feathers, which I'd think they would shed naturally anyway. Speaking of feathers, why do you only get a few from each bird?
 * Maybe the birds have been blasted to bits and that's all you can pick up.
 * I assumed it was the prevalent "eh there's a lot of critters out here" attitude that nearly killed off the buffalo and you only took the best feathers from the bird. And although I don't hunt the above idea seems pretty accurate to me. I
 * After speaking to a friend who is an avid hunter, in order to hunt small game like birds you would need to use something like birdshot or .22 caliber bullets, neither of which have very much stopping power against human beings. It's likely John Marston loads his guns with much more powerful ammo so he isn't at a disadvantage in any of his frequent gunfights. But as a consequence, whenever he tries to hunt birds he ends up blasting them apart so thoroughly that a few feathers are all that's left to find.
 * Why do horses run faster on railroad tracks, as if they were running on a trail? Wouldn't the boards sticking up slow it down or even trip it?
 * Yes, but I call Acceptable Breaks From Reality. In real life you'd have a tough time just convincing a horse to walk across a set of railroad tracks, let alone galloping at full speed between the rails. But even after my first playthrough of this game I couldn't even count the number of times I found myself in the middle of nowhere with nothing around but a bare stretch of railroad tracks. Even if it flew in the face of reality and common sense, I was just glad I didn't have to brute force my way over the hills and through the valleys with the damn horse fighting me every step of the way.

Gatling Stats

 * I took a look at my stats and noticed that my accuracy was in the toilet (about 12%). I couldn't figure out what was going on until I looked at the "Favorite Weapon" stat and saw that it read "Gatling Gun," at which point it made sense. But if they're counting Gatling Gun shots, won't everyone's favorite weapon be the Gatling Gun? It's the only fully automatic weapon in the game, and the lack of reload or cooldown means most people are going to use it less like a rifle and more like a firehose, wasting a dozen shots for every kill they make. It hardly seems a fair assessment of the player's skills.
 * Depends on how much you fire with both the Gatling and other guns, going full auto with the gatling every time its used and not doing too many side quests could mess up your proportions.
 * This troper has 70-80% accuracy with his favourite rifle listed in the stats. Perhaps you're more fond of the gatling gun than you realise.
 * Favorite Weapon, Favorite Rifle, and Favorite Pistol are different stats. It's likely the Favorite Weapon stat wasn't thought out very well, and Favorite Rifle/Favorite Pistol are the only useful ones.
 * If you want to change that, start using the Mauser. It's the only other full-auto weapon in the game, as is waaaaaaay more accurate.
 * Same Problem. Gatling don't overheat in RDR so there is literally no reason to ever stop shooting them. If you're going for had shots mostly and have a high accuracy with you other guns, your total bullet accuracy will be in the 20's.

Misinterpreting The Law
A) someone invents a true artificial intelligence, B) technology progresses to the point where true A Is can be fit onto a game disc, and C) society finds a way to reconcile the ethical issues involved in the creation of sentient A Is (not to mention the sale of sentient A Is, which in many ways could be considered chattel slavery)
 * I wish R* had made it easier for us to tell the difference between law enforcers and bandits. Too many times I've seen two people shooting one that's running away, assume the two are bandits and blast them to oblivion and getting a bounty on my head and minus honor points.
 * Oh man, this has happened to me too. I'll be riding past, see Dude A getting shot by Dudes B & C, kill Dudes B & C only to get shot at by Dudes D through Z because I misunderstood the situation and the cops were right there.
 * Law men have pretty noticeable glints on their chests. Also, lesson learned. Stay out of something until you know exactly what you're doing.
 * Yeah, I tried that. I then got a $5 bounty for some reason and had to spend a few nights in jail.
 * They're also usually dressed a little nicer than bandits. I learned the lesson the same way. Twice, actually, I think.
 * I think the random encounters with two men chasing one man are always two cops chasing one bandit. I have not encountered two bandits chasing one innocent yet.
 * I think it's been a constant throughout R* open-world games that intervening on either side of a lawman/criminal encounter leads to a bounty/wanted level. I know in GTA IV, shooting (or even just punching) a purse snatcher would get you fired on by the cop who had been chasing him.
 * In Vice City you got rewarded for stopping criminals. It was worth $50.
 * I myself have had trouble interpreting who is who. I have passed by bandits attacking civilians on my way and either I will shoot the civilian because they are often literally a few feet away from the bandit, or I will shoot at the red dot only to have another dot pop up after I killed the first bandit who then proceeds to gun down the guy I was trying to save. This clusterfuck only becomes worse at night where visibility is poor.
 * Oh and another thing, it seems that the sheriffs have trouble interpreting the law themselves. They have attacked me for ludicrous occurrences, I have had them chase me for saving a prostitute from being stabbed by a drunk guy because the bullets pierced his body and destroyed property behind him, chase me for accidentally shooting a civilian that I mistook for a bandit, and shooting my gun on a train even though I was shooting wild animals that were running nearby. I don't understand why I don't have the option of explaining my way out of these very justifiable situations, what kind of lawman has a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality?
 * Another thing that I noticed that sheriffs do wrong is that while playing nightwatches, where you are patrolling an area at night for any sign of trouble, if you fail to save the person in trouble but kill the bandits or animals causing the trouble then you won't get the reward. You literally have to save the person AND kill the source of the problem in order to get rewarded for your efforts, despite the fact that I must have saved a bunch of the other town's people from being killed by what I just did. Lame.
 * In response to "What kind of lawman has a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality?" Well, lawmen in the Old West for one. They weren't all noble crusaders for justice. A fair number of them were little more than thugs who got into the lawman gig for the prestige and the power more than the desire to help people.
 * Yeah but this kind of crap happens in even relatively civilized areas such as Armadillo and Blackwater where the lawmen are shown to be relatively well-mannered in the story missions. I mean sure the Wild West was called "Wild" for a reason, but do lawmen have to shoot me for such petty reasons? Did I really do such great harm to the world by shooting out a window or as my bullets exited a rapist/killer and into a signpost that it warrants being shot and chased? (among other examples) I don't care if the civilized thing was an act or facade and the majority of them really did have a shoot first policy, no person should logically shoot me over such bullshit.
 * You're right, they shouldn't shoot you just for accidentally breaking a window while defending an unarmed woman from a knife-wielding maniac or for any of the other examples you listed (except the one about "accidentally" shooting a civilian you confused with a bandit; that one you deserved to go to jail for) and in the real world they wouldn't, but this isn't the real world. Realistically there's a hard limit on how sophisticated any game's AI can be. In the real world lawmen can make judgment calls. But a videogame AI can only simulate human intelligence using basic rule-based responses. To the computer, action A always warrants response B. Programmers can try to get around this limitation by telling the computer to take multiple factors into account or recognize certain exceptions to the rules (so instead of the computer going "if A then B" it goes "if A then B, but if Ax then C, or if Ay then D, etc.") but the programmers can only expand the rules so far before the game becomes prohibitively expensive and/or deadlines start catching up with them. The point is, at this point in time this problem simply cannot be solved. Videogame AI bugs will continue to plague us unless and until:
 * (Original poster) Actually the part where I said I accidentally killed a civilian is true, I saw a scuffle between who I thought was fleeing civilian and someone who was chasing him. They both had similar clothing so I assumed the one chasing was the bad guy and I suffered a karma loss and then the guy who was being chased started shooting at me. This took place at night so I had to make a split second decision whether to shoot this guy or not, I thought I was doing the right thing and it just so happened that two sheriffs came by on horseback and tried to kill me. In an ideal world I would be able to enter dialogue with these two lawmen and tell them what happened, but as you said AI isn't that complicated yet in games that it can both react realistically in combat and moral situations with 100% accuracy. Maybe someday things will get better.

Horse Control 101

 * Why does my horse insist on running pass me when I whistle for it? I'm forced to go chasing after it and often when I get onto it, I'm colliding into people. Do I just suck at horseback riding or what?
 * Ideally, you're supposed to be running to where you want to go while calling your horse, and when it runs past you, you get on it real quick. Unfortunately that is rather luck based, and your horse doesn't seem to realize you didn't get on at times...
 * Hardly luck based. Your horse will almost always pass you close enough for the 'enter' action command to appear. Mash 'enter' after whistling and you'll never miss it.
 * In general, the game seems to break around horses a lot. Motion capturing a four legged thing is evidently no small task. Breaking a horse with any obstacle nearby frequently results in the horse bouncing around like a superball.
 * In my experience, the horse will always approach you from a speed and direction that ensures you can just press [Y] to hop on, without moving at all. Calling a horse and then changing your position/direction results in the horse trying to find another suitable approach. (Horse Science. It works, bitches.)
 * A better question might be why does that frikkin-frakkin horse walk away from me whenever I leave him alone for two seconds? I can't even count the number of times I've been hogtying a bounty on the ground, get up to put him on my horse, and then discover that my "trusty steed" has wandered a good quarter mile away from me. And when I try to catch up to him and sling my prisoner over his back he inexplicably insists on walking away from me again.
 * I'm going to guess that you've never been around a horse before, because thats exactly what one would do. A horse is not a vehicle, its an animal.
 * Which would be relevant if we were dealing with a real live animal, but we're not. There is a reason we have a trope called Acceptable Breaks From Reality. There was no reason for Rockstar to simulate the behavior of a real horse this closely except to purposely annoy the player.
 * Well, immersion, for one. If the horse behaves more realistically, it sucks you into the world even more. There's value in that beyond annoying the player.
 * No. No there isn't. Having to spend five minutes trying to put a bounty on a horse because it keeps walking away from me is not fun. It's not immersive. It's fucking irritating. If Rockstar were going for immersion they would have allowed players to hold the horse still with one hand as they put the bounty on the horse.
 * Whistle. Problem solved.
 * Whistle makes it come back. It doesn't make it sit still.
 * Whistle right before you need to go somewhere then? Whistle more often? Whistle right before you pick the guy up? Move? Geez man, use your imagination. In this game, horses aren't automatons.
 * No, this is apparently a game where every horse on Earth is crippled with ADHD. Read carefully. I said the horse Keeps. Walking. Away. when I try to put the bounty on the horse. There is no reason for it to do that in the first place let alone after I've already whistled for it to come back. The horse will not sit still for two seconds. Why is that complaint so difficult for you to grasp?
 * I don't know, maybe you stink really bad. The horse should stop or turn around and move back towards you if you whistle for it once it starts walking away.
 * There's a simple reason for why horses wander away. R* is helping clear the area during gunfights. That way, your fields of fire are open, and you don't accidentally kill your horse when you are shooting bad guys.
 * The main issue with this is above: even in real life, horses can't teleport, and yet they appear to use Offscreen Teleportation to travel hundreds of yards away from you while you spend twenty seconds skinning a deer. They probably could get the distance they do in the allotted time if they went at a full gallop, but why the hell would a domesticated horse want to do that? Additionally, I think the main reason why bounty-capturing is so hard is that R* failed to put in a feature to bring a victim directly from the ground to a horse or from a horse to the ground. Many's the time I've hogtied a guy, called my horse, picked him up, and seen that my horse has used its Slipspace drive again.
 * I like the fact R* had RDR's horses simulate real life horses so closely. However, a horse in real life would know to not ride past its owner, off a cliff to its doom which has happened to me many, many times and I'd be standing there in one spot.

The Ending (Spoilers)

 * The Ending
 * Gameplay and Story Segregation.
 * I don't think so.
 * John Marston's decision in the end made sense for his character.
 * The fact is that
 * That said, forcing the player to just rankles. It runs counter to the interactive nature of video games, especially if you're not expecting it.
 * On the other hand, you could argue that the scene plays with the concept of an interactive media in clever kind of way. Up until now you've had complete control over the character. By taking control away (and presenting the scene as if you were still playing rather than just having a cutscene), it can allow the player to relate to idea that John feels he has no choice but to make this sacrifice.
 * Come to think of it, it's also John's way of saying that no one, not even us, can manipulate him anymore. This is his own decision. The game (and to some extent, John) knows that we could easily get him out of this situation, but not this time. John's mind is made up. He must do this and we must watch.
 * That said, forcing the player to just rankles. It runs counter to the interactive nature of video games, especially if you're not expecting it.
 * On the other hand, you could argue that the scene plays with the concept of an interactive media in clever kind of way. Up until now you've had complete control over the character. By taking control away (and presenting the scene as if you were still playing rather than just having a cutscene), it can allow the player to relate to idea that John feels he has no choice but to make this sacrifice.
 * Come to think of it, it's also John's way of saying that no one, not even us, can manipulate him anymore. This is his own decision. The game (and to some extent, John) knows that we could easily get him out of this situation, but not this time. John's mind is made up. He must do this and we must watch.

The Epilogue (Spoilers)

 * Epilogue Spoilers:
 * Actually, it's heavily implied that was the one who trained . Several of 's lines in the epilogue (including "Eat your heart out, !") suggest that he got training from the legendary gunslinger.
 * I'll bite. For one,
 * You also have to realize that change comes gradually. The game area was one of the last areas of the U.S. to be settled.
 * Actually, it's heavily implied that was the one who trained . Several of 's lines in the epilogue (including "Eat your heart out, !") suggest that he got training from the legendary gunslinger.
 * I'll bite. For one,
 * You also have to realize that change comes gradually. The game area was one of the last areas of the U.S. to be settled.
 * You also have to realize that change comes gradually. The game area was one of the last areas of the U.S. to be settled.

Surrendering

 * Why the hell is it so damn hard to surrender? I stand there with my weapon holstered, and they just stand there a mile away shooting at me.
 * Chalk it up to the code of the west. You cause some atrocities, they're shooting first and asking questions later.
 * I hit a window and had a 1 dollar bounty.
 * Well, you're committing vandalism and in the old west, there wasn't a real sense of law and order like they had back east in the cities. If the lawmen didn't feel like forcing you to surrender (You have to holster your gun and stand within a few feet from them for you to surrender btw), they'll kill you.
 * But that's the thing, I was in Blackwater. My gun was holstered, and I was standing still in the middle of the road so the AI wouldn't even have trouble getting to me. Wish there was just a button for it or they didn't give you the 'option' at all.
 * Maybe because he's known to quickdraw and him standing there with his gun holstered makes them thing he's about to pull a badass move, whip his gun out and shoot everyone in sight. I know I'd kill him as soon as I can, and him standing there gunless means he's about to do something awesome in a way that's unawesome for me.
 * Genre Savvy deputies.
 * Just so you know, in order to surrender you must dismout your horse and equip your fists, it isn't enough that you holster your weapon.

The Illiteracy of John Marston * spoilers*
Unless I'm mistaken, John Marston states several times that he can't read. And yet...the game lets you buy newspapers. What does he use them for?
 * Well, I seem to recall him telling Bonnie at the start of the game that Dutch taught him how to read when he was a boy (After Dutch took him in). It's his, who can't read. You may not have finished the game yet, as there is a scene where
 * I know at least that John calls himself illiterate a few times. But knowing John it could likely just be self depreciation.
 * John reads, he's just not very good at it. Abigail refers to him as "semi-literate", and he can clearly read, even though he self-identifies as illiterate.
 * I don't think John ever calls himself illiterate, but others (like Ross) do, mostly to denigrate him since they seem to assume he's just an idiot hick.
 * (Original Poster) Just beat the game and saw the scene with John and Abigail. However, this scene raises another question. If Abigail Marston can't read, how does she know the letter was from a woman? Did Bonnie Macfarlane scent her letter with perfume or something?
 * Well, Abigail probably thought the letter was from a woman since it's possible that during John's outlaw days, he used to chill with all sorts of women and she probably thought that during his recent adventure, he chilled with more women and one of them decided to write to him thinking he was single. Now, if you'll excuse me I'll start imagining Bonnie spraying perfume all over the letter before mailing it off. XD
 * Abigail specifically says it's "from a Bonnie"--I assumed that who ever delivered the telegram told her who it was from, or her son did or something.
 * Here's what I don't get: Why didn't Jack or John teach Abigail to read? It just makes me somewhat sad that this poor woman couldn't read. :(
 * There is the fact, that most of us don't get because we these days masters it at a very young age, that learning to read take a hell of a lot of effort and time; time that a struggeling frontier family doesn't have and effort that a woman that have lived a full life without reading or writing would consider wasted.

Everybody's Got One Gun and Two Eyes

 * I'm standing on a rooftop in the middle of Blackwater. At the edge of Blackwater (where the big buildings end and the old houses start) is a farmer playing catch with his dog. Naturally, I decide to pull out my sniper rifle and take the dog's life. The dog goes down, the farmer just pauses for a second, and then whips out a Mauser pistol and shoots me in the head. Perfect aim, ground to rooftop, four blocks away. Damn. What farmer has an expensive gun and even more expensive weapons training? And this isn't the first time an NPC's done this. Then again, this isn't the first time I've shot a dog.
 * Maybe it was William Munny
 * It's game-play mechanics. Just about every NPC with a gun are programmed to defend themselves should you be inclined to aim a gun at them. Plus, you deserved it. lol.
 * What I find annoying about combat is that I can shoot the guns out of my adversaries hands or generally injure them to the point where they are staggering and all of a sudden they will bring out their rifle/shotgun they had strapped to their back. It got so bad at one point that I was in Thieves Landing and pointed my gun at a guy (granted my reason was petty given that I raised my gun as a result of him insulting me, but whatever) and when he fired upon me I shot his gun out of his hand, only for him to bring out a double barreled shotgun and kill me in two quick shots in a like two seconds flat. How in the hell can these guys shoot so accurately and switch their weapons so fast when they should realistically be in blinding pain? This is just Demonic Spiders and Goddamned Bats territory.
 * Men were tougher back then.

John's Scars...

 * So how did John Marston get his scars on his face? I do know he didn't get them by working at a church, or whatever he says, but does the game ever say exactly how he got them?
 * I always thought John got them in a knife fight when he was once riding with the gang. And the "working in a church" thing was just a sarcastic response to his kid.
 * I don't think it ever says outright, but John does mention that his former gang left him for dead once. Knife wounds like that would leave John's face a bloody mess, so I can see how they would have assumed he was a goner.
 * Given that he knows how to track, hunt, and properly skin animals, I always imagined he got clawed across the face while hunting wild game.
 * When is hunting a bear, and almost gets killed, he says something like he got those scars from a bear.
 * If you are knife fighting wolves, John yells out "How do you think I got these scars?!" I've taken this to either mean he was attacked by a wolf, or got the scars in a knife fight.
 * What I felt was sad about the scars is that they are so similar to Red Harlow's, the protagonist from Red Dead Revolver, and yet no one makes any mention of this similarity between the two despite the fact that the two exist within the same continuity. I mean I can understand if the scars are a nod to the other game but why have a reference if it isn't actually referenced in-game?
 * Red Dead Revolver is set about forty years before Redemption, and since Cameras weren't exactly common technology in the 1860s we can assume that Red never had a picture of himself taken. Which means there is a high chance that practically nobody as of Redemption can accurately say what Red looked like. That and the events of Revolver are regarded as more or less a folk tale or urban legend when Redemption is set.

Bonnie Mc Farlane

 * Okay, so in the opening scene, we can see Bonnie Mc Farlane on the train from Blackwater. Ten minutes of plot later, when John first meets Bill at Fort Mercer, the former gets shot and rescued by...Bonnie Mc Farlane! Now, I'd know it'd make for a sucky game if it ended ten minutes after it began, but can someone tell me how and why Bonnie was there when she was, presumably, going back home to her ranch? I'm gonna have to pull an Ironic Echo on her and ask: "Well, what were you doing out there, Miss Mc Farlane?"
 * One of her surviving brothers lives in Blackwater (he's a banker or somesuch). Perhaps she was visiting?
 * Actually, this is a really good point. Fort Mercer is nowhere near the Mc Farlane Ranch or Blackwater. She wouldn't really have any reason to go that way. But,  Or does it?
 * But it still doesn't make sense. She only gets feelings for John AFTER she's rescued him and he's done good things for her. At the beginning of the game, he's just a stupid guy that managed to get himself shot at Fort Mercer.
 * However, since the train she was on stopped at Armadillo, it's possible that she was just on her way back home until she saw (in her eyes) a man lying on the ground, perhaps close to death at Fort Mercer and she decided she wasn't going to leave without at least doing something for this man. Thankfully, he just so happened to be our guy.
 * So she tried to get home by riding in the complete opposite direction to her ranch? THAT. DOESN'T. MAKE. SENSE.
 * I don't know. Maybe looking for horses? A stray cow? Delivering goods?
 * I agree. It makes absolutely no sense for her to be riding to Fort Mercer. I felt R* was using her as a Deux Ex Machina to save John. And here's another thing: He got shot at the entrance but when we next see him (during the rescue), he's somehow far away from the door towards the main road. Did he drag himself over there? If so, where's the blood trail? There seems to be no evidence that he physically dragged himself away from the fort.
 * Actually if you look closely you can see some dark spots on the ground leading from where John got shot to where he was lying when Bonnie rescued him. It's easy to miss and it's not a contiguous trail, but it's there.
 * None of my fellow tropers have ever taken the long way home for shits and giggles?
 * If I remember correctly, wasn't there a cow corpse out there? Maybe she was trying to see if runaway cattle was nearby or something. It was right down the road from Mercer, she could'v'e noticed him down there looking for it.
 * It's possible that she saw John riding in the direction of Fort Mercer, thought, "Clearly he's not a local or he'd know that's a dangerous place to go to...", and went after him. Not wanting to attract attention, she hid until she knew the coast was clear and went after John.
 * We know from the Train scene that Boonie was in Armadillo shortly before if not during your confrontation with Bill. Jake (the guy who takes you to the fort then dissappears from the game) may have been close enough to see or hear you get shot, then walk back into town not caring. He could have a conversation with someone about "that guy you wuz with" which Bonnie overheard. Bonnie, being Bonnie, probably responded "And you just left him up there? Did you even check to see if he was dead?" then went off to save your stupid ass.

Williamson and his gang...do nothing...

 * Ross send Marston to exterminate Williamson and his gang. However, Williamson's appear to be the least active gang in New Austin, their hideout is well known and Ross can order around the Army AND appear to have a lot of spare cash to equip his boys. What makes Williamson so special that Ross need take the ultra complicated road of finding an ancient accomplice of Dutch and kidnap his family to order him around when he could simply unleash an army assault on fort Mercer, especially since Ross doesn't give two shits about casualties.
 * Excellent question.
 * As I understood it, the Army wasn't under Ross' command until nearly the end of the game. I don't even recall seeing any soldiers until the last few missions. Presumably, they are preoccupied with Dutch's budding Native American revolution. In any event, Ross intended to kill Marston anyway so why not send him in first? If he dies, he dies, and Ross can still use the Army as his backup later.
 * Also, just because Williamson's gang wasn't currently active doesn't mean it wouldn't be worthwhile for Ross to take them out. Depending on where you stand on the Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism Ross is either removing a potential threat before they're strong enough to really terrorize the populace, or making a big show out of taking out an infamous member of an infamous gang in order to secure glory for himself.
 * Upon replay, another possible reason presents itself. When you go to Blackwater Marston asks why, if Ross knows where Dutch is hiding out, Ross doesn't just storm the place and shoot him himself. Ross responds that if he were to take Dutch out himself Dutch would become a martyr to his gang. Better that Dutch die at the hands of "another low-life" (i.e. John Marston). Mayhap the same thinking inspired him to send Marston after Williamson as well?
 * The newspapers state that Ross took down Dutch, Marston, Escuela and Bill. If he took such great measures to get an outlaw to kill other outlaws you would think they would hide it from the press.
 * The newspaper story was fabricated for the benefit of the general public. Williamson and Dutch's gang members know that it was really John Marston who did all the work.
 * Ross's philosophy and attitude towards the old ways of the West are pretty clear-regardless of circumstances or redeeming actions, no one escapes justice. Bill used to be part of Dutch's gang and has done some pretty reprehensible things both before and after leaving it.
 * Has everyone forgot the Ridgewood Farm mission where they terrorize the settlement? How about the time they kidnapped Bonnie MacFarlane?
 * Oh, and don't forget burning the Mc Farlane Barn and trying to kill you a good number of times. They do plenty to make themselves known in New Austin.

Ross (spoilers)

 * Okay, why is Ross and Fordham in Mexico when the jurisdiction of the US Bureau does not reach Mexico?
 * They don't actually do anything in Mexico besides pick up Escuella and Williamson's corpse(s). John does all the out-of-jurisdiction work for them and I doubt they'd be too concerned if he was arrested.
 * They don't actually go into Mexico. When John hands over Escuella, their meeting point is a small island on the border.
 * Which is the entire point of his character. Ross believes that John is nothing more than a no good outlaw, no matter what he does or says. And that all his past actions makes him irredeemable.
 * I understand that Ross isn't supposed to be a trustworthy character, the fact that he kidnaps John's family is proof enough of that, I just found it despicable that he condemns the Wild West and the kind of men like John Marston that it produced and preaching that civilization is the only viable alternative to the hell that is the Wild West when he commits actions that you would expect out of an outlaw. Surely Ross sees the hypocrisy of committing criminal deeds as an ends justifies the needs method of achieving civilization, gunning down bandits, or generally just people that refuse to listen to the government, and blackmailing all to produce civilization. It's the hypocrisy of Edgar Ross's character that sickens me, "Everyone pays for what they have done in time, even you John.", the irony of the situation is that John would never have taken up the gun ever again had Ross not blackmailed him and  had Ross not forced his hand, so John's crimes are Ross's by extension.
 * What do you expect? Ross is a Knight Templar, he believes that the outlaws of the Old West are scum, and thus tries to modernise the West. Even if that means kidnapping a retired Outlaw's family and threatening them to get him to do their dirty work. Gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette. So what if John is reformed? He doesn't care. In his eyes he's an outlaw and always will be. Might as well get him to off his old comrades then kill him and take all the glory.
 * People who claim to be enforcing justice using a "the ends justify the means" mentality by definition do not see their own hypocrisy.
 * I personally believe the game is basically "gray and grey morality" and that both John's reform and Ross's betrayal are open to interpretation. Let's not be too quick to call John "totally reformed." He was trying to do better, sure, but he still had a mean streak in him, and was still prone to bullying and making nasty threats. As for Ross, I felt he wasn't sure whether to betray John or not. If he were planning it all along, he would have just killed Jack right after Dutch died. That mission had a pile of bodies on it anyway, and one more would hardly make a difference. And to paraphrase him, "It might look better on the report." (As opposed to what actually happened, where he'd have to explain to his superiors why he let a mass murderer go only to go after him a few weeks later at the cost of many more men.) But I think Ross was willing to let John go and keep an eye on him. But what he heard wasn't promising. During a cattle drive John encounters some cattle rustlers and violently kills the whole gang. Later, John is again tending cattle when a passing train is robbed, and John involves himself to kill that whole gang too. It doesn't matter that the targets were "Bad guys." John was killing again and Ross feared he was about to go on a violent spree. That's why Ross went back on his word. Now, I'm not totally trying to call John the bad guy and Ross the good guy, just that you can see why he did it.
 * That's a lame excuse. There is nothing against the law in regards to killing people who are threatening someone else's life, loved ones, or property, any of the killings John did after Dutch the law would absolved him of any wrong-doing under self-defense laws. Besides part of the deal Ross made with John for killing Dutch and his gang was to give him a pardon for all of his crimes as a former outlaw which unless that was somehow a lie Ross had no jurisdiction to order a U.S Army Company sized force to assault a private citizen's property.
 * Is killing robbers and cattle thieves not a normal thing for farmers to be doing? Mac Farlanes missions and nightwatch make it look that way. Going outlaw by killing outlaws is Insane Troll Logic at its finest. How does he expect John to be living when he isn´t even allowed to protect himself and his family?
 * Jack can always write a book about his father's life, detailing how the man tried to change but was ruthlessly killed in the process.
 * ...And then either one of two things will happen: The general populace won't believe a disgruntled and bitter son of a ruthless outlaw over that of a 'heroic' agent of the government, or worst case scenario, Jack is caught by federal agents and executed for murdering Ross. Face it, there's no happy ending to this story.
 * I don't see the second thing happening, so I think Jack's safe. =) As long as he doesn't mention how he, later on, shot Ross. I mean, who's gonna know? To the world, Jack's just a writer writing about his father's life.
 * Except the three people he talked to, two of which are very close to Ross, about where Ross was on the same day Ross was murdered. Why do you think Jack became an outlaw in the first place?
 * Yes this is true, Jack would be a suspect in the murder of Ross since his body was just left there by the river, everything from the testimony of his wife and brother, bullets from Jack's own gun, and footprints are all there for agents to investigate. However story wise the game ends when Jack kills Ross, unless later DLC or games confirm otherwise we are supposed to assume that Jack went on his marry way and got away with it since the gameplay doesn't automatically make you wanted and give you an outlaw level karma as a result of killing Ross. Though regardless it should be stated that Jack's expression after Ross has died shows that he gained no joy from knowing that revenge had been achieved for the Marston family, not only because Ross gained his victory over John Marston despite his murder since history will revile John and Ross will be a hero, his parents are still dead despite his revenge, and John's sacrifice to prevent the kind of lifestyle he led in his youth from affecting his family is now in vain since Jack committed an action befitting of an outlaw. Jack can't be feeling good about himself right now, his life is empty because the Wild West he tried to escape has caught up with him, John couldn't escape it and now it has claimed his son.
 * They did that because the story effectively stops at that point, save for the odd stranger mission you have to do. The sandbox wouldn't be very fun if you were being constantly hunted by authorities, would it.
 * Forensics testing anywhere near the quality to definitively match the slugs in Jack's gun to those fired into Ross or the boots Jack was wearing when he killed Ross to those he wore later is... in VERY short supply, and while they MIGHT be able to get a definitive match if they actually were able to get ahold of the same gun and ammo he used to do it, there is no reason he couldn't dispose of that later. The eyewitness reports of the Ross family are the most damning evidence the law has on Jack, and even that is hardly 100% conclusive, and while they almost certainly would trust them to ID him, the West is MASSIVE place and Jack can almost always run away across the Mexican border or even the Canadian one (hell, the only reason John got killed was more or less because he LET himself do so to spare his family). That, and there might be a reason WHY the law hasn't put a great deal of effort into hunting Jack down: they might see him as a useful asset if they can rope him in given the outbreak of World War One and the troubles with Germany and Mexico brewing just South of the border.
 * But did he ever tell them (beside Ross of course) that he was Jack Marston? IIRC, he just went up to them and basically said, "I've got a letter for a Mister Edgar Ross. Where can I find him?" The only thing they'd go by is apperance and that's a medium-build white man with a thin goatee. Long, messy brown hair, peircing brown eyes and a scowl. Hmmmm....Good luck ID-ing him with just about every other man in the game that shares the similar apperance. Even if they managed to narrow his location down to Blackwater, they still would have to comb through every single male in that town. Plus, Ross was retired by this point, so Jack just committed the perfect crime.
 * But he's in no condition to write about his exploits, is he?
 * Jack told his father that he wanted to be a writer one day as he was quite fond of reading, he wanted to make a story that people could enjoy and be fascinated by. Jack even exclaims occasionally during combat to the effect of, "Screw this all I wanted was to be was a writer!" (paraphrasing) If I were the son of a cowboy I would personally travel to all the places he did and gather information on all my father's exploits, if Jack wants to create a great story and honor his father I would think he would want to do it by writing a story about John Marston. Hell maybe one day it will become a classic, just like he wanted.
 * That's a pipe dream at best, and it goes against the basic themes of the game. Next thing you'll be saying that Jack will team up with Woodrow Wilson to clear Johns name and go on to fight the Bolsheviks in order to help Clarence earn his wings. Jack is, for all intents and purposes, an outlaw. He has taken up the lifestyle that his father tried to protect him from. Except, unlike his father, he has no Abigail to keep him from going over the edge, which means his self-destructive attitude will eventually be his undoing. That and it's less that Jack wants his father's name cleared and more that he feels that there is no point to it. Suppose he does go to the trouble of spending years tracking down people who John never mentioned to him and does manage to write a novel about him. What has he accomplished? Basically no-one is going to believe his word over the word of a US hero, and in the end his father is still dead. Worst case scenario being that Jack endangers the lives of those involved in writing the novel due to either public scrutiny or the proto FBI needing them 'silenced'. At the end of it all, the greedy, the corrupt and the powerful remain, and Jack and John will fade into obscurity as outlaws.
 * I never said that Jack could clear his father's name, if he wanted that he would have gone through legal channels and had Ross arrested, which would have been pointless since those same legal channels killed his father. Ross's murder was revenge, nothing more nothing less, the law had done his father in and so Jack is making himself judge, jury, and executioner by taking the law into his own hands and murdering Ross. Jack was making Ross eat his own words, "Every man pays for what they have done in time, even you John.", and Jack made Ross pay with his life so it is now, "Everyone pays for what they have done, even you Ross." However outlaws of the past are looked back upon in today's society as legends of the Wild West, Jack could simply make a book telling of feats of various outlaws like Landon Rickets and John Marston, a purely neutral book that honors the Wild West and makes for a fascinating story. No suspicion, no outcry, just a book about outlaws (which John was, however a reformed outlaw).
 * The perfect crime in the sense Jack will get away with it (though he would still be a suspect since the early FBI knows John had a family, they kidnapped them for goodness's sake, so they would be looking into Jack's whereabouts at least) but all he lived for in that 3 years since John died was to avenge his father. What purpose or meaning does Jack have now that the murder of Ross went off without a hitch? He's threading on the path that his father sacrificed himself to give him a chance to escape, John died so his criminal past wouldn't follow his family, but now it has by Jack's murder of Ross. The future of the Marston family is uncertain as Jack could become an outlaw very easily if he isn't careful, he's threading the line.
 * That does explain why Jack would sometimes say (after rescuing someone) that he has nothing else to live for anyway. This might end up killing him in the end.
 * Why didn't any of John's allies (like Bonnie, the sheriff, hell even Dickens) try to clear John's name? I mean Bonnie especially seeing their relationship.
 * Even if they had wanted to clear his name, John would have likely asked them to stop trying. He seems to be the type who wants to finish things himself, face his own problems himself, not go asking people to fix it for him. Besides, he likely thought it was too dangerous for them to even try. All Bonnie did was shelter John for a few days and she had her barn burnt and herself nearly hung by Williamson's gang. The same could've happened to the others who helped John. Oh, sure, Johnson could take care of himself if attacked, but he's got a town to protect.
 * I meant after John has been dead, why wouldn't the people try to clear his name from being smeared as just some outlaw. They know that John was forced by the same government in doing their dirty work, why not tell the newspaper their version of who John Marston was. Hell the way that John acted, he could be a folk hero if his son wrote a book about him.
 * Also seeing how John Marston's fame level would be at Legend mode by now and if you play the game like a white hat, wouldn't people around the region find it hard to believe that the government just out right murdered a man who was doing some good for the community. I mean yes he was an outlaw, but you know what? You can never escape the past. Though it would be cool to see some sort of variation of the Outlaw Joesy Wales ending where some of John's allies come to help him in his moment in need.
 * Also seeing how John Marston's fame level would be at Legend mode by now and if you play the game like a white hat, wouldn't people around the region find it hard to believe that the government just out right murdered a man who was doing some good for the community. I mean yes he was an outlaw, but you know what? You can never escape the past. Though it would be cool to see some sort of variation of the Outlaw Joesy Wales ending where some of John's allies come to help him in his moment in need.

How did Williamson's gang get so big

 * I don't know how Williamson's gang has that many members, when real life western gangs and Dutch's origanal gang consisted of less than ten members, and Williamson's seem to number in the hundereds.
 * That's because Williamson takes up the majority of Chapter One and Dutch doesn't. It's something for the player to do so they're not wandering the wilderness in boredom.
 * Dutch's original gang was a while ago, the gangs could've grown bigger since then due to escalation.

Undead Nightmare (Spoilers)

 * This is what I don't understand:  Is this...an alternate universe of sorts?
 * Yes. It says as much in the DLC description.
 * I like to pretend it's an alternate universe where
 * Okay, so by the end of Undead Nightmare  Rule of Funny and an excuse for The Adventure Continues I suppose?
 * Here's my WMG:
 * Not really. John was resurrected as a zombie just like everyone else when Seth took the mask but since John was buried with a flask of Holy Water he returned as a zombie with a soul, hence him retaining his humanity despite being a walking corpse. Not only that but zombies ignore Zombie!John unless he gets too close or attack them. No explanation for why humans don't shoot him.
 * I think it's because they usually see him arrive on a horse and holding a gun, something regular zombies don't do. He also walks upright and consistantly instead of shambling about, and when he actually gets close enough for them to see his zombie-ness, it's clear he's not gonna eat them.
 * How did John wipe out the Sasquatches anyway? Yeah, it was a tearjerker, and Rockstar being cruel bastards to gamers, but when you get down to itsome things don't add up. Were there really only five Sasquatches left on Earth? Were all the males immortal, and the females died off? And if they were such pacifists and so easy to kill, how did that crazy hunter not wipe them all out?
 * Maybe he came into the picture at just the right time to wipe out the last of the Sasquatch in the area? What's so hard to believe about that? You act like nothing's ever gone extinct from hunting before.
 * Aside from John, that crazy hunter and the goddess lady, we don't see another human for miles. The nearest settlement would be too busy fending off zombie attacks, and to scared to even consider braving those infested mountains. And even John was skeptical of the Sasquatches existing at that point. What, was that hunter going all Rambo on them before John stumbled upon his cabin?
 * Maybe they've been being hunted since before the Undead plague started in the Undead Nightmare timeline. You might as well consider Undead Nightmare as the RDR timeline with All Myths Are True added, so maybe the Sasquatch has been there all along, but not in the regular game because Undead Nightmare takes place in an alternate reality.
 * I just simply assumed that there were very few Sasquatches in the first place, John just killed off the few remaining ones.

Uncle

 * Is it ever explained just who the hell this old man is?
 * He's a reformed petty thief who lives with the Marstons. In theory he helps run the farm in exchange for room and board, but in practice he doesn't do much of anything, partly because he's old and decrepit and partly because he's a lazy bum and a drunkard. John despises Uncle for his laziness and because he's a constant reminder of John's criminal past, but he keeps Uncle around because Jack and maybe Abigail are fond of him.
 * Jack was probably fond of him. There's also a rumor that Uncle is Red Harlowe. I do not believe it, though.
 * I got the impression Uncle was a real killer 'back in the day', perhaps the leader of the gang before Dutch. John hates him for his crimes, but the man's withered and harmless now and John is nothing if not reluctantly compassionate.

Jack and Abigail Marston

 * Okay, why do some people hate Jack and Abigail Marston? I read on Red Dead.net and some posters apparently think John should've dumped his family and married Bonnie. Just...why? That goes against everything we've known of John.
 * They're shippers, man. There's no talking sense to them.

"Spiritual Successor"

 * I had never played Red Dead Revolver, and was worried about missing some plot points by coming into this game blind. I start playing and find them referring to events that happened years ago, and in my mind the fears are confirmed. I was halfway through the game before I realized that the game was just a Spiritual Successor, and had little-to-no connection with the first game, and Redemption just starts en medias res.
 * So what exactly bugs you about this?
 * The fact that I didn't know that John Marston wasn't in the first game. I thought there was this whole back story that I had missed.
 * Likewise. The events they speak of are John Marston's past, the Spanish-American War (those two ladies on the train), and the Mexican War (Jake speaking about Fort Mercer). Red Dead Revolver is not connected to this game at all.
 * It's only meant to be taken loosely, like how some people believe the PS 2 GTA trilogy occured before the GTAIV saga, despite there being no mention of the Salvatore family, or any of the major events from those previous games (the graffeti/mural of names is really more a shoutout than anything else). As someone suggested on the WMG, it's possible that the events of Revolver did occur, but were highly exaggerated (as most tales do, especially in the old west). I mean, Revolver bordered on Trigun level of actions (just without the all out superhuman looking characters).

How big is the environment?

 * I was just wondering off-hand, does anyone know exactly how big the game area is in real-world units? Did Rockstar give out an official figure?
 * The estimates I've seen are about 25-28 square miles, which is consistent with Rockstar's previous open world games.

Spanish place names

 * Some of the Mexican place names are logical, or at least make some kind of sense (Ojo del Diablo, Escalera , Perdido ), but some of them seem utterly random. A port named "No Exit"? Another one named "Port Knife"? Are these translation errors, or just weird names picked by R*?
 * "No Exit" is presumably a reference to the Jean-Paul Sartre play of the same name. Not sure about Puerto Cuchillo, but I'd place good money on it also being a literary or historical reference. Either that or R* just like how it sounds.

Missons

 * The Mission "The Prodigal Son Returns (To Yale)" promptly gave me a bit of Fridge Logic during the second part: Why did Macdougal request to be taken to the train station at Manzanita Post, when there was a perfectly operational Train station right there in Blackwater? Granted,  and his men were hunting him, but why go out a distance away to board the same train that would have stopped at Blackwater, anyway?
 * You answered it yourself. He needed to get as far away from Blackwater as possible, and the train's route (even in gameplay, when you're not doing the missions), would head in the direction away from Blackwater, which is good for him. When John enters his room, he had likely just found out that there was a train in Manzanita Post and began to pack right away. Also, there was no train in Blackwater anyway.

Sliding stop

 * This was something odd I noticed with the horseback features. As well as the horses are animated, sadly you can't do a sliding stop which definetely should have been an animation involved, specially since that's a very typical western feature. And it's not like it's not possible or too hard to do, the PS 2 game Shadow of the Colossus where you also run around in a huge world on a horse you can do both sliding stops and rear the horse into an instant gallop, even though that horse is relatively less well animated (while the RDR horses have better animated bodies, the SOTC horse acts and moves more like a real life horse). However, mount another horse than the one you own in RDR and watch it follow you, then it suddenly performs a sliding stop upon reaching you. ...what? So they did give the horses a sliding stop animation, you just can't use it when you're mounted? What was the point of that?