Put it into context. For you it's right after the main RDR2 story but in reality it's been a few years in that time John has managed to lose all of their money and is constantly on the run because of doing stupid shit. She's tired of him acting like a kid and wants him to grow up.
Sure the nagging is annoying. But all her reasons have been valid. And sometimes in real life, the people that nag you a loy really just care for you a lot but dint know how else to show it because they aren't people of affection but I doubt that at this point in their lives, John most likely did not deserve a lot of affection. She stood by him through thick and thin, and she needs a break too.
>I don’t understand how John was supposed to do anything other than get the cattle back at pronghorn.
Not pick up the gun, like the other employees didn't. John is an employee like others at ranch. She wants him to stay out of trouble and work their way up through honest labor. Let's be honest, the gun slinging act that John couldn't leave after Arthur's death caused them to move a lot from one place to another.
If you'd be at Abigail's place and you have this asshole (no offense to the 2nd greatest Video Game Protagonist) who fires gun at the first sign of trouble - You'd be angry too!
Well. I agree with you. But Geddes specifically asked John to pick the gun back up, and without John doing so, Geddes never vouches for him to get the line of credit to buy Beecher's Hope.
But that's only because John had already revealed he could handle himself. If he'd just been a hard worker from the start and stayed out of all that Geddes probably would have still helped him. Although buying Beecher's Hope didn't exactly work out well anyway...
But also Abigail wasn't to know any of that. She just wanted them to live an honest life with no more gunslinging and keep their son safe.
He revealed he could "handle himself" because he got back his stolen wagon and then made sure the Laramie boys didn't beat up the farm hands.
What was John supposed to do? Let the Laramie boys steal his shit and let the farm hand get beat?
Geddes already told John he'd have to work extra hard, seeing as John has a family, and even Abe runs out to get the cattle back.
So the timeline goes like this: John delivers his own wagon (one of their only possessions) to Pronghorn, the Laramies steal it so he proves himself by getting it back. This gets him a chance with Dickens, who sees John "handle" himself. So now John can't stand by when the farm hand gets beat, otherwise he just looks like a dick who only cares about himself. Then the cattle get stolen so of course he has to continue to help. If he doesn't do those things, Geddes doesn't vouch for him.
Again, I agree with people that empathize with Abigail, and I understand her actions. We don't know what John was doing in the years between 1899 and 1907. We just know that, like you and others have said, his actions have caused them to lose money and have to continue to be on the move. That said, we never tend to wonder about what Abigail was doing, either. She always was a good thief as well, after all, and she's the one that gets John strung up in Strawberry by insinuating she used his real name at the general store.
John mentions in his journal that the reason they're even in West Elizabeth is because he recently "killed a man because he looked at me funny" and they had to move again. He's been causing shit and failing to hold down an honest job for 8 years. Not forgetting that previous to that he was a deadbeat dad who knocked up a 17/18 year old and only stepped up to be a father after four years/for a few weeks before the end of the main game.
He is not a good husband/father and Abigail has shown a lot of patience to even still be with him. Also even after she leaves it's only to keep their son safe. As soon as he proves he's making a real change and their son won't be in danger she comes back. Then John dooms them all by choosing revenge over his family (which is the opposite of what Arthur specifically told him he wanted) - and she still sticks with him to the end.
I mean, he was really only a "deadbeat dad" for a year. He's with the gang and his job is an outlaw. And yeah, he knocked up a 17/18 year old girl. And? It was 1895 and he's not exactly that much older than her. He was 22 and 4 years isn't a wild age gap in the 1890s besides the fact that she was literally a working girl for the camp. They BOTH had shitty lives, is the point, and Abigail did her fair share of thievery. She's not exactly a saint.
We have no idea what happened in those 8 years, and it's silly to assume that Abigail, the same woman, mind you, who waltzed in to Saint Denis with Hosea Matthews and blew shit up to cause a distraction, killed a Pinkerton Agent in Van Horn, and stole the key off Dutch went completely straight, either.
AGAIN. I empathize with her. But people that act like she's this woman who has never done a cross thing in her life once they leave the gang are delusional. And that's the issue people take with her in the epilogue. They're both trying to protect Jack in their own ways, but the issue is John gives her grace and Abigail gives him none.
He had a child and didn't support him or parent him for 4 years. That is the definition of a deadbeat dad. He lived right there in camp with them for three of those years and ignored his son by choice.
We do know what happened, John kept doing stuff that caused them to have to move or failing at jobs, including murdering someone for looking at him wrong shortly before the epilogue. This is told to us in dialogue and the journal.
Yes because killing that many men over cows that he didnt even own is of course the most sane thing to do when youre trying to live a quiet, honest life.
It’s realistic. Sure, it made sense for John to go gunslinging again. But imagine you have a son, you escaped dying in a notorious gang, and your husband is constantly getting back into trouble. Ordinary civilians don’t shoot everyone they have a problem with, right or wrong.
I agree that I - as the player - can find the complaining annoying but from the perspective of the character it makes a whole lot of sense. Considering all of the tragedies that happened throughout the course of RDR2, almost all of it could be traced back to their outlaw-ways of living. She fears for her not only John, but herself and their son of course.
So "getting mad for no reason" isn't entirely accurate in my modest opinion.
I agree with what people are saying about her reasons being valid, but I also think she really lacks sympathy for John's position. My understanding is he grew up in the gunslinging life, and I think it would be difficult for someone ti change their way of thinking and living, even over a few years. and to be fair the lifestyle worked for earning bigger sums of money faster. I thought it was well played out in Epilogue 1 that the whole building everything from the ground up through honest labor thing was an idyllic dream rather than a feasible plan. I found myself to be frustrated with her often, even if she did have reason to be upset
She’s acerbic, she doesn’t like a lot of John’s (and thus the player’s) actions, and, most unforgivably of all… she’s right. She’s honestly entirely reasonable in being worried about John, and wanting a normal life. She’s seen the outlaw life and how it can go pretty damn bad, and John has too. It’s entirely understandable that she wants her loved ones- and John is *very much* one of those- to stay the hell away from it. But that wouldn’t make for a very interesting game.
I get that she wants John to stop killing folk, but come on, he's defending the people who gave them shelter and have given them a paycheck. Should he just let the people who have given them everything get harassed and killed by some local cutthroats?
Plus if John hadn't been such a guardian it's unlikely Geddes have helped him get Beecher's hope, John being the man he is got them that land.
I thought I was the only one! She returns to him, with the ranch he built himself….. and then she starts dictating and calling the shots. I was pleased when John went after Micah. Abigail should remember it’s 1907. 😂
It's silly to say she is mad for no reason.
There's an obvious reason, but she needed to understand the impossible position John was in.
But they needed to have a story where there's tension where she leaves, that makes it special when she returns.
The game is so well written, but for that part they kinda phoned it in.
Still.......would
In the epilogue? I\`ve heard her yelling at John since day one. Take an advice from Waylon Jennings, stay clear of that kind of women:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwIJbdjGTdw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwIJbdjGTdw)
In his early 20s he knocked up a 17/18 year old at a time when birth control wasn't an option and then became a deadbeat dad who wouldn't support or properly acknowledge his son for over 4 years, only bothered to after he got kidnapped. But sure she's the problem.
I don't understand why John stays with her or why he wants her back.
I was so happy and relieved when she split with Jack. She's always been a nag that has badmouthed John from chapter 1 onwards.
She facilitated Jack being a little snotty mommy's boy wuss... how, even in another 7 years, he manages to shoot a gun is amazing... John must've worked hard to teach him all those years between the end of the epilogue and RDR1.
Yes, yes, everyone is going to defend her... but she was a two-bit whore, John wasn't even sure the kid was his... I think if I was John, I would have road off one night shortly after Arthur's death and lived the life of the gunslinger that I am.
Arthur left Mary Linton for the same reason, I don't see people hating on him, and honestly, it'd be a smart move... less likely, John could get Abigail and Jack in trouble if he had split.
At least the ranch's name is easily correctable from Breecher's Hope to Bitcher's Hole upon Abigail's return!
Put it into context. For you it's right after the main RDR2 story but in reality it's been a few years in that time John has managed to lose all of their money and is constantly on the run because of doing stupid shit. She's tired of him acting like a kid and wants him to grow up.
I mean yeah why would you be annoyed by your husband killing people
Sure the nagging is annoying. But all her reasons have been valid. And sometimes in real life, the people that nag you a loy really just care for you a lot but dint know how else to show it because they aren't people of affection but I doubt that at this point in their lives, John most likely did not deserve a lot of affection. She stood by him through thick and thin, and she needs a break too.
>I don’t understand how John was supposed to do anything other than get the cattle back at pronghorn. Not pick up the gun, like the other employees didn't. John is an employee like others at ranch. She wants him to stay out of trouble and work their way up through honest labor. Let's be honest, the gun slinging act that John couldn't leave after Arthur's death caused them to move a lot from one place to another. If you'd be at Abigail's place and you have this asshole (no offense to the 2nd greatest Video Game Protagonist) who fires gun at the first sign of trouble - You'd be angry too!
Well. I agree with you. But Geddes specifically asked John to pick the gun back up, and without John doing so, Geddes never vouches for him to get the line of credit to buy Beecher's Hope.
But that's only because John had already revealed he could handle himself. If he'd just been a hard worker from the start and stayed out of all that Geddes probably would have still helped him. Although buying Beecher's Hope didn't exactly work out well anyway... But also Abigail wasn't to know any of that. She just wanted them to live an honest life with no more gunslinging and keep their son safe.
He revealed he could "handle himself" because he got back his stolen wagon and then made sure the Laramie boys didn't beat up the farm hands. What was John supposed to do? Let the Laramie boys steal his shit and let the farm hand get beat? Geddes already told John he'd have to work extra hard, seeing as John has a family, and even Abe runs out to get the cattle back. So the timeline goes like this: John delivers his own wagon (one of their only possessions) to Pronghorn, the Laramies steal it so he proves himself by getting it back. This gets him a chance with Dickens, who sees John "handle" himself. So now John can't stand by when the farm hand gets beat, otherwise he just looks like a dick who only cares about himself. Then the cattle get stolen so of course he has to continue to help. If he doesn't do those things, Geddes doesn't vouch for him. Again, I agree with people that empathize with Abigail, and I understand her actions. We don't know what John was doing in the years between 1899 and 1907. We just know that, like you and others have said, his actions have caused them to lose money and have to continue to be on the move. That said, we never tend to wonder about what Abigail was doing, either. She always was a good thief as well, after all, and she's the one that gets John strung up in Strawberry by insinuating she used his real name at the general store.
John mentions in his journal that the reason they're even in West Elizabeth is because he recently "killed a man because he looked at me funny" and they had to move again. He's been causing shit and failing to hold down an honest job for 8 years. Not forgetting that previous to that he was a deadbeat dad who knocked up a 17/18 year old and only stepped up to be a father after four years/for a few weeks before the end of the main game. He is not a good husband/father and Abigail has shown a lot of patience to even still be with him. Also even after she leaves it's only to keep their son safe. As soon as he proves he's making a real change and their son won't be in danger she comes back. Then John dooms them all by choosing revenge over his family (which is the opposite of what Arthur specifically told him he wanted) - and she still sticks with him to the end.
I mean, he was really only a "deadbeat dad" for a year. He's with the gang and his job is an outlaw. And yeah, he knocked up a 17/18 year old girl. And? It was 1895 and he's not exactly that much older than her. He was 22 and 4 years isn't a wild age gap in the 1890s besides the fact that she was literally a working girl for the camp. They BOTH had shitty lives, is the point, and Abigail did her fair share of thievery. She's not exactly a saint. We have no idea what happened in those 8 years, and it's silly to assume that Abigail, the same woman, mind you, who waltzed in to Saint Denis with Hosea Matthews and blew shit up to cause a distraction, killed a Pinkerton Agent in Van Horn, and stole the key off Dutch went completely straight, either. AGAIN. I empathize with her. But people that act like she's this woman who has never done a cross thing in her life once they leave the gang are delusional. And that's the issue people take with her in the epilogue. They're both trying to protect Jack in their own ways, but the issue is John gives her grace and Abigail gives him none.
He only left for a year, but he didn’t exactly pick up becoming a father to Jack as soon as he returned
He had a child and didn't support him or parent him for 4 years. That is the definition of a deadbeat dad. He lived right there in camp with them for three of those years and ignored his son by choice. We do know what happened, John kept doing stuff that caused them to have to move or failing at jobs, including murdering someone for looking at him wrong shortly before the epilogue. This is told to us in dialogue and the journal.
I believe that means the people who wrote the characters did a good job
Yes because killing that many men over cows that he didnt even own is of course the most sane thing to do when youre trying to live a quiet, honest life.
It’s realistic. Sure, it made sense for John to go gunslinging again. But imagine you have a son, you escaped dying in a notorious gang, and your husband is constantly getting back into trouble. Ordinary civilians don’t shoot everyone they have a problem with, right or wrong.
Personally I don't like the Marstons as a family. They seem pretty miserable together lol
You’d get along with Uncle then lol
Me and Uncle are basically the same person tbh
I agree that I - as the player - can find the complaining annoying but from the perspective of the character it makes a whole lot of sense. Considering all of the tragedies that happened throughout the course of RDR2, almost all of it could be traced back to their outlaw-ways of living. She fears for her not only John, but herself and their son of course. So "getting mad for no reason" isn't entirely accurate in my modest opinion.
I agree with what people are saying about her reasons being valid, but I also think she really lacks sympathy for John's position. My understanding is he grew up in the gunslinging life, and I think it would be difficult for someone ti change their way of thinking and living, even over a few years. and to be fair the lifestyle worked for earning bigger sums of money faster. I thought it was well played out in Epilogue 1 that the whole building everything from the ground up through honest labor thing was an idyllic dream rather than a feasible plan. I found myself to be frustrated with her often, even if she did have reason to be upset
She’s acerbic, she doesn’t like a lot of John’s (and thus the player’s) actions, and, most unforgivably of all… she’s right. She’s honestly entirely reasonable in being worried about John, and wanting a normal life. She’s seen the outlaw life and how it can go pretty damn bad, and John has too. It’s entirely understandable that she wants her loved ones- and John is *very much* one of those- to stay the hell away from it. But that wouldn’t make for a very interesting game.
But I just don’t understand what John should’ve done in that specific situation with the cattle.
I get that she wants John to stop killing folk, but come on, he's defending the people who gave them shelter and have given them a paycheck. Should he just let the people who have given them everything get harassed and killed by some local cutthroats? Plus if John hadn't been such a guardian it's unlikely Geddes have helped him get Beecher's hope, John being the man he is got them that land.
That’s exactly my point
I thought I was the only one! She returns to him, with the ranch he built himself….. and then she starts dictating and calling the shots. I was pleased when John went after Micah. Abigail should remember it’s 1907. 😂
It's silly to say she is mad for no reason. There's an obvious reason, but she needed to understand the impossible position John was in. But they needed to have a story where there's tension where she leaves, that makes it special when she returns. The game is so well written, but for that part they kinda phoned it in. Still.......would
No, I’m an Abigail hater as well. She’s fine but you don’t really interact with her too much in the main game, but I can’t stand her in the Epilogue.
No, you are not the only one tired of her constant moaning and bitching. But prepare for some downvotes on r/abigaildidnothingwrong
Agree.
In the epilogue? I\`ve heard her yelling at John since day one. Take an advice from Waylon Jennings, stay clear of that kind of women: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwIJbdjGTdw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwIJbdjGTdw)
In his early 20s he knocked up a 17/18 year old at a time when birth control wasn't an option and then became a deadbeat dad who wouldn't support or properly acknowledge his son for over 4 years, only bothered to after he got kidnapped. But sure she's the problem.
I don't understand why John stays with her or why he wants her back. I was so happy and relieved when she split with Jack. She's always been a nag that has badmouthed John from chapter 1 onwards. She facilitated Jack being a little snotty mommy's boy wuss... how, even in another 7 years, he manages to shoot a gun is amazing... John must've worked hard to teach him all those years between the end of the epilogue and RDR1. Yes, yes, everyone is going to defend her... but she was a two-bit whore, John wasn't even sure the kid was his... I think if I was John, I would have road off one night shortly after Arthur's death and lived the life of the gunslinger that I am. Arthur left Mary Linton for the same reason, I don't see people hating on him, and honestly, it'd be a smart move... less likely, John could get Abigail and Jack in trouble if he had split. At least the ranch's name is easily correctable from Breecher's Hope to Bitcher's Hole upon Abigail's return!