Why do people like Sadie Adler (Honest question)

[Null]

To me, she's the only female of the gang that causes more trouble than she mends. She can't help but shoot any O'Driscoll she sets her sights on, and that's not a positive trait.

Colm was hanged in front of her - there was no need to start a firefight in the middle of San Denis during the hanging. The O'Driscolls probably wouldn't have retaliated anyway. Their gang wasn't a family, just a job. Old Leader dies, a new one arises. There's even a line one of them says in the next Sadie mission along the lines of "Colm's dead - we don't follow him no more. Why are you still after us?"

In comparison, all the other women, I believe, are better role models. Abigail especially, but also Tilly, Marybeth, and even Karen before she hit the bottle. They may not gunsling on a regular basis, but if Abigail can handle a weapon when it's needed, my bet is they all can. With all the teaching Dutch and Hosea did for the gang, I can't imagine any member of that gang couldn't handle themselves.

But my rant aside, my genuine question is to better understand... why DO people like Sadie? I won't argue with any of you. I already presented my opinion and now I just want to observe and learn. No arguments please.

[Machiavelli]

Messaggio originale di Tox Laximus:

Messaggio originale di Machiavelli:

Shes the single reason I havent replayed RDR2. Her voice alone makes me wanna Alt+F4 the game. Apart from that, shes laughably overwritten as a character. A real shame as she had potential but in the current state every other female gang member is more badass than her.

She kills 10x more people than all the other women put together, and that's in one day.

Thats how you define badass? Thats very one dimensional and sad, isnt it.

For example, Tilly jackson alone is more badass than Adler simply because she spared the lifes of the guys who abused her. How many gang members would have done the same?

Though, that one dimensional aspect of Adler is probably the main issue with her character. She lost her husband and based on that, all her actions can be justified, no matter how irresponsible some of her decisions are? There is nothing else to her other than a boring revenge story that the devs thought was suitable to last for the entire fking game.

If only she had died at the end of arthur's path to show that there is nothing good in taking revenge. But unfortunately shes still around during Johns part and for whatever stupid reason even more frequently annoys the player than before.

She made 0 character development and came out, unsurprisngly, as a boring and comical NPC, overwritten and written into a corner.

And i havent even mentioned her annoying voice so far...

[Tashnaladar]

i think this is a loaded question to be honest

[Machiavelli]

Messaggio originale di Tashnaladar:

i think this is a loaded question to be honest

I had a good giggle over that one :)

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Machiavelli:

Messaggio originale di Tox Laximus:

She kills 10x more people than all the other women put together, and that's in one day.

Thats how you define badass? Thats very one dimensional and sad, isnt it.

For example, Tilly jackson alone is more badass than Adler simply because she spared the lifes of the guys who abused her. How many gang members would have done the same?

Though, that one dimensional aspect of Adler is probably the main issue with her character. She lost her husband and based on that, all her actions can be justified, no matter how irresponsible some of her decisions are? There is nothing else to her other than a boring revenge story that the devs thought was suitable to last for the entire fking game.

If only she had died at the end of arthur's path to show that there is nothing good in taking revenge. But unfortunately shes still around during Johns part and for whatever stupid reason even more frequently annoys the player than before.

She made 0 character development and came out, unsurprisngly, as a boring and comical NPC, overwritten and written into a corner.

And i havent even mentioned her annoying voice so far...

I think it's hilarious you are complaining about 'overwritten' and calling the character 'one-dimensional' just on the sole basis of her having a straightforward character progression, while you want some 'deep' overcomplexified crap. You are literally calling the character 'overwritten' while complaining that the writing isn't complex enough. You complain about the character sticking around too long, when the sole basis for that claim is 'well I don't like the character'.
You make the mistaken assumption that the character arc is about revenge, when it is about her putting herself back together and getting to a state where she can move past what happened. Even once that is accomplished, Sadie plays further role in events, and holds a place of 'friend and ally' to both Arthur and John.

Seriously, Sadie's character progression is in her overcoming the trauma that she has, which revenge is a vehicle that is part of that. Past that, she sticks around because putting a character on a bus just because their main arc is finished is bad writing on it's own. Same way arbitrarily killing her at the end of Arthur's story because 'revenge bad' is exactly the sort of thing that demonstrates incompetent writing. Doing so adds nothing to the story, doesn't provide any sort of catalyst for later events, and consists solely of 'we want a twist that might tug on player's hearts and this character has a finished arc, so they are expendable'.

It's the exact sort of thing that caused a LOT of people to dislike the final sections of Harry Potter and the last season of the GoT tv show, where people got either killed off or made horribly bad decisions that fly in the face of the character's established behaviors, functioning as an arbitrary way to try to tug on heartstrings or force a 'lesson'.

[Machiavelli]

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

Messaggio originale di Machiavelli:

Thats how you define badass? Thats very one dimensional and sad, isnt it.

For example, Tilly jackson alone is more badass than Adler simply because she spared the lifes of the guys who abused her. How many gang members would have done the same?

Though, that one dimensional aspect of Adler is probably the main issue with her character. She lost her husband and based on that, all her actions can be justified, no matter how irresponsible some of her decisions are? There is nothing else to her other than a boring revenge story that the devs thought was suitable to last for the entire fking game.

If only she had died at the end of arthur's path to show that there is nothing good in taking revenge. But unfortunately shes still around during Johns part and for whatever stupid reason even more frequently annoys the player than before.

She made 0 character development and came out, unsurprisngly, as a boring and comical NPC, overwritten and written into a corner.

And i havent even mentioned her annoying voice so far...

I think it's hilarious you are complaining about 'overwritten' and calling the character 'one-dimensional' just on the sole basis of her having a straightforward character progression, while you want some 'deep' overcomplexified crap. You are literally calling the character 'overwritten' while complaining that the writing isn't complex enough. You complain about the character sticking around too long, when the sole basis for that claim is 'well I don't like the character'.
You make the mistaken assumption that the character arc is about revenge, when it is about her putting herself back together and getting to a state where she can move past what happened. Even once that is accomplished, Sadie plays further role in events, and holds a place of 'friend and ally' to both Arthur and John.

Seriously, Sadie's character progression is in her overcoming the trauma that she has, which revenge is a vehicle that is part of that. Past that, she sticks around because putting a character on a bus just because their main arc is finished is bad writing on it's own. Same way arbitrarily killing her at the end of Arthur's story because 'revenge bad' is exactly the sort of thing that demonstrates incompetent writing. Doing so adds nothing to the story, doesn't provide any sort of catalyst for later events, and consists solely of 'we want a twist that might tug on player's hearts and this character has a finished arc, so they are expendable'.

It's the exact sort of thing that caused a LOT of people to dislike the final sections of Harry Potter and the last season of the GoT tv show, where people got either killed off or made horribly bad decisions that fly in the face of the character's established behaviors, functioning as an arbitrary way to try to tug on heartstrings or force a 'lesson'.

Maybe overwritten was the wrong term, forced would have been better. I never said i wanted something overly complex (what would that even mean), I stated that it is annoying to have a one-dimensional NPC in the game that is very present, especially towards the end of the game.

What character arc are you even talking about? Shes quite in the background in first half of the game, the first real interaction after that is when she wants to ride with you to rhodes, from which point on it only goes into one direction for her character. Is that satisfying for you when it comes to a main NPC? Great, maybe something more "complex" is undesirable for you.

For me shes the only unbelievable character in an otherwise amazingly immersive game. Its very clear what the devs wanted to achieve with Adlers character but unfortunately they overdid it, thats what i actually meint by "overwirtten".
But hey, for most of the players it seems that her one dimensional revenge-so-let-justify-everything-with-it
"arc" is okay and perfectly fine.

I havent watched neither Harry Potter, nor GoT, so i got no clue what youre talking about there.

[JtDarth]

Messaggio originale di Machiavelli:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

I think it's hilarious you are complaining about 'overwritten' and calling the character 'one-dimensional' just on the sole basis of her having a straightforward character progression, while you want some 'deep' overcomplexified crap. You are literally calling the character 'overwritten' while complaining that the writing isn't complex enough. You complain about the character sticking around too long, when the sole basis for that claim is 'well I don't like the character'.
You make the mistaken assumption that the character arc is about revenge, when it is about her putting herself back together and getting to a state where she can move past what happened. Even once that is accomplished, Sadie plays further role in events, and holds a place of 'friend and ally' to both Arthur and John.

Seriously, Sadie's character progression is in her overcoming the trauma that she has, which revenge is a vehicle that is part of that. Past that, she sticks around because putting a character on a bus just because their main arc is finished is bad writing on it's own. Same way arbitrarily killing her at the end of Arthur's story because 'revenge bad' is exactly the sort of thing that demonstrates incompetent writing. Doing so adds nothing to the story, doesn't provide any sort of catalyst for later events, and consists solely of 'we want a twist that might tug on player's hearts and this character has a finished arc, so they are expendable'.

It's the exact sort of thing that caused a LOT of people to dislike the final sections of Harry Potter and the last season of the GoT tv show, where people got either killed off or made horribly bad decisions that fly in the face of the character's established behaviors, functioning as an arbitrary way to try to tug on heartstrings or force a 'lesson'.

Maybe overwritten was the wrong term, forced would have been better. I never said i wanted something overly complex (what would that even mean), I stated that it is annoying to have a one-dimensional NPC in the game that is very present, especially towards the end of the game.

What character arc are you even talking about? Shes quite in the background in first half of the game, the first real interaction after that is when she wants to ride with you to rhodes, from which point on it only goes into one direction for her character. Is that satisfying for you when it comes to a main NPC? Great, maybe something more "complex" is undesirable for you.

For me shes the only unbelievable character in an otherwise amazingly immersive game. Its very clear what the devs wanted to achieve with Adlers character but unfortunately they overdid it, thats what i actually meint by "overwirtten".
But hey, for most of the players it seems that her one dimensional revenge-so-let-justify-everything-with-it
"arc" is okay and perfectly fine.

I havent watched neither Harry Potter, nor GoT, so i got no clue what youre talking about there.

Again, you are acting as if 'revenge' is all that there is to the arc, because YOU didn't pay attention to things. It's cute you try to attack me obliquely by talking about things not being complex and too straightforward, and as such unsatisfying, while most the disconnect here being you unable to comprehend that not everything happens in a cutscene and that there are more subtle inferences that can be taken from things.

Same way you for some reason can't comprehend the difference between 'understandable' and 'justified'. Her actions aren't treated as blanket justified. The other characters around her just have their own bias against the target party and as such don't care enough to stop her. There are even a few instances that Arthur actively places blame on her for. In the eyes of the other characters, it's not 'their place' to tell Sadie she should or should not seek revenge or what lengths to go to in doing so. This is helped by her primary target being the O'driscolls, who the Van der Linde gang already have their own problems with and thus don't care how they are treated. Similarly, John shows disgust and disbelief for one of the things she does during the epilogue.

[Machiavelli]

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

Messaggio originale di Machiavelli:

Maybe overwritten was the wrong term, forced would have been better. I never said i wanted something overly complex (what would that even mean), I stated that it is annoying to have a one-dimensional NPC in the game that is very present, especially towards the end of the game.

What character arc are you even talking about? Shes quite in the background in first half of the game, the first real interaction after that is when she wants to ride with you to rhodes, from which point on it only goes into one direction for her character. Is that satisfying for you when it comes to a main NPC? Great, maybe something more "complex" is undesirable for you.

For me shes the only unbelievable character in an otherwise amazingly immersive game. Its very clear what the devs wanted to achieve with Adlers character but unfortunately they overdid it, thats what i actually meint by "overwirtten".
But hey, for most of the players it seems that her one dimensional revenge-so-let-justify-everything-with-it
"arc" is okay and perfectly fine.

I havent watched neither Harry Potter, nor GoT, so i got no clue what youre talking about there.

Again, you are acting as if 'revenge' is all that there is to the arc, because YOU didn't pay attention to things. It's cute you try to attack me obliquely by talking about things not being complex and too straightforward, and as such unsatisfying, while most the disconnect here being you unable to comprehend that not everything happens in a cutscene and that there are more subtle inferences that can be taken from things.

Same way you for some reason can't comprehend the difference between 'understandable' and 'justified'. Her actions aren't treated as blanket justified. The other characters around her just have their own bias against the target party and as such don't care enough to stop her. There are even a few instances that Arthur actively places blame on her for. In the eyes of the other characters, it's not 'their place' to tell Sadie she should or should not seek revenge or what lengths to go to in doing so. This is helped by her primary target being the O'driscolls, who the Van der Linde gang already have their own problems with and thus don't care how they are treated. Similarly, John shows disgust and disbelief for one of the things she does during the epilogue.

Maybe you should actually look up what an arc is in the first place. By definition, its a curve with a changing slope, indicating that at some point, something changes in a charcter's behaviour. You yourself said she has a linear progression (which she undoubtedly has), so there is literally no character arc here. Now, you state that I wouldnt be able to comprehend that there would be more to Adler than the naked eye would see. So please enlighten me, what is there more to her than her apparent killing spree. Bill freaking Williamson has more depth to him than there is to Adler. And if there is so much more that I cant see, why do you call her character linear in the first place.

Adler's character is entirely based on revenge, thats why her linear progression (should have) ended once all the O'Driscolls were dead. There is 0 reason for her sticking along other than the fact that Rockstar felt that the Red Dead franchise lacks a "badass" woman, as shes often referred to. The fact that her character is soley based on killing bad guys because - well - theyre bad and killing them is good thing, is really kinda sad to see. Whats even more disappointing is that it apparently worked....

Given that its been around half a year since i finished the story, i dont recall all the encouters with her. Two things i do remember however are the prison escape of John with that balloon where an innocent man is killed for no reason and the execution of the O'Driscolls boss where she completely lost it and put the lifes of other gang members at stake. And ya, never was she critisized for anything she did. But you know, shes a deeply traumatized woman and revenge-justifies-everything.

[Null]

Messaggio originale di Machiavelli:

Messaggio originale di JtDarth:

Again, you are acting as if 'revenge' is all that there is to the arc, because YOU didn't pay attention to things. It's cute you try to attack me obliquely by talking about things not being complex and too straightforward, and as such unsatisfying, while most the disconnect here being you unable to comprehend that not everything happens in a cutscene and that there are more subtle inferences that can be taken from things.

Same way you for some reason can't comprehend the difference between 'understandable' and 'justified'. Her actions aren't treated as blanket justified. The other characters around her just have their own bias against the target party and as such don't care enough to stop her. There are even a few instances that Arthur actively places blame on her for. In the eyes of the other characters, it's not 'their place' to tell Sadie she should or should not seek revenge or what lengths to go to in doing so. This is helped by her primary target being the O'driscolls, who the Van der Linde gang already have their own problems with and thus don't care how they are treated. Similarly, John shows disgust and disbelief for one of the things she does during the epilogue.

Maybe you should actually look up what an arc is in the first place. By definition, its a curve with a changing slope, indicating that at some point, something changes in a charcter's behaviour. You yourself said she has a linear progression (which she undoubtedly has), so there is literally no character arc here. Now, you state that I wouldnt be able to comprehend that there would be more to Adler than the naked eye would see. So please enlighten me, what is there more to her than her apparent killing spree. Bill freaking Williamson has more depth to him than there is to Adler. And if there is so much more that I cant see, why do you call her character linear in the first place.

Adler's character is entirely based on revenge, thats why her linear progression (should have) ended once all the O'Driscolls were dead. There is 0 reason for her sticking along other than the fact that Rockstar felt that the Red Dead franchise lacks a "badass" woman, as shes often referred to. The fact that her character is soley based on killing bad guys because - well - theyre bad and killing them is good thing, is really kinda sad to see. Whats even more disappointing is that it apparently worked....

Given that its been around half a year since i finished the story, i dont recall all the encouters with her. Two things i do remember however are the prison escape of John with that balloon where an innocent man is killed for no reason and the execution of the O'Driscolls boss where she completely lost it and put the lifes of other gang members at stake. And ya, never was she critisized for anything she did. But you know, shes a deeply traumatized woman and revenge-justifies-everything.

Ahem... Guys... NO ARGUMENTS. I agree with one of you, but please, both of you, cool it. It's a video game, not a MacGruber episode.

[Primusaur]

I hate her and her stupid voice. Best line in the game is when Arthur taunts her and says "look and you, all full of piss and vinegar." I say that to my cat a lot. Not sure what others see in her but I don't like her hubris and bravado any more than I liked Micah's.

[Maviba]

Because she's like Trevor but better looking ^^
She's completely damaged goods, totally insane but still can diversify between good and bad.
Her rough voice along with the Texan accent suits her well and is the cherry on top.

[Machiavelli]

Messaggio originale di Maviba:

Because she's like Trevor but better looking ^^
She's completely damaged goods, totally insane but still can diversify between good and bad.
Her rough voice along with the Texan accent suits her well and is the cherry on top.

That must be then the first time ever that I take the cherry off my cake and throw it straight into the trash bin. Weird, as i usually love cherries.

[Maviba]

Messaggio originale di Machiavelli:

Messaggio originale di Maviba:

Because she's like Trevor but better looking ^^
She's completely damaged goods, totally insane but still can diversify between good and bad.
Her rough voice along with the Texan accent suits her well and is the cherry on top.

That must be then the first time ever that I take the cherry off my cake and throw it straight into the trash bin. Weird, as i usually love cherries.

There're different sorts of cherries, so appearantly it's just been the type of cherry you don't like.
That dosen't make a bad cherry out of it.

[Machiavelli]

Messaggio originale di Maviba:

Messaggio originale di Machiavelli:

That must be then the first time ever that I take the cherry off my cake and throw it straight into the trash bin. Weird, as i usually love cherries.

There're different sorts of cherries, so appearantly it's just been the type of cherry you don't like.
That dosen't make a bad cherry out of it.

I like all kinds of cherries, sour or sweet. The cherry youre talking about however is rotten.
But apparently it looks good...

Also lets rephrase your last sentence just for testing: only because you like it, doesnt make it a good cherry.

[Maviba]

Messaggio originale di Machiavelli:

Messaggio originale di Maviba:

There're different sorts of cherries, so appearantly it's just been the type of cherry you don't like.
That dosen't make a bad cherry out of it.

I like all kinds of cherries, sour or sweet. The cherry youre talking about however is rotten.
But apparently it looks good...

It's still only a matter of your personal taste. Even rotten cherries do have its use.
You can make excellent booze or vinegar out of them.
You just don't like it. But others do.

[Tox Laximus]

Not even Typhoid Mary could keep up with Sadie and there is nothing wrong with her voice, all the other women in the game sound like chipmunks and rely on Arthur to save them all the time.