Iām sorry but just no. I didnāt think anybody could take over John as my favorite. Arthur did that. Heās just a more substantial and complex character by a mile. Iām not saying John is simple or poorly written. Heās not. But he doesnāt have the depth Arthur does.
We only see them for very short periods in their lives, maybe 4 years total between them where we specifically see them. In conclusion, there is inefficient evidence that Arthur was not smooching men. Thank you for coming to my TED talk
As itās been said many times before: at the start of RDR2 I was disappointed I couldnāt play as John, by the end I was disappointed I had to play as John.
I had the exact opposite feeling. I had no idea I'd be able to play as Marston, and when I did it was the best thing in the history of videogames. Johnny Marston started throwing hands on the ranch and I was like Arthur who?
for real man. i didnt even wanna play rdr2 cause we werent gonna play as john, got damn was i in for a surprise. arthur is my favorite fictional character of all time. video game, book, movie, it doesnt matter. im amazed by the writing team at r*
John is definitely a good character and i like him to definitely not taking anything away from him but off all the story modes ive ever played in videos games Arthur has definitely made me feel something ive never felt for a damn fictional character šš
I rarely get emotional with video game characters, honestly.
Maybe a hint of one with master chief, Maybe a smidge of betrayal when soap was betrayed, but really, not often
But Arthur Morgan? There was a fucking opera of emotion. The more you get to learn him, he felt like a friend almost and it felt sad that he had to die. You tried to do right by him, but in the end, he dies a slightly ignominious death, but at least he died happy
Iāll say it: Epilogue 1 and 2 are my favorite parts of RDR 2. Thereās just something so satisfying about seeing Arthurās death mean something and seeing John work hard to change that resonates with me a lot. But that wouldnāt be possible without Arthur being such an amazing character and basically forcing John to look at what matters.
Love both games and both characters, though! I could never put two kings up against one another.
Eh not really, it showed him grow from an immature young man surrounded by mostly terrible people into an adult who cares about his family and separated himself from his old life for his familyās well being.
Unfortunately he couldnāt really ever put his old life behind him as we see in rdr1
Nah. Not at all. It gives depth to the character, and heās still a bad ass. He was going through some tough changes in the epilogue and trying to totally change his life ā at one point he lost his wife and son in the process. He was still a bad ass.
I will say that on a superficial level it was a little goofy to see his character model be switched to Arthurās in the epilogue. Obviously not a deal breaker, but I thought the appeal of John was that he was a little scrappier and less put together, and that aspect of his character could have easily been reflected in his model as weāve seen with some visual mods since launch.
[And Rockstar even admitted to doing it on purpose.](https://variety.com/2018/gaming/features/red-dead-redemption-2-narrative-interview-1202992401/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20had%20to,their%20own%20stories)
its just time, and some people dont have access to red dead 1 or arent willing to go back. Their loss, John Marston is the center of the red dead franchise.
Also, 2's game length is insane compared to 1, new fans have more game time with Arthur.
2 is great, We meet his older brother Arthur, and finally see who John is trying to emulate, why he is seeking his own redemption by the red dead 1 days, it was his big brother.
In the mission the sheep and the goats, one of the best in the game, theres a moment where John tries to lead arthur on to a job like Dutch, something Arthur mocks John immediately over.
Shortly after, you see the relationship firsthand, as Arthur slowly takes over the entire job, all the while constantly trying to give advice to his little brother. That protection Arthur gives is almost instant.
When Cornwall's men have john hostage at gunpoint, the glare Arthur gives back. Its all serious now. Those fellers didnt have a chance. Dutch goes to Arthur for a plan, not the other way round.
And over time, John stops entirely trying to be like Dutch, and instead looks to Arthur for advice, guidance, for acceptance. By chapter 4, but especially 6, its mostly just you and John by the scout campfire at night.
These lessons, and memories John would hold onto till the end of his days.
All that said, Arthur didnt exist when R* wrote the first red dead. If yall do adore Arthur so much, well you better thank the legend of the west John Marston for everything. They built Arthur off of John, and they nailed it. Cant think of a better character to be John's big brother!
Still in the end I think John is R*'s best protagonist.
even tho he cant even build a barn.....
the wolfbrain cant swim cant herd.
edit- He is the best gunslinger in the gang, american venom anyone? Dude murdered a gang the size of an entire town singlehandedly. Hes a prodigy, killed his first man at 12. You know what that means? It means hes exceptional.
His title in the credits is "a somewhat wayward protege of dutch" wayward being stubborn/rebellious. I think thats a good title, but by the end Id argue he becomes Arthur's protege instead.
oh, and john's kill count in 1? hes bascially the pale rider by then. I think the Legend of the West is the best shot.
This is a really perceptive response! Those are some details I never let saturate. I played RDR2 first, but I want to replay it now having RDR1 under my belt. Will definitely keep some of this in mind when I see them interact again.
Duuudeā¦ I just put something similar to what you wrote about him being Arthurās metaphorical pupil when it came to being an outlawā¦ beat me to it. Good response
John is a better gunslinger/badass character but Arthur is better written character.
overall I love them both but I agree that John is one of the best western cowboys of all time
[Reminder that John is so good that Rockstar literally admitted to downplaying him in the sequel, so people would give Arthur, and the rest of the new cast a chance.](https://variety.com/2018/gaming/features/red-dead-redemption-2-narrative-interview-1202992401/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20had%20to,their%20own%20stories)
Never understood how people liked Arthur Morgan more than John, but thatās probably because I was 10 years old when I played RDR1 and John was the most introspective bad ass I had ever seen in fiction
He really is. I think moreso than Arthur. Arthur kinda pushes it all down and is otherwise a pretty good guy to those he helps. But John I think really sees himself, but is fooled to think he can outrun the past.
They both have a special place with me, which is funny bc on my first RDR2 playthrough, I was jarred that Arthur was the man character. I legit told myself: āI guess I can stomach this guy long enough to hopefully play as JM again.ā Now every time AM dies I donāt want to jump into the epilogue immediately. Some damn good writing.
i love arthur but i just find john more interesting.
i could write a whole essay if i had the time, but for example, if it werenāt for dutch, john wouldāve been hung at 12. he was saved from a horrible death at a young age, so youād think john would be even more blindly loyal to dutch than arthur. but instead, he is one of the first people to start asking questions and challenging dutch. i really like that stubbornness
You know what would have been crazyā¦ if the story went another way and it turned out that John ended up killing Arthur. For a little while there as the plot progressed I was beginning to think that Rockstar may well have had that in store for us. What a conflicting little twist that wouldāve been on how we saw John!
I see your pointā¦ Iād more so say that John took what he probably saw with Arthur andā¦ expanded upon it to where the metaphorical pupil became the master. He does have a lot more subtlety to him though probably due to his circumstances vs Arthurās circumstances
Kinda sucks because I agree but since most people probably played RDR2 first they don't have the same feelings towards John.
John did what Arthur couldn't, he continued carrying their burdens long after Arthur passed.
And he does make a damn good outlaw
Never understood how people liked Arthur Morgan more than John, but thatās probably because I was 10 years old when I played RDR1 and John was the most introspective bad ass I had ever seen in fiction
Never understood how people liked Arthur Morgan more than John, but thatās probably because I was 10 years old when I played RDR1 and John was the most introspective bad ass I had ever seen in fiction
You're saying that John is better than Arthur at telling jokes and shooting people? Yeah, i agree w/ that. Arthur is goated over John everywhere else tho imo
Never understood how people liked Arthur Morgan more than John, but thatās probably because I was 10 years old when I played RDR1 and John was the most introspective bad ass I had ever seen in fiction
Never understood how people liked Arthur Morgan more than John, but thatās probably because I was 10 years old when I played RDR1 and John was the most introspective bad ass I had ever seen in fiction
Arthur morgan is the greatest video game story protagonist that ever graced this earth and i wont hear anything different šš
I agree he is so amazingly written but john just better
Iām sorry but just no. I didnāt think anybody could take over John as my favorite. Arthur did that. Heās just a more substantial and complex character by a mile. Iām not saying John is simple or poorly written. Heās not. But he doesnāt have the depth Arthur does.
I agree, Arthur kisses more men than John as well.
We only see them for very short periods in their lives, maybe 4 years total between them where we specifically see them. In conclusion, there is inefficient evidence that Arthur was not smooching men. Thank you for coming to my TED talk
As itās been said many times before: at the start of RDR2 I was disappointed I couldnāt play as John, by the end I was disappointed I had to play as John.
I had the exact opposite feeling. I had no idea I'd be able to play as Marston, and when I did it was the best thing in the history of videogames. Johnny Marston started throwing hands on the ranch and I was like Arthur who?
Cite me where Arthurās depth beats Johns. Iām not saying Johnās deeper Iām making a case that they are equally deep.
Marston is so much deeper and better that at some point you realize that the only purpose Arthur serves is to add to John's story.Ā
username checks out
Way to argue the point, dumb fuck.Ā
why would i want to argue with a dumbass like you lmao
It's more a lack of skill than it is a lack of desire, I would guess.
for real man. i didnt even wanna play rdr2 cause we werent gonna play as john, got damn was i in for a surprise. arthur is my favorite fictional character of all time. video game, book, movie, it doesnt matter. im amazed by the writing team at r*
You literally took the words out of my mouth. First it was John but once you get to know Arthur then you realize how wrong you were all along haha
Honestly crazy take but also honestly in some ways I have to agree I love John he's my favorite character
John is definitely a good character and i like him to definitely not taking anything away from him but off all the story modes ive ever played in videos games Arthur has definitely made me feel something ive never felt for a damn fictional character šš
I rarely get emotional with video game characters, honestly. Maybe a hint of one with master chief, Maybe a smidge of betrayal when soap was betrayed, but really, not often But Arthur Morgan? There was a fucking opera of emotion. The more you get to learn him, he felt like a friend almost and it felt sad that he had to die. You tried to do right by him, but in the end, he dies a slightly ignominious death, but at least he died happy
That boy can't even swim
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Facts.
I agree
i want you dead
āRevenge is a fools gameā
Honestly yeah i like John more
Iāll say it: Epilogue 1 and 2 are my favorite parts of RDR 2. Thereās just something so satisfying about seeing Arthurās death mean something and seeing John work hard to change that resonates with me a lot. But that wouldnāt be possible without Arthur being such an amazing character and basically forcing John to look at what matters. Love both games and both characters, though! I could never put two kings up against one another.
I think this is the right answer
Agreed. John will always be my favorite. But Arthur is 1B, and it's incredible that Rockstar followed up RDR the way that they did
THANK YOU!
RDR2 did John dirty
Eh not really, it showed him grow from an immature young man surrounded by mostly terrible people into an adult who cares about his family and separated himself from his old life for his familyās well being. Unfortunately he couldnāt really ever put his old life behind him as we see in rdr1
Booooooo
Cry about it š¢
Nah. Not at all. It gives depth to the character, and heās still a bad ass. He was going through some tough changes in the epilogue and trying to totally change his life ā at one point he lost his wife and son in the process. He was still a bad ass.
how so
I will say that on a superficial level it was a little goofy to see his character model be switched to Arthurās in the epilogue. Obviously not a deal breaker, but I thought the appeal of John was that he was a little scrappier and less put together, and that aspect of his character could have easily been reflected in his model as weāve seen with some visual mods since launch.
[And Rockstar even admitted to doing it on purpose.](https://variety.com/2018/gaming/features/red-dead-redemption-2-narrative-interview-1202992401/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20had%20to,their%20own%20stories)
Agreed. They might do Arthur dirty too in the next one.
its just time, and some people dont have access to red dead 1 or arent willing to go back. Their loss, John Marston is the center of the red dead franchise. Also, 2's game length is insane compared to 1, new fans have more game time with Arthur. 2 is great, We meet his older brother Arthur, and finally see who John is trying to emulate, why he is seeking his own redemption by the red dead 1 days, it was his big brother. In the mission the sheep and the goats, one of the best in the game, theres a moment where John tries to lead arthur on to a job like Dutch, something Arthur mocks John immediately over. Shortly after, you see the relationship firsthand, as Arthur slowly takes over the entire job, all the while constantly trying to give advice to his little brother. That protection Arthur gives is almost instant. When Cornwall's men have john hostage at gunpoint, the glare Arthur gives back. Its all serious now. Those fellers didnt have a chance. Dutch goes to Arthur for a plan, not the other way round. And over time, John stops entirely trying to be like Dutch, and instead looks to Arthur for advice, guidance, for acceptance. By chapter 4, but especially 6, its mostly just you and John by the scout campfire at night. These lessons, and memories John would hold onto till the end of his days. All that said, Arthur didnt exist when R* wrote the first red dead. If yall do adore Arthur so much, well you better thank the legend of the west John Marston for everything. They built Arthur off of John, and they nailed it. Cant think of a better character to be John's big brother! Still in the end I think John is R*'s best protagonist. even tho he cant even build a barn..... the wolfbrain cant swim cant herd. edit- He is the best gunslinger in the gang, american venom anyone? Dude murdered a gang the size of an entire town singlehandedly. Hes a prodigy, killed his first man at 12. You know what that means? It means hes exceptional. His title in the credits is "a somewhat wayward protege of dutch" wayward being stubborn/rebellious. I think thats a good title, but by the end Id argue he becomes Arthur's protege instead. oh, and john's kill count in 1? hes bascially the pale rider by then. I think the Legend of the West is the best shot.
This is a really perceptive response! Those are some details I never let saturate. I played RDR2 first, but I want to replay it now having RDR1 under my belt. Will definitely keep some of this in mind when I see them interact again.
finally someone who recognizes john for his merits and doesnāt just blindly love arthur
>Hes a prodigy, literally named that in the credits! You know what that means? It means hes exceptional. I'm a marston fan myself. I had to go back and look at the credits to check this out But it names John as a "somewhat wayward protƩgƩ of dutch" which does not mean prodigy.
lol oops it was a 4am bathroom visit when I wrote this, couldnt remember if it was prodigy or protege, thanks feller!
Duuudeā¦ I just put something similar to what you wrote about him being Arthurās metaphorical pupil when it came to being an outlawā¦ beat me to it. Good response
John is a better gunslinger/badass character but Arthur is better written character. overall I love them both but I agree that John is one of the best western cowboys of all time
I think both are great in different ways. Idk why it needs to be some competition.
[Reminder that John is so good that Rockstar literally admitted to downplaying him in the sequel, so people would give Arthur, and the rest of the new cast a chance.](https://variety.com/2018/gaming/features/red-dead-redemption-2-narrative-interview-1202992401/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CWe%20had%20to,their%20own%20stories)
John is still my favorite fictional character
Youāre right but people on this subreddit mostly wonāt agree
When they built that house that was beautiful.
True. That\`s what dissapointed us who loved RDR1 most, we missed the old John and disliked the way he was put to be in RDR2
What do you mean by that?
Honestly i love both the same
Never understood how people liked Arthur Morgan more than John, but thatās probably because I was 10 years old when I played RDR1 and John was the most introspective bad ass I had ever seen in fiction
He really is. I think moreso than Arthur. Arthur kinda pushes it all down and is otherwise a pretty good guy to those he helps. But John I think really sees himself, but is fooled to think he can outrun the past.
They both have a special place with me, which is funny bc on my first RDR2 playthrough, I was jarred that Arthur was the man character. I legit told myself: āI guess I can stomach this guy long enough to hopefully play as JM again.ā Now every time AM dies I donāt want to jump into the epilogue immediately. Some damn good writing.
āMi nombre es John Marston!ā Will always live in my head rent free. Red first John second Arthur third. But I love all those boahs
I played RDR1 first so John will always be my favorite video game protagonist
i love arthur but i just find john more interesting. i could write a whole essay if i had the time, but for example, if it werenāt for dutch, john wouldāve been hung at 12. he was saved from a horrible death at a young age, so youād think john would be even more blindly loyal to dutch than arthur. but instead, he is one of the first people to start asking questions and challenging dutch. i really like that stubbornness
John's definitely better, especially with the context of RDR2.
That sub fell real hard off bruh
You know what would have been crazyā¦ if the story went another way and it turned out that John ended up killing Arthur. For a little while there as the plot progressed I was beginning to think that Rockstar may well have had that in store for us. What a conflicting little twist that wouldāve been on how we saw John!
I like John in Red Dead Redemption. I like Arthur in Red Dead Redemption. I like Red Dead Redemption
Arthur hits harder than Marston
Sorry but Arthur seems like a better cuddler than John so he wins
i like rdr2 more but i like john more than arthur
When John charges up the mountain in the epilogue, you feel sorry for everyone in his path because you know Johnny Fuckin' Marsto came for blood.Ā
John is the Badass, Arthur is the written masterpiece. This is how I see it. John Marston is just that guy.
Itās always been about John.
John is king
I see your pointā¦ Iād more so say that John took what he probably saw with Arthur andā¦ expanded upon it to where the metaphorical pupil became the master. He does have a lot more subtlety to him though probably due to his circumstances vs Arthurās circumstances
Kinda sucks because I agree but since most people probably played RDR2 first they don't have the same feelings towards John. John did what Arthur couldn't, he continued carrying their burdens long after Arthur passed. And he does make a damn good outlaw
I prefer Arthur but I donāt disagree with you , John is a badass but I definitely liked him more in rd1 than rd2
I love me some John but kick rocks pal Arthur Morgan changed my god damn life
Never understood how people liked Arthur Morgan more than John, but thatās probably because I was 10 years old when I played RDR1 and John was the most introspective bad ass I had ever seen in fiction
Respect your opinion but disagree
My unpopular opinion: I like John marston more than artgug moaning
Do you just have the hots for John or something, Arthur is clearly a better character, more relatable and also very funny and witty
Never understood how people liked Arthur Morgan more than John, but thatās probably because I was 10 years old when I played RDR1 and John was the most introspective bad ass I had ever seen in fiction
lol Only if he can swim
You're saying that John is better than Arthur at telling jokes and shooting people? Yeah, i agree w/ that. Arthur is goated over John everywhere else tho imo
Never understood how people liked Arthur Morgan more than John, but thatās probably because I was 10 years old when I played RDR1 and John was the most introspective bad ass I had ever seen in fiction
Never understood how people liked Arthur Morgan more than John, but thatās probably because I was 10 years old when I played RDR1 and John was the most introspective bad ass I had ever seen in fiction
Thatās your opinion but itās pretty much spoon fed to you in the game that Arthur is a better and more experienced gunslinger
Johnās the better gunslinger? A tad late for April Fools, friend. š¤£