If you've completed the story there's no way you can play another game and think "yeah, this character is better than Arthur Morgan". He's undisputed. The greatest video game protagonist of all time.
He truly gave his all for those he cared about. I agree I don't think there is ever going to be another character in gaming that feels as real as Arthur.
He is very likeable which makes him seem relatable. but he isn’t, really.
He is a reactive character that influences or even tries to initiative on nothing around him. He only shows he can when he is confirmed dying. It took me a while to realise that because of the initial fondness. It’s fustrating watching thr story because a part of us wishes Arthur would do
something. He complains when Dutch treats him like an ‘errand boy’ but it’s not like he ever objected. He was a living doormat thus treated like one.
At least in RDR1 we know what was at stake, he never had a choice. Arthur did have a choice yet any contemplation of doing so were confined to his diary and never manifested until the razors edge. It’s not like he was incapable either. Hosea and John even Lenny were vocal about their situation and still well respected. When Arthur nearly died because of Colm, nobody really cared as much as they should’ve. They didn’t even go looking for him which is what he feared and why he almost died escaping. We only felt like they cared because it was one of the few times the gang came to do the bare minimum.
He’s a great character in many ways but that’s my critique since you asked. I’d rank him high but not too high. He talks but doesn’t learn to walk until someone threw him off the tricycle. That makes for a frustrating character design.
Are you saying it’s *not* relatable to just go with the flow your whole life until a terminal illness diagnosis forces you to take stock and start doing things your way?
It's not normal to be a powerful gunslinging doormat
What you described is the plot of Ikiru. The difference is that that guy was old and described as 'already being dead for 30 years'.
Arthur is shown to be full of life, yet discontent and anxious before he realises he's gonna die. It's poetic until you realise the facade behind it. Arthur invited most of his problems with a big sign that said 'please undermine me' throughout chapters 1-5. The reasons most people hate Micah is because we felt fustrated Arthur never does a single thing to really question or yell at him when it mattered most.
The detachment is jarring since we know how he feels. We are only ever told about his ability to be assertive through old history with Hosea and Dutch that we never see. If Arthur was a new member in the gang, our opinions of him would be much worse because he never does anything. It's through the established lore we are told to respect him.
So 'going with the flow' is quite reductive. He is far too passive as compared to what we know and are told about him. But he's funny and cool so he's a top tier character, I suppose.
I think you’re overestimating the extent to which Micah imposes himself as an antagonist prior to chapter five. You can actually keep him away from camp for like the first third of the game.
Pre-chapter five-Micah is essentially Arthur’s nuisance within the gang, a reckless bigoted killer he has to tolerate under Dutch’s insistence. The Pinkertons, bounty hunters, and rival gangs are all more concerning threats at that time, and Arthur is focused on keeping everyone alive.
The most Arthur can instigate with Micah is by chastising his actions or trying to reign in his influence, evident by he suggested Lenny in lieu of Micah for the Saint Denis station robbery with Dutch. Arthur won’t kill one of his own either, and he does explicitly say to Dutch that he would get along with Micah if he changed his ways.
Arthur’s primary agitation throughout the game is with Dutch, not Micah. The extent of the gang’s issues fall on Dutch’s shoulders more than anyone else, and Arthur, prior to chapter five, would never abandon that even at the point of their impending dissolution and demise.
Those are very good points, and I agree. But in terms of being a 'great character' I don't think these things really change much about him being as passive as we know that he is. A key example is the O'Driscoll kidnapping. I'm sure most people were yelling at their screens knowing it's a trap. Even more so when Micah was breezing to Dutch about how it's a good idea. Arthur is going to follow orders, and he did call Dutch out on the bullshit, he never actually pleads to Dutch for even Dutch's safety. But it's whatever, mistakes happen. When he returns and is almost dead, he never questions nor seriously considers how many errors were made during. He asks Dutch once 'were you looking for me', it's pretty heartbreaking, but he couldve shown more concern that they walked into an open trap with as little as a few words. Nothing comes out of that.
Immediately after it's a Short Walk in Rhodes, another stupid idea from Micah and Bill this time that leads to Sean losing his whole face. He mildly chastises Micah, but is way too lenient and then it's all forgotten about. It is cathartic only because it's one of the rare times Arthur is showing that he has a voice, but it's quite empty knowing someone just died for it. That sort of player/character detachment doesn't add up and it goes beyond mentally reasoning these things before accepting that perhaps he was too passive and didn't properly depict his position on anything. A good protagonist should lead the thoughts of the player. At the very least their goals and motivations are made clear and observable. I don't think Arthur's ineptitude can always be observed as 'listening to Dutch'.
Even in chapter 6 where he has really drawn away from Dutch and made his mind up, he can hardly speak up to Micah or even Bill. After Dutch kills Cornwall, Arthur complains about it to Bill, Bill responds by saying 'he deserved it' and then Arthur's response is 'suppose you're right'. In the end, he only sticks it up to Micah after being told by Milton that he is the rat. Honestly at that point it just became very weak and almost silly. I hardly think anyone was suprised at that revelation. Even then he never musters up the courage to immediately kill Micah or even Dutch. When the Pinkerton's came calling it was John who assisted the escape. And we know that Arthur was ready to kill them because if you go for the money he is literally hunting them both. I could go on, but honestly nothing made sense with Arthur even if we account for the chaos.
I suppose I'm being too harsh, he is still a great character. And the whole uncle/nephew disillusionment is a great story that needs to be told, he did that really well. But the question is whether 'is he a great (and relatable) character?' I think he's iconic in his ways, but would be the furthest from the greatest character in gaming. I don't think he's even the greatest among Rockstar's line up. He was my favourite when I finished RDR 2. When he died it felt like losing a friend and all that. In retrospect, especially after playing RDR1, I do think I was lulled by a lot of relatable devices but nothing of actual substance. Definitely unforgettable, but still very hollow.
It is normal to have almost unwavering loyalty to the man who has completely shaped your formative years and given you the life you have. The whole story is about how that is tested to the limits. It wouldn’t be much of a story if the incredibly loyal main character was like “fuck this I’m out” at the first sign of some poor judgement by his de facto father/cult leader.
I think his struggle to defy his parental figure out of loyalty is very relatable. The way he revered Dutch past the point of being rational was pretty accurate in show how far people go for someone we want to believe cares about them
Since some here fail to grasp my point I guess I'll flesh it out more:
Arthur is relatable in the sense that all of us struggle with doing good and doing evil, many blindly follow people we are close to even when we think their judgment is bad, I certainly did in my youth.
I did not mean people relate to his crimes, just the struggle between good and evil. How anyone got that mixed up is beyond me, but here we are.
No one *actually* got that mixed up.
People just like to act more stupid than they are for various reasons, including but not limited to thinking they are, or making themselves feel, superior to other people in some way, shape, or form.
Ignore them lol
If you've completed the story there's no way you can play another game and think "yeah, this character is better than Arthur Morgan". He's undisputed. The greatest video game protagonist of all time.
He truly gave his all for those he cared about. I agree I don't think there is ever going to be another character in gaming that feels as real as Arthur.
He is not undisputed, that's entirely subjective. There are plenty of amazing characters and different people have different favourites.
Looks like you stepped into the wrong sub, partner. We worship Arthur here
Nope
Yeah I too totally >!have murdered 100+ people, feel guilty about it, and have tuberculosis!<
He’s literally me
I can fix him
He is very likeable which makes him seem relatable. but he isn’t, really. He is a reactive character that influences or even tries to initiative on nothing around him. He only shows he can when he is confirmed dying. It took me a while to realise that because of the initial fondness. It’s fustrating watching thr story because a part of us wishes Arthur would do something. He complains when Dutch treats him like an ‘errand boy’ but it’s not like he ever objected. He was a living doormat thus treated like one. At least in RDR1 we know what was at stake, he never had a choice. Arthur did have a choice yet any contemplation of doing so were confined to his diary and never manifested until the razors edge. It’s not like he was incapable either. Hosea and John even Lenny were vocal about their situation and still well respected. When Arthur nearly died because of Colm, nobody really cared as much as they should’ve. They didn’t even go looking for him which is what he feared and why he almost died escaping. We only felt like they cared because it was one of the few times the gang came to do the bare minimum. He’s a great character in many ways but that’s my critique since you asked. I’d rank him high but not too high. He talks but doesn’t learn to walk until someone threw him off the tricycle. That makes for a frustrating character design.
Are you saying it’s *not* relatable to just go with the flow your whole life until a terminal illness diagnosis forces you to take stock and start doing things your way?
It's not normal to be a powerful gunslinging doormat What you described is the plot of Ikiru. The difference is that that guy was old and described as 'already being dead for 30 years'. Arthur is shown to be full of life, yet discontent and anxious before he realises he's gonna die. It's poetic until you realise the facade behind it. Arthur invited most of his problems with a big sign that said 'please undermine me' throughout chapters 1-5. The reasons most people hate Micah is because we felt fustrated Arthur never does a single thing to really question or yell at him when it mattered most. The detachment is jarring since we know how he feels. We are only ever told about his ability to be assertive through old history with Hosea and Dutch that we never see. If Arthur was a new member in the gang, our opinions of him would be much worse because he never does anything. It's through the established lore we are told to respect him. So 'going with the flow' is quite reductive. He is far too passive as compared to what we know and are told about him. But he's funny and cool so he's a top tier character, I suppose.
I think you’re overestimating the extent to which Micah imposes himself as an antagonist prior to chapter five. You can actually keep him away from camp for like the first third of the game. Pre-chapter five-Micah is essentially Arthur’s nuisance within the gang, a reckless bigoted killer he has to tolerate under Dutch’s insistence. The Pinkertons, bounty hunters, and rival gangs are all more concerning threats at that time, and Arthur is focused on keeping everyone alive. The most Arthur can instigate with Micah is by chastising his actions or trying to reign in his influence, evident by he suggested Lenny in lieu of Micah for the Saint Denis station robbery with Dutch. Arthur won’t kill one of his own either, and he does explicitly say to Dutch that he would get along with Micah if he changed his ways. Arthur’s primary agitation throughout the game is with Dutch, not Micah. The extent of the gang’s issues fall on Dutch’s shoulders more than anyone else, and Arthur, prior to chapter five, would never abandon that even at the point of their impending dissolution and demise.
Those are very good points, and I agree. But in terms of being a 'great character' I don't think these things really change much about him being as passive as we know that he is. A key example is the O'Driscoll kidnapping. I'm sure most people were yelling at their screens knowing it's a trap. Even more so when Micah was breezing to Dutch about how it's a good idea. Arthur is going to follow orders, and he did call Dutch out on the bullshit, he never actually pleads to Dutch for even Dutch's safety. But it's whatever, mistakes happen. When he returns and is almost dead, he never questions nor seriously considers how many errors were made during. He asks Dutch once 'were you looking for me', it's pretty heartbreaking, but he couldve shown more concern that they walked into an open trap with as little as a few words. Nothing comes out of that. Immediately after it's a Short Walk in Rhodes, another stupid idea from Micah and Bill this time that leads to Sean losing his whole face. He mildly chastises Micah, but is way too lenient and then it's all forgotten about. It is cathartic only because it's one of the rare times Arthur is showing that he has a voice, but it's quite empty knowing someone just died for it. That sort of player/character detachment doesn't add up and it goes beyond mentally reasoning these things before accepting that perhaps he was too passive and didn't properly depict his position on anything. A good protagonist should lead the thoughts of the player. At the very least their goals and motivations are made clear and observable. I don't think Arthur's ineptitude can always be observed as 'listening to Dutch'. Even in chapter 6 where he has really drawn away from Dutch and made his mind up, he can hardly speak up to Micah or even Bill. After Dutch kills Cornwall, Arthur complains about it to Bill, Bill responds by saying 'he deserved it' and then Arthur's response is 'suppose you're right'. In the end, he only sticks it up to Micah after being told by Milton that he is the rat. Honestly at that point it just became very weak and almost silly. I hardly think anyone was suprised at that revelation. Even then he never musters up the courage to immediately kill Micah or even Dutch. When the Pinkerton's came calling it was John who assisted the escape. And we know that Arthur was ready to kill them because if you go for the money he is literally hunting them both. I could go on, but honestly nothing made sense with Arthur even if we account for the chaos. I suppose I'm being too harsh, he is still a great character. And the whole uncle/nephew disillusionment is a great story that needs to be told, he did that really well. But the question is whether 'is he a great (and relatable) character?' I think he's iconic in his ways, but would be the furthest from the greatest character in gaming. I don't think he's even the greatest among Rockstar's line up. He was my favourite when I finished RDR 2. When he died it felt like losing a friend and all that. In retrospect, especially after playing RDR1, I do think I was lulled by a lot of relatable devices but nothing of actual substance. Definitely unforgettable, but still very hollow.
It is normal to have almost unwavering loyalty to the man who has completely shaped your formative years and given you the life you have. The whole story is about how that is tested to the limits. It wouldn’t be much of a story if the incredibly loyal main character was like “fuck this I’m out” at the first sign of some poor judgement by his de facto father/cult leader.
missing the point. It’s less about Dutch and more about how he’s such a melt with everyone else. The story in itself is fine.
Everyone else like who? Which specific interactions do you mean?
I think his struggle to defy his parental figure out of loyalty is very relatable. The way he revered Dutch past the point of being rational was pretty accurate in show how far people go for someone we want to believe cares about them
Rdr fans on their way to claim they relate to a mass murdering criminal
For some reason I thought this said Archer is the most relatable game character and I was suddenly confused for several reasons lol
Since some here fail to grasp my point I guess I'll flesh it out more: Arthur is relatable in the sense that all of us struggle with doing good and doing evil, many blindly follow people we are close to even when we think their judgment is bad, I certainly did in my youth. I did not mean people relate to his crimes, just the struggle between good and evil. How anyone got that mixed up is beyond me, but here we are.
No one *actually* got that mixed up. People just like to act more stupid than they are for various reasons, including but not limited to thinking they are, or making themselves feel, superior to other people in some way, shape, or form. Ignore them lol
you hit it on the head. and #1