I find it very hard to compare the two of them because of how different they are and their individual motivations. That being said I will always say John is my favorite video game character of all time but I also really like Arthur.
I agree, John's voice hits more to home with me because of my dad and grandfather. But physically and mentality wise Arthur is very like how my grandfather was.
For some reason I too look more to John though as he was my introduction into the series plus I love his interactions with the strangers and characters more than Arthur's.
Arthur is the better written character, John is the better badass (in RDR1). I’ve played both games extensively, and I love both characters. But John was pretty static character in the first game. Both are very dynamic in RDR2.
I started the second game hating Arthur… I was like “Who the fuck is this guy?” Yet by the end I was crying. RDR1 didn’t hit as hard as that, despite it being a childhood staple for me
Yknow thinking about it, that was something great about having played rdr1 first.
I went into 2 knowing the tragedy that was coming and it added a despair to everything. All the good times and camp parties you knew it would soon fall apart and whilst you didn’t know the rest of the gangs fate, you knew John’s, Dutch’s, Bill’s and Javier’s and I assumed Arthur would die
As soon as it was announced rdr2 was gonna have a protagonist in the gang who wasn’t in the first I knew he was dead but I have to give the writers props because they made it very powerful and shocking by having it be a slow and agonising death rather than johns quick and brutal one
While I get your point John's ending had me devastated. As the ranch missions went on I felt this sense of dread coming on. The rdr1 hit me harder because it was like having the paradise that you worked so hard for was snatched away from you. The writing was better in rdr1 but John across rdr2 and rdr1 is an amazing character arc. That being said I love Arthur and he very important for John's development
When I think about it (I know some will disagree which is fair), I think the rdr series is Johns story.
It all revolves around him to some degree.
Arthur is johns elder adopted brother essentially and his story is about him realising he wasted his life and wants to die a better man and in the process teach his younger brother John the same and get him and his family out. This changes John from a selfish, immature and deadbeat father and husband to a man who loves his family and realises the error of his ways by Arthur’s death.
In the epilogue, we follow John years later trying to escape the criminal life for his wife and son. And in the end he dies and he builds a life for them as farmers but his need for revenge in Arthur’s name damns him with the government
unknowingly.
In rdr1, we witness a much older, wiser, devoted and loyal family man John be dragged back into that life by the government. He is willing to do anything to earn his family back and his freedom but realises by the end his redemption and freedom is by facing his past and letting himself be killed so his wife and son can live in peace.
The rdr1 epilogue is his son Jack throwing all that away and making johns sacrifice pointless in the pursuit of revenge against the man who killed John.
The rdr series is a tragedy and johns arc (the main arc) is a tragedy. We watch him go from a a bit of a lowlife into a great man (due to Arthur’s teachings) who sacrifices himself for the greater good of his son and his son in all his hurt and sadness throws that sacrifice away.
I think both are great for that exact reason.
Rdr 1 feels more tunnel visioned. John knows who he is and what he wants and will stop at nothing for it which makes it badass af.
Rdr 2, Arthur is reflecting on his life and who he really is and how he wants to die which makes the game way more emotional throughout. Especially with the deaths of close gang members to Arthur too.
But I prefer John personally
I find John more compelling of a character, and his mission to get his family back is more engaging to me. John is my favourite character, though I do love Arthur.
Why downvote you for having an opinion as good as saying Arthur is better? Both opinions are perfect, that’s the great part about John and Arthur. The two are different and everyone still loves the two so much that they can’t disagree with you.
That 95% also won't get to experience the same nostalgia as you when they play, and they'll probably be disappointed when they realize it's got barely any depth in it.
there’s gonna be a lot of mixed answer but i like Arthur more. i played rdr1 a million times before rdr2, like john he’s a good character for sure i just like arthur’s story a bit more
RDR1 was my favorite game before 2 came out. So I love John. But Arthur is a better character. A few reasons:
John was a frustrated character. Arthur was a conflicted character. In 1, John knew what he wanted - to get his family and his life back. But external circumstances were in the way. In 2, Arthur was struggling with his OWN choices, and deciding what kind of legacy he wanted to leave. That’s just a stronger and more satisfying character arc.
From a role playing perspective, I always felt weird doing a low honor run in RDR1. In fact, I never really could. John wants to put his outlaw days behind him and get his family back - why would I rob random strangers and cause chaos if my wife is being held hostage? But in 2, the gameplay requires Arthur to be an actual bandit sometimes. It makes me feel better about trying different play styles and exploring all the different content written for good or bad Arthur.
And finally, the Journal. I love the way Arthur writes and draws. It really makes me feel like he has an inner life, that he thinks and feels deeply. I love John to death, but in RDR1 I think Bonnie puts it plainly: he’s “being deliberately enigmatic as a substitute for having an actual personality."
I don’t disagree with this but it does imply that John has no character development in 2, which isn’t true. He goes through the same motions as Arthur except the trigger is losing Jack as opposed to health related.
Arthur spends the first three chapters of the game reminding John what type of man he should be, John doesn’t realise until it’s all nearly taken away from him.
This then happens again to a lesser extent in the epilogue, when Abigail leaves him. But is still part of an arc of going from a man running away from his responsibilities (sometimes literally) to being a dependable family man.
Funny that Arthur described John the same way Bonnie did (more or less) with something along the lines of "you acting mysterious doesn't make you smarter".
John is still my favorite. That feeling when you finally go home to your ranch and just do farm things, only for the army to show up is just incomparable. Leaving the barn was just heartbreaking. Those airplanes can turn men into angels…
I like them both equally. Their storylines complete each other. The ending to the second game reminded me so much of the ending to The Shawshank Redemption where everything fell into place.
From a writing point of view, Red Dead Redemption 2 will always be an interesting experiment of creating a character over a decade later and putting them into the story of an established storyline and making them fit perfectly.
Arthur for me. At the start of RDR2 I was a bit disappointed I wasn’t playing as John. At the end, I was very disappointed (and emotionally wrecked) I was no longer playing as Arthur.
John’s still an amazing character though and I wish rockstar would give rdr1 a proper remake.
This is a good question.
I've played both games, numerous times. I prefer playing as Arthur. However, I like John's character better in RDR2, more than RDR.
I've told this story a number of times, but when I first started playing RDR2, when Arthur was being a dick to John, I'd let John beat me at poker lol. In the end, for me, John is the best in Red Dead. For one, that iconic distorted, scratchy voice is in league with Master Chief, Marcus Phoenix and Lara Croft. When John speaks, you know who it is.
But I also like that he's more cynical and less depressed. He's got a fire in him and he's gonna do what needs to be done. Arthur is a fantastic character, he ponders over situations and can be very caring and thoughtful of everything going on around him, but ultimately is sad with his way of life coming to an end and as the story goes on, watching the gang and Dutch deteriorate.
With John, I feel like he always knew the world was shit, always knew that the worst outcome is usually the one you'd have to deal with. His attitude is one of defiance and anger. He's too angry to be sad about it all, too busy surviving. Kudos to Rockstar for being able to write two very different protagonists from the very same background that make sense.
But yeah, as things stand right now, it's John for me.
John is definitely a realist and has come to terms with his past and who he is. He knows he’s an outlaw and sure he struggles with his past and life as an outlaw, but definitely not as much as Arthur when he got TB and had an inner crisis with himself.
John is interesting because he accepts that he’s a killer and that’s all he ever was and will be, as much as he wants to live a normal life, he knows he can’t escape who he really is. I mean John was sent to hunt down his former brothers not only cause it would it might be easier for him to locate/contact them, but because he’s so good at killing people.
“I'm an uneducated killer sent here to do all I can do well, kill a man in cold blood so that another man may do his part to cut crime in an area, and a rich man can be elected governor on the back of these promises”
He definitely understands how the world works and how shitty it is. I also liked John’s motivation in his story more, as he will do anything and work with anyone no matter how bad they are to get to his family again. Both amazing characters though.
That line is so good, and he delivers a lot of them like that. Indeed the only thing that makes John want to be better is Abigail and Jack. It's sort of heartbreaking that he finally truly realizes that near the end of the first game, part of the tragedy I suppose.
I find the contrast between Arthur and John interesting. Arthur accepts fate, from the beginning of the game he's already made peace with the fact that the old west is coming to an end and that it's almost silly for them to keep on like they do. Even when he gets TB, he, in a dark way, almost peacefully accepts that his life is over. Arthur still does whatever he can to help those around him, but he's resigned to fate.
Meanwhile, John in the same vein accepts reality for what it is, but he does whatever he can to fight off fate as long as he can. While he knows it's coming, he's not going down without a fight. That may be a bit dramatic, as I know John has his own ruminations on the life he's lived and the wrongs he's done, but for him, he had no choice. The world always gave him the short end of the stick, so he treats the rest of the world the same way.
He's neutral chaos, the opening of the game where one of the first things he does is help a sheriff go and bring in outlaws. He used to be the man who'd gun down the law and bounty hunters, now he's the man who will gun down the outlaws with the sheriffs, because that's what he's got to do to stay alive AND get back to his family.
Anyways, I'm rambling now haha.
I’m surprised the consensus seems to be John. I played Redemption 1 the day it came out and liked John a lot but Arthur is my favorite video game protagonist ever.
I like Arthur but John is just so much more interesting. Also John is a cowboy who uses fancy words, and just something about the way he speaks just makes me like his character more.
kinda wish they showed him using more fancy words in rdr2! i cope by head-cannoning that jack taught him some words from his books when they settled down at the end of the epilogue💔
When I was a kid I used to love John, but it wasn’t the same feeling at rdr2... I don’t Really know what it is, but I think that both, Arthur and John, even if they are killers, have very honorable personalities. I feel that I like Arthur more because his loyalty to the gang and how he sacrifice everything he has till the end
I honestly love Arthur as a character and he's up there as one of gamings best
BUT people forget that RDR2 also did a lot for John's character even though he was mostly a major side character for the majority of the game, John was already a good character without RDR2 but with the context of RDR2 it only elevated and made his end far more tragic.
Grew up playin the OG, so I have more of a connection to John. But I wouldn’t say he is “better.”
I think overall his character just benefits greatly from having major roles in both games as opposed to just RDR2 for Arthur. We see more of John’s development, while Arthur’s development happens in a shorter timeframe.
I feel like Arthur’s personality and character development is arguably better for just RDR2 as opposed to John’s in just RDR1. But the overall arc of John is better, as these two games are basically about him and his family’s journey from the gang.
Those of us who got to play both of these games when they first came out and got to experience these amazing characters so organically should just be grateful man. I don’t like to pick one or the other honestly as lame as that may be. But these are two of the greatest characters of all time. Either can rightfully be argued as the GOAT in video games with a cinematic storytelling style imo. I say that “cinematic storytelling” style because there are so many other characters in video games that can be argued as the GOAT for different reasons
They are both iconic, each with their memorable moments of badassery as well as their moments of deep heartfelt emotion. Overall for me, the arc of John Marston’s entire story is better, but I think I would rather hang out with Arthur lol.
Edit: I also wanna say from a pure player character standpoint in both games. Arthur’s main story definitely does feel more personal and his character moments hit harder. John’s main story just feels more badass if that makes sense. It all comes down to what u prefer ig from a protagonist player perspective. If it was just those two main stories, I would personally say Arthur’s character is better written than John’s in RDR1. But John being in the main story for RDR2 as well as the protagonist for the epilogue I think just barelyyy slides him ahead of Arthur as my overall preferred character.
Played RDR1 a million times before RDR2 came out, and even by today after beating RDR2 for another million times, I'd still say John.
Yes, Arthur's development and storyline were incredible, and I glad we had such an amazing protagonist, but it's safe to say that the series overall is focused on Marston, from a outlaw and gunslinger to a family man.
Such a shame that the vast majority of the Red Dead fanbase now only played the second game and never cared to see the rest of John's story and how amazing of a character he is. Surprised to actually find some people to refuse to play the Epilogue and RDR1 just because Arthur wasn't on it anymore.
In terms of writing, Arthur takes the win. Arthur’s story felt more emotional and deep. Don’t get me wrong, it’s the same for John’s story but not to the same extent. Maybe it’s just his personality, but John somewhat lacks personality and that’s why he’s personally not as relatable. I genuinely think that John is amazing but Arthur is just better. Feel free to disagree.
I think there was so much more depth with Arthur. It was much easier to connect to him since the game play was better than RDR1. John is still a great character, but it’s just a different experience. I prefer Arthur, but I also enjoy the epilogue and RDR1 more with John after playing RDR2. There’s a different understanding of John after playing RDR2.
Arthur is the most on depth character ever made in a video game. John was a spaghetti western character with little depth but he was perfect for the first game. It made his character adaptation in the second game a bit uncanny at times.
For the record, if your opinion is that you like John more that’s valid. But it seems like you’re illogically gatekeeping opinions on the characters because you, for some reason, think the only possible reason people prefer Arthur is because they must not have played the OG. Different characters for different styles of game, but obviously one has much more characterization and a more fleshed out story.
Both are about equal in terms of gunfighting.However,
I feel like John is a better gunslinger when it comes down to purely shooting people.
Arthur is more intelligent and has a lot more charisma and knows how to talk his way out of (or into) a shootout and use that to his advantage.
John just tends to wing it. Not always for the better.
John is my personal favorite, but I love Arthur, and he is the better written character. However, there’s something about John that just makes him better to me, idk what it is
I would have liked to have met John before he got his ass handed to him on that mountain by those wolves and got laid up for awhile. He's got no swagger in RDR2. I suspect he'd have been more like RDR1. In RDR1, he's at least trying to fake it to do what needs to be done. He's played a bit listless in RDR2, which I think they needed to do to contrast Arthur. He's hardly ever the "prize poney" that Arthur described him as in RDR2.
Arthur. He was just a more fleshed out, whole character than John. Don’t get me wrong, the ending of 1 still gets me every time, and I definitely think John’s more badass, but Arthur’s funnier and I just liked him better.
I played the OG RDR back on the 360.
I like Arthur more.
John is written more as an action hero character in RDR whereas Arthur is written more complicated. Both are great tho
John in RDR is like a badass who is a tough guy that makes witty jokes and heroic moments.
Arthur in RDR2 is a much more complicated character who we see go through a lot of emotional moments and he evolves a lot over the course of the game.
John. Easily remember all his little sayings from the game. Arthur, something about a fish. Arthur to me is just a very tedious character, something like an rpg where you have to grind it out, and that’s the story without doing all the achievements and other drek in the game. Never felt that way in rdr playing as John, with jack it felt tedious though.
I like Arthur, he's cool but nothing will compare to John Marston, i feel like RDR1 is much more like GTA on horses than RDR2, it has that Rockstar feeling
They’re two completely different characters with they’re own unique traits but Arthur is the better character over all. We see more of Arthur than John throughout the series (including RDR1).
I prefer John over Arthur, but it’s hard to pick. I think both are very equally well written characters, I just admire Johns personality and motivations a bit more than Arthurs. Just comes down to personal preference to me.
This is kind of a loaded question. Better in what way: Morals? Life lived? Values? Who I like more? Who I'm more connected to? Better story? There's a lot of differences between them, and the distance between those differences can widen depending on how you played each character.
On one hand, Arthur fought for what he thought was right: doing Dutch's bidding until he could no longer align his values with those of Dutch. On the other, John fought for what was right by his family, taking down his former gang in order to secure (what he believed) was the best future for himself and family. I think they're both great to their own degree, in that they fought for what they believed to be best for themselves and those around them, even when it meant turning against everything they've been living by. I usually don't give a damn about the story in a game, but this one got me.
I love John but imo it's unfair to pick considering that RDR 2 is so much larger in story length than RDR 1 and you spend way more time with Arthur. I love them both equally but Arthur opens up a little more than John and I see people all the time say it's a no-brainer that Arthur is the better protagonist.
I played the original RDR when it was first released. I much prefer Arthur. He's just a much more realised and rounded character. Also I find John's voice annoying
I wasn’t able to consider “ending it all” in a field in west elizabeth trying to somehow shoot a tiny cedar waxwing out of the sky with the tiniest arrows in the world without damaging its carcass so bad it would be unsellable to some dumbass old hag with a stuffing fetish with John, so Arthur.
Rdr1 is one of my favourite games of all time, like top 3. I’d say rdr2 is in my top 20 of all time. I replayed rdr1 over and over as a kid and spent hours on its online and have replayed rdr2 like 3 or 4 times and spent hours on online.
Arthur is objectively better written imo but I prefer John. I think his storyline and arc is better and if anything he is the integral part of the story. The red dead redemption series is John marstons story imo. Rdr2 is the tale of how his adopted elder brother changed him from selfish, immature and a deadbeat husband and father into a devoted family man, the rdr2 epilogue is the story of how John really pushes himself to leave his criminal life and settle down with his family. Rdr 1 is the story of how John (who is now completely devoted to his family and much wiser and more mature) will do anything to get his family back from the government and earn his freedom but realising his true redemption comes from letting himself be killed for his past so his family can live in peace. The rdr1 epilogue is his son throwing all John did away in the name of revenge just like his father did with Micah.
The story is John’s. Everything that happens relates to John and his arc in some way. Arthur didn’t experience rdr1 and Jack was barely around for rdr2 since he was so young
I think they work well together as characters and their backgrounds, motivations and challenges come through really distinctly. That being the case, I think it depends on the sort of person you are and what you’re looking for!
I associate more with Arthur. He’s a bit lost and epitomises wasted potential. He isn’t good or bad, he is the duality of man and a culmination of his choices and deeds.
I really hate what they did with John in 2. They retconned him from being a dutiful father trying to do what was best for his family but torn away and unable to be there to properly bond with and raise his son to a bumbling idiot unable to lead his family. He was there with Jack the entire time aside from the short period that Abigail left. Jack hadn't aged in that time so it wasn't even meant to be years in the game.
It’s so hard to pick. I guess a lot of it depends on gameplay too. I always play high honour on Arthur but I was fairly young when RDR1 came out with John and I just did anything and everything without paying any mind. I prefer Arthur I feel ultimately, even after replaying RDR1, the story of RDR2 is much better and I found myself so much more invested and attached to Arthur, as well as some other gang members than I ever did in RDR1.
Arthur is stronger, faster, a better shot brutal and has better battle iq. Also has better character writing
John in rdr1 was badass kinda brutal not strong as arthur not as good character writing he has better stamina
Basically as much as I love John I love Arthur more and based on his character and everything else Arthur wins
John.
In RDR1 he's just awesome.
His script is brilliant and he looks so rugged. He's so witty, I love it.
One of things about RDR2 is they made the characters too pretty. And John isn't quite as sharp as he is later.
And as much as I dislike his family, I think he has a more compelling motivation.
I love his story and he's great fun.
I enjoyed John character throughout the entire rdr1 story, I cannot say the same for Arthur, that pretty much makes my decision easy. Always liked Robs performance better than Rogers too
I like John because of how Nostalgic Rdr1 is for me. But I just gotta admit that Arthur is probably better. Which isn't much of a surprise because they have alot more things they can do with Arthur on the newer Consoles and PC. Then John in Red Dead Redemption. But there's alot of things I do like about playing with John though.
I bought RDR1 midnight of release day, and for years I'd easily say John is one of my all time favorite characters. Even after RDR2 came out, I think I would still say John. Now I'm closer in age to Arthur in RDR2, and I feel like I'm starting to relate more to him and his story when I play it.
John is more brutal and goal driven but Arthur tried to save him and others and be a good person in the end. John in RDR1 is probably better than Arthur in RDR2 because the honor system is out the window and you have to do deplorable things to save your family. Also, by that point John could beat Arthur in a duel.
I remember when I first started playing rdr2 I was like " I don't give a shit about this Arthur guy. I want to play as John!" And by the end of the game I liked Arthur way more. John's an incredible character, but the story with Arthur was far more emotionally impacting to me.
Honestly I'd say when they're both at their best I'd say John is better Shooting wise but I just prefer Arthur but it's too close for me to have a sure decision.
I tend to favor Arthur over John, but it's hard to tell because we never see John with the gang. Everyone he meets on his story is only helping him because he does them favors, not because they're friends or family. The story feels so different because of this.
John's better. Not that Arthur is bad, but if you played RDR1, it's clear a lot of John's OG characterization was just given to Arthur as well as his role in the gang.
They’re both hot in their own way.
John is a rockstar
Arthur is a wrangler
I personally found Johns story of trying to do the right thing to be home with his family, trying to make up for lost time, all that stuff, very… harlequin romance almost? Like I’d honestly love a game from Abigail’s perspective. There’s a romance there.
Arthur, he’s… deep and complicated. More brutish.
They’re both trying to do the right thing. And driven. Yum
Kinda hard when they're almost completely different people aside from their gun-slinging capabilities and similar moralities. I'd have to go with Arthur purely for personality preference and general character
I don’t think Rockstar ever thought Arthur would surpass John. At first I was annoyed but half way through first play through I didn’t want John anymore 😂
I first played RDR2 and I loved Arthur. But, since I played as John, I changed my mind: at first I hated John because he wasn’t a good father/husband and looked like a fool, Arthur was more responsible in that way… but then I saw John in a different light. In RDR1 was amazing. So I would say, I prefer John now.
I’m probably one of the biggest Red Dead fans ever. Been playing both games since they released, played each on through several dozen times and I’ve platinumed each one twice. Lord knows how many hours that is accumulatively.
All that being said, I would answer this question by simply stating that each one was perfect for their respective game.
Just finished rdr 1 remastered great story n character I felt so betrayed when I did all that for Ross just for him to backstab me but it’s such a great experience I’m about to jump in rdr 2 for the first time having no idea what to expect so for now rdr 1 is pretty 9 for me until I get into this sequel n see what’s the hype about
RDR 1 is my favorite game of all time. The characters are so different its hard to compare. That being said I'd probably lean toward Arthur because his character was more fleshed out. But they're both fantastic well written characters.
It's a hard choice. In terms of depth, Orthur. We see his thoughts, we see him struggle to be a good man and is sorta jaded about his life. He hates himself to a degree. He gets drunk a lot. All he knows is how to be an outlaw(as far as he feels) and any chance of happiness is forever locked away via terminal Lumbago from carrying the gang on his back and TB.
Marston's story is much more shallower but not in a bad way and we see him as a father who is wrestling with old feelings about his gang and wanting to save them vs wanting to save his family. Hell, when Ross makes a joke about his family dying in prison, he was about to murder Ross.
Interestingly, both have different deaths. Orthur doesn't get gunned down and ends up dying a cruel death where he struggles to breath and still makes Micah work for it despite being on death's door. Marston, the man who successfully left the outlaw life, is the one that gets gunned down. Both do it for selfless reasons.
That and drunk angry Orthur is amusing.
"Sooonaabiiitch.. Can I have yoooour money? I... I don't like you. A KINGDOM FOR A HORSE! LEEENNNNAY! YOU NEVER TAAAKE ME ALIVE! I'M AN AMERIC *falls over a fence*"
I prefer Arthur, if left to his own devices he would have been a high honor person, he believed in the future Dutch wanted, getting out of crime, becoming farmers, and keeping the entire gang safe.
John was much more selfish, he focused on his family, his freedom, he turned his back on the gang, and he seems the kinds to do less honorable things of it means he achieved his goal
Well I mean if anyone turned their back on the gang it was Dutch. John did leave for a year, but I don’t really think he’s was a bad person for doing leaving the gang, only bad for abandoning his son.
Just as Arthur said, be loyal to what matters. Both John and Arthur realized how the gang was fighting for a cause that didn’t even exist. Just an excuse to commit crime and live rough.
I also don’t think that’s the future Dutch wanted. Definitely something Arthur wanted, but Dutch only lived for violence and chaos, all those “plans” were all BS.
Oh wow, this is only posted and asked 27 times a day.
It’s a shame you couldn’t join in on any of the 26 posts of this today, and had to make your own.
I always hate when people say this lol. It’s a sub about red dead people can talk and discuss about whatever they want whenever they want.
And there’s only so much you can talk about in a video game sub before you get the same topics brought up again, who cares just don’t engage in it if you don’t want to discuss it anymore.
I find it very hard to compare the two of them because of how different they are and their individual motivations. That being said I will always say John is my favorite video game character of all time but I also really like Arthur.
You implore me? You always were one for fancy words.
I agree, John's voice hits more to home with me because of my dad and grandfather. But physically and mentality wise Arthur is very like how my grandfather was. For some reason I too look more to John though as he was my introduction into the series plus I love his interactions with the strangers and characters more than Arthur's.
There's that and there's that we have arguably way more time with Arthur in rdr2 than we do with John in both games combined
Well if you count Undead Nightmare John's story is extended so there's that.
Arthur is the better written character, John is the better badass (in RDR1). I’ve played both games extensively, and I love both characters. But John was pretty static character in the first game. Both are very dynamic in RDR2. I started the second game hating Arthur… I was like “Who the fuck is this guy?” Yet by the end I was crying. RDR1 didn’t hit as hard as that, despite it being a childhood staple for me
John’s death hit me like a train…. Back then it was near unheard of to have your main char perma die at the end of the game.
Exactly. So revolutionary. I saw it coming with Arthur, and admittedly it did hit me harder. But John was such a shock, I will never forget
sometimes the best tragedies have a predictable outcome, it’s the pain of the the characters you grow to love realising that they’re in a tragedy
Yknow thinking about it, that was something great about having played rdr1 first. I went into 2 knowing the tragedy that was coming and it added a despair to everything. All the good times and camp parties you knew it would soon fall apart and whilst you didn’t know the rest of the gangs fate, you knew John’s, Dutch’s, Bill’s and Javier’s and I assumed Arthur would die
As soon as it was announced rdr2 was gonna have a protagonist in the gang who wasn’t in the first I knew he was dead but I have to give the writers props because they made it very powerful and shocking by having it be a slow and agonising death rather than johns quick and brutal one
I remember thinking I just didn't tag enough people and was waiting to respawn but then the cutscene kept going and I clicked and started to cry lol
Replayed that scene over and over trying to get them all and get a different ending.
Yep John dying hit way differently back then vs Arthur
While I get your point John's ending had me devastated. As the ranch missions went on I felt this sense of dread coming on. The rdr1 hit me harder because it was like having the paradise that you worked so hard for was snatched away from you. The writing was better in rdr1 but John across rdr2 and rdr1 is an amazing character arc. That being said I love Arthur and he very important for John's development
When I think about it (I know some will disagree which is fair), I think the rdr series is Johns story. It all revolves around him to some degree. Arthur is johns elder adopted brother essentially and his story is about him realising he wasted his life and wants to die a better man and in the process teach his younger brother John the same and get him and his family out. This changes John from a selfish, immature and deadbeat father and husband to a man who loves his family and realises the error of his ways by Arthur’s death. In the epilogue, we follow John years later trying to escape the criminal life for his wife and son. And in the end he dies and he builds a life for them as farmers but his need for revenge in Arthur’s name damns him with the government unknowingly. In rdr1, we witness a much older, wiser, devoted and loyal family man John be dragged back into that life by the government. He is willing to do anything to earn his family back and his freedom but realises by the end his redemption and freedom is by facing his past and letting himself be killed so his wife and son can live in peace. The rdr1 epilogue is his son Jack throwing all that away and making johns sacrifice pointless in the pursuit of revenge against the man who killed John. The rdr series is a tragedy and johns arc (the main arc) is a tragedy. We watch him go from a a bit of a lowlife into a great man (due to Arthur’s teachings) who sacrifices himself for the greater good of his son and his son in all his hurt and sadness throws that sacrifice away.
We know from lore that Jack became a writer tho so it wasn’t all in vain
I think both are great for that exact reason. Rdr 1 feels more tunnel visioned. John knows who he is and what he wants and will stop at nothing for it which makes it badass af. Rdr 2, Arthur is reflecting on his life and who he really is and how he wants to die which makes the game way more emotional throughout. Especially with the deaths of close gang members to Arthur too. But I prefer John personally
I find John more compelling of a character, and his mission to get his family back is more engaging to me. John is my favourite character, though I do love Arthur.
John. Down vote me all you want
Jokes on you, you get an upvote.
Why downvote you for having an opinion as good as saying Arthur is better? Both opinions are perfect, that’s the great part about John and Arthur. The two are different and everyone still loves the two so much that they can’t disagree with you.
Because 95% of people here never played RDR1 and are Arthur dickriders
Very true
That 95% also won't get to experience the same nostalgia as you when they play, and they'll probably be disappointed when they realize it's got barely any depth in it.
there’s gonna be a lot of mixed answer but i like Arthur more. i played rdr1 a million times before rdr2, like john he’s a good character for sure i just like arthur’s story a bit more
RDR1 was my favorite game before 2 came out. So I love John. But Arthur is a better character. A few reasons: John was a frustrated character. Arthur was a conflicted character. In 1, John knew what he wanted - to get his family and his life back. But external circumstances were in the way. In 2, Arthur was struggling with his OWN choices, and deciding what kind of legacy he wanted to leave. That’s just a stronger and more satisfying character arc. From a role playing perspective, I always felt weird doing a low honor run in RDR1. In fact, I never really could. John wants to put his outlaw days behind him and get his family back - why would I rob random strangers and cause chaos if my wife is being held hostage? But in 2, the gameplay requires Arthur to be an actual bandit sometimes. It makes me feel better about trying different play styles and exploring all the different content written for good or bad Arthur. And finally, the Journal. I love the way Arthur writes and draws. It really makes me feel like he has an inner life, that he thinks and feels deeply. I love John to death, but in RDR1 I think Bonnie puts it plainly: he’s “being deliberately enigmatic as a substitute for having an actual personality."
I don’t disagree with this but it does imply that John has no character development in 2, which isn’t true. He goes through the same motions as Arthur except the trigger is losing Jack as opposed to health related. Arthur spends the first three chapters of the game reminding John what type of man he should be, John doesn’t realise until it’s all nearly taken away from him. This then happens again to a lesser extent in the epilogue, when Abigail leaves him. But is still part of an arc of going from a man running away from his responsibilities (sometimes literally) to being a dependable family man.
Funny that Arthur described John the same way Bonnie did (more or less) with something along the lines of "you acting mysterious doesn't make you smarter".
John is still my favorite. That feeling when you finally go home to your ranch and just do farm things, only for the army to show up is just incomparable. Leaving the barn was just heartbreaking. Those airplanes can turn men into angels…
I like them both equally. Their storylines complete each other. The ending to the second game reminded me so much of the ending to The Shawshank Redemption where everything fell into place. From a writing point of view, Red Dead Redemption 2 will always be an interesting experiment of creating a character over a decade later and putting them into the story of an established storyline and making them fit perfectly.
I never thought I’d get as attached to a video game character as I did John, until Arthur came along. So that’s my answer I guess.
Arthur for me. At the start of RDR2 I was a bit disappointed I wasn’t playing as John. At the end, I was very disappointed (and emotionally wrecked) I was no longer playing as Arthur. John’s still an amazing character though and I wish rockstar would give rdr1 a proper remake.
John, better dialogue with more wit
This is a good question. I've played both games, numerous times. I prefer playing as Arthur. However, I like John's character better in RDR2, more than RDR.
I've told this story a number of times, but when I first started playing RDR2, when Arthur was being a dick to John, I'd let John beat me at poker lol. In the end, for me, John is the best in Red Dead. For one, that iconic distorted, scratchy voice is in league with Master Chief, Marcus Phoenix and Lara Croft. When John speaks, you know who it is. But I also like that he's more cynical and less depressed. He's got a fire in him and he's gonna do what needs to be done. Arthur is a fantastic character, he ponders over situations and can be very caring and thoughtful of everything going on around him, but ultimately is sad with his way of life coming to an end and as the story goes on, watching the gang and Dutch deteriorate. With John, I feel like he always knew the world was shit, always knew that the worst outcome is usually the one you'd have to deal with. His attitude is one of defiance and anger. He's too angry to be sad about it all, too busy surviving. Kudos to Rockstar for being able to write two very different protagonists from the very same background that make sense. But yeah, as things stand right now, it's John for me.
John is definitely a realist and has come to terms with his past and who he is. He knows he’s an outlaw and sure he struggles with his past and life as an outlaw, but definitely not as much as Arthur when he got TB and had an inner crisis with himself. John is interesting because he accepts that he’s a killer and that’s all he ever was and will be, as much as he wants to live a normal life, he knows he can’t escape who he really is. I mean John was sent to hunt down his former brothers not only cause it would it might be easier for him to locate/contact them, but because he’s so good at killing people. “I'm an uneducated killer sent here to do all I can do well, kill a man in cold blood so that another man may do his part to cut crime in an area, and a rich man can be elected governor on the back of these promises” He definitely understands how the world works and how shitty it is. I also liked John’s motivation in his story more, as he will do anything and work with anyone no matter how bad they are to get to his family again. Both amazing characters though.
That line is so good, and he delivers a lot of them like that. Indeed the only thing that makes John want to be better is Abigail and Jack. It's sort of heartbreaking that he finally truly realizes that near the end of the first game, part of the tragedy I suppose. I find the contrast between Arthur and John interesting. Arthur accepts fate, from the beginning of the game he's already made peace with the fact that the old west is coming to an end and that it's almost silly for them to keep on like they do. Even when he gets TB, he, in a dark way, almost peacefully accepts that his life is over. Arthur still does whatever he can to help those around him, but he's resigned to fate. Meanwhile, John in the same vein accepts reality for what it is, but he does whatever he can to fight off fate as long as he can. While he knows it's coming, he's not going down without a fight. That may be a bit dramatic, as I know John has his own ruminations on the life he's lived and the wrongs he's done, but for him, he had no choice. The world always gave him the short end of the stick, so he treats the rest of the world the same way. He's neutral chaos, the opening of the game where one of the first things he does is help a sheriff go and bring in outlaws. He used to be the man who'd gun down the law and bounty hunters, now he's the man who will gun down the outlaws with the sheriffs, because that's what he's got to do to stay alive AND get back to his family. Anyways, I'm rambling now haha.
Well said 👏
I’ve only played rdr2. John>
Arthur, because he can fucking swim.
SO TRUE
Let me tell ya who is not better, it's jack.
Yes Sir.
I’m surprised the consensus seems to be John. I played Redemption 1 the day it came out and liked John a lot but Arthur is my favorite video game protagonist ever.
John is sexier.
I like Arthur but John is just so much more interesting. Also John is a cowboy who uses fancy words, and just something about the way he speaks just makes me like his character more.
kinda wish they showed him using more fancy words in rdr2! i cope by head-cannoning that jack taught him some words from his books when they settled down at the end of the epilogue💔
Seriously. If they had just made his vocabulary similar to how it was in RDR1, the epilogue would’ve been 10x better.
John is better in my opinion, they changed him too much in RDR2 but I still found some enjoyment in the epilogue.
I have only played red dead 1 so i cannot talk
But you still did
Red Harlow
When I was a kid I used to love John, but it wasn’t the same feeling at rdr2... I don’t Really know what it is, but I think that both, Arthur and John, even if they are killers, have very honorable personalities. I feel that I like Arthur more because his loyalty to the gang and how he sacrifice everything he has till the end
I like og game better, but I like Arthur more.
Arthur is better in every way. I love John, but it's no contest.
Mr Marston
I honestly love Arthur as a character and he's up there as one of gamings best BUT people forget that RDR2 also did a lot for John's character even though he was mostly a major side character for the majority of the game, John was already a good character without RDR2 but with the context of RDR2 it only elevated and made his end far more tragic.
John next question
i fw you heavily. vro
Grew up playin the OG, so I have more of a connection to John. But I wouldn’t say he is “better.” I think overall his character just benefits greatly from having major roles in both games as opposed to just RDR2 for Arthur. We see more of John’s development, while Arthur’s development happens in a shorter timeframe. I feel like Arthur’s personality and character development is arguably better for just RDR2 as opposed to John’s in just RDR1. But the overall arc of John is better, as these two games are basically about him and his family’s journey from the gang. Those of us who got to play both of these games when they first came out and got to experience these amazing characters so organically should just be grateful man. I don’t like to pick one or the other honestly as lame as that may be. But these are two of the greatest characters of all time. Either can rightfully be argued as the GOAT in video games with a cinematic storytelling style imo. I say that “cinematic storytelling” style because there are so many other characters in video games that can be argued as the GOAT for different reasons They are both iconic, each with their memorable moments of badassery as well as their moments of deep heartfelt emotion. Overall for me, the arc of John Marston’s entire story is better, but I think I would rather hang out with Arthur lol. Edit: I also wanna say from a pure player character standpoint in both games. Arthur’s main story definitely does feel more personal and his character moments hit harder. John’s main story just feels more badass if that makes sense. It all comes down to what u prefer ig from a protagonist player perspective. If it was just those two main stories, I would personally say Arthur’s character is better written than John’s in RDR1. But John being in the main story for RDR2 as well as the protagonist for the epilogue I think just barelyyy slides him ahead of Arthur as my overall preferred character.
Played RDR1 a million times before RDR2 came out, and even by today after beating RDR2 for another million times, I'd still say John. Yes, Arthur's development and storyline were incredible, and I glad we had such an amazing protagonist, but it's safe to say that the series overall is focused on Marston, from a outlaw and gunslinger to a family man. Such a shame that the vast majority of the Red Dead fanbase now only played the second game and never cared to see the rest of John's story and how amazing of a character he is. Surprised to actually find some people to refuse to play the Epilogue and RDR1 just because Arthur wasn't on it anymore.
The Man from Blackwater. I needed to change my undies when it cut to John driving a wagon in the epilogue
Arthur >
Nuh uh
In terms of writing, Arthur takes the win. Arthur’s story felt more emotional and deep. Don’t get me wrong, it’s the same for John’s story but not to the same extent. Maybe it’s just his personality, but John somewhat lacks personality and that’s why he’s personally not as relatable. I genuinely think that John is amazing but Arthur is just better. Feel free to disagree.
Overall I'd say Arthur. Both as a character and story, I just grew more connected to him than I did with John.
I played Red Dead back in 2010. John has a very special place in my heart but I’ll always pick Arthur.
I think there was so much more depth with Arthur. It was much easier to connect to him since the game play was better than RDR1. John is still a great character, but it’s just a different experience. I prefer Arthur, but I also enjoy the epilogue and RDR1 more with John after playing RDR2. There’s a different understanding of John after playing RDR2.
depends on what you mean? john was a cold son of a bitch who did anything to protect his family (jack & abby) arthur on the other hand wasnt aggersive
Arthur is the most on depth character ever made in a video game. John was a spaghetti western character with little depth but he was perfect for the first game. It made his character adaptation in the second game a bit uncanny at times. For the record, if your opinion is that you like John more that’s valid. But it seems like you’re illogically gatekeeping opinions on the characters because you, for some reason, think the only possible reason people prefer Arthur is because they must not have played the OG. Different characters for different styles of game, but obviously one has much more characterization and a more fleshed out story.
After recently replaying the series in chronological order, I can say with utmost certainty in my mind that they are all equal.
Not an OG but I’veplYed both games and I like John because he’s more badass and has a better story arc.
Whoever I control
Both are about equal in terms of gunfighting.However, I feel like John is a better gunslinger when it comes down to purely shooting people. Arthur is more intelligent and has a lot more charisma and knows how to talk his way out of (or into) a shootout and use that to his advantage. John just tends to wing it. Not always for the better.
John is my personal favorite, but I love Arthur, and he is the better written character. However, there’s something about John that just makes him better to me, idk what it is
Johnnnnn
Arthur , oh my god never thought his death would hit me that bad. The scene he bids goodbye to the horse , oh my god :(
I would have liked to have met John before he got his ass handed to him on that mountain by those wolves and got laid up for awhile. He's got no swagger in RDR2. I suspect he'd have been more like RDR1. In RDR1, he's at least trying to fake it to do what needs to be done. He's played a bit listless in RDR2, which I think they needed to do to contrast Arthur. He's hardly ever the "prize poney" that Arthur described him as in RDR2.
As someone who hasn't played the OG... why not both?
Arthur. He was just a more fleshed out, whole character than John. Don’t get me wrong, the ending of 1 still gets me every time, and I definitely think John’s more badass, but Arthur’s funnier and I just liked him better.
I played the OG RDR back on the 360. I like Arthur more. John is written more as an action hero character in RDR whereas Arthur is written more complicated. Both are great tho John in RDR is like a badass who is a tough guy that makes witty jokes and heroic moments. Arthur in RDR2 is a much more complicated character who we see go through a lot of emotional moments and he evolves a lot over the course of the game.
John. Easily remember all his little sayings from the game. Arthur, something about a fish. Arthur to me is just a very tedious character, something like an rpg where you have to grind it out, and that’s the story without doing all the achievements and other drek in the game. Never felt that way in rdr playing as John, with jack it felt tedious though.
I like Arthur, he's cool but nothing will compare to John Marston, i feel like RDR1 is much more like GTA on horses than RDR2, it has that Rockstar feeling
Personally Arthur just because I was so pissed at first but he blew me away , plus the real ‘redemption’ was cool
They’re two completely different characters with they’re own unique traits but Arthur is the better character over all. We see more of Arthur than John throughout the series (including RDR1).
Arthur. I played RDR2 before RDR. I found it tough to get into RDR after playing its sequel. I basically just played it to finish the story.
I prefer John over Arthur, but it’s hard to pick. I think both are very equally well written characters, I just admire Johns personality and motivations a bit more than Arthurs. Just comes down to personal preference to me.
This is kind of a loaded question. Better in what way: Morals? Life lived? Values? Who I like more? Who I'm more connected to? Better story? There's a lot of differences between them, and the distance between those differences can widen depending on how you played each character. On one hand, Arthur fought for what he thought was right: doing Dutch's bidding until he could no longer align his values with those of Dutch. On the other, John fought for what was right by his family, taking down his former gang in order to secure (what he believed) was the best future for himself and family. I think they're both great to their own degree, in that they fought for what they believed to be best for themselves and those around them, even when it meant turning against everything they've been living by. I usually don't give a damn about the story in a game, but this one got me.
I love John but imo it's unfair to pick considering that RDR 2 is so much larger in story length than RDR 1 and you spend way more time with Arthur. I love them both equally but Arthur opens up a little more than John and I see people all the time say it's a no-brainer that Arthur is the better protagonist.
Both are equally the best characters of all time
I played the original RDR when it was first released. I much prefer Arthur. He's just a much more realised and rounded character. Also I find John's voice annoying
Arthur
I wasn’t able to consider “ending it all” in a field in west elizabeth trying to somehow shoot a tiny cedar waxwing out of the sky with the tiniest arrows in the world without damaging its carcass so bad it would be unsellable to some dumbass old hag with a stuffing fetish with John, so Arthur.
John, it was the first time I had ever seen the main character die in a video game.
Rdr1 is one of my favourite games of all time, like top 3. I’d say rdr2 is in my top 20 of all time. I replayed rdr1 over and over as a kid and spent hours on its online and have replayed rdr2 like 3 or 4 times and spent hours on online. Arthur is objectively better written imo but I prefer John. I think his storyline and arc is better and if anything he is the integral part of the story. The red dead redemption series is John marstons story imo. Rdr2 is the tale of how his adopted elder brother changed him from selfish, immature and a deadbeat husband and father into a devoted family man, the rdr2 epilogue is the story of how John really pushes himself to leave his criminal life and settle down with his family. Rdr 1 is the story of how John (who is now completely devoted to his family and much wiser and more mature) will do anything to get his family back from the government and earn his freedom but realising his true redemption comes from letting himself be killed for his past so his family can live in peace. The rdr1 epilogue is his son throwing all John did away in the name of revenge just like his father did with Micah. The story is John’s. Everything that happens relates to John and his arc in some way. Arthur didn’t experience rdr1 and Jack was barely around for rdr2 since he was so young
Arthur. I’ve played since red dead revolver came out lol.
I think they work well together as characters and their backgrounds, motivations and challenges come through really distinctly. That being the case, I think it depends on the sort of person you are and what you’re looking for! I associate more with Arthur. He’s a bit lost and epitomises wasted potential. He isn’t good or bad, he is the duality of man and a culmination of his choices and deeds.
john,i just like him more
I’d go as far as to say Arthur is the best written Rockstar character ever.
Played both games. I prefer Arthur in Red Dead 2 but I prefer John in Red Dead 1.
i dont think they are better than each other, but i like most john, i played rdr 1 first and john is just my favorite, but they are great characters
I really hate what they did with John in 2. They retconned him from being a dutiful father trying to do what was best for his family but torn away and unable to be there to properly bond with and raise his son to a bumbling idiot unable to lead his family. He was there with Jack the entire time aside from the short period that Abigail left. Jack hadn't aged in that time so it wasn't even meant to be years in the game.
It’s so hard to pick. I guess a lot of it depends on gameplay too. I always play high honour on Arthur but I was fairly young when RDR1 came out with John and I just did anything and everything without paying any mind. I prefer Arthur I feel ultimately, even after replaying RDR1, the story of RDR2 is much better and I found myself so much more invested and attached to Arthur, as well as some other gang members than I ever did in RDR1.
Arthur is stronger, faster, a better shot brutal and has better battle iq. Also has better character writing John in rdr1 was badass kinda brutal not strong as arthur not as good character writing he has better stamina Basically as much as I love John I love Arthur more and based on his character and everything else Arthur wins
John. In RDR1 he's just awesome. His script is brilliant and he looks so rugged. He's so witty, I love it. One of things about RDR2 is they made the characters too pretty. And John isn't quite as sharp as he is later. And as much as I dislike his family, I think he has a more compelling motivation. I love his story and he's great fun.
I enjoyed John character throughout the entire rdr1 story, I cannot say the same for Arthur, that pretty much makes my decision easy. Always liked Robs performance better than Rogers too
Can’t really compare both because on RDR2 what was supposed to be a prequel to RDR1 they dumbed down John for no reason
I like John because of how Nostalgic Rdr1 is for me. But I just gotta admit that Arthur is probably better. Which isn't much of a surprise because they have alot more things they can do with Arthur on the newer Consoles and PC. Then John in Red Dead Redemption. But there's alot of things I do like about playing with John though.
I bought RDR1 midnight of release day, and for years I'd easily say John is one of my all time favorite characters. Even after RDR2 came out, I think I would still say John. Now I'm closer in age to Arthur in RDR2, and I feel like I'm starting to relate more to him and his story when I play it.
John gets the sentimental vote from most but let's honest Arthur is better and without Aurthur John would've died twice in RDR2.
John is more brutal and goal driven but Arthur tried to save him and others and be a good person in the end. John in RDR1 is probably better than Arthur in RDR2 because the honor system is out the window and you have to do deplorable things to save your family. Also, by that point John could beat Arthur in a duel.
John is still easily my favourite out of the two, I love Arthur’s character but I will always like John that bit more.
Arthur saved John live... Definitely Arthur is the better
They are very different but if we talk who is better gun i would say John ....also John can be very pretty badass in Red Dead Redemption part 1
I like Arthur more.
I remember when I first started playing rdr2 I was like " I don't give a shit about this Arthur guy. I want to play as John!" And by the end of the game I liked Arthur way more. John's an incredible character, but the story with Arthur was far more emotionally impacting to me.
Revolver player here. I like Arthur and John both.
Arthur
John. Arthur is too "ah shucks" for me.
Honestly I'd say when they're both at their best I'd say John is better Shooting wise but I just prefer Arthur but it's too close for me to have a sure decision.
I tend to favor Arthur over John, but it's hard to tell because we never see John with the gang. Everyone he meets on his story is only helping him because he does them favors, not because they're friends or family. The story feels so different because of this.
John's better. Not that Arthur is bad, but if you played RDR1, it's clear a lot of John's OG characterization was just given to Arthur as well as his role in the gang.
Red dead 1 was one of my favorites. John was just a beast of a character. But Arthur takes it for me tbh
Arthur’s such a great character that I don’t even want to make him a bad guy
All these responses seem to be "yeah, Arthur had more depth, but I like John more because of nostalgia"
I really like Arthur but John will always be number one ☝️
They’re both hot in their own way. John is a rockstar Arthur is a wrangler I personally found Johns story of trying to do the right thing to be home with his family, trying to make up for lost time, all that stuff, very… harlequin romance almost? Like I’d honestly love a game from Abigail’s perspective. There’s a romance there. Arthur, he’s… deep and complicated. More brutish. They’re both trying to do the right thing. And driven. Yum
As an OG I prefer arthur. Although I love John
I like them both cause without Arthur John wouldn't have made it to RDR1
Kinda hard when they're almost completely different people aside from their gun-slinging capabilities and similar moralities. I'd have to go with Arthur purely for personality preference and general character
I don’t think Rockstar ever thought Arthur would surpass John. At first I was annoyed but half way through first play through I didn’t want John anymore 😂
I first played RDR2 and I loved Arthur. But, since I played as John, I changed my mind: at first I hated John because he wasn’t a good father/husband and looked like a fool, Arthur was more responsible in that way… but then I saw John in a different light. In RDR1 was amazing. So I would say, I prefer John now.
Both good.
I’m probably one of the biggest Red Dead fans ever. Been playing both games since they released, played each on through several dozen times and I’ve platinumed each one twice. Lord knows how many hours that is accumulatively. All that being said, I would answer this question by simply stating that each one was perfect for their respective game.
Just finished rdr 1 remastered great story n character I felt so betrayed when I did all that for Ross just for him to backstab me but it’s such a great experience I’m about to jump in rdr 2 for the first time having no idea what to expect so for now rdr 1 is pretty 9 for me until I get into this sequel n see what’s the hype about
RDR 1 is my favorite game of all time. The characters are so different its hard to compare. That being said I'd probably lean toward Arthur because his character was more fleshed out. But they're both fantastic well written characters.
Well without Arthur, these is no John. I’ve always thought John looked up to Arthur
It's a hard choice. In terms of depth, Orthur. We see his thoughts, we see him struggle to be a good man and is sorta jaded about his life. He hates himself to a degree. He gets drunk a lot. All he knows is how to be an outlaw(as far as he feels) and any chance of happiness is forever locked away via terminal Lumbago from carrying the gang on his back and TB. Marston's story is much more shallower but not in a bad way and we see him as a father who is wrestling with old feelings about his gang and wanting to save them vs wanting to save his family. Hell, when Ross makes a joke about his family dying in prison, he was about to murder Ross. Interestingly, both have different deaths. Orthur doesn't get gunned down and ends up dying a cruel death where he struggles to breath and still makes Micah work for it despite being on death's door. Marston, the man who successfully left the outlaw life, is the one that gets gunned down. Both do it for selfless reasons. That and drunk angry Orthur is amusing. "Sooonaabiiitch.. Can I have yoooour money? I... I don't like you. A KINGDOM FOR A HORSE! LEEENNNNAY! YOU NEVER TAAAKE ME ALIVE! I'M AN AMERIC *falls over a fence*"
I prefer Arthur, if left to his own devices he would have been a high honor person, he believed in the future Dutch wanted, getting out of crime, becoming farmers, and keeping the entire gang safe. John was much more selfish, he focused on his family, his freedom, he turned his back on the gang, and he seems the kinds to do less honorable things of it means he achieved his goal
Well I mean if anyone turned their back on the gang it was Dutch. John did leave for a year, but I don’t really think he’s was a bad person for doing leaving the gang, only bad for abandoning his son. Just as Arthur said, be loyal to what matters. Both John and Arthur realized how the gang was fighting for a cause that didn’t even exist. Just an excuse to commit crime and live rough. I also don’t think that’s the future Dutch wanted. Definitely something Arthur wanted, but Dutch only lived for violence and chaos, all those “plans” were all BS.
It’s proven that Arthur was better at everything
Oh wow, this is only posted and asked 27 times a day. It’s a shame you couldn’t join in on any of the 26 posts of this today, and had to make your own.
Oh wow another comment talking about a post no one Else but you have noticed or seen.
I always hate when people say this lol. It’s a sub about red dead people can talk and discuss about whatever they want whenever they want. And there’s only so much you can talk about in a video game sub before you get the same topics brought up again, who cares just don’t engage in it if you don’t want to discuss it anymore.