@@Tecjazeofficial He probably meant academically, but Arthur is one of the wisest and is arguably the most insightful out of the gang. He just doesn't display it because he doesn't think it's what the gang needs of him. So he plays the role of the mindless enforcer.
Arthur is a character with a great story, and John is just baddass, they are both gaming legends, so in my opinion they both are amazing and great characters.
@@BasedR0nin that what I mean by that, like John is going on an epic quest showing how cool he is, than Arthur has a great story by showing his progression, sorry for the confusion.
Up north in those times there was clearly racism, he didn't understand it because there was less + the gang shielded it from him because Dutch didn't care about race.
@@RedDeadTierListsI think it’s just bad writing. They could have made him acknowledge it and say “ I don’t care about skin color but how they treat me “ or something like that .he wouldn’t not know what racism was unless he was slow
@@NamesPhimble no its not bad writing its completely realistic. Its not that arthur doesnt understand racism he just understands it more from a thing he has heard about and not somthing he has experienced a lot of even when its not dirrwcted at him. Arthur is not a very political person for one and he grew up in the north west A lot of people think of racism back then and even to this day in a more comical way than it actually is. There is a complex range for how racist a person could be. Its often glance or a disconfort and often the N word was used like it was a label or a reaction to somthing. For most of his life Arthur up north where there was way less racism. Most people he would of met up north wouldnt be racist and if they were he most likely wouldnt notice it since its not dirrected at him. Generally, back then and many would argue today white people understand racism but they dont get it. You cant substitute a life time of glances, being turned down, being labled as a n word, ect. Plus Arthur is a not very political person who usually just doesnt care what is going on besides what is infront of him. Plus back then a lot of people up north stopped caring post civil war because they just assumed it was over they got the vote they got their freedom. Arthur knows what racism is he just has a outside view on it. Its pretty much reflected on in pretty much every encounter with racism he sees. He litterslly knows what the KKK is and he flat out shows his distaste for the KKK.
As an OG RDR player I’m biased and say John, in 2010 I was a SR in HS and up until that point the main character wasn’t deep like marston with a family etc something to love for, and then for the main character to die like John did made legendary, games didn’t end like RDR1 did in 2010, I never watched a RDR2 trailer or read any articles when it was coming out, I got it simply off the merit of RDR1 and John marston
@TheMartyrNeverFadeshe’s a younger and different man. But in the first game you can see what happens when you push him and take what he loves away from him
I recently played Red Dead Redemption 2 and Red Dead Redemption back to back in chronological order on the PS5, it was a great experience playing like that Since Red Dead Redemption 2 didn't mention John's daughter, I'm guessing she was born after 1907 and died before 1911 If Red Dead Redemption 3 is another prequel, we'll probably get more information on Arthur and John, but I'm sure we'll play as someone that'll die (and then we might play as Arthur in the epilogue, even if it's a good four years before the Blackwater Massacre and we never get to see that)
Cue the Arthur fanboys in the comments who just unfairly hate on John simply because hes not Arthur or because they never played red dead 1/played it after red dead 2
I think Arthur was way smarter than John. He followed gang orders but he wasn’t getting himself as in much trouble as John was. John was an errand boy for the majority of the side characters in rdr1
Arthur is definitely more intelligent he's also a great artist and writer but john has more street smarts if that makes sense lol he was the first to call out dutch's bs when arthur blindly followed.
Arthur may have been smarter but he wasn’t all that wise in comparison. John was significantly more perceptive and less blinded by his allegiance to Dutch. In fact if he didn’t have Abigail and Jack to worry about I suspect he would have ditched the gang sooner cause he saw the nonsense that was happening far sooner than anyone else (the only other person who maybe had him beat was Uncle in that regard)
Arthur a aussi une meilleure histoire que john il a été le hero du gang du debut à la fin c'est meme lui qui c'est sacrifier pour john et sa famille pour qu'ils aient une autre vie Contrairement à john qui a eu l'occasion de repartir à zero mais à tout gacher à cause de la vengeance et à apres sa mort sa femme mourra de chagrin il n' a sue proteger personne
@@ChryslonBidoungaJohn actually protected and cared for his family.They are the main catalyst to john changing and he truly became a better person for them.Arthur on the other hand,was pretty absent for a majority of his sons life which cost his life and repeats the same mistake with mary.
I think johns character is overall great. However most of his development comes from RDR 2, he goes from an inmature deadbeat father and husband to loving family man who becomes hellbent on saving his family no matter what. Just seeing how he is in the beggining of RDR 2 to how he is in RDR 1 is great. However i prefer arthur as a character overall.
It's impossible for me to choose. I'll put it this way- Arthur is definitely a better man, and certainly a Renaissance man. He is incredibly athletic, but he has an artist's eye; he loves photography, draws extensively and is talented at it, enjoys music, and even the theater: He isn't a dumb oaf, he is an pitifully uneducated soul who is definitely a victim of circumstance. His huge heart and sad Saint Bernard eyes are hard not to love. John is, on the other hand, is kind of a dumbass. John is fundamentally flawed in a lot of ways, but you can't help by like him. His character in Red Dead 1 is just a madman. I love how his eyes look like they are going to pop out in his cut scenes. He is exhausted, stressed, and afraid. I DO disagree with his "not being fun" to play as. I found him immensely entertaining to follow- his extremely questionable morals are unnerving as hell to see in action. When he gets to Mexico, his ping pong politics are pretty unsettling to watch (I refuse to say cringe. At this point, saying cringe is f'ing cringe, y'know?) It's a side note, but i just got done playing the ps4 port of rdr1 on a ps5-and I do have to stand up in its defense. This game looks absolutely amazing running at 60 fps. The desert is absolutely more breathtaking in red dead 2, obviously. But with the enhanced graphics and animation, the o.g . title has a new life as almost an animated film version of red dead 2's strikingly real world looks. Red Dead 1 is frantic, nervous, and crazy, and the graphic style goes hand and hand with it. Graphically, red dead 1 only falters badly with its depiction of forests/foliage and the pretty dated looking horse mechanics and animation. The constant spam spawning of wolves and bears can get a hair ridiculous as well. To stand in its defense again, however, the 60 fps birds look astonishing, as do the sunrise and sunset lighting in the desert set pieces. I found myself taking screenshots all over the place, almost to the extent that I did in rdr2. Black water, the game's sole "big city", also unfortunately looks really fake and "videogamey"- its kind of jarring and honestly hard to say why. The Old West towns are great- for me they stand neck and neck with St. Denis in terms of interesting content, and the random events actual supersede those in rdr2. I just threw this in because the port has received a lot of ish since its announcement. I originally bought it because I wanted to own both games on matching modern hardware, and I wanted to play them in order. It has been a decade since I had messed with rdr1, afterall, and my ps3 died almost 7 years ago now. I wasn't really expecting any improvements, and was very pleasantly surprised. All you need to do is cue up some footage of the ps3 version and watch it side by side with ps5 footage- the differences are obvious. There are also slight improvements that I enjoyed, such as a weapons wheel that matches rdr2, an improved map, and actually some big differences in the location of certain animals and horses, etc. In short, if you have any interest in checking out the port after playing rdr2 (again), or even if you want to kind of play them simultaneously or in order, I say yes, go for it. I got it on sale at Christmas for $35, and it was absolutely worth it. Anyways, I'll shut up now. I subscribed, by the way. Great video. Thanks!
Just wanted to point out that Arthur does know what racism is, but Dutch has fostered a community that is not prejudiced. Genuinely one of the best things he did as a leader.
Really good video! I think I mostly agree besides the Redemption category. I dont think being nicer or sympathetic redeems you. Arthur "redeems himself" by standing up for whats right in the downfall of the gang, and help saving his criminal friends. John's "redemption" was leaving his old life behind and sacrificing himself so his family could be safe. Personally I don't think either truly redeems themselves, but if I had to pick one I think John's sacrifice was more important compared to Arthurs good deeds at the end of RDR2.
I think that Arthur's backstory "not mattering that much" is actually one of the most important and smartest components that make his story so compelling. Yeah, he had it rough from the get go, he lost his parents, he got indoctrinated into a cult-ish set up by a shady father-like figure. It's very easy to use it all as an excuse for him being the way he is. But the thing is - a lot of people have it rough, especially back then. And yet, only few became outlaws. There's a point in life when you have to acknowledge the fact that your decisions are your own and take accountability for your actions, instead of hiding behind your past traumas, parents' mistakes or whatever else excuses people tend to use. Once you own up to your mistakes and realise that you always had the power to make a different choice - you become able to get a hold of your life and change. RDR 2 plot pans down to Arthur reclaiming his personhood. That's also what makes his story such a tragic one - because it's cut short seconds after he reclaims it for himself. It also makes RDR 2 such a beautiful piece of literature.
i agree with the death thing and the reason people arent as sad as people were at Arthur's death is because of the graphics and alot of people deny it but its true. RDR2 Is more immersive because its so real life like if RDR1 was like that aswell alot more people would be sad with John's death possible even crying over it
I feel I've come to realize that john 1911 was for seasoned as a outlaw/gunslinger than 1899 morgan. But I feel it is Obviously for fun and more detailed to play and use arthur.
relatability: yea I do see your point my guy... but I feel like I am more of a "pragmatic idealist" I don't feel relatable to any of them, Arthur feel to idealistic and John feel to practical, I need a character that is "pragmatic idealistic" to feel "relatable" but yes you definitely have a point.
For example in his journal he writes about how the west is over but then says that he doesn’t know what’s happening even though he is the one person who pays attention to how the world is changing
I dont think arthur is picture as a saint either in the end. Just look at how he expresses himself when he is with edith downes or how he knows that his end result has all been due to living as bad person.
Guys I know this may seem like a stupid theory but what if Jim Milton was actually Rip Van Winkle in disguise and then John Jim Milton (Secretly John Marston) killed him 😲
Arthur is mainly RDR2. John is mainly RDR1 and for me gave me closure to missions and the exploration in RDR2. With John you feel that Revenge. With Arthur you feel the Heart. So both are Badasses. For a RD3 Give us a three way character gameplay like GTA V. Arthur, John and Red Harlowe. The 3 main characters. Jack, Charles and Sadie in the Epilogue. I will go John Marston as the Better Character in the context of an open world game. He's a killer who is trapped with responsibilities of a family.
I go back and forth between my favorites almost every week. I love John’s pragmatism and bleak outlook but I also love how emotional and sensitive Arthur really is. Honestly they’re evenly matched in my opinion.
Arthur est le meilleur personnage de tous les jeux de rockstar. john est bon mais Arthur était la main de toute la bande, même hollandais et charles l’a dit à mon avis je pense que dans RDR 1 le jeu était moins réel que RDR2 C’est pourquoi nous avons vu que john semble invincible. Arthur en 1911 sera peut-être plus fort que dans RDR 2 c’est une question de realism but overall Arthur is better
Lot of Arthur meat riders in these comments, talking down on John completely and disregarding everything about him. I do agree that Arthur is a better character, but not by much, they are both extremely good characters and extremely well written
@@Johnalexanderwilliams-ws1jy If it’s 1899 Arthur wins if it’s prime Arthur vs 1907 John, John Wins by just being more experienced and violent especially in a gun fight. I love Arthur Though
Honestly to me RDR2 Epilogue John feels unfinished and done dirty from his character to his look (Especially look) He looks like Arthur Morgan instead of his Beta Epilogue look, His npc or RDR1 appearance.
Bro hop off rip van winkles dick bro most of these categories aren’t even close 💀 Especially the death one, like what??? Arthur’s high honour death scene is the single greatest death in gaming history and there no competition anywhere near it. Arthur actually grows as a character whereas John becomes a good guy in the epilogue of RDR2 and then just immediately reverts back when in rdr1. Arthur is overall a better written character and to be honest it’s not even an opinion, like Arthur is pretty much just straight up better. John is also a great character but let’s stop nostalgia from getting in our heads. “B-B-BUT YOU PROBABLY DIDNT EVEN PLAY RDR1 GEN Z 😭😭😭😢😭” incoming
Now, I played RDR1 before 2, but I think I enjoyed 2 a little bit more, just because there really are more things to do. I do have a lot of nostalgia playing as John, and I do think he's got a cool ass story, but I think that Arthur really is a better character. I may prefer John because I feel like I can relate more to him, being very one-track minded, and reactionary, but Arthur's personality, story, and complex decision making is a huge thing and I completely understand why people would say he's a much better character. I do have to disagree with the death though. Arthur's rocks, and it's a big deal in video game history, but I think that John's death is so much more of a tragedy because it almost feels pointless- and maybe some people don't like that, but I think that's very thought provoking. Also "hop off rip van winkle's dick" is so funny
@@BurtonMore-mm9pe no I think I enjoyed 2 a little more. The online is better in 1 and the random ass zombie mode rocked but 2 just had so much stuff to do. I think it immersed me more
We knew Arthur was going to die, we didn’t think John was going to die and I’m talking back in 2010 to see the main character die and savagely like he got gunned down is the best imo
Arthur is better John is just a pushover who lets people push him around His wife forces him to be a rancher, he works with the cops in the first game and ends up dying by their hands Arthur went against Dutch to save John, abigail etc also Arthur can antagonize better than John
Unborn child? He was a kid buddy that was killed with his mom. So those things being optional doesnt make it weak. Hell arthurs backstory with his dad son and mary is one of the reasons why arthur was mad at john in the beggining and saving him in his family in the end. Lack of analysis there buddy
Jack morston is the best because he is 19 year old and he know how to use guns hunt wild horses and skin animals and finally revenge for all the gang by killing Edgar Ross in the end
to be fair the games have been made more realistic as each title is released. In revolver them dudes had superpowers in rdr1 you become the greatest gunslinger a man can become. rdr2 bogs your character down with realism.
john don't know how to swim don't know how to draw slower shot aint got his morals in check yet he smarter even though he learned almost all his shit from Arthur CRAZY only thing I believe is the back story one but you said Arthur got little to no back story is CRAZY and sayin that johns more relatable is CRAZY bro john got like no redemption witch is a big part of being relatable john got that old man mean that annoying mean like you kidding bro
I feel like John is just more of a real character than Arthur. I mean Arthur didn't even know who he was until he was dead John knew exactly who he was and that's why I think John's better because he stay the same and all he wanted to do was save his family he didn't care about anyone but his family and that's a good father and husband John is honest and stays who he is John is what you see is what you get
Thats why i always liked John more. He knew exactly who he was and he didn't make excuses for it. He just learned and moved on. The only thing he changed his mind on was how he treated Jack. And people dont realize he was hesitant because his dad was such a piece of trash that he thought he would be the same.
Look, I’m all for Arthur. I like him better than John but even I have to admit, John is a lot better in some areas because he simply lives longer than Arthur and had more experiences because I mean if Arthur ended up going to Mexico and being trained by Landon rickets, I’m sure he’d be just as good as John that’s why it’s a little unfair to compare them because John just had a longer life And another thing you argument that John is more pragmatic than Arthur is a good argument, but you have to remember when Arthur is doing all of these good deeds he knows he doesn’t have that much time left and with John he knows he could die, but he doesn’t have terminal illness like Arthur. Arthur sees things in a more long-term view, because he’s not worried about himself at all. He’s only worried about his lasting impact on people because that’s all that matters. In his eyes, his life is already over. All he cares about, is making other life’s better
![Jack Harlow - Hello Miss Johnson [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Q86_nlRoIGw/mqdefault.jpg)
Fenton vs Rip Van Winkle 🥶
Tacitus Kilgore*
Don't mess with Fenton, he's turned idiot.
Tacitus Kilgore vs Jim milton
What could've been RDR3. Isaac Morgan vs Jack Marston
Black lung vs Scarface
"You spend 50 hours on Arthur"
That is one HELL of an understatement there, my friend.
More like 100.
for real tho especially if you trying to get the collectables and shit
more like 1500 💀
How can he say that Arthuer isnt that smart. Likes hes probebly the second smartest member right after Hosea
@@Tecjazeofficial He probably meant academically, but Arthur is one of the wisest and is arguably the most insightful out of the gang. He just doesn't display it because he doesn't think it's what the gang needs of him. So he plays the role of the mindless enforcer.
Arthur is a character with a great story, and John is just baddass, they are both gaming legends, so in my opinion they both are amazing and great characters.
I mean John has more of a “story” like a quest. Arthur’s is more about his character arc I feel like
@@BasedR0nin that what I mean by that, like John is going on an epic quest showing how cool he is, than Arthur has a great story by showing his progression, sorry for the confusion.
@@YapaholicGambler gotchaa gotcha
John is a better character he has character growth
@@Johnalexanderwilliams-ws1jy sorry Arthur Morgan I didn’t mean it don’t shoot me
6:21 arthur didnt understand racism bc of the gang, he didn’t understand it bc he is from up north, where it is considerably less racist
Up north in those times there was clearly racism, he didn't understand it because there was less + the gang shielded it from him because Dutch didn't care about race.
@@RedDeadTierListsI think it’s just bad writing. They could have made him acknowledge it and say “ I don’t care about skin color but how they treat me “ or something like that .he wouldn’t not know what racism was unless he was slow
Not too nitpick but hes from the west, and i bet more open considering the western states were some of the first to support suffarage
@@NamesPhimble no its not bad writing its completely realistic. Its not that arthur doesnt understand racism he just understands it more from a thing he has heard about and not somthing he has experienced a lot of even when its not dirrwcted at him.
Arthur is not a very political person for one and he grew up in the north west
A lot of people think of racism back then and even to this day in a more comical way than it actually is. There is a complex range for how racist a person could be. Its often glance or a disconfort and often the N word was used like it was a label or a reaction to somthing.
For most of his life Arthur up north where there was way less racism. Most people he would of met up north wouldnt be racist and if they were he most likely wouldnt notice it since its not dirrected at him.
Generally, back then and many would argue today white people understand racism but they dont get it. You cant substitute a life time of glances, being turned down, being labled as a n word, ect.
Plus Arthur is a not very political person who usually just doesnt care what is going on besides what is infront of him.
Plus back then a lot of people up north stopped caring post civil war because they just assumed it was over they got the vote they got their freedom.
Arthur knows what racism is he just has a outside view on it. Its pretty much reflected on in pretty much every encounter with racism he sees. He litterslly knows what the KKK is and he flat out shows his distaste for the KKK.
As an OG RDR player I’m biased and say John, in 2010 I was a SR in HS and up until that point the main character wasn’t deep like marston with a family etc something to love for, and then for the main character to die like John did made legendary, games didn’t end like RDR1 did in 2010, I never watched a RDR2 trailer or read any articles when it was coming out, I got it simply off the merit of RDR1 and John marston
I disagree about John not being “fun” I love how badass and constantly pissed off Marston is. He’s such a cold bastard in the first game
@TheMartyrNeverFadeshe’s a younger and different man. But in the first game you can see what happens when you push him and take what he loves away from him
I recently played Red Dead Redemption 2 and Red Dead Redemption back to back in chronological order on the PS5, it was a great experience playing like that
Since Red Dead Redemption 2 didn't mention John's daughter, I'm guessing she was born after 1907 and died before 1911
If Red Dead Redemption 3 is another prequel, we'll probably get more information on Arthur and John, but I'm sure we'll play as someone that'll die (and then we might play as Arthur in the epilogue, even if it's a good four years before the Blackwater Massacre and we never get to see that)
You have to replay rdr2 multiple times to get the full experience
Cue the Arthur fanboys in the comments who just unfairly hate on John simply because hes not Arthur or because they never played red dead 1/played it after red dead 2
REAL. and its weird cause i still feel like i connect with john more and understand a bit more then i would with arthur
Real ones overshadowed Arthur because he’s not John ‼️
It's borderline creepy how far arthur fans go to connect everything about John's personality to arthur.
I played rdr years before I played rdr2. I still like arthur better, you have it wrong.
@@badsie1agreed
I think Arthur was way smarter than John. He followed gang orders but he wasn’t getting himself as in much trouble as John was. John was an errand boy for the majority of the side characters in rdr1
Arthur is definitely more intelligent he's also a great artist and writer but john has more street smarts if that makes sense lol he was the first to call out dutch's bs when arthur blindly followed.
Arthur may have been smarter but he wasn’t all that wise in comparison. John was significantly more perceptive and less blinded by his allegiance to Dutch. In fact if he didn’t have Abigail and Jack to worry about I suspect he would have ditched the gang sooner cause he saw the nonsense that was happening far sooner than anyone else (the only other person who maybe had him beat was Uncle in that regard)
What coat is John wearing in the thumbnail? Love the content btw!!
it's the coat he wears in chapters 3 through 6 and you can't get it
isaac wasnt unborn, he lived some years
Was just about to say this, he says there’s 2 graves when they died so clearly born lmao
Yeah I wrote the wrong thing in the script lol, I messed up thinking about John's unborn child and Arthurs
Yeah Issac was alive for a few years like I think like 8@@RedDeadTierLists
I’d say that story wise, John is better,
But character wise, Arthur is better.
So it’s a 50/50 if you ask me
John very much was created to play into RDR1's story while RDR2 was built to show Arthur's character arc so I agree.
Arthur a aussi une meilleure histoire que john il a été le hero du gang du debut à la fin c'est meme lui qui c'est sacrifier pour john et sa famille pour qu'ils aient une autre vie Contrairement à john qui a eu l'occasion de repartir à zero mais à tout gacher à cause de la vengeance et à apres sa mort sa femme mourra de chagrin il n' a sue proteger personne
@@ChryslonBidoungaJohn actually protected and cared for his family.They are the main catalyst to john changing and he truly became a better person for them.Arthur on the other hand,was pretty absent for a majority of his sons life which cost his life and repeats the same mistake with mary.
I think johns character is overall great. However most of his development comes from RDR 2, he goes from an inmature deadbeat father and husband to loving family man who becomes hellbent on saving his family no matter what. Just seeing how he is in the beggining of RDR 2 to how he is in RDR 1 is great.
However i prefer arthur as a character overall.
Rank gang members by their gyatt
John Should not have won the intelligence round lmao
But he had half his brain eaten and turned out smarter😢
I personally think John is more funny purely because of how sarcastic and blunt he is.
It's impossible for me to choose. I'll put it this way- Arthur is definitely a better man, and certainly a Renaissance man. He is incredibly athletic, but he has an artist's eye; he loves photography, draws extensively and is talented at it, enjoys music, and even the theater: He isn't a dumb oaf, he is an pitifully uneducated soul who is definitely a victim of circumstance. His huge heart and sad Saint Bernard eyes are hard not to love.
John is, on the other hand, is kind of a dumbass. John is fundamentally flawed in a lot of ways, but you can't help by like him. His character in Red Dead 1 is just a madman. I love how his eyes look like they are going to pop out in his cut scenes. He is exhausted, stressed, and afraid. I DO disagree with his "not being fun" to play as. I found him immensely entertaining to follow- his extremely questionable morals are unnerving as hell to see in action. When he gets to Mexico, his ping pong politics are pretty unsettling to watch (I refuse to say cringe. At this point, saying cringe is f'ing cringe, y'know?)
It's a side note, but i just got done playing the ps4 port of rdr1 on a ps5-and I do have to stand up in its defense. This game looks absolutely amazing running at 60 fps. The desert is absolutely more breathtaking in red dead 2, obviously. But with the enhanced graphics and animation, the o.g . title has a new life as almost an animated film version of red dead 2's strikingly real world looks. Red Dead 1 is frantic, nervous, and crazy, and the graphic style goes hand and hand with it. Graphically, red dead 1 only falters badly with its depiction of forests/foliage and the pretty dated looking horse mechanics and animation. The constant spam spawning of wolves and bears can get a hair ridiculous as well. To stand in its defense again, however, the 60 fps birds look astonishing, as do the sunrise and sunset lighting in the desert set pieces. I found myself taking screenshots all over the place, almost to the extent that I did in rdr2. Black water, the game's sole "big city", also unfortunately looks really fake and "videogamey"- its kind of jarring and honestly hard to say why. The Old West towns are great- for me they stand neck and neck with St. Denis in terms of interesting content, and the random events actual supersede those in rdr2.
I just threw this in because the port has received a lot of ish since its announcement. I originally bought it because I wanted to own both games on matching modern hardware, and I wanted to play them in order. It has been a decade since I had messed with rdr1, afterall, and my ps3 died almost 7 years ago now. I wasn't really expecting any improvements, and was very pleasantly surprised. All you need to do is cue up some footage of the ps3 version and watch it side by side with ps5 footage- the differences are obvious. There are also slight improvements that I enjoyed, such as a weapons wheel that matches rdr2, an improved map, and actually some big differences in the location of certain animals and horses, etc. In short, if you have any interest in checking out the port after playing rdr2 (again), or even if you want to kind of play them simultaneously or in order, I say yes, go for it. I got it on sale at Christmas for $35, and it was absolutely worth it.
Anyways, I'll shut up now. I subscribed, by the way. Great video. Thanks!
Just wanted to point out that Arthur does know what racism is, but Dutch has fostered a community that is not prejudiced. Genuinely one of the best things he did as a leader.
Arthur is clearly the brighter bolt in the shed, because John needed to have half his brain eaten by a wolf to end up more intelligent.
This is talking about RDR1 John vs RDR2 Arthur
@@RedDeadTierListshe’s joking
Really good video! I think I mostly agree besides the Redemption category. I dont think being nicer or sympathetic redeems you. Arthur "redeems himself" by standing up for whats right in the downfall of the gang, and help saving his criminal friends. John's "redemption" was leaving his old life behind and sacrificing himself so his family could be safe. Personally I don't think either truly redeems themselves, but if I had to pick one I think John's sacrifice was more important compared to Arthurs good deeds at the end of RDR2.
I disagree because john had his chance when arthur set him free. He was supposed to never look back but he did by hunting micah
@@jadavianjohnson5988 ? John's redemption arc doesnt even happen until RDR1 and youre talking about the epilogue.
It's Arthur...
literally it's just Arthur...
I don't think you understand the characters very well, sir. But I guess that's ok, your take. But I think your take is objectively wrong.
I think that Arthur's backstory "not mattering that much" is actually one of the most important and smartest components that make his story so compelling. Yeah, he had it rough from the get go, he lost his parents, he got indoctrinated into a cult-ish set up by a shady father-like figure. It's very easy to use it all as an excuse for him being the way he is. But the thing is - a lot of people have it rough, especially back then. And yet, only few became outlaws. There's a point in life when you have to acknowledge the fact that your decisions are your own and take accountability for your actions, instead of hiding behind your past traumas, parents' mistakes or whatever else excuses people tend to use. Once you own up to your mistakes and realise that you always had the power to make a different choice - you become able to get a hold of your life and change. RDR 2 plot pans down to Arthur reclaiming his personhood. That's also what makes his story such a tragic one - because it's cut short seconds after he reclaims it for himself. It also makes RDR 2 such a beautiful piece of literature.
It’s so Hard to Choose Between these two i like both of them alot! TwT
I love John he’s iconic and awesome but Arthur is just so much more relatable and emotional I would pick Arthur but John is also an amazing character.
i agree with the death thing and the reason people arent as sad as people were at Arthur's death is because of the graphics and alot of people deny it but its true. RDR2 Is more immersive because its so real life like if RDR1 was like that aswell alot more people would be sad with John's death possible even crying over it
I feel I've come to realize that john 1911 was for seasoned as a outlaw/gunslinger than 1899 morgan. But I feel it is Obviously for fun and more detailed to play and use arthur.
relatability:
yea I do see your point my guy... but I feel like I am more of a "pragmatic idealist"
I don't feel relatable to any of them, Arthur feel to idealistic and John feel to practical, I need a character that is "pragmatic idealistic" to feel "relatable" but yes you definitely have a point.
Imo Arthur is better. John Still a Goat and sits for me at #3
nah he's too emotional john's more of a clint eastwood esque killing machine in rdr1
Issac was not an unborn chicken bro
IMO they both are the best video game characters ever. Arthur is merciful and cold but John is very angry and badass.
Arthur is more intelligent he think more Better drawer he is more intelligent Arthur slams overall
John more intelligent he saw through Dutch BS before anybody besides hosea
ARTHUR CAN DRAW BETTER
Arthur isn’t dumb but he thinks he’s dumb and doesn’t understand how smart he is
For example in his journal he writes about how the west is over but then says that he doesn’t know what’s happening even though he is the one person who pays attention to how the world is changing
I dont think arthur is picture as a saint either in the end. Just look at how he expresses himself when he is with edith downes or how he knows that his end result has all been due to living as bad person.
Great points. Well said.
Guys I know this may seem like a stupid theory but what if Jim Milton was actually Rip Van Winkle in disguise and then John Jim Milton (Secretly John Marston) killed him 😲
Arthur is mainly RDR2. John is mainly RDR1 and for me gave me closure to missions and the exploration in RDR2. With John you feel that Revenge. With Arthur you feel the Heart. So both are Badasses. For a RD3 Give us a three way character gameplay like GTA V. Arthur, John and Red Harlowe. The 3 main characters. Jack, Charles and Sadie in the Epilogue.
I will go John Marston as the Better Character in the context of an open world game. He's a killer who is trapped with responsibilities of a family.
I go back and forth between my favorites almost every week. I love John’s pragmatism and bleak outlook but I also love how emotional and sensitive Arthur really is. Honestly they’re evenly matched in my opinion.
Arthur is not emotional 😂😂
@@nemesis27 Have you read his journal?
Red Harlow Vs Arthur Morgan
Arthur est le meilleur personnage de tous les jeux de rockstar. john est bon mais Arthur était la main de toute la bande, même hollandais et charles l’a dit à mon avis je pense que dans RDR 1 le jeu était moins réel que RDR2 C’est pourquoi nous avons vu que john semble invincible. Arthur en 1911 sera peut-être plus fort que dans RDR 2 c’est une question de realism but overall Arthur is better
I personally like more John Marston, but Arthur is a better character, better writen
John more intelligent? Do u Remember the sheeps robbery affair in Rdr2?
Lot of Arthur meat riders in these comments, talking down on John completely and disregarding everything about him. I do agree that Arthur is a better character, but not by much, they are both extremely good characters and extremely well written
Arthur over John any time of the day for me
Rank RDR2 characters by ego
It's obviously arthur, I mean lmao.
But still, John has that soft spot in the hearts of those who played RDR1, especially when they were young
Character wise: Arthur
In a fight:John
@@Johnalexanderwilliams-ws1jy If it’s 1899 Arthur wins if it’s prime Arthur vs 1907 John, John Wins by just being more experienced and violent especially in a gun fight. I love Arthur Though
Honestly to me RDR2 Epilogue John feels unfinished and done dirty from his character to his look (Especially look) He looks like Arthur Morgan instead of his Beta Epilogue look, His npc or RDR1 appearance.
Doesn't matter Uncle Ben. Red Harlow is better than both of them
Bro hop off rip van winkles dick bro most of these categories aren’t even close 💀
Especially the death one, like what??? Arthur’s high honour death scene is the single greatest death in gaming history and there no competition anywhere near it.
Arthur actually grows as a character whereas John becomes a good guy in the epilogue of RDR2 and then just immediately reverts back when in rdr1.
Arthur is overall a better written character and to be honest it’s not even an opinion, like Arthur is pretty much just straight up better. John is also a great character but let’s stop nostalgia from getting in our heads.
“B-B-BUT YOU PROBABLY DIDNT EVEN PLAY RDR1 GEN Z 😭😭😭😢😭” incoming
Now, I played RDR1 before 2, but I think I enjoyed 2 a little bit more, just because there really are more things to do. I do have a lot of nostalgia playing as John, and I do think he's got a cool ass story, but I think that Arthur really is a better character. I may prefer John because I feel like I can relate more to him, being very one-track minded, and reactionary, but Arthur's personality, story, and complex decision making is a huge thing and I completely understand why people would say he's a much better character.
I do have to disagree with the death though. Arthur's rocks, and it's a big deal in video game history, but I think that John's death is so much more of a tragedy because it almost feels pointless- and maybe some people don't like that, but I think that's very thought provoking.
Also "hop off rip van winkle's dick" is so funny
You probably didn't though
@@BurtonMore-mm9pe no I think I enjoyed 2 a little more. The online is better in 1 and the random ass zombie mode rocked but 2 just had so much stuff to do. I think it immersed me more
We knew Arthur was going to die, we didn’t think John was going to die and I’m talking back in 2010 to see the main character die and savagely like he got gunned down is the best imo
Bruh let’s not call Arthur’s high honor death the greatest death in video game history when Aerith exists lol
Arthur is better John is just a pushover who lets people push him around His wife forces him to be a rancher, he works with the cops in the first game and ends up dying by their hands Arthur went against Dutch to save John, abigail etc also Arthur can antagonize better than John
Unborn child? He was a kid buddy that was killed with his mom.
So those things being optional doesnt make it weak.
Hell arthurs backstory with his dad son and mary is one of the reasons why arthur was mad at john in the beggining and saving him in his family in the end.
Lack of analysis there buddy
He got Arthur’s son mixed up with Johns daughter while writing this script
John
Who the hell actually likes Jack.
Who actually liked jack as a kid
Me
John Marston feels more human, a father, a husband, and a family man.
Jack morston is the best because he is 19 year old and he know how to use guns hunt wild horses and skin animals and finally revenge for all the gang by killing Edgar Ross in the end
0:24 his unborn 19 year old son
Uncle
Rdr1 John when trained by Landon Ricketts might be better than Arthur
to be fair the games have been made more realistic as each title is released. In revolver them dudes had superpowers in rdr1 you become the greatest gunslinger a man can become. rdr2 bogs your character down with realism.
The glazing go crazy
john don't know how to swim don't know how to draw slower shot aint got his morals in check yet he smarter even though he learned almost all his shit from Arthur CRAZY only thing I believe is the back story one but you said Arthur got little to no back story is CRAZY and sayin that johns more relatable is CRAZY bro john got like no redemption witch is a big part of being relatable john got that old man mean that annoying mean like you kidding bro
You fact you just said John got no redemption shows how retarded you are
👶🍼
I feel like John is just more of a real character than Arthur. I mean Arthur didn't even know who he was until he was dead John knew exactly who he was and that's why I think John's better because he stay the same and all he wanted to do was save his family he didn't care about anyone but his family and that's a good father and husband John is honest and stays who he is John is what you see is what you get
Thats why i always liked John more. He knew exactly who he was and he didn't make excuses for it. He just learned and moved on. The only thing he changed his mind on was how he treated Jack. And people dont realize he was hesitant because his dad was such a piece of trash that he thought he would be the same.
jesus this dudes ratings so dog water man
aleight
Names John marston Micah also first
Look, I’m all for Arthur. I like him better than John but even I have to admit, John is a lot better in some areas because he simply lives longer than Arthur and had more experiences because I mean if Arthur ended up going to Mexico and being trained by Landon rickets, I’m sure he’d be just as good as John that’s why it’s a little unfair to compare them because John just had a longer life
And another thing you argument that John is more pragmatic than Arthur is a good argument, but you have to remember when Arthur is doing all of these good deeds he knows he doesn’t have that much time left and with John he knows he could die, but he doesn’t have terminal illness like Arthur. Arthur sees things in a more long-term view, because he’s not worried about himself at all. He’s only worried about his lasting impact on people because that’s all that matters. In his eyes, his life is already over. All he cares about, is making other life’s better
ARTHUR >> landon ricktess.
Arthur in chapter 5 wins the CUBA AND USA ARMY. Oblitered FUSSAR with AIRSHIP
John will always be better
Fr the best gunslinger is John
imo arthur is wayyy better and hes just more humanized in a way, like he seems way more realistic and relatable, he seems as if hes actually real
Fr
@@JohnnySINS_670 lol no, John is a better gunslinger and Marksman
I agree they weren’t around in 2010 bro don’t mind them
Nice
John Marston is a better gunslinger horseman and hunter/skinner, Arthur wins everything else
i feel like john was born to be an outlaw gunslinger while arthur had limitless potential to be anything he wanted especially a writer or an artist.
Arthur Morgan definitely
I liked Arthur quite a bit, but I felt johns story and determination was much more enjoyable. Arthur saw the light, John had to make his
I honestly like RDR1 John Marston more than Arthur
John gang
I personally liked John more in rdr2 I feel like the epilogue was better than the main story.
Gen z aahh red dead channel