Around 16:08 when your talking about Arthur just kiling but when somone else does it its horrible, in chapter 3 i think when they go back to rob the bank in Valentine Bill directly says that same thing to Arthur witch is why i think they just let you do the inocent killing in fre roam.
One thing that bothers me about these analysis videos is no one talks about Arthur's envy of John. Arthur and John come from the same background but John damn near has the life Arthur wants. He has Dutch's praise and love, despite leaving the gang. John's got the girl and a son. Arthur sees John's mistakes by running away and how John cant figure out if he wants to be a family man or an outlaw. Arthur made the mistake of being an outlaw and lost the love of his life as well as his son. Arthur is like "this kid has got no idea how good he has it and he takes it for granted." But towards the end Arthur more or less voices these concerns to John and basically tells him "don't make the same mistakes i made. i chose this gang over a happy life with a family and now this gang is falling apart. you have the chance to have what i lost, and im gonna do everything in my power to make sure you get that". John does get that even if for a short period of time.
Yeah there’s definitely an unspoken envy at play between Arthur and John, at the end you’ll even notice Arthur tells him to go be a goddamn man. Arthur understands that John has the life he always wanted but could never maintain, which is why the end of the story is just Arthur so insistent on saving John because he has something actually worth living for
I mean ye that was the point of the story lol i dont agree with this video mutch tbh. Even when he saied that arthur didnt realise duch for what he was is kinda weird. Because arthur questioned dutch even in chapter 2. Evryone basicly did after blackwater.
...-._-. Would an evil man try and help John, Abigail and Jack out? Plus like...y'know. Sadie, the Wapiti tribe? Hm? Would an evil man go and save Abigail, and Sadie from Milton?
you guys read too many comic books. Actual "evil" is not what you think firstly, and Arthur isn't even "evil" if played as low honor. He has...low honor.
One of my favorite camp encounters has two parts. The first part is in chapter 3, Jack tries to play swords with John but John declines the offer. In chapter 6, we can see John and Jack playing with swords together, having a nice moment together, Micah then ruins it with his "charm" and him "caring too much" but John protects Jack. It was nice to see that development.
Yesss it shows how much he changed over time it seems like Catherine Braithwaite taking Jack was a good thing and selling jack to Angelo Bronte it revealed that out of all tye gunslinger and women besides Abigail he was the most worried I mean the mission where the boys go to confront the Braithwaites while walking up to the house " I SWEAR I'LL KILL EVERYONE THERE" just shows how much he's worried and angry and caring what happened to jack and the day after the party of jack returning john asked Abigail it would be Easter for him to keep an eye on Abigail and jack if they stayed up in his room and in beaver hollow they all stayed in his tent it's cool they were on their way to being a family
Roger Clarke *The actor for Arthur* was actually a bit nervous since he had BIG SHOES to fill, cause well, John Marston is an amazing charachter. But oh boy did Roger deliver.
Both characters are phenomenal. I loved playing as John and Arthur. But if I have to choose, it would be John. I loved getting the chance to meet the gang and see their story unfold, but I think I enjoyed being that lone wolf gunslinger more than being with a team. Seeing John having to hunt down his old friends by himself. Trying to save the only thing he's got left. Just feels like the perfect classic western story. I enjoyed RDR1 slightly more than RDR2. I think the biggest reason for that is, as great as the story is, it was obviously predictable that Arthur was going to die from the beginning. But John's death came outta nowhere. And that just hit a little harder to me.
I agree with you there. I would love to see a revisited RDR1 game. The 10 years inbetween games means that RDR1 feela much more game-y and it would be great to see how they could develop the script and characters.
@@Laura-fr2wx Yeah thad be cool. I'd also say the only thing that was alot better, at least to me was the music in RDR1. The music felt way more like a western than RDR2. When any danger was coming and that music picked up it was always epic.
@@bt3519 I personally liked red dead 2's soundtrack a lot more. red dead 1 just sounds like BULLY's soundtrack which was very off to me. red dead 2's themes were amazing. specifically the wanted themes, which were so badass
It’s the voice. His voice is stronger and more powerful than John’s. When playing with Arthur’s character you feel like “a rough and tough cowboy” haha . If that make sense.
It does, you made an excellent point. I agree. Arthur Morgan's voice kinda reminds a little of how John Wayne use to sound. Watch the classic True Grit; the one made in 1969, listen to how Wayne talks, and then tell me whether I am right or wrong.
@@mrshinybald2739 bro what no he is not the way that Arthur fanboys dickeat is so crazy to me neither John or Arthur are really even like Clint east woods man with no name (from the dollars trilogy)both characters pick up some characteristics but on the whole if you really wanna do that comparison John is more like him and it’s not even close.
I never thought about it from that perspective. Arthur disliked John at the beginning because John did something that Arthur never had the balls to do, he abandoned the gang. Arthur could only dream of living the rest of his life with Mary-Beth, or Eliza and Isaac. His loyalty to the gang cut them off eventually. Something he deeply regrets once he becomes a dying man. Which is why some of his final advice to John is "be loyal to what matters." (Abigail and Jack) and "don't try to be two people at once." These lines were kind of throwaways for me until you analyzed them
i played rdr1 with my dad, or seeing him play it, and i can totally say that i like arthur, is sooo good writen and everything... Jhon is cool, a fool sometimes, and dont notice it like arthur.. But idk, colors for all, i like arthur more than jhon even if i played and enjoyed undead nightmare too
The reason why I prefer Arthur over John is what our favorite dragon in Skyrim said: “What is better: to be born good, or to overcome your evil through great effort?” Arthur realizes at the last wrung of his life that he’s lived a bastard’s life, and wants to leave the world with something hopeful and positive. The talk he has with the Nun is a great display of that, where she says that his smile and wanting to help people revitalizes her hope for humanity.
ngl I do agree with that quote a bit. We all make mistakes, some way worst than others, Arthur beats that "giant" he was wrestling with and does a whole lot of good as part of his redemption.
Karen was very upset after miss grimshaw killed molly. She was driven to drink constantly and there’s a part where she’s screaming at miss grimshaw and called her a murderer
I know it’s many years after but he just looks wrong, his face looks longer, he has black hair instead of brown like in rdr1. John looks too handsome. He looks too much like Arthur too. :/
Jacob The dude Yeah but still though in Red dead 1, John looked like someone I would not wanna mess with, and he was somewhat muscular but in this game he looks more of a young pretty boy.
I was very suspicious about playing as a new guy. I loved John Marston. The fact that I ended up loving Arthur more is a real testament to the great writing.
I think that arthur is a perfect character in a "realistic" western story, but John is perfect with a cinematographic western story... thats why I prefer John a little more... because you can feel like a clint eastwood in one of his movies, but i repeat, Arthu's story is great too
Best take I've heard on this topic yet. I'll always prefer john just because of how well his character meshed with the whole "there is no redemption" story of rdr. Not to say I dont like 2. It's just that rdrs story is a fucking classic.
That’s exactly what I said about a year ago or so. Arthur calls John dumb but John was the first person to see the real Dutch. Johns character is a lot more subtle than Arthur’s
@@namedclaiming821 John was one of the youngest members of the gang In RDR2. So of course Arthur as being the biggest and oldest influence did something. Comments like this are so dumb. John in RDR2 was a young man. Then he changed into the biggest badass to come out of the van der linde gang years later. And John marston in RDR1 pal took action alright, he took on America and Mexico to get his family back. And guess what John won that fight.
@@r3idmcread212 Ahhhh, you again. In fact, that's totally false. John may have been outspoken, but he, in spite of having the advantage of witnessing Dutch's first sign of madness in Blackwater (mostly what shook his faith) didn't see Dutch before anyone else, unless you want to shove down your headcanons into his characterization like you keep doing. Now let me tell you who else is shown disagreeing too, in addition to Hosea and Uncle, even if you like to dismiss it. Yes, you guessed it, it's Arthur. All the way back in chapter w Arthur shows stress and anxiety and full awareness of the changing world and their place in it. He expresses concern that the outlaw life's ending, and this fear is accompanied by a change of faith, trust, and loyalty to some extent. Take his interaction with John early in the Sheep and the Goats for instance John: we should get more money til we can head back to Blackwater and collect that money. Arthur: let me tell, we try to collect that money soon, it'll come with a noose. John: I was worried you'd say that. Dutch says... Arthur: Dutch says a lot. That's his gift, saying things. John: what do you mean by that? Arthur: listen, Dutch is... But... But.... Well... You was at that thing in Blackwater. New century's coming. This life, this way? Well, we're the last I recon. We ain't long for it. John: that's the way it goes. Arthur: for me, yes (might imply a wish to leave once it's all done) In a missable interaction in ch2 when Arthur approaches Dutch by the tree, '' I ain't a doubter nor a believer, Dutch! I ain't nothin'!'' In his journal, where his true feelings show, he seems quite conflicted too. All the way from the beginning. Arthur tried to keep a trusting face in front of everyone in order not to cause division, just like Hosea. And like Hosea, he doubted, questioned, noticed.
The problematic piece about Dutch murdering and feeding Bronte to the gator and murdering the old lady is cause, Dutch always preached never kill in cold blood, and don’t murder in revenge. That’s why Arthur was so shocked each time.
The reason he started acting irrational is a theory that he suffered brain damage from the trolley crash this video by fizhy goes into this theory in depth it will change the way you think of dutch ruclips.net/video/rsbjit9qAxY/видео.html
Yes thank you, it’s like people never paid attention to the game and calling Arthur a hypocrite, and Dutch tries to excuse those cold blooded kills poorly and that was the first time Arthur saw Dutch true colors
I read Arthur’s comment on how he should have married her differently. I thought it was less about romantic feeling for Abigail and more about stepping up to be the father and nurturer that she and Jack deserved during the time John had run off. And I presume there was at least some chemistry between him and Abigail when John was out of the picture. Arthur is pretty much the best looking guy in the gang, and has those aforementioned redeeming qualities of loyalty and depth to sweeten the deal. I don’t think he was expecting that find the same passionate romance he had with Abigail as he had with Marie, just that they might have been a healthy family together.
Genius, this also explains why Arthur got mad with John, he was getting closer to Abigail while John was away but then John came back and took his place with Abigail
I remember seeing a similar comment on the Red Dead Redemption subreddit. Either way, it's a beautiful way of putting Arthur's relationship with John's family.
as much as gameplay and story conflict with arthur, i can't help but feel for his arc. I went into the game blind, and started off low honor (robbing stores for no reason, killing a group of people for a dollar), it wasn't until the scene where arthur was diagnosed i went oh fuck and started turning things around by picking the "good" options and helping people by the roads and shit until i finished the game and saw arthur look out at that sunset, satisfied that i had done good in my limited time to make up for all my fuck ups. my honor didn't even get to 100% until i went with john over the black water money, which is what to me cemented arthur's change for the good. I felt arthur's redemption because i went through it with him and that's why he's my favourite of the two protagonists.
I feel like both games have their own "Redemption" aspect. Johns Redemption is the whole first game. Playing both games, John really doesn't change too much besides the fact that he starts to appreciate his family more. John's redemption is really just trying to escape his previous life to live a better one by tying up the loose ends of his past, but he really doesn't change much as a person. Arthurs redemption is more mental and emotional because he's really not trying to change or escape his past, but more so realizing that his life has been pretty evil and that he should really try to be a better person and save what he still can. Depending on how you play, Arthur changes much more as a person, he still stays blindly loyal to Dutch, but he realizes that maybe being loyal to the gang isn't the best thing, and that he should try to get everyone out, like the women, and John and his family. Also, as far as Arthur being indecisive, I just feel as if his whole change and redemption comes with his TB diagnosis. At this point, he knows his time is short and he is going to die, there really is no drastic change he can make. He can't leave with Mary because he'll die, leaving the gang would be short lived, because again, he'll die and wouldn't have helped anyone, and he still has hope in the gang up until about they move into the cave. In my opinion, Arthur is the better character because in the end, he turns out to be a better person, even despite all the crime.
@@Tavemanic yea it is a great show and yea it has a lot of gravity falls y vibes alex hirsch voices one of the characters too so that probably plays into it
The thing about Arthur's allegiance to Dutch is, after "all them years" together Arthur feels like he owes Dutch the curtesy of trying to help him see sense. Arthur says "I owe him that at least". That's why he never wanted to kill Dutch, and tries to save him by outing Micah which Dutch eventually saw.
I think the thing is John realized that Dutch was to far gone. Especially with seeing the position his family was in. While Arthur dealer with his personal stuff too.
Arthur was loyal to a fault even though he finally realised Dutch wasn't who Arthur thought him to be he just couldn't abandon his father figure who basically raised him and so he tried everything he could to bring Dutch over to his side but ultimately wasn't able to and that's the tragedy of his character that he was only able to realize what kind of man he wanted to be when it was too late for him.
You forgot to say that John besides not being loyal he left his wife and son, meaning that Arthur was angry with him because he hates that John left what Arthur lost
Guys! At starting of rdr2 Arthur was angry with John because he didn't wanted him and his family to rejoin gang. Because arthur knew that this ain't right place to live for em.
It puzzled me at first but once you finish the game more than once it makes sense I guess. Arthur never wanted to be an outlaw for life, it's just he was strung along with the hope of helping get all his family out of it by Dutch that he never got a chance to live his life... He didn't want to kill people truly unless they were absolutely evil, like Klan members or the Murfree's or Skinner brothers. Except to help save his family, then and only then I believe Arthur actually followed through on any violence he threatens. This doesn't excuse what he did, but I believe low honor Arthur is not consistent with the rest of Arthur's character, because he loathes killing people who don't deserve it, and so hates himself.
honestly JM in RDR2 is kind of watered down a bit in comparison to his RDR1 self and I kind of like that decision. In the epilogue, we see him trying to start a new life, learning how to be a rancher and such and just does not have that same confidence and collectiveness that we see in the first game, that is until he has to deal with the Laramie boys. We get to see John in his element again for a bit, and you can tell that being a badass outlaw is all he's good at whether he likes it or not. Then, he has to deal with bank loans and house building and he's back to that watered down version of himself we see. He has a very hard time adjusting to this new lifestyle and forces himself to be a good person, and is right back to his badass self when he's working with Sadie. But in my opinion, we really get to see the JM for RDR1 in the mission that Uncle gets kidnapped by the skinners, and maybe I believe this because of the way I played the mission, but I remember a certain feeling when going through that little gulley in the skinner camp as John taking the lead while Charles takes care of Uncle like I was invincible, and to me it really felt like this mission was John Marston becoming John Marston in terms of mercilessness and badassery. Following that mission, of course is American Venom, and I'm sure I don't need to explain what I was feeling in that mission. John was out of his element, awkward and less of a badass in RDR2's epilogue for most of it, except when he was in his element, which I totally like that decision by R*. Just wish they hadn't given him Arthur's hair, body shape, height and facial features.
I never play RDR 1 or RDR2 I’ve played the first game RDR with Red but when I played RDR 2 I still knew who John and knew he dies in RDR 1 but in end I always prefer John even tho I cry at Arthur death John is just something special I even went ahead and played the first game for the first time and it was so fucking good John is imo the better character I only wish Jack had some missions or something bc he always felt unfinished in RDR 1
While I agree with the idea that Arthur getting mad at Dutch for killing someone he did not need to kill is a little weird when you consider that Arthur can do the exact same shit and never have it be brought up, I don't think that is an issue unique to RDR2 or Arthur. Like, in RDR1 there is a trophy for hogtieing a woman and leaving her on the tracks to get hit by a train. Sure, that game does not do nearly as much to have John be some sort of paragon like RDR2 does with Arthur in chapter 6, but that sort of action is definitively not the John Marston of the story. A lot of John's actions can be justified by his desires to protect his family, but as it is an open-world game where you can interact with stuff in a lot of different ways, some of those things can't be justified. So, again, I think it is a valid disconnect you're seeing with Arthur, but I think that same disconnect should be acknowledged with John. ANYWAY, thanks for sharing your thoughts about the games and characters.
Yeah, lots of games try and cover that inherent disconnection between the open world and story, so I think that a lot of what is done in game or may be rewarded via trophies or challenges aren’t always cannon to the characters. I do agree that’s there’s a disconnect, but its situational. like as Arthur I can hogtie, and practically torture someone, then drop them off and feed them to an alligator. I feel Arthur wouldn’t do that. Or like the sharpshooter 9 challenge where you have to shoot peoples hat off in dead eye. Again I can’t see a world where Arthur would just shoot peoples hats off. I do think random encounters in the open world would be cannon. Anyways, all I’m trying to say is that I agree with you and swoop. Also that there’s a disconnection between open word and story, and now in retrospect of this comment I do think that there’s a cut tie between story and game world. That does make Arthur more inconsistent of a character. It also is a little odd that Rockstar didn’t do much to connect the two worlds. I do love your take on this detachment from the open world and story.
@@ej2208 No plans to do like a SOLE video on RDR2, but as a lot of stuff I do is on a general topic that uses multiple games as examples, RDR2 will show up in a handful of future ideas.
@@razbuten Good deal, maybe in a couple years if you ever wanted to revisit it, the lady you live with might like it. I had my girlfriend play it just got the story and she was hooked and she’s mot much of a games person
But his anger at Dutch was never "that was mean", it was "that's not something you would do". Arthur mentions how Dutch is the "best man he knows". It's why he trusts Dutch to get them out of their situation. In the low honour ending, he even tells Sadie of a time when Dutch chided Arthur for robbing a man who was "too poor". Arthur hates himself, and has no expectations of himself. But he expected better of Dutch.
i love john. in rdr1 we didn’t know everything about him and he seemed like that guy who’s seen a lot of things and has a lot of stories. i wish there was a mission where you fished with him and arthur so they could just shoot the shit
I think an important point is that John was there at Blackwater and saw Dutchs first descent into madness by all the bloodshed and killing the innocent girl that was there, I feel like if Arthur also saw that he would be more on the fence about dutches actions earlier in the game like John is
John is great, but there’s something mystical about Arthur, his voice, his movement and presence, the game does a great job of making your version of Arthur real, good, evil it still makes sense with Arthur’s character arch, one of the best written characters in video games
Did you play RDR1? I can tell why a person who hasn't played RDR2 would think that, because in the epilogue John is a very awkward guy, but in RDR1 John is charismatic, witty and sarcastic
Arthur is the better character because as you become emotionally attached to this man throughout the story you realize that he is a more in depth person who knows that his story is going to end in tragedy. To make amends for this he helps John get out, because he wishes he had that person to help him see things clearly and tell him to do the right thing. The things he struggled to do his entire life
I have loved BOTH games and protagonists. I personally think that so much of John has been built around the mysterious "man with no name", spaghetti western homage in mind. It's what the whole 1st game was about. We learned more about John in RDR2 than RDR1. Where Arthur is more introspective, thoughtful, and developed as 3 dimensional being; I think John was meant to almost be a cardboard cutout of the wandering 60's western protagonist that inspired the 1st game. Both John and his story follow that of a traditional western where the characters motivations were as BASE and vague as possible. In these westerns character development was minimal and dialogue was rarely subtle; which is what we see in rdr1. I think you also mistake Arthurs loyalty to the gang and Arthurs loyalty to Dutch. He starts out completely loyal to the man he looks up to as a father, Dutch. That scale starts to tip pretty early in the game and you can see the veil slowly being lifted from Arthurs face through the course of the first 4 chapters. I think you give too much credit to the human ability to see logic when faced with circumstances involving "family". Logic might have told Arthur something was "off", but after 20 years of ingratiation to a cult leader it took some serious crap to open his eyes. In the end: I think it mostly just depends on what you like more: a somewhat more flat, archetypal comic book style gunslinger; or a better developed, more charismatic but violent man dealing with inner conflict that most non-psychopathic humans can relate to. Basically: Do you prefer a legendary superhero with a six shooter or a fallible human? One also has to consider the sheer amount of content/development that was able to be put into Arthur compared to John because the 1st was released 11 years ago.
I agree with what you said here. And I think why people prefer Arthur more because you see his internal conflict and guilt over the things he has done personally, as well as regret, things we can all relate to at one time or another. John was, as you say, kind of a classic Western anti-hero, like Clint Eastwood was in many of his Westerns, and therefore lacked a lot of character development.
I personally think Arthur is better, because he is so selfless, he would give his life for others, and the affection he had for John and the other characters. He might be tough and mean, but he is really a nice man he would rather stay loyal to the gang than to go with his love. I feel Arthur is the better character, but John is also a great protagonist. They both had incredible character development and complex storylines. Both protagonists are really similar, Arthur also had a son and wife. Then Arthur gave his life for John, without Arthur there would be no John. Like that wolves part, or the prison. Lol
Marco jonesco .Good point, but if Arthur didn’t exist there would be no family left. He and the gang saved jack, he saved Abigail, and he saved John twice
I enjoyed Arthur more than John idk why just did. I believe Arthur was a scared person and he didn't want to lose everything he had. I don't think he was being hypocritical when chastising Dutch. You don't kill women or children that was the rule the gang had. Dutch blew a girls head off in blackwater and than killed an old lady. Arthur was constantly questioning the decisions of the gang. Sure you as a player can kill everyone in sight but thats not canon in the story. Arthur was a good man who did bad things not really for his own satisfaction but thats what he needed to do for the gang. He didn't have a life of his own and he was molded into what he was and he was scared he couldn't change that. Thats what makes him a much more likable character to me than John. With just the context of the first game sure I love John but with the context of both I like Arthur a lot more. He gave John the ability to live the life he himself couldn't do. What did John do with that well he threw it directly into the garbage and got himself killed because of it. He loved Jack and Abigail I believe that but he is the reason they were put in the danger they were. They both are heavily flawed people with good in them one was just able to showcase that good more than the other. I never felt sorry for John but I did for Arthur.
@☣Shadytoad🃏 again, no shit? i’m not comparing the characters, i’m just saying i prefer one over the other. not really sure who’s the dumbass here, prick
When u called Arthur a hypocrite this wasn’t true the reason Arthur became suspicious of Dutch and started complaining wasn’t just because Dutch was killing people but coz of the way he was doing it because it was becoming clear that Dutch was starting to enjoy killing people and taking revenge which was never the way the gang or Dutch was before
Arthur was a hypocrite though. Edit: just incase people misinterpret this comment I’ll just say that I’m not hating on Arthur and I’m not saying John or whoever else are not hypocritical because they are. It doesn’t take anything away from their characters, so don’t get all upset because I said something about Arthur Morgan that you don’t like. But the fact is, Arthur was a hypocrite at times but I still do love the character.
@@r3idmcread212 And so is John, who constantly berates Seth for looting corpses when there's literally a game mechanic that lets you loot bodies in that game 🤦.
@@b.u.l.1734 seems like you’re just commenting on my comments. Now I’m going to use your own argument against you. You stated on another comment that things that happen outside the story or side missions are not cannon. So if people go on killing sprees and then loot the body when the game doesn’t require you to then by your argument. It doesn’t count and isn’t cannon. Second argument to your silly comment is Seth digs up dead rotting bodies, strips them and obviously does things with them. That’s implied a few times in the game. Then there is John who loot the people who has only been dead for seconds or minutes. He either does it to get money or information. But then again if it isn’t in the story then it doesn’t count right ? And I know John is also hypocritical at times. Most of the great characters are. That’s what makes them relatable and more human. My point is that people act like Arthur is absolutely perfect and has no bad qualities. So there yours your answer to that. Next time you comment your argument, make sure it isn’t stupid.
@@r3idmcread212 Why are you crying? If you agree with me about the open-world stuff not being canon, then neither Arthur or John are hypocrites. If you don't agree, then they're both hypocrites, thus destroying the uploader's argument about preferring John over Arthur because "he isn't a hypocrite" (which is what I was referring to). I've never said that Arthur was a perfect human being so I don't know what the fuck are you talking about, kid.
@@b.u.l.1734 When I said people saying Arthur’s perfect I was referring to the first comment I made 2 months ago because it does happen.I never said YOU do did I ? And I didn’t say that in my comment I prefer John because Arthur is a hypocrite. They both have been hypocrites in RDR2 and I’m fine with that. That’s what makes them relatable. My whole point isn’t that i dislike Arthur, I was just saying he has been a hypocrite on occasion. And me crying ? Bro you’re the one getting emotional. Dropping F bombs and that. Listen you’re the one commenting on my comments, saying stupid shit then getting all wound up like you have above. “Kid” only childish person here is you pal. It’s like you’ve just discovered you can comment on RUclips videos and you’ve made it your soul mission to correct people on their comments. It just puzzles me that your first argument is shite. You contradicted yourself when trying to argue your point. And then added a 🤦🏻♂️to insinuate that the point you was making was obvious when in fact it was completely wrong.
Honestly Arthur's hypocrisy and inability to see the truth is part of what makes him great in my eyes. Intentionally or not, Arthur's moments of holier-than-thou hypocrisy are very realistic; his views on Straus, for one, are "I'm bad but at least I'm not him", when in reality robbery at gunpoint is just as bad, if not worse than loan sharking. I agree on the premise that Redemption is the tale of John Marston and he definitely has more character development, I just think knocking Arthur for having character flaws is unfair.
Agreed, I'm sick of character flaws being treated as genuine problems with the writing, quite the contrary, it makes the writing for the character more interesting.
@@detectivepayne3773 I honestly think as long as the character flaw doesn't contradict what the writing already established of the character any flaw could work.
John could’ve most likely found redemption and lived a decent life with Abigail and Jack but because he looked back (Killed Micah) the government found him and set forth the events of Red Dead 1
Possibly but Dutch could have easily killed Micah to, this shown in the American Venom when he shot Micah no problem which would have still caused the pinkertons to snoop around and find John. Actually now that I think about it, it's like Dutch trying to get revenge and he dies to. So that point would go to both John and Dutch.
Then it’s possible John, Abigail and Jack could’ve been tracked down by Micah and his gang when Ross wanted the rest of the van der linde gang dead. The RDR 1 would have been Micah Red Dead Rat
I always think its weird seeing Arthur without a thick beard, I let that thing grow throughout the game and never shaved that glorious bastard. so its how I'm used to seeing Arthur's face
When he was diagnosed with the TB, I stopped taking care of how he looked. But I did try to feed him as much as I can. It's really sad to see him cough while doing such a simple thing like eating a meal...
Super good video. I remember when I was a kid thinking I totally screwed up and got the bad ending to rdr 1, and was a little relieved when I found out John died no matter how good you did at the dead eye.
So many Arthur Haters and people saying That Arthur sucks when He saved John more than once. Its a shame. Without Arthur John probably wouldn’t be alive anyways.
Bruh your name is john marston but u talkin bout people hating Arthur first of all I've never heard anybody say Arthur sucks, I always hear John sucks lol and everyone loving Arthur way more personally john is my fav character of all time
I played rdr2 first before rdr1 but still cannot form an opinion on who's my favorite (also I'm still in the middle of my rdr1 playthrough and I'm really annoyed I somehow saw the ending to it a while ago)
Same I was just watching a video about red dead redemption 2 and then bam the ending of red dead redemption 1 is one of the recommends videos I was so pissed because I didn’t even start my red dead redemption 1 play through
John marston and Arthur Morgan are just the two perfect protagonist in their own world. RDR matches Johns personality. Deadly, serious,Dull, unforgiving.One man literally taking on 2 countries to get back his family.One of the reasons John is my favourite is because he is in a sense more cold hearted than Arthur but does his up most to change for his family. Something it must have took everything for him to do. And come he’s still the biggest badass of the genre. RDR2 matches Arthur’s personality. Colourful, diverse, hard hitting. One man stopping at nothing to help get the people he loves away from the death sentence that is riding with the van der linde gang. And Arthur I honestly connected with Arthur a lot. I’m glad rockstar made him very different to John. They both contrast very well. They’re both big personalities, no wonder they clashed so much. But yeah, The whole RDR story is just incredible and I’m glad to have been around to have played both games when they first came out and still to this day. I’ve used this comment before I just like to see if others agree. Both are great in their own way. But John is still the best in my eyes. Rockstar made the decision to change up John in RDR2 and people turned on him because of this. For those who did, John was young and he had to grow up. Overall Johns story is in my eyes the best character of the series.
Imo, the conversations Arthur has with Mary Beth and Ms. Grimshaw where he says how he doesn't know why he is killing random people for no good reason sounds a lot like Michael from GTA V
The point about Arthur not seeing who Dutch really was in time I think isn't really a bad thing (for his character, at least). There have been several people I knew that I cared deeply for, usually because of the past I had with them. Honestly, I can't blame Arthur for not accepting that Dutch was a psycho murderer, because Arthur saw the gang as family, and Hosea and Dutch as fathers, in a way. I've had experiences where I learn that people I know and like we're actually terrible people, and I think "no, that can't be right" or "that must not be the whole story." Sure, Arthur was the last horse across the finish line when it came to realizing the truth, but that's ignoring that he was basically the most loyal of the people who realized.
Arthur was more like what most people identify with. Being a victim of the situation you're born into. Compromising part of you to maintain the status quo. He's also far more tragic and while you suggest he's the last person to see who Dutch is I believe he was just so invested in maintaining the life he bought into. I also think Abigail did like Arthur, almost every girl in the camp seems to like him Mary, Sadie, Karen...wouldnt be too farfetched to think Abigail had feelings for him at some point. Arthur catching TB is pretty brutal too, not many protagonists go out like that in a video game. While it may appear now that RD is seen through Johns's eyes I would say that could change with RD3. We might see a deranged Arthur so desperately wanting Dutchs attention, or John committing truly heinous acts (Imagine how much of douchebag a younger john would be lol). I wonder if we will ever play as Dutch and connect more to his side of the story.
I think Red Dead 3 should be a prequel about the Van Der Linde gang out West before the family circus it became. With young angry drunk Arthur Morgan and lost naive John Marston. I picture young Arthur as a terror on the west like a Billy the Kid type figure in the R* universe.
@@waltersobchak4565 I mean it makes sense that the games keep going backwards in time. First game was pretty much after the end of the Old West life style, second game was about the death of the Old West life style, third game should be the actual Old West life style.
I remember when I first saw the trailer and heard we would be playing as someone else I thought no one would ever change my mind about John but after beating the game I gotta say Arthur definitely got me in his favor
I’m gonna be honest, I don’t like when people compare these two because they’re both so great and you become really attach to them and comparing them? Feels so...wrong
Arthur to me is a beast. He’s intimidating nice, funny and his story is just cool. John is dope af too. He’s a tough guy as well but Arthur to me is a better character, but John is also in both games. So he has a better argument for most
Arthur is the main character of a like 15 hour game or longer with all the backstory and feelings with a book that expresses his feelings so I think Arthur has a better arguement
@@poultry-lover6665 I don’t disagree; jus going based off the fact that some people can enjoy two different games that involves John. However, Arthur to me is a more enjoyable character
definitely. arthur had a lot of inner conflict between being "good" yet still wanting to keep/justify his outlaw lifestyle. john was pretty much a what you see is what you get character and tended to wear his emotions on his sleeve.
John always mentioned how awful a of person he was in his younger years, so it wasn't just an attempt to make Arthur look better. If anything its exactly what he said he was in rdr1
Arthur became my new favorite character, Arthur is just amazing depending on which honor you get, but either way he’s Arthur and you still find a way to love him. John though, I love John too, John was obviously my favorite cause how had ass he is and I love his scars and voice. His whole character always stood out to me.
I can't hate Milton, he atleast gave the others the chance to run, Ross just killed John like a sick hound And also, if you were in the perspective of Milton you'd be like 'Wow what pieces of shit they just robbed a bank'. But because you're in the perspective of the actual bad guys, you see the government as a bunch of pricks
I like Milton because he doesn’t kill by shooting someone’s back. He didn’t shoot Arthur when he was coughing and he waited for Hosea to turn around. He gained some respect from me.
@@Prix-cp5qc Yeah but I feel Ross has a more developed character, Milton was boring and wasn’t really noticeable imo and Ross is a perfect example of what the law was like back then, Milton just seems to be some outlier for me.
The honor system bothers me in Red Dead 2 because Rockstar couldn’t pick between having a linear story or a multiple ending story. I would’ve been fine if Low Honor meant Authur’s death and High Honor meant Arthur’s escape from the gang or something along those lines. Something different. The Honor System was really useless. As far as I’m concerned the canon ending is Highest Honor on that cliff. Now also, (when addressing Dutch’s actions like killing Bronte or strangling that Old Woman) I think in Arthur’s mind, Dutch was the all knowing one who took him in and essentially taught him everything he knew. RDR2 takes place just when everything is going WRONG with the gang. Imagine Dutch talking to the gang after all heists and everything else goes RIGHT. I think it was hard to comprehend for Arthur (and maybe even John) that Dutch was just as brutal and viscous as they were. Like Dutch was the cause they were fighting for; to prove they weren’t heathens, but when Dutch kills and acts out on petty things such as revenge it makes Arthur or John second guess what they’re doing. Another thing is I don’t look at Arthur as indecisive during the later part (like with Mary for example). I think Arthur is like that friend who tries to help everyone else except for himself and that fucks him over in the long run. Another gripe I have with RDR2 is Milton didnt really have any moral character flaws within himself that people could actually hate. He was a fair guy. Had Rockstar maybe added in some misogynistic or racist elements on his character, I think that would’ve made his death more satisfying. Overall though I really liked your discussion about who your preferred character is. Me personally, Arthur Morgan reaches a little bit better Redemption by at least getting John outta the gang and accepting himself for who he is towards the end. I think mainly due to the fact that Arthur did a lot of growing up in a short amount of time made him the better character in my opinion. However, John’s story and his journey shouldn’t be forgotten either. I really almost cried at the end of RDR1 when John died because he knew the day was coming, but accepted it head on. Dying like a man. I’ll say this: If I were going into battle I’d pick John, if I were going to watch a movie I’d pick Arthur. John is a flawed Cowboy. Arthur is a flawed Man.
the timing of everything definitely caught arthur off guard. youre right, in the events before the game they seemed to view themselves more like robin hood characters than outlaws. mostly just having fun and robbing the rich and dumb. arthur got caught up in all that and likely saw nothing wrong with whatever they were doing unless they killed strait up innocent people. i feel like that kinda helped blind him to the violence the gang (and dutch) were capable of doing. i felt like john always saw through and accepted it while arthur was kinda happy go lucky, ball buster until it was too late and everything was imploding.
@Julian Guardiola And you know why that makes John better? Because he learned from his mistakes and corrected the man he was before, taking care of his family, growing up as a man and a father. When the government took his family, he crossed through heaven and hell to get them back and safe. When he finally got what he wanted, Ross and his army tried to kill him. John could've kill them all and escape with his family, but what he did? He knew that if he tried to run away, sooner or later they'll come for him again to kill him and his family, so it was time for him to give it an end sacrificing himself to give his family a better and safety life, even if that implicated to never seeing them again. Now i ask you, what is a legend for you? A man like Arthur that doesn't even know what he wants, an hypocrite who judges Dutch for murdering people, even when he does the same things for little things? Yeah, he changed for better until chapter 5 or 6, but he did when he knew he had TB, if Arthur never had that disease, maybe he wouldn't change that much. Well, that's my opinion, i love both of them, they were brothers and found their redemption by their own way.
@@thegreatarsene8771 One reminder, it's called "character development", he started like an irresponsible father dumb as rocks, and finished like a goddam legend. I don't know if you read my first comment but i basically explain why that makes John a great character and how he matured for his family and for a better life.
@@360eradaryl7 I disagree. Arthur had already lost a child, and finally felt like he might have a new lease on life and a chance to atone for his crimes, and then died a very ugly undignified death. Marston went out in a blaze of glory.
I think Arthur was scared to live a normal life as when he tried his possible wife and kid got killed, he then think he is it a good enough person to live a honest life. This is why he doesn't leave the gang and puts his future into John and he believes John can live the life that Arthur always wanted to live but couldn't do to his own regret and self hate. This is why he also didn't go with Mary, although at the end he wants to leave but due to fate (and I guess he took that as destiny caused by his past) couldn't
I completely agree with your opinion. I love both but I feel like John better suited the franchise. I still think Arthur was a good character though but he just felt too good hearted for a rockstar game. Plus I love John's dialogue way more. It's written so fucking well
now that we think about it, if Arthur had left the gang the moment Mary proposed to escape with him in Saint Denies, he could've become a Lawman to still figth with brute force but do the good things he likes to do.
Arthur was gonna run away with Mary. He said he would after the Saint Denis heist but it went south and he got stuck and couldn't do anything. he didnt have money and didnt know what to do. If the heist hadn't gone south he wouldve disappeared like he wanted to
i kinda didnt believe arthur when he said that. i dont think that he was strait up lying to her and he clearly wanted to be with her, but even if the heist went smoothly i feel like there would always be an excuse as to why he couldnt leave the outlaw life. i could be completely wrong but that was my take on it. could easily be influenced from playing rdr1 and knowing how johns story plays out where your past always follows you. but, ya, i feel like arthur wouldve found some excuse to still not live a quiet life or at least not live it long had the saint denis heist worked.
@@SwoopGoose thats also true but in my opinion he sounded very serious about it and when he got the letter from Mary where she gives back the ring, you see the look of pure heartbreak on him so thats why i kinda believed it
To be fair, Arthur isn't really the romantic type. I don't think he ever really expected to ever find someone to settle down with, So he more focused on lone wolf talents. While John found love (I think) in his early life, So he would gain those family type skillsets.
John could only do that after firstly, a couple years of wandering and the motivation to do it was Arthur’s words of being a man, but they are both amazing in there own right.
I feel like Arthur was better written simply because of how red dead 1 was. We all loved it so they put more effort into 2. Which resulted in Arthur. John is still a good character but Arthur is obviously the better character of the 2. Simply because they spent more time with him.
Not gonna lie when John died I cried and replayed the whole damn game but with good honor (I had bad honor 1st playthrough), got 100% completion and it really shook me such a good character died. But then I realized, by sacrificing himself he redeemed himself and drew attention away from his family. But with Arthur I knew his death was coming because TB was the equivalent of a death sentence in the 19th century so to be honest, I didn’t cry when he died on that cliff because I was expecting it.
Part of this honor goes to ross when they are at the stable and john get his family to run i am pretty sure the soldiers was already out there and ross ordered them to wait because they could just have shot int the barn and get john and his family
I absolutely agree that Redemption games' main character is John Marston and that it tells the story of John Marston, even though some of it through Arthur's eyes. Arthur Morgan is at least as great character than John Marston, maybe even better but the story of the Redemption games is the story about Marstons
I disagree with the inconsistencies, that which just has to do with 3 factors, the downhill spiral of the gang, the sickness, and Arthur's growth and gaining of knowledge. To just pull something out without addressing those factors up to that point is cherry picking at best and sheds a false light on the character. Love both characters but that was pretty unfair. Just to be clear I think arthur intentionally (by creators) has flaws like being a hypocrite and being naive for so long out of denial. But that also adds depth and relatability to each and every one of us. We have had plenty of years of content with flawless powerful protagonists so it was actually cool to notice that he was a hypocrite at some points and even called out once or twice lol.
He's not really a hypocrite he's just growing as a character trying to become better that's the reason why it's called Red Dead Redemption because you're supposed to redeem yourself that's why you get more rewarded for being good and bad in this
The thing is tho. The same can literally be said for John when you mention Arthur being some merciless killer while the narrative of the game pushes the “good guy” focus onto you. John tries to be a good family man and putting the past behind him but you can literally go out and murder everyone you see even tho the game pushes the emphasis of being a good guy. John is no different from Arthur when it comes to that point that you made.
the difference is that the entirety of rdr1 is that john is a *former* outlaw, trying to put the past behind him. that’s literally the whole point. and while you absolutely can factor in gameplay mechanics into the critique of a game’s narrative (ludonarrative dissonance, i believe that’s called) and be completely justified, it doesn’t make or break the argument. the story is still telling you john is only doing what he needs to, and never at any point is john forced to kill random innocents in the story (unless you consider those mexican soldiers to be innocent, but i personally wouldn’t) in rdr2, the actual narrative of the game tries to play both sides, arthur IS an outlaw still, you spend the entire game robbing trains & coaches, killing indiscriminately, screwing over literally everyone unfortunate enough to cross paths with the van der linde gang. but the game tries to have it’s cake & eat it too by trying to act like their evil acts are somehow justified and that the gang are these robin hood-esque gentlemen thieves who only steal from the wicked, when that’s literally just not true (see: the saint denis post & bank robberies where they kill innocent city officers in each mission) that’s not gameplay conflicting with writing, that’s writing conflicting with writing, which in my book is much worse
The one major difference I've noticed is that John doesn't like to show as much emotion as Arthur does. In the first game he seems pissed off all the time, (which makes sense considering he's being blackmailed into doing the government's dirty work) until he gets his family back. Even then he's just relaxed until the final mission of the game. And unlike RDR2, there isn't any characters that John latches onto before the Beecher's Hope missions, aside from Bonnie and maybe Landon. So it makes sense that he would be standoffish all the time.
Well it wouldn't have made sense if he survived, plus it would ruin his character ark, the only reason he saw fit to become a better man and see Dutch for what he really is, was a result of his diagnosis.
I see Arthur Morgan as a kind of Marco Polo type character. Wanting to explore and live free on the open frontier but being having the many responsibilities and tasks of doing so for others. Arthur rides with the VanderLinde gang similar how Marco Polo rode with The Mongols and how he was stuck with them for a long time similar how Arthur is stuck with the gang for almost his whole life and isn’t able to leave when things start to fall apart.
John’s redemption, becoming a better father to his family, and living his normal life. Arthur’s redemption, realizing what’s important, and helping John start his family life.
I agree I think Arthur is the best R* character ever but John Marston doesn’t seems to get the respect he deserves. People argue saying John is boring and has no development when it was RDR1 success and acclaim that made RDR2 literally happen. And of course John has a great development passing from a man who lives with no responsibilities or interest for his family to a man who conquered Fort Mercer, defeated a Mexican dictator and faced the Pinkertons to save his family. I’m not going to say John’s the best cause of nostalgia but I will ask Arthur Morgan fans to show more respect to one of the greatest characters in game history, John Fucking Marston 🐺👑
@@scorpion7182 yeah yeah yeah just because of he save him makes him better blah blah blah. John Marston is the original and without him arthur never would've have gotten his redemption, how's that?
I think that just because you played Arthur that way doesn’t mean it’s the way he should be played it’s obvious he was meant to be bad and then learn how to be better as we progress
Arthur is (or at least was) always loyal to the gang and everyone in other than Micah obviously but he still risked his own life to save them even Micah while John he was somewhat disloyal as he didn't even tell the gang he was leaving he just left but he had development and changed as a person throughout the story and took revenge for Arthur at the end of the game
In defence of the "inconsistent" writing of Arthur, people in the gang acknowledge Arthur's hypocrisy, especially Bill Williamson so I'm pretty sure it's intentional, Arthur is more of a crucial member so they treat his fuck ups with a double standard.
![Why Micah Bell is Rockstar's most hated character [SPOILERS]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ky_pHTZcHvI/mqdefault.jpg)
people are still watching this? made a new, and hopefully better, rdr2 video. check it out here if you want.
ruclips.net/video/yTtKc-760c8/видео.html
I'm still watching this.
Hell yeah
Around 16:08 when your talking about Arthur just kiling but when somone else does it its horrible, in chapter 3 i think when they go back to rob the bank in Valentine Bill directly says that same thing to Arthur witch is why i think they just let you do the inocent killing in fre roam.
K
john sigma male In RDR1
john simp In RDR2
arthur sigma male In RDR2
One thing that bothers me about these analysis videos is no one talks about Arthur's envy of John. Arthur and John come from the same background but John damn near has the life Arthur wants. He has Dutch's praise and love, despite leaving the gang. John's got the girl and a son. Arthur sees John's mistakes by running away and how John cant figure out if he wants to be a family man or an outlaw. Arthur made the mistake of being an outlaw and lost the love of his life as well as his son. Arthur is like "this kid has got no idea how good he has it and he takes it for granted." But towards the end Arthur more or less voices these concerns to John and basically tells him "don't make the same mistakes i made. i chose this gang over a happy life with a family and now this gang is falling apart. you have the chance to have what i lost, and im gonna do everything in my power to make sure you get that". John does get that even if for a short period of time.
Yeah there’s definitely an unspoken envy at play between Arthur and John, at the end you’ll even notice Arthur tells him to go be a goddamn man. Arthur understands that John has the life he always wanted but could never maintain, which is why the end of the story is just Arthur so insistent on saving John because he has something actually worth living for
very well said
right agree 100%
I mean ye that was the point of the story lol i dont agree with this video mutch tbh. Even when he saied that arthur didnt realise duch for what he was is kinda weird. Because arthur questioned dutch even in chapter 2. Evryone basicly did after blackwater.
That's not really envy
Arthur is brilliantly written. he can be a flawed hero, a villain, good, evil, and it seems natural in the game. he's always still Arthur.
exactly
...-._-. Would an evil man try and help John, Abigail and Jack out? Plus like...y'know. Sadie, the Wapiti tribe? Hm? Would an evil man go and save Abigail, and Sadie from Milton?
It does not seem natural when you, a minimum honor player/Arthur is doing what Arthur does in the game.
you guys read too many comic books. Actual "evil" is not what you think firstly, and Arthur isn't even "evil" if played as low honor. He has...low honor.
@@travioli_yeah4270 Arthur isn’t “evil” if he’s low honor, it’s just that he’s not exactly a good person.
One of my favorite camp encounters has two parts. The first part is in chapter 3, Jack tries to play swords with John but John declines the offer. In chapter 6, we can see John and Jack playing with swords together, having a nice moment together, Micah then ruins it with his "charm" and him "caring too much" but John protects Jack. It was nice to see that development.
I LOVE that name and profile
Hey Uncle
Hi old man
Yesss it shows how much he changed over time it seems like Catherine Braithwaite taking Jack was a good thing and selling jack to Angelo Bronte it revealed that out of all tye gunslinger and women besides Abigail he was the most worried I mean the mission where the boys go to confront the Braithwaites while walking up to the house " I SWEAR I'LL KILL EVERYONE THERE" just shows how much he's worried and angry and caring what happened to jack and the day after the party of jack returning john asked Abigail it would be Easter for him to keep an eye on Abigail and jack if they stayed up in his room and in beaver hollow they all stayed in his tent it's cool they were on their way to being a family
HOW THE FUCK DO WE HAVE THE SAME NAME
No matter who is your favorite, if you didnt wear Arthur's hat as john you were doing something wrong.
Big facts
Nah johns hat Is better
@@scottishwitchify For John, Yeah, but generally, Arthur hat is better
@@elprimo7577 johns hat looks better on john
@@elprimo7577 nah john's hat is better overall, fits with more outfits
Roger Clarke *The actor for Arthur* was actually a bit nervous since he had BIG SHOES to fill, cause well, John Marston is an amazing charachter. But oh boy did Roger deliver.
When I play as John I restart the game cause I want to be Arthur, when I play as Arthur I rush the game so I can play as John
I felt that
You want exsactly what I want I do that to but what it is is not enough missions as John
I’m a Gypsy John had his own Game tho. So John has more missions than Arthur
@@scorpion7182 true, even most of the side missions and events can be done as John.
Be uncle
Both characters are phenomenal. I loved playing as John and Arthur. But if I have to choose, it would be John. I loved getting the chance to meet the gang and see their story unfold, but I think I enjoyed being that lone wolf gunslinger more than being with a team. Seeing John having to hunt down his old friends by himself. Trying to save the only thing he's got left. Just feels like the perfect classic western story. I enjoyed RDR1 slightly more than RDR2. I think the biggest reason for that is, as great as the story is, it was obviously predictable that Arthur was going to die from the beginning. But John's death came outta nowhere. And that just hit a little harder to me.
I agree with you there. I would love to see a revisited RDR1 game. The 10 years inbetween games means that RDR1 feela much more game-y and it would be great to see how they could develop the script and characters.
@@Laura-fr2wx Yeah thad be cool. I'd also say the only thing that was alot better, at least to me was the music in RDR1. The music felt way more like a western than RDR2. When any danger was coming and that music picked up it was always epic.
@@bt3519 Same here. I think the soundtrack and the songs in RDR2 are outstanding but the classic western sounds in RDR1 are absolutely perfect.
But if u played rdr2 first....
Like i did
@@bt3519 I personally liked red dead 2's soundtrack a lot more. red dead 1 just sounds like BULLY's soundtrack which was very off to me. red dead 2's themes were amazing. specifically the wanted themes, which were so badass
It’s the voice. His voice is stronger and more powerful than John’s. When playing with Arthur’s character you feel like “a rough and tough cowboy” haha . If that make sense.
Nobody asked for your opinion black lung
Baba Yaga YOU RAT. YOU RAT.
It does, you made an excellent point. I agree. Arthur Morgan's voice kinda reminds a little of how John Wayne use to sound. Watch the classic True Grit; the one made in 1969, listen to how Wayne talks, and then tell me whether I am right or wrong.
Yeah true. John is also younger and his voice fits the reformed rancher type he becomes
He’s a better overall actor then the guy who played marston. Both great though
Arthur's probably the more well-written, solid and and fleshed out character but RDR1 John is like the perfect Western protagonist anti-hero
💯💯💯💯
Who’s says he’s a hero more of an anti villain in a western
Fleshed out as in villain turning into a man trying to do some good before he dies storyline
Agreed, very much like the man with no name
@@mrshinybald2739 bro what no he is not the way that Arthur fanboys dickeat is so crazy to me neither John or Arthur are really even like Clint east woods man with no name (from the dollars trilogy)both characters pick up some characteristics but on the whole if you really wanna do that comparison John is more like him and it’s not even close.
John is one of the best characters ever made he is on my top 10
But arthur is my top 1 character he is so fucking good
Sagi Kurland facts! Arthur is the 🐐
@@dayburks nah u are so wrong lol play the first game dumbass
Deadxgamer I did you dumbass, Arthur is the best literally everybody says the same thing you clown
Even better than Gavin?
Nah john more badass cowboy
I never thought about it from that perspective. Arthur disliked John at the beginning because John did something that Arthur never had the balls to do, he abandoned the gang. Arthur could only dream of living the rest of his life with Mary-Beth, or Eliza and Isaac. His loyalty to the gang cut them off eventually. Something he deeply regrets once he becomes a dying man. Which is why some of his final advice to John is "be loyal to what matters." (Abigail and Jack) and "don't try to be two people at once." These lines were kind of throwaways for me until you analyzed them
With Mary Beth? You mean Mary Linton?
@@joshreeves1036 oh yeah
tbh if you played RDR2 first you probably like Arthur more and if you played RDR first you probably like John.
I played Rdr2 first then decided to pick up RDR and still like John more cause imo he is what the story of Red Dead Redemption is about
@@joshcrook6975 okay
Played the hell out of the first red dead when it was out. Arthur is def a better character. Still like John, but arthur blows him out of the water.
@@JMD_Ikonix okay
i played rdr1 with my dad, or seeing him play it, and i can totally say that i like arthur, is sooo good writen and everything... Jhon is cool, a fool sometimes, and dont notice it like arthur.. But idk, colors for all, i like arthur more than jhon even if i played and enjoyed undead nightmare too
The reason why I prefer Arthur over John is what our favorite dragon in Skyrim said: “What is better: to be born good, or to overcome your evil through great effort?” Arthur realizes at the last wrung of his life that he’s lived a bastard’s life, and wants to leave the world with something hopeful and positive. The talk he has with the Nun is a great display of that, where she says that his smile and wanting to help people revitalizes her hope for humanity.
John does that too. Did you even play the 1st game?
@@jacksharp2930 yes, and I found his family shtick really 1-note.
@@J_neckcutta swear these guys never played RDR1 🤣
@Monsieur_Baguette Believe or not, rdr1 existed without arthur for a decade! Hard to believe right? Did I blow your mind?
ngl I do agree with that quote a bit. We all make mistakes, some way worst than others, Arthur beats that "giant" he was wrestling with and does a whole lot of good as part of his redemption.
Forget John and Arthur...... Gavin’s where it’s at
Gavin could break john and arthur’s neck at the same time with both hands behind his back
If Gavin’s where it’s at, then where is Gavin at?
@@Iloveturkiye-mp5ee frl
You’re so funny
You’re the king of comedy
Karen was very upset after miss grimshaw killed molly. She was driven to drink constantly and there’s a part where she’s screaming at miss grimshaw and called her a murderer
There’s a part? She yells directly at Grimshaw right after the mission ended where Susan killed Molly 😅
I think it was sean because right after he passed she starts drinking idk maybe I'm wrong
@@valkyrie948 there’s random parts when your just hanging out at camp after
@@dracoandkodak9737 yeah i know. Played the game over and over. But that part comes always right after the mission
I didn’t like his look either, John in red dead 2 looks kinda weird, he’s younger and a lot skinnier I like him much better in red dead 1...
I know it’s many years after but he just looks wrong, his face looks longer, he has black hair instead of brown like in rdr1. John looks too handsome. He looks too much like Arthur too. :/
granskau not only that but his body just bothers me Arthur looks like a Buff Alpha Male while John looks like he’s worked in a concentration camp.
@@Stormertheboy That's kind of the point. Arthur is the brawler and always had his hands dirty. John was more of a sharpshooter and stayed back.
Jacob The dude Yeah but still though in Red dead 1, John looked like someone I would not wanna mess with, and he was somewhat muscular but in this game he looks more of a young pretty boy.
You can make him look just like he did rdr 1
I was very suspicious about playing as a new guy. I loved John Marston.
The fact that I ended up loving Arthur more is a real testament to the great writing.
yeah,i was like "¿who tf is arthur morgan?"
and at the end i was crying a lot,because he's the protagonist i actually cared the most
You see the video ? You clearly not see arthur inconsistent story
I think that arthur is a perfect character in a "realistic" western story, but John is perfect with a cinematographic western story... thats why I prefer John a little more... because you can feel like a clint eastwood in one of his movies, but i repeat, Arthu's story is great too
Best take I've heard on this topic yet. I'll always prefer john just because of how well his character meshed with the whole "there is no redemption" story of rdr. Not to say I dont like 2. It's just that rdrs story is a fucking classic.
@@bertjedi8010 Thank you bro.
You have a good point too, and how you say...
RDR's story... is a fucking classic
Spaghetti Westerns is what you're looking for, and Arthur feels like a modern western
Yeah, you get a pancho unlike in rdr2
Idk if i fully agree i felt way more powerful with arthur the guy was really scary his threats were somthing else to.
I think John has seen Dutch’s true face before anyone else cuz he left the gang for a year and gained an outsider perspective
That’s exactly what I said about a year ago or so. Arthur calls John dumb but John was the first person to see the real Dutch. Johns character is a lot more subtle than Arthur’s
@@r3idmcread212 Arthur actually took action to save the gang while John sits their and does nothing
@@namedclaiming821 John was one of the youngest members of the gang In RDR2. So of course Arthur as being the biggest and oldest influence did something. Comments like this are so dumb. John in RDR2 was a young man. Then he changed into the biggest badass to come out of the van der linde gang years later. And John marston in RDR1 pal took action alright, he took on America and Mexico to get his family back. And guess what John won that fight.
@@r3idmcread212 Ahhhh, you again. In fact, that's totally false. John may have been outspoken, but he, in spite of having the advantage of witnessing Dutch's first sign of madness in Blackwater (mostly what shook his faith) didn't see Dutch before anyone else, unless you want to shove down your headcanons into his characterization like you keep doing.
Now let me tell you who else is shown disagreeing too, in addition to Hosea and Uncle, even if you like to dismiss it. Yes, you guessed it, it's Arthur. All the way back in chapter w Arthur shows stress and anxiety and full awareness of the changing world and their place in it. He expresses concern that the outlaw life's ending, and this fear is accompanied by a change of faith, trust, and loyalty to some extent. Take his interaction with John early in the Sheep and the Goats for instance
John: we should get more money til we can head back to Blackwater and collect that money.
Arthur: let me tell, we try to collect that money soon, it'll come with a noose.
John: I was worried you'd say that. Dutch says...
Arthur: Dutch says a lot. That's his gift, saying things.
John: what do you mean by that?
Arthur: listen, Dutch is... But... But.... Well... You was at that thing in Blackwater. New century's coming. This life, this way? Well, we're the last I recon. We ain't long for it.
John: that's the way it goes.
Arthur: for me, yes (might imply a wish to leave once it's all done)
In a missable interaction in ch2 when Arthur approaches Dutch by the tree, '' I ain't a doubter nor a believer, Dutch! I ain't nothin'!''
In his journal, where his true feelings show, he seems quite conflicted too. All the way from the beginning.
Arthur tried to keep a trusting face in front of everyone in order not to cause division, just like Hosea. And like Hosea, he doubted, questioned, noticed.
@@zaia3747 Christ you have got a problem with me ain’t ya ? Haha.
Maybe the real red dead redemption was the friends we made along the way.
No silly its that the real red dead redemption 2 was in inside us all along
Oh my...
"Nobody complained about Molly's death"
*Karen screaming at Miss Grimshore and calling her a murderer intensifies*
Are you really conparing gold with gold?
I grew up with John Marston so I gotta say John Marston is still my favorite
Yes
Hell yes
Same
Yup same here
Definetly true
The problematic piece about Dutch murdering and feeding Bronte to the gator and murdering the old lady is cause, Dutch always preached never kill in cold blood, and don’t murder in revenge. That’s why Arthur was so shocked each time.
The reason he started acting irrational is a theory that he suffered brain damage from the trolley crash this video by fizhy goes into this theory in depth it will change the way you think of dutch ruclips.net/video/rsbjit9qAxY/видео.html
Yes thank you, it’s like people never paid attention to the game and calling Arthur a hypocrite, and Dutch tries to excuse those cold blooded kills poorly and that was the first time Arthur saw Dutch true colors
bUt iF yOu kIlL nPc iS gOoD
That guy in the video doesn’t understand the game
that !!! I feel like not enough people see that
I read Arthur’s comment on how he should have married her differently. I thought it was less about romantic feeling for Abigail and more about stepping up to be the father and nurturer that she and Jack deserved during the time John had run off. And I presume there was at least some chemistry between him and Abigail when John was out of the picture. Arthur is pretty much the best looking guy in the gang, and has those aforementioned redeeming qualities of loyalty and depth to sweeten the deal. I don’t think he was expecting that find the same passionate romance he had with Abigail as he had with Marie, just that they might have been a healthy family together.
Genius, this also explains why Arthur got mad with John, he was getting closer to Abigail while John was away but then John came back and took his place with Abigail
I remember seeing a similar comment on the Red Dead Redemption subreddit. Either way, it's a beautiful way of putting Arthur's relationship with John's family.
Ever since I made that comment I’ve been wanting to get the boar skins for their tent.
Well you might be right because you know remember what old Dutch said
"We all had her but he married her"
That’s why Arthur is the one who’s so hard on John for John disappearing. Abigail chose John not Arthur. But also Arthur felt betrayed abit
as much as gameplay and story conflict with arthur, i can't help but feel for his arc. I went into the game blind, and started off low honor (robbing stores for no reason, killing a group of people for a dollar), it wasn't until the scene where arthur was diagnosed i went oh fuck and started turning things around by picking the "good" options and helping people by the roads and shit until i finished the game and saw arthur look out at that sunset, satisfied that i had done good in my limited time to make up for all my fuck ups. my honor didn't even get to 100% until i went with john over the black water money, which is what to me cemented arthur's change for the good. I felt arthur's redemption because i went through it with him and that's why he's my favourite of the two protagonists.
I did the same thing lol
Us John fans went through all with him eight YEARS before the "original" character popped up outta nowhere and that's why he's our favorite!
GodsLonelyMan76 so you all are completely determining this discussion by how long they have been on the series? what a joke
I feel like both games have their own "Redemption" aspect. Johns Redemption is the whole first game. Playing both games, John really doesn't change too much besides the fact that he starts to appreciate his family more. John's redemption is really just trying to escape his previous life to live a better one by tying up the loose ends of his past, but he really doesn't change much as a person. Arthurs redemption is more mental and emotional because he's really not trying to change or escape his past, but more so realizing that his life has been pretty evil and that he should really try to be a better person and save what he still can. Depending on how you play, Arthur changes much more as a person, he still stays blindly loyal to Dutch, but he realizes that maybe being loyal to the gang isn't the best thing, and that he should try to get everyone out, like the women, and John and his family.
Also, as far as Arthur being indecisive, I just feel as if his whole change and redemption comes with his TB diagnosis. At this point, he knows his time is short and he is going to die, there really is no drastic change he can make. He can't leave with Mary because he'll die, leaving the gang would be short lived, because again, he'll die and wouldn't have helped anyone, and he still has hope in the gang up until about they move into the cave.
In my opinion, Arthur is the better character because in the end, he turns out to be a better person, even despite all the crime.
Being a good person is truuly what make you a good caracther not being better writting but If Arthur is a good person How he needs redemption
The Red Dead Redemption series is about John Marston, Arthur is another perspective on John, showing the different sides of the story
I think arthur and john complement eachother as protagonists they are both as good to me they both influenced eachother tbh
Unrelated, but your profile picture looks familiar
@@Tavemanic oh its amity blight from the owl house
@@hastur1277 that's it, I haven't watched it but have seen reviews, looks good, a lot of gravity falls-esc in the reviews
@@Tavemanic yea it is a great show and yea it has a lot of gravity falls y vibes alex hirsch voices one of the characters too so that probably plays into it
The thing about Arthur's allegiance to Dutch is, after "all them years" together Arthur feels like he owes Dutch the curtesy of trying to help him see sense. Arthur says "I owe him that at least". That's why he never wanted to kill Dutch, and tries to save him by outing Micah which Dutch eventually saw.
I think the thing is John realized that Dutch was to far gone. Especially with seeing the position his family was in. While Arthur dealer with his personal stuff too.
Arthur was loyal to a fault even though he finally realised Dutch wasn't who Arthur thought him to be he just couldn't abandon his father figure who basically raised him and so he tried everything he could to bring Dutch over to his side but ultimately wasn't able to and that's the tragedy of his character that he was only able to realize what kind of man he wanted to be when it was too late for him.
You forgot to say that John besides not being loyal he left his wife and son, meaning that Arthur was angry with him because he hates that John left what Arthur lost
Sebastian Angrisano 5:27
@Ryder cuz Arthur made him changed from dumb boi into a real man
@@cheeseburger2720 true
Sebastian Angrisano he was loyal.
Guys! At starting of rdr2 Arthur was angry with John because he didn't wanted him and his family to rejoin gang. Because arthur knew that this ain't right place to live for em.
as Arthur, if you rent a room at a motel, you can interact with the Mirror which shows that Arthur has a lot of Self-Loathing.
It puzzled me at first but once you finish the game more than once it makes sense I guess.
Arthur never wanted to be an outlaw for life, it's just he was strung along with the hope of helping get all his family out of it by Dutch that he never got a chance to live his life... He didn't want to kill people truly unless they were absolutely evil, like Klan members or the Murfree's or Skinner brothers.
Except to help save his family, then and only then I believe Arthur actually followed through on any violence he threatens.
This doesn't excuse what he did, but I believe low honor Arthur is not consistent with the rest of Arthur's character, because he loathes killing people who don't deserve it, and so hates himself.
Which idk why he does that since he is pretty handsome no homo and he has a good build and has good hair genes so idk what he is on about
honestly JM in RDR2 is kind of watered down a bit in comparison to his RDR1 self and I kind of like that decision. In the epilogue, we see him trying to start a new life, learning how to be a rancher and such and just does not have that same confidence and collectiveness that we see in the first game, that is until he has to deal with the Laramie boys. We get to see John in his element again for a bit, and you can tell that being a badass outlaw is all he's good at whether he likes it or not. Then, he has to deal with bank loans and house building and he's back to that watered down version of himself we see. He has a very hard time adjusting to this new lifestyle and forces himself to be a good person, and is right back to his badass self when he's working with Sadie. But in my opinion, we really get to see the JM for RDR1 in the mission that Uncle gets kidnapped by the skinners, and maybe I believe this because of the way I played the mission, but I remember a certain feeling when going through that little gulley in the skinner camp as John taking the lead while Charles takes care of Uncle like I was invincible, and to me it really felt like this mission was John Marston becoming John Marston in terms of mercilessness and badassery. Following that mission, of course is American Venom, and I'm sure I don't need to explain what I was feeling in that mission. John was out of his element, awkward and less of a badass in RDR2's epilogue for most of it, except when he was in his element, which I totally like that decision by R*. Just wish they hadn't given him Arthur's hair, body shape, height and facial features.
John Marston will ALWAYS be my favourite protagonist
Rdr1 portrayed him in a much more badass way than Arthur, in my opinion
I much love and prefer Arthur’s story and Arthur in general but I respect your opinion as John is great to
I never play RDR 1 or RDR2 I’ve played the first game RDR with Red but when I played RDR 2 I still knew who John and knew he dies in RDR 1 but in end I always prefer John even tho I cry at Arthur death John is just something special I even went ahead and played the first game for the first time and it was so fucking good John is imo the better character I only wish Jack had some missions or something bc he always felt unfinished in RDR 1
@Thor Reidar Haugen well I respect your opinion
@Thor Reidar Haugen what’s your reasoning? How is he better ?
@Thor Reidar Haugen yeah ? U don’t want to answer don’t. I just want to know your reasoning. Don’t need be a prick
While I agree with the idea that Arthur getting mad at Dutch for killing someone he did not need to kill is a little weird when you consider that Arthur can do the exact same shit and never have it be brought up, I don't think that is an issue unique to RDR2 or Arthur. Like, in RDR1 there is a trophy for hogtieing a woman and leaving her on the tracks to get hit by a train. Sure, that game does not do nearly as much to have John be some sort of paragon like RDR2 does with Arthur in chapter 6, but that sort of action is definitively not the John Marston of the story. A lot of John's actions can be justified by his desires to protect his family, but as it is an open-world game where you can interact with stuff in a lot of different ways, some of those things can't be justified. So, again, I think it is a valid disconnect you're seeing with Arthur, but I think that same disconnect should be acknowledged with John.
ANYWAY, thanks for sharing your thoughts about the games and characters.
Yeah, lots of games try and cover that inherent disconnection between the open world and story, so I think that a lot of what is done in game or may be rewarded via trophies or challenges aren’t always cannon to the characters. I do agree that’s there’s a disconnect, but its situational. like as Arthur I can hogtie, and practically torture someone, then drop them off and feed them to an alligator. I feel Arthur wouldn’t do that. Or like the sharpshooter 9 challenge where you have to shoot peoples hat off in dead eye. Again I can’t see a world where Arthur would just shoot peoples hats off. I do think random encounters in the open world would be cannon.
Anyways, all I’m trying to say is that I agree with you and swoop. Also that there’s a disconnection between open word and story, and now in retrospect of this comment I do think that there’s a cut tie between story and game world. That does make Arthur more inconsistent of a character. It also is a little odd that Rockstar didn’t do much to connect the two worlds. I do love your take on this detachment from the open world and story.
Video on RDR2?
@@ej2208 No plans to do like a SOLE video on RDR2, but as a lot of stuff I do is on a general topic that uses multiple games as examples, RDR2 will show up in a handful of future ideas.
@@razbuten Good deal, maybe in a couple years if you ever wanted to revisit it, the lady you live with might like it. I had my girlfriend play it just got the story and she was hooked and she’s mot much of a games person
But his anger at Dutch was never "that was mean", it was "that's not something you would do".
Arthur mentions how Dutch is the "best man he knows". It's why he trusts Dutch to get them out of their situation.
In the low honour ending, he even tells Sadie of a time when Dutch chided Arthur for robbing a man who was "too poor".
Arthur hates himself, and has no expectations of himself. But he expected better of Dutch.
i love john. in rdr1 we didn’t know everything about him and he seemed like that guy who’s seen a lot of things and has a lot of stories. i wish there was a mission where you fished with him and arthur so they could just shoot the shit
Why wasn’t there a mission like that
I think an important point is that John was there at Blackwater and saw Dutchs first descent into madness by all the bloodshed and killing the innocent girl that was there, I feel like if Arthur also saw that he would be more on the fence about dutches actions earlier in the game like John is
exactly
John is great, but there’s something mystical about Arthur, his voice, his movement and presence, the game does a great job of making your version of Arthur real, good, evil it still makes sense with Arthur’s character arch, one of the best written characters in video games
Did you play RDR1? I can tell why a person who hasn't played RDR2 would think that, because in the epilogue John is a very awkward guy, but in RDR1 John is charismatic, witty and sarcastic
@@pavan923 Calm down boy.
@@pavan923 oh god…
Arthur is the better character because as you become emotionally attached to this man throughout the story you realize that he is a more in depth person who knows that his story is going to end in tragedy. To make amends for this he helps John get out, because he wishes he had that person to help him see things clearly and tell him to do the right thing. The things he struggled to do his entire life
You got a problem with me son?
yes. Arthur is better than you.
A inconspicuous duck I understand, wait till I arrive by your house somehow and bring a gun next your door, is that what you want? huh?
John I’ll be waiting in his house for you
@@TacitusKilgore347 dont you understand?These sons of bitches are comparing us, its very uncomfortable
I'm not even from the same universe as you, but damn your a badass like me John.
I have loved BOTH games and protagonists. I personally think that so much of John has been built around the mysterious "man with no name", spaghetti western homage in mind. It's what the whole 1st game was about. We learned more about John in RDR2 than RDR1. Where Arthur is more introspective, thoughtful, and developed as 3 dimensional being; I think John was meant to almost be a cardboard cutout of the wandering 60's western protagonist that inspired the 1st game. Both John and his story follow that of a traditional western where the characters motivations were as BASE and vague as possible. In these westerns character development was minimal and dialogue was rarely subtle; which is what we see in rdr1. I think you also mistake Arthurs loyalty to the gang and Arthurs loyalty to Dutch. He starts out completely loyal to the man he looks up to as a father, Dutch. That scale starts to tip pretty early in the game and you can see the veil slowly being lifted from Arthurs face through the course of the first 4 chapters. I think you give too much credit to the human ability to see logic when faced with circumstances involving "family". Logic might have told Arthur something was "off", but after 20 years of ingratiation to a cult leader it took some serious crap to open his eyes. In the end: I think it mostly just depends on what you like more: a somewhat more flat, archetypal comic book style gunslinger; or a better developed, more charismatic but violent man dealing with inner conflict that most non-psychopathic humans can relate to. Basically: Do you prefer a legendary superhero with a six shooter or a fallible human? One also has to consider the sheer amount of content/development that was able to be put into Arthur compared to John because the 1st was released 11 years ago.
I agree with what you said here. And I think why people prefer Arthur more because you see his internal conflict and guilt over the things he has done personally, as well as regret, things we can all relate to at one time or another.
John was, as you say, kind of a classic Western anti-hero, like Clint Eastwood was in many of his Westerns, and therefore lacked a lot of character development.
I personally think Arthur is better, because he is so selfless, he would give his life for others, and the affection he had for John and the other characters. He might be tough and mean, but he is really a nice man he would rather stay loyal to the gang than to go with his love. I feel Arthur is the better character, but John is also a great protagonist. They both had incredible character development and complex storylines. Both protagonists are really similar, Arthur also had a son and wife. Then Arthur gave his life for John, without Arthur there would be no John. Like that wolves part, or the prison. Lol
Jhon only cares for one thing and that is his family
Marco jonesco .Good point, but if Arthur didn’t exist there would be no family left. He and the gang saved jack, he saved Abigail, and he saved John twice
@@2good4u98 Arthur is a true hero but he dont know what he wants. Jhon nows what he wants, Jhon dont even talk about him he wants to move Forward.
John could have easily gotten outta there he whoulda been fine without Arthur
@The Strange Man i went to your house nice house but why is there a dead rotting alligator underneath their
I mean- of course. I love Arthur till the end, but I feel a more "related" feel to Rip Van Winkle.
I enjoyed Arthur more than John idk why just did. I believe Arthur was a scared person and he didn't want to lose everything he had. I don't think he was being hypocritical when chastising Dutch. You don't kill women or children that was the rule the gang had. Dutch blew a girls head off in blackwater and than killed an old lady. Arthur was constantly questioning the decisions of the gang. Sure you as a player can kill everyone in sight but thats not canon in the story. Arthur was a good man who did bad things not really for his own satisfaction but thats what he needed to do for the gang. He didn't have a life of his own and he was molded into what he was and he was scared he couldn't change that. Thats what makes him a much more likable character to me than John.
With just the context of the first game sure I love John but with the context of both I like Arthur a lot more. He gave John the ability to live the life he himself couldn't do. What did John do with that well he threw it directly into the garbage and got himself killed because of it. He loved Jack and Abigail I believe that but he is the reason they were put in the danger they were.
They both are heavily flawed people with good in them one was just able to showcase that good more than the other. I never felt sorry for John but I did for Arthur.
You are very observant, my friend
Exactly finally someone who gets me and makes a proper analysis
Amazingly put friend.
Virgin John Marston
>Can't swim
Chad Arthur Morgan
>Can swim
Uhh no Johns better
@@TrevorMothaFckinPhilips r/woooosh
arthur morgan was a big crying pussy because mary left him
@@yosoyyo9487 Ok? No one asked.
@@Prix-cp5qc the truth hurts
as much as i like arthur and rdr2, johnny marston and the first red dead will always have a place in my heart
@SlimShady wow, no shit? dumbass lmaoo
Wait you like RDR1 more than RDR2?
@☣Shadytoad🃏 again, no shit? i’m not comparing the characters, i’m just saying i prefer one over the other. not really sure who’s the dumbass here, prick
@@Justforamoment0608 yeah, why?
@☣Shadytoad🃏 in that case, i’m pretty sure you need to be funny if you’re gonna troll someone. maybe you should work on that then come back later
When u called Arthur a hypocrite this wasn’t true the reason Arthur became suspicious of Dutch and started complaining wasn’t just because Dutch was killing people but coz of the way he was doing it because it was becoming clear that Dutch was starting to enjoy killing people and taking revenge which was never the way the gang or Dutch was before
Arthur was a hypocrite though.
Edit: just incase people misinterpret this comment I’ll just say that I’m not hating on Arthur and I’m not saying John or whoever else are not hypocritical because they are. It doesn’t take anything away from their characters, so don’t get all upset because I said something about Arthur Morgan that you don’t like.
But the fact is, Arthur was a hypocrite at times but I still do love the character.
@@r3idmcread212 And so is John, who constantly berates Seth for looting corpses when there's literally a game mechanic that lets you loot bodies in that game 🤦.
@@b.u.l.1734 seems like you’re just commenting on my comments. Now I’m going to use your own argument against you. You stated on another comment that things that happen outside the story or side missions are not cannon. So if people go on killing sprees and then loot the body when the game doesn’t require you to then by your argument. It doesn’t count and isn’t cannon.
Second argument to your silly comment is Seth digs up dead rotting bodies, strips them and obviously does things with them. That’s implied a few times in the game. Then there is John who loot the people who has only been dead for seconds or minutes. He either does it to get money or information. But then again if it isn’t in the story then it doesn’t count right ?
And I know John is also hypocritical at times. Most of the great characters are. That’s what makes them relatable and more human. My point is that people act like Arthur is absolutely perfect and has no bad qualities.
So there yours your answer to that. Next time you comment your argument, make sure it isn’t stupid.
@@r3idmcread212 Why are you crying?
If you agree with me about the open-world stuff not being canon, then neither Arthur or John are hypocrites. If you don't agree, then they're both hypocrites, thus destroying the uploader's argument about preferring John over Arthur because "he isn't a hypocrite" (which is what I was referring to).
I've never said that Arthur was a perfect human being so I don't know what the fuck are you talking about, kid.
@@b.u.l.1734 When I said people saying Arthur’s perfect I was referring to the first comment I made 2 months ago because it does happen.I never said YOU do did I ?
And I didn’t say that in my comment I prefer John because Arthur is a hypocrite. They both have been hypocrites in RDR2 and I’m fine with that. That’s what makes them relatable. My whole point isn’t that i dislike Arthur, I was just saying he has been a hypocrite on occasion.
And me crying ? Bro you’re the one getting emotional. Dropping F bombs and that.
Listen you’re the one commenting on my comments, saying stupid shit then getting all wound up like you have above.
“Kid” only childish person here is you pal. It’s like you’ve just discovered you can comment on RUclips videos and you’ve made it your soul mission to correct people on their comments. It just puzzles me that your first argument is shite. You contradicted yourself when trying to argue your point. And then added a 🤦🏻♂️to insinuate that the point you was making was obvious when in fact it was completely wrong.
Author is my favourite video game character of all time Rockstar did an amazing job with both him and John
Hahah, agree! And fyi it’s pronounced Arthur*
Honestly Arthur's hypocrisy and inability to see the truth is part of what makes him great in my eyes.
Intentionally or not, Arthur's moments of holier-than-thou hypocrisy are very realistic; his views on Straus, for one, are "I'm bad but at least I'm not him", when in reality robbery at gunpoint is just as bad, if not worse than loan sharking.
I agree on the premise that Redemption is the tale of John Marston and he definitely has more character development, I just think knocking Arthur for having character flaws is unfair.
yes, Arthur's double standards make him extremely human
He was also practically raised by Dutch, who has the same flaw, so it makes sense that Arthur would exhibit it as well
Agreed, I'm sick of character flaws being treated as genuine problems with the writing, quite the contrary, it makes the writing for the character more interesting.
@@themadtitan7603 it really depends on the flaw to be honest
@@detectivepayne3773 I honestly think as long as the character flaw doesn't contradict what the writing already established of the character any flaw could work.
John could’ve most likely found redemption and lived a decent life with Abigail and Jack but because he looked back (Killed Micah) the government found him and set forth the events of Red Dead 1
Possibly but Dutch could have easily killed Micah to, this shown in the American Venom when he shot Micah no problem which would have still caused the pinkertons to snoop around and find John. Actually now that I think about it, it's like Dutch trying to get revenge and he dies to. So that point would go to both John and Dutch.
@@JohnDoe-ip9rn the end credits was a chain reaction caused by American venom which led to ross finding John
Then it’s possible John, Abigail and Jack could’ve been tracked down by Micah and his gang when Ross wanted the rest of the van der linde gang dead. The RDR 1 would have been Micah Red Dead Rat
John took a loan at a government bank with two names and no past he was skewed either way
I always think its weird seeing Arthur without a thick beard, I let that thing grow throughout the game and never shaved that glorious bastard. so its how I'm used to seeing Arthur's face
I was the opposite I had him clean shaven until he was sick then I let it grow to about level 3
That’s great we will all definitely bend to your demands now
Same it’s very hard seeing him with a beard
Nah i dont like Arthur looking like hobo.
When he was diagnosed with the TB, I stopped taking care of how he looked. But I did try to feed him as much as I can. It's really sad to see him cough while doing such a simple thing like eating a meal...
Super good video. I remember when I was a kid thinking I totally screwed up and got the bad ending to rdr 1, and was a little relieved when I found out John died no matter how good you did at the dead eye.
So many Arthur Haters and people saying That Arthur sucks when He saved John more than once. Its a shame. Without Arthur John probably wouldn’t be alive anyways.
John Already Was A Part Of RDR before Arthur Anyway John Was originally made to be red Harlow son before making the redemption series
I have never once seen or heard anybody say that “Arthur sucks” everyone fucking loves him dude
Bruh your name is john marston but u talkin bout people hating Arthur first of all I've never heard anybody say Arthur sucks, I always hear John sucks lol and everyone loving Arthur way more personally john is my fav character of all time
Yung Baka Not everyone. Some people said “John Made Arthur because of how successful he was”
Dark Mari Its a rare side of YT you see “Arthur Sucks”
All This Arguing And War over John and Arthur, Gavin is honestly The best In the game.
@@mehmetturk7086 im not bouta explain
@@mehmetturk7086 that's the real question
Am I the only one who shot Gavin's friend in the back of the head?
@@henryviii2091 I kidnapped him and stole his letter.
@@prod_revo What did it say?
I played rdr2 first before rdr1 but still cannot form an opinion on who's my favorite (also I'm still in the middle of my rdr1 playthrough and I'm really annoyed I somehow saw the ending to it a while ago)
Same I was just watching a video about red dead redemption 2 and then bam the ending of red dead redemption 1 is one of the recommends videos I was so pissed because I didn’t even start my red dead redemption 1 play through
I must be lucky I finished the game in 2014
John marston and Arthur Morgan are just the two perfect protagonist in their own world.
RDR matches Johns personality. Deadly, serious,Dull, unforgiving.One man literally taking on 2 countries to get back his family.One of the reasons John is my favourite is because he is in a sense more cold hearted than Arthur but does his up most to change for his family. Something it must have took everything for him to do. And come he’s still the biggest badass of the genre.
RDR2 matches Arthur’s personality. Colourful, diverse, hard hitting. One man stopping at nothing to help get the people he loves away from the death sentence that is riding with the van der linde gang. And Arthur I honestly connected with Arthur a lot. I’m glad rockstar made him very different to John. They both contrast very well. They’re both big personalities, no wonder they clashed so much.
But yeah, The whole RDR story is just incredible and I’m glad to have been around to have played both games when they first came out and still to this day.
I’ve used this comment before I just like to see if others agree. Both are great in their own way.
But John is still the best in my eyes. Rockstar made the decision to change up John in RDR2 and people turned on him because of this. For those who did, John was young and he had to grow up. Overall Johns story is in my eyes the best character of the series.
I love this comment
@@lightskindio1429 niceone mate
I love john
@@eatalots7773 u an OG fan ?
Imo, the conversations Arthur has with Mary Beth and Ms. Grimshaw where he says how he doesn't know why he is killing random people for no good reason sounds a lot like Michael from GTA V
Just dont know why arthur dont think getting offended by someone isnt a good reason fkr killing sprees
Maybe its Micheal in a disguise
The point about Arthur not seeing who Dutch really was in time I think isn't really a bad thing (for his character, at least). There have been several people I knew that I cared deeply for, usually because of the past I had with them. Honestly, I can't blame Arthur for not accepting that Dutch was a psycho murderer, because Arthur saw the gang as family, and Hosea and Dutch as fathers, in a way. I've had experiences where I learn that people I know and like we're actually terrible people, and I think "no, that can't be right" or "that must not be the whole story." Sure, Arthur was the last horse across the finish line when it came to realizing the truth, but that's ignoring that he was basically the most loyal of the people who realized.
*About Arthur's father*
Arthur wears his father's hat too
It be cool if they did that with john's father too and they rode together
Arthur was more like what most people identify with. Being a victim of the situation you're born into. Compromising part of you to maintain the status quo. He's also far more tragic and while you suggest he's the last person to see who Dutch is I believe he was just so invested in maintaining the life he bought into. I also think Abigail did like Arthur, almost every girl in the camp seems to like him Mary, Sadie, Karen...wouldnt be too farfetched to think Abigail had feelings for him at some point. Arthur catching TB is pretty brutal too, not many protagonists go out like that in a video game. While it may appear now that RD is seen through Johns's eyes I would say that could change with RD3. We might see a deranged Arthur so desperately wanting Dutchs attention, or John committing truly heinous acts (Imagine how much of douchebag a younger john would be lol). I wonder if we will ever play as Dutch and connect more to his side of the story.
PERFECT
I think Red Dead 3 should be a prequel about the Van Der Linde gang out West before the family circus it became. With young angry drunk Arthur Morgan and lost naive John Marston. I picture young Arthur as a terror on the west like a Billy the Kid type figure in the R* universe.
@@waltersobchak4565 I mean it makes sense that the games keep going backwards in time. First game was pretty much after the end of the Old West life style, second game was about the death of the Old West life style, third game should be the actual Old West life style.
I remember when I first saw the trailer and heard we would be playing as someone else I thought no one would ever change my mind about John but after beating the game I gotta say Arthur definitely got me in his favor
I like Arthur better as the protagonist but I like the story of John Marston better
I like John better but Arthur's story more
Arthurs story was depressing af
@@rus778 aglassofwater r/woooosh
Gold runner 11 how?
@@rus778 idk I seen you in a video that I just watched
I’m gonna be honest, I don’t like when people compare these two because they’re both so great and you become really attach to them and comparing them? Feels so...wrong
Arthur to me is a beast. He’s intimidating nice, funny and his story is just cool. John is dope af too. He’s a tough guy as well but Arthur to me is a better character, but John is also in both games. So he has a better argument for most
Yeah but Arthur has more Screen time than John
So he has the better argument
Arthur is the main character of a like 15 hour game or longer with all the backstory and feelings with a book that expresses his feelings so I think Arthur has a better arguement
@@poultry-lover6665 I don’t disagree; jus going based off the fact that some people can enjoy two different games that involves John. However, Arthur to me is a more enjoyable character
@@namedclaiming821 no actually john has more screen time lol if we are counting both games
@@Xihd619 no lol Arthur has 55 hours while John has around 40
Both are very likable characters though I feel author was more complex
definitely. arthur had a lot of inner conflict between being "good" yet still wanting to keep/justify his outlaw lifestyle. john was pretty much a what you see is what you get character and tended to wear his emotions on his sleeve.
No john is better
@@deadxgamer6577 y
THE NAME IS A R T H U R M O R G A N
Deadxgamer stop replying to everyone
John always mentioned how awful a of person he was in his younger years, so it wasn't just an attempt to make Arthur look better. If anything its exactly what he said he was in rdr1
Arthur became my new favorite character, Arthur is just amazing depending on which honor you get, but either way he’s Arthur and you still find a way to love him. John though, I love John too, John was obviously my favorite cause how had ass he is and I love his scars and voice. His whole character always stood out to me.
I can't hate Milton, he atleast gave the others the chance to run, Ross just killed John like a sick hound
And also, if you were in the perspective of Milton you'd be like 'Wow what pieces of shit they just robbed a bank'. But because you're in the perspective of the actual bad guys, you see the government as a bunch of pricks
Ross is better than Milton, his character is more interesting
I like Milton because he doesn’t kill by shooting someone’s back. He didn’t shoot Arthur when he was coughing and he waited for Hosea to turn around. He gained some respect from me.
@@Prix-cp5qc Yeah but I feel Ross has a more developed character, Milton was boring and wasn’t really noticeable imo and Ross is a perfect example of what the law was like back then, Milton just seems to be some outlier for me.
The honor system bothers me in Red Dead 2 because Rockstar couldn’t pick between having a linear story or a multiple ending story. I would’ve been fine if Low Honor meant Authur’s death and High Honor meant Arthur’s escape from the gang or something along those lines. Something different. The Honor System was really useless. As far as I’m concerned the canon ending is Highest Honor on that cliff.
Now also, (when addressing Dutch’s actions like killing Bronte or strangling that Old Woman) I think in Arthur’s mind, Dutch was the all knowing one who took him in and essentially taught him everything he knew. RDR2 takes place just when everything is going WRONG with the gang. Imagine Dutch talking to the gang after all heists and everything else goes RIGHT. I think it was hard to comprehend for Arthur (and maybe even John) that Dutch was just as brutal and viscous as they were. Like Dutch was the cause they were fighting for; to prove they weren’t heathens, but when Dutch kills and acts out on petty things such as revenge it makes Arthur or John second guess what they’re doing.
Another thing is I don’t look at Arthur as indecisive during the later part (like with Mary for example). I think Arthur is like that friend who tries to help everyone else except for himself and that fucks him over in the long run.
Another gripe I have with RDR2 is Milton didnt really have any moral character flaws within himself that people could actually hate. He was a fair guy. Had Rockstar maybe added in some misogynistic or racist elements on his character, I think that would’ve made his death more satisfying.
Overall though I really liked your discussion about who your preferred character is. Me personally, Arthur Morgan reaches a little bit better Redemption by at least getting John outta the gang and accepting himself for who he is towards the end. I think mainly due to the fact that Arthur did a lot of growing up in a short amount of time made him the better character in my opinion. However, John’s story and his journey shouldn’t be forgotten either. I really almost cried at the end of RDR1 when John died because he knew the day was coming, but accepted it head on. Dying like a man. I’ll say this: If I were going into battle I’d pick John, if I were going to watch a movie I’d pick Arthur.
John is a flawed Cowboy.
Arthur is a flawed Man.
the timing of everything definitely caught arthur off guard. youre right, in the events before the game they seemed to view themselves more like robin hood characters than outlaws. mostly just having fun and robbing the rich and dumb. arthur got caught up in all that and likely saw nothing wrong with whatever they were doing unless they killed strait up innocent people.
i feel like that kinda helped blind him to the violence the gang (and dutch) were capable of doing. i felt like john always saw through and accepted it while arthur was kinda happy go lucky, ball buster until it was too late and everything was imploding.
Julian Guardiola John is not dumb at all , he’s very funny him and Arthur have the exact same humor
@Julian Guardiola And you know why that makes John better? Because he learned from his mistakes and corrected the man he was before, taking care of his family, growing up as a man and a father. When the government took his family, he crossed through heaven and hell to get them back and safe. When he finally got what he wanted, Ross and his army tried to kill him. John could've kill them all and escape with his family, but what he did? He knew that if he tried to run away, sooner or later they'll come for him again to kill him and his family, so it was time for him to give it an end sacrificing himself to give his family a better and safety life, even if that implicated to never seeing them again.
Now i ask you, what is a legend for you? A man like Arthur that doesn't even know what he wants, an hypocrite who judges Dutch for murdering people, even when he does the same things for little things? Yeah, he changed for better until chapter 5 or 6, but he did when he knew he had TB, if Arthur never had that disease, maybe he wouldn't change that much.
Well, that's my opinion, i love both of them, they were brothers and found their redemption by their own way.
@@rafogameplays3321 Woah you really into this... One Reminder tho John left his family after Jack was born and Arthur look after them for Years...
@@thegreatarsene8771 One reminder, it's called "character development", he started like an irresponsible father dumb as rocks, and finished like a goddam legend. I don't know if you read my first comment but i basically explain why that makes John a great character and how he matured for his family and for a better life.
In regards to the killing, I always accepted the fact that there's just a cutoff between gameplay and story mode.
Same
I also really changed my behavior after Guarma and the diagnosis. And it makes Arthur more complex to be hypocritical. Human nature IS hypocrisy
This dude makes it sound like Arthur’s death wasn’t sad
I mean Jacks and John’s outcomes were even sadder than Arthur’s.
@@360eradaryl7 I disagree. Arthur had already lost a child, and finally felt like he might have a new lease on life and a chance to atone for his crimes, and then died a very ugly undignified death. Marston went out in a blaze of glory.
I think Arthur was scared to live a normal life as when he tried his possible wife and kid got killed, he then think he is it a good enough person to live a honest life. This is why he doesn't leave the gang and puts his future into John and he believes John can live the life that Arthur always wanted to live but couldn't do to his own regret and self hate.
This is why he also didn't go with Mary, although at the end he wants to leave but due to fate (and I guess he took that as destiny caused by his past) couldn't
I completely agree with your opinion. I love both but I feel like John better suited the franchise. I still think Arthur was a good character though but he just felt too good hearted for a rockstar game. Plus I love John's dialogue way more. It's written so fucking well
now that we think about it, if Arthur had left the gang the moment Mary proposed to escape with him in Saint Denies, he could've become a Lawman to still figth with brute force but do the good things he likes to do.
He would've still died with TB too
Arthur was gonna run away with Mary. He said he would after the Saint Denis heist but it went south and he got stuck and couldn't do anything. he didnt have money and didnt know what to do. If the heist hadn't gone south he wouldve disappeared like he wanted to
i kinda didnt believe arthur when he said that. i dont think that he was strait up lying to her and he clearly wanted to be with her, but even if the heist went smoothly i feel like there would always be an excuse as to why he couldnt leave the outlaw life. i could be completely wrong but that was my take on it. could easily be influenced from playing rdr1 and knowing how johns story plays out where your past always follows you. but, ya, i feel like arthur wouldve found some excuse to still not live a quiet life or at least not live it long had the saint denis heist worked.
@@SwoopGoose thats also true but in my opinion he sounded very serious about it and when he got the letter from Mary where she gives back the ring, you see the look of pure heartbreak on him so thats why i kinda believed it
Arthur *Takes Mary to see a movie*
John *Builds Abigail a FUCKING house*
Nah I love them both though hahaha
Not just a house, a whole ass ranch
To be fair, Arthur isn't really the romantic type. I don't think he ever really expected to ever find someone to settle down with, So he more focused on lone wolf talents. While John found love (I think) in his early life, So he would gain those family type skillsets.
@@thejudge.2745 Even, Arthur maybe can't be more a silly and romantic guy, he lost a wife and a son, it will never be the same for him
To be fair in the late 1800s seeing a movie is still probably quite a luxury
John could only do that after firstly, a couple years of wandering and the motivation to do it was Arthur’s words of being a man, but they are both amazing in there own right.
Change is not equal to being hypocritical. Just remember that the next time you play rdr2 and see Arthur's evolution through the game
I feel like Arthur was better written simply because of how red dead 1 was. We all loved it so they put more effort into 2. Which resulted in Arthur. John is still a good character but Arthur is obviously the better character of the 2. Simply because they spent more time with him.
@Revert Yeah John is the Og
@Revert jhon is much much better
Arthur is just a whining toddler good at shooting
@@prod_revo ?
Not gonna lie when John died I cried and replayed the whole damn game but with good honor (I had bad honor 1st playthrough), got 100% completion and it really shook me such a good character died. But then I realized, by sacrificing himself he redeemed himself and drew attention away from his family. But with Arthur I knew his death was coming because TB was the equivalent of a death sentence in the 19th century so to be honest, I didn’t cry when he died on that cliff because I was expecting it.
Part of this honor goes to ross when they are at the stable and john get his family to run i am pretty sure the soldiers was already out there and ross ordered them to wait because they could just have shot int the barn and get john and his family
I absolutely agree that Redemption games' main character is John Marston and that it tells the story of John Marston, even though some of it through Arthur's eyes. Arthur Morgan is at least as great character than John Marston, maybe even better but the story of the Redemption games is the story about Marstons
Bro same. Red redemption will always be about the Marstons at least I hope.
Yea arthur was sort of in joel millers place we see in tlou that we play as joel in the first game but yet it still was about ellie overall
It was all about the gang
Not about John ffs
I disagree with the inconsistencies, that which just has to do with 3 factors, the downhill spiral of the gang, the sickness, and Arthur's growth and gaining of knowledge. To just pull something out without addressing those factors up to that point is cherry picking at best and sheds a false light on the character. Love both characters but that was pretty unfair. Just to be clear I think arthur intentionally (by creators) has flaws like being a hypocrite and being naive for so long out of denial. But that also adds depth and relatability to each and every one of us. We have had plenty of years of content with flawless powerful protagonists so it was actually cool to notice that he was a hypocrite at some points and even called out once or twice lol.
He's not really a hypocrite he's just growing as a character trying to become better that's the reason why it's called Red Dead Redemption because you're supposed to redeem yourself that's why you get more rewarded for being good and bad in this
Arthur is the reason John lives... period.
Well, if we wanna go that route...Kieran is the reason John lives.
@@PIZZASTEVE44 well if we wanna go that route, Dutch is the reason Kieran is alive cause he chose not to kill him
@@Shivsers You ain't wrong!
@@Shivsers if we are going that route Micah is the reason Dutch is alive because he saved him at a bar.
Well, without the success of Rdr1 with John, Arthur would not have existed...
The thing is tho. The same can literally be said for John when you mention Arthur being some merciless killer while the narrative of the game pushes the “good guy” focus onto you. John tries to be a good family man and putting the past behind him but you can literally go out and murder everyone you see even tho the game pushes the emphasis of being a good guy. John is no different from Arthur when it comes to that point that you made.
He’s trying to be a good family man not a hero
the difference is that the entirety of rdr1 is that john is a *former* outlaw, trying to put the past behind him. that’s literally the whole point. and while you absolutely can factor in gameplay mechanics into the critique of a game’s narrative (ludonarrative dissonance, i believe that’s called) and be completely justified, it doesn’t make or break the argument. the story is still telling you john is only doing what he needs to, and never at any point is john forced to kill random innocents in the story (unless you consider those mexican soldiers to be innocent, but i personally wouldn’t)
in rdr2, the actual narrative of the game tries to play both sides, arthur IS an outlaw still, you spend the entire game robbing trains & coaches, killing indiscriminately, screwing over literally everyone unfortunate enough to cross paths with the van der linde gang. but the game tries to have it’s cake & eat it too by trying to act like their evil acts are somehow justified and that the gang are these robin hood-esque gentlemen thieves who only steal from the wicked, when that’s literally just not true (see: the saint denis post & bank robberies where they kill innocent city officers in each mission) that’s not gameplay conflicting with writing, that’s writing conflicting with writing, which in my book is much worse
The one major difference I've noticed is that John doesn't like to show as much emotion as Arthur does. In the first game he seems pissed off all the time, (which makes sense considering he's being blackmailed into doing the government's dirty work) until he gets his family back. Even then he's just relaxed until the final mission of the game.
And unlike RDR2, there isn't any characters that John latches onto before the Beecher's Hope missions, aside from Bonnie and maybe Landon. So it makes sense that he would be standoffish all the time.
I just wished Arthur survived. You literally bond with the man through the entire game. He’s such a likable guy
Well it wouldn't have made sense if he survived, plus it would ruin his character ark, the only reason he saw fit to become a better man and see Dutch for what he really is, was a result of his diagnosis.
That would suck ass. His death was awesome.
@@thanosthemadtitan5518 you suck
I get it y’all but let me GRIEVE
I like how when a beautiful woman walked past John, he paid her no attention and instead reached for the ring in his pocket he had for Abigail.
Marston: “I hate to kill you Morgan, especially when you’re this drunk.”
Morgan: “. . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
YOU’ll NEVER TAKE ME ALIVE!!!”
The Unkown Cell LENNY!
YNNEL!
That shit was funny as hell
i pick a Arthur over John
i've only used one npc as bait for the legendary crocodile
John wouldn’t be who he was without Arthur
Actually the other way around John started the show not Arthur
@@GodsLonelyMan76 but Arthur is better in every wat
mr morgan that’s your opinion but there’s no denying rockstar wouldn’t have gone with a prequel if it wasn’t for all the love John marston got
@@Outrigger200 yes but still i prefer arthur because Arthur saved John's life more than once but I still respect your opinion
peace out bro
@turbobenx that's your opinion and the better man thing is debatable.
I see Arthur Morgan as a kind of Marco Polo type character. Wanting to explore and live free on the open frontier but being having the many responsibilities and tasks of doing so for others. Arthur rides with the VanderLinde gang similar how Marco Polo rode with The Mongols and how he was stuck with them for a long time similar how Arthur is stuck with the gang for almost his whole life and isn’t able to leave when things start to fall apart.
great analogy
John’s redemption, becoming a better father to his family, and living his normal life.
Arthur’s redemption, realizing what’s important, and helping John start his family life.
I agree I think Arthur is the best R* character ever but John Marston doesn’t seems to get the respect he deserves.
People argue saying John is boring and has no development when it was RDR1 success and acclaim that made RDR2 literally happen.
And of course John has a great development passing from a man who lives with no responsibilities or interest for his family to a man who conquered Fort Mercer, defeated a Mexican dictator and faced the Pinkertons to save his family.
I’m not going to say John’s the best cause of nostalgia but I will ask Arthur Morgan fans to show more respect to one of the greatest characters in game history, John Fucking Marston 🐺👑
I disagree with those people
Rdr1 John is badass and heroic hell he even died for his family
kai verse And Arthur died for John.
@@scorpion7182 ok and so what?
@@yosoyyo9487 without arthur John would be fucking Deceased. Hows that?
@@scorpion7182 yeah yeah yeah just because of he save him makes him better blah blah blah. John Marston is the original and without him arthur never would've have gotten his redemption, how's that?
I think that just because you played Arthur that way doesn’t mean it’s the way he should be played it’s obvious he was meant to be bad and then learn how to be better as we progress
I can't tell which one is better, they're both Legends. I like them both.
Same, I don't have a favorite
Arthur is (or at least was) always loyal to the gang and everyone in other than Micah obviously but he still risked his own life to save them even Micah while John he was somewhat disloyal as he didn't even tell the gang he was leaving he just left but he had development and changed as a person throughout the story and took revenge for Arthur at the end of the game
In defence of the "inconsistent" writing of Arthur, people in the gang acknowledge Arthur's hypocrisy, especially Bill Williamson so I'm pretty sure it's intentional, Arthur is more of a crucial member so they treat his fuck ups with a double standard.
Lets be honest i really like John but if rdr1 wouldnt exist no one would care about him.
If rdr1 didn’t exist... Arthur wouldn’t exist.
@@daniellahsu7655 yeah thats right but if you look at it rdr2 would stand on its own even if red dead one never got made.
@@kun-szabolevente6053 of course it could but it’s a prequel so I doesn’t really matter...
thats why i feel bad for john, everyone gives him slander in the second game
i really like arthur at the start of the game, and then i cant play as him anymore, it just ruins arthur for me
I’d like to think John’s humility came from Arthur’s sacrifice. That is if you don’t go for the money
Arthur is better in my opinion he has more personally
😐
😐
Arthur getting shot at: 😐
John getting shot at: THIS WOULD BE A FAIR FIGHT IF YOU COULD SHOOT STRAIGHT!
John is naturally good arthur you make him good or you make him bad you choose him
"No redemption"
Redemption is compensation, not absolution, so of course it doesn't absolve Arthur of his wrong doings.
Exactly
But John's redemption was better fight me