ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 ม.ค. 2024
- Is John Marston in the first red dead redemption game more brutal or worse than Arthur Morgan from red dead redemption 2?
Join the discord here:
/ discord
Follow me on twitter:
/ cynicalgaming13
Follow me on instagram:
/ cynic.the.original
Consider supporting me on Patreon & checking out the unique perks that come with it:
/ cynictheoriginal - เกม
![แฟนแนวใด๋ - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4_XVMuhhbsU/mqdefault.jpg)
Would you consider John more brutal than Arthur?
P.S. I looked it up that is correct “worse”😅
I think John is more brutal because of the more emotional and immediate threat on his wife and son. Things that target a child especially cause the parent to go harder than they normally might, just look at RDR2 and how hyped up John was when Jack got kidnapped. Arthur is for sure a violent and brutal man, and we likely didn't see Arthur at his worse in the game cause he probably matured a bit as he got older and with his illness impacting him as well.
Arthur can come back to life no one does a video about that Arthur once helped a time traveler he can bring him back
Yeah john is way more brutal
Micah for life
Make a video of why Arthur is brutal
John is extra complex because he also doesn't care if he had been shot and killed by Bill Williamson in the beginning of RDR1. The games story only takes place because he is saved by Bonnie. John basically lets himself get shot. It's as if he'd rather die. Great character with a lot of subtlety.
Yeah you can tell John really doesn’t want to kill his brother, but he compromises eventually
That's why he lets the pinkertons kill him at the end of the game. Because his one main goal in life is the safety of his family. So he willingly sacrifices his life so that the law would leave his wife and his kid alone. Such a great character.
@@crostirsterqi3065 You mean FBI and Army. But yeah John rarely cared about his life instead he only cared about other people.
Honestly everything that I read in this comment as well as every reply to it is 100% true. The second point that I would like to make (because that’s really a point in and of itself) is that Rockstar definitely has chosen the absolute best possible playable protagonists which is clearly shown in not only their character depth/development alone but also in our continuous and long lasting debating, videos, etc. these fictional characters have thus become essentially immortalized in our minds. This is exactly what I love most about RDR.
@@weplo1597 Pinkertons and army*
For a fact. Anyone who played rdr2 but not rdr is missing out on alot
It's weird BC although I think RDR2 is a masterpiece I think RDR1 is more fun. In many ways I prefer 1, and the story of John in his prime.
I want to play it so bad it's for console only 💀
yeah I see people talk stuff about John but yet some people for some odd reason like to make this a competition or bias between characters when really its not they're both different in their own ways.
@@SJ-yf9xy go to goodwill and buy a 360 for $50
@@SJ-yf9xy laughs in sexbox
I saw this comment somewhere, and I thought it was a pretty good description of their characteristics.
"Low honor John will kill you, and not feel anything about it"
"Low honor Arthur will kill you, and then laugh about it"
Quite a comment that is!
Quite a comment that is!
John as a character is more brutal than Arthur as a character, but low honor Arthur is miles above any character in terms of sadistic cruelty and brutality
@@krypticunlimited6925 Some of the dialogue I hear Arthur say when I’m committing crimes against humanity confirms this 😂
@@MissWampirequite some comments those are
John Marston in RDR1 is indeed more brutal than Arthur ever was, because the world as a whole became more brutal overtime. In 1899 the gang could more or less blend in anywhere they went (before disaster inevitably forced them away). But by 1911 John is like a ghost of an older time, and his presence alone--his scars, his weapons, his vagrancy--is genuinely frightening to many people he encounters; the sole exceptions to this are other old timers whose hands are likewise stained with blood: Drew MacFarlane, Leigh Johnson, Landon Ricketts, and of course... Edgar Ross.
Well put. I agree the world in RDR1 is more bleak and restrictive, and the environment itself reflects that onto John, making him be more brutal and blunt with his actions throughout the game. Some examples I can reference are how the mayor, Nate Johns, wants to “clean up” New Austin, making most of the enemy gangs reduced to operating out of hideouts and committing roadside crimes, corruption and negligence from both officials and lawmen negatively affecting the locals and their livelihoods, a revolution happening right across the river, the impending fear of a world war being talked about in the papers, and the ever expanding rapid industrialization of the West as a whole.
You mean the world became less - not more - brutal overtime (at least less in the way it was before, now more brutal with democracy and politics), and John appears more brutal and frightening to people of that age?
@@TheShad0wPlayer I guess I mean that as time goes on more violence is necessary to achieve a lesser result, and how by 1911 all the optimism and naivety is gone. No more Tahiti, no more “one last score.” John is trafficking women in Mexico so his family doesn’t rot in a prison. Javier, Bill and Dutch are holding little towns hostage just to survive. All those proud gunslingers who used to roam, robbing the country as they pleased, are as helpless against the government as Thomas Downes was against Arthur Morgan. Everybody else is dead.
@@allamaadi Perhaps it was a more "civilized brutality" that became the norm. Civility was just a mask for a society that was still callous and hateful of what is different, and even what is good.
For one, the FBI in the Red Dead universe was no more than a gang protected and supported by the legal system of the United States, the same legal system that would throw every six volume book at you to make your life miserable if they didn't decide to execute you to set an example.
Not to mention this is 3 years before WW1, one of "the last hurrahs" of 19th-century sentiment, but just a bloodbath.
Love the comparison to Downes here. A comparison I'm sure very few of the gunslingers would agree with openly.@@allamaadi
John only had one thing in mind... Getting his family back... So him being brutal I understand... He is just as loyal as Arthur...Just his loyalty is to his family after his gang failed him
Arthur in his last days was trying to be better...
He is loyal to what matters, like Arthur
@@RicoHelmslike Micah. Loyal to himself until the end
@@linkholderif john was loyal to himself,he would've run off when the army came to kill him, but he didn't. Like Arthur, john died protecting his loved ones
God, this video is a complete falsely perceived mess about Arthur Morgan as a character and his story...
@@himathegreat2987 sorry, you misunderstood my comment because I didnt do a good job stating my point. Arthur cared in the end of righting some of his wrongs, because when he was dying that was all he wanted in the end. John wanted to ensure his family's safety from his own sins, which mattered most to him. Micah in the end cared only for himself, we see this in RD2 when the chips were down he straight up says to Mr.Morgan "Im a survivor, Black Lung. Thats all that matters to me, thats all there is, surviving." Which is why I love it when Dutch is the one to kill him. It was poetic in how Micah clinged on to the gang and Dutch only for those to be the things that do him in.
Arthur told John to protect his family and live his life. John took that shit to heart
He goes after Micah he missed but hit another guy
Just to add, after leaving the gang one yezr5, john came back by lyalty to the gang, but also to try to be with his family (which he only really does 2 years later in 1899).
During chap2, camp events, you can see john looking at what jack's doing at one point meaning john cares about jack. But john has a very low opinion of himself and his parental/husband capacities, so would rather abi to find someone else
Chap3 or 4, i don't remember, you have 2 moments of john and abi talking about john who's going to try to be a descent husband and father even twith the low opinion he has about himself
John always loved abigail and had feelings about jack, just considered himself as way too bad as a person to be with them, also that john explained to arthur (when arthur talks about him not being there for his family) that abi and jack are safe in the gang so john is less needed to protect them.
John always had it in heart, but it clearly became the priority near the end of rdr2
Arthur: Intimidation gets me farther, but I'll end it without a second thought if needed.
John: The way I see it, it might as well be you.
John knows what's up and what's at stake so his choice is alot more clearer
"It's you, or me, way I see it, might as well be you."
This line made my 10 year old ass BEG my parents to buy this back in 2010 those trailers were insane. After the mission where John got gunned down, I didn't play the game for a year till I was told you could smoke Ross with Jack. I love RDR2, but John and RDR1 are king to me. Such an amazing character and Game.
It's funny because he was quoting Dutch the whole time.
@@lucasmartinez5703retroactively but yes lmao
@@edge1247 same with me and my grandparents. except I was 17
Red Dead Redemption was more focused on being a classic Spaghetti Western. He's supposed to be a famous/infamous gunslinging anti-hero, much like the protags of those old movies. It's also why John has alot of great one-liners and quick-wits.
Red Dead Redemption 2 was going for a more realistic western. It was trying to avoid the feeling of spaghetti westerns and instead go for a more realistic experience. So their styles clash quite a bit when you move from RDR2 to RDR1. They did a fantastic job in the epilogue to bridge the two games by giving you some pretty damn spaghetti western inspired missions and using the classic music from RDR1.
1 feels more realistic in a lot of ways though. Dutch's gang seems like a complete fantasy in how they act.
@@melo7038 It's because Duch lived in a fantasy, he romantacizes about taking down the U.S and being cowboy Robin hoods and then he gets confronted by his actions and the gang falls apart because their leader falls apart, you can't fight nature, you can't fight change
@@melo7038i always felt like Van Der Linde Gang is more of a cult than a gang
Watch a spaghetti western, then play RDR1 and you'll retract that statement. Every character you meet is based off of a spaghetti western trope. Also alot of gunslinging moments that are pure spaghetti western fantasy. @@melo7038
It seems like in RDR II, Arthur Morgan's character seems to take a bit inspiration of John Wayne's version of Western films. Whereas RDR I, John Marston's character takes inspiration of Clint Eastwood's version of Spaghetti Westerns.
Arthur isnt the type to like random acts of violence he doesnt go towards voilence unless its to protect people or himself from other people. John cares only for his family he is a bit more willing to shoot people for it which makes him more brutal and why his end is much more brutal than Arthur
Maybe your Arthur. My Arthur on the other hand…
Arthur goes around shooting anybody on the trail then mopes about it to Mary Beth
Idk he didn’t think twice about beating the shit out of debtors and seemed to look forward to it, even threatened Downes son after the guy had already passed away which was too harsh.
@@Chuckvsfrank1232That’s not cannon
He can spare Javier and refuse revenge on the Mexican leader though, and he often saves strangers too
I love John but it really bothers me a bit how people really misunderstand his character. The reason why i and many people loved him is because his objective is super easy to sympathize with. Man just wants his family back. In rdr2 before the epilogue he was so naive and didn't care for the consequences of his actions, like when he kills a guy we spare and he takes it like "haha lol". In rdr he does some really messed up stuff, and i mean really messed up, like helping the mexican army kill an entire town and rape their women and children or when he helped the bureau to "civilize" the native population of WE, but the reason we can't hate him is because he is fully aware he is earning himself a gold full paid ticket to hell and he is really pissed at the idea of helping these bastards and going against any sens of moral he has. That's why we love him. He is by no means a good person like a lot of people think, but he is someone who has morals and hates what he has to do to get his family back, but a man gotta do what he's gotta do.
Of course helping of coirde helping mexican army like that is quite shocking, but if john did not do it, he probably just would have been killed, or in the best possible way the army would not help john to find bill nor javier and those two would possibly have get protection from this army
So it's wrong, but the army would have done this bad stuff anyways, and john would be in a worse situation without helping them, since he "simpatized" with allende
Yeah this video was a bit shit honestly
What people really miss is “redemption” is when he is shot. The whole point of the story is you can try and outrun what you have done fully believe and tell yourself you have changed even think you have gotten your redemption but you truly aren’t resolved and John didn’t get that final gasp of air he pushes out until the debt has been paid. That last moment of relief is his reward for attempting to be a better person when it was far too late. He is a complicated man who we love, yet if he walked away at the end he wounds have been redeemed and even John knows that.
@@cosmonauthal7651 exactly. I know it's painful and traumatizing for Jack, Abigail and the player, but it is the only way to redeem himself. There's people who think that turning in Dutch, Bill and Javier is part of John's redemption when it's not. I mean the whole game is about John trying to outrun his outlaw past but having to resort to his old ways as i said. In rdr1 we scam, rob, betray and kill a lot of people who didn't deserve it. That's no redemption. To get shot and to grieve is the real redemption. Seeing John trying to miserably cling onto life even after accepting that our past can't be outrun is heartbreaking but everyone has to pay for their sins at some point.
As someone who played Rd2 but not Rd, I never thought John was capable of that
(I’m sort of proud he got out of his shell, obviously not the army stuff but just the fact he got more confident)
John is like Niko Bellic from gta 4. He's brutal, has soft side for his friends and family, straightforward with his actions and words
If John is Niko then Arthur is Micheal
@@insertfunnynamehere5592 Arthur doesn't give me Micheal vibes tbh. He's more of like combination of Johhny from Gta 4 and CJ
He also reminds me of jimmy hopkins just in the way thar they are both the straight men in a world of whacky characters. They both have a strong tendency toward sarcastically calling everyone on their BS, regardless of their status.
@@ryanabrahams8061 Yeah John knew that Reyes would be bad leader to Mexico but he had no choice unfortunately.
@@insertfunnynamehere5592arthur would never sell out his friends like micheal.
John is both a bit more simple minded and a lot more single minded. He thinks about himself and his family, and that justifies everything. Arthur heavily reinforces this in their final interactions in RDR2, making the RDR version of John a logical evolution of his character. Also, John is the superior gunslinger. Arthur is the allround fighter, whether it's fisticuffs or marksmanship. He is smarter, more creative and skilled, generally more badass as a person. He has softer sides, and he is somewhat emotional. But John is a one man army, first and foremost a gunfighter and a killer without remorse, the only thing that keeps him in check, is Abigail. The Bureau knew it. They unleashed a devil when they forced him back to his old ways and they knew that they literally needed an army to take him down in the end.
More simple minded? No, they only dumbed him down in RDR2, in RDR1 he gives deep philosophical quotes all the time, they just made him a laughing stock in RDR2 just to make Arthur shine as a character.
@@lepersonnage371it was a version of John that was 12 years younger than the one in RDR1, it’s not at all surprising that RDR2 John is dumber and less mature
@@AdinoyiSuleiman nothing implied in rdr1 that he was dumb or ridiculed in his gang days. And in rdr1 he said that he was even more ruthless and brutal when he was in the gang, in rdr1 he was even holding back. But in RDR2 we see something completely different, he does nothing but sit and doubt there
@@lepersonnage371facts bro
False. Arthur is the superior gun fighter. The last mission where john is trying kill Micah proves it. He can’t use his “dead eye”. Deadeye is superior skill over someone essentially. Meaning he wasn’t better then Micah and was trying not to get killed for dear life. In the end Dutch helps maim Micah and John uses his dead eye 👁️
John is only loyal to what matters.
Piss head
I want to apologise as I am attracted to your profile picture
"What about loyalty?"
"Be loyal to what matters."
Arthur didn't had that benefit, it's sad for both
And since the beginning of rdr2, he was loyal to the gang and not to dutch himself, because he didn't want the people of the gang to end in a bad way, reason why john shwon he was against most of what the gang did ( heists...)
He even came bck to the standoff to be with arthur and take his side ( he could have been like "they left me, i left them" as he was told to be from rdr1 but stayed loyal to the gang till the end because the "good" people mattered. Then he did everything for his family that he cared since chap3/4, there's even dutch saying to john that he will have to choose between the gang and his family, though john chose both in a way
And just to say, even before the arthur/john talk, john hd in mind to flee with his family is things become too bad, the occasion just didn't really appeared
The difference between John and Arthur lies in who they are.John was the first character to see through Dutch.I believe when he left the gang it was either a reason or result.He had lost the blind loyalty and faith.Being the first to publicly question Dutch.John would lose his son due to Dutch and Hosea’s plans in Rhodes.Further cementing his doubts and getting him to truly value his family.The bank heist where Dutch left him was another pivotal moment.The fact Dutch was willing to let him hang and suspected him of being a rat.His priority went from the gang to himself to his family.It makes sense why John would become colder and cynical willing to cross lines for his family.I believe another major difference was he was naturally less reflective and compassionate than Arthur.
Whereas with Arthur he was Dutch’s most loyal soldier.He seems naturally to be a better person than John.I believe this keeps him in denial over his actions.His denial would cause him to have a complete loyalty to the gang.If Arthur didn’t believe in Dutch’s ideals and the gang being freedom fighters he was just another merciless killer.Which was a revelation he couldn’t accept until the very end with tuberculosis.He had lost two women his son had killed countless people robbed.When he accepted Dutch was wrong he was the worst of the worst.Which in my opinion is why he takes the moral high ground he believes his actions to be justified and justifies them to us.
John doesn’t need his actions to be justified he doesn’t care whether it’s right or wrong.If his family’s safe he made the right decision.If Arthur believes his or Dutch’s actions to be wrong and pointless.He’s a no good killer in his own mind he has to lie to himself to continue living this life.Tuberculosis reveals the pointlessness which he either decides to fully become a killer or change his ways as much as he can to do real good.John and Arthur would probably go to the same lengths.John wouldn’t try and change the narrative Arthur would
I feel that your comments are the most that I agree with. Very well worded sir! 👏
John in mexico was probably at the most badass he was ever. Just in the middle of a war and hes carrying it single handedly
John was already tired of the outlaw life since rdr2, in rdr1 he just wants to end his job as fast as he can.
The anger of a father will make any man do things they wouldn’t normally do. If a man’s family is in danger, he becomes a ravines devil preying on anyone who dares harm his family. Then you add in a criminal background.
I don’t blame John for being the way he is. I think most fathers know everything they’d do for their families.
Arthur was trying to find his purpose . John was trying to fulfill his purpose.
That's a good way of putting it. John in rdr1 knew exactly who he was for good or bad and he made no excuses for it. He knew exactly why he was doing what in reality he hated having to do.
amen
I agree that john is more cut and dry and ruthless. But to say he has no morals is crazy. He didnt want to do any of what he had to in RDR1. He was pinned in and he had to choose to fo some ruthless shit for his family or die trying. The whole point of the bills guy shooting john in rdr1 was to show that john wanted to die there so the government would let his family go and he wouldn't have to do all the killing. He even took the bullet until bonnie saved his life
Arthur had a crew behind him, whereas RRD1-John did not. So it makes sense that John is a bit more hardened overall, cynical and aggressive. I feel I could talk Arthur out of killing me if he was intent on it, but not so with John.
he literally has a whole ass army running with him in mexico and the marshal and his boys in the earlier missions. there is only like the final mission where john fought on his own to protect his family. Arthur too took on a whole town full of pinkertons on his own to save abagil and sadie. They both had help from bunch of people and also did things on their own.
@@stillthinkingofagoodname2290 The mexican army and the mexican rebels were hardly John’s crew. He was more or less a gun for hire to them. They used him, and he used them back. We may define ‘crew’ differently, but people you’re forced to work with generally don’t fall into that category.
@@stillthinkingofagoodname2290Arthur has allies with him more often than not and the Mexican army sent John on multiple suicide missions to try and get rid of him, they weren’t ever his allies. For the better part of rdr1 John is often alone and when he does have an ally, they really aren’t trained in gun fighting or have much experience in the matter
@@stillthinkingofagoodname2290 Depending on if you consider gameplay outside of cutscenes canon, John's feats are just as impressive as Arthur's. He can take on the walton gang, the bollard twins gang, treasure hunter gang, and the banditos gang all by himself.
Before I had a wife and son I saw Marston as a pretty brutal dude. Now I just see him as a father to do what it takes to protect his family and get them back.
@@cosmonauthal7651 never said he was a good man. Don't put words into my mouth.
@@cosmonauthal7651 nah I ain't gonna go into whether he's a good man or not. Just said that I understand. Not saying it's reasonable or justified.
@@cosmonauthal7651 not sure who they are, but I have a feeling that's understandable.
I loved rdr2, it was fun, interactive more complex; but Rdr is a real western, it feels like blood meridian, gritty, brutal and unjust.
The ending with the freeze frame in the red-shifted black and white, That shit is straight out of a Leone flick. Rdr1 was a work of art
I agree with both of yall, RDR2 is insanely good but RDR1 just feels more real
I always said John looked more like an outlaw type. Dude has a literal SCAR on his face making him more badass
How do u have a unliteral scar
U got theoretical scars?
@@delshonrosnorc8442 fixed it. Yah happy?
@@delshonrosnorc8442also SEIG SPELL! damn grammar Nazi
Idk. I feel like John and Arthur are merely puppets in their situations. There really isn’t any indication that Arthur wouldn’t do some of the same things John did if he were in that situation. We’ve outright seen Arthur be willing to abandon people to their fate in the pursuit of self interest. It was his loyalty to people that made him do otherwise.
The difference between Jonh and Arthur is that Jonh is completely alone in a world that no longer accepts him, while Arthur is accompanied by the band until their separation.
I tend to play John more low honor. he seems overly angry in general. he never has a nice thing to say to Uncle in RDR2 and has a tense relationship with Jack. The only gentleness you see from him is with Abigail.
John was always nice with Jack though. In RDR1 he was just alot more acting mature towards Jack since he's 16 in RDR1.
John defends Uncle from Abigail, "helping in his own way" he says. Uncle is the one who made John build a real house and barn for example. He was much meaner to Uncle while they slept in the shack.
They’re outlaw murderers not ballerinas
As a father, John didn't go to far or was too brutal. I'd do anything and everything if it meant getting my family back sure I wouldn't want to or be proud but there's little limits to what I'd do
Only a person with a child can relate
Until it’s your family that is being sacrificed for his. Then it becomes a paradox and why “doing anything for MY family” isn’t a mark of good morals as if everyone did that everyone would murder each other family all while being justified because it was for their family which in itself can’t be true.
hear me out a moment, I personally believe that the honor mechanic has something to do with the characters themselves. not that it did anything particularly meaningful, but more so that in RDR1, john's honor meter was simply just that, an honor meter. he can do good and bad things in the world which can either benefit or punish him accordingly, but regardless of where the honor lies, john still *spoilers* dies either way and it ultimately doesn't affect anything.
this system was kind of basic, but effective. good actions are remembered by some people while bad actions are truly never forgotten by others, but one thing is clear, john was still a bad man regardless of how many people he helped/harmed and he died for it. (technically ross is a bit of an asshole who ordered his death but still)
as for RDR2, the "honor" system is more of a morality system at this point, focusing less on the actions that arthur is doing right now, but leans more heavily on the future. I honestly believe this system is worse than RDR1's. because it is a morality meter, so that means if arthur keeps doing good things, he will be seen objectively as a good man rather than a bad man who does good things, while having low "honor" simply makes people confused about what arthur is doing, rather than criticizing his bad actions.
rockstar didn't even have the balls to tell low honor arthur that he is a bad man, but weaseling in the excuse that he is just "confused" or "misunderstood" goodness, I hate this morality meter. not only that, but the game punishes YOU. not arthur, YOU. for being low honor. why would micah only shoot you in the head if you have low honor? wouldn't he do that regardless because he is micah? or just leave regardless of your honor? (granted, these endings barely mean anything, but it is a noticeable enough difference to point out here and they clearly bothered to make it this way)
in conclusion, I believe both of them did terrible things both on screen and off screen and it is not easy to tell who was worse, because both of them are pretty bad people who did many bad things, and we can't even comprehend every bad thing they have ever done. but I think it does say a lot how rockstar intentionally designed both games this way, and many people who played one or both games come out of it thinking arthur is a "good man" while thinking john is...some guy I guess. (and is likely only ever seen that way because we play as them)
God, this video is a complete falsely perceived mess about Arthur Morgan as a character and his story...
Holy Shit, finally a person who gets this right about RDR as whole...
RDR2s story of Arthur Morgan gets so convoluted because of how Rockstar chose to write off the Honor systems in ties with Arthur Morgan serving the gameplay tieing into the narrative, they essentially expanded the Honor system in the most wrong way possible because RDR1's HONOR system wasn't a 'morality-like' system at all, Rockstar prioritised the Honor system in regards to expand Johns already established character and that's it, and so that means that you can play John however you want to and it will still make sense to Johns already established character via the gameplay tieing into the narrative whereas Arthur Morgan, is supposed to be an evil scumbag who gets TB and has to suffer the consequences of his actions but the problem is that Rockstar prioritised the HONOR systems as a 'morality-like' system which goes against what RDR1 set out to do for John Marston.
However, i have a different perspective to which that it doesn't necessarily fix the writing of what Rockstar did but towards the players regarding the Honor system and how the player chooses to play someone like Arthur Morgan who's supposed to be a scumbag, i think when the players do righteous actions via gameplay, then that equates against the players form of. mindset in regards to Arthur Morgan since he still kills hundreds of ppl within the story and still chooses to rob and kill while he's dying from TB in chapter 6 but the problem with lies in the endings for the High Honor versions of the 2 endings that you can choose in which makes Arthur's character convoluted towards Rockstars vision and the players to which what the player perceives Arthur Morgan as a character.
its a shame really since despite the faults of the Honor system in RDR2, it still retains the core aspect of the Honor system in the 1st game and how 'Honor' shouldn't equate to MORALITY for someone like Arthur Morgan since you can still rob and kill whilst High Honor, you can still do various Evil sh1t even with High Honor and the fact that the bandana equipped still lowers or gains your honor speaks about how Honor doesn't necessarily equate 'morality' for Arthur Morgan where he's already established to be an Evil person but compared to John when he equips the bandana in RDR1 then the Honor doesn't drop nor gain with the actions that you commit as John Marston.
I still believe that Arthur is worse because John is doing this for his family, and whatever lengths he'll go to is what you choose as the player, but it will still tie in with Johns character in the gameplay tieing into the story, and the fact that Johns death always stays the same, is what makes his death so effective compared to Arthur Morgan's just because of how Rockstar chose to prioritise the Honor system in regards to Arthur Morgan but anyways, Arthur is worse for the actions that you can commit because of Arthur not primarily doing this for the gang nor Dutch...
i dont understand how ppl actually believe that the reason Arthur commits bad deeds was because of his 'blind loyalty towards the gang and mainly Dutch' - but the thing is that Arthur isn't blindly loyal at all, since he knows deep down that Dutch is full of sh1t but doesn't want to properly acknowledge it because of the fact that of how Arthur grew up with his biological dad to which he then projected his own Father to Dutch and since Lyle Morgan was a horrible human being who did bad shit towards Arthur, he still loved Arthur and sacrificed himself for Arthur and when Dutch basically adopted him, Arthur saw him as his Father despite knowing that his actual Father was a scumbag and because of this, Arthur since the beginning of when the gang of the trio aka Arthur, Dutch and Hosea started killing lawmen then Arthur knew about how his ideals or philosophy was just a facade, Arthur isn't blindly loyal despite choosing the outlaw life rather thqn going with Mary or Eliza who which he got pregnant and Isaac was born and despite Arthur visiting both Eliza and Isaac from time to time, he still preferred the Outlaw life, but when they died, it hardened him but for the wrong reason and so Arthur continued his way of living, it baffles me how anyone can equate Arthur Morgan to being a 'Good man' considering the 2nd trailer of RDR2 which introduces Arthur Morgan, shows him threatening Archie's life and giving him a death stare for the sake of Arthur's enjoyment...
ppl who try to counter-argue me about Arthur being a 'g0Od man' or someone who's isn't Evil but morally grey bad come up with the excuse of Arthur revolting about 'Debt Collecting' to where he wrote in his journal but the reason why Arthur 'revolts' is because of the idea of 'Debt Collecting' and not because Arthur doesn't take enjoyment in beating or killing the ppl who's in debt but it's rather the idea that the gang seemingly takes part in despite Dutch going against what it stands for because of the government and Hosea doesn't seem to mind either anyway since the gang NEEDS money, but of all ppl who also goes against Debt Collecting is fudging Micah Bell himself because even he sniffs the BS just the same way as Arthur did.
@@godzillazfriction so why are you copy pasting the same shit like a bot? I know you are real, we both have been here on YT for 6 years I believe in you to do better. Criticism is always welcomed when thought is behind it, but this just comes off as a guy trying to start a fight in thrle comments, I advise against it, its bad for the health.
they are human, i think that's what you want to say, Arthur isn't bad, how come a guy that enjoys helping people when he is not around his gang bad? he thinks of himself as a bad man because he needs to have a bad man mentality to do the things he does they rob and they kill that's the reality off it, low honor Arthur is hate and confusion and high honor is love and acceptance, the rdr2 morality system that you explained has a lot more consequences than the "honor" system, in rdr1 regardless of your morals Abigail still saw John as her man and Jack still felt obliged to Avenge him even if John is as rotten as the player makes him be, i think John being overshadowed by Arthur just happened because 2 sold more, just happens, i still enjoy both a lot but there is nothing that can be done about it
I like John just a tiny bit better. Both are top tier characters.
I honestly feel that if Rockstar ever does do RDR1 a *proper* remake they almost have to change the writing in some ways. I feel with RDR2’s epilogue and characterization of John (which is good of course) makes him out to be more “good” than he’s presented in the original. He can still be morally ambiguous but he goes from not wanting people fed to alligators to being willing to burn down peasant houses in the span of a few years. Ultimately, I feel that John Marston as a character, by nature of the original’s “blank slate” for the player is undoubtedly more brutal. So much so, that retroactively he almost seems like he hasn’t changed all *that* much from his younger days in the gang, aside from wanting peace for his family specially. Thoughts?
I agree with you 100%, RDR2 also unfortunately retconned a couple things too for some reason (or forgot about them entirely), so there will absolutely have to be rewrites. If you played RDR1, as it stands right now, RDR1 doesn't match well with RDR2 in certain areas. A lot of what John says in RDR1 about events that leds him to leaving the gang in the first place simply do not match up at all with RDR2, when it really should. RDR1 came first, yes, but that's the point. RDR2 is the prequel to an already existing story, but even then it oddly.. fails on that front? Especially in the epilogue. It's really weird. I honestly just treat them as standalone stories. RDR2 is getting certain things wrong when it really shouldn't be, or worse, adding details that weren't there originally to places.
I love the epilogue in this game, but when you really think about it, a lot of it doesn't really make sense, less so in the context of RDR1. Characters (Micah for example) talk like it's a new century, despite seven years already into the new century. It's like people in 2007 celebrating Y2K. It should have been set in 1900. Places like Armadillo have weird stuff going on with them too. Shouldn't the Cholera outbreak there be referenced a lot in RDR1? They were literally burning bodies because of it. But in RDR1 everything is fine, like it never happened to begin with. Why did they add this detail to Armadillo to begin with when RDR1 makes no mention of it since that game was written first? We still mention COVID all the time, in news, in conversations, even though it's been four years since lockdowns were put into place everywhere, and five years since the original outbreak.
If you had only played RDR2, you would be dead convinced that Jack is an only child. But he wasn't, the Marstons also had a daughter which John brings up in RDR1, but it's implied that she died very, very young. There's no mention of the Marston daughter in RDR2 whatsoever, for some reason, even though she should have been, even if she did die young. That sort of thing sticks with you. Widows still talk about their husbands years after they had passed. Mothers and fathers still talk about sons and daughters they had years after they had passed, too. People usually justify this by saying that they had her afterwards following 1899, and that would make sense, other than the fact that she is *still* not mentioned in 1907 by any characters, even as a passing line by Jack or Uncle, yet Arthur is mentioned a lot in the epilogue, but the Marston daughter who died more recently (by their logic) isn't? But there's another thing that disproves that argument - Javier. Javier says "I hope you, your wife and *your children* rot in hell", as in plural, not just you and *that boy of yours* to just refer to Jack. You wouldn't say children to refer to just one child, you use *child* for that. Javier has not seen John since 1899, so how could he possibly have known that John has another kid? Lucky guess? Someone told him? Like who? Bill and Dutch wouldn't know either.
The barn at the MacFarlane ranch was also established to have been built when Bonnie was just a little girl, but it isn't present in RDR2's map. Other people then say that maybe this is because New Austin was supposed to be set in 1899, but this still doesn't excuse the barn not being there? Bonnie would be 15 years old by the time of RDR2, she even appears in RDO which is set in 1898. She's 14 years old, but she looks like she's in her early 20s. And if the New Austin version of the map really was supposed to be 1899 and not 1907, the barn still isn't there!
I said this in another comment on another video about Javier, but John says to Javier that "What you and Dutch did was wrong. And the way you left me was wrong". So what did Javier and Dutch do exactly? If it was about what happened at Beaver Hollow, remember he never said anything like this to Bill. Javier was also late to the standoff, he was on watch for Pinkertons. He also held his gun up in the air pointing away from Arthur and John (the actor for Javier even said that he wouldn't pull a gun on a brother), and does not see the initial argument between Arthur and Micah. But I also said in that same comment that Bill was there from the beginning, saw the argument, and DID pull a gun on Arthur and John and pointed it directly at them. So why single Javier out like this, and not Bill? Which led me to believe that maybe originally in the events that John describes in RDR1, Javier would have played the role Micah does in RDR2, basically the one convincing Dutch that he should be cut loose, and left for dead. Dutch and Javier worked together on a plan to leave John for dead, if I were to guess.
It's easy to dismiss this as someone "looking too much into it" or they're "throwaway lines" or whatever justification there is to make here.. well, Rockstar is ALL about details like this. Just look at how many Antagonise lines they wrote, or lines being written for certain things that you did during a mission, like leaving only one horse and killing the rest. Look at how many videos there are pointing out details Rockstar has in their games, especially RDR2. It's chockful of detail. They are very thorough, so them slipping up like this is just.. odd, to say the least. Games by Rockstar are ALL about the well-written dialogue, lines like these that tell the story. They want you to go over these lines. Every line said is important in some way or another, just like a movie. Arthur and Dutch's lines are quoted even outside of videogame communities, let alone RDR's community. These are not throwaway lines. They are plot points. People act like this is hidden away in newspapers or something in the original game, but it isn't. It's clear spoken dialogue by several characters. It's part of the story.
No need to ruin the identity of RDR1 by a remake and by changing it's writing to fit RDR2. RDR1 is a separate game, and second game retconned a lot, so I can't really perceive rdr1 as a sequel, because it feels too different. I can't imagine rdr1 John being saved by Sadie or him ever even encountering someone as unrealistic as Sadle as a character. John even screams sometimes in shootouts in rdr1 "you just a bunch of women playing outlaws". RDR1 is more uncompromising in that sense
@@lepersonnage371 I respect your understanding that RDR1 has an entirely different feel to it and is its own experience, but as for John encountering characters as unrealistic as Sadie (which I don’t see how she’s any different than the other gang members) in RDR1 John encounters the racist anthropologist, Seth, West Dickens, etc. As for the tone and what John says throughout RDR1 that’s actually my point, it doesn’t seem fully like his full character arc if you recognize RDR2 as part of the timeline, which it canonically is.
@@jennatulls6738 Timeline in RDR2 was retconned a lot as it is, in RDR1 the canon was that the gang got disbanded in about 1907 instead of 1899, and Blackwater ferry robbery also got retconned, and other things
Rockstar should fix Epilogue John's appearance and animations first tbh
They had to nerf John or else he would’ve stolen the spotlight in RDR2.
you right
no lmao
@@chidubemnwanisobi4999yes lmao you can't say that unless you've never played red dead redemption 1. John is a sad idiot in 2, in 1 he's pretty much clint eastwood in the good, bad and the ugly
@@stevekaufmann8109 Honestly it just felt like his voice and looks were a bit off to me. He acts exactly how I felt a younger version of John should. He is not an idiot in RDR2 and it shows as he was the first person to begin doubting Dutch as early as chapter 2. He certainly wasn't perfect, but I don't think they intentionally brought him down to raise Arthur up.
@@reversereverse6543 it's just stupid how he easily gets captured in 2 but in 1 he's the greatest person to ever pick up a gun in human history. 10 years shouldn't be able to do that.
Honestly i instantly understood why John is more brutal and angry than Arthur, they took his family that's so understandable.
I don't think its brutality as much as its just apathy for John.
He just doesn't care to take the high road, the moral way, the "right" way because he sees no valid reason to do so.
You see this the most in Mexico where John genuinly hates both sides in the civil war but he does what he's told by both of them in the hope someone tells him what he wants to know.
With the village burning too, sure he could refuse go burn the houses, refuse to let the women be taken by the army, but why would he? The army will come back and take them anyway, or go for another village and they'll now no longer tell him what he wants.
So to him its a simple calculation.
And the apathy doesn't come from nowhere, John gets betrayed, insulted or otherwise every time he tries to be civil, to fix a situation diplomatically.
In the town he meets Landon he tries several times to deal with the Mexican guys harassing him with diplomacy but they just laugh at him and threaten him.
And every time he just keeps getting sent back and forth, back and forth between missions, between places and it never ends.
So afain i don't think its brutality so much as apathy, he's not intentionaly brutal, he just doesn't care about anything so long as its the fastest way to deal with an issue.
I sort of agree, John is more brutal IN THE FIRST rdr, But not overall between him and Arthur. In the second game we always see John in camp questioning the direction the gang is taking, Dutch, and Jack being his son. It’s even mentioned he left the gang for a year. John is far more IRRESPONSIBLE in second game. It isn’t after Arthur basically sets him straight that we see John transforming into the man he is in the epilogue. He sees the gang fall apart, Dutch leaving him, the betrayal and then after it’s all said and done he must move on from his ways in the epilogue, which is difficult for him to do but he succeeds and is at peace with his ranch and family. Then the government comes in and tells him he must go back, all that evolution he went through was cut short. Arthur would have continued to be a bad man if not contracting TB, there would have been no character development if it wasn’t for Arthur.
They just made John worse and underwritten in RDR2, to make Arthur shine
@@lepersonnage371yeah I hate that they did that
@@lepersonnage371 no doubt. But I like to view John as a war vet coming home; not used to civilian life at all.
@@lepersonnage371 I don't feel like that at all. John was only 26 years old in RDR2, He was a lot more immature then, but you see his growth as a character throughout the game. He didn't want to believe that Jack was his son which is perfectly reasonable for a 26 year old gang member. Arthur calls him dumb but thats only because he is jealous that John used to be Dutches favorite and that Abagail chose John over Arthur. John is basically the first member of the gang that notices dutch is slipping and starts questioning him, he also comes up with multiple jobs that are pretty smart. In the epilogue you get to see his transformation from his old life to his new life and you see him rekindle his friendship with Arthur throughout the game. He becomes a hard worker and a good father. It leads perfectly in to RDR1. RDR2 is Arthurs story so obviously John takes a back seat, but he's still a good character in the game.
@@bmbrowns1778 this is not about him being younger, this is just a different quality of writing in itself, and also not just Arthur calls him dumb, it's everyone in the game, and one of the only scores that John hustled up turned out to be a scam (one with the Gray's horses).
John is much more ruthless than Arthur at least in the final chapter through RDR. But it also makes sense since he’s in a position of “my family or them” and he will always choose his family
John is like Niko Bellic from Gta 4
Buddy turns these videos around quick as hell! Another interesting video!
John is smarter than Arthur, he knew the gang was going to a dead end since the beginning, Dutch and Arthur talked about how smart he was, Bill said he was the favorite, Hosea wanted him out, they all knew he could survive and help his family survive, Arthur was too loyal to the people that he shouldn´t so they were very different, at the end they become very similar, Arthur learns that loyalty needs to be only to a few important people, and John learns to be loyal to Abi and Jack
Maybe not so much intellectually but John definitely had more self awareness, he realized the code and philosophy Dutch and the rest of them hid under was just an excuse to live like outlaws, that’s also why he’s far more comfortable doing bad things bc he knows he’s an outlaw whereas Arthur is constantly facing internal conflict between his high and low honor selves and you decide which one wins, but John remains unchanged no matter what his honor is bc he’s more at peace with himself
@@josephstalin2606 I don´t agree, to be self aware means you have the brian to think things through, not saying Arthur is not smart, but not as sharp as John, the reason why Arthur was conflicted with the killing was because of his sickness, before that he was a savage, same as John, but John was not blind enough to let Dutch fool him, even Hosea knew it was the end, and Hosea knew John was smart enough to leave, Arthur gets that late during the game, plus John did try to live a normal live, he wanted to stop doing bad things too, but they could never outrun their pasts, so they died for them.
I don't think John is smarter, well at least not for the reason you stated. I think he just realized sooner because he was on the boat when Dutch killed that woman. John was there to see it, while Arthur and Hosea didn't. John keeps mentioning, and says how Dutch killed her "in a bad way" he was the first to see a glimpse of Dutch's true nature
no he wasnt smarter than arthur, just more aware of the situation dutch was leading the camp to and thats it
@@chidubemnwanisobi4999 aware people are smart people, think about what you said
The lawless and brutal backdrop of Mexico in RDR is a perfect canvas to develop the story and John’s world weariness on.
Shout out to you for having Red Dead Revolver music in the background! You’re a real one for showing that gem some love.
I think your read on John is a little off. He does what he does in 1 just to get his family back. He doesn't want to do the things he's doing but doesn't have a choice. Like in Mexico what is he supposed to do defy the army? That would've gotten him hunted and likely killed until he had the rebels backing him. There was nothing he could've done to solve the problems there. Now I do agree that in their nature John is a colder man than even when both are high honor but that doesn't mean John can't overcome his nature. The part near the end of one where you can choose to stop a train robbery is one of the best exclamation points on redemption arc I've ever seen.
I wish John in the RDR2 epilogue were more like the one in RDR1. Not just looks wise, but personality wise. He is such a badass and can be a sarcastic asshole, but his heart is in the right place.
Brutal and bad are two different things. Both can be extremely brutal and do heinous shit. Even when high honor the main story will force it. But if we look at rdr2 and both of their outlooks on the gang, it’s very clear that John is more cynical and questioning it all far earlier than Arthur’s sense of morality. Especially considering that Arthur is the enforcer, never left the gang, and has been around longer. Arthur’s hand was forced with tb while John’s was his own development (which was eventually forced due to losing Dutch’s favor as a part of that development.)
I see Arthur’s actions as being more pragmatic usually when compared to John’s which is why I’m absolutely on board with the statement of John being more brutal. John gets more passionate, prideful, and vengeful. Arthur straight up is anti revenge. I’ll never forget when John silent takedowns the odriscol because of how violent it is. But Arthur seemed more predisposed to committing immoral acts strictly because he does everything in service to a gang he chooses to ride with. Call it family if you want but it isn’t the same as having your literal wife and child taken from you.
Low Honour Arthur is also really cynical.
@@John-996 I prefer low honor arthur personally. He sounds a lot more fitting for the character in most instances.
John does have morality and does help people bonnie and her ranch he helps them more them they actually need, and other people even the girl in mexico that lost her house and family and has in love with abraham john helps her but didn't needed, And the lost girl in the desert nedding medicine too, John does help a lot of people in RDR1, of course his goal is to rescue his family from the government, and the strange man question John morality about relantionship and being faithful to his wife. Arthur being moral or not dependent on the player because there is no canon Arthur made by Rockstar, you have 4 different ends, 2 low honor dies being stab or shot by micah and 2 high honor dying after fighting micah, Arthur and the new 16 members of the gang have nothing to do with the lore and story in RDR1. The gang being over 23 people is a retcon that doesn't match what was told about Dutch and Ross or john in RDR1. RDR2 is a superficial prequel that feels like a alternative time line because 99% doesn't matter or fit to RDR1 lore and story. Never saw People doing videos about the many contradictions of lore story and dialogues from RDR2 to RDR1 because it has many contractions and retcons in RDR2.
Naah, nothing from RDR2 contradicts RDR1. You just had a preconceived idea in your own head what it was like back then before you played RDR2
@@wattycuffee5664 oh yeah so there is none contradictions or retcons between RDR2 and RDR1? Looks like someone didn't pay attention to the lore and story of RDR1 and RDR2 lore huh, l will prove it now, is gonna be long because there is a lot of lore and story contradictions. To begin with 90% or 99% of the RDR2 is filler and is very disconnected from RDR 1 lore and story. I can explain why, RDR2 superficially connected it self, bringing 8 characters back from RDR, and focusing in giving screen time to Dutch, but Rockstar din't care about John, Javier and bill having a whole in this new reinvented gang, because they shit a lot in John in RDR2, changing John personality and making him look dumber and needing to be rescued every time, john is not even charismatic like he was in RDR1, both John and Javier are completely different characters in personality and Abigail and Jack in RDR2 are very annoying and different from their likeable versions in RDR1. RDR2 feels like a unwarranted prequel about characters that don't Matter and were only created for this game alone and were never mentioned in RDR1 to begin with, by any of the 8 characters that were from the original RDR, if RDR2 is a prequel why not play as Dutch or John or both, but instead you play as a character that don't exist in RDR1 lore, arthur. the original RDR1 gang members were never 26 members but 6 members of Dutch gang, not counting uncle because he was never part of the gang in RDR1 story, probably rockstar didn't know what to do with uncle in RDR2 so they just put him as a member of the gang just because John said to Bonnie in RDR 1 that he knew uncle for a long time. RDR 2 feel less impactful in characters and story because is predictable how things will happen, these 19 new invented gang members need to die like the main character arthur, and some of them will runaway to never be seen again because they never existed in RDR 1 lore and story to begin with. and you barely do 2 missions with them to actually know them personal history in RDR2, very different from RDR 1 were you do at least 5 to 7 missions with each new character from the main story to actually know them. in RDR 2 the only way to actually know those new 23 gang members is staying in the camp for a long time waiting for someone to start a random conversation about their personal life, that is boring and annoying, rockstar should have give the option to talk and invite gang members to free roaming with the player in the map just like GTA 4 and 5 do, and put those random camp dialogues in those free roaming moments with the player. now about RDR2 lore, is completely different from the original RDR1 lore and contradictory. a lot of events and dialogues about things in RDR1 happen in a very different way in RDR2 and other things about characters were completely forgotten in RDR2 like, abigail being a prostitute, John daughter and Javier mentioned John daughter in RDR1, landon ricketts in 1899 being in the black water massacre, and not the ferry job, because the black water massacre had nothing to do with Dutch gang, in RDR1 Newspapers they talk about the black water massacre and Dutch gang never were mentioned to be there, Dutch gang was mentioned to be in the ferry job that went wrong where Heidi McCarthy was shot by Dutch, the ferry job, and black water shoot out massacre were two different events according to RDR1. other lore things that are different is John blaming bill and Javier for leaving him to die in RDR but in RDR 2 those two were never really the ones responsible for letting John behind to die, Dutch was the one 3 times to leave John behind in RDR2, like in the beginning of the game after the ferry job, the mid bank robbery, and the end in the train. and john dialogues about how he left the gang is very different from what was show in RDR 2. in RDR1John says " I left the gang after the gang left me they left me to die after I being shot" and he never went back. but he went back in RDR2 the 3 times that the gang left him behind to die. and the way John describes himself in the gang if you compare john dialogues about his past in the gang in RDR1 and you notice that Rockstar just created Arthur to be a replacement of role and actions of everything that john said that he did and his role when he was in the gang, robbing people, killing people he didn't like, threatening people, and taking people ransom those were John words about his past in the gang Rockstar use those descriptions by john about himself to create Arthur. Arthur personality is based on john character, is a tone up version of what john said he was in RDR1, is clear that rockstar created Arthur character based of John words about himself and made arthur to be the right hand man of Dutch, just to be a replacement of what John role should have being in the prequel. john redemption in RDR was more worth it than Arthur, 1° reason, because you actually see him doing good things to people since the beginning and we as a player know much more about John past and personal life (because john mentioned his personal life and past a lot of times) than we ever know about Arthur, that Rockstar made arthur had a copy cat background of John growing up in the gang adopted by Dutch, but arthur only talked about his personal life in a optional dialogue with rains fall, were Arthur girlfriend and son die in a theft by random people, because arthur left them to be with Dutch, this is one of the only things that we know about arthur personal life, john redemption and jorney is not like Arthur, that only when in the end he found out he got sick and he was gonna die so he was afraid to die and decided to do good things for some random people with the little time he had left, arthur regretting his life is too late in the game to be called "redemption", the whole RDR2 game arthur killed people and robbed without caring and this is in 1899, he had years robbing and killing people before, Arthur treats people in the gang nicely, by everyone outside the gang he doesn't really give a shit only when was sick he changed forcefully because of it and not genuinely, and arthur redemption os parcial because even after saying that he regrets he still keeps killing and robbing people, john on the other hand didn't needed to know that he was gonna die in the end, to do good things to people in his jorney, John good actions were genuine from the beginning, that's why John redemption and past life mentioned by him multiple times are more in depth character development and more explored in RDR1, than arthur in RDR2, on his last week alive when he decided to do good things before dying just because of the sickness. i still see RDR1 story, soundtracks, vibe of the wild west, (unlike RDR2 that is in on the east)' are better than RDR2. even when graphics and technical aspects RDR2 is more advanced being the later game to be released until now.
Yeah while I was explaining the story of Rdr 1 to my gf I then thought about how I'll explain the events of rdr2, but it didn't add up so I just told her to think that rdr2 is an alternative universe
@@DrDino2426 yeah, to this day I don't understand how there is no TH-cam video talking about the lore and story contradictions and retcons that don't match up at all between RDR2 and RDR1, the only thing I saw is some comments of people like me that notice those lore and story contradictions and retcons, but no channel that focusing in talking about RDR franchise ever talked about this in videos, looks like they didn't notice. RDR2 feels like a fanfic about the past of a dutch gang that never existed in RDR1 like a alternative timeline of John past, makes no sense to RDR1 lore and story for a lot of reasons, the things John says about the gang in the past and how he left the gang don't match up to the things that happened in RDR2. A simple example is John in RDR1 blaming bill and javier for leaving him to die makes no sense because it was Dutch and micah and those 2 micah friends in RDR2, so the new lore and story doesn't make sense to RDR1 lore and story. That is why i think and say that RDR1 should be played first playing RDR2 firstisva mistake, because if new players play RDR2 first they will have wrong expectations about the lore and story and when playing RDR1 they will feel like there's is no mention to anything that happened in RDR2. and they will think that they know john past but they don't they don't know the real john marston, I saw a lot of people playing in their first playthrough of RDR1 after RDR2, and they always get surprised when in the fourth mission john talked to bonnie about his past talking about his father, mother, daughter and how he meet the gang, none of those informations about John are in RDR2 and john personality is completely different in RDR2 to RDR1.
@@gabszzFORMATTING IS IMPORTANT.
John is just mainly pissed throughout rdr1 so of course he’s more brutal
Micah is way more brutal than John or Arthur
Very insightful
I feel like I’m losing my mind but Valentine was genuinely, in no way, Arthur’s fault.
I genuinely agree, they were after Dutch, and Arthur just happened to be there
Didn't Arthur steal an Oil wagon from Cornwall's factory for the train mission?In Game it didn't matter which oil wagon you would steal(one in factory,the other in Valentine),All Oil Wagons belonged to Cornwall.By stealing the Oil Wagon Arthur and John caused the Valentine massacre.
@@gamestriker4538 cornwall was already closing in on them in valentine, the oil kinda just sped it up a bit
@@titanusgodzillaa4274 Cornwall would have sure found the Gang either way but that doesn't change the fact that Arthur caused the Gang to be found sooner.That is the point,Arthur was the reason why the Gang were caught by surprise and even caused the Valentine massacre.
Arthur is the primary enforcer for a gang of killers. John WAS the secondary enforcer for a gang of killers, then he quit being a killer for a few years until he was forced back into it. Jack is the most sad character, he could’ve had a great life. I’m hoping RDR3 will be Jack being forced into WWI as an alternative to prison.
I've never understood why Bill blames the Valentine shootout on Arthur. When Dutch is really the one to blame. If Dutch had kept a low profile, instead of giving the order to rob Cornwall's train. Then the shootout would've never happened. Bill was the one that started the bar fight, that ended with Arthur having to beat a man to pulp, just stop the guy from doing the same thing to him. So many people who play the red dead redemption games. Are quick to call Arthur and John horrible people. When really both are the better than some of their friends. Look Bill Williamson, in the first game. He's the leader of a gang that does far worse things than, Dutch's original gang ever did. Bill's gang raided farms, and ranches, burned people alive, and raped women. Javier went back to Mexico, and started working for a cruel dictator. Another thing, that a lot of people who play these games don't understand is. What life was like back then. The wild west was a time when only the toughest, strongest, smartest, or the most ruthless survived. Most men back then were civil war veterans. If you think civilian life for veterans is hard now, imagine what it was like back then. When there was no treatment for PTSD, or any sort of help for war veterans transition back into civilian life. Most civil war veterans became gunman for hire, working as guards for the mines, stagecoaches, cattle barons, the railroad, and lawmen. The one that couldn't find legitimate work, became outlaws. In reality there was really only one law, that everybody understood. The law of the gun, hell even lawmen like Wyatt Earp, Wild Bill Hickok, Bat Masterson and more. Often dealt out justice with a gun, or a rope. In some cases even the law couldn't be trusted to be honest. For example, the Lincoln County War in New Mexico in 1878 and 79. Corrupt Sheriff Brady in Lincoln County New Mexico, and his deputies. Gun down a cattle a rancher, and store owner named, John Tunstall in cold blood. It was basically a hit ordered by their bosses, a pair of crooked businessmen named Murphy and Dolan. Who were part of a large group of crooked businessmen, and cattle barons called the Santa Fe Ring. The murder of John Tunstall, started a series of revenge killings, shootouts, and even a five day long gun battle between the corrupt Murphy/Dolan faction, the US Army, and a small group of men known as the Regulators on the streets of Lincoln, known as the Lincoln County War. The Lincoln County War led to a 19 year old kid known as William H. Bonney to become the famous outlaw known as Billy the Kid. Famous because he tried to get justice for the murder of his boss John Tunstall. That's the world that Arthur Morgan and John Marston live in, and believe me they are far from being the worst of the people who lived back back then
Bill was right about Valentine though.Arthur and John stole an Oil wagon from Cornwall's factory or the one in Valentine,depends which one you pick.All Oil wagons belong to Cornwall.By stealing the wagon for the train mission,Arthur and John gave away that the gang was active in Valentine and thus caused Cornwall to go to Valentine.Dutch's fault was robbing Cornwall's train,yes,but not Valentine's massacre.that was on both John and Arthur but the game doesn't bother adressing it.
This video is really interesting, I always saw John as a more stoic bounty hunter type of personality who has his softer more human side shine through. But like u mentioned Mexico really tilted him the other way for me. It'd be really interesting to have a RDR1 remake that factors in the events of RDR2, I doubt Rockstar would make any changes to the story but perhaps it would shine more of a lit on his actions
As much as I love Arthur, John will always be my favorite, especially for the constant insults he yells out during gun fights in the first game😂
I don't think anyone in the red dead world will ever top the classic John Marston battle cry ' you couldn't shoot a fart out of your own ass' lol greatness from Rob Whiethoff.
It’s because Arthur is a “hero” in the conventional sense who possesses flaws and is faced with obstacles on the path to self betterment. Can be violent and intimidating when necessary but secretly has a heart of gold. Kind of sappy, very cliche, but more appealing for mass audiences. Not particularly nuanced.
John however is an anti-hero. In the vein of tony soprano. This is a guy who is going to hell no matter what. But his character is so well written that we the audience eventually identify with him and want to see him survive, even though it’s likely that he’s beyond redemption. And the story and world of rdr1 are set firmly in this murky moral gray area where John (who is undeniably a vicious killer) is surrounded by so much raw evil that he seems almost virtuous in comparison.
Arthur walks through the world intimidating and scaring people while hiding that in reality he’s a pretty amiable guy if circumstance allow. Meanwhile john uses strained politeness and formality to hide his seething rage and disdain for everyone and everything around him. And when John gets fed up and drops the formality shit gets real. A pissed off RDR1 John is far more frightening then a low honor Arthur.
Lastly, Rdr1 stays true to its themes by leaving the question of wether John was saved up to interpretation. Rdr2 I think does itself a disservice by outright telling the audience wether they saved or failed Arthur. Granted it’s a much more wholesome story which can be appealing but I think rdr1’s take is more thought provoking.
I would say John is a better person
And the John’s music is great. Like bloody fantastic, mate. Don’t you reckon?
I've only now started RDR 2 in 2024. And always heard people say they like Arthur more than John. I'm currently on my first playthrough. Just finished the mission where Kieran is killed. And So far, I'm still a John Marston fan over Arthur. They're both great! But the more free willed and tongue and cheek writing in the first RDR is more my style. I do see how RDR 2 is definitely a more complete game. But the first one will always be special in all my gaming experiences. Ive seen plenty of playthroughs and recaps of rdr 2 and know this story is epic too. But there was just something about the first one. Going into Mexico. And just that time in gaming in general. Realizing the size and effort it took to create something like that. Again I realize that RDR 2 is am even bigger and deeper version of that. And I just hope that it ties things together well!
John Marston is like John Wick... he's kinda evil when you think about it, but you can definitely sympathize with the goals he has in the story.
I prefer John over arthur bc he was the first one who saw through Dutch's bs. I like Arthur but his loyalty to Dutch pisses me off a lot like he could have had a beautiful wife and an actual family but instead he chose his daddy dutch and his weird cult-like gang that was doomed to failure
I mean it makes sense, Dutch and Hosea practically raised him, they were all he had and he had never seen Dutch start going crazy up until Guarma where he started doubting him a bit (As where John was on the ferry where Dutch killed the girl)
Bro I already new this, have you seen how John cuts up animals in the first game?
You stink! 😂😂
Eww, what did you eat? 😂
Hello, I really enjoy your videos, specially the "What If" ones and I thought It would be very interesting if you would consider the idea of what would happen if John got TB instead of Arthur.
Great video man. Love these men
I played Arthur as more brutal than John until chapter 6
I'm just gonna say it: I have always thought John's a better protagonist since 2 came out even. love Arthur, but John's mah boah
No remorse for what he did in Mexico? I definitely got the impression he wasnt a fan of what both sides were up to. He didnt whine about it because he had priorities, but I never got the impression he was unaffected by it.
Great video man.
I want red dead 3 to be 1920s Jack in the midst of Prohibition, maybe even 1930s Great Depression era shenanigans would still be close enough to still feel like red dead while continuing the saga
RDR3 set in the prohibition era would be really nice. Lots of criminal activity at that time, even gave the US mafia a chance to become really established.
@@caketakeshh Imagine Jack Marston now living a normal life when suddenly due to some reasons he came across the Mafia, The last Gunslinger of the old west vs The Mafia, now that's a game I wanna play
Honestly I love them both but 1911 john is an absolute unit, it takes an army and a government to kill john, the guy is so hard to kill and takes out the American gangs and then goes Mexico to fuck shit up there, wipes out Micah,Dutch,bill and Javier and trained off Landon rickets
John is more brutal because he KNOWS he has to protect his family, and so he'll kill without a second thought to do so. Arthur has a family, which is the Van Der Linde Gang, but he knows that as a whole, the Van Der Linde gang was supposed to protect each other, meaning Arthur doesn't really need to kill as much as John does, as he knows that it won't affect his family much. If Arthur dies, then it's just one member, albeit a very important member, gone. If John dies, then his family is dead as well. (Except for the ending.)
man that Red Dead Revolver OST is such a beautiful throwback
You could argue John technically did have “someone” holding him accountable. The strange man is one character in RDR 1 who held John responsible for his actions through the side quests in the game.
Great point
If the writers left him "black and white" wouldnt that be the opposite of not knowing what his morals are?
But I think we do know his morals from our time with him
He's a family man, he's desperate to be a good dad, hes angry and threatens people like West dickens but rarely does he follow through on his threats and kill someone just for trying his patience
But he's more than willing to kill alot of people to get his family back
Whether his morals are good or bad is another question but they are on pretty full display for us to see
That's the thing most RDR2 players don't understand. John is not some caveman, He even spits out facts alot more. John is more of straightforward guy just like Niko Bellic from gta 4
The travel dialouge in RDR1 is the best dialouge in the game and its where John is a lot more philosophical, especially in Mexico, but I think a lot of people miss out on it
@@McDiesel27 The reason why people missed them out because they didn't even play RDR1 and watched a couple of video so they think they have an opinion. It's a shame really
One interesting thing to note about Arthur was he could have ended Andrew Milton and Edgar Ross the day they approached him at the lake when he was fishing with Jack. There was a moment where he contemplated shooting them, but didn’t because he wanted to spare Jack from witnessing that given Jack was a small child. At that time, John wouldn’t have thought the same way as Arthur had he been put in the same position.
I somewhat disagree with this. John has clear morals but his love for his family is much stronger than any other motivation he has. I think RDR1 has a really interesting portrayal of love as a chaotic and irrational force. I always thought it was much more realistic than RDR2’s “take a gamble that love exists and do a loving act” portrayal of love as an unequivocal force for good.
John is shown to be a very empathic man throughout the game, even understanding how the people who try to kill him ended up were they were at. However he has developed this ability to completely turn off his emotions when a situation requires it. His good nature does shine through, for example in Mexico where he risks his life to help Luisa’s sister escape to America without getting any clear benefit from it. Another example is how even when he gets lured into a death trap by Irish he doesn’t seek vengeance against him.
I think this is what makes him feel so realistic. He’s not some monster without emotions or empathy but because of the life he has lived, he has been constantly forced to choose between morality and survival for him and the people close to him. Because of this he can now do it without even thinking about it. It’s a really sad story because John is a character with potential to be a very good person who constantly gets forced into situations where he either has to do harm or die/fail his captured family.
Tbf the valentine shoot out is Dutches fault as it was him who pushed for thw cornwall train robbery which kicked it off the oil cart he'd of not know who took it especially seen as it can be done without anyone knowing who took it
the way i see it both Arthur and John can be unnecessarily cruel or brutal depending on the situations they're in, Arthur is shown beating and humiliating multiple people throughout the game mainly in the debt missions and before getting sick he shows alot of time that even tho he likes to avoid killing people if possible he isn't one to feel any kind of remorse or guilt over his actions, like he says its just one of those things, John is the same as well with many of his good deeds in both games being the result of people begging him and him just doing it to get rid of them, most of the time Arthur and John are both morally bad people who only do good when they see a benefit in it for them
I agree, funny thing is the way Micah interacts with both. He constantly antagonizes Arthur as if he knows Arthur won't do anything. Yet he made one comment to John, John told him he needed to stfu fast. Micah didn't persist almost as if he knew John had far less tolerance than Arthur
John literally SPITS in Javier's body after killing him.
If he needed to kill Arthur to save his family, he wouldn't hesitate to go out and hunt Arthur.
I think John is a bit of better person imo becuase he changed his life around and ran away from the gangs
I'm more familiar with John, I had the first game for a long time and played it often. This made every scene with John in RDR2 and the epilogue especially impacting for me.
The only similarity between the two characters deaths is that they died feeling betrayed, Arthur’s death is either the suffocation from his tuberculosis symptoms or Micah does him a favor and kills Arthur himself, John’s story seems more tragic than Arthur’s. John was basically blacked mail to hunt for his old gang or he will never see his family again, hunting people like Bill, Javier, and finally Dutch, but after that he met a tragic end when he was hunted and brutally killed, the law was shooting to the point John was basically begging to be put down, but Agent Ross just let him there to bleed out, the only positive thing throughout that last mission in rdr1 is that Jack and Abigail were able to get out, Arthur’s death is sad more than brutal
Nice video but not correct. All the talk about loyalty etc is just covering for the facts of his story and the terrible things he actually did - Arthur shot up an entire town on multiple occassions (what he did in Strawberry was horrendous, for Micah of all people). Across his story he gunned down countless policemen and far more innocent blood. Looking at John’s story I like that you cherry picked the part in Mexico about him helping De Santa burn some houses down as the supporting point of the argument but aside from this he spilled far, far less innocent blood. John killed criminals and gang members exclusively in the first game. Arthur was much more brutal, end of.
I have to be honest. I love Arthur, but John has a special place in my heart.
I think another reason is the writing, not to say that RDR1 doesn't have nuanced or well written characters, but it's very "Eastwood"-; in the scene you brought up
"So we might see our families again, I suggest we part ways amicably"
I practically heard him say
"My mule doesn't like people laughing, gets the crazy idea you're laughing at him, now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might be able to convince him you all didn't mean it"
Not to mention that in movies like "High Plains Drifter" Eastwood's character does some pretty deplorable things in the name of avenging a murder.
Plus John's design with the constant scowl, down to his mannerisms and demeanor matches most of Eastwood's "Strangers" which, now that I think about it, was probably the inspiration for the Stranger missions, making John a "Stranger" in his own right
Its basically the same premise between the two games in that the game asks how far you would go for your family. The only difference between them being that John's family was being held from the start while Arthur's family (the gang) was falling apart towards the end of the game.
Arthur was a great character but I think John will always be my favourite
John wrote in Arthur’s journal that he killed someone randomly for looking at him wrong.
Do you have proof? Ive never seen or heard this before, im just wondering
@@SHOOPY2021He writes it in his Journal in the epilogue.
@@zombiekiller4313 when?
He killed him because he pulled a gun on his family if I remember properly
Arthur: I don't want to shoot you partner, but I will if I absolutely have to
John: JUST GIVE ME A FKN REASON!
If RDR 1 gets a remaster I think they need to add the mechanics of RDR2 along with adding content that acknowledges the events of the second game along with fleshing out the characters, since in comparison they feel very bare bones.
Even though it has gore, I feel like Rdr1 is more brutal and grimy in general. I think it’s because it released so closely to Gta 4. Every body is so filthy, especially in Mexico and the war crimes/r@pey vibes
Yeah and I like that about RDR1 and that tone is a lot more impactful to me. First game almost had a Blood Meridian theme to it while RDR2 was more like a western blockbuster
It's mainly because of graphics and the fact that rdr1 takes place in the less civilized areas in the west while rdr2 takes place in the fast-developing east. Which is the theme of the game.
This is why I hate Arthur stans. If you haven't played RDR1 or even watched some cutscenes. Please save your opinion on John.
you and me both. I like arthur, he has some good lines and some good genes, but that doesn't mean you should make him some deity and put him up on a pedestal for moral excellence.
same thing goes for John, just let people be
facts like is it hard for people to all agree that both are good characters lol
Rdr1 fans always claim people haven't played the first game if people dare the disagree with them 😒
@@channel45853 but even then why put two great characters from the series compete like its kinda dumb.
I agree with your analysis, as someone who played both games, and saw John's personality evolve and progress, here's my take
John went from someone willing to please and go along with the gang, unsure of his life's direction, to a brutal man moreso than Arthur, because he was willing to do, go, and get involved in anything and everything to protect his family and hunt down the people who did him wrong with only minor regard for morality. (He was conflicted sometimes, but always ended up doing it)
In relation to your previous video, both men's deaths were equally sad for similar reasons.
Yes, John's was unnecessary, the Pinkertons could have chosen to let him escape but their self-righteous, sadistic egos wouldn't let them, causing them to put a family in danger.
Arthur's was sad for the simple reason that it's a man wasting away, realising he's on borrowed time, reflecting on his past deeds and conduct, trying to make amends.
Can you make a video about if Arthur was still alive in rd1 and how it would change things
I’ve got a video idea similar to what if Dutch had died and Hosea became leader u should do if Dutch and Hosea died and Arthur became the leader and what would’ve happened
He just did one about that; it was what if Dutch had died in Blackwater and Hosea took charge.
@@SoberBob559 no like what if Arthur became the leader like not only Dutch died but Hosea did too and Arthur became the leader how the story would have went
I don’t know if Arthur would be fit for leading, they might’ve put Ms. Grimshaw in charge
@@Jws20 the gang is more likely to follow Arthur than Miss Grimshaw and Arthur does takes the leads during Missions the other member of the gangs are constantly looking at him for what they should do next
@@theoutsiderjess4869 yeah, but they’re following his battle experience. My guess is that he wouldn’t know how to evade the Pinkertons or any other law enforcement without Dutches guidance. He’d probably need someone to run the gang with him, like Grimshaw or someone else.
Arthur was a dying man that had nothing to lose. And spent what little time and energy he had to gain redemption.
John was a man that has everything to lose. And was forced to fight the world to maintain what he had.
arthur did have things to lose lol. his crew dying especially john, abigail, jack and sadie was what hed lose if he couldnt get them out of the outlaw life as soon as possible
In a fist fight i noticed John has a heavier hit than Arthur. That may have something to do with Arthur getting tb. But I did notice that John’s first fight on the ranch he beats the dog shit out of that man.
Loved the vid but the way your mic picked up the "Ch" sounds are so sharp leading to me turning the volume down and making the rest of the vid quiet. Prob just me but figured I'd point it out
John is FAR more complex than Arthur and has more development (which is kinda obvious since he's a main characters in both games)
Also, it's very interesting that despite John not being very mature when he was in the gang, he was pretty damn smart about Dutch and the gang's future
He knew that the gang was coming to an end and he didn't see Dutch the same way others did, like if after John saw dutch kill that girl on the ferry job made him think if the man that saved him many year ago, really turned into another
That's the reason why Dutch started to hate John, because he was getting smart and because he knew about Dutch's real plan and intentions
John was a pretty cool, complex and amazing character, so sad to see that he's not getting the attention that he desearles and all the attention goes to Arthur
You didn't pay attention to the story, as someone who played trough RDR2 13 times and spend over 1000 hours in it. Arthur was the first one after Hosea to see Dutch for what he was, you can see Arthur telling John how this life is pretty much over and how Dutch is... you know... in the last mission in Valentine when Arthur and John take the sheep. John was the third one who saw Dutch for what he was after Hosea and Arthur. Lastly I want to correct you on the main protagonitst of RDR2 wich isn't John, the main protagonist called player_one is Arthur Morgan. John is the second character after Arthur just like Jack is the second character after John in RDR1. Arthur saved John and his family just like Mac saved Arthur in the blackwater mess.
@@FriendwithNoName7i played RDR 1 for as long as you have played rdr2, rdr 1 directly has a conversation with Abigail where they talk about it, and Abigail says he saw it first, which makes sense. John left the gang already due to jack being born, but there is mention of him also expressing concern with the gang. Being a factor of why he left. He is loyal to Dutch, but nowhere near as much as Arthur is. At first John left for himself, but John becomes concerned and cares for his family, and then wants to leave the gang for them instead. John was the first to see it/ actually leave
@@That_oneguy_mane In the game itself it was Hosea who first saw it and then Arthur and then John. What happened before can only be speculated but your theory makes less sense.
John wasn't the main character in RDR2. It ends with him, sure, but was he? No. That's like saying Jack is the main character in RDR1 simply because it ends with him. Complexity... both have depth, but you'd be lying if you said John is more complex than Arthur. He's easy to understand, he's willing to do whatever it takes?
@@ahmeddudha2658 You are right, he wasn't. It's just some people like to have their own head canon story so they act as if their version is the right one.
The game is a masterpiece on his own. If it were to get remade, Rockstar would tone down the edgy stuff.
5:22 bro I just finished a rough week of school and now I feel so eerily called out
I remember playing this as a kid made me love outlaws
This is largely due to clumsy writing in 2. Rockstar devs for some reason made the characters overly preachy and ahead of their time, which heavily clashed with the insane violence they inflict throughout the story. In addition, Arthur comes across as a hypocrite a lot of the time in the story, where he's highly selective on his compassion for people and moral position.
John meanwhile feels more embedded in his world. He's certainly more progressive than the average cowboy, but he's still an outlaw and his priority throughout his adventure is his family. The honour system isn't what defines him. He does what he thinks will get him to his goal.