>arthur greater than john >it's official
sure feels like the only people who could say something so stupid are dipshits that only played the second game.
>did you know that it's getting announced this month? >did you know that the game before getting rebooted in 2020 was about experiencing the entire life -rise & fall- of a smuggling criminal, starting in the late 70s and ending in the late 2010s? >and that each chapter entailed a decade? it was kino >did you know that jason is a midwit? >and that lucia is an empowered hacker? >and that wyman is based? >did you know that the "-slop" jaded Gankertards will call this game a handcuffslop? >did you know that they're spending $10.000.000 PER WEEK on getting the game out asap?
>did you know that the game before getting rebooted in 2020 was about experiencing the entire life -rise & fall- of a smuggling criminal, starting in the late 70s and ending in the late 2010s?
if this is true it means all the leaks from pre-2020 were actually genuine and rockstar made the biggest mistake of their career
too bad the only way we could find out is if the devs admit it or we dig for cut content
They are both great characters, but John is more of a hero/decent person. Even if you play a "nice" Arthur, he's not as polite as John and always defaults to violence. Arthur goes along with the israelite usurer's scams and that automatically makes him a worse person.
it's the other way around. John is the one who's the more morally bankrupt. Arthur is more noble but also more easily influenced, which is why Dutch got his claws in him more than John.
I disagree. I think both are a bit uneven and jarring characters from time to time(to be expected with a video game, especially a long video game). John is less likeable but I find him more believable, and his story is more tragic and less forced.
John Marston is better than Arthur Morgan for several reasons but I am going to focus on just one, John is an honest character, both the way he is written and the way he sees the world. John Marston never pretends to be a know-it-all, on the contrary he admits that he has quite a few limitations, but that he knows enough to be able to distinguish the bad from the good, in addition to having a dry but not cynical outlook on life. Morgan on the other hand is incredibly irritating, and his attitude seems more like that of a twenty-first century political activist than a man from 1899.
Arthur morgan is what redditors and gays on twitter imagine how the humble but gentle cowboy should act. It's stupid. He was one of the worse parts in his own game.
"Why mister I should you join you in that ladies dress. Doncha know? It's 1899. We're past hate round these parts"
>another moron fell for the meme
Who would have thought a character not saying racial slurs would turn so many people into whiny homosexuals. You sound like the pussies that b***h about bikini armor.
Dude he's a criminal. It would be weird for him to be racist. They need whatever crap they can find to fill the numbers. The issue is the writers projecting onto arthur. He feels like he's commenting on current "issues" through the lens of a cowboy game. John marston ends up having more of his own character for it.
What the frick are you talking about? With most of the people he interacts with he’s either just “oh okay” or “what?” He doesn’t give a shit about people’s ideologies or beliefs he just does what he wants.
No he doesn't. He's judgemental about peoples beliefs and opinions. He constantly has a say in what he did was wrong or right. And has a the greatest moral compass an outlaw of 1899 could have. I played it recently on pc mate. It gets a little annoying, but the game is at least fun.
No he’s not, he most either comes off as confused or nonplussed by what most people say. He doesn’t give a shit about them, his opinions consist the most neutral or middle of the road shit.
>He feels like he's commenting on current "issues"
Such as?
Literally the only 2 "modern issues" that ever really get brought up are women's right to vote, a problem unique to the 1800s/early 1900s and natives whom Arthur only helped at first because he was getting paid and helped later because he became friends with the chief
>2nd game sells more by a wide margin >2nd game protag is soft and sanded down is more popular
Just a friendly reminder that nothing in 2's entire bloated epilogue has the same emotional weight as Jack hunting down Edgar Ross to get revenge for his parents, becoming the very thing they never wanted him to be.
yeah RDR1 really had the perfect storyline for this type of game. when "compass" starts playing after you finally confront dutch and ride home to your family my mind was blown. had never seen music used like that in a game before
Arthur was always a more introspective artsy macho man like Dutch and John was much more matter of fact no bullshit in his outlook on everything. A good example of this could be the cliff edge where Dutch dies. If it was Arthur there it would be much more dramatic and elegant talk like his "I gave you all I had, where more ghost than people, etc." where John is literally "Just give up Dutch its over" and Dutch has his speech of fighting nature, paradox, etc and his response is just" well then I have to shoot you" where 100% Arthur would have something way different. I appreciate their smaller differences but overall Johns a based chad "fella with a sing song voice tells me to frick off its always my problem 'boyo'" and Arthur is a chad/gay who writes in his little diary and speaks more pretentious like Dutch.
the diary is a great example of the differences in their personalities actually, arthur is indeed more introspective and has much more of an imagination. Arthur will write something like 'saw this interesting house. i wonder who lived here?' where John writes 'saw a weird house.'
honestly kinda tired of hearing about both of them
they were ok games, thats all, but people treat them like they were the beginning and end of all video games, just because they were popular and well known
>homosexuals that only play the game agree on shit they're too stupid to decide.
I'm always amazed at the general stupidity gay of the average consumer.
Arthur is not a good protagonist and RDR2 does not have a good story.
It's just a dumbed down and less concise version of 1's story, with the same themes and often the same plot beats.
They both deal with the end of the American frontier and the inexorable march of progress, and how that's not often a good thing. But while 1 will let the story speak for itself, with dialogue and narrative elements, like how Dutch's gang is composed of native americans, or the intro shows a couple marveling at a car, 2 will make sure characters tell you ("THERE'S NO PLACE IN THIS NEW CIVILIZATION FOR US DUTCH")
It also makes sure you understand the bad characters are bad.
Ross was a slimy bastard and a prick, but he also had a point. People like John Marston could live well in the untamed West, but most people couldn't. They'd prefer civilization and its comforts. By contrast, Micah Bell literally kills dogs, is racist, sexist lecherous and makes sure to always remind everyone and the player of it.
In fact, 2 is so dumbed down and plays it safe that it contradicts what was established in 1.
Dutch Van Der Linde as described by John, was a charismatic father figure and leader with a strong ideological bend, a man that fashioned himself a modern Robin Hood. A thinker.
In 2 he's an incompetent buffon obsessed with a transcendentalist author and treat his words like gospel, but in a discussion with Lenny about it(noted to be very young) he's befuddled and left stammering. His good characteristics have all been passed to Hosea, who matches the charismatic father figure and brains behind the gang much closer.
Bill Williamson and Javier Escuela have their negative characteristics passed to designated villain Micah. Bill is hardly the violent psychopath full of resentment of 1, and Escuela is unrecognizable as the sleezy, creepy man he was described and shown to be
John Marston, a man semi-literate, but introspective and thoughtful, with a surprisingly eloquent vocabulary is dumbed down so that Arthur can take his place as the more same an level minded member of the gang he was supposed to be.
And Arthur is simply not a very good character. People like him, and it's hard not to. He's handsome, his voice is cool, he's got charisma, but the merits of Roger Clarke's performance don't make him a good character.
John's character was tied to the story and themes of the game. He was an outwardly cynical, but romantically inclined ex-outlaw working to save his family. The Redemption in the title isn't about a moral salvation, but a societal one. John seeks to leave his past behind, the savagery of the Wild West and settle down and be a good citizen. But he can't. Like Harmonica in Once Upon a Time in the West, he's not a modern man he's a dying breed, tied to his past and unable to fully live in modernity. He has clear goals and likes or dislikes, something Arthur lacks. Morgan has little agency or want in 2, he basically does what he's told and when he doesn't want to do it, he whines about it. He backtalks Dutch since the start of the game but refuses to do anything about his increasingly bad decisions.
He hates Micah, but never kills him.
He doesn't like Strauss or the money lending, but never does anything about it until it's too late.
RDR1 was consistent and told the story it wanted how it wanted and it had a perfect protagonist for it. 2 stumbles all fumbles all the way to the end, and its protagonist matched that too
>In 2 he's an incompetent buffon
You're seeing Dutch's downfall. Early in the game Arthur mentions multiple times how Dutch has changed. The period of time around meeting Micah and the catastrophic failure of the Blackwater job sent Dutch into a downward spiral that he couldn't recover from.
>You're seeing Dutch's downfall
No, I'm seeing he already fallen. He's already a failure, he just upgrades himself to a worst failure later.
This excuse that "Dutch already is in decline" isn't to the games favor, because it means they're dragging down something already clear from the start and not showing the interesting parts that would also serve to establish Dutch as what he's talked to be
>well…. if a fella wants to put on a dress and call himself a gal, I reckon that’s his right as an American >if you have a problem with that, you’ll have to answer to me, partner
Disingenuous movie game made for and by morons with no taste.
RDR fan here, I disagree
You will never be the real Red Dead Redemption.
>arthur greater than john
>it's official
sure feels like the only people who could say something so stupid are dipshits that only played the second game.
and better than jason kek
also
>did you know that it's getting announced this month?
>did you know that the game before getting rebooted in 2020 was about experiencing the entire life -rise & fall- of a smuggling criminal, starting in the late 70s and ending in the late 2010s?
>and that each chapter entailed a decade? it was kino
>did you know that jason is a midwit?
>and that lucia is an empowered hacker?
>and that wyman is based?
>did you know that the "-slop" jaded Gankertards will call this game a handcuffslop?
>did you know that they're spending $10.000.000 PER WEEK on getting the game out asap?
well, now you do!
>did you know that the game before getting rebooted in 2020 was about experiencing the entire life -rise & fall- of a smuggling criminal, starting in the late 70s and ending in the late 2010s?
if this is true it means all the leaks from pre-2020 were actually genuine and rockstar made the biggest mistake of their career
too bad the only way we could find out is if the devs admit it or we dig for cut content
>Leslie Benzies gone
>Dan Houser gone
>Lazlow gone
>Both protags look like morons
This game will be the biggest letdown in decades.
Can be worse than Bethesda with Pozzedfield, right?
chilad solution. now
They are both great characters, but John is more of a hero/decent person. Even if you play a "nice" Arthur, he's not as polite as John and always defaults to violence. Arthur goes along with the israelite usurer's scams and that automatically makes him a worse person.
it's the other way around. John is the one who's the more morally bankrupt. Arthur is more noble but also more easily influenced, which is why Dutch got his claws in him more than John.
Not surprising considering John is a slim cuck and Arthur is like a perfect male.
that's because John The Simp Marston literrally married a prostitute that everyone else in his gang already been with .
>Experts say
>Research shows
>Fans agree
I disagree. I think both are a bit uneven and jarring characters from time to time(to be expected with a video game, especially a long video game). John is less likeable but I find him more believable, and his story is more tragic and less forced.
they're both moronic
John Marston is better than Arthur Morgan for several reasons but I am going to focus on just one, John is an honest character, both the way he is written and the way he sees the world. John Marston never pretends to be a know-it-all, on the contrary he admits that he has quite a few limitations, but that he knows enough to be able to distinguish the bad from the good, in addition to having a dry but not cynical outlook on life. Morgan on the other hand is incredibly irritating, and his attitude seems more like that of a twenty-first century political activist than a man from 1899.
RDR fan here, I agree
Arthur morgan is what redditors and gays on twitter imagine how the humble but gentle cowboy should act. It's stupid. He was one of the worse parts in his own game.
"Why mister I should you join you in that ladies dress. Doncha know? It's 1899. We're past hate round these parts"
>another moron fell for the meme
Who would have thought a character not saying racial slurs would turn so many people into whiny homosexuals. You sound like the pussies that b***h about bikini armor.
Dude he's a criminal. It would be weird for him to be racist. They need whatever crap they can find to fill the numbers. The issue is the writers projecting onto arthur. He feels like he's commenting on current "issues" through the lens of a cowboy game. John marston ends up having more of his own character for it.
What the frick are you talking about? With most of the people he interacts with he’s either just “oh okay” or “what?” He doesn’t give a shit about people’s ideologies or beliefs he just does what he wants.
No he doesn't. He's judgemental about peoples beliefs and opinions. He constantly has a say in what he did was wrong or right. And has a the greatest moral compass an outlaw of 1899 could have. I played it recently on pc mate. It gets a little annoying, but the game is at least fun.
No he’s not, he most either comes off as confused or nonplussed by what most people say. He doesn’t give a shit about them, his opinions consist the most neutral or middle of the road shit.
>He feels like he's commenting on current "issues"
Such as?
Literally the only 2 "modern issues" that ever really get brought up are women's right to vote, a problem unique to the 1800s/early 1900s and natives whom Arthur only helped at first because he was getting paid and helped later because he became friends with the chief
If a fella wants to lay with another fella hell, I say let em go for it. Y'know what, I might try it myself wanna these days.
>gaming "journalism"
of course people like the mature adult to the angsty fricking brat
>2nd game sells more by a wide margin
>2nd game protag is soft and sanded down is more popular
Just a friendly reminder that nothing in 2's entire bloated epilogue has the same emotional weight as Jack hunting down Edgar Ross to get revenge for his parents, becoming the very thing they never wanted him to be.
Reminder that WORK YA DAMN NAG cancels out anything worthwhile about him
Jack is cool, even if he's not as cool as John.
yeah RDR1 really had the perfect storyline for this type of game. when "compass" starts playing after you finally confront dutch and ride home to your family my mind was blown. had never seen music used like that in a game before
Arthur was always a more introspective artsy macho man like Dutch and John was much more matter of fact no bullshit in his outlook on everything. A good example of this could be the cliff edge where Dutch dies. If it was Arthur there it would be much more dramatic and elegant talk like his "I gave you all I had, where more ghost than people, etc." where John is literally "Just give up Dutch its over" and Dutch has his speech of fighting nature, paradox, etc and his response is just" well then I have to shoot you" where 100% Arthur would have something way different. I appreciate their smaller differences but overall Johns a based chad "fella with a sing song voice tells me to frick off its always my problem 'boyo'" and Arthur is a chad/gay who writes in his little diary and speaks more pretentious like Dutch.
the diary is a great example of the differences in their personalities actually, arthur is indeed more introspective and has much more of an imagination. Arthur will write something like 'saw this interesting house. i wonder who lived here?' where John writes 'saw a weird house.'
Both are based but John was the better protagonist. John knew where he stood morally unlike Arthur
i wasn't consulted, so it's not official. Arthur is great but John is still the GOAT
?si=OzuC7ys0gVUThXPi
the GOAT
They're both dead so who cares
honestly kinda tired of hearing about both of them
they were ok games, thats all, but people treat them like they were the beginning and end of all video games, just because they were popular and well known
Arthur is a much better anti-hero. John is a better tragic hero.
A good take.
>homosexuals that only play the game agree on shit they're too stupid to decide.
I'm always amazed at the general stupidity gay of the average consumer.
Arthur is not a good protagonist and RDR2 does not have a good story.
It's just a dumbed down and less concise version of 1's story, with the same themes and often the same plot beats.
They both deal with the end of the American frontier and the inexorable march of progress, and how that's not often a good thing. But while 1 will let the story speak for itself, with dialogue and narrative elements, like how Dutch's gang is composed of native americans, or the intro shows a couple marveling at a car, 2 will make sure characters tell you ("THERE'S NO PLACE IN THIS NEW CIVILIZATION FOR US DUTCH")
It also makes sure you understand the bad characters are bad.
Ross was a slimy bastard and a prick, but he also had a point. People like John Marston could live well in the untamed West, but most people couldn't. They'd prefer civilization and its comforts. By contrast, Micah Bell literally kills dogs, is racist, sexist lecherous and makes sure to always remind everyone and the player of it.
In fact, 2 is so dumbed down and plays it safe that it contradicts what was established in 1.
Dutch Van Der Linde as described by John, was a charismatic father figure and leader with a strong ideological bend, a man that fashioned himself a modern Robin Hood. A thinker.
In 2 he's an incompetent buffon obsessed with a transcendentalist author and treat his words like gospel, but in a discussion with Lenny about it(noted to be very young) he's befuddled and left stammering. His good characteristics have all been passed to Hosea, who matches the charismatic father figure and brains behind the gang much closer.
Bill Williamson and Javier Escuela have their negative characteristics passed to designated villain Micah. Bill is hardly the violent psychopath full of resentment of 1, and Escuela is unrecognizable as the sleezy, creepy man he was described and shown to be
John Marston, a man semi-literate, but introspective and thoughtful, with a surprisingly eloquent vocabulary is dumbed down so that Arthur can take his place as the more same an level minded member of the gang he was supposed to be.
And Arthur is simply not a very good character. People like him, and it's hard not to. He's handsome, his voice is cool, he's got charisma, but the merits of Roger Clarke's performance don't make him a good character.
John's character was tied to the story and themes of the game. He was an outwardly cynical, but romantically inclined ex-outlaw working to save his family. The Redemption in the title isn't about a moral salvation, but a societal one. John seeks to leave his past behind, the savagery of the Wild West and settle down and be a good citizen. But he can't. Like Harmonica in Once Upon a Time in the West, he's not a modern man he's a dying breed, tied to his past and unable to fully live in modernity. He has clear goals and likes or dislikes, something Arthur lacks. Morgan has little agency or want in 2, he basically does what he's told and when he doesn't want to do it, he whines about it. He backtalks Dutch since the start of the game but refuses to do anything about his increasingly bad decisions.
He hates Micah, but never kills him.
He doesn't like Strauss or the money lending, but never does anything about it until it's too late.
RDR1 was consistent and told the story it wanted how it wanted and it had a perfect protagonist for it. 2 stumbles all fumbles all the way to the end, and its protagonist matched that too
>In 2 he's an incompetent buffon
You're seeing Dutch's downfall. Early in the game Arthur mentions multiple times how Dutch has changed. The period of time around meeting Micah and the catastrophic failure of the Blackwater job sent Dutch into a downward spiral that he couldn't recover from.
>You're seeing Dutch's downfall
No, I'm seeing he already fallen. He's already a failure, he just upgrades himself to a worst failure later.
This excuse that "Dutch already is in decline" isn't to the games favor, because it means they're dragging down something already clear from the start and not showing the interesting parts that would also serve to establish Dutch as what he's talked to be
>well…. if a fella wants to put on a dress and call himself a gal, I reckon that’s his right as an American
>if you have a problem with that, you’ll have to answer to me, partner
Disingenuous movie game made for and by morons with no taste.
The game doesn't even remotely mention trannies
What the frick is wrong with you 'people'
>t. missed the point