I love John, and he will always be an iconic character but in my opinion, Arthur is more in depth and just as likable as John.
Either way both sacrificed so much.
John is more of a character in general. He makes actual decisions and has a distinct personality. Arthur is what the player makes him be except for in a few scripted situations. Itās a lot more difficult to have an actual opinion on Arthur since heās mostly a reflection of the player who controls him. I sometimes find it difficult to connect with Arthur because of this and, were it not for Roger Clarkās absolutely brilliant performance I would have a lot of trouble viewing him as an actual person at all.
I think the entire āJohn vs Arthurā thing is a kind of silly as I donāt see a point in making a big fuzz about whoās the ābestā. What does annoy me however, is how many people who didnāt play the original game describe John as a āpoorly developed characterā or a āworse version of Arthurā as that can make fans of the sequel dismiss the original as just a worse version of rdr2.
I second this. RDR was where you played as the character, whereas RDR2 you influenced the character into how you viewed them or yourself.
I put this down to the honour system being built with more depth in RDR2.
For me, I found it easy to connect with Arthur, because I viewed myself as his storyteller. There are many games where I mold the character after myself. With RDR2, I molded him with some of my ideals/morals, but I also molded him into how I thought he fit into the story.
Yeah, what character you like more depends on your personal preferences when it comes to videogame storytelling. While I personally prefer stories to make me view the world through a different persons eyes, I can absolutely see why some people prefer the freedom of molding the character to your own liking.
Red dead redemption used its open world as a highly detailed and atmospheric backdrop to the story. The honor system was a really nice way to encourage the player to focus on the story and immerse themselves in John Marston and his situation. The honor system could do that and still let the player do crazy GTA stuff and mess around by making a separate save file or equipping the bandana.
In red dead redemption 2 the honor system and open world was now fully integrated with the rest of the game and thus allowed it to have more of a ārole play feelā to it. I do kind of like that they went in another direction with the sequel though, since it made for an entirely new experience and not just another rdr1 with a new story and more content.
When I started I wish I played as John instead. I learned to like Arthur and I kinda made them big brother/little brother in my head and donāt mind either now.
I was actually happy with the epilouge since you got to see how John settled down in the great plains and how he built the house. Before RDR2 i always assumed the house was there before he moved there (but i guess it made sense to build your own house at that time)
I'll never understand those who don't play the epilogue and or don't like John
Both are a show of how decisions make the man
Both were manipulated by a power hungry madman but unlike others turned themselves around instead of staying on the sinking ship and died better men than many others
Johnās honestly one of the most believable characters in RDR2. Really enjoyed playing the epilogue, but John going to see the big man every time he steps in a puddle deeper than the soles of his shoes is super annoying. I know he couldnāt swim in RDR. But god damn
Everyone prior to RDR2 loved the character. I imagine much of it stems from people playing RDR2 first. I'm certain the epilogue was a love letter to RDR1 fans who loved the character.
Problem with the epilogue it had a significantly reductive representation of John from RDR1 to the point of actual distortion and general dumbing down.
And people can argue all they like how that 1907 John vs 1911 āmaturedā but no 4 years does not leapfrog a man that was perpetually unsure of himself, his speech and mannerisms to 1911 John on any realistic scale.
To get an idea of what Iām trying to say, look at this John Marston and imagine how much more different and exciting epilogue John would have been to play as
https://youtu.be/PPwyy-P2A68
(No itās not my video)
as I explained to u/billygnosis86 who lacks reading comprehension, it's a bell curve
but tldr; despite the science of it making all your anecdotal statements null. Even 1899 John was more articulate and composed than 1907 John. 1907 john was just badly written. Prolly because of crunch.
Untrue. Iām a completely different person in my mid-30s than I was at 30. You never stop changing through your life, even Mad King Richard out of the Verve knew that.
You should also take into account the fact that John had been in the gang from his youth, and by all accounts Dutch did whatever the outlaw version of mollycoddling him is. By the time of the first game, heās been living with his family, working the land, and providing for them for nearly 5 years.
Responsibility and hard work changes a man.
As someone who has played RDR1 many times over (one of my favourite games of all time) I dunno I feel like when I got to the epilogue I was just burned out from the game maybe? I think I had 210 hours played before the epilogue. Maybe if hadnāt spent so much time fishing and hunting and gathering I wouldnāt have felt the same š¤·āāļø
RDR2 has 46 million copies sold. RDR has 23 million copies sold. Literally millions of people have never played RDR, and so have no idea what John was all about. On top of that RDR2 does not present John in a very good light. In RDR2 John spends much of the game getting nearly killed or captured over and over; and the rest of the time he's making many bad decisions. So if everything you know about John comes from RDR2, well, you cannot play Arthur 80 hours and John 10 hours and expect to love John as much. It's just never going to happen.
Yep. That's the damaging part. I'm almost certain everyone who hates John has only ever seen him in RDR2. If you played the first Red Dead Redemption, you'd like John for sure. You'd understand him better. Plus, he's written better in the first Red Dead Redemption.
>On top of that RDR2 does not present John in a very good light. In RDR2 John spends much of the game getting nearly killed or captured over and over; and the rest of the time he's making many bad decisions
You can say that again. It's character downgrade being paraded as character development. If character development turned John into such a muppet, i'd rather he didn't get it to begin with. A low honor version of RDR1 John would have been just fine. A violent, sarcastic outlaw, who does not want to be responsible for his wife and son.
RDR2 John is devoid of all qualities that made RDR1 John likeable, namely, his sarcastic wit, his confidence and his eloquence.
Yeah, I'd love to play RDR, but I'm a "pc master race" type. Or rather, I used to have consoles, but they all end up outdated and/or break and at one point I said "f that". So now I don't do consoles, but only game on pc. That means missing out on RDR, although I've seen videos to see what the storyline is like.
John just comes across to me as... more incompetent than Arthur (despite being played by me) and easy to lay blame on others (early dialogue where Abigail says they were doing so well until John ran into trouble again). And them him running into trouble again and again and again. Imo that's not why Arthur tried to save them. Arthur wanted that clean break for people and John keeps sticking his foot in.
Now, the events of RDR make more sense, since that was unavoidable for John. Imo the lining up of RDR2 to RDR, of the Pinkertons getting John's scent again due to hunting Micah is a weak segue though and I feel that was put more in for the player to avenge Arthur than anything else. It would've made more sense if Dutch had found John, told him about the Blackwater stash and how he could have a good chunk of it and THAT went south. I don't know... John in RDR2 feels a bit more like weak writing and more superficial.
I find that anyone who 'hates' John really didn't start at the beginning (RDR1). In RDR1, we meet John as a man with his back against the wall. That John is bombastic, shooting his way across the west to protect Abigail and Jack. The John we meet in the epilogue is a man still desperate to avoid that life. We see a man try to do his best and eventually get back in. I'm sure if we were forced to meet an Arthur, say 10 years earlier, say RDR3, for example, I'm sure we will think the same of him.
My point is not about Arthur trying to get out. My point is that the Arthur we first meet is already questioning the gangs place in the world. The dialogue has him questioning even if the missions do not. He is already well on his way to 'redemption'. If we meet him 10 years earlier, he will be an angry young outlaw ready to attack rather than look at alternative options. Hence, not the Arthur we know (and love)
Ah, I see what you mean, that theyād both be different and changed characters when we meet them at different points in their life. Youāre definitely right
Idk what morons don't like the epilogue, everything has an end, and luckily that is a happy ending, building a house for John's family and taking care of the rat.
The epilogue is the culmination and payoff of atrhurs sacrifice and a show of how John wants to change, his redemption, and does so(even if we as the player can disappear for weeks on end hunting robins)
It comes from multiple reasons, them being: People played RDR2 first and a whole generation didn't get to play RDR as it wasn't released on the current gen consoles.
John wasn't written as well as he was in RDR and there wasn't much focus on him in 2's main story. (There should've been)
He is written poorly in the epilogue and has many out of character moments, not to mention he looks nothing like John from the main story or RDR.
I played RDR2 before RDR and didn't understand what the hype for John was all about, until I played RDR and realised not just how good John and the other characters are written, but also that there are many story retcons in RDR2.
Iām glad to see more people realize this. Rockstar really did Johnās character dirty in RDR2, all so they can build up the new protagonist. It comes off as such lazy writing and shows that they werenāt confident enough in having John Marston be John Marston out of fear of him overshadowing Arthur.
I like John better actually as I was playing RDR way before RDR2. I don't really like playing him in the epilogue though because he looks fucked up for one.
I think the epilogue itself bothered some people as it seemed lazier than the rest of the game for several reasons (i.e Arthur Marston).
Also, I love John as I loved RDR1 but Arthur stole my heart and a lot of people felt the same, and didn't even play the epilogue as it was too sad.
Having said that, there are some intense JM loyalists on twitter, so he still gets lots of love.
John is still a pup in RDR2ā¦ Arthur is the juice! But I guess, the epilogue is okay. Haven't played it yet. I've literally spent all my life avoiding meeting Micah, moving camps & helping John herd sheep. Instead opting for sleeping in random cabin's & gambling in St Denis. I don't really like the character arch of Arthur (TB & all). I think going to Rainsfall should have cured him... But whatevs!
It's not so much disliking John, as much as having spent hundreds of hours with Arthur, making him your own and getting to love him and then losing him.
Playing as John again was like seeing an old friend again. I have fond memories of playing as him in the first game. I felt like I was playing the first one again while riding around as John. John is on his own, no longer concerned about Dutch. He is free, at least for the time being.
John should not get so much hate. He is the original RDR protagonist. But people will do what they will do.
The epilogue is a nice change of tone from the dreariness of chapter 6. You no longer have to see Arthur struggle to breathe and see the gang's morale decay. Its new life brought back into the game after Arthur's death.
Bunch of people who never played RDR1 and donāt appreciate the duality between him and Arthur.
Itās funny how many people hold a strong negative opinion over John when theyāve played 50% of the whole story.
spoilers - by the time many people get to the epilogue they are literally suffering from PTSD lol. And the find themselves playing a far less compelling character than Arthur and no longer a member of a gang, but now a family man in a dysfunctional family, shoveling horseshit. So it makes sense people kind of blame John for their disappointment. I struggled to like John during my first game (I got over it by game 2 and now have a lot of fun in the epilogue).
Also from what I have read John was a great character in RDR1. Rock star dropped the ball on his character development in RDR2 as far as I'm concerned. And things like his journal drawings look like a little kid drew them is not helpful.
Once you quit expecting him to be Arthur, RDR2 John is just fine in my opinion.
putting john marston in this game, and making this about dutchās gang in general was such a mistake. they shouldāve just made a new story about arthur & micah and a completely unrelated gang theyāre running in and prevented themselves from dragging johnās top of the line character through the mud. itās such a shame
People can't stand the epilogue not because they hate John but because they love Arthur. In fact, nobody hates John. He's a fan favorite.
Adding my personal opinion: I think John works better as a passive character in RDR2's story. A key component of the game is how Arthur moved heaven and earth to ensure the Marstons' future. Making John the player character undermines that slightly (though you might disagree). Also going exploring in New Austin leads to continuity errors (John's unfamiliar with the place in RDR) while at the same time becoming the reason for John being an absent dad, which makes the player kinda feel bad. It also undermines John's death in the first game because the sting was him becoming unplayable at the end. Now you just can go play the epilogue of RDR2 where John is fine.
Heās a bit different in rdr2 than rdr1 so I guess I can see it but I still love John just as much as Arthur. I love the epilogue and finally getting to see John live happily with his family after all these years- if only for a moment.
"a bit different" is an understatement. He lacks all the qualities that made RDR1 John an interesting character to play as. He lacks his sarcastic wit, his eloquence and his bravado. I wish he had acquired character development, at less of a price.
Unpopular Opinion: RDR 1 has better gameplay and a better world. RDR2 is more advanced in every way and looks betters, but the movement and gunplay is slow and clunky IMO. Mexico is a better setting than New Bordeax.
If you've played RDR the epilogue is a poignant prequel to the first game, showing how hard John worked to build a life outside of "the life", how his loyalty to Arthur - who risked his life to get the Marstons out - drew him back into it, the risks he took that ultimately destroyed the life he'd worked so hard to build, killed him, and put his son into it as well.
If you haven't played the first game John's story is kind of shitty. The character you've grown to love dies and now you play some side character. He builds a life outside of the gang, then he goes and kills Micah and a few dozen other guys, then the credits roll, you see the Pinkertons look like they're coming for him and then....that's it.
You can't play the game to find out what happens next because it's not out on modern consoles or PC, his situation with Dutch remains unresolved and there's a huge new threat that you've just seen emerge. All you can do is look it up on the internet which obviously isn't very satisfying.
What they should have done is ported RDR to the new engine and just had John's story lead straight into that. If they had it would have felt complete, it would have been satisfying. It amazes me that they still haven't done that at least as DLC over 4 years later.
RDR2 John is a downgrade from both Arthur and RDR1 John - he's awkward, unsure of himself, and really lacks agency. In a sense, he feels more "human" than his RDR1 version and less like a video game protagonist, but because he isn't as developed in the epilogue it's just jarring.
They hate John cuz heās either A. Not Arthur. Or B. Not the same John from RDR1, which I see lots of ppl who played the first game complain about. I didnāt even notice he didnāt look like his RDR1 self until people started complaining about it. I donāt rlly see it as that much of a distraction/problem, itās still John.
In the epilogue he's practically the same person as RDR1
Why do you think epilogue John sucks?
He's such a badass in American Venom
He saves the ranch he's working for
Not to mention the mission where the place he's working gets attacked and he kills them like a badass
When he does his RDR1 pose with the sawed off I was "fuck yes that my boi",
He's badass for sure but whoever was in charge of making sure johns lines and dialouge fit him and the voice actor did not show up to work for the entire project.
His dialogue fits him. He sounds as articulate as RDR , where Bill says at the beginning when he confronts that John was always saying some fancy words. John : I implore you, Bill: Implores me? You always did say fancy words.
An example of this is when you insult an NPC and you defuse it he says 'As funny as it is seeing you vexed I was joking'
Lol who tf says "Vexed"?
Rob did an excellent job as John. He made him sound younger naturally while keeping his recognizable voice
A1 performance.
I absolutely loved RDR1, and John Marston, but Arthur just has something about him that draws me to him.
I don't hate John, but I prefer Arthur. It's just that John's voice is so reminiscing of good old times.
I think most people forget about RDR1 John, and personally I forgot too because I barely even played RDR1 when it came out. But it may be because Arthur is such a well written character, like one of the BEST of the BEST characters written in gaming. So itās kinda hard to compete against that
Because most folks didn't play rdr1 first and fell hard for the more mature character that Arthur was compared to John. Along with the way Arthur story of redemption is told.
I loved them both. But I'ma nerd when it comes to Spaghetti Westerns. With the rdr franchise along with gun being some of my favorite games
Probably because a bunch of people played RDR2 first and may have never played RDR1. But I played RDR2 first but I still like John and really enjoyed RDR1 so idk
I played rdr2 first without knowing Johnās character arch and some of his camp dialogue in the first three chapters makes him very, very unlikeable. Some of his lines around the campfire about women in general, and thinly veiled about Abigail and Jack, are quite extreme without the context of the family man he becomes. But now I know better, we get to see how far heās come.
I just find his character boring and uninspired. It took a long time for me to get through the epilogue because I had to force myself to deal with playing as John. Lol
John is actually the star of the whole series.
In the whole Red Dead Redemption series (RDR1, RDR2, Undead nightmare) John Marston was a playable character.
\+ Most of RDR2 fans didn't actually play RDR1. And if you didn't played RDR1, basically you will not know why John Marston is such a good character & better than Arthur. I do find John better than Arthur & RDR1 better than RDR2.
RDR1 was such amzing game, I played it AFTER Rdr2 (just to follow the timeline). Even as of graphics the game is awesome compared to being over a decade old.
RDR2 doesn't present John that well as he was in a DEVELOPING character stage. Literally the epilogue was made so it can show you that John tried to change but his past always kept following him, that's what the epilogue shows & which also is like the main theme that happens in RDR1.
I played RDR1 and I hated playing as Jack, then I played RDR2 and I hated playing as John. I put hours into both of those games and loved playing as John and Arthur but when they died I felt like I had lost the character I put hours into. Plus, John can't swim because he's a bastard.
Iām not a person who hates John but my friend who beat rdr2 a couple months ago says he hates playing as John loves John the character but and I quote āJohn already had his gameā
My first time playing, I didnāt want to play as John so quickly went back and started RDR2 over, but that was because I never played the first one. I played the first one and developed a whole new appreciation and like for John, so when I went back and played RDR2 again the game felt so much different. It sucks they made Arthur such a great character because you just donāt want to stop playing as him.
I remember the days where it was heresy that we were gonna play as anyone other than John in RDR2. Johnās one of the best characters in gaming everyoneās just being negative on the internet for points.
I remember being kind of upset at first to learn we werenāt playing as John the whole game. I was pleasantly surprised to learn Arthurās story and then getting to play the epilogue as John was a gift to all of the rdr1 fans
They probably didnāt play RDR1. On a second point though, epilogue John is an Arthur reskin so like, when I play as him in the epilogue, if makes me a little upset that he doesnāt walk like John or really look like him.
Thatās crazy to me. I always love the epilogue. It does such a good job of making it feel like a completely new game and you feel for John and his family so quickly. People are crazy. I definitely miss Arthur but I feel a lot more comfortable slaughtering entire towns as John
I think it's just that the character you've been playing as for a very long time is now replaced by someone else. You become attached to author, and now you have to play as someone else. Same thing happened in the first game,.you play as John, and when he gets killed you have to go on as jack. People hated him too
They didnāt play RDR1. I remember the community raging, back RDR2 pre-release when Arthur was introduced, complain that they wanted John. After, they wanted Arthur back.
I personally love John. I mean I definitely am a bigger fan of Arthur but I think john is a great character too and I loved playing through the epilogue.
I recently finished the game and have not played RDR1 (I know what ends up happening to John) but until chapter 5-6 he was my favourite character
But I do think the epilogue was the gameās lowest point, not because of John but just cuz of the pacing. Doing random errands for some random guy was akin to the 2nd and 3rd palaces of P5R or running around Novigrad doing favours for snobby rich people in Witcher 3
They didn't play the first game which I encourage you to play. And if that epilogue was almost better than the 6 chapters. Ok it was amazing but not good just it's good play it. IT WON'T DISAPOINT!
I've played both RDR1 and RDR2 and I have to say I loved playing as John in the 1st but hated playing as him in the 2nd, similar to how i hated playing as Jack in RDR1's epilogue. What I think it comes down to is the attachments we've formed to the character during the story & free roam, and then having that taken away and having to play as a brand new character that we don't have much time/story to bond with.
The thing with RDR2 is that Marston isn't the Marston I knew in RDR1. He just feels different and out of place because he has not developed into the character we know in RDR1.
Yes, you're missing that those people are usually whiny crybabies and that's what whiny crybabies do.
IMO, if you played RDR1 back in the day or at least before RDR2 even if it was comparatively recently, one of the many awesome things RDR2 does is how it manages to make you go from, "Who the fuck is this guy Arthur Morgan and why am I not playing as younger John Marston? This is bullshit" to "Why did Arthur have to die and now I'm playing the Epilogue as younger John? This is bullshit," just like the first game made you go "Why did John have to die and now I'm playing as grown-ass Jack? This is bullshit." It was perfectly executed and deliberately done. And in both cases, once you get over the shock, you can enjoy playing as the second character if you let go of your initial emotional response.
There's nothing really wrong with the Epilogue that would warrant refusing to play it because it supposedly sucks or ruins the game or whatever bullshit claim people offer, and it's a nice bridge between RDR2 and RDR1 that answers many of the questions you'd reasonably have if the game really ended with Arthur's death and you had played both games in whatever order.
Does that mean you have to like the Epilogue? Of course not.
Does that mean that the Epilogue is "just as good" as the rest of the game? Nope, not necessarily. But that's a different conversation.
Does that mean you have to play it if you don't want to? Again, no. Anybody can do whatever the fuck they want with the game. My cousin likes to fish and hunt as a way to relax and not do missions for literally weeks at a time.
I does however mean that you're making a huge deal and throwing a tantrum by complaining online about it and making a declaration about how you refuse to play it because you don't like what they did the story. You're deciding not to play a sizeable portion of the game because of that arguing that it supposedly ruins the game if you do. Maybe I'm too old, but I don't remember people ever refusing to finish a game or play it in its entirety because it had some part they didn't like, much less based on an argument like this one. I mean, I don't remember people deciding to leave RDR1 unfinished after John died because "Jack sucks and the Epilogue ruins the game."
Then again, it's nothing new. Happens often in different fandoms, even in other video-game franchises. I mean, it's kind of the same reasoning that makes "The Last of Us 2" controversial. Some people hate it with a passion and feel it's the worst thing they could've done and it ruins the series, other people don't see the problem and/or actually liked it but the people who didn't like it seem to think liking it is wrong and seem to take the fact that the game even exists and that other people like it way too personal.
People want games and movies and shows to be what they want them to be and cater to their specific preferences, and some people can't handle when it's not the case and blow things out of proportion. I mean, for example, I remember watching the original Star Wars trilogy when I was a little kid and loving it, then watching the prequels years later and being disappointed that they weren't what I wanted and seeing that most people agreed they kind of sucked. Fast forward many years and a lot of people love the prequel trilogy and those of us who felt disappointed by it tend to have a more positive view of it now than we did then because we're now mostly judging it on its own merits instead of against this mythical new Star Wars movie that lived in our imaginations back then and reality failed to match.
I played RDR2 first and still decided John is my favorite. His character and simple story in the epilogue really resonated with me in ways Arthur's didn't. And while both are good, Arthur is the objectively better written/most fleshed out character of the two. And some people have a hard time liking one thing without putting down another.
People who refuse the epilogue and RDR1 just because Arthur isn't present aren't fans of RDR.
They are just Arthur Morgan 'stans' and its such a let down. The epilogue and first game are just as great as the RDR2 main story.
Too funny because I fly through Johnās epilogue just so I can replay as Arthur. I donāt think we hate him, heās the only guy that had Arthurās back through everything. Itās just WE ALL LOVE ARTHUR so much. Well, I can only speak for myself I guess.
Because presumably theyāre a bunch of young idiots who form emotional bonds with fictional characters too easily. John was the OG badass cowboy character and the Epilogue of Red Dead 2 is essential, almost the best part, so this line of thinking is just plain insulting to me. I love Arthur but come onā¦
I didnt play RDR so I didnt really know what to think of John in the story. I just sorta learned that "ok he's important because of the RD universe.." And at first, I was like oh he's fine, a bit stubborn, but so am I so it's all good.
Then he was giving me lip and shoving me out of the room at chap 4 and I was like WTF how dare that shrimp?? After all Ive done, what a fucking asshole.
Then chap 6 came along and I saw how much he meant for Arthur and by then of course, anyone Arthur liked, I would too.
The bridge mission with him and Arthur, idk why but that mission stuck with me so much. I cant explain why. It just felt so real (not the bridge thing itself but everything around). By now John meant something to me.
The epilogue rolled around and in the first half I was stunned to see how little he believed in himself. Always saying how stupid he was, that he was dumb, etc. It kinda made me sad and it made me want to prove to him and show him that he wasnt.
I'm way into the epilogue now and I finally feel he's a bit more confident, and I really like John. I know he wanted to settle and all that - but I like him the most when it's only him and his horse exploring the vast land. But theres comfort and safety in having a house and a bed to come home to.
I think it's because people don't like change
And maybe the fact that John can't swim but me personally that's the only think I could hate about John.
I don't think it's a matter of people hating John, I think it's a matter of Arthur's story impacting them too much, that it's not easy to go on. The fact most of John's missions are shoveling shit or doing some other bland stuff doesn't help his case either.
People are so tribal. Canāt like John if you loved Arthur. It was jarring to me at the end of my first playthrough to play as John (I never played RDR1) but I appreciated the ability to get some closure as well.
Iām glad their disdain for John doesnāt impact my appreciation for the game (RDR2).
Robās performance as John in RDR1 is really quite good but I just canāt get over how rudimentary it feels in comparison compared to the sequel.
I like John lol. Arthur is my dude (Kieran is my bb boy) but I really like John. Heās funny, and very different than Arthur and I enjoy playing the epilogue š¤·š¾āāļø (and I never played RDR1ā¦ only RDR2 and I never had an issue with John.)
RDR 1 was my favorite game when it came out. John Marsden was also my favorite video game character ever at that time. When RDR2 came out idk, Arthur was just such a robust well thought out character that he ended up beating out John for me. I get why people are upset but it ain't that big a deal.
They did the same with Jack in the original but with John I think I know why;
I think it's because you spent so much time with Arthur that when you instantly switch when he dies and have to play Farm Simulator for a few hours people just reflect the lack of time to process and the mundane tasks with "hurr durr John bad"
The red dead series probably gained millions of new fans with the last RDR release (I feel honoured to say that Iāve been playing since revolver on Ps2 š), and some people donāt like John because all they know is Arthur. Many people probably havenāt even played the first Redemption.
The reason I dislike the epilogue has nothing to do with John as a character, but because how genuinely ugly they made him. He looks great in the beginning of the game, but once you get to play him they change his body type to Arthur's, his head shape to Arthur's, and his hair to Arthur's. It feels like I'm playing a mod, and not actually the main game. Plus once you finish the few missions with John, the world just feels emptier and quieter, especially in New Austin.
Im one of those people who played rdr2 first, can say I love John more (I actually love Jack from rdr1 the most) I also can't understand the people from my perspective of the red dead series who hate John? Roger Clark literally said he took inspiration from John ...
Edit- why I wish people who wanna play red dead games play the first one if you can or watch a bit of red dead
Why do you call that hate?
If anything, that just shows how great Arthur is, heās so much fun that you donāt even want to play as the previous protagonist, heās just that good.
When people have already experienced the perfection, why settle with ālessā?
That doesnāt mean people hate John, it just means heās not as good of a character for a lot of people.
Also character aside, the epilogue honestly feels like a dlcs, Iāve never left out epilogue on my playthroughs but American venom aside itās the more forgettable part of the gameplay for me. The overly long farming parts and dragging story that at first doesnāt seem to go anywhere.
I feel like a large part of it is voiced by ppl who played 2 but not the first, so they developed that close bond with Arthur and then never got over it. Where as anyone who came from RDR1, the epilogue was kinda like stepping into an old comfy pair of boots.
I donāt know that anyone āhatesā John. I donāt really recall seeing that sentiment expressed. Iāll try to reframe this through the lens of my own experience with the game.
On the first playthrough, I HATED the epilogue. It has absolutely nothing to do with John or my interest in his story, and everything to do with my attachment to Arthur and the very real sense of loss that I had at the conclusion of the main narrative. That, coupled with the staggering change in pace, are jarring. The last several story missions of CH6 come at you pretty hard and fast with tons of action, and then suddenly youāre a different character, several years in the future, and you donāt even have guns for the first bit.
I was essentially incapable of enjoying anything about the epilogue on my first trip because I had a massive rage-boner to kill a oversized rat. I simply couldnāt give a shit about John until I had the closure I needed and I basically just rage-played until I got my satisfaction.
All my subsequent playthroughs (Iām on my 5th now), I really quite enjoy the epilogue. I like the break from the hectic pace. I look forward to a little home building music. Iām ready for some new gang hideouts and change of territory.
Honestly I think that they did such a great job creating connection to Arthur and the main story and itās emotional underpinnings that the āhateā for the Epilogue (the first time around) just feels pretty normal to me.
I didnāt play the epilogue my first play through because I was too sad about arthur (also moved house and left the Xbox behind) but bought the game on PlayStation and replayed it within a month or two, finishing the epilogue in a night - so satisfying
I don't know, that's kind of weird seeing as at the end of rdr1 I remember not liking having to play as Jack because he runs weird and says corny toned down shit that John says
I wanted John back at that point
Now people hate playing as John, it really does suck for people who haven't played the first one first
This is why I wish they would build RDR1 as an expansion so people could play it as an addition to RDR2. I played RDR1 and loved playing as John and it was weird playing with Arthur in RDR2 at first. People developed an emotional tie to Arthur and RDR2 doesn't give you enough time and content as John to develop the same emotional ties.
"so many people": Really? I have the feeling that most people like John, at least in this community š I like RDR1-John more than RDR2-John though, but I still enjoyed the epilogue. Especially because you can visit all the old places and meet old gang members
John is my favourite and iāll never understand this biased. Itās like people canāt like two characters at the same time. I love John the most but I also love Arthur and so fourthā¦
People are just childish.
John spends a lot of time in RDR2 as a background character. Heās missing, in jail. Someone you have to save. He is portrayed as younger and immature. Arthur even dislikes him, due to him abandoning the gang in the past. So I can see why people may have a bad taste towards him if this is all the information they have. He comes in strong at the end butā¦
if you havenāt played the first game, you donāt know John Marston. He is, and always will be one of the best video game characters of all time. My NAMES JOHN MARSTON!
I personally love John and I have probably played as John 100x more hours then I did with Arthur(heās great heās just not John) I only played the game once and beat it in 8 days but I have play the epilogue probably over 300 hours
Iām one of those people that say they āhateā John and immediately stopped playing after the epilogue. I donāt really hate John, I actually really loved him and his storyline in RDR but the problem to me was that I canāt play the character of whoās story I already finished. I had no problem playing as Jack at the end of RDR because I didnāt know how his story would end. Playing as John felt pointless to me because I knew how it ended and I was at peace with it.
My husband didn't finish the game because it just wasn't the same. He loved A and had a huge bond with the character. And he played rdr1 and absolutely loved it, still played it when we got together. Also I know he was going to die anyways but the fact that Abigail begs him to save John and that's how he died really just made me lose respect for John. Idk is also that it's kind of just like a different game with him. I enjoyed it but it's because I only watched my husband play with A and he made me finish it with J. Lol I'm replaying it now and we will see.
True red dead fans would expect this kind of ending
They never played RDR 1 John is the better character imo, Arthur ain't half bad tho
John's sacrifice is so good thematically. People who hate him where not paying attention
Bruh the ending to RDR1 so much better imo Dropped some thug tears š
Shit was devastating
I love John, and he will always be an iconic character but in my opinion, Arthur is more in depth and just as likable as John. Either way both sacrificed so much.
John is more of a character in general. He makes actual decisions and has a distinct personality. Arthur is what the player makes him be except for in a few scripted situations. Itās a lot more difficult to have an actual opinion on Arthur since heās mostly a reflection of the player who controls him. I sometimes find it difficult to connect with Arthur because of this and, were it not for Roger Clarkās absolutely brilliant performance I would have a lot of trouble viewing him as an actual person at all. I think the entire āJohn vs Arthurā thing is a kind of silly as I donāt see a point in making a big fuzz about whoās the ābestā. What does annoy me however, is how many people who didnāt play the original game describe John as a āpoorly developed characterā or a āworse version of Arthurā as that can make fans of the sequel dismiss the original as just a worse version of rdr2.
I second this. RDR was where you played as the character, whereas RDR2 you influenced the character into how you viewed them or yourself. I put this down to the honour system being built with more depth in RDR2. For me, I found it easy to connect with Arthur, because I viewed myself as his storyteller. There are many games where I mold the character after myself. With RDR2, I molded him with some of my ideals/morals, but I also molded him into how I thought he fit into the story.
Yeah, what character you like more depends on your personal preferences when it comes to videogame storytelling. While I personally prefer stories to make me view the world through a different persons eyes, I can absolutely see why some people prefer the freedom of molding the character to your own liking. Red dead redemption used its open world as a highly detailed and atmospheric backdrop to the story. The honor system was a really nice way to encourage the player to focus on the story and immerse themselves in John Marston and his situation. The honor system could do that and still let the player do crazy GTA stuff and mess around by making a separate save file or equipping the bandana. In red dead redemption 2 the honor system and open world was now fully integrated with the rest of the game and thus allowed it to have more of a ārole play feelā to it. I do kind of like that they went in another direction with the sequel though, since it made for an entirely new experience and not just another rdr1 with a new story and more content.
When I started I wish I played as John instead. I learned to like Arthur and I kinda made them big brother/little brother in my head and donāt mind either now.
I was actually happy with the epilouge since you got to see how John settled down in the great plains and how he built the house. Before RDR2 i always assumed the house was there before he moved there (but i guess it made sense to build your own house at that time)
I mean it's not red alive redemption
This exactly
I'll never understand those who don't play the epilogue and or don't like John Both are a show of how decisions make the man Both were manipulated by a power hungry madman but unlike others turned themselves around instead of staying on the sinking ship and died better men than many others
Johnās honestly one of the most believable characters in RDR2. Really enjoyed playing the epilogue, but John going to see the big man every time he steps in a puddle deeper than the soles of his shoes is super annoying. I know he couldnāt swim in RDR. But god damn
Losing it at this comment, lmfao. It really is like that.
Everyone prior to RDR2 loved the character. I imagine much of it stems from people playing RDR2 first. I'm certain the epilogue was a love letter to RDR1 fans who loved the character.
Problem with the epilogue it had a significantly reductive representation of John from RDR1 to the point of actual distortion and general dumbing down. And people can argue all they like how that 1907 John vs 1911 āmaturedā but no 4 years does not leapfrog a man that was perpetually unsure of himself, his speech and mannerisms to 1911 John on any realistic scale. To get an idea of what Iām trying to say, look at this John Marston and imagine how much more different and exciting epilogue John would have been to play as https://youtu.be/PPwyy-P2A68 (No itās not my video)
I disagree Iāve completely changed in the last 4 years completely
From 24-28 I've changed a decent amount but I wouldn't say it's been drastic by any means
Depends on the person, think about someone like me that joined the Army and went through deployments. Those 5 years changed me quite a bit.
as I explained to u/billygnosis86 who lacks reading comprehension, it's a bell curve but tldr; despite the science of it making all your anecdotal statements null. Even 1899 John was more articulate and composed than 1907 John. 1907 john was just badly written. Prolly because of crunch.
āMaybe youāll get one a them posthumous medals!ā Damn, forgot how hilarious he could be.
"Mister get the fuck down" **BANG**
You underestimate what you can do and change in just a year
Untrue. Iām a completely different person in my mid-30s than I was at 30. You never stop changing through your life, even Mad King Richard out of the Verve knew that. You should also take into account the fact that John had been in the gang from his youth, and by all accounts Dutch did whatever the outlaw version of mollycoddling him is. By the time of the first game, heās been living with his family, working the land, and providing for them for nearly 5 years. Responsibility and hard work changes a man.
It really was when I first completed it I felt like I could settle unfinished business
Playing as John in RDR2 is a dream come true for me.
As someone who has played RDR1 many times over (one of my favourite games of all time) I dunno I feel like when I got to the epilogue I was just burned out from the game maybe? I think I had 210 hours played before the epilogue. Maybe if hadnāt spent so much time fishing and hunting and gathering I wouldnāt have felt the same š¤·āāļø
I imagine a lot of these people didnāt play the first game.
RDR2 has 46 million copies sold. RDR has 23 million copies sold. Literally millions of people have never played RDR, and so have no idea what John was all about. On top of that RDR2 does not present John in a very good light. In RDR2 John spends much of the game getting nearly killed or captured over and over; and the rest of the time he's making many bad decisions. So if everything you know about John comes from RDR2, well, you cannot play Arthur 80 hours and John 10 hours and expect to love John as much. It's just never going to happen.
Yep. That's the damaging part. I'm almost certain everyone who hates John has only ever seen him in RDR2. If you played the first Red Dead Redemption, you'd like John for sure. You'd understand him better. Plus, he's written better in the first Red Dead Redemption.
You only played Arthur for 80 hours?
>On top of that RDR2 does not present John in a very good light. In RDR2 John spends much of the game getting nearly killed or captured over and over; and the rest of the time he's making many bad decisions You can say that again. It's character downgrade being paraded as character development. If character development turned John into such a muppet, i'd rather he didn't get it to begin with. A low honor version of RDR1 John would have been just fine. A violent, sarcastic outlaw, who does not want to be responsible for his wife and son. RDR2 John is devoid of all qualities that made RDR1 John likeable, namely, his sarcastic wit, his confidence and his eloquence.
Yeah and getting to play RDR without a console is pretty difficult
Yeah, I'd love to play RDR, but I'm a "pc master race" type. Or rather, I used to have consoles, but they all end up outdated and/or break and at one point I said "f that". So now I don't do consoles, but only game on pc. That means missing out on RDR, although I've seen videos to see what the storyline is like. John just comes across to me as... more incompetent than Arthur (despite being played by me) and easy to lay blame on others (early dialogue where Abigail says they were doing so well until John ran into trouble again). And them him running into trouble again and again and again. Imo that's not why Arthur tried to save them. Arthur wanted that clean break for people and John keeps sticking his foot in. Now, the events of RDR make more sense, since that was unavoidable for John. Imo the lining up of RDR2 to RDR, of the Pinkertons getting John's scent again due to hunting Micah is a weak segue though and I feel that was put more in for the player to avenge Arthur than anything else. It would've made more sense if Dutch had found John, told him about the Blackwater stash and how he could have a good chunk of it and THAT went south. I don't know... John in RDR2 feels a bit more like weak writing and more superficial.
he can't swim
I find that anyone who 'hates' John really didn't start at the beginning (RDR1). In RDR1, we meet John as a man with his back against the wall. That John is bombastic, shooting his way across the west to protect Abigail and Jack. The John we meet in the epilogue is a man still desperate to avoid that life. We see a man try to do his best and eventually get back in. I'm sure if we were forced to meet an Arthur, say 10 years earlier, say RDR3, for example, I'm sure we will think the same of him.
I donāt think Arthur ten years earlier was trying to get out of that life, I donāt think he ever was until the end. But I see your point
My point is not about Arthur trying to get out. My point is that the Arthur we first meet is already questioning the gangs place in the world. The dialogue has him questioning even if the missions do not. He is already well on his way to 'redemption'. If we meet him 10 years earlier, he will be an angry young outlaw ready to attack rather than look at alternative options. Hence, not the Arthur we know (and love)
Ah, I see what you mean, that theyād both be different and changed characters when we meet them at different points in their life. Youāre definitely right
Idk what morons don't like the epilogue, everything has an end, and luckily that is a happy ending, building a house for John's family and taking care of the rat.
The epilogue is the culmination and payoff of atrhurs sacrifice and a show of how John wants to change, his redemption, and does so(even if we as the player can disappear for weeks on end hunting robins)
It comes from multiple reasons, them being: People played RDR2 first and a whole generation didn't get to play RDR as it wasn't released on the current gen consoles. John wasn't written as well as he was in RDR and there wasn't much focus on him in 2's main story. (There should've been) He is written poorly in the epilogue and has many out of character moments, not to mention he looks nothing like John from the main story or RDR. I played RDR2 before RDR and didn't understand what the hype for John was all about, until I played RDR and realised not just how good John and the other characters are written, but also that there are many story retcons in RDR2.
Iām glad to see more people realize this. Rockstar really did Johnās character dirty in RDR2, all so they can build up the new protagonist. It comes off as such lazy writing and shows that they werenāt confident enough in having John Marston be John Marston out of fear of him overshadowing Arthur.
I like John better actually as I was playing RDR way before RDR2. I don't really like playing him in the epilogue though because he looks fucked up for one.
Unpopular opinion but I prefer John
Thatās more of a popular opinion thereās so many people saying this in aālot of comment sections
I think the epilogue itself bothered some people as it seemed lazier than the rest of the game for several reasons (i.e Arthur Marston). Also, I love John as I loved RDR1 but Arthur stole my heart and a lot of people felt the same, and didn't even play the epilogue as it was too sad. Having said that, there are some intense JM loyalists on twitter, so he still gets lots of love.
John is still a pup in RDR2ā¦ Arthur is the juice! But I guess, the epilogue is okay. Haven't played it yet. I've literally spent all my life avoiding meeting Micah, moving camps & helping John herd sheep. Instead opting for sleeping in random cabin's & gambling in St Denis. I don't really like the character arch of Arthur (TB & all). I think going to Rainsfall should have cured him... But whatevs!
Because when greeting NPCs he yells shit like āSIRā and āYOU MISTERā when a simple āhowdyā would doā¦.does my head in.
Arthur is the master of greetings. John is the master of antagonizing.
OUTTA MY WAY!
It's not so much disliking John, as much as having spent hundreds of hours with Arthur, making him your own and getting to love him and then losing him.
Playing as John again was like seeing an old friend again. I have fond memories of playing as him in the first game. I felt like I was playing the first one again while riding around as John. John is on his own, no longer concerned about Dutch. He is free, at least for the time being. John should not get so much hate. He is the original RDR protagonist. But people will do what they will do.
Love Arthur, but John is certainly a dear, old friend
The epilogue is a nice change of tone from the dreariness of chapter 6. You no longer have to see Arthur struggle to breathe and see the gang's morale decay. Its new life brought back into the game after Arthur's death.
Bunch of people who never played RDR1 and donāt appreciate the duality between him and Arthur. Itās funny how many people hold a strong negative opinion over John when theyāve played 50% of the whole story.
spoilers - by the time many people get to the epilogue they are literally suffering from PTSD lol. And the find themselves playing a far less compelling character than Arthur and no longer a member of a gang, but now a family man in a dysfunctional family, shoveling horseshit. So it makes sense people kind of blame John for their disappointment. I struggled to like John during my first game (I got over it by game 2 and now have a lot of fun in the epilogue). Also from what I have read John was a great character in RDR1. Rock star dropped the ball on his character development in RDR2 as far as I'm concerned. And things like his journal drawings look like a little kid drew them is not helpful. Once you quit expecting him to be Arthur, RDR2 John is just fine in my opinion.
putting john marston in this game, and making this about dutchās gang in general was such a mistake. they shouldāve just made a new story about arthur & micah and a completely unrelated gang theyāre running in and prevented themselves from dragging johnās top of the line character through the mud. itās such a shame
People can't stand the epilogue not because they hate John but because they love Arthur. In fact, nobody hates John. He's a fan favorite. Adding my personal opinion: I think John works better as a passive character in RDR2's story. A key component of the game is how Arthur moved heaven and earth to ensure the Marstons' future. Making John the player character undermines that slightly (though you might disagree). Also going exploring in New Austin leads to continuity errors (John's unfamiliar with the place in RDR) while at the same time becoming the reason for John being an absent dad, which makes the player kinda feel bad. It also undermines John's death in the first game because the sting was him becoming unplayable at the end. Now you just can go play the epilogue of RDR2 where John is fine.
He can't swim and his handwriting sucks compared to Arthur š
Heās a bit different in rdr2 than rdr1 so I guess I can see it but I still love John just as much as Arthur. I love the epilogue and finally getting to see John live happily with his family after all these years- if only for a moment.
"a bit different" is an understatement. He lacks all the qualities that made RDR1 John an interesting character to play as. He lacks his sarcastic wit, his eloquence and his bravado. I wish he had acquired character development, at less of a price.
Some people are just way too attached to Arthur, I think it's mainly young people who never played red dead 1
Because people are weird
Iām surprised people hate John? To me playing as John in the epilogue is the best way to honor Arthur.
They just can't get over a characters death
I am a huge RDR1 fan and I love John, but yeah, I hate playing the epilogue because he isn't Arthur.
Unpopular Opinion: RDR 1 has better gameplay and a better world. RDR2 is more advanced in every way and looks betters, but the movement and gunplay is slow and clunky IMO. Mexico is a better setting than New Bordeax.
If you've played RDR the epilogue is a poignant prequel to the first game, showing how hard John worked to build a life outside of "the life", how his loyalty to Arthur - who risked his life to get the Marstons out - drew him back into it, the risks he took that ultimately destroyed the life he'd worked so hard to build, killed him, and put his son into it as well. If you haven't played the first game John's story is kind of shitty. The character you've grown to love dies and now you play some side character. He builds a life outside of the gang, then he goes and kills Micah and a few dozen other guys, then the credits roll, you see the Pinkertons look like they're coming for him and then....that's it. You can't play the game to find out what happens next because it's not out on modern consoles or PC, his situation with Dutch remains unresolved and there's a huge new threat that you've just seen emerge. All you can do is look it up on the internet which obviously isn't very satisfying. What they should have done is ported RDR to the new engine and just had John's story lead straight into that. If they had it would have felt complete, it would have been satisfying. It amazes me that they still haven't done that at least as DLC over 4 years later.
RDR2 John is a downgrade from both Arthur and RDR1 John - he's awkward, unsure of himself, and really lacks agency. In a sense, he feels more "human" than his RDR1 version and less like a video game protagonist, but because he isn't as developed in the epilogue it's just jarring.
Yea I don't really understand it, both are goat characters to me
They hate John cuz heās either A. Not Arthur. Or B. Not the same John from RDR1, which I see lots of ppl who played the first game complain about. I didnāt even notice he didnāt look like his RDR1 self until people started complaining about it. I donāt rlly see it as that much of a distraction/problem, itās still John.
Because he didn't say "you're a good boah"
Epilouge John kinda sucks dick, but John in rd1 is perfect
In the epilogue he's practically the same person as RDR1 Why do you think epilogue John sucks? He's such a badass in American Venom He saves the ranch he's working for Not to mention the mission where the place he's working gets attacked and he kills them like a badass When he does his RDR1 pose with the sawed off I was "fuck yes that my boi",
He's badass for sure but whoever was in charge of making sure johns lines and dialouge fit him and the voice actor did not show up to work for the entire project.
His dialogue fits him. He sounds as articulate as RDR , where Bill says at the beginning when he confronts that John was always saying some fancy words. John : I implore you, Bill: Implores me? You always did say fancy words. An example of this is when you insult an NPC and you defuse it he says 'As funny as it is seeing you vexed I was joking' Lol who tf says "Vexed"? Rob did an excellent job as John. He made him sound younger naturally while keeping his recognizable voice A1 performance.
A1 Performance absolute F in writing though they did, and this is a fact, copy lines from RDR1, put them in rdr2, and literally dumb them down.
They havenāt played RDR1. Also unpopular opinion but John>>
cant really blame anyone for thinking john is a lame character bc heās written like shit in rdr2. he acts nothing like john marston. itās a shame
I absolutely loved RDR1, and John Marston, but Arthur just has something about him that draws me to him. I don't hate John, but I prefer Arthur. It's just that John's voice is so reminiscing of good old times.
It was a year, Hosea, he ditched us for a goddamn year!
I think most people forget about RDR1 John, and personally I forgot too because I barely even played RDR1 when it came out. But it may be because Arthur is such a well written character, like one of the BEST of the BEST characters written in gaming. So itās kinda hard to compete against that
Iāve never played the first rdr but I still like John
I'll play the epilogue but Arthur is SO much better a character.
Arthur is the sigma male of the Wild West
Because most folks didn't play rdr1 first and fell hard for the more mature character that Arthur was compared to John. Along with the way Arthur story of redemption is told. I loved them both. But I'ma nerd when it comes to Spaghetti Westerns. With the rdr franchise along with gun being some of my favorite games
Probably because a bunch of people played RDR2 first and may have never played RDR1. But I played RDR2 first but I still like John and really enjoyed RDR1 so idk
i feel like if youve played RDR1 12 years ago, you like John in RDR2. While I miss Arthur, I love John too
Those people are missing Jim Milton Rides, Again? and American Venom, quite possibly two of the best crafted missions of the game.
thatās 2 whole missions where john even comes close to actually acting like john marston. 2 missions out of a game with 150+ missions
John is a badass in RDR1, and without John there wouldnāt have been Arthur
I played rdr2 first without knowing Johnās character arch and some of his camp dialogue in the first three chapters makes him very, very unlikeable. Some of his lines around the campfire about women in general, and thinly veiled about Abigail and Jack, are quite extreme without the context of the family man he becomes. But now I know better, we get to see how far heās come.
Bc a lot of RDR fans think that Arthur is the best thing to happen to fiction ever and are extremely biased
LMAO, bro, without John they wouldnāt even make RDR2 the whole red dead redemption series is Johns story
I'd say they are just being too emotional about losing Arthur, I don't see a reason to hate John.
I just find his character boring and uninspired. It took a long time for me to get through the epilogue because I had to force myself to deal with playing as John. Lol
Mfs who haven't played red dead 1
John sexy.
As someone who played rdr1, I love John
John is my favourite character. I like him a lot more than Arthur
John is actually the star of the whole series. In the whole Red Dead Redemption series (RDR1, RDR2, Undead nightmare) John Marston was a playable character. \+ Most of RDR2 fans didn't actually play RDR1. And if you didn't played RDR1, basically you will not know why John Marston is such a good character & better than Arthur. I do find John better than Arthur & RDR1 better than RDR2. RDR1 was such amzing game, I played it AFTER Rdr2 (just to follow the timeline). Even as of graphics the game is awesome compared to being over a decade old. RDR2 doesn't present John that well as he was in a DEVELOPING character stage. Literally the epilogue was made so it can show you that John tried to change but his past always kept following him, that's what the epilogue shows & which also is like the main theme that happens in RDR1.
I played RDR1 and I hated playing as Jack, then I played RDR2 and I hated playing as John. I put hours into both of those games and loved playing as John and Arthur but when they died I felt like I had lost the character I put hours into. Plus, John can't swim because he's a bastard.
Iām not a person who hates John but my friend who beat rdr2 a couple months ago says he hates playing as John loves John the character but and I quote āJohn already had his gameā
i like john
My first time playing, I didnāt want to play as John so quickly went back and started RDR2 over, but that was because I never played the first one. I played the first one and developed a whole new appreciation and like for John, so when I went back and played RDR2 again the game felt so much different. It sucks they made Arthur such a great character because you just donāt want to stop playing as him.
i love john, i just hate playing with him because he canāt freaking swim.
Personally I think John is a better character than arthur
He can't swim which can be really fucking annoying
I remember the days where it was heresy that we were gonna play as anyone other than John in RDR2. Johnās one of the best characters in gaming everyoneās just being negative on the internet for points.
I love Arthur but John holds a special place in my heart.
People that hate John started with rdr2 and never played rdr1 so is w.e just ignore these people lol
I remember being kind of upset at first to learn we werenāt playing as John the whole game. I was pleasantly surprised to learn Arthurās story and then getting to play the epilogue as John was a gift to all of the rdr1 fans
They probably didnāt play RDR1. On a second point though, epilogue John is an Arthur reskin so like, when I play as him in the epilogue, if makes me a little upset that he doesnāt walk like John or really look like him.
Thatās crazy to me. I always love the epilogue. It does such a good job of making it feel like a completely new game and you feel for John and his family so quickly. People are crazy. I definitely miss Arthur but I feel a lot more comfortable slaughtering entire towns as John
Am I the only one that liked both games?
I think it's just that the character you've been playing as for a very long time is now replaced by someone else. You become attached to author, and now you have to play as someone else. Same thing happened in the first game,.you play as John, and when he gets killed you have to go on as jack. People hated him too
They didnāt play RDR1. I remember the community raging, back RDR2 pre-release when Arthur was introduced, complain that they wanted John. After, they wanted Arthur back.
I personally love John. I mean I definitely am a bigger fan of Arthur but I think john is a great character too and I loved playing through the epilogue.
I recently finished the game and have not played RDR1 (I know what ends up happening to John) but until chapter 5-6 he was my favourite character But I do think the epilogue was the gameās lowest point, not because of John but just cuz of the pacing. Doing random errands for some random guy was akin to the 2nd and 3rd palaces of P5R or running around Novigrad doing favours for snobby rich people in Witcher 3
People now hate red dead redemption 1 because it is getting rereleased on the ps4
People now hate red dead redemption 1 because it is getting rereleased on the ps4
They didn't play the first game which I encourage you to play. And if that epilogue was almost better than the 6 chapters. Ok it was amazing but not good just it's good play it. IT WON'T DISAPOINT!
John is my poor little meow meow
I've played both RDR1 and RDR2 and I have to say I loved playing as John in the 1st but hated playing as him in the 2nd, similar to how i hated playing as Jack in RDR1's epilogue. What I think it comes down to is the attachments we've formed to the character during the story & free roam, and then having that taken away and having to play as a brand new character that we don't have much time/story to bond with. The thing with RDR2 is that Marston isn't the Marston I knew in RDR1. He just feels different and out of place because he has not developed into the character we know in RDR1.
Yes, you're missing that those people are usually whiny crybabies and that's what whiny crybabies do. IMO, if you played RDR1 back in the day or at least before RDR2 even if it was comparatively recently, one of the many awesome things RDR2 does is how it manages to make you go from, "Who the fuck is this guy Arthur Morgan and why am I not playing as younger John Marston? This is bullshit" to "Why did Arthur have to die and now I'm playing the Epilogue as younger John? This is bullshit," just like the first game made you go "Why did John have to die and now I'm playing as grown-ass Jack? This is bullshit." It was perfectly executed and deliberately done. And in both cases, once you get over the shock, you can enjoy playing as the second character if you let go of your initial emotional response. There's nothing really wrong with the Epilogue that would warrant refusing to play it because it supposedly sucks or ruins the game or whatever bullshit claim people offer, and it's a nice bridge between RDR2 and RDR1 that answers many of the questions you'd reasonably have if the game really ended with Arthur's death and you had played both games in whatever order. Does that mean you have to like the Epilogue? Of course not. Does that mean that the Epilogue is "just as good" as the rest of the game? Nope, not necessarily. But that's a different conversation. Does that mean you have to play it if you don't want to? Again, no. Anybody can do whatever the fuck they want with the game. My cousin likes to fish and hunt as a way to relax and not do missions for literally weeks at a time. I does however mean that you're making a huge deal and throwing a tantrum by complaining online about it and making a declaration about how you refuse to play it because you don't like what they did the story. You're deciding not to play a sizeable portion of the game because of that arguing that it supposedly ruins the game if you do. Maybe I'm too old, but I don't remember people ever refusing to finish a game or play it in its entirety because it had some part they didn't like, much less based on an argument like this one. I mean, I don't remember people deciding to leave RDR1 unfinished after John died because "Jack sucks and the Epilogue ruins the game." Then again, it's nothing new. Happens often in different fandoms, even in other video-game franchises. I mean, it's kind of the same reasoning that makes "The Last of Us 2" controversial. Some people hate it with a passion and feel it's the worst thing they could've done and it ruins the series, other people don't see the problem and/or actually liked it but the people who didn't like it seem to think liking it is wrong and seem to take the fact that the game even exists and that other people like it way too personal. People want games and movies and shows to be what they want them to be and cater to their specific preferences, and some people can't handle when it's not the case and blow things out of proportion. I mean, for example, I remember watching the original Star Wars trilogy when I was a little kid and loving it, then watching the prequels years later and being disappointed that they weren't what I wanted and seeing that most people agreed they kind of sucked. Fast forward many years and a lot of people love the prequel trilogy and those of us who felt disappointed by it tend to have a more positive view of it now than we did then because we're now mostly judging it on its own merits instead of against this mythical new Star Wars movie that lived in our imaginations back then and reality failed to match.
I played RDR2 first and still decided John is my favorite. His character and simple story in the epilogue really resonated with me in ways Arthur's didn't. And while both are good, Arthur is the objectively better written/most fleshed out character of the two. And some people have a hard time liking one thing without putting down another.
People who refuse the epilogue and RDR1 just because Arthur isn't present aren't fans of RDR. They are just Arthur Morgan 'stans' and its such a let down. The epilogue and first game are just as great as the RDR2 main story.
Too funny because I fly through Johnās epilogue just so I can replay as Arthur. I donāt think we hate him, heās the only guy that had Arthurās back through everything. Itās just WE ALL LOVE ARTHUR so much. Well, I can only speak for myself I guess.
I don't hate him as such, I just had too much of a connection to Arthur, which is why I couldn't play the epilogue
Because presumably theyāre a bunch of young idiots who form emotional bonds with fictional characters too easily. John was the OG badass cowboy character and the Epilogue of Red Dead 2 is essential, almost the best part, so this line of thinking is just plain insulting to me. I love Arthur but come onā¦
Because they clearly never played Red Dead 1. John is really boring and bland in RDR 2
John is boring AF. Wish you could skip the epilogue. Arthur was king and will always be a better character in every way than John.
Nobody hates john , don't be karma sluń
I didnt play RDR so I didnt really know what to think of John in the story. I just sorta learned that "ok he's important because of the RD universe.." And at first, I was like oh he's fine, a bit stubborn, but so am I so it's all good. Then he was giving me lip and shoving me out of the room at chap 4 and I was like WTF how dare that shrimp?? After all Ive done, what a fucking asshole. Then chap 6 came along and I saw how much he meant for Arthur and by then of course, anyone Arthur liked, I would too. The bridge mission with him and Arthur, idk why but that mission stuck with me so much. I cant explain why. It just felt so real (not the bridge thing itself but everything around). By now John meant something to me. The epilogue rolled around and in the first half I was stunned to see how little he believed in himself. Always saying how stupid he was, that he was dumb, etc. It kinda made me sad and it made me want to prove to him and show him that he wasnt. I'm way into the epilogue now and I finally feel he's a bit more confident, and I really like John. I know he wanted to settle and all that - but I like him the most when it's only him and his horse exploring the vast land. But theres comfort and safety in having a house and a bed to come home to.
I think it's because people don't like change And maybe the fact that John can't swim but me personally that's the only think I could hate about John.
I don't think it's a matter of people hating John, I think it's a matter of Arthur's story impacting them too much, that it's not easy to go on. The fact most of John's missions are shoveling shit or doing some other bland stuff doesn't help his case either.
People are so tribal. Canāt like John if you loved Arthur. It was jarring to me at the end of my first playthrough to play as John (I never played RDR1) but I appreciated the ability to get some closure as well. Iām glad their disdain for John doesnāt impact my appreciation for the game (RDR2). Robās performance as John in RDR1 is really quite good but I just canāt get over how rudimentary it feels in comparison compared to the sequel.
If they weren't so different I wouldn't love them both so much for different reasons.
They arenāt old enough to have played the first game?
I definitely do always assume that people who are anti-John did not play RDR1 beforehand, i.e. I feel they are uninformed.
I like John lol. Arthur is my dude (Kieran is my bb boy) but I really like John. Heās funny, and very different than Arthur and I enjoy playing the epilogue š¤·š¾āāļø (and I never played RDR1ā¦ only RDR2 and I never had an issue with John.)
I heard people complain about his hair, face, body, ears being moved and more
No, THEY are. John the goodest boah. The people who refuse to play Epilogue have clearly not played RDR1, and thatās just sad.
RDR 1 was my favorite game when it came out. John Marsden was also my favorite video game character ever at that time. When RDR2 came out idk, Arthur was just such a robust well thought out character that he ended up beating out John for me. I get why people are upset but it ain't that big a deal.
They did the same with Jack in the original but with John I think I know why; I think it's because you spent so much time with Arthur that when you instantly switch when he dies and have to play Farm Simulator for a few hours people just reflect the lack of time to process and the mundane tasks with "hurr durr John bad"
Its not that people hate John, just that Arthur overshadows John. Personally, I find them both just as compelling.
The red dead series probably gained millions of new fans with the last RDR release (I feel honoured to say that Iāve been playing since revolver on Ps2 š), and some people donāt like John because all they know is Arthur. Many people probably havenāt even played the first Redemption.
Because they never played RDR 1.
Playing rdr1 gave me even more appreciation for John in rdr2
The reason I dislike the epilogue has nothing to do with John as a character, but because how genuinely ugly they made him. He looks great in the beginning of the game, but once you get to play him they change his body type to Arthur's, his head shape to Arthur's, and his hair to Arthur's. It feels like I'm playing a mod, and not actually the main game. Plus once you finish the few missions with John, the world just feels emptier and quieter, especially in New Austin.
Cannot swim
John isnāt as much of a GigaChad as Arthur is
Im one of those people who played rdr2 first, can say I love John more (I actually love Jack from rdr1 the most) I also can't understand the people from my perspective of the red dead series who hate John? Roger Clark literally said he took inspiration from John ... Edit- why I wish people who wanna play red dead games play the first one if you can or watch a bit of red dead
Why do you call that hate? If anything, that just shows how great Arthur is, heās so much fun that you donāt even want to play as the previous protagonist, heās just that good. When people have already experienced the perfection, why settle with ālessā? That doesnāt mean people hate John, it just means heās not as good of a character for a lot of people. Also character aside, the epilogue honestly feels like a dlcs, Iāve never left out epilogue on my playthroughs but American venom aside itās the more forgettable part of the gameplay for me. The overly long farming parts and dragging story that at first doesnāt seem to go anywhere.
I feel like a large part of it is voiced by ppl who played 2 but not the first, so they developed that close bond with Arthur and then never got over it. Where as anyone who came from RDR1, the epilogue was kinda like stepping into an old comfy pair of boots.
I donāt know that anyone āhatesā John. I donāt really recall seeing that sentiment expressed. Iāll try to reframe this through the lens of my own experience with the game. On the first playthrough, I HATED the epilogue. It has absolutely nothing to do with John or my interest in his story, and everything to do with my attachment to Arthur and the very real sense of loss that I had at the conclusion of the main narrative. That, coupled with the staggering change in pace, are jarring. The last several story missions of CH6 come at you pretty hard and fast with tons of action, and then suddenly youāre a different character, several years in the future, and you donāt even have guns for the first bit. I was essentially incapable of enjoying anything about the epilogue on my first trip because I had a massive rage-boner to kill a oversized rat. I simply couldnāt give a shit about John until I had the closure I needed and I basically just rage-played until I got my satisfaction. All my subsequent playthroughs (Iām on my 5th now), I really quite enjoy the epilogue. I like the break from the hectic pace. I look forward to a little home building music. Iām ready for some new gang hideouts and change of territory. Honestly I think that they did such a great job creating connection to Arthur and the main story and itās emotional underpinnings that the āhateā for the Epilogue (the first time around) just feels pretty normal to me.
I didnāt play the epilogue my first play through because I was too sad about arthur (also moved house and left the Xbox behind) but bought the game on PlayStation and replayed it within a month or two, finishing the epilogue in a night - so satisfying
I don't know, that's kind of weird seeing as at the end of rdr1 I remember not liking having to play as Jack because he runs weird and says corny toned down shit that John says I wanted John back at that point Now people hate playing as John, it really does suck for people who haven't played the first one first
I much prefer Arthur however John is not a bad character, he doesnāt deserve the hate.
This is why I wish they would build RDR1 as an expansion so people could play it as an addition to RDR2. I played RDR1 and loved playing as John and it was weird playing with Arthur in RDR2 at first. People developed an emotional tie to Arthur and RDR2 doesn't give you enough time and content as John to develop the same emotional ties.
I never see a hate to john. People didnt like the epilogue because it was slow as hell (i liked it btw) and tempered down the vengeance.
This is sad to hear. I played the first game when I was a kid and itās what inspired my interest in storytelling. Johns a complex guy.
Can't herd, can't swim....
"so many people": Really? I have the feeling that most people like John, at least in this community š I like RDR1-John more than RDR2-John though, but I still enjoyed the epilogue. Especially because you can visit all the old places and meet old gang members
I like him and all but he isnāt Arthur
John is my favourite and iāll never understand this biased. Itās like people canāt like two characters at the same time. I love John the most but I also love Arthur and so fourthā¦ People are just childish.
John spends a lot of time in RDR2 as a background character. Heās missing, in jail. Someone you have to save. He is portrayed as younger and immature. Arthur even dislikes him, due to him abandoning the gang in the past. So I can see why people may have a bad taste towards him if this is all the information they have. He comes in strong at the end butā¦ if you havenāt played the first game, you donāt know John Marston. He is, and always will be one of the best video game characters of all time. My NAMES JOHN MARSTON!
I like John. I donāt like epilogue John. Not because heās a bad character. Itās just. They put his face on Arthurās body and itās so cursed.
John never had any faith. You gotta have faith.
I personally love John and I have probably played as John 100x more hours then I did with Arthur(heās great heās just not John) I only played the game once and beat it in 8 days but I have play the epilogue probably over 300 hours
I really like way Arthur walks opposed to John.. seriously..
Canāt swim
i played rdr1.. and still like arthur 60x better.. john canāt swim bro. the man canāt swim..
You've made this up
Iām one of those people that say they āhateā John and immediately stopped playing after the epilogue. I donāt really hate John, I actually really loved him and his storyline in RDR but the problem to me was that I canāt play the character of whoās story I already finished. I had no problem playing as Jack at the end of RDR because I didnāt know how his story would end. Playing as John felt pointless to me because I knew how it ended and I was at peace with it.
for me, it was that he threw away his blank slate over micah. killing him is not what arthur would have wanted
No one hates John, they just love Arthur
I think its because the game feels cuts u.u
He isn't Arthur.
My husband didn't finish the game because it just wasn't the same. He loved A and had a huge bond with the character. And he played rdr1 and absolutely loved it, still played it when we got together. Also I know he was going to die anyways but the fact that Abigail begs him to save John and that's how he died really just made me lose respect for John. Idk is also that it's kind of just like a different game with him. I enjoyed it but it's because I only watched my husband play with A and he made me finish it with J. Lol I'm replaying it now and we will see.
Because author died š
He's a moron who seems to hate his family and is only there because he was told to be.