Question to fans of the first game: do you think that John's character was well written in RDR2?

[Mysterious hero]

.

Edited September 25, 2021 by Mysterious hero

[billiejoearmstrong8]

I do yes. I've seen a lot of people say they made him too dumb/an idiot in RDR2 and that it's inconsistent but I disagree with that. I don't think he's exactly super intelligent in either game, being a genius was never a thing for him and although he's badass and has a lot of impressive skills and more wisdom in RDR1 he has his dumb moments too. He was always presented as a very straightforward guy with "average Joe" intelligence. And he doesn't act that dumb in RDR2, the main difference is just that he has an immature attitude when he's younger. He starts out immature but grows up and learns a lot and accepts his responsibilities as a father and in the epilogue sorts things out with Abigail and builds a life for them. By that point he's well on his way to RDR1 John, who is just even wiser and more settled down after another few years being out of the outlaw life. It's believable and good character development for me.

 

So yeah I enjoy his character in RDR2, interesting to see when he was younger and cockier and actually living that life in the gang, and interesting to see him grow up and the relationship/family story too. Adds to my enjoyment of him in RDR1 as well as now I know so much more about him and he feels like a more fleshed out character.

[donnits]

in the main chapters in 1899, yes. in the epilogue in 1907, not really. mostly because epilogue part 2, where he's shown as way too naive and not at all as confident as he should be. the game as a whole would've been better if the epilogue was 1902 and not 1907.

[billiejoearmstrong8]

Oh also the only thing I'm not a huge fan of is how he looks in RDR2 (especially in the epilogue as John Morgan lol). I think they could've done a better/more consistent job with recreating his appearance based on the original game.

Edited September 26, 2021 by billiejoearmstrong8

[The Tracker]

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Oh also the only thing I'm not a huge fan of is how he looks in RDR2 (especially in the epilogue as John Morgan lol). I think they could've done a better/more consistent job with recreating his appearance based on the original game.

 

1899 version of him looks just fine, he looks just like a young version of RDR1 John, now Epilogue John... The less it is said about it, the better. 

[billiejoearmstrong8]

47 minutes ago, The Tracker said:

 

1899 version of him looks just fine, he looks just like a young version of RDR1 John, now Epilogue John... The less it is said about it, the better. 

 

Could've been better imo. I guess it's partly because it was filmed differently (via face/motion capture) and of course he should look younger, but he doesn't even have the same eye colour and they made him like, cartoonishly lanky. Visually I have trouble believing they're the same person, it looks more like it's a relative of his or something. Whereas the younger versions of all the other characters who appear in both games work fine for me - Dutch is especially well done I think.

[Mysterious hero]

On 9/26/2021 at 12:21 AM, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I do yes. I've seen a lot of people say they made him too dumb/an idiot in RDR2 and that it's inconsistent but I disagree with that. I don't think he's exactly super intelligent in either game, being a genius was never a thing for him and although he's badass and has a lot of impressive skills and more wisdom in RDR1 he has his dumb moments too. He was always presented as a very straightforward guy with "average Joe" intelligence. And he doesn't act that dumb in RDR2, the main difference is just that he has an immature attitude when he's younger. He starts out immature but grows up and learns a lot and accepts his responsibilities as a father and in the epilogue sorts things out with Abigail and builds a life for them. By that point he's well on his way to RDR1 John, who is just even wiser and more settled down after another few years being out of the outlaw life. It's believable and good character development for me.

 

So yeah I enjoy his character in RDR2, interesting to see when he was younger and cockier and actually living that life in the gang, and interesting to see him grow up and the relationship/family story too. Adds to my enjoyment of him in RDR1 as well as now I know so much more about him and he feels like a more fleshed out character.

I feel as though many of John's character traits that he was described as having in 1 (romantic, elegant speaker, and the right-hand man of Dutch) were instead given to Arthur. As a result, the second game's interpretation of John is wildly different than what the first game implied. The only part of his characterization that is somewhat consistent from what was said in the first game is that he is, and I quote, "an arrogant son of a bitch". But even that's a little downplayed, as John doesn't really come across as arrogant, just simply apathetic and audacious.

 

Simply put, John... doesn't really have a personality to speak of in the second game.

[billiejoearmstrong8]

8 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

I feel as though many of John's character traits that he was described as having in 1 (romantic, elegant speaker, and the right-hand man of Dutch) were instead given to Arthur. As a result, the second game's interpretation of John is wildly different than what the first game implied. The only part of his characterization that is somewhat consistent from what was said in the first game is that he is, and I quote, "an arrogant son of a bitch". But even that's a little downplayed, as John doesn't really come across as arrogant, just simply apathetic and audacious.

 

Simply put, John... doesn't really have a personality to speak of in the second game.

 

I don't recall him being presented that way? He was presented as a very straightforward, uneducated/semi literate former outlaw who's now settled down to a simple farming life. "Elegant speaker" was Bill Williamson's opinion, and coming from him that pretty much means anyone who can speak half way coherently lol. John really isn't even an elegant speaker compared to his kid, who is a better reader and more eloquent than him while he shows zero interest in books or education. I don't recall him being called right hand man either, but he did have a reasonably high place in the gang some of the time, and could have been assumed to be a right hand man by those outside the gang who just knew he was a long time member who knew Dutch well. And romantic was just Dutch talking sh*t/referring to the fact John was in a long term romantic relationship with Abigail whereas most of the gang were single (specifically he taunted him by saying he was "romantic" meaning he fell in love with a whore while the others just banged her).

 

In RDR1 John's own description of himself when he was in the gang is that he was young, stupid, cocky and not a good person, and that any thoughts he had that they were living by a noble philosophy at the time he now realises was just bs Dutch tricked them with. I think it makes perfect sense that he's that way in RDR2 when he was younger, less mature and caught up in the outlaw lifestyle and brainwashed by Dutch. They weren't going to make him be more sophisticated when he was younger and in a gang, and he already plainly stated in RDR1 that he was young and foolish back then.

 

I don't see him as lacking personality either, we get much more in depth insight into his thoughts and motivations in 2 than 1 imo.

Edited September 27, 2021 by billiejoearmstrong8

[Mysterious hero]

11 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I don't recall him being presented that way? He was presented as a very straightforward, uneducated/semi literate former outlaw who's now settled down to a simple farming life. "Elegant speaker" was Bill Williamson's opinion, and coming from him that pretty much means anyone who can speak half way coherently lol. John really isn't even an elegant speaker compared to his kid, who is a better reader and more eloquent than him while he shows zero interest in books or education. I don't recall him being called right hand man either, but he did have a reasonably high place in the gang some of the time, and could have been assumed to be a right hand man by those outside the gang who just knew he was a long time member who knew Dutch well. And romantic was just Dutch talking sh*t/referring to the fact John was in a long term romantic relationship with Abigail whereas most of the gang were single (specifically he taunted him by saying he was "romantic" meaning he fell in love with a whore while the others just banged her).

 

In RDR1 John's own description of himself when he was in the gang is that he was young, stupid, cocky and not a good person, and that any thoughts he had that they were living by a noble philosophy at the time he now realizes was just bs Dutch tricked them with. I think it makes perfect sense that he's that way in RDR2 when he was younger, less mature and caught up in the outlaw lifestyle and brainwashed by Dutch. They weren't going to make him be more sophisticated when he was younger and in a gang, and he already plainly stated in RDR1 that he was young and foolish back then.

 

I don't see him as lacking personality either, we get much more in depth insight into his thoughts and motivations in 2 than 1 imo.

Everything that was mentioned in John's past in 1 seems to suggest that John was suppose to have a role similar to Arthur. 

 

When Bill talks about the gang, he says this:

"Now, I'm in charge! No more Dutch, and no more of you!"

That line feels jarring with what we see in RDR2.

 

And while Bill's comment on John's vocabulary could just be his personal opinion, that would be lame. Same with Dutch's comment. Those are one of the few rare moments where we get insight into the John's background, only for RDR2 to come in and say "nope, John was none of those things. Those were just the character's weird opinion of him".

 

Also, I don't see how "elegant and romantic" and "young, stupid, and cocky" are mutual exclusive. We only got the latter instead of the former, since Arthur got the spotlight. It would've been better if John had a much stronger personality in 1899 and especially the 1907 section.

That scene where John sarcastically tells Milton that his name is "Rip Van Winkle" is very memorable for a reason. It's one of the few times John shows a semblance of his personality that made his character iconic. You get no more of that for the rest of the game.

 

Before the second game came out, I assumed that young John would similar to Johnny Klebitz in terms of personality, except in the early 20th century. Instead of that, we got a John that's kinda just... there. Quiet and reclusive for most of the 1899 section of the game. He's way worse in the epilogue, where he has almost the exact same personality he did when he was in the gang. 

The game seems to imply that John modeled his personality after Arthur, which I find very lame. 

Edited September 28, 2021 by Mysterious hero

[billiejoearmstrong8]

9 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

Everything that was mentioned in John's past in 1 seems to suggest that John was suppose to have a role similar to Arthur. 

 

When Bill talks about the gang, he says this:

"Now, I'm in charge! No more Dutch, and no more of you!"

That line feels jarring with what we see in RDR2.

 

And while Bill's comment on John's vocabulary could just be his personal opinion, that would be lame. Same with Dutch's comment. Those are one of the few rare moments where we get insight into the John's background, only for RDR2 to come in and say "nope, John was none of those things. Those were just the character's weird opinion of him".

 

Also, I don't see how "elegant and romantic" and "young, stupid, and cocky" are mutual exclusive. We only got the latter instead of the former, since Arthur got the spotlight. It would've been better if John had a much stronger personality in 1899 and especially the 1907 section.

That scene where John sarcastically tells Milton that his name is "Rip Van Winkle" is very memorable for a reason. It's one of the few times John shows a semblance of his personality that made his character iconic. You get no more of that for the rest of the game.

 

Before the second game came out, I assumed that young John would similar to Johnny Klebitz in terms of personality, except in the early 20th century. Instead of that, we got a John that's kinda just... there. Quiet and reclusive for most of the 1899 section of the game. He's way worse in the epilogue, where he has almost the exact same personality he did when he was in the gang. 

The game seems to imply that John modeled his personality after Arthur, which I find very lame. 

 

Well yeah it's not going to be 100% perfect in this regard when the protagonist of the prequel didn't exist yet during the time the "sequel" was written. But seems very nitpicky - John was a more respected member of the gang than Bill, and Bill probably would've felt the same towards almost any other member who happened to have survived, since he always had an inferiority complex and felt he was overlooked compared to the others. 

 

The vocabulary thing is a joke at Bill's expense to highlight his dumbness - being amazed that John uses the word "implore" and then getting it wrong himself when he repeats it. Don't see how that's lame. Yes John is reasonably eloquent and more eloquent than Bill is, but I don't get why you'd expect him to be more eloquent and sophisticated in RDR2 when he was younger than in RDR1 when he's more mature and wiser? I don't even see a big difference between those things in the two games though. He's reasonably eloquent in both games and his romance with Amanda is consistent between the two games - immature and not ready to be a father when he was younger, and then more grown up and a proper family, with their back and forth teasing kind of dynamic established in RDR1 and also not contradicted in 2. If you didn't understand what Dutch meant by calling him "romantic" in that context that's on you lol, he was insulting him.

 

I guess they could've made him a bit more cocky/arrogant etc in RDR2. But I think he is much less mellow than in 1, he's very stubborn in the early part. I think he's more brooding than quiet and reclusive. And I think there is a noticeable change in the epilogue, we see him finally prioritise his family and become much more responsible. I just didn't expect him to be that different from in RDR1 I guess since it was only a few years and he is the same person. He felt consistent with how he was in RDR1 and how he'd been described when he was younger in RDR1 to me. And he isn't the main protagonist of RDR2, he's one of multiple members of a gang, so I wouldn't expect to see him as much or be the main focus of the story.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by billiejoearmstrong8

[Mysterious hero]

13 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

 

Well yeah it's not going to be 100% perfect in this regard when the protagonist of the prequel didn't exist yet during the time the "sequel" was written. But seems very nitpicky - John was a more respected member of the gang than Bill, and Bill probably would've felt the same towards almost any other member who happened to have survived, since he always had an inferiority complex and felt he was overlooked compared to the others. 

That's not the point. And it's not a nitpick.

The line seems to heavily imply that John was Dutch right-hand man. Instead, RDR2 portrays him as being more a favored henchmen. 

13 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

The vocabulary thing is a joke at Bill's expense to highlight his dumbness - being amazed that John uses the word "implore" and then getting it wrong himself when he repeats it. Don't see how that's lame. Yes John is reasonably eloquent and more eloquent than Bill is, but I don't get why you'd expect him to be more eloquent and sophisticated in RDR2 when he was younger than in RDR1 when he's more mature and wiser? 

Bill may be dumb, but you're making him out to be way dumber than he actually is. 

That line is meant to imply that John is educated, due to Dutch. Also, I don't see how an "eloquent vocabulary" relates to maturity. 

13 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

 I don't even see a big difference between those things in the two games though. He's reasonably eloquent in both games.

No he doesn't. He comes across as a complete dweeb in 1899 and especially 1907.

13 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

If you didn't understand what Dutch meant by calling him "romantic" in that context that's on you lol, he was insulting him.

That could be the case, but it feels like one of those things they change from the backstory.

13 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I guess they could've made him a bit more cocky/arrogant etc in RDR2. But I think he is much less mellow than in 1, he's very stubborn in the early part. I think he's more brooding than quiet and reclusive. 

I mean, I knew that he was going to be more ornery in the prequel. That scene from the first game where John was viciously beating De Santa gave us a glimpse of what kind of man he used to be. 

Instead we got a bumbling, teenage-eque John.

14 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

And I think there is a noticeable change in the epilogue, we see him finally prioritize his family and become much more responsible. I just didn't expect him to be that different from in RDR1 I guess since it was only a few years and he is the same person. He felt consistent with how he was in RDR1 and how he'd been described when he was younger in RDR1 to me. 

To me, he comes across as a completely different person. I just can't see the John from 2 and the John from 1 being the same person. 

14 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

And he isn't the main protagonist of RDR2, he's one of multiple members of a gang, so I wouldn't expect to see him as much or be the main focus of the story.

He's the main protagonist of the epilogue. And the whole story is more-or-less about him.

[billiejoearmstrong8]

8 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

That's not the point. And it's not a nitpick.

The line seems to heavily imply that John was Dutch right-hand man. Instead, RDR2 portrays him as being more a favored henchmen. 

 

 

I don't actually remember him being called that, what was the line/who said it? Unless it was John or Dutch it's not going to be a reliable source, since it's just the impression or assumption of someone outside the gang. And it is nitpicky when Arthur didn't exist yet - do you think they weren't allowed to make the next game about another character and John had to be the main guy in the gang just because of one line that implied something? That would be very limiting creatively speaking, they are allowed some artistic license to retcon things a bit.

 

8 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

 

That line is meant to imply that John is educated, due to Dutch. Also, I don't see how an "eloquent vocabulary" relates to maturity. 

 

 

Disagree lol. He received whatever education he got from Dutch, doesn't mean it was to a very high standard or included "eloquent speaking" (I believe the only thing John mentions about it is he taught him to read, and general life lessons/how to be an outlaw). In RDR1 John literally says he's "semi literate", he reads awkwardly when he reads that letter out, and he is seen to have no personal interest in books/education. It relates to maturity in that someone isn't going to have a more eloquent vocabulary when they're younger than when they're older. He's not amazingly eloquent in RDR1, in both games is vocabulary is just ok - probably picked up a few bigger words from Dutch is is smarter than Bill that's all.

 

8 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

 

He's the main protagonist of the epilogue. And the whole story is more-or-less about him.

 

Yeah and in the epilogue we do see a lot more of his character, and imo he's getting much closer to RDR1 John by then. Settled with his family but still ready for a fight.

 

I'm not saying there's zero inconsistencies between the two games or that John is totally the same. But I think they did very good job keeping things consistent for the most part and that most of the differences do make sense when accounting for age and how he described his younger self. Some inconsistency was inevitable, it just doesn't bother me much I guess.

Edited September 29, 2021 by billiejoearmstrong8

[Mysterious hero]

2 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

 

I don't actually remember him being called that, what was the line/who said it? Unless it was John or Dutch it's not going to be a reliable source, since it's just the impression or assumption of someone outside the gang. 

He's often referred to as "the golden boy" by other gang members.

2 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

And it is nitpicky when Arthur didn't exist yet - do you think they weren't allowed to make the next game about another character and John had to be the main guy in the gang just because of one line that implied something? That would be very limiting creatively speaking, they are allowed some artistic license to retcon things a bit.

Sure, but it's also their job to make sure that the continuity lines up more with the established lore.  

2 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Disagree lol. He received whatever education he got from Dutch, doesn't mean it was to a very high standard or included "eloquent speaking" (I believe the only thing John mentions about it is he taught him to read, and general life lessons/how to be an outlaw). 

I'm not saying that Dutch specifically taught John to "speak eloquently". I'm saying that when Dutch taught John to read, John probably picked up a few "fancy" words. 

3 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

In RDR1 John literally says he's "semi literate", he reads awkwardly when he reads that letter out

Because he's reading it out to Abigail, who is illiterate. 

3 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

 He is seen to have no personal interest in books/education. 

That's not relevant. The point is that he can read, because he was taught by Dutch.

3 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

It relates to maturity in that someone isn't going to have a more eloquent vocabulary when they're younger than when they're older. 

Again, I still can't see how

"younger" = "trashy vocabulary"

 

Also, I'm not saying he had a more eloquent vocabulary when he was younger. I'm saying that he was always suppose have an eloquent vocabulary, until the second game retconned that

3 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

He's not amazingly eloquent in RDR1, in both games is vocabulary is just ok - probably picked up a few bigger words from Dutch is is smarter than Bill that's all.

Again, that's the justification for inconsistency. 

"nah, lol, Bill just has the stupid"

3 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Yeah and in the epilogue we do see a lot more of his character, and imo he's getting much closer to RDR1 John by then. Settled with his family but still ready for a fight.

John in the epilogue is even more dweeby than John in 1899. I still can't see him as the same guy from the first game.

3 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I'm not saying there's zero inconsistencies between the two games or that John is totally the same. But I think they did very good job keeping things consistent for the most part and that most of the differences do make sense when accounting for age and how he described his younger self. Some inconsistency was inevitable, it just doesn't bother me much I guess.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I still stand by my idea that John's character is wasted potential in RDR2.

[Kaizen454]

I actually think he's among the best written characters in any Rockstar game. They weren't so heavy with the 'caricature' when creating his story.

[billiejoearmstrong8]

7 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

He's often referred to as "the golden boy" by other gang members.

 

 

So it's just an RDR2 issue then and he isn't called that in RDR1? In RDR2 other gang members are competitive for Dutch's attention, a better standing in the gang etc. A combination of Dutch actually favouring John in some ways (because he's a skilled and loyal member and been there since he was a kid and he makes allowances for him having a family etc) and natural competitiveness/jealously from other gang members would make some see him that way, partly accurately and partly inaccurately. I don't see where an inconsistency comes up here.

 

7 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

 

I'm not saying that Dutch specifically taught John to "speak eloquently". I'm saying that when Dutch taught John to read, John probably picked up a few "fancy" words. 

 

 

Agreed, but it doesn't mean he was an especially eloquent speaker.

 

7 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

 

Because he's reading it out to Abigail, who is illiterate. 

That's not relevant. The point is that he can read, because he was taught by Dutch.

 

 

No he literally uses the phrase "semi literate" to describe himself, and the awkwardness isn't just because he's reading to Abigail it's because he's slightly struggling to read it/not used to reading a lot. I'm not saying he can't read, I'm saying it's the case in both games that his reading and vocabularly is average/nothing special.

 

7 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

 

Again, I still can't see how

"younger" = "trashy vocabulary"

 

 

I'm not saying that. I'm saying someone's vocabularly doesn't usually get worse as they get older - it either stays the same or improves. I wouldn't expect it to be amazing when he was younger unless it was amazing or super amazing when he was older - and it isn't, in RDR1 his vocabularly is slightly above average at best. So it makes sense that it's average in RDR2.

 

7 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

 

Again, that's the justification for inconsistency. 

"nah, lol, Bill just has the stupid"

 

 

A notably ineloquent character's opinion on how eloquent another character is isn't a reliable opinion. It's played for laughs that he's impressed by this mildly fancy word and then can't even repeat it correctly. And his opinion is even less reliable because he has an inferiority complex and always believes everyone else thinks they're better than him. Again we can see for ourselves that John isn't super eloquent in either game so I'm good with the interpretation that it's just Bill's skewed opinion.

 

7 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

 

John in the epilogue is even more dweeby than John in 1899. I still can't see him as the same guy from the first game.

 

 

It makes sense to me because he's finally given up on trying to be a brooding badass outlaw (who was actually just not facing up to his responsibilities - Hosea saw this and tried to get through to him about it in several camp conversations, eg "Be a man John, it would suit you"). He has to show some humility in order to make things right with his family and in order to make it in the real world where he can't just use violence/stealing/conning or rely on the gang to get what he needs. But he's still got that badass side to him as we see in the final mission, and previously where he still can't help getting in trouble and trying to be the hero. And his has his dorky moments in RDR1 when he's back with his family and getting teased by Abigail or Uncle or trying not so smoothly to connect with Jack etc. I think he is older and more serious in 1 but has some dorkiness to him in both games.

 

7 hours ago, Mysterious hero said:

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but I still stand by my idea that John's character is wasted potential in RDR2.

 

And you yours of course, just explaining how I see it differently. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by billiejoearmstrong8

[Alexlecj]

I find it amusing that John starts both games at his lowest, and characters keep mocking him about that.

 

RDR2:

Spoiler

Abigail Roberts: You are a silly, silly man. You really are. Eaten by wolves. Never heard such a ridiculous idea. Who gets themselves eaten by wolves? I mean really, who?

 

Arthur Morgan: That is... kinda brilliant. Uh, for you. And that is a real idea... I think that's the first time you ever had one of them.
John Marston: Shut up.
Arthur Morgan: You might be the first bastard to ever have half his brains eaten by a wolf and end up more intelligent.

 

Sean Macguire: Oh, you're a funny feller, John Marston. From what folk say, you had your feet up the whole time playing sick, and fondling that new scar like you're gonna buy it breakfast in the morning.
John Marston: You don't know what you're talking about.
Sean Macguire: Stay close on this, wouldn't want you getting scratched by a squirrel or something, that could put you outta commission for the rest of the year.

 

Micah Bell: Guess it's good for you to be the one doing the eating.
John Marston: Very funny.
Micah Bell: You know, I been shot at a few times, nearly hanged, beaten... but the animals, they don't come nowhere near me.

 

John Marston: I treated Jack bad, Abigail too. I didn't want to believe he was mine. You know, when I was lost on that mountain after Blackwater, part of me thought... "I could just leave again and no one would ever know".
Arthur Morgan: But some wolves thought otherwise.

 

RDR:

Spoiler

Bonnie MacFarlane: You know Bill Williamson?
John Marston: Knew him, long time ago.
Bonnie MacFarlane: Well, what was he like?
John Marston: Dumb.
Bonnie MacFarlane: Just like you.

 

John Marston: With all due respect, Marshal, it doesn't sound like your way's been working out too well.
Leigh Johnson: From what I hear about your visit to Fort Mercer, neither's yours.

 

Jonah: Ain't you all proud and superior? Don't forget you need us more than we need you. Bill Williamson folded you up like an empty purse the last time, if I remember correctly.

 

John Marston: So, you're happy making your living by peddling shams to the poor and naive?
Nigel West Dickens: My dear boy. If I may be so bold, I'm not sure that you are best-placed to comment on naiveté.
John Marston: What are you talking about, old man?
Nigel West Dickens: I am talking about your ill-timed visit to the Fort.

 

Irish: You talk like you're some hard case, but from what they tell me about Fort Mercer, you ain't nothin' of the sort. No more savvy than a bull goin' through a fence, I hear.

 

As for John's depiction in the second game, I believe it's about right.

 

I particularly like this one.

 

Arthur Morgan: You know, that attempt to seem all enigmatic and interesting... that might work for Dutch, but for you... it just makes you look stupid.

 

Bonnie MacFarlane: Oh, don't be so deliberately enigmatic.
John Marston: I'm not, miss.
Bonnie MacFarlane: Yes you are. You are being deliberately obscure as a substitute for having a personality.

 

Bonnie MacFarlane: You do so love to talk in riddles, Mr. Marston. Do you do that, I wonder as a substitute for having anything interesting to say?

Edited September 30, 2021 by Alexlecj

[drdrimes]

For sure! I loved John's development in both games, especially in RDR2 as that was my first Red Dead game playthrough. Well written, but when it comes to the physical Epilogue character design? Awful

[Sanctuary II]

I think John in RDR2 was a victim of some heavy retconning and what was Rockstar's main focus with this game, which was all the new characters and story, rather than making a wholly consistent prequel heavily focused on the older characters. I'm of the opinion that RDR2, while a terrific game with a great narrative, is a much lesser prequel. And that's largely because they seem to have wanted it to be a new story about a new gang but tagged on the backstory of John's time in the gang and how he was left to die by the gang. So it means a lot of the OG characters got shafted and had their traits and roles stripped away and given to the newer ones (with Dutch being the only character who benefitted from the prequel). John doesn't feel like the formerly vicious outlaw who served as Dutch's right-hand man during his younger years as indicated in RDR1 - he's a clumsy, passive gunman who stands there in the background during decision making moments and rarely shows any insight or has a say in what move the gang should do. The only exception to this is the oil wagon train robbery idea and frankly, that mission line is the only time John ever felt like the man we're teased with in the first game; sharp, bold and even ruthless with how he shouted at and beat the passengers on the train. 

 

Then there's his personality traits which a lot of them were either said or could be discerned that they came from Dutch's teachings and influence on him at a young age in RDR1, so the excuse that he simply "grew or matured" into them is literally contradictory with what's established about him. Not to mention, also nonsensical considering he acts the exact same way in the epilogue, just 4 years before the first game yet you mean to tell me a few short years of ranching turned him into this witty, wise and almost philosophical cowboy who's hardened but has a heart of gold? It is (like most of the excuses that explain away the continuity inconsistencies RDR2 created) a scrambled attempt to dismiss what's clearly a major change in personality that contradicts the RDR1 and isn't supported at all by the second game - since it's never interested in being a coming-of-age story for John where he becomes the man from the first game like so many say it is.

 

His wittiness, eloquence and wisdom are all traits that were dropped in RDR2. I think it's all just, again, a show of what their priorities were - they wanted to endear Arthur (who I love) and the new characters in general, to players and not have the spotlight instantly taken away by the already established protagonist. So they made him an all-encompassing cowboy character who's skilled, witty, loyal and smarter than he lets on... some of these already being John's beloved traits that they stripped away and thus, made him a shell of his former self. There's a reason certain moments like "I'm Rip Van Winkle", him shouting "Thank you for the hospitality boys!" as he escapes the penitentiary or when he roasts Micah at camp, stick out to people. They're rare showings of his original personality... or when he even had one. Newer fans might just think they're rare moments where John is being witty out-of-turn, but fans of RDR1 John know this is who he always was.

 

Perhaps the most unfortunate part of all this imo is that it totally could've been avoided - the town is big enough for two badass protagonists. They didn't need Arthur to be so all-encompassingly perfect that he also absorbs John's traits. If Arthur stood on his own unique traits (the journal, cynical and world-weary charm) while John remained as he is but just more brash, impulsive and ruthless than in RDR1, I bet he would've been equally beloved by fans old and new fans alike. And the same goes for the other RDR1 characters like Bill, Javier and Ross that get sidelined, instead of making the gang a 20+ caravan of misfits that fill a lot of the same roles, make a tighter gang that mostly consists of the OG cast with their original roles + a few new faces like Arthur, Hosea and Charles that add their own dynamic imo.

Edited July 28 by TheMadTitan

[luckycanadian95]

19 hours ago, TheMadTitan said:

I think John in RDR2 was a victim of some heavy retconning and what was Rockstar's main goal with this game, which was all the new characters and story, rather than making a wholly consistent prequel that heavily focused on the older characters. I'm of the opinion that RDR2, while a terrific game with a great story, is a much lesser prequel and that's largely because it seems like it wanted to be a new story about a new gang but tag on top the backstory of John's time in the gang and how he was left to die by the gang. So it means a lot of the OG characters got shafted and had their traits and role in the gang stripped and given to the newer ones, with Dutch being the only character who benefitted from the prequel. John doesn't feel like the formerly vicious outlaw who served as Dutch's right-hand man during his younger years as indicated in RDR1 - he's a clumsy, passive gunman who stands there in the background during decision making moments and rarely shows any insight or has a say in what move the gang should do. The only exception to this is the oil wagon train robbery idea and that line of missions is the only time John ever felt like the man we're teased with in the first game; sharp, bold and even ruthless with how he shouted at and beat the passengers on the train. 

 

Then there's his personality traits which a lot of them in the first game were either said or could be discerned that they came out from Dutch's teachings and influence on him at a young age, so the excuse that he simply "grew or matured" into them is literally contradictory with what's revealed about him - not to mention sort of nonsensical considering he acts the exact same way in the epilogue, just 4 years before the first game yet you mean to tell me a few short years of ranching turned him into this witty, wise and almost philosophical cowboy who's hardened but has a heart of gold? It's (like most of the excuses that explain away the continuity inconsistencies RDR2 created) a half-hearted attempt to explain away what's clearly a major change in personality that contradicts the first game that isn't supported at all by RDR2 - since the game is never interested in being this coming-of-age story where John becomes the man from the first like so many claim it is.

 

His wittiness, well-spokenness and wisdom are all traits that were dropped into RDR2. I think it's all just, again, a show of what their priorities were - they wanted Arthur the new protagonist (who I love) to be that all-encompassing perfect cowboy character who's skilled, witty, loyal and smarter than he lets on - so they had to strip John off some his beloved traits and thus, make him a shell of his former self. There's a reason certain moments like "I'm Rip Van Winkle", him shouting "Thank you for the hospitality boys" as he escapes the penitentiary or when he roasts Micah at camp stick out to people, their rare showings of his original personality... or when he even had one. Newer Red Dead fans might just think they're rare moments where John is being witty out-of-turn but fans of RDR1 John know this is who he is.

 

Perhaps the most unfortunate part of all this imo is that it totally could've been avoided - the town is big enough for two badass protagonists. They didn't need Arthur to be so all-encompassingly awesome that he takes away John's traits, he could've been made likeable on his own unique traits (journal, cynical charm) while John remained as he is but just more brash, impulsive and ruthless than in the first game and I bet would've been equally beloved by fans old and new fans alike. And the same goes for the other RDR1 characters like Bill, Javier and Ross that got sidelined, instead of making the gang a 20+ caravan of misfits that fill a lot of the same roles, make a tighter gang that mostly consists of the OG cast with their original roles + a few new faces like Arthur, Hosea and Charles that add their own dynamic.

Yeah I mostly agree with this. But I doubt there was an intentional sabotage of John's character for the sake of making Arthur look better. Probably just a slight mishandling of his character from the directing and/or writing side. I heard (probably on this forum) that Rob Wiethoff would've delivered his performance in RDR2 differently if given the chance to redo it, but I have no idea if that's true as I wasn't able to find an interview where he says that.

[Sanctuary II]

On 4/18/2023 at 1:41 AM, luckycanadian95 said:

Yeah I mostly agree with this. But I doubt there was an intentional sabotage of John's character for the sake of making Arthur look better. Probably just a slight mishandling of his character from the directing and/or writing side. I heard (probably on this forum) that Rob Wiethoff would've delivered his performance in RDR2 differently if given the chance to redo it, but I have no idea if that's true as I wasn't able to find an interview where he says that.

Not intentional in the sense that they wanted to ruin John's character out of spite or something, but that there's a clear intentionality with how they sidelined John so that he doesn't take the spotlight away from the new protagonist they wanted to endear to players. Rob Nelson even said in an interview (I hope I can find it) that they didn't want to "John it up" and it was done by design when they were conceiving of the gang for RDR2. Which again, shows what was their priorities were during development. Not an intentional sabotage of the first game and its characters but sidelining it so it doesn't take away from the new story and characters like Charles, Sadie and Hosea.

 

I have no doubt a lot of it also came from mishandling and/or oversight on the writing and directing side too, though. Because John's entire disposition is off too; he's too enthusiastic and forthcoming in the epilogue when he was stoic, restrained but courteous in the first game. And his voice is too raspy and high-pitched, every time he greets NPCs in the game, even when Rob has shown he still has a deeper voice closer to how he sounded RDR, in interviews. Where if it was JUST a case of not wanting too much John, they'd keep his personality the same but sideline him the way they did in the story.

 

It's interesting if Rob did say that though, I always got the vibe he even felt there was some inconsistency between John's portrayals in both games, but it was either subtle enough and/or he was polite enough not to dwell on it. Because he even said that he asked them about continuity aspects like John's daughter, and he essentially got a non-answer which he just laughs off.

Edited July 28 by TheMadTitan

[luckycanadian95]

On 4/17/2023 at 8:55 PM, TheMadTitan said:

Not intentional in the sense that they wanted to ruin John's character out of spite, but that there was a clear design with how they sidelined John so that he doesn't take the spotlight away from the new protagonist they wanted to endear to players. Rob Nelson even said in an interview (I hope I can find it) that they didn't want to "John it up" and that it was done by design when they were conceiving of the gang for RDR2 which again, shows what was their priorities during development. Not an intentional sabotage of the first game and its characters but sidelining them so they don't take away screentime from the new ones like Charles, Sadie and Lenny.

 

I have no doubt some of it also came from a mishandling or oversight on the writing/directing side too, though. Because John's entire disposition is off too; he's too enthusiastic and forthcoming in the Epilogue when he was stoic, restrained but courteous in the first game. And his voice is too raspy and high-pitched, everytime he greets NPCs in the game, even when Rob has shown he still has a deeper voice closer to the first game in interviews. Where if they just didn't want to have too much John, they'd keep his personality the same but sideline him the way they did in the story.

 

It's interesting if Rob did say that though, I always got the vibe he even felt there was some inconsistency between John's portrayals in both games, but it was subtle enough and/or he was polite to not dwell on it. Because he even said that he asked them about John's daughter, and he essentially got a non-answer which he just laughs off.

Yeah he probably didn't want to step on any toes and was just excited to be working on the series again. It wasn't all bad, like you said there are moments where the original John shines through. I liked the whole storyline of him learning to accept responsibility for Jack (even though it retreads the RDR1 epilogue). But man I wish we could've seen the ruthless outlaw that was suggested in the first game: 'If I find out you're lying to me, you'll really see the man I used to be.'

Edited April 20 by luckycanadian95

[Sanctuary II]

On 4/20/2023 at 2:47 AM, luckycanadian95 said:

 I liked the whole storyline of him learning to accept responsibility for Jack (even though it retreads the RDR1 epilogue). But man I wish we could've seen the ruthless outlaw that was suggested in the first game: 'If I find out you're lying to me, you'll really see the man I used to be.'

That's one of my main issues with RDR2 John. His arc (coming to accept his responsibility over Jack) feels barebones and only one half what should've been a much more active, transformative journey of an angry, ruthless young man who grew disillusioned with the cause of his gang and mellowed into a responsible father and family man.

 

We could've truly seen the "man I used to be" and appreciated how much John grew as a person to become that stoic, humble cowboy from RDR1. But instead, he's this largely passive gunman with the sole arc of suddenly owning up to being Jack's father after they get him from Bronte but without any of the gradual development or moments of bonding with Jack actually being shown in the story, only being reserved for missable camp events. Which also applies to any time where John gets a deeper moment of reflection, backstory or insight into what he thinks of the story's events.

 

Again, all of this highlighting how much John was sidelined in RDR2. To the point they neglected his importance to the gang that was established in RDR1 and what was clearly supposed to be his arc of ruthless to outlaw to decent family man and cowboy so that the newer characters get all the screen time and development.

Edited April 28 by TheMadTitan

[KiwikindUK]

This is why 2’s epilogue is so important. It has to make us become invested in John again so that it isn’t too jarring when RDR 1 starts. John does a lot of growing up in the Epilogue and him and his family have to be set up just right for RDR 1’s events to unfold a few years on.
 

It is to RDR 1 what Star Wars Rogue One is to A New Hope. 

[drdrimes]

On 6/5/2023 at 10:46 PM, KiwikindUK said:

This is why 2’s epilogue is so important. It has to make us become invested in John again so that it isn’t too jarring when RDR 1 starts. John does a lot of growing up in the Epilogue and him and his family have to be set up just right for RDR 1’s events to unfold a few years on.
 

It is to RDR 1 what Star Wars Rogue One is to A New Hope. 

The epilogue is seriously one of the best things I've played, and I say that as someone who played 2 first. John Marston is a damn king, and Rob Wiethoff continues to show his skills as a performer.

[Sanctuary II]

On 6/5/2023 at 11:46 PM, KiwikindUK said:

This is why 2’s epilogue is so important. It has to make us become invested in John again so that it isn’t too jarring when RDR 1 starts. John does a lot of growing up in the Epilogue and him and his family have to be set up just right for RDR 1’s events to unfold a few years on.
 

It is to RDR 1 what Star Wars Rogue One is to A New Hope. 

I personally disagree. To me, that's exactly what the epilogue was missing. Bridging the gap in John's character between his RDR1 and 1899 selves. It's why I don't buy the "it's character development" argument when RDR2's depiction of John is defended as much I believe his personality was just changed. He all-around acts the same way he did in the main story by the time we're in Chapter 6; oafish and more caring for his family. The only exception being that he's now out of the outlaw game.

 

And that's putting aside how I think his core personality traits should've remained intact in the first place and that they should've focused on his development from a ruthless bandit/right-hand man to an honorable cowboy as was laid out to be his arc in RDR1.

Edited July 14 by TheMadTitan

[~INDIO~]

Epilogue part 2 they really took a big steaming turd on Marston and I have no idea why 

[PipingHotAnimals]

I notice a lot of fans tend to assume that writing is good just because they can identify character arcs. Honestly, if you're able to simplify a character arc in like, 30 words, it probably isn't very good, especially for a 60+ hour game. John was rebellious and then his bro dies so he decides to prioritize his family. That's a fine character arc, but it's not complex at all. Does it make anyone think about John at a deeper level versus Red Dead 1? People who don't understand writing will assume just because you can't simplify John's arc in Red Dead 1 that he isn't "well written". John feels a hell of a lot more human in the first game because he is fundamentally without character, at least in regards to the game world. He's an outlaw and a lawman. He's a killer and a father. This isn't even just me reading into it, most spaghetti western protagonists have vague identities. It's not up to backstory to define the character, it's about their actions in the present. There are so many stressful contradictions to John's character in the first game that, if you want to understand John, you need to understand how you yourself play him. I think in the medium of gaming that's shows a lot more skill in storytelling than giving the player a thought-out arc with clear A and B points. 

[PipingHotAnimals]

On 4/16/2023 at 8:14 PM, TheMadTitan said:

Not to mention, also nonsensical considering he acts the exact same way in the epilogue, just 4 years before the first game yet you mean to tell me a few short years of ranching turned him into this witty, wise and almost philosophical cowboy who's hardened but has a heart of gold?

The happy ending of the epilogue really worked against John. I think Sadie or Charles dying, along with not being able to confront Micah could've hardened him into the man we saw in Red Dead 1. I mean, killing Micah in the epilogue was a terrible decision from a writing standpoint. Providing closure might be the "correct" way to write the story, but I don't think it's necessary in this case. Think about how the weight of Arthur's unavenged death would carry into John's confrontations with Bill, Javier, and Dutch. The pent up anger and frustration of not being able to find the guy that killed your brother? That would give much stronger context to how John carries himself in the first game. 

[sks23320]

1 hour ago, PipingHotAnimals said:

The happy ending of the epilogue really worked against John. I think Sadie or Charles dying, along with not being able to confront Micah could've hardened him into the man we saw in Red Dead 1. I mean, killing Micah in the epilogue was a terrible decision from a writing standpoint. Providing closure might be the "correct" way to write the story, but I don't think it's necessary in this case. Think about how the weight of Arthur's unavenged death would carry into John's confrontations with Bill, Javier, and Dutch. The pent up anger and frustration of not being able to find the guy that killed your brother? That would give much stronger context to how John carries himself in the first game. 

"Dutchhhh he's cooking too much, duuuutch *coughs in arthur voice*   

man's really ruining the american venom for me.........for arthur it couldn't have ended better,same for john.

[Edward RDRIII]

4 hours ago, PipingHotAnimals said:

The happy ending of the epilogue really worked against John. I think Sadie or Charles dying, along with not being able to confront Micah could've hardened him into the man we saw in Red Dead 1. I mean, killing Micah in the epilogue was a terrible decision from a writing standpoint. Providing closure might be the "correct" way to write the story, but I don't think it's necessary in this case. Think about how the weight of Arthur's unavenged death would carry into John's confrontations with Bill, Javier, and Dutch. The pent up anger and frustration of not being able to find the guy that killed your brother? That would give much stronger context to how John carries himself in the first game. 

If John was supposed to be found by the PDA/BOI anyway then it was the right decision by Rockstar to make John kill Micah in RDR2, it gives the players satisfaction by avenging Arthur's death, it gives more context to the story of RDR1 by being the ultimate reason why they find him and makes John the ultimate hunter of the previous Van der Linde gang members by killing Cleet, Joe, Micah, Javier, Bill and Dutch himself. Making John kill Micah was not a terrible decision by the writers, but YOU, criticizing literally every decision they made, wishing for an ending less satisfactory than the one we got and that wouldn't even change John's fate anyway, since it was already sealed by the previous game, YOU made a terrible review of the story and those suggestions are equally terrible.

Edited July 13 by Edward RDRIII