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

[Drimes]

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