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

[Sanctuary II]

10 hours ago, PipingHotAnimals said:

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. 

Excellently put. I agree with every word. You concisely presented all my arguments against RDR2 John, the "character development" counterpoint and why John was so well written in the first game, in one digestive post. One of the main problems with John in RDR2 is that his character was traded a much more complex character arc that we were teased with in RDR1; a ruthless right-hand man who fought blindly for his mentor's cause grows gradually disullsioned with it as they lose sight of their original intentions. Quickly realizing it was an excuse, he begins questioning the gang's actions and he's subsequently seen as a traitor and is left to die by his comrades. This sets him free to seek a truly honest life with his family that he neglected in the hopes of some form of redemption. That's a proper arc; transformative, contemplative and shows the character's agency. 

 

But John is mostly sidelined in RDR2 and thus, doesn't nearly have enough screentime or emphasis on his perspective need to pull off such an arc. So intead, he's given a simplistic, barebones arc about growing out of being a deadbeat and accepting his responsibility as a father to Jack. Something he does halfway through the game anyway and it's evolution (seeing John actually bond with Jack) mostly takes place off-screen or in missable camp moments. In fact, most of John's personal moments or ones that show his insight on the story's events take place in missable camp conversations rather than adding to an already fleshed out arc in the actual story.

 

People argue that RDR1 John is a much weaker character, writing-wise, because he doesn't have a character arc. But like you said, I think it's more of a criticism on him not having a clear "Point A to B" movie arc like Arthur. But I similarly believe the way RDR1 John's journey is told is a much more effective and skillful use of the gaming medium to highlight a character's past, struggles and development. RDR1 gives John what I call a "retrospective character arc" where he doesn't exactly change from beginning to end, personality-wise. But through our gameplay actions and choices (honor) on the mission to get back our family, we get to define if he even changed when he set out to live a normal life or was he always still the same ruthless outlaw. And thus it makes John feel much more human and our attatchement to his journey is naturally intertwined with both of his and our story progression. 

[Sanctuary II]

On 7/13/2023 at 7:55 PM, 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. 

 

On 7/14/2023 at 12:16 AM, Edward RDRIII said:

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.

I dislike the decision to have John get revenge on Micah in the first place. I believe it's a sloppy mirror of RDR1's ending and completely out of character for John, being on many the many ways he's written inconsistently in RDR2 with his original self. Someone who'd never do anything to stupidly risk his family, especially not payback for something from his old life that he firmly left buried.

 

If anything, RDR1 John didn't care for revenge, even when he was essentially given a free ticket to get it on the men that left him to die. It's clear there's no malice exactly behind his hunt for them, he just hates that even has to confront the past again. His first act in the game is a knowingly futile attempt to help one of his ex-brother in arms, by trying to warn him of what he's forced to do.

 

It also undermines the tragedy behind John's ultimate fate by reframing it as this karmic "shot himself in the foot" scenario because of how he risked his family and cover by going after Micah. Rather than it being the story of a man who could never be forgiven by the world for his past sins no matter how much he truly gave up on his old ways and committed to an honest life, like it originally was. John in RDR was defined by how he responds to what the world throws at him. Not being the instigator of his own misery type, like a Dutch Van der Linde.

 

The worst past is, I disagree. There WAS a way they could've given us closure by letting us kill Micah while retaining the integrity of John's character. If you recontextualize American Venom as John having to defend his family and ranch from Micah's gang (maybe even tie it to his daughter's death) and the fallout leads to him coming up on Ross' radar, they would've accomplished everything the original aimed to achieve; give closure to fans by killing Micah in a big, bombastic finale, mirroring RDR1's ending and explaining how Ross got to found John in the first place. All while pleasing fans of the OG John Marston. It's just people have this mentality that every decision the writers made to tie the prequel bits to RDR1 or portray the returning characters was the best way they could've done it and there was just no way other way.

 

P.S: also @Edward RDRIII it's just their opinion, so I don't get why are you coming on a bit strong. They're not saying the writers decisions are objectively terrible. If you loved it, then you're opinion is just as valid. Like all art, it's subjective. And thus, RDR2 is worth being equally praised and criticized imo. 

Edited August 22 by Sanctuary II

[Sanctuary II]

9 hours ago, sks23320 said:

"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.

Agreed. And it's all made all the worse for me when I realized that they didn't even need John to have revenge on Micah to get us to kill him. They could've totally framed it as either John defending his family and ranch from Micah's gang. Or they could've even went the route of the B.O.I tracking John down by the epilogue and asking him to hunt down Micah for his first assignment. 

[sks23320]

26 minutes ago, TheMadTitan said:

Agreed. And it's all made all the worse for me when I realized that they didn't even need John to have revenge on Micah to get us to kill him. They could've totally framed it as either John defending his family and ranch from Micah's gang. Or they could've even went the route of the B.O.I tracking John down by the epilogue and asking him to hunt down Micah for his first assignment. 

throughout the epilogue we always see 2 sides of the same coin repeatedly,either john trying to kill for no reason (even when he can leave the situation be) but then he realises he has a family to protect and then starts caring for them,we don't get any reason as to why he develops certain affection towards jack too even when he may/may not be his son is a debate of another generation(of consoles),he just starts caring for both of them from chapter 4/5 iirc......after we rescue him from the prison he just accepts abigail and jack as his family is what i find a bit weird.....but hey i maybe wrong as i haven't played rdr2 in about 6-7 months so it may be a bit foggy but that's how i remember....

[Edward RDRIII]

10 hours ago, TheMadTitan said:

 

I dislike the decision to have John get revenge on Micah in the first place. I believe it's absolutely out of character, a sloppy mirror of RDR1's ending and just another way John is written completely inconsistently with his first game self. Who would never do anything to stupidly risk his family, especially not payback for something from his old life that he firmly left buried.

 

If anything, RDR1 John didn't care for revenge, even when he was essentially given a free chance to get it on the men that left him to die. It's clear there's no exactly malice behind his hunt for them, he just hates that even has to confront the past again. His first act in the game is a knowingly futile attempt to help one of his ex-brother in arms, by trying to talk some sense into him. It also undermienes the tragedy behind John's ultimate fate by reframing it as this karmic "shot himself in the foot" scenario because of how he risked his family and cover by going after Micah. Rather than the story of a man who could never be forgiven by the world for his past sins no matter how much he truly gave up on his old ways and committed to an honest life. John was a character in 2010 defined by how he acts when the world throws sh*t at him. Not being the instigator of his own misery, like a Dutch Van der Linde.

 

The worst past is, I disagree, there WAS a wat they could've given us closure by letting us kill Micah while retaining the integrity of John's character. If they simply recontextualized American Venom as John having to defend his family and ranch from Micah's gang (maybe even tie to his daughter's death) and the fallout leads to him coming up on Ross' radar, they would've accomplished everything the original aimed to achieve; give closure to fans by killing Micah in a big, bombastic finale, mirroring RDR1's ending and explaining how Ross got to found John in the first place. All while pleasing fans of the OG John Marston. It's just pepple have this mentality that every decision the writers made to tie the prequel bits to RDR1 or portray the returning characters was the best way they could've done it and there was just no way other way.

 

P.S: also @Edward RDRIII it's just their opinion, so I don't get why are you coming on a bit strong. They're not saying the writers decisions are objectively terrible. If you loved it, then you're opinion is just as valid. Like all art, it's all subjective and thus RDR2 is worth being equally praised and criticized. 

I understand your point of view and I agree with some of the things you said, specially with the idea of American Venom taking place in Beecher's Hope, John's daughter dying there and him killing Micah there of self defense, Rockstar could even have used the animation of John killing the Laramies' leader with Micah and I don't know why they didn't, in fact I know why they did it, to give Dutch some needless redemption moment by shooting Micah and leaving him exposed for John to finish him off, mirroring what he did stepping onto Arthur's hand to stop him of finishing Micah off himself, but I wish that Dutch didn't appear anymore at all in the epilogue, after everything he does throughout the main story I want nothing but hunt his ass by playing the other game as I don't feel the slightest of sympathy for him anymore after Arthur's death.

 

My problem with that dude's opinion is that he wish that the game didn't have a revenge arc at all and we all know how unpopular this decision would've been, specially after seeing people's reaction to TLOU2's ending when Ellie spares Abby's life, I'm not even talking about other people only but for me personally too, I would've really disliked the story if nothing happened to Micah after all the bad things he does throughout the story, despite being my second favorite character of the game right after Arthur himself. When a game developer writes a story they have to take responsibility for what the players will think about this story too, it's not only about what the correct thing to do is as most people in real life also do a lot of wrong choices for personal satisfaction, just like John does in American Venom, after all Arthur was his best friend in the Van der Linde gang in Chapter 6, he gave him and his family a opportunity to survive by giving his own life in exchange, everything John has in the epilogue, which is his family, all the farm animals, the farm itself, which is bigger than most settlements in the game, and more he owes everything to Arthur's sacrifice, so saying that the game shoudn't have a revenge arc is quite frankly a really irresponsible thing to say, both for what John represents by hunting all the main remaining members of the Van der Linde gang throughout both games and by having to assure the players satisfaction by the end of the game after already losing control of their favorite protagonist, Rockstar understood this very well when they made Jack avenge John's death in RDR1, even though this most likely ruined his future, and considering that John's fate was already sealed by the previous game anyway, why don't give John one extra moment of badassery? And that's exactly what they did, they could've done it differently as you suggested, which is also a great idea, I give you credit for this, but they couldn't NOT DO IT, especially when you consider that some players think that the epilogue is boring and their only motivation to finish the game is kill Micah, now imagine what they would think about it if the game didn't even at least provide this motivation to finish the epilogue and how this would've affected the reviews of the game.

Edited July 14 by Edward RDRIII

[Sanctuary II]

On 7/14/2023 at 5:07 PM, Edward RDRIII said:

I understand your point of view and I agree with some of the things you said, specially with the idea of American Venom taking place in Beecher's Hope, John's daughter dying there and him killing Micah there of self defense, Rockstar could even have used the animation of John killing the Laramies' leader with Micah and I don't know why they didn't, in fact I know why they did it, to give Dutch some needless redemption moment by shooting Micah and leaving him exposed for John to finish him off, mirroring what he did stepping onto Arthur's hand to stop him of finishing Micah off himself, but I wish that Dutch didn't appear anymore at all in the epilogue, after everything he does throughout the main story I want nothing but hunt his ass by playing the other game as I don't feel the slightest of sympathy for him anymore after Arthur's death.

 

My problem with that dude's opinion is that he wish that the game didn't have a revenge arc at all and we all know how unpopular this decision would've been, specially after seeing people's reaction to TLOU2's ending when Ellie spares Abby's life, I'm not even talking about other people only but for me personally too, I would've really disliked the story if nothing happened to Micah after all the bad things he does throughout the story, despite being my second favorite character of the game right after Arthur himself. When a game developer writes a story they have to take responsibility for what the players will think about this story too, it's not only about what the correct thing to do is as most people in real life also do a lot of wrong choices for personal satisfaction, just like John does in American Venom, after all Arthur was his best friend in the Van der Linde gang in Chapter 6, he gave him and his family a opportunity to survive by giving his own life in exchange, everything John has in the epilogue, which is his family, all the farm animals, the farm itself, which is bigger than most settlements in the game, and more he owes everything to Arthur's sacrifice, so saying that the game shoudn't have a revenge arc is quite frankly a really irresponsible thing to say, both for what John represents by hunting all the main remaining members of the Van der Linde gang throughout both games and by having to assure the players satisfaction by the end of the game after already losing control of their favorite protagonist, Rockstar understood this very well when they made Jack avenge John's death in RDR1, even though this most likely ruined his future, and considering that John's fate was already sealed by the previous game anyway, why don't give John one extra moment of badassery? And that's exactly what they did, they could've done it differently as you suggested, which is also a great idea, I give you credit for this, but they couldn't NOT DO IT, especially when you consider that some players think that the epilogue is boring and their only motivation to finish the game is kill Micah, now imagine what they would think about it if the game didn't even at least provide this motivation to finish the epilogue and how this would've affected the reviews of the game.

That I agree with. Yes, they had to give us a definitive end to Micah's character to tie loose ends and give the players a sense of satisfaction after the tragic ending of Arthur's story. Since all the members of the Van der Linde gang were all killed off and retired except for Dutch, Bill and Javier to be hunted down in RDR1. If they kept him alive to terrorize areas like West Elizabeth, it would've also brought up another inconsistency with the first game on why we didn't hunt him down too. So ultimately, I get why they ended the way they did.

 

But only thing I'm opposed to is, again, the game framing it as a revenge mission where John stupidly risks his family and their new life. Rather than John killing Micah because he's forced to for their sake; be it him being forced by the BOI to hunt him or because his ranch is attacked. Like you said, John's should've been the one to shoot Micah with the cover pose animation. It being saved for that moment would signify how both games have intersected. But they shoehorned Dutch to give him the big "redemption" moment which absorbed the impact of his first appearance in RDR1. And I don't get it because it's not like Dutch is meant to be liked, he's an antagonist, him not getting a redeeming moment would make sense to anyone. It's just another way I feel Rockstar were more concerned with telling and giving closure to RDR2's story on its own rather than being interested in how it all fits with RDR1.

Edited July 25 by TheMadTitan

[MiltonJim]

3 hours ago, TheMadTitan said:

That I agree with. Yes, they had to give us a definitive end to Micah's character to tie loose ends and give the players a sense of satisfaction after the tragic ending of Arthur's story. Since all the members of the Van der Linde gang were all killed off and retired except for Dutch, Bill and Javier to be hunted down in RDR1. If they kept him alive to terrorize areas like West Elizabeth, it would've been another inconsistency brought up with the first game about why we didn't hunt him down too. So I get why they ended the way they did.

 

But only thing I'm opposed to is, again, the game framing it as a revenge mission where John stupidly risks his family and their new life. Rather than John killing Micah because he's forced to for their sake; be it him being forced by the BOI to hunt him or because his ranch is attacked. Like you said, John's should've been the one to shoot Micah with the cover pose animation being saved for that moment to signify how both games have intersected. But they shoehorned Dutch to give him the big "redemption" moment which absorbed the impact of his first appearance in RDR1. Which I don't get because it's not like Dutch is meant to be liked, he's an antagonist, him not getting a redeeming moment would make sense to anyone. It's just another way I feel Rockstar were more concerned with telling and giving closure to RDR2's story on its own and not being all too concerned with how it fits with RDR1.

They tried to do the "Heat(1995)" morale with John taking revenge. I mean it's pretty clear to see that writers love that movie, with GTA5 being massively inspired by it

[Sanctuary II]

19 hours ago, MiltonJim said:

They tried to do the "Heat(1995)" morale with John taking revenge. I mean it's pretty clear to see that writers love that movie, with GTA5 being massively inspired by it

Yeah, I understand that. I just don't think it's very consistent with John's character. Someone who's never had any strong opinion about revenge (whether for or against) and certainly would never risk his family in the same way Neil did his fresh start by killing Waingro. If anything, the Heat morale works for Arthur better, like when he tries to get payback in the money ending. Since he's the one stresses that "Vengeance is an idiot's game" and similarly to Neil, went against his rule in this case by risking his and John's chance of getting out safely for revenge on Micah. 

Edited July 16 by TheMadTitan

[MiltonJim]

12 hours ago, TheMadTitan said:

Yeah, I understand that. I just don't think it's very consistent with John's character. Someone who's never had any strong opinion about revenge (whether for or against) and certainly would never risk his family in the same way Neil did his fresh start by killing Waingro. If anything, the Heat morale works for Arthur better, like when he tries to get payback in the money ending. Since he's the one stresses that "Vengeance is an idiot's game" and similarly to Neil, went against his rule in this case by risking his and John's chance of getting out safely for revenge on Micah. 

You can interpret RDR 2 epilogue as John becoming wise too late. Like he became wise and well readed, only after killing Micah, when it's too late 

[Sanctuary II]

 

On 7/16/2023 at 8:31 PM, MiltonJim said:

You can interpret RDR 2 epilogue as John becoming wise too late. Like he became wise and well readed, only after killing Micah, when it's too late 

I can, your right. But the fact that it's not mentioned as part of John's many past mistakes or even seems like something he'd ever do in RDR1, makes it come off disjointed to me, no matter how much I tried reconciling it. 

 

I say it doesn't seem like something he'd do because the first game made John seem very competent and committed when it came to building their new life, as a way to make up for the life he spent under Dutch. Even being the one who wanted to take up ranching, instead of having to be told so by Abigail. I don't see that same man, having risked his family just for payback a few years earlier. 

Edited August 24 by Sanctuary II

[Angel Piner]

On 9/29/2021 at 10:18 AM, Kaizen454 said:

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.

Agreed. He wasn’t your typical “bad-ass” of the group, but his arch showed how much of a badass you can become when everything’s on the line. I’m obviously biased as a die-hard RDR1 guy, but I’ve always enjoyed John’s story over Arthur’s.

[BoulderFaceplant]

I think it was a mistake to make him so socially awkward in the epilogue. In RDR1, even when he’s making naive and dumb choices, he presents himself with a cool and collected attitude. He oozes this steely-eyed charisma that’s nowhere to be found in the RDR2 epilogue cutscenes. Add to that his his weird jaw and cheekbones, and he doesn’t even feel like the same human being, to be honest. We’re supposed to believe that his personality fundamentally changed between 1907 and 1911, when RDR1 seemed to be pushing the notion that he was wisened over many years. It doesn’t pass the sniff test. 

[FamousActor_]

John from RDR1 is superior.

 

That doesn't mean RDR2 version is bad, but he seems wiser and more self-aware in the original. It could be the writting, but it could also be intentional, since John is older when the events of RDR1 ocurred. 

 

Actually, I'd say the overall dialogue of RDR1 is better than RDR2. Once again, that doesn't mean the dialogues of RDR2 are bad, but the original has some of the best dialogues I've ever seen in any game ever.

[Copcaller]

the character made sense imo hes a lot more immature and selfish but slowly grows up to be the man whod fight the Mexican army and a fort full of bandits for his family.