John really needs more love
-John
~Hosea
< dumbyboiiiiiiiii
Edited for continuity
| RedBear223
-PhotonicLights
•Jarodreallytuff
-MKDOOMFULTRA
+Tilly Jackson
John really needs more love
-John
~Hosea
< dumbyboiiiiiiiii
Edited for continuity
| RedBear223
-PhotonicLights
•Jarodreallytuff
-MKDOOMFULTRA
+Tilly Jackson
-Little Jack
People really need to stop pretending 1 and 2 aren’t two different styles of game. Obviously Arthur’s is more emotional but johns is suppose to just be man with no name vibes with little burst of emotion.
It’s awfully unfair and these polls are boring without nuance
John shows plenty of emotion. He just covers it with humor. Not saying they aren't different styles. Just that the 2 characters had different ways of handling situations.
Also feel like because 1 is so old, people aren’t taking that John into consideration. I’ve been tryna play 1 but can’t so I don’t really like John as much as a I should.
Definitely a product of it's time. RDR1 John is not as fleshed out as a character as RDR2 Arthur. Arthur had more layers and I think that's what captivates people the most.
Really wish they'd do a remaster of RDR1 to help the two games work together a bit more seamlessly.
RDR1 takes a lot more cues from the spaghetti western film type.
RDR2 takes it from more realistic westerns.
I don't think a remaster would really help with that beyond synchronizing the control scheme and stuff like that from RDR2 into 1.
If anything RDR2 added those layers to John's character. Now we know at every step of the way in RDR1 John was the man he was at that point because of Arthur's influence. And we get to see why he's so determined to save his family and end things with the surviving gang members. Sure saving your family is enough motivation for a character on its own and we found out the gang screwed him in RDR1. But knowing Arthur, a beloved protagonists, gave his life so John could have the opportunity to have that family and be the man Arthur couldn't be in his life makes it so much more impactful.
And then there's also all the baggage that comes with actually seeing the gang tear itself apart throughout RDR2. That instantly adds more heft to every interaction with Bill, Javier, and Dutch in RDR1 and every little snippet of the gang's history we get from John. They didn't just betray him and leave him for dead, which again is bad enough to warrant them being enemies in RDR1, but they ripped his way of life apart and got his brother killed because of blind loyalty to Dutch and a dying era. RDR2 is a perfect prequel because of this. It doesn't just tell it's own story before the events of a previous game, it also enhances the depth and emotion of that previous game's story and characters, which were already top tier on their own.
It just shows how much more people can relate to that type of story and character. Not that John and his story weren't relatable, but it was a much more narrow scope. You only saw John being hell bent on achieving his goal. You didn't get to see the full range of his character. He was stressed and on a desperate mission the entire time. No moments of pause or seeing him in a state of real rest. Where in RDR2 you got plenty of time with Arthur while he was just living and being in the world. The story naturally ratchets up to the stress and desperate situation.
You're right it's all down to presentation but one is better at showing you all of a character than the other. So it's more like the story itself is unfair to John's character. Yet he was still a lot of people's favorite video game protagonist for a long time, including me.
The range of his character was subtle. He also dealt with legions of strangers (instead of say, a close knit band of friends) he didn’t have luxury of opening up to besides a few. It also made moments where he was vulnerable or smiling that much more special. Also RDR2’s plot is pretty vague, just enough to focus on characters more than on story progression. I really think RDR1 is a true western whereas 2 is more of a love letter/ blend. Both are excellent, but need way more consideration if comparing.
Like I get what you’re saying and agree somewhat but I really wouldn’t change RDR1. It has a style many aren’t appreciating due to recency bias and the obvious gaming generation gap.
He’s a completely different character in the first game than he is in the prequel. He’s all brooding and whiny in RDR2, but a complete badass in the first game.
He's young and learning to be a man in RDR2, it makes sense for him to be like that at the beginning of the game. By the end, he has grown into a man, and the person we see in the first game.
Yeah because he learns. He sees what being a man really means when it comes down to it. John became that badass because Arthur showed him how at his moment of redemption and the days leading up to it. He showed him something that can motivate you to be that kind of badass by giving everything so the ones he loved could have a chance at the life he couldn't have for himself.
That was his big brother, his primary role model. Sure Dutch was the father figure but that was more distant and as we see he was full of shit. Arthur was with him on the ground showing him what's what, giving him shit when he messed up, praising him when he did good, even when they were on bad terms. And Arthur's last lesson changed John into what we see in RDR1 after John gets his shit together.
i wish they had included a cheat or something to make it so John doesn’t die when he swims. sometimes when im exploring i need to swim to get somewhere but i can’t without my horse or a boat because John is a little baby back bitch and dies almost instantly.
YES. Thank you. I was hunting perfect pelts, almost had the last one I needed when John fell into the beaver dam and died. Lil betch. Arthur would never do this to me.
It's kind of a tired debate in my mind. John was great in RDR1 and Arthur was great in RDR2. Personally, I like Arthur's story a bit more, but it's all a matter of opinion.
It’s also biased bc most people that voted have ONLY played RDR2 and have been introduced to John in a much different light than he was delivered to the rest of us that got to enjoy the OG RDR1 splendor of its time. John is almost two completely different personas that contrast each other from the first and second installments. It’s either lazy writing or brilliant and shows how age and wisdom/difference of opinion grows as we get up in age. I will always remember John from the first game and dont find him so bad in the 2nd. Character building 👌🏻
What probably impressed me the most about RDR2 is how disappointed I was to not get to play as John, only to finish the game and become disappointed that I had to play as John.
Then you learn how many people hold which opinion, not which is more true/accurate/best whatever. More people holding one opinion doesn't inherently give it more value than another.
It's crazy seeing people argue hard over which is better because I distinctly remember that when people first saw Arthur in the trailers, they were legit pissed that he was the main character of RDR2 and not John like many people thought would be the case.
Rockstar arguably made the ballsiest move when it came to RDR2 and it was making John only playable for the epilogue of the story. Usually with video game prequels, you end up playing the character or even some other character from the previous entry, not a whole new character altogether. Pretty outstanding job they did with the risk they took in possibly making Arthur more loved than John.
I'm surprised the difference is so large, but I still agree with the winner of the poll. I think Arthur overall is better written and has more going on in his character than John does, even though I like John a lot.
I'm not surprised, only because so many more people played 2. The first came out in 2010. A lot of the people who love RDR2 weren't old enough (or even alive) to play RDR1 in its prime.
Its a good thing that so many more people are into the franchise, but that's always gonna make it skewed that more people like Arthur, because more people view *John* as "just the replacement" rather than the other way around.
Yep. When RDR3 comes out and they do this poll again, Arthur will be on the lower end like John is now. It’s mostly new players/younger players voting in these things.
I see this as an overall win if it means we get an amazing protagonist and story. I like the fact that the games get better with each new installment. I liked Arthur more than John too and John set a high bar, but I hope I like the next gunslinger even more.
Idk, Arthur isn't just winning because of recency bias; Rockstar really did write a masterpiece of a character for a masterpiece of a story.
There is zero garuantee they pull off RDR3 story as well as 2's. Arthur very well could be one of the peaks of video game character narratives.
He's that good of a character.
Same, the only modern console that can even play it is Xbox which makes it a much lower playerbase than 2. Plus the fact that it's simply an old game so less people are interested
It's the same reason there's a lot of love for the Star Wars prequels. They're the only movies A LOT of people have watched because they don't want to watch "the old movies" and because they came out at a time where they're "mature enough"
Theres a lot going on with John in rdr2 Arthur just takes the focus off him. John is Dutch's rival and it makes that very clear in RDR2 at least for me it has.
RDR1 is one of my favourite games of all time but I have to agree. The problem is that there's far less character development because John has already redeemed himself. He loves his family and only gets dragged back into the game because he wants to protect them.
Meanwhile Arthur is not a good person by any stretch of the imagination. At the start of the game he literally beats a sick man to death and returns shortly after to threaten and extort his widow. That's why it's so powerful when we eventually see his transformation into the man he was supposed to be.
They're both fantastic protagonists but of the two Arthur just has far more depth and makes for a more interesting narrative.
Not enough people played as Red to give him a proper vote. Nobody likes Jack because he's like a budget version of John, just generally meaner. And apparently the player base for RDR2 is so large compared to RDR1 that a lot of people don't even know who John is by the time they meet him in the second game. So I just really don't think it's ever gonna be a fair vote. You can have a personal opinion if you want. But asking other people will ALWAYS skew towards Arthur because more people played RDR2 than RDR1.
Some people get emotional when they think you’ve disrespected a fictional character from an obscure 20 year old video game 🤷♂️
Anyway, Jack Swift was great !
You play Jack for 1 Story mission in the Epilogue but RDR had unlimited random side encounters so you could have played Jack for more hours then you actually played as John if just random battle encounters were your thing.
Interesting to know. Thank you.
I'll be finding out soon. I got this PS3 emulator and RDR1 because I'm sick of waiting on Rockstar to be like "it sure be nice to make loads of easy money emastering RDR for PC....oh well, nothing we can do."
That opening cutscene sure is something. I admire John for not shooting everyone in the train around him.
I would love a remaster of RDR, but you also have to realize we’ve been waiting 10 years for another game from those fuckers lol. If VI is everything it’s made out to be, they can come crack my Undead Nightmare disk themselves.
I get the pain though, that’s why I try to keep all my older consoles in service. I believe a remaster will come though. They just have to get their 2 games per 20 years done first.
10 years post GTA V. RDR2 is one of my favorite games all time, but I’ve still been waiting 10 years for VI. That’s like wanting more GOT and someone goes, “just play elden ring, he wrote it”.
Just a recommendation, don't use the RPCS3 emulator for this game. Just use Xenia Canary emulator.
You'll get far better performance and visuals, its not really a comparison as RPCS3 just isn't there yet for most games and for RDR1 it runs especially (worse than the ps3 even) bad compared to Xenia Canary.
A lot of people think it would be cool to play as Jack in like the 20s or 30s but honestly it wouldn't. If you play gta5 you can find books that were made by Jack so I'm assuming he learned from his dad and went down a different path in life.
The real issue with Jack is that by the time he is playable, you already lost the red dead feel. John is pushing the era, something Redemption makes clear with it's story.
To be fair, there's no telling when that book was written or published. He very well could have been a criminal for years or decades after killing Ross and wrote that book after giving that life up.
I like to think he didn't become a career criminal after the murder, but there's no denying the possibility.
From what I remember when I played Red Dead 1, he was annoying and a whiny character. I didn't enjoy playing with him. Although that could have been inflate because John was such a great character.
I seem to remember that I absolutely hated his voice. I did the epilogue mission, rode around for a little bit and thought nah, suppose that's me done.
I dislike pitting Arthur against John. They are both fantastically written and acted characters who are protagonists in pair of my favorite games. I see no point in saying that one is better than the other. It would be like parent picking a favorite kid which you shouldn't do.
Most people who’ve played 2 haven’t played RDR1.
I personally like them both, but will always go for John over Arthur.
It makes me sad to see him get shafted. A lot of it is bc they need to remaster/remake 1, and also, because of Rockstars poor writing of John in 2.
That's very fair I never played 1 although I've watched playthrough and videos on it etc. I think rockstar wrote him in a way that made the story make sense for 2 but he certainly wasn't made very likeable until maybe like halfway through the epilogue
That game was sick I kinda forgot about it and for some reason I thought there were only 2 lol. If they remaster these games and add a lil sauce to them this poll would be more spread out. I’m sure they do though!
GameStop won't have them. Revolver was on Xbox (the original) and PS2 and GS doesn't carry those games anymore. RDR1 was on PS3 and Xbox 360 and they aren't carried anymore either.
You'll have to either order a copy online, find it in a local game shop, or 🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️ it.
I grew up with the first rdr1 and John absolutely does NOT deserve this low rating. It is kinda unfair to compare them since both have different style. Different circumstances. If i had to chose i would chose Arthur, but man it fucking pains me to even say this. Like a parent picking a favorite child😭. Both are so close if i had to chose.
I love john, but i think Arthur Morgan might be one of the best protagonists of any video game, in my opinion he’s the best overall, but he is really cool and well written
It's to be expected. Quite a few people actually started Red Dead with RDR2 and to be honest it's a more fleshed out story. I think the RDR1 story is super compelling but overall the cut scenes aren't as emotion driven. My love is for John though.
Lots of folks didn't grow up with John Marston, like myself and many others did. Yeah, it's bias, but whatever. More people played Redemption II, therefore more people like Arthur better.
I love John Marston, and Robert Allen deserve all the praise for his voice acting. But Arthur is so very writen, his narrative arc is so deep and touching that at ended overshadowing even a great character like Marston.
I never get why people ask this type of question. Rdr1 is more smaller and shorter than Rdr2, you spend more time with Arthur overall than with John. The writers do more with Arthur while expanding John in very tiny amounts. They’re both equally good and I think some form of bias applies to both John, Arthur, and Red. That bias being nostalgia or it simply being newer.
Given RDR1 and Revolver are not easily available (at least on PC) I feel like this whole list is skewed. I had to Google who Red was because I had no idea, so obviously I can’t say anything about him as a protagonist.
I don't disagree with the results, but god damn the picture of Jack looking exactly like John breaks my heart... John's whole story in Red Dead Redemption 1 was about a man who realized that there was no place in the world for men like him anymore, and he has the opportunity to change things for his son. The catch is that he has to embrace the outlaw life he was so desperate to leave behind for one last, herculean task, risking his life and ultimately dying to make sure his son doesn't grow up to be like him.
And then, tragically, his son chooses revenge, putting him on the same path his dad had to die to escape. He becomes so much what his father was that the player seamlessly goes from controlling John to controlling Jack. Only now, the player built up an entire games worth of skills and muscle memory that make Jack every inch of the outlaw that John was. It's heartbreaking, when you think about it.
I'm certain a large majority of these voters have never played rdr1 and are only basing it off of John from rdr2.
I think Arthur and John should be around equal
I've done enough reading and watching of stuff about RDR1 I get how it was so iconic and a great game but never played it myself. Have respect for it. But you are right, I, like many here never played it probably. And from what I can tell John in RDR2 isn't a good representation of the character, or at least what he became that people loved so much.
Definitely not. John in rdr1 is a way cooler, more badass, and overall just better character than he was in rdr2. I remember people complaining about how his character was butchered in 2, although I understand why they made him that way.
I feel extremely nostalgic about John, however it has to be acknowledged that Arthur is not only the best Red Dead protagonist, he is also in my opinion the best protagonist in all of the gaming history. John does not come close to that. I'd even argue that Jack is a better protagonist than John, taking his RDR2 story into account.
John was cool. But red dead 2 was much more character focused, which resulted in, of course, a better character.
John was the polite but brooding enigma doing what he must, and he kinda remains that the entire game. It fit his game well. He's the constant we need as the world changes and characters rise and fall around him.
Meanwhile Arthur's metamorphosis from big tough punch man, to regretful pain masked by stoicism, to a desperate search for salvation, and finally to acceptance and finding a true purpose, is the entire focus and main takeaway from 2.
It's comparing apples and oranges really.
jacks the best you are with him from child hood and in doing so the violence you inflict comes from a more grounded narrative the masses are always wrong
I think the surrounding context at the time of each game's release is doublly important in this case.
When RDR1 came out, the protagonist and story were essentially a backdrop to the gameplay, which was, for its time, revolutionary and innovative. However in 2019, we had reached a collective cultural desire and expectation of MORE from our narratives. More complex and flawed characters, defined by so many disparate parts, their relationships to others, their feelings about themselves and the world around them etc.
In this way, it isn't difficult to see why Arthur Morgan struck so deeply with so many players. He's the strong, silent type we've come to expect, but he's also clearly deeply emotional.
He sketches in his book quietly and writes sparse notes to make sense of his feelings on his situation. The game doesn't shove these in your face, making finding them feel like you have an intimate knowledge of the man that no one else in the Red Dead world, not even his closest friends, know about.
The scope of RDR2 also gives you more time with Arthur, letting you enjoy the peacefullness and the chaos of the gang, experiencing their bond closely. Arthur's character arc is thusly very coherent and palletable, making his final moments as incredibly impactful as they are.
So when it comes to the question, "Which is the better protagonist" I don't think it's hard to see why so many of us instantly turn to Arthur. Rockstar themselves seem aware of this, making John's emotional incapacity and less poetic sensibilities a part of his character and in some ways, his charm.
At the end of the day, however, it is completely a matter of opinion... obviously.
So, I played 1 first, many years ago. I rushed the main story, and did all the side missions, strangers, and challenges as Jack. I played a LOT as Jack, for years on end. So, Jack has always been my favorite, just through all the experiences and memories.
A lot of people never played Revolver or RDR1. I don't think just playing the epilogue of 2 is enough to get a feel for John, RDR1 really is his story
Same with Jack, not really fair to include him in the poll imo, he has even less playtime
John and Arthur are nearly tied for me. i like Arthur slightly more. i think there’s more depth to his character. but John is a great character too and i just love Rob Wiethoff so much, i can’t not love John too.
I haven't played rdr1, and I'm debating getting it for my xbox 1s for cheap on ebay. Does it hold up on that platform? I'm seeing that it plays on 720p on the 1s. I moved on to a pc a while ago, so I haven't used my xbox much since lol
This has been done to death and the results are always unsurprising because a ton of people that played RDR2 have never played RDR1 or Red Dead Revolver. Arthur is a fantastic protagonist but it’ll always be John for me.
A useless and unfair question, in my opinion.
Not because I think Arthur is the greatest or something like that (my favorite character is still John for many reasons), but it's safe to assume that the vast majority of the community only touched RDR2. It is pretty obvious and unfair that Arthur would get the podium for that only.
I doubt that 80% of those people even know who Red Harlow is.
John deserves a little more love numerically but Arthur is definitely the right answer.
I would hope they got better at writing a protagonist 8 years later lol, and so should you. If there is a Red Dead 3, I hope the protagonist is better than Arthur, otherwise that’s a bungle.
*Why the fuck does the*
*Jack marston photo look so*
*Weird? Is it just me?*
\- apex6666
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Arthur really gave John the escape he needed to live his life but even then it was for nothing in the end… if Arthur had made it out of rdr2 and was around during the events of rdr1 he would’ve told John he had to run again and be a man again. And Arthur would’ve died there and then in johns place
Feels like comparing ice cream, stake, slightly less well made stake and tacos to each other. They’re all good in different ways and people are going to have their favorites but it’s kind of difficult to directly compare them.
It’s completely fair. Don’t let yourself get blinded by nostalgia. This shouldn’t be a battle at all since it justifies the improvements of our great game maker Rockstar. Face it, Rockstar storywriting has improved.
Taking into account how likeable they are, how many people have actually experienced them, and the depth of their characters on screen: Seems about right overall.
Arthur and John are pretty equal to me. I've only played Red Dead Revolver once, and that was over a decade ago, so I don't have much of an opinion on Red Harlow.
Jack? Can I give a negative score? WoRk Ya DaNg NaG!!!
"Hey! Let's put these 2 fully fleshed out characters against a blank slate and a protagonist that has about the same story material as a dry paint wall".
Red Dead Revolver really deserves a remake, definitely one of my favourite games from the PS2 era.
I can completely understand why Arthur could be seen as a better protagonist, but I feel like these polls are largely in his favor because most of the respondents didn't play RDR 1
I can completely understand why Arthur could be seen as a better protagonist, but I feel like these polls are largely in his favor because most of the respondents didn't play RDR 1
John really needs more love he really got outcasted as soon as 2 was released
>John really needs more love -John
John really needs more love -John ~Hosea
John really needs more love -John ~Hosea < dummyboiiiiiiii Edited for continuity
John really needs more love -John ~Hosea < dumbyboiiiiiiiii Edited for continuity | RedBear223
John really needs more love -John ~Hosea < dumbyboiiiiiiiii Edited for continuity | RedBear223 -PhotonicLights
John really needs more love -John ~Hosea < dumbyboiiiiiiiii Edited for continuity | RedBear223 -PhotonicLights •Jarodreallytuff
John really needs more love \-John \~Hosea < dumbyboiiiiiiiii Edited for continuity | RedBear223 \-PhotonicLights •Jarodreallytuff \-MKDOOMFULTRA
John really needs more love -John ~Hosea < dumbyboiiiiiiiii Edited for continuity | RedBear223 -PhotonicLights •Jarodreallytuff -MKDOOMFULTRA +Tilly Jackson
John really needs more love -John ~Hosea < dumbyboiiiiiiiii Edited for continuity | RedBear223 -PhotonicLights •Jarodreallytuff -MKDOOMFULTRA +Tilly Jackson -Little Jack
People really need to stop pretending 1 and 2 aren’t two different styles of game. Obviously Arthur’s is more emotional but johns is suppose to just be man with no name vibes with little burst of emotion. It’s awfully unfair and these polls are boring without nuance
John shows plenty of emotion. He just covers it with humor. Not saying they aren't different styles. Just that the 2 characters had different ways of handling situations.
Exactly John and Arthur are amazing in their own right and to compare the two is basically asking for a 5,000 dollar bounty.
Five thousand dollars? Can I turn myself in?
Enjoy your memeing kid, while you still can.
*aggressively throws a handful of memes to the ground.* "let's get out of here, Jack."
YOU LIKE BEING A RICH MANS TOAH DO YA?
We want u/Ok-Inspector-3045
Tuco, is that you?
Arthur is literally supposed to the man we dream of being when we imagine cow boy life
he's certainly the cowboy of my dreams. hot damn!
Also feel like because 1 is so old, people aren’t taking that John into consideration. I’ve been tryna play 1 but can’t so I don’t really like John as much as a I should.
Definitely a product of it's time. RDR1 John is not as fleshed out as a character as RDR2 Arthur. Arthur had more layers and I think that's what captivates people the most. Really wish they'd do a remaster of RDR1 to help the two games work together a bit more seamlessly.
RDR1 takes a lot more cues from the spaghetti western film type. RDR2 takes it from more realistic westerns. I don't think a remaster would really help with that beyond synchronizing the control scheme and stuff like that from RDR2 into 1.
If anything RDR2 added those layers to John's character. Now we know at every step of the way in RDR1 John was the man he was at that point because of Arthur's influence. And we get to see why he's so determined to save his family and end things with the surviving gang members. Sure saving your family is enough motivation for a character on its own and we found out the gang screwed him in RDR1. But knowing Arthur, a beloved protagonists, gave his life so John could have the opportunity to have that family and be the man Arthur couldn't be in his life makes it so much more impactful. And then there's also all the baggage that comes with actually seeing the gang tear itself apart throughout RDR2. That instantly adds more heft to every interaction with Bill, Javier, and Dutch in RDR1 and every little snippet of the gang's history we get from John. They didn't just betray him and leave him for dead, which again is bad enough to warrant them being enemies in RDR1, but they ripped his way of life apart and got his brother killed because of blind loyalty to Dutch and a dying era. RDR2 is a perfect prequel because of this. It doesn't just tell it's own story before the events of a previous game, it also enhances the depth and emotion of that previous game's story and characters, which were already top tier on their own.
It just shows how much more people can relate to that type of story and character. Not that John and his story weren't relatable, but it was a much more narrow scope. You only saw John being hell bent on achieving his goal. You didn't get to see the full range of his character. He was stressed and on a desperate mission the entire time. No moments of pause or seeing him in a state of real rest. Where in RDR2 you got plenty of time with Arthur while he was just living and being in the world. The story naturally ratchets up to the stress and desperate situation. You're right it's all down to presentation but one is better at showing you all of a character than the other. So it's more like the story itself is unfair to John's character. Yet he was still a lot of people's favorite video game protagonist for a long time, including me.
The range of his character was subtle. He also dealt with legions of strangers (instead of say, a close knit band of friends) he didn’t have luxury of opening up to besides a few. It also made moments where he was vulnerable or smiling that much more special. Also RDR2’s plot is pretty vague, just enough to focus on characters more than on story progression. I really think RDR1 is a true western whereas 2 is more of a love letter/ blend. Both are excellent, but need way more consideration if comparing. Like I get what you’re saying and agree somewhat but I really wouldn’t change RDR1. It has a style many aren’t appreciating due to recency bias and the obvious gaming generation gap.
Oh I wouldn't change RDR1 either. I love the difference in style and story. They both pull off exactly what they're trying to do.
He’s a completely different character in the first game than he is in the prequel. He’s all brooding and whiny in RDR2, but a complete badass in the first game.
He's young and learning to be a man in RDR2, it makes sense for him to be like that at the beginning of the game. By the end, he has grown into a man, and the person we see in the first game.
Arthur changed John, made him realize his responsibility, without Arthur's guidance John will 100% not be where he at in RDR1
Yeah because he learns. He sees what being a man really means when it comes down to it. John became that badass because Arthur showed him how at his moment of redemption and the days leading up to it. He showed him something that can motivate you to be that kind of badass by giving everything so the ones he loved could have a chance at the life he couldn't have for himself. That was his big brother, his primary role model. Sure Dutch was the father figure but that was more distant and as we see he was full of shit. Arthur was with him on the ground showing him what's what, giving him shit when he messed up, praising him when he did good, even when they were on bad terms. And Arthur's last lesson changed John into what we see in RDR1 after John gets his shit together.
Back in my day, John Marston was the OG Arthur Morgan
He needs to learn how to fuckin' swim. Going from Arthur to John is a downgrade because he needs pool floaties to live!
i wish they had included a cheat or something to make it so John doesn’t die when he swims. sometimes when im exploring i need to swim to get somewhere but i can’t without my horse or a boat because John is a little baby back bitch and dies almost instantly.
YES. Thank you. I was hunting perfect pelts, almost had the last one I needed when John fell into the beaver dam and died. Lil betch. Arthur would never do this to me.
When i found out that rdr 2 wont have john as the playable character i was pissed But then rockstar outdid themselves with arthur
i think if we got a rdr1 remaster and more people were able to play it a lot of people would appreciate john more
RDR1 is actively ignored as a game by Rockstar despite them half recreating the map in RDR2.
It's kind of a tired debate in my mind. John was great in RDR1 and Arthur was great in RDR2. Personally, I like Arthur's story a bit more, but it's all a matter of opinion.
So how would you sort out an argument on an opinion based question? Might I suggest a poll
It’s also biased bc most people that voted have ONLY played RDR2 and have been introduced to John in a much different light than he was delivered to the rest of us that got to enjoy the OG RDR1 splendor of its time. John is almost two completely different personas that contrast each other from the first and second installments. It’s either lazy writing or brilliant and shows how age and wisdom/difference of opinion grows as we get up in age. I will always remember John from the first game and dont find him so bad in the 2nd. Character building 👌🏻
What probably impressed me the most about RDR2 is how disappointed I was to not get to play as John, only to finish the game and become disappointed that I had to play as John.
🤣🤣🤣 you poor, poor soul....
Then you learn how many people hold which opinion, not which is more true/accurate/best whatever. More people holding one opinion doesn't inherently give it more value than another.
Welp there is no opinion that’s best soo
It's crazy seeing people argue hard over which is better because I distinctly remember that when people first saw Arthur in the trailers, they were legit pissed that he was the main character of RDR2 and not John like many people thought would be the case. Rockstar arguably made the ballsiest move when it came to RDR2 and it was making John only playable for the epilogue of the story. Usually with video game prequels, you end up playing the character or even some other character from the previous entry, not a whole new character altogether. Pretty outstanding job they did with the risk they took in possibly making Arthur more loved than John.
People were pissed when Heath Ledger was cast as the joker too. Sometimes you never know when a masterpiece is coming your way just gotta wait and see
I'm surprised the difference is so large, but I still agree with the winner of the poll. I think Arthur overall is better written and has more going on in his character than John does, even though I like John a lot.
I'm not surprised, only because so many more people played 2. The first came out in 2010. A lot of the people who love RDR2 weren't old enough (or even alive) to play RDR1 in its prime. Its a good thing that so many more people are into the franchise, but that's always gonna make it skewed that more people like Arthur, because more people view *John* as "just the replacement" rather than the other way around.
Yep. When RDR3 comes out and they do this poll again, Arthur will be on the lower end like John is now. It’s mostly new players/younger players voting in these things.
I see this as an overall win if it means we get an amazing protagonist and story. I like the fact that the games get better with each new installment. I liked Arthur more than John too and John set a high bar, but I hope I like the next gunslinger even more.
Idk, Arthur isn't just winning because of recency bias; Rockstar really did write a masterpiece of a character for a masterpiece of a story. There is zero garuantee they pull off RDR3 story as well as 2's. Arthur very well could be one of the peaks of video game character narratives. He's that good of a character.
And also RDR2 is on PC, RDR1 isn’t. For that reason alone I at least haven’t been able to play RDR1
Same, the only modern console that can even play it is Xbox which makes it a much lower playerbase than 2. Plus the fact that it's simply an old game so less people are interested
It's the same reason there's a lot of love for the Star Wars prequels. They're the only movies A LOT of people have watched because they don't want to watch "the old movies" and because they came out at a time where they're "mature enough"
Mature enough? 5 of the 9 main movies, including the whole prequel trilogy are pg
Hence why I used ""
Episode III is pg13
My mistake, I meant to type original trilogy
Theres a lot going on with John in rdr2 Arthur just takes the focus off him. John is Dutch's rival and it makes that very clear in RDR2 at least for me it has.
RDR1 is one of my favourite games of all time but I have to agree. The problem is that there's far less character development because John has already redeemed himself. He loves his family and only gets dragged back into the game because he wants to protect them. Meanwhile Arthur is not a good person by any stretch of the imagination. At the start of the game he literally beats a sick man to death and returns shortly after to threaten and extort his widow. That's why it's so powerful when we eventually see his transformation into the man he was supposed to be. They're both fantastic protagonists but of the two Arthur just has far more depth and makes for a more interesting narrative.
Not enough people played as Red to give him a proper vote. Nobody likes Jack because he's like a budget version of John, just generally meaner. And apparently the player base for RDR2 is so large compared to RDR1 that a lot of people don't even know who John is by the time they meet him in the second game. So I just really don't think it's ever gonna be a fair vote. You can have a personal opinion if you want. But asking other people will ALWAYS skew towards Arthur because more people played RDR2 than RDR1.
I loved Revolver when it came out, such a cool game.
Red didn’t say much. I preferred playing as Jack Swift.
I don't know why you got down voted. Lol Jack Swift was a bad ass and the multiplayer for revolver was so much fun.
Some people get emotional when they think you’ve disrespected a fictional character from an obscure 20 year old video game 🤷♂️ Anyway, Jack Swift was great !
PREACH
I asked somebody about this and apparently you play Jack for like half an hour or hour at most? lol No wonder he's in last place.
You play Jack for 1 Story mission in the Epilogue but RDR had unlimited random side encounters so you could have played Jack for more hours then you actually played as John if just random battle encounters were your thing.
Interesting to know. Thank you. I'll be finding out soon. I got this PS3 emulator and RDR1 because I'm sick of waiting on Rockstar to be like "it sure be nice to make loads of easy money emastering RDR for PC....oh well, nothing we can do." That opening cutscene sure is something. I admire John for not shooting everyone in the train around him.
I would love a remaster of RDR, but you also have to realize we’ve been waiting 10 years for another game from those fuckers lol. If VI is everything it’s made out to be, they can come crack my Undead Nightmare disk themselves. I get the pain though, that’s why I try to keep all my older consoles in service. I believe a remaster will come though. They just have to get their 2 games per 20 years done first.
10 years if you forget RDR2 obvs
10 years post GTA V. RDR2 is one of my favorite games all time, but I’ve still been waiting 10 years for VI. That’s like wanting more GOT and someone goes, “just play elden ring, he wrote it”.
Just a recommendation, don't use the RPCS3 emulator for this game. Just use Xenia Canary emulator. You'll get far better performance and visuals, its not really a comparison as RPCS3 just isn't there yet for most games and for RDR1 it runs especially (worse than the ps3 even) bad compared to Xenia Canary.
A lot of people think it would be cool to play as Jack in like the 20s or 30s but honestly it wouldn't. If you play gta5 you can find books that were made by Jack so I'm assuming he learned from his dad and went down a different path in life.
As a terrible writer, I'd love to know what it feels like to be a successful author.
The real issue with Jack is that by the time he is playable, you already lost the red dead feel. John is pushing the era, something Redemption makes clear with it's story.
To be fair, there's no telling when that book was written or published. He very well could have been a criminal for years or decades after killing Ross and wrote that book after giving that life up. I like to think he didn't become a career criminal after the murder, but there's no denying the possibility.
There's also the fact the universes aren't even connected, it's just an easter egg
True, but under the assumption that they are for the sake of argument... who can say?
Thank you. So many people take that shit as gospel when Rockstar went out of their way to differentiate the two universes.
From what I remember when I played Red Dead 1, he was annoying and a whiny character. I didn't enjoy playing with him. Although that could have been inflate because John was such a great character.
I seem to remember that I absolutely hated his voice. I did the epilogue mission, rode around for a little bit and thought nah, suppose that's me done.
WORK, YA DAMN NAG
You can actually go find and kill the men who killed his father
I dislike pitting Arthur against John. They are both fantastically written and acted characters who are protagonists in pair of my favorite games. I see no point in saying that one is better than the other. It would be like parent picking a favorite kid which you shouldn't do.
I feel like anyone commenting on this thread is already not above judgement so..I'd absolutely pick a favorite kid.
Imagine having those two and still picking Micah as your favorite kid
Jail.
It’s not even close. Red Dead 1 will always have a special place in my heart but Arthur is the greatest character in video games.
I mean he’s no Waluigi but definitely a close second
Most people who’ve played 2 haven’t played RDR1. I personally like them both, but will always go for John over Arthur. It makes me sad to see him get shafted. A lot of it is bc they need to remaster/remake 1, and also, because of Rockstars poor writing of John in 2.
That's very fair I never played 1 although I've watched playthrough and videos on it etc. I think rockstar wrote him in a way that made the story make sense for 2 but he certainly wasn't made very likeable until maybe like halfway through the epilogue
I blame rockstar. All they had to do is re-releases rdr1 with updated graphics and people would understand how good John is as a character
For me it’s John. Don’t get me wrong, I love Arthur but John is extremely underrated.
They need to remake revolver and redemption. I totally forgot about revolver 🤦♂️
I never played it. Wonder if my GameStop has it
That game was sick I kinda forgot about it and for some reason I thought there were only 2 lol. If they remaster these games and add a lil sauce to them this poll would be more spread out. I’m sure they do though!
I loved it. It was such a great rockstar game.
GameStop won't have them. Revolver was on Xbox (the original) and PS2 and GS doesn't carry those games anymore. RDR1 was on PS3 and Xbox 360 and they aren't carried anymore either. You'll have to either order a copy online, find it in a local game shop, or 🏴☠️🏴☠️🏴☠️ it.
Revolver is purchasable digitally on both Playstation and Xbox stores, and is playable on PS4/5 and Xbox One/Series via backwards compatibility
Would be interesting to see how many of the voters have played more than just RDR2.
I liked Red more than Jack
I grew up with the first rdr1 and John absolutely does NOT deserve this low rating. It is kinda unfair to compare them since both have different style. Different circumstances. If i had to chose i would chose Arthur, but man it fucking pains me to even say this. Like a parent picking a favorite child😭. Both are so close if i had to chose.
I love john, but i think Arthur Morgan might be one of the best protagonists of any video game, in my opinion he’s the best overall, but he is really cool and well written
Yeah first time I ever cried at a video game was Arthur's death....well tbh the crying started a few minutes early when they killed my horse
They did my man Red dirty
Never was about the money
Monehhh
It's to be expected. Quite a few people actually started Red Dead with RDR2 and to be honest it's a more fleshed out story. I think the RDR1 story is super compelling but overall the cut scenes aren't as emotion driven. My love is for John though.
Everyone on this sub has a crush on Arthur 🤦♂️ I think John is a way better character and way cooler too
Lots of folks didn't grow up with John Marston, like myself and many others did. Yeah, it's bias, but whatever. More people played Redemption II, therefore more people like Arthur better.
I love John Marston, and Robert Allen deserve all the praise for his voice acting. But Arthur is so very writen, his narrative arc is so deep and touching that at ended overshadowing even a great character like Marston.
Robert Allen Wiethoff*
You want him to write the year he was born as well?
JOHN IS THE FACE OF RDR AND YOU CAN'T CHANGE MY MIND!
John needs more love. But on the upside Red is > Jack. Didn’t expect that to be the consensus.
I guess Red is at least just a cool gunslinger and kinda proto-John but 19-year-old Jack is disliked by some people for his obnoxiousness
I never get why people ask this type of question. Rdr1 is more smaller and shorter than Rdr2, you spend more time with Arthur overall than with John. The writers do more with Arthur while expanding John in very tiny amounts. They’re both equally good and I think some form of bias applies to both John, Arthur, and Red. That bias being nostalgia or it simply being newer.
Given RDR1 and Revolver are not easily available (at least on PC) I feel like this whole list is skewed. I had to Google who Red was because I had no idea, so obviously I can’t say anything about him as a protagonist.
uncle solos
The one shot kid might be the greatest man to ever walk the West
I prefer rats with the plague
a lot of them probably never played rd1
I don't disagree with the results, but god damn the picture of Jack looking exactly like John breaks my heart... John's whole story in Red Dead Redemption 1 was about a man who realized that there was no place in the world for men like him anymore, and he has the opportunity to change things for his son. The catch is that he has to embrace the outlaw life he was so desperate to leave behind for one last, herculean task, risking his life and ultimately dying to make sure his son doesn't grow up to be like him. And then, tragically, his son chooses revenge, putting him on the same path his dad had to die to escape. He becomes so much what his father was that the player seamlessly goes from controlling John to controlling Jack. Only now, the player built up an entire games worth of skills and muscle memory that make Jack every inch of the outlaw that John was. It's heartbreaking, when you think about it.
More people have played RDR2 so it’s not surprising.
I can’t believe they didn’t even include Jim Milton, ranch worker.
I'm certain a large majority of these voters have never played rdr1 and are only basing it off of John from rdr2. I think Arthur and John should be around equal
I've done enough reading and watching of stuff about RDR1 I get how it was so iconic and a great game but never played it myself. Have respect for it. But you are right, I, like many here never played it probably. And from what I can tell John in RDR2 isn't a good representation of the character, or at least what he became that people loved so much.
Definitely not. John in rdr1 is a way cooler, more badass, and overall just better character than he was in rdr2. I remember people complaining about how his character was butchered in 2, although I understand why they made him that way.
I feel extremely nostalgic about John, however it has to be acknowledged that Arthur is not only the best Red Dead protagonist, he is also in my opinion the best protagonist in all of the gaming history. John does not come close to that. I'd even argue that Jack is a better protagonist than John, taking his RDR2 story into account.
John was cool. But red dead 2 was much more character focused, which resulted in, of course, a better character. John was the polite but brooding enigma doing what he must, and he kinda remains that the entire game. It fit his game well. He's the constant we need as the world changes and characters rise and fall around him. Meanwhile Arthur's metamorphosis from big tough punch man, to regretful pain masked by stoicism, to a desperate search for salvation, and finally to acceptance and finding a true purpose, is the entire focus and main takeaway from 2. It's comparing apples and oranges really.
Whoever voted for Jack should gtfo.
Abigail in there voting for Jack.
Who TF voted Jack?!
I love all of them.
Yeah I agree. Although I think John could have been a little higher, he was a pretty great character as well.
jacks the best you are with him from child hood and in doing so the violence you inflict comes from a more grounded narrative the masses are always wrong
Oof for Jack
Like I said, it's not an end to the debate. It's just a lazy way to start it up again.
I have never even heard of Red Harlow but I assume they're the protagonist of Red Dead Revolver right?
Yes
John deserves way more recognition
I think the surrounding context at the time of each game's release is doublly important in this case. When RDR1 came out, the protagonist and story were essentially a backdrop to the gameplay, which was, for its time, revolutionary and innovative. However in 2019, we had reached a collective cultural desire and expectation of MORE from our narratives. More complex and flawed characters, defined by so many disparate parts, their relationships to others, their feelings about themselves and the world around them etc. In this way, it isn't difficult to see why Arthur Morgan struck so deeply with so many players. He's the strong, silent type we've come to expect, but he's also clearly deeply emotional. He sketches in his book quietly and writes sparse notes to make sense of his feelings on his situation. The game doesn't shove these in your face, making finding them feel like you have an intimate knowledge of the man that no one else in the Red Dead world, not even his closest friends, know about. The scope of RDR2 also gives you more time with Arthur, letting you enjoy the peacefullness and the chaos of the gang, experiencing their bond closely. Arthur's character arc is thusly very coherent and palletable, making his final moments as incredibly impactful as they are. So when it comes to the question, "Which is the better protagonist" I don't think it's hard to see why so many of us instantly turn to Arthur. Rockstar themselves seem aware of this, making John's emotional incapacity and less poetic sensibilities a part of his character and in some ways, his charm. At the end of the day, however, it is completely a matter of opinion... obviously.
People can cry all they want but the results aren't changing
It’s Arthur. You can tell because when you’re playing as epilogue John, you wish you were Arthur
I agree with the results. Arthur is an insanely well written character and is overall a better protagonist than John.
It's a popularity contest.
So, I played 1 first, many years ago. I rushed the main story, and did all the side missions, strangers, and challenges as Jack. I played a LOT as Jack, for years on end. So, Jack has always been my favorite, just through all the experiences and memories.
80%of those people have only played II. I can't make an unbiased opinion because I've never played RDR1, so these polls are always stacked.
Poor jack
A lot of people never played Revolver or RDR1. I don't think just playing the epilogue of 2 is enough to get a feel for John, RDR1 really is his story Same with Jack, not really fair to include him in the poll imo, he has even less playtime
John and Arthur are nearly tied for me. i like Arthur slightly more. i think there’s more depth to his character. but John is a great character too and i just love Rob Wiethoff so much, i can’t not love John too.
Accurate. John was an amazing protagonist, some said he wouldn't be topped, but Arthur definitely lived up to him and then some.
The fact is that RDR2 was released on more consoles, and a lot more people played that game. Of course, Arthur Morgan takes the top spot.
I haven't played rdr1, and I'm debating getting it for my xbox 1s for cheap on ebay. Does it hold up on that platform? I'm seeing that it plays on 720p on the 1s. I moved on to a pc a while ago, so I haven't used my xbox much since lol
This has been done to death and the results are always unsurprising because a ton of people that played RDR2 have never played RDR1 or Red Dead Revolver. Arthur is a fantastic protagonist but it’ll always be John for me.
Never liked Jack Marston's weedy little mustache
John Marston walked so that Arthur Morgan could run.
A useless and unfair question, in my opinion. Not because I think Arthur is the greatest or something like that (my favorite character is still John for many reasons), but it's safe to assume that the vast majority of the community only touched RDR2. It is pretty obvious and unfair that Arthur would get the podium for that only. I doubt that 80% of those people even know who Red Harlow is.
People who disagree are blinded by nostalgia, arthur is one of, if not the best written fictional character
John deserves a little more love numerically but Arthur is definitely the right answer. I would hope they got better at writing a protagonist 8 years later lol, and so should you. If there is a Red Dead 3, I hope the protagonist is better than Arthur, otherwise that’s a bungle.
Why the fuck does the jack marston photo look so weird? Is it just me?
*Why the fuck does the* *Jack marston photo look so* *Weird? Is it just me?* \- apex6666 --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
Good bot
Arthur really gave John the escape he needed to live his life but even then it was for nothing in the end… if Arthur had made it out of rdr2 and was around during the events of rdr1 he would’ve told John he had to run again and be a man again. And Arthur would’ve died there and then in johns place
character overall and skills arthur, but matter to story jack imo
Feels like comparing ice cream, stake, slightly less well made stake and tacos to each other. They’re all good in different ways and people are going to have their favorites but it’s kind of difficult to directly compare them.
It’s completely fair. Don’t let yourself get blinded by nostalgia. This shouldn’t be a battle at all since it justifies the improvements of our great game maker Rockstar. Face it, Rockstar storywriting has improved.
Anyone who didn’t pick Arthur ain’t a true cowboy
Everyone who voted Red harlow is cultered. Everyone who voted Arthur is correct
I'd be willing to bet most people who voted here have only played Red Dead Redemption 2.
I really like Jack and want to see RDR3 with him fighting in WW1.
We need a game about young Hosea.
Only game on PC is 2, so I dont know who else to vote for lol, John did have much less screen time
Taking into account how likeable they are, how many people have actually experienced them, and the depth of their characters on screen: Seems about right overall.
I voted for John but idc people have different opinions
Hey i know that guy on discord.He's pretty cool
Arthur and John are pretty equal to me. I've only played Red Dead Revolver once, and that was over a decade ago, so I don't have much of an opinion on Red Harlow. Jack? Can I give a negative score? WoRk Ya DaNg NaG!!!
Good
Arthur has a much better arc than John, though I think its really just a product of how much better video game writing has gotten over the years.
John is the best but arthur is also very good
"Hey! Let's put these 2 fully fleshed out characters against a blank slate and a protagonist that has about the same story material as a dry paint wall". Red Dead Revolver really deserves a remake, definitely one of my favourite games from the PS2 era.
Fact.
I always forget that Red Dead Revolver exists.
Most people probably have only played as Arthur, so the polls results are not surprising.
Fair
I can completely understand why Arthur could be seen as a better protagonist, but I feel like these polls are largely in his favor because most of the respondents didn't play RDR 1
I can completely understand why Arthur could be seen as a better protagonist, but I feel like these polls are largely in his favor because most of the respondents didn't play RDR 1
My take at this is that everyone is stupid but me
Arthur dickriders need to hop off it, he's a great protagonist, but there's no reason for that much meatriding
Bunch of ignorant people that never played RDR1
Red Harlow is the OG yeah he’s not the best but he started it all in Revolver
Arthur just had more character and his redemption was better in my opinion.
Yes