John Marston and Arthur Morgan? {no spoilers}

Still early on in the story but anyone else feel differently about John Marston as the game progresses? The dynamic in which he’s portrayed in RDR2 over RDR is captivating.

On the flip side, it seems Arthur Morgan as the ideal gang member and protagonist almost trivializes John entirely. I like how the tied these two games together through subtle dialogue

Marston of RDR1 is far better character than anyone in RDR2...

Back then Rockstar could still create riveting, multifaceted characters with real personality.

Of course, most gamers here werent man enough to play thru RDR1, so what do they know? They only played the opening of RDR1 with the horse taming and cow herding, and base their thoughts on that.

But on RDR1, Marston really develops and deepens as a character as you get further in the game. So its one of those games you really have to play thru to the bitter end to realise what masterpiece it is.

not that you would know any of that, tho. Noobs.

It doesn't make much sense to fault RDR2 for lack of character development when the whole story is based on an ensemble cast. In 1, the story is Marston's experience as a lone gunman on a mission to save his family. In 2, you play Morgan, though he is just a part, albeit large, of the greater story; the story of the gang itself.

Yes, well said... it's unfair to compare the 2 games in that respect.

And I think a lot of the intrigue in RDR2 comes from knowing, as you play through it, what ultimately happens to most of the main members of the gang (as we see in RDR1). So seeing characters like John portrayed the way he is in RDR2, is very fascinating to me.

I never could relate to Marston in the first game because of lot of his characterization and motivation was based on nothing but reminiscing. They attempted to flesh him out on events we didn't even engage in, and the whole story of RDR 1 was John striving to make amends for something that the player was told through exposition. Most of the game I simply had to pretend to care about John's motives, or the lawman's.

At least with Arthur we get to live his experience to be able to identify with him in the present instead of to rectify the past, and his interactions with the group only develop him further. As such, I'm finding him far more of a fascinating study than John ever was. But now that I'm witnessing John's development that he spoke so much on from the first game, if I went back to it I'd probably appreciate him more. Trouble is, I simply can't go back to RDR1 after playing 2.

@henrythefifth: how you feel about Marston in RDR 1 is the exact opposite of how I feel about Arthur. Have you taken on the side missions and stranger interactions with Arthur yet? He seems to develop organically as the story evolves. Yes they both have their base outlaw personas but the sliver of humanity they provide with each mission is nice.

I agree with what someone else said. It’s interesting to see how things play out in this game since all we had in the first was John reminiscing on key events and not really doing a good job of that either