@@electricblaster7798 because you shouldn't blindly trust someone hiding something in an age where outlaws are being hunted and exterminated in the name of western expansion
I made a long comment about this topic, feel free to ignore it if you don't like reading. I only made it since you said it is interesting and I agree it is interesting. If you're interested enough to really look into this, try separating the idea of trusting someone or not from the situation - therefore what is his goal? Here he's defensive, walling someone off from information he doesn't feel they have any business knowing, now we have reason to believe that's his goal with people he doesn't trust. However in my opinion this is more a part of his personality, but it is amplified if he doesn't trust you for good reason. I personally think here he's upset his wife left and is actively trying to change as a person, so he wants to focus more on the moment than the past. This guy is trying to dig into something he wants to forget so he stonewalls him, I'm unsure if trust has to do with anything here. I'm sorry, I know people hate long comments, feel free to call me a nerd but I hope you or maybe someone enjoys it.
0:43 it’s that snarky confrontational attitude that sells it. It’s like he’s very forwardly aggressive to stop a fight from happening in the first place.
Exactly. I've seen people here say "oh, he's angry and impatient in RDR1 because his family is kidnapped" missing that its the eloquent, yet forward and a tad snarky attitude in the delivery and line that makes it like 1911 John.
thats a perfect description of John, he knows what hes done and what hes capable of but is really trying to make a change, even if it comes in the form of being an asshole so he doesnt have to kill someone
@@mickreypokeball7366 Yeah, and even then, many (not you specifically, generally) seem to miss that he mostly talks politely and is cordial with characters unless they're outright hostile or wasting his time. Even then, a lot of the times, it's not always the "savage roasts" that go viral in clips, but something like this. Assertive without resorting to insults or shouting and with a hint of attitude.
I identified with John’s plight. He didn’t ask for none of this shit. But he’s always making the best of it. Trying, failing, still trying. Reluctantly helping everyone else get what they want but still giving you shit for it, letting you know he’s not near as stupid as everyone thinks. He knows what all this is.
This is a big reason I love John's overall arc. He's someone who constantly kept getting kicked down, kept running to try to start a new life, loses it and just starts all over. Until he faces down the army on that fateful day and decides to stop running and give others the chance to live a life.
@@MrBoomxl 100% agreed. That's why I said glimpses because he's still out-of-character for most of the epilogue like in the main story. When he should've been portrayed like in RDR1 imo.
@@themadtitan7603 exactly. Like i can understand it for the main part of the game for 2 reasons; 1. john is younger here so he won't act the same as he would more than a decade later 2. all the people that played rdr1 wanted to play as John, not this new guy Arthur, so making John a bit unlikeable at the start was a good way to make us give Arthur a chance. But in the epilogue, which is years later, he should've definitely acted more like he did in rdr1.
People be like "he doesn't act like rdr1 john" homie if he acted like rdr1 john from the outset he'd have been kicked out of the farm, kicked out of the bank, kicked out of the construction office and would have ended up divorced, alone running from the Pinkertons. He was the one in need, he was in a position of weakness, he didn't have margin to act as a "tough guy... gunslinger"(-Abigail)
You make it sound like ge was arrogant son of a bitch in rdr 1, but he interacted with dumb bastards like Seth and Nigel like guy who knows that those guys are full of shit and with for example Marshal he was ok cause Marshall was just doing his job like John. Just replay rdr 1 before saying something like that. And he was in need in even rdr 1.
@@fedyx1544 I think you're missing the point when people say he talks/doesn't talk like in RDR1. It's not that he didn't talk like an impatient, sarcastic asshole. It's the eloquence & assertiveness with a dash of snarkiness in how he delivers it. Whenever a group of people hear others complaining about John not acting like his RDR1 self, all they imagine is "wah, he wasn't a savage in every scene" because that's all they imagine RDR1 John as, based on all the viral "badass" clips where he's threatening someone. When he was someone who understood what you said about not being able to talk like like impatient prick to everyone you meet or else you'll be kicked out. As a reformed man, he emphasized social decorum and only acted like that to hostiles & time-wasters. He valued the importance of reaching out to folk and making bonds *"We all need friends ol' timer. We die alone but we live among men".* Yet, it's not the politeness, honorability, and willingness to help people even at times when it doesn't serve him that ever gets highlighted. And thus, you people now who unironically say Arthur is more moral and kinder than RDR1 John despite the former dying an active killer & thief.
Also isn't the reason he acts like he does in RDR1 because his family is being held hostage and he's being forced to run around the country catching dangerous criminals?
People ignore the fact John went through a character arc throughout the RDR2 story. At the start he was questioning if Jack was even his son and he was considered dead weight that got himself into trouble, as routinely emphasised by Arthur. By the epilogue John is determined to do right by his family and is far more competent than he was in the beginning.
that has nothing to do with him acting like an awkward dork for 98% of the epilogue Also he's more like his RDR1 self in the main story anyways, then turns into a weirdo in the epilogue lol
Agreed. There's a certain eloquence to how John puts his speech that was lacking in RDR2 and especially the epilogue. This is a big reason I appreciate epilogue P1, it has the most glimpses of 1907 John embodying his RDR1 self.
@@danishchawla690 If you're implying what I think you are, then I think I'm the wrong person to be telling the community headcanoned reason for why John acts different considering my history of critiquing not only his portrayal but also that explanation.
@@themadtitan7603 I don't know much about the community, but the idea I have is that John is under a huge amount of stress in RDR1 due to his family being held hostage and he's just trying to cut through everyone's bullshit so he can see them again as quickly as possible. In this scene, which also involves his wife and son, he's similarly aggressive and under pressure. So I think he's normally a pretty friendly guy, albeit one that appreciates his privacy- but he loves his family and prioritises them over anything.
@@themadtitan7603always like seeing your comments in Red Dead content. May not always agree with everything single thing, but your explanations and your answers are well thought out. John is definitely different in the prequel, but I still think they did a really good job of nailing his most important motives and qualities. Sucks he looks a bit different, but it makes sense. Motion capturing for Arthur and John coincided, and it saves a lot of time to mix and match both
You gotta understand the John’s entire motivation and state of mind in the first game was “God damn it I wanna go home I miss my family” and he’s actively sick of everyone’s shit at all times.
This is rdr1-marston in the way that he speaks in a cryptic and round-about kind of way, usually ended by John asserting his boundaries and/or threatening to kill someone. Also, I find it kind of funny thinking that Jack actually wrote the letter that John is reading in the beginning, seeing that Abigail can't read. I can just imagine Abigail dictating that letter to the poor boy, who had to secretly temper her "flowery" words before writing them down. XD
@@MoGumbo_ i did, the video cut off the beginning of the letter. Abigail literally says a lady from the village helped her write the letter. Don't believe me? Replay the mission yourself. Or look up a video with the full letter.
Exactly. Epilogue John should've talked like RDR1 John did with strangers; polite yet cryptic and then asserts his boundaries whenever someone asked too many questions or acted hostile towards him. There are people in the comments who are missing the point (as usual) and think the point is that RDR1 John was a confrontational asshole and we just wanted to see more of that badass or whatever. When it's the eloquence & assertiveness that RDR2 John deeply lacked in mine, & others' opinions.
@themadtitan7603 John is trying to be Jim Milton he gets better at by the time of RDR1 but its already to late at that point. He can not full act himself as he would not have got the job otherwise.
It’s crazy how the way people say Jack Marston story is reasonably over by the end of RDR1. Is the exact same thing people would say about John Marston after the mission American venom in RDR 2 (if rdr2 was created before rdr1). Suppose the only difference is literally nobody would even want to sequel with John Marston after rdr2. People would just assume that John’s redemption is avenging the gang and spending the rest of his life being a productive member of society.
@@debilman9065yes but if rdr2 came first we wouldn’t want a sequel bc it would mean John and his family don’t live happily ever after. But with rdr1 the ending couldn’t be more depressing so Jacks story could really only go up from there.
The Red Dead franchise is all about the wild west and the Red Dead Redemption series is more about the decline of the west with the chronologically last game even ending the year World War 1 starts. It wouldn't make sense to make a game in a franchise about the wild west y'know... not in the wild west/wild west era. Sure maybe you could do more with Jack's character but the overall story of Red Dead Redemption is over. That's why RDR2 is set before RDR1. Its the same with the people who somehow think RDR3 is going to be about Jack fighting in WW1 for some reason, it makes no sense. Sorry for the rant but it's just silly to say that there's any way to continue the same story after RDR1.
@@debilman9065 that scene likely wouldn’t even exist If RDR 2 was created first. Only reason it’s there is because RDR 1 does exist and they had to tie RDR 1 to RDR 2 as best they could. Same with John and Abigail thinking about 1 mile from Blackwater is a good place to live. Which totally contradicts the whole trying to move on from the past angle that’s consistently pushed in the story.
@@topphatt1312 Each their own but for me I wouldn’t mind if they continue the story with Jack. Call it *Red Dead Revelations* or something. No WWI or mafia story necessary. The plot would more or less be Jack going on the run for being listed as a suspect in the death of Edgar Ross. “Revenge is a fools game”. As long as the story is set in 1910s Rural western America and the actual wilderness the game environment would feel more or less the same as usual.
Idk why It’s so hard for me to play as John in a low honor playstyle Like I feel like he’s more brutal than Arthur and would probably do more bad things but I also feel like he’s genuinely trying to give up the outlaw life and be a family man And sure we’re given context clues just before the epilogue that John has been struggling with that but I feel like the moment you take control of him is the moment he decides “alright i’m gonna truly set things right this time” He still makes a couple of mistakes like going after Micah but he felt he owed Arthur after saving him and his family so I mean it’s understandable what he did Arthur feels like the type that’s more easy to play low honor up until his sickness imo And I mean after all isn’t that the point of these games? The name of the series is Red Dead “Redemption” it’s the whole point of the series, seeking redemption from your past mistakes But it also playing as John in a low honor run gives Ross a little bit more credit in the ending of rdr1 when he says “your father killed himself”
That's assuming that the "true" John Marston is the one we see in rdr1. Remember rdr1 John has just experienced his family being taken hostage and they are in grave danger unless he does what Ross wants. He doesn't take kindly to anyone who wastes his time or annoys him when his family is in danger. So looking at this scene we see something similar as his family has left him and he is not sure that they will come back. He becomes more direct and firm with anyone that he doesn't fully trust. But then in rdr1 he acts differently when his family returns. The way he talks to Abigail and Jack before is death is much more like how he acts in rdr2 than the majority of rdr1.
He changed so much from the epilogue to rdr1 bc bro legit thought he made it and outta nowhere some government mfs take his family and ranch away. I’d be the same too
I think John is poorly depicted the whole game. He's mostly passive, dim-witted and often in need of saving in the main story. The epilogue exacerbates this by also making him awkward and even dumber imo.
@@mikiminach6836 It's almost as if that has nothing to do with him losing core traits that are parts of his personality and that the "he's younger, it's called development" is rendered utterly null by the fact that never actually see grow into these qualities. He's almost exactly the same from beginning to end.
You don’t see John act like he did in RDR1 all that much in RDR2. It’s not really a problem. All throughout RDR1 John is surrounded by untrustworthy people, so of course he acts like this, guarded. In RDR2 we see the same thing especially towards Uncle when he’s being lazy.
Bro I got to be honest Abigail was so fucking annoying in the game. Blaming John for literally everything, even protecting their son from bounty hunters he could have never predicted! Get a grip Abigal shit happens when you're on the run.
how dare she look out for the wellbeing of her child by taking him to a safe place away from his father who has a massive bounty on his head. She’s the wooorst
the point is that in rdr1, hes in a situation that he never wanted to be in which is why he was always bitter and fed up with almost everyone he crossed paths with
I think John acted different because in rdr1 his family was basically held hostage by Ross and the government and they wouldn’t be let go until he had captured or killed his ex-family. Another thing is why he acted differently was because he had already went through enough shit during the rdr2 story and rdr2 epilogue so rdr 1 John was just fed up and irritated by this shit and wanted to be with his family for once without having to keep killing people.
Everyone that says “John doesn’t act like John” doesn’t understand the story We get to SEE John “turn into” the old, grizzled version of John we see in the first game.
well, that makes total sense. lest we forget rdr 1 john had his family being held captive by agent milton for 80% of the game. he was under constant stress and pressure to get things done as quickly as possible. it would make sense that we would see a glimpse of rdr 1 john in this scene, as his family has just up and left him and he has no idea where they are.
Case in point what the people bitching about epilogue John don’t understand. Here, like in RDR1, he’s lost control of his life and is in war-mode trying to get everything back together. Once he has his ranch, his wife, son and future secured he subdues his aggressive side because he no longer needs it. When that sense of security crumbles, as seen here, his old self re-emerges. Just as it would 4 years later when Ross kidnaps his family and blackmails him into servitude.
* raises hand : I'd like to hear gossip about your marriage John? What? Don't look at me like that! You want to know too. Just admit it! I bet he cant get it up anymore. Thats why behind his back they called him "Limpy Marston". Nothing to do with the arrow he took to the knee...
The reasons he’s not like rdr1 John is because he’s not figured out his role yet. He doesn’t have the commitment to his family and new life. He shows it slightly here as he’s driven to an ultimatum by Abigail taking jack and leaving forcing him to decide what he wants.
Am I the only one who genuinely likes the fact that John acts distinctly different from his RDR1 counterpart? Like as funny and cold as his lines were, he was also kinda an asshole, like, most of the time, and a lot of the time for no good reason. I’m one of the few people who knows John from the first game and associates the whole story with his character arc, so it’s not like I dislike RDR1 John, I just like seeing what he was like before he became so jaded and cold. Or should I say while he was _becoming_ so jaded and cold.
Dutch's boys sure were a dumb old bunch, but god damn could they kick some ass "Jim Milton" 😂 He couldn't have done a more obvious job of revealing his identity if he tried
love this cutscene, especially that epic "outlaws for life" text at the end that spins away, looked absolutely awesome, bravo rockstar you truly outdid yourselves with this one
I really wish he didn't write to Abigail once he built the ranch. He should've just enjoyed his new farm until Abigail realized what she threw away on her own.
TBH, they degraded and downgraded John to make Arthur seem more interesting. Arthur is just the typical non racist, non sexist, non prejudice do gooder protagonist who just so happens to be a mass murderer.
@@DirtyDevI did and John stayed pretty much exactly the same throughout the game, the only real “arc” was him returning to being a family man but his personality was well established from the start.
Such a pointless observation people keep making. Yes John isn’t the exact same person in both games despite being set years apart 🤦♂️ get over it already people
