Arthur Morgan

He's undeniably the best Rockstar protagonist, and arguably the best protagonist in all of videogames

Shooah

>Beevor
No one expects you to understand, ESL.

>thinking Arthur is bad
such shit taste
user...
i'm afraid.

Amazing character

>best Rockstar protagonist,
Nico want to have a word.

absolute hack writing. neutered fence shitting trash for the sake of not to offend anyone with the purpose of maximising profits.

Attached: MAY I... STAND UNSHAKEN.jpg (2048x1143, 78K)

He was a good character stuck in a cliche shit game

I thought he was really boring. I think Yea Forums likes him the way they liked Ryan Gosling in Drive. A tough, mysterious bad boy with a soft side deep down. Just like Yea Forums wants to be.

Needs a JUST cut

>partially do sidequests as ARTHOR
>reach epilogue
>John introduces himself and picks up where ARTHOR left off
Little shit like this makes it a great game for me

I just finished the game and never got this scene. When does it happen?

Attached: HAVE SOME GODDAMN FAITH ARTHUR.jpg (559x549, 30K)

No. I do not understand the insane amounts of acclaim. I see people call him the greatest protagonist in history. It boggles my mind. He is one of the most obnoxious versions of the "outlaw with a heart of gold" i have ever seen. The game really beats you over the head with how he's really a good man. And he's always so whiny and sad, going along with everything, complaining about it but just going along because he doesn't have much character. I am tired of games trying to make me feel like I need to understand the bad man, but this does it worse than most, the sentimentality in this game is just off the charts.

you either skipped it or weren't paying attention, it's a main story scene

Why was Dutch so fucking triggered?

it only happens if you do a certain side mission

>Yeah everyone was openly racist and called black people niggers all the time before the 1960s

Whatever you need to tell yourself to justify your own hatred buddy

You would be too if you had brain damage from a concussion.

I didn’t expect him to do it all the time but come on, don’t set your game in the past if you’re going to give your MC modern values.

>be me
>only experience with Arthur was playing on my friend's copy of RDR2
>friend made Arthur old and gnarley as fuck in customizer
>go for months upon months of seeing screenshots and memes involving Arthur without recognizing him
>only got this explained to me by one of my D&D friends a few weeks ago when they wanted to play as him in a campaign and produce a screenshot from the game as their character portrait and i have no idea what I'm looking at

Electric car = RDR2
Diesel-Generator = Arthur Morgan
Petrol car = Dutch

Attached: heh.jpg (852x642, 50K)

any blue collar normie TODAY uses the term nigger when he's in familiar company, don't kid yourself, tyrone

Play more

>he didn't do all the nice nun missions

Attached: disgust.jpg (500x500, 27K)

My thoughts exactly. To be fair, it's probably insanely difficult to write a character who can be both "good" or "evil" depending on player choices.. I'm sure they had to be intentionally wishy-washy with his writing for him to fit in either category.

>Yeah everyone was openly racist and called black people niggers all the time before the 1960s
that's a fact, you history revisionist tranny.

You sound like a real hit at parties

Because he slowly started realising his cult of personality was crumbling around him as people either died because of him or left because of him. But instead of accepting it, he went insane.

No it's because anons like you hadn't any GODDAMN faith

He's likable but an absolute retard so that made him worse.

i honestly think the bad ending is canon. he was a bad man did unto others what he would not want done unto him. but no ones all evil, except micah whos the real problem he doesnt have a single redeeming feature . i wish he liked dogs and authur didnt or something. in the end they all lived longer than they had any right to as parasites on civilizations fringes

Micah's just an incel like me

everyone hated how niko did bad shit but whined about it. but arthur is so much worse in this regard, and everyone loves him?

niko was even drawn into it by his dipshit brother getting him mixed up in crime, arthur could've just ridden off and it would be over for him but stuck around being a piece of shit murderer of his own volition, in a time where you could move 2 hours away and start a completely new life

Because Red Dead Redemption is about accepting the consequences for the bad shit you've done. Both Arthur and John pay for what they did.

RDR1 doesn't really make a point of how John was a good man. His redemption was self serving and Ross even makes a good point when he says John killed himself with the life he lived. John was likable, but he was a shitty outlaw and had no place in the world. I feel like it was more down to earth than 2, which tries to make us feel that Arthur was a good man, deep down. 2 desperately tries to tell you that Arthur has good things in his heart.

>get tens of thousands of dollars through hunting
>"Just ONE MORE SCORE Arthur!"
>"But I've got fifty grand right he--"
"ONE MORE FUCKING SCORE!"

story should have ended in chapter 2, should have accepted agent miltons offer and turned dutch in. milton's description of arthur:
>orphaned street kid seduced by that manic's silver tongue and matures into a degenerate murderer
is 100% correct. the fact that arthur continues to be with dutch shows that he's still just a degenerate murder. what reason does arthur have to keep going with dutch? loyalty? loyalty to shitty robbing and killing? so he could turn dutch in and save everyone at the camp, instead he decides to continue his horrible lifestyle.

Attached: agentandrewmiltonreddeadredemption2.png (350x430, 256K)

Imagine being this much of a brainlet

When he wasn't being used as a mouthpiece, yes.

Shut up incel of course a modern day capitalistic product intended for mass consumption is going to play it safe when it comes to politics, stop trying to have your world view influenced by video games, that's retarded

oh? you think arthur should have stuck with dutch? please enlighten us with your intelligence

Its not that he should have more that arthur saw him like a family member/father. With your logic, why do most shit he does. Why even save john? Because at the end john literally calls arthur his brother and arthur says he knows

do you think Milton would have honored any deal? He was a paid corporate stooge hunting Dutch on Cornwall's payroll who wasn't afraid to hold an innocent woman hostage or shoot a man in the back to make a point.

He wasn't until he started to question dutch. Then he became very good.

You'll understand when you move out of the basement

I feel like this is low quality bait or written by a literal child. Either way it lowered my I.Q.

They made him too naive. By the time he realized dutch was a fraud he was dead

and yet arthur seems to question the morality of everything all the time. so why even stick with dutch in the first place? just seems like arthur doesnt have the gumption to actually make a change and do something different. just follows along the shitty killing and robbing

He questioned Dutch from the very beginning

on the contrary, its basement dwellers who probably sympathize with arthur the most. people who leave their basement would see arthur for horrible person that he is, as he continues to go along with dutch's horrible actions regardless of what is in his heart

I literally just told you why. Because he saw him as family. And then gave you john as an example. Did you even fucking read my post?

He was one of the (few) genuinely good components of Red Dead 2 as a game, along with the general story, the map and detail.
Everything else ranging from the gun play, overall mechanics, the tryhard realism that's not really as real as it wants to be and the entire online mode are pure shit.

I have HAD IT
With all the QUESTIONS, user........

Attached: Dutch-van-der-Linde.jpg (1280x720, 114K)

Sure.

lol okay

seeing someone as family is no excuse whatsoever to go along with their horrible actions

If you were trying to make a dumb asshole, yes. But he was a terrible person. Didn’t have the balls to provide sound counsel to his leader, felt inconvenienced to help people, was a total cuck for his ex. I get it he’s supposed to be a gang member but he is the dumbest smart person I have ever seen. His arc was pretty shit, and the help John ending seemed kind of phoned in. He’s pretty much Yea Forums if they had any valuable knowledge or skills. He didn’t have anything that he appreciated or to live for, so his death in the arc had pretty much no emotional impact.

Attached: 5F551A8C-6058-4F35-B3FA-CB658647D5B2.png (645x773, 49K)

>I'm going to sound smug and above it all, while not saying anything
Wow, amazing. You really fit in on Yea Forums

Its about telling a story retard. Is chris a good guy because he let tony soprano kill his girlfriend because he choose having a father over a wife instead of just running away with her when she came clean about being with the feds? No, but the point of the story wasn't to make chris seem like a good guy.

Yeah, that makes it even worse. Arthur can see something is wrong but never does anything about it. Which is why the game trying to tell us he's a good ol' boy is so insanely obnoxious

>No, but the point of the story wasn't to make chris seem like a good guy.
The point of this story was to make Arthur seem like a good guy. Or at least, show that's what in his heart was more of a reflection of who he was than the actions he took part in.

How so? The game literally gives you the option to choose how arthur will be seen as a person and depending on your choices after his death and in the second part of the game playing as john they'll talk differently about you because of it. You literally even have the choice to tell john to fuck off. Did you even play the game man? He literally says throughout the game many times hes not a good man. Charles tells him that because he knows his time is coming up he can right the wrongs in his story. Maybe him being sold he doesn't have much longer to live pushed him off the top with his ideas and his writing. Now replay the game and get some common sense please

Not him but the point of the story is in the title.
The title itself acknowledges that Arthur lived the life of a bad man. Arthur himself states that he is a bad man.

That's why it's called red dead redemption. Not red dead all round nice guy. He ends up giving up all the bad things and dies from tubercukarma.

What was Arthur’s purpose? It certainly wasn’t to be a gang member considering he did nothing to stop his gangs downfall. The only thing he was, was a giant cuck. For Dutch and Mary

the game really beats you over the head, with how arthur is a good person deep down. i don't know how you don't see this. it's why everyone loves him so much and thinks he's such a good boy. arthur always has the most admirable and respectable self doubt

What was johns purpose considering he ended up dead after rdr1 anyway.

The big catalyst for Chris' decision is seeing the father with the kids buying junk food at the gas station. He knew that if he kept on with Adriana he'd end up in that life. The gangster life and being a part of the Tony Soprano crew was more important to him (see: "The Legend of Tennessee Moltisanti").

Arthur is probably the closest we've ever gotten to a protagonist written as well as a Sopranos character. His admiration for Dutch is similar to Chris' toward Tony. "That's him, Adriana. The guy I'm going to hell for."

the part where he rides back to thats the way it is, is basically trying to tell us he's actually a good man

A man with no options trying to provide a way out for his family, but gets betrayed and destroyed by the government. A much more realistic and better written story than 2

Neither of those is true. He's not even a better character than John.

Everybody fusses over Arthur because WAAAH you see him dying amd sad, but in both RDR games you're walking the protagonist to their deaths. John's was a surprise and arguably more impactful.

Not to mention John has a better character arc across both games (not that Arthur can help that, though).

There is no such thing as a good man. Everybody acts out of personal benefit. People can be raised in the most antisocial environmemt and become a threat to their community, but they can still think they can be good deep down.
A serial killer can end up being a better person than you in his later years. He might end up living a life of regret, guilt and piety while dedicating himself to a greater cause than himself and ultimately benefiting humanity, like lets say producing art, inventing a useful tool for generations, helping a significant project with his labour.
The whole point of redemption is that one atones and makes up for his sins. We knos Arthur is in a questionable gang, we know this from the things they do, their leader Dutch and his flawed ideals, all the blood on their hands shows this. But the game itself takes place at a later stage of their lives, wherein Dutch is described as not turning mad, but becoming who he truly is (a criminal and hypocrite), while Arthur who has been molded by Dutch in lifestyle begins to question the morality of the gang as things get out of hand and the lines become blurry. Arthur then begins to take the road of redemption by doing good, helping the natives, siding against Dutch, helping John and being nice to people. But it is too late, he was in fact so bad that the only way to pay for his sins was for him to contract tuberculosis. Arthur himself states multiple times that he is a bad man, why shouldn't I believe him? Granted we don't see all of that in the timeline of the game, but we can assume that the game takes place right when he chooses the road to redemption, so we see his good deeds.