- 1,315
- 791
Let me get the obvious out of the way
John Marston: Cold Temperatures (Can swim in ice-cold waters for extended periods of time while in a fierce snowstorm). John can't swim. While he might have resistance to cold temperatures for other reasons (such as surviving on a mountain in a blizzard for days while gravely injured), the reasoning for this is dumb.
Arthur Morgan: (Scales to John who mastered an advanced version of Dead Eye from Landon Rickets after being told what to do once) This is nonsensical because arthur had been dead for over a decade when john went under the tutelage of Landon Ricketts. It is literally impossible for a dead man who's been in the grave for over a decade to scale to a feat that happened well after his demise. It's headcanon to believe arthur would scale to any feats or knowledge John did after he died. Same thing as saying arthur would access and knowledge on how to use the high power pistol, when the pistol never existed during the events of rdr2. John lived through the same events as arthur, rode in the same gang as arthur since he was a little boy, and watched arthur become the experienced monster and gunslinger he was throughout his life. When he met landon rickets, he still gave landon extreme praise despite being in a gang of very experienced gunslingers and outlaws his entire life, with landon even calling john sloppy and telling john that if he were in his prime, he was so fast john wouldn't see him, all after john being mentored by arthur himself.
Now here's the big one, the cringeworthy battle that is posted between john and arthur. This is the only battle on johns profile, and it reeks. I hate that they are pitted against each other at all, but if people want to do the battle, it not only needs to be reevaluated, but this match needs to be removed entirely. The reasoning for Arthur>John is based off a single statement from 1899 where john was was 26 and arthur was 37, with john leaving the gang for years, and at the time of the statement john was still recovering from his injuries and was essentially a main-side character during the events of rdr2. The match should've been added with details of it being RDR2 Arthur vs RDR2 John. Instead, it was added under the pretense of that single statement and a bunch of general fanboyism statements of "he's just better" makes Arthur>John in all facets and time periods. This undermines John as a person and ability with a difference in time of over a decade. John went from a young man of 26 in 2 to being the same age we see Arthur in 2 in 1911. That right there eliminates any argument of experience difference as they are the same age, with john outliving Arthur anyway.
Saying Arthur is outclasses john completely in every single area is not only selling john short with the feats he did in 1, but undersells Arthurs story as a whole, and overlooks how big of an impact arthur contracting tuberculosis took on him. Many people want to use composite arthur, where he is in his physical prime before he got sick but at the same time has all the experience he attained later on in the game, which not only is messing with the timeline of events canonically, but just is offensive to arthurs story. Arthurs story is extremely tragic, not because of his demise and how it came to be, but because he was forgotten, and nobody ever knew who he was. John was the exact opposite, he became the Legend of the West.
This whole battle (which should never happen imo) boils down to two scenarios.
1. End of RDR1 John vs End of RDR2 Arthur- John wins this no question. Saying otherwise is just plain asinine, and laughable you believe Meth Head Arthur who can hardly breathe or see is going to beat John who could walk out of a barn against 30 armed soldiers and edgar ross already aimed at him, and empty his entire gun before any of them can pull the trigger.
2. You use Prime John and "prime" Arthur, which would be removing the most vital part of his story arc to make him composite. This of course is going to be a lot closer than scenario 1, and will come down to feats imo. People could debate that however they wish, but I believe that I made my point very clear of how the battle is added as of now is inaccurate, and the reasoning of "Arthur wins, he's more experienced" with no context whatsoever is not a good argument to be FRA'ed with everything john went through during the events of 1, and the proper battle between them they would be the exact same age.
This will be my last post on the wiki, I will be leaving it indefinitely, but I just had to address this.
Either way,
John's Immune system>>>Arthur's.
Arthur laughs at John's need for floaties.
John Marston: Cold Temperatures (Can swim in ice-cold waters for extended periods of time while in a fierce snowstorm). John can't swim. While he might have resistance to cold temperatures for other reasons (such as surviving on a mountain in a blizzard for days while gravely injured), the reasoning for this is dumb.
Arthur Morgan: (Scales to John who mastered an advanced version of Dead Eye from Landon Rickets after being told what to do once) This is nonsensical because arthur had been dead for over a decade when john went under the tutelage of Landon Ricketts. It is literally impossible for a dead man who's been in the grave for over a decade to scale to a feat that happened well after his demise. It's headcanon to believe arthur would scale to any feats or knowledge John did after he died. Same thing as saying arthur would access and knowledge on how to use the high power pistol, when the pistol never existed during the events of rdr2. John lived through the same events as arthur, rode in the same gang as arthur since he was a little boy, and watched arthur become the experienced monster and gunslinger he was throughout his life. When he met landon rickets, he still gave landon extreme praise despite being in a gang of very experienced gunslingers and outlaws his entire life, with landon even calling john sloppy and telling john that if he were in his prime, he was so fast john wouldn't see him, all after john being mentored by arthur himself.
Now here's the big one, the cringeworthy battle that is posted between john and arthur. This is the only battle on johns profile, and it reeks. I hate that they are pitted against each other at all, but if people want to do the battle, it not only needs to be reevaluated, but this match needs to be removed entirely. The reasoning for Arthur>John is based off a single statement from 1899 where john was was 26 and arthur was 37, with john leaving the gang for years, and at the time of the statement john was still recovering from his injuries and was essentially a main-side character during the events of rdr2. The match should've been added with details of it being RDR2 Arthur vs RDR2 John. Instead, it was added under the pretense of that single statement and a bunch of general fanboyism statements of "he's just better" makes Arthur>John in all facets and time periods. This undermines John as a person and ability with a difference in time of over a decade. John went from a young man of 26 in 2 to being the same age we see Arthur in 2 in 1911. That right there eliminates any argument of experience difference as they are the same age, with john outliving Arthur anyway.
Saying Arthur is outclasses john completely in every single area is not only selling john short with the feats he did in 1, but undersells Arthurs story as a whole, and overlooks how big of an impact arthur contracting tuberculosis took on him. Many people want to use composite arthur, where he is in his physical prime before he got sick but at the same time has all the experience he attained later on in the game, which not only is messing with the timeline of events canonically, but just is offensive to arthurs story. Arthurs story is extremely tragic, not because of his demise and how it came to be, but because he was forgotten, and nobody ever knew who he was. John was the exact opposite, he became the Legend of the West.
This whole battle (which should never happen imo) boils down to two scenarios.
1. End of RDR1 John vs End of RDR2 Arthur- John wins this no question. Saying otherwise is just plain asinine, and laughable you believe Meth Head Arthur who can hardly breathe or see is going to beat John who could walk out of a barn against 30 armed soldiers and edgar ross already aimed at him, and empty his entire gun before any of them can pull the trigger.
2. You use Prime John and "prime" Arthur, which would be removing the most vital part of his story arc to make him composite. This of course is going to be a lot closer than scenario 1, and will come down to feats imo. People could debate that however they wish, but I believe that I made my point very clear of how the battle is added as of now is inaccurate, and the reasoning of "Arthur wins, he's more experienced" with no context whatsoever is not a good argument to be FRA'ed with everything john went through during the events of 1, and the proper battle between them they would be the exact same age.
This will be my last post on the wiki, I will be leaving it indefinitely, but I just had to address this.
Either way,
Arthur laughs at John's need for floaties.
