5 minutes and 9 seconds of demonstrating that simply the inclusion of his RDR1 combat dialogue turns John into the total angry ruthless badass that we all know and love, and that we should have seen in RDR2 but never got.
I'm finally doing a modded playthrough (coming from consoles) and this mod, among a few others, should have definitely been in the vanilla version. I missed shooting up the place and hearing John Marston talking the maddest/scariest shit. It's been nice hearing Arthur raise hell too lol.
Oh yeah, the voice line restoration mod is a neat feature. It adds a lot to the combat. However, the lines in the video are not from the mod. They are RDR1 lines edited into RDR2 footage.
Phenomenal! This video is a case study in 2 things RDR2 lacked; combat lines that often contained bits of characterization for the protagonist, made shootouts more intense and immersive as they were context sensitive *(**1:10** "you wanna join that horse!").* And a John Marston who's depicted as an experienced badass, one who's the intensity of the firefights would let out the violent, ruthless side of him. It's something we never saw out of the younger outlaw in RDR2 as his character was undermined in both story and free roam with subpar open-world dialogue imo.
This is precisely my problem with the lack of combat dialogue in RDR2 and the handling of John's character. The combat dialogue was such a fun and interesting way to showcase the protagonist's personality seamlessly through gameplay. You could see John's sarcastic wit in its full glory and the arrogance he had in his skill and superiority as a gunfighter. The lack of combat dialogue not only hurts Arthur, because we lose a side of him that would have been interesting to see, but it also hurts John even worse because he loses yet another thing that made him a badass in the first place. And everything that made him a badass was essentially stripped in the holy name of "character development". As if you can degrade a character as much as you want if it's in the name of "development" because then it's somehow justified. But people don't look at what it means to have character development and why even have it in the first place. In the case of RDR2, all we got was a lesser version of John who mostly lacks his humor, his confidence, his eloquence and quirks that made him John Marston in the first place. Sure, now we know that John developed from an uninteresting character, into an interesting one, but at the cost of John being uninteresting for almost the entirety of RDR2. How about giving him character development while also keeping the qualities that made him compelling intact? Make him more of a violent, insulting and brash outlaw and show him develop into a calmer, kinder and family oriented person. That would've been way more intriguing than the stuttering, unconfident and borderline incompetent guy we got in RDR2 (who no one wanted to play as after Arthur, who was portrayed as the exact opposite; a competent, confident and threatening outlaw. A man). It's why many RDR2 fans wanted the epilogue to be about Sadie, Dutch or Charles. Because John, as seen in RDR2, was not a compelling character to play as. He had the same problems as RDR1 Jack, and the funny thing is, people bring that up like some sort of praise to rockstar. "When we finished RDR1 we wanted to keep playing as John. When we finished RDR2 we wanted to keep playing as Arthur. Rockstar has done it again!" Yes, they managed to turn someone like John Marston into something as uninteresting and bland as RDR1 Jack. Impressive, but for the wrong reasons. As for the character development, I hesitate to even call it that because John never actually *develops* into his Rdr1 self. He starts as a stuttering, unconfident, ineloquent character and he ends the game exactly same way. If the price we payed for character development was a bland John Marston, I'd rather he didn't get any development at all.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef I wish I could like this comment multiple times, as cliche as it sounds. It's a perfect encapsulation of every issue I have and that I argued online over the last few years. If John got degraded for development, then that cost wasn't worth it imo because we didn't even get to see that development that every RDR2 John defender proclaims. The problem is that John didn't need to be downgraded and stripped of his every defining trait for character development in the first place, because (aside from that not necessarily being development) the perfect character arc was right there in RDR1. All Rockstar had to do is take the younger, ruthless outlaw John implied himself to be in his gang years and show him be one of Dutch's right hand men alongside Arthur who fights for Dutch's ideals and tries to show his undying loyalty until he starts being disillusioned by Dutch, cares for his family and then leaves after being left to die - that's an arc. Not one part of that requires stripping John of his eloquence, sarcasm or badassery because his development isn't about that. The only part Rockstar got right was where he gradually starts caring for his family. This to me, is proof of something you once said. That if we got this RDR2 with better characterization for John and compared with the RDR2 we got, their perception and argument that it is fine the way it is all falls apart like a pyramid of cards. Because the truth is, RDR2 fans find it hard to accept major flaws of the game and acknowledge it regardless if they agree or not, they have to somehow rationalize it because it gets to maintains that status they have of it of a near-perfect masterpiece.
@@themadtitan7603 The amount of rationalizations used to excuse RDR2's flaws is an Olympic feat. Every. Single. Flaw is waved away mindlessly because it's just so hard to accept that RDR2 is a great game, but not a perfect one. The funniest thing is when the rationalizations contradict each other: Gun Sway that makes aiming feel awful? "Good, it's realistic" Unrealistically high player health and infinite magic healing potions? "Good, it's just a video game, you don't want to die from 1 shot, and just stop using tonics noob" (hypocrite much?) But even so, you have people saying that John's assumed development in the four years leading to RDR1 is realistic because a person can change a lot in four years. I disagree that one would make such leaps in personality changes after teenagehood but even if we accept that argument as true, it doesn't matter because my issue isn't that RDR2 John is unrealistic, it's that he's boring. So to explain that using an appeal to realism is useless. I don't see why Realism is a good reason for less compelling characters and bad gameplay decisions. I can't think of a single story that is good simply because it's realistic. Nor any game that has good gameplay just because it's realistic. Realism alone doesn't make writing more engaging. Besides, Realism is a malleable parameter. A writer can make just about any plot point seem realistic through good writing. It isn't that hard limit most people imagine when they say "Younger John was more boring because it's realistic". Well, no, he is more boring because his personality is stripped of nearly all positive traits. The writers weren't forced into a corner and had no option but to make John a bland character lest the game make less narrative sense. John could have had the character arc you mentioned in your comment and it would have been just as, if not more realistic. The writers didn't downgrade John for realism, it was for another, less apparent reason.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef Spot on. Or that one time I viewed a reddit post where someone talked about New Austin being empty compared to RDR1 before a reply said they view that as a result the US westward expansion overtime as why it's so barren in RDR2 and everyone just went "yeah, that's probably it" and liked that comment because it explained away a major flaw with the game because they'd prefer it to be that way. Putting aside that westward expansion had ceased by the 1890s, realism in this case doesn't explain away the lack of content, as you said. It's not like the complaint about New Austin is it's literally a barren desert, but that unlike the 1st game, it's devoid of life or anything to do. Thieves Landing went from a dynamic in-game den of scum, where having low honor had more benefits in the 1st game to just a gang hideout. RDR2 fans cling on to this idea that the game is near-perfect the way it is and any one who doesn't like it or even does but points out a major flaw with it is simply not liking the realism. But then, go *"it's a game and that would've been been tedious"* when someone complains the game doesn't commit to its survival and realism elements enough, which it doesn't imo. The same case with John except it makes no sense. How is it realistic that he acts in the epilogue the same as in 1899 after 8 years of raising and live on the run with his family, but 4 quiet, peaceful years of living on his ranch change him like that, he's an adult with a fully formed brain and set personality, not a teenager who goes through phases, as you said. Which is how a lot of defenders talk about him like.
@@themadtitan7603 The fact that they're ok with having a massive area of the game be essentially empty and serve no purpose as long as it has some far stretched historical explanation shows the incredible leaps in logic RDR2 fans are capable of making just to not feel bad about the game. But they don't have to feel attached to the game, they don't have to feel attacked when the game is criticized. We all payed for this game, so it's in our best interest to point out the flaws so they may not be repeated in the next iteration. What is strange is how they latch on to the game as if they got it for free, as if it was a divine gift that people shouldn't criticize (or as they like to say "to hate"). Genuinely cult-like behavior.
It's a mod, Rockstar for some reason removed those dialogues from the game but left the files, what the mod does is make use of those files, both Arthur and John have lines during combat
I can easily forgive John Morgan's jawline if they restored his god damn dialogue. ADDS WAY MORE to the experience. RDR1 excelled in this, GTA IV had a lot of combat dialogue but nowhere near as many lines as JM. 'Anyone still moving... or am I done here'. - maginifique. I never even heard that one before. This is a gold mine.
John's best, most characteristic lines are hidden within RDR1's combat encounters. It's why none of the "sigma" John Marston videos don't really do him justice, they leave out the incredible combat dialogue where he relishes in spreading destruction and arrogantly takes down all opposition. It's during combat that you understand why this seemingly kind and respectful person has such a capacity for violence, and before RDR2, that dialogue made you wonder what a younger, less reserved John would be like. The John we unfortunately never got to see.
@JUPA 100% agreed. John Marston has probably the best combat lines I've heard in any game and RDR2 would've at least done him some justice if it included them. It would've allowed newer fans who think he's a sorta bland character to see how much of a badass he is. But as it stands now, he's depiction in lame in both story missions and open-world dialogue, we went from *"You're going to INFERNO, my friends!"* or the line you quoted to *"Moo hefler, moo!"* yet RDR2 fans will try to say it makes sense somehow because he's younger.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef Agreed. I imagine a lot of those John Marston sigma videos are mostly compiled of the iconic scenes that everyone knows, even those unfamiliar with RDR1. Likely because the uploader themselves aren't familiar or only remember those moments. RDR1 John's characterization extended beyond the popular *"When a man with a sing-song voice..."* moments used in a million shorts, but main story, side missions, random events and these combat lines which occasionally sheds insight or backstory.
@@themadtitan7603 I posted this on reddit and people were genuinely perplexed that this side of John even existed. The bland and stale John Marston is the one the vast majority of people have in their minds when they think about him.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef For some reason I replied to this and the comment you left under mine a day ago but they got deleted. In any case, it doesn't surprise me. Most in the community aren't familiar or haven't played RDR1, they haven't seen the many other sides to John and so when they see things like this it baffles them. Because the only things they know about John in the first game is his goal, his fate and the fact that people like us keep complaining he wasn't badass like in that game. As if "badassery" was the only distinctive trait of John's that Rockstar forgot about in RDR2.
I'm fine with the port. It looks good and now PS4/5 owners get to experience the game. Lack of 60 fps, no online and 40£ do hurt but overall it's a win.
This. Is. Perfection. Now i’m really mad at R* for not putting this in the game, this would’ve made the game 10 times more awesome then it already is but they’ve done John dirty in RDR2
Rdr2 fucked up Johns character so bad, they basically retconned him so Arthur was seen as more badass I wanted to see the rdr1 John in his prime, he even stated he was more ruthless in the gang then when we see in rdr1. And what did we get? A dumb down retconned shell of a man whos "character development" is so lazy, lackluster and obviously bullshit that im bewildered the creative writers let this pass by. John Marston was a badass cold gunslinger, to turn him into something so different for no good reason with lazy character development is insulting Its insulting to John and its insulting to all those fans who couldnt wait to see John even more ruthless in his past. Arthur is a great character but what they did to John drives me insane, and it makes the story worse for me. It would have been so much more interesting is John was like his rdr1 counterpart but more ruthless, itd have made his and arthurs friendship more interesting and dutch's too. But nope, we got a shell of a character that was so unimportant in the game i didnt even pay much attention to rdr2 John untill late chapter 3 when Jack got kidnapped. Unbelievable
A lot of things about RDR2 John's delivery bug me or feel underwhelming compared to the first game, even his voice. In the first game, he sounded more like he's in pain and annoyed that he got shot while every time in RDR2, he sounds like he's been bit. Even his grunts when he was shot by the army at the end sounded stronger.
@@themadtitan7603 It's interesting that you bring that up because you can actually get RDR2 John to speak during combat. I'm sure you already know about the cut combat lines that you can restore on PC (Jupa has them in his videos). But even though RDR2 John has combat lines, they are not nearly as well delivered or written as the RDR1 combat lines. John's delivery is less threatening, he just sounds weaker, and the lines themselves lack the creativity and wit that the RDR1 lines had. You just won't hear John shouting like he does during the angrier moments in this video (such as 2:21). Even the grunts, as Goodkill noted, sound weaker. Same goes for Arthur's lines. He has some cool ones but even when he is shouting, he does not sound as powerful or furious as RDR1 John. Rob Wiethoff's performance has become massively underrated since the release of RDR2. People have no idea what a fantastic job that guy did.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef Exactly. And I don't blame Rob Wiethoff, I imagine he was just doing what he's instructed by the directors and they for some reason wanted John to sound weaker, less witty and overall awkward. I don't think Rob just lost it because there are rare moments in RDR2 when John acts closer to the first game and he does great in those imo. Since most people didn't play the first game, of course, Rob's terrific performance went underrated since people are only familiar with the underwhelming John from RDR2. As it stands now, Rob is mostly appreciated in the community because he's a cool and down-to-earth guy but unfortunately not for his talents and delivery.
@@themadtitan7603 Spot on. You always hear what a nice person he is but you rarely see him be praised for his delivery, which is a shame. RDR1 John has such an amazing range, from kind and honest, to sarcastic and humorous and then extremely vicious and threatening
Red dead 2 is a masterful game but it lacked one very important thing. Feeling like a western. RDR 1 had a masterful soundtrack and ambience to it that truly felt like a western. With the Spanish horns and heavy bass. Not to mention johns constant taunting of enemies. Gunfights felt like gunfights in rdr1. And these voice lines only remind me why I like John a lot more
i think because rdr1 was trying to emulate classic spaghetti westerns more than rdr2 which takes more inspiration from american revisionist westerns made after the italians changed the genre.
I wonder if most of the cut content is the dialogue and extra missions because it’s to many inconsistencies in the writing for John and a few other parts of the story compared to what we were told in rdr1
PS4. aim/look sens: remove 3 notches from Max. Accel: remove 2 notches from Max. Deadzone: set to zero. Control scheme: Alternate FPS 2. Aim assist: 2/4 but more than that should also work. Toggle the button that lets you sprint by tapping once instead of doing it repeatedly, it's at the bottom of the controls menu.
@@Nabd916 Yeah. The cut dialogue restores RDR2 combat dialogue that has been cut. It would be cool to have a mod that puts the RDR1 lines in 2's combat as well though.
@@moelester925 used different settings in some of these clips but the best I found were: Aim/look sens: remove Three notches from max Acceleration: remove two notches from max Deadzone: set to zero Alternate FPS aiming mode (or alternate FPS2, I don't remember exactly).
@@moelester925 it depends. Some of these clips are with aim assist at zero, some have it halfway up. I'd say having it halfway up feels best. No more than that though because magnetisation makes it hard to lead shots.
Part 2: ua-cam.com/video/LbgRNbpM7H4/v-deo.html
Part 3: ua-cam.com/video/ycBZ0XSrMtc/v-deo.html
5 minutes and 9 seconds of demonstrating that simply the inclusion of his RDR1 combat dialogue turns John into the total angry ruthless badass that we all know and love, and that we should have seen in RDR2 but never got.
RDR2 is in desperate need of that classic Marston sass
I'm finally doing a modded playthrough (coming from consoles) and this mod, among a few others, should have definitely been in the vanilla version. I missed shooting up the place and hearing John Marston talking the maddest/scariest shit. It's been nice hearing Arthur raise hell too lol.
Oh yeah, the voice line restoration mod is a neat feature. It adds a lot to the combat. However, the lines in the video are not from the mod. They are RDR1 lines edited into RDR2 footage.
Its not the same guy ffs 😂
@@sauce6746 elaborate.
Man, I miss rdr1 soundtrack
It was glorious
Phenomenal! This video is a case study in 2 things RDR2 lacked; combat lines that often contained bits of characterization for the protagonist, made shootouts more intense and immersive as they were context sensitive *(**1:10** "you wanna join that horse!").* And a John Marston who's depicted as an experienced badass, one who's the intensity of the firefights would let out the violent, ruthless side of him.
It's something we never saw out of the younger outlaw in RDR2 as his character was undermined in both story and free roam with subpar open-world dialogue imo.
This is precisely my problem with the lack of combat dialogue in RDR2 and the handling of John's character.
The combat dialogue was such a fun and interesting way to showcase the protagonist's personality seamlessly through gameplay. You could see John's sarcastic wit in its full glory and the arrogance he had in his skill and superiority as a gunfighter.
The lack of combat dialogue not only hurts Arthur, because we lose a side of him that would have been interesting to see, but it also hurts John even worse because he loses yet another thing that made him a badass in the first place.
And everything that made him a badass was essentially stripped in the holy name of "character development". As if you can degrade a character as much as you want if it's in the name of "development" because then it's somehow justified. But people don't look at what it means to have character development and why even have it in the first place.
In the case of RDR2, all we got was a lesser version of John who mostly lacks his humor, his confidence, his eloquence and quirks that made him John Marston in the first place. Sure, now we know that John developed from an uninteresting character, into an interesting one, but at the cost of John being uninteresting for almost the entirety of RDR2. How about giving him character development while also keeping the qualities that made him compelling intact?
Make him more of a violent, insulting and brash outlaw and show him develop into a calmer, kinder and family oriented person. That would've been way more intriguing than the stuttering, unconfident and borderline incompetent guy we got in RDR2 (who no one wanted to play as after Arthur, who was portrayed as the exact opposite; a competent, confident and threatening outlaw. A man). It's why many RDR2 fans wanted the epilogue to be about Sadie, Dutch or Charles. Because John, as seen in RDR2, was not a compelling character to play as. He had the same problems as RDR1 Jack, and the funny thing is, people bring that up like some sort of praise to rockstar.
"When we finished RDR1 we wanted to keep playing as John. When we finished RDR2 we wanted to keep playing as Arthur. Rockstar has done it again!"
Yes, they managed to turn someone like John Marston into something as uninteresting and bland as RDR1 Jack. Impressive, but for the wrong reasons.
As for the character development, I hesitate to even call it that because John never actually *develops* into his Rdr1 self. He starts as a stuttering, unconfident, ineloquent character and he ends the game exactly same way.
If the price we payed for character development was a bland John Marston, I'd rather he didn't get any development at all.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef I wish I could like this comment multiple times, as cliche as it sounds. It's a perfect encapsulation of every issue I have and that I argued online over the last few years. If John got degraded for development, then that cost wasn't worth it imo because we didn't even get to see that development that every RDR2 John defender proclaims.
The problem is that John didn't need to be downgraded and stripped of his every defining trait for character development in the first place, because (aside from that not necessarily being development) the perfect character arc was right there in RDR1.
All Rockstar had to do is take the younger, ruthless outlaw John implied himself to be in his gang years and show him be one of Dutch's right hand men alongside Arthur who fights for Dutch's ideals and tries to show his undying loyalty until he starts being disillusioned by Dutch, cares for his family and then leaves after being left to die - that's an arc. Not one part of that requires stripping John of his eloquence, sarcasm or badassery because his development isn't about that. The only part Rockstar got right was where he gradually starts caring for his family.
This to me, is proof of something you once said. That if we got this RDR2 with better characterization for John and compared with the RDR2 we got, their perception and argument that it is fine the way it is all falls apart like a pyramid of cards. Because the truth is, RDR2 fans find it hard to accept major flaws of the game and acknowledge it regardless if they agree or not, they have to somehow rationalize it because it gets to maintains that status they have of it of a near-perfect masterpiece.
@@themadtitan7603 The amount of rationalizations used to excuse RDR2's flaws is an Olympic feat. Every. Single. Flaw is waved away mindlessly because it's just so hard to accept that RDR2 is a great game, but not a perfect one.
The funniest thing is when the rationalizations contradict each other:
Gun Sway that makes aiming feel awful?
"Good, it's realistic"
Unrealistically high player health and infinite magic healing potions?
"Good, it's just a video game, you don't want to die from 1 shot, and just stop using tonics noob" (hypocrite much?)
But even so, you have people saying that John's assumed development in the four years leading to RDR1 is realistic because a person can change a lot in four years.
I disagree that one would make such leaps in personality changes after teenagehood but even if we accept that argument as true, it doesn't matter because my issue isn't that RDR2 John is unrealistic, it's that he's boring. So to explain that using an appeal to realism is useless.
I don't see why Realism is a good reason for less compelling characters and bad gameplay decisions. I can't think of a single story that is good simply because it's realistic. Nor any game that has good gameplay just because it's realistic.
Realism alone doesn't make writing more engaging.
Besides, Realism is a malleable parameter. A writer can make just about any plot point seem realistic through good writing. It isn't that hard limit most people imagine when they say "Younger John was more boring because it's realistic". Well, no, he is more boring because his personality is stripped of nearly all positive traits. The writers weren't forced into a corner and had no option but to make John a bland character lest the game make less narrative sense.
John could have had the character arc you mentioned in your comment and it would have been just as, if not more realistic. The writers didn't downgrade John for realism, it was for another, less apparent reason.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef Spot on. Or that one time I viewed a reddit post where someone talked about New Austin being empty compared to RDR1 before a reply said they view that as a result the US westward expansion overtime as why it's so barren in RDR2 and everyone just went "yeah, that's probably it" and liked that comment because it explained away a major flaw with the game because they'd prefer it to be that way.
Putting aside that westward expansion had ceased by the 1890s, realism in this case doesn't explain away the lack of content, as you said. It's not like the complaint about New Austin is it's literally a barren desert, but that unlike the 1st game, it's devoid of life or anything to do. Thieves Landing went from a dynamic in-game den of scum, where having low honor had more benefits in the 1st game to just a gang hideout.
RDR2 fans cling on to this idea that the game is near-perfect the way it is and any one who doesn't like it or even does but points out a major flaw with it is simply not liking the realism. But then, go *"it's a game and that would've been been tedious"* when someone complains the game doesn't commit to its survival and realism elements enough, which it doesn't imo. The same case with John except it makes no sense. How is it realistic that he acts in the epilogue the same as in 1899 after 8 years of raising and live on the run with his family, but 4 quiet, peaceful years of living on his ranch change him like that, he's an adult with a fully formed brain and set personality, not a teenager who goes through phases, as you said. Which is how a lot of defenders talk about him like.
@@themadtitan7603 The fact that they're ok with having a massive area of the game be essentially empty and serve no purpose as long as it has some far stretched historical explanation shows the incredible leaps in logic RDR2 fans are capable of making just to not feel bad about the game.
But they don't have to feel attached to the game, they don't have to feel attacked when the game is criticized. We all payed for this game, so it's in our best interest to point out the flaws so they may not be repeated in the next iteration.
What is strange is how they latch on to the game as if they got it for free, as if it was a divine gift that people shouldn't criticize (or as they like to say "to hate").
Genuinely cult-like behavior.
I’ve always loved john’s sarcasm
Ladies and gentlemen, may i present to you: the familyman, john "you eat babies" marston!
He sounds so angry😂🥶
He is absolutely infuriated that they thought they could mess with him 😂
That’s how John is lol but they downgraded him in rdr2
This is really well done. You managed to sync his RDR1 lines perfectly with what’s happening in the game. Great job! 👍
hi peeps
Thank you. RDR1 Voice lines are a gold mine of cool quotes
It's amazing how context-dynamic RDR1's gameplay lines were.
@@Pedro_Le_Chefknew it that these ones were from RD1! They are so full of personality!!!
It's a mod, Rockstar for some reason removed those dialogues from the game but left the files, what the mod does is make use of those files, both Arthur and John have lines during combat
Scariest thing Marston ever said in my play through was "You're my lady" as I roped a guy while accidentally hitting L3 at the same time.
He was talking to the horse 😂
Guess he's done having leftovers
This is so well done that for a moment I thought it was the vanilla version, good job
Thank you
I can easily forgive John Morgan's jawline if they restored his god damn dialogue. ADDS WAY MORE to the experience. RDR1 excelled in this, GTA IV had a lot of combat dialogue but nowhere near as many lines as JM.
'Anyone still moving... or am I done here'. - maginifique. I never even heard that one before. This is a gold mine.
John's best, most characteristic lines are hidden within RDR1's combat encounters. It's why none of the "sigma" John Marston videos don't really do him justice, they leave out the incredible combat dialogue where he relishes in spreading destruction and arrogantly takes down all opposition.
It's during combat that you understand why this seemingly kind and respectful person has such a capacity for violence, and before RDR2, that dialogue made you wonder what a younger, less reserved John would be like. The John we unfortunately never got to see.
@JUPA 100% agreed. John Marston has probably the best combat lines I've heard in any game and RDR2 would've at least done him some justice if it included them. It would've allowed newer fans who think he's a sorta bland character to see how much of a badass he is.
But as it stands now, he's depiction in lame in both story missions and open-world dialogue, we went from *"You're going to INFERNO, my friends!"* or the line you quoted to *"Moo hefler, moo!"* yet RDR2 fans will try to say it makes sense somehow because he's younger.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef Agreed. I imagine a lot of those John Marston sigma videos are mostly compiled of the iconic scenes that everyone knows, even those unfamiliar with RDR1. Likely because the uploader themselves aren't familiar or only remember those moments.
RDR1 John's characterization extended beyond the popular *"When a man with a sing-song voice..."* moments used in a million shorts, but main story, side missions, random events and these combat lines which occasionally sheds insight or backstory.
@@themadtitan7603 I posted this on reddit and people were genuinely perplexed that this side of John even existed. The bland and stale John Marston is the one the vast majority of people have in their minds when they think about him.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef For some reason I replied to this and the comment you left under mine a day ago but they got deleted. In any case, it doesn't surprise me. Most in the community aren't familiar or haven't played RDR1, they haven't seen the many other sides to John and so when they see things like this it baffles them. Because the only things they know about John in the first game is his goal, his fate and the fact that people like us keep complaining he wasn't badass like in that game. As if "badassery" was the only distinctive trait of John's that Rockstar forgot about in RDR2.
rdr2 john just isn't the same rockstar owes the fans the rdr1 remake,keeping classic john marston
I'm fine with the port. It looks good and now PS4/5 owners get to experience the game.
Lack of 60 fps, no online and 40£ do hurt but overall it's a win.
@@Pedro_Le_ChefNow its 60 fps in the PS5 😂🎉
This. Is. Perfection.
Now i’m really mad at R* for not putting this in the game, this would’ve made the game 10 times more awesome then it already is but they’ve done John dirty in RDR2
meanwhile abigail, jack, and uncle sitting at beechers hope waiting for john to come home: 👁️👁️
👄
nice use of captions ! and great shooting pedro ! 1:43 is my favorite
YOU'RE GAY, AS IN HOMOSEXUAL!!!
He's the best
always has been
Arthur simps coping hard.
@@silentsangheili4895Fr lol
That ending was cold af
That “come on THEN” was scary asf
Rip Van Wrinkle rides again
I actually love playing as John Marston in rdr2's epilogue. It feels nostalgic
Rdr2 fucked up Johns character so bad, they basically retconned him so Arthur was seen as more badass
I wanted to see the rdr1 John in his prime, he even stated he was more ruthless in the gang then when we see in rdr1. And what did we get?
A dumb down retconned shell of a man whos "character development" is so lazy, lackluster and obviously bullshit that im bewildered the creative writers let this pass by.
John Marston was a badass cold gunslinger, to turn him into something so different for no good reason with lazy character development is insulting
Its insulting to John and its insulting to all those fans who couldnt wait to see John even more ruthless in his past.
Arthur is a great character but what they did to John drives me insane, and it makes the story worse for me.
It would have been so much more interesting is John was like his rdr1 counterpart but more ruthless, itd have made his and arthurs friendship more interesting and dutch's too.
But nope, we got a shell of a character that was so unimportant in the game i didnt even pay much attention to rdr2 John untill late chapter 3 when Jack got kidnapped.
Unbelievable
It's character assassination at its finest.
I wish you could add his pain grunts when he gets hurt from rdr1. In RDR2 he sounds weak where as in rdr1 he just sounds annoyed which is badass
I added lines he has for getting shot, but yeah i could've added his RDR1 grunts for some moments.
Cheers for the suggestion
A lot of things about RDR2 John's delivery bug me or feel underwhelming compared to the first game, even his voice. In the first game, he sounded more like he's in pain and annoyed that he got shot while every time in RDR2, he sounds like he's been bit. Even his grunts when he was shot by the army at the end sounded stronger.
@@themadtitan7603 It's interesting that you bring that up because you can actually get RDR2 John to speak during combat. I'm sure you already know about the cut combat lines that you can restore on PC (Jupa has them in his videos).
But even though RDR2 John has combat lines, they are not nearly as well delivered or written as the RDR1 combat lines.
John's delivery is less threatening, he just sounds weaker, and the lines themselves lack the creativity and wit that the RDR1 lines had. You just won't hear John shouting like he does during the angrier moments in this video (such as 2:21).
Even the grunts, as Goodkill noted, sound weaker.
Same goes for Arthur's lines. He has some cool ones but even when he is shouting, he does not sound as powerful or furious as RDR1 John.
Rob Wiethoff's performance has become massively underrated since the release of RDR2. People have no idea what a fantastic job that guy did.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef Exactly. And I don't blame Rob Wiethoff, I imagine he was just doing what he's instructed by the directors and they for some reason wanted John to sound weaker, less witty and overall awkward. I don't think Rob just lost it because there are rare moments in RDR2 when John acts closer to the first game and he does great in those imo. Since most people didn't play the first game, of course, Rob's terrific performance went underrated since people are only familiar with the underwhelming John from RDR2. As it stands now, Rob is mostly appreciated in the community because he's a cool and down-to-earth guy but unfortunately not for his talents and delivery.
@@themadtitan7603 Spot on. You always hear what a nice person he is but you rarely see him be praised for his delivery, which is a shame. RDR1 John has such an amazing range, from kind and honest, to sarcastic and humorous and then extremely vicious and threatening
3:49 “You’re all dead!!! DEAAAAAD!!!!”😂😂😂😂😂😂
This is such a good video.
Thanks a lot mate. Second one's dropping soon ;)
@@Pedro_Le_Chef I eagerly await it! Someone should make a mod for this for sure
There is one that restores RDR2's cut combat lines for both John and Arthur but they're not as savage as the ones in RDR1.
Amazing video pedro you have some sick aiming abilities bro lol
Thank you man, I appreciate it
00:28 “COME ON THEN 🗣️”
I didn't mistake when i named him the ghost of the desert
Red dead 2 is a masterful game but it lacked one very important thing. Feeling like a western. RDR 1 had a masterful soundtrack and ambience to it that truly felt like a western. With the Spanish horns and heavy bass. Not to mention johns constant taunting of enemies. Gunfights felt like gunfights in rdr1. And these voice lines only remind me why I like John a lot more
it's no coincidence that everyone's favorite RDR2 track is American Venom... it's the only one that sounds like RDR1
i think because rdr1 was trying to emulate classic spaghetti westerns more than rdr2 which takes more inspiration from american revisionist westerns made after the italians changed the genre.
Imagine John With These Lines Go Against Micah?
You think you fools can stop me? NO THEY CANT.
I wonder if most of the cut content is the dialogue and extra missions because it’s to many inconsistencies in the writing for John and a few other parts of the story compared to what we were told in rdr1
You could do activities with gang members but they removed it before release.
If this combat lines where actually on rdr2 then I couldn't stop playing the game for real 😂
Here I m seeing mad skills and pro player making some great videos. God know what they see in brother Foller videos, vomits and weird clips🙏🏼
I appreciate the compliments man. I agree, we need more gameplay videos of this game.
Let’s go 🔥🔥🤠💯
damn!
Очень качественная стрельба и великолепная работа Педро!👍
Спасибо, приятель.
YOU EAT ........
My goal is to make any of the quotes shown in the video as iconic as the "you eat babies"
@@Pedro_Le_Chef Haha understandable amazing video lad!
Pedro I need to know your settings... Console right?
PS4.
aim/look sens: remove 3 notches from Max.
Accel: remove 2 notches from Max.
Deadzone: set to zero.
Control scheme: Alternate FPS 2.
Aim assist: 2/4 but more than that should also work.
Toggle the button that lets you sprint by tapping once instead of doing it repeatedly, it's at the bottom of the controls menu.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef Thank u sooooo much, well it'll take me a while but I'll get used to it thx to Goddamm sway 🙏🏽
@@retr0-x9ogood luck mate
Merry Christmas eve pedro
Thank you James, Merry Christmas to you too
Hey what’s the settings you use?
Aim/look: remove 3 notches from max
Accel: remove 2 notches from max
Dead zone: set to zero
Controls: alternate fps2
Whats the mod pls
No mod, just edited the RDR1 dialogue into RDR2 footage. I wish there was a mod for this.
@@Pedro_Le_Chef I think theres one called Cut dialogue restoration on nexus but i thought this was a different one thank you though
@@Nabd916 Yeah. The cut dialogue restores RDR2 combat dialogue that has been cut. It would be cool to have a mod that puts the RDR1 lines in 2's combat as well though.
is this a mod
No. Voice lines are edited in.
Controller settings?
@@moelester925 used different settings in some of these clips but the best I found were:
Aim/look sens: remove Three notches from max
Acceleration: remove two notches from max
Deadzone: set to zero
Alternate FPS aiming mode (or alternate FPS2, I don't remember exactly).
@Pedro_Le_Chef did you turn off aim assist?
@@moelester925 it depends. Some of these clips are with aim assist at zero, some have it halfway up.
I'd say having it halfway up feels best. No more than that though because magnetisation makes it hard to lead shots.