One Way To Look At The Red Dead Series Is That The 2nd Game Is A Classic Western While The 1st Game Is

One way to look at the Red Dead series is that the 2nd game is a classic western while the 1st game is a spaghetti western.

The 2nd game starts off with a more friendly, happy environment. Despite the gang committing crimes, they’re presented as a tight-knit family that gets to have fun every now and then. For example, Arthur and Lenny getting drunk at the bar. As the game continues, it slowly turns into a more harsh, unforgiving environment. Gang members start dying left and right and that feeling of comfort you had with your gang family disappears.

So, when Arthur dies and John takes over, the age of the classic western ends and the age of the spaghetti western begins.

That’s why RDR1 is pure grit and sadness from beginning to end. Even if you never played RDR2, there’s a feeling of despair and loneliness that permeates throughout the game. John, compared to Arthur, is bitter and more ruthless. John is the more morally grey protagonist, especially during the Mexico arc where he showed a lack of empathy towards either side of the revolution.

There’s a YouTube comment that I think perfectly summarizes this. Arthur Morgan is a John Wayne cowboy since even though he can do awful things, he’s generally presented as a hero trying to do right by his loved ones. John Marston is a Clint Eastwood cowboy since he tows the line between good and bad. Even though you like him since he wants to do right by his family, he’s incredibly ruthless and more inclined to commit violence than Arthur was. What also makes this comparison works is that it fits with the change in the eras; John Wayne represented the early classic westerns while Clint Eastwood represented the spaghetti westerns that premiered afterwards.