<p>Yeah, same. I definitely consider the “go with John” ending to be the better ending; I think that, realistically, dying Arthur (who has already done so much to help John and his family) would choose to help John to escape over having a final showdown with Micah (which is most likely the real reason why he chose to go back for the money, considering how he calls out Micah’s name and challenges him, plus the fact he is on the brink of death and any money in camp would be utterly useless to him as he is about to die anyway).</p><p>
</p><p>While I would consider the “go with John” option to be the better choice, I also (perhaps controversially) consider the ending where Micah shoots Arthur to be the better one. Considering the rivalry they have throughout the entire game and the hatred they come to have for each other, I think it is much more fitting for their feud to come to an end via gunshot. In particular, what Kerbert mentioned about Arthur dying just as easily as those he killed – the “those who live by guns die by guns” is perhaps a fitting end to Arthur’s life. More importantly, however, it’s also the more realistic ending. As I mentioned earlier, there isn’t so much hostility between Arthur and Micah that I find the ending where Micah just leaves Arthur at the scene to be very unconvincing. Just think – if you had Micah’s vengeful personality, would you shoot the person who you have long-hated, who exposed your treachery and caused Dutch to abandon you? Of course you would. From Micah’s point of view, killing Arthur is the more realistic and convincing ending, and from Arthur’s point of view, being shot is ultimately the impending fate of any outlaw. So there you go, that’s my take on the ending.</p><p>
</p>