Micah is extremely good with a gun, there’s no denying that. However, I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s the best in the series, though it’s possible. I don’t think Arthur would be the best out of him, Jack and John by 1914; John gets back to the level he was four years earlier, maybe even surpasses it as he shoots more. By the end of 1911, I’d say that’s the best John’s ever been. Arthur by then would be 48, so past his prime in terms of reactions and so on. In 1914, he’d be 51, which, again, means he’d be on his way down, and probably slower than John, who’s ten years younger.

I’d overall say John, then Arthur and Micah. Arthur uses rifles unlike Micah and is therefore more versatile, but I think Micah would win in a duel, as he shows himself to be extremely fast and accurate.

@Wagwan piffting23

Since Micah can outwit John's Dead Eye ability at his peak, that makes him at least one of the best in the series.

In 1907, It's certainly possible that John has surpassed Arthur's gunslinging abilities. Not in 1911, however. Yes, John has re-learned his abilities, but they were still inferior to his abilities in 1907. He can't shoot in Dead Eye anymore without marking his targets and it takes him slightly longer than in 1907 to shoot his targets, implying his reaction time has gotten worse. Keep in mind, John is a rancher and intends to stay that way, which would mean he's out of practice. Arthur is an outlaw for the entirety of the game and he gets into a lot of gunfights.

When can't really compare how an older Arthur would fare against John and Jack, since Arthur died in 1899. If I would take a guess, he'd likely be worse than John and possibly even Jack due to his old age. The frame of mind I'm using is "If they got into a duel with 36 year old Arthur, who would win". I don't see 1911 John and 1914 Jack winning. 1907 John, however, is 50/50.

@Equivalent-Ambition I feel as if you are overhyping Dead Eye, to the point where you are ranking it above feats and exposition. Dead-Eye seems to be a game mechanic and nothing more. If it accurately depicted a character's skill, Jack Swift would be the most overpowered character in the series by a landslide.

Archeology for Beginners is a stealth mission; however, in the optional scenereo in which Arthur kills the soldiers, it is an impressive feat, but still not to the same degrees as Red or especially John.

American Fathers II is a similar case. However, the fighting does eventually begin, but Eagle Flies is at his side, and it's less of a gunfight and more of an escape attempt. Arthur even laments at the end of the mission that he would have died if Eagle Flies hadn't provided a distraction.

Fleeting Joy and A Kind and Benevolent Despot are impressive instances of Arthur's skill, but aren't one-man army situations as he has multiple skilled gang members (especially in Fleeting Joy) by his his side.

The Course of True Love V is a good example, I won't lie.

Red Dead Redemption is another case of "more of a chase than a gunfight". Even Arthur's last stand at end of the mission ("goddamn you bast*rds!") is rather short-lived and ultimately doesn't achieve much.

Although you are right in the RDR1 gunfights are more arcadic, what I meant when I said John is usually "doing his own thing", is that he usually is separated from his allies. For example, in the Mexico portion of the story, when the rebels and the Mexican Army are in combat, John is usually on his own in some way, separated or acting as a spearhead, leading him to taking on hoards of enemies on his own.

Moreover, missions like Mexican Caesar (where John succeeded what was intended to be a suicide mission) and The Last Enemy That Shall Be Destroyed involve feats of colossal degree that surpass anything of Arthur, Red or Jack.

Also, when I refer to Red Harlow, I'm referring to his incarnation from Revolver, not whoever he was in the Redemption universe, if he ever existed at all. And in this case, Red is an incredibly formidable foe, destroying entire gangs on his own.

I'd say my overall ranking would be John > Red > Arthur > Jack (who is almost featless, regardless of how fast he could learn a gameplay asset like Dead Eye).

Yeah, I agree that Dead Eye is merely a game mechanic and not something to measure skill on. RDR 2’s is more developed than RDR 1’s for the purposes of improving gameplay - it doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have any affect on the story.

Story-wise, Dead Eye is meant to be a representation a gunslinger's quick reflexes. Obviously John and Arthur don't slow down time or see an enemy's vital organs, but it's meant to be a representation of their skills. If we go with the "it's just game-play, it doesn't count" logic, then whose to say John is taking on hundreds of guys alone in-universe? As far as we know, he could've canonically killed only 60 people during the entire story.

And if you say "Arthur has usually has skilled allies backing him up during big gun fights" couldn't that exact same logic apply to John? In the New Austin Chapter, John usually has experienced lawmen backing him up. In the Mexico Chapter, John has backup from Mexico Army, then later the Revolutionaries. In the West Elizabeth Chapter, John usually has backup from the Bureau Agents and U.S Army. John killing almost everyone during gunfights is unintentional due to, again, the run-and-gun nature of the first game. The AI in Red Dead Redemption 1 is, well, not very good. Canonically speaking, John isn't doing most of the fighting alone during these skirmishes.

I don't recall any gunfight where John is left to his own devices and is then killing multiple enemies on his own without any advantages (Sniper Nest, Machine Guns, and/or Backup), except the second half of American Venom, Man Born Unto Trouble, and The Last Enemy That Shall Be Destroyed, which I will admit are impressive feats.

But if we go by "Who's the best One-Man army" then that would be Red Harlow. Unlike Arthur or John, Red very rarely has anyone backing him up during gunfights. Even as a pre-teen, he was killing hordes of people like there was no tomorrow.

> Story-wise, Dead Eye is meant to be a representation a gunslinger's quick reflexes

That’s definitely to be disputed. I’d say it’s for ease of gameplay, and not really a fact that it’s about story.

Anyway, regarding the one-man army situation, I’d say it’s fairly even, and while the help Arthur has in gunfights is generally from a fairly competent gang member, John’s is more varied. Yes, John sometimes has assistance from people like Abraham Reyes, Espinoza and Ross’ men, but he is also accompanied by people like Seth, Irish and West Dickens. With the latter, he fends off a lot of enraged customers chasing them, and with Irish (or, not with him, which is the point), he finds the machine gun inside Gaptooth Breach will little support at all, fighting off the Treasure Hunter gang. He also survives the suicide mission with Espinoza, and slaying many US Army soldiers with help from only Uncle and Jack (neither of whom would be very good around then, for different reasons) is virtually unrivalled in how impressive it is, I’d say. Especially as professional soldiers are about the most difficult foes out there.

Speaking of one-man armies, though, one very notable moment is against Micah’s gang in 1907. While Charles and Sadie are both forced to rest, John continues on, slaughtering anyone in his way. That’s a moment which Arthur never quite had, and what’s more, I feel like John eventually gets back to that level (a level which, as stated, surpasses Arthur in my opinion), as evident from his last stand.

In terms of duels, John manages to defeat “the Stranger” in Chuparosa, even when he holds Luisa in front of him as a human shield, which requires immense accuracy, along with very quick hands, as there’s little time to correct his aim. Arthur is by no means bad in duels, but I think John is quicker and generally the better gunslinger. A small difference, though.

Goddamit i picked jack

"The AI in Red Dead Redemption 1 is, well, not very good."

The NPCs in the first game are way more accurate and devastating in gunfights than those in the second game.

@Petkoholic

Do you mean Enemy NPCs or Allied NPCs? Because if you mean the latter, then I find that extremely unlikely. I tried to do "A No Kill Run" in once play-through of Red Dead Redemption 1 and I got as far as "Political Realities in Armadillo". If you try to let the NCPs fight on their own, they'll die fairly quickly.

Enemies. What I meant by that was the chance to die in the first game was much bigger than in the second game, especially if you have maxed out health. So technically John had to deal with much harder enemies to take down, although this is just a gameplay detail not to be taken into consideration here.