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.

@Petkoholic

My original point was that the allied NPCs aren't very useful, which would force John to kill all the enemies himself. This would give the impression that John is fighting alone and is much more of a One-man army then he was intending to be.

@Equivalent-Ambition My original point is that you seem to be ignoring much of John’s more significant feats, and using Dead-Eye as an all-important piece of evidence overruling feats and exposition, despite it being a game mechanic and nothing more. If it had any meaning, you would also have to take into account other arbitrary differences in gameplay, such as how John is invincible while in Dead Eye in 1911, or has infinite stamina, which are equally meaningless. Also, as mentioned before, John is rarely truly alongside a group all the way. Even when he is, his allies are usually much lesser in both skill and numbers, compared to Arthur’s grizzled bunch of gunslingers and army veterans.

Also, John rarely had any allies in New Austin outside of the Leigh Johnson missions, because Seth, Irish and Nigel West Dickens are not involved in gunfights. Not to mention how John held off an entire assault in Mexico from an incredibly disadvantageous position in We Shall Be Together in Paradise (no, El Rato does not count).

Arthur and Red harlow are by far the most killed gunslingers in the Series, if weren't for Arthur John wouldn't be skilled in the same level as him thanks to the advices, teachings and life lessons that Arthur gave him.

Arthur didn’t teach John anything to do with shooting; they were both taught by Dutch. By 1899, Arthur certainly would’ve been better due to more experience, but I think John reached if not surpassed that level later in life. John’s skill with a gun has little to do with Arthur.

Micah. His accuracy and quickness imo is faster than anyone

I would say Arthur because he's more experienced with a gun and his fists compared to other characters like Micah, who was very skilled with his signature revolvers. Being the gang's main enforcer, Arthur knew how to fight and depending how you would play with him, Arthur is stronger in hand to hand combat compared to John, who wasn't very skilled with guns until he met Landon Ricketts in 1911. He had fought Micah in the last mission of Chapter 6 while he's afflicted with Advanced TB and was injured due to the choices you picked (being stabbed in the side while trying to take the Blackwater money or brutally beaten while helping John go to his family).

(Quick Note: If Arthur didn't have TB, he would have beaten Micah within a few minutes and killed him.)