Red Dead Redemption 2 (no spoilers)

They never had any fixed "style" for Red Dead protagonists though. Red was never very sympathetic. He was an stoic bounty hunter in an journey for revenge.

It was about redemption . Seriously it was. Marsten is entirely different than the GTA guys. But no matter, I don't play RS game for their writing. 

What? They're not average guys, lol. Trevor murders two innocent people in a cut scene. Michael and Franklin peddle drugs and kill people. None of them are average guys. They are ruthless criminals. Complete opposite of Marsten. 

Are you telling me there' no difference between Marsten and the cadre in GTA5? Come on.

Fair enough. Let's say his personality does appeal to me more...any reason they shouldn't continue that in RDR?

The problem is with pretty much most of GTA leads is that despite sociopathic tendencies, none of them felt the slightest bit relatable. The lead character in Saints Row was more likeable than most Rockstar protagonists combined. They always lead down the same old road. Especially in GTA V. Franklin was probably closest to being the protagonist-protagonist, 'cause he does the standard GTA straight man thing, where he rolls his eyes exasperatedly at every random weirdo who thinks that flagging down passing pedestrians is the best way to put out a contract hit, but meekly follows their instructions anyway like a passive-aggressive husband. Michael, by comparison, is a very active-aggressive husband who retired from bank robbin' to spend more time screaming at his family and breaking things. And then there's Trevor, who seems to be an attempt to represent the standard mode of behaviour of a GTA player in that he's a filthy, amoral psychotic with the innate likeability of an incontinent honey badger.
While the sympathetic and tragic characterization of Niko Bellic certainly clashed a lot with the mindset of the whole GTA aspect, it at least felt consistent. In regards to GTA V it felt inconsistent, Franklin just comes across as whiny, and Michael, having realized that all his ill-gotten wealth has done nothing to bring him happiness, seems to think that the logical solution would be more ill-gotten wealth! And of course that is meant to serve as th insensitive for the whole heist mission aspect of the game. In the end, the story falls down to the usual pattern of Guy A pissing off Guy Y, where he fends them off fo a while, until he slaps himself in realization that he's a morally questionable sociopath and he can just murder whomever has it out for him. The End.

Red Dead was different because it was a redemption story, while also being revenge based like pretty much any western. Had the game not relayed the info regarding Marston's criminal last, I wouldn't have been able to tell. His morally questionable nature doesn't come across as much as it does the GTA lead. Marston's solution to wanting to put an end to his criminal life, with violence, so he can live a normal life with his family is not without consequences. and it is much more effective storytelling. The game wasn't written by Houser, and it shows with regards to Marston. He's a more likeable protagonist than any of the prior Rockstar leads.

It tugged at your heartstrings but it made no sense. Neither did the antagonist's motivations, other than being a mustache twirling bad guy. I guess you could call it effective but they clearly did it for the emotional punch, not plot line. Continuing the game as Marsten's son was a pretty cool idea though. 

It was worth it for the atmosphere and amazing landscape design. And unlike GTA, the game rewarded you for exploring. It had a number of game design improvements over GTA.

I disagree with all of that. Edgar Ross did have motivation - John was still a criminal, and like Dutch said earlier in the game, he needed to justify his wages somehow by finding a new monster to persecute. And with the big themes throughout the game of changing times and being unable to truly escape your past, John being unable to settle into a normal life and having to die so his family could was very fitting.

I don't really believe there was any other way the game could have ended. John goes home with his family and lives normally and...all that foreshadowing is abandoned?

Very simplistic imo. It just means Marsten was his bitch to the very end, and then snuffed out. That's what it felt like. There was no agency because he did every last thing that fucker asked of him. So the end didn't sit well with me. Felt the same with what I'd played of GTA4. I'm not saying all the writing was crap, but RS has a narrative formula, and they'd be better off hiring professional writers and changing things up.

Same reason Vice City isn't called GTA IV 'Because-I-Say-So' school of sequel numbering, also known as the Resident Evil method.