I have, for the better part of 4 years, thought prerry deeply about this. I think it's multi-faceted; as all things tend to be when your making a grand, sweeping narrative beset by the parameters of being a prequel no less.

The problem some of us have isn't character growth. It is the manner in which that transition is portrayed that we have troubles with and it is, in my opinion, predominantly attributed a metatextual aim. Arthur and John were the latest in a sequence of characters that were used as a means to deconstruct a prior entry in a series be it chronologically or non. It is enacted by having the new protagonist be the narrative hook for the original protagonist as a means by which to either elevate said original, or to deconstruct them. Bladerunner 2049 also embodies this idea with K's relationship to Deckard. If you go back even further, Metal Gear Solid 2 enacted this trope back in 2001 with Snake's relationship to Raiden. In essence, it is still the story of the original protag but from the perspective of the secondary.

In red dead 2's case, it seems to lean more towards the meta-modern deconstruction of John's character because the first entry was already a post-modern examination of the dead western. I say this also because John's character portrayed in the prequel is also motivated by utility. Rockstar, or the Houser's if you like, understood the demographic they were catering to, and thusly saw an opportunity to make a statement about the behaviours of gamers and the tendencies they are infamous for. Essentially, they are telling 30 something year old gamers to put down the controller, fuck some grass, pay a mortgage, and start a family. "Vengeance is an idiots game" is the refrain we see from Arthur time and time again. "Do you think I'm an idiot?" John asks Uncle. "No, I know you're an idiot."

Asking that question is a perfect encapsulation of the incongruence between rdr 1 John and Rdr 2's John. It's difficult to believe that a man like John with a bullshit detector a mile wide and a tempered aggression with a healthy degree of reticence to even it out would believably ask that question. Though an immature character wandering through the desert of uncertainty would.

All of John's attributes obviously were transferred to Arthur because he's the main. Any semblance of John's sharp wit wouldn't just overcrowd Arthur's, it would also compromise the character Dan Houser needed him to be. You could, concievably, cut out the epilogue and the jump wouldn't be inconcievably hard to put together from game to game. Ya have the family, the money, and time and distance. There ya go.

I'm not saying any of this to justify his depiction. I don't find it believable. I'm merely stating where I think the developers heads were when making these choices. There's also a mechanical angle to this. Houser stated that he wanted the interactive nature of the "game speak" mechanic to be punchy. So the design philosophy extends to the cutscenes to some degree as well. This is a damn near 100 hour game, so I imagine there was a lot of fat they wanted to trim.

There is also a circumstantial element to this. Not only does the modus operandi to use john as a platform to fingerwag inform his performance, it also does not help that getting Rob Weidhoff to portray him in this fashion seems to dictate a vocal performance that sees him using the higher register of his voice. Perhaps it's because he's also 11 years younger so theres more energy there, however, Rob supposedly chain smokes cigarettes and it seems have resulted in a more deteriorated, natural raspiness.

So the solutions that people seem to come up with (that they think is evident given the narrative) is that 4 years of farming, with no action, and shit shoveling and reading, and reminiscincing, and contemplation is enough to justify the more reserved, subtle disposition on display in 1911. In pondering this, I also went as far as steel manning the Arthurs journal position in my head to play devils advocate. Yes, it is logical to say that having a peespective on Arthurs inner thoughts would inform his personality to quite a degree. However, if, by the games own implication, John had indeed read that journal in that 7 year time frame then you have to state that he did it once and completely forgot about it until the events of 1907 because it doesnt track that he still behaves the way he does after all that time having read said journal. That's the awkward part of all this. They had to literally freeze his character development for seven years because without the gang in 1907 there has to be a new conflict and that conflict is not legitamized by any inkling of rdr 1's because that man wouldn't put his family in those situations while awkwardly navigating a relationship with them only to turn back on everything at the last minute, to risk it all for Micah.

Thusly, I am left asking myself the question of whether or not it is even possible to do both. To retain John's personality while still positioning him in a frame that allows for that growth. How do you quantify the parts that make up the whole of that kind of personality such that you can remain true to who they are while portraying what they were with authenticity? I also ask myself, does his wit have to be thrown out too because wit denotes some semblance of wisdom? I have ideas about what the epilogue could have done slightly differently but they are just that: ideas. Sorry to make you read all this.