But I (the player) AM!
 
With my badass gunslinging abilities that can single handedly defeat entire armies, I would most certainly waste every one of those skeevy bastards.  Those who've crossed the border will know what I'm talking about.
 
Even though the player has no control over John Marston, the entire second act of the game just left a bad taste in my mouth. I understand that they were trying to paint a picture of the west as a dark and brutal place, but I'm looking for escapism in this /game/. I don't appreciate them taking away control of my character. With so much power at John's fingertips, I would most certainly use it at every opportunity, however I see fit.

I definitely hated a lot of the choices that were made for you in Mexico. Especially the mission that had you helping to steal a bunch of women from that town, at least let us choose sides. Although I appreciate that there were no clearly defined good guys, just lots of grey areas. Landon Ricketts however, was the complete business.

I think Mexico as a whole would have gone a lot better if the game was more concrete with this being John Marston's story rather than a "make your own choice" sort of thing. Nearly all the conversations you have with the major characters make it pretty clear that John doesn't really want to touch Mexico's problems with a ten foot pole, but does it only so he can do what he came for and get the hell out before he encounters any more problems. Naturally, this being a Rockstar game in all, he fails on all counts but at least it makes for some pretty cool scenes.

I should have been able to decide if I wanted to torch the village or not. I already helped kill all the rebels, denying me information on Bill and Javier just because I don't want to torch empty houses is bullshit.