RDR vs RDR2

[Roy]

Which do you think is better?
RDR or RDR 2?

Upon replaying RDR on the switch now and revisiting old memories i have to say RDR1 is a significantly better game than RDR2.
The missions are varied, fun and not very drawn out with long horserides and constant chatter.
The world is beautiful and memorable and the characters are actually distinguishable and well written.
Perhaps most importantly they're likeable.

I personally found RDR2 a bit boring and i couldn't be arsed to get to know the characters anymore after they just kept rambling on for the majority of the "gameplay".
The missions also felt like a repetetive loop to me with the majority of them being fetchquests and horserides.

Sure, RDR has its flaws but it somehow holds up very well to date, the only thing RDR2 does better is graphics and in-depth mechanics imo.
Replaying RDR1 makes me wish RDR2's missions were as fun as 1's.

What do you lads think?

[FafnirChaos]

RDR - better ending - online wasn't a grind fest and was just pure fun - has story DLC.

[Roy]

Originally posted by FafnirChaos:

RDR - better ending - online wasn't a grind fest and was just pure fun - has story DLC.

Amen to that.
RDR 1 online vs RDR 2 online feels like comparing GTA 4 online vs GTA 5 online too.
One of them is a lot of fun to mess around in with friends and randoms, fumbling with the physics, whereas the other is a milked out, loading screen riddled cash cow with extremely unbalanced rocketbikes for those who pay a lot of money (or cheat).

[FafnirChaos]

Originally posted by Roy:

Originally posted by FafnirChaos:

RDR - better ending - online wasn't a grind fest and was just pure fun - has story DLC.

Amen to that.
RDR 1 online vs RDR 2 online feels like comparing GTA 4 online vs GTA 5 online too.
One of them is a lot of fun to mess around in with friends and randoms, fumbling with the physics, whereas the other is a milked out, loading screen riddled cash cow with extremely unbalanced rocketbikes for those who pay a lot of money (or cheat).

Yeah going on rdr1 online you just jump on seen a bunch of people trying to take over an area and go on in to shootfest - trying to take the hill or something - or just getting kills for your gold color weapons in online competitive. You had no worries about other players, because their was no greifing or anything like that.

GTA 5's mtx's bought in all of the problems it has today - they evolved that and bought it over to rdr 2.

It's nice Rdr2 has a lot of different content, and I don't mind grinding for stuff - however if they kept it to - do X amounts of moonshining - you unlock and outfit - or a gun - or a horse. Same with hunting - hunt 250 bears get a bear skin clothing for your character or weapons.

Grinding for cash just limits you to doing meta methods in order to get everything in game - I don't really see having a godawful amount of cash/gold a goal - considering one you have everything you don't need it - and just ranking up would be the best endgame goal.

[Khern]

For me RDR1 was ok, i hated the endings, but the DLC was really good, RDR2 is better in every single aspects, i love hunting in this game and the horse system is by far the best in any video game. Haven't finished RDR2 or tryed online yet.

[IceCloneZ]

Originally posted by Khern:

For me RDR1 was ok, i hated the endings, but the DLC was really good, RDR2 is better in every single aspects, i love hunting in this game and the horse system is by far the best in any video game. Haven't finished RDR2 or tryed online yet.

I have to agree:)

[Tommacool]

RDR2 had so many bugs and stuff that annoyed the hell out of me that I started to hate the game.
The characters was super annoying too and I hated everyone in the gang. Especially Sadie = mary sue woke piece of crap and her accent made me want to strangle her.
Not to mention the saddle bug = I could never know which weapons I had on me or was in the saddle every friggin time I exited my horse.
Also it's super easy to press the wrong button and draw and kill NPC's when you don't want to.
It also feels like everyone is out to get you if you do the smallest mistake.
The gameplay is also stuck in the past = it's excactly the same gameplay as RDR1.

I was expecting realistic voulmetric smoke from the guns, bullet drop / bullet physics so I don't have to get sniped from 300 yeards away from a pistol when I sig-sag on my horse.
Every mission = travel super far from point A to B... shoot. travel back. Repeat.

Come on Rockstar., you have this super realistic graphics and believable world, you even have the balls on the horse shrink when it's cold! but you couldn't give us realistic firing physics?

The real western simulation has not arrived yet. I am waiting...

[NeO]

Honestly just felt rdr2 was meh compared to 1

[mgoctopusboy]

As far as story I have to comment, because it seems like to me that they went globalist between the two and altered the story of the first with the second. I say this as someone who played 1 at original release.

In the first its a story of encroaching law and order, civilization, taking over the free west and the free spirited man. Dutch is an idealist, but one whose ideals are true, and at their core very individualist and American. Libertarian almost in nature, it speaks to the evils of centralized authority. When Dutch dies you are sad. The man is a freedom fighter and you agree with him totally.

Then years (and billions of dollars in profit) later Rockstar changes everything. Dutch is an idealist, but its all ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. A con. The idea of the individual is now just a grift he sells to misfits. Everything he says in RDR1 now has to be seen in this light. It was all ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. The empire is not a bad thing. Boo hoo for native amreicans and blacks and women and all the 'freedom fighters' were just murderes and liars and hustlers. You want Dutch dead. You hate him.

One could chalk it up to some genius reverse character surprise storytelling thing, if one wanted to be dishonest. But in my opinion it really seemed like the first one appeals to the rugged American individualist, which is the wild west, and the second one is straight up catering to modern political ideals while trashing everything the first one honored.

[Bwoah]

Both are very good but if i had to choose between them i would go RDR2.

[al64inthedark]

The first one already felt like there was not enough things to do, even more now that we have the second.
The story of first is still good but the world feels empty.
RDR2 all the way to me.

[Hyperchaotic]

RDR2 is objectively better in every way but first one is still solid and good game for its time

[FafnirChaos]

Originally posted by Hyperchaotic:

RDR2 is objectively better in every way but first one is still solid and good game for its time

https://youtu.be/tKRm1e2lNjU?si=R5G7ftKmZNHjQ6ff

[jpteixeira14]

I've played both and RDR2 is incomparably better in most, if not all aspects. By reading your comments, it's apparent to me that the things you listed as defects of 2 are the things that I miss in RDR1

[Roomba Boomba]

RDR is more fun for me, poker is better and the whole outlaw mask system at least works, compared to RDR2's

Wheres RDR2 is more beautiful and has way more details, the world is just enjoyable to explore. I liked it as well and spent lots of hours in it, some characters are just great. But the constant chatter, sometimes meaningless, along the 5-10 minute rides during some missions gets boring somewhere in the 3d act already.

Oh, and of course the one of the greatest DLCs ever for the RDR, and its mupltiplayer (tho I haven't yet tried the one in the 2nd game)