Who is playing this for the first time?

[DominaLucrezia]

What's your favourite bit so far?

[Celes Raev]

Undead Nightmare for the first time but I played RDR back in 2010 on the PS3. :D

[V I D A L]

If you're playing it for the first time you should stay away from forums and Youtube about this game. You're bound to run into spoilers. The last thing you should do is open discussions on a forum regarding a 14 years old game.

Believe me, there are major events that can get spoiled and ruined for you. Just enjoy the game blindly.

[KHR3b]

None, both RDR are just gta: the wild west edition.

[SgtScum]

If possible play rdr2 first. Why? Because the story will hit waaay differently and be even more epic.

[V I D A L]

Originally posted by SgtScum:

If possible play rdr2 first. Why? Because the story will hit waaay differently and be even more epic.

Ignore this post.

[SgtScum]

Originally posted by V I D A L:

Originally posted by SgtScum:

If possible play rdr2 first. Why? Because the story will hit waaay differently and be even more epic.

Ignore this post.

Why? It's true. Even the opening scene hits differently because you know EXACTLY who bill and dutch are and why there is such animosity between john and him. Same with many many many other bits as you play.

[Khal'cynee]

Originally posted by SgtScum:

Originally posted by V I D A L:

Ignore this post.

Why? It's true. Even the opening scene hits differently because you know EXACTLY who bill and dutch are and why there is such animosity between john and him. Same with many many many other bits as you play.

you know that even without playing RDR2, dutch got some story and description about what he was before, and williamson is the same in both game

[V I D A L]

Originally posted by SgtScum:

Originally posted by V I D A L:

Ignore this post.

Why? It's true. Even the opening scene hits differently because you know EXACTLY who bill and dutch are and why there is such animosity between john and him. Same with many many many other bits as you play.

It is still better to play the games in order of release. They were design this way.

Playing RDR2 first, you don't even know or care about John Marston and you actually won't realise or pay attention in his interactions with Dutch.

They wrote those interactions considering that most players would know them already from the first game.

Even in the first hours of the game, when you go find John Marston lost in the snow, in the cutscene where he gets introduced, you can hear his music from RDR1 playing in the background. You won't pick up on that if you haven't played the first game yet.

Knowing his story, will give you a lot more perspective on those relationships.

What you're doing is like suggesting someone to watch the Star Wars Episode 1, 2, 3 first before watching 4, 5, 6.

They were designed to be experienced in order of release.

[eoozy]

Originally posted by V I D A L:

Originally posted by SgtScum:

Why? It's true. Even the opening scene hits differently because you know EXACTLY who bill and dutch are and why there is such animosity between john and him. Same with many many many other bits as you play.

It is still better to play the games in order of release. They were design this way.

Playing RDR2 first, you don't even know or care about John Marston and you actually won't realise or pay attention in his interactions with Dutch.

They wrote those interactions considering that most players would know them already from the first game.

Even in the first hours of the game, when you go find John Marston lost in the snow, in the cutscene where he gets introduced, you can hear his music from RDR1 playing in the background. You won't pick up on that if you haven't played the first game yet.

Knowing his story, will give you a lot more perspective on those relationships.

What you're doing is like suggesting someone to watch the Star Wars Episode 1, 2, 3 first before watching 4, 5, 6.

They were designed to be experienced in order of release.

I never liked playing games or watching movies that way. Even if its "meant" to be experienced in a different way, it doesnt really matter because its up to the viewer/player to decide what storytelling he/she find more enjoyable. For me not playing prequels first feels like skipping half a book and then going back to the start of the book after reading the middle/end part. Everything in RDR2 feels way more impactful when you dont know whats going to happen, RDR1 kinda spoils that.

Even the Dutch storyline in RDR1 feels more impactful to me because I got to know Dutch in RDR2 and saw him develop throughout the game.

[V I D A L]

Originally posted by eoozy:

Originally posted by V I D A L:

It is still better to play the games in order of release. They were design this way.

Playing RDR2 first, you don't even know or care about John Marston and you actually won't realise or pay attention in his interactions with Dutch.

They wrote those interactions considering that most players would know them already from the first game.

Even in the first hours of the game, when you go find John Marston lost in the snow, in the cutscene where he gets introduced, you can hear his music from RDR1 playing in the background. You won't pick up on that if you haven't played the first game yet.

Knowing his story, will give you a lot more perspective on those relationships.

What you're doing is like suggesting someone to watch the Star Wars Episode 1, 2, 3 first before watching 4, 5, 6.

They were designed to be experienced in order of release.

I never liked playing games or watching movies that way. Even if its "meant" to be experienced in a different way, it doesnt really matter because its up to the viewer/player to decide what storytelling he/she find more enjoyable. For me not playing prequels first feels like skipping half a book and then going back to the start of the book after reading the middle/end part. Everything in RDR2 feels way more impactful when you dont know whats going to happen, RDR1 kinda spoils that.

Even the Dutch storyline in RDR1 feels more impactful to me because I got to know Dutch in RDR2 and saw him develop throughout the game.

In most cases, ignoring the release order will result in spoilers.

If you watch Star Wars 1, 2 and 3 before watching 4, 5 and 6.. there will be plenty of spoilers because the movies were created for people who already watched the originals.

It would spoil Luke and Leia being siblings. It would spoil master Yoda's look, it would even spoil Darth Vader being Luke's father.

So it needs to be watched in the release order to avoid those. It's not "up to the viewer" at all.

If you play Resident Evil 0 before playing Resident Evil 1, you literally spoil the ending of RE1 reveal of Wesker being the bad guy.

It's always better and safe to play it in the release order.

[eoozy]

Originally posted by V I D A L:

Originally posted by eoozy:

I never liked playing games or watching movies that way. Even if its "meant" to be experienced in a different way, it doesnt really matter because its up to the viewer/player to decide what storytelling he/she find more enjoyable. For me not playing prequels first feels like skipping half a book and then going back to the start of the book after reading the middle/end part. Everything in RDR2 feels way more impactful when you dont know whats going to happen, RDR1 kinda spoils that.

Even the Dutch storyline in RDR1 feels more impactful to me because I got to know Dutch in RDR2 and saw him develop throughout the game.

In most cases, ignoring the release order will result in spoilers.

If you watch Star Wars 1, 2 and 3 before watching 4, 5 and 6.. there will be plenty of spoilers because the movies were created for people who already watched the originals.

It would spoil Luke and Leia being siblings. It would spoil master Yoda's look, it would even spoil Darth Vader being Luke's father.

So it needs to be watched in the release order to avoid those. It's not "up to the viewer" at all.

If you play Resident Evil 0 before playing Resident Evil 1, you literally spoil the ending of RE1 reveal of Wesker being the bad guy.

It's always better and safe to play it in the release order.

Well those are exceptions, for RDR its the opposite, RDR1 spoils a lot of characters or something going wrong in RDR2 timeline.

[SgtScum]

Yeah when playing rdr2 I always got the feeling that it would have been so much nicer if I hadn't played rdr first. I'm envious of those that played rdr2 and now get to experience rdr fresh.

[V I D A L]

Originally posted by eoozy:

Originally posted by V I D A L:

In most cases, ignoring the release order will result in spoilers.

If you watch Star Wars 1, 2 and 3 before watching 4, 5 and 6.. there will be plenty of spoilers because the movies were created for people who already watched the originals.

It would spoil Luke and Leia being siblings. It would spoil master Yoda's look, it would even spoil Darth Vader being Luke's father.

So it needs to be watched in the release order to avoid those. It's not "up to the viewer" at all.

If you play Resident Evil 0 before playing Resident Evil 1, you literally spoil the ending of RE1 reveal of Wesker being the bad guy.

It's always better and safe to play it in the release order.

Well those are exceptions, for RDR its the opposite, RDR1 spoils a lot of characters or something going wrong in RDR2 timeline.

That is simply not true.
Although RDR2 won't have major spoilers for RDR1, playing it out of order will cause you to miss out in many nods and character traits, especially the interactions between Marston, Dutch and Abigail that only makes any sense to you if you had play the original and knows what they go through later on.

A lot of the camp interactions in RDR2 would be basically meaningless as they rely on you already having a soft spot for John Marston and his family in order to hit or add up.

[eoozy]

Originally posted by V I D A L:

Originally posted by eoozy:

Well those are exceptions, for RDR its the opposite, RDR1 spoils a lot of characters or something going wrong in RDR2 timeline.

That is simply not true.
Although RDR2 won't have major spoilers for RDR1, playing it out of order will cause you to miss out in many nods and character traits, especially the interactions between Marston, Dutch and Abigail that only makes any sense to you if you had play the original and knows what they go through later on.

A lot of the camp interactions in RDR2 would be basically meaningless as they rely on you already having a soft spot for John Marston and his family in order to hit or add up.

How is it not true? RDR1 spoils characters turning against you in some way and even spoils character development. Even spoils deaths, you have no idea whos going to live or maybe just disappear if you play RDR2 first. If you play RDR1 first its easy to assume they're either dead or just disappeared, since none of the ppl are with you anymore.

The interactions between Dutch and John in RDR1 make more sense if you play RDR2 first, because you already know what happened between them, atleast way more in-depth. And like I've been saying every character feels more important to you, for example if you played RDR2 first, you'd know who Bill is and that he wasnt a complete ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ before, you'd feel atleast something more than just think hes an evil ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ who turned against his friend for some reason.

[WallysWorld]

I was playing RDR2, but stopped it after about 17 hours into the game to start RDR.