RDR1 was a better game than RDR2 anyway.

[Iggy Wolf]

Don't get me wrong. I loved RDR2 and consider it a master class in storytelling. Perhaps that's the problem. Emphasis on STORY telling. The gameplay actually sucked and was considered by most people to be a slog to get through. I know people who quit after Chapter 1 and 2 because of how slow it was to pick up. I appreciate Rockstar's attention to detail but their emphasis on "realism" was at the expense of the gameplay. RDR1 let you carry all your weapons anytime, without needing to have a load out on a horse. Yes, the guns couldn't be customized but that was balanced out by being able to access all of them.

While you bond with your horse in RDR2, it's a pain in the ass to use others until you've bonded with them. RDR1 was simple. You have a deed to a horse. You can call it anyone, even if it dies. John also moved much faster and simply saddling up and riding a horse was a simple affair rather than an exercise in frustration. Basically, none of that "slowly animate every action" BS that made RDR2 annoying sometimes to play through (I'm looking at you, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ chop wood camp chore). The graphics actually work in its favor and style. It IS a spaghetti western after all. It's characters are meant to be exaggerated and higher than life (Nigel Dickens etc.). Most importantly is that the shooting was actually fun.

And you didn't need to collect 20 bear asses just to make an outfit or get money. Even the treasure hunt challenges were more fun. Speaking of challenges, the Legend of the West challenges were easier and LESS ridiculous to accomplish. All in all, even if you don't think the price is fair, you can't deny that the game holds up quite well, even if it isn't a remaster or remake. I don't want RDR2's "realistic mechanics" anyway. There's a reason GTA V let you access all your weapons in the wheel at anytime.

[begobe]

both is good.

[Sharkle_Bunwich]

Imo I don't think both are really comparable. RDR1 is an action game albeit with a strong narrative tying it together. RDR2 has action set pieces, but it feels like its intention was to be more of an immersive sim where the story took front and center.

[Bahamut]

They both excel at what they set out to do, both are good for their own reasons.

[Dwarf Floyd]

I loved RDR2 and played it through completely! And than Multiplayer many hours! can't wait for the first! Especially, if its different, interesting to see, how rockstar told the story back than.

[Ivkoni]

RDR 2 is better in literally every way. The first one was the best story they have ever done and their best game until rdr 2 came out. But no GTA will ever top RDR.

[Coffee]

If it's so good, then why don't you pre-order it?

It was good, but not to repay full price for a port.

[ROXANN]

IMO they are both probably the 2 best games ever made. I've never experienced stories like this and gone "wow, that was f*cking incredible I want to witness that for the first time again".

[SolidPayne]

RDR1 is definitely more gamey while RDR2 is more of an experience which works for the stories they're telling. RDR1 is about a man on a mission, capture or kill his former gang and reunite with his family so it's more actiony in nature. RDR2 is about a dying gang on it's last legs so you spend time with them, you do chores, you listen to campfire fire stories, you do activities with them, so making the game so immersive and detailed works in the story's favor

[Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser]

Unpopular opinion, but I agree honestly. Part of that is just the "you can never recreate a first time" thing. But honestly, I just liked John as a character more than Arthur, and he and his son's story, and the tragedy of cyclical futility they went with for the game, really had an impact on me and made it incredibly memorable.

I would argue 2, on paper, is a "better game" (better being subjective as it is,) in terms of complexity, features, fidelity obviously, etc. And it's a great story and experience too. But something about the first game just felt so much more riveting and engrossing to me, and I just wanted to live in that game.

And I was haunted by it when it ended. There are only a handful of what I consider "modern" games that I view as "classics" that I would happily revisit via remasters and remakes. This is one of them for me. Not sure 2 would be.

[SolidPayne]

RDR2 is definitely a modern classic. It came out in 2018 and people talk about it like it came out a year or two ago. It's compared to the likes of Breaking Bad and The Sopranos in terms of standards of storytelling and cultural impact. It ain't going away

You may not personally care for it as much as the first one but for something to be a classic it has to be something that stands the test of time and still be talked about. Citizen Kane may not be my favorite movie not by a long shot but is it a classic? Definitely

[NickelToe]

RDR is superior imo, but RDR2 was like an annoying little step brother.

RDR2 had a good protag, some good side characters, some awful side characters and good customization.

RDR had worse customization but great protage and side characters.

I think RDR is tops, will replay but RDR2 was a one and done for me.

[Animal Mother]

Originally posted by Iggy Wolf:

Don't get me wrong. I loved RDR2 and consider it a master class in storytelling. Perhaps that's the problem. Emphasis on STORY telling. The gameplay actually sucked and was considered by most people to be a slog to get through. I know people who quit after Chapter 1 and 2 because of how slow it was to pick up. I appreciate Rockstar's attention to detail but their emphasis on "realism" was at the expense of the gameplay. RDR1 let you carry all your weapons anytime, without needing to have a load out on a horse. Yes, the guns couldn't be customized but that was balanced out by being able to access all of them.

While you bond with your horse in RDR2, it's a pain in the ass to use others until you've bonded with them. RDR1 was simple. You have a deed to a horse. You can call it anyone, even if it dies. John also moved much faster and simply saddling up and riding a horse was a simple affair rather than an exercise in frustration. Basically, none of that "slowly animate every action" BS that made RDR2 annoying sometimes to play through (I'm looking at you, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ chop wood camp chore). The graphics actually work in its favor and style. It IS a spaghetti western after all. It's characters are meant to be exaggerated and higher than life (Nigel Dickens etc.). Most importantly is that the shooting was actually fun.

And you didn't need to collect 20 bear asses just to make an outfit or get money. Even the treasure hunt challenges were more fun. Speaking of challenges, the Legend of the West challenges were easier and LESS ridiculous to accomplish. All in all, even if you don't think the price is fair, you can't deny that the game holds up quite well, even if it isn't a remaster or remake. I don't want RDR2's "realistic mechanics" anyway. There's a reason GTA V let you access all your weapons in the wheel at anytime.

Never owned a console.
Loved Red dead 2 on my pc.
If this is better, has to be worth the money.

[V I D A L]

Debatable. They are both GOAT. Really hard to say which one was better when it came out.

[SolidPayne]

Originally posted by Animal Mother:

Never owned a console.
Loved Red dead 2 on my pc.
If this is better, has to be worth the money.

It isn't really better per say, they're two halfs of a whole. It's like asking which is objectively better Godfather 1 or Godfather 2. You can prefer one but both are essential

[Animal Mother]

Originally posted by spikejet2736:

Originally posted by Animal Mother:

Never owned a console.
Loved Red dead 2 on my pc.
If this is better, has to be worth the money.

It isn't really better per say, they're two halfs of a whole. It's like asking which is objectively better Godfather 1 or Godfather 2. You can prefer one but both are essential

Great can’t wait 👍