Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
If story doesn't matter and you're looking for a spaghetti western action game, play RDR1 first.
If you're looking for an immersive sim with action set pieces instead, play RDR2 first.
RDR2 is a lot of things, but definitely not an immersive sim
Just because the RDR2 happens before RDR1, doesn't mean it should be played first.
The less you know about RDR2, the more interesting the RDR1 will be because everything is revealed step by step.
This is the truth.
You're just flat out incorrect.
Gameplay wise RDR 2 is much more complex. It, at times, wants to be a simulation and it puts, imho, too much emphasis on immersion at the detriment of gameplay.
I think its probably a good thing that, as someone who just completed both games, I don't really feel like there is a definitive answer about the best order to play them in. RDR 1's ending is amazing, it was amazing without context, but its even better if you play RDR 2 first. I guess I kind of lean towards play RDR 2 first... but I'm also someone who prefers playing things in chronological order...