After replaying RDR1 again, outside of the law system, I’m convinced that RDR2 is the better game in every single regard.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
After replaying RDR1 again, outside of the law system, Im convinced that RDR2 is the better game in every single regard.
It absolutely is, but Gankereddit has plenty of zoomer contrarians
Ganker loved RDR2 and quoted and memed and shitposted about it for a solid year, now it’s like they let their contrarianism entirely posses them and began hating on it.
There have been plenty of revisionism on Ganker on the last 2-3 years, happened to RDR2, happened to New Vegas and to GTA 4(the opposite for that one, it was rightfully shat on as the worst GTA when it released, but zoomers who were raised with it now constantly spam threads about how good it was)
They did the same with Elden Ring after probably doing 5 full playthroughs and telling other anons they didn't beat the game because they wanted to feel accomplished for doing so
Now there done with it (until the DLC) and it's LE GOYSLOP because they realized normies could beat it
Bounty hunting
Karma system
Euphoria physics
Horse speed
Crippling and injuring
Gameplay first
No handholding or babbying (can accidentally shoot own horse, stray more than 5 meters from objectives etc)
If you prefer the slow burn shit that's on you, it's in no way better by any measurable metric outside of graphics. The cope that it's some sort of troll raid or something is pretty embarrassing.
adhd ass homie
go watch tv Black person
>Bounty hunting
You like radiant missions? Really?
>Karma system
You mean honor? Yeah, I guess, honor actually does something in RDR1. People ignore petty crimes if your honor is high or low enough. In RDR2, all it does is change the probability of items you loot from corpses, like more tobacco and alcohol for low honor and valuables for high honor, people still treat you like shit regardless, but I kinda like we’re not treated like the messiah even if we’re good guys.
>like radiant missions
100% prefer it in this case because when I did the mountainside bounty mission in 2 where you have to disarm the Black person, I shot him and had to re-try because it fails the mission. That's when the game officially became a mixed bag in my eyes.
I also mean that the honor system in 2 is just anal as frick. Out hunting and shoot 5 birds in one deadeye to complete a challenge? That's negative karma chief. Shoot some rapists horse to stop him from riding away with the victim? You monster!
Don't get me wrong I don't hate 2 because I'm criticizing it. I think it had the potential to be amazing, it's just held back by a lot of annoyances and strange design decisions.
the honour system makes no sense and it ruins Arthur's character. He commits genocide against the state of New Hanover during missions but if he robs a guy in his free time , he's a bad boah.
The law system too , you kill a guy in the middle of nowhere and you instantly get a bounty as if Arthur was livestreaming his murder spree. At least you can mod this on PC
I’m gay
Ha! Looks like Micah's gay!
you know what we do to gays, boah?
ok, but what are your thoughts on Red Dead Revolver?
Story is way enhanced too. However some fans might prefer the rdr1 style. So can you really consider rdr2 better?
Only good thing I can say about RDR1 is that it doesn’t have infinitely respawning lawmen and bandanas actually work, and maybe Undead Nightmares.
The Wild West is probably the lamest setting you can use in a movie/vidya. Only Blood Meridian did it well, but only because of its prose, just like Moby-Dick and whaling.
>The Wild West is probably the lamest setting you can use in a movie/vidya
I've been on this dogshit fricking website for almost 15 years now and this is easily the most moronic opinion ive read so far
Unironically have a nice day
Pick any of the European wars that happened over its 1000+ years history and you'll have a better setting. Ancient Greece, Rome, Aztecs, Egypt, Mongols, modern era, industrial revolution - all more compelling. I don't like Vikings (or the Norse mythology for that matter), but even they're more compelling than the cowboy wank.
>vikingshit more fun than thr wild west
KYS
>bro we need more medieval/dark fantast style games!
Please have a nice day, unironically
They're overused, but that doesn't make it a bad setting.
kys
This but unironically.
Wild West shit leads to by the numbers TPS/FPS gameplay since you're fighting normal dudes with like 4 weapon types.
If you say frick realism you can get a decent game out of the setting though the track record is pretty weak as far as I remember.
room temperature IQ take.
homosexual
troonypost
Zoomer LariaBlack person hands typed this.
They let chatbots say Black person?
Holy cringe
/thread
RDR2 is probably my favourite game of all time. But everytime I replay it, I notice more and more flaws. I guess that's just how things are. Anyone else?
I’m on the same boat, yeah.
that goes for any game i hold in high regard. i dont think its worth truly appreciating something as special to your heart if you cant acknowledge its imperfections. ive done the same for the first game any time i replay it.
They're both shit, 2's more of a movie while 1 is more bland in general.
Because you play games whose main value is novelty and if you're not a 1000 hours in vanilla skyrim type you'll slowly realize how much they suck.
Same goes for every GTA.
RDR2 made the hunting needlessly annoying and complicated.
1. Hunting makes you use more than two brain cells, though coming across a perfect moose can be a pain in the ass.
2. You can use your horse to skip skinning animations, look it up on YouTube.
you can skip looting bodies the same way, it was also in the first game
>outside of the law system
RDR2 has the best and most advanced law system of all Rockstarshit
Lawmen infinitely respawn and are strictly out to get you. Moreover, they’re psychic like their GTA V counterparts.
All of this is true of RDR1 except lawmen in RDR2 also attack NPCs.
Yeah, I know RDR2’s lawmen attack offensive NPCs, but it doesn’t count because it fricking sucks for being as rudimentary as GTA V. Like, GTA IV’s cops actually chase and arrested npcs and called for patrol to pull up to their spot if they don’t have a car. I’ve rarely, if ever, saw a cop shoot an unarmed NPC in that game.
You're right. I love RDR1 but 2 is an amazing sequel.
It's ok, you can have shitty opinion
con graduations, you're moronic OP.
It's not, it's a frustratingly linear piece of shit that ruins the open world aspect precisely because the law system is so fricked up. The only thing it has over RDR1 is the graphics. Also Rdr2's story is dogshit and Arthur Morgan is a gay who I couldn't wait to die
>it's a frustratingly linear
how?
Not him but the missions are even more strict than RDR1 with failure points. You could sort of deviate from the path in RDR1 but not at all in RDR2.
oh thats what you meant. yeah i agree 100%. hopefully in the year 2040 when we get RDR3 we can do whatever we want.
Hopefully Rockstar can still make a good game after RDR2.
i mean, even when RDR2 released rockstar was already on the ropes. we hadn't had a GTA for years, other games were already dead franchises because they wouldn't make GTA money. All we can hope is that rockstar believes they can make money off the next RDR online
Good morning saars, please buy the grand theft auto 6, many hours of hard coding work
I'm sure some people thought the same thing after the shitpile that was GTA5
That can't be real
RDR2 gives you more freedom than RDR1 and the mission structure is the same
It isn't.
The first thing you'll notice is how responsive the controls are in RDR1.
RDR2 too linear and strict about how you play missions too. Some missions are just glorified cutscenes
RDR is superior to 2 in every aspect except graphics
Except for the part for Mexico completely fricking sucks.
Missions with Landon Rickets alone are better than any Mexico section in RDR2
>RDR2 is the better game in every single regard
it doesn't have random duels in every town.
you can't cheat (have fun) in poker with that special suit.
it's fricking shit.
can't collect all the cool hunting clothes before the very end of the game.
hunting is great though. spent too much time on that shit.
RDR1 at least has clear and concise gameplay logic, a variety of settings and characters that are pretty much all distinct and memorable, and isn't filled with a hundred unnecessary features that waste the player's time.
RDR2 is a less fun, boring, bloated, overdesigned mess that overstays its welcome by the halfway point of the game, and I couldn't wait for it to fricking end.
Correct
Dont know, the longass uninteractive cutscenes, the Rockstar-quest system and the weak action makes me stay out of it.
Prequels are shit (barring few exceptions) so I don't care.
I don't get the extreme divide among fans, sometimes I truly believe it is something as banal as people having their brains completely fricking fried by /misc/ and thinking that unless something is being edgy it cannot be good.
You can acknowledge that RDR2 is progressive for its era and not just automatically decide that you have to hate the game for it. I just don't understand how you can love RDR1 and completely hate 2 when 2 takes what 1 did and does way more with it. Fine, if it comes down to something as simple as you simply preferring the spaghetti western desert setting, that's understandable you'd like 1 more but if you love 1 there are way more reasons to love the 2nd game than there are to hate it.
I think the main appeal of RDR1 was how immersive and strong the setting was, I don't think it's a game you play for the minute to minute gameplay, even back in 2010 the hook of that game was the "experience" that it offered, same thing with GTA4. To then go from "loving" the first to calling the 2nd a "moviegame" just makes no sense to me.
People are robbing themselves of an experience because they decided they have to hate it because it's not politically incorrect. Which isn't even a good reason because John was progressive in the first game too, I mean he literally mocks racists in actual story missions and he has lines of dialogue agreeing that women are better and smarter than men are, at least be consistent if you're going to zone in this one dumb fricking issue, hate 1 as well then it's the least you can do.
Some people might have expected more in the time between RDR1 and RDR2 (and between the release of gears of war and RDR2) but the only innovation is making the animations slower and more restrictive missions.
They were moronic to expect anything good, but hey.
Also others may have realized they can just watch movies instead of dealing with a game that plays itself.
I absolutely played rdr 1 for the gameplay. Tell me any other game where I can shoot a guy, he stumbles backwards, drops his gun and it fires a shot killing his friend. The physics engine was at it's peak in rdr and they just kept toning it down afterwards idk why even. Realism?
Get out of here with your rationality and functioning brain. I need to be MAD for no reason because strangers on the internet told me to do so.
RDR2 has Karen and that alone makes it better.
Even the law system in 2 is better..
>le infinitely spawning witnesses appears
Amazing
I loved RDR2 but I wished the bread and butter of the game was a bit more diverse: how characters react to damage and die. GTAV suffers from the same problem in my opinion. There aren't enough ways how characters react to taking hits. Sure, it's more immersive than most shooters where characters are just simpleminded walking health pools and chars with 100% hp are as capable as chars with 1% hp. I wished it was more expansive: badly hitting enemy's dominant arm forces to use the other hand, he may retreat to cover and attempt to put pressure on the wound, someone might help him before returning to fight and so on. I want my shooting gallery to feel "alive"
like in gta 4 and rdr 1? Idk why they removed that sort of stuff in their later games
Yeah exactly and then some
You can shoot off guns from NPCs in GTA IV and RDR1 by, well, shooting the gun right out of their hands. If they’re using a longarm, they’ll switch to their sidearm, and if you shoot that off, they’ll run away for their lives.
It’s absent in GTA V, they’ll slam themselves to the ground like a wet towel once they’re shot and then get back up to continue shooting like nothing happened. You want to defeat every NPC, though? Shoot them anywhere in the legs, they’ll go from 98% HP down to 1% HP, and they’ll bleed out. If the NPC is equipped with a pistol, they’ll do a last-stand before they bleed out, but at least there’s a 1/100 chance for an active cop to do a fireman’s carry animation for all a fallen cop.
In RDR2, you can disarm NPCs again, but ONLY by shooting their forearms and ONLY if they’re equipped with a longarm, you cannot disarm them from their revolvers and pistols. Good thing is that you can now disarm NPCs with just your own hands now and enables you to insta-KO them, which is a step forward, at least.
I feel like from Rockstar's point of view, the reason they do this is because they feel like it'd make the game too easy if your guns just instantly fricked your enemies up, but the combat is already easy so its negligible, I'd much rather have realistic damage with slightly easier combat than easy combat with enemies that tank damage better.
The game already throws a comical amount of enemies at you anyway, so it's not like it would completely trivialize combat, it'd just make it more satisfying. I believe its a worthwhile tradeoff that I wish they would stick to. I love how hard your guns frick enemies up in RDR1, it is the one reason that it is to this date their most satisfying combat, even more so than Max Payne 3.
Euphoria is such a god tier and fun physics engine that limiting it in any way just for the sake of gameplay is a shame.
>I feel like from Rockstar's point of view, the reason they do this is because they feel like it'd make the game too easy if your guns just instantly fricked your enemies up
I understand this concern and I'd be fine with having grazing hits having almost no initial effect on the victim on the flip side. I don't know how frustrating would this be for the player but, like you said, combat is already quite easy so what's one more bullet to incapacitate the enemy?
if you removed deadeye maybe you could do that
as it is there would be zero point in a system like that when everything dies in one shot already
Meh, replayed rdr right before rdr2 came out I love both but there's definitely some things 1 does better than 2
Combat and general controls for instance are better in 1
2 is bloated with many surface level mechanics that are ultimately useless
Atmosphere in 1 is different from 2, not saying one is better than the other but which is better depends on you
this is just from the top of my head but overall I wouldn't say 2 is better in every way
>Combat and general controls for instance are better in 1
The biggest reason for this is that with RDR2 they made the fricking idiotic choice of going back to automatically walking when aiming your weapon. RDR1 remains their only game where you default to running while aiming your weapon, this made combat feel so much more responsive, fast and fun. In RDR2 you have to press a button to run while aiming your weapon and it doesn't remember it so you have to do it every single time and the running speed on top of that isn't as fast as in rdr1.
That one little thing makes RDR1 feel like it flows so much better. I will never understand why Rockstar thinks players want to be walking at a snails pace when aiming their weapons.
I love and hate red dead redemption. On the one hand its a good game, on the other hand its ruined by how much it boxes you in and reuses the same formula over and over again on missions just to dump a load of dialogue in your face. The story is a real slog to get through, the open world is decent, but the law system totally kills the fun.
I just want to be a lone cowboy and build a gang and make a base and fight for control of other areas, and do some hunting, fishing and finding treasure or gambling etc. Instead of being dragged around by Dutch the other gang of misfits on boring story missions with minimal actual gameplay in them.
I've never played either, is RDR1 as slow as molasses as the second game, what with all the exaggerated motions and input lag?
No, no input lag whatsoever.
>masks do nothing
what did rockstar mean by this
This reddit bouncy ball homie completely trashed the essence of Rockstar's recent game design in a single video. RDR2 is a beautiful game but it is an absolutely horrible experience if you care about player freedom at all.
stfu moron, rdr2 is literally game of the decade
Except that outside of main story missions (which make up only like 20% of total content in the game) you have insane amounts of player freedom and agency and the game is literally akin to something like Skyrim in how much wacky shit can happen just exploring and fricking with NPCs, wildlife, gameplay mechanics etc.
God I hate you homosexual morons so much regurgitating this worthless "criticism" over and over.
>you have insane amounts of player freedom and agency and the game is literally akin to something like Skyrim in how much wacky shit can happen just exploring and fricking with NPCs, wildlife, gameplay mechanics etc.
>wander around the map and shoot things
Yeah it's open world, they're all like this and most suck.
1 is better because can be played on console without fear of wrecking it
>play for 2 hours
>fan is so funding loud holy shit
>turn the game off
sounds like the time i played just cause 3 on ps4
So basically rdr and gta4 use the euphoria engine which makes physics look way more realistic.
Of course if you want better graphics you have to nerf down realism and that's why many say it's not as fun or that it plays like a movie.
It's like gta5, is it objectively better? Overall yes but is not as fun when you drive or shoot.
Personally the first thing i always do when playing a new game is play with physics and movement. If it's too stiff or scripted then it takes all the fun for me.
Need more guns in RDR series
>every fricking mission is either an exposition horse ride or a comical shooting gallery with one hundred dudes appearing everywhere
>or both
i guess theres the fishing tutorial mission too
and that one mission where you need to steal a wagon of oil from that factory place but i just spooked the horses by firing from a nearby hill and jacked the wagon when it left the factory instead of just gunning down everyone there
So the remake has been announced. I'm not quite sure I get the outrage there seems to be.
Sure, it's not a remake in the engine of RDR2, but are people more mad about that or is it that Rockstar decided to re-release it only for the switch and the PS4?
>remake
It’s literally nothing more a port, that’s why, and at the original resolution and framerates. Different from a remaster or remake.
>RDR1 mission design
>Every 3rd mission you are on a stagecoach shooting someone
>Every 5th mission you are boarding/stopping/stealing a train
>every 10th mission has you on a gatling gun
>few characters actually act like real human beings, most of them act like outlandish characters for the sake of comedy which rarely lands
RDR2 is better in every way, how is this even a discussion. Only reason why RDR1 has a backbone these days is just thanks to RDR2.
Yeah, hence why I made this thread, each mission tries to outdo the other even though the peak isn’t that high at all. RDR2 at least knocks it out of the park and tries to make what you do in each mission different.
I broadly agree, but one thing that I really liked about RDR1 that wasn't in the sequel was how gunfights sounded like they're from an old-timey movie with those extremely fake ricochet noises.