Which one do you guys personally prefer and what are some cons and pros each game ( compared to one other) ?
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Red Dead Redemption 1 and 2
Which one do you guys personally prefer and what are some cons and pros each game ( compared to one other) ?
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
I wish 2 story with 1's gameplay, except including fps mod
Good answer,i also prefered the first rdr gameplay.
2 keeps filtering me because I can't run in camp, I know there's a mod so I'm gonna try again some time with that mod.
>fps mod
what is it about? just makes the game run at a higher fps?
this but the other way around
RDR2 has the better map and gameplay. RDR1 is too arcadey in a bad way (example of good arcadey would be Max Payne, Need for Speed Hot Pursuit 2). RDR1 had really boring mission structure, dogshit open world, frick all to do besides grind the story or fight regenerative spawning bandit outposts, or tie up women and let them get run over by trains (which you can also do in RDR2).
2 is just better in every way.
>but the looting is so slow and boring!!
Then don't loot. It's that simple. You don't need any of that shit to play the game. Looting just makes the game comically easy. Skip all the stamina and slo mo buffs. Just hunt and eat meat to heal yourself. And sleep at camp at the end of your crime/hunting session.
>Just hunt and eat meat to heal yourself. And sleep at camp at the end of your crime/hunting session.
That shit is boring. Its not even gameplay. Max Payne and Need for Speed are more fun
>boring
to you, maybe, i for one really enjoy the slowed down gameplay it made it one of the most immersive experiences i've ever had
>old good new bad
unironically, yes
actual words and justifications vs your little meme, who's the real npc here?
II's exploration and atmosphere are phenomenal but it's story doesn't come close to that of the original. RDR actually felt like a culmination of Western tropes all coming together to make a great game. You have your gunslinging protagonist riding around the desert, shooting bad and good guys alike, both the American West and Northern Mexico are accessible and have much to offer, and the characters all have personality. Don't get me wrong, the VDL gang's journey is still well-told and definitely has it's peaks, but it doesn't feel like a classic Western.
VDL gang was just way too big for me, couldn't be bothered to care about most of them. Should have just had the original guys you kill in RDR1, John's prostitute and maybe 4 more outlaws that would either die or leave the gang at some point
The camp characters are mostly fine imo, but they added new gunmen too and there just isn't enough friggin time for all of them. Sadie suffers horribly from under-development. Lenny is fine but doesn't add much and then dies. I did like Sean. Charles is a bro and I like him but it feels like you spend a lot more time with him than most of the guys from RDR1; he's a good character stuck awkwardly into a spot that should probably have been reserved for Javier (who I can barely remember riding with at all, now that I think about it).
Unrelated I got the cutscene with the nun at the train station yesterday and I'm annoyed by how sanitized her rhetoric is. Won't dare to actually talk scripture or mention God. She sounds like a Unitarian. Dude is dying of tuberculosis in front of you woman and you know damn well he isn't saved. At least say a prayer with him or something.
My guess is that R* wanted to portray the gang as a true "family" trying to flee from civilization conquering the Wild West instead of some gunmen robbing banks and trains, but they failed in characterizing most of the members. The only ones aside from Arthur and the RDRI cast I liked were Charles and Pearson, but only because he got a cool ending as owner of the Rhodes General Store. Micah came off as a cartoon villain to me, and weirdly enough, he is the only outlaw in the Gang who resembles your typical Western gunslinger, arrogant and narcissistic.
I 100% agree with you. Hope they bring back Mexico and perhaps even add some Canadian-inspired territories in the North. I'm surprised (in a negative way) that there's a good amount of people who unironically want RDRIII to be set during WWI and have you play as Jack Marston shooting Jerries in France, because that's totally fitting for a Western game series.
Shit how could I forget Hosea?
You have good points, thus you are right.
>Shit how could I forget Hosea?
Cause he suffers from the gang being too friggin big as much as anyone and is dead for the latter two chapters of the game, so you can go very long stretches without interacting with him.
Pacing for RDR2 is all weird, I think partially because of how big they made the cast. They want the player to get to know everyone but most missions are just Arthur tagging along with one or two guys, so you sort of round robin through the camp and by the time you're done you only have a pretty vague impression of them all. I'm in chapter 6 now and I can't remember the last time I had a real interaction with Javier; he has a fishing mission in chapter 3, shows up on the riverboat heist in 4 to get called racist names, and gets rescued in chapter 5. But I couldn't tell you shit about him besides the fact he looks like he deserves to be called a greaser and that he wears a bowler hat.
>You have good points, thus you are right
Frick you. This is a perfectly good opportunity to throw your afternoon away! Get back here!
Really though I appreciate that.
It's so bizarre how neglected Javier is considering his presence in RDR1. I expected he and Bill to be the most prominent gang members aside from Dutch. I guess Bill gets an alright amount of screentime considering the size of the cast, but Javier is basically non-existent. I haven't beaten the game quite yet, but there are several characters that just feel like they should have been cut to make more time for others. Why did Kieran exist? Why was Shawn not there from the start with us rescuing someone else who would stick around longer? Tilly, Mary Beth, and Karen basically just sit in camp doing frick all outside of one or two missions this far. Why the frick does Swanson exist? I rescued this guy in the first 5 hours of the game and he has yet to do ANYTHING. I just got a quest to talk to him, and I thought maybe I would finally spend time with him, but no. Dutch cuts in after Swanson says two sentences and then we're off without the good reverand. Frick, the same thing happened with Molly. Cut some of these characters and cut Guarma, and you could have something amazing.
>Cut [...] Guarma
That shit would've been so much better if it was a fully accessible, whole island, kind of taking the role of Mexico in the first game.
Playing through the game now, almost at the end, and I agree. I think I've only cared about one death so far, Hosea. There are so many non-characters. Like, Molly gets obliterated by Grimshaw, and all I could think was, "maybe I'd care if I had a single quest with this character over the past dozens of hours." I like the overall story of Arthur and of this gang constantly fricking up due to one charismatic man's delusions of grandeur, but it is so spread out that it kind of wears thin. I don't think it'll stick with me the same way Marston's story did.
RDR3 should take place in the real wild west,maybe around 1860-1889 time frame. The end of the west trope is done enough. Id like red harlow to return.
I feel the end of the west is important to Red Dead, but it could be cool to have something that moves between time periods. Follow a character during the height of the West with flashes to him retired in the future with new problems now arising due to his previous actions.
2 is a better game but 1 has a better character story I feel. Its also requires a little less investment to play and enjoy vs RDR2
Preferred 2 for the simple fact that I got really annoyed at 1s shitty quest cycle.
Before even getting to Mexico I was sick of John being an idiot. Almost Every quest giver was the same bullshit
>I have information you need
>but I need you to do something
>you're back, good job.. Oh that info? Yeah I need you to do something else
>hey you did it! Thanks - huh what info? Oh that yeah go do something else
>great work now here's something else - WHOA mister don't point a gun at me! Okay, so I don't have that stuff to help you, so go to this guy who totally does and won't just make you do quests until you're sick of him!
I prefer the atmosphere of 1 largely due to its ambient track. RDR2's gameplay legit pisses me off. It incorporates all the worst traits of high budget western games. Overlong animations, forced walking, arbitrary restrictions on players ability, on rails...etc
I hated the game even though the visuals were stunning and Arthur was a compelling character
They're both good games, but 1 is just much more consistently good. 1's online was just superior to 2's mindless cash shop, especially since they did everything they could to make hunting in 2 lame after they realized it was both more fun and more profitable than the shit missions they set up. The gameplay in 1 is snappy, responsive, while a lot of the time in 2 you feel like a sluggish mong who can hardly handle the Earth's gravity. Story wise 2 eventually reaches a much higher peak than 1, when it's done bogging itself down with missions where Micah and Sadie run around murdering dozens of people for no reason. I especially liked hanging out with the Indian tribe, the fact that you can skip that whole segment just shows the devs didn't know what they had there. Arthur stopping to really get to know the people the gang were fricking over with one of their cons for once makes it really sink in how far Dutch has fallen that he's willing to sacrifice this entire tribe to make a quick buck.
Are there any essential mods for RDR2?
Nope. The game is pretty good as it is, there is some Online stuff for RPs but I never looked much into that shit, also because R* ceased development for multiplayer anyway.
Maybe it has to do with you not wanting to play the game more than five minutes, anon?
Slower reloading and higher fov
First-person cowboy kino here I come
the light a cigar/cigarette bind to a single key one and the pistol twirling one for max kino.
2 is boring as shit. Can never get passed the first 5 mins before turning that garbage off
Zoomer adhd
Post a torrent or stop shilling your fricking game you double homosexual.
>discussing two games from the same series=shilling
ok moron
Let me spell it out for you, which ever game you are talking about in this thread will be promoted.
If you can't tell, both games are a rdr game do that doubles the profit margin. Stop defending your shillion behavior
You could also say that one of the games is better than the other but is still shit.
They're both good but I love the Mexico segment of RDR1
I have OCD and this game (second, I liked the first) overwhelms me because of all the mechanics and missables. There's quite a few submenus to navigate and quite a few things to learn and the tutorial was daunting. Having to manage all the different meters (both by keeping them topped up but also from going in the red) managing my horse, learning to fist fight, learning to track animals, what guns to use against them, what to do with their parts and where... I just feel massively overwhelmed and I'm afraid to do something wrong and gimp myself or have suboptimal enjoyment, so I just feel stressed out and stop playing after trying again for an hour.
The hunting mechanics drive me up a wall tbh.
>shoot a 3 star white tail buck through the skull with a repeater, dropping it instantly
>carcass quality drops because gosh darn it you just did not kill them hard enough
You really should just need the varmint rifle and a full power rifle for hunting. And certain birds requiring dinky little arrows is dumb too because .22lr in black powder is simply incapable of doing anything more than poking a hole in stuff.
>Through the skull
You're not supposed to shoot animals in the head while hunting but I don't know if that matters in RDR2
Heart or skull will give you 3 star pelts, but you must mind what type of gun you use
In RDR2 it doesn't matter. Vitals or head will drop the animal and head is usually easier to single out while in deadeye. The gamist part comes from all the animals requiring a specific sort of weapon or else you'll degrade the pelt even if you down them in one shot.
>small game arrows
>varmint rifle
>repeater/bow
>rifle
The shotguns are all useless for hunting for pelts, weirdly.
What happens to me is Arthur will randomly have different handguns because I keep forgetting to stash stuff in his locker.
>rocking duel Schofield for five hours
>get to a long mission
>not only am I missing my rifles but for some reason Arthur has a worn cattleman and an 1899
I actually like the 1899 tbh but none of the automatic pistols fit into Arthur's holsters which makes them float around and look ugly. I settled for two double actions.
Take the Will Pill and realize that submitting to your OCD strengthens it and stop caring about missables and collectibles at all.
Then realize that it just manifests in other ways when you do that and get sad.
It's absolutely true. Do you have it too? I have to make a conscious effort to force myself to play games with missables because it helps with my OCD. It's unironically therapeutic in the literal sense for me to play, say, Doom 2016 and force myself to slam through it despite my OCD screaming at me to get every collectible and upgrade things optimally.
This is EXACTLY what I mean. Keeping all that in mind drives me nuts. I tried having a bath and this guy attacked me cuz I got too close or something and I accidentally switched to a knife and killed him and I alt f4d because I didn't wanna deal with the repercussions.
You need to learn to train your brain homie,the more you give in to your ocd rituals the stronger they become,never forget that shit.
Thank you anon. I'm not saying "I got OCD" in a "omg im so ADHD" kinda way, I actually am a diagnosed sufferer. It makes it really hard to enjoy games sometimes.
There's a lot more that I like about RDR2
Gun handling generally feels better and more wild-westy, the open world is probably the most lived-in and organic-feeling as any they've ever made, it's a beautiful game, etc.
One big thing is that Dan Houser's writing finally started to improve a little. GTA IV, V, and RDR1 all have the same thing where the game is almost never sincere in moment to moment gameplay, everyone is the butt of some cynical satire. RDR2 felt more willing to have characters that aren't 100% just clowns existing to make a hackneyed point about society. They even went back and made one certain one note characters a little more sympathetic. It's not an incredible story but it's better IMO
it's still all so misantropic without offering any genuine solution, not a single glimmer of honesty or uplifting. it's like playing through the power fantasy of an abrasive rejects 'when I'll be king's daydream where even in that scenario he can't conceptualize being liked so it has to be everyone elses fault for being even worse.
Contrarian spotted
Shit gameplay and terrible visuals (not even by todays standards but by even the standards of 2004)good characters tho
Cool, another game I can add to the "media liked only by contrarian edgelords and nostalgiatards" collection.
Rdr1 is so much more fun and less tedious to replay, but rdr2 is still peak ludokino. We need rdr1 pc port tho
Who the frick thought having Arthur stow his weapons on his horse automatically was a good idea? I sure do love needing to play a mission with only pistols because Arthur decided to unequip his main firearms. Fricking moronic.
I'm finally playing RDR2
> went into a cabin in lakay
> get molested
i don't want to play this shit anymore
Kek, if this made you stop playing a game I wonder you'd feel after reading Berserk.
I did find it hypocritical of him how he criticizes other people for being le racist sexists at the dawn of the 20th century, but the other (good) characters kind of saved the story for me.
>Arthur hate shaking down people for loan money.
>Has absolutely zero qualms about killing random people.
Yup, that was my point. The game tries to make us sympathize with him when we find out he's got TB, and for me it worked until I reached the end of the main story, but almost immediately afterwards I realized that he deserved it. Him dying was the only way he could truly redeem himself for all the shit he did to (mostly) innocent people.
>but almost immediately afterwards I realized that he deserved it
Isn't that sorta the point? Arthur leads a bad life and eventually it kills him. That's why he wants to get John out during chapter 6.
John should have taken arthurts advice and gotten out with abigal and jack,him sticking around was a mistake. He should have done what the reverend did.
You have a point. It's just that a lot of people I know truly believed Arthur should've lived, but the problem with that is that the moment he realized he had TB, he tried to be better, so without it, he'd just have continued to live as a thug. This, coupled with him killing up to hundreds of innocent people in 1899 alone, make it impossible for him to be redeemed without going to the Great Beyond. That's basically the point of the series' title: Red Dead Redemption.
Absolutely. It was also idiotic of older Jack to kill Ross, because both his predecessors had to pay the price for continuing the cycle of violence. I always imagined the feds ended up killing him sometime after the ending of RDRI.
>but the problem with that is that the moment he realized he had TB, he tried to be better
I think it's a little more nuanced than that. Arthur starts having serious reservations about how stuff is going during chapter 3, and reservations about Dutch specifically in chapter 4 after Dutch drowns Bronte (although I never really saw how drowning Bronte is supposed to be any more monstrous than what the gang pulls in Rhodes). The impression I get is that the TB diagnosis is Arthur realizing
>oh shit. I really am out of time and it's my own goddamn fault. I have to get this shit together or it's going to be fricking bad.
That's why he's trying to make sure things get taken care of for the women, and tries to get John out. He's out of time and realizes he has to face the music.
>always imagined the feds ended up killing him sometime after the ending of RDRI.
They had to, rosses brother is aware that jacked was the one who killed his brother and his wife,since he goes to them both dor clues
Yeah. It's nice to see Arthur hit a turning point, but he never would have without dying. He was perfectly fine living in Dutch's hypocritical, delusional world despite clearly having some reservations about it. The tragedy of Arthur's story is that he could have always gotten out of at least pushed against Dutch more, but he couldn't bring himself to do it until it is far too late for either. I just wish he would react more to innocents getting killed in missions since it seems like something that is supposed to bother him but which he just goes along with.
I've read it, but it's different, the universe of berserk is grim.
It is, funny how RDR's fictionalized Wild West looks like a playground in comparison.
1 is superior in every way, anyone who says otherwise is a gay
Arthur is an incredibly boring protagonist. Just a himbo with a heart of gold that gets sad puppy eyes every time the script needs a low moment for the gang's behavior. The entire story is actually just trash, the only enjoyable part of the game is the hunting, and even that's isn't great.
The writing is only OK at best, yeah. It's mostly saved by every VA playing their absolute hearts out.
RDR2
>pros - exploration in general, atmosphere, voice acting
>cons - sluggish movement, woke and insists on you being a good boy
I didn't play RDR 1
>I didn't play RDR 1
I think you'd like it if you enjoyed these aspects of the sequel. It also doesn't nearly have as much woke bullshit while being much more morally grey. If you can't emulate, it's easy to get a good-quality 7th gen console bundled with it, or just use the backwards compatibility of the Xbox if you own one.
>what are some cons and pros
pros
>greet greet antagonize
cons
>okay i'll catch you later
RDR1 is more fun to play. RDR2 feels so unpleasant to control as if the game is on the edge of being overwhelmed by all the shitty scripts running that constantly need to check some shit like "oh you stand on this point on the map and the camera is tilted by AB°? Then you can use this action by pressing the action button"
You can barely even run into a wall in RDR2. In RDR1 you're actually in control
>the exact same game only with dumber writing and time wasting mechanics
I have ADHD and I finished Red Dead 1 like twice. Tried to play Red Dead 2 and I managed to finish the tutorial mission that lets you out into the open world and then my quest was to do shopping in town with the gang I stopped playing and haven't opened it since
Are you literally me?
>Gameplay
RDR2
>Story
RDR2
>MC
RDR2
>Mechanics
RDR2
The answer is GUN.
2 is better In pretty much every single way.
The hangup for most people is It's a slow burn game inspired mostly by classic american literature rather than classic western films/TV.
Every complaint about the game boils down to this simple fact.
1 is cut and dry and in your face about it's themes while 2 is more complex and slower, gameplay wise 2 feels like a fully fleshed out version of 1s mechanics.
I also prefer the slower more methodical movement of 2 but that sorta thing Is just personal preference.
RDR1 knew what it wanted to be, GTA with cowboys and a serious plot.
RDR2 couldn't decide whether it wanted to be RDR1 or a Cowboy-sim. Because of that, it's design is split awkwardly. Missions are too linear for a Cowboy--sim and the open world is too fragmented by the story to be a great simulator.
I prefer RDR2, but RDR1 is much tighter. If RDR2 had went full sim, it would be one of my favorite games, but it restricts itself too much. If it was a retread of RDR1's style, I would prefer RDR1.
Nailed it perfectly. This design dichotomy in RDR2 is painfully apparent and ultimately holds the game back from being a turbo autistic immersive wild west sim(which it already is with all that detail, but it could be more if they have ditched the standard Rockstar formula). I prefer RDR1 tho.
>put mask on
>do crime
>escape before the law comes
>$250 bounty regardless
Classic wienerstar 0 - 100 gameplay design
>wow people didn't like the sluggish cars in gta 4
>lets make them more arcadey than san andreas in gta 5 then
>get held at gunpoint
>open fire in self defense
>police proceed to try and kill me
>flee with my life
>$350 dollar bounty
Frick Saint Denis man.
>Mrs. Downes tells an officer I'm bothering her.
>Immediate $5 bounty.
>Okay, I'll just surrender and pay it.
>Officer immediately opens fire on me.
>200 more officers spawn.
>Have to run.
>Officers keep spawning out of thin air in front of me whenever I try to hide.
Fun.
To be fair, Saint Denis is supposed to be your average corruption-infested big city with a heavy division between poor and rich, but yeah, the bounty system sucks otherwise. That said, SD is still my favourite city in gaming simply because it has so much that makes it feel lived-in.
1
pros: more gameplay focused, no tedium, less(therefore better) story, generally better ost
cons: console/emulator exclusive, not as pretty
Both are great game with pretty good story but 2 doesn't feel like a cowboy game, so 1 for me is better it just feel very grounded and wild west
You know what i want a Rango game that movie has incredible cowboy setting
>Hey you! Leave that poor person of color alone!
>Keep clear sir, we're transporting a prisoner.
>I said stop, you goddamn animal!
>*shoots police*
>*releases prisoner*
>Thanks for saving me from those white devils, cracka.
>*+ Honor*
2 was only good for side distractions.
Both are excellent games, but for me the 1st one is better because
>It has a much more solid plot
>Doesnt waste your time with all these immersive sim shit
>Its pure gunplay
>The setting makes it feel more like a western movie
>It has one of the best DLCs in videogames
I got filtered hard by the riding scenes, at least GTA has traffic and music, this is just fricking trees and grass.
Theyre both tied together, there wouldnt be 2nd without 1. 1 was a better experience for me. What was missing for me in RDR2 was lack of involvement in the story and gameplay. If you make such a huge open world and character development it must have been an RPG with choices matter style gameplay. It was more of a movie than a game. I still enjoyed it though