-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
After beating RDR2 and having a couple of days to reflect. I prefer RDR1 in pretty much every way.
- Thread starter DominicanGlory
- Start date
I remember loving rdr1 so much I blasted through it in a week or two.
I played rdr2 on release day and three days after, got to the part where
And I've nottouched the game since, fuck I went back to Diablo 3 and I seriously doubt I'll ever go back and finish rdr2.
It just felt so empty, hollow and lifeless compared to the first.
I played rdr2 on release day and three days after, got to the part where
You attend that party the snobby Italian dude throws
It just felt so empty, hollow and lifeless compared to the first.
Echoes many of the feelings I have about the game (controls, missions, world) though I never ever really felt comfortable with the controls, even when I finished.
The Epilogue, with the exception of the last mission, was so fucking dull and boring I couldn't wait to be finished.
The Epilogue, with the exception of the last mission, was so fucking dull and boring I couldn't wait to be finished.
RDR1 had high expectations coming after GTA 4, and it had a lot of marketing (from character trailers to a series of gameplay trailers). What RDR1 ended up doing was upping the bar when it came to open world games, with features like hunting and gang hideouts before they were genre staples.
I don't think RDR2 failed to reach high expectations, it just makes a lot of design choices that don't have 'fun' as a primary focus.
I was maybe about where you were the week it came out, and I didn't necessarily drop the game because I wasn't liking it (Hitman 2 came out, and then Smash, and I just felt like playing those more). When I got back to it, I did tweak some settings to make the game more palatable. From that point on, I played the game entirely first-person except for riding horses/vehicles, and I found it much better that way. It doesn't feel as good as most first-person shooters (because of course it doesn't), but I found it less offensive than moving around in third-person. And I actually felt that did a better job of putting me into Arthur's shoes.
Beyond that, I do think Chapter 2 is a really rough stretch of the game and things do get better in Ch. 3 and 4. I could honestly say I was mostly enjoying the game during that stretch, and then it turned for me in the other direction again. YMMV, I guess I would say. I would at least get into Chapter 3 before deciding if you want to dump it or not.
RDR1 was one of the best games I have ever played ..
However I do love Arthur at the same of level of John Marston.. Honestly I just didn't enjoy RDR2 gameplay
However I do love Arthur at the same of level of John Marston.. Honestly I just didn't enjoy RDR2 gameplay
Everything you wrote in the spoiler is 100% how I felt, especially the fucking Micah/Dutch shit. It feels like they cut a huge amount of backstory out, because yeah, I wasn't feeling that at all.
I had the same issues as you OP. Another issue I had was chapter 5 in which it added nothing to the plot. Also mission spoilers for this chapter:
Rinse and repeat.
The gameplay feels slow and dated.
"Let's sneak in and not get caught."
*Mission ends in shoot out*
*Mission ends in shoot out*
Rinse and repeat.
The gameplay feels slow and dated.
You're describing why Red Dead Redemption 2 is much better in my mind. The main problem with open world genre of games is how shallow and mindless they are. Little things like your horse not being able to magically teleport from the other end of the map at push of a button are exactly what these games need, not just for the obvious reason that it's more realistic, but because having to keep track of your horse forces you to be just a teensy bit more mentally engaged with the game. That's fun.
This is only an example, as you said, Red Dead 2 has a bunch of mechanics like this one, which I think really help elevate the game.
All of these moving parts probably come together best when you go out hunting, which went from an utterly inane side activity in Red Dead 1 (if you can even call that hunting) to one of the most high points of the game.
Can't agree here. While I also still prefer the gameplay of the first, RDR 2 is superior in so many ways. Especially what OP don't like, the portayal of the downfall of Dutch is told in a brillant way.
A few storylines, I have to agree, felt rushed like the one with Angelo Bronte or the whole situation on Guarma. But I have to admit, it was still a damn fine linear experience of Guarma.
A few storylines, I have to agree, felt rushed like the one with Angelo Bronte or the whole situation on Guarma. But I have to admit, it was still a damn fine linear experience of Guarma.
OP
OP
Here's the thing... Spider-Man 100% nails movement, pacing and fun factor. RDR2 ask you to play a boring 60 hour story for maybe 4 hours worth of good scenes and interactions? Awful.
This is exactly why these mechanics are in the game (for realism and immersion) and on paper, I think they're great. In practice, I think it can be incredibly frustrating unless you go into this game with the mindset that it's essentially a western simulator and with that comes many moments of frustration. I actually have a ton of respect for the ambition of this title, but I can already tell it's not going to be one of my favorite games. I do think I'm going to push through it though, as there's a lot to like here.
and oh yeah, despite my issues, this game is much, much better than the first, which was a great experience, but ultimately very shallow. RDR2 is a fare more robust and fully realized package.
With regards to Dutch, and trust:
Just my two cents.
I think a lot of the reason that Dutch sides with Micah over Arthur, John, Hosea, etc is largely because as things begin to unravel, Dutch is desperate to regain control of the situation. The only person in the gang that's constantly reinforcing Dutch's udea of moving forward, getting just enough money, etc is Micah.
"You're right boss," or "I believe in your plan boss," are things that Micah constantly says to Dutch. Rather than questioning him in this tough time like Arthur and the others do, Micah just feeds into Dutch's ego and directs him even further down the wrong lane. Dutch is an arrogant man who thinks he's smarter than other people, and he just plain doesn't want to be told he's possibly wrong, or that his ideas aren't the best ones. This becomes even more of an issue as the entire situation just completely goes off the rails, and it's clear they've overstayed their welcome. Dutch is desperate for a plan that will "fix things" when there's clearly no fixing it. He just can't see the forest through the trees anymore.
It's strange to me that Dutch would have welcomed Micah, or kept him in the gang before all of this, but Dutch also seems to think he's the great leader who can see the best in people, and bring it out. We don't really know enough about how things went before Blackwater to really make sound judgement about it all.
"You're right boss," or "I believe in your plan boss," are things that Micah constantly says to Dutch. Rather than questioning him in this tough time like Arthur and the others do, Micah just feeds into Dutch's ego and directs him even further down the wrong lane. Dutch is an arrogant man who thinks he's smarter than other people, and he just plain doesn't want to be told he's possibly wrong, or that his ideas aren't the best ones. This becomes even more of an issue as the entire situation just completely goes off the rails, and it's clear they've overstayed their welcome. Dutch is desperate for a plan that will "fix things" when there's clearly no fixing it. He just can't see the forest through the trees anymore.
It's strange to me that Dutch would have welcomed Micah, or kept him in the gang before all of this, but Dutch also seems to think he's the great leader who can see the best in people, and bring it out. We don't really know enough about how things went before Blackwater to really make sound judgement about it all.
Just my two cents.
Of course there are always going to be priorities, but it's not like it is an either/or situation when you are talking about literally the most ambitious game project
in the industry at the moment. I can basically guarantee you that there was probably a dedicated team just for the story missions.
I also think it is a bit weird to try and spin it as if the main story missions were not a priority considering the game is sold more as an incredible narrative experience over some free roaming open world game. Those are a bigger part of the narrative than the 3 different guys I sucked snake poison out of during my travels.
I was just pointing out that there was a bit of weak logic in your argument at trying to point out games of similar scope, because they really don't exist.
FFXV is probably the closest in terms of development scope, but there is info leading people to believe that team was mostly a skeleton crew for several years.
That was most certainly not the case for RDR2, though I do expect the early years had a lot of iteration and throwing out scenarios. Just speculation on my part of course.
I must be the only person who likes the controls. Honestly, I think some of you just need to git gud. They were complicated and weighty but that isnt a negative imo.
Even my girlfriend, who had never even held a PS4 controller before, was riding around, fishing, picking herbs etc with no trouble.
In response to the OP: nah man. RDR2 > RDR in every single way.
Even my girlfriend, who had never even held a PS4 controller before, was riding around, fishing, picking herbs etc with no trouble.
In response to the OP: nah man. RDR2 > RDR in every single way.
The problem is the way they accomplished their feeling of 'weight', which seems to be basically not optimizing the controls and leaving a
fairly large amount of input lag present. Monster Hunter World is a great counter example of a game that manages to feel weighty, without
sacrificing responsiveness.
It's a fairly minor annoyance that a lot of people might not notice, but having a large amount of input lag definitely isn't improving the experience.
It would be better with more responsive controls.
This is something that Rockstar seems to have always struggled with though so I am sure a lot of people are just used to it with their games.
Trying and all I come up with is herding sheep. The mission design in the first one was good you say? Haha
RDR1 has far better gameplay, mission design and player agency. The only thing better in RDR2 is the tech and story, that's about it.
RDR2 is literally on-rail in terms of its mission design, the gameplay loop is bland and the control is garbage. All the bounty mission are basically just ''go here, trigger a cutscene, follow the game's instruction, bring back the bounty.'' unlike in the first game where bounty hunting is actually bounty hunting.
RDR2 is basically animation over gameplay, you are basically just waiting for Arthur to complete a thing most of the time, gameplay wise it's about as deep as a point and click adventure. Go near a thing, hold square, wait 7 seconds until Arthur is done.
RDR2 is a fucking joke of a video game, there is no gameplay, everything you do in the game is a fucking mini-cutscene.
Last edited:
Pretty much this OP. The game is superior in every way. Even gameplay. People are clinging to the nostalgia googles to tight.
op, i knew i preferred the original red dead redemption by the time i hit chapter 3. having finished the game a few days ago, i still feel the same. the whole gang thing had gotten quite stale by chapter 4. nowhere else to go with most of the characters, just constant repetition. far preferred just wandering solo through the west. & i do mean west! there's no prairie in the whole game!
until you finish both epilogues, anyway :)
RDR2 is a 10/10 story but a failure of a game.
Not saying it's better off as a movie but it definitely wouldn't be worse as one, majority of its storytelling are done in cutscene and not gameplay anyway.
This so much, the game design is straight up garbage, it almost like they hate their players.
The bounty mission is especially garbage, it's basically just ''go here, trigger a cutscene or event, follow the instruction, bring the bounty back'' every single time.
Unlike the first game, there's no planning or strategy, there's no player agency. You can't even kill your bounty, all the bounty are all magically wanted alive, no exceptions.
RDR2 is basically this gen's Doom 3.
With graphics, animation and level of detail ahead of its time. Yet the game itself is garbage.
It took people some time to accept that it's a shitty game but eventually everyone agrees.
Not saying it's better off as a movie but it definitely wouldn't be worse as one, majority of its storytelling are done in cutscene and not gameplay anyway.
This so much, the game design is straight up garbage, it almost like they hate their players.
The bounty mission is especially garbage, it's basically just ''go here, trigger a cutscene or event, follow the instruction, bring the bounty back'' every single time.
Unlike the first game, there's no planning or strategy, there's no player agency. You can't even kill your bounty, all the bounty are all magically wanted alive, no exceptions.
RDR2 is basically this gen's Doom 3.
With graphics, animation and level of detail ahead of its time. Yet the game itself is garbage.
It took people some time to accept that it's a shitty game but eventually everyone agrees.
Last edited:
I wasn't comparing scope but genres. RDR2 is an open world strongly focused on narrative. Not the first open world to have dull missions, other games get redeemed on gameplay while rdr2 does it with storytelling and character development. I also didn't say main missions weren't a priority but rather are just another tool for the game to tell its story, the mission variety is not a priority here and it shows.
You keep speaking about scope and development time like those thing would tell us where the time was allocated.
The problem is that you are still treating it like an either/or situation still. i.e. They have to sacrifice good mission variety for their strong narrative.
You also point out that you feel other games get redeemed on gameplay, while RDR2 does it with story-telling and character development, but I would say
that Spider-Man also knocks it out of the park in those respects as well.
If the missions were supposed to be a tool to tell the story, then wouldn't you say that a larger variety of missions with more interesting scenarios would have actually helped strengthen the narrative and world-building even further than we already see?
And I keep speaking about scope and development time because you brought up games that are in the same genre but have smaller budgets and shorter
development cycles. I am pointing out that although there is a certain amount you can directly compare within a similar genre, there is the very important factor of development resources and time that sets RDR2 into a tier of its own.
And as I said before, if you are talking about a team of literally thousands of developers, it is a safe bet that there was a solid dedicated team just for the mission design for a large majority of the development cycle. That's just how game development on this scale usually works.
Doom 3 is still awesome. Different but awesome.
Agreed on your other posts though.
I played RDR 1 on my X1X literally completing a couple of days prior to RDR2 launched. I had completed RDR1 only once about 1 year after it launched and i really did enjoy it. Playing it the most recent time i could see some issues - primarily the characters seemed bland besides a key few characters and some of the control schemes were a bit janky. However - i felt like a cowboy in the wild west and i loved John Marston.
I disliked the Arthur that R* was trying to sell me in the trailers and pre-release info. I thought that he was an inferior John Marston and i was determined to not like him. Chapter 1 and most of 2 came by and i thought i would succeed in playing the game and mostly enjoying it while still managing to hate Arthur Morgan. My god though does he develop over the game. I truly feel that Arthur Morgan's journey in terms of his character development, all the interactions he has with camp members after almost every mission (even if they are one-liners sometimes) and ultimately working towards the final chapter in RDR2, was truly an exceptional emotional journey for me. I am not really an emotional person and the last time i came close to crying from a video game would have been Mass Effect 3 (The End and the Citadel DLC goodbyes) but the journey to the end of the story had me crying.
I agree RDR2 is definitely flawed - mission structure and pacing primarily for meare the two major knocks to the game but i feel the characterization and story in RDR2 outweighed those concerns and i have no trouble saying that i feel RDR2 is a superior game when compared to RDR1. RDR1 just doesn't hold up as well today as it did back then when it first released.
I disliked the Arthur that R* was trying to sell me in the trailers and pre-release info. I thought that he was an inferior John Marston and i was determined to not like him. Chapter 1 and most of 2 came by and i thought i would succeed in playing the game and mostly enjoying it while still managing to hate Arthur Morgan. My god though does he develop over the game. I truly feel that Arthur Morgan's journey in terms of his character development, all the interactions he has with camp members after almost every mission (even if they are one-liners sometimes) and ultimately working towards the final chapter in RDR2, was truly an exceptional emotional journey for me. I am not really an emotional person and the last time i came close to crying from a video game would have been Mass Effect 3 (The End and the Citadel DLC goodbyes) but the journey to the end of the story had me crying.
I agree RDR2 is definitely flawed - mission structure and pacing primarily for meare the two major knocks to the game but i feel the characterization and story in RDR2 outweighed those concerns and i have no trouble saying that i feel RDR2 is a superior game when compared to RDR1. RDR1 just doesn't hold up as well today as it did back then when it first released.
OP
OP
There was nothing to "gut gud" about, you just had to adjust the settings to make the camera not move like molasses and the aim so Arthur wouldn't take a week to aim his gun at the next guy. It's a basic shooter with almost zero options other than pop and shoot. Uncharted 1 has better combat mechanics than this game and that is just baffling.
The first game is much more enjoyable to play and with a much better video game open world. Online was near infinitely more enjoyable for me as well.
RDR2 has some of the best characters in history and is a fantastic prequel but a game I enjoyed playing a lot less and have zero intention to ever go back to. A one off experience whereas I played through the first multiple times.
RDR2 has some of the best characters in history and is a fantastic prequel but a game I enjoyed playing a lot less and have zero intention to ever go back to. A one off experience whereas I played through the first multiple times.
I 100% agree with the OP. RDR1 is for me the vastly better game. Better music, better controls, better missions, a useful fast travel system, and a story that didn't have me rolling my eyes with how contrived it was. Like in RDR2 they had to find a way to make Dutch descend into madness, but the way it happens through the game is the dumbest way I could imagine it happening. Also trusting Micah over every other person in the camp that Dutch had been with for years is ridiculous.
The only good things for me from RDR2 for me were Arthur's story, the world, and the graphics.
And before anyone accuses me of nostalgia, I played RDR1 immediately before RDR2 and I disliked 2 so much I stopped playing and started playing the first one again instead.
The only good things for me from RDR2 for me were Arthur's story, the world, and the graphics.
And before anyone accuses me of nostalgia, I played RDR1 immediately before RDR2 and I disliked 2 so much I stopped playing and started playing the first one again instead.