Finished RDR2 but had forgotten the story of RDR1. Now I am sad :(

[Genetrik]

Warning: full and open spoilers for both games. If you have not played both, please leave now!

So after what felt like months and months of playing, I finally finished during the weekend Red Dead Redemption 2. I won't lie: there were times, where I was hoping the game would already end since my backlog was staring at me constantly. However with that being said, after finishing this absolutely amazing piece of art, I feel now as empty as I did after finishing Persona 5.

Both games basically fuse you over the countless hours to your game characters and it is indeed a special feeling to finish story based games on this magnitude. I don't think any other form of media comes ever close to me that can recreate this feeling of emptiness once you are done.

But anyway the main reason for my thread – apart from praising the amazing feat of what Rockstar games has accomplished with this game – is my personal case of how the story of RDR1 feels now after I finished the prequel.

To clarify I had played and finished RDR 1 when it launched but had basically forgotten everything. Only thing I still remembered was the unbelievable ending & epilogue. I had even forgotten that John was tasked to bring down his old gang :(

So here I was sitting and feeling happy that at least they didn't kill off Dutch in the prequel as he was such an unbelievably well written character and even better performed through his voice actor (who should have been nominated at the Game Awards as well). Then thoughts of a potential RDR 3 with Dutch as the main character came to me and gave me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Then I watch a recap of the story of RDR 1 and realize that Dutch was there all along and that also his story ends there…. God dammit what a gut punch.

Boy I would love nothing more than to play RDR 1 now again, given how well crafted the entire story of the franchise is.

Was anyone in the same ship like me? How did you feel?


And here are 2 wonderful poetic info bits that I picked up through Youtube comments:

First:

- Arthur dies on the top of a mountain

- Dutch dies at the bottom of one


Second:

- Jack (Marston) meets a young Agent Ross the first time at a river while fishing

- Adult Jack kills a retired Agent Ross at a river while fishing


Isn't that masterfully done? Again Rockstar you have my standing ovations! Please continue to kick ass on the story front even after Dan Houser has left.

 

[PlanetSmasher]

The part of RDR1's story that I forgot was that Dutch killed himself rather than John killing him. Also his last lines to John before dying are an echo of something he says to John and Arthur in the prequel before they try a similar jump to escape capture.

There's a ton of cool echoes between the two games, and the amount of effort they put into ensuring congruence between the two halves just makes it especially noticeable where they failed (Javier, for example).

 

[ASleepingMonkey]

Bro... I never put together the stuff about Ross...

Fucking brilliant.

 

[GinoFelino]

Some of this stuff was very Star Wars prequels-y to me.

It's like poetry so that they rhyme. You know.

 

[Potterson]

If only the second game wasn't such a slog to get through if you just want to play the story. Yes, I love the story, and Arthur is their best character ever.

 

[Piggus]

Totally agree with you about how a game like RDR2 makes you feel when you finish it. No other form of entertainment comes close to it.

 

[PlanetSmasher]

Totally agree with you about how a game like RDR2 makes you feel when you finish it. No other form of entertainment comes close to it.

Click to shrink...

I delayed the final mission of Arthur's story as long as I possibly could. By the end of it I felt like I was making the poor man suffer even more just by clinging to life and I ended up ending it just to give him some peace.

 

[Devil]

The problem for me was that I did NOT forget RDR1. The gang falling apart was known before I even started the game, even Arthur's death was likely due to his absence in RDR1. Dutch and some of the others surviving the fallout was also known.

And in the end, the story dragged on WAY too long just for the sake of showing you exactly HOW the gang will fall apart, which wasn't that interesting to begin with and also pretty obvious after the first few acts of RDR2. I'm not sure if the plot of RDR2 was really needed or added much to the original, as a prequel.

 

[Orion117]

I never played RDR but I knew its story and how Arthur was never a part of it. And given his TB its pretty much confirmed that he is going to die at the end of RDR2. Still when the moment came it left me emotional. It made me angry that Dutch left Arthur to die alone even after everything Arthur did for him. Such a beautiful game.

 

[GhostBanana]

I pushed myself through and I feel the same way about the game as OP but I wish they cut some of the mid-game missions out. I got so board with the endless shoot-outs, particularly in Guarma. I didn't mind going there but I hated the nonstop, mindless shooting. The power of Chapter 5's ending and the song that comes in as you ride back to camp was weakened for me by how much of an absolute slog it was to get there. I think there are 3-5 hours of story missions that could very safely be cut out.

That said I absolutely loved the game and after finishing the epilogue I even wanted to restart it. What I find so unique is the way it makes you wistful for the optimism at the start of the game when you are in Valentine. Even though you know its all going to shit, it feels like maybe Dutch really does have a plan. And as everyone in the camp becomes more and more depressed you start to wish you could go back to when things seemed like the were going to get better.

They should re-release RDR1. The assets are mostly all there.

 

[Arkanius]

I pushed myself through and I feel the same way about the game as OP but I wish they cut some of the mid-game missions out. I got so board with the endless shoot-outs, particularly in Guarma. I didn't mind going there but I hated the nonstop, mindless shooting. The power of Chapter 5's ending and the song that comes in as you ride back to camp was weakened for me by how much of an absolute slog it was to get there. I think there are 3-5 hours of story missions that could very safely be cut out.

That said I absolutely loved the game and after finishing the epilogue I even wanted to restart it. What I find so unique is the way it makes you wistful for the optimism at the start of the game when you are in Valentine. Even though you know its all going to shit, it feels like maybe Dutch really does have a plan. And as everyone in the camp becomes more and more depressed you start to wish you could go back to when things seemed like the were going to get better.

They should re-release RDR1. The assets are mostly all there.

Click to shrink...

They should remake RDR1.
All of the map is already in RDR2 lol.

 

[Rygar 8Bit]

No way I'll forget that ending. Masterfully done.

 

[The Praiseworthy]

RDR2 is brilliant in every way... one of the best games I've ever played, I have no clue how can they top this with RDR3.

More importantly how they ever going to top Arthur Morgan, it's impossible task.

 

[Linus815]

RDR 2 was something special, and I don't know if it can ever be repeated. The game encapsulates its own development troubles perfectly well too - the game really wears the player down by the end. I absolutely enjoyed every moment of it, but once I was finished, I didn't wanna play anything else for ages.

The game tells you right from the start: it's over. The very first quote that appears on screen talks about how the outlaw life is coming to an end. There is no avoiding it. As the game progresses, this becomes more and more clear to everyone, yet Dutch gets more and more desperate, trying to defy something inevitable.

Yet, when Arthur gets TB, he accepts it. He knows he's going to die soon, and he completely re-evaluates his view on things. Videogames as a medium haven't really done much to explore terminal diseases in the AAA space, and I think RDR 2 has done a fantastic job. Especially if you play the way the game kind nudges you to play - low honour at the start (or at least, mixed) and high honour from when you get ill. This way of playing really brings out the best in the narrative imo.

Of course, this doesn't make Arthur a good man. Arthur is well aware of this too, as he clearly gets embarassed and often voices his denial whenever someone calls him a good person. There is no erasing all the shit he's done.


(crazy that this cutscene is missable)

I also adore the epilogues. Shoveling shit and milking cows for an hour isn't particularly fun from a gameplay standpoint. You just got done with massive firefights, epic showdowns in chapter 6 and now you're slaving away on someone else's farm. Quite the shift.... it would be so easy to just grab your revolver and shoot a few people, and rob the farmhouse, then move on to the next location. But you can't, cause it wouldn't be right. It's no way to be a good father/husband and it also goes against the promise you made to Arthur.

You essentially live out Arthur's redemption through John - and its fucking wholesome. Working your ass off to get enough money to buy some land, building it up with your friends, doing honest bounty hunting work to help with the bank payments.... the sense of journey and progress in RDR 2 is just unmatched in my opinion. At this point, you think back how 30 hours ago you were shooting up entire towns and robbing banks.

Of course, "revenge is a fools game", as Arthur said many times. And Arthur would likely have beaten John to a pulp for even thinking of going after Micah, but unfortunately he is not a smart man. The game still ends on a "happy note" - hey, the evil is defeated and we're a big happy family! But watching the credits, and of course remembering RDR 1 - it's a fleeting moment. Still, a few good years. More than what most of the gang got.

I have since replayed RDR 1 and it was pretty awesome still, in my opinion RDR 2 has surpassed it in practically every way. The beginning is very strong and the last quarter with Dutch and your farm is also excellent, but the middle portion becomes way too much like a GTA game, doing ridiculous errands for wacky characters like Seth and Nigel.

 

[Genetrik]

One more thing I had mixed up.

I remembered a bad ass ranch lady in RDR1 and the entire time while playing part 2, I thought that Saidi Adler was that very lady.

But I agree with everyone that despite the mind blowing feat RDR2 is, they should have cut some fat. I also agree that some of the shootouts where so ridiculous in the amount of people you as a player shoot, that I didn't take it seriously anymore.

 

[Deleted member 203]

If you thought RDR2 had too much plot filler, don't replay 1. It's basically 90% filler that doesn't really do much for the story or characters. It's a game that exists better in your memory nowadays imo.

But yeah, RDR2 was beautiful in a way I never expected from Rockstar. It's sooooo much better written than anything they've ever done it's hard to believe it came from the same writers.

 

[endlessflood]

I remembered a bad ass ranch lady in RDR1 and the entire time while playing part 2, I thought that Saidi Adler was that very lady.

Click to shrink...

You actually meet bad ass ranch lady (aka Bonnie MacFarlane) again in Red Dead Online.

 

[Deleted member 46948]

They should remake RDR1.
All of the map is already in RDR2 lol.

Click to shrink...

They should, but honestly, if you have Xbone X, you can play RDR1 in fantastic, glorious 4k with high resolution textures for like USD 9.99.

 

[Jimnymebob]

There's a ton of cool echoes between the two games, and the amount of effort they put into ensuring congruence between the two halves just makes it especially noticeable where they failed (Javier, for example).

Click to shrink...

Yeah, they handled Javier really poorly, and it's probably the most unfortunate thing from the series.
Being forced to make him turn on Arthur after being one of the nicest members of the gang solely so he can fulfil his RDR1 destiny of becoming a one dimensional evil Mexican stereotype.

 

[doyneamite]

That cut scene between Arthur and the Nun is one of the best scenes I've ever experienced in any game or film I've ever seen.

 

[Dan Thunder]

I'm just surprised that after playing the 1st game you'd forget that John basically kills off the entire gang!

 

[Genetrik]

Yet, when Arthur gets TB, he accepts it. He knows he's going to die soon, and he completely re-evaluates his view on things. Videogames as a medium haven't really done much to explore terminal diseases in the AAA space, and I think RDR 2 has done a fantastic job. Especially if you play the way the game kind nudges you to play - low honour at the start (or at least, mixed) and high honour from when you get ill. This way of playing really brings out the best in the narrative imo.


(crazy that this cutscene is missable)

I also adore the epilogues. Shoveling shit and milking cows for an hour isn't particularly fun from a gameplay standpoint. You just got done with massive firefights, epic showdowns in chapter 6 and now you're slaving away on someone else's farm. Quite the shift.... it would be so easy to just grab your revolver and shoot a few people, and rob the farmhouse, then move on to the next location. But you can't, cause it wouldn't be right. It's no way to be a good father/husband and it also goes against the promise you made to Arthur.

You essentially live out Arthur's redemption through John - and its fucking wholesome. Working your ass off to get enough money to buy some land, building it up with your friends, doing honest bounty hunting work to help with the bank payments.... the sense of journey and progress in RDR 2 is just unmatched in my opinion. At this point, you think back how 30 hours ago you were shooting up entire towns and robbing banks.

Of course, "revenge is a fools game", as Arthur said many times. And Arthur would likely have beaten John to a pulp for even thinking of going after Micah, but unfortunately he is not a smart man. The game still ends on a "happy note" - hey, the evil is defeated and we're a big happy family! But watching the credits, and of course remembering RDR 1 - it's a fleeting moment. Still, a few good years. More than what most of the gang got.

Click to shrink...

I really loved reading your entire post. I just couldn't bring myself to play like a bastard but I agree it would make the narrative even stronger in this case. Actually really cool to justify that behavior / play style in hindsight.

Oh my god I thought I had met all characters but the nun was new! Where? How?

Regarding the epilogue. Again beautifully said: I actually forced myself to do some of the mundane farm work activities because it fit new narrative of building a new life so well.

I found this video and again the attention to detail blows me away. I just didn't have the energy anymore to try to find all these characters myself but man the scene with Rains Falls really hits you.

 

[PlanetSmasher]

I really loved reading your entire post. I just couldn't bring myself to play like a bastard but I agree it would make the narrative even stronger in this case. Actually really cool to justify that behavior / play style in hindsight.

Oh my god I thought I had met all characters but the nun was new! Where? How?

Regarding the epilogue. Again beautifully said: I actually forced myself to do some of the mundane farm work activities because it fit new narrative of building a new life so well.

I found this video and again the attention to detail blows me away. I just didn't have the energy anymore to try to find all these characters myself but man the scene with Rains Falls really hits you.

Click to shrink...

The nun scene is an optional scene that plays at the end of one of the missions in the last chapter. It's conditional on your Honor - if you have high honor, she shows up. With low honor, it's Reverend Swanson instead. I think you also have to have finished the entire Brother Dorkins/church subplot in Saint Denis.

 

[Genetrik]

The nun scene is an optional scene that plays at the end of one of the missions in the last chapter. It's conditional on your Honor - if you have high honor, she shows up. With low honor, it's Reverend Swanson instead. I think you also have to have finished the entire Brother Dorkins/church subplot in Saint Denis.

Click to shrink...

Dammit I may have missed that subplot...

 

[PlanetSmasher]

Dammit I may have missed that subplot...

Click to shrink...

It has a bunch of sections to it. You start out helping Brother Dorkins and eventually Sister Calderon takes over as the primary focal NPC for the church stuff. If you haven't met Sister Calderon and helped her out she won't have met Arthur in order to have that conversation with him.

And yes, she's the same nun from RDR1's Mexico chapter.

 

[Genetrik]

It has a bunch of sections to it. You start out helping Brother Dorkins and eventually Sister Calderon takes over as the primary focal NPC for the church stuff. If you haven't met Sister Calderon and helped her out she won't have met Arthur in order to have that conversation with him.

And yes, she's the same nun from RDR1's Mexico chapter.

Click to shrink...

Man I never met her :( also thanks for the info that she is in part 1 but you are taking to someone who didn't even remember that the entire story of part 1 was that John needs to kill his old gang LOL

God damn found something else which is hilarious! I really missed out on being a good guy. Again AMAZING attention to detail Rockstar, my god!

 

[Paperchampion23]

The part of RDR1's story that I forgot was that Dutch killed himself rather than John killing him. Also his last lines to John before dying are an echo of something he says to John and Arthur in the prequel before they try a similar jump to escape capture.

There's a ton of cool echoes between the two games, and the amount of effort they put into ensuring congruence between the two halves just makes it especially noticeable where they failed (Javier, for example).

Click to shrink...

Can you explain the Javier one? Both him and Bill did betray Athur and John, so i get why both of them had to go in Johns eyes, but maybe you have more info lol

 

[PlanetSmasher]

Can you explain the Javier one? Both him and Bill did betray Athur and John, so i get why both of them had to go in Johns eyes, but maybe you have more info lol

Click to shrink...

Javier is portrayed pretty much through the entire game as one of the nicest, most friendly members of the gang and never has any particular beef with John or Arthur. He regularly refers to John as his brother. There's really not a lot of justification given in the game (beyond one OPTIONAL campfire chat in Beaver Hollow) for why he's willing to turn on them. He pretty much just gets upset with Arthur for "doubting" Dutch but it's never really built up that he's drunk enough of the Kool-Aid to implicitly side with Dutch.

Bill? Bill is a simpleton and an opportunist and he knows John and Arthur think he's stupid so it makes logical sense he'd side against them at the end. As far as Bill's concerned, they AREN'T friends. And Micah is outright evil and his only real goal by that point in the game is making sure Arthur is dead so he's the only one who has Dutch's ear.

But Javier loves John like family and even if he has a small problem with Arthur by the end I don't buy that he would be willing to kill them both like that. They DO kind of point to that a little bit, in that during the final standoff, Javier is the only member of Dutch's side to not point his gun or fire at John and Arthur, but I feel like they could've either portrayed him more conflicted at that point OR had him descend down the road further into madness, because he's SUCH a scumbag in 1 it's hard to really trace a line between the two versions of the character.

 

[Knight in Shining Armani]

had forgotten the story of RDR

Click to shrink...

Just like Rockstar themselves then.

Spoiler: SPOILER

Dutch saving your ass at the end is retcon fuckery of the highest order.

 

[PlanetSmasher]

Just like Rockstar themselves then.

Spoiler: SPOILER

Dutch saving your ass at the end is retcon fuckery of the highest order.

Click to shrink...

How so?

 

[Knight in Shining Armani]

How so?

Click to shrink...

John holding such a huge grudge against Dutch and painting him in such a villainous light (similar to other gang members) makes no sense given that Dutch is the only reason that John is still alive.

 

[Segafreak]

The most complete game ever made. A total ultimate master piece that is 2 gens ahead of other open world games.

 

[PlanetSmasher]

John holding such a huge grudge against Dutch and painting him in such a villainous light (similar to other gang members) makes no sense given that Dutch is the only reason that John is still alive.

Click to shrink...

I get the feeling that one very brief rescue doesn't outweigh the NUMEROUS times Dutch left John to die, or the destruction of his family that came from Dutch's fall into insanity.

They didn't leave that scene as friends.

 

[Linus815]

Just like Rockstar themselves then.

Spoiler: SPOILER

Dutch saving your ass at the end is retcon fuckery of the highest order.

Click to shrink...

John holding such a huge grudge against Dutch and painting him in such a villainous light (similar to other gang members) makes no sense given that Dutch is the only reason that John is still alive.

Click to shrink...

I really really don't get the impression from RDR 1 that John held a grudge against Dutch, or even Bill/Javier.

He would've left all 3 of them well alone if Ross didn't force him into working for the Bureau by keeping his family as captives.

The few times John talks about Dutch and the gang in general, he does make a point of how the gang abandoned him and how Dutch went crazy and lost faith in everything, but it's also clear that John's moved on - he talks about quitting the outlaw life and living normal, until he was forced to get back into it.

Dutch saving John's life was a nice gesture I guess, but let's not forget all the shit Dutch pulled before - willing to let John die in prison, not going back for him when he got shot off the train, siding with Micah, shooting at both him and Arthur.....

I mean sure, rockstar obviously didnt know at the time of writing RDR 1 that there would be an RDR 2 with these characters and how it would end, but I don't think Dutch saving John's life at the end really changes anything about RDR 1 - there's plenty of bad shit to balance one good act out.

 

[Van Bur3n]

John holding such a huge grudge against Dutch and painting him in such a villainous light (similar to other gang members) makes no sense given that Dutch is the only reason that John is still alive.

Click to shrink...

I don't think John held a grudge against Dutch or painted him as a villain at all. John speaks very highly of Dutch throughout the entirety of the first game. Even in the end John ultimately didn't have it in him to kill him. I'd say by the time of the epilogue and RDR1, John stopped caring about Dutch and the rest of them and had moved on, until the feds came.

I'd say the only person that John truly hated was Micah, as he was the catalyst of the gang's downfall, turned Dutch against everyone and essentially killed Arthur. So the first chance John had the opportunity to go after Micah, he took it.

 

[TheBaldwin]

RDR 2 was something special, and I don't know if it can ever be repeated. The game encapsulates its own development troubles perfectly well too - the game really wears the player down by the end. I absolutely enjoyed every moment of it, but once I was finished, I didn't wanna play anything else for ages.

The game tells you right from the start: it's over. The very first quote that appears on screen talks about how the outlaw life is coming to an end. There is no avoiding it. As the game progresses, this becomes more and more clear to everyone, yet Dutch gets more and more desperate, trying to defy something inevitable.

Yet, when Arthur gets TB, he accepts it. He knows he's going to die soon, and he completely re-evaluates his view on things. Videogames as a medium haven't really done much to explore terminal diseases in the AAA space, and I think RDR 2 has done a fantastic job. Especially if you play the way the game kind nudges you to play - low honour at the start (or at least, mixed) and high honour from when you get ill. This way of playing really brings out the best in the narrative imo.

Of course, this doesn't make Arthur a good man. Arthur is well aware of this too, as he clearly gets embarassed and often voices his denial whenever someone calls him a good person. There is no erasing all the shit he's done.


(crazy that this cutscene is missable)

I also adore the epilogues. Shoveling shit and milking cows for an hour isn't particularly fun from a gameplay standpoint. You just got done with massive firefights, epic showdowns in chapter 6 and now you're slaving away on someone else's farm. Quite the shift.... it would be so easy to just grab your revolver and shoot a few people, and rob the farmhouse, then move on to the next location. But you can't, cause it wouldn't be right. It's no way to be a good father/husband and it also goes against the promise you made to Arthur.

You essentially live out Arthur's redemption through John - and its fucking wholesome. Working your ass off to get enough money to buy some land, building it up with your friends, doing honest bounty hunting work to help with the bank payments.... the sense of journey and progress in RDR 2 is just unmatched in my opinion. At this point, you think back how 30 hours ago you were shooting up entire towns and robbing banks.

Of course, "revenge is a fools game", as Arthur said many times. And Arthur would likely have beaten John to a pulp for even thinking of going after Micah, but unfortunately he is not a smart man. The game still ends on a "happy note" - hey, the evil is defeated and we're a big happy family! But watching the credits, and of course remembering RDR 1 - it's a fleeting moment. Still, a few good years. More than what most of the gang got.

I have since replayed RDR 1 and it was pretty awesome still, in my opinion RDR 2 has surpassed it in practically every way. The beginning is very strong and the last quarter with Dutch and your farm is also excellent, but the middle portion becomes way too much like a GTA game, doing ridiculous errands for wacky characters like Seth and Nigel.

Click to shrink...

RDR2 is a masterpiece, and actually made me see some of the flaws in RDR. One of them is what you mention in that it's still tied to its gta style of writing, in which we must have ridiculous and almost unlikable charatcers to have fun sidequests

the other one is that we spend a grand total of like 25 minutes with Bill, Javier, and Dutch. All of whom are technically villains. And most of the game is spent entering other people's random stories just to get some 'tips' on where the old gang members are

 

[Genetrik]

Javier is portrayed pretty much through the entire game as one of the nicest, most friendly members of the gang and never has any particular beef with John or Arthur. He regularly refers to John as his brother. There's really not a lot of justification given in the game (beyond one OPTIONAL campfire chat in Beaver Hollow) for why he's willing to turn on them. He pretty much just gets upset with Arthur for "doubting" Dutch but it's never really built up that he's drunk enough of the Kool-Aid to implicitly side with Dutch.

Bill? Bill is a simpleton and an opportunist and he knows John and Arthur think he's stupid so it makes logical sense he'd side against them at the end. As far as Bill's concerned, they AREN'T friends. And Micah is outright evil and his only real goal by that point in the game is making sure Arthur is dead so he's the only one who has Dutch's ear.

But Javier loves John like family and even if he has a small problem with Arthur by the end I don't buy that he would be willing to kill them both like that. They DO kind of point to that a little bit, in that during the final standoff, Javier is the only member of Dutch's side to not point his gun or fire at John and Arthur, but I feel like they could've either portrayed him more conflicted at that point OR had him descend down the road further into madness, because he's SUCH a scumbag in 1 it's hard to really trace a line between the two versions of the character.

Click to shrink...

I realized that I had completely missed the part where Javier had left in the end. After watching some scenes with him in Part1, I fully agree that a grave disconnect is present unfortunately.

Something else: given the Microsoft news of today, would you guys replay this massive game one more time of there if "remaster" for the next gen consoles? I think I would do it closer to the end of the next generation.

 

[PlanetSmasher]

I realized that I had completely missed the part where Javier had left in the end. After watching some scenes with him in Part1, I fully agree that a grave disconnect is present unfortunately.

Something else: given the Microsoft news of today, would you guys replay this massive game one more time of there if "remaster" for the next gen consoles? I think I would do it closer to the end of the next generation.

Click to shrink...

It's too big. I couldn't replay it. I finished it, spent some time in the epilogue exploring the world one last time and deleted it. That's one of my cardinal issues with massive open worlds - they really aren't built for replays. I'd have to do everything over again and that means all the minor stuff too.

Now, importing my clear save into a PS5 "upgraded" version? Sure, why not - as long as I don't need to re-buy it.

 

[Iceternal]

My head canon Is RDR 2 only. RDR 1 doesn't exist to me.

 

[chrisypoo]

The problem for me was that I did NOT forget RDR1. The gang falling apart was known before I even started the game, even Arthur's death was likely due to his absence in RDR1. Dutch and some of the others surviving the fallout was also known.

And in the end, the story dragged on WAY too long just for the sake of showing you exactly HOW the gang will fall apart, which wasn't that interesting to begin with and also pretty obvious after the first few acts of RDR2. I'm not sure if the plot of RDR2 was really needed or added much to the original, as a prequel.

Click to shrink...

I loved RDR2 and 1, but I actually completely agree with this. Playing RDR1 first just kind of waters down RDR2 as an experience altogether, or at least it did for me.

 

[Genetrik]

It's too big. I couldn't replay it. I finished it, spent some time in the epilogue exploring the world one last time and deleted it. That's one of my cardinal issues with massive open worlds - they really aren't built for replays. I'd have to do everything over again and that means all the minor stuff too.

Now, importing my clear save into a PS5 "upgraded" version? Sure, why not - as long as I don't need to re-buy it.

Click to shrink...

Currently I feel the exact same way but I have a feeling the more distance I develop to this work of art, the stronger my emotional connection will become thus I can see myself replaying it with even better PC graphics in 5-6 years.

 

[Diarrhea Day-Lewis]

I'm pretty sure the river where Ross first seed Jack and speaks to him is where you

Spoiler: RDR huge spoiler

kill Ross at the end of RDR1

 

[Paperchampion23]

I get the feeling that one very brief rescue doesn't outweigh the NUMEROUS times Dutch left John to die, or the destruction of his family that came from Dutch's fall into insanity.

They didn't leave that scene as friends.

Click to shrink...

Really would love to see the first one remade with obvious updates to the story regarding this. Though I guess Javier's character change will never be fixed since they mucked it up in RDR2.

 

[microtubule]

I also adore the epilogues. Shoveling shit and milking cows for an hour isn't particularly fun from a gameplay standpoint. You just got done with massive firefights, epic showdowns in chapter 6 and now you're slaving away on someone else's farm. Quite the shift.... it would be so easy to just grab your revolver and shoot a few people, and rob the farmhouse, then move on to the next location. But you can't, cause it wouldn't be right. It's no way to be a good father/husband and it also goes against the promise you made to Arthur.

You essentially live out Arthur's redemption through John - and its fucking wholesome. Working your ass off to get enough money to buy some land, building it up with your friends, doing honest bounty hunting work to help with the bank payments.... the sense of journey and progress in RDR 2 is just unmatched in my opinion. At this point, you think back how 30 hours ago you were shooting up entire towns and robbing banks.

Of course, "revenge is a fools game", as Arthur said many times. And Arthur would likely have beaten John to a pulp for even thinking of going after Micah, but unfortunately he is not a smart man. The game still ends on a "happy note" - hey, the evil is defeated and we're a big happy family! But watching the credits, and of course remembering RDR 1 - it's a fleeting moment. Still, a few good years. More than what most of the gang got.

I have since replayed RDR 1 and it was pretty awesome still, in my opinion RDR 2 has surpassed it in practically every way. The beginning is very strong and the last quarter with Dutch and your farm is also excellent, but the middle portion becomes way too much like a GTA game, doing ridiculous errands for wacky characters like Seth and Nigel.

Click to shrink...

Love your post!
I am so glad I avoided all spoilers of this game as a huge fan of RDR. Once I finished the game (RDR2) I knew my backlog was calling but it was so difficult to move on; hadn't felt that way since AC:Origins.

 

[fireflame]

I don't know why but when I saw Micah for first time He looked bad to me because he reminded me of general Custer....

 

[PlanetSmasher]

I don't know why but when I saw Micah for first time He looked bad to me because he reminded me of general Custer....

Click to shrink...

His face reminded me of TJ Miller (with a stupid moustache) and that was the end of that for me.

 

[Common Knowledge]

If they ever remaster/remake RDR1 they'll definitely need to add in some references to Arthur here and there. It definitely feels a little retroactively disjointed now to not have Arthur's name come up at any point in the first game considering how big of an impact he had on John's life.

 

[Genetrik]

Love your post!
I am so glad I avoided all spoilers of this game as a huge fan of RDR. Once I finished the game (RDR2) I knew my backlog was calling but it was so difficult to move on; hadn't felt that way since AC:Origins.

Click to shrink...

Felt exactly the same. I have Odyssey in my backlog ;) will start today finally Nier Automata though

If they ever remaster/remake RDR1 they'll definitely need to add in some references to Arthur here and there. It definitely feels a little retroactively disjointed now to not have Arthur's name come up at any point in the first game considering how big of an impact he had on John's life.

Click to shrink...

i would love nothing more. I am really curious in how they want to continue the story. You can play as Sadie and Charles together?

 

[Genetrik]

Yeah, they handled Javier really poorly, and it's probably the most unfortunate thing from the series.
Being forced to make him turn on Arthur after being one of the nicest members of the gang solely so he can fulfil his RDR1 destiny of becoming a one dimensional evil Mexican stereotype.

Click to shrink...

I found this really interesting video showing something that can be easily missed (at least I did)


A YouTube comment says that the voice actor really fought for this moment. Not sure if true though.