• 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.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Van Bur3n

Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
26,089
Those two games are objectively more responsive than RDR2 though. John and GTAV guys were a lot more responsive than Arthur and both those games had lower input latency than RDR2. You can actually free aim in both those games properly, free aiming in RDR2 is just an invitation to frustration, even more so due to its combat and encounter design.

Free aim is actually better in RDR2. At least in RDO after the changes made. Also, encounters are pretty well-designed for free aim to be plausible.
 

Rizific

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,971
Having given the game a try with the pc version, can confirm the game plays like fucking trash. Its completely ridiculous to me how rdr2 threads consist of "wow this game is gorgeous look at this screenshot". Same thing was going on in my discord server as well, people drooling and constantly commenting on how good the game looks. Doesnt matter to me how nice your game looks if it feels like shit to play. Shout out to rockstar for their fairly painless refund process though.
 
Feb 10, 2018
17,534
tumblr_inline_pswhuuYQL21w001cp_1280.gif
 

ThreepQuest64

Avenger
Oct 29, 2017
5,735
Germany
I liked the gameplay and loved the characters and story. Gameplay isn't input lag and slow animations only and I could get past that. Score is deserved and there are only few open world games I finished and even fewer I replayed. In fact there are only four and RDR2 is among them.
 

Deleted member 49482

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 8, 2018
3,302
1 *plays* much more like you would expect a game to play. There are still transitional action animations that a lot of other devs/games leave out (and which RDR2 went way overboard on IMO, but your tolerance/acceptance level really depends on personal preference). 1 is pretty much perfect to me as an open-world game. Even though there is a ton to do, I finished it at just under 80%, and the end credits were rolling for me in about 20 hours. It's beautifully streamlined, and the DLC is also a treat after the fact. Playing 1 first will give you some nice context for certain things heading into 2.
This is really good feedback - thank you! I'm somewhat interested to check out RDR2 because of the spectacle of the open world with current gen graphics. I'm actually picking up a PS4 on Sunday, so I haven't played ANY current gen games yet. However, it does sound like I may enjoy RDR1 more as an overall gaming experience, based on your post. Time is limited, and I'm going to have a huge backlog of PS4 games to play, so I only see myself playing one of the RDR games in the near term.
 

ghibli99

Member
Oct 27, 2017
18,004
This is really good feedback - thank you! I'm somewhat interested to check out RDR2 because of the spectacle of the open world with current gen graphics. I'm actually picking up a PS4 on Sunday, so I haven't played ANY current gen games yet. However, it does sound like I may enjoy RDR1 more as an overall gaming experience, based on your post. Time is limited, and I'm going to have a huge backlog of PS4 games to play, so I only see myself playing one of the RDR games in the near term.
You're welcome, and yeah, if you want current-gen spectacle, then RDR2 is a great place to start, with a whole lot of other titles that really push the hardware! :) One note on RDR1 is that the best way to play it is via backward compat on Xbox One X. It runs at native 4K, and darn-near could pass as a current-gen title (sorry for the compression):

JA3ioD6.jpg


The caveat to this is that Undead Nightmare has this unfixed bug where NPCs/enemies can sometimes exhibit this issue where they become "headless" and kills no longer count, forcing you to reload your last save. This is particularly annoying if you're at the end of a longer combat scenario, but it's not game-breaking. Just very annoying. LOL This doesn't happen on PS3 AFAIK, but the PS3 version isn't as good as 360... but still absolutely worth playing either way.
 

ScOULaris

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,831
Sorry to bump this old thread, but this seemed to be the best place to ask since those in here are already looking at the game with a critical eye. Is Red Dead Redemption 1 worth playing? Or, if I'm going to try out one of the games, should I just move on to 2? I am assuming that a lot of the same negative issues with 2 also apply to 1?

By the sounds of it, I may get frustrated with the gameplay of 2, so I'm wondering if I should just strike 1 from the backlog altogether (and then possibly revisit it if I like 2).
Well, let me put it to you this way.

RDR1 is one of the best games Rockstar has ever made.
RDR2 sucks my nut. It's technically impressive, but it sucks my nut.
 

leng jai

Member
Nov 2, 2017
15,131
I've been saying since day one RDR 1 had much more responsive controls and aiming.

RDR 2 is a better experience overall if you can look past the input lag though.
 

leng jai

Member
Nov 2, 2017
15,131
If you can look past it being a game and more of a visual audio experience its definitely better.
You know I love you Leng

Bro I've spent my fair share of time saying the input lag is lame and the metacritic score a farce. Still my GOTY though. Playing through it for the third time on PC now too and still stuck at 30 because of my pov CPU ^_^
 

Observable

Member
Oct 27, 2017
949
I've bought a 240hz monitor 6 months ago and started to play most games at that framerate. Last week I started RDR2 for the first time to see if I could get back into it after buying it last year and playing it for 3/4 hours.

It's shocking how much input lag this game has. I played it on my One X, but as I understand on PC it's just as bad. For me it'll likely mean I'll never play the game again, or if I do I'm almost sure I won't finish it as it really ruins the game for me.
I have the same problem with going back to AC:Origins btw, which I still neef to finish.
 

Linus815

Member
Oct 29, 2017
19,991
Witcher 3 or Rdr2

Which one has the worse combat?


RDR 2's gunplay is downright great. Weapons are punchy, the recoil is well tuned and the enemy hit reactions are easily the best in the business, and there's plenty of gun porn with the awesome reload animations and sound effects.

Witcher 3's swordplay is pretty bad, and probably the weakest aspect of the game for me. However, alchemy is often overlooked in this game. The combat from a mechanical standpoint may not be that good, but preparing with appropiate oils, potions sells the whole witcher roleplay really well.
 

Edgar

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
7,180
Witcher 3 or Rdr2

Which one has the worse combat?
rdr 2 combat looks and sounds better but actual combat encounters felt like shooting galleries , especially in main missions . It also can be finnicky and clunky as fuck trying to shoot someone .
W3 on the other hand combat does not feel satisfying(main game) due to really weak feedback be it visual or audio cues/ But actual moment to moment combat is at least engaging to a degree.
RDR 2 character controls are slow and theres input lag, also due to animation priority and overal game pace . But it grounds charcter in the game world and theres phisicality to it . So if you can adjust to it , it works pretty well and it is actually nice to control Arthur/
W3 Geral on the other hand is way more responsive and snappy and can do 360 turn with easy , but rough animations and lack of actual weight and how his body interacts with terrain is really poor ,
W3 horse stuff is straight up mediocre . while RDR 2 horse controls and movement are the best in the industry so far
 

Ravelle

Member
Oct 31, 2017
17,897
I'm pretty sure we had 50 of R2D2 plays bad threads but for some reason someone revived this old thread and started poking the fire again?
 

Greywaren

Member
Jul 16, 2019
10,034
Spain
I couldn't finish it. The gameplay is so boring I don't even know if I can call it gameplay. It's a shame because everything else in the game is absolutely wonderful, but I want to have fun while I'm playing if I'm gonna invest 60+ hours in a game.
 

Jtrizzy

Member
Nov 13, 2017
621
Playing it on PC at around 70 fps with G-Sync, and it feel amazing to me. Probably my favorite game of all time.
 

Doskoi Panda

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,085
RDR2 plays great on PC just like GTA V before it

Rockstar should work hard to make sure their controller controls aren't unplayably fucked up moving forward cuz that shit is a joke
 

F34R

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,022
Plays really good for me. 1440p, ultra/high, 60-80+fps, gsync. Game looks gorgeous. Plays really nice as well.
 

Force_XXI

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,188
Playing it on PC at around 70 fps with G-Sync, and it feel amazing to me. Probably my favorite game of all time.
Play trough right now and getting about the same performance as you high 70, low 50 for fps, loving the game and like taking it slow and soaking it in,but I'm about 40 hours in and still on chapter 3 and feel like I havent done anything yet. Feel like rushing through the rest and still will have over 60 hrs , insane game
 

Potterson

Member
Oct 28, 2017
6,465
The gameplay is just tiresome after ~20 hours so I finished the game... on YouTube. Still, the story is amazing and the characters are great. Just a shame Rockstar sticks to the same gameplay mission formula. Like, in games like Assassin's Creed or Horizon you can at least decide how you wanna fight dudes. Here there's not even a proper stealth system.
 

Miya Moto

Member
Jun 4, 2018
275
Yeah i also don't get it. Game is...fine...i guess? It's pretty, has a decent story, with average to poor gameplay. 97 average? Nah. Feels like reviewers are still fine to slap an insane score because 'Rockstar'.
 

Deleted member 22750

Oct 28, 2017
13,267
Well it is kinda funny that a topic like this pops up and it's fine. My thoughts when I read that was which game really does have better combat.

because if you objectively look at it, there are valid complaints

the get a life insult was a bit rude or nasty towards him
 

jett

Community Resettler
Member
Oct 25, 2017
44,687
Sorry to bump this old thread, but this seemed to be the best place to ask since those in here are already looking at the game with a critical eye. Is Red Dead Redemption 1 worth playing? Or, if I'm going to try out one of the games, should I just move on to 2? I am assuming that a lot of the same negative issues with 2 also apply to 1?

By the sounds of it, I may get frustrated with the gameplay of 2, so I'm wondering if I should just strike 1 from the backlog altogether (and then possibly revisit it if I like 2).
RDR1 is worse in every way. You can safely skip it. RDR2 does everything better and it's a prequel anyway.
 

Deleted member 23046

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 28, 2017
6,876
Well it is kinda funny that a topic like this pops up and it's fine. My thoughts when I read that was which game really does have better combat.

because if you objectively look at it, there are valid complaints

the get a life insult was a bit rude or nasty towards him
To bump a January 2019 thread just to ask that stupid weaboo hit&run question, it's deserved as a ban.