For me Rdr2 is the game you play for the Landscapes, characters and to get a feeling of the past world whereas Rdr1 shines with being a badass cowboy with an engaging story
rdr2 by far is the more polished, more modern, and better fleshed out game (idk about better written), but i think we can all agree that Rdr1 has a wayyyyyy better soundtrack/score
@@benjaminwatson7868 I was talking about the other things lol, better written is subjective because they’re two completely different games with the same setting
I just started playing rdr1 about a month ago and I was getting kind of bored, so I started a hardcore save. I know that rdr2 has hardcore too, but I feel like it effects rdr1 more
Off topic, but did you notice while playing rdr2 that Arthur didn't kill any antagonist? Like, literally none. Not Bronte, not Milton, not Cornwall, not Colm, not Catherine Braithwaite, not even Micah... He killed Sheriff Gray, but I don't really consider him an antagonist.. oh and Fussar, but that was lame
New Austin wasn't even supposed to be in the game and Mexico would serve no purpose for the story and in 1899 the border was closed and there was a revolution going on so that was stupid to even expect
@@JesusisLord756 How? Rdr 2 has boring shooting and mission design. And the story is essentially the same across both games except rdr 2 just has more underutilized characters.
@@Pswayze23 rdr1 has boring mission design and shooting.... And the whole first part of the story in rdr1 is u do a favour for me I'll help u then we never see each other again 😭😭 like Irish, Seth, West dickens, Landon rickets etc. (apart frm bonnie)
Mexico was originally supposed to be in RDR2, but sadly, they didn't have enough time, especially when you consider the fact that the Devs had to create a map over twice the size of RDR1, WHILE including part of the RDR1 map, AND with a completely unconnected Island that's got a completely different Biome... And when it comes to Undead Nightmare, less to do with RDR2 and more with a certain thing in GTA 5 that was also a part of RDR2...
@@YSL8704rdr2’s map is definitely not twice the size it might’ve been if guarma was bigger but that would’ve been pointless in reality the mad for just Arthur is literally the same size as John’s only feels bigger because you move slower than the first
@@benjaminwatson7868 Maybe you should like, look at an image of the two game's map, cause that's very very wrong, it has half of the RDR1 map and then 3 more states, as well as a second half to West Elizabeth, which is easily over twice as many things as there were in RDR1, so as a whole, the map is at least twice the size, but if you look it up, it turns out that it's more likely actually 4 times the size.
@@lobodesade6780 Actually, despite the popularity and influence on most modern and revisionist westerns, of the spaghetti western genre, which clearly RDR1 is modelled after, most of the traditional westerns, with more realistic rather than ''mystified'' depictions of the time period, are much closer to RDR2. Sergio Leone did not invent the genre, there was a long tradition of the western genre long before the spaghetti western hype, so yeah, you are right. Tale a look at John Ford's and Howard Hawk's classic films, Anthony Mann's films, Lonesome Dove, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid even more contemporary stuff like Tombstone, Deadwood, Assassination of Jesse James, 1883, Open Range, Unforgiven, True Grit, 310 to Yuma etc all remind RDR2 rather than RDR1's spaggheti counterpart influences. Different strokes for different folks
@@MrNeonKnightsbuddy has not watched any of the movies he mentioned, almost all of them have action and 3:10 to Yuma is probably the most action packed of them all kicking off the trend really, Tombstone is also just action but more grounded Rdr2 is really mimicking those western tv shows everybody mainly just caught a glimpse of
@@benjaminwatson7868 Μost of the movies i picked certainly are not action packed, aside from those you chose, which do indeed pack a lot of action and shootouts, same with a lot of RDR2's shootouts missions where you shoot the entire town populations in Valentine, Strawberry and St. Denis, but i was mostly comparing them due to their lack of ''desert'' and ''spaghetti'' western feeling, compared to RDR1's style. Certainly if you focus just on story missions on RDR2, most of them end up being gung ho shootouts anyway
RDR1 is a pure action game, RDR2 is a simulation with action elements. The first feels like a typical action game like Resi 4, but without deepening the world, characters or story. RDR2 is far more realistic between the missions, with a lot more depth. More like a simulation of a world. Which type of this you like depends on your game type.
@@Bugplanet8840I saw your other comments, and really, with all due respect, you seem like a child! Or are you a child? You don't accept any opinion that differs from yours, and you're going to insult the guy. Damn, grow up, man.
@@Bugplanet8840 The same extremely repetitive, "go to that place and hogtie that guy and bring him back" bounties with absolutely no dialogue to flesh it out type bounty? I don't understand the difference in the hideouts. You go to the place, they recognise you and then you shoot them. I believe the gunplay is worse, the animations are clunkier the gun themselves have less details and the sound seems botched. I prefer the second game's gunplay but that is subjective. Better atmosphere? I don't think they were going for comparable atmospheres. The spaghetti western isn't remotely similar to the atmosphere of red dead redemption 2. Better soundtrack? Again, music is subjective as is all forms of art. Better voicelines? I don't know what you meant there. Are you talking about the clarity? The tone of voicelines? Because I believe the second game has more depth in voicelines, as an example I would use the conversations between arthur and Dutch. Each sentence has undertones and you can sense the doubt in arthur. In the first game you don't have much of that. Do you know what iconic means? The second game is far and above more popular so wouldn't the characters there be more 'iconic'? Graphics and lighting? Come on, are you not going to talk about npc reactions , their job cycles? Animal behavior? The more in depth destruction physics? I can keep going.
RDR1- it’s more of a game. RDR2 was annoying w the unnecessary animations and the dumbass stamina systems. You can run cross country if you want in RDR1. It just gets to the point. I’ll take the. RDR2 shooting mechanics I guess as far as moving accuracy and all that
Well, i have more fun playing 1, because 2 is way more immersive, too much at times. Honestly, if i were to choose between 1 or 2 for the rest of my life... after a long, long thoughtful moment, i think i'd pick 1
@@whatsupgamers139 That's not what i meant. I prefer 1 overall, because i find it funnier, that's all 2 is awesome for its story, characters, new mechanics, soundtrack, sound design, and wider World However, the fact that you must, eat, wash, same with your horse, and clean your guns after every missions, this sucks the fun outta the game for me, that's not why i bought the game Not to mention that once you've finished everything, and i mean EVERYTHING, the game feels empty. No more bounty hunter missions, no more random events, no more duels, 72h hours for gang hideouts to reset against 24 for RDR1, ect. You basicaly have to find a way to have fun, the game is boring when you've 100% it RDR1 however, still lives on by itself, granting you bounty hunter missions, random events, frequent gang hideouts, duels and you don't have to clean your guns and feed your horse, or you, nor wash 2 is just too realistic for me, sometimes. Making it less fun, for me i mean
@@Regis1603 yeah I get what you mean now, and I respect it. To me, all those negative things you mentioned are the reason why I'm having fun with 2. I'm also the type of person who doesn't continue the game after finishing main missions so I tend to finish all the contents first.
@@whatsupgamers139 I see. My points might be "details" for you, but unlike you, i replay games i've finished quite often. Therefore, if the game feels empty, that's a problem for me I wouldn't be this hard on 2 if 1 was also the same, like be able to do thing once and after that you can't do it again 1 allows you to replay everything, every bounty and random events, it makes the feel alive and you don't get bored. Not to mention that you can spam gang hideouts in 1, unlike 2 So my point is, that 1 is far more replayable, even when you 100% it, and the RPG mechanics that 2 has, which are dull for me, aren't existant. That's why i think i prefer one overall However when i played 2 and 100% it for the first time, i was an RDR2 fanboy to tge core, it's afterwards, when i've been waiting for random events to replay, for duels and bounties to appear, that i realized i'll never be able to do those things that kept me playing 1 for years, unless i restart the whole game Another thing i would've loved, why this game doesn't have a NG+ ? Wouldn't it be awesome to replay everything with all your money, stats, guns and horses? And on NG+, be able to save with cheats on, like the first game
@@Regis1603 yeah that's fine. I just don't see myself playing a game again after finishing it unless it's been years and I forgot the most of it. To me, story driven games are for lack of a better term, like vomiting food I already ate. Not saying you're like that. Not trying to offend. Oh, btw. You can't replay side missions in 2 but you can definitely replay their main missions if you want to get gold medals.
I always loved rdr1 for me is so iconic i consider it the one of the best games of that generation. I really love rdr2 for me that slow pacing make me appreciate things more. In rdr1 i didn't care about my horse, my guns, my ammo. Hunting felt more as a mechanic to complete challenges but in rdr2 in feels more important due to the resources you get.
Rdr 1 is better. Sure rdr 2 has a better story but there’s a ton of flaws (the retcons, plot holes, making it less fun to get wanted since honor plays a huge factor, doing challenges that can only be done by John and then finding out you just ignore all of them by buying satchels at that one fence, like seriously what’s the point, and do I need to say anything about doing chores?) that rdr 1 doesnt have at all. You don’t feel punished for going on a killing spree and wearing a bandana actually negates honor and fame without having to worry about progress. Plus I feel the combat is better too. You press the trigger button once and John automatically cocks the gun, why do I need to do it twice in rdr 2? Not to mention the healing is way faster
@@laurie550 rdr1 even has a better story. The cutscenes arent ass like in rdr2 and the dialogue is a hundred times better. Rdr2 has a slightly "cringe" modern game vibe to its story( agent milton, braithwates) also the story in guarma was just ass, it felt like far cry 6 or something lol something like guarma would havr never been in rdr1
@@fightingtothepoint4u732 the whole guarma part felt so out of place. If they had the ship crash off the coast of The Scratching Post and had the opportunity to explore new Austin that would’ve been awesome. I don’t get why they cut out Arthur being able to explore new Austin. Wasted opportunity
You are one of the only RU-vidrs who analyse how the story in red dead 1, you know the end goal from the get-go. I agree with you. If red dead 1 had the mechanics and graphics of red dead 2 then people would realise
I like rdr1 but 2s story hits you in the feels when you know 1 they are both equal in my eyes a story about a man who gives everything in the end to save those he loves both do a great job at making you sad for a chracters demise 2 doesn't outshine 1 it adds to it by showing what these people went through
The only thing that I feel compares between them are the endings, both incredibly tragic. Rdr1 is my vote overall, I’m here to play through a story, not feed my horse a carrot
I disagree on the part where you said rdr2 has one of the best fictional stories i think you need to watch more movies and tv shows. Rdr2's writing is decent at best. It may be one of the best in gaming but calling it one of the best in fictional is blasphemy
Honestly I kinda just said that to use it as a hook for a video, but saying that RDR2 being considered one of the best fictional stories is blasphemy is stupid, let other people have their opinions and respect it.
@@RedDeadTierLists you can't speak for something you have no idea about, if you says rdr2 has one the best stories in fiction you must watch marvel or sum
@@nivuok Brother, if you are getting mad over someone else's opinion on the internet, please log off your computer. Negative thoughts over other people's opinion on something subjective like art is always a stupid idea, because there is no objective "good" or "bad" types of art, people will like what they like.
@@nivuok I hope you don't do this to your friends, because this will quickly drive them away. Idc how much of a culture snob you are, attacking someone for saying a story is good, when RDR2 does at least have a good story, it's not like I'm saying The Room is the best fictional story of all time, is one of the stupidest things you can do, and will push people away. Being negative about things that are purely subjective is one of the stupidest things you can do because it will get you nowhere, because the other person sees it different from you.
Story-wise and ultimately game-wise? RDR2 hands down. That being said, I absolutely love RDR1. I love the feeling of being in a spaghetti western WAY MORE.
The story of rdr2 is mainly reliant upon 2 features. A man’s desire to redeem himself (thus comes the name redemption in the title) and the change of times. From glory to rock bottom. That is how they depict micah and that is why I love him. Because the ending satisfied me. I got immersed into the world not Arthur (all characters depthly written no offense) and into the narrative. And while gta is unrealistic by teaming up, killing all the enemies and living happily ever after is the canon ending its good for fun game reasons but from a story telling perspective isn’t realistic or satisfying to me. I guess you could say killing all the enemies is satisfying but it surely isn’t realistic. This is were rdr2 differs as it offers a more realistic ending (assuming you helped the characters and honor doesn’t matter although high honor is canon) where Arthur a man who is already walking dead after tb makes an attempt to help everyone he can and redeem himself before it’s his time to rest in peace. He does this because he is a good man at heart but was forced down this life path. In the end it makes sense he is weak and saves enough time for John to escape. I was happy he died (it was sad) because it completed his story. A man that had done bad actions his whole life made an attempt to redeem himself by helping other like Sadie,John, Charles etc. and he did this because times where changing (2nd key feature in the narrative) What once was glory to falling from the clouds. We see that in micah. I believe he represents that in rdr2 which is why I loved him as a character so much. In the beginning Arthur is leader and bosses him around and micah refers to Arthur as boss. It escalated From micah begging at Arthur to break him out of jail with the fear of being hanged. Micah a man dirty at the bottom of society being barabaric and a rat. To all the way in chapter 6 where Arthur is crawling for a gun almost dead at Micah’s feet showing the he fell to societies lowest fighting a literally a rat, a barbarian! A MASS MURDER (ironically). It truly shows how times have changed… The element of redemption the change are the 2 main features that make rdr2’s narrative one of if not the greatest in HISTORY!!!
Play gta 4 it has no happy ending and rdr2's writing is decent at best cuz it heavily relies on arthur and Dutch and so many unwanted side characters. Calling it the best story in history is a big stretch
@@nivuok I obviously mean gta 5 which is considered to have an amazing ending (ending C is cannon apparently) GTA 4 is a masterpiece by all means Also idk about your rdr2 take. I get it the immersion made the narrative very better but I think it is overall a very good story and up there with other great ones like gta 4 Also I don’t really like GOW and the last of us stories too much. Like they are nice but not amazing. Rockstar is truly the only studio that can deliver a great game with minimum a good story every single time
@@thegpc2372 arthur and dutch are beautifully written, most of the side characters are mediocre, they felt real cuz their voice acting was good and the world is too immersive if we look it from a writing perspective they are shallow. And the writing is decent imo it got carried by great perfomance and a realistic world. Arthur and dutch are great btw they carried the story 🙂
And you know why right? The real reason why? Because the game was better. The gameplay was better. The world was more fun to actually play in. When people say RDR2 online is dead because "lack of support" it just proves that outside of the "story" it never had legs to begin with. And people are just left with the truth - the 'activities' are boring, the gameplay is boring, and walking around "admiring the details" that they praise so much... is boring. And it's like they're scared to admit it.
For other content it really depends on what you like in a side mission. Most of these are completely up to opinion. "Scientifically proving which game is better"
RDR1 and it's not even close, not to mention it's expansion. Just replayed it last month on Series X, it still still looks amazing, almost photo realistic. Better writing, better physics, less stiff, hardcore mode, it's simply better all around. RDR2 comes from the 8th console generation where graphics got better and the worlds got bigger but that doesn't mean it's more fun.
RDR1 imo is head and shoulders above everything at the time, but I still think RDR2 is the better game. RDR1 defintely fits the western aesthetic a lot better vs RDR2 is aimed at a much larger audience.
@@RedDeadTierLists Oddly enough it doesn't even feel like the first Red Dead Redemption has even aged, and the graphics in my opinion look darn near photo realistic. I have never played a game with so much empty space but you can just stop and stare at the beauty of the open fields. The sequel has better graphics and a bigger world, but things just feel more stiff and more boring to me, it's also too easy without a hardcore difficulty. Many open world games from the 7th console generation had a perfect balance because they were limited with what they could do. The PS4 definitely brought more power so developers started making the game worlds bigger, but that often made many things feel like a chore and often feeling like quantity over quality.
@@Particle_Ghostrdr is only better in its music. It’s open world, details, animations, story and character do NOT even compare to the sequel, I’m just gobsmacked someone would even fathom that. It’s almost as if rdr2 is OBJECTIVELY better, a direct upgrade from literally everything in the first but objectively upgraded, with better, cleaner animations and graphics.
@@Coopdog0108 If you start looking at some forums and get various opinions you will see that the community is pretty much split down the middle. About half of the community prefers the first game. There are RU-vid videos that cover it as well and have lengthy videos discussing why. Doesn't mean you agree, that's why it's an opinion.
Maybe it’s nostalgia that makes you think like this. RDR2 is arguably the much better game and I say that as someone who played RDR1 before RDR2. RDR1 is a great game, but it doesn’t come close to RDR2. RDR2 was way better than I expected and I already expected it to be a very good game. Just some facts: RDR2 has a more versatile and vivid map. You have the swamps, the prairie, the mountains and the heartlands. RDR2 also has more animals that even interact with each other. RDR2 has better physics. You can fall from your horse, you can hit branches, fire physics and explosion physics are extremely good as well and shooting is also more realistic than in RDR1 (but you can actually argue that RDR1 is more fun when it comes to shooting). The fighting system is also way better in RDR2. Fist fights in RDR1 for example were extremely boring RDR2 has way more interactions than RDR1. You can greet or antagonize people. You can grab and rob them, you can stop witnesses and there are way more Easter eggs and secrets than in RDR1. The fact that you even meet people who need your help or backstab you is insane. RDR1 also had people that asked you for help, but RDR2 took it to a whole new level.
@@laurie550 not really. I'm not interested in an emotional outlaw having a mental breakdown while the gang of misfits blow up. Rdr1 was a simple and proven story. Rugged ex outlaw gets blackmailed by the government to hunt down the old gang that left him for dead while the life of his wife and child hang in the balance. Rdr2 made almost everyone in the gang come as a lazy reject. Rdr1 made the old gang at least come off as competent outlaws
So your saying that emotions are bad and that outlaws didn't have them and that the simple less well written story is better because it's a more generic outlaw story
@@laurie550 yes. I'm saying Arthur come off as hypocritical and scared of death while killing easy. I think they made the entire gang come as lazy rejects for a try on comedy. I think they did a horrible job connecting 2 to the original story. And yes I think the overall story was just bad. But yeah the graphics were better than 1.
Red Dead 2 is obviously the better game, but I will always prefer the original, same with John and Arthur, Arthur is a better character but I will always prefer John
@@Bugplanet8840 Not true at all, Red Dead 2 has much better story, better combat, better horse mechanics, more horses, a better overall plot, it's better in everyway
@@Bugplanet8840 Dude nostalgia is blinding you, I love Rdr1, it was the game I grew up with, but Rdr2 is better in almost everyway, and the bounties in Rdr2 are way better, they actually have stories behind them instead of just being *find this guy*
rdr2 has its pros (graphics, map, mechanics, characters) but years later I’ve noticed it’s cons more often (moral based honor system , weird wanted system, modern politics in what is portrayed as a timepiece, and plotholes and retcons to rdr1’s story that could’ve been avoided/addressed differently.)
When you talk about modern politics do you mean either the problem with the Indians or the women suffrage movement? Because if so I think you’re being pretty unfair considering both were serious problems in the time period and since the game prides itself on historical accuracy it would have been strange if they weren’t mentioned in my opinion
@@Midnight-q6h I’m not precisely referring to those actual historical events, but instead I’m referring to more looked over political moments in the game, especially between certain characters and npcs that I can’t fully list. If you’re interested I recommend the video “RDR2: Elliptical Politics” on YT, it goes into more detail about what I mean.
"Milton's more developed than Ross because Ross shows up at the end and there's no time to develop him" That is a lie. There is no development that Milton has over Ross. In fact, I am willing to bet Ross has about as much screen time in RDR1 as Milton has in RDR2, and it's a 100% irrefutable fact that Ross interacts more with the player and has more dialogue with the player because he is our ally in the story and accompanies us in missions unlike Milton who only speaks to us briefly in cutscenes. We get to know much more of Ross's ideology and reason for hunting down the gang than we do with Milton, so saying that Milton has more development is wrong. You also say Micah is more developed than Ross. Micah is the most one dimensional baddy you could come up with. The guy is bad because he is bad because he is born bad. There's no layer to his character. Ross actually discusses with John and explains to him why he disagrees with the outlaw way of life and why he is forcing John to hunt down his old friends. it makes sense why Ross is opposed to the player, he is the logical antagonist. Micah is bad because there has to be a villain for the player to slay and there is nothing else to him. Ross is way more fleshed out than both Milton and Micah, end of story.
Ok rdr1 had the strange man, seth, the snake oil prick, the self absorbed Mexican revolutionary, the cannibal in the mountains, and a ton more. (I swear I know everything about these characters but their names)
I posted this as a reply, but will also comment on it here. Actually, despite the popularity and influence on most modern and revisionist westerns that the spaghetti western genre had, which clearly RDR1 is modelled after, most of the traditional westerns, with more realistic rather than ''mystified'' depictions of the time period, are much closer to RDR2. Sergio Leone did not invent the genre, there was a long tradition of the western genre long before the spaghetti western hype, even if obviously RDR2 is inaccurate and highly fictionalized in its own world. Tale a look at John Ford's and Howard Hawk's classic films or Anthony Mann's films, Lonesome Dove, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and even more contemporary stuff like Tombstone, Deadwood, Assassination of Jesse James, Dances with Wolves, The Revenant, 1883, Open Range, Unforgiven, True Grit, 310 to Yuma etc all resemble RDR2 rather than RDR1's spaggheti counterpart influences. Different strokes for different folks, but RDR2 does in fact take a lot of influences and calls back to the western genre
Well its not "less western" it's just more realistic and less *spaghetti western* basically less stereotypes. Which is better or worse, depends who youre talking to🤷
RDR1 will always be way better to me. The only thing I personally think RDR2 is better at is graphics, even then RDR1’s graphics hold up. I still think RDR2 is good it’s just the original is so much better
RDR2 has more interactions, better physics, better gameplay, a more versatile map and more secrets and Easter eggs. So I think that it’s your nostalgia that makes you think like that
@@verdun16 Story and characters is debatable but RDR2 is even better than RDR1 in this case since characters like Dutch or John got more depth but saying that RDR1 has a better gameplay than RDR2 is nothing but a lie.
@@verdun16 Yes, but RDR2 arguably has the better gameplay. The controls are much smoother, it has less buggs, the physics are much more realistic and better and the aiming system is better because of the recoil. RDR2‘s gameplay is obviously an improvement of RDR1‘s gameplay. It’s like saying that a car from 1990 has better control and is better to drive than a car from today
Seems like RDR is more western vibe but RDR2 has got that Montana vibe. Ive only finished the first game but I think I would love to get lost in RDR 2 way more. Some RDR2 sites feel more like genuine campsites where as RDR has random encounters with strangers around a fire here and there. RDR has the saddest anime ending of all time for a western video game fs.
Also rdr2 is a Western just because it's historically accurate doesn't mean it's not a Western and not all Westerns are in deserts like o my god😡and the wild West vibe is still there
@@NTEDOG561 its been many years since 2018 and still talked about while red dead 1 barely talked about unless people want to try it the game didnt age well compared to the second one
I love rdr2 but it feels more silly with some of its characters and feels more like a typical Rockstar game, while rdr2 characters I feel like are actual people and down to earth.
I mean yeah I live in the west and when you walk around you'll notice it's pretty grassy but if you go up into the mountains and look down it's all tan
Red dead redemption 1 was amazing and The western feel was Mwa the villain’s was so good same with rdr 2 and undead nightmare so could but I think I like red dead 2 just because the graphics characters to love more and I love everyone in rdr 1 but I love the stuff in rdr 2
Though there are tons of things to do in RDR2, for me RDR always felt better to pick up and play casually. Whenever I played RDR2 I felt the shackles of needing to have a playstyle that matched the realistic design of the game. It's like a GTA IV vs GTA V situation. And like everyone else is saying, the classic spaghetti western vibes were so good in RDR.
Rdr2 is masterpiece but not the best the reason why i say that is because the Dutch van der linde gang is trash because that’s just how the east game is. and the new austin in rdr1 is Overrated the Marston’s Gang is the best. The Npcs are the best. i did beat rdr2 with all rare items but still i go with rdr1. The new sucks i want the old you the old box with god i say rdr2 story is pretty decent nothing too crazy tho east is not for me but online yes
Personally I think Dutch, De Santa, Allende all knock the Braithwaites, Grays, O Driscolls outta the park. I think as the player we do understand their motives and can see what they think/believe and I find it a lot more compelling than the RDR2 side-antagonists. I dont think Colm and Catherine have much depth to them compared to what we learn about Dutch and the Mexican army in the first game. Bill and Javier definitley arent that great though since they barely have any screen time
I think rdd1 needs remake cause the future comes before the past in this story characters in Red Dead 2 have charisma and value and were mocked and ridiculed in red Dead 1. This remains my opinion.
RDR2 feels like the superior game to me, but two things that i think RDR1 did better are the horses and dead eye. RDR1 horses convey that sense of speed much better, the way john temporarily speeds up when he's firing feels a lot more satisfying
This is exactly why I vastly prefer 2 over 1. Rdr2 is like a serious drama with a great story. Rdr1 is typical rockstar satire like gta and bully with over the top characters and dialogue. Red dead 2 is vastly superior writing and story.
I like RDR2 better, but I still thought RDR1 was Rockstar's best of the 360/PS3 era. I just played the two back to back in chronological order on PS5 One thing I like about RDR1, it's okay to defend yourself, and you can even collect the spoils that you fairly won. In RDR2, defending yourself alone causes: "hey, I saw that!" I also have Red Dead Revolver on my PS5 from back when Sony was doing PS2 on PS4, why oh why did Sony stop that, but I'm not very good at it
Objectively better except for the gameplay, ragdolls, dialogues, open world, activities, duels, bounties, health system, difficulty balancing and replayability all of which RDR1 does better. But yeah, if you ignore the *gameplay* part of a video *game* , RDR2 is better.
I'm sorry but I got into these games this year and decided to play rdr1 after i finished 2, I don't understand how people think it is better, everything was improved in 2, the story, characters, atmosphere, mechanics, missions, graphics, etc. rdr1 just felt boring most of the time and the story wasn't engaging until the last 2 chapters which are only like 3 hours, Mexico was boring and new Austin was alright, just the ranching was terrible
That’s what I’m saying man, this guy said the gameplay was better in rdr1. If there is anything that is objectively better in rdr2 it is the gameplay. I respect his opinion but I feel it’s deeply flawed
not at all lol rdr2 is a drag i can't finish it i just lose interest. They needed to shrink the main map and add in another country or territory to explore, there's not even a dlc rockstar left the game in the trash. rdr2 has the best scenery in a game i've ever seen but the fun factor is non existent especially when compared to rdr1
@@stevekaufmann8109 I agree that rockstar really forgot about this game but this game handles having a big map better than any other game I’ve ever seen since you can barely get from one place to another without some kind of event happening
I prefer RDR1’s ending. Don’t get me wrong, 2’s is great, but the issue with it is Charles and Sadie just get to…survive. They kinda just escape the cycle and face no consequences for what they did and the lives they led, worse still is that there was a perfect solution to this, just have Micah kill them during American Venom. Worse than that though is that Sadie’s entire character is revenge and anger, yet nothing bad happens to her, makes the whole overarching story and themes of the two games worse because she just gets to survive. Charles would be the reverse almost, someone who became ‘better’ over the story, and yet still falls to Micah, almost echoing Arthur in a way. There’s also the fact that Ross never tells you to kill Sadie and Charles, even though he totally should, he’s fine with you going to Mexico after Bill and Javier, so why not go after Sadie and Charles? There’s also the fact that RDR2’s ending is pretty much just RDR1’s which again, REALLY shows why Sadie and Charles should have died.
@@rexo5064 Both were seen by the federal government though, and both participated in several engagements with law enforcement. The only reason they aren’t hunted in RDR1 is because they didn’t exist in 2010.
@@laurie550 RDR2 implies that Blackwater was at least in some capacity a setup with the Pinkertons already being there in large numbers to catch the gang, meaning that they wanted them gone before the massacre, the game also states that Arthur (who notably wasn’t a participant) has a very large price on his head too, with the only reason why he isn’t brought in immediately being so they can try and get Dutch, the leader of the gang.
There both amazing games but it is definitely rdr2 but rdr1 for sure deserved a proper remake but that’s not how rockstar is they couldn’t care less and just live quick money
Red dead 1 shooting mechanics were better as well. They really made you feel like a gunslinger rather than someone fighting for their life. It felt like John already was established as a complete badass and then in two Arthur is kind of less if a badass and more susceptible to damage which is cool but it was just done a lil worse and kind of dry compared to the first game
I mean from a factual standpoint. Rdr2 has improved on Literally every aspect of the gameplay. Horse, gun, camp and character Customization never existed in rdr1, owning multiple horses, npc interactions you name it. The damn game sold 65 million copies for a reason.
Red dead redemption two is better it don’t you dare saying that John’s death is better than Morgan’s because nobody really cried. And also it’s not better.
