Imagine for a minute if RDR 2 would continue into the story of the first game and its just one huge game lasting over 150+ hours lol. Like both games in one package.
Actually I thought this too, like they just took all the new assets from RDR2 and continued right off into RDR1 as like a huge surprise for fans of the original. Oh well, missed opportunity I guess.
RDR2 is the superior game no doubt, but yeah those musical stings from the old game are just so much better. I got so excited when I heard that Mexican trumpet in RDR2 while riding along the river in New Austin.
I feel like those people who never played the first game, simply can't understand how much we (people who spent years and years in Red dead 1) appreciate John.
@@rulingmoss5599 Imo they tried to give arthur many layers that, while feel good in retrospective (his failed love life/fatherhood, his blind devotion, his countless bad deeds), they basically all round up to him being unable to leave the outlaw life (the only one he has ever known) and how it subsequently took him to the grave. When i think of john, i think of how he went from a selfish, inmature, hot headed jackass that called her girl a whore and his son a bastard; To that man struggling to breath due to the blood obstructing his throat and falling to his knees because of his inmesurable love to his family. He redeemed himself by letting his past catch up to him. It just moves me to tears I still love arthur, i finished prologue yesterday and am thinking of beginning a new game bc of him. But John is miles ahead
@Salt Maker More ripples doesn't automatically make it better. The water physics are great, they interact with weather. The reason it looks flat is because there is no crazy weather. Rdr2 is better tho
I think you already get an idea what is going to happen with RDR2. The graphics are awesome but what's most impressive is the increase in behavior and interaction with people/wildlife etc. You'll see AI be applied to make NPC's creepily real. So I think the biggest shift the next 10 years will be gameplay wise, instead of graphics wise.
You're a fool if you think you're going to get a game as beautiful, or as detailed as RDR2- Most games can only dream of buying as advanced as this game is
Tall Trees always been creepy... back in 2013 I used to explore RDR myths (like the haunted house in Tumbleweed) and I heard a guy at Manzanita Post say the area was cursed Native land or something. There's a campfire at Manzanita Post in the first game that randomly dies out and starts again, as well as whispers you can hear at Bearclaw. Now we just have to worry about Skinners, and my theory is that along with Tall Trees being cursed land, in RDR1 it's also haunted by the people killed by the Skinners
I love how most of the places are actually less developed, still untouched or partly unfinished in RDR2 compared to their RDR counterparts, that is some pretty solid attention to continuity
@@Mexican20067 It’s well known that Rockstar rushed to push out the old areas from RDR1. That is why there is little game content in those areas and they are not as fleshed out as the main RDR2 areas.
The ending of this game should leave you feeling hopeful for John and his family but knowing what eventually happens just makes it kinda sad. Also roaming around New Austin as John feels so weird. Like there's familiarity but also strangeness because things are different. I guess it's the feeling one would get if they traveled back in time.
I get the same feeling except I'm disappointed with new Austin if there aren't gonna be any missions in that area they should have saved that bit for online or dlc
@@xtrariceplz6424 Yes Armadillo made me feel so strange sad and depressed tbh, like times long gone.. exept its in the past of RDR1.. very confusing and mixed feelings
Different strokes, it seems. That’s exactly what I don’t like about it. It makes everything look dreamlike and hazy, but the colours in the first one make it feel grounded and realistic.
Not for me, I wish Armadillo had the the same light yellow and bright enviroment like in RDR1 or a Sergio Leone film, instead of this orange/brown filter
Imagine this: After you ended the epilogue, there's an Abigail mission. When you start this mission, the rdr1 story starts. You have the choice to keep your horse, weapons, money and your other stuff or you start with nothing. The game has the same physics and options like rdr2. Interactions, weapons, train robberys... I would like if they would make new conversations about Arthur, Sadie and Charles.
Maybe an even better transition: There's a mission for you to go to Blackwater to buy some things for the ranch, and as soon as you come back you see agents Ross and Fordham with a car ready to take you to Saint Denis to hunt down... ...Charles
@@xXSilentAgent47Xx you're high. Revolver was on ps2, mad difference from redemption. The scale of redemption alone it would have cost it dramatically in graphics. Gta games on ps2 were broken up sandbox less detail compared to the details in rdr on xbox 360/xb 1/ps3
Is it just me or does New Austin feel slightly creepier in RDR2? It's so barren and empty, and the cholera epidemic going on and so on gives it an ominous vibe.
It's barren because it was less settled back then, but I think it's less creepy. Idk what it was about RDR1 but that entire game's vibe was just kinda creepy imo
I think compared to RDR1 it seems more creepy because like you said it’s so much quieter. In RDR1 you were always running into a stranger encounter or a group of bandits shooting up a town.
The only scary place in this game is imo Ambarino and Tall Trees. Tall Trees in the first game wasn't scary because snow is calming to me and all there was were bears. The bears killed you but it was in their instinct, so not really scary. But in this game? Skinners. Since tall trees is a pretty small place you run into their camps often. Ambarino is scary because it's unsettled and you rarely find anyone there, I only saw one person in Grizzlies West and they were running on a horse and I couldn't catch up to them
They would need to do the animations again to the standard of rdr2, the dialogue system, all the mechanics, re-do most of the map again to make 1:1 with RDR1 - and for what? Lots of effort for not much reward. You will never see RDR1 dlc for this game.
No thanks, I'd rather have a new story than one I've already played through. Plus, a remaster would only improve the graphics, so you're not going to have one that plays anything like RDR2.
The game already runs in full native 4K on the Xbox one x and looks fucking beautiful, a remaster would be completely pointless and only idiots would buy it.
While playing RDR so many years ago, I thought to myself, "videogames are NEVER going to look better than this." Now I watch this video nearly 10 years after playing the original and its breathtaking to see how far graphics have come. As I sat and loaded up RDR 2 for the first time a few months ago, i thought to myself, "there is no way videogames are ever going to look better than this" I wonder what ill say in another 10 years.
The only thing I wish RDR2 ported over was the ambient sounds and music. I feel like the birds/insects in 2 are much quieter as well the louder classic western background music in RDR1 I just prefered
@Joseph Kennedy no one hates John. They just grew attached to Arthur. If they were to play the first RDR now with all the added backstory of the second just to see John die again, im sure it would hit them even harder. Lol
New Austin seems like fan service now, but there is no way in hell Rockstar remade that huge chunk of land for nothing. There is gonna be a DLC down there, I'm almost positive of it. Either the original game will be added or another story line because it is almost empty at the moment with the exception of exploring/hunting.
My thoughts too. I'm still on the "they'll update New Austin to 1911 buildings and tell the RDR story in this engine" camp. So much work already done, and PC gamers never got to play the original. Sell it as DLC if not including it as a surprise free update (hell, I'd buy again), and resell Undead Nightmare too. A ton of Rockstar content that is currently trapped on last-gen consoles and Rockstar do not like leaving their main games in the past like that. Even the old PS2 games got ports to both PS3 and PS4 (and mobile), only RDR is left hanging in the wind right now. And with this much work having gone into bringing New Austin into RDR2? At the very least, the VERY LEAST, they are keeping their options open.
Honestly, it might be just a treat for the fans who played RDR1. Or it might be needed for RD Online. GTA Online was set before the events of the single-player story, will RD Online be set AFTER? Maybe set in 1911 (same year as RDR1)?
Its probably gonna be used for multiplayer. No way they would let us explore it all in this game if they were gonna use it later for DLC. That seems kinda strange? What if new people use many hours playing there, then they add a DLC. Then they already explored everything
Great job. Thanks for doing this. I've noticed a lot of differences in the towns, but one thing I had forgotten about RDR1 was that there was a lot more people and traffic (being later in time the towns were more populated and advanced in terms of commerce). Very cool.
But rdr2 uses most of the riffs from the forst game go stand down in armidillo. You saying thia one isnt as good is false its as good or better because it has the old tracks in it. The more you know.
the music was so much better in RDR1, it has this hint of Ennio Morricone in the strings, had like an almost unsettling atmosphere at certain parts. it was so unique and cinematic. the new one was like american backwoods banjo style which makes sense in the game world but wasnt as vibrant of an atmosphere created. i just kept thinking constantly that I missed the old soundtrack as i played
Rdr1 is at the same time more creepy and more satirical at the same time. It's hard to compare the stories of RDR1 and RDR2, RDR2's story is more deep and complex, but doesn't have the same satire as the first game.
Hate to be the bearer of good news, but it is a xbox one x enhanced game. See for yourself. As far as ps4 no bc...ps3 for ps users. and we won't ever get a port or dlc for that...
Doubt it, it took them nearly a decade to make red dead 2. You think they goner invest more time to make something that’s already there. I still think red dead 2 should have ended with Arthur’s story. John story feels out of place. New Austin is very nice place, l never got to play red dead 1. Shame there is no missions to do
@@MatthewZmusician209 i loved in rdr, how the language changed to spanish, the music changed, the whole atmosphere changed when entrying mexico...it was awesome...rdr 2 seems to look and feel like the same at every part of the map.
sengin I have to disagree with you, rdr2 does not look the same throughout the map. There are different biomes like the swamp and desert, each with its own music to suit the biome. In addition, the law is different depending on which town/city you are.
@@sengin1534 RDR2 has more landscapes than the original. Far better western map, hopefully they do open Mexico and bring back the Mexican style music, that'd be awesome.
Angry Commander I got the peaceful ending and I just tell myself he did just that. Hung out on top of the rock for a while, got his TB cured by the Indians and told Charles to fake his death by creating a grave for him.
@@ArthurKnight1899 Well, think about Vice City or San Andreas when you're in a helicopter and you only see geometric figures like cubes with no detail until you get close. RDR2 you will never notice that or some random object appearing out of thin air and that's an amazing feat not even GTA V managed to do.
I actually come away from this more impressed with the original RDR. Obviously the RDR2 graphics are a huge improvement, but the original still holds up in comparison to many modern day games. The differences here aren't as dramatic as i would have thought.
RDR1 came out in 2010 and was made to run on systems that had 512mb of RAM (Xbox 360) and 256mb of RAM (PS3) respectively. It's very impressive when you consider the hardware they had to work with, and it's even more impressive when you realize that they crammed the entire game in to a single DVD for the 360 version.
It also has better color palette, more natural looking imo. I think they really overused some lighting effects in RDR 2, it looks almost white when you look at the sun/moon at times, it really doesn't look good.
video games graphics evolution is getting slower and slower man, difference between PS1 PS2 and PS2 PS3 was huge, difference between PS3 and PS4 not that much, and i'm sure it will be even slower between PS4 and PS5
@@gplgs4640 the difference isn't that big compared to the difference between PS1 and PS2 and PS2 and PS3 dumbass, you would know if you weren't a 10 year old kid who discovered video games 2 years ago. Considering there is 8 fucking years between RDR1 and RDR2, yes, the difference is very small, go compare a game from 1998 with game from 2006 and the difference will be absolutly huge
One thing that bothered me is the lack of the barn at mcfarlanes ranch, if you go back and play the second mission in the original bonnie mentions her father built it when she was just a little girl yet it hasn't been built in this game yet...
Players: It would be so great if R* remade the first RDR into RDR2 as DLC. They already have more than half of the map, most of the original voice act- Online bullshit: NOPE!!
why would people ask rockstar to remake the same game with rdr2 mechanics when you can play RDR1 by buying it on PS4 store or via backwards compatibility on Xbox one? i would preffer Undead Nightmare II as a DLC for rdr2 rather than play the first game again... also they would prebably cut something out from the original RDR since not every VA would be present... just buy RDR and play it instead of asking for a remake... it's not that old and it still is very fun even with the old mechanics...
There shouldn't be a RD3. I think this game did the story justice, how could they even proceed at this point? Jack being an outlaw wouldn't make sense, civilization took over in the early 1900s almost entirely. A DLC maybe, but anything more would ruin it.
@@SnuffySpaghetti By going back even further, to the height of the Wild West? First game was 1911, second was 1899, so maybe 1888 for RDR3? But I think you may be right that it doesn't need to involve the Van der Linde gang. Maybe just references to them in Newspapers or something.
It gives a different vibe on RDR1, It is só far away, like we would never get close to touching it. I always feel very melancholic staring at the distance in video games.
New cast of characters, map expansion west of West Elizabeth and above new austin. Atleast that's my guess for the setting, maybe north of Ambarino aswell.
@@SnuffySpaghetti you could make a good story with the lemoyne raiders the powerful KLAN and the mafia in saint denis you know gun running moonshine militia ambush gun running southern things
Back when RDR was released, about the only thing I wanted changed, map-wise, was for Tumbleweed to be a populated, normal town. Pretty cool that Rockstar made that happen in RDR2.
Wow I forgot rdr2 took place before rdr. It’s awesome seeing the unfinished buildings and stuff. Cool to see the devs pay attention to detail rather than copy and paste the buildings
8 años y RDR se ve muy bien. Claramente el vídeo no compara gráficos porque sino ganaría RDR2, pero es increíble ver que los edificios que se estaban construyendo en el segundo, en el primero ya lo están. La cronología de Rockstar es increíble, no se saltan ni un detalle.
If they brought back the music from RDR1 into RDR2 and if Arthur's story were allowed to head into New Austin I'd have love to seen him interact with some of the RDR1 characters.
Oh my GAAAWWWDDD !! I fell in love with playing red dead 1 and it still holds a special place in my heart. That game really changed my life.. and now that I've upgraded to a new console and playing red dead 2... It just SOOOOO surreal and soooo exhilarating!!! You can really feel the difference between the two games... Idk bout u guys but I feel more tension in the story and gameplay of red dead 2.. it's just a whole different t experience filled with so much things to do!!! I luv both games and both games have changed my life forever!
The reveal of new Austin was such a love letter to the first game. Red dead 1 still looks good and is still an amazing game. Possibly the 2 finest games of their generations
They did a great job of putting in the rdr1 map and utilising it in the epilogue. Just wish they added mexico as well but that could potentially be added in over time.
I remember being so blown away the first time I entered Blackwater in the first Red Dead Redemption. Looking back at it now, comparing it to Saint Denis, it looks so small. Imagine how I felt walking through Saint Denis for the first time, though!
@@maximkikena622 ok boomer . Why not you try to be a man and not to run and hide after commenting some bullshit? You sure you go home with that atittude? Bless you
I hate to say it but I really hate the end of the game... correction I love the way the game ended I hate that I have to be playing as John now I lost my good horses and now he can't swim and he sucks at drawing so I don't even want to go and discover new locations and get a five-year-old's sketch of it
My mind is totally blown by this game. Not only was it an incredibly lengthy and masterfully told story with a bittersweet ending, with vivid and deep gameplay and detail - it also gives you a huge nostalgia trip that I personally didn't see coming (I knew Blackwater and Great plains would open up but had no idea I could also visit armadillo, tumbleweed etc.). If they really did just put New Austin in there for the nostalgia then that is a beautifully daring move. Though I hope there's a RDR1 DLC. Bravo rockstar. Truly the best game ever made.
Honestly, the first game still looks REALLY good, I thought looking back on it now it might look really bad in comparison, but it looks great, still. I haven't really played it since it first came out and I completed it
Hayden Rhead Oh Yeah, didnt even recognize Buffalos comment. Instantly thought it was adressed to me. Yeah I think he doesnt know what the point of a Remaster or, in this case, of a Remake is.
By “back than” i meant that red dead 2 takes place before red dead 1 and so i t has better graphics.. that’s the joke lol Back than the jokes didn’t fly over like this lol
04:37 no se ustedes amigos, pero en ese momento del video prefiero el RDR 1, me gusta mas la profundidad de campo que utiliza y la iluminación sobria de ese cerro, en el 2 se ve como que muy saturado y sin profundidad, y la vida real no es así.
