does anyone prefer RDR1 over the second?

[7th Ward Charizard]

I see a lot of people (hell, most) saying that RDR2 blew the first game out of the water & that it’s better in every way. out of curiosity, does anyone feel contrary? I personally find that the first game has much better replay value due to it's simplicity, and while RDR2 is a master piece, it feels more cinematic than video game at times. what are your thoughts? 

[Oldsport]

only thing thats better is the environment (lowkey) but the story is better, that twist at the end got me good! the mission were better, had more variety (dickens lol) and more action. i honestly feel like rdr1 had more shooting missions. also, the duels and mini games.

[7th Ward Charizard]

18 hours ago, Oldsport said:

only thing thats better is the environment (lowkey) but the story is better, that twist at the end got me good! the mission were better, had more variety (dickens lol) and more action. i honestly feel like rdr1 had more shooting missions. also, the duels and mini games.

yeah, it definitely felt more shooter driven, in comparison to RDR2 trying to be more well rounded. I actually preferred the far west environment compared to the east, New Austin truly felt like the last part of an era. Aw man, I missed Nigel Dickens. there was a lot more memorable characters (imo). I also didn’t really care for a lot of the gang, they felt like filler. *cough* mary-beth 

[RedDeadJohn]

first RDR have better sense of humour remember sh-sh-sh shaky ?  and Irish lots of fun moments 

 

[Lemoyne outlaw]

i honestly think they are about even. there are some things that i loved about red dead redemption 1 that 2 failed on. like adding all that extra realistic crap. having to clean your guns or bond with the horse. the first redemption did not need that crap. but at the same time. rdr2 does have plenty of customization. you can actually buy clothing for your character. both games are great. but they also have their negatives too. nothing is ever going to be perfect.

[Journey_95]

RDR1 is great (and does have the better soundtrack and Wild West atmosphere) but I prefer RDR2 in terms of story and characters and the open world was much more fun to explore too

 

Edited May 28, 2019 by Journey_95

[tobdog]

I do, way more fun especially after finishing the game.
Didn't like Arthur as much as I did John either.

[gooeyhole]

Story wise, RDR is better for me. 

[Algonquin Assassin]

No. RDR is a great game and one of the best of its kind, but RDR2 simply blows it out of the water in every major way and that's quite a feat in itself. 

[Bratva Assassin]

No. Both are great games and the predecessors are usually better but not in this case I'm afraid. RDR2 has to be my all time favorite game, being only beaten by GTA IV and EFLC.

[Guest Billy Russo]

Gameplay wise, I found that I enjoyed RDR1 more. Maybe it's just because I connected with the story more, or it could be because I'm more nostalgic for it. But that's how I felt.

 

On a technical level, RDR2 is fantastic. Graphically it's one of the best games I've ever seen, the AI is very impressive, and it's very fun in it's own right.

 

This is honestly an hard question, but RDR1 was more meaningful and impactful to me, so I have to go with that.

[Jabalous]

Both games excel in the freeroam soundtracks which complement the scenery, atmosphere and narrative well, but I prefer 1 over 2 in this regard and this is the only thing.

[Lock n' Stock]

I'd give the upper hand to RDR2 personally. It's essentially everything I love about the original but done even better.

[Failed Again]

Yeah RDR 1--better in a lot of ways

Love both for different reasons

 

Anytime I ride by Jim Milton's ranch, I feel sad and lonely -knowing....what comes..

"Just Like you taught me Pa"

[~INDIO~]

On 5/27/2019 at 1:23 PM, RedDeadJohn said:

first RDR have better sense of humour remember sh-sh-sh shaky ?  and Irish lots of fun moments 

 

The humour in RDR2 was total poop compared to RDR1. Rockstar are usually good with that kind of thing, but I guess they don't want to "offend" any pussies now

[RedDeadJohn]

I like a lot more the physics engine in RDR than RDR2. The RDR2 feels like a GTA game, RDR1 had more fun controls even simple walking and running feels better.

Edited June 28, 2019 by RedDeadJohn

[LittleJesus]

Sometimes but that's just nostalgia 

[Emmi]

Now almost 9 months since the release of RDR2 and having just started my 2nd playthrough (I rarely do 2nd playthroughs!) I can definitely say that I prefer RDR2 over the first one ... all things considered. While I complained about this not feeling like your typical western because of the different setting early on after its release, the setting really grew on me and I think its so much better than the first one which was limited to mostly desert areas. So RDR2 > RDR1 for me personally.

[Algonquin Assassin]

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2019 at 6:13 AM, Emmi said:

.Now almost 9 months since the release of RDR2 and having just started my 2nd playthrough (I rarely do 2nd playthroughs!) I can definitely say that I prefer RDR2 over the first one ... all things considered. While I complained about this not feeling like your typical western because of the different setting early on after its release, the setting really grew on me and I think its so much better than the first one which was limited to mostly desert areas. So RDR2 > RDR1 for me personally.

It's not just the setting, but when I tried playing RDR the gameplay just felt...flat and not very interesting. RDR2 is just so much more fleshed out it blows my mind. Sure there are things about RDR I miss like liar's dice, horsehoes etc, but in the grand scheme of things it's mostly things I can live without.

 

Had you asked me in 2010 would anything ever top RDR I probably would've laughed, but R* proved me wrong with what I would consider one of the greatest games released in the last decade, Of course this doesn't make RDR any less of a masterpiece, but it just got outdone by a better masterpiece is all.

 

[vivalanuevoparaiso]

Yep. 2 f*cks your mind in so many ways and as always Rockstar has set a new high bar for open world games in their own way. I admire their drive to continue to experiment and innovate and just overall excell beyond anything else. The visuals will literally make you have to catch your breath from time to time (I couldn't believe how trippy it is to experience an impression of turn-of-the-century New Orleans with St Denis) and, my brothers, we are seeing video game stories getting damn near being comparable to serious literature, or serious film, or whatever the f*ck it is... because the story and characters are just great... maybe not the best thing I've ever heard, but definitely, imo, Rockstar's best, and exceeding RDR1 which was already, imo, their high bar, and maybe it's just me... but I feel like Dutch Van Der Linde was the character in spotlight here. Arthur mirrors him excellently, self-admittted ghost he is, but watching the sweet-hearted, beautiful-minded Dutch (I knew we were in for heartbreak when I saw the boating/singing scene) slowly panic, crack, and go to the dark side, was one of the finest moments in narrative I've ever seen. The first time the gang parties, and you just see Dutch sitting on his cot thinking for in-game hours... it was clear that dude was having some heavy times upstairs. I personally believe whoever wrote Dutch had real understanding of mental illness. 

 

I could write so much about how I love the second game, because I love it and it's unquestionably great, one of the highlights of gaming from this decade, Rockstar's most elaborate production yet (are they going to top it?)...

 

but

 

The first game is a masterpiece. It's not even nostalgia for me and I'll tell you why. I first played the game in 2010... for about an hour. I was in the army at the time and that night we all got obnoxiously drunk as always, but bad luck, I got into a fight that landed me in lockup. Needless to say I didn't get to play video games for a while. RDR stuck with me for all this time, the fact that I was so looking forward to it but never got around to it, and it was slowly aging and being apparently outclassed in every way. But finally I admitted a PC port was not coming and got a hold of a PS3 copy. I played through it, and it just totally captured my heart. It's very difficult to define good art, almost impossible. But certain things just have an aura, something "greater than the sum of its parts". RDR2 is equal to the sum of its parts, which are elaborate and fantastic. All the excellence money can buy, without trying to sound too cynical. But the first game just has a spirit in it. Something living, something real, and like, good for you. I think that's just what happens when a work of art achieves true balance, like perfect symmetry, geometrical genius in all its parts, I think it just generates a special energy. When I walk through any area of the first game I see inspired art design, intentional item and structure placement. I see developers going out of their way and then half again to make every moment of the game thrilling and worth looking at and exploring again and again. RDR2 has all the features, all the customization and feeding your horse, milking cows... but nothing in the first game to me feels like extra, like filler. Even what is beyond what you'll ever do on a casual story run simply fills out the world in that you know that's what you *could* be doing (night patrols, gambling, bounty hunting, having shots at the bar), it gives the impression of an extended life John Marsten could be living, it pushes the narrative forward simply by being available and nothing is over-complicated. Every choice of inclusion (and no doubt exclusion? I wonder what) has been well-considered. Stamina could have simply be removed from 2 and you would never miss it. Ditto for probably 30 other features. It would feel weird if you couldn't join a game of Texas hold em in a saloon, if you couldn't drag people behind you on a horse. Maybe it sounds like nonsense, but I see RDR as totally complete and airtight. Not flawless, that's not what I mean. No such thing. But everything works and works together in 1. 2 seems like it exists to flatter you, the player; 1 seems like the world has always been there and you have the privilege to spend some time there, to check out this pixelated alternate universe where everyone but the protagonist walks naturally.

 

Both games together make up one of my all-time favorite fictional worlds, but I personally think the first game is just in a different league from the second. Red Dead Redemption 2 was a project but the first game is like, cosmic, man. Also because of its balance and solidness, I'm positive 1 will be more fun in 20 years than 2. In my opinion it is right now.

[DarksunDaFirst]

I might prefer it over RDR2 - but that just might be nostalgia.  

I tried playing RDR1 a few months before RDR2 got released, and while still a nice looking game, there are several things about it that make it show it's age.  

Comparing RDR2 to RDR1 would be like comparing GTA V to GTA: San Andreas...that's how big the gap is.

 

[Mister Pink]

I think RDR2 has everything that was captivating about RDR and more. Therefore, I think RDR2 is better. And it's not a competition for me. It's a natural progression. It got bigger, insanely more detailed but kept the feeling of the first. 

 

RDR was impressive for me. I really enjoyed it but RDR2 really capture my imagination. There are few games that give me constant "wow" moments. I was genuinely impressed and often surprised by that game. 

 

If I was to point out things that make RDR2 better for me specifically, it would be:

 

- Huge and more diverse map. I love height in maps and being up in the mountains or being at the bottom of a mountain and looking up is impressive. There are so many beautiful vistas. From dusty desert to lush green meadows and snow. It's got all the variety in a map to keep me entertained. 

 

- Elaboration of hunting. Hunting has become more gamified and rewarding. Especially since now you can use pelts to craft new items. Which brings me to the next point.

 

- Rewards for playing the game. Being rewarded for playing the game and hunting is nice. It's not only offering fun gameplay but you can get unique or rare items by putting in some effort in to a game play dynamic that's all ready fun. 

 

- Fishing and boating. Spending some time out on a boat fishing, has provided a new experience for me in an open world game. Fishing, looking at a nice view is rewarding in and of itself, let alone the fact that you catch food and eat or you can sell stuff on. 

 

- More freedom in terms that outside the story, I can hunt/fish and sell food and items and earn money.  I know you can do this in RDR but not to the extent of RDR2. I love that. Different functions in the game are tied and working together with the economy. 

 

- The level of detail is insane. And I think this is where Rockstar is king. There are too many one-time unique moments that just happened organically in the game that I can't remember so many. I'm just left in awe and moments where Rockstar included detail where I never expected any.

 

RDR was great for the time but Rockstar really elaborated on RDR and brought the series forward in a tasteful manner. They added tonnes of new features that really makes the game a huge step forward. I think they retained the eeriness, atmosphere and built on that. I think they understood what fans like about the original RDR and gave us more RDR2. 

[rtie]

RDR 1 for me. 

I felt so uncumbered with the new game, whether it was the quasi-roleplay mechanics, the plot attaching you to your gang, or the linearity in mission design; I didn't get the freedom I wanted for a game set in the West.

Good game just disappointing. 

[Death]

Both are good in their own way

Edited August 9, 2019 by FearThoseWhoFearHim

[Secura]

I enjoy both but I'd say overall I prefer the first game, primarily because the 2nd's largest strength is it's narrative which only further enhances the first game's narrative.

 

If RDR 3 is Jack Marston's story set after the events of the original, then it will probably be my favourite on the sheer virtue of the story that had been told before it making it more enjoyable.

[~INDIO~]

I think I'd have to say RDR1, everything about that game is fantastic.

There were more fun shootouts and it was a true western.

 

RDR2 is a game I've been playing almost every day since release and I love it, but RDR1 just has something special that the 2nd one doesn't..

The physics of RDR1 are better, when you shoot people they fall backwards off their horses, rolling across the ground and it's satisfying as f*ck, whereas in 2 they just sit there for a second and then fall of sideways

It's things like that which make a game a lot more fun, and should be looked at more closely for the 3rd in my opinion.

Also, make enemies less accurate and revolvers more powerful

[Duhillestpunk]

I missed a handful of things from RDR.

- the ability to hold every weapon

- liars dice!

- the ability to shimmy

- being able to throw throwing knives while crouched

- the running felt fluid and looked great (RDR 2 and RDO running looks like pure weird sporadic sh*t)

- honour system (it felt better than in RDR 2)

+ more

 

RDR 2 improved on A LOT like

- the ability to buy clothes and change the jackets, pants, shirts, shoes, etc.

- the ability to swim (using that word lightly)

- the map was large and expansive just wish we could go into more interiors. Funny how the first one has or probably has more interiors than the second...

- Horse bonding

- the story (kinda just read what I have to say)

 

But.... I’d easily choose RDR 1s story over 2s because of all the retcons and continuity f*ck ups. That. That’s what made me not like the story mode as much as RDR 1s. Is it a great game like the first? Yeah without a doubt. But it did downgrade on something’s as well as.

[ReadDeadStu]

I think the games are different. RDR2 to me was like a big sprawling epic... but RDR1 was just like a straightforward thriller. I like both the games for those different reasons. 

[BoulderFaceplant]

There were some missteps in the story, particularly regarding how John conducts himself in Mexico, but generally RDR has a much more compelling narrative. On top of this, its missions are a lot more fun. 

 

Put it this way- if RDR had the mechanics and open world depth of RDR2, it would easily be the superior game. 

[brain_bank]

Rdr2 is better, as it was released in 2018 with better graphics, physics, and gameplay. Rdr1s story was better imo. But it sucks that u can’t cheat at poker, and since u can’t cheat at poker u can’t challenge someone to a duel, and there’s not unlimited bounties. Also, no story dlc. I really want undead nightmare 2

Edited July 1, 2020 by brain_bank