Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. Los Santos Tuners
      2. Updates
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Blood Money
      2. Frontier Pursuits
      3. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      4. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. GTA San Andreas

      1. Classic GTA SA
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    2. GTA Vice City

      1. Classic GTA VC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    3. GTA III

      1. Classic GTA III
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    6. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Announcements

      1. GTANet 20th Anniversary
    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

does anyone prefer RDR1 over the second?


7th Ward Charizard
 Share

Recommended Posts

billiejoearmstrong8

I haven't played RDR2 but I've watched a lot of it. I think the writing and story of RDR2 is even better than RDR1's and the graphics are obviously better, and I love the whole gang/camp dynamic, but I can tell I prefer the gameplay of RDR1. All the detail is very impressive but I think I'd feel bogged down with how you have to eat and bathe and look after your horse etc and things like the hunting being more complicated and it being harder to avoid getting in trouble with the law, I like the straightforwardness of 1's gameplay. I think the shooting and some other aspects of moving/action seem more satisfying in 1 as well, the physics seem more "free" and less choreographed similarly to GTA IV vs GTA V. 

Edited by billiejoearmstrong8
  • Like 2
  • Realistic Steak! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When looking at RDR1 videos, it makes me think that THIS is the gameplay I'd expect from GTA V. 

 

On-topic, hard for me to say. Story-wise I kind of like RDR1 better but gameplay-wise I can't really tell because I didn't play the 2nd and I didn't play much of the first either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

billiejoearmstrong8
20 minutes ago, Jeansowaty said:

When looking at RDR1 videos, it makes me think that THIS is the gameplay I'd expect from GTA V. 

 

 

That's how I felt when I played it for the first time recently lol. You've got the great physics and satisfying sound/feel of shooting, similarly to GTA IV, but with smoother movements and improved graphics. They achieved a perfect balance in a 2010 game but then threw away the whole first part by 2013. I really don't get it. 

Edited by billiejoearmstrong8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

That's how I felt when I played it for the first time recently lol. You've got the great physics and satisfying sound/feel of shooting, similarly to GTA IV, but with smoother movements and improved graphics. They achieved a perfect balance in a 2010 game but then threw away the whole first part by 2013. I really don't get it. 

Oh, you don't know how I wish we would have an alternate reality where GTA V would be released in a polished state in 2015 or something, and by 2012-13 we would receive a GTA Vice City 2 or some other spin-off running on RDR1's engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I'm in the minority here, but I prefer RDR 1 by leaps and bounds. Whilst I certainly had a lot of fun slowly working through RDR 2, I just feel like I couldn't bring myself to play through it again any time soon. I just couldn't play it for too long without becoming mentally fatigued. Maybe it is just too slow paced a game for my liking.

 

The original RDR on the other hand, I played through recently and just got lost in it again like I did in 2010. Hours and hours would pass and my 360 started heating up like the depths of hell. But I didn't want to put it down.

Edited by HOW'S ANNIE?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I prefer the story of 2. But overall For all of its grandeur the world of RDR2 doesn't feel as lived in as it should. it feels fake. I don't know. Somethings never sat right with me about RDR2. It is too cinematic at times, breaching an odd gap between wanting to watch, and wanting to play. The map is empty of activities when there could of been a much better utilization of the game world. I don't hate RDR2, but yeah... RDR1 was the better experience.

                                          

Liberty City - Alderney - Vice City - Los Santos - San Fierro

   Las Venturas - Cottonmouth Carcer City - Ludendorff

                                           Z

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer RDR1, I just don't see anything special about RDR2, tbh. RDR2 is too "colorful", it doesn't really feel like a "wild west" or a cowboy setting, IMO, RDR1 does a much better job in bring the feel of a western setting, at least based on all western movies I've seen. I also feel the gameplay is too clunky and sluggish in RDR2

 

On 7/10/2020 at 9:07 AM, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

They achieved a perfect balance in a 2010 game but then threw away the whole first part by 2013. I really don't get it. 

I guess the fact RDR1 and V were developed by different studios contributes to that "downgrade".

  • Like 1

                                       https://images2.imgbox.com/a0/47/6BfB1ljy_o.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been a few years since I last played through RDR1 but I do remember enjoying it more than 2. RDR2 grew on me the more I played it but RDR1 won my heart almost immediately. As an open world game, I think the sequel is better. As a story and experience, the first one because it seems more focused - perhaps because the player is alone most of the time and there are less characters to juggle. This isn't a criticism of RDR2 though. They are just different from each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Both are great in their own respect. Not much sense in comparing them imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I don't think Redemption 1 beats it's successor, but it's doing few thing better than Redemption 2:

 

- Mexico

- Duels

- Night & day cycle

- Weather transitions

Edited by Kubigz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

The retcons, plotholes, the stereotypical villains and the "pretty cowboy" image made RDR2 feel much more romanticized and fake than RDR1's story. Specially the Guarma chapter, which felt so unrealistic that it looks like something little Jack would write in his notebook. John and the army fighting rebels in mexico feels much more accurate than a bunch of Robinson Crusoe wannabes fighting the Cuban navy by themselves, then easily returning to USA. Also RDR2 didn't feel like a western at all, while RDR1 really feels like a wild west game. Those things made me like RDR1 more. And yes, i played RDR1 AFTER RDR2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

billiejoearmstrong8
3 hours ago, GuiCORLEONEx794 said:

The retcons, plotholes, the stereotypical villains and the "pretty cowboy" image made RDR2 feel much more romanticized and fake than RDR1's story. Specially the Guarma chapter, which felt so unrealistic that it looks like something little Jack would write in his notebook. John and the army fighting rebels in mexico feels much more accurate than a bunch of Robinson Crusoe wannabes fighting the Cuban navy by themselves, then easily returning to USA. Also RDR2 didn't feel like a western at all, while RDR1 really feels like a wild west game. Those things made me like RDR1 more. And yes, i played RDR1 AFTER RDR2.

Only thing I'd argue is I do think they did a very good job with linking the stories considering it's a prequel that shares a large number of characters and plot points and how complicated that can be. It's not perfect but there's so many examples where they paid impressively close attention or linked them in clever/cool ways and for the most part it flows together fine so I'm very happy with that aspect.

 

The main thing I think is better in RDR1 is the basic gameplay mechanics/physics. RDR2's level of detail and graphics are impressive but everything seems a lot more scripted and restrictive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Only thing I'd argue is I do think they did a very good job with linking the stories considering it's a prequel that shares a large number of characters and plot points and how complicated that can be. It's not perfect but there's so many examples where they paid impressively close attention or linked them in clever/cool ways and for the most part it flows together fine so I'm very happy with that aspect.

 

The main thing I think is better in RDR1 is the basic gameplay mechanics/physics. RDR2's level of detail and graphics are impressive but everything seems a lot more scripted and restrictive. 

Well, John going to New Austin even though he had never came to New Austin in RDR1, the barn in MacFarlane's ranch was supposed to be there since Bonnie was a little girl, but in 1907 the barn doesn't even exists, the cholera in Armadillo which was supposed to have ended before 1907. The fact that most of the buildings in Blackwater look completely different, John having blue eyes and black hair in the epilogue even though he has dark brown hair and dark eyes in RDR1.Also, Edgar Ross and Fordham found John in the ranch in the credits of RDR2 in 1907, (we can see Jack is still a kid), but for some reason, Ross and Fordham decides to sit on their asses and wait until 1911 to capture John's family. Javier in RDR1 mentions that John has a ranch but in RDR2 Javier never saw John's ranch. Javier also mentions John's daughter but in RDR2 we NEVER hear about her. How would Javier know John's daughter if she was born after 1907? Thieves Landing in RDR2 is basically nothing, but in RDR1 its a fully working town with a saloon, a tailor, a gunsmith, a general store and even a safehouse you can buy. All of that built in less than 4 years. Uncle in RDR2 feels like a goofy character to make repetitive lumgabo quotes but in RDR1 he is an angry, grumpy, lazy old man. Jack in RDR1 mentions that he remember the stories "Uncle Bill and Uncle Dutch" used to tell him, but in RDR2 he was only 4 years old when he was in the game.But anyway, these are a few of the plotholes and retcons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

billiejoearmstrong8
1 hour ago, GuiCORLEONEx794 said:

Well, John going to New Austin even though he had never came to New Austin in RDR1, the barn in MacFarlane's ranch was supposed to be there since Bonnie was a little girl, but in 1907 the barn doesn't even exists, the cholera in Armadillo which was supposed to have ended before 1907. The fact that most of the buildings in Blackwater look completely different, John having blue eyes and black hair in the epilogue even though he has dark brown hair and dark eyes in RDR1.Also, Edgar Ross and Fordham found John in the ranch in the credits of RDR2 in 1907, (we can see Jack is still a kid), but for some reason, Ross and Fordham decides to sit on their asses and wait until 1911 to capture John's family. Javier in RDR1 mentions that John has a ranch but in RDR2 Javier never saw John's ranch. Javier also mentions John's daughter but in RDR2 we NEVER hear about her. How would Javier know John's daughter if she was born after 1907? Thieves Landing in RDR2 is basically nothing, but in RDR1 its a fully working town with a saloon, a tailor, a gunsmith, a general store and even a safehouse you can buy. All of that built in less than 4 years. Uncle in RDR2 feels like a goofy character to make repetitive lumgabo quotes but in RDR1 he is an angry, grumpy, lazy old man. Jack in RDR1 mentions that he remember the stories "Uncle Bill and Uncle Dutch" used to tell him, but in RDR2 he was only 4 years old when he was in the game.But anyway, these are a few of the plotholes and retcons.

The going to New Austin thing and some of the extreme changes to towns do bother me, I'll give you that! But most of the other things are kind of trivial (more minor differences in buildings and appearances) and I think some can be explained. Ross and Fordham could've been waiting until they had a good lead on Dutch/Bill/Javier to move in on John, just keeping an eye on him until he was of maximum usefulness to them, or maybe had other plans to go after them that ended up not working out and then went to John. Is it maybe possible that Javier heard some info about John during the time between the games? Bit of a stretch but not totally unbelieveable. Uncle doesn't seem that different to me, they made more of his character in RDR2 but the basics of being lazy/making excuses and being known as a bit of a goofy character who likes to drink and tell stories was there in RDR1, could put down the extra grumpiness to being a bit older. A lot of people can remember things from being 4 (and in RDR2 we see that he did remember some stuff from back then when he was 12 in the epilogue) plus he might've been reminded of stories by Uncle. 

 

I agree it isn't perfect. But I think most of the wrong stuff isn't too major and it's made up for not only by the majority of stuff being right, but some extra nice little details they included like Dutch's whole "I have a plan" thing coming from a brief exchange with John in his final RDR1 scene ("you always had a plan Dutch"), John's continued inability to swim, Javier not really seeming like a bad guy in either game, getting to see the ranch house being built and John getting his famous outfit, Herbert Moon showing up again, just numerous things like that. Idk I just enjoy the way the games link together for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

 Idk I just enjoy the way the games link together for the most part.

At times that link comes off as a bit too forced. Javier and Bill e.g seems to play no significant role other than existing because of RDR1. 

 

20 minutes ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

but some extra nice little details they included like Dutch's whole "I have a plan" thing coming from a brief exchange with John in his final RDR1 scene ("you always had a plan Dutch")

"Little"? They kinda shoved it so deep in Dutch's character in RDR2 that it is now a meme! Possible case of flanderization if you ask me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

billiejoearmstrong8
12 minutes ago, Ryo256 said:

 

 

"Little"? They kinda shoved it so deep in Dutch's character in RDR2 that it is now a meme! Possible case of flanderization if you ask me.

They did possibly overdo it but I do enjoy that they took one throwaway line and ran with it as a main part of his character. Like, they could've just written the characters as they were years before without finding so many specific points to link like that. 

 

Also enjoyed that they reused his speech that time he escapes with Arthur. In RDR1 it just seems thoughtful and poetic but turns out it was recycled. Perfect reflection of Dutch (always pretending to be more impressive and original than he is) and realistic too, truth is lots of people say the same things over again.

Edited by billiejoearmstrong8
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

They did possibly overdo it but I do enjoy that they took one throwaway line and ran with it as a main part of his character. Like, they could've just written the characters as they were years before without finding so many specific points to link like that. 

 

Also enjoyed that they reused his speech that time he escapes with Arthur. In RDR1 it just seems thoughtful and poetic but turns out it was recycled. Perfect reflection of Dutch (always pretending to be more impressive and original than he is) and realistic too, truth is lots of people say the same things over again.

A lot of characters were pointless and wasted in rdr 2 though

 

Sean - just a funny guy

Lenny - appears in 2 missions then dies

Keiran the O'Driscoll - Captured in Chapter 1 and does nothing till Chapter 4 then dies

Bill, Javier - Big disappointments here. Expected these two to have a big part but they do nothing. Javier just plays the guitar lol.

Sadie - Terrible. Just becomes a killer out of nowhere and her missions in the end were just filler

Micah - Just bad from the start and that's it. There's nothing more to his character. Could have been written a lot better.

John doesn't do much either

 

Rest of the women in camp are all forgettable.

 

Could have been written a lot better and i think the praise for the story is undeserved. Only Arthur Dutch and Hosea were good charracters. And the O Driscolls were just generic lame antagonists.

Edited by StuntMaster100
  • Like 2
  • excuseme 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

billiejoearmstrong8
4 hours ago, StuntMaster100 said:

A lot of characters were pointless and wasted in rdr 2 though

 

Sean - just a funny guy

Lenny - appears in 2 missions then dies

Keiran the O'Driscoll - Captured in Chapter 1 and does nothing till Chapter 4 then dies

Bill, Javier - Big disappointments here. Expected these two to have a big part but they do nothing. Javier just plays the guitar lol.

Sadie - Terrible. Just becomes a killer out of nowhere and her missions in the end were just filler

Micah - Just bad from the start and that's it. There's nothing more to his character. Could have been written a lot better.

John doesn't do much either

 

Rest of the women in camp are all forgettable.

 

Could have been written a lot better and i think the praise for the story is undeserved. Only Arthur Dutch and Hosea were good charracters. And the O Driscolls were just generic lame antagonists.

Ehh I think if you take your time and see lots of camp interactions etc some of the characters seem better/more worthwhile, there's tons of side content with all of them. Sean does his job of being extremely entertaining, can't expect 20+ members of a violent gang to all live very long and both his and Lenny's (who you do see a lot more from if you include all side content) deaths are meaningful to the story imo (the shock of Sean's telling you sh*t's getting real, the last hopes for the gang dying with Hosea's wisdom and Lenny's youthful hope and intelligence). Wouldn't say Sadie just becomes a killer out of nowhere when she'd gone through such an extreme traumatic event. I think Micah's good, yeah he's one sided in terms of being nasty but he's got a charm to him, the actor gave a great performance and I didn't necessarily think he'd really be a villain in the end just because he was a dick. I would've liked more Bill and Javier but I don't mind too much, you barely see them at all in RDR1 so it was still a big expansion/insight into their characters. John does plenty considering he isn't the main character, he has the whole epilogue so more would've been a bit much. I didn't find Susan, Karen or Abigail forgettable. Colm was a decent antagonist with a very compelling death imo and the twist of Kieran ending up with the gang was interesting.

 

Again not saying the story is perfect but I really like it, I think it's well written, well acted and I like almost all the gang members.

Edited by billiejoearmstrong8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, StuntMaster100 said:

A lot of characters were pointless and wasted in rdr 2 though

 

Sean - just a funny guy

Lenny - appears in 2 missions then dies

Keiran the O'Driscoll - Captured in Chapter 1 and does nothing till Chapter 4 then dies

Bill, Javier - Big disappointments here. Expected these two to have a big part but they do nothing. Javier just plays the guitar lol.

Sadie - Terrible. Just becomes a killer out of nowhere and her missions in the end were just filler

Micah - Just bad from the start and that's it. There's nothing more to his character. Could have been written a lot better.

John doesn't do much either

 

Rest of the women in camp are all forgettable.

 

Could have been written a lot better and i think the praise for the story is undeserved. Only Arthur Dutch and Hosea were good charracters. And the O Driscolls were just generic lame antagonists.

Ynnel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Ehh I think if you take your time and see lots of camp interactions etc some of the characters seem better/more worthwhile, there's tons of side content with all of them

IMO I haven't seen anything as meaningful as Stranger missions and hangouts from GTA IV. Even V's hangouts had more meaningful dialogues compared to what you see on camp interactions.

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Sean does his job of being extremely entertaining,

I was beginning to like Sean until they abruptly killed him, I never quite got to truly like him to really care about his death. But why I kinda liked him is no accident but explaining that would need more elaboration.

 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

can't expect 20+ members of a violent gang to all live very long

Somehow Sadie, the most violent one......survived.....

 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

the shock of Sean's telling you sh*t's getting real

Because people dying in prologues and being hunted wasn't a sign of sh*t getting real?
 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

the last hopes for the gang dying with Hosea's wisdom

Which was mostly ignored and wasn't he the one that got us involved in the Braithwaite/Gray mess? Not the wisest guy we had.

 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

 Wouldn't say Sadie just becomes a killer out of nowhere when she'd gone through such an extreme traumatic event.

I was kinda okay with it until she pulled out the "me and my husband did work equally" after her trauma, at that moment I realized, it was gonna be a forced female empowerment trope. If trauma had changed her into a violent woman it made sense but it seems like she was kinda violent to begin with?

 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I think Micah's good, yeah he's one sided in terms of being nasty but he's got a charm to him, the actor gave a great performance and I didn't necessarily think he'd really be a villain in the end just because he was a dick.

Agreed.

 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Lenny's youthful hope and intelligence

Too bad he died like a random NPC. Poor boy didn't even get a cutscene.

 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

 I would've liked more Bill and Javier but I don't mind too much, you barely see them at all in RDR1 so it was still a big expansion/insight into their characters.

You barely "see" them here either. They just function as generic henchman #1 and #2.
 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

John does plenty considering he isn't the main character, he has the whole epilogue so more would've been a bit much.

He does a lot yes but a lot of meaningful stuff? Debatable. 
 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Abigail

Generic nagging wife.
 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Karen

Generic troublemaking girl.
 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Susan

Generic bossy woman.

Also I think you missed about two more girls in there. Pretty forgettable if you ask me.
 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Colm was a decent antagonist with a very compelling death imo

Forgettable villain but the presentation of death was praiseworthy.
 

 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

the twist of Kieran ending up with the gang was interesting.

Same case with Sean. You come around to liking him almost....almost and he dies. Again it's no accident why I liked him because Rockstar was doing something right regarding Sean and Kieran but cut them short based on bad habits they learned since GTA V.
 

1 hour ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Again not saying the story is perfect but I really like it, I think it's well written, well acted and I like almost all the gang members.

And I personally find it to be half-decent story, well acted yes but mostly a forgettable cast other than Dutch and Arthur.
 

Edited by Ryo256
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/27/2020 at 3:04 PM, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

Ehh I think if you take your time and see lots of camp interactions etc some of the characters seem better/more worthwhile, there's tons of side content with all of them. Sean does his job of being extremely entertaining, can't expect 20+ members of a violent gang to all live very long and both his and Lenny's (who you do see a lot more from if you include all side content) deaths are meaningful to the story imo (the shock of Sean's telling you sh*t's getting real, the last hopes for the gang dying with Hosea's wisdom and Lenny's youthful hope and intelligence). Wouldn't say Sadie just becomes a killer out of nowhere when she'd gone through such an extreme traumatic event. I think Micah's good, yeah he's one sided in terms of being nasty but he's got a charm to him, the actor gave a great performance and I didn't necessarily think he'd really be a villain in the end just because he was a dick. I would've liked more Bill and Javier but I don't mind too much, you barely see them at all in RDR1 so it was still a big expansion/insight into their characters. John does plenty considering he isn't the main character, he has the whole epilogue so more would've been a bit much. I didn't find Susan, Karen or Abigail forgettable. Colm was a decent antagonist with a very compelling death imo and the twist of Kieran ending up with the gang was interesting.

 

Again not saying the story is perfect but I really like it, I think it's well written, well acted and I like almost all the gang members.

Agree to disagree I thought it was mostly poorly written apart from Arthur and Dutch and the other characters were forgettable. Well acted? That's expected from these big budget games isn't it?. Gta 5 was well acted too. 

Despite being so long RDR 2 fails to develop the other characters well. Keiran and Lenny could have been great characters if they had longer roles. Instead of Sean and Sadie they could have developed Bill and Javier. Sadie becoming a killer doesn't make sense really -- people don't just turn into killers like that after a loved one dies. She shouldn't have survived till the end either. She was a forced strong female character that's all. 

 

 

On 11/28/2020 at 12:33 AM, RenegadeAngel said:

I agree on Bill and Javier, not interesting whatsoever. Lenny though... Well, his death hit me right in the feels. I was convinced he's going to play a significant part later on in the story, really got into the guy. Sadie I partly agree on. I had completely forgotten of her existence up until she popped up in one of the chapters all angry about doing chores around the camp. Took me the entire mission to remember who she was lmao, but she turned out to be alright. About the women in the camp, I think, essentially their only plot function was to create the sense of community in the camp. Not every character must be essential to the main plot(in games that is)

 

Lenny's death was poorly done though. There should've been a cutscene for his death like for Hosea. And Arthur doesn't even talk about him after that. And the Guarma stuff was just bad after that.

 

I wish Lenny had a longer part but he's just there in 2 missions then dies. Didn't really care about him. What do we know about Lenny? Nothing at all.

Edited by StuntMaster100
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

billiejoearmstrong8
23 minutes ago, StuntMaster100 said:

Agree to disagree I thought it was mostly poorly written apart from Arthur and Dutch and the other characters were forgettable. Well acted? That's expected from these big budget games isn't it?. Gta 5 was well acted too. 

Despite being so long RDR 2 fails to develop the other characters well. Keiran and Lenny could have been great characters if they had longer roles. Instead of Sean and Sadie they could have developed Bill and Javier. Sadie becoming a killer doesn't make sense really -- people don't just turn into killers like that after a loved one dies. She shouldn't have survived till the end either. She was a forced strong female character that's all. 

 

 

 

Lenny's death was poorly done though. There should've been a cutscene for his death like for Hosea. And Arthur doesn't even talk about him after that. And the Guarma stuff was just bad after that.

 

I wish Lenny had a longer part but he's just there in 2 missions then dies. Didn't really care about him. What do we know about Lenny? Nothing at all.

I will also agree to disagree since I just enjoy it and I'm not going to convince someone else to if they don't lol. 

 

But Lenny isn't only there for 2 missions. He's there in the camp the whole time and if you see his camp conversations and other side stuff you learn much more about him. I also think it was deliberate that he didn't get a "proper" death scene, and that his death was "too early". He was killed in the middle of craziness and the fact no one had time to stop or think about it or mourn him, along with it feeling unfairly before his time, is what made it particularly sad and impactful (as well as being a dose of realism). It wasn't an accident that they did it that way, that moment of Arthur/the player agonisingly just having to immediately leave him and move on without the usual expected cutscene was an alternative "special" death moment for him, not an oversight.

Edited by billiejoearmstrong8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I will also agree to disagree since I just enjoy it and I'm not going to convince someone else to if they don't lol. 

 

But Lenny isn't only there for 2 missions. He's there in the camp the whole time and if you see his camp conversations and other side stuff you learn much more about him. I also think it was deliberate that he didn't get a "proper" death scene, and that his death was "too early". He was killed in the middle of craziness and the fact no one had time to stop or think about it or mourn him, along with it feeling unfairly before his time, is what made it particularly sad and impactful (as well as being a dose of realism). It wasn't an accident that they did it that way, that moment of Arthur/the player agonisingly just having to immediately leave him and move on without the usual expected cutscene was an alternative "special" death moment for him, not an oversight.

What do you learn about him in the camp?

As for the death scene i thought it didn't have much of an impact because he was never close to Arthur. Hosea gets a cutscene because he was close to Arthur and his death is meant to be shocking. With Lenny Rockstar didn't put in effort to develop him.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

billiejoearmstrong8
55 minutes ago, StuntMaster100 said:

What do you learn about him in the camp?

As for the death scene i thought it didn't have much of an impact because he was never close to Arthur. Hosea gets a cutscene because he was close to Arthur and his death is meant to be shocking. With Lenny Rockstar didn't put in effort to develop him.

You just hear more about his background and see more of his character. His father was a former slave (he has some stories about that) but educated and tried his best to make sure he was educated too, but he was killed when he was like 14 so then he was on his own and fell in with crime. He's rightfully angry about how life was for his father and subsequently him and how things are in society. He likes to read and is clearly the most intellectual person in the camp, can easily out-debate Dutch (who can really only repeat other people's ideas) but is polite about it since he respects/has gratitude to him, tries to teach Sean to read, and is encouraged by Hosea to pursue education and get a real career instead of sticking with them, so he has kind of a conflict where he's glad to be doing well for the gang but knows his father would want him to aspire to more and that he probably could. And just some other little details like stories he tells, how he had a crush on that girl Jenny who was killed and stuff. There's quite a lot of stuff to flesh out his character in the side content, same is true for several other characters as well (for example Javier and Bill). 

 

He wasn't that close to Arthur but it was still sad for players who were attached to him, or just knowing he's the youngest in the gang and was intelligent and could've done so much better in life. Everyone's like oh man Lenny deserved a cutscene but I think that was the point, not even having time to stop for a cutscene or to mourn afterwards because of everything going on made his death worse for the player.

Edited by billiejoearmstrong8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

I will also agree to disagree since I just enjoy it and I'm not going to convince someone else to if they don't lol. 

 

But Lenny isn't only there for 2 missions. He's there in the camp the whole time and if you see his camp conversations and other side stuff you learn much more about him. I also think it was deliberate that he didn't get a "proper" death scene, and that his death was "too early". He was killed in the middle of craziness and the fact no one had time to stop or think about it or mourn him, along with it feeling unfairly before his time, is what made it particularly sad and impactful (as well as being a dose of realism). It wasn't an accident that they did it that way, that moment of Arthur/the player agonisingly just having to immediately leave him and move on without the usual expected cutscene was an alternative "special" death moment for him, not an oversight.

Actually no because they still script that moment enough to waste your time to check his body but what really takes me out of the scene is just how bad the voice acting in that scene too. Lenny takes his sweet time getting shot and Arthur will start cursing right away when he get shot. Dutch will be like:

wKgDv3V.png

While everyone run away in same animation (except Javier). The thing is that Lenny only stands out because of the forced script sequence, but sadly he dies like a random NPC. Something like Lenny getting trapped and hearing him getting shot multiple time from the other side of the wall could be more impactful but....no. When a game overuses cutscenes to emphasize scenes, the scenes not having any would come off as sloppy. And honestly it's not like you go back and collect Hosea either lol. You left him too yet he still get a cutscene (which also pretty bad at its job but hey atleast Rockstar put effort).
 

17 hours ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

You just hear more about his background and see more of his character. His father was a former slave (he has some stories about that) but educated and tried his best to make sure he was educated too, but he was killed when he was like 14 so then he was on his own and fell in with crime. He's rightfully angry about how life was for his father and subsequently him and how things are in society. He likes to read and is clearly the most intellectual person in the camp, can easily out-debate Dutch (who can really only repeat other people's ideas) but is polite about it since he respects/has gratitude to him, tries to teach Sean to read, and is encouraged by Hosea to pursue education and get a real career instead of sticking with them, so he has kind of a conflict where he's glad to be doing well for the gang but knows his father would want him to aspire to more and that he probably could. And just some other little details like stories he tells, how he had a crush on that girl Jenny who was killed and stuff. There's quite a lot of stuff to flesh out his character in the side content, same is true for several other characters as well (for example Javier and Bill). 

 

He wasn't that close to Arthur but it was still sad for players who were attached to him, or just knowing he's the youngest in the gang and was intelligent and could've done so much better in life. Everyone's like oh man Lenny deserved a cutscene but I think that was the point, not even having time to stop for a cutscene or to mourn afterwards because of everything going on made his death worse for the player.

Problem is that the game, just like GTA V, talks more than it just shows. Mary Linton is probably the worst offender of this. Whole talk about Arthur liking her brother, convincing her difficult father, almost married to Arthur, now dead husband blah blah blah, why should I as a player care? We need meaningful information, when Niko talks about his past, we use that to understand how he is today. When Trevor talks about how he met Michael, again it tells us about their relationship. This is useful stuff but not this whole throw-information-out there until it sticks in the player mind approach. To develop characters, they need character arcs, where their conflicts are highlighted, they are given moments to make choices and face the conclusion of that. Lenny did not get that, most RDR2 character just got a "Did you know?" in a fancy way.

Edited by Ryo256
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ryo256 said:

Actually no because they still script that moment enough to waste your time to check his body but what really takes me out of the scene is just how bad the voice acting in that scene too. Lenny takes his sweet time getting shot and Arthur will start cursing right away when he get shot.

Lenny faces Arthur while running forward when the two Pinkerton show up on the roof, he had no chance to escape.

 

Lenny's death had a deep impact on me the first time I experienced it. The rawness of it, seeing one of Arthur's best buddies being shot like that, without any glory or fanfare. I felt the chaos, a sense of insecurity for the rest of the mission that a proper cutscene wouldn't have achieved in my opinion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Alexlecj said:

Lenny faces Arthur while running forward when the two Pinkerton show up on the roof, he had no chance to escape.

Actually if you run fast enough as Arthur, you can reach him but you will blocked by the script for a good 2 seconds. I even tried to see if I can do a Deadeye in that time but nope. And that IMO breaks the immersion of that scene. You can do split-second counter in so many scenes including knocking the gun out of Mary's brother in his story mission but you can't save Lenny. So Lenny died because Rockstar wanted, not because there was no way to save him.

 

18 minutes ago, Alexlecj said:

Lenny's death had a deep impact on me the first time I experienced it. The rawness of it, seeing one of Arthur's best buddies being shot like that, without any glory or fanfare. I felt the chaos, a sense of insecurity for the rest of the mission that a proper cutscene wouldn't have achieved in my opinion.

I mean if you had time to mediate on it, maybe. But my Arthur quickly went into running and trying to see if he can make the jump across the ledge with no pain in his voice of what just recently happened. Everybody around me just don't care either it seems. Remember how broken Dutch sounded in prologue after the failed boat heist? Nothing of that sort happens. I guess people attached to Lenny because of the drunk mission. Good kid that didn't need to die I guess but due to the long gap between those missions, I didn't care much for Lenny by then. 

Now there a few interesting points you stated.
 

27 minutes ago, Alexlecj said:

seeing one of Arthur's best buddies being shot like that

Arthur doesn't spend a lot of time with Lenny so I wouldn't say they are that close. You might argue that it is told they are close but I'm more interested in seeing that bond.  Getting drunk together was a good one but again like I mentioned the mission gap issue as if Rockstar stopped developing characters midway.
 

29 minutes ago, Alexlecj said:

without any glory or fanfare. I felt the chaos, a sense of insecurity for the rest of the mission that a proper cutscene wouldn't have achieved in my opinion.

And yet Arthur has the most comprehensive death scene. Perhaps Arthur shouldn't have gone in glory and fanfare either to drive the RDR2's point? But that didn't happen. John Marston had a pretty well cutscene too. Both raw and proper.  Game developers know how to make emphasis on something through these techniques. My problem with Lenny's scene in that regard is that it's neither raw enough (like e.g how ME2 character drop in the suicide mission) and it's not proper enough either because of the bad scripting involved. But honestly even if I do agree that Lenny's death was good enough, I guess the underlying issue is that Lenny isn't really that memorable of a character for me personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

billiejoearmstrong8

It's not that having no glory and fanfare automatically makes a death more impactful than a long cutscene one. It's just a method they used to make that specific death impactful. It worked because it was a twist, a gang member dying without even time for a cutscene isn't something you expect and it feels unfair and heartwrenching to just have to move on. Whereas Arthur's death scene is impactful in other ways. 

 

There's examples where they just didn't bother to do much with someone's death for no real good reason in Rockstar games and could've done it better (one example would be Ray Boccino in GTA IV). But I think Lenny's death is done the way it is very deliberately. 

Edited by billiejoearmstrong8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, billiejoearmstrong8 said:

It's not that having no glory and fanfare automatically makes a death more impactful than a long cutscene one. It's just a method they used to make that specific death impactful. It worked because it was a twist, a gang member dying without even time for a cutscene isn't something you expect and it feels unfair and heartwrenching to just have to move on. Whereas Arthur's death scene is impactful in other ways. 

 

There's examples where they just didn't bother to do much with someone's death for no real good reason in Rockstar games and could've done it better (one example would be Ray Boccino in GTA IV). But I think Lenny's death is done the way it is very deliberately. 

I understand your perspective but I don't share your feelings about it. If we think about Johnny K's death, I admitted before that it is effective in giving a strong introduction to Trevor. That is an example of how an important character gets a shocking low-value death. Problem with Lenny is that, the way it is done is sloppy as I argued earlier about the timing, the scripting and what not. Secondly Lenny isn't a character that matters. He's not written extensively, he doesn't play a major role in the story. You may like him but you know when you give a raw death to someone like that, it comes off forgettable. I guess the problem is that Rockstar thought too highly of their characters. Hence why some argue that Lenny's death was too early. Because R* didn't prep the goat enough for the slaughter.

Edited by Ryo256
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.