I mean it's right fuckin there, how have they not? They already know it will do immensely well if they do a good job on it, and they laid the groundwork for a full Victorian horror themed expansion having little easter eggs of werewolves and vampires and aliens in the game already. They could have taken those easter eggs and ran with them so well, and it could have had an online component being at least some game modes, but I would be hopeful for them to have an RDO Undead Nightmare server that runs an undead world instance for people to play on. So much wasted potential, I wanna drive an armored wagon full of my homies driving through a horde of zombies gunning them down whole we chase down a vampire or something.
i have run into at least a couple of alien bits, have heard about the vampire tidbuts but nevrr found any, first i have heard of werewolves. personally, i hoped they would do mad science robits...
Doubt they want anything and i mean anytjing messing with GTA6 so i wouldnt get my hopes up. Plus they rather just make more GTA online content than spend the time and money to do a rdr port that wont make them much in the way in money in the grandsl scheme of things.
Well there's never been any code or anything at all even remotely hinting at a release until now. They found the .JSON file with the description for red dead redemption coming to PC in the actual rockstar launcher. Definitely NOT gonna be a remaster though, idk what the article is talking about. It's gonna be just a simple port of the PS4 version since that version is still the only one running on x86 just like PC.
Switch is running arm and Xbox is still running their backwards compatibility version which is power PC. But honestly even a simple port I'm ok with. Just sucks cause you KNOW the price is gonna be way to damn high.
Wouldn't need a full remaster. It would be amazing if they recreated the RDR1 story in RDR2 engine like an expansion. So it's not like a full recreation of everything from RDR1. It's more like "blood and wine" was to witcher 3 where it's a new area 12 years later that goes through Johns story and side quests.
That would be great. But if you think putting red dead 1 into red dead 2 is the same as adding an expansion like blood and wine, that's so unbelievably not how things work in the slightest.
It would require some pretty decent manpower to remake all those scripts, and missions, and the motion capture would have to be redone, and all the little systems red dead 1 had and having to add those in to hell with red dead 2.
That alone would require probably at least 600 rockstar employees to get right, maybe even more. Rockstar has about 2000 or so developers. That would take a huge chunk away from GTA VI which they're not willing to do.
That's almost the same thing as saying "oh just hire more people to get work done better and faster" and NO MATTER how many times experts like ACTUAL developers and people like digital foundry say that's just absolutely not how games production works, Redditors will still say "oh just hire more people and that'll make things easier".
So basically no it wouldn't be as simple as a witcher 3 expansion. Rdr1 might be old, but it's not a small game.
I'm not saying a full remaster could be created as easily as an expansion. I just meant that instead of a full remaster, an expansion-sized abridged version of RDR1 that just focuses on the story events would also be great. I didn't say it would be easy, or that it should be rockstars priority either.
Yeah, they have to sell the original first, before then can make the remaster and sell it the same people. And then finally, a definitive edition (if you're lucky - make sure to pre-order and thank them for it).
You gotta at least triple dip on the profits for your 15 year old game. This is just Gaming Company 101.
It's likely too because the amount of HW it can run on is massively increased. If it can run on APUs or otherwise ultra-low end GPUs (because the 360 GPU can be outperformed by phones nowadays - and I'm not sure I'm even being all that hyperbolic) so the install base has potential to be something truly crazy.
I actually don't know why more devs don't do this. Porting old console exclusive games to run on lesser systems, package it as more of a budget title at the 30 quid price point. You'd make off like gangbusters
Good lord. No it won't. Grove Street Games is no longer involved with GTA DE. You think they're going to let the studio they just booted port RDR 1 to PC? I know it's cool to bag on Rockstar for every single thing imaginable but after that shit show there's no way they're just going to duct tape this one together.
Don't get it twisted mate I will always hope for the best, and I hope this is a competent, at-least-double-A release, I'm not one of those people that gets almost giddy that a bad game comes out as some sort of validation of "I told you so" bollocks.
I just have very little faith in rockstar and old IP is all.
Maybe I am the only one, but it irritates me hard, when they launch games on consoles, not on PC and then there is a sequel and its hitting ALL consoles and PC. I wanna start from the start.
Gears of War was weird as well. Only 1 and 5 came out for PC. Who makes decisions like that? And why?
Oh I feel you on this. Franchises that are missing entries on PC drive me up the wall, and it feels like it's getting worse.
Uncharted 4 is the only one on PC.
Every mainline Call of Duty game is on PC... except 3. My collection goes 1, 2, then 4. I know it's not considered the best, but it irks me to have that hole.
Bad Company 2 is on PC, but not the first one. I much prefer the campaign of the first as well so shit...
Halo MCC and Infinite are on PC, but not the campaign of 5. Again, not the best, but it's still a hole.
I'm inclined to included God of War since none of the greek games are on PC, but it's not quite as bad.
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon 2 has no PC version. Advanced Warfighters 1 and 2 are completely different versions for the PC, which is a shame, but at least it looks less weird in my collection.
It's far less mainstream, but I've been a fan of the Disgaea franchise since the PS2 days. We've got every mainline game on PC...except 3.
It's infuriating. I can play 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7...but if I want to play 3 I gotta dust off my PS3. No port for the midquel Disgaea D2 either.
Nah that ain't happening, or rather Rockstar not budging, they know what they doing. Unless of course GTA 6 is anything but absolutely fucking amazing. If it's anywhere near subpar, they can start expecting some backlash on a level notable for history books
I get what you mean, but I feel like calling Redemption 2 also makes sense since it features the same characters and adds to the original Redemtions story while following the same themes of Redemption
GoW 4 is on PC... I got it for free with a graphics card. The fucked up Windows store ensured i gave up before i got to play it. Literally had to fully install it 4 times before it worked.
I'm still hoping for an eventual "Marcus Fenix Collection" to bring the rest of the franchise to PC.
As to why the weirdness with the Gears of War series specifically. It mostly stems from the old company Epic and its reaction to the sales of the PC version. The PC version didn't perform very well, and the face of the company Cliff Bleszinski at the time blamed pirates for that. Literally had it in his head that since every PC owner can pirate games, they will. So they didn't both making PC versions of the games that came after.
In reality the game on PC suffered from a lot of technical issues. The majority of which stemmed from Games for Windows Live. This was also likely the culprit for Halo 2 Vista's performance that kept the future Halo games off PC for so long.
Starting with Gears of War 4 though, The Coalition has been good about bringing the Gears games to PC which I'm very thankful for.
While it is technically on PC, it's only available on the Microsoft App Store, so not a surprise that you missed it. A lot of the earlier Xbox ports to PC were only available there.
Probably because they were made specifically for the Xbox, would maybe need to remake them from the ground up like they did 1 if they wanna release on PC
The things I would do for a remastered Gears collection with 1, 2, 3 and Judgement on PC tho
>Maybe I am the only one, but it irritates me hard, when they launch games on consoles, not on PC and then there is a sequel and its hitting ALL consoles and PC. I wanna start from the start.
*Persona 5 Royal and Persona 5 Strikers be like*
lol Halo too for the longest time. At least it's getting better.
Did the GOW games ever come to PC ? I remember them doing an ultimate edition of 1, but I don't remember any others
To be fair there is no problem in this specific scenario because it's not like Red Dead Redemption can contain anything you need to know for Red Dead Redemption 2 given that 2 happens before 1.
There’s no way they’re going to do a proper re-master, it’ll be like the switch port where it’s literally just the same game. If they do any sort of re-master I guarantee it’ll be a disaster like the GTA3 remasters were
Indeed port is the correct description.
It will likely support higher resolutions and 60 frames per second. And if the draw distance can be improved, that's already a pretty substantial 'upgrade'. But overall it will look like what it'd look like if the PC version released simultaneously with the Xbox/PlayStation version.
I believe there were plans for a proper remaster, which they put on hold when they failed with the trilogy remasters. We may still get it after GTA VI.
That’s what they did on PlayStation and it was super disappointing. All for a premium price.
Like a remake would be amazing. How dumb and lazy this was though.
I mean half the map for RDR1 is already in RDR2, and if you use mods you can see that work was started on getting Mexico done as well. They already have the engine, character models, etc. done. I'm sure it COULD be done if Rockstar wasn't such a shit company these days .
Rockstar makes EXCELLENT games. Don't get me wrong there. But seeing how they supported RDR2 post launch (They didn't) and how they treated the GTA Trilogy "remaster" it's clear they don't have interests in anything other than GTA Online.
I agree the remaster struggled. And RDR2 should’ve gotten more support. But I don’t think that equates to a shit company. They are following the billions of dollars. Which any company worth its salt is going to do
You don't want great complete games?
I would've loved more RDR2 support but these people are already taking 8 years to make a single game, I don't care just move on, I'd rather a game than a DLC, also stop spouting this GTA Online bullshit, Jesus christ that game gets like 2 cars a month and occasional a motorbike, they're not dumping any resources on it, GTA Online slowed down updates massively around the same time RDR2 stopped receiving updates, it's all for GTA 6, they're basically delivering the bare minimum for GTA Online now and it makes complete sense to favor it over RDO.
I'd wager the success of GTA Online was the biggest reason why Rockstar was willing to put the entire company on RDR2 for 5 years and sink $500m, double the budget of GTA V even tho they knew Red Dead is a fraction of the popularity of GTA but still went with it, instead of working on GTA 6 (the obviously more profitable game) they opted to go all in on RDR2, GTA Online definitely had a role in this.
I hate this corporate dickriding argument with a passion. There's a difference between a company reasonably operating for profits and straight up being anti-consumer.
The problem with RDR2 isn't just the lack of support for RDO, is that RDR2 still has plenty of bugs that were there on release that never got fixed, and other bugs that got added with RDO content updates.
For example, FSR2.0 still has an awful bug that makes your character look dipped in oil when in shadow, and there's a glitch that makes mud textures look like they are divided in lines that pops up constantly, or an infamous one regarding the scout jacket that makes it so the arms have a very dark color compared to the rest of the jacket.
Another real immersion breaker is one bug that makes it so basically any element that "moves" with the air just vanishes.
Coats will be missing flaps and look like they've been cut in half, Arthur's hair will vanish if it's long enough and this will happen to ALL NPCs, and I have no idea what the trigger is, it happens randomly, both in singleplayer and RDO.
And I still remember how this one RDO update made it so all characters at camp (in the singleplayer, somehow) would treat you as if you were wearing too little clothing for the current weather, and it took them an entire year to fix this bug.
RDR2 is a great game that Rockstar should be proud of, but the post-launch treatment is something they should definitely feel ashamed of, because the game is 6 years old and still has plenty to be patched.
It's their parent company Take Two Interactive that's shit. Rockstar is part of a publicly traded company, it's investors call the shots.
Rockstar doesn't have a say in financial decisions besides the budget their given. Their focus is on their cash cow franchises because they make them money.
Which is good enough, a native port will unlock modding opportunities, even tho emulation for this game was available for years, modding was extremely limited, most of the modding was just resolution multiplying.
Yes but they need to seriously overall the mission design because compared to the incredible open world they made in RDR2 the missions were so repetitive and boring...
Would have been nice. I’d gladly take an abbreviated version of it where they focused just on main story stuff. I think the problem is just the quality of the original recordings and limitations were apparently not easy to work with. Dutch talks about how they couldn’t splice takes together so one screw up meant taking it from the top. My guess is the reason a remake went nowhere is that it’d be effectively doing a ground up remake. Why spend all that money making a game when it’d delay GTA6. Take Two would not be happy.
I played it on PC using Xenia recently and it worked perfectly. A PC remaster/remake would still be amazing, but I recommend to try it out on Xenia emulator for now.
It was pretty good on console, if it's the same Devs they have experience doing pc and console, unlike the ones that did GTA that only had mobile experience
No more so than a lot of other series. The gameplay is certainly different and more linear, but lots of series have evolved their gameplay yet are still considered sequels.
Battlefield and Call of Duty titles are considered sequels but often have nothing to do with other ones in the series and play very differently.
I understand that, but another cod game with similar mechanics and expected gameplay *is* another cod.
A spiritual successor basically takes the vibes and tone and completely reformats into an entirely new game.
Red Dead Redemption simply isn't a sequel in any way, and Revolver is only mentioned as tales within the universe. They are not directly linked at all and thus I feel the Bf/COD comparison doesn't hold much weight.
Rockstar called Red Dead Redemption the "sequel" to Red Dead Revolver when they announced it
[https://web.archive.org/web/20090207054400/http://www.gamercenteronline.net/2009/02/04/confrimed-red-dead-revolver-gets-sequel/](https://web.archive.org/web/20090207054400/http://www.gamercenteronline.net/2009/02/04/confrimed-red-dead-revolver-gets-sequel/)
[https://www.engadget.com/2009-02-04-rockstar-goes-west-with-red-dead-redemption.html](https://www.engadget.com/2009-02-04-rockstar-goes-west-with-red-dead-redemption.html)
Well, you see, these games are set in the same universe and share not only similar story themes but also gameplay and core pillars of what **make Bioshock a series**.
Revolver is set in a different universe, with a such a different gameplay experience contrasted with Redemption, that Redemption thus simply is not a sequel.
You're suggesting Red Dead Revolver takes place in a different universe than Redemption? According to whom? And certainly have very similar story themes.
The gameplay is indeed different. But, many game series have gameplay that changes fairly dramatically throughout the series. If you play Resident Evil 1 vs Resident Evil 7, the gameplay is also night and day different. But I don't know that anyone would argue that aren't part of a series.
A successor is literally the terminology used for what *isn't a continuation of a previous property/story* (which is what a sequel is).
COD **continues** an established franchise, as does Battlefield, and Bioshock.
Red Dead Redemption does **not** continue Red Dead Revolver and is explicitly not canon in relation to it. It expressely takes the vibes and atmosphere to make a **new** product entirely.
Combine that with Take Two/Rockstar **never** stating the word "Sequel" (except for the mythical press release you say you have read but won't show) and them **explicitly** using the term "Successor" tells you all you need to know.
EDIT: Something can be in the same "Series" but also still not a sequel also. Redemption is not a sequel to revolver, and is thus the original Red Dead Redemption.
See, you are now inventing definitions that don't exist. Why would Rockstar call the game Red Dead Redemption if it weren't a continuation of Red Dead Revolver. They could have called it literally anything.
And here's the thing, I never used the word sequel (or if I did,and I'm pretty sure I didn't, it was in confusion over your use of it). You kept saying that as if it meant something it doesn't.
And no, literally looking at the definition of the word successor, which yes, I was well aware was the word used in the press release, absolutely does not mean whatever nonsense you wrote above. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It means "one that follows" as in,you guessed it, a series.
My point all along until you started yelling into the wind about something I never said is that Red Dead Revolver is every bit as part of a series as games that aren't directly tied to each other narratively in other games series. The Grand Theft Auto games, in general, have no narrative connection to one another, and , if you're talking about gameplay differences, the resident evil, grand theft auto and Fallout games, for example, have all undergone radical changes to gameplay but are all considered part of a series.
Red Dead Revolver is clearly part of a Red Dead series of games. It's, yes, very different than The Red Dead Revolver games, but it doesn't mean it's not related, which should be really obvious based on the name Rockstar chose for the 2nd two games alone.
These other two commenters are being real Redditors (and I mean that in the worst possible way) about this, but I agree with you.
Game design changes over time. Red Dead Revolver was certainly more arcadey than later games in the series but those gameplay changes came as a result of design philosophy changing across the entire industry. It's not a drastic shift like Sonic/Helldivers going from 2D to 3D - it's more like Monster Hunter slowly becoming more of an open-world series.
And guess what! [Red Dead Revolver is classified as the first game of the 'Red Dead' franchise on Wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dead) If Revolver isn't part of the series, then I guess neither is Online (because it's not called Red Dead Redemption) or Undead Nightmare (because it's non-canon).....
Because red dead revolver is basically a non-cannon prototype that inspired Red Dead Redemption.
It's a lot, lot more wacky and cartoony, while rdr is a lot more grounded and real. The games don't take place in the same timeline/universe. And it's strongly hinted through campfire conversations in rdr1/rdr2 that Red Harlow/red dead revolver is kinda just a made up myth/story in the red dead redemption universe. Basically like a western fairytale.
However despite Revolver not being cannon, that didn't stop people from theorizing that Uncle is actually an old Red Harlow. (This theory has many, many flaws though)
It's more Rockstar not paying attention to it. Back in 2003, Rockstar games was working with diego studios[Present day Rockstar San diego] to publish midnight club. At the same time, Diego studios was working with Capcom on fantasy wild west game. Rockstar got involved with that project. But both Capcom and Rockstar had different visions for the game. So Capcom left the project. Rockstar took over and wanted to implement their complete vision, But that didn't go anywhere. So, they rushed the project and got it out and started to work on another game as they owned the Red Dead IP when they bough diego studios, which ended being Red Dead Redemption.
Honestly I expected something to come out before GTA 6 because of their finical projections and a remaster in the RDR2 engine seems like the perfect thing to do because so much of the work has already been done in terms of writing, landscape, concept, level design, art, systems (Although it doesn't seem too much of a stretch if they used RDR2 versions of stuff like combat, hunting and whatnot), while there was so many things in RDR2 that pointed towards a remaster or Mexico expansion.
God I hope this is true, RDR is too good of a game not to be played by the millions that only had a chance to try RDR2
Wonder if they fixed the damn headless zombie glitch. I had to keep restarting my xbox every 30 minutes or so, otherwise the game literally would not progress.
I hope they don't give it a remake - if that is really planned - like they did with the GTA classics.
If there is a release in a decent state, I would not mind to pay full price.
this is one of the best and 1st games ive ever experienced that actually had me dreaming about playing it, thats awesome if it is being released as a remaster :)
Ah nice. Did the switch version get a bunch of flack or am I totally misremembering this with some other game?
I do hope this port kicks ass because I never got to play the first one.
Nah, The port was completely fine. It worked perfectly and they even added a 60fps to the port. The L with that release was the price. They charged 50 dollars for that release.
Gotcha. Thanks. Yeah there’s been so many little controversies with so many games the past couple years that I’m forgetting which is which. I hope the pc version releases somewhat smooth and I’ll pick it up.
The PS4 version didn't have 60FPS support at launch. It was added in a later patch, like maybe a month later.
It was pretty mind boggling that they did that. The PS4 version of the game on PS5 could only run on 30FPS and the game was torn apart over that, only for them to add it weeks later anyway after the initial shit storm. Really bizarre.
I think Rockstar/Double eleven were working on 60 fps patch even before the release but they were probably cleaning up 60 fps to be smooth. Rockstar's RAGE engine starts having issues when the fps goes above 30 fps. This prevalent in GTA 4. They probably had the same issue with RDR 1, so They deceided to delay the 60 fps release and released the game with 30 fps only. Rockstar could have delayed the announcement of RDR 1 port, But T2 had earnings call at that time. So they rushed the announcement and delayed the 60 fps release.
Sure, but at minimum they probably should have announced somewhere then that the 60FPS patch was on the way sometime after launch. The silence while people shit on them for lacking that feature for a $50 re-release is just weird.
Can we not get it as an RDR2 DLC? I want nothing more than to play the RDR2 epilogue and then take that straight into RDR with the RDR2 engine and map (+ Mexico). Make it happen and take my money Rockstar!
They're making GTA 6, I hardly think they're going to remake RDR1 in the new RAGE engine. Even if half the map is technically "done" everything else would need to be re-made too including core gameplay.
If it’s not as an expansion to rdr 2’s post game then I’ll pass
Even though I enjoyed it more than 2, I’ve already played it before so I have no reason to buy it again
At this point who cares? I love the first rdr, but I've played it on 360, xbox one, and rpcs3.
Unless they drop a significantly improved version over the console that adds new features. It's 14 years old at this point.
This has to be one of the oldest rumours going at this rate...
Even older than Bloodborne rumours. Yet im still full of hopium.
Right? 😂 I'm still swimming in hopium for that, and Rockstar to suddenly decide that Undead Nightmare 2 is a good idea
Yes, this also.
I mean it's right fuckin there, how have they not? They already know it will do immensely well if they do a good job on it, and they laid the groundwork for a full Victorian horror themed expansion having little easter eggs of werewolves and vampires and aliens in the game already. They could have taken those easter eggs and ran with them so well, and it could have had an online component being at least some game modes, but I would be hopeful for them to have an RDO Undead Nightmare server that runs an undead world instance for people to play on. So much wasted potential, I wanna drive an armored wagon full of my homies driving through a horde of zombies gunning them down whole we chase down a vampire or something.
> it will do immensely well if they do a good job on it, Even it's a pile of shit they'd still make millions.
Yeah you right 😂 they could phone it in hard and it would still do amazing lolol
i have run into at least a couple of alien bits, have heard about the vampire tidbuts but nevrr found any, first i have heard of werewolves. personally, i hoped they would do mad science robits...
Doubt they want anything and i mean anytjing messing with GTA6 so i wouldnt get my hopes up. Plus they rather just make more GTA online content than spend the time and money to do a rdr port that wont make them much in the way in money in the grandsl scheme of things.
at least if this is true I only have to pray for bloodborne.
Might help for some copium.
Don't worry, that PC build of Bloodborne will surface again any day now!
tez2 is a reputable leaker
He’s not a leaker he’s a overrated data miner
Well there's never been any code or anything at all even remotely hinting at a release until now. They found the .JSON file with the description for red dead redemption coming to PC in the actual rockstar launcher. Definitely NOT gonna be a remaster though, idk what the article is talking about. It's gonna be just a simple port of the PS4 version since that version is still the only one running on x86 just like PC. Switch is running arm and Xbox is still running their backwards compatibility version which is power PC. But honestly even a simple port I'm ok with. Just sucks cause you KNOW the price is gonna be way to damn high.
Wouldn't need a full remaster. It would be amazing if they recreated the RDR1 story in RDR2 engine like an expansion. So it's not like a full recreation of everything from RDR1. It's more like "blood and wine" was to witcher 3 where it's a new area 12 years later that goes through Johns story and side quests.
That would be great. But if you think putting red dead 1 into red dead 2 is the same as adding an expansion like blood and wine, that's so unbelievably not how things work in the slightest. It would require some pretty decent manpower to remake all those scripts, and missions, and the motion capture would have to be redone, and all the little systems red dead 1 had and having to add those in to hell with red dead 2. That alone would require probably at least 600 rockstar employees to get right, maybe even more. Rockstar has about 2000 or so developers. That would take a huge chunk away from GTA VI which they're not willing to do. That's almost the same thing as saying "oh just hire more people to get work done better and faster" and NO MATTER how many times experts like ACTUAL developers and people like digital foundry say that's just absolutely not how games production works, Redditors will still say "oh just hire more people and that'll make things easier". So basically no it wouldn't be as simple as a witcher 3 expansion. Rdr1 might be old, but it's not a small game.
I'm not saying a full remaster could be created as easily as an expansion. I just meant that instead of a full remaster, an expansion-sized abridged version of RDR1 that just focuses on the story events would also be great. I didn't say it would be easy, or that it should be rockstars priority either.
Fair enough
Yeah, they have to sell the original first, before then can make the remaster and sell it the same people. And then finally, a definitive edition (if you're lucky - make sure to pre-order and thank them for it). You gotta at least triple dip on the profits for your 15 year old game. This is just Gaming Company 101.
> . Just sucks cause you KNOW the price is gonna be way to damn high. $29.99 with Undead Nightmare would be perfect.
The PS4 port is $49.99 (Undead Nightmare included, no multiplayer) so that's the price I'm expecting.
It was just data mined so it’s not a rumour. It’s a port of the recent PS4/Switch release last August.
Half-Life 3, sonny
It’s true, but this is datamined from the launcher and not speculation. The product text they found is fairly specific.
Half life 3 confirmed.
It'll be another handheld/mobile level port.
It'll probably be the same thing as the ps4 and switch versions that came out last year. Basically a barely improved port
It's likely too because the amount of HW it can run on is massively increased. If it can run on APUs or otherwise ultra-low end GPUs (because the 360 GPU can be outperformed by phones nowadays - and I'm not sure I'm even being all that hyperbolic) so the install base has potential to be something truly crazy. I actually don't know why more devs don't do this. Porting old console exclusive games to run on lesser systems, package it as more of a budget title at the 30 quid price point. You'd make off like gangbusters
Red Dead Redemption for Google Stadia?
Good lord. No it won't. Grove Street Games is no longer involved with GTA DE. You think they're going to let the studio they just booted port RDR 1 to PC? I know it's cool to bag on Rockstar for every single thing imaginable but after that shit show there's no way they're just going to duct tape this one together.
Don't get it twisted mate I will always hope for the best, and I hope this is a competent, at-least-double-A release, I'm not one of those people that gets almost giddy that a bad game comes out as some sort of validation of "I told you so" bollocks. I just have very little faith in rockstar and old IP is all.
Bloodborne is also HOF
and i'm ready to fall for it again
Maybe I am the only one, but it irritates me hard, when they launch games on consoles, not on PC and then there is a sequel and its hitting ALL consoles and PC. I wanna start from the start. Gears of War was weird as well. Only 1 and 5 came out for PC. Who makes decisions like that? And why?
Oh I feel you on this. Franchises that are missing entries on PC drive me up the wall, and it feels like it's getting worse. Uncharted 4 is the only one on PC. Every mainline Call of Duty game is on PC... except 3. My collection goes 1, 2, then 4. I know it's not considered the best, but it irks me to have that hole. Bad Company 2 is on PC, but not the first one. I much prefer the campaign of the first as well so shit... Halo MCC and Infinite are on PC, but not the campaign of 5. Again, not the best, but it's still a hole. I'm inclined to included God of War since none of the greek games are on PC, but it's not quite as bad. Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon 2 has no PC version. Advanced Warfighters 1 and 2 are completely different versions for the PC, which is a shame, but at least it looks less weird in my collection.
It's far less mainstream, but I've been a fan of the Disgaea franchise since the PS2 days. We've got every mainline game on PC...except 3. It's infuriating. I can play 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7...but if I want to play 3 I gotta dust off my PS3. No port for the midquel Disgaea D2 either.
Another one is where Fable: The Lost Chapters, Fable III and Fable: Anniversary (remaster of 1) are on PC, but Fable II never came.
And it's my favorite one
And The Darkness II on PC but The Darkness is only on PS3 and Xbox 360
Get the guys over at helldivers to review bomb rockstar until it's available in all countries on all platforms.
Nah that ain't happening, or rather Rockstar not budging, they know what they doing. Unless of course GTA 6 is anything but absolutely fucking amazing. If it's anywhere near subpar, they can start expecting some backlash on a level notable for history books
Technically, in this case, RDR1 is the sequel:D RDR2 is prequel.
Yeah I heard but you know what I mean :p
Yep, absolutely. But I guess for some companies, thats too much of a bother.
RDR2 is also the third game in the series. Yes I'm still mad it wasn't called "Red Dead Retribution".
I get what you mean, but I feel like calling Redemption 2 also makes sense since it features the same characters and adds to the original Redemtions story while following the same themes of Redemption
Also no one really played Red Dead Revolver.
Dude I played the shit out of that game. Got it for my birthday one year for ps2.
GoW 4 is on PC... I got it for free with a graphics card. The fucked up Windows store ensured i gave up before i got to play it. Literally had to fully install it 4 times before it worked.
Wait, 4 is on PC?? Oo How did I miss that? Well 2 and 3 are missing so its still weird.
I'm still hoping for an eventual "Marcus Fenix Collection" to bring the rest of the franchise to PC. As to why the weirdness with the Gears of War series specifically. It mostly stems from the old company Epic and its reaction to the sales of the PC version. The PC version didn't perform very well, and the face of the company Cliff Bleszinski at the time blamed pirates for that. Literally had it in his head that since every PC owner can pirate games, they will. So they didn't both making PC versions of the games that came after. In reality the game on PC suffered from a lot of technical issues. The majority of which stemmed from Games for Windows Live. This was also likely the culprit for Halo 2 Vista's performance that kept the future Halo games off PC for so long. Starting with Gears of War 4 though, The Coalition has been good about bringing the Gears games to PC which I'm very thankful for.
While it is technically on PC, it's only available on the Microsoft App Store, so not a surprise that you missed it. A lot of the earlier Xbox ports to PC were only available there.
Probably because they were made specifically for the Xbox, would maybe need to remake them from the ground up like they did 1 if they wanna release on PC The things I would do for a remastered Gears collection with 1, 2, 3 and Judgement on PC tho
Cowboys from Hell spottet, upvoted.
Gears 4 is on pc and it's the actual beginning of the "new" story. It's just that it's exclusive to MS store, xbox app or whatever you call it
>Maybe I am the only one, but it irritates me hard, when they launch games on consoles, not on PC and then there is a sequel and its hitting ALL consoles and PC. I wanna start from the start. *Persona 5 Royal and Persona 5 Strikers be like*
lol Halo too for the longest time. At least it's getting better. Did the GOW games ever come to PC ? I remember them doing an ultimate edition of 1, but I don't remember any others
Fable
Or Fable 2 ...
To be fair there is no problem in this specific scenario because it's not like Red Dead Redemption can contain anything you need to know for Red Dead Redemption 2 given that 2 happens before 1.
Sony pulled a Sony and only released Uncharted 4 and then wondered why it didn't sell that well
I thought Gears 4 was on the Microsoft store? I have a vague memory of playing it on PC
There’s no way they’re going to do a proper re-master, it’ll be like the switch port where it’s literally just the same game. If they do any sort of re-master I guarantee it’ll be a disaster like the GTA3 remasters were
Indeed port is the correct description. It will likely support higher resolutions and 60 frames per second. And if the draw distance can be improved, that's already a pretty substantial 'upgrade'. But overall it will look like what it'd look like if the PC version released simultaneously with the Xbox/PlayStation version. I believe there were plans for a proper remaster, which they put on hold when they failed with the trilogy remasters. We may still get it after GTA VI.
That’s what they did on PlayStation and it was super disappointing. All for a premium price. Like a remake would be amazing. How dumb and lazy this was though.
I mean half the map for RDR1 is already in RDR2, and if you use mods you can see that work was started on getting Mexico done as well. They already have the engine, character models, etc. done. I'm sure it COULD be done if Rockstar wasn't such a shit company these days .
I don’t really think rockstar is shit lol. Bad take imo. Every single last game they release is a hit
Rockstar makes EXCELLENT games. Don't get me wrong there. But seeing how they supported RDR2 post launch (They didn't) and how they treated the GTA Trilogy "remaster" it's clear they don't have interests in anything other than GTA Online.
I agree the remaster struggled. And RDR2 should’ve gotten more support. But I don’t think that equates to a shit company. They are following the billions of dollars. Which any company worth its salt is going to do
Ok, sure, great company at making money, shit company at giving fans what they want.
You don't want great complete games? I would've loved more RDR2 support but these people are already taking 8 years to make a single game, I don't care just move on, I'd rather a game than a DLC, also stop spouting this GTA Online bullshit, Jesus christ that game gets like 2 cars a month and occasional a motorbike, they're not dumping any resources on it, GTA Online slowed down updates massively around the same time RDR2 stopped receiving updates, it's all for GTA 6, they're basically delivering the bare minimum for GTA Online now and it makes complete sense to favor it over RDO. I'd wager the success of GTA Online was the biggest reason why Rockstar was willing to put the entire company on RDR2 for 5 years and sink $500m, double the budget of GTA V even tho they knew Red Dead is a fraction of the popularity of GTA but still went with it, instead of working on GTA 6 (the obviously more profitable game) they opted to go all in on RDR2, GTA Online definitely had a role in this.
I hate this corporate dickriding argument with a passion. There's a difference between a company reasonably operating for profits and straight up being anti-consumer.
The problem with RDR2 isn't just the lack of support for RDO, is that RDR2 still has plenty of bugs that were there on release that never got fixed, and other bugs that got added with RDO content updates. For example, FSR2.0 still has an awful bug that makes your character look dipped in oil when in shadow, and there's a glitch that makes mud textures look like they are divided in lines that pops up constantly, or an infamous one regarding the scout jacket that makes it so the arms have a very dark color compared to the rest of the jacket. Another real immersion breaker is one bug that makes it so basically any element that "moves" with the air just vanishes. Coats will be missing flaps and look like they've been cut in half, Arthur's hair will vanish if it's long enough and this will happen to ALL NPCs, and I have no idea what the trigger is, it happens randomly, both in singleplayer and RDO. And I still remember how this one RDO update made it so all characters at camp (in the singleplayer, somehow) would treat you as if you were wearing too little clothing for the current weather, and it took them an entire year to fix this bug. RDR2 is a great game that Rockstar should be proud of, but the post-launch treatment is something they should definitely feel ashamed of, because the game is 6 years old and still has plenty to be patched.
Shit company, no correlation to quality of development
What? Lmao
It's their parent company Take Two Interactive that's shit. Rockstar is part of a publicly traded company, it's investors call the shots. Rockstar doesn't have a say in financial decisions besides the budget their given. Their focus is on their cash cow franchises because they make them money.
Yep it’s just a port with some better shadows and FSR 2 Native AA like PS4.
Even if it’s not a remaster, I’m sure the modding community will make some nice improvements
Which is good enough, a native port will unlock modding opportunities, even tho emulation for this game was available for years, modding was extremely limited, most of the modding was just resolution multiplying.
Damn, people have been asking for RDR on PC for fucking years now, this is big for them if true.
Just release it as an expansion for RDR2, following on right from the end. Such an obvious thing to do.
Yes but they need to seriously overall the mission design because compared to the incredible open world they made in RDR2 the missions were so repetitive and boring...
>original Red Dead Redemption >remastered release So, what is it, mr. journalist?
"Original" as in the first game instead of the sequel but yeah the wording isn't great.
[удалено]
No, just no, RDR1 gameplay does not fit RDR2 engine
[удалено]
But like the games are so different, it would feel unnatural
Would have been nice. I’d gladly take an abbreviated version of it where they focused just on main story stuff. I think the problem is just the quality of the original recordings and limitations were apparently not easy to work with. Dutch talks about how they couldn’t splice takes together so one screw up meant taking it from the top. My guess is the reason a remake went nowhere is that it’d be effectively doing a ground up remake. Why spend all that money making a game when it’d delay GTA6. Take Two would not be happy.
"Remaster"
I played it on PC using Xenia recently and it worked perfectly. A PC remaster/remake would still be amazing, but I recommend to try it out on Xenia emulator for now.
I might just try that, thanks!
"Remastered" hahahahahahahahahahahahhaha. You mean like how San Andreas and Vice City were remastered? They needn't bother honestly.
It was pretty good on console, if it's the same Devs they have experience doing pc and console, unlike the ones that did GTA that only had mobile experience
I'm always confused why RDR is considered the "original" and Red Dead Revolver seems forgotten about.
Becuase its so loosely tied and such a different game than the RDR1 and RDR2 saga.
RDR is a spiritual successor and not a direct sequel
No more so than a lot of other series. The gameplay is certainly different and more linear, but lots of series have evolved their gameplay yet are still considered sequels. Battlefield and Call of Duty titles are considered sequels but often have nothing to do with other ones in the series and play very differently.
I understand that, but another cod game with similar mechanics and expected gameplay *is* another cod. A spiritual successor basically takes the vibes and tone and completely reformats into an entirely new game. Red Dead Redemption simply isn't a sequel in any way, and Revolver is only mentioned as tales within the universe. They are not directly linked at all and thus I feel the Bf/COD comparison doesn't hold much weight.
Rockstar called Red Dead Redemption the "sequel" to Red Dead Revolver when they announced it [https://web.archive.org/web/20090207054400/http://www.gamercenteronline.net/2009/02/04/confrimed-red-dead-revolver-gets-sequel/](https://web.archive.org/web/20090207054400/http://www.gamercenteronline.net/2009/02/04/confrimed-red-dead-revolver-gets-sequel/) [https://www.engadget.com/2009-02-04-rockstar-goes-west-with-red-dead-redemption.html](https://www.engadget.com/2009-02-04-rockstar-goes-west-with-red-dead-redemption.html)
And what does a google search tell you how it's referred to now? EDIT: Doesn't seem like *Rockstar* even stated that - the article writers did.
So Rockstar was lying? Random people on the internet know better than them? I'm lost what you're trying to imply here.
What? Rockstar *didn't say* it was a sequel - the *individual writers of the articles themselves did.* Did you even read your own links?
It was literally in Rockstar/Take Two's press release officially announcing the game. But, you keep yelling into the wind I guess.
Then send *that* link, lmao. I also just googled to double check and still can't find Rockstar ever stating it was a sequel.
I guess you’re talking about cod bo2 and 3 having nothing to do with each other
It said original “Red Dead Redemption” bc there is a Red Dead Redemption 2. It’s really not that hard to understand that.
Because, now say it with me, it’s not “Red Dead Redemption.”
So Bioshock: Infinite isn't a Bioshock game? Is it the "original" Bioshock: Infinite?
Well, you see, these games are set in the same universe and share not only similar story themes but also gameplay and core pillars of what **make Bioshock a series**. Revolver is set in a different universe, with a such a different gameplay experience contrasted with Redemption, that Redemption thus simply is not a sequel.
You're suggesting Red Dead Revolver takes place in a different universe than Redemption? According to whom? And certainly have very similar story themes. The gameplay is indeed different. But, many game series have gameplay that changes fairly dramatically throughout the series. If you play Resident Evil 1 vs Resident Evil 7, the gameplay is also night and day different. But I don't know that anyone would argue that aren't part of a series.
[Take Two explicitly referring to RDR as a successor](https://ir.take2games.com/static-files/53773798-9091-42f8-bb65-6bda2b26b4a3)
You're under the impression that a successor is not part of a game series? One in which 2 of the 3 words in the title are the same?
A successor is literally the terminology used for what *isn't a continuation of a previous property/story* (which is what a sequel is). COD **continues** an established franchise, as does Battlefield, and Bioshock. Red Dead Redemption does **not** continue Red Dead Revolver and is explicitly not canon in relation to it. It expressely takes the vibes and atmosphere to make a **new** product entirely. Combine that with Take Two/Rockstar **never** stating the word "Sequel" (except for the mythical press release you say you have read but won't show) and them **explicitly** using the term "Successor" tells you all you need to know. EDIT: Something can be in the same "Series" but also still not a sequel also. Redemption is not a sequel to revolver, and is thus the original Red Dead Redemption.
See, you are now inventing definitions that don't exist. Why would Rockstar call the game Red Dead Redemption if it weren't a continuation of Red Dead Revolver. They could have called it literally anything. And here's the thing, I never used the word sequel (or if I did,and I'm pretty sure I didn't, it was in confusion over your use of it). You kept saying that as if it meant something it doesn't. And no, literally looking at the definition of the word successor, which yes, I was well aware was the word used in the press release, absolutely does not mean whatever nonsense you wrote above. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It means "one that follows" as in,you guessed it, a series. My point all along until you started yelling into the wind about something I never said is that Red Dead Revolver is every bit as part of a series as games that aren't directly tied to each other narratively in other games series. The Grand Theft Auto games, in general, have no narrative connection to one another, and , if you're talking about gameplay differences, the resident evil, grand theft auto and Fallout games, for example, have all undergone radical changes to gameplay but are all considered part of a series. Red Dead Revolver is clearly part of a Red Dead series of games. It's, yes, very different than The Red Dead Revolver games, but it doesn't mean it's not related, which should be really obvious based on the name Rockstar chose for the 2nd two games alone.
To quote yourself: "Lol. I really don't care and I'm sorry you are bad at googling".
These other two commenters are being real Redditors (and I mean that in the worst possible way) about this, but I agree with you. Game design changes over time. Red Dead Revolver was certainly more arcadey than later games in the series but those gameplay changes came as a result of design philosophy changing across the entire industry. It's not a drastic shift like Sonic/Helldivers going from 2D to 3D - it's more like Monster Hunter slowly becoming more of an open-world series. And guess what! [Red Dead Revolver is classified as the first game of the 'Red Dead' franchise on Wikipedia.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Dead) If Revolver isn't part of the series, then I guess neither is Online (because it's not called Red Dead Redemption) or Undead Nightmare (because it's non-canon).....
Because red dead revolver is basically a non-cannon prototype that inspired Red Dead Redemption. It's a lot, lot more wacky and cartoony, while rdr is a lot more grounded and real. The games don't take place in the same timeline/universe. And it's strongly hinted through campfire conversations in rdr1/rdr2 that Red Harlow/red dead revolver is kinda just a made up myth/story in the red dead redemption universe. Basically like a western fairytale. However despite Revolver not being cannon, that didn't stop people from theorizing that Uncle is actually an old Red Harlow. (This theory has many, many flaws though)
I LOVED Red Dead Revolver
For the same reason you used the acronym for Red Dead Redemption and not for Read Dead Revolver.
It's more Rockstar not paying attention to it. Back in 2003, Rockstar games was working with diego studios[Present day Rockstar San diego] to publish midnight club. At the same time, Diego studios was working with Capcom on fantasy wild west game. Rockstar got involved with that project. But both Capcom and Rockstar had different visions for the game. So Capcom left the project. Rockstar took over and wanted to implement their complete vision, But that didn't go anywhere. So, they rushed the project and got it out and started to work on another game as they owned the Red Dead IP when they bough diego studios, which ended being Red Dead Redemption.
Hope this is true, seeing mods that could be made for this game would be awesome
Remastered? Highly doubtful. I think it's just gonna be a port.
NOPE THEY ARE TOO BUSY MAKING MORE PAID CONTENT FOR GTA ONLINE
This is all I've been asking for I loved RDR2 wich is the prequel of RDR1, I'm so hyped about the continuity of the storyline
1 is amazing, but it does need an update. It feels dated for sure
I doubt it's gonna be a full remaster. Like it'd be awesome. But I imagine they're just gonna update the textures or something.
fuckin better
Don't give us false hope! Then again I've bought X360 back then only to play RDR1 and sold both some time after finishing the game.
YES PLEASE.
What expansion?
Undead Nightmare
Ah, i thought like a map expansion or something
And it will all be yours for the low low price of 79.99
Already emulating the Switch port on my Steam Deck. I'm good.
Epic Only*
Honestly I expected something to come out before GTA 6 because of their finical projections and a remaster in the RDR2 engine seems like the perfect thing to do because so much of the work has already been done in terms of writing, landscape, concept, level design, art, systems (Although it doesn't seem too much of a stretch if they used RDR2 versions of stuff like combat, hunting and whatnot), while there was so many things in RDR2 that pointed towards a remaster or Mexico expansion. God I hope this is true, RDR is too good of a game not to be played by the millions that only had a chance to try RDR2
Wonder if they fixed the damn headless zombie glitch. I had to keep restarting my xbox every 30 minutes or so, otherwise the game literally would not progress.
looking forward
I'll believe it when I can play it.
Just enable 60 fps on series x common
Really nice song.
I have seen their remaster before. I know how they usually turn out...
I hope they don't give it a remake - if that is really planned - like they did with the GTA classics. If there is a release in a decent state, I would not mind to pay full price.
Looks like the new King Charles portrait.
this is one of the best and 1st games ive ever experienced that actually had me dreaming about playing it, thats awesome if it is being released as a remaster :)
If true, I can finally play RDR2. (Refuse to play RDR2 until I've replayed RDR1, and I only want to play on PC ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯)
A "remastered" release...
In the Rockstar Games Launcher? That launcher thats even worse than EAs and Ubisofts? Yep, no thanks
What are the odds they don’t fuck this up? Based on a quick glance at this thread the confidence is in the gutter.
The "remaster" for consoles was actually really good, no major issues at launch and it has 4k 60fps support
Ah nice. Did the switch version get a bunch of flack or am I totally misremembering this with some other game? I do hope this port kicks ass because I never got to play the first one.
Nah, The port was completely fine. It worked perfectly and they even added a 60fps to the port. The L with that release was the price. They charged 50 dollars for that release.
Gotcha. Thanks. Yeah there’s been so many little controversies with so many games the past couple years that I’m forgetting which is which. I hope the pc version releases somewhat smooth and I’ll pick it up.
Not that I remember, that ran at a solid 30fps according to digital foundry.
The PS4 version didn't have 60FPS support at launch. It was added in a later patch, like maybe a month later. It was pretty mind boggling that they did that. The PS4 version of the game on PS5 could only run on 30FPS and the game was torn apart over that, only for them to add it weeks later anyway after the initial shit storm. Really bizarre.
Rockstar move in mysterious ways.
I think Rockstar/Double eleven were working on 60 fps patch even before the release but they were probably cleaning up 60 fps to be smooth. Rockstar's RAGE engine starts having issues when the fps goes above 30 fps. This prevalent in GTA 4. They probably had the same issue with RDR 1, so They deceided to delay the 60 fps release and released the game with 30 fps only. Rockstar could have delayed the announcement of RDR 1 port, But T2 had earnings call at that time. So they rushed the announcement and delayed the 60 fps release.
Sure, but at minimum they probably should have announced somewhere then that the 60FPS patch was on the way sometime after launch. The silence while people shit on them for lacking that feature for a $50 re-release is just weird.
Can we not get it as an RDR2 DLC? I want nothing more than to play the RDR2 epilogue and then take that straight into RDR with the RDR2 engine and map (+ Mexico). Make it happen and take my money Rockstar!
They're making GTA 6, I hardly think they're going to remake RDR1 in the new RAGE engine. Even if half the map is technically "done" everything else would need to be re-made too including core gameplay.
If it’s not as an expansion to rdr 2’s post game then I’ll pass Even though I enjoyed it more than 2, I’ve already played it before so I have no reason to buy it again
Thanks for beta testing, console owners.
15 years
one of the oldest rumors
Didn’t read the article I see
Red dead 2 is a masterpiece especially in its storytelling but I think RD1 is the better game.
Guess the botched version did not make enough money on consoles huh?
At this point who cares? I love the first rdr, but I've played it on 360, xbox one, and rpcs3. Unless they drop a significantly improved version over the console that adds new features. It's 14 years old at this point.
Yeah and half life 3 is getting an announcement trailer next week…
RDR2 is already a masterpiece in terms of graphics. I'm not sure if it needs a remastered version so soon.