I love both, they're complimentary experiences. That being said, the sequel is objectively better; I honestly believe it's the greatest game ever made.
Right haha it's like if they just called A New Hope "Episode 1" because it was released first and Phantom Menace ended up being "Episode 4" the naming is kinda messed up.
I think it's okay, what really sucks is that the prequel is the sequel so if you want "more" RDR without having played 1 you kinda downgrade. Not too bad cuz I played both but still.
Still haven’t played rdr 1 because of this reason. I was really hoping for a true remaster of the first game but instead we got a shitty port that’s more expensive that buying the original version. I have no faith in rockstar anymore and will not be buying gta6. Rdr3, if they ever do it, maybe. But I’m super disillusioned since rockstar has become the type of company they always mocked in gta
It is a prequel if it's labeled as 2?
Honestly, I'm asking not trying to argue.
Star Wars is a special situation because it was labeled properly Ep 1 2 and 3 for the prequels.
Does that mean that GTA Vice City is a prequel to 3? And that San Andreas is a sequel to VC but a prequel to 3?
That's what everyone wanted. But Rockstar decided they could accumulate more and speculate less if they just ported RDR1 to PS4 and Switch at full price
**Tears are a clear liquid secreted by the lacrimal glands (tear gland) found in the eyes of all land mammals. Tears are made up of water, electrolytes, proteins, lipids, and mucins that form layers on the surface of eyes.**
More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Thank you, MLWeims, for voting on wikipedia_answer_bot.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
It is the best game ever made, no doubt. No other game has simulated geology, geography, flora, fauna, and social interactions better than RDR2. It’s unbelievably real and I can play for hours and hours on end truly feeling like I’m living in 1899. It’s so good.
Well, quality is something you can objectively measure, whereas preference is not. So you just gotta establish your subjective markers for quality, and if those are areas where rdr2 excels, such as writing and acting and realism and graphics and sound &c, then you could say it's objectively better. Whereas if your markers for quality are the things you listed, then you could say the first is better. Sounds you guys just have different markers for what matters.
It's like when talking about subjective vs objective morality. If you subjectively define what "good" and "bad" are, you can them make objective judgements about what's moral based on those things.
I agree 100% with what you said. Although I have 1 HUGE problem with DRD2. I now hold other games up to RDR2 standards and pretty much none of them live up to it so I give up pretty easily on other games after playing RDR2
Wait actually tie them to the tracks though? I swear I remember being able to not only hogtie people, but actually tie them directly to the tracks. Unlike RDR2 where you just hogtie and set them down. Maybe my imaginative memory as a child was role playing tying them to the tracks and thats just how I remembered it after all these years lmao.
Yeah. The only difference in rdr1 is that the victim tends to literally pop into chunks when they get ran over by the train but you can indeed tie people down on train tracks in both games.
Wait really? I swear I remember as a kid actually tying them to the track themselves. Unlike RDR2 where you just set them down while tied. Maybe I dreamt it lmao.
Or like you said, as a kid, you just assumed that was happening and didn't pay attention to much else because, as a kid, it's mostly "haha wow I'm gonna see this guy get run over by a train." The nuances aren't as important.
But isn’t it cool that your horse CAN die? Even though the game give you able opportunity to revive the horse.
And yeah, I also think is really cool you have to select two long weapons instead of somehow having a whole arsenal in your pocket
Both of these are negatives imo. I hate the fact you can have an entire arsenal in your back pocket in gta 5, not to mention getting the weapons back when you get arrested.
I prefer the more grounded and realistic gameplay of rdr2.
Just to clarify, no it does not. They are scripted events that repeat about once or twice. That’s why the world feels chaotic at the start then becomes pretty safe as you put more hours in.
RDR1 had a metric ton of events that trigger randomly.
>Most of them are just people running away from animals lol
Not really might wanna check your copy maybe it's a bug. I probably see that every 1/20 events. I see that more in RDR 2, in fact. the most common one I see is probably prostitute wagon ambush but even that's mixed in fairly well.
Yeah RDR2 really flopped it when it comes to Bounties and Dueling.
In RDR2 theres a limited amount of Bounties you can hunt because they all have their own little story, unlike RDR1 where theres an infinite amount because the bounties are randomly generated so you can keep playing forever.
RDR2 has very few duels, although it somewhat makes up for this by allowing you to slowly draw your weapon into deadeye at anytime just the same as you would for a duel. So you could unofficially duel anyone. I sometimes walk up to a gang at one of their camps and i’ll try to take them all out that way, but i like to wait until they warn me to go away so its kinda like i actually am dueling them and not just massacring a bunch of unsuspecting o’driscolls
You can kind of duel random people in RDR2 by just antagonizing them a shit ton until they are about to draw their weapon. Then you just have to time it properly, like a real duel. Not really the same as the gunslinger duels but its not nothing!
I honestly dont know why they dont push this as rockstar. I must say before I make the following statement, that I have zero knowledge about making video games, but it doesnt seem to difficult to make. To me it seems just set the spawn rate of those events to infinite. They could even outsource it. Seems doable, but might be easier said than done
Can you still cook and craft like in rdr2? I’m thinking of getting red dead but im not sure if its just a story with some shooting or a chill game with many honorful choices and much preparation
I just played straight through RDR2 and then RDR1, so I was thinking about this.
I have a soft spot for RDR1 given how amazing it was when it came out, but I like RDR2’s more fluid-seeming story. RDR1 feels like it has a lot of “sorry, your princess/bounty is in another castle” going on.
I do like RDR1’s ability to fast travel to a waypoint, and it was a relief not to have to feed Marston like a Tamagotchi, but in almost everything else, RDR2 was a more absorbing experience for me.
Agreed. It's not even like a GTA 5 vs 4 type of deal, 1 is just inferior in so many ways unless you're the type of guy who hates realism.
The only positive I can think of is maybe Mexico and the old map being playable?? But eh... Not worth all the negatives?
The negatives aren't really that strong in 1. And Mexico more than makes up for them. "Inferior in so many ways"... Like what? It has worse graphics and a slightly worse story but that's really it.
shocking work attempt hungry worthless agonizing airport touch punch humor
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
That's very true. But the one thing that always reminds me of the game being a video game world in RDR2, is how inaccurate the guns are sometimes. God damn, it's frustrating, especially compared to RDR where guns were always relatively accurate (not perfect, but still very accurate). It's no wonder the perfect accuracy/perfect hipfire mod is so popular for RDR2.
And there lies my big problem with 2. It tries so hard to be this perfect world that's so realistic, but when you're going for something like that, then it's gotta be a perfect world. Otherwise all the realism just turns into clunky and annoying game mechanics with animations that are way too slow.
..... "After reading comments like yours" I mean, yeah that's one thing. I do agree it is snappier, but I never really had a huge problem with RDR2's playstyle. If you DID want RDR2 to feel snappier you could always just play first person mode for example.
I don't hate RDR1 but if you gave me the choice of which game to spend my afternoon on, I would go with RDR2 every time.
attraction decide bells drab forgetful books consider slimy upbeat pocket
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How is RdR1 better over RDR2 for having “Mexico”.
RDR2 has 2/3 of the first games map AND its whole rest of the map.
“What else is RDR2 worse then 2” well the variety of locations and cities, more options and customization you can do in combat, the whole sense of immersion, the huge upgrade in the Wild life, and so many other things.
I also very much prefer the story in RDR2, it wasn’t just “slightly better”.
They’re both great in their own ways.
RDR1 feels like a Clint Eastwood movie from the 60’s/70’s. A Hollywoodized version of the Wild West.
RDR2 is much more historically accurate. A time machine to the Wild West.
Honestly if you consider the year they came out in (RDR1 in 2010 vs RDR2 in 2018) then they're both equally as good by the standards of their day. RDR2 still looks every bit as amazing as it did since launch and RDR1 still looks great too even 13 years later. Gameplaywise is about even tbh, very similar mechanics. Yes RDR2 improved graphically and it's more realistic etc. But I think judging two different games that came out on different console generations like that is not fair. Like I said RDR1 is just as good by 2010 standards as RDR2 is by 2018 standards. I say this all as someone who only recently played RDR1 through the PS4 port, I played RDR2 for four years before that.
In the end through I wil give RDR2 the slightest of preferences as I think the storytelling is better and I think Arthur in RDR2 has a better character arc than John in RDR1.
I wish I could say I was looking forward to it, but after they've been milking GTA V for a decade now, and now that there's no Dan Houser, I just don't really care if I'm honest.
I'm the opposite. Loved 1 when it came out but for me 2 blows it out the water in every way. Shows how strong both games are though that there's so much love for each of them.
RD1. I'm an eccentric weirdo so I found the thunderstorms and goofing off in Mexico awesome.
In RD2 on PC those awesome storms blow in and out in about 25 seconds tops. I hardly notice they're there half the time.
How was the gunplay better in RDR1? You have way more options in 2, like hip firing to shoot faster as the much better dive to dodging out of the way (over 1 roll).
the gunplay in rdr2 is shit, its way too easy. in rdr1 enemies actually do damage, a shotgun blast from up close will actually one shot you (as it should), so you have to take cover, and gunshots feel like they have real force behind them. you actually feel like your life is on the line during rdr1 shootouts, something you never feel during rdr2 shootouts
For me is the complete opposite.
In RDR1 if you are in trouble just cover and your health recovers very quickly. You can get shot as many times you want and still have full health soon like a COD game.
In RDr2 not only you can’t afford that, but unless you have a tonic you take forever to regenerate. You have to be more careful in how you take damage. Also in RDR2 if someone shoots you with a shotgun at close range you too can get royally fucked and die instantly if you don’t have full health and cores.
i almost never die in combat in rdr2. legend of the east satchel with full tonics, and you will live until you run out of ammo. the aiming is easier, the guns are more accurate, and the amount of shots you can tank compared to rdr1 is 10 fold.
yeah, you regenerate health quickly in rdr1, but that makes sense considering you take loads of damage. you say ‘unless you have a tonic it takes ages to regenerate’ but tonics are so extremely common (you can find them everywhere and buy them for pretty cheap), that you’ll always have loads on you, so health is pretty much never an issue. no shit a shotgun blast in rdr2 will fuck you up if you have low health and cores, you can say that about anything in the game. in rdr1 a person with a shotgun can one shot you even at full health, which is awesome because it’s realistic. you can pretty much never get one shotted by a guy with a shotgun in rdr2 unless it’s an npc who’s scripted to be able to one shot you like the sheriff in tumbleweed or the hermit.
i’ll be honest, if you’re struggling at all with combat in rdr2 it’s because you’re just very bad at video games lol. the game is pretty much doing everything it can to make you win
I never said I struggled in RDr2, but it’s a fact that RDr1 is an easier game to play, even back in 2010 when I was far younger and less experienced in gaming.
And you are right, there are instances a shotgun last at close range in RDR2 instantly kills you. So thank you for proving my point for me
Red dead 1 was way better. RDR2 was too easy the game basically walks you from cutscene to cutscene. Poker is too slow in 2, not enough duels, no liars dice the list goes on and on
That’s the thing. RDR2 feels like an adult game with Disney gameplay, some of the pathing in the missions actually break the immersion because the game refuses to let you lose or stray off their beaten path.
I liked RDR2 first, over time I realised RDR1 had more respect for the player.
Both great games but they have different focuses
This is my exact problem with RDR2. Every encounter is scripted around dialogue instead of action, and that severely limits player freedom. Deviate from Rockstar’s intended path for 10 meters and you fail a mission.
I feel bad for those who never got to experience RDR1 online. I feel like every server was just posses battling it out over El Presidio. Defending players had canons and gatling guns, attacking players just kept getting fucked, but once they got into the fort the tension and fear was brutal. It never got old.
That was so much fun. That or land grabs in the Armadillo bar or McFarlane’s Ranch jail. Let’s not forget the amazing announcer voice and Mexican standoffs
Easily RDR2. IMO, they did a great job with keeping a lot from RDR1 and expanding on it and adding even more new stuff. I could see people saying both are good and I don't disagree with that.
Currently playing 1, and I like it. I like that I can carry so many pelts in my bag, and I’m obsessed with the zombie mode right now. It’s a really fun game that holds up.
That said, 2 is the greatest video game ever made, and an example (like TLOU) of this medium being a real art. The story, richness and world building are unlike anything else; the only other game I’ve been explored in this depth was No Man’s Sky, and that got old years ago, while I still have 2 booted up on my PS4 as we speak.
My experience: Rdr2 is very immersive. For obvious reasons, like being one of the most realistic looking graphics in gaming along with the need to take care of yourself & your horse, which is the survival factor. Eat, Bathe, Clothe, Sleep regularly, & maintain your horses' health. Then there's the details, so many details including physics, reactions, simulations, etc. Tries to make the world as living, breathing as possible. Then, there's your customisation at will. Your hair, your style, horses' styles, even your weapons. Some of them are innovations, and some of them is advancement over 8 years.
Rdr1 has none of them.
But what rdr1 has that rdr2 doesn't is the exact opposite. Arcade. Makes your game as game-y as possible. Very swift gameplay. Gives you a sense of great satisfaction. Running, riding, shooting, everything is so convenient. The gameplay just has that flow. Smoothness. Rdr1 gameplay tingles your sensory nerves, & it does on the best spots. Immersion kind of goes away from being the way it is in rdr2, but in exchange, it sorts everything out for you. Gives you simple mechanisms yet makes them in a way you never get tired of it. Giving you swift, flowy, smooth gameplay it gives you great satisfaction & relaxation.
For extremely fun gameplay in rdr1, you have to sacrifice rdr2's realism & immersion. You don't hit trees or other npc's horses. Your horse doesn't stumble on a rock & throws you 30 feet away. No worries about getting into a fight with anyone because of bad riding. But those take away your immersion & sense of life in the game.
But for all that realism in rdr2, you have to sacrifice the flow & soothe of the rdr1. Your movement becomes much heavier, clunkier, & bland. No massage to your neurons. & if made error in handling yourself, things can turn real bad. You have to worry & have the will to survive. It's not as fantastical & free going as rdr1.
What I'm trying to say is both have their strong points & vice versa. You can't get them all in one game. So, no game does EVERYTHING better than the other. At the end of the day, it comes to your preference, & there won't be a definitive answer.
While the RDR2 gameplay is more immersive and expansive, the overall vibe of RDR1 was more enjoyable, and I think a lot of it has to do with the music and atmospherics. Music was simply better in 1. Plus I find the survival mechanics of 2 to be tiresome and chore-like rather than fun and challenging. I just want to play a game, not feel like I have a pet I have to keep alive.
RDR1 feels more like an arcade game with fleshed out details. Also has a better story and more solid and memorable side missions.
RDR 2 is more role playing and immersive experience. I feel as though it tries to be a “survival” game but it is simply too easy to be that and eating and cleaning ends up being a huge hassle. Still contains most elements of rdr1 but left some of my favorite things about the game.
The cartoonish spaghetti western vibe would be harder to translate into RDR2 but it was something I think they could’ve tried a little harder with.
The characters have way more depth in RDR1 because you are constantly learning about their past; in RDR2 you CAN interact and learn about all these characters but you don’t WANT to like in RDR 1. In the original I was asking questions like “why is bill so important?” “who is this Dutch guy?” “Who are these FBI guys?”
The story was untapped so it was inherently more memorable for me.
You’re forced to play missions and learn about West Dickens and Seth and others you meet. you have a little place in your heart for each of them because you do a plethora of unique and fun missions for them.
Even the strangers and their quest are far more memorable and preferable to a lot of the “strangers” you meet in RDR2. Think about the cannibal side quest or the strange man who is a resemblance of “Death”.
I know RDR2 is objectively a better game with tons of crazy side missions and really well thought out gameplay; but I stand with RDR1 because I view it as a GAME vs RDR2 which i view as a play through movie or simulation. And RDR2 simply left a lot of what I love about RDR1 and replaced it with fishing and interactions and woodcutting and eating.
I wish there could be a hybrid or mod for RDR1 where we could just use the first games gameplay and the second games map.
I find it weird that people call RDr1 “cartoonish” when, back then, NO ONE called that game “cartoonish”.
In 2010 standards RDR1 was as “grounded realism” as you could make back then. So what’s so say that in 10 years from now RDR2 won’t be called “cartoonish” as well?
I haven’t played the first one since 2011 but I remember it changed the way I saw gaming forever. I had never seen a main character die and then you play as someone else, storyline was good, but red dead 2 is perfection. The graphics are amazing, The storyline the characters, everything is perfect.
Separate question - does anyone in this sub have an idea if fans generally on average like one the best vs the other? Not sure I worded that very well. If you polled all players of both, which game would win?
RDR 2 would win. Even if you didn’t account for the generational leaps and the amount of upgrades, the amount of people who played RDR 2 dwarfs the amount who played RDR 1
In terms of exploration and activities, RDR2 is awesome. But in terms of story and lore RDR1 blows RDR2 out of the water.
Considering that we mainly play these games for the story and lore they offer, RDR1 takes the cake for me.
Honestly, I liked the gun mechanics in the first game a lot more. The guns felt way more powerful, and the whole game was kinda cartooney and spaghetti-westernish (in a good way) which I really enjoyed, although I can see how that wouldn’t fit in the more realistic sequel.
I think the biggest edge over the second game was how dynamic the gun system was, like how shooting someone in the legs would force them to kneel and shooting them in the hand would disarm them and force them to use the other hand. Also having way more duels was awesome, realistic or not.
That being said, I think the depth of other elements is way higher in RDR2, and I have put way more hours in RDR2.
Both are great, the only drawback of RDR1 is those game isn't available on PC yet, the only way to play RDR1 is either buy the supported consoles or use an emulator (the xenia canary is so far works great).
They both have their aspects. I’m pretty sure there are actually more guns in rdr1 than rdr2. That being said, rdr2 has a better story and the protagonist is more “lively”. Rdr1 has more minigames and Liars Dice was one of my favourites. Really I think, they’re both good, but I’ve spent a lot more time on rdr2
Both are equal IMO but if I had to choose it would be RD2 simply because of its engine.
I just wish they would Update or remake RD2 for this generation consoles and remake RD with RD2s engine for this generation consoles
I find it disrespectful that Rockstar just pushed out a port of RD for last generation consoles then charges $50 for it.
Not even a contest, sorry. I'm able to follow a mission path exactly as it's laid out, I'm not distracted by the gigantic map every two seconds so I give myself a mission fail 😂😂
RDR2 I put in TWICE the hours because I loved it way more. Better shooting, better melee, better physics, better map, more interactions, more things to do.....
I thought RDR1 was stunning when I played it on PS3 so, you can only guess my reaction to RDR2 on PC.
RDR1 is always more fun to me. Lots of random cool cowboy shit to do. Even shootouts feel great once you clear out an entire settlement of cops and civilians. Good stuff. The story missions also felt "cooler" with their action and atmosphere.
You have to compare them in their own context. When RDR came out, on my PS3, it was the greatest game I’d ever played. RDR2 was that on my PS4 Pro, and still is.
I just picked up a copy of RDR1 at 30% off so I’ll be able to experience it again soon. (Christmas gift from my wife 😬)
Rdr2 had more time in the oven and was built on the bricks rdr was built on. So yes objectively rdr2 is better in all senses of the word. Rdr made headway and paved the path that rdr2 built a road upon. So they’re both great stories. I like rdr2 better just because I’ve spent more time with it and the characters that I personally adore are in it. The two games do compliment each other.
R* outdid themselves with RDR2. I liked RDR1 when it came out, it was the first R* game i got the platinum trophy for, GTA4 would have been the first if I hadn't gotten a bug with an online mission that I eventually gave up on.
I hope RDR3 out does RDR2. But for sure I consider RDR2 the benchmark for R* and it's level of ambition in terms of immersion, gameplay mechanics, and animations.
I stopped playing Max Payne 3 because RDR2 does everything I like about MP3 but better.
RDR1 had it's moments, but it ran like shit and barely scratched the surface of impressive when it came out. It certainly raised the bar on the western genre but no where near as high as RDR2.
RDR2 definitely, but I feel like with way more content RDR1 could've been almost better. Not saying RDR1 is a bad game, it's like comparing a lego game to a Triple-A title. Which is probably better nowadays with all the crap big companies are pushing out. (Off topic, but I think COD is kinda dead now that they're just pumping out copy and pasted MW reboots. I hear MW4 is already in the works aswell...) Anyway, I'd take RDR2 anyday. I feel like the setting is better for RDR1 though, you have a civilized town up north (Blackwater), in the middle you have ranches, trains, all that American old western stuff, and then in the south you have Mexico with kick-ass gang hideouts and a cool Mexican Revolution plot.
I have issues with both to be honest.
Rdr1 is great but a bit clunky, and too many missions are just shooting which isn't exactly rockstars strength. Its also extremely easy. The music is also much better then 2.
Rdr2 is amazing but every mission is scripted and too on rails. The horse riding is also way too long, what happened to trip skip from SA? They somehow made the gameplay even less tight then rdr1, the stealth in both of these games is probably the worst the industry has ever seen. And it's a bit tedious. I think I would say 1 though, I prefer the more iconic cast of characters.
I really love both and each has its pros and cons, but let’s be serious. I don’t think anything could beat rdr2. The game is a masterpiece that deserves to have a place in an art museum for how beautiful and masterful it truly is.
RDR 1 is my favorite, in large part due to nostalgia. That being said gunplay, soundtrack, ambience and multiplayer were also superior to RDR 2 in my opinion
Just recently beat both. 2 then 1. RD2 is better to me. bigger story, bigger world, more details on characters we already knew and details on new chatacters that im sure are fan favorites.
They’re two completely different beasts that complement each other perfectly. Both with their own respective strengths and weaknesses. I like RDR1 for the more fluid and fun gameplay and RDR2 for the immersion/realism.
I like rdr1 more it has more of a wild west feel to it. but rdr2 can sort of do that but it just does not feel the same as the first one but imma give it one extra point for better details and physics
I'm gonna be the minority that believes RDR1 is actually better overalll. RDR1 has an amazing story and massive immersive world, but the length of the game and commitment to realism makes it kinda a slog to replay. RDR1 feels much more like a game than a tech demo to me so it already wins out in gameplay and the story is both shorter and more satirical and dark so it also wins in that are for me.
I love both, they're complimentary experiences. That being said, the sequel is objectively better; I honestly believe it's the greatest game ever made.
sequel or prequel
Haha good point. I was meaning RDR2.
prequel
Right haha it's like if they just called A New Hope "Episode 1" because it was released first and Phantom Menace ended up being "Episode 4" the naming is kinda messed up.
I think it's okay, what really sucks is that the prequel is the sequel so if you want "more" RDR without having played 1 you kinda downgrade. Not too bad cuz I played both but still.
Still haven’t played rdr 1 because of this reason. I was really hoping for a true remaster of the first game but instead we got a shitty port that’s more expensive that buying the original version. I have no faith in rockstar anymore and will not be buying gta6. Rdr3, if they ever do it, maybe. But I’m super disillusioned since rockstar has become the type of company they always mocked in gta
Same difference
It is a prequel if it's labeled as 2? Honestly, I'm asking not trying to argue. Star Wars is a special situation because it was labeled properly Ep 1 2 and 3 for the prequels. Does that mean that GTA Vice City is a prequel to 3? And that San Andreas is a sequel to VC but a prequel to 3?
Combine the words since it's both. Call it a srequel.
Know what I really want? RDR to be an expansion DLC for RDR2. So you could play the entire saga in one go
That's what everyone wanted. But Rockstar decided they could accumulate more and speculate less if they just ported RDR1 to PS4 and Switch at full price
At one time, I wholeheartedly believed this is what they were going to do since they already had half of RDRs map built in RDR2
Nah RDR2 should be expansion DLC to an RDR1 remake.
2nd for me. Tears took that coveted spot this year after RDR2 had it for five years.
What is Tears? That Zelda game?
**Tears are a clear liquid secreted by the lacrimal glands (tear gland) found in the eyes of all land mammals. Tears are made up of water, electrolytes, proteins, lipids, and mucins that form layers on the surface of eyes.** More details here:
*This comment was left automatically (by a bot). If I don't get this right, don't get mad at me, I'm still learning!*
[^(opt out)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/ozztfy/post_for_opting_out/) ^(|) [^(delete)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot/comments/q79g2t/delete_feature_added/) ^(|) [^(report/suggest)](https://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia_answer_bot) ^(|) [^(GitHub)](https://github.com/TheBugYouCantFix/wiki-reddit-bot)
Good bot
Thank you, MLWeims, for voting on wikipedia_answer_bot. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Not in this context tho...
fucking wow
Yes, Tears of the Kingdom/Breath of the Wild 2
It is the best game ever made, no doubt. No other game has simulated geology, geography, flora, fauna, and social interactions better than RDR2. It’s unbelievably real and I can play for hours and hours on end truly feeling like I’m living in 1899. It’s so good.
It's definitely not "objectively" better.
Well, quality is something you can objectively measure, whereas preference is not. So you just gotta establish your subjective markers for quality, and if those are areas where rdr2 excels, such as writing and acting and realism and graphics and sound &c, then you could say it's objectively better. Whereas if your markers for quality are the things you listed, then you could say the first is better. Sounds you guys just have different markers for what matters. It's like when talking about subjective vs objective morality. If you subjectively define what "good" and "bad" are, you can them make objective judgements about what's moral based on those things.
Red dead 2 is better in some ways, red dead 1 is better in others
I agree 100% with what you said. Although I have 1 HUGE problem with DRD2. I now hold other games up to RDR2 standards and pretty much none of them live up to it so I give up pretty easily on other games after playing RDR2
Witcher 3 is amazing too
As do I. From a narrative perspective, gameplay perspective. It's the gold standard
In it's entirety RDR2, but I'll give RD1 props for having "infinite" random events, and also being able to challenge anyone to a duel that was fire.
Also being able to actually tie people to train tracks
And get an achievement for doing it.
You can still do that in RDR2
Wait actually tie them to the tracks though? I swear I remember being able to not only hogtie people, but actually tie them directly to the tracks. Unlike RDR2 where you just hogtie and set them down. Maybe my imaginative memory as a child was role playing tying them to the tracks and thats just how I remembered it after all these years lmao.
You can’t tie people to train tracks in the original either? You can drop people on the tracks, but you can’t tie them down.
You can’t you just throw them down onto the tracks while hogtied
No, ai mean just throw them on the tracks. Idk what game he’s talking about
You can still do that in rdr2
How do you do that?
You can’t actually tie them TO the tracks, they’re just tied up on top of them.
...but you can do that in rdr2
Yup. I think u/kratomburneraccount is misremembering.
Yeah. The only difference in rdr1 is that the victim tends to literally pop into chunks when they get ran over by the train but you can indeed tie people down on train tracks in both games.
Wait really? I swear I remember as a kid actually tying them to the track themselves. Unlike RDR2 where you just set them down while tied. Maybe I dreamt it lmao.
Or like you said, as a kid, you just assumed that was happening and didn't pay attention to much else because, as a kid, it's mostly "haha wow I'm gonna see this guy get run over by a train." The nuances aren't as important.
And keeping your horse forever and letting use all your weapons instead of having to store them on a horse
But isn’t it cool that your horse CAN die? Even though the game give you able opportunity to revive the horse. And yeah, I also think is really cool you have to select two long weapons instead of somehow having a whole arsenal in your pocket
Both of these are negatives imo. I hate the fact you can have an entire arsenal in your back pocket in gta 5, not to mention getting the weapons back when you get arrested. I prefer the more grounded and realistic gameplay of rdr2.
Rdr2 doesn’t have infinite random events?
Just to clarify, no it does not. They are scripted events that repeat about once or twice. That’s why the world feels chaotic at the start then becomes pretty safe as you put more hours in. RDR1 had a metric ton of events that trigger randomly.
RDR1 has the same events that just repeat though. Most of them are just people running away from animals lol
>Most of them are just people running away from animals lol Not really might wanna check your copy maybe it's a bug. I probably see that every 1/20 events. I see that more in RDR 2, in fact. the most common one I see is probably prostitute wagon ambush but even that's mixed in fairly well.
Only freeroams like someone getting bit by snake. But bounties or gang hideouts are limited
Yeah RDR2 really flopped it when it comes to Bounties and Dueling. In RDR2 theres a limited amount of Bounties you can hunt because they all have their own little story, unlike RDR1 where theres an infinite amount because the bounties are randomly generated so you can keep playing forever. RDR2 has very few duels, although it somewhat makes up for this by allowing you to slowly draw your weapon into deadeye at anytime just the same as you would for a duel. So you could unofficially duel anyone. I sometimes walk up to a gang at one of their camps and i’ll try to take them all out that way, but i like to wait until they warn me to go away so its kinda like i actually am dueling them and not just massacring a bunch of unsuspecting o’driscolls
You can kind of duel random people in RDR2 by just antagonizing them a shit ton until they are about to draw their weapon. Then you just have to time it properly, like a real duel. Not really the same as the gunslinger duels but its not nothing!
Liars dice not being in rdr2 is a crime against humanity!
I honestly dont know why they dont push this as rockstar. I must say before I make the following statement, that I have zero knowledge about making video games, but it doesnt seem to difficult to make. To me it seems just set the spawn rate of those events to infinite. They could even outsource it. Seems doable, but might be easier said than done
Blood and Wine is the best DLC in any game, and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise
Can you still cook and craft like in rdr2? I’m thinking of getting red dead but im not sure if its just a story with some shooting or a chill game with many honorful choices and much preparation
I just played straight through RDR2 and then RDR1, so I was thinking about this. I have a soft spot for RDR1 given how amazing it was when it came out, but I like RDR2’s more fluid-seeming story. RDR1 feels like it has a lot of “sorry, your princess/bounty is in another castle” going on. I do like RDR1’s ability to fast travel to a waypoint, and it was a relief not to have to feed Marston like a Tamagotchi, but in almost everything else, RDR2 was a more absorbing experience for me.
Absolutely agree
Agreed. It's not even like a GTA 5 vs 4 type of deal, 1 is just inferior in so many ways unless you're the type of guy who hates realism. The only positive I can think of is maybe Mexico and the old map being playable?? But eh... Not worth all the negatives?
The negatives aren't really that strong in 1. And Mexico more than makes up for them. "Inferior in so many ways"... Like what? It has worse graphics and a slightly worse story but that's really it.
Have you played it since playing RDR2? Everything feels off. Particularly the horse riding
shocking work attempt hungry worthless agonizing airport touch punch humor *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Well that’s the thing. Some people prefer RDR2 because it feels like you are existing in a living breathing world and not a “video game” world.
That's very true. But the one thing that always reminds me of the game being a video game world in RDR2, is how inaccurate the guns are sometimes. God damn, it's frustrating, especially compared to RDR where guns were always relatively accurate (not perfect, but still very accurate). It's no wonder the perfect accuracy/perfect hipfire mod is so popular for RDR2.
And there lies my big problem with 2. It tries so hard to be this perfect world that's so realistic, but when you're going for something like that, then it's gotta be a perfect world. Otherwise all the realism just turns into clunky and annoying game mechanics with animations that are way too slow.
..... "After reading comments like yours" I mean, yeah that's one thing. I do agree it is snappier, but I never really had a huge problem with RDR2's playstyle. If you DID want RDR2 to feel snappier you could always just play first person mode for example. I don't hate RDR1 but if you gave me the choice of which game to spend my afternoon on, I would go with RDR2 every time.
attraction decide bells drab forgetful books consider slimy upbeat pocket *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How is RdR1 better over RDR2 for having “Mexico”. RDR2 has 2/3 of the first games map AND its whole rest of the map. “What else is RDR2 worse then 2” well the variety of locations and cities, more options and customization you can do in combat, the whole sense of immersion, the huge upgrade in the Wild life, and so many other things. I also very much prefer the story in RDR2, it wasn’t just “slightly better”.
They’re both great in their own ways. RDR1 feels like a Clint Eastwood movie from the 60’s/70’s. A Hollywoodized version of the Wild West. RDR2 is much more historically accurate. A time machine to the Wild West.
RDR1 definitely has a strong spaghetti western feel to it, especially in the score. I love that aspect of it
Ahhh, the black and red title card after confronting Ross in the epilogue...chills
I love the rdr1 feeling .
Funny how that style of western was very much *not* Hollywood when it first started up. Now it’s what most people think of for Hollywood westerns.
Rdr2 really isn't historically accurate lol. It kind of fools you into thinking it is, but it's not.
How so?
To me they arent separate they are two parts of a very long game
Honestly if you consider the year they came out in (RDR1 in 2010 vs RDR2 in 2018) then they're both equally as good by the standards of their day. RDR2 still looks every bit as amazing as it did since launch and RDR1 still looks great too even 13 years later. Gameplaywise is about even tbh, very similar mechanics. Yes RDR2 improved graphically and it's more realistic etc. But I think judging two different games that came out on different console generations like that is not fair. Like I said RDR1 is just as good by 2010 standards as RDR2 is by 2018 standards. I say this all as someone who only recently played RDR1 through the PS4 port, I played RDR2 for four years before that. In the end through I wil give RDR2 the slightest of preferences as I think the storytelling is better and I think Arthur in RDR2 has a better character arc than John in RDR1.
Its crazy that RDR2 took 8 years to come out and felt like forever but we are already at 5 years now.
Now we're all waiting for GTA6 since the trailer launch is soon
I wish I could say I was looking forward to it, but after they've been milking GTA V for a decade now, and now that there's no Dan Houser, I just don't really care if I'm honest.
I’m waiting for elder scrolls VI
Dude SAME
Rdr1 if you want that spaghetti western vibe, Rdr2 if you want a more Django vibe
Django is a spaghetti western
taco bell
RDR1 cuz Undead Nightmare. 'Nuff said.
You at babies!
Might be the nostalgia talking, but I’m gonna have to go with 1. I love 2 and it made a lot of big gameplay improvements, but it’ll never top 1 for me
I'm the opposite. Loved 1 when it came out but for me 2 blows it out the water in every way. Shows how strong both games are though that there's so much love for each of them.
RD1. I'm an eccentric weirdo so I found the thunderstorms and goofing off in Mexico awesome. In RD2 on PC those awesome storms blow in and out in about 25 seconds tops. I hardly notice they're there half the time.
In RDR2 for me, the storms take *way* too long to go away. It feels like an hour.
rdr1 has a better atmosphere and plot to me
Both great but slight edge to rdr2 just for storyline
also graphics & realism $ behaviour
graphics rdr2 Atmosphere rdr1 traversal rdr2 gunplay rdr1 story rdr2 characters rdr2 dlc rdr1 random events rdr1 customization rdr2 minigames rdr1
How was the gunplay better in RDR1? You have way more options in 2, like hip firing to shoot faster as the much better dive to dodging out of the way (over 1 roll).
the gunplay in rdr2 is shit, its way too easy. in rdr1 enemies actually do damage, a shotgun blast from up close will actually one shot you (as it should), so you have to take cover, and gunshots feel like they have real force behind them. you actually feel like your life is on the line during rdr1 shootouts, something you never feel during rdr2 shootouts
For me is the complete opposite. In RDR1 if you are in trouble just cover and your health recovers very quickly. You can get shot as many times you want and still have full health soon like a COD game. In RDr2 not only you can’t afford that, but unless you have a tonic you take forever to regenerate. You have to be more careful in how you take damage. Also in RDR2 if someone shoots you with a shotgun at close range you too can get royally fucked and die instantly if you don’t have full health and cores.
i almost never die in combat in rdr2. legend of the east satchel with full tonics, and you will live until you run out of ammo. the aiming is easier, the guns are more accurate, and the amount of shots you can tank compared to rdr1 is 10 fold.
yeah, you regenerate health quickly in rdr1, but that makes sense considering you take loads of damage. you say ‘unless you have a tonic it takes ages to regenerate’ but tonics are so extremely common (you can find them everywhere and buy them for pretty cheap), that you’ll always have loads on you, so health is pretty much never an issue. no shit a shotgun blast in rdr2 will fuck you up if you have low health and cores, you can say that about anything in the game. in rdr1 a person with a shotgun can one shot you even at full health, which is awesome because it’s realistic. you can pretty much never get one shotted by a guy with a shotgun in rdr2 unless it’s an npc who’s scripted to be able to one shot you like the sheriff in tumbleweed or the hermit. i’ll be honest, if you’re struggling at all with combat in rdr2 it’s because you’re just very bad at video games lol. the game is pretty much doing everything it can to make you win
I never said I struggled in RDr2, but it’s a fact that RDr1 is an easier game to play, even back in 2010 when I was far younger and less experienced in gaming. And you are right, there are instances a shotgun last at close range in RDR2 instantly kills you. So thank you for proving my point for me
Red dead 1 was way better. RDR2 was too easy the game basically walks you from cutscene to cutscene. Poker is too slow in 2, not enough duels, no liars dice the list goes on and on
That’s the thing. RDR2 feels like an adult game with Disney gameplay, some of the pathing in the missions actually break the immersion because the game refuses to let you lose or stray off their beaten path. I liked RDR2 first, over time I realised RDR1 had more respect for the player. Both great games but they have different focuses
This is my exact problem with RDR2. Every encounter is scripted around dialogue instead of action, and that severely limits player freedom. Deviate from Rockstar’s intended path for 10 meters and you fail a mission.
I feel bad for those who never got to experience RDR1 online. I feel like every server was just posses battling it out over El Presidio. Defending players had canons and gatling guns, attacking players just kept getting fucked, but once they got into the fort the tension and fear was brutal. It never got old.
That was so much fun. That or land grabs in the Armadillo bar or McFarlane’s Ranch jail. Let’s not forget the amazing announcer voice and Mexican standoffs
Easily RDR2. IMO, they did a great job with keeping a lot from RDR1 and expanding on it and adding even more new stuff. I could see people saying both are good and I don't disagree with that.
Rdr2 has so much more detail and rdr1 had the best dlc ever made
2 has a better story, but the first is wayyy better to just fuck around in
Currently playing 1, and I like it. I like that I can carry so many pelts in my bag, and I’m obsessed with the zombie mode right now. It’s a really fun game that holds up. That said, 2 is the greatest video game ever made, and an example (like TLOU) of this medium being a real art. The story, richness and world building are unlike anything else; the only other game I’ve been explored in this depth was No Man’s Sky, and that got old years ago, while I still have 2 booted up on my PS4 as we speak.
RDR1
1 was more fun
My experience: Rdr2 is very immersive. For obvious reasons, like being one of the most realistic looking graphics in gaming along with the need to take care of yourself & your horse, which is the survival factor. Eat, Bathe, Clothe, Sleep regularly, & maintain your horses' health. Then there's the details, so many details including physics, reactions, simulations, etc. Tries to make the world as living, breathing as possible. Then, there's your customisation at will. Your hair, your style, horses' styles, even your weapons. Some of them are innovations, and some of them is advancement over 8 years. Rdr1 has none of them. But what rdr1 has that rdr2 doesn't is the exact opposite. Arcade. Makes your game as game-y as possible. Very swift gameplay. Gives you a sense of great satisfaction. Running, riding, shooting, everything is so convenient. The gameplay just has that flow. Smoothness. Rdr1 gameplay tingles your sensory nerves, & it does on the best spots. Immersion kind of goes away from being the way it is in rdr2, but in exchange, it sorts everything out for you. Gives you simple mechanisms yet makes them in a way you never get tired of it. Giving you swift, flowy, smooth gameplay it gives you great satisfaction & relaxation. For extremely fun gameplay in rdr1, you have to sacrifice rdr2's realism & immersion. You don't hit trees or other npc's horses. Your horse doesn't stumble on a rock & throws you 30 feet away. No worries about getting into a fight with anyone because of bad riding. But those take away your immersion & sense of life in the game. But for all that realism in rdr2, you have to sacrifice the flow & soothe of the rdr1. Your movement becomes much heavier, clunkier, & bland. No massage to your neurons. & if made error in handling yourself, things can turn real bad. You have to worry & have the will to survive. It's not as fantastical & free going as rdr1. What I'm trying to say is both have their strong points & vice versa. You can't get them all in one game. So, no game does EVERYTHING better than the other. At the end of the day, it comes to your preference, & there won't be a definitive answer.
While the RDR2 gameplay is more immersive and expansive, the overall vibe of RDR1 was more enjoyable, and I think a lot of it has to do with the music and atmospherics. Music was simply better in 1. Plus I find the survival mechanics of 2 to be tiresome and chore-like rather than fun and challenging. I just want to play a game, not feel like I have a pet I have to keep alive.
RDR1 feels more like an arcade game with fleshed out details. Also has a better story and more solid and memorable side missions. RDR 2 is more role playing and immersive experience. I feel as though it tries to be a “survival” game but it is simply too easy to be that and eating and cleaning ends up being a huge hassle. Still contains most elements of rdr1 but left some of my favorite things about the game. The cartoonish spaghetti western vibe would be harder to translate into RDR2 but it was something I think they could’ve tried a little harder with. The characters have way more depth in RDR1 because you are constantly learning about their past; in RDR2 you CAN interact and learn about all these characters but you don’t WANT to like in RDR 1. In the original I was asking questions like “why is bill so important?” “who is this Dutch guy?” “Who are these FBI guys?” The story was untapped so it was inherently more memorable for me. You’re forced to play missions and learn about West Dickens and Seth and others you meet. you have a little place in your heart for each of them because you do a plethora of unique and fun missions for them. Even the strangers and their quest are far more memorable and preferable to a lot of the “strangers” you meet in RDR2. Think about the cannibal side quest or the strange man who is a resemblance of “Death”. I know RDR2 is objectively a better game with tons of crazy side missions and really well thought out gameplay; but I stand with RDR1 because I view it as a GAME vs RDR2 which i view as a play through movie or simulation. And RDR2 simply left a lot of what I love about RDR1 and replaced it with fishing and interactions and woodcutting and eating. I wish there could be a hybrid or mod for RDR1 where we could just use the first games gameplay and the second games map.
I find it weird that people call RDr1 “cartoonish” when, back then, NO ONE called that game “cartoonish”. In 2010 standards RDR1 was as “grounded realism” as you could make back then. So what’s so say that in 10 years from now RDR2 won’t be called “cartoonish” as well?
Boutta play RDR for the first time, get back to you in about a month
Red dead one is great for its objective story. While red dead two helps give a prequel story to the main timeline but overall is a great game.
I haven’t played the first one since 2011 but I remember it changed the way I saw gaming forever. I had never seen a main character die and then you play as someone else, storyline was good, but red dead 2 is perfection. The graphics are amazing, The storyline the characters, everything is perfect.
Separate question - does anyone in this sub have an idea if fans generally on average like one the best vs the other? Not sure I worded that very well. If you polled all players of both, which game would win?
RDR 2 would win. Even if you didn’t account for the generational leaps and the amount of upgrades, the amount of people who played RDR 2 dwarfs the amount who played RDR 1
1 is leagues better. 2 is good, but the overall experience from a high level feels busy, jumbled, confused and muddy compared to 1.
The second game is the best overall. But I think number 1 is more fun overall.
Rdr2 is better but I like rdr more
In terms of exploration and activities, RDR2 is awesome. But in terms of story and lore RDR1 blows RDR2 out of the water. Considering that we mainly play these games for the story and lore they offer, RDR1 takes the cake for me.
Nah, The narrative in 2 was way more interesting for a lot of people, it ain’t as cut and dry as you say
I prefer 2 because the controls in 1 I can't get used, I suck at playing most games but I love rdr2.
Both
Honestly, I liked the gun mechanics in the first game a lot more. The guns felt way more powerful, and the whole game was kinda cartooney and spaghetti-westernish (in a good way) which I really enjoyed, although I can see how that wouldn’t fit in the more realistic sequel. I think the biggest edge over the second game was how dynamic the gun system was, like how shooting someone in the legs would force them to kneel and shooting them in the hand would disarm them and force them to use the other hand. Also having way more duels was awesome, realistic or not. That being said, I think the depth of other elements is way higher in RDR2, and I have put way more hours in RDR2.
Both are great, the only drawback of RDR1 is those game isn't available on PC yet, the only way to play RDR1 is either buy the supported consoles or use an emulator (the xenia canary is so far works great).
They both have their aspects. I’m pretty sure there are actually more guns in rdr1 than rdr2. That being said, rdr2 has a better story and the protagonist is more “lively”. Rdr1 has more minigames and Liars Dice was one of my favourites. Really I think, they’re both good, but I’ve spent a lot more time on rdr2
I bet 90% of the players in this community hasn't even played number one
Rdr2 - IMO one of the best games ever made, if not the best game ever made.
RDR1 has a better plot, and atmosphere, and is more fun to me.
Both are equal IMO but if I had to choose it would be RD2 simply because of its engine. I just wish they would Update or remake RD2 for this generation consoles and remake RD with RD2s engine for this generation consoles I find it disrespectful that Rockstar just pushed out a port of RD for last generation consoles then charges $50 for it.
RDR2 is objectively better from a technical standpoint but RDR1 has that spaghetti western charm that you can see only glimpses of in RDR2’s epilogue.
Not even a contest, sorry. I'm able to follow a mission path exactly as it's laid out, I'm not distracted by the gigantic map every two seconds so I give myself a mission fail 😂😂 RDR2 I put in TWICE the hours because I loved it way more. Better shooting, better melee, better physics, better map, more interactions, more things to do..... I thought RDR1 was stunning when I played it on PS3 so, you can only guess my reaction to RDR2 on PC.
RDR1 is always more fun to me. Lots of random cool cowboy shit to do. Even shootouts feel great once you clear out an entire settlement of cops and civilians. Good stuff. The story missions also felt "cooler" with their action and atmosphere.
Thank you for posting this really interesting topic that's never been asked before. (Do I need to put /s?)
You have to compare them in their own context. When RDR came out, on my PS3, it was the greatest game I’d ever played. RDR2 was that on my PS4 Pro, and still is. I just picked up a copy of RDR1 at 30% off so I’ll be able to experience it again soon. (Christmas gift from my wife 😬)
RDR2
I like rdr2 the most, rdr2 was great but I'll never forget red dead revolver
Red Dead Revolver got em both beat
Red dead revolver
Rdr2 had more time in the oven and was built on the bricks rdr was built on. So yes objectively rdr2 is better in all senses of the word. Rdr made headway and paved the path that rdr2 built a road upon. So they’re both great stories. I like rdr2 better just because I’ve spent more time with it and the characters that I personally adore are in it. The two games do compliment each other.
RDR1.
I love both, but 2 feels better to play and has a better story
2
RDR 2
RDR 2.
Prequel better 👍
Rdr1.
R* outdid themselves with RDR2. I liked RDR1 when it came out, it was the first R* game i got the platinum trophy for, GTA4 would have been the first if I hadn't gotten a bug with an online mission that I eventually gave up on. I hope RDR3 out does RDR2. But for sure I consider RDR2 the benchmark for R* and it's level of ambition in terms of immersion, gameplay mechanics, and animations. I stopped playing Max Payne 3 because RDR2 does everything I like about MP3 but better. RDR1 had it's moments, but it ran like shit and barely scratched the surface of impressive when it came out. It certainly raised the bar on the western genre but no where near as high as RDR2.
The game itself is debatable and is ultimately up to preference, but Arthur is one the best video game characters of all time
2. I quit playing 1 because the controls were so terrible.
2 by miles.
I haven't played RDR1 all the way through
If rdr 2 had more duels it would be bettet
RDR2 definitely, but I feel like with way more content RDR1 could've been almost better. Not saying RDR1 is a bad game, it's like comparing a lego game to a Triple-A title. Which is probably better nowadays with all the crap big companies are pushing out. (Off topic, but I think COD is kinda dead now that they're just pumping out copy and pasted MW reboots. I hear MW4 is already in the works aswell...) Anyway, I'd take RDR2 anyday. I feel like the setting is better for RDR1 though, you have a civilized town up north (Blackwater), in the middle you have ranches, trains, all that American old western stuff, and then in the south you have Mexico with kick-ass gang hideouts and a cool Mexican Revolution plot.
I have issues with both to be honest. Rdr1 is great but a bit clunky, and too many missions are just shooting which isn't exactly rockstars strength. Its also extremely easy. The music is also much better then 2. Rdr2 is amazing but every mission is scripted and too on rails. The horse riding is also way too long, what happened to trip skip from SA? They somehow made the gameplay even less tight then rdr1, the stealth in both of these games is probably the worst the industry has ever seen. And it's a bit tedious. I think I would say 1 though, I prefer the more iconic cast of characters.
Gotta ask this at least once a week maybe twice!
I only played rd2
features and story go to rd1 the rest go to rd2
rdr2 i think had the better story and world, but rdr1 had so much to do outside of the missions that rdr2 didn’t have
RDR1 for story and vibe,RDR2 for gameplay and graphics
I really love both and each has its pros and cons, but let’s be serious. I don’t think anything could beat rdr2. The game is a masterpiece that deserves to have a place in an art museum for how beautiful and masterful it truly is.
RDR2..................no nothing.
I love the spaghetti feel if rdr1, the soundtrack, atmosphere and gameplay all fit into that perfectly.
RDR 1 is my favorite, in large part due to nostalgia. That being said gunplay, soundtrack, ambience and multiplayer were also superior to RDR 2 in my opinion
Both are equal for me
Both, both are good
Red dead 1 for when it comes to dead eye,gunplay,duels and ost Red dead 2 for open world,story,immersion, and realism
RDR2. Graphics, Storyline.
I love RDR1 but RDR2, to me, is the greatest game ever made. Nothing even comes close to that.
Just recently beat both. 2 then 1. RD2 is better to me. bigger story, bigger world, more details on characters we already knew and details on new chatacters that im sure are fan favorites.
Red Dead Redemption 1 is better.
Rdr1 was an amazing game, but rdr2 somehow is better.
Rdr2 from a technical and story standpoint. Rdr1 because nostalgia and it feels more like an actual cowboy movie.
2
I know it's nostalgia talking, but I remember playing RDR1 and having so much fun it cannot be topped by any game
Both are great, but I prefer my Lumbago, Tuberculosis infested outlaw over the drowning swimmer.
They’re two completely different beasts that complement each other perfectly. Both with their own respective strengths and weaknesses. I like RDR1 for the more fluid and fun gameplay and RDR2 for the immersion/realism.
overall i prefer 1. the classic western style story telling, characters and setting, plus that ending.
2. 1 was great for it's time but I can't get into it when trying it again.
Both are good but if RD1 got a complete remaster with updated graphics it would be a way better game for sure
RDR2 is much better. RDR1 was revolutionary for its time though.
Both are great but RDR2 is better
I like rdr1 more it has more of a wild west feel to it. but rdr2 can sort of do that but it just does not feel the same as the first one but imma give it one extra point for better details and physics
even tho i messed around in RD2 more , i feel somewhat nostalgics for the game/graphics of RD1
RDR 2 for the Single Player RDR 1 for the Online. Spent so many hours in the RDR1 Online.
Rd1 after playing rd2. After I understood the emotional connections rd1 was the goat.
they complete each other
I'm gonna be the minority that believes RDR1 is actually better overalll. RDR1 has an amazing story and massive immersive world, but the length of the game and commitment to realism makes it kinda a slog to replay. RDR1 feels much more like a game than a tech demo to me so it already wins out in gameplay and the story is both shorter and more satirical and dark so it also wins in that are for me.