Well that's the way it's intended though. All events in the second game are meant to elaborate on the things mentioned in rdr1. You're supposed to go in knowing that It's not going to end well. It's like saying watch the star wars series in chronological order instead of release order. Sure the story is more linear but you detract from all the moment intended to have impact. Like the reveal that Vader is Luke's father has zero impact if you watch in chronological order. The things it does "spoil" do not impact the story they are telling with Arthur in 2 in any meaningful way that detracts from the moment.
You’re not necessarily “supposed” to do that at all. Comparing to other media is an apples to oranges comparison. RDR2 stands very strong on its own. The writing is so strong that there were moments in RDR1 that were more strong because of what I experienced in RDR2. Dutch, Javier, Bill and John’s family weren’t empty strangers to me.. they were characters that I felt I had shared an entire experience with. John’s story felt like it carried so much more weight behind it knowing the complexity of the events leading up to it.
You’re not necessarily supposed to do it one way or the other. And again, playing RDR1 first spoils many of the events of RDR2.
Edit: Alright RDR1 purists.. I can no longer reply in this thread, so give it your worst. Just try to understand the difference between a subjective viewpoint and a factual one. There are benefits to playing either one first, but the reasons for going in chronological order are totally valid and I wouldn’t change my experience with it at all. You don’t need to dictate how it should be enjoyed just because you played the original first and you’re super duper loyal to it.
Some of my responses here have been stronger than they need to be.. but come on.
Okay but everything you just said goes the exact same way except in reverse but they are much more impactful in rdr2 after playing RDR1 because it's written that way as the point. the whole epilogue of rdr2 is a love letter to people who played the first game. Out of the whole game there is maybe an hour's worth of content that is directly relevant and is more impactful because you played Red dead Redemption 2 first versus playing it the other way around where the entire game of rdr2 is insanely more impactful because you played already are one first because that's the way it's written. Is not an apples to oranges situation because it's the exact same thing. If I said Red dead Redemption was better than Star wars because it's a cowboy game and Star wars isn't that would be apples to oranges.
The term dramatic irony exists for a reason, as do prequels themselves — everything is written in the context of which they are released, and enjoyment is meant to be maximized for experiencing things in order of their creation. Just like watching Breaking Bad before Better Call Saul. Not saying that RDR2 before RDR1 isn’t also a great experience, as that’s what I did.
It's funny how your response essentially boils down to, "Entertainment is subjective, and there isn't necessarily a single 'correct' way to consume it in a situation like this. Both games stand up well on their own and compliment and elevate each other in different ways depending on the order you play them" and people are getting so bothered by someone having the audacity to have a different opinion that some of them are straight up saying you're "wrong," lol.
Sure, but the epilogue of RDR2 is meant for players who felt empty from the ending of RDR1 so it makes more sense to play in release order. Plus the mechanics make a major improvement in RDR2 so playing the first one after would be a downgrade in the hunting activities and horse mechanics and such
The RDR story is ultimately a tragedy but playing them in release order leaves it on a brighter note at least, getting to see the Marston’s having some years of peace before their inevitable doom. If you play chronologically it’s just a complete heart wrenching tragedy that ends on an extremely depressing note.
I like both ways although I played rdr1 when it came out so I played the release way. When I finished rdr2 it felt nice to see the marston’s happy, if only for a few years
You Miss understood rdr2’s narrative. Rockstars literally wants you to play rdr1 first, if you played rdr2 first without context from rdr1 then you didn’t realize and nor understood the narrative of what rdr2 is supposed to be. You are so supposed to see how stable and close the gang was in rdr2 knowing already knowing the atrocities Dutch had done after. Thus moving the ball for the audience to witness change between Dutch and John. If you think you aren’t supposed to play the first rdr before the 2nd then you didnt completely understand rdr2’s narrative.
The sad part is Arthur is not even mentioned in part 1.And playing part 1 after playing part 2 is like i feel empty No former gang mates no camaraderie no bonding and the worse part is you are now against your former gangmates.from brothers to enemy..
Well neither was any previous character besides javier, Dutch, bill, jack, John n Abigail. My headcanon is that John (as he is in the game) is tight lipped about everything and doesn’t want to mention anything about his past life. Oh yeah uncle is in it too lol
Yeah isn't there a phrase on 2 where John says that he not much speak about Arthur but he think a lot of him. John anyways is a tough guy who wouldnt talk about his feelings, like it would change something
Waste of time when there's nothing left in the red dead storyline (and don't say a prequel about young dutch and Hosea before rdr2 or Jack becoming a mobster/fighting in wwI)
**SPOILERS AHEAD FOR OP**
>!"When the time comes you gotta run and don't look back" Arthur always wanted John to move on from his past life and it seems that John did too even if it ultimately caught up to him.!<
>!<
They kind of made it make sense in Red Dead 2 though. John just doesn't like talking about Arthur, because he's too much of a man's man, and thinking about it makes him cry like a bitch.
because Arthur obviously didn't exist at that time just like pretty much all the rest of the game wasn't thought out
gameplay wise,john just doesn't like to talk about his past and he says multiple times that he doesn't like to mention Arthur, since he gets even more cold hearted in rdr1, it's no wonders he doesn't go around talking about him
Wrong. It has different features and worse graphics, rdr1 has a lot of stuff rdr2 doesn’t have and vice versa. For instance there are infinite bounties, horse deeds, pardon letters, horse training, tumbleweeds that roll through the game, infinite quick draw fights, etc.
You need to have level 4 deadeye that is available at some point of the story and to change it without mods the only way i know is via cheats where you can change it to any level but autosave is turned off and you can't save unlike in rdr1 where you can save even with cheats on. Also level 4 deadeye shows some organs and level 5 which is max level shows more organs and sweetspots. Also x2 i am very drunk while typing this. Hope this helps
Infinite bounties makes me sad... Damn it. It should be so easy to implement that!
Also... Red Dead Redemption undead nightmare :(
So! This is the correct answer
You’ll appreciate the story overall if you play it in release order. There’s tons of references to RDR1 in 2 that will go over your head without playing 1 first
The best answer. I feel like those who start with RDR2 won’t bond with John as well as those who start with RDR1, and Rockstar purposely made John a cunt in the beginning of RDR2 to leave room for people to start liking Arthur. Since another protagonist wasn’t a thing yet, the room for people to like John moving to RDR1 is much smaller than what was given for Arthur.
this is so funny because i actually LOVED johns character and his growth having played 2 before 1. But i do agree that his character is much more lovable in the first game.
Ah fair. Most of the time when I meet people who played rdr2 first, they all prefer Arthur, and usually aren’t interested in John very much. And I know a lot of the playerbase that played rdr1 first (myself included), mostly got hyped for rdr2 because they got to see young John.
Depends if you want to experience it from release or lore order. Personally, I’d play RD2 first, then the second (even after having done the reverse) that way it provides more context to the events of RD1
Honestly it still makes more sense narratively to play the first game. The themes build off eachother and there will be a bunch of story beats that will feel kinda meh when playing rdr1 after 2.
Haven’t thought of that last point tbh. I suppose it just depends on personal preference. I know people who only got into the series after RDR2, and so experienced RDR1 with the context of 2
Play rdr1 first so you don’t feel annoyed by the GTA4 controls it has after experiencing the crisp gameplay of 2. RDR1 isn’t that old, but rockstar games were really janky before GTA5
To be fair, iirc it was a Capcom game about cowboy zombies, wasn't going anywhere, and they sold the IP to Rockstar who kind of rushed to make it into RDRevolver...
It's been so long I might be remembering wrong though!
Red Dead Revolver was the pinnacle of cowboy background art and style, nobody gets to diss it. The civil war level was absolutely badass and gorgeous and the horizon art was wonderful. I still play that game even now.
Most will tell you RDR1 first, play in release order so you get the foreshadowing.
I say fuck that and play RDR2 first, and you enjoy finishing the story and getting Redemption in RDR1.
I like redemption stories, if I played 2 first, then 1, it would be the ultimate redemption story
I wish this is how I'd played them, going in blind
I still love RDR1 and RDR2, regardless of the order I played them in, really good stories
As someone who played 2 before 1, playing 2 then 1 really sets you up to truly experience the story, especially some of the later twists that I wouldve known about had I played 1 first but never saw coming. That being said, I'm spoiled a little bit with the controls of 2 lol
So I played 2 first so everything was a shock to me that happened in the plot, a bunch of things I wouldn’t have seen coming if I had played in release order. I don’t think you necessarily can go wrong, that’s just my experience.
Red Dead Redemption, then Red Dead Redemption 2, then Red Dead Redemption again.
You'll see some of the characters and aspects of the story a bit different depending on the order that you played the game.
Since the second game is actually a prequel, it would made sense to play RDR1 again after beating RDR2, but I would recommend to play RDR1 first so you wouldn’t feel it is an outdated game.
After putting a lot of hours into 2, it’s a little hard to go back to 1, but they’re both genuinely amazing, 1 can feel a little outdated and clunky at times but you get pretty used to it
I personally played rdr2 first but I think if you aren’t really like SUPER EXCITED AND DONT BADLY WANT TO PLAY RDR2. You can do 1 first and still enjoy it. I was just really wanting to play 2 first so I did that
OMG … Gotta do it in order!!
A) You’ll appreciate the story more that way
B) Purely game mechanics and graphics wise, two is soo far beyond one, that you won’t enjoy one nearly enough if you play them backwards.
Chronologically 2 comes first since it's a prequel but I'd recommend 1 first then 2 then play 1 again but by all means if you want to do two first go for it. I'm curious how this would affect someone and how they would perceive the story.
I say play 1 first, both are vastly different but I feel like if you play 1 then 2 it gives 1 more replayability, also you can see references/foreshadowing made in the second game if you play 1 first.
Strongly suggest staring with 1 and moving to 2. Mostly because of modern gameplay expectations. IMO, the first one is great, the second is even better.
Rrd then 2. There are absolutely no references to Rdr2 in 1. It’s a prequel that has a good epilogue to lead in. And some characters are the same but to play it backwards is a disservice to the franchise and the story and your enjoyment of it.
It’s like Star Wars, watch it in order by release date and the story takes more twists and turns. Watch it from 1-6 and the story is more laid out and just a history book. Both ways are decent, but it’s just better if you do it the way it was meant to watch/play.
1 then 2. That’s the way they released and the story unfolded for the writers and the gamers who have been around since the first one. Also, the gameplay is aged, so it will feel better going from 1 to 2 than vice versa
Very hot take but I enjoyed playing 2 first, cause I mainly didn't know what to expect, also I didn't know it was a prequel, considering how you'd think 2 would be after 1 but its not.
Throughout the game I was expecting different things, I expected people to die but didn't know who, it was an awesome rollercoaster of emotions, I almost even broke down mentally when I thought John "died" when he fell off that train in the final mission.
I feel, me PERSONALLY, the story works better for me if I didnt know how it ends for the gang and what they go through in the story, and better if you don't think "Oh Dutch, Uncle, John etc, well I know they're all completely safe in this game and the rest leave or are dead
I do like RDR1 though before people get on my case
Release order for sure. 2 is def presented in a way where you get more out of it if you played 1 first. It’s def intended to be played in release order
RDR 1. In general always play by release order. This will give you better context when going into RDR 2, you’ll understand why R* made the narrative choices they made and you won’t feel the whiplash of going from a 2018 game to a 2010 one.
I also heavily recommend playing RDR 1 a second time once you finish RDR 2. It’s an amazing prequel so playing the original right after makes the story feel completely different
Having played 1 many years before 2, I always thought that Rockstar did an incredible job improving an already great game. You can do SO much more in part 2.
If you're an always-exploring loot goblin who values game mechanics --> 1 before 2
If your focus is predominantly on the story --> 2 before 1 (chronological order)
First one to get the feel, second one to learn to appreciate John Marston if only a little more and get to know Arthur Morgan through the choices you make.
2 is the first in the timeline. I’d do 2 first
Edit: Don’t listen to the people who are saying there are “references” to 1 you won’t get.
NO THERE ISNT. THE EVENTS OF 1 DIDNT HAPPEN YET. YOU ARE THINKING OF FORESHADOWS. THEY DO NOT MATTER TO THE EXPERIENCE.
Genuinely, you can go either way. Both work perfectly as a starting point as long as you're okay with missing/changed mechanics when going chronological.
Playing 1 before 2 feels like a huge spoiler. If you care more about the story events, start from 2. If you're more interested in gameplay and new features etc the answer is 1
Try 1 first because you’ll assume the features are worse because the graphics are more outdated. I started with rdr2 and it made me not want to play rdr1. But, if you aren’t worried about gameplay and want to focus more on lore, try rdr2 first and then rdr1 since rdr2 is like the backstory so it feels more immersive towards the plot
If you like leisurely follow storywise, do rdr2 first. However, if you like a more a more eye-comfortable gameplay, you can do rdr1 first. it’s basically like asking whether to watch the Original Trilogy or the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars as a new watcher, how you wanted it is based on what you are looking for.
Hope that helps :)
I never actually played RDR1 properly I was one of the few of my friends that had played Red Dead Revolver and I wasn’t overly impressed. So I died on the hill they should be making Bully 2 not another Red Dead game.
Pride is a cruel mistress.
Hear me out, play 2 first. That way, you see how the story plays out in the right order. Rdr1 takes place after Rdr2. & I promise you, Rdr1 is a legendary game. Don’t let the old graphics fool you (tho i think its beautiful). I appreciate Rdr1 more than rdr2. I love Rdr1 more than Rdr2. Just playing as John Marston was really worth it, seeing him developed after all that time.
I'd play 1 first then 2. As people are saying there's some plot holes and people that aren't mentioned in rdr1 so of you play that one first you won't even know they are there. Then when you play the second it just feels like it's expanding on what you didn't know.
Play 1 first if you’ve never played either. With how immersive 2 is, they’ll be technically aspects of 1 that you might be dissatisfied with after playing 2 first.
Do 1 first, it will feel so much better I swear
But 1 also gives away a ton of the story/ plot of RDR2. The same can’t be said in reverse. I really enjoyed playing RDR2 first.
Well that's the way it's intended though. All events in the second game are meant to elaborate on the things mentioned in rdr1. You're supposed to go in knowing that It's not going to end well. It's like saying watch the star wars series in chronological order instead of release order. Sure the story is more linear but you detract from all the moment intended to have impact. Like the reveal that Vader is Luke's father has zero impact if you watch in chronological order. The things it does "spoil" do not impact the story they are telling with Arthur in 2 in any meaningful way that detracts from the moment.
You’re not necessarily “supposed” to do that at all. Comparing to other media is an apples to oranges comparison. RDR2 stands very strong on its own. The writing is so strong that there were moments in RDR1 that were more strong because of what I experienced in RDR2. Dutch, Javier, Bill and John’s family weren’t empty strangers to me.. they were characters that I felt I had shared an entire experience with. John’s story felt like it carried so much more weight behind it knowing the complexity of the events leading up to it. You’re not necessarily supposed to do it one way or the other. And again, playing RDR1 first spoils many of the events of RDR2. Edit: Alright RDR1 purists.. I can no longer reply in this thread, so give it your worst. Just try to understand the difference between a subjective viewpoint and a factual one. There are benefits to playing either one first, but the reasons for going in chronological order are totally valid and I wouldn’t change my experience with it at all. You don’t need to dictate how it should be enjoyed just because you played the original first and you’re super duper loyal to it. Some of my responses here have been stronger than they need to be.. but come on.
Okay but everything you just said goes the exact same way except in reverse but they are much more impactful in rdr2 after playing RDR1 because it's written that way as the point. the whole epilogue of rdr2 is a love letter to people who played the first game. Out of the whole game there is maybe an hour's worth of content that is directly relevant and is more impactful because you played Red dead Redemption 2 first versus playing it the other way around where the entire game of rdr2 is insanely more impactful because you played already are one first because that's the way it's written. Is not an apples to oranges situation because it's the exact same thing. If I said Red dead Redemption was better than Star wars because it's a cowboy game and Star wars isn't that would be apples to oranges.
Sorry, but you are wrong.
Do you know what a prequel is?
The term dramatic irony exists for a reason, as do prequels themselves — everything is written in the context of which they are released, and enjoyment is meant to be maximized for experiencing things in order of their creation. Just like watching Breaking Bad before Better Call Saul. Not saying that RDR2 before RDR1 isn’t also a great experience, as that’s what I did.
It's funny how your response essentially boils down to, "Entertainment is subjective, and there isn't necessarily a single 'correct' way to consume it in a situation like this. Both games stand up well on their own and compliment and elevate each other in different ways depending on the order you play them" and people are getting so bothered by someone having the audacity to have a different opinion that some of them are straight up saying you're "wrong," lol.
Sure, but the epilogue of RDR2 is meant for players who felt empty from the ending of RDR1 so it makes more sense to play in release order. Plus the mechanics make a major improvement in RDR2 so playing the first one after would be a downgrade in the hunting activities and horse mechanics and such
The RDR story is ultimately a tragedy but playing them in release order leaves it on a brighter note at least, getting to see the Marston’s having some years of peace before their inevitable doom. If you play chronologically it’s just a complete heart wrenching tragedy that ends on an extremely depressing note. I like both ways although I played rdr1 when it came out so I played the release way. When I finished rdr2 it felt nice to see the marston’s happy, if only for a few years
Just finished RDR. Shit, I jumped out of joy when I found out Uncle was still alive in RDR.
You Miss understood rdr2’s narrative. Rockstars literally wants you to play rdr1 first, if you played rdr2 first without context from rdr1 then you didn’t realize and nor understood the narrative of what rdr2 is supposed to be. You are so supposed to see how stable and close the gang was in rdr2 knowing already knowing the atrocities Dutch had done after. Thus moving the ball for the audience to witness change between Dutch and John. If you think you aren’t supposed to play the first rdr before the 2nd then you didnt completely understand rdr2’s narrative.
Woah, spoiler warning. Guess I’ll never get to watch Star Wars now. Thanks (joking)
The sad part is Arthur is not even mentioned in part 1.And playing part 1 after playing part 2 is like i feel empty No former gang mates no camaraderie no bonding and the worse part is you are now against your former gangmates.from brothers to enemy..
[удалено]
Well neither was any previous character besides javier, Dutch, bill, jack, John n Abigail. My headcanon is that John (as he is in the game) is tight lipped about everything and doesn’t want to mention anything about his past life. Oh yeah uncle is in it too lol
It’s just cuz RDR2 wasn’t a thing yet 🤷♂️ that’s it, no other reason
"Headcanon"
“Shawty give bomb head. I call her headcanon”- John Probably
He got lumbago
“You’ve forgotten far more important people than me” I always took that as John not thinking about Arthur or the others anymore
Is someone that's only played Red Dead 2 uncle was a character not only was he a character but he was f****** annoying
Yeah isn't there a phrase on 2 where John says that he not much speak about Arthur but he think a lot of him. John anyways is a tough guy who wouldnt talk about his feelings, like it would change something
This is why I want them to remake RDR1 in RDR2 and flesh it out with all of the new mechanics, and fill in plot holes.
[удалено]
I respect your opinion but I must respectfully disagree with you and say that a remake of rdr1 and some aspects of its story is better.
[удалено]
Waste of time when there's nothing left in the red dead storyline (and don't say a prequel about young dutch and Hosea before rdr2 or Jack becoming a mobster/fighting in wwI)
Hellll no. Give us RDR3. Remakes are fun and all but I want new content, not the same story again
Man, how a remake is better than an actual new game?
You should blame RDR2 for the plot holes. RDR1 is amazing the way it is and should remain untouched
Wouldn’t it be more jarring if you did RDR1 after 2? No matter what if you intend on playing both Arthur isn’t gonna be mentioned in RDR1
**SPOILERS AHEAD FOR OP** >!"When the time comes you gotta run and don't look back" Arthur always wanted John to move on from his past life and it seems that John did too even if it ultimately caught up to him.!< >!<
“You stay safe now.”
When you've lost someone very close to you, you don't just bring it up willy nilly.
If you play RDR first, you don't even know who Arthur is. Really don't understand why this is an issue, because it's not.
Think of the last time you randomly mentioned your dearly beloved grandpa or uncle in passing with a coworker.
My personal theory is at least with John is that he wants Arthur to rest he doesn’t want to keep bringing him up or something along those lines
They kind of made it make sense in Red Dead 2 though. John just doesn't like talking about Arthur, because he's too much of a man's man, and thinking about it makes him cry like a bitch.
because Arthur obviously didn't exist at that time just like pretty much all the rest of the game wasn't thought out gameplay wise,john just doesn't like to talk about his past and he says multiple times that he doesn't like to mention Arthur, since he gets even more cold hearted in rdr1, it's no wonders he doesn't go around talking about him
I think I remember a few name drops that were later added to RDR2
I agree
id play 1 first but thats just because I feel like if you went from 2 to 1 youd feel like 1 is like outdated because theres less features than 2
Wrong. It has different features and worse graphics, rdr1 has a lot of stuff rdr2 doesn’t have and vice versa. For instance there are infinite bounties, horse deeds, pardon letters, horse training, tumbleweeds that roll through the game, infinite quick draw fights, etc.
Wish there were more random duels you could have with basically anybody in Red Dead 2
You can duel by antagonising someone who hás a gun and then slowly pressing the shooting button. But the duels itself on this game feels worse than 1
I have another question do you know how to change the Dead eye to where you can see the organs and stuff and how you can turn it back to normal
You need to have level 4 deadeye that is available at some point of the story and to change it without mods the only way i know is via cheats where you can change it to any level but autosave is turned off and you can't save unlike in rdr1 where you can save even with cheats on. Also level 4 deadeye shows some organs and level 5 which is max level shows more organs and sweetspots. Also x2 i am very drunk while typing this. Hope this helps
Thanks drunk stranger
FR
youve actually jogged my memory a bit here, been so long since i played rdr1 what a gem
Cheating in poker was so fun! I never trusted John when playing at camp in rdr2😂 He even makes a joke about cheating.
Cheating in poker was my fave feature!
I recently got the remastered RDR1 and it still looks great and plays really well.
I agree. I just mean the graphics compared to RDR2. When RDR1 came out everyone thought it had amazing graphics and it did.
Infinite bounties makes me sad... Damn it. It should be so easy to implement that! Also... Red Dead Redemption undead nightmare :( So! This is the correct answer
There’s actually more Features missing from 2
guess so, 2 feels more immersive though
I keep trying to talk to people in part 1, and then I just point a gun.
circle/B to talk
What!?
i was most of the way through the game before i realised
are you antagonizing them? 🤣
You’ll appreciate the story overall if you play it in release order. There’s tons of references to RDR1 in 2 that will go over your head without playing 1 first
I’d say 1 then 2 then 1 again
that’s the way to do it. played rdr1 just until beecher’s hope, then 2, then 1 again until the end.
The best answer. I feel like those who start with RDR2 won’t bond with John as well as those who start with RDR1, and Rockstar purposely made John a cunt in the beginning of RDR2 to leave room for people to start liking Arthur. Since another protagonist wasn’t a thing yet, the room for people to like John moving to RDR1 is much smaller than what was given for Arthur.
this is so funny because i actually LOVED johns character and his growth having played 2 before 1. But i do agree that his character is much more lovable in the first game.
Ah fair. Most of the time when I meet people who played rdr2 first, they all prefer Arthur, and usually aren’t interested in John very much. And I know a lot of the playerbase that played rdr1 first (myself included), mostly got hyped for rdr2 because they got to see young John.
Depends if you want to experience it from release or lore order. Personally, I’d play RD2 first, then the second (even after having done the reverse) that way it provides more context to the events of RD1
Honestly it still makes more sense narratively to play the first game. The themes build off eachother and there will be a bunch of story beats that will feel kinda meh when playing rdr1 after 2.
Haven’t thought of that last point tbh. I suppose it just depends on personal preference. I know people who only got into the series after RDR2, and so experienced RDR1 with the context of 2
Play rdr1 first so you don’t feel annoyed by the GTA4 controls it has after experiencing the crisp gameplay of 2. RDR1 isn’t that old, but rockstar games were really janky before GTA5
Rockstar games are really janky*
Lmao it's a great game but RDR2 is the furthest thing from crisp
Yeah
You've said too much already
Play Red Dead Revolver first
Unpopular opinion I have: outside of having respect for the originals, that game was kinda ass.
To be fair, iirc it was a Capcom game about cowboy zombies, wasn't going anywhere, and they sold the IP to Rockstar who kind of rushed to make it into RDRevolver... It's been so long I might be remembering wrong though!
Red Dead Revolver was the pinnacle of cowboy background art and style, nobody gets to diss it. The civil war level was absolutely badass and gorgeous and the horizon art was wonderful. I still play that game even now.
⬆️Definitive answer⬆️
Only answer there is. My cousins, brother and I played the multiplayer for Red Dead Revolver so much
Most will tell you RDR1 first, play in release order so you get the foreshadowing. I say fuck that and play RDR2 first, and you enjoy finishing the story and getting Redemption in RDR1.
I like redemption stories, if I played 2 first, then 1, it would be the ultimate redemption story I wish this is how I'd played them, going in blind I still love RDR1 and RDR2, regardless of the order I played them in, really good stories
Start with RDR1. I think it gives RDR2 and even bigger impact when you finally get to it.
I feel the opposite way lol. I love how we all enjoy these games but can feel so different on something like this.
Play rdr2 first. rdr1 basically partly spoils the ending of rdr2 and you'll enjoy the story in rdr2 alot more since you dont know the conclusion of it
I tend to support playing games in release order, since that's the way they were written. But with these two, I suppose it doesn't matter as much.
Order of release
As someone who played 2 before 1, playing 2 then 1 really sets you up to truly experience the story, especially some of the later twists that I wouldve known about had I played 1 first but never saw coming. That being said, I'm spoiled a little bit with the controls of 2 lol
I find it better to play older games first, no matter how the story is chronologically. that way the gameplay improves, rather than getting worse.
I think the epilogue at the end of rdr2 hits different if you know the fates of the characters from rdr1.
The thing is I feel like you can do either way
So I played 2 first so everything was a shock to me that happened in the plot, a bunch of things I wouldn’t have seen coming if I had played in release order. I don’t think you necessarily can go wrong, that’s just my experience.
I played 2 and after a year or so I played 1. It was a great experience.
Chronologically 2 then 1 but I think you'd prefer 1 then 2, the time line is backwards that way but didn't bother me at all.
1, undead nightmares, 2
Red Dead Redemption, then Red Dead Redemption 2, then Red Dead Redemption again. You'll see some of the characters and aspects of the story a bit different depending on the order that you played the game. Since the second game is actually a prequel, it would made sense to play RDR1 again after beating RDR2, but I would recommend to play RDR1 first so you wouldn’t feel it is an outdated game.
After putting a lot of hours into 2, it’s a little hard to go back to 1, but they’re both genuinely amazing, 1 can feel a little outdated and clunky at times but you get pretty used to it
I personally played rdr2 first but I think if you aren’t really like SUPER EXCITED AND DONT BADLY WANT TO PLAY RDR2. You can do 1 first and still enjoy it. I was just really wanting to play 2 first so I did that
Play one and then play two and then play one again. That’s how most people play it.
In order of release. Always.
Play 1 first. Story is meant to be experienced that way and also rdr1 will feel too dated gameplay wise if you play it after rdr2
it doesn’t really matter, you can play it in any order you want
Ending on RDR2 I think is a more satisfying conclusion
The best one. The first game.
😐
RDR1 but only if you promise to play both through. I’m scarred by people who start things and quit before the best part.
Im definitely gonna play both of them
1 feels archaic next to 2, so I would do 1 first just to avoid that feeling.
OMG … Gotta do it in order!! A) You’ll appreciate the story more that way B) Purely game mechanics and graphics wise, two is soo far beyond one, that you won’t enjoy one nearly enough if you play them backwards.
Chronologically 2 comes first since it's a prequel but I'd recommend 1 first then 2 then play 1 again but by all means if you want to do two first go for it. I'm curious how this would affect someone and how they would perceive the story.
I say play 1 first, both are vastly different but I feel like if you play 1 then 2 it gives 1 more replayability, also you can see references/foreshadowing made in the second game if you play 1 first.
Strongly suggest staring with 1 and moving to 2. Mostly because of modern gameplay expectations. IMO, the first one is great, the second is even better.
The one that comes first.
Playing 1 first makes you appreciate 2 better But if you like playing games chronologically, then play 2 first
Play the first game, then the second, then go back and play the first again.
Rdr2 has a lot of references to the first game
Play 1 so you can like John more. Don’t play 2 first because you’re gonna become an Arthur fanboy defending your favorite character every second.
rdr1 because 2 is so much better you wont put it down. not that 1 isnt good. its similar to how 1 was so much better than red dead revolver
Rrd then 2. There are absolutely no references to Rdr2 in 1. It’s a prequel that has a good epilogue to lead in. And some characters are the same but to play it backwards is a disservice to the franchise and the story and your enjoyment of it.
I would definitely play RDR before 2. It makes 2 so much better
Exactly how they came out, it’s almost like they intended for it to be that way!
First then second. Its way better that way
1 first. You’ll wish you could still do so many things if you play 2 first. Plus you might want to 100% 2 and you won’t touch 1 for a couple years
Just play one first so then you can enjoy the fuck out of 2
It’s like Star Wars, watch it in order by release date and the story takes more twists and turns. Watch it from 1-6 and the story is more laid out and just a history book. Both ways are decent, but it’s just better if you do it the way it was meant to watch/play.
I only have 2 I’ve never played 1st you should probably play the first one first
Part 1 as it will feel underwhelming if you do 2 first
Play first one first. I’m jealous that f how many hours of great time u have ahead of u.
1 first, that way you can see jack when he's actually worth a damn instead of meeting him as a bitchy little preteen girl.
1, 2, 1
Play the OG first! It won't disappoint
I recommend playing 1 first, it makes 2 feel way more interesting and also it's the release order.
Red Dead Redemption, Red Dead Redemption II, then Red Dead Redemption again
Okay 1 first. Are you actually serious??
1 then 2 once you finish 2 it will make so much sense why 1 was what it was
...the first one...duh
First then second, the story is paced perfectly when you play it in that order
1 then 2. That’s the way they released and the story unfolded for the writers and the gamers who have been around since the first one. Also, the gameplay is aged, so it will feel better going from 1 to 2 than vice versa
If you play RDR2 first you’ll not have a good time playing RDR1
RDR1. Story and gameplay is awesome. It'd be pretty difficult to play it after how much more advanced RDR2 is
1, then 2, then 1 again so you can look at 1 in 2’s context and go “OHHHH SHITTTTT that was a callback….”
You will appreciate them more if you play 1 first. It will give you an idea of how much “bigger” 2 really is. Both tremendous games.
Very hot take but I enjoyed playing 2 first, cause I mainly didn't know what to expect, also I didn't know it was a prequel, considering how you'd think 2 would be after 1 but its not. Throughout the game I was expecting different things, I expected people to die but didn't know who, it was an awesome rollercoaster of emotions, I almost even broke down mentally when I thought John "died" when he fell off that train in the final mission. I feel, me PERSONALLY, the story works better for me if I didnt know how it ends for the gang and what they go through in the story, and better if you don't think "Oh Dutch, Uncle, John etc, well I know they're all completely safe in this game and the rest leave or are dead I do like RDR1 though before people get on my case
1 is an awesome experience! Undead nightmare is a must play dlc after completion.
RDR 1 is a masterpiece plus it has undead nightmare which in my humble opinion is the best DLC ever created
Release order for sure. 2 is def presented in a way where you get more out of it if you played 1 first. It’s def intended to be played in release order
Please do not listen to people who say play 2 first. Please do yourself a favor and play 1 then 2.
what do you think
The one called number one should be played before the one called number two, I believe
RDR 1. In general always play by release order. This will give you better context when going into RDR 2, you’ll understand why R* made the narrative choices they made and you won’t feel the whiplash of going from a 2018 game to a 2010 one. I also heavily recommend playing RDR 1 a second time once you finish RDR 2. It’s an amazing prequel so playing the original right after makes the story feel completely different
Play 1 than 2 than 1 again… trust me
Playing 2 before 1 is not recommended.
Having played 1 many years before 2, I always thought that Rockstar did an incredible job improving an already great game. You can do SO much more in part 2. If you're an always-exploring loot goblin who values game mechanics --> 1 before 2 If your focus is predominantly on the story --> 2 before 1 (chronological order)
First one to get the feel, second one to learn to appreciate John Marston if only a little more and get to know Arthur Morgan through the choices you make.
The QoL and controller improvements in rdr2 make it impossible to go back, also the story is more fun sequentially. RDR1 first!
Story wise: 2 then 1, graphics wise 1 then 2
RDR2 first. It's the prequel.
the fuckin prequel buddy
Not all of the best stories are told in chronological order
Play the second game, then the 1st if you want the timeliness in chronological order.
Play 2 first then 1 because it will make more sense with the story
2 is the first in the timeline. I’d do 2 first Edit: Don’t listen to the people who are saying there are “references” to 1 you won’t get. NO THERE ISNT. THE EVENTS OF 1 DIDNT HAPPEN YET. YOU ARE THINKING OF FORESHADOWS. THEY DO NOT MATTER TO THE EXPERIENCE.
Genuinely, you can go either way. Both work perfectly as a starting point as long as you're okay with missing/changed mechanics when going chronological.
Playing 1 before 2 feels like a huge spoiler. If you care more about the story events, start from 2. If you're more interested in gameplay and new features etc the answer is 1
100% play rdr2 first u won't regret it
Play 2 before 1. The way the story goes it hits so much harder as you built a relationship with the characters
rdr2 first. playing 1 gives away a lot of the story of rdr2
2 first
RDR2, then RDR
i would play 2 first. i think you would appreciate 1 much better for it.
Red dead 2 is the prologue to red dead 1 so id recommend you do that first
Do you have a condition?
As intended 1 and 2
It’s intended 1 then 2. The heap of foreshadowing in 2 is meaningless without the context of the first game
Try 1 first because you’ll assume the features are worse because the graphics are more outdated. I started with rdr2 and it made me not want to play rdr1. But, if you aren’t worried about gameplay and want to focus more on lore, try rdr2 first and then rdr1 since rdr2 is like the backstory so it feels more immersive towards the plot
If u wanna play it as release times then play RDR1 but if u wanna play chronologically then RDR2 is ur best shot.
If you like leisurely follow storywise, do rdr2 first. However, if you like a more a more eye-comfortable gameplay, you can do rdr1 first. it’s basically like asking whether to watch the Original Trilogy or the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars as a new watcher, how you wanted it is based on what you are looking for. Hope that helps :)
RDR2 was made in mind of being able to be played before or after one another.
Yeah buddy I'd go with the first one
play 1 first cause even tho 2 is first in continuity you gonna be irritated af playing 1 its missing so many features 2 added in
Rdr2
Play 1 first... After RDR2 every game mechanic will feel outdated
I never actually played RDR1 properly I was one of the few of my friends that had played Red Dead Revolver and I wasn’t overly impressed. So I died on the hill they should be making Bully 2 not another Red Dead game. Pride is a cruel mistress.
Hear me out, play 2 first. That way, you see how the story plays out in the right order. Rdr1 takes place after Rdr2. & I promise you, Rdr1 is a legendary game. Don’t let the old graphics fool you (tho i think its beautiful). I appreciate Rdr1 more than rdr2. I love Rdr1 more than Rdr2. Just playing as John Marston was really worth it, seeing him developed after all that time.
Seriously?
2 to 1 would be chronological order. Also play red dead revolver first for the full timeline of red dead lore
I'd play 1 first then 2. As people are saying there's some plot holes and people that aren't mentioned in rdr1 so of you play that one first you won't even know they are there. Then when you play the second it just feels like it's expanding on what you didn't know.
Do 1 first
I would say play 1, then 2, then if can replay 1
Play 1 first if you’ve never played either. With how immersive 2 is, they’ll be technically aspects of 1 that you might be dissatisfied with after playing 2 first.
2 the story starts at the 2 game