Which game is better? Red Dead Redemption Vs. Red Dead Redemption 2
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 09. 2023
- Which game is better? Red Dead Redemption or Red Dead Redemption 2? Red dead redemption vs red dead redemption 2
Join the discord here:
/ discord
Follow me on twitter:
/ cynicalgaming13
Follow me on instagram:
/ cynic.the.original
Consider supporting me on Patreon & checking out the unique perks that come with it:
/ cynictheoriginal - Hry
I played rdr2 first then 1 and idk but i just love the first game more
Listen if you take it without context, it has to be 2.
But they are EIGHT years apart and a different console. I personally feel RDR1 is the more memorable game and it’s my personal favourite game of all time.
I played it when it first came out and have platinumed it. Maybe nostalgia clouds me, but I personally will always go for rdr1.
The only thing I don’t like is when people haven’t played 1 and decide that 2/ Arthur is superior. You don’t have an opinion if you haven’t played both
True
Red dead 2 is far and away the 'better' game on basically every metric I think Red Dead 1 is the more memorable game for me being a true western.
Better replay value and side interests in RDR1 by far. Edit: oh and the horses I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the stable system in each game. Second one may have the first best on realism but God if I didn't just absolutely hate it
@@huntercollum869depends on your taste becuase for me i find that rdr2 has a better replay value, just so much you can miss on your first second or even third run. It does depend on how you like to play the game though if you’re more boots to action then ofc rdr1 is for you but some others prefer to take it slow and explore, in which i think we can both agree rdr2 has a far more detailed map
@@huntercollum869 I haven't yet played rdr1 but I have the ps4 copy, right now I'm on a new game in rdr2 in chapter 3 but I have to say I had found in the beginning it is pretty tedious where you have get satchels if you want to hold more stuff or get trinkets to improve your abilities also if you want to upgrade the whole camp that includes pelts, also I always do every challenge in rdr2 to get full health, stamina and deadeye bar.
Rdr1 has much better writing, side characters, villains, dialogue, cutscenes, music, atmosphere, side quests, chapter variety, gunplay. Lol at your "better in every metric"
@@fightingtothepoint4u732 never said it was better or worse than in the other brother, just said one was more detailed than the other and caters to different styles of play; personally i think they both amazing games and have their own right to be called amazing games
The one thing that separates them... Arthur can swim but like any good parent, I don't have a favorite.
I actually played the original after rdr2 for the very first time so going into rdr2 I didn’t have any biased sorts of feelings towards Arthur thinking ‘oh johns way better’ I also don’t have any nostalgia biases so in my honest opinion I think rdr2 is better on so many levels
Ya except no safe houses no random bandits dragging their enemy across town shooting in the air or random bandits attacking women which you can help , many interiors that were in the original game that arnt accessible in the new game , also fuckin Mexico undead nightmare, better online mounts ect…
I did the same thing as you. Played rdr2 before rdr, but I liked the first one better. Both are amazing games.
I’m going to say RDR1 is leagues more fun than the second. More fast paced, cool characters, it takes place in the actual desert, as opposed to the swamp from RDR2. Can go to Mexico (don’t remember if you can in the second one). John Marston is a freakin Terminator. The horse in RDR1 had this cool little trick to get infinite stamina, as opposed to the second one. Jesus that horse maintenance was driving me crazy in RDR2. Speaking of the horse, you spend most of the time riding him from point A to point B, and while that was also true for RDR1, it didn’t feel nearly as tedious.
What else… RDR1 has those old school cheat codes that games these days just don’t have anymore. That added a ton of replay value. Oh and let’s not forget the DLC Undead Nightmare, a ton of fun.
Yeah they went for too much realism in RDR2 and the story was too much yappity-yapp. Plus maintaining a camp that was never gonna make it? Lol
They should have just made it like RDR1, a fun arcade third-person shooter, could have been amazing.
Me who prefers John Marston:
They are both solid, I'm not going to compare one against the other. Rather I play 2 and then the first one as a single experience; a true Red Dead Redemption from the frozen hills of Colter up to the moment Jack leaves Ross' ass floating with the fishes
I agree the tone of each is very different
You can get an off-hand holster in RDR2 without doing the mission ''Blessed are the Meek''. Just skin 2 deer and you have completed the hunter 1 challenge, go to any Trapper and claim your prize, you can do a lot of things in RDR2 without completing the story and just going around.
Those challenges are ridiculous and out of pocket
@@Smellmyballz I agree, but I don't think that skinning two deer is that egregious of a request to make.
They both are great but I started with 2 fell in love with the game and Arthur Morgan, without that game I would’ve never set foot in this world. It was my first main story rockstar game I’ve ever played
To be honest, the gameplay and gunplay of RDR1 is way better than the one in RDR2. It's way more fun to move around and shoot enemies. The ragdoll physics and shooting mechanics in the original can't be beaten!
Story is also better, wandering from camp to camp with no objective versus bringing in two guys to save your entire family, I know what I’m picking
RDR1 is better, RDR2 is the flavour of the month being a new game so everyone chooses that. Notice how when people put up a poll, it’s always the newer released games that win? People in this day and age ain’t got time to appreciate RDR1’s brilliance when they’re glued to warzone all day unfortunately
You when someone has a different opinion 😡😡😡
Protagonist = tie
Game play = RDR1
Story = RDR2
World = RDR2
Fun = tie
Story for me would be equal for both games.
DLC= RDR1
How the hell is gameplay a tie?
@@cubsfan21547 I gave gameplay to RDR1 genius.
@glowinggames1561 what can't you do in rdr2 that you can do in rdr1?
A prequel would be amazing I think and it would complete the story of him and John, a young Arthur learning his gunslinging we get to see him without a home we get to see Dutch and Hosea take him in and watch Arthur tackle loyalty and morals much like 2 but reverse he wouldn’t want to kill he would be young, but under Dutches leadership watch Arthur turn into a ruthless killer and one of the best gunslinger alive, it’ll be a few years back maybe we see red Harlow, tie that in, full circle
I liked the fame system, robbing safes in banks and jail houses and the classic outfits and attributes they gave the main character from the original game. It’s also much more casual to play than the second game.
Also in my opinion, I think the stranger missions were better in the first.
RDR 1 = Better gameplay , more fun shooting and a true badass Western also unlimited activities , let's not forget it's less stressful (even after you get 100.0% completion still unlimited replay value)
RDR 2 = Better graphics , story , characters , map , script // dialogue and ending (game feels dead after you get 100.0% completion)
Fair
Rdr1 story is shorter and more basic, but i think it is better
Characters in rdr1 are more charismatic, overall it depends of the characters we talk about cause micah has no depth ( just a bad killer opportunist), dutch, as smart as he should be, is easy to manipulate,....
Map i think you're right but rdr2 map isn't western, which is sad imo
Dialogues, in rdr1 mant dialogues are memorable when in rdr2 there's few really good ones
Ending, in rdr1 it's more unexpected and we really feel lost as jack is when we start playing as him. The fact we know Arthur's gonna die hours before it happens make me felt way sadder for john ( also cause i prefered john, as attached i was to Arthur, i just was more to john) but epilogue was good in rdr2
Imo
The problem with prequels are, well Javier makes no sense after playing 2, John seems like a different person, and certain gang members aren’t even mention ie the impact in which you have as Arthur, there is mention of it in the first game
John is so weak in the second game, first game he has so much confidence and humour and in the second game he’s like the dumbest character in the camp, acts like he’s 17 and shows no signs of the person he goes onto become.
what is the intro song
Please tell me
Rdr1 gameplay>>>>>>>>
FACTS bro , I thought I was the only one who felt that way... RDR 1 gameplay is far better and has so much replay value (also much less stressful)
I like both games of course RDR2 is way better and Arthur Morgan is a 100% bad ass. I am currently playing the rerelease of RDR and have recently finished RDR2, which I will go back to after I finish RDR, I agree with you, RDR 9.5/10, RDR2 solid 10/10.
I love rdr2 Arthur’s character is good and the whole story is good and the way he has to redeem his elf is amazing but I like rdr1 better than the second one by a little bit but in general they are one of the best games ever created
both are goated imo
honestly it doesn't really matter which game is better because the horses are still dumb🤣....but seriously both of these games are great and compliment each other. some stuff in the first game is better and vice versa.
3:50 this is an incorrect statement. You beat that guy because youve just seen what he and Colm Odriscolls boys did to Sadie and her Husband.. that was a completely justified thing that Arthur did. At that point you are aware that Colms boys raided that house and did terrible things.
Undead nightmare takes the cake for me!
4:37 Rob WHO? 😂
i think he said wheatcliff?!?!
Glad I’m not the only one 😂
I'm literally 2 seconds into the video but I'm going to add my opinion to the question from the title.
It's RDR2 and it's not even close. Yes the original was good but RDR2 is pretty close to a perfect game IMO. Story, gameplay versatility, character interaction.l, the game has everything in abundance and done well. There's sometimes I turned on the game and it was a fishing or hunting simulator. Other times it was a great western story driven 3rd person game. Sometimes it's a cool collect-a-thon. I could go on but I'm sure everyone here understands. It's truly a great game and honestly, if RDR3 is the exact same game in a different setting with different people I'll still love it and play it for 100's of hours.
"2 seconds into the video"
I agree with your opinion and love the points you make (I really like hunting), but the video was probably halfway through you making the comment.
nah rdr1 had way way better side missions and marston is the goat, when you first get into mexico is one of the greatest gaming moments ever and when you add in undead nightmare it's not even close that's one of the greatest zombie games in itself
For most things that are objective ( don't depends of tastes) rdr2 hs more flaws but more depth and overall is better. Rdr2 is less casual ( like we can't roll in rdr2, making sense even if it's worse ( i wish we could jump like in max payne, dead eye mid air..) but our character can't stay catching a ledge as in rdr1, one of the things that were more detailed)
Rdr2 is more buggy, don't always respond well, we can take many shots just because our character decided to put his rifle on his horse and not on his back as we did then decide to take 6 seconds to take his rifle back
So rdr2 is better cause of more possibilities and depth, but has more bugs
Overall, rdr1 has a lot of better things, but rdr2 has better things too, so i say 2 but i legitimately prefere rdr1
rdr2 for sure
People complain about "rdr2 fanboys" but all I see in the comments are buthurt rdr1 fans or better description rdr2 popularity haters. The fact is if we had worldwide poll, RDR2 would own RDR and for many reasons. I played both and actually am big fan of earlier Rockstar titles(Vice City and IV are still my favorite GTA titles and I played all of them) but RDR2 gaming experience is something that will stay with me forever. First game ever to make me feel like watching a movie or TV series I really love. I actually cried during some cutscenes and immersed myself fully, something RDR never made me do. Sure, John's death is sad but it's just idk not cinematic and sudden. Arthur's last ride towards the camp before last mission with him remembering certain dialogues depending on honor level plus background music "that's the way it is" really makes it like a classic movie scene and knowing what is about to happen, I just get overly sentimental. Idk, that's just my opinion. Be real guys, just because something is popular among many types of people and children doesen't mean it's bad...
People who played RDR1 first were prepared for tragedy. People who played RDR2 were not prepared for tragedy.
Arthur is the John Wayne of Red Dead about the idealism of the West, John is the Clint Eastwood of Red Dead about the realism of the West. Arthur died idealistically while John died realistically.
4:37 Weedcliff? You should be ashamed of yourself.
English isnt my first language
@@CynicGTAhow do you make Wheecliff out of Wiethoff? 😂
@@CynicGTA I understand and I forgive you
1
Well John can't swim so I'd say at most an 8/10
Can’t swim therefore the games bad
Both are 🤍
Rdr1 is gd
John Marston - protagonist
RDR2- gameplay
RDR- story
RDR2 - world
Fun - Tie
nah fun goes to rdr1 and by far
Fun and gameplay go to rdr1
The first game have a better protagonist, a story that actually goes somewhere, WAY better side missions, better controls and feels more like a video game than the second game, that feels more like a cowboy simulator than an action-adventure video game. I feel like 99% of Red Dead Remption 2's fans never played any other video game in their entire lives. They treat every single thing in the game like it's a mindblowing new feature never done before in the history of video games.
Generally I'd say John and Arthur are equal, bias aside. All though personally due to nostalgia I like john more- Arthur, even though he has his own character and is very developed, is still used as something to further deepen John himself. Red dead redemption 2 has better Gameplay but that's entirely based off the time and the fact that these are the same Developers. Who actually have the ability to develop their own skill in terms of graphics gameplay etc. Out of the 5 categories I'm gonna go with this
Fun = RDR1 (Preference based however.)
Gameplay = RDR2 (More mechanics to use, improved mechanics at that. Horse plays really well in comparison to RDR1 and the shooting system feels more realistic.)
Story= RDR2 (As the creator stated, RDR1 is much more straight forward and RDR2 has a lot of development to enhance RDR1 At a higher level, once you put them both together then RDR1 becomes the better game, because RDR2 is a prequel that is used to develop the story of RDR1 in general.
World = (Equal. Where RDR2 lacks in terms of map and world, RDR1 is full of. Where RDR1 Lacks in terms of map and world- RDR2 Is full of.)
First game will forever be better because of the amount of fanboys the second game has, they will mention how everything is upgraded and how brilliant Arthur is but never mention his flaws. John is 1000% more comedic than him and the first game has way more comedy than the second game, West Dickens and Irish are funnier than everybody COMBINED in the second game. Not to mention they are way better side characters than any of the poorly written camp members in 2 who hardly get screen time, look at Bill and Javier who barely get screen time because of Arthur stealing the spotlight.
rdr2 for the win easily better in every aspect from graphics story acting humour emotion the messages behind it and the redemption ark for Arthur the sacrifice too saving as many as he could and then the revenge from John taking out that annoying ugly rat bag in the end to then reuniting with his family 10 out of 10 whereas rdr1 destroys number 2 in a lot of ways as well as having a raging climax until the end when Jack ends that old senile trampy blob Edgar Ross apart from that I can't praise the game it pisses me off every time only compliments I can really give besides that ending is the performance of Rob as John he is great the music action that's it not really enough for me that's why rdr2 I still love plus I am on my 14th replay on the epilogue part 2 nearly gonna destroy that snake very soon.
Humour 🤣 ok buddy
@@CodPatrol yeah????
@@ZW147 Arthur is not funnier than John in any capacity and even if you don’t mean him, nobody in the second games camp is funnier than Irish or West Dickens.
@@CodPatrol 😂😂😂 this is not a comedy club you egg I said the game has humour ain’t a competition between certain characters who’s the funniest be quiet
RDR2 is such a boring game for me tbh
Fr it’s boring af lol
undead nightmare makes red dead redemption 1 clear
In my opinion
Graphics rdr2
Story rdr1
Main character rdr1 BARELY
World rdr2
Side characters rdr2
Protagonist rdr1
Could write an entire essay on the flaws of RDR2, Dutch and Arthur are two excellent characters but everyone else is honestly undeveloped and uninteresting in comparison. Sadie Adler might as well be a stereotype with that ridiculous accent, girls like Mary Beth blend in with each other, there’s 3 girls in camp who look exactly like her, I don’t even know their names because they’re so poorly written.
RDR1 has Seth, West Dickens, Irish, Marshal, Reyes, De Santa, Ricketts, Ross, Bonnie. Who holds a candle to any of them? Charles doesn’t and Sadie Adler certainly does not.
Protagonist = RDR2 (easily)
Game play = RDR2
Story = RDR2
World = RDR2
RDR2 is just better in almost every category with a FAR more explored protagonist. John is honestly pretty bland for the most part and not even close to being top 2 in the rdr franchise getting absolutely destroyed by arthur and dutch in all metrics of writing. Which is the most important thing to me within a story game.
He is the face of the franchise and you call him "bland".He was such a great character they downgraded him because they were afraid people wouldn't like arthur.
@@zombiekiller4313 being a face of something doesn’t give you more value. In comparison hes bland asf to Arthur and Dutch, his psyche is just weak asf. And also by them making John a scumbag in rdr2, it doesn’t hurt his character, if anything it boosts his character on a rdr1 replay with recontextualization from his history
@@Ceej601 It doesn't make him more likeable.They took the traits of john and retconned it.
@@Ceej601 easily 🤣 bland is every single side character in 2, try beating the trio of West Dickens, Irish and Seth
@@Ceej601 bland is changing your personality just because some guy coughed in your face, bet you weren’t even born when the first game was released
Imo rdr1 is a lot better than rdr2. Rdr2 has bad gunplay and it’s pretty boring.
What music are you using?