What are some things the first game does better than the second?

Is a video game

It doesn't have anything in common with the Wild Bunch aside from Mexico and gang members turning on each other

sounds like you haven't watched the movie. Deke Thorton is literally John Marston.

RDR1 has a much better story and overall gameplay loop. RDR2 just has more open world details and cinematic moments, but is less of a game in every other way.

That user saw The Wild Bunch 5 years ago and remembers none of it.

the first game didn't feel clunky and hard to control the character

Literally? Because he was once in the gang and not anymore? Deke is in the film for 10 minutes. He's not the reason the Bunch gets killed.

Not even worth arguing with you any further.

The creators of the game are the one's that said they copied The Wild Bunch. Take it up with them.

> t.hypehopper pleb
kys man, I'm bring totally honest

Faster less retarded horses

He's joking you retard

Well for starters it's not bogged down in a sea of bullshit monotony. RDR2 frequently confuses "realistic" game mechanics for something enjoyable. I don't know how anybody could stomach having to go to their fucking horse over and over to change weapons, or how you have to keep going to the barbers to not look like a homeless bastard. These aren't fun mechanics, it's mind rotting tedium.

I'm with you on the Bonnie Situation. Sadie was clearly pandering to the people who were up in arms about Rockstar's sexism, Bonnie was a more subtle character that was written more sincerely.

Not to mention you have to clean your gun way too often and you can only carry three packs of gun oil at a time. I don't wanna go to the gunsmith after every fucking mission guys.

ikr. It's unrealistic that your horse should be carrying every single gun you own. Next time they should make you go all the way back to camp to change guns.

This game is a masterpiece. Also way superior physics and gunplay.

Attached: Euphoria.webm (480x720, 2.95M)

That shit was also bugged so my expensive rifles kept bugging out and vanishing out.

Did you forget about the working with the government to turn in/kill former members of the gang? The machine gun? The character named Dutch? The game has tons in common with the movie on purpose and was the biggest influence on Red Dead Redemption, don't be ridiculous now.

gameplay and online

>online
Oh God I hate what Rockstar has become

redundant.

No long-ass animations, I think that's pretty much it, oh and you cant bet more money on poker.

Any chance they ever add Mexico to 2?

I really wish it comes to pc but knowing rockstar they'll

A. not do it

Or

B. Do it and fuck it up severely

and no I don't want a remaster. cause Rockstars definition of a "Remaster" is make everything shiny and thats about it.

they said they arent even working on any single player dlc so I highly doubt it

>the Bonnie Situation
Based

God I wish. Escelera and Chuparosa were amazing towns.

They're both masterpieces. We're lucky to have them and any other dev making open world games STILL needs to use rockstar as the benchmark for what they need to have in order to have a proper open world game

>hurr durr he referenced one of the most popular movies ever made, how b-b-b-b-BASED!

I hope this is some not so subtle consoom memeing.

Last gen stands head and shoulders above this one in terms of physics. You'd think that it would've gotten better in this gen.

Attached: RFG physics.gif (400x225, 955.67K)

What the fuck happened? Why did devs forget about this shit?

This game, like all rockstar games, is antiquated. the design sucks.
>huge open world with nothing in it
>in story missions do exactly as we say or fuck you
garbage. same with RDR2 but the difference is it has some shinier physics, graphics, a much larger map filled with collectables, more polished shooting mechanics, but is ultimately bogged down by the weight of all its systems which are not very refined, such as the hunting for instance.

>muh nothing
Nah fuck off. Isolation is what a westerner should be.

>empty
You could go in damn near every building and there were plenty of side missions. It was only as empty as it should've been, with it being a western and all. What exactly are you asking for?

Better DLC. It sucks that we didn't get an Undead Nightmare equivalent with 2. I was hoping for an alien invasion DLC.

I would've loved alien invasion or Mexico

Have you ever been to Texas? It literally is just a huge open world with nothing in it.

They should have never added farming. That shit was stupid, pointless and unnecessary the way things go in the game. The guns also needing upkeep was a mistake. The rest is fine.

>real aliens invading from Mexico

Well hunting and bounties existed in the first game, but they really don't serve any purpose other than earning trophies/completing challenges and nobody but autists gives a shit about that. No, I want

M E A N I N G F U L S Y S T E M S

You know how in Minecraft you have to first collect wood to make a crafting table, then use more wood to craft basic tools, then use those tools to craft better variants of those tools? Then you do this in order to collect better/ more precious materials? Yeah, well there's nothing like that in RDR1 or 2. Hunting can be fun for its own sake, and I know you're just gonna make some stupid retort like, "Well, jackass, what's the point of having a diamond encrusted house in Minecraft?" and the answer is that the fun is found in the progression itself and not necessarily the end goal, but it should also feed into something more meaningful. In Minecraft, you ultimately collect materials so you can build structures and make food items and generally engage with the world.

In RDR1, everything is just fucking handed to you - the best weapons, all the most important ammo, every single upgrade - and you don't really have to work for it. Sure, you CAN for the sake of it, but since the game doesn't offer you the incentive work for those things, most people will just get everything by virtue of playing the story missions.

So, let's take hunting as an example. In RDR1 it existed pretty much as a pointless side activity. I know you could trade furs and goods to make money, and maybe you needed to do some challenges to unlock some outfits, but that's it. In RDR2 it's the same thing, but the hunting mechanics are slightly more complex. You have to identify animals and add them to your compendium, each animal of a certain type will have a quality rating; some animals will go rotten if held for too long, and you have to use a specific weapon type to get the best furs. All of this shit is fine, it's an improvement. (cont.)

Simplistic, but fine. The problem is that the end goal here is to 1) feed your camp which is ultimately pointless in the end or 2) give stuff to the trader to make outfits. I would rather have this system feed into another system somehow. I know your main character has to survive in the wilderness and so the act of hunting sort of feeds into that, but it's hollow because at some point you'll be able to earn enough dough to just buy whatever survival shit you need, and if you don't have cash you can always just loot bandits for cash or the items that you need themselves, not to mention you can just steal from towns and such. Point is, hunting does not adequately feed into the survival mechanics because it's not necessary and there are adequate alternatives, just like the previous example of the first game and how it basically handed you everything.

Maybe if we had a hunting system where you had to collect specific furs and X amount of meat to keep your camp healthy, otherwise camp members go sick, thereby restricting access to their missions, then it would give you incentive to do some hunting. Maybe if your character must prepare for a mission by being well stocked on certain items he could only procure through hunting, this would make for a better system. Maybe if hunting granted materials through which the player could craft a variety of makeshift weapons that function totally differently from those you can earn through conventional means, then it would make for a better system. As it is now, none of this shit is present in the game in any meaningful capacity, it's all there just for the fuck of it. I know there's a special fence in Sant Denis who you can trade legendary animal parts to in exchange for special weapons, but they're just basically trophies that have no meaningful function outside of looking nice. Same with all the special ammunition you can make. What good is poison arrows or explosive bullets of the basic shit works just fine as is?

I felt compelled to continue because I really liked John Marston and a lot of the characters he interacted with. I needed to know what happened next and I didn't mind pulling an all nighter before highschool to find out and suffer the day.
Bounties on me were not something that made me stop playing and co-op online was a blast.

objectively? nothing
the setting is different and you might prefer it for that reason. but everything it does, RDR2 improves on it.

you can shave at the base and carry 4 guns
cleaning your gun is not required at all. it improves its gunfire sound but has no other meaningful effect.

ambient music and atmosphere
character combat dialogue (arthur is a mute beyond "TOO DAMN CLOSE")
mexico was a better mexico than guarma

>objectively
Fuck off

The ambient music always strongly reminded me of Miles Davis
youtu.be/mSS5p9BdNGU

huh, sorry i wasnt 12 when i played rdr1 and wasnt easily impressed by a gta4 asset flip with terrible pacing and the most repetitive missions up until then, with worse controls than its predecessor.

It didn't make money. Rockstar forked out millions for cool realistic physics and they didn't get a fucking dime extra for it. The studio that made red faction went bankrupt. Nobody cares enough because casuals are retards who care more about walking segments of kratos talking to BOI (XD LMAO HIS NAME IS BOI) than cool physics and TECHNOLOGY

I love the non-repetitive missions of RDR2. And the dialogue is simply some of the best ever featured in any piece of media, ever.

That is subjective, not objective

no, it isn't.

RDR 1 did everything but graphics and guns better than 2
it's even a better facsimile of an old over-the-top western

RDR 2 is just a miserable story layered on top of a half-realized 1890s life simulator