In my opinion it's better paced, has a tighter story, is more convenient to play, is funnier, has a way better soundtrack, has a more memorable (if less likable) protagonist, and it has Mexico (which is cooler than anywhere in RDR II). It also feels "cooler" in a more effortless manner; characters like Irish and Seth and West Dickins were less developed than the supporting cast of RDR II, but they had a zany charm to them; and the game also doesn't feel like it's pushing any "agenda" (I don't have a problem with Sadie being a woman, but Arthur constantly making comments about how "badass" she was made the game seem more tryhard). Bonnie was a far superior "strong female archetype" to Sadie.
What are some things the first game does better than the second?
Other urls found in this thread:
Dude this game is like ten years old
Reminder that if you were underage at any point during the 7th gen you're too young to post here.
K oldfag
The first game was less hand holdy and felt less like you were playing a movie.
If you were retarded when you were 20 that's your problem
This
No one's making memes of RDR2, let alone 1, so why would you still be playing them? Move on, dude. Doom Eternal is getting all the attention right now.
Story was better, only because it was a rip off of The Wild Bunch. 2 does pretty much everything else better. Not to say 1 is bad, 2 just improved on greatness.
More freedom in missions but not by much
More responsive controls but again still not ideal in RDR1
Snappy dialogue that is a lot more entertaining to watch
Superior atmosphere
Better ambient music
Generally I dislike RDR2 for things it doesn't do more than it does do. RDR1 is a less ambitious game but there is not one underutilized element or a wasted potential. It accomplishes what it sets out to do unlike RDR2.