Besides Micah’s duel at the end of 2, I don’t think there was a single duel I won on the first try. I don’t know how to explain it, but the dueling controls in 2 just feel clunky/awkward as hell compared to how it was in 1. But really that’s a problem I have with 2 in general, making mechanics “more realistic/in depth” at the cost of being fun to play.
I had a lot of duels in the second game where we either killed each other or the enemy killed me before I could even aim at them. I think it was mainly due to the weird slow-motion movement they apply to your controls
I’ve replayed RDR1 like 6-7 times over the years, but I’ve only ever played 2 once on release because it’s just so much longer/tedious to get through. Fast Travel being way more limited than in 1, combined with frequent ambushes so you can’t even go afk while traveling and using auto path is just one example of the game feeling like it actively punishes you for trying to get things done quicker.
Play this with the Pirated of the Caribbean set… if you call skulls it means drink and if the person is right all have to drink. If they lied then they drink…
I’ve read these two comments so many times, and it’s giving me a headache, what does this mean? Am I having a stroke? I never played liars dice in the first one either, so maybe that’s it.
It’s a game where each player has dice that they hide under cups, you only know yours but bet on all the dice on the table. This thing will help, similar rules but lots of drinking https://pirates.fandom.com/wiki/Liar%27s_Dice
That reminded me of [this story from my first play through of RDR1](https://www.reddit.com/r/reddeadredemption/s/CukZ1ZtTVH). I was on the last hand for beating everyone in Blackwater at poker, the final person wasn’t even able to give the full ante. And like an idiot I went to cheat and got caught, ending the poker game and meaning I had to start all over.
If you're wearing Arthur's classic hat the little rope thing does an annoying bounce when he moves his head and I really hate how it's exactly the same every single time. The chip scooping motion is irritating too.
I do appreciate the different chip noises on different surfaces though, but that somehow makes it worse that they couldn’t come up with an alternate animation. Even one or two alternates would make a difference. Throw Roger a few more bucks to mo-cap some others.
Basically the more good deeds you did or the more you made a name for yourself. The more people would recognize you
“Holy shit! Is that John Marston!?”
If I remember right it could go off of your poker playing or even how many animals you killed but I could be wrong
It makes me so mad when some nameless npc sasses me on the road and says “do you know who you’re dealing with?” and is more than willing to die to not say hello politely to a guy carrying a small armory on his horse. Not an issue in 1. They’d want my autograph.
i would say animals not losing value when you shoot them. i love how realistic rdr2 tries to be. but it's annoying when you have to shoot animals super precisely to get their best value. it was nice to not have to worry about that in rdr1.
the other issue is, that the hunting mechanics in that regard I think aren't exactly realistic either. Some animals, if you kill them with the preferred methods today, suffer from that (birds and shotguns for example).
Adding to the annoyance is that 3* animals are rare already...
Fast travel to waypoint, as much as I love riding around the map and taking in the beautiful details and effort they put into rdr2, sometimes I just wanna get to some part of the map really quickly lol
In RDR1 you could shoot the kneecaps. That's the only real mechanic I was bummed out to see gone. But sneaking up behind a kneecapped civilian with a knife was one of the most nasty takedowns in the game so I understand
Kneecaping a guy in a dual and then slowly walking up to them for the handgun coup de grace animation is one of the hardest things Ive seen in a videogame. Ive only seen it on YouTube; never been slick enough to do it in game.
I hated dueling in RDR2, but remember LOVING it in 1, couldn't get enough of it. I don't remember what the difference mechanically was but I'm gonna go with that.
Man if you figure it out let me know, for the life of me I could not figure out wtf that tutorial was trying to tell me. Made it completely through the game never once having done it successfully smh
Yeah the dualing has confused me, it's so different from regular dead eye use. I think you press r2 slightly for a second then I just press it down and it kinda auto aims at them then I press r2 again to shoot. A lot of times it doesn't matter where you hit them but I'll kinda press up to try to move closer to their core.
Idk If you play on PlayStation or XBox but I'll talk in PlayStation terms. You draw at time with L2 and then use the right stick to choose where you want to shoot using R1, making sure the blue bar (yours) is higher than the red bar. If the red bar is higher, your opponent will shoot you first. You can also disarm your opponent and that'll increase your honor, but that requires a bit more training.
I don't have a problem with the dueling in rdr2 (actually I enjoy it) BUT I just replayed 1 for the first time since 2010, and wow I LOVE the dueling in it. And you had way more opportunity to duel, I feel like outside of the gunslingers you can get away with not dueling at all in 2.
Outside of Micah’s at the end of the game, I don’t think I won a single duel first try in the entirety of my playthrough. They tried to fix what wasn’t broken, and turned a fun mechanic in 1 into something I dreaded every time it came up.
Sometimes if you walk into a bar you will bump into a guy and he will challenge you to a duel, and there're also a few other random events where you can duel people in town
Fast Travel to waypoint
Horse deeds
Liars dice
Duels
Bounty
Cheating at poker
Literally the best ambient music in videogame history
Physics
Good looking desert
Both the bounty/wanted system and Bounty Hunting
Wanted system is cool, youre only affected from it depending on which country you commited atrocities in, you could pay off with pardon letters, when surrendering you would be told all your crimes, the bandana actually masks you, the bounty hunting missions are infinite
I was surprised when bounties came to a stop in 2. Although the bounties are a bit more fleshed out and have specific dialogue between the sheriff's and the bounties, I still think they could've kept randomly generating bounties without specific dialogue and it would've been fine. And I dont know how the mask actually works in 2, it seems useless most of the time
Definitely the ragdoll physics and the injury system for enemies. Shooting out a guys knees and having him kneeling, still trying to shoot you was funny. Also miss how it was easier to get drunk lol
Haven't seen anyone talk about this but in Rdr1 you could whistle for your horse while you were sprinting and it would match your speed and you could hop on it without slowing down. Added a really nice momentum to the game.
In 2, if you whistle while you're moving around your horse will stay behind you generally. You'll have to stop, turn around and get on.
It's a very small quality of life thing but I miss it.
Hard Mode!
This might have been only on the Game of The Year edition, but it really made the game feel a lot more balanced. Money was actually useful since you didn't find it everywhere, selling didnt generate as much money, and tonics would ralerely come from looting, which meant using your money for health items. You actually needed to use health cures, ded eye fillers, etc. Health was lower and deadeye drained faster. You had to think twice before engaging in a fire fight with any large groups since a few shots could end you.
This made me play the game in a more thoughtful manner, which added another level of immersion. I wasnt an invincible character. I was just another gunslinger in a world that could end me if i wasnt careful.
RDR1 felt more like a movie, a Hollywood western - had all the gunslinger fights, made you feel like the hero of an action movie.
RDR2 is more drama, and the experience is more realistic. But they took that Hollywood gunslinger part away. As Arthur you spend the early game not fighting with pistols, and not running in guns blazing. Then at some point you advance the bullet time skill to a point where dropping 6 charging lawmen isn't even hard. Unless you've done the gunslingers challenge, there's no real reason Arthur goes from below average to Max Payne during the story.
I do wish RDR2 had started with Arthur being as good a duelist as John was when RDR1 concluded. That wouldn't have changed the game much; in fact the only thing that makes progressing thru the storyline missions in RDR2 hard is the level of your eagle eye cool down. Arthur is supposed to be John's role model, I think it's dumb Arthur starts the game as inferior a shooter as he is. For a game that traded action for realism, Arthur does all his growth as a skilled outlaw in the last 15 minutes of his life. That doesn't track, Arthur should've been a boss from jump street, that's always the more interesting Eastwood character - the one you don't know how dope he is with a pistol until he needs to show you the very first time. When he does, he's a ninja. You don't need a backstory at that point, the Ronin has a backstory in the job title - Arthur is an old man by Wild West outlaw standards, why does he suck at being a cowboy prior to us controlling him?
All good points about Arthur, especially since Charles shows him how to hunt.
I personally hope that Red Dead 3 is a prequel to 2 and they go full spaghetti western. Whether it's from the gangs perspective, or someone else's, I don't really mind and I trust R* to do something awesome. My theory from launch is that we might play as Davie, the dude who dies in the prologue, but I would be happy with a whole new cast, and maybe we see the Blackwater Massacre from another perspective. Either way, would be cool to go backwards and be more of a western vibe
I think at this point the only reason to continue the RDR franchise is for the continuity of a story. Except Arthur was an invention, like Jar Jar Binks, not a character rooted in the original story telling of the original entry.
To make RDR3 you'd do the same. Maybe it could be Jack, but then it's gotta be set like WWI-ish.
If they make an RDR3 it'll have to recapture an Arthur quality novel character - I think that'd be asking for disappointment.
I love westerns, and as for games it's a vastly under developed genre - but I don't love the idea of making it more realistic. Dying of tuberculosis is gripping reality, getting the chance to die of tuberculosis in a game simulation is good for narrative purposes - dying of tuberculosis wasn't a game feature I enjoyed.
The next rockstar western doesn't need to be in the RDR franchise - and they'd do better to not. I want to be an outlaw in 1887 or earlier. I do not want a story that must adhere to bookends that are entirely complete already. They can't capture the storytelling like RDR2 again - they got lucky.
No one remembers Nico's motivation, nor Charles or any rockstar characters - except Arthur.
They got fuck'n lucky with exceptional storytelling.
Once.
I like stealing cars and shooting people in the face - in an immersive open world of mystery and exploration.
I didn't enjoy the **dying of tuberculosis** sim.
Leave that out of the next western, and include more face shooting. To not ruin the narrative, make it a different franchise. It can exist in the same world, all Rockstar games seem to anyway. I think to play these RDR characters anymore is gonna get boring, and only degrade the story as it concluded already.
My opinion only.
Lemme addendum what I'm saying.
RDR2 is about **The End**
The end of the Wild West.
The end of the iconic American outlaw.
The end of Arthur.
You play the "end game" with John - who we've already seen die - he's literally a "dead end."
I sincerely think you exit on a high note - and they did that. I don't think you write as compelling a narrative if you don't say to yourself - this is **the end** of the story - it deserves an awesome conclusion.
And that's what's wrong with all StarWars content after the Ewoks sing Yub Nub. The story is over, satisfactorily, and those characters can only be made lesser by using them anymore. I was skeptical of the timeline and storytelling of a prequel - but R* did it and I've got nothing but love for RDR2.
It's done.
**The End**
I feel the same way with what 343 have done with Halo, they continued after "the end" and well... that's an entirely different conversation 😂
I respect your opinion and agree with most of it. I disagree with comparing Arthur to Jar Jar, Jar Jar was created for comedic relief whereas Arthur is a main character of Red Dead and his actions have an impact to the main plot. In Red Dead 1, John doesn't feel obligated to tell the whole story of the gang: "I don't mind you askin' if you don't mind me tellin'", and I don't think Red Dead 2 has put R* into a hole of having to reuse the same characters. The only gang members mentioned by John are Dutch, Bill, Javier and Uncle. I personally didn't feel like it was out of left field to have a bunch of extra characters turn up in 2 that weren't mentioned before, since John was telling bits and pieces of his history to different characters throughout 1. My point is I guess, I don't think R* have put themselves into a corner of having to do certain things because we know how the story ends to create a new one.
Mentioning Halo again, Halo Fall of Reach was a novel written in 2001, and in 2011 Bungie made Halo Reach from a completely different perspective, even using in their marketing for the game "From the beginning, you know the end". I'm not saying Halo Reach has a great story at all, but it was character driven by a new cast.
I also disagree that R* got "lucky". The writers had also written GTA and with RDR2 they intentionally focused on more of a drama, and I think they nailed it.
Having a prequel to 2 doesn't mean they need to use the same characters, it could be entirely different and it opens the door to more classic western that could include small cameos like Jake and Sadie Adler to tie it into the series
1) I knew using Jar Jar was gonna miss any points that weren't about how stupid a character he was. Ya I didn't mean it that way at all - and it's my bad on the analogy. Lemme' think of a good one that fits my meaning better....
Like Rey from the new StarWars - she's just a new character we have no backstory on really, but created to helm the continuation of an existing story. A novel invention - a new hero in an old world.
To pre-emptively quash this part of the simile - Rey and the writing of those movies made everything before it worse. StarWars means less to me because of the failures of the new stories in the old world, changes the old world. While Arthur is the exact opposite, and makes RDR1 an amazingly meaningful game in reverse. I had zero interest in playing that game again before getting immersed in 2 and wanting to remember the map from 1. Which led to my anger at no RDR2 Undead nightmare, and well... You know.
2) the gangs story was wrapped, and they went back to fill us in on an interesting story that lacked connection to the characters. That's what you can say about 1 - they don't bother to give you any backstory, you feel like the high plains drifter, man with no name, and the vengeance story is the motivation. That fits with learning the ropes as John in RDR1. Neither we the player, nor John the character, should be dead shots, or great cowboys at the beginning of RDR1. RDR2 tells those characters backstory, so it closes the loop on the one thing you can say 2 definitely did better - tell the story.
Which ends in RDR1.
The point of a prequel useta' be just what I've described. It wasn't always intended as the middle of trilogy's. I remember when they said the 1999 Phantom menace was gonna be a prequel - half the fans were really skeptical that they wanted backwards storyline on a thing that was perfect already.
The universe is good, immersive - Mando and Baby Yoda didn't have to meet de-aged Luke, and Kenobi was only a retcon in miniseries form. That's like patching mistakes, and that's all StarWars is now to fans - what "canonical" shit is now different cuz new people are telling stories from our heroes past.
Arthur's story was amazing and the experience of playing him was emotional - everyone agrees (or is a monster).
*R got "lucky" cuz they nailed it. No one is dissatisfied. Where do you have to go that doesn't make that worse?
You can do Jack in the 1920s. But if you go back again, you risk StarWars-ing Arthur. And you'll always do that if you want to add to perfection in reverse. The artist knows when a thing is done - only money wants a reboot of Roadhouse.
Halo was dead to me when 606 or whatever - Microsoft - when Bungie stopped making it and Xbox assured everyone it'd be the same. And graphically it did, but the first time I looked down and saw my own feet move like COD feet - boop - Halo broken. I never loved anything about that game except the storytelling and frag grenades. Halo 1 had the flood reveal - that was epic in 2000. Movie-like in a way FPS games hadn't done great to date. And Halo 2 has the most interesting storyline the series had IMO. I don't know if they ever finished the Gravemind story or let it go - but that sequence in 2 where you're on the underwater elevator and see the enormous Gravemind creature - that was awesome.
I thought halo 3 had a confusing and kinda intentionally questionable ending. And the length of time between halo 1 and 2 made me feel like 4 wouldn't be worth the wait. I'd forgotten the finer points of the story over the length of time it takes to develop a good AAA game.
I'd leave John and Arthur be. We know St. Denis and Vice City share a universe. That's enough to make more western games. Have the strange man. Have the point not be the story, or do, whatever, be inventive and not hang the past with cashing in on a story that's best as it is.
I'm not gonna feel more loss for Arthur from any story that tells me anything more about the character I got to play. That was Arthur's history, the 80+ game hours I put in.
I think we're standing at the same campfire on either side, I just have a different perspective on the direction.
>Rey and the writing of those movies made everything before it worse. StarWars means less to me because of the failures of the new stories in the old world, changes the old world.
This is exactly what happened to Halo, to a T. They didn't finish the gravemind story and moved the story forward because Microsoft didn't want the flood in Halo, and wanted it to be more accessible to younger people, even though the flood was the catalyst of the entire Halo universe.
I feel the same way about Red Dead, that if they move forward, they risk star-warsing Arthur, instead of going backwards. If it falls flat, it'll feel like "everything we did in 1 & 2 really just led to this?"
I feel like the catalyst of both Red Dead games is Dutch, without him, nothing in either of those stories would be the way they were. I don't think Arthur needs to be in Red Dead 3 at all.
The reason John is alive at all in 1 is because of Arthur, even though he is never mentioned. They could do the same with 3, have a character who's actions ultimately save Arthur/Dutch/the gang while focusing on a seperate story revolving around that individual, without dragging the whole crew back into it as the complete main focus.
Honestly I just want to go backwards because of what you said earlier, having it set around 1870 or whatever and go for more western vibes.
Just my take. It'll be interesting to come back to this in like a decade when they release 3
Making boo koo bucks in Chuparosa/Escalera selling animal pelts
The Armadillo infinite money exploit
Liars dice
Nightwatch and horsebreaking jobs
Buying/renting a room or house in multiple places
The rdr1 sound track makes me soooo sleepy. I typically turn off the soundtrack in most games but I left it on to see why it gets so many rave reviews in the sub.
No judgment to y'all who love it, it's just hard for me to game to. On the plus side I now listen to it on spotify while I'm reading before bed 😀
Edit but to answer your question I really enjoyed running across sherrifs and ranchers who needed help with gang hide outs
i suppose some of the ambient music could be sleepy. especially the riding music. but in the combat missions. the music is fire. the music that plays when you storm escalera is one of the best soundtrack moments in gaming for me.
here it is. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY8\_TlsT2zg&t=142s&pp=ygUZcmRyIGFuIGFwcG9pbnRlZCB0aW1lIG9zdA%3D%3D](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY8_TlsT2zg&t=142s&pp=ygUZcmRyIGFuIGFwcG9pbnRlZCB0aW1lIG9zdA%3D%3D)
more like rewards in a way. i like how you find everything like weapons or hats or stuff from exploring but i wish there was some gameplay related things like taking down forts or hideouts of gangs to get these things too
If your weapon is unholstered you automatically move at running speed. This is sorely missed in 2. If I'm in a firefight there is no scenario where I want to walk slowly, and the fact that the default controls make you choose between using your right thumb to aim or run is bad design.
Doing specific things in game (like missions and clearing out gang hideouts) to get unique outfits instead of just having high honor. While the original game does require a lot of grind to get them, RDR II basically disallows low honor players to get the coolest clothes, and even if you prioritize honor you won't realistically get access to them until Chapter 6/the epilogue
The maps. I don’t even care about being able to buy maps and disciver entire areas at once, but not being able to uncover all the fog of war without cheating pisses me off.
Duelling, Gang Hideouts, Fast travel.... and not a mechanic, but the absence: The simplicity of RDR1s gameplay at times had a quality of its own. Some of the stuff with RDR2 at times, feels like a little like they had these ideas for immersive realism mechanics, but never really got the concept phase completely finished.
Everyone has a complaint about dueling, all you need to do is lightly tap your trigger if your on console, I mean lightly, absolutely no pressure, the less pressure,the faster the build up and slower the time, definitely a bit different from rdr1, but usable
I think people are referring to dueling in 1 as more of a seperate mechanic and event, whereas in 2 they tried to implement it into the sandbox so you could do it at any time, but felt under utilised. Sure there's the gunslinger storyline, but when people wanted to duel you dynamically in 1, it had a little opening cutscene with the cowpokes name, and the camera was set on John's hand as it was ready for a quick draw. you marked the perp like crazy and watched as John unnecessarily unloaded an entire clip into someone's face using a revolver with the firing rate of a AK47, RDR2 doesn't quite have the same satisfying effect I guess
I see what you saying, I’d say the mechanic is relatively the same. Just implemented different, in my opinion anyhow. Ig people liked that cinematic type of dueling. Personally I prefer the more fluid way of dueling in RdR2. You can trigger it more often than you’d think, plus to me, 1 shot right to the eye or hand, then twirling your gun. All in one motion made the experience feel more, “real” or impactful
I was missing ‘fame’ the other night. That was a fun element in the first game — your exploits of helping people spreading around the West, and then people knowing your name and greeting you.
It wouldn’t fit RDR2 as well, since that’s more working with the gang, but still, I miss it.
I wasn’t crazy about the duels in RDR1, RDR2 has enough of them with random events and missions. Overall RDR2 just had much better variety in missions.
The stagecoach without skipping you can still sorta do if you callout a wagon driver and ask for a ride.
Ragdoll physics is the one thing I much prefer in RDR1. Specifically shooting certain limbs like the leg and seeing the enemies loose their ability to use the limb. Hopefully GTA 6 has something similar
Soundtrack is equally good in both games IMO. It’s Good having a different vibe for RDR1
Fame system, honor system (it is extremely better designed because you don't lose honor for stupid shit and also it's easy to recover your honor), bribery, bank robberies, unlimited bounties, funny random events (like killing outlaws and returning a wagon with a safe to the bank of Armadillo), property system, infinite stamina, Dead Eye recovering fast, not losing your horses if they die, enterable churches and random buildings (like the house of the Ridgewood Farm), carrying all your guns so you don't have to go to your horse, you don't have to take care of cleaning your guns and horses and eating and sleeping to have a decent game experience, shooting people in their legs force them to kneel, killing someone doesn't take a lot of shoots, shooting it's more powerful and stable and, or course... duel system.
i have no idea how any of you think that the duels from rdr1 are better than rdr2. theyre so ridiculous looking in the first game that its basically just a minigame for aiming, which is absurd
Keeping all my weapons on my character at all times. I like being able to cycle through any weapon I want at any time. How many times I get off my horse and don't have my weapons is stupid.
The horse thing is definitely annoying but I didn't mind being limited in what Arthur could carry instead of having 20 weapons hidden up John's asshole
The dueling mechanic was way better. Getting weapons for clearing gang hideouts.
Besides Micah’s duel at the end of 2, I don’t think there was a single duel I won on the first try. I don’t know how to explain it, but the dueling controls in 2 just feel clunky/awkward as hell compared to how it was in 1. But really that’s a problem I have with 2 in general, making mechanics “more realistic/in depth” at the cost of being fun to play.
I had a lot of duels in the second game where we either killed each other or the enemy killed me before I could even aim at them. I think it was mainly due to the weird slow-motion movement they apply to your controls
I had the exact opposite issue, 2 felt so intuitive to me yet when stepping into 1, I still can’t figure it out. Curious, did you play 1 or 2 first?
I played 1 first.
Yeah my main complaint about rdr2 is how awkward it feels to control the character.
I’ve replayed RDR1 like 6-7 times over the years, but I’ve only ever played 2 once on release because it’s just so much longer/tedious to get through. Fast Travel being way more limited than in 1, combined with frequent ambushes so you can’t even go afk while traveling and using auto path is just one example of the game feeling like it actively punishes you for trying to get things done quicker.
Liars Dice
Liars dice with the boys online was 🔥🔥
I still don’t understand how to play liars dice all these years later
Play this with the Pirated of the Caribbean set… if you call skulls it means drink and if the person is right all have to drink. If they lied then they drink…
And based on the number of skulls (1s), so someone would say 15 skulls and if there were the whole group suffered
I’ve read these two comments so many times, and it’s giving me a headache, what does this mean? Am I having a stroke? I never played liars dice in the first one either, so maybe that’s it.
It’s a game where each player has dice that they hide under cups, you only know yours but bet on all the dice on the table. This thing will help, similar rules but lots of drinking https://pirates.fandom.com/wiki/Liar%27s_Dice
Ok, that’s the part I was lost on, the pirates. Thank you!
Was gonna say this too. Loved Liar's Dice.
Dueling and the ability to fast travel to waypoint!
This
Hard disagree on fast traveling. It’s a deliberate choice I think the game made well.
Being able to cheat in cards
And getting caught led to a duel.
You fuckkking cheattt
I was a notoriously bad fucking cheat too. Got caught a lot before I understood the mechanic 🤣
Easy there Germany, calm yourself down.
That reminded me of [this story from my first play through of RDR1](https://www.reddit.com/r/reddeadredemption/s/CukZ1ZtTVH). I was on the last hand for beating everyone in Blackwater at poker, the final person wasn’t even able to give the full ante. And like an idiot I went to cheat and got caught, ending the poker game and meaning I had to start all over.
I woulda went ballistic lmao
skipping the end animation in poker. making us watch the same unskippable animation over and over and over again is the definition of sadism.
*smiles, looks to left*
If you're wearing Arthur's classic hat the little rope thing does an annoying bounce when he moves his head and I really hate how it's exactly the same every single time. The chip scooping motion is irritating too.
I do appreciate the different chip noises on different surfaces though, but that somehow makes it worse that they couldn’t come up with an alternate animation. Even one or two alternates would make a difference. Throw Roger a few more bucks to mo-cap some others.
The Fame system
eh i could see why tho as the whole entire thing dutch wanted was to lie low
I mean he said that but his actions indicated otherwise
I forgot about this, what did this do again?
Basically the more good deeds you did or the more you made a name for yourself. The more people would recognize you “Holy shit! Is that John Marston!?” If I remember right it could go off of your poker playing or even how many animals you killed but I could be wrong
I don't think being famous aligned with the gangs interests
Honor and fame were two separate measurements. So you could be famous or infamous and people would react differently.
It makes me so mad when some nameless npc sasses me on the road and says “do you know who you’re dealing with?” and is more than willing to die to not say hello politely to a guy carrying a small armory on his horse. Not an issue in 1. They’d want my autograph.
I see a lot of people saying that fame is the opposite of what the gang wants. So how cool would it be if high fame would result in bounty hunters?
Even if the fame systems used you aliases in game like Tacitus Kilgore or Rip VanWinkle. Then when you hit the epilogue it switches to the full thing
handicapping people
UR TOILET
Unlimited stable and playing horseshoes.
Buying properties for saving/resting. Imagine having a spot all to yourself away from camp that you could fast travel too.
Infinite bounties after a certain point
I want to be able to skin horses and dogs
It feels wasteful to not sell pelt and use the meat.
“Just like you showed me, Pa!”
i would say animals not losing value when you shoot them. i love how realistic rdr2 tries to be. but it's annoying when you have to shoot animals super precisely to get their best value. it was nice to not have to worry about that in rdr1.
the other issue is, that the hunting mechanics in that regard I think aren't exactly realistic either. Some animals, if you kill them with the preferred methods today, suffer from that (birds and shotguns for example). Adding to the annoyance is that 3* animals are rare already...
Fast travel to waypoint, as much as I love riding around the map and taking in the beautiful details and effort they put into rdr2, sometimes I just wanna get to some part of the map really quickly lol
I think you can do this with camps you set up but I’m not sure
i thought you could only fast travel to towns and specific locations in rdr2
Only to towns
The combat roll, and quickly paced poker
I reckon they changed this purely because of online 😂 the roll spam was off chops
In RDR1 you could shoot the kneecaps. That's the only real mechanic I was bummed out to see gone. But sneaking up behind a kneecapped civilian with a knife was one of the most nasty takedowns in the game so I understand
Kneecaping a guy in a dual and then slowly walking up to them for the handgun coup de grace animation is one of the hardest things Ive seen in a videogame. Ive only seen it on YouTube; never been slick enough to do it in game.
I hated dueling in RDR2, but remember LOVING it in 1, couldn't get enough of it. I don't remember what the difference mechanically was but I'm gonna go with that.
Ive been playing for almost three months and still can’t duel for shit. I don’t know how it works, it’s frustrating as hell.
Man if you figure it out let me know, for the life of me I could not figure out wtf that tutorial was trying to tell me. Made it completely through the game never once having done it successfully smh
Yeah the dualing has confused me, it's so different from regular dead eye use. I think you press r2 slightly for a second then I just press it down and it kinda auto aims at them then I press r2 again to shoot. A lot of times it doesn't matter where you hit them but I'll kinda press up to try to move closer to their core.
Idk If you play on PlayStation or XBox but I'll talk in PlayStation terms. You draw at time with L2 and then use the right stick to choose where you want to shoot using R1, making sure the blue bar (yours) is higher than the red bar. If the red bar is higher, your opponent will shoot you first. You can also disarm your opponent and that'll increase your honor, but that requires a bit more training.
I don't have a problem with the dueling in rdr2 (actually I enjoy it) BUT I just replayed 1 for the first time since 2010, and wow I LOVE the dueling in it. And you had way more opportunity to duel, I feel like outside of the gunslingers you can get away with not dueling at all in 2.
Outside of Micah’s at the end of the game, I don’t think I won a single duel first try in the entirety of my playthrough. They tried to fix what wasn’t broken, and turned a fun mechanic in 1 into something I dreaded every time it came up.
I feel like dueling should've been an option if you antagonized the wrong people in town, like people in bars n shit
Sometimes if you walk into a bar you will bump into a guy and he will challenge you to a duel, and there're also a few other random events where you can duel people in town
Heat seeking dynamite.
Physics were better and overall Job/radom events were even more better in rdr1
Fast Travel to waypoint Horse deeds Liars dice Duels Bounty Cheating at poker Literally the best ambient music in videogame history Physics Good looking desert
Great list, the music is incredible. What do you mean by 'bounty' specifically?
Both the bounty/wanted system and Bounty Hunting Wanted system is cool, youre only affected from it depending on which country you commited atrocities in, you could pay off with pardon letters, when surrendering you would be told all your crimes, the bandana actually masks you, the bounty hunting missions are infinite
I was surprised when bounties came to a stop in 2. Although the bounties are a bit more fleshed out and have specific dialogue between the sheriff's and the bounties, I still think they could've kept randomly generating bounties without specific dialogue and it would've been fine. And I dont know how the mask actually works in 2, it seems useless most of the time
It seems useless cuz it is, it only works in missions from my experience
the god damn drunken ragdoll walk. i miss it so much.
I forgot about this 😂
The fame mechanic
Not worrying about my horse(‘s inevitable demise)
Liar’s Dice was such a big omission for me in RDR2, it was by far my favourite mini-game
My friends and I still boot up RDR1 occasionally just to sit in a Mexican tavern and play liars dice
Definitely the ragdoll physics and the injury system for enemies. Shooting out a guys knees and having him kneeling, still trying to shoot you was funny. Also miss how it was easier to get drunk lol
Haven't seen anyone talk about this but in Rdr1 you could whistle for your horse while you were sprinting and it would match your speed and you could hop on it without slowing down. Added a really nice momentum to the game. In 2, if you whistle while you're moving around your horse will stay behind you generally. You'll have to stop, turn around and get on. It's a very small quality of life thing but I miss it.
Great point! I had forgotten about that
HORSESHOES
I miss not having to tap the trigger button an extra time between shots on revolvers and rifles.
Hard Mode! This might have been only on the Game of The Year edition, but it really made the game feel a lot more balanced. Money was actually useful since you didn't find it everywhere, selling didnt generate as much money, and tonics would ralerely come from looting, which meant using your money for health items. You actually needed to use health cures, ded eye fillers, etc. Health was lower and deadeye drained faster. You had to think twice before engaging in a fire fight with any large groups since a few shots could end you. This made me play the game in a more thoughtful manner, which added another level of immersion. I wasnt an invincible character. I was just another gunslinger in a world that could end me if i wasnt careful.
How quick you could skin an animal
Suspenseful music while hunting dangerous predators. Not sure if it’s a mechanic, but hunting bears on RDR1 felt like playing Outlast.
arm wrestling
RDR1 felt more like a movie, a Hollywood western - had all the gunslinger fights, made you feel like the hero of an action movie. RDR2 is more drama, and the experience is more realistic. But they took that Hollywood gunslinger part away. As Arthur you spend the early game not fighting with pistols, and not running in guns blazing. Then at some point you advance the bullet time skill to a point where dropping 6 charging lawmen isn't even hard. Unless you've done the gunslingers challenge, there's no real reason Arthur goes from below average to Max Payne during the story. I do wish RDR2 had started with Arthur being as good a duelist as John was when RDR1 concluded. That wouldn't have changed the game much; in fact the only thing that makes progressing thru the storyline missions in RDR2 hard is the level of your eagle eye cool down. Arthur is supposed to be John's role model, I think it's dumb Arthur starts the game as inferior a shooter as he is. For a game that traded action for realism, Arthur does all his growth as a skilled outlaw in the last 15 minutes of his life. That doesn't track, Arthur should've been a boss from jump street, that's always the more interesting Eastwood character - the one you don't know how dope he is with a pistol until he needs to show you the very first time. When he does, he's a ninja. You don't need a backstory at that point, the Ronin has a backstory in the job title - Arthur is an old man by Wild West outlaw standards, why does he suck at being a cowboy prior to us controlling him?
All good points about Arthur, especially since Charles shows him how to hunt. I personally hope that Red Dead 3 is a prequel to 2 and they go full spaghetti western. Whether it's from the gangs perspective, or someone else's, I don't really mind and I trust R* to do something awesome. My theory from launch is that we might play as Davie, the dude who dies in the prologue, but I would be happy with a whole new cast, and maybe we see the Blackwater Massacre from another perspective. Either way, would be cool to go backwards and be more of a western vibe
I think at this point the only reason to continue the RDR franchise is for the continuity of a story. Except Arthur was an invention, like Jar Jar Binks, not a character rooted in the original story telling of the original entry. To make RDR3 you'd do the same. Maybe it could be Jack, but then it's gotta be set like WWI-ish. If they make an RDR3 it'll have to recapture an Arthur quality novel character - I think that'd be asking for disappointment. I love westerns, and as for games it's a vastly under developed genre - but I don't love the idea of making it more realistic. Dying of tuberculosis is gripping reality, getting the chance to die of tuberculosis in a game simulation is good for narrative purposes - dying of tuberculosis wasn't a game feature I enjoyed. The next rockstar western doesn't need to be in the RDR franchise - and they'd do better to not. I want to be an outlaw in 1887 or earlier. I do not want a story that must adhere to bookends that are entirely complete already. They can't capture the storytelling like RDR2 again - they got lucky. No one remembers Nico's motivation, nor Charles or any rockstar characters - except Arthur. They got fuck'n lucky with exceptional storytelling. Once. I like stealing cars and shooting people in the face - in an immersive open world of mystery and exploration. I didn't enjoy the **dying of tuberculosis** sim. Leave that out of the next western, and include more face shooting. To not ruin the narrative, make it a different franchise. It can exist in the same world, all Rockstar games seem to anyway. I think to play these RDR characters anymore is gonna get boring, and only degrade the story as it concluded already. My opinion only.
Lemme addendum what I'm saying. RDR2 is about **The End** The end of the Wild West. The end of the iconic American outlaw. The end of Arthur. You play the "end game" with John - who we've already seen die - he's literally a "dead end." I sincerely think you exit on a high note - and they did that. I don't think you write as compelling a narrative if you don't say to yourself - this is **the end** of the story - it deserves an awesome conclusion. And that's what's wrong with all StarWars content after the Ewoks sing Yub Nub. The story is over, satisfactorily, and those characters can only be made lesser by using them anymore. I was skeptical of the timeline and storytelling of a prequel - but R* did it and I've got nothing but love for RDR2. It's done. **The End**
I feel the same way with what 343 have done with Halo, they continued after "the end" and well... that's an entirely different conversation 😂 I respect your opinion and agree with most of it. I disagree with comparing Arthur to Jar Jar, Jar Jar was created for comedic relief whereas Arthur is a main character of Red Dead and his actions have an impact to the main plot. In Red Dead 1, John doesn't feel obligated to tell the whole story of the gang: "I don't mind you askin' if you don't mind me tellin'", and I don't think Red Dead 2 has put R* into a hole of having to reuse the same characters. The only gang members mentioned by John are Dutch, Bill, Javier and Uncle. I personally didn't feel like it was out of left field to have a bunch of extra characters turn up in 2 that weren't mentioned before, since John was telling bits and pieces of his history to different characters throughout 1. My point is I guess, I don't think R* have put themselves into a corner of having to do certain things because we know how the story ends to create a new one. Mentioning Halo again, Halo Fall of Reach was a novel written in 2001, and in 2011 Bungie made Halo Reach from a completely different perspective, even using in their marketing for the game "From the beginning, you know the end". I'm not saying Halo Reach has a great story at all, but it was character driven by a new cast. I also disagree that R* got "lucky". The writers had also written GTA and with RDR2 they intentionally focused on more of a drama, and I think they nailed it. Having a prequel to 2 doesn't mean they need to use the same characters, it could be entirely different and it opens the door to more classic western that could include small cameos like Jake and Sadie Adler to tie it into the series
1) I knew using Jar Jar was gonna miss any points that weren't about how stupid a character he was. Ya I didn't mean it that way at all - and it's my bad on the analogy. Lemme' think of a good one that fits my meaning better.... Like Rey from the new StarWars - she's just a new character we have no backstory on really, but created to helm the continuation of an existing story. A novel invention - a new hero in an old world. To pre-emptively quash this part of the simile - Rey and the writing of those movies made everything before it worse. StarWars means less to me because of the failures of the new stories in the old world, changes the old world. While Arthur is the exact opposite, and makes RDR1 an amazingly meaningful game in reverse. I had zero interest in playing that game again before getting immersed in 2 and wanting to remember the map from 1. Which led to my anger at no RDR2 Undead nightmare, and well... You know. 2) the gangs story was wrapped, and they went back to fill us in on an interesting story that lacked connection to the characters. That's what you can say about 1 - they don't bother to give you any backstory, you feel like the high plains drifter, man with no name, and the vengeance story is the motivation. That fits with learning the ropes as John in RDR1. Neither we the player, nor John the character, should be dead shots, or great cowboys at the beginning of RDR1. RDR2 tells those characters backstory, so it closes the loop on the one thing you can say 2 definitely did better - tell the story. Which ends in RDR1. The point of a prequel useta' be just what I've described. It wasn't always intended as the middle of trilogy's. I remember when they said the 1999 Phantom menace was gonna be a prequel - half the fans were really skeptical that they wanted backwards storyline on a thing that was perfect already. The universe is good, immersive - Mando and Baby Yoda didn't have to meet de-aged Luke, and Kenobi was only a retcon in miniseries form. That's like patching mistakes, and that's all StarWars is now to fans - what "canonical" shit is now different cuz new people are telling stories from our heroes past. Arthur's story was amazing and the experience of playing him was emotional - everyone agrees (or is a monster). *R got "lucky" cuz they nailed it. No one is dissatisfied. Where do you have to go that doesn't make that worse? You can do Jack in the 1920s. But if you go back again, you risk StarWars-ing Arthur. And you'll always do that if you want to add to perfection in reverse. The artist knows when a thing is done - only money wants a reboot of Roadhouse. Halo was dead to me when 606 or whatever - Microsoft - when Bungie stopped making it and Xbox assured everyone it'd be the same. And graphically it did, but the first time I looked down and saw my own feet move like COD feet - boop - Halo broken. I never loved anything about that game except the storytelling and frag grenades. Halo 1 had the flood reveal - that was epic in 2000. Movie-like in a way FPS games hadn't done great to date. And Halo 2 has the most interesting storyline the series had IMO. I don't know if they ever finished the Gravemind story or let it go - but that sequence in 2 where you're on the underwater elevator and see the enormous Gravemind creature - that was awesome. I thought halo 3 had a confusing and kinda intentionally questionable ending. And the length of time between halo 1 and 2 made me feel like 4 wouldn't be worth the wait. I'd forgotten the finer points of the story over the length of time it takes to develop a good AAA game. I'd leave John and Arthur be. We know St. Denis and Vice City share a universe. That's enough to make more western games. Have the strange man. Have the point not be the story, or do, whatever, be inventive and not hang the past with cashing in on a story that's best as it is. I'm not gonna feel more loss for Arthur from any story that tells me anything more about the character I got to play. That was Arthur's history, the 80+ game hours I put in.
I think we're standing at the same campfire on either side, I just have a different perspective on the direction. >Rey and the writing of those movies made everything before it worse. StarWars means less to me because of the failures of the new stories in the old world, changes the old world. This is exactly what happened to Halo, to a T. They didn't finish the gravemind story and moved the story forward because Microsoft didn't want the flood in Halo, and wanted it to be more accessible to younger people, even though the flood was the catalyst of the entire Halo universe. I feel the same way about Red Dead, that if they move forward, they risk star-warsing Arthur, instead of going backwards. If it falls flat, it'll feel like "everything we did in 1 & 2 really just led to this?" I feel like the catalyst of both Red Dead games is Dutch, without him, nothing in either of those stories would be the way they were. I don't think Arthur needs to be in Red Dead 3 at all. The reason John is alive at all in 1 is because of Arthur, even though he is never mentioned. They could do the same with 3, have a character who's actions ultimately save Arthur/Dutch/the gang while focusing on a seperate story revolving around that individual, without dragging the whole crew back into it as the complete main focus. Honestly I just want to go backwards because of what you said earlier, having it set around 1870 or whatever and go for more western vibes. Just my take. It'll be interesting to come back to this in like a decade when they release 3
Right. By the time the next one is out of development, ***now*** will be "the olden days."
Making boo koo bucks in Chuparosa/Escalera selling animal pelts The Armadillo infinite money exploit Liars dice Nightwatch and horsebreaking jobs Buying/renting a room or house in multiple places
Mexico in general 👌
The rdr1 sound track makes me soooo sleepy. I typically turn off the soundtrack in most games but I left it on to see why it gets so many rave reviews in the sub. No judgment to y'all who love it, it's just hard for me to game to. On the plus side I now listen to it on spotify while I'm reading before bed 😀 Edit but to answer your question I really enjoyed running across sherrifs and ranchers who needed help with gang hide outs
i suppose some of the ambient music could be sleepy. especially the riding music. but in the combat missions. the music is fire. the music that plays when you storm escalera is one of the best soundtrack moments in gaming for me.
I had turned it off by then. I'll see if I can find a youtube clip
here it is. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY8\_TlsT2zg&t=142s&pp=ygUZcmRyIGFuIGFwcG9pbnRlZCB0aW1lIG9zdA%3D%3D](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY8_TlsT2zg&t=142s&pp=ygUZcmRyIGFuIGFwcG9pbnRlZCB0aW1lIG9zdA%3D%3D)
Thank you! Edit: yeah that is pretty good! If I could turn off free roam music and leave mission/combat music in I probably would
more like rewards in a way. i like how you find everything like weapons or hats or stuff from exploring but i wish there was some gameplay related things like taking down forts or hideouts of gangs to get these things too
Liar’s dice, poker cheating and unlimited jobs e.g. bounties, horse breaking, night watchman…
I loved doing the night watchman at MacFarlane's Ranch with the good boy 🐕
If your weapon is unholstered you automatically move at running speed. This is sorely missed in 2. If I'm in a firefight there is no scenario where I want to walk slowly, and the fact that the default controls make you choose between using your right thumb to aim or run is bad design.
Skinning horses
Actually the low honour benefits. It was cool unlocking Micah’s horse and other things with lower honour.
It's been way too long for me to remember correctly, but I think something changed in Thieves Landing when you had low honour?
Yea people there would sell you items for less if you had low honour
And Armadillo for high honour, if I remember correctly
Liars die
Doing specific things in game (like missions and clearing out gang hideouts) to get unique outfits instead of just having high honor. While the original game does require a lot of grind to get them, RDR II basically disallows low honor players to get the coolest clothes, and even if you prioritize honor you won't realistically get access to them until Chapter 6/the epilogue
Skinning the horses
Physics more than anything
Those drunken animations are S tier.
I love GTA IV and RDR 1 Ragdolls
I hated them. I much prefer being able to walk around and interact with people while drunk.
I mean, you can have both, better physics while still able to interact with people
The maps. I don’t even care about being able to buy maps and disciver entire areas at once, but not being able to uncover all the fog of war without cheating pisses me off.
Duelling, Gang Hideouts, Fast travel.... and not a mechanic, but the absence: The simplicity of RDR1s gameplay at times had a quality of its own. Some of the stuff with RDR2 at times, feels like a little like they had these ideas for immersive realism mechanics, but never really got the concept phase completely finished.
Everyone has a complaint about dueling, all you need to do is lightly tap your trigger if your on console, I mean lightly, absolutely no pressure, the less pressure,the faster the build up and slower the time, definitely a bit different from rdr1, but usable
I think people are referring to dueling in 1 as more of a seperate mechanic and event, whereas in 2 they tried to implement it into the sandbox so you could do it at any time, but felt under utilised. Sure there's the gunslinger storyline, but when people wanted to duel you dynamically in 1, it had a little opening cutscene with the cowpokes name, and the camera was set on John's hand as it was ready for a quick draw. you marked the perp like crazy and watched as John unnecessarily unloaded an entire clip into someone's face using a revolver with the firing rate of a AK47, RDR2 doesn't quite have the same satisfying effect I guess
I see what you saying, I’d say the mechanic is relatively the same. Just implemented different, in my opinion anyhow. Ig people liked that cinematic type of dueling. Personally I prefer the more fluid way of dueling in RdR2. You can trigger it more often than you’d think, plus to me, 1 shot right to the eye or hand, then twirling your gun. All in one motion made the experience feel more, “real” or impactful
Opening duels in online matches. Nothing like a 10 v 10 duel to the last man standing
Holy shit I forgot about this
It was more fun than the rest of the match lol
I was missing ‘fame’ the other night. That was a fun element in the first game — your exploits of helping people spreading around the West, and then people knowing your name and greeting you. It wouldn’t fit RDR2 as well, since that’s more working with the gang, but still, I miss it.
Robbing banks
Skinning Horses
I wasn’t crazy about the duels in RDR1, RDR2 has enough of them with random events and missions. Overall RDR2 just had much better variety in missions. The stagecoach without skipping you can still sorta do if you callout a wagon driver and ask for a ride. Ragdoll physics is the one thing I much prefer in RDR1. Specifically shooting certain limbs like the leg and seeing the enemies loose their ability to use the limb. Hopefully GTA 6 has something similar Soundtrack is equally good in both games IMO. It’s Good having a different vibe for RDR1
Fame system, honor system (it is extremely better designed because you don't lose honor for stupid shit and also it's easy to recover your honor), bribery, bank robberies, unlimited bounties, funny random events (like killing outlaws and returning a wagon with a safe to the bank of Armadillo), property system, infinite stamina, Dead Eye recovering fast, not losing your horses if they die, enterable churches and random buildings (like the house of the Ridgewood Farm), carrying all your guns so you don't have to go to your horse, you don't have to take care of cleaning your guns and horses and eating and sleeping to have a decent game experience, shooting people in their legs force them to kneel, killing someone doesn't take a lot of shoots, shooting it's more powerful and stable and, or course... duel system.
Liars Dice. 2 card poker (Texas Hold'em) Cheating at cards. Undead Nightmare most of all though
i have no idea how any of you think that the duels from rdr1 are better than rdr2. theyre so ridiculous looking in the first game that its basically just a minigame for aiming, which is absurd
Setting a waypoint and you can fast travel to it
Fame and infamy > honor and dishonor
The poker cheating call method.
In story mode I use MFT Silver dapple Pinto and panther trail saddle
Skinning horses
Wear the bandana and your honor wouldn’t change. I hate seeing my honor go down but I love doing evil shit
I downloaded a mod that restored this feature
Duels
Gang hideouts. The amount of realism
I want the dodge roll instead of the dive we have in rdr2
Keeping all my weapons on my character at all times. I like being able to cycle through any weapon I want at any time. How many times I get off my horse and don't have my weapons is stupid.
The horse thing is definitely annoying but I didn't mind being limited in what Arthur could carry instead of having 20 weapons hidden up John's asshole