Why is this so soulful? What happened with red dead 2

Why is this so soulful? What happened with red dead 2

Attached: f831b120-13f7-4c42-b6dc-573f13f96879.png (1920x1080, 2.72M)

because you played it when you were 10

This is the first time I'm playing red dead 1

Because it was a lot more simplistic and fun to play. RDR2 introduced a ton of mechanics that just made things a confusing chore half the time, like weapons being on the horse vs when you get off sometimes they magically aren't on you.

I could list off a dozen more examples, and I'm not saying RDR2 is bad or anything, you just sometimes get a little lost in the moment when you have to do a million things vs how RDR1 presented itself.

RDR was linear in the right way

I think they're both neat

Moviefags, it's always moviefags user

I played RDR1 after RDR2 and still think it's the better game.

Kek zoomshits that love rdr 2 unironically using the nostalgia argument

RRD2 just retreads the same character and themes as the previous game. Reconned some kino moments to be meaningless.

red dead 2 feels like a parody of red dead 1 at some points

>tfw the people going missing in tgat particular spot questline
K I N O

My problem with rdr2 is that it almost nothing that John describes in 1 even happened in the game. Either that or it happens much differently. Also Bill, Javier, and Dutch don’t act the same at all in 2 compared to 1

Indeed. It undermines RDR1 so much. Dutch for instance was transformed from a cold psychopath into borderline schizo.

>2022
>still no way to play RDR1 at 60 fps on PC
Suffering

Attached: RDR-red-dead-redemption-14765660-1280-720.jpg (1280x720, 410.25K)

How many hours into 2 Do you have to get before it becomes good

It becomes good about 20 hours in but you'll always have to put up with horrendous writing.

Attached: rockstartelaviv.png (337x390, 64.23K)

>20 hours
But that's longer than the first game

I'm convinced anyone calling PS3/xbox360 games soulful is 100% underaged

RDR2 is an example of putting a minor concern (immersion) above the core concern (this shit is a fucking game and should be fun to play). It has great attention to detail and everything looks realistic. It is also an utter chore and it is so plodding and slow I couldn't get into it even giving it multiple chances. RDR1 was just a fun fucking videogame.

>Stuff made after the year XXXX can't have soul
Kys dopamine deprived retard

>buzzword buzzword buzzword
Literally underaged

It's a long ass game

RDR2 could've been a simulator but they fucked it up. What's the point in managing food, sleep and mood when the game turns into an arcade shooter the moment you're in combat? There is this huge double sided nature of RDR2 that undermines it. If they had gone all out on the simulator aspects, I might have enjoyed it. But there is a clash between it wanting to be a Hollywood action movie and also HBO.

Attached: Red Dead Redemption 2_20181109155629.webm (1280x720, 2.9M)

fpbp
/thread

rdr2 got even better
seethe

I was 20 in 2010 though

This
I wanna go back, games aren't as fun anymore.

i played it on series x first time. and it is realy good
the soul of spaghetti western is there. RDR2 is busy work 90% of time

last week
>empty fields with nothing, HOW BORING
this week
>empty field? how soulful

>>empty fields with nothing, HOW BORING
This is a red dead thread the botw thread is the other way

It doesn't have a completely soulless approach to its online multiplayer mode like GTAV and RDR2 both have.

>want to replay this so much
>no PC version
>ps3 is 30fps, looks like shit, and my PS3 is slow as fuck
>don't want to buy a console for a single game
suffering

Attached: 1646225530789.jpg (303x335, 62.32K)

It’s stupid because they could’ve just an “arcade” and “hardcore” modes, with the former being more like R*’s previous games and the latter being more realistic. Really stupid they went for a middling in between that satisfies neither experience.

Cope, seethe, dilate

>cockstar games
>soul
zoomer thread

Yes I think the Houser brothers are retards and can't really direct video games. Both GTAV and RDR2 have been extremely contradicting games. GTAV was all about mocking shallow vapid California culture while itself being a product of such culture. And RDR2 tries to be sim-like half the time and an arcade shooter the other half.

...

RDR2 was(for me) amazing experience but not really good game. Core mechanics like shooting and horse riding are fun, but as video game RDR2 presents you with all mechanics within first 2 hours and they never develop nor get any depth. And rockstar mission design is so fucking outdated and joy killing.
But I don't regret commiting my time to RDR2. I played it during 2 weeks of my holiday and I'm glad I did because I was able to fully commit.

I accept your concession

The reason is Yea Forums contrarianism. There isn't a single thing RDR does better than RDR2. RDR2 being the superior game is the consensus pretty much anywhere aside from here. The first game is really shallow and empty compared to 2, for some reason Yea Forumstards claim that makes it a better game. Sometimes I think it's just because Yea Forums got memed into thinking 2 is a woke game when it really isn't, funniest part is that the first game had just as much "woke" shit as the second but all of that shit gets a pass for some reason.

Attached: 0f8cb3a3-bcbd-11ec-b471-ab8da7609eb3.png (1024x1024, 613.82K)

Zoomers don’t play rdr2, tranny.

>There isn't a single thing RDR does better than RDR2
blatantly false
the story is miles better + plus the dialog and speeches are by far better in rdr1
i won't even bother reading the rest of your post considering how wrong you were just 2 sentences in

>There isn't a single thing RDR does better than RDR2
lol

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

The side missions in 1 were a lot more interesting and had a vibe to them. RDR2 has some cool missions with Dutch but it relies a lot on shock value of main characters dying, including Arthur himself. The story isn't as interesting as 1, but that's probably because it's more of a "extended universe" prequel to 1 whereas 1 was a story in itself. I liked both but 1 is the more replayable one in terms of story.

>Story is better
Meme.

RDR1 story is just John running around doing errands for random fucking people, it only gets any fucking substance when dutch shows up.

RDR2 wasn't terrible in this regard but RDR1 was so much better

>funniest part is that the first game had just as much "woke" shit as the second but all of that shit gets a pass for some reason.
Please point to examples. You can literally cat call women as Jack if your honour is low enough. Even if the morality of the first is somewhat left leaning or whatever it doesn’t pull as many punches in relation to showing non-pc shit. The end of the game is literally you working with the government to gun down uppity Indians. And I’m saying this as someone who probably has way more hours in rdr2, the second definitely

>zoomers don't play shitty games marketed to zoomers on zoomer consoles and through zoomer game stores/social club

Running errands, eating and sleeping is literally every human life. The characters are all kino and running their errands was interesting because they were well written and captivating. Even the side quest characters were interesting enough that they kept you coming back and finishing those plotlines, in RDR2 the only one I remember finishing is the serial killer map quest, and it wasn't as interesting of a mystery as most RDR1 side missions.

RDR2 is unironically full of soul.
A shit game, but full of soul nonetheless.

>according to v this is soulless

Attached: 9f6877d3-d6b9-4ee0-8eb1-d0582a6a5206.png (1920x1080, 2.59M)

That doesn't conflict with what he said.

But I'm not 10

RDR2 had a worse setting and when you get to the good parts there's barely anything for you to do there.

The characters in 1 were all one dimensional charictatures.

I remember seeing the teaser trailer for Red Dead Redemption thinking it was going to be a Red Dead Revolver 2 but instead it was just an open world walking sim.

Attached: 572257285.jpg (1280x720, 86.22K)

weirdly they had more to say than all the moaners in 2

How did they fuck up euphoria so bad in 2?

wait, you're telling me Red dead REDEMPTION 1 and 2 are about REDEMPTION???
no way.....

RDR1 was about imploring

everything in that webm is in rdr2 retard

RDR2 is designed like a slowburn Western classic. Lot's of green, a focus on the mundane as well as action and cozier.

RDR is more like a spaghetti western, deserts and shootouts everywhere.

Both are great at what they are going for but fail at what the other succeeds at best. I prefer 2 if only because it really attached me to Arthur and made me feel genuinely upset to see him go whereas I just felt bad for John.

The side mission characters had a lot of character.
The side missions were a huge disappointment in 2 and probably the best part of 1. 2 has a bunch of checklist tier side missions. 1 had the perfect mix of Rockstar humor while keeping a foot out of it, too. Some of Rockstar's best writing. They're like episodes of westerns

Can you explain what that means? If you're a sheriff, you're a sheriff. If you're a snake oil salesman, you're a snake oil salesman. A person in a profession isn't a caricature.