Rdr1 is just ok it's a good game and a great port but after completing the main game i found myself just rushing through the main missions just to finish the game as there is zero point in. Rdr1 was the trendsetter, rdr2 was the evolution of the trend. I usually do this in order of release, so rdr1, then rdr2, so you get all the callforwards, then rdr1 again to close the story.
Red Dead Redemption 1 Vídeo mostra RDR 1 remasterizado no PC por
Rdr1 is a cowboy game, rdr2 is a simulator. Rdr1 is more focused, while rdr2 branches out into more 'day in the life' aspects that, for many, feel like padding instead of good gameplay decisions. Or even on normal, it gives more challenge than rdr2?
Hunting is way less in depth as an example.
With the more interactive greet and antagonize system, the ability to do more side activity at key points, the two. Just verify game cache and play. But is rdr1 balanced the same way? If you want to play the story in order, play rdr2 and then rdr1 as that's the chronology.
If you're wanting to see how the story was presented to players originally, play rdr1 then rdr2. Do not allow drives to go to sleep, which they do by default in winos unless manually changed. I have far more fun with rdr2 just. You will have a lot more fun with rdr1 first imo, were as 2 will be good if you get invested and want to spend more time ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about fishing,.
Rdr1 was developed for a now 20 years old console platform which caused hardware limitations to make the game more simple in design.
Rdr2 does the same thing sometimes. So basically, normal or hardcore for a player who thinks rdr2 was too easy?
