If you want to play the story in order, play rdr2 and then rdr1 as that's the chronology. Rdr2 does the same thing sometimes. Or even on normal, it gives more challenge than rdr2?
I enjoyed every second of this game, ended broken hearted just like in
But is rdr1 balanced the same way? Just verify game cache and play. With the more interactive greet and antagonize system, the ability to do more side activity at key points, the two.
I have far more fun with rdr2 just.
Do not allow drives to go to sleep, which they do by default in winos unless manually changed. Hunting is way less in depth as an example. Rdr1 was the trendsetter, rdr2 was the evolution of the trend. 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.
Rdr1 is a cowboy game, rdr2 is a simulator. 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 developed for a now 20 years old console platform which caused hardware limitations to make the game more simple in design. If you're wanting to see how the story was presented to players originally, play rdr1 then rdr2.
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.
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,. So basically, normal or hardcore for a player who thinks rdr2 was too easy?
