It's so far, so far away

Didnt you see the OG map in RDR2?

We are going to get a remaster using RDR2's engine and physics :^)

I looked into it as I've been playing RDR1 on my PS3, but had to stop because of bugs I only seem to have. Xbox actually has backwards compatibility with the game on both the One and the Series X, with the Series X even being able to output 4K. Rockstar have been cited as saying in an interview that RDR1 is a barely working mess of spaghetti code that wouldn't be worth porting due to the effort involved. So basically, best way to enjoy the game is on Xbox due to the backwards compatibility layer.
Leave it to Sony to have it languish on the PS3 because they hate backwards compatibility.

For me it was
>And now I know the only compass that I need is the one that leads back to you

Attached: 1414ddabc4198d97863b8aa04776089b.png (332x572, 199.78K)

GOAT gaming moment.

RDR2 fags will cope and seethe.

Rdr1 felt more western to me even when it takes place after the golden age
Rdr2 modernises the characters too much. I did not feel like I was playing a story in 1890.

based

>2010 was 12 years ago

It really is so far away. I don't know who I was trying to impress. While steadily creating a mess.

Wasn't that done on purpose? RDR1 is Spaghetti Western and RDR2 is Revisionist Western

I'd they actually keep the gameplay the same I'm on board

RDR1 dealt in stereotypes, so many characters in it are just straight western tropes. 2 tries to go and build actual characters. Some of them work, some of them sound too modern for sure, but lets dispel this myth that RDR1 knows what it was doing with its characters, Irish is literally a drunk irish stereotype, hamish was a sterotypical gravedigger looking for gold, theres a stereotype snake oil salesman, stereotyped the white man be evil native, etc etc.

This, RDR2's gameplay is to sluggish and slow for me to ever replay that game so if they are gonna actually remake RDR1 I hope they keep the old gameplay

I get that, I meant the characterisation though. I felt like I was watching modern actors try to do an old western, whereas rdr1 I felt more immersed in these being real people. Other than things leading up to the end in rdr2 which was pretty kino. I'm probably talking about my ass, but just my feelings playing both games

I think the setting definitely goes a long way.
all the RDR1 locations feel classically western — deserts, plains, hills; lots of dry browns and tans. meanwhile RDR2 takes you to some snowy shithole right off the bat, and then you spend the next 80% of the game traveling in lush green scenery and wading through dark swamps. the actual wild west desert part of the map doesn't get unlocked until the very end, and there's absolutely nothing to do in it anyway once it is available.

Yeah, RDR1 felt like a real spaghetti western, meanwhile RDR2 took itself way to serious at times.

>hamish
Seth, I meant, hamish is a RDR2 character

Yea and all those stereotype characters were great, they were very entertaining. RDR2's characters were good as well but no reason to shit on RDR1's characters when they were also good

That's what made me feel like it was an old timey western with the stereotypes, that said I'm a big fan of studying them

Honestly because looking back with no nostalgia goggles they really werent that good. Them being stereotypes holds them back from really shining as characters most of the time.

I can agree that this decision makes the game fell more 'western' than its sequel, but I just dont think alot of characters in 1 hold up after scrutiny either.

Disagree, I think the stereotype characters helped keep a balance of, fun and humor/seriousness. A balance that RDR2 pretty much abandoned at trying to keep after chapter 2. Also just made it feel like more of an adventure to me imo.