← Home ← Back to /v/

Thread 718745604

36 posts 10 images /v/
Anonymous No.718745604 >>718745693 >>718748692 >>718748831 >>718749898 >>718751706 >>718753060 >>718755908 >>718759354 >>718759557 >>718759996
The great debate.
Anonymous No.718745647
Comparison is the thief of joy
Anonymous No.718745650
honestly they're both kinda shit
Anonymous No.718745693
>>718745604 (OP)
Both slow movie game slop
Anonymous No.718746151 >>718746220 >>718746451 >>718748757 >>718749014
>epilogue John in 2 is literally a john png pasted on Arthur's head
Anonymous No.718746220
>>718746151
smor indie company preas understand
Anonymous No.718746451 >>718746519
>>718746151
he looked like a kid with narrow shoulders in rdr1
Anonymous No.718746519
>>718746451
And so did his (NPC) model in 2.
Anonymous No.718748692
>>718745604 (OP)
Anonymous No.718748757
>>718746151
>literally
Anonymous No.718748831
>>718745604 (OP)
We did this already like 2 days ago. It's 1. It's always 1.
Anonymous No.718748919
rockstar games suck they all play the same
Anonymous No.718749014
>>718746151
Just mod it bro
Anonymous No.718749064 >>718749725 >>718757475
I liked knowing little about John's past other than he was supposedly a fucked up outlaw.
Finding out that his only real crimes were robbing some banks and shooting guys that shot at him first in RDR2 was lame.
Anonymous No.718749725 >>718750384 >>718751653
>>718749064
Javier and Bill barely having relevance in the story sucked too.
Anonymous No.718749898
>>718745604 (OP)
YOU FUCKED UP MY FACE
Anonymous No.718750384 >>718760629
>>718749725
You can tell Javier was only there because he had to be. He was hardly a character at all, at least Bill got a fair amount of screen time in comparison. I wonder if Javier's development was cut along with the cut Guarma content.
Anonymous No.718751653
>>718749725
sorry but we spent our time on wholesome negro and wholesome injun negro instead
Anonymous No.718751706 >>718752080 >>718752443
>>718745604 (OP)
Is the first game more "authentic" as a western? I've seen the memes that make fun of certain anachronisms in RDR2, is it that much different from the first?
Anonymous No.718752080
>>718751706
what does authentic even mean? it's even more anachronistic, it's set 3 years before ww1 while trying to style itself as the 1860s - 80s. the real wild west was not just in the deserts of arizona and mexico, it was pretty much everything west of the mississipi.
Anonymous No.718752443
>>718751706
>certain anachronisms in RDR2
If we're thinking of the same ones, those aren't anachronisms; people mistakenly think they are because, ironically, their image of the past is coloured by idealised fiction.
Anonymous No.718753060 >>718758323 >>718759469
>>718745604 (OP)
You'd have to be a real contrarian to claim 1 was better than 2.
Anonymous No.718755908
>>718745604 (OP)
Left, technically superior without any doubt but boring.
Right, actually engaging enough for me to finish.
Anonymous No.718757475 >>718760161
>>718749064
Isn't tony a villainous protag, not an anti-hero?
Anonymous No.718757785
RDR2 had better graphics and all that jazz, but at the end of the day RDR1 was more fun to play so it wins
Anonymous No.718758323 >>718759134
>>718753060
But it is? The only thing 2 has "over" 1 is graphics, mechanics are pretty much the same.

1 has:
Better MC
Better characters
Better plot
Better ending
Anonymous No.718759134
>>718758323
2 had a much bigger and more diverse world, that made a huge difference. Having big mountains, swamplands, a large city like Saint Denis, it adds a lot of fun to the exploration.
It also had found a great way to fill in that world: Hunting. Looking for rare animals and killing them in the correct way is highly satisfying.
1's world was smaller, mostly desert along with some green plains and mountains towards the end of the game, and the hunting was a bit too minimal to be satisfactory.
Graphics are also a big deal to me if you're talking about shit like realistic weather systems and wild men hiding in the swampland fog.
Anonymous No.718759354
>>718745604 (OP)
It causes me great displeasure that these games take place so late in setting that you can't get an 1873 winchester
Anonymous No.718759469 >>718759806 >>718761092
>>718753060
1 is just a fun game, 2 lean more into interactive movie territory, if you like games naturally you will like 1 more.
Anonymous No.718759557
>>718745604 (OP)
they're both shit
Anonymous No.718759806 >>718760143
>>718759469
They're not that different really.
Most of both games are just riding places by yourself, taking other people places with carriages and shooting people in the head with your deadeye.
Anonymous No.718759996
>>718745604 (OP)
RDR1 is more fun as a game
Anonymous No.718760143
>>718759806
Yeah but if you like chocolate and your choices are 60% chocolate ice cream and 80% chocolate ice cream then you will like the 80% chocolate ice cream more, these numbers are arbitrary.
Anonymous No.718760161
>>718757475
Well, he didn't spend 20 years in the can
Anonymous No.718760629
>>718750384
Javier sucked in 2 because making him accurately wouldn't be woke. Javier was just an asshole bandito but he's brown so they had to make him noble and wise and remove his accent. They didn't change bill since he's white, but God forbid the Mexican CRIMINAL isn't a great guy.
Anonymous No.718761092
>>718759469
Have you played it recently? 1 has way too many of those boring sheep herding missions and the guns aren't as fun as in 2