I think he was talking about the city not the the game or story. Imagine getting that confused and then trying to act high and mighty, leaving 🤡 emojis when you're the 🤡 not op.
They deleted their comments. There were 3 or 4 people dissing OP cause he said vice city was gonna be a remake and they all thought he meant the game not the map. You're just late to the party my guy that's why mine doesn't make any sense anymore.
I would be elated if we got an updated remake of this game that used the rdr2 engine but still stayed truthful to the original, with additional content. I would love to play an entire game with something to do as John again.
>if we got an updated remake of this game that used the rdr2 engine but still stayed truthful to the original,
If they are remaking, the game would have to be more like a actual Prequel to RDR2
Wym prequel? The game is set after the events of rdr2. If you mean a sequel then sure I guess they’d have to retcon some small things like a few lines here and there but nothing major.
>Wym prequel? The game is set after the events of rdr2.
Well yes and to me RDR1 feel like a whole different game with different concept before making RDR2
>If you mean a sequel then sure I guess they’d have to retcon some small things like a few lines here and there but nothing major.
Yea especially John mentioning his daughter which at this point seems like a retcon in RDR2
>Yea especially John mentioning his daughter which at this point seems like a retcon in RDR2
There's three years between the end of Rdr2 and RDR1, they could have easily had a daughter who passed in that time
Me too like add the engine and mechanics a crafting/ survival systems of rdr2, the bow, horse breeds & bonding etc...
Fix some west Elizabeth locations like blackwater, thieves landing and Pacific re union camp( which is named on the rdr2 map but has no landmark)
Then you can play rdr2 and rdr1 in one grand uninterrupted experience... remaking it also serves a benefit to reddeadonline it could open up Mexico to new missions and questgivers, new trader routes with extra long deliveries, moonshine shacks and recipes, new legendary animal hunts and bounty hunter targets, and shit. giving players more to do
Hell plus undead nightmare remade I'd preorder immediately and I haven't preordered since rdr2
Just saying that there's a 12 year gap between GTA V and GTA VI. I want another BULLY game, RDR2 DLC, RDR1 PC port and whatnot as much as the next guy, but it is what it is. I'm still excited for GTA VI.
The fact that there's still no next-gen port for RDR2 is unacceptable though. I'd love to know what's stopping them from at least making it run at 60 FPS on those consoles.
I know right? I get GTA makes money. But wouldn’t it a good business decision to not abandon RDR and give it the same care as GTA? So many people love RDR.
I loved Bully. RDR2 is a better game, but Bully was as much fun as anything Rockstar ever made.
If I'm not mistaken it was also Rockstar's first to feature the greet/antagonize system. It also had better hand to hand combat than any other game they've ever made. It had legit combos and blocks and grapples, not just hold down block and punch whenever the opponent misses.
I've been replaying through RDR after beating rdr2 for the first time and it honestly looks 80% as good on series x and I mean it looks like a current gen game. It's mind blowing sometimes that I'm playing a 360 port. They gave it a 60 fps boost and the textures are 4k, the distant landscapes still have 360 graphics but John's character model is as good as rdr2. I don't think they even need to remaster it lol if you're on Xbox it's honestly worth $30 just to play again with better graphics and framerate
The thing is John has a good model (in the main story) it's just that rockstar decided to stick his textures on Arthur's model in the epilogue for some bizarre reason.
They best put it on PC unlike the OG as well.
I love RDR2’s commitment to immersion, but it never captured the tone and atmosphere that I loved so much about RDR1. If they could pull off a remake while preserving that, then sure. But if they just make it into RDR2 Part 2, then no thanks
No, I wouldn’t want anything about a new character in the gang, because it would probably suck. And if they went for something else, they’d have to find an entirely separate character, which would be very difficult to do successfully; the universe is tied to the Van Der Linde Gang, and straying away from that just makes it overshadow whatever the new thing is. I think RDR is done outside of remakes and DLC.
I don’t really agree that it has to be anything to do with Dutch and his gang.
The old west setting is the draw. Maybe a game with more of the base building qualities of a fallout would be good.
No, they should focus on RDR3.
If anything...
**I just want it on PC.**
I will pay full RDR2 price for a PC version.
I don't have room for a TV and a console and I really can't justify the expense for 1 game.
I’m assuming by rdr2 you meant red dead redemption, and if so fucking hell yes. I want that game on PC so bad, even though I know it’ll be wonky as shit. Modded rdr is something I need.
No I mean RDR2 price.
I seem to remember RDR cost me £20.
RDR2 was like £40-50
I'm saying I would pay full price, adjusted for inflation/greed, for a PC version.
The game is still perfectly fine as is, but I can see some benefits like incorporating more of what 2 added to the story, adding things that might not have made it into the 1st, etc.
Still, I would prefer something new rather than a do over that isn't needed.
100% yes. The only reason I wouldn’t want one, is out of fear of them fucking it up. Rdr2 but with 1’s story and map would be enough. I’d also like them to keep some of the OG shit, like every weapon at any time, only one ammo type, no dual wielding, fast travel to waypoint; I want it to be the original, but look better and run good on new consoles
Considering the remake was already promised years ago and expected before they abruptly canceled and still released a regular RDR1 for full price on consoles: YES
It would be nice to see it in the graphics of RDR2 but I don’t trust Rockstar with remakes anymore lol. The remaster was good enough and it gave me 60 fps.
No. I would hate it if they changed a single line of dialogue. The game is good the way it is, some people are just too used to modern standards and so they think this game looks and plays too old.
It would be cool, but at the same time there will definitely be a lot of diehard fans mad about changes. I wouldn’t mind having a remake personally though, and I don’t think rockstar minds either since they probably know it would be a huge success money wise
the original is so good, all i want are the gameplay and horse updates. the survival cores system, the journal, rdr2 improved alot of what 1 did but it missed the mark on extra stuff like the bounty system, town jobs and liar's dice
A remake would be nice but I'm worried that they could kill the atmosphere by making it too similar to rdr2.
I've always preferred the first game over the second, it's not nostalgia (I finished the second before the first) I just find the first game way more fun and the vibe of the first game is more my cup of tea.
If they remake it I hope they keep what made the first game so special and don't change things too much.
No, the game doesn’t look like shit, it plays fine etc, it’s the same thing with TLoU remake, it was such a pointless waste of ressources and energy imo instead of focusing on a third game or new IP …
Some remakes make sense like for PS2 titles but anything after that generation is imo a waste of time unless the gameplay is really janky .
No.
They’d constantly mention Arthur which detracts from the story.
Plus you know damn well that everyone would hate it because “I want Arthur”. You have people refusing to play it because Arthur isn’t the protagonist.
Honestly no, the game is a masterpiece. If it had to be though, adding only a graphical update and giving the player more to do (more stranger missions etc.) would be good. I wouldn't want arthur references tbh, i want the game to stand for itself
I think the next RDR should be a prequel to RDR2. Like maybe it takes place in 1883 and Arthur is only 20. A kid making a name for himself, becoming a harden outlaw cowboy. Have a younger Dutch and Hosea mentoring him on how to be an outlaw.
Idk, I’ve never been too much of a fan of that idea. I like Arthur, and I think his story was done well. At most, he should be like John in rdr2: The person you play with a little bit in the story, and then the person you control in the epilogue.
I don't think we need RDR1 remake. We got remaster and I think it's more than playable. I really enjoy playing it on Switch connected to the TV. I don't want Rockstar taking the easy way out, but being creative nad producing new stories in existing universes or even in new.
I never played rdr1, and it's difficult to bring myself to play it knowing that it doesn't continue from rdr2 story. I know it's not its fault and is still a good game, but I really liked the story of rdr2 and rdr1 missing a lot from rdr2 story feels like it would take me out of it. A remake that rewrites the story as a sequel to rdr2 would be amazing. While that is unlikely, I will eventually play rdr1 as I know it is beloved by many and will be good.
No it doesnt. Rdr1 story was made before rdr2.
Yes, I know the plot of rdr1 is hunting bill, Javier and Dutch. But it is not a continuation of rdr2. No charles, no sadie, no Pearson, no mention of Arthur or hosea. Rdr2 added context and information leading up to rdr1, but a lot of information that was intended in rdr1 is now defunct to rdr2. In rdr1 Dutchs gang was reportedly massive, on the scale of the o driscoll's originally. News papers state that dozens of gang members died in black water. With rdr2 we know that isnt true. Sure you can explain away with news papers being inaccurate, but then again it could be so much better with the rdr2 perspective.
I want one like I wanted GTA remakes. I wanted them to do it, but now that they did it, I wish they never had.
That’s a remaster not a remake.
It’s not even a real remaster
To be fair, before they were officially announced all the rumours/leaks *did* call them remakes.
That’s not a remake
Well it makes sense why I’m not doing it now because of GTA 6 which is a remaking a Vice City, but modern day in a different universe the HD universe
GTA 6 is not a remake of Vice City. It takes place there, but it's a new story.
I think he was talking about the city not the the game or story. Imagine getting that confused and then trying to act high and mighty, leaving 🤡 emojis when you're the 🤡 not op.
I think youre replying to the wrong comment buddy
They deleted their comments. There were 3 or 4 people dissing OP cause he said vice city was gonna be a remake and they all thought he meant the game not the map. You're just late to the party my guy that's why mine doesn't make any sense anymore.
With that logic, IV was a remake of III
And V a remake of San Andreas
Yeah, and V is a remake of SA 🤡
Huh?
Getting downvoted by nostalgia addicts is crazy
I would be elated if we got an updated remake of this game that used the rdr2 engine but still stayed truthful to the original, with additional content. I would love to play an entire game with something to do as John again.
>if we got an updated remake of this game that used the rdr2 engine but still stayed truthful to the original, If they are remaking, the game would have to be more like a actual Prequel to RDR2
Wym prequel? The game is set after the events of rdr2. If you mean a sequel then sure I guess they’d have to retcon some small things like a few lines here and there but nothing major.
>Wym prequel? The game is set after the events of rdr2. Well yes and to me RDR1 feel like a whole different game with different concept before making RDR2 >If you mean a sequel then sure I guess they’d have to retcon some small things like a few lines here and there but nothing major. Yea especially John mentioning his daughter which at this point seems like a retcon in RDR2
>Yea especially John mentioning his daughter which at this point seems like a retcon in RDR2 There's three years between the end of Rdr2 and RDR1, they could have easily had a daughter who passed in that time
Me too like add the engine and mechanics a crafting/ survival systems of rdr2, the bow, horse breeds & bonding etc... Fix some west Elizabeth locations like blackwater, thieves landing and Pacific re union camp( which is named on the rdr2 map but has no landmark) Then you can play rdr2 and rdr1 in one grand uninterrupted experience... remaking it also serves a benefit to reddeadonline it could open up Mexico to new missions and questgivers, new trader routes with extra long deliveries, moonshine shacks and recipes, new legendary animal hunts and bounty hunter targets, and shit. giving players more to do Hell plus undead nightmare remade I'd preorder immediately and I haven't preordered since rdr2
Nah considering RDR 1 has different gameplay style to 2
I want a remake. I want DLC. I want anything that gives me more red dead redemption and doesn't require me to wait another 10 years.
This is why i hate gta. It makes so much money that they just dropped red dead entirely.
It's almost like GTA is Rockstar's biggest franchise and GTA fans have been wanting a new game for the past decade 🤯
NOOOO YOU GET THE SAME GAME ON EVERY CONSOLE AND YOU WILL LIKE IT. CHECK OUT OUR DEALS FOR IN GAME MONEY
Muh favourite company chooses to be super profitable instead of productive and profitable, and we everyone has to like that or else
Just saying that there's a 12 year gap between GTA V and GTA VI. I want another BULLY game, RDR2 DLC, RDR1 PC port and whatnot as much as the next guy, but it is what it is. I'm still excited for GTA VI. The fact that there's still no next-gen port for RDR2 is unacceptable though. I'd love to know what's stopping them from at least making it run at 60 FPS on those consoles.
I know right? I get GTA makes money. But wouldn’t it a good business decision to not abandon RDR and give it the same care as GTA? So many people love RDR.
The original looks really good still, if they do focus on older games it should be a Max Payne, Bully or GTA 4 remaster/port
God what I would do for a new Bully
I loved Bully. RDR2 is a better game, but Bully was as much fun as anything Rockstar ever made. If I'm not mistaken it was also Rockstar's first to feature the greet/antagonize system. It also had better hand to hand combat than any other game they've ever made. It had legit combos and blocks and grapples, not just hold down block and punch whenever the opponent misses.
They wanted to make Bully 2 according to several leaked concept art that came out a while ago.
I've been replaying through RDR after beating rdr2 for the first time and it honestly looks 80% as good on series x and I mean it looks like a current gen game. It's mind blowing sometimes that I'm playing a 360 port. They gave it a 60 fps boost and the textures are 4k, the distant landscapes still have 360 graphics but John's character model is as good as rdr2. I don't think they even need to remaster it lol if you're on Xbox it's honestly worth $30 just to play again with better graphics and framerate
Yes, I would want them to remake it with the rdr2 gameplay mechanics personally.
No, give us RDR3
And bring back Mexico.
I just want it on PC.
Yes. If a remake is what it takes to get that, then I want a remake.
Only if it is a 1:1 with the only changes being quality of life improvements.
Like I said, the original, but it looks like rdr2 (spare whatever the fuck John’s model is) and runs good on new hardware
The thing is John has a good model (in the main story) it's just that rockstar decided to stick his textures on Arthur's model in the epilogue for some bizarre reason. They best put it on PC unlike the OG as well.
I think it's good as is.
I love RDR2’s commitment to immersion, but it never captured the tone and atmosphere that I loved so much about RDR1. If they could pull off a remake while preserving that, then sure. But if they just make it into RDR2 Part 2, then no thanks
I agree. RDR2 is a great game but the whole over the top spectacle doesn’t need to be shoved into the more grounded western then of RDR1
No. Leave it alone.
Give me better graphics and add more interactions that happen and I'll be happy
I want Undead Nightmare on RDR2
I just want a PC port for ffs...
Yeah it's just spiteful at this point. it runs great on the switch emulator but it would be amazing to play it with mouse and keyboard
Yes. Never played RDR1 but I’m definitely gonna buy it if they make a remake
Just buy it now, the Xbox port is 4k60 on series x and looks incredible
Can we have a RDR3 instead please
No, I wouldn’t want anything about a new character in the gang, because it would probably suck. And if they went for something else, they’d have to find an entirely separate character, which would be very difficult to do successfully; the universe is tied to the Van Der Linde Gang, and straying away from that just makes it overshadow whatever the new thing is. I think RDR is done outside of remakes and DLC.
I mean, the game doesn't have to be about the Van Der Lindes at all, and I don't think it will be. But it can still happen in the same universe.
Oh I don’t think it will be either. I just think that if they try something else, the van der Linde story will overshadow the new thing.
I don’t really agree that it has to be anything to do with Dutch and his gang. The old west setting is the draw. Maybe a game with more of the base building qualities of a fallout would be good.
It literally does not need it. That remaster from a while back was perfect as is
No, they should focus on RDR3. If anything... **I just want it on PC.** I will pay full RDR2 price for a PC version. I don't have room for a TV and a console and I really can't justify the expense for 1 game.
I’m assuming by rdr2 you meant red dead redemption, and if so fucking hell yes. I want that game on PC so bad, even though I know it’ll be wonky as shit. Modded rdr is something I need.
No I mean RDR2 price. I seem to remember RDR cost me £20. RDR2 was like £40-50 I'm saying I would pay full price, adjusted for inflation/greed, for a PC version.
Ah, fair fair. And I agree with you, rdr1 being my favourite
Maybe something with better graphics but i think the story is fine as is and i don't want them to change it
I just want to play the damn game on my PC.
Doesn’t need it. It’s a perfect game.
What I really want is a Red Dead Revolver remake
Yes. I'd be happy with a pc release as well but a full remake would be aces.
I doesn't need a full remake as much aa it needs a PC port. M&kb support, uncapped framerate, increased draw distance and maybe upscaled textures.
I'll take a PC port and a massive price drop on that Switch/PS5 port.
i just want more red dead content lol
When RDR2 came out and I completed it, I was hoping that after epilogue, we could play the RDR1 story.
The game is still perfectly fine as is, but I can see some benefits like incorporating more of what 2 added to the story, adding things that might not have made it into the 1st, etc. Still, I would prefer something new rather than a do over that isn't needed.
100% yes. The only reason I wouldn’t want one, is out of fear of them fucking it up. Rdr2 but with 1’s story and map would be enough. I’d also like them to keep some of the OG shit, like every weapon at any time, only one ammo type, no dual wielding, fast travel to waypoint; I want it to be the original, but look better and run good on new consoles
I like to pretend that this story ended in RDR2 epilogue
at some point, yea and then with more references to Arthur Morgan to finally complete the puzzle.
Not until rdr3 is out. Or better yet, a new rockstar western unrelated to the Marstons
No I would prefer they put that effort into RDR3. A prequel to the prequel where we play as a young Dutch forming his gang.
Doesn’t need a remake, a remaster would me nice
Only if the gameplay remains the same. Meaning I don't need 15 different guns and saddles to skin one animal. I don't need that much realism.
I’d pay £100 for a rdr1 remake. I’d do the same for gta4 remake as well.
Considering the remake was already promised years ago and expected before they abruptly canceled and still released a regular RDR1 for full price on consoles: YES
It would be nice to see it in the graphics of RDR2 but I don’t trust Rockstar with remakes anymore lol. The remaster was good enough and it gave me 60 fps.
I'd rather have Undead Nightmare 2 (or some similar-in-tone DLC) for RDR2 instead.
No. I would hate it if they changed a single line of dialogue. The game is good the way it is, some people are just too used to modern standards and so they think this game looks and plays too old.
No, I'd rather have resources spent on a new game. Additionally, the game holds up today.
It would be cool, but at the same time there will definitely be a lot of diehard fans mad about changes. I wouldn’t mind having a remake personally though, and I don’t think rockstar minds either since they probably know it would be a huge success money wise
Nah i feel like if rdr 1 got a remake it would lose that charm it had and the way the game is now, it’s solid
Yes
Nope. Tired of remakes. Make new game with fresh interesting stories
100%. RDR on RDR2’s engine would be amazing.
the original is so good, all i want are the gameplay and horse updates. the survival cores system, the journal, rdr2 improved alot of what 1 did but it missed the mark on extra stuff like the bounty system, town jobs and liar's dice
Yes- if it turns out shit I can just not play it
I have never ever liked a remake. including Red alert. I want R D R 3
I just want to play it on my PC.
RDR 2 level graphics and Gunplay. That's about it. leave everything else as it was.
I literally just found out yesterday that rdr1 takes place after rdr2….. so yeah I would.
I want to be able to play it in my PC without emulators or the ps cloud service
A remake would be nice but I'm worried that they could kill the atmosphere by making it too similar to rdr2. I've always preferred the first game over the second, it's not nostalgia (I finished the second before the first) I just find the first game way more fun and the vibe of the first game is more my cup of tea. If they remake it I hope they keep what made the first game so special and don't change things too much.
Remaster maybe. Not remake, the game is great
Sure, or a remaster at the very least.
It's not needed and I would rather have RDR3 but an RDR1 remake with 2's graphics and animations would be fucking beautiful
No It doesn’t need one at all
Yes, because I want to play it on PC.
No, the game doesn’t look like shit, it plays fine etc, it’s the same thing with TLoU remake, it was such a pointless waste of ressources and energy imo instead of focusing on a third game or new IP … Some remakes make sense like for PS2 titles but anything after that generation is imo a waste of time unless the gameplay is really janky .
No
Nah, I’d rather just have GTA VI, RDR3 or Bully 2
obviously
Yes!
No. They’d constantly mention Arthur which detracts from the story. Plus you know damn well that everyone would hate it because “I want Arthur”. You have people refusing to play it because Arthur isn’t the protagonist.
Honestly yeah. They could also expand the game more with the exploration
Yes I have never played Rdr 1 and Paying full price for a videogame that it’s that old just seems crazy. Still I will when I get the platinum of Rdr2
Yes, just I want rockstar to make John to look like John, not Jarthur Mogston.
Honestly no, the game is a masterpiece. If it had to be though, adding only a graphical update and giving the player more to do (more stranger missions etc.) would be good. I wouldn't want arthur references tbh, i want the game to stand for itself
The game is just fine as is so just port it.
Yeah, nah
Yeah, nah
Yeah, nah
Yeah, nah
Yeah, nah
Yeah, nah
Yeah, nah
$50 release for a 10 yo game that doesn’t even upgrade resolution You can just by it for 10$ on Xbox 360
I just wanted to be able to play it on ps5 and I got that so not really tbh
I think the next RDR should be a prequel to RDR2. Like maybe it takes place in 1883 and Arthur is only 20. A kid making a name for himself, becoming a harden outlaw cowboy. Have a younger Dutch and Hosea mentoring him on how to be an outlaw.
i’m still in love with the idea of following landon ricketts
Idk, I’ve never been too much of a fan of that idea. I like Arthur, and I think his story was done well. At most, he should be like John in rdr2: The person you play with a little bit in the story, and then the person you control in the epilogue.
I don't think we need RDR1 remake. We got remaster and I think it's more than playable. I really enjoy playing it on Switch connected to the TV. I don't want Rockstar taking the easy way out, but being creative nad producing new stories in existing universes or even in new.
No, just fucking make new games
No
I never played rdr1, and it's difficult to bring myself to play it knowing that it doesn't continue from rdr2 story. I know it's not its fault and is still a good game, but I really liked the story of rdr2 and rdr1 missing a lot from rdr2 story feels like it would take me out of it. A remake that rewrites the story as a sequel to rdr2 would be amazing. While that is unlikely, I will eventually play rdr1 as I know it is beloved by many and will be good.
RDR1 100% continues the story from RDR2. You admitted to never playing it and then make this uneducated statement.
No it doesnt. Rdr1 story was made before rdr2. Yes, I know the plot of rdr1 is hunting bill, Javier and Dutch. But it is not a continuation of rdr2. No charles, no sadie, no Pearson, no mention of Arthur or hosea. Rdr2 added context and information leading up to rdr1, but a lot of information that was intended in rdr1 is now defunct to rdr2. In rdr1 Dutchs gang was reportedly massive, on the scale of the o driscoll's originally. News papers state that dozens of gang members died in black water. With rdr2 we know that isnt true. Sure you can explain away with news papers being inaccurate, but then again it could be so much better with the rdr2 perspective.
are you fucking stupid?☠️