Is there a good reason for people who have played the sequel to then play the original? I've only played RDR for a dozen or so hours. I liked that the NPCs weren't hyper-aggro like many are in RDR2, and the UI was less annoying, but the world and gameplay felt kind of lackluster and repetitive. Maybe getting the earlier part of the story makes it worthwhile?
PCGaming
Rule 0: Be civil
Rule #1: No spam, porn, or facilitating piracy
Rule #2: No advertisements
Rule #3: No memes, PCMR language, or low-effort posts/comments
Rule #4: No tech support or game help questions
Rule #5: No questions about building/buying computers, hardware, peripherals, furniture, etc.
Rule #6: No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
Rule #7: No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts
Rule #8: No off-topic posts/comments
Rule #9: Use the original source, no editorialized titles, no duplicates
RDR2 is actually a prequel to RDR, if that helps you in your decision making.
Also the first game is way more arcade-y than the immersive sim of the second.
Maybe they'll release the zombies expansion...
It's rockstar, so I'd probably not expect them to half arse a port of this, but:
Why does this news seem to suspiciously follow emulation of those consoles recently getting to a pretty good standard?
Are you sure you're thinking of the right Rockstar? 'Cause half-assing a PC port is exactly what I'd expect them to do.
......fuck, you're right
GTA trilogy...
Still, I'm tacitly excited about it regardless but if course won't be pre-ordering or buying day one.
AAA studios have taught me to be excited about nothing until after release. Even then, they can still take it away. I have a hard te believing this will be the labor of love this deserves, but I'd love to be proven wrong.