Forlorn Drifter wrote:kingmohd84 wrote:I got another good example for this:
Red Dead Revolver and Red Dead Redemption
While the first is a ps2 game, the second is bigger and badder with HD graphics. It doesn't mean that Revolver is a bad game, but is there a reason to play the first when a "better" sequel exists? Unless you are a die hard fan of the series...
Also I was looking forward to play GTA4 in the future, my backlog is holding me, but now they announced GTA5 which I have no doubts will be a better game. So here is another example. What do you think?
I tend not like to play games that give you more of the same thing but games that give you a different experience. For example I am willing to play Zelda Wind Waker AND Twilight Princess since they are different, than Mario Galaxy 1 + 2 .
Its different from a sequel. Red Dead Redemption is a reimagining of Red Dead Revolver, in a more mature, and better polished light. The games are very different. Revolver is arcadey and somewhat goofy, while Redemption is a straight line 3rd person shooter with a serious tone, funny dialogue, and the occasional underlying joke that would fly over many peoples heads.
A case where both should be taken individually.
i wont argue with you but when I saw the reviews redemption seemed a better version of revolver