nivvy

From a graphical standpoint, I think the game holds up fine and looks good despite its age, maybe if it had been made in the early 2000s and the 90s like the earlier Resident Evils and Silent Hill games that got a remake then I would understand. However the game was only released in the mid 2010s and with the current trend of studios remaking their games, I don't think its time for that with RDR.

From a story standpoint there is a lot of inconsistencies between RDR and RDR2 but I don't believe that is for RDR to fix when RDR2 created most of these holes in the plot. Realistically, I think that RDR2 should have had an update to fix some of these issues to reduce some of the inconsistencies, however there is some that I don't think could have been fixed as they are issues with the story itself.

It is no secret that Arthur was theorised to have been able to go into New Austin and Blackwater due to cut lines found in the files and that the studios being pressed for time left those areas underdeveloped as a result. And with my prior experience in games design I know that making a game in general is no easy feat, especially at the level that RDR and RDR2 are. Though because these areas feature in the original game, them being underdeveloped makes the differences between the two games more obvious. For example the lack of the Wreck of Serendipty on the shore of the San Luis River when NPCs in RDR describe it being there for ages, a lot longer than the 12 years between the two games. Another example being the lack of the barn at the MacFarlane Ranch and Bonnie's age in RDO for RDR2 as in RDR she states that it was built by her father when she was a little girl and she's an adult in RDO that you can get missions from when she would be in her early teens in 1898.

I think if those plot holes were not there and that Arthur had been able to go to these areas in the game in RDR2 it wouldn't have felt as strange with the existence of RDR, as going into New Austin as John in 1907 because that area is now available to get the things needed for 100% ruins some of the immersion and story for RDR as it's clearly implied that John does not know New Austin that well as he has to have a guide from Armadillo to Fort Mercer in the first mission.

This leads me onto my other issue with RDR2, the Blackwater Massacre. I believe that this job shouldn't have happened in Blackwater as it created the whole lockdown area for Arthur. But it also creates a massive discrepancy between RDR and RDR2 and the epilogue of the second game as why would John settle down and build a ranch right next to the town that he was apart of the massacre of? I don't think John would be that stupid to build a ranch right there but he did and I find it surprising that the events of American Venom are what make the pinkertons find John. As if him building a ranch and getting a loan in his actual name by the town that he was a part of the ferry job would be hard to find out.

It can be implied that John would have worked on the ranch between 1907 and 1911 and kept his head down but with the players control and achievements John doesn't exactly do that and it creates some of the plot holes between the two games. I think some fix for this which would be hard to do based on the fact that RDR2 is 6 years old now and wouldn't be updated but I think if the Massacre set before RDR2 was in a different location than Blackwater, like Saint Denis or a town that isn't on the map that is above Ambarino would make the most sense as it wouldn't feel like John is being foolish and it would give Arthur the access to the RDR areas.