pygospa
2001
Primarily installed for my girlfriend, who borrowed my smartphone to play this, daily :D
Got this as a gift from my student flat-mate on steam.
2007
Owning it on Steam
Collectors box
Collectors Edition
End of 2019 we got ourselves our very first console (I had consoles as a child in the 90s ~ 00s, then played only on PC and mobile); and it was a Xbox One that came with a digital copy of this game.
I didn't expect anything, and therefore was really surprised: A fun little game in the Star Wars setting, with a captivating story, likable and interesting characters, and a lot of Star Wars nostalgia.
My only downside - I finished this in a weeks time, my playtime says 35 hours, and that includes a lot of travel time (with no waypoints or fast-travel abilities) and my goal to finish the game 100%. I would have liked much more time with it, to be honest.
Update: I gave the game a second run, and wrote a second and more detailed review.
I didn't expect anything, and therefore was really surprised: A fun little game in the Star Wars setting, with a captivating story, likable and interesting characters, and a lot of Star Wars nostalgia.
My only downside - I finished this in a weeks time, my playtime says 35 hours, and that includes a lot of travel time (with no waypoints or fast-travel abilities) and my goal to finish the game 100%. I would have liked much more time with it, to be honest.
Update: I gave the game a second run, and wrote a second and more detailed review.
My second single-player Xbox story-game, which came free with the Game Pass. And it was a really great game! I had a lot of fun with it, its really atmospheric and combines everything you love about Batman - a dark and gothic setting, crazy mad enemies, some brutal fighting scenes, a lot of sneakiness, the use of clever technical gadgets and also a lot of puzzle solving. All paired with a lot of beloved characters from the Batman universe.
It was great fun to play and I can see myself re-playing this one, so I'd probably be saving myself a physical copy in the near future. Also, all the other Arkham games got bumped onto my bucket list :)
It was great fun to play and I can see myself re-playing this one, so I'd probably be saving myself a physical copy in the near future. Also, all the other Arkham games got bumped onto my bucket list :)
2014
I remember playing and loving this game on the initial Xbox which I never owned but got to play a bit on when visiting my brother. I really enjoyed the game, the world and the story telling back in the days, and I always thought of playing this game once I had the time and chance. Unfortunately, when trying this out, when it got playable on the Game Pass, it didn't catch me as much as it used to; maybe I wasn't in the right mood for it. After a longer break I had lost all interest and picked up another game...
But I want to get back to this one, someday...
But I want to get back to this one, someday...
2007
After playing Batman: Return to Arkham, I remembered that I had the original Assassin's Creed on my bucket list, and so I finally got to it. My interest for this game actually started with the movie; I didn't know anything about the games prior to that date, but the movie (though it has it's weaknesses) got me really intrigued - I loved the whole setting and idea, so I wanted to try out the games. So I got myself a used Syndicate which was the current game - which suited me well, because I love London and I love the Victorian era, and while I had fun with the game, I did not quite get the entire story, so I decided to stop and try to catch up with all the games.
For a game that got released in 2007, it was still pretty enjoyable in 2020. The premise of the plot: Reliving the memory of your ancestors through the DNA that encodes everything you experience - is quite novel, and allows the game to actually tell two stories at once - a modern day story where Desmond Miles is the main character that learns of a global conspiracy in form of Abstergo Industries - and a story set in the third crusade, where the secret Order of Templars fight against the Brotherhood of Assassins. The only down-side: controlling Desmond did not feel as smooth and satisfying compared to Altair - and the constant switch made it feel even harder. I wished both characters would have been as agile to play with.
Other than that, the Gameplay is a bit repetitive, yet it didn't bother me that much (for later games, this gets more annoying) - as we get new sceneries, characters and story with every repetitive task - so it still feels satisfying enough to do. What bothered me more though, where the side achievements, like collecting flags or killing templar knights, as there where so many and they where so hidden, that you basically had to comb through every centimeter of the game map - and after a while that just get's boring. I wonder if anybody ever achieved it? For me it just wasn't worth it, so I didn't care about getting hundred percent (which usually I do).
Even today it is still a fun game to play with a unique story, interesting setting, a clever blend of history and (science) fiction, incredible scenery and a captivating plot, that kicks of a franchise that is still live and breathing after 15 years, with no end in sight.
For a game that got released in 2007, it was still pretty enjoyable in 2020. The premise of the plot: Reliving the memory of your ancestors through the DNA that encodes everything you experience - is quite novel, and allows the game to actually tell two stories at once - a modern day story where Desmond Miles is the main character that learns of a global conspiracy in form of Abstergo Industries - and a story set in the third crusade, where the secret Order of Templars fight against the Brotherhood of Assassins. The only down-side: controlling Desmond did not feel as smooth and satisfying compared to Altair - and the constant switch made it feel even harder. I wished both characters would have been as agile to play with.
Other than that, the Gameplay is a bit repetitive, yet it didn't bother me that much (for later games, this gets more annoying) - as we get new sceneries, characters and story with every repetitive task - so it still feels satisfying enough to do. What bothered me more though, where the side achievements, like collecting flags or killing templar knights, as there where so many and they where so hidden, that you basically had to comb through every centimeter of the game map - and after a while that just get's boring. I wonder if anybody ever achieved it? For me it just wasn't worth it, so I didn't care about getting hundred percent (which usually I do).
Even today it is still a fun game to play with a unique story, interesting setting, a clever blend of history and (science) fiction, incredible scenery and a captivating plot, that kicks of a franchise that is still live and breathing after 15 years, with no end in sight.
Assassin's Creed 2
After coming from AC1, I had a hard time getting into the character of Ezio Auditore, as to me, he didn't register as the typical assassin, but rather a cliche Italian playboy. But there's a reason why AC2 is considered the best game by many. My first goosebump moment was around 20 minutes, when Ezio and his brother sat on the tower and reminisced about the good life they have, and how this seamlessly transformed to the title intro scene. And the music! Wow! Story-wise the game is fun to explore and play.
While the basic game idea stayed the same (you are an Assassin that tries to sneak around and kill targets), it got extended with much more content - you've got Monteriggioni which is basically a mini in-game construction and management simulation; then there is the possibility to pick up weapons you don't own (and even other items, like brooms [there's an achievement for fighting with a broom :D ]), there are multiple factions you can ask to help you, to be more sneaky, or to distract guards or help you in fights, there are more abilities and upgrades that are pretty neat, you can drive vehicles (one of which [an experimental "vehicle"] is pretty exciting), and there are also a lot of different puzzle games (finding certain historic artifacts, or animus glitches) which where also a lot of fun to do. All in all, this makes the game much more diverse and less repetitive than AC1 felt. Chapeau!
Also - once more - I really loved the setting and the world; besides antiquity and the middle ages I was always hugely fascinated by the renaissance - and AC2 takes us to the earliest times of that era - to Florence, Forlì, Venice and the Vatican. Especially the Venice sequence is so incredible.
On the minus-side of things, the games graphics felt a little worse than in AC1 (especially faces), and I had a hard time with the controls, as many buttons are reused in different contexts and the game tries to aid you but often this doesn't work as smooth as you'd hope it does (sometimes you jump instead of climb, etc.). Also, after a short while you have enough money to just buy everything from any shop, regardless if you need it or not. Another thing that annoyed me, is that you need to be online to play this game - and sometimes I just couldn't because the Ubisoft server wasn't reachable. Considering that I own the disk, I feel this is bullshit; I want to be able to (re-)play this game any time, even if my internet is gone or Ubisoft decides to shut down their servers! Unfortnuately - it became the standard after this. I also felt that the Desmond Miles part fell a bit shorter this time.
Taking the game just by itself, I'd rate it a 4/5; and this includes the DLCs:
- Battle of Forlì
- Bonfire of the Vanities
PS: One last thing - I really laughed out loud at one of the Easter Eggs (right when you meet your uncle). :D
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
Different to the switch from AC1 to AC2, we this time keep our main protagonist and continue with Ezio Auditore who has matured, and who in Rome can now build up his own Brotherhood - this opens up new Game elements: Instead of fighting alone we can now call different types of Assassins to assist us, making it possible to deal with larger enemy groups in a more satisfying way. To have these Assassins, we get a new kind of mini-game where we recruit people into the Brotherhood and send them on missions so they can level up and become Assassins themselves (which is a ceremony that gets its own video sequence - that is actually pretty cool). We also get more different weapons, which we can buy at shops - once they are opened. As Rome was pretty run down, we first have to renovate Rome, by removing the Borgia from the city, and then open up the shops again.
Besides the historic story, the modern day story is also extended a lot. Instead of just sitting in some lab room being hooked to the Animus and only seldomly running around the building, this time our modern day assassins get to go on a field trip; they set up base in a known location from the past, and whenever Desmond learns something from the past, he then leaves the Animus to actually use the new knowledge they gained to retrieve items in the modern day. I think this was the most fun one could have in the modern day story in all the Assassin's Creed titles combined. Unfortunately this idea was abandoned again. A shame - never did the two timelines intertwine more perfectly then in Brotherhood.
While Brotherhood is basically nearly identical to AC2, I would still rate it a little bit higher then AC2, regarding gameplay - as this one is quite some fun, and had some great ideas. The Brotherhood never felt more like this: A brotherhood. Storywise I'd also give Brotherhood a slight margin, as the characters are more mature and relatable. Where AC2 wins, is the location which is much more diverse than just being in Rome (though Rome looks incredible and it is real fun to explore and renovate it), and the time period which was more interesting to me as well. So I guess it's a tie, at the end. 4/5
Assassin's Creed: Revelations
After the surprising end of Brotherhood, things got really strange, regarding the modern day story, with Desmond being trapped in the Animus due to his coma, having awkward pseudo-philosophical discussions with the KI of Subject 16, and walking through weird puzzle rooms that felt rather hard as you play everything in ego perspective without body. This felt rather absurd, and probably are the least fun "modern time" sequences in the entire series.
Ezios travels are more interesting - now an old man he seeks the wisdom of one of the greatest Assassins: Altair. These are said to be hidden in the catacombs beneath Masyaf - but to get in there, he needs some keys discs that where brought and scattered through out Constantinople. Even as a nearly retired Mentor in the Assassin order Ezio can still learn a lot of new things from the local Brotherhood that does a lot of things different than the Italian Brotherhood that Ezio founded, does. Following the footsteps of Altair, we finally learn about the life of Altair after AC1 as well as his burden and end. And incidentally this is also the end of Ezios saga.
The Story is again interesting; we get to revisit beloved settings from AC1, and totally new locations that feel familiar, but are different. Game-play-wise not much has changed; unfortunately the fellow Assassins aren't available anymore, however we get a new mini-game that's a Tower-Defend game. This as well as the capturing of new areas however was rather annoying and not much fun to play - and unfortunately even in the Ezio Collection Revelations still had a lot of bugs and crashed a lot of time - especially during the mini game. What I liked was the crafting of bombs - though it could be more interesting - a concept that was unfortunately not refined, but dropped in later games of the series.
All in all, while I had fun and was interested in the conclusion of the story, this game did not feel as good to play as the other two, and I am diappointed that a 2016 remaster release did not find the time to fix errors. Therefore I can only give 3/5.
----
Before I end my review, there is one last thing - an extra that I think is unjustly overlooked: The Collection comes with two half-hour long short movies;
Assassin's Creed: Lineage
A three-episode live-action movie that is a prequel to Assassin's Creed 2: It tells the story of Giovanni Auditore - the father of Ezio. The images look great, swordfights are captivating, the actors are well chosen and can easily be recognized due to the likeness to the in-game characters they adapt. It does not spoil anything of the game's story though, and can and probably should best be watched before.
Assassin's Creed: Embers
The second movie is the perfect counter part to linage: It's animated and a sequel to Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood; while Lineage tells the dramatic and action paced beginning of the live of Ezio who will continue his fathers work, Embers is paced down; Ezio is finally old and retired - he has two children with his wife Sofia, and lives a slow life on his villa somewhere remote. Yet on his final days he's visited by a young Assassin from China - Shao Jun, who is eager to learn from Ezio. This film is rather emotional and leaves you considering your own life. Great work, best watched after finishing Revelations - or as a prequel to Assassin's Creed Chronicles: China which features Shao Jun and plays two years after her meeting with Ezio.
After coming from AC1, I had a hard time getting into the character of Ezio Auditore, as to me, he didn't register as the typical assassin, but rather a cliche Italian playboy. But there's a reason why AC2 is considered the best game by many. My first goosebump moment was around 20 minutes, when Ezio and his brother sat on the tower and reminisced about the good life they have, and how this seamlessly transformed to the title intro scene. And the music! Wow! Story-wise the game is fun to explore and play.
While the basic game idea stayed the same (you are an Assassin that tries to sneak around and kill targets), it got extended with much more content - you've got Monteriggioni which is basically a mini in-game construction and management simulation; then there is the possibility to pick up weapons you don't own (and even other items, like brooms [there's an achievement for fighting with a broom :D ]), there are multiple factions you can ask to help you, to be more sneaky, or to distract guards or help you in fights, there are more abilities and upgrades that are pretty neat, you can drive vehicles (one of which [an experimental "vehicle"] is pretty exciting), and there are also a lot of different puzzle games (finding certain historic artifacts, or animus glitches) which where also a lot of fun to do. All in all, this makes the game much more diverse and less repetitive than AC1 felt. Chapeau!
Also - once more - I really loved the setting and the world; besides antiquity and the middle ages I was always hugely fascinated by the renaissance - and AC2 takes us to the earliest times of that era - to Florence, Forlì, Venice and the Vatican. Especially the Venice sequence is so incredible.
On the minus-side of things, the games graphics felt a little worse than in AC1 (especially faces), and I had a hard time with the controls, as many buttons are reused in different contexts and the game tries to aid you but often this doesn't work as smooth as you'd hope it does (sometimes you jump instead of climb, etc.). Also, after a short while you have enough money to just buy everything from any shop, regardless if you need it or not. Another thing that annoyed me, is that you need to be online to play this game - and sometimes I just couldn't because the Ubisoft server wasn't reachable. Considering that I own the disk, I feel this is bullshit; I want to be able to (re-)play this game any time, even if my internet is gone or Ubisoft decides to shut down their servers! Unfortnuately - it became the standard after this. I also felt that the Desmond Miles part fell a bit shorter this time.
Taking the game just by itself, I'd rate it a 4/5; and this includes the DLCs:
- Battle of Forlì
- Bonfire of the Vanities
PS: One last thing - I really laughed out loud at one of the Easter Eggs (right when you meet your uncle). :D
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
Different to the switch from AC1 to AC2, we this time keep our main protagonist and continue with Ezio Auditore who has matured, and who in Rome can now build up his own Brotherhood - this opens up new Game elements: Instead of fighting alone we can now call different types of Assassins to assist us, making it possible to deal with larger enemy groups in a more satisfying way. To have these Assassins, we get a new kind of mini-game where we recruit people into the Brotherhood and send them on missions so they can level up and become Assassins themselves (which is a ceremony that gets its own video sequence - that is actually pretty cool). We also get more different weapons, which we can buy at shops - once they are opened. As Rome was pretty run down, we first have to renovate Rome, by removing the Borgia from the city, and then open up the shops again.
Besides the historic story, the modern day story is also extended a lot. Instead of just sitting in some lab room being hooked to the Animus and only seldomly running around the building, this time our modern day assassins get to go on a field trip; they set up base in a known location from the past, and whenever Desmond learns something from the past, he then leaves the Animus to actually use the new knowledge they gained to retrieve items in the modern day. I think this was the most fun one could have in the modern day story in all the Assassin's Creed titles combined. Unfortunately this idea was abandoned again. A shame - never did the two timelines intertwine more perfectly then in Brotherhood.
While Brotherhood is basically nearly identical to AC2, I would still rate it a little bit higher then AC2, regarding gameplay - as this one is quite some fun, and had some great ideas. The Brotherhood never felt more like this: A brotherhood. Storywise I'd also give Brotherhood a slight margin, as the characters are more mature and relatable. Where AC2 wins, is the location which is much more diverse than just being in Rome (though Rome looks incredible and it is real fun to explore and renovate it), and the time period which was more interesting to me as well. So I guess it's a tie, at the end. 4/5
Assassin's Creed: Revelations
After the surprising end of Brotherhood, things got really strange, regarding the modern day story, with Desmond being trapped in the Animus due to his coma, having awkward pseudo-philosophical discussions with the KI of Subject 16, and walking through weird puzzle rooms that felt rather hard as you play everything in ego perspective without body. This felt rather absurd, and probably are the least fun "modern time" sequences in the entire series.
Ezios travels are more interesting - now an old man he seeks the wisdom of one of the greatest Assassins: Altair. These are said to be hidden in the catacombs beneath Masyaf - but to get in there, he needs some keys discs that where brought and scattered through out Constantinople. Even as a nearly retired Mentor in the Assassin order Ezio can still learn a lot of new things from the local Brotherhood that does a lot of things different than the Italian Brotherhood that Ezio founded, does. Following the footsteps of Altair, we finally learn about the life of Altair after AC1 as well as his burden and end. And incidentally this is also the end of Ezios saga.
The Story is again interesting; we get to revisit beloved settings from AC1, and totally new locations that feel familiar, but are different. Game-play-wise not much has changed; unfortunately the fellow Assassins aren't available anymore, however we get a new mini-game that's a Tower-Defend game. This as well as the capturing of new areas however was rather annoying and not much fun to play - and unfortunately even in the Ezio Collection Revelations still had a lot of bugs and crashed a lot of time - especially during the mini game. What I liked was the crafting of bombs - though it could be more interesting - a concept that was unfortunately not refined, but dropped in later games of the series.
All in all, while I had fun and was interested in the conclusion of the story, this game did not feel as good to play as the other two, and I am diappointed that a 2016 remaster release did not find the time to fix errors. Therefore I can only give 3/5.
----
Before I end my review, there is one last thing - an extra that I think is unjustly overlooked: The Collection comes with two half-hour long short movies;
Assassin's Creed: Lineage
A three-episode live-action movie that is a prequel to Assassin's Creed 2: It tells the story of Giovanni Auditore - the father of Ezio. The images look great, swordfights are captivating, the actors are well chosen and can easily be recognized due to the likeness to the in-game characters they adapt. It does not spoil anything of the game's story though, and can and probably should best be watched before.
Assassin's Creed: Embers
The second movie is the perfect counter part to linage: It's animated and a sequel to Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood; while Lineage tells the dramatic and action paced beginning of the live of Ezio who will continue his fathers work, Embers is paced down; Ezio is finally old and retired - he has two children with his wife Sofia, and lives a slow life on his villa somewhere remote. Yet on his final days he's visited by a young Assassin from China - Shao Jun, who is eager to learn from Ezio. This film is rather emotional and leaves you considering your own life. Great work, best watched after finishing Revelations - or as a prequel to Assassin's Creed Chronicles: China which features Shao Jun and plays two years after her meeting with Ezio.
During my quest of playing through all Assassin's Creed games, I stumbled upon this little game on the Game Pass. I had heard of this game from colleagues at work - one of them actually took a month worth of vacation on the release date of the game, and when he was back, he and a colleague couldn't stop talking about this game for months to come.
However, I never looked it up and never even bothered - but when I saw it playable for just a month, for free on the Game Pass, I had to try it out. Oh boy, did I make a mistake there... Who could have known, that this game would keep me busy the next 1,5 years, consuming over 430 hours (or 18 whole 24h days) of my life?
And to be totally open with you: I am no Western fan. Not at all. I've maybe seen 3, and those rather by accident then willingly - I might have started more but stopped right after a few minutes... but after playing this, one of the first things I did was look up lists of movie recommendations for RDR2 players :D This game was so good, that the day it ran out of the Game Pass, I went to the next computer store and bought a copy of it. And this game was so good, that I wanted to explore everything possible: I did every side mission, every story I could find, I collected all the things you could collect, I hunted everything you could hunt, I crafted everything at every store possible - heck I even tried to get all breeds of horses ridden in (I think I did it, but as there is no achievement for this...). And never did I feel bored, or bothered. On the contrary. This is next level game telling - this is better than any movie. This is just incredible. I wish there where more games on this level, and I cannot recommend this enough... unless of course you cannot afford the time this game takes... but even then... And believe me, words don't do this justice. Gameplay videos don't either. You have to experience this for yourself!
However, I never looked it up and never even bothered - but when I saw it playable for just a month, for free on the Game Pass, I had to try it out. Oh boy, did I make a mistake there... Who could have known, that this game would keep me busy the next 1,5 years, consuming over 430 hours (or 18 whole 24h days) of my life?
And to be totally open with you: I am no Western fan. Not at all. I've maybe seen 3, and those rather by accident then willingly - I might have started more but stopped right after a few minutes... but after playing this, one of the first things I did was look up lists of movie recommendations for RDR2 players :D This game was so good, that the day it ran out of the Game Pass, I went to the next computer store and bought a copy of it. And this game was so good, that I wanted to explore everything possible: I did every side mission, every story I could find, I collected all the things you could collect, I hunted everything you could hunt, I crafted everything at every store possible - heck I even tried to get all breeds of horses ridden in (I think I did it, but as there is no achievement for this...). And never did I feel bored, or bothered. On the contrary. This is next level game telling - this is better than any movie. This is just incredible. I wish there where more games on this level, and I cannot recommend this enough... unless of course you cannot afford the time this game takes... but even then... And believe me, words don't do this justice. Gameplay videos don't either. You have to experience this for yourself!
To understand my review of this game, please keep in mind, that I am just reviewing the app as a means to play this game, not the card game itself. The card game I am a fan of since the early 90s, when I was still a kid collecting these cards. I stopped in the early 00s after school, and lately a friend of mine was getting back into it and he got me hooked with the Kaldheim set; so before buying any paper cards I wanted to see if I still liked the game, and tried it out on Arena.
The good things: Arena is nice to get into the game, and possibly also to get better at it: You get a lot of practice - more than you can probably cram in with friends with whom you can play physical paper Magic. And it helps understand how certain rules work (though they are not really explained and you need to look up things whenever you don't understand whats happening). And it can be played for free, which is another plus. However, playing it for free is a total grind that you need to suffer through first.
Now the bad things: Arena often feels like a really cheap, low effort money grab through obfuscation. This can be seen by multiple factors:
1.) There are two in-game currencies. These currencies make it hard to track the worth of things. There is the in-game currency, which is Gold, and then there are Gems, which is the currency you can buy for money. Depending on the amount you buy, a Gem is worth something between 0.005€ and 0.007€ worth. Or to put it differently: A booster pack costs 200 Gems, i.e. 1.10€ - 1.45€. That in it self seems fair, but keep in mind: a digital booster contains half as many cards as a physical booster. So you basically pay the same for a paper booster (double the price but also double the cards) - with the difference that you get something of value in return, something you can trade or sell. Arena gives you digital cards, and you need to collect up to four. Then the rest goes towards "The Vault" (more on that later).
2.) The most expert and fun experience for any magic player nowadays is probably Draft or Sealed. A draft with real people will cost you an entry fee of 1500 Gems - that's 11€. You get 3 boosters for that plus the chance to win back Gems and additional boosters. If you want to get even even with Gems (i.e. earn enough Gems back so you can play another round of draft), you'll need to score 5 wins - you'd also get four boosters to crack as price which is nice. However, Scoring 5 wins in Draft is pretty hard, as you loose the Draft once you score three losses; especially for novice players this will be a Gem/Gold sink. I, and all the players I know hardly ever get to 4 or 5 wins (my highest is still 4 wins, even after 3 years of playing again - and that has happened only a few couple of times). After breaking even with 4/5 wins, there are just two more games - 6 wins (1800 gems + 5 booster) and 7 wins (2200 gems + 6 booster). If you score 4 wins, you'll get 1400 Gems and 3 packs - value wise that's also still more than you payed, given each booster is 200 Gems worth. But to re-enter the game, you'd need 100 Gems from somewhere. Interestingly, Gem bundles are btw. never even for a draft. The bundles are 750, 1600, 3400, 9200, and 20000 - never a multiple of 1500. The more beginner-friendly Sealed that is also ideal to learn a new format is even worse: It's Gem only, and entry fee is 2000 Gems. Double the fee for double the booster, but - prices are even lower. While you always win 3 boosters, you break even with Gems at 6 winnings (2000 Gems) and get 2200 Gems max at 7 winnings.
3.) You never need Gems though, but it is rather frustrating playing for free. Gold can be earned by daily wins and daily quests. Every day you get a new daily quest (and you can stack up to three daily quests), and every day your win-counter get's reset. For the first win you get 250 Gold, the 2nd - 4th 100 Gold. From there on it's every second win that will get you 50 or 25 Gold. The maximum you can reach is 750 Gold per day, for 14 wins. Plus 500 Gold when you meet the conditions of your daily quest (e.g. play 50 lands, play 50 cards in a certain color, etc.); this is pretty grindy. Given that a game takes about 10-20 minutes, you need to put in round about 2-4 hours every day - and that's assuming you just win. A booster will cost you 1000 Gold, a draft 10000. So as a free-to-win player, you'll get to draft once every 10 days. or you can open a booster every day, if you are good/lucky and invest 2h a day.
4.) To get cards you want, there are wildcards - these are actually nice things. Every third booster opening you get a uncommon wildcard as a bonus, every 6 boosters you get a rare wildcard, every 24 boosters you get a mythic wildcard, and then there are Wildcards that are naturally placed into boosters at certain rates as well (every common slot has a 1:3 chance to be a wildcard, uncommon a 1:5, rare 1:30 and at a 1:7 chance a 1:30 rare wildcard becomes a mythic wildcard). These wildcards can be used to "craft" a card you don't own in that rarity. To "seemingly" speed things up, the shop offers "shortcuts" - a "Rare Wildcard Bundle" containing 4 rare wildcards for 11.99€, and a "Mythic Wildcard Bundle" conraining 4 mythic wildcards for 21.99€ (btw. they started this bundle with a 50€/50$ pricetag!). If you do the maths: For 11.99€ worth of Gems you could also get yourself 8 booster. That's 1 Rare wildcard. But also 7 random rare cards and 1 mythic rare card; that's a much better deal. And for 21.99€ you get 15 boosters, 2 rare wildcards, 2 mythics, and 13 rares. And there is a great chance of you getting your rares/mythics you still miss, by opening packs as well: every 5th rare/mythic is automatically replaced by a rare/mythic you don't yet own 4 times or more. And then there is the "Golden booster"; once you've opened 10 boosters that where bought (so no boosters you won/got for free). With this you get 6 rares, with every rare-slot having a 1:7 chance to be mythic. Add 2 boosters to your Rare Wildcard bundle price (3€) and you get those 6. For the price of the mythic rare wildcard bundle one of those is included. And every of this 6 rares/mythics could also be a wildcard. So to sum up: 12€ for 4 rare wildcards, vs. 15€ for minimum 1 rare/mythic wildcard, and 13 rare/mythic cards [with a chance for wildcards 1:30]. Or 22€ for 4 mythic wildcards vs. 22€ for 2 rare/mythic wildcards and at least 3 mythics [1:7 chance], and 18 rares [with a 1:30 chance for them being wildcards]. You also get your 5 commons and 2 uncommons per booster, that either complete your collection or count towards the vault, so that's another reason to go for the boosters and not the wildcard bundles - however tempting they may look. And the devlopers behind Magic know this. Once more: Cheap money grab.
5.) The Vault also contains wildcards. 3 uncommon, 2 rare and 1 mythic. To unlock the vault, you need "duplicates" over a playset (i.e. 4 cards) in common or uncommon cards. Every common card will count as 1 point, every uncommon as 3 points. The Vault will open (and reset) every 1000 points. So basically what that means: You can swap 1000 commons, or 334 uncommon cards (or any combination of these adding up to 1000 points), for 1 mythic, 2 rares and 3 uncommons. Seems like a fair trade, doesn't it? This vault might also be one reason, why digital boosters miss so many common cards (rarity-distribution of 5:2:1 in a digital booster, vs. 10:4:1 in a physical booster) this makes it even harder to get playsets of common and uncommon cards.
6.) Magic is a paper game (and at least for now they do not plan to change this in any way), and Magic fans spend hundreds or even thousands of their real-world currency every month on a diversity of card products (Pre-constructed decks, Draft-, Set-, Collector-Boosters, Secret Lairs, Pre-release Kits, Bundles, Displays, Jump-Start, etc.). None of these products allow to redeem the cards you bought, online. Which is frustrating for many players. Want to practice with your new deck? Craft it in Arena - don't have the wildcards for it? Well... you could get the 4 rare/mythic Wildcard bundle x-times (until you have all the cards of your 60- or 100-card deck; so worst case scenario, you need 16x22€ if your 100-deck precon only runs mythics [minus the ~35 basic lands - the only thing you don't need to craft/pull]). Adding a redeem-code would be an easy implement - and people are not even asking to have it for every booster card; but how about as a bear minimum just the Preconstructed Decks you offer? Pioneer Challenger Decks, Standard Challenger Decks, Commander Decks, Starter Decks for different Sets? They start at around 40€ a deck; it's insane to ask for a price that is at least double the physical price for a novice Arena player, just so you can play the same deck online as well. Especially if you consider that Arena is just the add on - there is no real developer effort for an app that just needs adds additional cards, if they are new. And every dollar that goes into developing the card is a dollar spent for the physical paper game which alone is insanely successful and generates returns in the billions for the companies behind Magic. So why use Arena as this cheap money grab to further milk your customers, who are already paying you for the product in physical form? Heck, if you really need the money, add the product as digital product as well that is priced the same and make an special offer (e.g. 80% off) for people who have a redeem code from the physical purchase. There are so many ways you could go about this, that would make the company money while still giving the customer the feeling that it is a good deal and that they are not cheated out of their money.
But that are just a few examples, and I could go on even further. But I think those are already enough to drive one of my main concerns home. But there are others as well:
Paper vs Digital: All our popular formats, like Pioneer, Modern, Commander or Oathbreaker are missing. It's been nearly 8 years since Arena got released, and in this time they did not yet manage to add all sets needed for any of these formats. They promise, yes. But they don't deliver. Instead, they work on new digital only formats, such as "Explorer", "Historic", or "Brawl" to somewhat mimic the formats that everyone loves in paper and wants to play online as well - and those don't do their paper counter parts justice at all. Which is a shame. What's even more frustrating: "Alchemy" - this is a digital-only format in that the Alchemy cards are real cards that change their behaviour; e.g. the Mana costs, the strength, or some of the effects of the card. This is annoying because you think you know a card but you never do. In fact, this is so annoying to almost all players, that it is boycotted by most players - which is why Arena tries to force it down your throat. While you pay real money (or time) for a normal booster, you'd regularly get free Alchemy boosters (which you can only play in alchemy. Of course you could have just taken the regular cards and change their behaviour according to the format you choose to play - but no. If you want to play both formats, pay up twice, please!). And secondly they preset Alchemy on every game, so for a while you had to actively deselect the Alchemy option. No one wants Alchemy, why do they keep pushing this format? Please work on Pioneer, Modern, Commander instead!
Client stability and performance: I used to play this on my MacBook, and there it was incredibly bad programmed. The Graphics top and bottom where cut off even when you set your correct resolution, and even if you chose a lower resolution and went to window mode. Also it used up a lot of CPU and RAM, and my fan always started rotating on highest speed after a few minutes. Also it crashed every now and then. On my PC (I installed it once it was available on Steam and am running it mostly on Linux), I don't have these problems. However (and this also happend a lot on my Mac), sometimes the connection gets randomly disconnected. If you are lucky you can rejoin the game - in this case you might have lost some turns and probably loose the game. If you cannot, the game will time you out after a while and you loose the game. Thanks. This once happend in a draft. Wow. Double thanks. And no, it's not me - I monitor my connection, and it was up all the time.
I could go on, but I think there's already enough points I mentioned to justify a bad rating of 1/5. This is not in regards to the game. I love the game. I play it at least once a week with 7 of my friends, where we do a paper draft or sealed, and get new boosters for it every time (no resealed sets or anything like that), and every other week there is also a second date where we play commander in 1 or 2 pods of up to 4 players each. The game is great. But even though the Arena is free (which actually it isn't, and where probably week-minded people end up spending a lot of money on Gems to progress), it is just a horrible experience that I cannot recommend. Go to your local game store, find people willing to meet for games, and get physical cards - you'll end up having a much better time, promise. For our group, we later sell any card that has a high enough value (50€+) and the money goes towards buying the next display, so every month or so we actually get a game for free, and if we don't it's ~8€ for every draft. And you get to grow your collection, trade your cards for things you are looking for in your constructed decks, etc.
Use Arena only if you must (and yes, I am a hypocrite - I still use Arena also on a weekly basis; but you know, I am a Magic junky).
The good things: Arena is nice to get into the game, and possibly also to get better at it: You get a lot of practice - more than you can probably cram in with friends with whom you can play physical paper Magic. And it helps understand how certain rules work (though they are not really explained and you need to look up things whenever you don't understand whats happening). And it can be played for free, which is another plus. However, playing it for free is a total grind that you need to suffer through first.
Now the bad things: Arena often feels like a really cheap, low effort money grab through obfuscation. This can be seen by multiple factors:
1.) There are two in-game currencies. These currencies make it hard to track the worth of things. There is the in-game currency, which is Gold, and then there are Gems, which is the currency you can buy for money. Depending on the amount you buy, a Gem is worth something between 0.005€ and 0.007€ worth. Or to put it differently: A booster pack costs 200 Gems, i.e. 1.10€ - 1.45€. That in it self seems fair, but keep in mind: a digital booster contains half as many cards as a physical booster. So you basically pay the same for a paper booster (double the price but also double the cards) - with the difference that you get something of value in return, something you can trade or sell. Arena gives you digital cards, and you need to collect up to four. Then the rest goes towards "The Vault" (more on that later).
2.) The most expert and fun experience for any magic player nowadays is probably Draft or Sealed. A draft with real people will cost you an entry fee of 1500 Gems - that's 11€. You get 3 boosters for that plus the chance to win back Gems and additional boosters. If you want to get even even with Gems (i.e. earn enough Gems back so you can play another round of draft), you'll need to score 5 wins - you'd also get four boosters to crack as price which is nice. However, Scoring 5 wins in Draft is pretty hard, as you loose the Draft once you score three losses; especially for novice players this will be a Gem/Gold sink. I, and all the players I know hardly ever get to 4 or 5 wins (my highest is still 4 wins, even after 3 years of playing again - and that has happened only a few couple of times). After breaking even with 4/5 wins, there are just two more games - 6 wins (1800 gems + 5 booster) and 7 wins (2200 gems + 6 booster). If you score 4 wins, you'll get 1400 Gems and 3 packs - value wise that's also still more than you payed, given each booster is 200 Gems worth. But to re-enter the game, you'd need 100 Gems from somewhere. Interestingly, Gem bundles are btw. never even for a draft. The bundles are 750, 1600, 3400, 9200, and 20000 - never a multiple of 1500. The more beginner-friendly Sealed that is also ideal to learn a new format is even worse: It's Gem only, and entry fee is 2000 Gems. Double the fee for double the booster, but - prices are even lower. While you always win 3 boosters, you break even with Gems at 6 winnings (2000 Gems) and get 2200 Gems max at 7 winnings.
3.) You never need Gems though, but it is rather frustrating playing for free. Gold can be earned by daily wins and daily quests. Every day you get a new daily quest (and you can stack up to three daily quests), and every day your win-counter get's reset. For the first win you get 250 Gold, the 2nd - 4th 100 Gold. From there on it's every second win that will get you 50 or 25 Gold. The maximum you can reach is 750 Gold per day, for 14 wins. Plus 500 Gold when you meet the conditions of your daily quest (e.g. play 50 lands, play 50 cards in a certain color, etc.); this is pretty grindy. Given that a game takes about 10-20 minutes, you need to put in round about 2-4 hours every day - and that's assuming you just win. A booster will cost you 1000 Gold, a draft 10000. So as a free-to-win player, you'll get to draft once every 10 days. or you can open a booster every day, if you are good/lucky and invest 2h a day.
4.) To get cards you want, there are wildcards - these are actually nice things. Every third booster opening you get a uncommon wildcard as a bonus, every 6 boosters you get a rare wildcard, every 24 boosters you get a mythic wildcard, and then there are Wildcards that are naturally placed into boosters at certain rates as well (every common slot has a 1:3 chance to be a wildcard, uncommon a 1:5, rare 1:30 and at a 1:7 chance a 1:30 rare wildcard becomes a mythic wildcard). These wildcards can be used to "craft" a card you don't own in that rarity. To "seemingly" speed things up, the shop offers "shortcuts" - a "Rare Wildcard Bundle" containing 4 rare wildcards for 11.99€, and a "Mythic Wildcard Bundle" conraining 4 mythic wildcards for 21.99€ (btw. they started this bundle with a 50€/50$ pricetag!). If you do the maths: For 11.99€ worth of Gems you could also get yourself 8 booster. That's 1 Rare wildcard. But also 7 random rare cards and 1 mythic rare card; that's a much better deal. And for 21.99€ you get 15 boosters, 2 rare wildcards, 2 mythics, and 13 rares. And there is a great chance of you getting your rares/mythics you still miss, by opening packs as well: every 5th rare/mythic is automatically replaced by a rare/mythic you don't yet own 4 times or more. And then there is the "Golden booster"; once you've opened 10 boosters that where bought (so no boosters you won/got for free). With this you get 6 rares, with every rare-slot having a 1:7 chance to be mythic. Add 2 boosters to your Rare Wildcard bundle price (3€) and you get those 6. For the price of the mythic rare wildcard bundle one of those is included. And every of this 6 rares/mythics could also be a wildcard. So to sum up: 12€ for 4 rare wildcards, vs. 15€ for minimum 1 rare/mythic wildcard, and 13 rare/mythic cards [with a chance for wildcards 1:30]. Or 22€ for 4 mythic wildcards vs. 22€ for 2 rare/mythic wildcards and at least 3 mythics [1:7 chance], and 18 rares [with a 1:30 chance for them being wildcards]. You also get your 5 commons and 2 uncommons per booster, that either complete your collection or count towards the vault, so that's another reason to go for the boosters and not the wildcard bundles - however tempting they may look. And the devlopers behind Magic know this. Once more: Cheap money grab.
5.) The Vault also contains wildcards. 3 uncommon, 2 rare and 1 mythic. To unlock the vault, you need "duplicates" over a playset (i.e. 4 cards) in common or uncommon cards. Every common card will count as 1 point, every uncommon as 3 points. The Vault will open (and reset) every 1000 points. So basically what that means: You can swap 1000 commons, or 334 uncommon cards (or any combination of these adding up to 1000 points), for 1 mythic, 2 rares and 3 uncommons. Seems like a fair trade, doesn't it? This vault might also be one reason, why digital boosters miss so many common cards (rarity-distribution of 5:2:1 in a digital booster, vs. 10:4:1 in a physical booster) this makes it even harder to get playsets of common and uncommon cards.
6.) Magic is a paper game (and at least for now they do not plan to change this in any way), and Magic fans spend hundreds or even thousands of their real-world currency every month on a diversity of card products (Pre-constructed decks, Draft-, Set-, Collector-Boosters, Secret Lairs, Pre-release Kits, Bundles, Displays, Jump-Start, etc.). None of these products allow to redeem the cards you bought, online. Which is frustrating for many players. Want to practice with your new deck? Craft it in Arena - don't have the wildcards for it? Well... you could get the 4 rare/mythic Wildcard bundle x-times (until you have all the cards of your 60- or 100-card deck; so worst case scenario, you need 16x22€ if your 100-deck precon only runs mythics [minus the ~35 basic lands - the only thing you don't need to craft/pull]). Adding a redeem-code would be an easy implement - and people are not even asking to have it for every booster card; but how about as a bear minimum just the Preconstructed Decks you offer? Pioneer Challenger Decks, Standard Challenger Decks, Commander Decks, Starter Decks for different Sets? They start at around 40€ a deck; it's insane to ask for a price that is at least double the physical price for a novice Arena player, just so you can play the same deck online as well. Especially if you consider that Arena is just the add on - there is no real developer effort for an app that just needs adds additional cards, if they are new. And every dollar that goes into developing the card is a dollar spent for the physical paper game which alone is insanely successful and generates returns in the billions for the companies behind Magic. So why use Arena as this cheap money grab to further milk your customers, who are already paying you for the product in physical form? Heck, if you really need the money, add the product as digital product as well that is priced the same and make an special offer (e.g. 80% off) for people who have a redeem code from the physical purchase. There are so many ways you could go about this, that would make the company money while still giving the customer the feeling that it is a good deal and that they are not cheated out of their money.
But that are just a few examples, and I could go on even further. But I think those are already enough to drive one of my main concerns home. But there are others as well:
Paper vs Digital: All our popular formats, like Pioneer, Modern, Commander or Oathbreaker are missing. It's been nearly 8 years since Arena got released, and in this time they did not yet manage to add all sets needed for any of these formats. They promise, yes. But they don't deliver. Instead, they work on new digital only formats, such as "Explorer", "Historic", or "Brawl" to somewhat mimic the formats that everyone loves in paper and wants to play online as well - and those don't do their paper counter parts justice at all. Which is a shame. What's even more frustrating: "Alchemy" - this is a digital-only format in that the Alchemy cards are real cards that change their behaviour; e.g. the Mana costs, the strength, or some of the effects of the card. This is annoying because you think you know a card but you never do. In fact, this is so annoying to almost all players, that it is boycotted by most players - which is why Arena tries to force it down your throat. While you pay real money (or time) for a normal booster, you'd regularly get free Alchemy boosters (which you can only play in alchemy. Of course you could have just taken the regular cards and change their behaviour according to the format you choose to play - but no. If you want to play both formats, pay up twice, please!). And secondly they preset Alchemy on every game, so for a while you had to actively deselect the Alchemy option. No one wants Alchemy, why do they keep pushing this format? Please work on Pioneer, Modern, Commander instead!
Client stability and performance: I used to play this on my MacBook, and there it was incredibly bad programmed. The Graphics top and bottom where cut off even when you set your correct resolution, and even if you chose a lower resolution and went to window mode. Also it used up a lot of CPU and RAM, and my fan always started rotating on highest speed after a few minutes. Also it crashed every now and then. On my PC (I installed it once it was available on Steam and am running it mostly on Linux), I don't have these problems. However (and this also happend a lot on my Mac), sometimes the connection gets randomly disconnected. If you are lucky you can rejoin the game - in this case you might have lost some turns and probably loose the game. If you cannot, the game will time you out after a while and you loose the game. Thanks. This once happend in a draft. Wow. Double thanks. And no, it's not me - I monitor my connection, and it was up all the time.
I could go on, but I think there's already enough points I mentioned to justify a bad rating of 1/5. This is not in regards to the game. I love the game. I play it at least once a week with 7 of my friends, where we do a paper draft or sealed, and get new boosters for it every time (no resealed sets or anything like that), and every other week there is also a second date where we play commander in 1 or 2 pods of up to 4 players each. The game is great. But even though the Arena is free (which actually it isn't, and where probably week-minded people end up spending a lot of money on Gems to progress), it is just a horrible experience that I cannot recommend. Go to your local game store, find people willing to meet for games, and get physical cards - you'll end up having a much better time, promise. For our group, we later sell any card that has a high enough value (50€+) and the money goes towards buying the next display, so every month or so we actually get a game for free, and if we don't it's ~8€ for every draft. And you get to grow your collection, trade your cards for things you are looking for in your constructed decks, etc.
Use Arena only if you must (and yes, I am a hypocrite - I still use Arena also on a weekly basis; but you know, I am a Magic junky).
Ori is one of the cutest, thrilling, hardest, most emotional, satisfying, saddest, most beautiful, varied, inventive, imaginative and funniest platformer that I've ever played, and it comes with both, a perfect visual art style, and a perfect music score, which makes it so much more fun to play. For a platformer it comes with so many interesting features you wouldn't expect, like small puzzle games to advance, or even a leveling system so that you can upgrade your character individually (at least to a degree) to meet your personal play style. And it's - in a way even an open world game - sure, there are parts you cannot reach due to a lack of certain abilities (yet), but you are free to move and sometimes there are two or more choices that are open to you. And then there are end bosses - each with their unique play style that you need to adapt to, to being able to defeat him, using all the abilities in your repertoire.
All in all, it's just a really wonderful experience, and a game that I am actually really excited to revisit soon. With [for me] 17 hours to play it's also a rather compact game that you can squeeze in-between bigger games (like for me RDR2 and RDR :D ), but it feels like the prefect size (as the game is of course getting more and more challenging with every bit of progress, and in the end you'll be restarting a couple of times to master a certain sequence or end boss).
All in all, it's just a really wonderful experience, and a game that I am actually really excited to revisit soon. With [for me] 17 hours to play it's also a rather compact game that you can squeeze in-between bigger games (like for me RDR2 and RDR :D ), but it feels like the prefect size (as the game is of course getting more and more challenging with every bit of progress, and in the end you'll be restarting a couple of times to master a certain sequence or end boss).
This is a weird one for me to rate. It was freely playable on the Game Pass for a while so I picked it up and played it couple of times - not even a week, and then I lost interest (Xbox says all in all I just played 7h). And while I loved to see all the characters, the scenes and the weapons, sound effects, etc. that reminded me of Star Wars, this game gets dull really fast; the game looked all right, and was fine to play, but maybe these kind of games are just not for me (however in my youth I did enjoy games like Counter Strike or Rainbow 6).
2010
This one is difficult for me to rate, due to its age - I wished that I had played this when it was initially released, as my issues with the game are mostly game play related and especially due to its old age. And this is especially apparent when you just played RDR2 beforehand.
Read Dead Redeption is the sequel story to RDR2, and surprisingly in RDR2 you don't play the actual protagonist but another person of the group that John, who is the protagonist in RDR, rides with. Story-wise it is in the same category as RDR2 - it's well written and told, though I felt RDR2 was a tad more straight forward and a tad more emotional and engaging.
Gameplay-wise everything is more difficult and clonkier. E.g. breaking in horses, which was already a hard thing to do in RDR2, where you got assistance on the screen, was even harder in RDR, and here you didn't see any progressbar or info on which direction the horse moves and which button to press. Hunting is much harder as well, as is collecting herbs. And a lot of time nothing really happens and the world is uneventful; this is totally different to RDR2, where you actually love to spent as much time in any location because it is just fun to interact with the environment, to have strange chance-meetings, or to find details of western life. Heck I just visited things like theatre plays or the cinema, and enjoyed watching a show (without any mission or need to do so) in RDR2, and enjoyed the time. In RDR however I felt like progressing with the story as fast as possible. Looking around was not really fun, and felt like just wasting time - same is true for a lot of the traveling times in the game. On the plus side, I was pretty fascinated to see how many of the ideas that where novel and interesting to me in RDR2 and that felt really important for the overall gameplay, was actually already there in RDR, and only got refined for RDR2.
So this seems pretty revolutionary to me, and reading contemporary test results, it was. On the other hand, to me everything in RDR felt quite clonky, and I wasn't sure if this is just due to the age of the game, or also the programming. I don't have many references as in those years I hardly played any games, and especially no AAA titles. The only comparison that I can make is with Assassin's Creed. AC1 got released in 2007, and this one is probably the one that compares most to the feel of the gameplay of RDR. From 2009-2011 we have the entire Ezio trilogy, and this already had an incredible smothness in its controls and in the movement. Everything feels more agile and just simply better than it did with RDR. Also it was more fun exploring in games like AC2, Brotherhood or Revelations, than it was in RDR. This is why I rate it at average - and that is from todays perspective, having played a lot newer games - and especially after having played RDR2 before RDR1. In 2010 I'd had probably rated it higher - not sure if it would have been a 4/5 or even a 5/5.
PS: Btw. I am not sure which to suggest to play first. You most definitely don't need RDR1 to understand RDR2, as RDR2 is a prequel and focuses on another character entirely. John is just one of the side characters whose story we get to experience through the eyes of Arthur. So having played John first, and then seeing Johns story in rear view (as it was intended) works perfectly fine. On the other hand, playing RDR2 first, it will give you much more (and probably needed) backstories to all the characters you hunt down in RDR; I think playing RDR1 first, will give you the feeling that you are just killing a bunch of random dudes; in RDR2 each of these characters is filled with life and this even helps you get a little bit more engaged in RDR1 - RDR1 doesn't manage this on its own. HOWEVER from a gameplay-perspective it makes so much more sense playing RDR1 before RDR2, because the other way round you'll probably have a much worse time with RDR1.
Read Dead Redeption is the sequel story to RDR2, and surprisingly in RDR2 you don't play the actual protagonist but another person of the group that John, who is the protagonist in RDR, rides with. Story-wise it is in the same category as RDR2 - it's well written and told, though I felt RDR2 was a tad more straight forward and a tad more emotional and engaging.
Gameplay-wise everything is more difficult and clonkier. E.g. breaking in horses, which was already a hard thing to do in RDR2, where you got assistance on the screen, was even harder in RDR, and here you didn't see any progressbar or info on which direction the horse moves and which button to press. Hunting is much harder as well, as is collecting herbs. And a lot of time nothing really happens and the world is uneventful; this is totally different to RDR2, where you actually love to spent as much time in any location because it is just fun to interact with the environment, to have strange chance-meetings, or to find details of western life. Heck I just visited things like theatre plays or the cinema, and enjoyed watching a show (without any mission or need to do so) in RDR2, and enjoyed the time. In RDR however I felt like progressing with the story as fast as possible. Looking around was not really fun, and felt like just wasting time - same is true for a lot of the traveling times in the game. On the plus side, I was pretty fascinated to see how many of the ideas that where novel and interesting to me in RDR2 and that felt really important for the overall gameplay, was actually already there in RDR, and only got refined for RDR2.
So this seems pretty revolutionary to me, and reading contemporary test results, it was. On the other hand, to me everything in RDR felt quite clonky, and I wasn't sure if this is just due to the age of the game, or also the programming. I don't have many references as in those years I hardly played any games, and especially no AAA titles. The only comparison that I can make is with Assassin's Creed. AC1 got released in 2007, and this one is probably the one that compares most to the feel of the gameplay of RDR. From 2009-2011 we have the entire Ezio trilogy, and this already had an incredible smothness in its controls and in the movement. Everything feels more agile and just simply better than it did with RDR. Also it was more fun exploring in games like AC2, Brotherhood or Revelations, than it was in RDR. This is why I rate it at average - and that is from todays perspective, having played a lot newer games - and especially after having played RDR2 before RDR1. In 2010 I'd had probably rated it higher - not sure if it would have been a 4/5 or even a 5/5.
PS: Btw. I am not sure which to suggest to play first. You most definitely don't need RDR1 to understand RDR2, as RDR2 is a prequel and focuses on another character entirely. John is just one of the side characters whose story we get to experience through the eyes of Arthur. So having played John first, and then seeing Johns story in rear view (as it was intended) works perfectly fine. On the other hand, playing RDR2 first, it will give you much more (and probably needed) backstories to all the characters you hunt down in RDR; I think playing RDR1 first, will give you the feeling that you are just killing a bunch of random dudes; in RDR2 each of these characters is filled with life and this even helps you get a little bit more engaged in RDR1 - RDR1 doesn't manage this on its own. HOWEVER from a gameplay-perspective it makes so much more sense playing RDR1 before RDR2, because the other way round you'll probably have a much worse time with RDR1.