Red Dead Redemption 2 - now available on PC

It isn't about being nice, it's about being interesting and underutilized. Though that does raise the problem that the game is making a very dumb move in deciding that it should have a morality meter, it actively undermines what it tries to do with its story. There's a clear intent to depict Arthur turning a new leaf by starting to do things his own way rather than how he does by being loyal to a fault, and it really becomes jarring when you have not really been all that bad (you know, aside from the whole shooting thousands of people thing) except when you work for Strauss and in a handful of other story missions. And even in most missions, it only becomes incredibly jarring if you aren't going with Honor.

It's kind of an example of how there should be more focus instead of decompression in how the game handles, well, almost everything. Get working on the whole new leaf angle and TB way earlier, don't add fucking Guarma into the game, and stick to a single locale or at most two before the breaking of the gang, then have rest of the game in the other locale or two or so where you follow-up after the leaf is turned. The way it is now, it's a meandering, aimless journey spread too thin over a vast map of nothing, lacking in payoff and satisfaction.

(Also if you want to do a redemption=death thing in your story, you may want to do it rather better than shove it in with a ridiculous mass battle that gets abandoned randomly followed by a comically overlong fistfight)

 

Hm? Arthur still gets his redemption at the end though. John makes it regardless, but the end choice is retarded. Since the player knows Arthur is not going to make it, the end choice can be easily interpreted with "Oh, I'll go back for the money so I can give it to John!", instead you're slapped with a "bad" ending (not really bad, but more brutal one).

Also now that I think about it, I like how John makes the same mistake that Jack eventually repeats and ruins his life by giving in to revenge.

 

It's kind of confusing, but it seems the bad/good ending isn't determined by your choice, just your karma. I wouldn't even call it "bad" and "good" since the only difference is whether

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

Arthur gets to die semi-peacefully looking at the sunrise (deer), or if Micah finishes the job with a gun or a knife (wolf).

 

So I decided to give it one last go last night. Put it on, started a mission, set off on my horse to the mission location......on my horse on the way to the mission.......still on my horse on the way to the mission.........5 min later still on my horse on the way to the mission............

Fuck this shit, games are meant to be stimulating & fun, be it either intellectually via tactical interaction, or by getting the adrenals going with some great action. RDR2 is another game in a long line of ones which hype up chores as "fun".

Awful game, truly awful.

 

What's wrong with being required to travel to the destination target? Travel time has always been a staple in rpgs. Just look at new vegas, or fallout 2.

 

It aint what's being done, it's how it's being done & how often.

Much like the Witcher 3, the treks to the destinations are absolutely boring as fuck. Unlike TW3 at least sometimes there's some dialogue, but even that just sends me to sleep because all you're doing is tapping X and not interacting with anything.

Compare that to say Vicy City where you can be pulling all kinds of stunts off on route, or an action RPG like Divinity 2 where you discover all types of treasures, side-quests & enemies.

It's poor, poor, dull game design and I'm amazed folk enjoy it. The player may as well not even be there. At times I'd leave my girlfriend playing it to get me to the mission whilst I got a brew or went for a piss it was so dull & pointless.

 

In many ways, the game is just showing how mundane and quite boring a cowboy life is.

 

But you can rob people on your way to the objective. Just like in Vice City all you could do was run over people.

 

You enountered hundreds of folk down one street on your way to a mission in Vice City. In RDR2 I can ride for 10min from point A to point B and encounter no-one.

 

Obvious hyperbole aside, that's the wild west for you.

 

That's why games need to stay grounded in fantasy and not reality. Reality is often boring & why we play games in the first place.

 

A couple million people disagree

 

That's retards for you!

 

Another point to the game. This game is really pretty and polished. I'm playing on the PS4 Pro and it looks phenomenal all the time. I just recently played witcher 3 maxed and it doesn't even look close.

 

In case anyone missed this, the type of bullets affect the gore and amount of blood during gunfights.

I think high-velocity rounds produce the most blood.

 

Humble Bundle fodder how many times? By the way, 2-5 million nice fucking estimate.

 

What are you even trying to say here? The point was that there's an audience for slower, moody and atmospheric games. If your ADHD can't handle it, then move on. Not everyone wants constant action all the time, go play DMC.

 

you'd make a better point by showing how much money this game has generated & how many copies it's sold

 

You know I'm fine with slower, moody & atmospheric so long as they play well. Arthur can't even walk right.

 

Not really because he'd rightfully point out that people had no experience with it a priori so they just bought it on impulse/hype alone. Sales never correlate to game quality.

 

ARMA is not a good example to prove your point.
ARMA is a simulator. It was marketeked has a simulator. Sold to people who wanted a simulator. And developed with the intention of being a simulator by people with real experience in it's particular area.

Red Dead Redemption 2 is none of things. It's a GTA clone (that is an Action Sandbox) with a Wild West paint job, and it was sold as such. It's supposed to be a Cowboy themed playground not a ''muh emotional engaging'' chore fest with walking and horse balls simulations.
But alas it's seems nowadays it's to much to ask that even the creators of a particular type of game, have any kind of knowledge regarding said "genre".

Also even ARMA 3 is more fun than RDR2, since ARMA actually has fucking challenge and the gameplay doesn't consist of doing menial tasks.

 

Sorry but I don't bother reading posts of people who talk about games they haven't played for more than 3 hours.

 

Good for you man.
Enjoy your bowl of shit.

 

I disagree with this. Neither Red Dead Redemption nor Red Dead Redemption 2 struck me as a playground nor were they advertised as such.

R* has always advertised both these games as more serious, less over the top and grounded than GTA.

So far, the execution of RDR2 isn't too my liking, but these are games where main missions required you to capture, break and ride horses back to their owners because that's what farmers do.

The first game has many of the same mechanics as this one, this game just takes things to the next level.
They were never meant to be just like GTA

 

Have you considered listening to a podcast whilst in-transit? Also, considering your examples of finding lost treasure on the wayside, or "performing sick stunts on the way there", perhaps games with a slower burn or travel exploration are not your thing, and something like the new black ops with instant gratification would be more to your liking?