Red Dead Redemption 2: Good or shit?

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

Ok so stupid chores are for le immerion and feels but actually relevant mechanic of keeping track on how much ammo do you have left in your magazines is pointless and has no bearing on immersion. I get it Dan Horsefucker is genius(no).

Keeping your horse on-side is part of the gameplay surely? It feels natural, since it's notionally a living being and needs looking after to perform in tip-top shape. There's also the emotional bond with your pixel horse to consider

I think their rationale was that realism that interferes with the flow of intense gameplay (like checking magazine) isn't necessary, but realism that can be incorporated into more relaxed moments (like when you've arrived somewhere with your horse, or are about to depart for somewhere) seems to be okay. IOW, "fiddly realism under pressure is a no-no, some detailed realism in more relaxed circumstances is good."

But I'm not sure if they always follow their own rule, if it is one.

I think with this games, there was just a segment of the team that wanted something that seemed more realistic and naturalistic, and that segment of the team just lost out to the side that wanted everything on rails. Like I could easily imagine this as more of a free range open world survival game what with its systems like eating and sleeping, but these systems are so downplayed (just like the horse and gun stuff) you don’t really need to engage with them, or engage with doing thing like setting a camp up.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

The token realism in RDR2 (horse shitting, snow physics, horse shitting on snow physics) just serves to highlight uncanny valley bullshit when you try to complete any mission in an open, player agency driven way. Or the way the story is railroaded into some Stockholm Syndrome bs.

 

[9ted6]

The token realism in RDR2 (horse shitting, snow physics, horse shitting on snow physics) just serves to highlight uncanny valley bullshit when you try to complete any mission in an open, player agency driven way. Or the way the story is railroaded into some Stockholm Syndrome bs.

Most Rockstar games have that problem. San Andreas has one of the stupidest stories in any game like it because it tries to do this realistic gang crime drama main story while giving you railroaded missions where you hop into a superjet and fly it upside down while blowing up several dozen enemy fighters.

We're supposed to believe Arthur is honorable and doesn't like the life of crime and the gang has to lay low because a stray death or two in Blackwater ruined them, but then in the missions Arthur guns down the population equivalent of an entire frontier territory in one afternoon and the gang escapes like nothing happened.

GTA 4 is the only game that comes close to not having this problem, since you're given the choice to make Niko do morally good shit that actually influences the plot a little, and the missions never make you do anything especially wild.

 

[Ash]

Yup!

Rockstar don't know how to make games any more, they're fucking shit now, but I would love to see someone give us a 70's style GTA/Saints Row game. I'm fucking amazed that no-one has to be honest (unless I've missed it?)

Starsky & Hutch, Disco, Funk, Punk, Classic Rock, flares, hippies etc. A game purely based on that flavour would rule. Certainly way more than that nig-nog shit they gave us in San Andreas, and that Ready Salted wank they served up in GTA4

Already exists. It's called Destroy All Humans 2 (skip the first) and it's a pretty cool game. Far better than these non-game modern Rockstar shit. Well, it's set in 1969 (lol it's a classy game), but that is a transitionary period. Mods and Rockers, Hippies, Cold War tensions and espionage, Little Green Men hysteria, it has it all.

Boom, appreciate the recommendation Ash. Ordered a cheap physical copy for the PS4

Don't have too high expectations. It's a respectable 7.5/10. But that is better than almost all open world games made in the past 15 years.

 

[JDR13]

The token realism in RDR2 (horse shitting, snow physics, horse shitting on snow physics) just serves to highlight uncanny valley bullshit when you try to complete any mission in an open, player agency driven way. Or the way the story is railroaded into some Stockholm Syndrome bs.

Most Rockstar games have that problem. San Andreas has one of the stupidest stories in any game like it because it tries to do this realistic gang crime drama main story while giving you railroaded missions where you hop into a superjet and fly it upside down while blowing up several dozen enemy fighters.

We're supposed to believe Arthur is honorable and doesn't like the life of crime and the gang has to lay low because a stray death or two in Blackwater ruined them, but then in the missions Arthur guns down the population equivalent of an entire frontier territory in one afternoon and the gang escapes like nothing happened.

GTA 4 is the only game that comes close to not having this problem, since you're given the choice to make Niko do morally good shit that actually influences the plot a little, and the missions never make you do anything especially wild.

Anyone playing a Rockstar game for the story only has themself to blame for being disappointed.

 

[BruceVC]

Ok so stupid chores are for le immerion and feels but actually relevant mechanic of keeping track on how much ammo do you have left in your magazines is pointless and has no bearing on immersion. I get it Dan Horsefucker is genius(no).

I checked my EPIC time now and I have spent 1700 hours playing RDR2 so I obviously enjoy the game, I played the Online game for about 400 hours and then most of that time is the SP game after completing the main quest and I used mods extensively that add activities like Contract killings and extra bandit camps and I installed some survivals mods that add realism

But Rockstar games have the normal realism mechanics like weapon repairs and setting up a camp but its still limited by design because if it becomes too realistic then it will destroy the fun. What additional mechanics would you like to see that could be realistically implemented?

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

The token realism in RDR2 (horse shitting, snow physics, horse shitting on snow physics) just serves to highlight uncanny valley bullshit when you try to complete any mission in an open, player agency driven way. Or the way the story is railroaded into some Stockholm Syndrome bs.

Most Rockstar games have that problem. San Andreas has one of the stupidest stories in any game like it because it tries to do this realistic gang crime drama main story while giving you railroaded missions where you hop into a superjet and fly it upside down while blowing up several dozen enemy fighters.

We're supposed to believe Arthur is honorable and doesn't like the life of crime and the gang has to lay low because a stray death or two in Blackwater ruined them, but then in the missions Arthur guns down the population equivalent of an entire frontier territory in one afternoon and the gang escapes like nothing happened.

GTA 4 is the only game that comes close to not having this problem, since you're given the choice to make Niko do morally good shit that actually influences the plot a little, and the missions never make you do anything especially wild.

GTA4 has the problem you’re talking about more an any of Rockstars games. Niko may as well be two totally different characters, there’s sad sack Story Niko, and then their Bizarro player controlled Gameplay Niko that doesn’t have any problem killing and will even joke around about it.

I wouldn’t say San Andreas is trying to be realistic. Outside of the art style not being as cartoony as GTA3, it’s probably the least realistic and grounded they tried taking GTA during that era of the series.

 

[JarlFrank]

The token realism in RDR2 (horse shitting, snow physics, horse shitting on snow physics) just serves to highlight uncanny valley bullshit when you try to complete any mission in an open, player agency driven way. Or the way the story is railroaded into some Stockholm Syndrome bs.

Most Rockstar games have that problem. San Andreas has one of the stupidest stories in any game like it because it tries to do this realistic gang crime drama main story while giving you railroaded missions where you hop into a superjet and fly it upside down while blowing up several dozen enemy fighters.

We're supposed to believe Arthur is honorable and doesn't like the life of crime and the gang has to lay low because a stray death or two in Blackwater ruined them, but then in the missions Arthur guns down the population equivalent of an entire frontier territory in one afternoon and the gang escapes like nothing happened.

GTA 4 is the only game that comes close to not having this problem, since you're given the choice to make Niko do morally good shit that actually influences the plot a little, and the missions never make you do anything especially wild.

GTA 1 and 2 are the only games that don't have this problem at all because the story is completely open and sandbox. Especially GTA 2.

Several gangs control crime in the city. You choose which ones to work for. Helping one gang will raise your reputation with them but lower your reputation with their rivals. Raise reputation to unlock higher level missions that pay better.
The goal is to make enough money to advance to the next city district. You can make that money in any way you like.

Pure sandbox game, no linear story bullshit.

 

[gurugeorge]

The token realism in RDR2 (horse shitting, snow physics, horse shitting on snow physics) just serves to highlight uncanny valley bullshit when you try to complete any mission in an open, player agency driven way. Or the way the story is railroaded into some Stockholm Syndrome bs.

The more I play, the more I think this is a question of resources and a conscious design to apportion efforts where they'd get the most impact on the lowest common denominator.

It's pretty clear that they could have made the main missions much more flexible and responsive, while still preserving the main story arc they wanted - after all, there are quite a few moments here and there where you can choose, for example, whether to do a thing yourself or get one of your friends to do it, and that UI mechanic, and other means, could have been used a lot more to bring in the kind of flexibility you're talking about. Some of the small side missions seem to be like that, a bit more immersive-sim-like, so clearly they knew how to do that sort of thing.

IOW, I don't think it's incompetence or inability, so much as a conscious decision to keep things within manageable bounds for them. The game is already hugely ambitious, and if they'd stretched to trying to make the main missions flexible, they might have been in danger of having too much on their plate in terms of potential bugginess, etc., in time for a proper release, etc. In sum: it feels like a competent management decision rather than an artistic decision.

 

[9ted6]

The token realism in RDR2 (horse shitting, snow physics, horse shitting on snow physics) just serves to highlight uncanny valley bullshit when you try to complete any mission in an open, player agency driven way. Or the way the story is railroaded into some Stockholm Syndrome bs.

The more I play, the more I think this is a question of resources and a conscious design to apportion efforts where they'd get the most impact on the lowest common denominator.

It's pretty clear that they could have made the main missions much more flexible and responsive, while still preserving the main story arc they wanted - after all, there are quite a few moments here and there where you can choose, for example, whether to do a thing yourself or get one of your friends to do it, and that UI mechanic, and other means, could have been used a lot more to bring in the kind of flexibility you're talking about. Some of the small side missions seem to be like that, a bit more immersive-sim-like, so clearly they knew how to do that sort of thing.

IOW, I don't think it's incompetence or inability, so much as a conscious decision to keep things within manageable bounds for them. The game is already hugely ambitious, and if they'd stretched to trying to make the main missions flexible, they might have been in danger of having too much on their plate in terms of potential bugginess, etc., in time for a proper release, etc. In sum: it feels like a competent management decision rather than an artistic decision.

They could've at least tried a little more. Majority of missions become literal rail shooters where you have to follow a single straight path, usually on or next to a wagon or horse, gunning down hordes of enemies who can barely hit you and cause hardly any damage when they do. It's a shame because RDR2 has decent and responsive shooting and some cool weapons, but it's mostly wasted because you're unstoppable from the very start of the game and no one ever poses a threat.

 

[Kev Inkline]

Ok so stupid chores are for le immerion and feels but actually relevant mechanic of keeping track on how much ammo do you have left in your magazines is pointless and has no bearing on immersion. I get it Dan Horsefucker is genius(no).

I checked my EPIC time now and I have spent 1700 hours playing RDR2

Geez Bruce, that's... ... that's a lot of hours...

 

[JDR13]

BruceVC really needs to get laid. Can we all chip in and buy him a hooker or something?

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

The token realism in RDR2 (horse shitting, snow physics, horse shitting on snow physics) just serves to highlight uncanny valley bullshit when you try to complete any mission in an open, player agency driven way. Or the way the story is railroaded into some Stockholm Syndrome bs.

The more I play, the more I think this is a question of resources and a conscious design to apportion efforts where they'd get the most impact on the lowest common denominator.

It's pretty clear that they could have made the main missions much more flexible and responsive, while still preserving the main story arc they wanted - after all, there are quite a few moments here and there where you can choose, for example, whether to do a thing yourself or get one of your friends to do it, and that UI mechanic, and other means, could have been used a lot more to bring in the kind of flexibility you're talking about. Some of the small side missions seem to be like that, a bit more immersive-sim-like, so clearly they knew how to do that sort of thing.

IOW, I don't think it's incompetence or inability, so much as a conscious decision to keep things within manageable bounds for them. The game is already hugely ambitious, and if they'd stretched to trying to make the main missions flexible, they might have been in danger of having too much on their plate in terms of potential bugginess, etc., in time for a proper release, etc. In sum: it feels like a competent management decision rather than an artistic decision.

To me, it feels too heavy-handed for that. There are a lot of open world games that don't implement multiple intended ways to complete missions, but that stuff emerges naturally from the game's sandbox mechanics. But in RDR2, the game goes out of its way to prevent that, which to me suggests that Rockstar, fancying themselves to be movie directors and ignoring the medium they are working in, wanted to enforce very tight perspectives on the player, to ensure that the player played the game exactly the way they wanted it, like watching a movie.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Ok so stupid chores are for le immerion and feels but actually relevant mechanic of keeping track on how much ammo do you have left in your magazines is pointless and has no bearing on immersion. I get it Dan Horsefucker is genius(no).

That most immersive, btw, mechanic is called "counting".

 

[Ezekiel]

Rockstar, fancying themselves to be movie directors

Max Payne 3 wanted to be like Man on Fire and Miami Vice. Grand Theft Auto V wanted to be like Heat and I don't know what else. San Andreas wanted to be like all those 90s gang movies. Menace II Society. Vice City, obviously Scarface and Miami Vice. GTA IV... Wait, did that one have its own identity?

 

[DJOGamer PT]

the historical and anthropological underestanding are indeed stunted

How so?
Not a wild west buff, but the commitment to historical versimilitude seem to be a strong point of the game
Plus Noah Caldwell-Gervais is a wild west buff and he did a 4 hour review of the entire Red Dead franchise, where 2+ hours where devoted to RDR2, and he was impressed with how well they recreated the setting in-game - he even did a segment during the review where he read from real newspaper clippings of the time and compared them to RDR2 worldbuilding

 

[Vitruvian Bard]

The catalog design for the shopkeeps was pretty evocative of the period. Guess they did the best they would with the limits of their production. Like any Rockstar game, the ambient chatter went a good way into setting the stage for the time and place they wanted to convey.

Arthur kept tripping over his own character's inconsistencies, though. No matter which way you played him.

 

[CoronerZg]

Downloaded, installed, played 3 hours (of which 2 hours went on keybinding 500 different action buttons), uninstalled. 250 different buttons
for taking pictures in game (and another 100 for navigating different 'radial menus') is really all you need to know about this 'game'.

 

[Sigourn]

Bought in October, installed, played less than one hour, uninstalled.

I'll never get my money back for this trash.
Who thought any of the cinematic aspects of this game were a good thing? Why wouldn't I watch a good western film instead of "playing" this?

 

[gurugeorge]

I uninstalled it a while ago. In the end, I just couldn't stomach a save system where you save and then reload on a mountaintop somewhere miles away from where you saved, it's viscerally repulsive. The combat gameplay is decent enough, and I don't mind the on-rails cinematic bits all that much, and it's certainly visually lush, but it's just fundamentally too console-y of a game for me, at the end of the day.

Basically, I could never build a sense of continuity and momentum with the game.