Red Dead Redemption 2 - now available on PC

[vonAchdorf]

It's a console game, get a controller.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

That's kind of my biggest issue with Rockstar: imagine all the money they made on RDR2 on consoles, how much money they will make on PC, and despite that, they couldn't even be bothered to adapt the controls to the PC scheme. It's just a lazy mapping of console controls to M&KB, which obviously doesn't work.

 

[JarlFrank]

It's a console game, get a controller.

Take a controller and shove it up your ass. Mouse and keyboard is objectively superior, no game in existence should require a controller.

 

[vonAchdorf]

For me RDR 2 is a relaxed game, which I enjoy on my TV with a controller, not some high stakes FPS which you play hunched and glued to your screen, MKB clutched in your hands.

 

[DalekFlay]

Tab > RMB is slow and quirky.

The whole game is slow and quirky, apparently by design. It baffles me but it is what it is. People complained about the same shit for a year before KBM was even an option, it's just the game itself. I'd rather have mouse aim than not.

 

[Modron]

Whoever invented and popularizes the retarded "Hold down button for x time to anything happen" bullshit should be flogged, skinned and shot.

Holding down a button to make shit happen is greatly preferred to mash a button to make something happen. They had to come up with that shit to add another layer of interactivity to console controllers since they are limited by the number of inputs those things have. I always wondered why they didn't take the hold a shoulder button and press whatever key approach to doubling or even tripling input options if they used both shoulders like ctrl, alt, and shift keys on a keyboard.

 

[Wilian]

Whoever invented and popularizes the retarded "Hold down button for x time to anything happen" bullshit should be flogged, skinned and shot.

Holding down a button to make shit happen is greatly preferred to mash a button to make something happen. They had to come up with that shit to add another layer of interactivity to console controllers since they are limited by the number of inputs those things have. I always wondered why they didn't take the hold a shoulder button and press whatever key approach to doubling or even tripling input options if they used both shoulders like ctrl, alt, and shift keys on a keyboard.

Bollocks. If I can perform something by holding down a button I should be able to perform same just by clicking it. RDD2 is retarded in not only that it has you holding down buttons forever for inane shit like picking up items but they also have several different interaction buttons. It's just stupdi AF. It has nothing to do with spastic clicking.

 

[Modron]

I don't know what RDR games are like I was just referring to why that hold button to do x was invented in the first place, limited control inputs.

 

[Zep Zepo]

Context sensitive button clicking.

I am standing by a wolf I just killed, I press X. Wolf is skinned.

I am focused on a gold bar. I press X. Gold bar is picked up.

All that button holding REALLY got to me as unnecessary.

Zep--

 

[Multidirectional]

I don't know what RDR games are like I was just referring to why that hold button to do x was invented in the first place, limited control inputs.

If there are two separate functions for click and hold that can be understandable, but nowadays I've come across instances where it's only hold button without anything assigned to simple click. That shit is beyond retarded. Pointless waste of time. Not to mention bunch of other crap that slows you down for no reason, like animated menus that take too long to scroll through or game slowing you down in specific areas. All great innovations worthy of brutal murder. Not talking RDR2 here as I haven't played it but I suspect it probably has its share of this sort of garbage too.

 

[DalekFlay]

Context sensitive button clicking.

I am standing by a wolf I just killed, I press X. Wolf is skinned.

I am focused on a gold bar. I press X. Gold bar is picked up.

All that button holding REALLY got to me as unnecessary.

Indeed. There is definitely an argument in certain cases for different buttons. Like in Hitman where, standing above a body, you can either pick it up, take its clothes or take the items it dropped. It makes some sense there to have different buttons for each thing. However in RDR2 a ton of it could just be on a general interact button, but they not only made them different buttons but also usually they require multiple steps to do simple things like take a health potion. It's insanely cumbersome for no apparent reason.

 

[Turuko]

You sir are a fish

 

[Sentinel]

I didn't feel the "survival" mechanics were detrimental, but rather a missed opportunity. I can understand why Rockstar, in the end, pussied out and scaled them back. If you go on any site where people criticize the game, one of the first complaints you'll see is the survival mechanics. Just the mere existence of them, even if it doesn't really matter gameplay wise, is enough to scare plenty of people away, because it's perceived as annoying busy work that gets in the way.
To me it also ended up being my main complaint about the game, but in the exact opposite way - I hated that I could ignore the system. I wanted a hardcore mode where you needed to eat every X hours and taking 3 shots would immediately kill Arthur. Surprisingly the PC version is still lacking such a mod sadly.

All in all though I agree with Mebrilla. Red Dead Redemption 2 ended up being one of the most beautiful games I've ever played, in all senses of the word. The writing is unmatched, the soundtrack is superb, gunplay felt great, the story pays off incredibly well (the climax, it's very respectful of its chronological sequel to the point that it enhances it and gives moments in RDR1 an entirely new meaning that makes the characters deeper. I've watched every panel with the cast members there is, and I fully believe it when Arthur Morgan's VA says they (Dutch, Mica and Arthur) spent 6 years working on the game. Rockstar clearly wanted to create something very special, perhaps because they knew it was their last opportunity to do so, and overall they did exactly that. Arthur Morgan is probably one of the greatest protagonists in any piece of medium ever.

 

[DalekFlay]

I didn't feel the "survival" mechanics were detrimental, but rather a missed opportunity. I can understand why Rockstar, in the end, pussied out and scaled them back. If you go on any site where people criticize the game, one of the first complaints you'll see is the survival mechanics. Just the mere existence of them, even if it doesn't really matter gameplay wise, is enough to scare plenty of people away, because it's perceived as annoying busy work that gets in the way.

It is.

the story pays off incredibly well (the climax, it's very respectful of its chronological sequel to the point that it enhances it and gives moments in RDR1 an entirely new meaning that makes the characters deeper.

This is pretty useless for PC gamers, who never got to play the first one. Also as of chapter two I honestly find the story incredibly boring and all it makes me want to do is re-watch Deadwood.

 

[Sentinel]

The enjoyment of RDR2 doesn't rely on you having played or liked the first game. I dislike RDR1 and still loved RDR2's epilogue. You don't need to know anything about RDR1's events.

It is.

How does it get in the way of anything? You can almost completely ignore it.

 

[DalekFlay]

How does it get in the way of anything? You can almost completely ignore it.

If you're making a survival game, or a game with survival as a core part, then it appeals to people who like that sort of thing and it's enjoyed as a game mechanic. In a game like this though, where as you say it's barely used anyway, it's just creating other crap to do in a game with already too much crap to do. I could just be hitting the Z key to down a health potion but instead I have to slowly wander into a shop or hut, slowly pick up a can of beans, then during combat or traversal hold tab and use multiple different keys to examine, one by one, which foods I have to find the one that boosts the stat that needs boosting. It's utterly tedious busy work for no gameplay benefit.

I can see why this game is divisive. It focuses on immersion over everything else, so people who want to feel like they're in the old West seem to love it. People who want it to be a video game first and foremost though, like me, end up hating it.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

This game is a fun suck. I tried robbing a random train, because this is a thing you can do. I got basically nothing from it beside a bounty on my head for $500.

 

[Sentinel]

How does it get in the way of anything? You can almost completely ignore it.

If you're making a survival game, or a game with survival as a core part, then it appeals to people who like that sort of thing and it's enjoyed as a game mechanic. In a game like this though, where as you say it's barely used anyway, it's just creating other crap to do in a game with already too much crap to do. I could just be hitting the Z key to down a health potion but instead I have to slowly wander into a shop or hut, slowly pick up a can of beans, then during combat or traversal hold tab and use multiple different keys to examine, one by one, which foods I have to find the one that boosts the stat that needs boosting. It's utterly tedious busy work for no gameplay benefit.

I can see why this game is divisive. It focuses on immersion over everything else, so people who want to feel like they're in the old West seem to love it. People who want it to be a video game first and foremost though, like me, end up hating it.

It's not creating other crap to do though. Not only is the system almost entirely optional, I think I've maybe shopped for canned food a grand total of 5 times in 2 playthroughs.
You just open the menu and point at the item on the left and scroll. There's only 3 stats and the food items are organized in the following order: Health, Stamina and Dead Eye. It's not particularly complicated or time consuming. It's rather intuitive. You can also just open the satchel's grid menu and pick from there.

 

[Sentinel]

This game is a fun suck. I tried robbing a random train, because this is a thing you can do. I got basically nothing from it beside a bounty on my head for $500.

If you robbed the passengers you unlock a fence later on that lets you sell the loot. Playing with a bounty on your head is way more fun anyway.

 

[DalekFlay]

It's not creating other crap to do though. Not only is the system almost entirely optional, I think I've maybe shopped for canned food a grand total of 5 times in 2 playthroughs.
You just open the menu and point at the item on the left and scroll. There's only 3 stats and the food items are organized in the following order: Health, Stamina and Dead Eye. It's not particularly complicated or time consuming. It's rather intuitive. You can also just open the satchel's grid menu and pick from there.

Agree to disagree, I think it's cumbersome as hell. I wish I was enjoying the game like you have dude, I expected to. I'm just not. Its story is boring and its gameplay is tedious to me. I'm just not into it.

 

[Silva]

gunplay felt great

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

How does it get in the way of anything? You can almost completely ignore it.

If you're making a survival game, or a game with survival as a core part, then it appeals to people who like that sort of thing and it's enjoyed as a game mechanic. In a game like this though, where as you say it's barely used anyway, it's just creating other crap to do in a game with already too much crap to do. I could just be hitting the Z key to down a health potion but instead I have to slowly wander into a shop or hut, slowly pick up a can of beans, then during combat or traversal hold tab and use multiple different keys to examine, one by one, which foods I have to find the one that boosts the stat that needs boosting. It's utterly tedious busy work for no gameplay benefit.

I can see why this game is divisive. It focuses on immersion over everything else, so people who want to feel like they're in the old West seem to love it. People who want it to be a video game first and foremost though, like me, end up hating it.

Is a quite distinction to be had here. Some people expect to play a videogame and just that. Some people find more engaging a game that provide them with immersive elements.

I say that in a industry were 100% of the game looks gamey and don't do anything that is not exactly core gameplay Red dead redemption 2 is a nice change. We have tons of game that are stripped off trivial things to be just focused in gameplay and most of this games end to play like an arcade or are just gamey. ((Witcher 3 crafting is an example: Instead to forge a blade properly you have to bring with you crap like eyeballs guts glands and other monster parts just to have a blade)) Or open world that are actually empty aside questing ((witcher 3 again after you finished the mainquest and the sidequest the open wolrd has nothing to offer than a landmass)).

Red dead redemption 2 offered a nice narrative a fun gameplay and a lot of fluff that maybe is not trivial for the game itself but create a sense of nice open world and a dynamism many game lack.

In a open world i expect just that not an arcade.

I mean if i want just arcade fun i don't play an open world game i play Mortal Kombat.

To me the game was designed like that to make you feel you are inside an old west story and world and succeed as that.

 

[DalekFlay]

Funny thing is I like immersion a lot, and have been mocked in the past for caring too much about it. However I always love it as an addition to gameplay, not something that actively gets in the way of it. I think that's the distinction here, for me.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

I don't think hunting and survival mechanics gets in the way. Actually you can ignore them completely as they don't do much actually. Is just there as a plus. I don't get how it gets in the way.

 

[Anthedon]

I forgot how much HD space this needs, I'll need another SSD soon. How is the port?