Red Dead Redemption 2 - now available on PC

[Ash]

The best Western game is still GUN. It's a much shorter game but there's minimal BS, decent gameplay and a lot of mission diversity.
RDR1 was overrated, OK but overrated. RDR2 is worse. Would rather play Outlaws or even Red Dead Revolver than touch either of these games again.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Kids with no taste for good interactive movies should shut the fuck up

 

[snoek]

It's a nice game and I enjoyed it in general but they could've cut quite a bit of fluff in the main storyline and maybe focused more on some aspects of the story.

Got to really take your time with it. Afaik many people just get fed up with the slow mid-section of the game and quit before things pick up again.

 

[Beowulf]

I don't mind slow story progression or slow gameplay, but RDR2 is slow where it doesn't need to be.

So you wake up in the morning, slowly walk towards campfire (slowly, because you're forbidden to sprint), slowly hold a button to pick up a plate, than press a few more buttons to eat the dish for a couple of seconds.
Then you can slowly pour some coffee and slowly drink it pressing LMB a couple of times. Than you can slowly work towards your horse, slowly brush it and feed it and finally get on it and start to slowly ride away from what the game treats as "player immersion zone", where you have to take in the experience of living on the frontier with your trusty crew.

The game also goes for the "realistic" approach in some areas, but not in the others, for "gamey" reasons. E.g. you can both browse the wares on the shelves, or just manually flip the pages of the catalogue, but if that's so realistic than why the player can't buy a new weapon until he gets it from somewhere else. Why only the legendary animals leave traces that you can follow, and not the rest (I mean more traces than the "press X to pick up the trail").
There is just so much busywork - it might be fun for some people, but for me it's just wasting players time, especially when the missions are short themselves and actual gameplay is bare bones. Like I mentioned previously - you either go from one spot to another pressing or holding the buttons the game wants you to in that very moment in order to experience different aspects of their idea of western gangster's life; or you just shoot large groups of mooks, that clearly earned their spurs in the venerable Imperial Stormtrooper academy. And heavens forbid you dare to deviate from the path they want you to take.

Since my last post I put some hours into the open world stuff and I must say that it impressed me - almost everything feels fluid and natural, the world reacts to your actions. Basically it feels alive.
But since the story missions follow the same rot design I got rid of it from my drive. It's a marvellous time waster, but still - that's a waste of time. At least for me.

 

[Neuromancer]

 

[typical user]

This game is weird. It expects me to invest my time in the side-activities when in the end none of them make the difference.

I always liked GTA because you could buff yourself up by doing different side-missions, get infinite sprint, more health, become fireproof, unlock unique vehicles or steal military equipment to wreck havoc. In RDR2 you can steal a horse or pimp-out your six-shooter. And that's it. I think that with age and more games under my belt I just enjoy those that are challenging and offer vastly different experiences. I loved Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice because it had steep learning curve and it still has hidden interactions with enemies thru different prosthetic gadgets which really allows you to style on in the fights. In RDR2 you just press the win button - the Deadeye is completely OP when you get it upgraded to manually mark your enemies.

Also bigger problem with RDR2 is completely retarded UI and tutorials. You are shooting up the entire town and the game expects you to also read the tutorial prompts in the corner of your screen without at least slowing down the action. For example I didn't know how to mark targets after I got Deadeye upgrade because I was focused around killing enemies during the mission. It's the same issue in GTA V but in GTA you can pause to menu and look up all the messages or read the dialog script. RDR2 doesn't care. Also the progress tracking is annoying. How many times have you died? Are the camp upgrades permament? How many horse breeds have you discovered in total? Even activating the map has a delay and there are menus hidden under within menus. Also scrolling through the lists with your mouse wheel is broken.

 

[Ash]

I loved Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice because...

It was made for people that genuinely like video games.

RDR2

Was made for retards. The game doesn't respect your time at all. A western movie? 90mins. RDR2? 80 hours. 80 hours much of which is supposed to be gameplay, but not really it's stupid filler bullshit.

There's some sad irony in someone called "awesome button" defending this game.

 

[Hellraiser]

This game is weird. It expects me to invest my time in the side-activities when in the end none of them make the difference.

I always liked GTA because you could buff yourself up by doing different side-missions, get infinite sprint, more health, become fireproof, unlock unique vehicles or steal military equipment to wreck havoc. In RDR2 you can steal a horse or pimp-out your six-shooter. And that's it. I think that with age and more games under my belt I just enjoy those that are challenging and offer vastly different experiences. I loved Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice because it had steep learning curve and it still has hidden interactions with enemies thru different prosthetic gadgets which really allows you to style on in the fights. In RDR2 you just press the win button - the Deadeye is completely OP when you get it upgraded to manually mark your enemies.

The only side activity that has any benefit comparable to say collecting packages or doing vigilante missions in the PS2-era GTA games is hunting, as the trophies/pelts/assorted bodyparts allow you to craft the ultimate satchel and also to craft some trinkets granting unique (but not necessarily useful) bonuses/perks. The only exception is one trinket that requires you to do a sidequest comparable to looking for packages. There are also some unique guns but there is almost no effort involved in them since the sidequest connected with them is pretty clearly marked on your map, also IIRC you can't upgrade those.

Apart from that the hunter challenge, challenges result only in shit cosmetic rewards and +health, stamina or dead eye xp which by the time you finish them is most likely useless. One could say that the side-activities giving money are useful, but the truth is you will be drowning in money as part of the story missions roughly around chapter 4. This results in it being piss easy to get camp upgrades for one. And since better horses (apart from the hidden white Arabian) and guns are locked behind story chapters, after chapter 2 you end up with money you can't spend on anything useful.

I don't know if this change in design philosophy was the result of developers suffering sudden brain trauma at Rockstar at some point after San Andreas or just on purpose catering to the lowest common denominator based on achievement/trophy stats showing only X% ever did Y and thus never saw reward Z which is somehow "bad" according to the developer.

 

[kangaxx]

Also bigger problem with RDR2 is completely retarded UI and tutorials.

Agreed, the gameplay in general is utter dogshit, but the controls and UI really cemented how bad this game was for me. It felt like the game was fighting against you when carrying out basic tasks, like looting a room.

My god, the disappointment I felt when I realised there was an epilogue to slog through...

 

[Ash]

From the video awesome button posted:

There are only 3 games that I see as perfect in every aspect and truly masterpieces The last of us Skyrim Red dead redemption The second game honestly came so close to being as good as the first game.(red dead 2 not lou2 havnt played it yet

Tons of comments like this and the video claims the game has "perfect" gameplay, when in fact it's the opposite.

There's no hope for game design recovering and getting back to how things used to be

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

That comment is great, because I can't tell if it's serious or not. It's so on the nose it could be a joke, but it's so dumb it could have been posted by a true blue moron.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

Red Dead Redemption 2 is such a depressing game. There's actually some interesting and engaging things to be found in it, but it's buried under tons of bullshit gameplay and design choices. It's like so much effort went into crafting this really nice environment for you to fuck around in, and there's hints at a direction they could have went that would have fully capitalized on this, but it's so overburdened with dumb fucking design choices.

I find the whole direction of Rockstar's games to be completely baffling. The whole reason they got big in the first place was because they created this 3D sandboxes where people could do whatever in them; and they put even more effort into that aspect now than they ever did before, but at the same time the missions are more on-rails then they've ever been. It's just a bizarre schizophrenic design philosophy they've adapted with this game (and GTA5 before it) where the game seems to constantly be at war with itself.

The thing that really sucks is Rockstar is probably just too big to change unless someone important there has a major eureka moment of clarity about what does and doesn't work about their gameplay and mission design.

 

[Beowulf]

The thing that really sucks is Rockstar is probably just too big to change unless someone important there has a major eureka moment of clarity about what does and doesn't work about their gameplay and mission design.

The only eureka moment might come if the sales drop. On their level every change is a financial risk. Why change in that case, if the formula works, and the same thing can be sold every time, just in a new packaging?

 

[Ash]

That comment is great, because I can't tell if it's serious or not. It's so on the nose it could be a joke, but it's so dumb it could have been posted by a true blue moron.

There is no shortage of people on the internet that hold that opinion or equivalent...maybe they're all just bots astroturfing. If not, just people that aren't really gamers or never really got into it seriously until the past 14 or so years, when it was dumbed down to their level.

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

The thing that really sucks is Rockstar is probably just too big to change unless someone important there has a major eureka moment of clarity about what does and doesn't work about their gameplay and mission design.

The only eureka moment might come if the sales drop. On their level every change is a financial risk. Why change in that case, if the formula works, and the same thing can be sold every time, just in a new packaging?

Outside of a sales drop I could see some kind of change if there's some kind of massive paradigm shift, kind of how in the wake of RE4 basically everyone started doing third person aiming like RE4 did. (the over-the-shoulder view had been around since at least Splinter Cell, but post-RE4 is when it starts showing up in other games) With that Rockstar switched out how they'd been doing shooting since GTA3 in 2001 for GTA4.

That's more of a wait and see kind of thing. I do think Breath of the Wild being such a big hit both critically and commercially, and how freeform it was being the thing people loved about it so much could help push more open world games in that direction.

What I find weird about the formula they've taken on for this and GTA5 is it basically is a new formula, but for no reason at all. This thing of needing to hit exact points in missions or you'll get a failure and have to start over again wasn't ever as rigid or nonsensically applied as it is now.

 

[Konjad]

 

[DJOGamer PT]

What I find weird about the formula they've taken on for this and GTA5 is it basically is a new formula, but for no reason at all.

Nah they've introduced this formula since GTA4
It's just has become more and more pronounced with every new game that's all

 

[Neuromancer]

 

[DJOGamer PT]

Now this is a game I can get behind

 

[JDR13]

Mmmm... I love me some pumpkin pie.

 

[AwesomeButton]

The game doesn't respect your time at all. A western movie? 90mins. RDR2? 80 hours.

Wrong. The game is not an 80-hour, it's an endless western movie. I'm 245 hours in, which I did in two separate periods lasting about a month where I would play every day. And contrary to your experience, I'm able to enjoy my time with this game. I've explained it at least a couple of times in this thread, but I like the game exactly for the reasons most often pointed out by people disliking it. I don't mind taking it terribly slow because I don't see it as a story I need to complete or a laundry list of objectives and collectibles I need to cross out. It's true that it consists of two discrete parts, practically separate games: the open world where you can larp a murderhobo in a western setting and full of emergent gameplay, and a very strictly directed "story mode". BTW, quite honestly, I find the story way too boring and predictable (and I haven't played or watched a recap of the first game), but it still has its touching dramatic moments.

When, how often, and for how long you engage in either mode is up to you. You have to be in a way your own western movie's director. And if you're getting bored of your western movie, guess what - you suck as a director, and you're probably asking things of the game which it was not intended to provide in the first place.

There's some sad irony in someone called "awesome button" defending this game.

Apparently you don't know me well enough to get it, but I posted that video to pull people's leg. I don't really believe the game is perfect.

 

[Manjuice Nutella]

Or you can just boot up Red Dead Online for a cohesive RDR1-like experience.

 

[Slaver1]

This game is entirely my speed. A perfect course correction for R* after the overly parodic GTA 5 in my book. It's like Kingdom Come all over again and that's a good thing. Loving the deliberate pace, weighty combat, cutting edge visuals and characterization. Probably my favorite game since Witcher 3.

 

[HoboForEternity]

weighty combat

shooting is abysmal imo. i like the game for its characters, plot, atmosphere and overall worldcraft, but the shooting is one of the dullest i have ever played.

all weapon types feel the same, the dot have pretty much 100% accuracy, headshots are too easy to achieve, zero enemy variety and sub-par AI (couldn;t achieve what max payne 3 did 8 years ago and never will)

 

[Slaver1]

weighty combat

shooting is abysmal imo. i like the game for its characters, plot, atmosphere and overall worldcraft, but the shooting is one of the dullest i have ever played.

all weapon types feel the same, the dot have pretty much 100% accuracy, headshots are too easy to achieve, zero enemy variety and sub-par AI (couldn;t achieve what max payne 3 did 8 years ago and never will)

I'm quite early in but have enjoyed using cattleman revolver and sawed off shotgun. Playing without crosshairs & with a 360 controller and there's a weighty trigger pull that strikes me as authentic plus I've had a couple slowmo cinematic kills that looked downright jawdropping. It's a bit popomole but pretty damn convincing, imo.

 

[passerby]

Spoiler

Shadows are too dark, too many pitch black areas, it should be mixed with some kind of ambient lighting, reminds me of Doom 3 and its no lightmaps, only realtime shadows lighting.

Or maybe it's fucked up by postprocessing ?