Red Dead 3/Red Dead Redemption 2 - IT'S HAPPENING.gif

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Vault Boy said:
It's been almost four years since the game came out, Rockstar's never going to bother updating RDR2 for the current gen consoles.

What, would an updated port of RDR2 be too much effort for them compared to coasting on GTA V for the third generation in a row?
Click to expand...
I don't see why they couldn't remake the original RDR WITH RDR2's engine.
 
The Last Stand said:
I don't see why they couldn't remake the original RDR WITH RDR2's engine.
Click to expand...
let me repeat myself
Tom Nook's Gloryhole said:
Hopefully never. Imagine the tedium of doing RDR 2 shit in RDR 1.

Picking a single flower would probably result in a 5 minute minigame where you make sure to get the stem correctly without damaging the goods.
Click to expand...
RDR 2 is visually stunning but an absolute fucking chore of a simulation that goes completely against whatever RDR 1 was. RDR 1 kept atmosphere a good part of the game but also kept locations close enough so that you could blaze from one town to the next and do some cool shit while you're travelling, there will never be a game like RDR 1 ever again and I'm mad.
 
Tom Nook's Gloryhole said:
let me repeat myself

RDR 2 is visually stunning but an absolute fucking chore of a simulation that goes completely against whatever RDR 1 was. RDR 1 kept atmosphere a good part of the game but also kept locations close enough so that you could blaze from one town to the next and do some cool shit while you're travelling, there will never be a game like RDR 1 ever again and I'm mad.
Click to expand...
The atmosphere is my biggest overall criticism in RDR2.

Don't get me wrong, it has good moments, but most of the time it feels very repetitive, and sterile. It's a beautiful looking game, but once you've done all the encounters, which less face it, there actually aren't all that many in the grand scheme of things, the game feels so artificial. For a game that sacrificed fun for the sake of immersion, it sure runs out really fast on that.

Yes, the amount of detail is mind-blowing. Yes, the game is the best looking one I've ever seen. Yes, the amount of hidden stuff to find is very cool, but that leads me to my main question.

What is the point of all of it if you can't interact with it?

In RDR1, this wasn't really an issue because the game didn't tout itself on that stuff, actually knew what it was, (darker take on the spaghettis western), and did it incredibly well to the point where you can basically excuse all that, and all its many, many glitches.

But in RDR2, a game which again, actively sacrificed fun for realism and immersion, you notice very fast how shallow all that actually is in the end, and it makes things very jarring, and frankly, incredibly unrealistic, and unimmersive.

When you continue to play after the epilogue in RDR1, the game suddenly doesn't feel hollow, and artificial because while being detailed, it wasn't that detail enough to make you feel that. The random encounters are repetitive, but they happen. You don't suddenly get this weird feeling of uncanny valley.

In RDR2, because everything is so scripted, unchangeable, repetitive, and limited, it does. You can hunt, you can fish, you can play the minigames, ride around and see the sights, but at the end of the day, it sometimes almost feels like a western version of the Truman
Show.

It just feels so lifeless, and boring. It just feels like something's off, or that something's missing, and that's what kills it.

And you know what makes this all even worse?

This was all probably intentional because the game is also ridiculously scared shitless of causing the butterfly effect in-regards to the first game even though they've already done that via the creation of RDR2 itself, and most people haven't even played the first one anyway because it's not out on PC.

They did all of it for a remake that will probably never happen, and for an original one that most of the people who bought the sequel have never actually fucking played.

Tl;dr: RDR2's autistic obsession with realism and immersion destroyed it in the end, and fuck zoomers and PC fags for not playing the first game because it's not on PC. Go buy a secondhand console and copy of the game. It'll be much cheaper, and probably run better in the end, anyway.
 
Bunny Tracks said:
The atmosphere is my biggest overall criticism in RDR2.

Don't get me wrong, it has good moments, but most of the time it feels very repetitive, and sterile. It's a beautiful looking game, but once you've done all the encounters, which less face it, there actually aren't all that many in the grand scheme of things, the game feels so artificial. For a game that sacrificed fun for the sake of immersion, it sure runs out really fast on that.

Yes, the amount of detail is mind-blowing. Yes, the game is the best looking one I've ever seen. Yes, the amount of hidden stuff to find is very cool, but that leads me to my main question.

What is the point of all of it if you can't interact with it?

In RDR1, this wasn't really an issue because the game didn't tout itself on that stuff, actually knew what it was, (darker take on the spaghettis western), and did it incredibly well to the point where you can basically excuse all that, and all its many, many glitches.

But in RDR2, a game which again, actively sacrificed fun for realism and immersion, you notice very fast how shallow all that actually is in the end, and it makes things very jarring, and frankly, incredibly unrealistic, and unimmersive.

When you continue to play after the epilogue in RDR1, the game suddenly doesn't feel hollow, and artificial because while being detailed, it wasn't that detail enough to make you feel that. The random encounters are repetitive, but they happen. You don't suddenly get this weird feeling of uncanny valley.

In RDR2, because everything is so scripted, unchangeable, repetitive, and limited, it does. You can hunt, you can fish, you can play the minigames, ride around and see the sights, but at the end of the day, it sometimes almost feels like a western version of the Truman
Show.

It just feels so lifeless, and boring. It just feels like something's off, or that something's missing, and that's what kills it.

And you know what makes this all even worse?

This was all probably intentional because the game is also ridiculously scared shitless of causing the butterfly effect in-regards to the first game even though they've already done that via the creation of RDR2 itself, and most people haven't even played the first one anyway because it's not out on PC.

They did all of it for a remake that will probably never happen, and for an original one that most of the people who bought the sequel have never actually fucking played.

Tl;dr: RDR2's autistic obsession with realism and immersion destroyed it in the end, and fuck zoomers and PC fags for not playing the first game because it's not on PC. Go buy a secondhand console and copy of the game. It'll be much cheaper, and probably run better in the end, anyway.
Click to expand...
I think they also want to appeal to mainstream audiences and thought focusing on shallow, surface level spectacle would be appreciated more by them than deep complexities.

Why have deep, intricate systems with replay value when most of your money will come from people who are satisfied with how good the game looks, beat it once, and never play it again?
 
Vault Boy said:
It's been almost four years since the game came out, Rockstar's never going to bother updating RDR2 for the current gen consoles.

What, would an updated port of RDR2 be too much effort for them compared to coasting on GTA V for the third generation in a row?
Click to expand...
I don't even care at this point. I can't imagine playing the game without the convenience of a cheat menu. It negates all the anti-fun additions to the game. Feel bad for consolebros though.
 
Mega Black said:
I don't even care at this point. I can't imagine playing the game without the convenience of a cheat menu. It negates all the anti-fun additions to the game. Feel bad for consolebros though.
Click to expand...
It's okay.

I'll just put on a podcast, and go fishing again up at O'Creagh's Run while I think about all the things I could have bought with my metric fuckton of in-game money if Rockstar didn't hate this series so much.

Like that recently built, and for sale house by Emerald Ranch.

Or a ticket to back to Guarma even though I fucking hate it there.

Or some more stable slots because having only four is biggest fucking mistake in the entire game.

I hate this so much.
 
Bunny Tracks said:
Or a ticket to back to Guarma even though I fucking hate it there.
Click to expand...
originally, they had planned to allow people to return to guarma probably after the epilogue stuff, however it was cut probably due to them not knowing what they actually wanted do with it. i mean outside that town area and the literal jungle, there isnt a ton to do there in the first place outside collecting animals for your scrapbook diary
 
Deadwaste said:
originally, they had planned to allow people to return to guarma probably after the epilogue stuff, however it was cut probably due to them not knowing what they actually wanted do with it. i mean outside that town area and the literal jungle, there isnt a ton to do there in the first place outside collecting animals for your scrapbook diary
Click to expand...
I know.

Just like it was originally planned for you to be able to go to New Austin as Arthur, save the children at Clawson's Rest, catch the legendary giant catfish, and be able to hang out with gang members outside of camp.

I know, and I'm still not over it.

Something interesting and infuriating about Guarma, though. Do you what all its assets and cut content was eventually used for?

GTA Online.
 
Mega Black said:
I can't imagine playing the game without the convenience of a cheat menu.
Click to expand...
One of the greatest aspects lately of playing PC games is knowing that I can probably find a fling trainer that cuts out half of the bullshit and the padding from within games. Speedhacks? Trimming down collectables? EXP modifiers? Boosting loot drops? All of this shit is simply in there to extend the playtime of the game because developers don't want people getting to the end of the game, going "I've 100% completed it" and then trading it in during the first month of sales so another person can buy a copy of the game without a developer taking a cut.

RDR 1 basically GAVE us cheats at the end if we hit 100% completion. Absolute kino to go straight to HerbertMoon and blow him to kingdom come while everyone just looks on without bothering. Of course that's another thing, I'm able to remember Herbert Moon without having to look him up because of the atmosphere created in RDR1 that made him stand out and be memorable.

Hell without cheating there's absolutely no way I'd unironically play GTA V again, it's the most sterile unfun game I can think of and yet with just a few modifications here to remove the nofun shit it becomes a pretty kino game to play. I really want to boot up RDR2 again with a cheatmenu but I cannot even face the initial loading screens and mammoth download for the chance of maybe getting a few hours of fun out of the game as opposed to just playing a game I fucking enjoy. At this point I'm probably not even going to consider picking up GTA VI given how much of a shitshow Rockstar has become.
 
Tom Nook's Gloryhole said:
Hell without cheating there's absolutely no way I'd unironically play GTA V again, it's the most sterile unfun game I can think of and yet with just a few modifications here to remove the nofun shit it becomes a pretty kino game to play. I really want to boot up RDR2 again with a cheatmenu but I cannot even face the initial loading screens and mammoth download for the chance of maybe getting a few hours of fun out of the game as opposed to just playing a game I fucking enjoy. At this point I'm probably not even going to consider picking up GTA VI given how much of a shitshow Rockstar has become.
Click to expand...
The game becomes much more tolerable with a trainer like Rampage. Suddenly absolute bullshit unfun mechanics like psychic police, endless enemy spawns, empty open world locations, hunting for 3 star pelts, gear being arbitrarily locked behind story progression, having to spend an hour fishing to restore honor after being wrongfully assaulted by a random NPC, all that shit is gone. I've gotten more fun out of the game this way than I ever did vanilla. Hell, you can even turn off the invisible sniper and explore New Austen as Arthur.
 
One issue with RDR2 is RDR1 was a story, RDR2 was "a series of things that happen"

In RDR1 the story is "John Marston must hunt down his former gang members", this gave a propulsive element to the story even when it would go off on a tangent or two and a perfect excuse for why you're travelling across the map.

RDR2 on the other is just "the Dutch gang is on the run and wanders from place to place because they're on the run", a lot of things happened, sure, but it isn't tied together in way that feels as satisfyingly as the first game, instead it feels meandering and kind of boring.

Rockstar designed this brilliantly designed map and populated it with interesting characters, but failed to come up with an interesting enough story to place in it and with those characters.

While some of the backstory that is revealed about Dutch et all is interesting, the best route would have probably been to tell an all new story with all new characters, just in the same world.

What sums it all up is that one of the main things I was looking forward to was being a bastard since we're just an outlaw now, right? but it's the same issue with the first game where doing so breaks character and goes against what the writers intended, for example I tried and failed to rob the Valentine bank over and over before giving up and realizing it can only be robbed via a story mission later on, Rockstar started off by being all about player freedom but wound up shoehorning us into strict story paths.
 
Dom Cruise said:
One issue with RDR2 is RDR1 was a story, RDR2 was "a series of things that happen"

In RDR1 the story is "John Marston must hunt down his former gang members", this gave a propulsive element to the story even when it would go off on a tangent or two and a perfect excuse for why you're travelling across the map.

RDR2 on the other is just "the Dutch gang is on the run and wanders from place to place because they're on the run", a lot of things happened, sure, but it isn't tied together in way that feels as satisfyingly as the first game, instead it feels meandering and kind of boring.

Rockstar designed this brilliantly designed map and populated it with interesting characters, but failed to come up with an interesting enough story to place in it and with those characters.

While some of the backstory that is revealed about Dutch et all is interesting, the best route would have probably been to tell an all new story with all new characters, just in the same world.

What sums it all up is that one of the main things I was looking forward to was being a bastard since we're just an outlaw now, right? but it's the same issue with the first game where doing so breaks character and goes against what the writers intended, for example I tried and failed to rob the Valentine bank over and over before giving up and realizing it can only be robbed via a story mission later on, Rockstar started off by being all about player freedom but wound up shoehorning us into strict story paths.
Click to expand...
I thought the story was actually the strongest part of RDR2, although it could have done with a good bit of 'trimming the fat' in certain spots. Particularly Guarma. I get what they were going for and the original concept of the island being more expansive, with more to do and the protagonist being able to travel there back and forth at will, but since they couldn't execute all of that they honestly should've just... cut that entire section out, in my opinion. Either do it right and flesh it out or not at all, because as it stands it just seems like it was shoehorned in there and doesn't really fit the rest of the story or the themes therein. Although I guess it sort of is needed as a plot device to cause Arthur's condition to worsen so drastically in a short amount of time.

Where it somewhat falls flat is in the world itself, yes, it's beautiful, massive, incredibly detailed, but once you do most of the challenges, hunt/fish for all legendaries, all you really have are random encounters and hunting for no real reason. The random encounters aren't varied enough to entertain someone for very long, and once you get all the legendaries and most of the trapper gear, it's not like you have a camp to feed or anything like that. You can sell hides/meat/etc for money I guess but by the end of the game you won't be hurting for money in the slightest. Likewise, it also suffers a bit from GTA IV syndrome: the motivation to do things is so the protagonist can make money and spend it on things, but there's not much to spend it on. You can buy every clothing item or hat in every color, buy every weapon and modify it fully, max out ammo and tonics and you're pretty much done. You can't buy properties, there's not really any high stakes games of chance since most of the poker games are like ten dollars max, you can buy horses but you have to catch/break most of the really good ones, can't buy a wagon in single player, etc. Keep in mind it's still one of my favorite games of all time, but it's sort of baffling to me that they not only short-changed RDO and haven't updated it properly in years, but in both GTA V and RDR2 single player you can't access any of the things you can get online at all. RDR2 single player would be fantastic, fertile ground for all kinds of DLCs but they just refuse to make it, refuse to even update their online mode, and continue to pump out more shit on GTA Online so 12 year olds can steal their Mom's credit card and buy rocket-powered hoverbikes.

Another thing they just keep getting wrong, you sort of touched on it too, but how fucking strict their missions structure is. You cannot deviate at all from their objectives for more than ten seconds without failing the mission. Even looting dead bodies, you'll have characters yelling at you to hurry up the entire time. You can't do certain activities until you do them in missions, some activities only appear in missions and nowhere else, leaving a bunch of mechanics to seem half-assed and not worthy of the time it took to develop them. There's no real freedom to approach missions in any way other than the way Rockstar intended. For instance, the mission where you have to sneak into Cornwall's office to steal paperwork with the Indian guy. I saw an open window that Arthur could easily climb to so I figured, sure, it's a stealth mission, they'll probably let me do that. I do just that and as soon as he drops through the window, MISSION FAILED. I try to go through a different door: MISSION FAILED. I try to scope out the building to see what's going on, MISSION FAILED. So eventually you just have to go through the door they intended you to use and follow the very strict path they've set for you.

It's fucking weird how great the open world is, how many assets and different weapons they give you, how many possible paths there are, and you're just not allowed to deviate in the slightest from the path they've set for you. You have almost complete freedom in the open world but as soon as you start a mission, that's out the God damn window, go through this door, sneak past these bad guys, trigger cutscene, trigger scripted event, mission done. It feels like in most of the missions the player has no real input, and sometimes it feels that way in the open world too because they clearly want you to play Arthur a certain way for the plot which means, although you're not restricted from massacring entire towns, it seems so out of character and idiosyncratic to the story that the act of doing so sort of sucks you out of the world they've created.

It's still one of the best games I've ever played, and I think it may be Rockstar's 'swan song' since a lot of the big players left during or after development, but it definitely has some problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom