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
I find the Fort Mercer arc more tedious. Once you get past the tutorial, and introductory missions of all the characters, a good chunk of what remains of it is just padding.

That, and I think the arc is the biggest example of gameplay and story segregation because not only does the Mexico arc shows John is one-man army, regular gameplay shows this too since he wipes out other gang hideouts all the time which just makes the whole notion of needing an entire group of people to help take out Fort Mercer seem kinda dumb.

I do think Mexico is where the game shows its most age, though. Particularly, with the long wagon rides. I think if it ever was to be remade, all of those should go, and should be replaced with cutscenes, or something similar.
 
Bunny Tracks said:
I find the Fort Mercer arc more tedious. Once you get past the tutorial, and introductory missions of all the characters, a good chunk of what remains of it is just padding.
Click to expand...
Disagree. The fort Mercer section of the game is filled with great characters and subplots. Seth the grave digger, the Armadillo Sheriff and his retarded deputies, the snake oil salesman you have to help sell his scam medicine. It's the first taste of freedom after the forced tutorial section at Macfarlane's ranch.
 
Last edited:
Sicko Hunter said:
I don't agree with this take at all. The fort Mercer section of the game is filled with great characters and subplots. Seth the grave digger, the Sheriff and his retarded deputies, the snake oil salesman you have to help sell his scam medicine. The intro tutorial at Macfarlanes Ranch however is tedious and largely uninteresting and Fort Mercer and the build up is your first taste of freedom in the game.
Click to expand...
I didn't say the entire section was bad, or didn't have good characters. I do like it. I just said how part of it feels like filler because the game later shows that John is a one-man army which makes the goal of assembling an entire posse, and getting a Gatling gun to take down the fort look kinda unnecessary.
 
Bunny Tracks said:
I didn't say the entire section was bad, or didn't have good characters. I do like it. I just said how part of it feels like filler because the game later shows that John is a one-man army which makes the goal of assembling an entire posse, and getting a Gatling gun to take down the fort look kinda unnecessary.
Click to expand...
I feel like John develops into that one man army over the course of the game. Like you start off a rusty veteran cowboy then become a gunslinger legend by the end of Mexico. To me it felt like it made sense you needed backup for fort mercer since it's earlier into the game.
 
Sicko Hunter said:
I feel like John develops into that one man army over the course of the game. Like you start off a rusty veteran cowboy then become a gunslinger legend by the end of Mexico. To me it felt like it made sense you needed backup for fort mercer since it's earlier into the game.
Click to expand...
Considering its been four years since American Venom it makes sense John would need to bang some rust off him and get back to form, especially after getting shot up at the start of RDR1.
 
I never seriously used a console past the Saturn so I was fairly excited to grab the PC port of RDR1. I'm very early into it and still learning the ropes. Some questions - I tend to play games as a goody two shoes, at least for the first playthrough, so I'm trying to keep honor up, but I lost 50 honor looting an enemy corpse. I tried searching how exactly looting works, it wasn't very clear to me and also muddled because search engines keep giving me RDR2 mixed in with RDR1.

If the info I read is correct it's OK to loot bandits and such, which these were, so I don't know why I lost honor, unless I'm misunderstanding. Was wondering if anyone could clarify this because it's a little unclear. I kind of get the impression that it doesn't really matter that much either.

There was also a random event but I was fairly far away and it wasn't clear to me at the time who was the good guy and the badguys were, so I did nothing. From five minutes of searching it seems like they repeat, no big deal, but with how this is Rockstar, and before the Ubisoft model of how nothing really matters and it's impossible to fuck anything up took over open world games, I was just wondering. I did read that they repeat, but some - I read something about a nun - are permanent. I dislike missing content from games (I accidentally killed Packy in GTA5, realized too late. Apparently pretty minor but still vaguely annoying to me) so I was just curious if there's any I should be careful about.
 
RDR1 had a shitty plot with great characters.
RDR2 had a better plot with worse characters.

RDR1 is a rambling open world mess, classic Rockstar game, based around collecting three bear asses (ex-gang members) with a bunch of irrelevant subplots to each. (This is true of RDR2 too, but I feel less so). But nobody minded because the characters were so good to spend time with (Bonnie and father, Nigel West Dickens, Marshal and deputies, Seth, the Irishman, Landon Ricketts, gay officer and nasty dictator, Pancho Villa, the agents, the racist scientist and his Indian, Uncle). I think Mexico suffered in that it was the part of the story that had the fewest memorable characters (and was in Spanish). It felt lonely, which I always took as kind of the point, but if they'd put in the effort they could have populated it with colorful characters like New Austin. West Elizabeth also felt eery and lonely and tacked on, but I never expected much out of it since it came at the end of such a long game.


Edit: Mexico was also just god-tier in terms of its two big cities. What were the actual, real cities that felt like cities? Something like:
Thieves Landing (god-tier)
Armadillo (generic as hell)
Escalante (?) (god-tier)
Chuparosa (god-tier)
Blackwater (god-tier)

So Mexico had two god-tier cities to vibe in.

RDR2 had some good cities but also some weak stuff. Rhodes is god-tier, Valentine is really good (Armadillo without being generic sagebrush Western), Saint Denis of course is Saint Denis (but lacked anything to do in it to "live" there)... Annesburg has great theming but no use. That shitty little fisherman town feels like a suburb of Annesburg. Kind of think they should have just been merged. And I never did care for Strawberry.
 
Last edited:
So, call me a bit curious, but; is Red Dead 2 Online worth picking back up? Played a decent chunk of it previously, remember it being... okay, though it got boring fairly quickly. Never did get into RDR2 all that much in general, but I've been thinking about giving it another go; any suggestions, opinions, etc.? I know the game is pretty woke, but is the game as a whole worth it?
 
The Last Stand said:
I just use RDR2 as a Old West Texas Hold 'Em simulator
Click to expand...
RDR2 is a downgrade from 1 as you can't cheat at it anymore. You mean to tell me an outlaw wouldn't at least try to cheat a game of cards? Though you can just fail to cheat and murder your accuser in showdown with no consequences.
 
>Adds super theme-breaking jungle section
>Wont let you return to it
Kino! I'd 100% if not for the way you can literally miss out on achieves unlike gta v
 
I don't like RDR 2 for 3 reasons:

1. I like to play as a lonesome outlaw. I don't want to be forced to come back to a camp full of annoying people. RDR 1 ist the perfect game for me in this regard.

2. I despise the Arthur Morgan dick sucking. That and the writing inconsistencies made me hate the character.

3. The writing
 
Spud said:
You mean to tell me an outlaw wouldn't at least try to cheat a game of cards? Though you can just fail to cheat and murder your accuser in showdown with no consequences.
Click to expand...
I'm mainly an online player with RDR2. I haven't got around to actually sit down with RDR2's campaign beyond setting up camp. The open world has been spoiled for me because I started from RDO.

Not to sound like IGN, but the campaign has too much going on with gameplay mechanics to where it starts off slow, then overwhelms you with all these mechanics, encounters, rules, linearity, etc.
 
>Go to Van Horn trading post to visit the retarded pinhead guy
>Enter tavern
>Mexican guy bumps into me and steals 600$
>Shoot him in leg and tie him up in the street
>Entire fucking town of 30 attacks me
>Lose honor for killing some of the people who literally trying to murder me
>Have to reload from an earlier save

What the fuck?

the-whole-town-of-van-horn-decided-to-attack-me-v0-fj2ohkmtqthd1.jpg
 
Sicko Hunter said:
>Mexican guy bumps into me and steals 600$
Click to expand...
At first, I thought this was fake because in all my years of playing this game, I've never heard of this happening, and was wondering why there would even be a Mexican in Van Horn in the first place.

After looking it up, it turns out that this can actually happen, and my only answer is that it's just Van Horn being Van Horn, and RDR2 being RDR2. Everyone in that town is a trigger-happy maniac, and RDR2's honor system is shit.
 
Spud said:
RDR2 is a downgrade from 1 as you can't cheat at it anymore. You mean to tell me an outlaw wouldn't at least try to cheat a game of cards? Though you can just fail to cheat and murder your accuser in showdown with no consequences.
Click to expand...
It's also a downgrade in that the buy-in is so tiny relative to the prices of things, and it's so slow paced, that gambling just isn't fun in it.
I played lots of cards in RDR1.
I hunted a lot in RDR2.
 
Ughubughughughughughghlug said:
It's also a downgrade in that the buy-in is so tiny relative to the prices of things, and it's so slow paced, that gambling just isn't fun in it.
I played lots of cards in RDR1.
I hunted a lot in RDR2.
Click to expand...
They should have let you play for higher stakes on the riverboat after the story mission where you shoot it up.
 
Ive been playing the PC port of RDR1 and having a great time. I haven't played 1 or 2 since their original release times so it's pretty fresh again to me. I forgot how snappy everything feels compared to 2 and just feels more fun to play overall. The spaghetti western vibes and sound track are so dang good. Sure there is plenty of jank but man I love the way the shooting and action feels way more than 2 did.

The original John Marston is my favorite as I tend to gravitate toward playing a good guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom