Red Dead Redemption 2

The Phantom Pain

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

I think the 'slow' complaint comes from how at times, arthur is forced to walk at an absolute snails pace through camp / to an objective. I can see why they did it, as it would completely break immersion (this probably isnt the correct descriptor - maybe 'cinematic vision') to have you sprinting around everywhere, jumping on boxes, standing on campfires like you see in pretty much every other videogame. This forced pace is jarring when comparing it to what gamers are used to - getting from point A to point B as quickly as possible, then mashing the 'skip cutscene' button to get back to the shooting.
Once I accepted that this is the pace they've intended, I found it a bit easier to live with.

The forced walking in the camp probably wouldn't have bothered people if you didn't have to spend about 10 minutes beforehand just riding to it. By the time you get into the camp you would understandably be in a hurry. I think there's a good argument to be made from those who didn't enjoy the game as much as I did that it was death by a thousand cuts.

Penn

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

The forced walking in the camp probably wouldn't have bothered people if you didn't have to spend about 10 minutes beforehand just riding to it. By the time you get into the camp you would understandably be in a hurry. I think there's a good argument to be made from those who didn't enjoy the game as much as I did that it was death by a thousand cuts.

Yeah, it's different not having fast travel in the likes of GTA because at least driving the cars is fun, plenty to see and do, listen to the radio etc. Driving always feels like an activity itself. The horse riding in this, bar the occasional scripted or random event, is just boring. You barely have to pick a direction as the horse will follow the path, so you're just tapping X/A to gallop, hoping your horse's stamina doesn't drop too much, and trying to feed it if it does. It's just a chore that kills the game and makes a better fast travel system all the more vital.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Penn wrote: »

Yeah, it's different not having fast travel in the likes of GTA because at least driving the cars is fun, plenty to see and do, listen to the radio etc. Driving always feels like an activity itself. The horse riding in this, bar the occasional scripted or random event, is just boring. You barely have to pick a direction as the horse will follow the path, so you're just tapping X/A to gallop, hoping your horse's stamina doesn't drop too much, and trying to feed it if it does. It's just a chore that kills the game and makes a better fast travel system all the more vital.

Again, I think This didn't grind on me as much as I only played about an hour or so at a time. Its certainly not a game to play for a 4-5 hour stint, as those flaws become a much bigger problem at that level of exposure.

Personally, I could have done entirely without horse bonding, grooming, feeding, etc. and the core system for arthurs health seemed like it was only there

to emphasise how sick he was in the last chapter by having them all essentially constantly depleted

Jordan 199

I'm still hoping for 'Paint Your Wagon' DLC.

The Nal

I wish you could Skyfall

Retr0gamer

I think it's worse to play it in short bursts as the game wastes your time so much you end up getting nothing done.

And that's my biggest problem with the game. It just totally wastes your time with it's indulgences. It has absolutely no respect for the players time and is so caught up on telling it's story and being realistic that it does it at the expense of being fun. Maybe I'd be fine with this if it had some artistic merit but hardly a slow moving Tarkovsky masterpiece.

It's just so caught up in showing off the detail of it's world and story it forgets to be a videogame and fails at being both fun and engaging. It's just a bad game unfortunately.

wotzgoingon

I enjoyed the game. Was a bit annoying when Arthur got sick as eating food didn't have as good an effect but that was part of the story so not much else you could do.

Don't like online though, but admittedly I only played it once after I had finished the game and never went back to it.

nullzero

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think it's worse to play it in short bursts as the game wastes your time so much you end up getting nothing done.

And that's my biggest problem with the game. It just totally wastes your time with it's indulgences. It has absolutely no respect for the players time and is so caught up on telling it's story and being realistic that it does it at the expense of being fun. Maybe I'd be fine with this if it had some artistic merit but hardly a slow moving Tarkovsky masterpiece.

It's just so caught up in showing off the detail of it's world and story it forgets to be a videogame and fails at being both fun and engaging. It's just a bad game unfortunately.

Complete nonsense.

I did a second play through which was played in thirty minute to one hour bursts per day(I don't have a huge amount of time on my hands while we're on the topic of time) and I was well able to enjoy myself and not feel bogged down in what ever felt like situations I was guided into against my will by the nefarious time wasting department at rockstar games.

To say this is a bad game is to over value your own opinion.
The game may not be your cup of tea but it isn't inherently bad because you didn't enjoy it.

Penfailed

I loved it. I haven't looked at it since completing it though.

Retr0gamer

nullzero wrote: »

Complete nonsense.

I did a second play through which was played in thirty minute to one hour bursts per day(I don't have a huge amount of time on my hands while we're on the topic of time) and I was well able to enjoy myself and not feel bogged down in what ever felt like situations I was guided into against my will by the nefarious time wasting department at rockstar games.

To say this is a bad game is to over value your own opinion.
The game may not be your cup of tea but it isn't inherently bad because you didn't enjoy it.

It's not that it's bad, I really didn't enjoy it myself, it's that there are a vast amount of games well worth your time that don't waste yours like this one this. There's plenty of times a game has sold and gotten good reviews based solely on hype and I'm filing this in with GTA4 and MGS4 as in that category. I expect plenty of articles on how it failed as a game over the next few years.

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

I've heard different opinions on it. Some say its good others say the first was better. Whats everyones opinion?

I'm glad I played it, was easily worth the purchase price. I will give it at least one more playthrough in the future, maybe on next-gen.

Definitely not perfect - a lot of the gameplay mechanics could have done with more thought. Plenty of annoyances. The pacing of the story was off - towards the end of the game I had my fill and just wanted to be done with it.

There's not enough negatives to make it a "bad game" though. It just didn't quite live up to the hype. Still a staggering achievement.

The Nal

Theres hours of fun to be had with all the cheats on.

johnny_ultimate

Always should go without saying that the letters ‘IMO’ should be assumed with any expression of opinion on the Internet

I firmly believe Red Dead Redemption 2 is a pretty bad game. I think a lot of talented people put a lot of time and effort into it (often an unreasonable amount of time going by the reports of working practices at Rockstar). And there are many things to admire about their work. But ultimately I felt the game had no regard for my personal time commitment, had no idea how to be an interesting game beyond a very lavish tech demo, and struggled to achieve its artistic goals in an interesting way. It was a deeply flawed game that felt like a backwards step in open world design, and a chore to play. That, for me, classified as a bad game, and I respect that others disagree.

IMO

Barlett

I think it's one of the finest games I've ever played to be honest. Though I mainly play games for cinematic experiences and storytelling, love the slow nature, epic feel of it. So different from so much other stuff out there, I only have time for 2-4 hours gaming a week mostly so I found it perfect for doing a mission saving and leaving it there, like reading a chapter in a book.

20silkcut

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I think it's worse to play it in short bursts as the game wastes your time so much you end up getting nothing done.

And that's my biggest problem with the game. It just totally wastes your time with it's indulgences. It has absolutely no respect for the players time and is so caught up on telling it's story and being realistic that it does it at the expense of being fun. Maybe I'd be fine with this if it had some artistic merit but hardly a slow moving Tarkovsky masterpiece.

It's just so caught up in showing off the detail of it's world and story it forgets to be a videogame and fails at being both fun and engaging. It's just a bad game unfortunately.

Your way wide of the mark calling it a bad game.
In the context of your opinion it is a bad game. Which is different.

Retr0gamer

20silkcut wrote: »

Your way wide of the mark calling it a bad game.
In the context of your opinion it is a bad game. Which is different.

My opinion is de facto in my opinion as in my opinion I have great taste.

Which is all subjective.

Greyfox

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It has absolutely no respect for the players time and is so caught up on telling it's story and being realistic that it does it at the expense of being fun.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But ultimately I felt the game had no regard for my personal time commitment,

+100 on these

The game should be getting more critisism for its flaws, no matter how good a game is there shouldnt be parts of a game that are not enjoyable. Even those who enjoyed it admit the opening was a little bit of a slog, sometimes you punch someone by mystake as you were trying to do something else due to the controls been a little fiddely at first and lack of fast travel is irritating after a while. I'm struggling to get into the game at the moment as its definitely less enjoyable in small doses. There's a lot to like about the game including the story and it looks magnificent. I'm not going to give up on it until I'll given it a few long stretches of playing but if I do end up completing it the game will have the extra cost of wasting some of my time.

Potential-Monke

Like others have said, there's a beautiful environment, fantastic voice acting and a pretty good story, but that shouldn't preclude it from being criticised because it does have its issues. Pacing, lack of fast travel, pointless hunting really, finicky controls. Compared to my personal GOTY last year, God of War, its issues still stand out. I know God of War had issues, but I can't recall them as it was just that good overall. With this, even though I enjoyed most my time with it, I can remember the issues. I reckon the PS5 release of this will have all the issues ironed out and it will be a better game for it.

jones

The problem with games like Red dead is that who wants excessive realism? Life is generally boring. Doing chores etc around the camp were boring. I loved the game but it definitely didn't land with me for the first while. Infact i dropped it half way through and platinum'd spiderman before going back to it.

Technically and story wise its amazing, best open world ever IMO but there definitely was something about the slower pace and lack of fast travel that didn't sit right with me. I'd love to see what the PS5 could do with it. I played it on a pro on 1080p plasma and it was stunning at times.

johnny_ultimate

The problem with the realism in RDR2 is that it’s still full of all sorts of nonsense video game logic. Things like the ‘cores’ are just bizarre, half-realised comprises. You still have magically reappearing horses after missions; a capacity to take dozens of bullets; a massive inventory; a debilitating illness that has few gameplay consequences beyond making the cores lose energy slightly faster etc etc. There are mechanics aimed at making these seem more ‘realistic’, but they don’t commit fully. Many of them - like browsing catalogues in shops - are just slower versions of what you get in other games rather than properly immersive details. So you’re left in a weird purgatory where there are all these chunky, slow mechanics in aid of ‘realism’ married to incredibly unrealistic and fantastical pieces of pure video game nonsense (not that there’s anything wrong with video game nonsense... it just sits badly here).

I’m playing Pathologic 2 at the moment, and that’s a super demanding game with infuriating survival mechanics. It’s very much ‘not fun’. But - and this is key - it’s impeccably, determinedly designed to be ‘not fun’. It’s full of abrasive, irritating mechanics but all in favour of always making the player feel unsafe and on edge. It’s a game with a clear, unapologetic goal and commits fully to it. While I’m not a big fan of some of the choices they’ve made (****ing hunger gauges) it is a game with a consistent and unique vision that everything is designed around. RDR2, in contrast, is just a bit of a mess that never decides what it really wants to be.

Retr0gamer

I wasn't even particularly fond of the open world in RDR2. Sure it looked gorgeous but it was just filled with systems and details for the sake of them. The majority of them added nothing to the game. I think Breath of the Wild really shone a light on how bad the open world is. Every system in that game feeds into the game and just games it so much fun to play around and experiment in it's little playground. I'd rather have the fire propagation, wind, temperature, food and physics of BotW which really added to the experience rather than shrinking horse testicles and piercing arrows that penetrate wood more than normal arrows.

It's just a lesson in hubris, where a developer flush with cash and believing in their own hype added stuff into the game because they could without thinking why it needed to be in the game and what it added. What we ended up with was a very pretty simulation that wasn't much fun to explore.

jones

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I wasn't even particularly fond of the open world in RDR2. Sure it looked gorgeous but it was just filled with systems and details for the sake of them. The majority of them added nothing to the game. I think Breath of the Wild really shone a light on how bad the open world is. Every system in that game feeds into the game and just games it so much fun to play around and experiment in it's little playground. I'd rather have the fire propagation, wind, temperature, food and physics of BotW which really added to the experience rather than shrinking horse testicles and piercing arrows that penetrate wood more than normal arrows.

It's just a lesson in hubris, where a developer flush with cash and believing in their own hype added stuff into the game because they could without thinking why it needed to be in the game and what it added. What we ended up with was a very pretty simulation that wasn't much fun to explore.

I do agree rockstar might have gone a bit up their asses with the development but i thought it was stunning game world and any issue i had with the game had nothing to do with the world built. I never played BOTW so i'll give that a bash. Just finished days gone last night.

The Nal

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I wasn't even particularly fond of the open world in RDR2. Sure it looked gorgeous but it was just filled with systems and details for the sake of them. The majority of them added nothing to the game. I think Breath of the Wild really shone a light on how bad the open world is. Every system in that game feeds into the game and just games it so much fun to play around and experiment in it's little playground. I'd rather have the fire propagation, wind, temperature, food and physics of BotW which really added to the experience rather than shrinking horse testicles and piercing arrows that penetrate wood more than normal arrows.

It's just a lesson in hubris, where a developer flush with cash and believing in their own hype added stuff into the game because they could without thinking why it needed to be in the game and what it added. What we ended up with was a very pretty simulation that wasn't much fun to explore.

Nintendo have always made better games. Particularly in the Zelda series. Maybe not as easy and funny but much more immersive and rewarding.

A lot of of the stuff they say you have to do in RDR2, you do not. Eating, giving money to the camp etc. Don't bother your hole.

Retr0gamer

Nintendo really knocked it out of the park though with BotW and it was their first ever open world game. It's not perfect, enemy variety is quite small and the end game relies on damage sponge enemies that sap a bit of the fun.

I think the fact that there's so much in RDR2 you don't have to do or not bother with because its superfluous and/or not fun kind of speaks volumes to the issues with its design.

The Phantom Pain

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The problem with the realism in RDR2 is that it’s still full of all sorts of nonsense video game logic. Things like the ‘cores’ are just bizarre, half-realised comprises. You still have magically reappearing horses after missions; a capacity to take dozens of bullets; a massive inventory; a debilitating illness that has few gameplay consequences beyond making the cores lose energy slightly faster etc etc. There are mechanics aimed at making these seem more ‘realistic’, but they don’t commit fully. Many of them - like browsing catalogues in shops - are just slower versions of what you get in other games rather than properly immersive details. So you’re left in a weird purgatory where there are all these chunky, slow mechanics in aid of ‘realism’ married to incredibly unrealistic and fantastical pieces of pure video game nonsense (not that there’s anything wrong with video game nonsense... it just sits badly here).

I’m playing Pathologic 2 at the moment, and that’s a super demanding game with infuriating survival mechanics. It’s very much ‘not fun’. But - and this is key - it’s impeccably, determinedly designed to be ‘not fun’. It’s full of abrasive, irritating mechanics but all in favour of always making the player feel unsafe and on edge. It’s a game with a clear, unapologetic goal and commits fully to it. While I’m not a big fan of some of the choices they’ve made (****ing hunger gauges) it is a game with a consistent and unique vision that everything is designed around. RDR2, in contrast, is just a bit of a mess that never decides what it really wants to be.

I think the problem with RDR2 is that it's realistic but it's not believable, and these are not the same things. The way Arthur picks things out of a drawer is very realistic, motion wise, however it's not believable because no one who is frantically searching for something would ever pick things one by one like that...
Destiny 2 is not remotely realistic but its world is more believable because it's consistent in all aspects and has good world building. The more realistic you try to make your video game the more immersion breaking it becomes because video games are inherently unrealistic...

This is why people (not me as I like TD) had such an issue with The Division where headshots don't instantly kill an enemy yet accept it with a game like Destiny 2.

Zero-Cool

Arthur having the craic at Dublin comic con today.

https://twitter.com/rclark98/status/1160291354422992897?s=19

Ha so cool. The wee mans outfit is brillo.

iLikeWaffles

Re-posting this to save anyone else time on looking through the thread...



https://rdr2map.com/

letsgo2018

I bought this game on release and can't get into it. Ive barely scratched the surface of it . Does anybody think its a bit overrated. Its no witcher 3 that's for sure

goon_magee

letsgo2018 wrote: »

I bought this game on release and can't get into it. Ive barely scratched the surface of it . Does anybody think its a bit overrated. Its no witcher 3 that's for sure

Massively overrated. It's a technical masterpiece but ultimately fails at being a video game. In trying to make the game as realistic as possible they turned it into a laborious slog and an absolute chore to interact with.

Jumping back into Assassins Creed Odyssey after this was like a breath of fresh air, because whilst it's not perfect by any means, it respects your time as a player and prioritises convenience and fun over realism.

Just my opinion of course, plenty on here love it and I can appreciate why depending on what you want out of it. Just wasn't for me though and a massive disappointment for me as a huge fan of the first game.