Red Dead Redemption 2

ERG89 wrote: »

The issues with the game can't be fixed with a port.
It already looks great even on console, the story (for the most part) is good but the missions are Rockstar's most unimaginative yet, the controls feel an entire gen behind the times & riding across the overly large map on horseback to get to the next mission markers loses its charm after 20 hours.
I'm glad I finished it when it was out as I could be part of the conversation about it then, I didn't have much of it spoiled & I think if I stopped playing half way through I'd never have gone back to finish it.

That’s what happened to me. I just felt the game was long winded and cumbersome so I stopped halfway through.

I think the game suffers from trying to be far too realistic, and it ends up being less fun and more sluggish than RDR1.

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

The thing is with Rockstar it feels like the people who make the open world and the people who make the actual missions are two different companies. Every single mission in a Rockstar game feels like a tutorial for mechanics you'll never use again, they don't implement any of the basic controls that you do in the open world and are far too linear. I think that flaw becomes apparent when you have devs like CDPR coming out and doing great stuff.

This is slightly hyperbolic to say the least. The majority of Rockstar missions boil down to travel to X location, engage in combat scenario, done. If there is mechanics brought in then dropped, it's usually to add some cinematic flair to the missions (see the alligator attack mission for example). At their core, Rockstar make third person action games with tightly scripted narratives, so comparing Rockstar to a dev like CDPR who make RPGs which allow for build diversity and have a much bigger focus on branching narratives etc. is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

Variety in mechanics is a very strange criticism to level at a game. If anything I'd say one of the biggest issues I had with RDR2 was too many one dimensional missions that revolved round the monotonous gunplay. I mean you say every single mission ina Rockstar game revolves around mechanics you never use again....I dont even know where to start with that, considering the first ten hours are basically a tutorial for the things you will be doing for the rest of the game.

I'm no Rockstar fanboy, in fact I hated RDR2, but your take on the game and Rockstar in general seems strange.

Each to their own though.

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

I'm glad you brought up Naughty Dog games - which you feel is a more appropriate comparison - because NG make linear games that somehow feel less restrictive than RDR2 in its main campaign, mainly because the only auto fails are death. If you want to walk around and explore for a bit or even just not move Nathan Drake in Uncharted, the game won't punish you for it. So no, I'm afraid using the, "it's a story driven game!" as an excuse for the RDR2's main campaign being ridiculously linear doesn't work because other games I have mentioned, including NG games, are very much story driven (are you going to pretend the Witcher 3 isn't story driven for the sake of proving a point?) and yet do freedom in gameplay better.

Also, if you're having to compare an open world game to a linear one that in itself shows something is wrong. I play open world games for the open world. It is entirely reasonable to expect more freedom as to how the player approaches a mission when the open world does it so well. Therefore, RDR2 doesn't need to "mirror the likes of other games", it should look to its own as an example. It doesn't mean Arthur has to go completely off course but you shouldn't be auto failed merely for stepping off your horse to pick a plant either, that's extreme.

Years ago, Ubisoft used to make players desync in AC if you didn't follow the path the ancestor took but that in itself has a narrative reason - you were replaying memories, and even then it was far less restrictive than RDR2. The devs eventually found a way to make it less linear by turning what used to be a requirement into optional objectives while still making the campaign guided. And don't tell me ACII isn't a story/character driven game. Your excuse that narrative structure impedes gameplay freedom is nonsense because other devs find a way to make both work.

I'm not referring to hunting, fishing or the mechanics that get repeated - I'm aware that there are repeated mechanics obviously. I'm referring to the ones that DON'T i.e. the context sensitive actions which are numerous throughout the campaign. Uncharted has context sensitive actions too but the controls are always the same - either tap triangle or push with circle, making it easy to play the game without HUD because you don't have to look at the top of the screen for instructions every 5 seconds. I didn't think that needed spelling out or clarifying but here we are.

You say you're not a R* fanboy but you certainly sound like one with your defensive overprotection of the game when it's not needed, as I enjoyed the game overall despite some very obvious flaws.

Lol who pissed in your soup lad? Since when is challenging someone's points suddenly classified as defensive overprotection? Don't post on public forums if you don't want your opinions challenged. My defense of the game isn't needed? As I said I don't like the game, but my critique on your opinion is just as needed as your original points were...that's how public discussion works...can't engage in critical discussion then don't post in the first place. I could just as easy say you sound like an over offensive Rockstar detractor what with your hyperbole and intolerance.

Your "my way or the high way" attitude is perhaps best exemplified by saying something is wrong if I have to compare open world games to linear games. You obviously have a certain expectation of what an open world game for be and are completely intolerant it ses lof any deviation from your expectations. To you it should mean player agency and freedom to tackle things how you see fit whereas Mafia 2 and Sleeping Dogs, perhaps my two favourite open world games ever, were extremely linear when it came to gameplay freedom in critical path missions. In fact Mafia 2 is perhaps one of the most linear games I've ever played, but also one of the best examples of the genre (IMO).

It's a different style of storytelling which bleeds through into the gameplay, it's not inherently bad just because it doesn't align with your expectations. I didn't say RDR being a story driven game was an excuse for it being linear, my point is that they aren't trying to mimic the points of contrast you keep pointing to. Is it perhaps a tad excessive sometimes? maybe, but you're getting on like it's a constant issue, when I know that returning to camp with a tasty kill on my horse after completing a main mission was a regular occurrence for me, so obviously the game isn't as constantly restrictive as you make it out to be, with it only really cropping up when Rockstar felt the narrative required it. And hey if you keep getting caught by auto fails, learn from your mistakes and just go with the narrative as intended. As you point out, there is a whole world out there that promotes agency and freedom, go off and do that if that's what you want and come back to the critical path when you're ready to go with the flow and with the tighter core experience that the main game provides. I mean as you say, you play open world games for the open world, so what's the problem when the narrative reigns in the scope? The multitude of distractions and reasons to explore after the mission is done still exist.

Also your insistence on using the Witcher 3 as a contrast doesn't hold much weight with me. Outside of branching narrative, the actual main missions of the Witcher 3 were extremely linear when it came to main quests.

Anyway, I doubt we will see eye to eye on this so best to just draw a line under it. You seem to think me countering your points makes me a RDR fanboy (go back and read my previous posts on the game, I believe my previous post was along the lines of calling it one of the most overrated games I've ever played....total fanboy right?). No point in engaging in dialogue with someone who reverts to the fanboy remark because they don't like to have their points challenged.

The Phantom Pain wrote: »

lol so it looks like you've been accused of being a snowflake before. That's surprising. Not. If you call whinging about how the critique of the controls is unfair because of how the Witcher has similar controls asking a "genuine question" then sure, let's pretend that's real. You are also soooo not open to the idea that people like and dislike different things no matter how much you protest lol. The fact that you're so insecure as to worry that I think my opinion is objectively true when it's fairly obvious that it's down to taste is full snowflake. Maybe you should find a safe space to crawl into...

Lol I literally said I was curious as to how you thought the controls were nonsense cause to me they were pretty similar to the Witcher, albeit with a button flipped. As I said, it was a legitimate query as to what your issue was (cause you know, I'm interested in considering differing viewpoints) and frankly it's hilarious that you're so desperate to have your points go unchallenged that you think that's whinging. But sure keep manipulating things to fit you're little narrative.

If you think that is whinging, then mammy and daddy have let you live a very sheltered life, poor people must be flat out lifting your toys off the ground what with your fondness of throwing them outta the pram!

Anyway, I thought you were done with me chappy