Red Dead Redemption 2 - Reder and Deader

[Do Make Say Think]

Couldn't agree more. If they added a few RPG elements to RDR it would be pretty incredible.

It's a shame people tend to be afraid of stats and numbers when it comes to the general public.

While it certainly would make the game a lot better, it would very likely harm sales.

The Housers should just make movies, the best parts about this game are the story and characters while the worst part is the gameplay. Although, had the game been a lot shorter, the gameplay loop wouldn't have felt so damn oppressive by the end so maybe the real issue is how long the game is.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

It's a shame people tend to be afraid of stats and numbers when it comes to the general public.

While it certainly would make the game a lot better, it would very likely harm sales.

The Housers should just make movies, the best parts about this game are the story and characters while the worst part is the gameplay. Although, had the game been a lot shorter, the gameplay loop wouldn't have felt so damn oppressive by the end so maybe the real issue is how long the game is.

Yep, although the game is already pretty immersive, I agree that it would harm sales to an extent. There are a lot of people who just don't want that aspect because it's not quite casual enough.

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Yep, although the game is already pretty immersive, I agree that it would harm sales to an extent. There are a lot of people who just don't want that aspect because it's not quite casual enough.

Not only is it not casual enough, there is plenty of evidence that systems using numerical values and variables send the average human into a state of inner turmoil.

As usual, the lowest common denominator is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Bocephus86]

100% agreed. The vast majority of my friends that own consoles would never touch an RPG, they tend to stick to sports games/CoD & "big" games like RDR2/GTAV.

For instance, I'm the only person in my group of friends that has played any of the Fallout/Elder Scrolls/Witcher games, despite singing their praises to all of my friends that own consoles (4/5 guys).

 

[Rodgerwilco]

Not only is it not casual enough, there is plenty of evidence that systems using numerical values and variables send the average human into a state of inner turmoil.

As usual, the lowest common denominator is why we can't have nice things.

That makes sense that it would cause people turmoil. Having to make decisions about which skill trees to take and just generally dealing with money and things like that.

I know people used the phrase a lot in reference to RDR2, but I would LOVE a real "Yeehaw Skyrim". Red Dead is, obviously, Yeehaw GTA.

 

[Rodgerwilco]

100% agreed. The vast majority of my friends that own consoles would never touch an RPG, they tend to stick to sports games/CoD & "big" games like RDR2/GTAV.

For instance, I'm the only person in my group of friends that has played any of the Fallout/Elder Scrolls/Witcher games, despite singing their praises to all of my friends that own consoles (4/5 guys).

Yep, I have a similar experience.

 

[Dick Sledge]

I'm trying to play as a good guy Arthur for my first play through at least.

I don't think I should get negative karma points or whatever they're calling it just for looting a random dead body I find in a cave.

 

[S E P H]

I personally think it’s the best game I’ve ever played.

Finished chapter 6 last night. This game brought on a wide range of emotions. Fantastic story.

I still have KOTOR and Persona 5 as better games (might put the entire Dishonoured franchise and maybe the first Bioshock above it as well). One of the negatives for RDRII is just that the travelling concept is terrible and the weapon combat is far behind the current triple AAA titles, enough though I was fully expecting it coming in. I get it that we as players can unlock fast travel from camp, but allow the players to have freedom to travel wherever they want at any time. I found myself going on adventures and exploring awesome segments of the map when the game didn't try to **** me over by having me go from Strawberry to the Oil Fields or Saint Denis to the Oil Fields.

E: It's not only that, but all those silly cut-scenes if you fast travel from home/camp or if you take a stagecoach.

 

[Morozov]

100% agreed. The vast majority of my friends that own consoles would never touch an RPG, they tend to stick to sports games/CoD & "big" games like RDR2/GTAV.

For instance, I'm the only person in my group of friends that has played any of the Fallout/Elder Scrolls/Witcher games, despite singing their praises to all of my friends that own consoles (4/5 guys).

This seems to just say more about what your group of five friends are interested in rather than a reflection of console owners like you want to suggest.

If we want to throw around anecdotal examples, the vast majority of PC gamers I know only play FPS and MOBAs with a few WoW fiends still around.

I know more people who play RPGs on consoles, unsurprising given I know a lot of people who enjoy JRPGs and consoles have historically been the best option for those.

Consoles have also historically been the best option for sports games, so it's unsurprising that sports fans play sports games on consoles.

 

[Bocephus86]

This seems to just say more about what your group of five friends are interested in rather than a reflection of console owners like you want to suggest.

If we want to throw around anecdotal examples, the vast majority of PC gamers I know only play FPS and MOBAs with a few WoW fiends still around.

I know more people who play RPGs on consoles, unsurprising given I know a lot of people who enjoy JRPGs and consoles have historically been the best option for those.

Consoles have also historically been the best option for sports games, so it's unsurprising that sports fans play sports games on consoles.

I think you are missing the point of my post. Massive games like RDR2 are trying to appeal to the (more) casual gamer market. Robust RPGs are (generally) not appealing to the (more) casual gamer market. These are people that do not want to figure out a level/perk/inventory management systems, they just want to sit down for a few hours a week and have some easy-access fun.

Gamers that like RPGs will still buy & play games like RDR2. If they made RDR2 "Yeehaw Skyrim" (Awesome description by the way @Rodgerwilco), they would loose a segment of casual gamers while just making "real" gamers happier with a game they would have purchased anyway.

We're talking marketing.

 

[tacogeoff]

I still have KOTOR and Persona 5 as better games (might put the entire Dishonoured franchise and maybe the first Bioshock above it as well). One of the negatives for RDRII is just that the travelling concept is terrible and the weapon combat is far behind the current triple AAA titles, enough though I was fully expecting it coming in. I get it that we as players can unlock fast travel from camp, but allow the players to have freedom to travel wherever they want at any time. I found myself going on adventures and exploring awesome segments of the map when the game didn't try to **** me over by having me go from Strawberry to the Oil Fields or Saint Denis to the Oil Fields.

E: It's not only that, but all those silly cut-scenes if you fast travel from home/camp or if you take a stagecoach.

Its a western. Six shooters, repeaters, primitive scopes etc. I am not sure what they could of done better for the time frame tbh.. unless they make it more of a FPS style like COD. There are different ammunitions to use, bow and arrow, etc. I personally felt it was pretty robust for the time period.

I think those cut-scenes are just a buffer for loading times of a new area?

 

[Morozov]

I think you are missing the point of my post. Massive games like RDR2 are trying to appeal to the (more) casual gamer market. Robust RPGs are (generally) not appealing to the (more) casual gamer market. These are people that do not want to figure out a level/perk/inventory management systems, they just want to sit down for a few hours a week and have some easy-access fun.

Gamers that like RPGs will still buy & play games like RDR2. If they made RDR2 "Yeehaw Skyrim" (Awesome description by the way @Rodgerwilco), they would loose a segment of casual gamers while just making "real" gamers happier with a game they would have purchased anyway.

We're talking marketing.

Erm, I in no way debated any of these aspects lol? It seems you're the one who missed my point. I addressed an aspect of your post, which was made quite clear, and your response didn't address any of that. So my point still stands.

RDR wanting to appeal to a big range of people isn't exactly a revelation. I think everyone knew that already without your marketing lesson.

 

[Bocephus86]

Erm, I in no way debated any of these aspects lol? It seems you're the one who missed my point. I addressed an aspect of your post, which was made quite clear, and your response didn't address any of that. So my point still stands.

RDR wanting to appeal to a big range of people isn't exactly a revelation. I think everyone knew that already without your marketing lesson.

Edit: Initial response tone was unwarranted, my apologies.

What was your point then? I was providing an anecdotal example in a conversation with a poster about why RDR2 was designed as it was. The other poster clearly understood. I am unsure what your point was/is.

 

[MMC]

Are there any story updates yet?

 

[Morozov]

I think the idea that RDR was aimed at casuals is off base anyway. If you're just trying to get casuals, you don't alienate them with things like different outfits for different weather conditions and slow painful animations to open draws in the name of realism. They tried to aim at a more serious gamer at the same time. Same time being the emphasis there, because they tried to capture segments of multiple audiences, just like basically every game does.

It's one of the most Oscar bait type games of all time. They tried to tick every little award and reviewer box they could. And then they pushed realism to the point they compromised fun and ease of play, which I don't really think is playing down to the casual audience but really quite the opposite. Though the game is still easily accessible it branched away from being casual in a different way to skill trees and numbers. You don't make people need to clean their gun to keep the stats right if you're just targeting a casual audience. Unfortunately for them, I'm not sure there's really a whole lot of audience anywhere that appreciate glacial animations to open multiple different draws in the name of realism.

 

[S E P H]

Its a western. Six shooters, repeaters, primitive scopes etc. I am not sure what they could of done better for the time frame tbh.. unless they make it more of a FPS style like COD. There are different ammunitions to use, bow and arrow, etc. I personally felt it was pretty robust for the time period.

I think those cut-scenes are just a buffer for loading times of a new area?

I was talking about just overall smoothness of the action. I totally understand and agree that bullet, load times, and accuracy could have a degree of unsuitability and error just because it's a western. Just that Rockstar player movement in action and just overall like walking seems very heavy and clunky half of the time. Even though Jacky or whatever his name doesn't get into it, I do think their player model system is outdated.

It absolutely could be a buffer for loading times, so if it disregard that aspect.

 

[Bocephus86]

I think the idea that RDR was aimed at casuals is off base anyway. If you're just trying to get casuals, you don't alienate them with things like different outfits for different weather conditions and slow painful animations to open draws in the name of realism. They tried to aim at a more serious gamer at the same time. Same time being the emphasis there, because they tried to capture segments of multiple audiences, just like basically every game does.

It's one of the most Oscar bait type games of all time. They tried to tick every little award and reviewer box they could. And then they pushed realism to the point they compromised fun and ease of play, which I don't really think is playing down to the casual audience but really quite the opposite. Though the game is still easily accessible it branched away from being casual in a different way to skill trees and numbers. You don't make people need to clean their gun to keep the stats right if you're just targeting a casual audience. Unfortunately for them, I'm not sure there's really a whole lot of audience anywhere that appreciate glacial animations to open multiple different draws in the name of realism.

This makes sense, and it's a good point. I went a little far into the RPG stuff as I am a fan of RPGs & the things I felt were missing were RPG like additions.

I see your point now, thanks for clarifying.

 

[Dick Sledge]

Does anyone else have a love/hate relationship with this game?

I love it for what it is. I love the story, the environments, the characters and most of the missions.

I hate it for how janky it plays, how my bitch horse cries everytime I try to go fast. For the times I just want to get from A to B and end up dying because of the oh so awesome random encounters.

I can never play for more than an hour or 2 because of the frustrating things that happen that just make me want to stop and put it down. Because I also don't want to have to wait through the insane loading times. And yes, I understand that they are necessary.

 

[Chaels Arms]

How are you dying from random encounters though? TBH, I hardly ever died in this game. I think the only times I died were when I spent like 5 days in real life time trying to get a perfect panther pelt just because they materialize from behind you and can one shot kill you. Oh, and the duels that you get from the story missions because I just was never able to figure out how to do it properly.

Dead eye is one of the most overpowered game mechanics I've ever seen. Don't think I ever died from a random encounter.

 

[JJ68]

Its a western. Six shooters, repeaters, primitive scopes etc. I am not sure what they could of done better for the time frame tbh.. unless they make it more of a FPS style like COD. There are different ammunitions to use, bow and arrow, etc. I personally felt it was pretty robust for the time period.

I think those cut-scenes are just a buffer for loading times of a new area?

could have done...not could of. that doesnt even make sense yet people still type like that. If you want it shortened then it's could've.

 

[Morozov]

could have done...not could of. that doesn't even make sense yet people still type like that. If you want it shortened then it's could've.

While you're dishing lessons out...

 

[kmart]

i guess now that i waited for the release hype to settle i am going to buy the game, but i have some minor questions

pc or ps4 ?
is the character pre-created ? (like in fallout4... no matter if u are a ruthless raider, u also will be a caring father by design)
if there is a shoot-out, do enemies spawn endless if u stand on one spot ? or do they spawn at all ?

 

[Do Make Say Think]

Does anyone else have a love/hate relationship with this game?

I love it for what it is. I love the story, the environments, the characters and most of the missions.

I hate it for how janky it plays, how my ***** horse cries everytime I try to go fast. For the times I just want to get from A to B and end up dying because of the oh so awesome random encounters.

I can never play for more than an hour or 2 because of the frustrating things that happen that just make me want to stop and put it down. Because I also don't want to have to wait through the insane loading times. And yes, I understand that they are necessary.

Yes. Great story and characters, weak gameplay.

It's like a much better Bioshock Infinite. Not that hard since Bioshock Infinite was such a bore.

 

[Pay Carl]

i guess now that i waited for the release hype to settle i am going to buy the game, but i have some minor questions

pc or ps4 ?
is the character pre-created ? (like in fallout4... no matter if u are a ruthless raider, u also will be a caring father by design)
if there is a shoot-out, do enemies spawn endless if u stand on one spot ? or do they spawn at all ?

Well its not out available on PC so that settles that

You play as a character in the story mode, but online you make your own and there is a small story to it. You can change hair, beard, clothes, weight, etc of the main character during the story though

I don't think there are any parts of the game where enemies will just keep coming. Usually the game has you take care of a finite amount of enemies, when done you will move to a new area, rinse and repeat. They kind of keep you moving along so that doesn't happen. Of course if you go into a town and start committing crimes there will be an endless supply of lawmen and bounty hunters after you

 

[kmart]

thx for the clarification.
i am just reading through a few reviews and watching some yt clips and i must say the more i see the more i am leaning towards not buying it. the two main positives are the graphic/environment/big map and the story of course... knowing me that will be not enough to outweigh the massive grind that seems to follow you through all missions. following specific waypoints in such a big "free" world game is going to kill the fun for me. also the endless suppy of enemies if u commit a crime just screams grinding 24/7 to me. can i not just kill a village and own it like i could in skyrim... oh well. i think i pass.

but i notice a lot of free roam games are like this lately... the last witcher game was heavily script oriented as well.