It is even worse.
Atleast GTA5 had more vaierty in their missions and you didn't really have as much moments where you are likely to get a fail state (though it still did). This game is even worse.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
RDR2 lacks mission freedom.
- Thread starter Deleted member 5148
- Start date
Atleast GTA5 had more vaierty in their missions and you didn't really have as much moments where you are likely to get a fail state (though it still did). This game is even worse.
I beat the game with over 60 h,and I can say,even after 40 h,there is missions that feels like a tutorial.
No,it is not.
You clearly don't know what we are complain here.
Last edited:
In some missions it works, like the manor sequence. Most of the time I found myself wanting to flank or be stealthy and was penalized for literally thinking. I loved the game tho
1 developer of a 400+ employees Naughty Dog studio is posting something on his private twitter channel.
Neon Noir: "How dare you, Naughty Dog!"
I'm sorry you're right. Naughty Dog as a studio did not make any such statement. I should have been more specific.
I mean, that happened in Saint Denis. You're not just going to whip out a gun in the middle of a crowded city because someone stole your wallet. You should still have access to your lasso, admittedly, but people complaining about not being able to do things that your character wouldn't actually do... I don't get that. There's another mission where you specifically have to bring in people alive and you can't lasso them either because the game wants you to have a fistfight instead. So I agree with your basic point, I just wouldn't highlight that specific moment as an example.
I am so glad I saw this thread. I just put the controller down. I think of all the games I have ever owned, this has to be the one where I genuinely don't understand the high praise, not even remotely. Before I bought the game, I noticed such a big discrepancy between user reviews and critic scores, but I ignored them because I love the first game and have no problems with slower paced games. But this game is so damn rigid. The movement, lack of mission freedom, the controls. It LOOKS like the most modern game ever with its presentation, but I swear mechanically it plays like something from a decade ago. When the smoke and mirrors wear off in the coming years I do not think this game will be remembered as fondly to warrant the scores it received.
It's funny, because after GTAV my hope for the next game was that there would be a little more freedom to how you could plan and carry out the heist missions.
Fast-forward to RDR2 and...yikes.
Yeah. I think GTAV's mission design got a pass from a lot of people because the amount of things you can do in the open world between missions is absolutely staggering. There are certainly side activities in RDR2 but I think it's fair to say there isn't nearly as much to do as the average GTA game and the story missions here are a bit more of a focus in general. It really makes their rigid nature stand out compared to GTA entries.
No,I disagree with you,before that,I could whip out my gun any time I want in that city,right?Why this asshole steal me and suddenly Rockstar disabled my options,force me to smash X button by two blocks,and I am supposed to be an outlaw.
By the way,I tried to use the lace, whip out my gun or not is my decision.
I should have added a winky face since it was mostly tongue in cheek. I think the story in RDR2 is fantastic, but I do believe the way mission design is structures is so vastly opposite of how the rest of the game is set up that it breaks immersion to some degree.
yeah, it's rough. I always try to turn 180, run away. hide behind a rock, eat like four cans of beans and a tonic and start blasting. I'm like 2 for 8 on winning those things. If my horse Diego dies... I might as well reload the save.
There's the one covered bridge on the way to Saint Denis and I swear I get ambushed like 25% of the time I cross it. And they come from both sides and box you in. It's incredibly annoying. I mean, effective as an ambush spot, obviously. But come on now.
Yup, one of two occasions my horse died was an ambush.
The other was the gunslinger mission on the train, horse tried to follow even though I tied it up. Got obliterated by the train. Reloaded ofc
RDR2 is great in open world and dynamic events with NPCs and generally.
But id be lying if i said that Chapter 3, 4, and 5 were amazing. A lot of main missions felt like filler and a lot of side content was not satisfying. Aside from a few missions in the big city , i thought others there were like filler. For some reason. IF that makes sense
But id be lying if i said that Chapter 3, 4, and 5 were amazing. A lot of main missions felt like filler and a lot of side content was not satisfying. Aside from a few missions in the big city , i thought others there were like filler. For some reason. IF that makes sense
You turn to the wrong side,you are guilty,not Rockstar :/ , it's fine
Now,imagine stuff like that in a AC game,how much shit would have got by critics and users,I am currently playing AC Odyssey and it is like day and night.I have checkpoints like RDR2,but I don't fail if I enter in a fort by back,left or right,by aproaching by my way.
This almost killed the game for me,thanks is a little part of the game,but for this and other reasons,Marvel's Spiderman was nothing special for me,still a good game.
Last edited:
ND's encounters are way more dynamic. They're both linear games in ND's is more dynamic and let's you play creatively. They're small play spaces but they never play quite the same. In Rockstar's it's strict and guided, their encounters never feel like your meaningfully effecting them. Also the mission themselves were pretty repetitive.
I hope Rockstar's strict mission design is phased out. Their AI is also static, and never seems to do much beside pop into your view hoping to get shot.
I hope Rockstar's strict mission design is phased out. Their AI is also static, and never seems to do much beside pop into your view hoping to get shot.
Last edited:
Yeah, I agree. Multiple open world games utilize their world very well, and give more player agency, that RDR2 just feels dated to me.
They've definitely lost the open world crown for me.
They've definitely lost the open world crown for me.
For some reason I always managed to escape with a sprint. There is a curvy rode around the north part of the Tall Trees (you have to take it for the last Horseman sprint challenge) whete more than 10 skinners ambushed me almost all the time I rode there. Always escaped without a scratch.
Nonetheless ambushes are annoying as hell.
That moment was amazing,the best moment of the game until then,the music,atmosphere was amazing,I give you that,but once you are in the mansion,why the hell I can't flank?I am at a shoot out,it is the basic for any shooter.
And the benefit of this design in the followed cases? The other friend got failed the mission because he entered the wrong turn, the game does not even try to warn him of the error, as the NPC drawing his attention, as other games does, but not, mission failed, start all over again.
I love linear games,I love so many thinks about the story in RDR2,the characters,but this is terrible.
Last edited:
People compare playing Arthur Morgan to being an actor in a good film, but actors are supposed to put their own perspective into a role, and are usually allowed to ad lib in character. Playing RDR2 feels more like being the lighting best boy. If you angle the reflective screen 2 degrees wrong you get shouted at by the director and the take gets reshot.
Absolutely. I enjoyed roaming around and doing my own thing until that dried up and I ended up dropping it somewhere in Chapter 3. The story missions are absurdly shitty.
You're allowed to ad lib at times. For instance sometimes you can decide which question you ask first. On rare occasions the script is open enough to allow a choice, like leading the way or following other characters. But if you walk out of shot, or hide go to hide behind a real crate instead of the prop one they rigged to explode, it's "Cut!".
"Arthur, I know Charles' line is 'Let's investigate that camp', but the script - look here - your script says 'Follow Charles into the camp'. We haven't rehearsed approaching from the back, so if you could just stick to the script on this one that would be great. Alright, good, OK, ready and... action!".
What is this? Instant turnoff for me, I don't care if the PC version ever comes out now.
This is the wild west, I want to betray my gang members and kill them when I feel like it. Like how could you possibly mess that up?
This is the wild west, I want to betray my gang members and kill them when I feel like it. Like how could you possibly mess that up?
all i can add is that, having finally finished it a few days ago, my single, over-whelming reaction was one of relief. not amazement, or joy, or frustration, just relief. i was just so damned relieved to finally be done with the main game...
though i gotta admit
being free to now wander about, including through a compressed version of new austin, almost (but not quite) made the whole thing worth it :) ...
Actually I'm glad the story is a linear experience with great presentation and no open world sandbox gameplay as we see it in most games nowadays.
Yeah, the number of "Mission Failed"'s I saw for the dumbest things caused me to drop the game. Half the time it took me a few tries before I even realized why I failed.
Actor: "Leave the gun. Take the cannoli."
Rockstar: "Cuuuuuuuuuut! That wasn't in the script! We didn't hire you to display any sort of creativity. Just robotically follow this super awesome script we wrote where every scene involves going somewhere and having something go wrong. Again."
Rockstar: "Cuuuuuuuuuut! That wasn't in the script! We didn't hire you to display any sort of creativity. Just robotically follow this super awesome script we wrote where every scene involves going somewhere and having something go wrong. Again."
Obligatory "there's a difference between linearity and Rockstar's version of linearity".
The story missions are all glorified tutorials because half the time it's impossible to know how or where to go next to actually advance without the game just showing you.
Also you can play for 1000 hours and the game still spits out a massive box of text explaining what cover scent is every time you apply it to yourself.
The story missions are all glorified tutorials because half the time it's impossible to know how or where to go next to actually advance without the game just showing you.
Also you can play for 1000 hours and the game still spits out a massive box of text explaining what cover scent is every time you apply it to yourself.
I think once I understand how the game wants me to play it I adapt to that. I'm with not having every single game ever made from now on being completely open. It's somewhat like playing a horror game and expecting to laugh like it's meant to be a comedy or something.
I experiment in the beginning with mission structure and once I get a feel for how the game should be played I play it that way. If the game wants me to experiment and bend the rules and do crazy shit (like Dishonored or Phantom Pain for example) then cool. If it wants to tell a more linear story where I get to see scripted paths then that's fine too.
I don't want/need every game to be limitless. It doesn't bother me. We can call it "outdated" game design but I think there's a place for linear and methodical/controlled storytelling.
I experiment in the beginning with mission structure and once I get a feel for how the game should be played I play it that way. If the game wants me to experiment and bend the rules and do crazy shit (like Dishonored or Phantom Pain for example) then cool. If it wants to tell a more linear story where I get to see scripted paths then that's fine too.
I don't want/need every game to be limitless. It doesn't bother me. We can call it "outdated" game design but I think there's a place for linear and methodical/controlled storytelling.
However, despite my first post, I do think this the dead horse has been beaten to a pulp, then resurrected, and then beat several times over.
edit: just make the NakeyJakey video thread a megathread about this subject.
edit: just make the NakeyJakey video thread a megathread about this subject.
I just fired up the game a bit, I have not played it since November.
Didn't do any missions just rode around a bit shooting cows and other animals in the forest and chilled.
It's really nice to just cruise around on the horse when you are not hamstrung by the missions.. Maybe I'll just play it like this :)
There is much to like here outside of the story.
Didn't do any missions just rode around a bit shooting cows and other animals in the forest and chilled.
It's really nice to just cruise around on the horse when you are not hamstrung by the missions.. Maybe I'll just play it like this :)
There is much to like here outside of the story.
I even feel exploring the world is restrictive. I can't even get up a hill that isn't marked on the map as a road without falling back down it even on horseback.
Hell I can't even swim across calm waters without him losing all stamina in quicktime then dying. Game wasn't fun for me.
Hell I can't even swim across calm waters without him losing all stamina in quicktime then dying. Game wasn't fun for me.
Probably one of my biggest complaints with the game. I feel a lot of stress trying to guess where the boundaries of the mission design are a lot of times. I tend to like to play "wide", so I've run across those boundaries quite a few times.
Pretty much. I love linear games, but RDR2 tested the fuck out of my patience with the whole 'oh, you were a whole two seconds too far behind the character you're supposed to be following? FAILED.'
1000% this. The boundaries felt different for every other mission.The Naughty Dog comparison from earlier in the thread was interesting, because with ND games, for the most part, I know what the boundaries are for each level. I have to go from Point A to Point B, but there is freedom in how I want to go about it*. TLoU is good with this especially. It wasn't until doing a Grounded playthrough that I realized you really don't have to kill many enemies to get through levels, you just need to know how to get past them.
*That being said, I have memories of failing points of UC3 with Young Nate because I didn't go on the right direction (because I was confused as to where to go). Nate also had animation in UC3 where he'd brace himself against the wall if you came close to it, which was really bad if you were running away from something. Didn't have either issue in UC4 or TLL, though.
Yuuuuup
I doubt many people criticizing this game's approach to linear gameplay have any real problem with linear design as a whole.
It'll take until the next Rockstar game. Probably GTA VI.
Because almost every other open world developer is attempting to actually advance the core design of the genre.
Rockstar games are unmatched in their presentation and attention to detail but have since long been bested by other open world games in pretty much every other area.
Remember in vice city when you could get out of your car in a race and rocket launcher the whole starting lineup ? Those days are long gone it's like rockstar has spent all it's time since then figuring out how not to let you do shit like that. And fun levels have declined linear for me as well. That and the just excruciatingly slow pace of the game. I mean I just don't have an hour to waste hunting 2 animals down these days. I like the mechanics but most of the time it prevents me bothering to load the game at all unless I've got >1hr to play
In Witcher 3, you can abandon a mission without it failing, having the freedom to return to it when you so choose. Even better, you are allowed multiple paths to completing missions in Witcher 3, many of them being flexible in how they're completed. No such freedom exists in RDR2. The idea of player agency is completely foreign to the game, your role as a player serving no other purpose than to guide Arthur through glorified cut scenes, the illusion of input always shattered when you decide to step outside of the boundaries Rockstar has drawn. Who cares how dynamic and free the side content is when the narrative weight of the game, the story-based missions, are so inflexible and dependent on you following a set path from which deviation means failure? Is it a gorgeous game, unparalleled in the presentation of its world? Without question. Is the actual gameplay fun? Outside of the side content, no.
There's a very good reason Vice City is regarded by so many gamers as the absolute cream of the crop by Rockstar. It is, in my opinion, the very best game they've ever made. If San Andreas didn't have so much bloat, it'd be up there.
There's a very good reason Vice City is regarded by so many gamers as the absolute cream of the crop by Rockstar. It is, in my opinion, the very best game they've ever made. If San Andreas didn't have so much bloat, it'd be up there.
It's crazy how people cant accept this. I though it was the perfect balance. Story missions for a tight scripted story event, and open world gameplay for everything else.