It's NOT the best part of the games by any stretch of the imagination.
I still had more fun with it than I had with GoW's combat.
RDR2 released a year ago and I can't stop thinking how incredible it was
- Thread starter Segafreak
- Start date
It's NOT the best part of the games by any stretch of the imagination.
I still had more fun with it than I had with GoW's combat.
I don't think aging well is an intrinsic part of being a good game. Otherwise stylized games would always be better than realistic looking ones.
Nah I think you can more accurately gauge stuff with the passage of a little bit of time. Gives you a better perspective. When stuff comes out you are often too close to it.
The review disaparity is silly to me. Witcher 3 has more player agency, at least as good narrative and writing, a well realised world (although not as meticulously contructed), and as good OST. To be honest I think it shows how arbitrary comparisions are. RDR2 does some things really, really well, but other things pretty poorly (player agency in missions). To me it felt like a playable TV series which is cool...but the gameplay could have been much more involved.
What are you talking about? I'm 110% agreeing with you. What you said are cold hard objective facts. No one can possibly refute that.
Of course gow is considered by industry game of generation. Breath of the wild? More like breath of trite. Witcher 3? That gwent simulator has no chance. Bloodborne? More like blood none. All those games have no chance to stand against God of War. No matter what industry people say. No matter where those games appear in top 100s of all time lists.
And I absolutely agree with you there's nothing where rdr 2 has the upper edge over Gow. Even repeating enemies and bosses, God of War has the upper hand there too
People in 2019 do not treat it as a landmark moment.
It's an amazing western with some special traits to it, but it's no landmark game of any kind.
Im dying to replay. And i was set to do it on my new 1X but then PC happened so im waiting for december impatiently
Might be a landmark title for those who are into westerns probably? I just can't after the shitty mission fail states.
Arthur's drawing book illustrates the problem I have with this game : extremely well crafted on details but unachieved on the long run. Artists who have draw his diary gave him a nice personality, but it's not enough compared to his the length and the pacing of the story.
Arthur is clearly in line with other Rockstar (modern) heros, someone who is doing what he does to stop having to do it. Someone who wants to hang up gloves and trying to interpret a traumatic event that had more or less put him in the mess.
Michael/Trevor and a failed heist both forced to recover a debt in GTA V ; Max haunted by the massacre of his family forced to re-up bullets in Max Payne 3 ; Nico Bellic and a betrayal during Balkan wars forced to cover his brother in GTA IV ; John Marston and his disbanded gang forced to recover his freedom for a private agency in RDR ; Cole Phelbes and his ambiguous pacific war medal forced to resignation to not compromise his integrity in L.A. NOIRE ; a failed and unclear bank robbery that forced the gang to flee, and their will to establish a quieter life in RDR2.
So that structure is very efficient in theory, and R* has achieved a great use of it. The double inversed narrative movement - advancing in the story to decipher the past, and the professional contradiction - doing dirty stuff to clean yourself - fits extremely well both the action and the narration.
But here we have the first problem of RDR2 : nothing will be explained about that traumatic past event. We won't never know anything about what happened in Blackwater while everyone talk about it during the game, everything will stay in the fog. There I think is the reason why people can feel the story a bit repetitive, rather than learning something, they are just doing same mistakes again and again.
And the second problem is the incoherent morality of the game, where contradiction aren't hanged by characters but induced by them. Why it's immoral to let a snitch dying alone by failing off a cliff but moral to shot in the back a creepy homeless crawling in his own vomit? Why the Marston's kid, after having passed ten years on the road with gangsters, being threatened by Pinkerton's shotguns, kidnapped by the mob and expressed his will to become a thug is suddenly a moral authority when John is forced to shoot bounty hunters?
And the list of incoherencies goes on. Now try to answer this question : why Micah is so bad and why Dutch is so mad ? Try with facts - situational, biographic, psychological - not interpretation. Something clearly stated by the game as a description, not a consequence. And (no) suprise : you can't. You won't find anything that can explain the madness of Dutch by other reason that he's mad and the same for the cruelty of Micah.
I can give you easy answers about why Freddy Krueger, Darth Vader, Jason, Leatherface, Michael Myers or the Joker are mad, bad, or both. And the list goes to Oedipus, Cruella de Vil, Fedor Karamazov or Richard III. But it's impossible in RDR2, characters won't move from the archetype of their first apparence. Sure that they are extremely detailed, but fridged in their role.
And so the Arthur's fate, jeez... Why the fuck do they chose to let him starve in the player's imagination during all the playtrough ? Why show me in an ostensible slow-motion, a man dying of tuberculosis spiting on Arthur's face during the first 5 hours of the game ? I don't need a grade in medecine to know how it will end in a time without antibiotic.
So, at the end of the tutorial (start of thr Ch3), you have already figure everyting, because everything is spoiled by writers themselves. For Arthur but also for important members of the gang. And it wouldn't be a problem if the journey was varied, but as I show it, they are all tied down the railroad of their fate, with no asperity or facet for their roles.
Arthur is clearly in line with other Rockstar (modern) heros, someone who is doing what he does to stop having to do it. Someone who wants to hang up gloves and trying to interpret a traumatic event that had more or less put him in the mess.
Michael/Trevor and a failed heist both forced to recover a debt in GTA V ; Max haunted by the massacre of his family forced to re-up bullets in Max Payne 3 ; Nico Bellic and a betrayal during Balkan wars forced to cover his brother in GTA IV ; John Marston and his disbanded gang forced to recover his freedom for a private agency in RDR ; Cole Phelbes and his ambiguous pacific war medal forced to resignation to not compromise his integrity in L.A. NOIRE ; a failed and unclear bank robbery that forced the gang to flee, and their will to establish a quieter life in RDR2.
So that structure is very efficient in theory, and R* has achieved a great use of it. The double inversed narrative movement - advancing in the story to decipher the past, and the professional contradiction - doing dirty stuff to clean yourself - fits extremely well both the action and the narration.
But here we have the first problem of RDR2 : nothing will be explained about that traumatic past event. We won't never know anything about what happened in Blackwater while everyone talk about it during the game, everything will stay in the fog. There I think is the reason why people can feel the story a bit repetitive, rather than learning something, they are just doing same mistakes again and again.
And the second problem is the incoherent morality of the game, where contradiction aren't hanged by characters but induced by them. Why it's immoral to let a snitch dying alone by failing off a cliff but moral to shot in the back a creepy homeless crawling in his own vomit? Why the Marston's kid, after having passed ten years on the road with gangsters, being threatened by Pinkerton's shotguns, kidnapped by the mob and expressed his will to become a thug is suddenly a moral authority when John is forced to shoot bounty hunters?
And the list of incoherencies goes on. Now try to answer this question : why Micah is so bad and why Dutch is so mad ? Try with facts - situational, biographic, psychological - not interpretation. Something clearly stated by the game as a description, not a consequence. And (no) suprise : you can't. You won't find anything that can explain the madness of Dutch by other reason that he's mad and the same for the cruelty of Micah.
I can give you easy answers about why Freddy Krueger, Darth Vader, Jason, Leatherface, Michael Myers or the Joker are mad, bad, or both. And the list goes to Oedipus, Cruella de Vil, Fedor Karamazov or Richard III. But it's impossible in RDR2, characters won't move from the archetype of their first apparence. Sure that they are extremely detailed, but fridged in their role.
And so the Arthur's fate, jeez... Why the fuck do they chose to let him starve in the player's imagination during all the playtrough ? Why show me in an ostensible slow-motion, a man dying of tuberculosis spiting on Arthur's face during the first 5 hours of the game ? I don't need a grade in medecine to know how it will end in a time without antibiotic.
So, at the end of the tutorial (start of thr Ch3), you have already figure everyting, because everything is spoiled by writers themselves. For Arthur but also for important members of the gang. And it wouldn't be a problem if the journey was varied, but as I show it, they are all tied down the railroad of their fate, with no asperity or facet for their roles.
Last edited:
I do. A lot of people I know including me won't buy Yakuza 7 because of the new combat.
If combat wasn't good then I wouldn't have played the games as much as I do now.
Yup, I've been speaking to people over the weekend and the main thing I hear about red dead 2...."no game has made me feel that way"
people showing me their hairs standing on edge while they discuss Arthur. Their feelings when they heard his voice on the latest pc trailer. It sounds like hyperbole but faults aside it's one of the best stories in gaming ever.
I think rdr2 is a special thing. I enjoyed the minute to minute combat of god of war but it didn't land anywhere near rdr2 in the story department or overall feeling.
the long pan to get the thing will always be remembered, though. In gow
I think the world that was built in RDR2 is incredible and absolutely an achievement as far as open world games go...but I really didn't enjoy the gameplay. I totally think GTA6 will outdo it and will do so by a wide margin (or possibly Cyberpunk 2077).
I love games that aren't afraid to rip out your heart. Few games have evoked the feeling I had when
Arthur made his confession
I'm looking forward to playing through it a second time but might wait for a hopeful PS5 remaster.
Not really, its a dumb story with dumb characters who cant get past their own selves. The only one managing to do so is Charles
This is so weird. Noone I talk with - even the ones that adored the game - ever mentions the game. It might be mentioned in discussions about open world games but noone seemed affected by it, just impressed with the scope.
Yikes. In such denial that you are trying to make a joke about it. Woooo. I guess that's what happens when you think one way, and everyone else thinks another. Gotta joke about it to make it seem like you are ok.
😖😫
Anyway. Can't wait to see what wins GOTY next year.
One of the greatest main characters of all time wasted on an incredibly dumb story that gets boring within the first hour.
In terms of the world Rockstar built its incredible and something only they could do, but that also just feels like they have a the budget to allow it. It really does feel like a really expensive game with some huge flaws
In terms of the world Rockstar built its incredible and something only they could do, but that also just feels like they have a the budget to allow it. It really does feel like a really expensive game with some huge flaws
Game was fantastic beginning to end. Reminds me that I want to do another run taking my time and playing evil arthur hehe. I sort of rushed a bit the first time because I didn't want to have the story ruined by reading/seeing stuff online
I mean, even by sheer force of money thrown to it (and talent and time) there is nothing like it - it stands alone.
I haven't given it a second thought since completing it last year.
Technically impressive, good story, combined with gameplay that sucked balls, janky mission structure, fucking forced walking in the camp (made worse in the camp with a house where you have to go in and go up a flight of stairs in slo-mo), painful mechanics for picking up items and searching drawers.
i think the pc version with the help of modders can fix a lot of the wonky things I found wrong with the game.
Technically impressive, good story, combined with gameplay that sucked balls, janky mission structure, fucking forced walking in the camp (made worse in the camp with a house where you have to go in and go up a flight of stairs in slo-mo), painful mechanics for picking up items and searching drawers.
i think the pc version with the help of modders can fix a lot of the wonky things I found wrong with the game.
A very bad game with an amazing open world, story and protagonist. At the end it felt like work and I struggled to finish it. After the credits rolled I instantly deleted it, sold my copy and never looked back.
In the future I would love to see Rockstar getting their gameplay and mission design on the same level as the rest. Imagine a RDR3 where they actually trust the players to aim for themselves and where they just drop a mission in front of you and say: 'hey dude, this and this has to be done, these are the tools at your disposal, doesn't matter how you do it, but get it done.'
In the future I would love to see Rockstar getting their gameplay and mission design on the same level as the rest. Imagine a RDR3 where they actually trust the players to aim for themselves and where they just drop a mission in front of you and say: 'hey dude, this and this has to be done, these are the tools at your disposal, doesn't matter how you do it, but get it done.'
Yea I agree with that, I think it really excels at the side bits of the game (like the amount of animal types and breeds they have in the game is absurd). While the main parts of it are lacking.
More power to anyone who loved it though
In my eyes:
Best story? Yes.
Best protagonist? Yes.
Best supporting characters? Yes.
Best open world? Yes.
Best dialogue? Yes.
Best animations? Yes.
Best graphics? Yes.
Best side content? Yes.
Probably quite a few things I am missing but absolutely no way a game comes close to matching the level of this until GTA VI.
Best story? Yes.
Best protagonist? Yes.
Best supporting characters? Yes.
Best open world? Yes.
Best dialogue? Yes.
Best animations? Yes.
Best graphics? Yes.
Best side content? Yes.
Probably quite a few things I am missing but absolutely no way a game comes close to matching the level of this until GTA VI.
I say Arthur gets past himself in the end i disagree with you sorry
The core gameplay is probably the weakest part of the game (which is obviously a problem) but all the periphery aspects are top notch. I mean I would have paid $60 for it as full on hunting simulator if they fleshed that part out a little bit more. Hunting a rare panther in the woods at night with headphones is some of the most immersive shit I've ever experienced in a video game.
Arthur ultimately sees the futile of the life he lived at the very end, i call that changing
My biggest memory of playing RDR2 is era fanboys telling me to ignore the bugs that broke story parts of the camp and just continue with the main story reassuring me it's just minor stuff while maintaining against every legit criticism that it's the details that make the game amazing.
I liked the story but honestly I feel like a ton of people throw out their critical brain into the garbage can when talking about this game becoming unable to admit even the most factual and objective assessments. Having to read through nonsense like "It's not that the wanted system is broken and that it can be ridiculously exploited it's just the naysayers not really understanding it" was insanely obnoxious. There is literally videos on there showcasing the brokenness of the wanted system and exploiting it with the train system.
Honestly on some level I feel like media assessment on this game was very diablo 3 like in a certain way but I guess there is a strong subjective argument that somehow all reviewers felt the same whereas with D3 there is at least the factual argument of reviewers not doing their job properly.
I liked the story but honestly I feel like a ton of people throw out their critical brain into the garbage can when talking about this game becoming unable to admit even the most factual and objective assessments. Having to read through nonsense like "It's not that the wanted system is broken and that it can be ridiculously exploited it's just the naysayers not really understanding it" was insanely obnoxious. There is literally videos on there showcasing the brokenness of the wanted system and exploiting it with the train system.
Honestly on some level I feel like media assessment on this game was very diablo 3 like in a certain way but I guess there is a strong subjective argument that somehow all reviewers felt the same whereas with D3 there is at least the factual argument of reviewers not doing their job properly.
Like, when you make a list of bests and 3/4 of it is just one thing (narrative) but gameplay is nowhere to be seen, you know that this has to be a very divisive game.
He sees it from the moment he has a casual date with his ex wife and proceed to never change because of his self inflicted responsibilities and unwillingness to adapt at all. Everything he does is going back to a place never making him feel fulfilled or happy. He does so because he's afraid of being on his own.
No, Arthur doesn't change. He's just contemplating what he truly wants, with you along the ride
Even the pinkertons were not that awful toward him truth be told and tried being reasonable at the beginning
There are amazing characters in the game but the overall writing and story is really not that good. That's why I said a memorable cast is always way more important than the actual story because that's what people remember mostly.
Which game did you play?
It's a special thing.
it looked nice but for me the story/gameplay just didn't do anything. found it extremely tedious and boring.
I had fun playing it last year and the world in particular was extremely impressive.
But tbh, it wasn't nearly as memorable for me as the first game. I have no desire to actually go back and replay RDR2. Every time I think about doing that, I remember how much of a chore certain aspects of the game were.
But tbh, it wasn't nearly as memorable for me as the first game. I have no desire to actually go back and replay RDR2. Every time I think about doing that, I remember how much of a chore certain aspects of the game were.
But how can that be true, when in 2019 its a benchmark for open world games, for voice acting, for story and world setting, no other game release compares to the magnitude of its openness and systems available to you as a player.
I mean we're still talking about how breathtaking it is, with the PC version about to be released prepare yourself for further adulation and recognition to be directed towards it.
Still need to play it someday.
I didn't get far in GTAV because it didn't really feel fun to play in any way. it was great to be in a well realised open world. but the moment to moment gameplay was increadibly dull. partly because the auto-aiming system, and partly because of the clunky feel of the characters.
from what i've heard, RDR2 just doubles down in both aspects.
I didn't get far in GTAV because it didn't really feel fun to play in any way. it was great to be in a well realised open world. but the moment to moment gameplay was increadibly dull. partly because the auto-aiming system, and partly because of the clunky feel of the characters.
from what i've heard, RDR2 just doubles down in both aspects.
It's open world has unique aspects to it, like the more advanced NPC dynamics, but it isn't a huge step up, just a welcome leap.
Voice acting is not the best the industry has seen. It's good, but it doesn't set a new bar.
The world setting is moreso a niche remark to take note on, because there just aren't many western games, so it's doing something for the western genre, but that doesn't really say much about what it does for gaming as a whole.
There are plenty of other games with more complex gameplay systems going on. Breath of the Wild has it's chemistry system, Dwarf Fortress has significant more complexity that can build up via it's systems, and old-school roguelikes tend to have infinitely more complexity in it's systems as well.
I wouldn't consider the game all that breathtaking either. It's graphical fidelity is absolutely top-notch, but I rarely stopped much to soak in it. It just didn't have that pull that often.
I actually enjoyed the gameplay and it was a really good game overall, but it just hasn't been a landmark for the industry. Really nothing this generation has.
Ive just been at EGX and it may be due to the PC trailer, but nearly every group of people I spoke to mentioned the game and discussions how blown away they were by it.