Red Dead Redemption 2 - now available on PC

[TheHeroOfTime]

 

[AwesomeButton]

Well basically the game main story is just a setup to the breakup of Dutch's Band and John falling out with it but since that isnt really much to go with that you just end up with a stretched campaign with somewhat disjointed stories as there is simply not enough material for that, also it have the *slight* side-effect of making Dutch being a incompetent leader because robberies tend to play out as GTA V Heists if you picked every wrong option, might make then exciting to play but since the end up going all wrong kinda hard to understand why following such a screw up in the first place.

I was seriously expecting that Arthur overtakes Dutch as gang leader and starts planning heists in the same way as in GTA V (only if possible more complex, hahaha, the naivety). Seeing this hasn't happened yet, and I guess I'm nearing the final third or quarter of the story is rather disappointing.

 

[Alienman]

Finished the game (spoilers below).

Prequels always suck.

After 60 hours I came to the conclusion that the story of Arthur and the decline of Dutch's gang was a story that didn't needed to be told. There is basically nothing of interest that happens during those 60 hours, except that we get to know the main guy behind Red Dead Redemption a bit more. But I'm not sure it required a 60 hour game for that though. Arthur dies, regardless of your honor. He dies of tuberculoses watching the sunset if you are a good guy, or shot or stabbed if you are a bad guy, so all you did during the game is for nothing. Even your horse dies at the end. It's a sad moment for sure, but you kinda knew it was coming at the 40 hour mark - this was the downfall after all. The worst part of this is that those 60 hours are wasted because Arthur is never again mentioned (not what I remember anyway). You get the sense that he influenced Marston to become the man he is in RDR and RDR2 epilogue, but that's it. That could have been an elaborate cut-scene or something.

And when talking about the epilogue - it's freaking huge! You get to play Marston, before and during his ranching days. So you get to suffer on the brink of starvation with your family after escaping Dutch. Then slowly build your life back up again and eventually get that ranch you see at the end of RDR. This should have been the game instead, if it now has to be prequel. I do appreciate Rockstar for adding this though, with this amount of detail but like I said, it should have have been the real game instead. It actually feels like you are building up to something, even if you know how it ends. The ranch is owned by the bank, and it would have made perfect sense to base the main game around that - do you take the easy way out and rob to repay that loan? Or do you work the hard life to stay legal? Instead we got Arthur, a nice bandit character I guess, but with zero real impact on things, because the story was already set in stone. You don't really work towards anything, because Dutch and others constantly fuck up and you have to move camp. Not only that - you come equipped with the knowledge that the gang would be split up at some point. Those 60 hours spent felt like (outside of hunting and other side activities) pointless from a story perspective. And Dutch wasn't even that interesting in RDR. You don't interact with him much. He is the main bad guy hiding away in a cave somewhere, a bit like Colonel Kurtz, just there to move the story forward. I'm actually not sure why they picked Arthur at all when I think about it, why not go with Marston in this story too? The connection would be there, and stuff wouldn't feel this pointless after completion even knowing his fate.

Best would just have been to continue with Marstons son. I would have liked that, ushering in a new age. Oh well, maybe in a dlc?

 

[HoboForEternity]

so yeah, keep quiet, prey on gullible highly compulsive people to ge them to buy twice. at this point i dont know which to blame the greedy bastards or the idiots

 

[Dexter]

so yeah, keep quiet, prey on gullible highly compulsive people to ge them to buy twice. at this point i dont know which to blame the greedy bastards or the idiots

Wasn't this a cross-gen release? XBox360/PS3 in Sep 2013, then XBone/PS4 in Nov 2014 and PC in April 2015. Makes a lot of sense why people might have bought it twice and I don't really begrudge them doing this. Apparently people just can't wait, I just bought the PC version after release, same thing I'll do here.

They had actually put in a lot of extra work and polished up the assets etc. too:

 

[AwesomeButton]

so yeah, keep quiet, prey on gullible highly compulsive people to ge them to buy twice. at this point i dont know which to blame the greedy bastards or the idiots

This is very encouraging, means that the PC release is coming without a shadow of a doubt.

 

[RNGsus]

I've reached (in the LP) St. Denis. I am quite convinced that the scriptwriting takes a nosedive somewhere after Horseshoe Overlook, and goes from the realism or at least plausibility of the prologue into GTA V territory by the time you meet the first evil boss in St. Denis.

IMO the game could have ended with the end of the family feud region, and nothing bad could have been said about it or its length.

Never played 5, but every GTA has a plausible first act, then spirals out into an idiotic late story. Its kinda their appeal, because a sandbox is for being stupid in.

 

[Drakron]

Best would just have been to continue with Marstons son. I would have liked that, ushering in a new age. Oh well, maybe in a dlc?

Problem with that is Jack was born in 1895 and when you play as him in RDR its 1914 so the Wild West is well over, WWI is starting so you really are at the end of it and that is the problem with Red Dead Redemption were it takes place at the twilight and thematically story-wise it makes sense, its the end of John life for better or worst as the world he grew in is changing ... and there is no sequel timewise because its the end of the Wild West.

Also this is perhaps why RDR2 is weak, they did a prequel since they had to but then decided to still be about Dutch's gang but as RDR have that feeling that the Old West is coming to a end, RDR2 doesnt really have it and since Arthur story is rather weak then its a nice sandbox but its kinda on rails because thats how Rockstar story missions go these days but since there is really no theme but rather a attempt to frame RDR story its just comes across as a unnecessary and pointless since they didnt really do anything with the characters, hell even playing as John from the start would perhaps been better that Gang Camp Simulator 1895.

 

[Alienman]

Problem with that is Jack was born in 1895 and when you play as him in RDR its 1914 so the Wild West is well over, WWI is starting so you really are at the end of it and that is the problem with Red Dead Redemption were it takes place at the twilight and thematically story-wise it makes sense, its the end of John life for better or worst as the world he grew in is changing ... and there is no sequel timewise because its the end of the Wild West.

It wouldn't be a western in the classic sense, that's what I meant with ushering a new age. John dies when there still was a wild west, but his son will grow up in modern world. I think it would have been a great continuation, and the redemption story is already set up for his son - with him killing his fathers killer. There is several ways to expand on it too, with him serving in the great war and getting disillusioned with modern civilization, maybe later turning into a life of crime?

Actually you could still have a lot of "western" in the game if needed. The game just have to start at that point where the epilogue starts in RDR2. Then when RDR takes place you make the jump to his son, maybe starting with him getting to experience the horrors of the modern world, aka the war to end all wars.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Sadly, Rockstar doesn't have the writing talent to treat these themes in the way in which we'd like to see them treated.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

They had actually put in a lot of extra work and polished up the assets etc. too:

Fuck the visuals. I want expanded story and gameplay.

 

[Sam Ecorners]

Anyone gonna post the compilation of butthurt?

 

[Gerrard]

so yeah, keep quiet, prey on gullible highly compulsive people to ge them to buy twice. at this point i dont know which to blame the greedy bastards or the idiots

This is very encouraging, means that the PC release is coming without a shadow of a doubt.

And if you buy it, then you're just as retarded as those people on the chart.

 

[AwesomeButton]

Pirating it will be a nightmare if I will have to look for pirated updates to add on top of the pirated release.

 

[Drakron]

It wouldn't be a western in the classic sense, that's what I meant with ushering a new age.

It would not be a western period.

John dies when there still was a wild west, but his son will grow up in modern world.

John is 19 when RDR ends in 1912 so he already grown up, following it will be The Roaring 20's and then the Great Depression so there is a rather large shift with prohibition starting in 1920 that yes, there is room but its not going to be a Western and more like Gangster.

I think it would have been a great continuation, and the redemption story is already set up for his son - with him killing his fathers killer. There is several ways to expand on it too, with him serving in the great war and getting disillusioned with modern civilization, maybe later turning into a life of crime?

And I dont think so because it would chain the series to the Marston Family, plus by setting it on the Roaring 20's it would be very close to GTA.

Actually you could still have a lot of "western" in the game if needed. The game just have to start at that point where the epilogue starts in RDR2. Then when RDR takes place you make the jump to his son, maybe starting with him getting to experience the horrors of the modern world, aka the war to end all wars.

We dont have many western games and I dont give a flying fuck to the Marston family, RDR2 weakness is how it had to tie to RDR and thus had to follow rails ... it was a story without mystery with a foregone conclusion, I wish they did something with Arthur besides "errant boy that dies because he isnt on the sequel" and I say again, the issue is by chaining thenselves to Dutch Gang they made a story that nobody really wanted to know and worst of all, they made a story nobody really cares because nothing changes outside one decision that ultimately have no impact.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

I don't get why they tie it to the Marsten Family and the Dutch Schultz gang.
There were so many goddamn gangs and outlaws in that short, 15 to 20 year period that the Wild West really was.

 

[Drakron]

I don't get why they tie it to the Marsten Family and the Dutch Schultz gang.

Storyfags have to storyfag I guess.

There were so many goddamn gangs and outlaws in that short, 15 to 20 year period that the Wild West really was.

30 actually, 1865-1895 and we could go back to say the Mexican-American War as there is a lot to cover during the settlement period, it started to die out due to the territories rising to statehood that of course increased law enforcement presence as a result.

I would say to the the Wild in Wild West it have to be somewhat lawless so you can pull of the outlaw without ending up being weird, its not the same as the gangster era since there was law and police presence as well the BOI/FBI and its a entirely different feeling as a outlaw is someone that its out of the law as a gangster is above the law, one knows if he gets caught he likely gets hanged as the other knows if he gets caught by the law he just have to wait for a bit before he gets loose.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

so yeah, keep quiet, prey on gullible highly compulsive people to ge them to buy twice. at this point i dont know which to blame the greedy bastards or the idiots

This is why I have a strict policy of never buying a game I already own for another platform. Its always a scam, the extras are *never* worth it.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

Thoughts on Red Dead Redemption 2 (No spoilers)
Hey there! So, I finally finished Red Dead Redemption 2. Or, there about. There’s a huge great epilogue but I think I’ve had my fill on this one. Instead, I wanted to offer up some spoiler free thoughts on the game’s design, and also see what you all thought about this one!
Ride ‘Em Cowboy

Overall, I’m left pretty disappointed by the game - and that’s largely because it feels staggeringly dated in its core design.

A lot has happened in open world games in the last eight years, since the release of Red Dead Redemption 1.

Shadow of Mordor focused on relationships and procedurally generated stories. Ubisoft’s recent games went hard on systemic interactions to create crazy anecdotes of rampaging elephants (Far Cry) and gang warfare (Watch Dogs 2). Metal Gear Solid V took immersive sim agency into the open world. And Zelda Breath of the Wild blurred the line between the main and side quests, and built an entire chemistry system to play with.

RDR 2 has tiny pinches of this - a stranger might remember you from a sidequest. There’s some light fire propagation. There are some opportunities to make choices - but for the most part, it’s using the exact same structure and gameplay as the first Red Dead.

Mission Failed

You can feel this most vividly during the game’s main missions.

Like most Rockstar games, these missions are extremely restrictive in what you’re allowed to do. The game constantly tells you what to do, with a pop up command at the bottom of the screen, and if you don’t follow this script to the letter you’ll be hit with a “Failed” screen.

I’ve failed missions for trying to flank around the bad guys - that’s counted as leaving my crew behind. I’ve failed for trying to take enemies out using stealth, instead of loud gunfire. I’ve failed for trying to solve problems in creative ways. I’ve failed because I broke the law - never mind that I’m playing as an outlaw, and the game has a whole police response system built in.

The missions can also remove mechanics arbitrarily. In one, I wasn’t allowed to take my gun off my horse. In another, I wasn’t allowed to whistle for my horse so I had to chase on foot. And the bandit mask system works randomly during missions - most of the time you’ll still get a huge price on your head and have to use most of your earnings from that mission to pay off your bounty.

Unfortunately, most of the missions are also simply quite dull. There’s so much riding towards waypoints. Waiting for characters to do stuff. Listening to people go on and on. Bad insta-fail stealth missions. Endless cover-based shootouts that feel like they’re from the previous generation. Following characters as they walk slowly through the woods.

There are some standouts here and there, which I won’t spoil. And the musical choices frequently elevate things. But most are completely forgettable. And in a world of games like The Witcher 3, where almost every quest is memorable, that’s a disappointment.

Cowboy Simulator

Outside of missions, the game shines a lot, lot harder.

One of my favourite sessions with the game was when I purposefully ignored the main story. I simply explored the world for a while. I robbed a man for his treasure map, and followed it to find hidden gold. I stumbled upon a strange skeleton in the mountains. Tracked and fought legendary animals. Got ambushed by rival gangs.

This stuff is a lot more interesting. It feels more dynamic, and less like you’re following a predetermined script. The game is also more open in how you approach things. An escaped prisoner might appear with chains around his ankles. You can shoot them to free him, or simply hogtie him and take him to the Sheriff’s office to get a big bounty.

This is also just a vividly beautiful game, and the world is begging for you to explore it. Though, it has that age-old open world problem of the outer reaches of the world (like some of the bigger towns) feeling kind of dead until you reach them in the story.

The problem is that the game still has a stark divide between main missions (heavily scripted stuff that pushes you towards the next chapter) and side content (optional stuff that has very little impact on the game).

So, like a lot of (older) open world games, it feels like you’re either working or wasting time.

Camp Cowboy

And the annoying thing is: the game almost had an interesting solution for this! You see, the game’s got this camp thing going on, where your band of outlaws is hanging out in the wilderness. And the idea is that everyone is contributing to the camp.

You can put money into a tin to boost funds, or bring back meat so people can eat, or do side missions for friends like finding them items in the wild.

The problem is: none of this matters. At all.

It’s worth putting some money in the money tin so you can buy a map (which unlocks fast travel), but beyond that it makes no difference. The game’s way too easy for you to care about any benefits it might provide Arthur. And the other only thing it affects is how characters talk to you in the camp: they might grumble about not having enough food or you not pulling your weight. But that’s it.

It can be fun to do this stuff from a role playing perspective, I suppose. But it could have been so much better.

Imagine a system where the only way to finish the chapter is to put a significant amount of money into the camp funds. Now, everything you do in the game is working towards that central goal: go treasure hunting, hunt animals and sell their fur, do bounty missions, rob trains, ambush stagecoaches. Everything you do gets you a little closer to the next chapter, and there’s no longer a weird divide between main and side content.

Okay, yeah, I stole this from Breath of the Wild where you’re simply training Link to be strong enough to face Ganon, so everything you do in the game is made meaningful. (Also this system could have all sorts of interesting consequences, like having rival gangs try to steal from the camp. Or putting real consequences on dying before you can get back to the camp to bank your latest earnings).

As it stands, though, the game feels like it has a split personality - between the more freeform sandbox stuff, and the super restrictive missions. I could say that about any Rockstar game, but at this point, and with so many games innovating on the genre, I’m bored of giving Rockstar a free pass.

Shoot or shoot

Another thing that frustrates me is that you are so limited in how you can interact with the world.

Okay, so the game does have a system where you can “talk” to anyone in the game, and do things like greet people, antagonise them, and try to defuse situations. And that’s really cool - it’s great to have a game where you can interact with NPCs in more ways than just shooting or slugging them.

But it’s very limited in scope. It’s not exactly Fallout. It’s not even Fallout 4, to be honest. And most interactions with NPCs ended with me either walking away or shooting. Or their AI going a bit weird. In one instance, I agreed to help someone, then accidentally nudged them with my horse. They ran away, screaming at me like I was a murderer and there was no way to apologise.

But even when you do go violent, the game doesn’t give you many verbs to play with. You can’t create a distraction, like in MGS V, so you can sneak into a camp unnoticed. You can’t steal weapons while enemies sleep, like in BOTW, so they wake up unarmed. You can’t create traps (Metal Gear), lead the law into gang territory (Watch Dogs 2), boobytrap alarms (Assassin’s Creed Origins), and so on. It’s often shoot, or shoot.

Realism

The big buzz word surrounding Red Dead is realism. You can bathe! Your beard grows in real time! Your horse’s testicles expand and shrink depending on the temperature! Arthur can physically open up cupboard doors and chests to look for loot! The animations, volume of voice acting, and tiny details are certainly impressive.

But it’s a mixed bag for me.

What I do like is that the game isn’t littered with HUD elements and menus and other tacky stuff. Compare this to Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, where every character has a garish outline and a health bar. And there’s a trillion pop-up notifications on screen. And so on. Red Dead feels grounded and tactile and real - it’s lot less gamey.

But sometimes "gamey" is fine. You don’t want to watch a detailed animation every time you skin an animal, or loot a body, or pick a flower. You start to realise why most games just make that stuff teleport into your pocket. It’s not because the devs are lazy - it’s because that stuff gets boring. Fast.

Like, the game’s got this really detailed menu for shopping where you flip through an old fashioned catalogue of hats, or whatever. But that’s really cumbersome, so it also has the exact same information in a different, more video gamey menu that’s easier to use.

And also there’s an uncanny valley effect going on here. The more the game tries to seem realistic, the more surprising it is when the game won’t let you do stuff.

Oh, and it’s also impossible to look at this stuff without thinking about the reported worker conditions at Rockstar. I would happily trade away things like realistic footprints and animals doing true-to-life poos if it meant the developers could work more sensible hours.

Overall

Red Dead Redemption 2 was a big let down for me. By ignoring all of the strides made in open world games since the release of Red Dead 1, which have made those titles feel more lively and dynamic and responsive, Red Dead 2 feels kind of lifeless and fake.

And that’s despite Rockstar’s extreme push towards realism. Because the game just ends up feeling like those phoney western movie sets that look like saloons and banks on one side, and unpainted planks of wood on the other. It’s not fooling anyone.

The main missions are restrictive and ultimately quite boring. But the side content, which is much better, doesn’t push the game forward. It has done nothing to fix the fundamental problem of Rockstar's games.

Here's the thing. The game’s narrative is all about trying to hold onto the old way of doing things - and sticking to practices of the past while society marches on around you. That’s an interesting theme for a story - I just wish the gameplay didn’t stick to it as well.

Source

 

[User was nabbed fit]

YouTuber with 500k subscribers gets banned for a video in which he killed a feminist NPC in the game...

 

[J_C]

YouTuber with 500k subscribers gets banned for a video in which he killed a feminist NPC in the game...

What can you say to this? You simply can't describe the mental state of the people who do things like this. Fuck them.

 

[Morgoth]

https://www.gameinformer.com/2018/1...n-eight-days-than-red-dead-redemption-sold-in

Red Dead Redemption II Sold More Copies In Eight Days Than Red Dead Redemption Sold In Eight Years
by Matt Bertz on Nov 07, 2018 at 03:37 PM

Today during Take-Two's second-quarter financial report, the publisher gave us an update on how Red Dead Redemption II is selling. Spoiler alert: It's red hot.

"Red Dead Redemption II sold-in more units in its first eight days than the original blockbuster Red Dead Redemption sold in its first eight years and, as of today, the title has sold-in over 17 million units worldwide," the report says.

Because of the strong Red Dead sales and continued performance of titles like NBA 2K19 – which Take-Two says had the most successful launch in the sports franchise's history – Take-Two is raising its forecast for 2019 fiscal year.

To find out what all the fuss is about, read our Red Dead Redemption II review here and our NBA 2K19 review here.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

The most cynical thing that those videos about killing feminists have is how deliberately ambiguous they are, having the main objective of becoming viral.

 

[Modron]

This is why I have a strict policy of never buying a game I already own for another platform. Its always a scam, the extras are *never* worth it.

A better policy would be not to have a peasant box.

 

[sullynathan]

This game is brutal