Red Dead Redemption 2 - now available on PC

[deama]

Impressions - minor spoilers.

Beat the main story, could not stand to play the epilogue(s). Good game with spectacular production values; but the story is uneven and the gameplay eventually becomes stale.

RDR2 is of the open-world period/world-simulation interactive-movie genre, like Witcher III, KCD, Skyrim, and GTAV.

Spoiler

The graphics, engine, performance, and production values are insane. As has been the norm since GTAIV, graphics are photorealistic, loading times are short, transitions from outdoors to indoors are seamless, set designs are impeccable, and the devs have simulated many key activities. The result is a gorgeous and rich virtual world. You experience a piece of the beauty of America, particularly the Rockies and the South. You also get to visit 1900 New Orleans - one of the great world cities of the 19th century.

Unlike Skyrim, where one can genuinely play for 50 hours while barely advancing the main quest (and which I beat in 35 hours and never looked at again), RDR2 is far more linear than it appears to be. With few side quests and side activities, RDR2 revolves around its main story, which has a good first half and a weak conclusion, further hampered by a contradictory protagonist and a choking fog of PC.

Between the opening and the midway climax in the game's major city, the story proceeds nicely, with new challenges, characters, vistas, and gameplay introduced along the way. You are a gunslinger in a struggling band of outlaws ran by a charismatic fellow by the name of Dutch. The second half of the game, though, drags horribly. It becomes clear that your leader is a psychotic loser, and your protagonist is his boss's pathetic obedient stooge. The gameplay stagnates, as does the character development. The PC thickens, suffocating the plot. Side characters blend into each other to form a gaggle of unwashed thugs and superhuman tokens. The game drags.

At its core RDR2 is mainly a shooter, and as such it is bland. For purposes of realism, the variety of weapons is extremely limited to what you would expect. Beyond that, you take cover and use your bullet time to score headshots - and that's it.

While worth the price of admission, RDR2 is not the megahit the fake news mainstream reviews make it out to be. It's a phenomenal technology showpiece, but a mediocre game. I enjoyed all of Witcher 3, KCD, GTAV, FC4, and even LA Noir better than this one. They had more variety, better vistas, better characters, and more fun than the preachy but strangely colorless RDR2.

8/10; not pre-ordering the next R* effort.

How was the exploration? Like, was it nice/interesting wondering around the regions?

 

[KVVRR]

Impressions - minor spoilers.

Beat the main story, could not stand to play the epilogue(s). Good game with spectacular production values; but the story is uneven and the gameplay eventually becomes stale.

RDR2 is of the open-world period/world-simulation interactive-movie genre, like Witcher III, KCD, Skyrim, and GTAV.

Spoiler

The graphics, engine, performance, and production values are insane. As has been the norm since GTAIV, graphics are photorealistic, loading times are short, transitions from outdoors to indoors are seamless, set designs are impeccable, and the devs have simulated many key activities. The result is a gorgeous and rich virtual world. You experience a piece of the beauty of America, particularly the Rockies and the South. You also get to visit 1900 New Orleans - one of the great world cities of the 19th century.

Unlike Skyrim, where one can genuinely play for 50 hours while barely advancing the main quest (and which I beat in 35 hours and never looked at again), RDR2 is far more linear than it appears to be. With few side quests and side activities, RDR2 revolves around its main story, which has a good first half and a weak conclusion, further hampered by a contradictory protagonist and a choking fog of PC.

Between the opening and the midway climax in the game's major city, the story proceeds nicely, with new challenges, characters, vistas, and gameplay introduced along the way. You are a gunslinger in a struggling band of outlaws ran by a charismatic fellow by the name of Dutch. The second half of the game, though, drags horribly. It becomes clear that your leader is a psychotic loser, and your protagonist is his boss's pathetic obedient stooge. The gameplay stagnates, as does the character development. The PC thickens, suffocating the plot. Side characters blend into each other to form a gaggle of unwashed thugs and superhuman tokens. The game drags.

At its core RDR2 is mainly a shooter, and as such it is bland. For purposes of realism, the variety of weapons is extremely limited to what you would expect. Beyond that, you take cover and use your bullet time to score headshots - and that's it.

While worth the price of admission, RDR2 is not the megahit the fake news mainstream reviews make it out to be. It's a phenomenal technology showpiece, but a mediocre game. I enjoyed all of Witcher 3, KCD, GTAV, FC4, and even LA Noir better than this one. They had more variety, better vistas, better characters, and more fun than the preachy but strangely colorless RDR2.

8/10; not pre-ordering the next R* effort.

What did you find contradicting about Arthur? He seemed to have a clear arc for me.

 

[Verylittlefishes]

Some day, one day, I will play you, Game.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Please don't put KCD into the same pile of shit as this. KCD might be story driven, but within the overarching path set by the story, you have tremendous freedom. You often have the freedom to complete quests by violence or dialogue or stealth or in other ways, and can tackle situations in various ways. RDR2 is more like Call of Duty (set in a huge open world). Cannot deviate 2 steps from the "correct" way to do anything with the quests.

Witcher 3 is also much better. The world is more interesting and dynamic in RDR2 than in W3, but since the game itself doesn't use this for anything, the actual gameplay is much better in W3. As well as the writing and quests.

 

[DalekFlay]

RDR2 is of the open-world period/world-simulation interactive-movie genre, like Witcher III, KCD, Skyrim, and GTAV.

Skyrim is not in this camp. Not saying it's a good (or bad) game, but it is not in this camp.

 

[AwesomeButton]

How was the exploration? Like, was it nice/interesting wondering around the regions?

For me it's the best part of the game. You just set yourself some task for the day when you wake up, or pick one of the challenges or collection quests, like supplying animals to the taxidermist, or just hunt for dinosaur bones, or try to study all the animals. And once you get going something is bound to emerge and take you off track.

 

[deama]

How was the exploration? Like, was it nice/interesting wondering around the regions?

For me it's the best part of the game. You just set yourself some task for the day when you wake up, or pick one of the challenges or collection quests, like supplying animals to the taxidermist, or just hunt for dinosaur bones, or try to study all the animals. And once you get going something is bound to emerge and take you off track.

Do you need to get to a certain point within the main story for the world to properly open up or can you just go out exploring after the first few missions?

 

[Catacombs]

How was the exploration? Like, was it nice/interesting wondering around the regions?

For me it's the best part of the game. You just set yourself some task for the day when you wake up, or pick one of the challenges or collection quests, like supplying animals to the taxidermist, or just hunt for dinosaur bones, or try to study all the animals. And once you get going something is bound to emerge and take you off track.

Do you need to get to a certain point within the main story for the world to properly open up or can you just go out exploring after the first few missions?

The intro is a little long, but after that you're free to explore.

 

[DalekFlay]

For me it's the best part of the game. You just set yourself some task for the day when you wake up, or pick one of the challenges or collection quests, like supplying animals to the taxidermist, or just hunt for dinosaur bones, or try to study all the animals. And once you get going something is bound to emerge and take you off track.

For me exploration is about discovering cool stuff and I just felt Red Dead 2's world... like most open worlds now... was a pretty backdrop without much depth. Maybe there's more to it and I'll find out when I return to the game, but that's how I felt my first 15 hours or so. It was just a pretty backdrop on my way to the next guided mission.

 

[KVVRR]

For me it's the best part of the game. You just set yourself some task for the day when you wake up, or pick one of the challenges or collection quests, like supplying animals to the taxidermist, or just hunt for dinosaur bones, or try to study all the animals. And once you get going something is bound to emerge and take you off track.

For me exploration is about discovering cool stuff and I just felt Red Dead 2's world... like most open worlds now... was a pretty backdrop without much depth. Maybe there's more to it and I'll find out when I return to the game, but that's how I felt my first 15 hours or so. It was just a pretty backdrop on my way to the next guided mission.

There are a few cool things (like the meteor strikes you can find through the map or the more "out there" things like the SM's painting) but overall I'd agree with you that there isn't all that much on it. Pretty as a picture, but am I really supposed figure out from some vague note in a church full of dead people to wait until a half moon night after 12 to watch an UFO for a couple of seconds? I'd rather just watch it on youtube at that point.

 

[AwesomeButton]

For me exploration is about discovering cool stuff and I just felt Red Dead 2's world... like most open worlds now... was a pretty backdrop without much depth. Maybe there's more to it and I'll find out when I return to the game, but that's how I felt my first 15 hours or so. It was just a pretty backdrop on my way to the next guided mission.

Like I've said before, I'm a huge (revisionist) western fan, I grew up on stuff like Unforgiven and Young Guns, so no matter how slow or drawn out the game handling feels or how riding through the world means nothing to most people - those are the most common complaints, I'm able to just get into the atmosphere and it's like a dream come true for me.

 

[Sentinel]

How was the exploration? Like, was it nice/interesting wondering around the regions?

For me it's the best part of the game. You just set yourself some task for the day when you wake up, or pick one of the challenges or collection quests, like supplying animals to the taxidermist, or just hunt for dinosaur bones, or try to study all the animals. And once you get going something is bound to emerge and take you off track.

Do you need to get to a certain point within the main story for the world to properly open up or can you just go out exploring after the first few missions?

The game starts extremely limited with a linear Prologue in the snowy mountains, and then the map starts opening up slowly. You don't get access to all of it at once - in Chapter 1 for example a big chunk of it is hard to infiltrate because the police/army is looking for the gang and there's constant patrols. You can still ride there, but you'll be hounded by cops very often.

 

[JDR13]

Just curious but does anyone feel like RDR 1 is still worth playing at this point? I don't like playing sequels without having played the first game.

 

[Cyberarmy]

Just curious but does anyone feel like RDR 1 is still worth playing at this point? I don't like playing sequels without having played the first game.

Well, RDR1 is the sequel in terms of story.
I like RDR1 much more than the second game. So I say play that one only if you don't have enogh time.

 

[JDR13]

I like RDR1 much more than the second game.

I'm surprised to see someone say that. What is it about RDR1 that you liked so much?

I tried it years ago and thought it was overhyped, although I'll admit I didn't play very far into the main story. I tried going off and exploring on my own, but it seemed like it was mostly just a collection of challenges. Kill X amount of birds, etc. The exploration didn't seem very organic.

 

[Cyberarmy]

A proper western game with snake oils, ranching bounty hunting. Story is not bad either. For someone growing up with ye'olde Western movies game was heaven for me.
Open world map ris eally empty and exploring it is mostly useless unless you want some special horses. Just do the missions and finish the story.

Second game never piqued my interest enough to finish it, dunno why but it felt really slow for me and I got bored many times try finishing it. Kind of an achivement because I don't easly quit games

 

[Sentinel]

Just curious but does anyone feel like RDR 1 is still worth playing at this point? I don't like playing sequels without having played the first game.

I'd only play it if you're curious about the rest of the story (since it takes place after RDR2). The controls, shooting, mission design, characters, and world are all much worse imo. And the game has extreme pacing issues where it feels like they cut out some 15 missions at one point and it just ends out of nowhere.

 

[DalekFlay]

Well, RDR1 is the sequel in terms of story.

I don't use consoles really, so I never played RDR1. Playing RDR2 though, it felt like it was consistently making allusions to future events I didn't know about. So while it's technically a prequel, I wouldn't say you should play it first. Similar to the Star Wars prequels I guess.

 

[AwesomeButton]

If you just want to know the story of RDR1, there is always youtube.

 

[DalekFlay]

If you just want to know the story of RDR1, there is always youtube.

I just read a wiki summary.

 

[Starwars]

How are the controls for this on keyboard and mouse? Is it playable?
Got a new computer and looking to do some graphics whoring.

 

[AwesomeButton]

How are the controls for this on keyboard and mouse? Is it playable?
Got a new computer and looking to do some graphics whoring.

As good as they can possibly be on a console port. You played GTAV, so you shouldn't be any more irritated than you were then.

 

[DalekFlay]

Main thing annoyed me about RDR2's controls was all the steps needed to get through some things, but that would be the same with a controller. The actual PC controls as an option are fine.

 

[cvv]

Bought RDR2 a year ago but now that I have a new rig I can finally run it properly.

Game is awesome, it's as if Jim Jarmush made another Dead Man but with a 200 milion dorra budget. But trying to do the missions with the Gold rating is making my blood boil. What a retarded game design.

"Achieve 80% accuracy." Great, except if you miss more than two shots in a 15 minute shoot-out you can't just reload a checkpoint, no, you have to restart the entire mission, including 20 mins of slow-walking behind NPCs and listening to their lengthy exposition. PLUS you can't actually see the objectives on your first go, you have to google them. Are you fucking kidding me? Whoever was responsible for this has fetid shit for brains.

 

[Wunderbar]

I can't stand Rockstar's game design and their linear missions, but this sounds like too much of a hassle to even bother trying. Reminded me of "full synchronization" in Assassin's creed games, where you must complete an objective in a precisely one way to unlock some secret memories.

Why are you even creating an open world game if your missions are so linear and restrictive? These conditions are here only to frustrate players and pad the gameplay.