Red Dead Redemption 2 - now available on PC

[Zombra]

While there is some merit, under some circumstances in certain situations to this, there are also tenfold of matters where this is just bullshit. There's nothing about sniffing flowers or gazing at sunset when basic primary function like pressing UI button requires you to hold the key down 10 seconds (yes, I exaggerated) instead of registering the key-press instantly. If the game's immersion relies on waiting that white circle fill around the interaction button then something else has failed.

What you're describing is a UI issue, not a pacing issue or an animation issue. The game is primarily designed for console controls where 3 buttons have to do everything, so holding down a button to confirm certain commands is necessary. I completely agree the UI for PC is a crappy port of the console UI.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

the other is expecting the game itself to be changed when its rules do not suit you.

That is a hell of a stretch isn't it?
Holding a button down as opposed to merely pressing it is a matter if convenience and ease of use. There's not a single rule that it breaks.
Hang on-

In RDR2 it is deliberate and intentional that things take some time.

You know what, I can agree with stuff taking time. Having to hold a button down is just a pain. Didn't do any favours to mad max either.

Waah

Sorry, I did not mean to upset you this badly.

 

[vibehunter]

There is no reason for the "holding button down" function to be carried over from consoles other than laziness. Any real PC game won't do this. It has nothing to do with immersion.

 

[BlackGoat]

I can deal with most of the slow shit in RDR2 but the slow walking in camp is the worst. Especially when I'm trying to test my settings and FPS and I load into camp and think my shit is super slowed down and I need to downgrade the global lighting or something, but it's just the slow camp walking

 

[Wilian]

While there is some merit, under some circumstances in certain situations to this, there are also tenfold of matters where this is just bullshit. There's nothing about sniffing flowers or gazing at sunset when basic primary function like pressing UI button requires you to hold the key down 10 seconds (yes, I exaggerated) instead of registering the key-press instantly. If the game's immersion relies on waiting that white circle fill around the interaction button then something else has failed.

What you're describing is a UI issue, not a pacing issue or an animation issue. The game is primarily designed for console controls where 3 buttons have to do everything, so holding down a button to confirm certain commands is necessary. I completely agree the UI for PC is a crappy port of the console UI.

But most of the time it doesn't make sense for consoles either because amount of presented context sensitive options are less than buttons in a controller. Or why, for most obvious example, when after launching the game and the first auto-save overwrite-warning window pops up, you have to keep pressing Enter forever to accept it. There's two choices. Yes and no. I'm pretty sure we've moved past the era where consoles have less than two buttons.

 

[vibehunter]

I can deal with most of the slow shit in RDR2 but the slow walking in camp is the worst. Especially when I'm trying to test my settings and FPS and I load into camp and think my shit is super slowed down and I need to downgrade the global lighting or something, but it's just the slow camp walking

I also found that infuriating. There is a mod that enables running in camp but I haven't tried it myself.

 

[Zombra]

You know what, I can agree with stuff taking time. Having to hold a button down is just a pain. Didn't do any favours to mad max either.

Read the post directly before yours. We all agree the UI sucks. That is a distinct issue from skipping animations.

If we can agree that it's okay for some things to take time, then we agree on all issues raised here.

Most of the time it doesn't make sense for consoles either

Happy to concede this. I don't have a console, I just assumed that since this was on console first that was the reason the UI is so fucked. I have no horse in the race of the UI. We can all agree the UI is bad. Axecack and I weren't talking about the UI at all, at all.

Anyone who wants to keep arguing about the UI, you're going to have to find someone who disagrees with you first.

 

[Belegarsson]

I had 75 hours in RDR2 and I've never thought the game was heavy on or promote mass collecting stuffs. Sure you can search each dead body after a fight for ammo and some changes but... why should you? If you want to make money, go hunting, do bounties, rob banks, sell horses, sell treasures. The only items you should take are moonshine, potions, food and cigarettes which often are placed neatly inside cabinets, the game's pacing is slow enough that I don't find the animations interrupt anything.

Also I love skinning animals, feel especially cathartic and satisfying after a long hunt. Walking over their corpse and spamming E just wouldn't feel the same.

 

[Axecack]

I had 75 hours in RDR2 and I've never thought the game was heavy on or promote mass collecting stuffs. Sure you can search each dead body after a fight for ammo and some changes but... why should you? If you want to make money, go hunting, do bounties, rob banks, sell horses, sell treasures. The only items you should take are moonshine, potions, food and cigarettes which often are placed neatly inside cabinets, the game's pacing is slow enough that I don't find the animations interrupt anything.

Also I love skinning animals, feel especially cathartic and satisfying after a long hunt. Walking over their corpse and spamming E just wouldn't feel the same.

Far Crys 3-5, for all their faults, have the perfect skinning animation. Slice, take flesh, put in bag. Couple seconds long and gives you a nice cathartic release. (Although I would still add an option to skip it).

In fact, now that I think about it, Far Cry has better gameplay mechanics than RDR2 in literally every way. Your character is fast, agile, can climb up ladders and hunt quickly, can get into and out of vehicles quickly, collects items off the ground with no redundant animation, picks flowers in a single manly swipe, has easy access to inventory, and is never forced to walk outside of scripted cutscenes. The only negative is lack of bullet time mechanics, which I wish it had.

If they changed RDR2 first person mode to literally play like Far Cry then it would be a fantastic game. RDR2's story, world, and characters are all really good, it's a shame they're weighed down by it's shitty gameplay.

 

[Zombra]

I had 75 hours in RDR2 and I've never thought the game was heavy on or promote mass collecting stuffs. Sure you can search each dead body after a fight for ammo and some changes but... why should you? If you want to make money, go hunting, do bounties, rob banks, sell horses, sell treasures.

I didn't play the single player game, but in RDO it's really nice having such a variety of options in the pursuit of $$. My character is focused on "collecting" which means he loves to stop in the middle of a firefight to go through people's pockets looking for old lost jewelry or a lucky arrowhead.

The hunting is a lot of fun, too. Good times to track down a "perfect" elk, sneak after it, climb above the line of foliage to establish a sight line, hit that one perfect shot, take a few moments to skin it, load it up on the horse and take it back to camp to be tanned and sold for a whopping $8.00. Yes it all takes time but that is where the satisfaction of the game comes from.

 

[anvi]

I can deal with most of the slow shit in RDR2 but the slow walking in camp is the worst. Especially when I'm trying to test my settings and FPS and I load into camp and think my shit is super slowed down and I need to downgrade the global lighting or something, but it's just the slow camp walking

You all should be using SpeedHack! It is a total sanity saver. I've mostly enjoyed 10 hours of Solasta which would have been a tedious and boring 50 hours without the speed hack. I've not tried RDR1/2 though, it's not for me. Rockstar disappoint.

 

[Avarize]

This game feels like Rockstar took the first bit of GTA IV that was really slow and boring and decided they wanted to make a whole game like that.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

This game feels like Rockstar took the first bit of GTA IV that was really slow and boring and decided they wanted to make a whole game like that.

Not even. People like to knock GTA IV but it had a mature, interesting story and good characters. And the gameplay was still fun, though not San Andreas level.

RDR2 features some Stockholm syndrome pansy serving his surrogate father figure and the worst gameplay of any Rockstar game to date.

 

[Justicar]

Not even. People like to knock GTA IV but it had a mature, interesting story and good characters. And the gameplay was still fun, though not San Andreas level.

RDR2 features some Stockholm syndrome pansy serving his surrogate father figure and the worst gameplay of any Rockstar game to date.

Funny thing in Rdr 1 which takes place after this dumpster fire nobody even acknowledges existence of ARTHURRRRDDD even Johny cuck Marston doesn't care to say a single word about him. Btw. What is the point of money in this game? There is nothing worthwhile to buy and you cant even tell that Dutch retard that his spazzing out about MUNNNEYH doesn't matter because I have 70k dollars in my pocket real shame that game doesn't care and sends me to do another retard heist why?

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I've never played a game where I was so divorced from the main character's motivation as in RDR2. It's pretty obvious that Dutch is a selfish sociopathic prick from almost the start of the game, and yet you (Arthur) keep following him around like a lap dog, while he concocts less and less believable "plans".

The premise of the game is actually quite good, a group of misfits sticking together in difficult circumstances, but RDR2 fucks it up in every way imaginable. It starts with the setting, instead of a cool stereotypical circa 1860s Wild West setting, when the West was actually wild, they go with early 20th century, where it's pretty much more modern times than the Wild West. Cities instead of desolate vistas, that sort of thing.

And then the outlaws. Dutch, as already mentioned, as an obvious unlikeable sociopath. Most of the others aren't that great either. And the freaking quests, really dumb, boring shit, completely wrecked by the linear nature of the quests.

 

[Hellion]

That's supposed to be part of the narrative's point. That these misfits and former glamorous figures of the "Old West" are steadily being bypassed by their times and essentially have to deal with the fact that they are now just relics of an era gone by who still foolishly cling to their old ways.

 

[Lyre Mors]

While I haven't played it, I feel like I know enough about it to know that despite Dutch being a sociopathic maniac, he's almost like a cult leader in a way. He's swayed these people with past favorable actions and charisma to the point where they are nearly brainwashed at this point. That's why Arthur struggles so much with defying Dutch, even though to the player is seems like an easy decision.

Correct me if I have this wrong, of course.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

That's the point though. Why would anyone want to play a 60-80 hour long game where you play a cult follower? 9 to 5 in RL is enough for most people.

And why would anyone want to play a game where you play a bunch of washed up outlaws, seeing their way of life disappearing, and being replaced by... what we see in RL every day.

None of these decisions make any sense in the context of video games. Not any more than Rockstar's insistence on forcing the player to play open world games in a completely linear way, instead of taking advantage of the open world, like good open world games do.

 

[kangaxx]

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who disliked this game. By the end of it I couldn't wait for the credits.

 

[Hace El Oso]

The biggest problem with Rockstar games is that no matter how "well written" the story is(a dubious claim in any of their cases except for GTA 4) you are reduced to being everyone's bitch in perpetuity. It's signing up to be brutally pussywhipped in a video game, the only reason I can think of anyone being satisfied with that is if they'd rather just be watching a film or TV series.

And why would anyone want to play a game where you play a bunch of washed up outlaws, seeing their way of life disappearing, and being replaced by... what we see in RL every day.

I generally agree with your post, but regarding this section, I think the point is casting it as a form of fleeting escapism from that same 'modern' system. It's the difference between playing in the forest freely as a child and playing when there's a nagging woman nearby looking to 'bring you back to reality', maybe there's some pavlovian attraction there for some normies.

 

[typical user]

AFAIK the money from Blackwater job was roughly 150 000 $ plus they have more stashed outside the city from their previous jobs. At most you can amass 10 000 $. Getting a boat is one thing, funding everyone enough to buy a land is the other. Marston needs to have around 2 000 $ for Beecher's Hope. Of course Dutch talks about mangoes and Tahiti so he would probably want more than that for the rest of his life.

Arthur follows Dutch even when he goes completely nuts because he IS his surrogate father. Dutch pulled him from the streets, taught him how to read and was the authority he lacked. Arthur mentiones he hated his father. Makes sense to me that he would follow Dutch. Also it is alluded in Chapter 1, Dutch killed a woman in cold-blood, so he has a history of poor decision-making when facing actual obstacles. I think it is mentioned somewhere Dutch is the face of the gang and Hosea the brains.

Red Dead Redemption 2 is a slow game but it still has better movement compared to GTA V or GTA IV. In Red Dead Online your character is always on crack and does things even faster. If you want to complain about this game then turn head to wanted levels and law response or animal spawns or sluggish UI.

 

[BruceVC]

I have spent waaaaay to much time on RDR2 and Im fine with that

I completed the single player game and I spent about 280 hours on it and I just checked my RDR2 online time and I have spent 1010 hours ( 44 days or so ) but I have maxed out all the roles and completed every Capitale mission ....yet I still logon and play it every now and again. What can I say...Im a fanboy

 

[Avarize]

This game feels like Rockstar took the first bit of GTA IV that was really slow and boring and decided they wanted to make a whole game like that.

Not even. People like to knock GTA IV but it had a mature, interesting story and good characters. And the gameplay was still fun, though not San Andreas level.

RDR2 features some Stockholm syndrome pansy serving his surrogate father figure and the worst gameplay of any Rockstar game to date.

IV was good once you got past the hurdle, in RDR2 the hurdle is the game. IV actually had an interesting story, RDR2 doesn't. It doesn't really have any high points, jsut the same monotonous sludge all the way through. After playing this I'm a little worried for GTA VI.

 

[mogwaimon]

While I haven't played it, I feel like I know enough about it to know that despite Dutch being a sociopathic maniac, he's almost like a cult leader in a way. He's swayed these people with past favorable actions and charisma to the point where they are nearly brainwashed at this point. That's why Arthur struggles so much with defying Dutch, even though to the player is seems like an easy decision.

Correct me if I have this wrong, of course.

you're 100% correct. Arthur and John were raised by him so he's like a father to them and on top of that he's fairly well read, eloquent, and charismatic. He's fostering a cult of personality and while he is obviously full of shit when viewed from the outside and with the knowledge of how RDR1 goes down, from the inside many of his gang likely don't see it that way for a number of reasons which we don't really see in-game. The thing is, we enter the story from the beginning of the 'Decline', as it were, and we don't have the benefit of seeing the gang's past successes up until then, and from the characters reactions to how the Blackwater job went down many of them were upset about Dutch 'killing that woman' as though it was outside of the norm for him to do so, so we can also make an assumption that the maniacal tendencies that Dutch eventually succumbed to were new even to members of his gang that had been with him for decades.

Not to mention Hosea was not only the brains of the group but a calmer voice of reason to keep Dutch in line, and when that influence was removed Dutch went further off the rails in an obvious manner.

with that in mind characterizing Dutch as an 'obvious unlikeable sociopath' and Arthur as a 'Stockholm syndrome pansy' seems like a gross oversimplification, in my opinion. Not that the story of RDR2 was a masterpiece or anything, frankly I had my fun with the game but I think I much preferred RDR1's story and I even think RDR1 tackled the themes of civilization intruding on the Wild West and modern living suffocating those who didn't want to or couldn't adapt to it and all that better than RDR2 did in many respects.

 

[Beowulf]

But the story is so disconnected from the actual gameplay - why would the gang members care about Dutch killing some woman, or why would it even make the gang's situation worse in the first place, if you kill thousands of people during every other mission.