RDR2 OT **Mark Spoilers**

[bhytre 2,753]

Antagonizing people in this game is the funniest shit ever

 

Edited November 19, 2018 by bhytre

[jehurey 3,230]

17 hours ago, madmaltese said:

Finished it last night! Bloody hell that is one long ass game. 

I don't know if I've ever been so split on a game. What it does well it does better than anything before it but some individual aspects of it are extremely poor imo. 

I honestly think it could've been significantly shorter and it would've been a lot better. The epilogue was nearly as big as most games lol 

 

 

The people at giant bomb who would fawn over these type of Rockstar games have really begun to turn sour on this.

 

And its very similar to what you describe, they don't want to hate it, they think it does some unique and amazing things, but they simply could not maintain having fun with this game for its length.

 

Its an open world game, but it forces alot of that "cinematic" stuff throughout the entire game.  Its comes at the expense of the "video gamey" part of the experience.

 

I came across the Aberdeen Pig Farm and saw a guy hanging out in the front porch. I thought it was going to be the rapey-guy. So I made sure to get a manual save. It ended up being a different story.

 

I almost wanted to load up the save multiple times to experiment and find out what I could possibly do, but jeezus pulling up a save and loading it takes a while, and then I forgot that Rockstar games do that jarring thing where if you are replaying a mission, and it comes with autosave checkpoints, it will stop a cutscene abruptly and ask you to verify if you want to overwrite the previous autosave checkpoint from the last time you played this mission.

 

I left the house without doing anything to the people yet. But I will eventually get back there and finish them off.

[Twinblade★ 3,899]

yeah Dan from GB tore the game apart. I do agree with the complaints. Im at a point where I wish the game would end but it just keeps on going. It played its hand a long time ago in terms of mission design and mechanics so it feels like im just doing the same thing over and over again.

Edited November 19, 2018 by Twinblade

[kokujin 558]

11 hours ago, bhytre said:

Antagonizing people in this game is the funniest shit ever

 

is their a method to the madness? are SOME people tougher than others. Do you just up the ante until they fight you? What is so complex about it, if at all? What makes it fun?    

[madmaltese★ 2,555]

Curious to hear what they've been saying about it. Don't really listen much to GB though. Is it on a podcast of theirs or?

 

I honestly do believe this game is not going to age well. Once other games start having worlds as alive as this  then this is going to age horribly from a gameplay perspective (it's already outdated in that regard). If I wanted to I really could tear the game apart but for some reason I don't want to because I know it is a technical marvel and the way they managed to have this world interact with you is amazing. 

 

 

[kokujin 558]

if it's the first of it's kind (in open world interact-ivy that will be copied for decades to come), then it should get all the credit and none of the hate and get the benefit of the doubt for missing so much. It's the first one. 

 

someone answer my antagonizing people question.   

[Twinblade★ 3,899]

6 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

Curious to hear what they've been saying about it. Don't really listen much to GB though. Is it on a podcast of theirs or?

 

I honestly do believe this game is not going to age well. Once other games start having worlds as alive as this  then this is going to age horribly from a gameplay perspective (it's already outdated in that regard). If I wanted to I really could tear the game apart but for some reason I don't want to because I know it is a technical marvel and the way they managed to have this world interact with you is amazing. 

 

 

Its on the latest beastcast

 

https://www.giantbomb.com/shows/episode-182/2970-17681

 

starts at 55

[madmaltese★ 2,555]

1 minute ago, kokujin said:

if it's the first of it's kind (in open world interact-ivy that will be copied for decades to come), then it should get all the credit and none of the hate and get the benefit of the doubt for missing so much. It's the first one. 

 

someone answer my antagonizing people question.   

But a game is made up of many parts. It does one aspect perfectly and is the first of it's kind in that regards (the living open world) but in nearly every other aspect it fails and in some it is outright average, with those being some of the most important aspects of a game, like gameplay, mechanics and mission design. 

 

Regarding your antaganoise question. Some will fight you, others won't, most though eventually will become agressive if you continue to antaganoise. the 'fun' or funny part about it is how well the speech flows between you and any random npc you choose to interact with. 

[kokujin 558]

4 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

But a game is made up of many parts. It does one aspect perfectly and is the first of it's kind in that regards (the living open world) but in nearly every other aspect it fails and in some it is outright average, with those being some of the most important aspects of a game, like gameplay, mechanics and mission design. 

 

Regarding your antaganoise question. Some will fight you, others won't, most though eventually will become agressive if you continue to antaganoise. the 'fun' or funny part about it is how well the speech flows between you and any random npc you choose to interact with. 

thank you. mission design sucky eh... what open world game has stellar or better mission design? Last I checked, the copy paste formula of GTA / Rockstar is it.  

 

Or are you saying this game in other aspects is done SO WELL, including the 3rd person shooting mechanics and level design, that it almost feels like it should also have single-player level design for missions?  That's almost a testament of how good the title is, rather than a weakness.  (i maybe kidding, but let's roll with this point first).  

[madmaltese★ 2,555]

6 minutes ago, kokujin said:

thank you. mission design sucky eh... what open world game has stellar or better mission design? Last I checked, the copy paste formula of GTA / Rockstar is it.  

 

Or are you saying this game in other aspects is done SO WELL, including the 3rd person shooting mechanics and level design, that it almost feels like it should also have single-player level design for missions?  That's almost a testament of how good the title is, rather than a weakness.  (i maybe kidding, but let's roll with this point first).  

I honestly feel like nearly any other major open world game does mission design better than this. I'd rather do any Skyrim or FO mission than these ones, AC does missions better, even like Far Cry V and others do it better, all those games offer me the freedom of the open world in it's mission. This one gives you literally zero in it's campaign.

 

It mission will go like:

-Cutscene

-5 min ride of you holding one button and listening to a convo while they ride to location.

-Either meet someone or investigate something

-Kill everything

 

And the part of that that is insanely poor mission design is if you try do any tiny deviation from what the game wants, it fails you. Which is ridiculous for an open world game. What I mean is if you move a few metres away (than the game wants) from a character or your gang, it will fail you 'for abandoning your gang'. If you try flank and enemy and you go out of its zone it will fail you. There are section which are sniper missions and you are locked in to the zoomed in mode. You can even unscope for a second in a mission. It feels on rails so so many times. There is zero open world design in their mission structure and level design and no, I am most definitely not saying the 3rd person shooting mechanics are done well. They are not. The shooting is one of the weakest parts of this game too. 

 

 

[Boss 70]

that scope lock shit lol very annoying.  I never had problems 'abandoning my gang' for moving off course.  there was obviously no need to move off course, but I guess thats kinda shitty?

[kokujin 558]

30 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

I honestly feel like nearly any other major open world game does mission design better than this. I'd rather do any Skyrim or FO mission than these ones, AC does missions better, even like Far Cry V and others do it better, all those games offer me the freedom of the open world in it's mission. This one gives you literally zero in it's campaign.

 

It mission will go like:

-Cutscene

-5 min ride of you holding one button and listening to a convo while they ride to location.

-Either meet someone or investigate something

-Kill everything

 

And the part of that that is insanely poor mission design is if you try do any tiny deviation from what the game wants, it fails you. Which is ridiculous for an open world game. What I mean is if you move a few metres away (than the game wants) from a character or your gang, it will fail you 'for abandoning your gang'. If you try flank and enemy and you go out of its zone it will fail you. There are section which are sniper missions and you are locked in to the zoomed in mode. You can even unscope for a second in a mission. It feels on rails so so many times. There is zero open world design in their mission structure and level design and no, I am most definitely not saying the 3rd person shooting mechanics are done well. They are not. The shooting is one of the weakest parts of this game too. 

 

 

hmm. that's very lame as balls. You're saying even GTA had wider missions and your ability to execute them?  I wonder why it does that rails style then. That's a bit weird. Still waiting on an open world game that lets you deviate every time. that lets you load and re-try things like Jehurey Tha God wanted to.  Good to know. Won't spend $40 on this game then.  

[madmaltese★ 2,555]

12 minutes ago, Boss said:

that scope lock shit lol very annoying.  I never had problems 'abandoning my gang' for moving off course.  there was obviously no need to move off course, but I guess thats kinda shitty?

It's just a design that is so polar opposite to the game. The game excels most at the random encounters in the world and it reacts so perfectly regardless of a player's choice in those encounters that to then get into such an on rails approach for the story was very disappointing. Especially when I felt that that on rails approach was forced not only in gameplay but also story. The Arthur in the main missions was a total different character to my Arthur in the open world and even in the Stranger missions. 

 

4 minutes ago, kokujin said:

hmm. that's very lame as balls. You're saying even GTA had wider missions and your ability to execute them?  I wonder why it does that rails style then. That's a bit weird. Still waiting on an open world game that lets you deviate every time. that lets you load and re-try things like Jehurey Tha God wanted to.  Good to know. Won't spend $40 on this game then.  

Tbh GTA has similar issues, it is mostly a Rockstar issue in regards to their missions. GTA might feel a little more free because they didn't go for the realistic approach as much as RDR did. That freedom you want is there in just free roaming this world. It will react beautifully and naturally to you in those aspects. Unfortunately that just makes things all the more jarring when you start a mission.

[kokujin 558]

Hmm. So like I assumed, R* doesn't make 3rd person action or stealth level missions in the first place.  Not sure if GTA ever had the issue of can't move away from mission though. Not on everything.

[jehurey 3,230]

1 hour ago, madmaltese said:

Curious to hear what they've been saying about it. Don't really listen much to GB though. Is it on a podcast of theirs or?

 

I honestly do believe this game is not going to age well. Once other games start having worlds as alive as this  then this is going to age horribly from a gameplay perspective (it's already outdated in that regard). If I wanted to I really could tear the game apart but for some reason I don't want to because I know it is a technical marvel and the way they managed to have this world interact with you is amazing. 

 

 

The giant beastcast that goes up on Fridays has been talking about RDR2 for the past 3 weeks, and they talk about it more than the regular bomcast.

 

So you notice an arc in how they first receive the game, how they did describe as they keep on digging into the game, and now this past Friday they are describing how they feel about 3/4's of the way through the game.

 

About a little more than an hour into this past Friday podcast in when they really get into it.

[madmaltese★ 2,555]

5 minutes ago, jehurey said:

The giant beastcast that goes up on Fridays has been talking about RDR2 for the past 3 weeks, and they talk about it more than the regular bomcast.

 

So you notice an arc in how they first receive the game, how they did describe as they keep on digging into the game, and now this past Friday they are describing how they feel about 3/4's of the way through the game.

 

About a little more than an hour into this past Friday podcast in when they really get into it.

Just listened to their segment on it and I agree with a lot of what was said. I like that they kept exploring their view week by week cause I feel it's a much more natural way of coming to an opinion on the game.

 

47 minutes ago, kokujin said:

Hmm. So like I assumed, R* doesn't make 3rd person action or stealth level missions in the first place.  Not sure if GTA ever had the issue of can't move away from mission though. Not on everything.

This is a post by someone else on Era that describes a little more of the crazy limitations it puts on you. He obviously tried to experiment even more than me:

 

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.

 

[Vini 430]

3 hours ago, madmaltese said:

Just listened to their segment on it and I agree with a lot of what was said. I like that they kept exploring their view week by week cause I feel it's a much more natural way of coming to an opinion on the game.

 

This is a post by someone else on Era that describes a little more of the crazy limitations it puts on you. He obviously tried to experiment even more than me:

 

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.

 

 

Look I didn't read that whole thing on the off chance of getting spoiled but these strike me as creative decisions through and through. Rockstar open world have always seemed more about the narrative focus than the freedom, at least ever single GTA3. The story is what it is, it's a 3 act  structure with a script and you're there to experience it unfold just like a TV show, with only an illusion of freedom, choice and control in between. Even the moral system is largely an illusion because the arc doesn't change maybe just the ending and a few altered character fates. 

 

Now the only criticism of this game I agree with so far is the repetitive structure of the game just like any open world game, but it doesn't drop a point for me because it is a damn western action game what exactly is there to do other than shoot people by either chasing them or being chased by them? People bitched about boring side missions in the first one so what exactly is this ideal gameplay and mission variety that people keep asking for? Because every answer other than shooting shit is gonna be every bit as boring as herding cattle and bowling with your cousin. 

 

As far as bitching about the length of the game I will never understand this criticism. The more bang for my buck the better it's like like an 8 season TV show that's way better than most shit on Netflix.

 

Edited November 20, 2018 by Vini

[madmaltese★ 2,555]

51 minutes ago, Vini said:

 

Look I didn't read that whole thing on the off chance of getting spoiled but these strike me as creative decisions through and through. Rockstar open world have always seemed more about the narrative focus than the freedom, at least ever single GTA3. The story is what it is, it's a 3 act  structure with a script and you're there to experience it unfold just like a TV show, with only an illusion of freedom, choice and control in between. Even the moral system is largely an illusion because the arc doesn't change maybe just the ending and a few altered character fates. 

 

Now the only criticism of this game I agree with so far is the repetitive structure of the game just like any open world game, but it doesn't drop a point for me because it is a damn western action game what exactly is there to do other than shoot people by either chasing them or being chased by them? People bitched about boring side missions in the first one so what exactly is this ideal gameplay and mission variety that people keep asking for? Because every answer other than shooting shit is gonna be every bit as boring as herding cattle and bowling with your cousin. 

 

As far as bitching about the length of the game I will never understand this criticism. The more bang for my buck the better it's like like an 8 season TV show that's way better than most shit on Netflix.

 

There is no spoilers in the previous post if you want to read it. It is very general talk. 

 

Regarding your first paragraph. Yeah, that is the usual Rockstar and it is a common problem with their games. The difference is that the past Rockstar games don't have the world this one does. All the praise this game is getting is for it's open world and how alive it is and how superbly it interacts with the player. Every single praise for the game disappears in the story missions though. You have zero freedom and zero control over Arthur. I have zero problem with games that are telling their story, but you need to commit to one or the other. The problem with RDR2 is just how jarring it is between exploration (which is greatly encourages), moral choices (which again it created a system for, although it being very basic) and then the huge portion of the game which is the Story. In strict narrative games like Uncharted ,Last of Us, God of War there is no jarring aspect because these character are written and the story is being told to you. Whether you want to do what Joel does at the end of LoU doesn't matter because it is his story, not yours. In RDR2 though you're given these two totally differing experiences, which is fine, the problem is that one is vastly greater than the other in this game. 

 

You said you were up to Chapter 6 so you'd know that basically Chapters 2, 3 and 4 are near identical to each other in terms of structure and all ending pretty much exactly. Chapter 5 is laughably bad from a narrative perspective and it going full linear shows all it's flaws in full as all they know how to do is throw more and more enemies at you. If you read the rest of the prior post you will see what ppl are complaining about. It's the total lack of freedom in how you do things. I'm going to give a basic example of other games that aren't the pinnacle of the genre, but say Far Cry V or AC. If the objective is to kill X person in a main mission, you are given it's location then do anything you want. Every gameplay feature the game has given you prior is available for you to complete the main mission. That is usually just basic requirements of open world game, it's BotW that takes that gameplay freedom to a whole new level which makes RDR look archaic in comparison. Meanwhile in RDR2  you have to walk a set path, sometimes get given a set weapon or even a set method of killing enemies, can't venture within certain distances of an NPC, can't choose how to tackle an objective and sometimes can't even unscope your sniper. Also, if your argument is that there isn't much to do other than shoot things/people then you need to compare it's shooting mechanics to shooters which makes this game feel even worse cause a shooter (from a gameplay perspective) it most definitely is not.

 

Regarding length, that is subjective but I do believe many games can overstay their welcome. In this one specially by end of Chapter 3 I was already way over Arthur being Dutch's bitch and having to basically just watch everything on repeat for another 30 hours took away from the game, not added to it. 

 

I'm curious to see what you think when you finish the Epilogue cause I think it has some of the strongest parts of the game. Which i obvs won't mention till you're done, but I think it offers a great contrast to some of the issues of the story prior. 

[Vini 430]

 

I get where you're coming from but I don't think it's jarring at all. Yea the world design is great and feels alive but no matter how great the ecosystem the whole thing would feel empty anyway if there's no story and the characters to interact with it and it all blends seamlessly with the environment IMO

 

Considering I have no issues with the story yet I can't wait to get to the epilogue.

 

Chapters 1-6 spoilers:

 

I think they've done a great job planting seeds of doubt between Arthur and Dutch where Arthur is slowly starting to realize that Dutch is a snake. 

Edited November 20, 2018 by Vini

[madmaltese★ 2,555]

2 hours ago, Vini said:

 

I get where you're coming from but I don't think it's jarring at all. Yea the world design is great and feels alive but no matter how great the ecosystem the whole thing would feel empty anyway if there's no story and the characters to interact with it and it all blends seamlessly with the environment IMO

 

Considering I have no issues with the story yet I can't wait to get to the epilogue.

 

Chapters 1-6 spoilers:

  Hide contents

I think they've done a great job planting seeds of doubt between Arthur and Dutch where Arthur is slowly starting to realize that Dutch is a snake. 

Chapters 1-6 spoilers (not past where you are up to)

I think  they planted the seeds of doubt in Chapter 2, confirmed them in Chapter 3 and by Chapter 4 Arthur would've no way been following Dutch still. Let alone after what happens in Chapter 5 and he is still following him in Chapter 6. Either Arthur is really really dumb or they just had to fill in content for the game because imo that arc of the story is dragged out so much that it ruined Arthur for me. In the end it feels like his character change happens when he finds out he has TB and not from any of Dutch's actions because the things he accepts is just ridiculous at some points. A major major example being in Chap 6 but I'm not sure if you are there yet.

 

But for me after Dutch got the camp involved with the 2 family drama in Chapter 3 that resulted in Jack getting kidnapped (this already on the back of a death or 2) should've been the final straw from Arthur. From that point we have Dutch's insanely crazy plans in Chapter 4 (robbing the bank in Saint Denis after there was already a failed robbery at the Post Office in what seemed to be a set up)  that resulted in Hosea dying among others, plus the members getting split and the entire insanity of Chapter 5 including Arthur acknowledging how Dutch has lost it after killing the old woman only for Arthur to still do everything he says in the remaining Chapter 5 and going into 6. 

 

It felt like a story with a person suspecting their partner of cheating and first catching them holding hands with someone and letting it go and believing in them, then catching them kissing someone and letting it go and believing in them, then catching them fucking someone and letting it go and believing in them then catching them in a full blown orgy and letting it go and believing in them. At some point you lose sympathy or reliability to the character because it's just their stupidity for continuing to do this.