Red Dead Redemption 2

Just failed a mission as I couldn't see the person I was chasing, hit restart and it's gone right back to very beginning. Is typical of all missions in the game or just bounties? I think I'll be stopping now if it's the former.

Hime wrote:Just failed a mission as I couldn't see the person I was chasing, hit restart and it's gone right back to very beginning. Is typical of all missions in the game or just bounties? I think I'll be stopping now if it's the former.

Missions have checkpoints and the option to restart from checkpoint.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Hime wrote:Just failed a mission as I couldn't see the person I was chasing, hit restart and it's gone right back to very beginning. Is typical of all missions in the game or just bounties? I think I'll be stopping now if it's the former.

Missions have checkpoints and the option to restart from checkpoint.

This one definitely didn't.

I ended up finishing this the other day. I actually enjoyed the epilogue chapters and I do love Arthur as a character but Rockstar are absolute bollocks at this point. They're stuck in the 2000s and have been surpassed by every other developer out there. Honestly this game was just such a boring slog to play through. And it was a chore having to constantly wrestle with the God awful controls. All the realism bollocks only served to highlight how unrealistic other aspects of the game were and it was really jarring. Rockstar should've just made a movie, honestly.

I want to replay GTA V as I adored that game years ago and I want to know if I've just grown bored of Rockstar or if RDR2 really was a failure. It might be a bit of both but this was absolutely dull and took itself far too seriously.

I finished it today, epilogue included, 86% completion, and all I can really think of at the minute is that...I’ll miss it. Can’t really remember feeling that way about a game lately, feeling genuinely a little sad that it’s over.

Zilnad wrote:I ended up finishing this the other day. I actually enjoyed the epilogue chapters and I do love Arthur as a character but Rockstar are absolute bollocks at this point. They're stuck in the 2000s and have been surpassed by every other developer out there. Honestly this game was just such a boring slog to play through. And it was a chore having to constantly wrestle with the God awful controls. All the realism bollocks only served to highlight how unrealistic other aspects of the game were and it was really jarring. Rockstar should've just made a movie, honestly.

I want to replay GTA V as I adored that game years ago and I want to know if I've just grown bored of Rockstar or if RDR2 really was a failure. It might be a bit of both but this was absolutely dull and took itself far too seriously.

Despite the annoyance above I couldn't disagree more. The NPC interactions are miles ahead of most other games which makes such a huge difference for me. I assume by realism you mean the affects of eating, cleaning your weapons, etc? I think that's the next stage for open world games, I think all the systems are incredible and I like that they actually make a difference to my playing experience unlike the physics stuff in BOTW and feels more natural than simply putting more repetitive tasks on the map. I don't have a problem with the controls but I can see how some would find them annoying.

I had to quit this after eight hours as I was just forcing myself to keep playing. Extremely dull, terrible controls, tediously paced and very clunky interface. It might have been tolerable if the characters and story had been engaging however it seemed basic hackneyed western tropes that remind you why this genre died on film.

I think Rockstar could have made it work if they had just had mercy on the player and just stopped making everything take so damn long and every action so unintuitive, if they made your character move at more than a crawl and it took less than a quarter of an hour to reach a quest objective. Ubisoft don't put anywhere near this kind of attention to detail into their open world games but at least the interface and core gameplay loops in their games are engaging. They nail the fundamental gooseberry fool. From all the hype I was expecting something on the level of Witcher 3 and am pretty sorely disappointed. I also feel bad because a lot of people clearly put a lot of effort into something that is technically impressive but just not fun to play.

Hats off to those who slogged all the way through but I am still working full-time and I don't want to waste my free time hate-playing something.

I regret forcing myself to finish it but at least it's checked off my list now.

Y’all don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s amazing.

Buffalo wrote:Y’all don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s amazing.

^

Victor Mildew wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Y’all don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s amazing.

^

/\

Tafdolphin wrote:

Victor Mildew wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Y’all don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s amazing.

^

/\

\ /

Play this instead - it's ULTRA gratifying!

Thanks for the backup Ad

Victor Mildew wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Victor Mildew wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Y’all don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s amazing.

^

/\

\ /

\ /
. .
|
___

Tafdolphin wrote:

Victor Mildew wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Victor Mildew wrote:

Buffalo wrote:Y’all don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s amazing.

^

/\

\ /

\ /
. .
|
___

Is that a minimalist representation of Fido Dido? Nice work if so

Buffalo wrote:Y’all don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s amazing.

One of the best games of all time

Correct.

Visuals from the future, with gameplay from the past. The open world and characters were rich, expansive and detailed, but they were paired with shooting gallery missions which were maddeningly restrictive.

An astounding technical achievement, but hampered by the fact that it was a lot more fun to just existing in the world, than it was to "play" in it.

I think, taken at their respective towns, the first RDR was probably the better "game", but I was more affected by my time in the sequel. "In" is definitely the right word, as I was "in" the game (not literally, like Jumanji) but it was the setting that was affecting not the gameplay. The attempts at engangi g gamey stuff, like those damn cores, the stats, the unlockables etc, were all really damp squibs. And even now, I'm struggling to remember any of the game's missions bar the plot happenings in each.

It's a bit Westwordly at times. You marvel at the aesthetics, the feel of the place, the authenticity and effort that's gone in to building it, but you poke at the seams or try to actively engage with things instead of letting it passively wash over you, and it all feels a bit like Rockstar have stuck on an animatronic show. Despite the pull you have over Arthur's character, that's about as much as I felt I could affect. The rest is Rockstar's world, Rockstar showing you or telling you.

It's a little bit similar to how I fel about TLOU 1 and 2, like it's a theme park right Rockstar or ND are taking me on. I'm getting told stuff, I'm finding stuff the developers wrote in little letters from NPCs. It feels like the Haunted Mansion or Tower of Terror at Disneyland - really well constructed, exciting and you go along with it all. But it's the developers guiding you along and showing you what they want you to see, but it's all bit like Oz behind a curtain, if you go looking yourself. Though TLOU does have a much stronger, more evident gameplay loop than RDR.

I really liked RDR2, but when I think of my time with it, I enjoyed being in it, I enjoyed seeing things in it but I wouldn't say I necessarily enjoyed "playing" it.

Parksey wrote:Visuals from the future, with gameplay from the past. The open world and characters were rich, expansive and detailed, but they were paired with shooting gallery missions which were maddeningly restrictive.

An astounding technical achievement, but hampered by the fact that it was a lot more fun to just existing in the world, than it was to "play" in it.

I think, taken at their respective towns, the first RDR was probably the better "game", but I was more affected by my time in the sequel. "In" is definitely the right word, as I was "in" the game (not literally, like Jumanji) but it was the setting that was affecting not the gameplay. The attempts at engangi g gamey stuff, like those damn cores, the stats, the unlockables etc, were all really damp squibs. And even now, I'm struggling to remember any of the game's missions bar the plot happenings in each.

It's a bit Westwordly at times. You marvel at the aesthetics, the feel of the place, the authenticity and effort that's gone in to building it, but you poke at the seams or try to actively engage with things instead of letting it passively wash over you, and it all feels a bit like Rockstar have stuck on an animatronic show. Despite the pull you have over Arthur's character, that's about as much as I felt I could affect. The rest is Rockstar's world, Rockstar showing you or telling you.

It's a little bit similar to how I fel about TLOU 1 and 2, like it's a theme park right Rockstar or ND are taking me on. I'm getting told stuff, I'm finding stuff the developers wrote in little letters from NPCs. It feels like the Haunted Mansion or Tower of Terror at Disneyland - really well constructed, exciting and you go along with it all. But it's the developers guiding you along and showing you what they want you to see, but it's all bit like Oz behind a curtain, if you go looking yourself. Though TLOU does have a much stronger, more evident gameplay loop than RDR.

I really liked RDR2, but when I think of my time with it, I enjoyed being in it, I enjoyed seeing things in it but I wouldn't say I necessarily enjoyed "playing" it.

I really disagree with that, I don't think I've played a game where conversation felt so natural which is the exact opposite of most other open world games with identical NPC's with the same few lines of dialogue. In fact the thing I'm struggling with getting into this game is that I feel like it's asking me to commit to a role and play it 'naturally' rather than just run up to the people with icons over their heads to accept a mission. Rather than have icons scattered all over the map (I'm not that far in, this might happen down the line) I'm supposed to clean my guns, bond with my horse, provide for the camp all of which feels far more organic than going to do 10 identical side missions to get upgrade points.

My biggest criticism of the game so far is that doesn't go the best job of explaining these things to you.

Had a quick go with the online last night, since it's free this weekend. The character creation was good; but, overall, found it a bit lacking - just turned into a lot of tit for tat. Could see how it would be more fun as part of a posse. Also, might have been the time I was on at, but seemed fairly sparse of real players.