-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
I tried to play the game from the beginning maybe 3-4 times, which is far more generous of an opportunity than I've given other games, and I just couldn't do it. It was so utterly boring, mundane, and cumbersome to ever appeal to me. I absolutely respect how much detail was poured into the game, but when I'm looting somebody, I just want to grab their shit and go. I don't want to watch my character bend over, open the coat pockets of the person, pick out what he needs, pocket the items, stand back up, and repeat the process on somebody else. I don't want to go to a store and individually select a can of beans off the shelf so I can stash it away in my coat pocket. I don't want to drag my ass through camp at 1 mph so I can then walk up to a pot of stew, pick up a ladle, pour the stew into my bowl, and take individual bites.
It's just so damn tedious, but at the same time, I respect the work that went into it.
It's just so damn tedious, but at the same time, I respect the work that went into it.
A good looking but terrible playing game. Mission design alone is horrendous, shooting mechanics themselves are not much better. The overly elaborate animations make no sense, humans do not pick up items at a snails pace. A game that benefited greatly from a huge marketing campaign with gaming media failing yet again to properly critique a premier publisher title.
Also it is roughly 50 hours too long.
"Arthur, I gots a plan"...pathetic.
Also it is roughly 50 hours too long.
"Arthur, I gots a plan"...pathetic.
The smaller stories are much more interesting than the main narrative in the game. What kept me playing was just exploring and discovering cool stuff and characters, I really didn't give a shit about Dutch and all that stuff, thought it was pretty dumb.
Still an amazing experience all around.
Still an amazing experience all around.
I thought the game was remarkable when it came out and my fondness has only grown stronger since. People say it's too long, but I could have kept going for another 100 hours if they kept up the quality of the story telling. I love how often the game slows down and lets you get to know the characters and do mundane things. The dynamic of the camps were Mass Effect-esque, I always wanted to make sure I heard every little bit of incidental conversation when I came back and a lot of great stuff gets fleshed out in those moments. The open world is still the best we've seen, and the gunplay was good enough to service the storytelling which was the real star of the show. I need to replay it again when I get a chance.
I refuse to buy the game, purely based on the fact that Rockstar is either incapable of, or unwilling to creating compelling gameplay. I wish I could get past that, since it sounds like something special in terms of the characters and narrative, but this developer has been cranking out bad controls and railroaded mission design since at least GTA4, and it's frustrating.
My absolute favorite video discussing the narrative and game structure is from Noah Caldwell-Gervais. It's very long and exhaustive, but I find it to be incredibly interesting and on point.
(RDR 2 starts at 1:42:00)
highly recommend anyone wanting to hear someone talk about digital cowboys for a few hours give it a listen. It's real good.
I basically disagree with all criticisms in the OP, I tihnk the game has perfect pacing for what it is going for, and I think that character flaws are not the same as bad writing. Arthur goes along with Dutch because he considers himse a father figure, and feels like he owes him, not because he thinks that Dutch is right.
RDR 2's side missions are also super important to really get the full picture of Arthur as a character. Only doing main missions kinda hides his true self. He doesn't shoot up or rob towns to pass time, that's merely his "job", an extension of Dutch's will. When you do side missions, it's all Arthur's own curiousity or willingness to help. There is really only a few side missions where you get in shootouts with humans, it's always either self defense or defending a friend.
Arthur's journal is really an incredible mechanic because it canonizes everything you do in the world. From main missions to just observing animals or checking out a creepy looking cabin across meeting characters in side missions... it all gets penned down. When you finish the game and look back, it's an incredible journey.
Arthur's redemption doesn't really happen while he's alive, and he fully knows that he is not a good person. Every time people tell him that he immediately denies it or visibly gets flustered. His redemption is through John and his family, everything he does in Ch6 is to ensure that they have an opportunity to start over as better people. And in the epilogues you get to play it out. John fucks it up by disobeying Arthur and going for a meaningless revenge, but outside of that, Arthur very much succeeds.
I think people often overlook that the game is about a gang of low life criminals who pretend to be more than that thanks to Dutch's cult-like leadership. They all have fucked up morals and aren't particularly bright. So questioning things like "Why does Strauss get kicked out but actual murderes don't" is just kinda weird to me. In thecontext, it makes perfect sense. Arthur learned about his TB, which he figured out was indirectly caused by Strauss, and Strauss once again sent him on a collection run to collect from helpless people.... he reached a breaking point and kicked his ass, that is all.
As for the public perception of RDR 2, I think you are trying a bit too hard to justify your not liking the game as much as you hoped/expected OP. It sold 35 mil copies, won well over 100 GOTY awards, literally won steam's GOTY last year which was entirely user voted, gets constantly discussed to this day... the game is easily one of the best games of the last generation. The big "fall off" you keep mentioning just isn't there.
(RDR 2 starts at 1:42:00)
highly recommend anyone wanting to hear someone talk about digital cowboys for a few hours give it a listen. It's real good.
I basically disagree with all criticisms in the OP, I tihnk the game has perfect pacing for what it is going for, and I think that character flaws are not the same as bad writing. Arthur goes along with Dutch because he considers himse a father figure, and feels like he owes him, not because he thinks that Dutch is right.
RDR 2's side missions are also super important to really get the full picture of Arthur as a character. Only doing main missions kinda hides his true self. He doesn't shoot up or rob towns to pass time, that's merely his "job", an extension of Dutch's will. When you do side missions, it's all Arthur's own curiousity or willingness to help. There is really only a few side missions where you get in shootouts with humans, it's always either self defense or defending a friend.
Arthur's journal is really an incredible mechanic because it canonizes everything you do in the world. From main missions to just observing animals or checking out a creepy looking cabin across meeting characters in side missions... it all gets penned down. When you finish the game and look back, it's an incredible journey.
Arthur's redemption doesn't really happen while he's alive, and he fully knows that he is not a good person. Every time people tell him that he immediately denies it or visibly gets flustered. His redemption is through John and his family, everything he does in Ch6 is to ensure that they have an opportunity to start over as better people. And in the epilogues you get to play it out. John fucks it up by disobeying Arthur and going for a meaningless revenge, but outside of that, Arthur very much succeeds.
I think people often overlook that the game is about a gang of low life criminals who pretend to be more than that thanks to Dutch's cult-like leadership. They all have fucked up morals and aren't particularly bright. So questioning things like "Why does Strauss get kicked out but actual murderes don't" is just kinda weird to me. In thecontext, it makes perfect sense. Arthur learned about his TB, which he figured out was indirectly caused by Strauss, and Strauss once again sent him on a collection run to collect from helpless people.... he reached a breaking point and kicked his ass, that is all.
As for the public perception of RDR 2, I think you are trying a bit too hard to justify your not liking the game as much as you hoped/expected OP. It sold 35 mil copies, won well over 100 GOTY awards, literally won steam's GOTY last year which was entirely user voted, gets constantly discussed to this day... the game is easily one of the best games of the last generation. The big "fall off" you keep mentioning just isn't there.
I think your distillation is a little unfair. Every camp you stop at your band of thieves are a little weaker, further from their goal, and more desperate. I also felt like Arthur drove Strauss off partly for disgust but also partly to get him out of camp before the world collapsed in them. It's been a little bit, but he was driving quite a bit of the people from camp right around then wasn't he?
I guess I can understand the complaints about the pace on one hand, but on the other, I think slowing players down and attempting to get them to appreciate the beauty of the world, while giving the systems a chance to generate random events and encounters. I appreciate the tediousness.
My complaints are that it took me too long to realize which missions would advance the story, causing me to miss out on some side missions.
I didn't like how every random camp was hostile.
I didn't like how they deal with getting craftable pouches in the endgame.
I didn't like some of the railroading in missions. Some of it I'm ok with. I'm mostly ok with them limiting your approach or distance or whatever, I don't care. I don't like them rearranging my weapons, even if I made a shitty choice.
I guess I can understand the complaints about the pace on one hand, but on the other, I think slowing players down and attempting to get them to appreciate the beauty of the world, while giving the systems a chance to generate random events and encounters. I appreciate the tediousness.
My complaints are that it took me too long to realize which missions would advance the story, causing me to miss out on some side missions.
I didn't like how every random camp was hostile.
I didn't like how they deal with getting craftable pouches in the endgame.
I didn't like some of the railroading in missions. Some of it I'm ok with. I'm mostly ok with them limiting your approach or distance or whatever, I don't care. I don't like them rearranging my weapons, even if I made a shitty choice.
I think it's more than a game. It's a shared memory. It's an experience. It's a masterpiece.
Mira so far ahead of everything else, aside from TLOU2,
That even calling it a video game is cutting it short.
Mira so far ahead of everything else, aside from TLOU2,
That even calling it a video game is cutting it short.
RDR2 is in an entire league ahead of everything else when it comes to character development and integrating an entire fictional historical piece world into open world gameplay. Nothing is remotely close. All other open world games either have no meaningful story/plot (botw) or the open world gameplay is all a 2 dimensional illusion (ubisoft, CDPR).
Rockstar may be the only company capable of making these games because it's obscenely expensive and it takes a lot of talent.
Rockstar may be the only company capable of making these games because it's obscenely expensive and it takes a lot of talent.
And even then their output is one of these games every 5 years now. If they fuck up just once their business model collapses.
It's the most impressive game ever made. It feels like the world of the game moves on without you when you turn off the console, something that very, very few games achieve.
Still one of the best looking games of all time on the One X/Series X. Part of the reason games like Miles and AC Valhalla on next gen haven't blown me away yet. Red Dead is still better in the looks department.
See this was a huge win for me with the game. Absolutely loved the immersion. I even hated when they took the loot animation out of online mode and sped up weapon swaps to speed up the gameplay.
See this was a huge win for me with the game. Absolutely loved the immersion. I even hated when they took the loot animation out of online mode and sped up weapon swaps to speed up the gameplay.
For me is one of the worst games I've ever played. Slow as hell, bloated with a lot of sub-systems (but even moving feel awkward). Has a story that apparently tries to say something, but its characters are caricatures. Technically impressive, but boring as hell. I just can't stand rockstar games.
I'm a little surprised to see the bolded mentioned because that seemed like a pretty generic good deed -> reward interaction you might run into in any number of games. I thought it was cool that I could pick out a free expensive gun of my choice the first time I ran into that scenario, but then it happened again... and again... and it's like, OK.
I don't think exploration was very rewarding, either. I wish it was, because they crafted an undeniably beautiful world that felt incredibly underutilized. I spent hours riding my horse around the map just to see what was out there and... didn't find much worthwhile outside of the marked missions, certainly not worth the time investment. It took me months to finish because halfway through the game I felt like 80% of my time was spent riding my horse around and watching drawn out animations for every little action.
It's a game I still think about a whole bunch. It's maybe my favorite game ever, and I was extremely high on the first one, so it had big shoes to fill. Sure, the mission structure can get frustrating sometimes, but that's really my only gripe. I'd call it a masterpiece without hesitation
I love the story, world and characters but man I hate the gameplay. Seriously, I love how the world is built and how alive it feels but I wish it wasn't a pain in the ass to control Arthur. I almost quit the game a few times due to the controls but the story interested me enough to keep going. I don't regret playing it but it's one of the few games I don't see myself returning to.
It was the fourth best game of the generation for me (behind TLOU2, The Witcher 3, and Ghost of Tsushima).
It had a lot going for it: amazing tech, great writing, great atmosphere. I thought it was possibly the best story in gaming at release (subsequently dethroned by TLOU2); in particular, the way the group slowly started to disintegrate was done so beautifully, such that it was incredibly gradual and felt entirely believable and natural. The changes in the various character relationships over the course of the game were handled brilliantly, with way more nuance and subtlety than you normally find in a video game.
There were some big problems though. Free aim on a controller was absolutely horrific and felt bad even by standards of the previous gen. There were also a multitude of terrible games design decisions. There were so many tedious gameplay elements that added absolutely nothing to the game other than being busywork. Also, some collectible stuff is normal in an open world game like this, but I felt like they started to take the piss with RDR2.
I feel like with better game direction and controls RDR2 could've been in the number 2 slot for me, rather than 4.
It had a lot going for it: amazing tech, great writing, great atmosphere. I thought it was possibly the best story in gaming at release (subsequently dethroned by TLOU2); in particular, the way the group slowly started to disintegrate was done so beautifully, such that it was incredibly gradual and felt entirely believable and natural. The changes in the various character relationships over the course of the game were handled brilliantly, with way more nuance and subtlety than you normally find in a video game.
There were some big problems though. Free aim on a controller was absolutely horrific and felt bad even by standards of the previous gen. There were also a multitude of terrible games design decisions. There were so many tedious gameplay elements that added absolutely nothing to the game other than being busywork. Also, some collectible stuff is normal in an open world game like this, but I felt like they started to take the piss with RDR2.
I feel like with better game direction and controls RDR2 could've been in the number 2 slot for me, rather than 4.
For me, I feel like there are two kinds of great games—polished clockwork gems where everything works together perfectly, and flawed, sprawling messes that nonetheless achieve something rarified. RDR2 would be the latter type. The game's mission design is dated, and all sorts of subsystems feel half-hearted and like they're only there out of some sense of obligation to being a AAA video game. Tons of open-world stuff is to be engaged with, for its own sake, if you feel like it I guess—it's not like what you do there feeds into the main story missions in any meaningful way. The UI is an overloaded, inconsistent mess.
But, in the writing, the performances, the overall atmosphere it creates with its world (and with its much-maligned character movement and drawn-out animations, I'd argue), I think it creates some pretty special moments.
In terms of your specific criticisms of the story, I think the fact that the gang is caught in this cycle with Dutch, to ever-diminishing returns, is part of the point. However false the hope or empty his promises, they go along with him because he provides a narrative for their hard existence that gives them some meaning, and lets them pretend they're something other than they are. Arthur keeps going along with him not just out of a sense of loyalty, but because he's no longer capable of even imagining a different kind of life for himself.
But, in the writing, the performances, the overall atmosphere it creates with its world (and with its much-maligned character movement and drawn-out animations, I'd argue), I think it creates some pretty special moments.
In terms of your specific criticisms of the story, I think the fact that the gang is caught in this cycle with Dutch, to ever-diminishing returns, is part of the point. However false the hope or empty his promises, they go along with him because he provides a narrative for their hard existence that gives them some meaning, and lets them pretend they're something other than they are. Arthur keeps going along with him not just out of a sense of loyalty, but because he's no longer capable of even imagining a different kind of life for himself.
Last edited:
RDR1 was one of my favourite games and def the best Rockstar had pout out by GTAV's release, but RDR2 somehow managed to top it in so many ways. Despite being the game I was the most hyped for it still managed to surprise me on so many levels, namely how much I would care for Arthur and the Gameplay approach. I think the accolades was well worth it, if anything I'd say it gets shit on for being slow paced more than it should when that should be celebrated for a AAA release to do without bloating repeated content like Ubi does
Yeah. I mean, I beat it. But RDR1 I was either having fun or in awe of nature. Those moments were wayyyyyyy spread out in 2 and largely felt like a super long road trip.
this and death stranding were two of the toughest starts gaming wise, but once you get into it, its pretty amazing on all fronts i think. the overall story is decent enough, but its really arthurs arc that really drives it. plus it has the best random open world ever for me, found a crowd of like 15 KKK fuckos and i chucked a single piece of dynamite and their bodies went flying, damn satisfying.
Based on the replies so far, I'd say you're wrong. It's the game of the last generation easily. Story, visuals, sound design and voice acting is unmatched. Gameplay is the most immersive you'll find anywhere.
It's an amazing achievement. The world feels incredibly dynamic and alive. The story is terrific and your oversimplification of it doesn't do it justice. I agree that BotW feels better to play, but the story, world and voice acting are so far behind RDR2. Every single side mission in BotW is some sort of fetch quest for crying out loud.
One year ago I agreed with you, but after a year plus break from the game I went back and finished Chapter 3, and it was so strong I'm now playing the game every night and have no doubts that I will end up finishing it.
My mind went precisely to that tweet when I read that haha. RDR2 is still a masterpiece and probably still the best looking game ever.
Fantastic story, great characters, jaw-dropping world building, but jesus if the game isn't a chore to play. The shooting mechanics are outdated and all those animations and manual stuff you have to do are super cool to see, but they're boring and don't add very much to the package.
As mentioned earlier from someone else, it feels more like a shared memory, like something you've experienced in your past and all these characters are somehow "related" to you. Hard to explain..
Am currently playing through RDR1 on the series X in 4k (beautiful.) Holds up so very well, writing is great , humour is fantastic, euphoria engine seems to be better than in the successor. Still I keep thinking about what a massive step forward RDR 2 is in comparison especially in open world design and atmosphere, it's mindblowing. Looking forward to another playthrough in the future.
Am currently playing through RDR1 on the series X in 4k (beautiful.) Holds up so very well, writing is great , humour is fantastic, euphoria engine seems to be better than in the successor. Still I keep thinking about what a massive step forward RDR 2 is in comparison especially in open world design and atmosphere, it's mindblowing. Looking forward to another playthrough in the future.
Pretty much my thoughts exactly. The game is gorgeous, but I didn't enjoy playing any of it. I dropped it pretty quickly.
I liked RDR 2 but it's heavily flawed. I would definitely put The Witcher III and BotW way above it. Granted, those three games are trying to do their own thing, but in terms of an engaging open world I would put RDR last. I feel that so many open-world developers forgot you are supposed to find interesting things in the world that drive the gameplay. I was excited to find a new bomb diagram in Witcher III because it opened up more combat possibilities, and early on in BotW finding a bundle of five arrows was like winning the lottery. I was excited to come across these. So much of the stuff you find in RDR 2 is complete junk. I can't get excited about a can of beans because the gameplay is not challenging enough where item management is crucial, nor does it open up new gameplay opportunities. People praise how handcrafted RDR 2 feels but those unique assets contribute to the atmosphere of the world but not how the player interacts with it.
The game insists upon itself. It is an absolute job to actually play. It comes in a very impressive high budget wrapper, but all of that is fairly pointless when the gameplay is so sluggish and unsatisfying in some clumsily deliberate attempt at realism.
I was incredibly excited for the game, and even went to pick it up at midnight. The first few hours I was absolutely blown away by the visuals, the story, and the world design. But gameplay, for me, is king, and RDR2 just sucks to play. It's slow, it's stiff, and it feels like a constant battle just to get Arthur to do what you want him to do. The whole experience is ruined by this, and I eventually dropped the game 10 hours in and have never returned.