The overall story wasn't that interesting and had some jarring moments tbh(i.e. Guarma), but Arthur's personal story (especially the depth within the journal) and the smaller moments in the camp were fantastic
-
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.
Red Dead Redemption 2 has a 97 Metacritic and plays like absolute dog doo doo
- Thread starter Bruceleeroy
- Start date
The overall story wasn't that interesting and had some jarring moments tbh(i.e. Guarma), but Arthur's personal story (especially the depth within the journal) and the smaller moments in the camp were fantastic
Many people have the inability to remove themselves from the equation long enough to appreciate something even if they don't like or love it.
Instead, they don't personally like it, therefore it is shit.
Example: I purchased Celeste day one and the game doesn't do much for me personally. That said, I would never go around calling it overrated shit because despite my own response, there's clearly plenty of quality there even if the game didn't resonate with me personally.
I can fully understand why some people do not like the way RDR2 controls but to dismiss it outright seems very sophomoric and narrow.
I love it when I go to pick up a cup of coffee and it takes a second before my arm moves to do it. Really immersive
funny how people are so willing to excuse Rockstar for their piss poor dogshit design decision to have so much input lag that it hampers enjoyment all for the sake of this so-called "weight". there's a difference between feeling weighty while maintaining refined controls vs. feeling weighty in exchange for dogshit controls, and rdr2 is the latter.
then again, people excused rockstar for their shitty work practices so controls are like nothing.
then again, people excused rockstar for their shitty work practices so controls are like nothing.
Measuring a game simply by your own subjective response is fine, but some people like to dig deeper into things, understand what drove that response and which design decisions did or didn't resonate with them and contrast their experience with that of others. That's what threads like this are for.
I like RDR2 (mostly), but it definitely does frustrate me how certain developers tend to get a pass for flaws that would be crucified by reviewers if they were in other games.
The sheer lack of logic behind things like the weapon system (why do my guns just disappear from my horse sometimes?) and the lack of consistency between the different gauges/cores just drive me nuts. And all the weird control hurdles just don't help either. I can't even count how many times I hit L2 to interact with someone in town and then Arthur pulls out his gun instead and they panic and run away. The two actions should not have been bound to the same button.
The sheer lack of logic behind things like the weapon system (why do my guns just disappear from my horse sometimes?) and the lack of consistency between the different gauges/cores just drive me nuts. And all the weird control hurdles just don't help either. I can't even count how many times I hit L2 to interact with someone in town and then Arthur pulls out his gun instead and they panic and run away. The two actions should not have been bound to the same button.
Not with thread titles and an opening post like that, it is.
This is where I'm at, I finally gave up on RDR2 in Chapter 7 after I couldn't force myself to play it any longer, and I've been having a blast with AC:O. RDR2 is more "impressive", but AC:O is more fun and isn't making me want to throw my controller.
My entire playtime with RDR2 can be summarized by the fact that I failed the mission to drive the wagon to the first campsite twice and had to redo the entire trip just because I went a little too far in the wrong direction instead of taking the exact path the game wanted.
I feel you on that OP, Bruce. Lovely world they created but gameplay and actual interactions seemed to be drowned in vaseline, almost everything slow motion or tedious for the sake of being tedious. Out of all the open world games I played this generation, this one was one of the most disrespectful of the players time I felt due to some very specific design choices. It felt asinine even at times, so I'm also puzzled at the pass that R* games get in general with their insanely high MC/OC scores.
That's why I'll never say that RDR2 is a bad game, by any measurement. It's just not a game I've had any pleasure playing, and one that I will be hard pressed to ever pick up again. The world they created, the story and spectacle of it all is A++. The feeling of playing the game and the tedium of every activity the game has to offer is a D at best.
While I love the game, I definitely agree with the criticisms around the movement controls and mission design. When it comes to controls, it's absolutely crazy to me that in Rockstar's obsessive pursuit of "realism," they end up creating the silliest, goofiest, and most unrealistic shit ever. You want to open the drawer? Well if you're just two inches from where the animation will play, then you're going to watch Arthur awkward teleport and slide around until he's in the correct place to show you the animation. HOW IS THAT REALISTIC OR IMMERSIVE? It's especially sad that Max Payne 3 controlled so goddamn beautifully on the same engine, with similar cover-based third person shooting combat. I try to run from cover to cover and Arthur just slowly saunters about like he's in town on a cool Sunday afternoon with bullets whizzing by because I forgot to hammer on my A button to make sure he sprints. It's just so awkward and immersion-breaking.
Not to mention their over-reliance on a 24-minute day cycle, which entirely breaks the illusion, and their constant use of fictional states and places to sell their world. For the love of god, Rockstar, just create a region of, say, Colorado. It can still be fictional and feature different biomes, but I have a real hard time believing that this world that I can ride a horse across in twenty minutes is FOUR fucking states. Again, this just breaks the illusion for me, and I don't understand why they couldn't have it set in four different counties of Arizona, or New Mexico, or whathaveyou. GTAV's version of San Andreas is supposed to be an entire state, and it's smaller than the actual city of Los Angeles. I may be in the minority here, but that shit is like a giant spec in my eye that I can't ignore, and it's only further pronounced by their pursuit of realism, which they double down on with each release. Stop trying to sell me on your realistic game with its bullshit fantasy world and fantasy time passage.
And then there's the mission design. I just did a late game mission that involves infiltrating a camp with another gang member. In this mission, you follow the other guy PRECISELY and do literally everything he tells you, including, at one point, shooting a lantern to start a fire. Now... what if the game just let you infiltrate the camp, and left all of these different options as potential things you COULD do? There's a lantern above some ammo boxes, and if you shoot it, you create a distraction. Why guide me very very precisely by the nose? It's crazy that in a world where LINEAR games such as Dishonored and Splinter Cell give players a set of tools and a set of environmental obstacles and allow the player to tackle objectives how they see fit, Rockstar, the goddamn biggest innovators in open world, non-linear design, are forcing players into such insanely narrow styles of play. At times, story missions can feel more like interactive cutscenes than fun open world action.
Nakey Jakey has a fantastic video breaking down issues with the game's mission design where he compares it to Rockstar's own GTA3 and the more recent Metal Gear Solid V (which may well be the best playing third person action game that exists). I highly recommend it to anyone, regardless of whether you loved or hated RDR2:
Not to mention their over-reliance on a 24-minute day cycle, which entirely breaks the illusion, and their constant use of fictional states and places to sell their world. For the love of god, Rockstar, just create a region of, say, Colorado. It can still be fictional and feature different biomes, but I have a real hard time believing that this world that I can ride a horse across in twenty minutes is FOUR fucking states. Again, this just breaks the illusion for me, and I don't understand why they couldn't have it set in four different counties of Arizona, or New Mexico, or whathaveyou. GTAV's version of San Andreas is supposed to be an entire state, and it's smaller than the actual city of Los Angeles. I may be in the minority here, but that shit is like a giant spec in my eye that I can't ignore, and it's only further pronounced by their pursuit of realism, which they double down on with each release. Stop trying to sell me on your realistic game with its bullshit fantasy world and fantasy time passage.
And then there's the mission design. I just did a late game mission that involves infiltrating a camp with another gang member. In this mission, you follow the other guy PRECISELY and do literally everything he tells you, including, at one point, shooting a lantern to start a fire. Now... what if the game just let you infiltrate the camp, and left all of these different options as potential things you COULD do? There's a lantern above some ammo boxes, and if you shoot it, you create a distraction. Why guide me very very precisely by the nose? It's crazy that in a world where LINEAR games such as Dishonored and Splinter Cell give players a set of tools and a set of environmental obstacles and allow the player to tackle objectives how they see fit, Rockstar, the goddamn biggest innovators in open world, non-linear design, are forcing players into such insanely narrow styles of play. At times, story missions can feel more like interactive cutscenes than fun open world action.
Nakey Jakey has a fantastic video breaking down issues with the game's mission design where he compares it to Rockstar's own GTA3 and the more recent Metal Gear Solid V (which may well be the best playing third person action game that exists). I highly recommend it to anyone, regardless of whether you loved or hated RDR2:
The thread title calls it "absolute dog doo doo". That'll surely spark discussion that won't seem like hyperbole.
I personally loved the feel of the game. Certainly has it's faults, but it all came together for me very well. The "clunky" felt very deliberate and somehow fit into my personal Arthur narrative....if that makes sense haha.
Combat encounters and scenario needs some work though and I wish I could be more creative during story missions.
Combat encounters and scenario needs some work though and I wish I could be more creative during story missions.
No, this thread is mostly about people not liking the gameplay choices Rockstar made with RDR2 and trying to pass that off as a definitive critique while painting those of us who enjoyed it as blind fanboys incapable of deeper, more nuanced analysis blinded by our love of the developer and franchise.
Also, it's interesting you think people are 'digging deeper' when the OP title contains the phrase "Dog Do Do" and an inordinate amount of the posts in here have attacked professional critics for drinking the proverbial Rockstar Kool-Aid.
There's also people diminishing fair critics because "you didnt understand the design choices". I mean people can understand reasoning and still not be happy with the final result or the implementation of that reasoning.
That said I wonder if he'd replied the same if this thread was about god of war critcism lol.
It's only a crutch in the sense that, if it didn't exist, you'd probably end up becoming really, really frustrated with the fact that RDR2 *doesn't* respond in the way an arcade shooter does -- "arcade shooter" being another way of saying "It responds quickly and accurately."
Dead-eye is the only way in the game, sans using auto-aim, to respond quickly and accurately, and even then thanks to the way it controls "accurately" probably isn't the word I'd use.
But here's the thing: if someone says "That's fine with me, and it's the way I want it to work", then I understand people defending it, because what they're saying is it makes them feel more like the character to be stumbling over themselves, missing obvious shots, falling off their horse when trying move, etc. And here's the thing, I agree with that: if it genuinely pulls you more into the world than out, then there *are* enough games out there to satisfy both audiences.
It's just that in threads like this I *never* see anyone make that argument. They only ever say "Bad controls? No idea what you're saying" and it feels like people talking past each other, when the person can just so easily say "It controls poorly, but that's part of why I like it." I can both respect that and understand that, even if I would never embrace that personally or look for it in the games I play.
That's a fair point too.
There's plenty of fair criticism you can level at RDR2 or any other game for that matter, I just think there are better ways of doing it than many people in here tend to employ.
Honestly, given the juvenile and inflammatory title of this thread, I was an idiot for ever steeping into it.
I've noticed that as well, it's almost like I'm the only one that actually gets bothered by this...lol.
Last edited:
THIS!!!!. This is all been trying to get at, but it goes over soooo many deaf ears.. lol
first of all, what kind of responses are you expecting with this thread title ?
I love the game because of the story, setting, exploration, controls are not good but I love the game despite of it. just like people can love Fallout or the Witcher games and not love the combat
I love the game because of the story, setting, exploration, controls are not good but I love the game despite of it. just like people can love Fallout or the Witcher games and not love the combat
The title's definitely bait-y, but the OP is a fair balance of praise and criticism - I can't see a problem unless you're only reading the thread title. For an internet forum, the quality on commentary on ERA isn't all too bad and, in truth, the OP's not saying anything that hasn't already been said.
With respect to critics, I don't think it's unreasonable to point out the lack of diversity of opinion among press reviews. The game's been pretty divisive among gamers - particularly more engaged communities like ERA - but critical reception was almost unanimous.
Eh.. I liked God of War, but it hasn't stuck with me like I thought it might (still haven't Platinumed it).
So they were mismanaged / had an extremely poorly run team.
Imagine working 100-hour weeks and the final gameplay is....that.
I just never find myself wanting to play this game. I'm on Chapter 4 or 5 I think (haven't played it in over a month), and I do enjoy it WHILE I'm playing it, but I just can't bring myself to boot it up for some reason, just don't really care. Funny, that goes for most AAA games these days.
Poorly managed to a 97 metacritic, comically huge sales, fan love (see Eurogamer list), and lots of GOTYs.
Era, man.
Literally none of which have anything to do with the bad controls and gameplay.
Era, man, indeed. Some of us are still stuck on the "BUT IT GOT GOOD REVIEWS" loop lmao
It's wrong to dismiss the thread title. It itself is part of the content of the thread and is intended to express the user's opinion in an inflammatory way.
I mean, amazing sales AND reviews AND a few GotY awards.
As I've said before, I think this thread is fascinating, because it seems like the type of people who post HERE are the one group who seems inclined to dislike the game, and I'm not sure what that is. Maybe because they play a lot of games with more responsive controls?
That's how I felt about Bethesda and their buggy, glitchy games. Rockstar needs a Fallout 76-tier game for them to even consider fixing their gameplay.
Good lord, I'm glad I'm not a huge fan of the western settings
The problem really is with Rockstar's games specifically; I usually have a few outlets with whom I mostly agree on the reviews, but like pointed out, games like gta4 or LA Noire do get a freepass. Rdr2 is indeed not unprecedented.
I totally understand that some people may have loved RDR2 mind you, but the aggregation of tens of people rating a game usually, overall, somehow reflects the diversity of opinion among players. In this specific, the discrepancy between what the critics said if the game and the opinion of what seems to be non negligible part of the players is blatant and I can't really explain it.
I'm guessing this site is split 70/30 on RDR2. 70% thinking it's an amazing game, 30% thinking otherwise. While seemingly 90% of critics gave the game a 10/10. It just feels bogus because the game has very significant flaws, and that's why the game's critical reception has drawn so much (negative) attention.
And as the poster above mentioned, this isn't the first time it's happened with R* games.
I'm with OP. It's technically impressive, but I found the gameplay poor and missions felt restrictive. I couldn't go to certain spots without failing the mission because according to the game, I "abandoned" my gang.
Everything felt slow and clunky. Playing RDR2 made me appreciate other games' gameplay, so I don't regret playing it.
I'm probably in the minority, but I also found the story lacking. Nothing really happens for the first two or three chapters, and chapter 5 added nothing at all.
Everything felt slow and clunky. Playing RDR2 made me appreciate other games' gameplay, so I don't regret playing it.
I'm probably in the minority, but I also found the story lacking. Nothing really happens for the first two or three chapters, and chapter 5 added nothing at all.
How much of that is influenced by games media hyping the game a huge amount and then giving it near universal perfect or near perfect scores? Had reviewers by and large taken the controls and gameplay more into account (very important aspects of a game) and tempered their reception accordingly, would it not have possibly had less success or accolades? I think a lot of the frustration comes from a not insignificant portion of people who have suddenly been faced with the fact that the near-entirety of gaming media does not represent what they are looking for and wondering why that is. My opinion echoes the OP, I don't think I'm at all unique for thinking that way, I don't have weird or elitist gaming tastes. Games media is a huge industry, where is the variety of opinion?
This is such a weird complaint to me, they put the ability to crash your horse and fall over objects into the game for a reason.
It's almost like the game immerses you in a world and makes you consider every choice you make in it.
Oh yeah arthur was an awesome character no doubt. Just expected more than the predictable main story arc
Why can't you take a simple, very valid, very well documented critique of this game and concede the point?
The controls are cumbersome.
There is input delay.
There are long animations.
If you bush against an objective travelling just a little quickly you have a chance for the physics to flip out.
The combination of these points creates some frustrating experiences, which is very, very well documented and articulated all ove the internet. People are not inventing this.
This is not good design.
This is not by design.
It's a byporduct of the physics interacting with the clunky controls and the input lag making it difficult to navigate.
This is not people playing badly, this is not people playing wrong, these are valid flaw and valid critiques.
Stop it.
Look, I'm not going to deny that there's slightly more input lag than in other similar games but you're making far too big a deal of this.
All of the physics in the game work as intended and once you acclimate yourself to the controls and slight latency there's no reason you should constantly be falling over things or getting in accidental fist fights. At most it amused me the first time, slightly irked me the second time and from then on no such incidents happened.
No, I'm not.
Google it, there is plenty of evidence. The controls are awkward, there is input lag, the physics are janky af. This can, and often does, create a frustrating time unless you move everywhere at a slow pace.
Is it game breaking? Not in the strict sense, but it is enough to literally put people off from playing and there is tonnes of evidence to show this.
To think i've wasted 50 buck on that game....ewwww
I feel that the R* name alone gives their games a 85 rating from the get go, instead of being on a 0-100 scale
I feel what you're saying OP.
RDR2 is my disappointment of 2018.
I recall absolutely loving the original Red Dead Redemption ... But I think the control scheme was much simpler and more gamified.
There's way too many extraneous options mapped to the controller and it gets in the way of the wanting to experience the world. Without dead eye, I was struggling to hit anything... Aiming and gun play just don't feel good. It's like exactly the opposite of Destiny.
I thought maybe I was finally growing too old for games and it was time to hang it up, but no... I picked up God of War (2018) on sale just this past weekend and already have 15 hours invested ...
RDR2 is my disappointment of 2018.
I recall absolutely loving the original Red Dead Redemption ... But I think the control scheme was much simpler and more gamified.
There's way too many extraneous options mapped to the controller and it gets in the way of the wanting to experience the world. Without dead eye, I was struggling to hit anything... Aiming and gun play just don't feel good. It's like exactly the opposite of Destiny.
I thought maybe I was finally growing too old for games and it was time to hang it up, but no... I picked up God of War (2018) on sale just this past weekend and already have 15 hours invested ...
Last edited:
Haha!
Rough translation: "Concede to my position on this game or GTFO!"
As many folks as you claim are arguing against the games controls, I'd wager as many or more are completely content with the controls as they are.
The physics are not janky. You can say they're exaggerated or overly punishing but janky? No. They make sense and are consistent.