Red Dead Redemption 2 makes other games seem completely dead under the pretty surface

[Alienous]

Because it isn't infinite is such a strange complaint. Yes, rockstar has not quite figured out how to erase the limits of their medium.

Click to shrink...

I think you're misreading the comment. You don't really have systems interacting to produce interesting outcomes, you have scripted sequences to create the illusion of that, and that can be easy to see through when they repeat.

You don't stumble upon the dynamic aftermath of two rival gangs meeting in the open world. You don't overhear a gang member talking about heading into town later in the day, then stumble upon them at the bar. The bounties you see being taken to town by others aren't the ones you could have seen the wanted poster for yourself.

The way the world reacts is very detailed, but also very controlled.

 

[TickleMeElbow]

Yeah it really does feel like the closest thing to a real place in videogames so far.

Most realistic looking forests too. Trees and shrubs don't feel "placed", but rather like they actually grew there.

My favorite part of that game was going around finding cool shit to look at.

 

[flipswitch]

It's the best game to get lost in.

 

[Jiraiya]

I think you're misreading the comment. You don't really have systems interacting to produce interesting outcomes, you have scripted sequences to create the illusion of that, and that can be easy to see through when they repeat.

The world doesn't quite feel systemic. You don't stumble upon the dynamic aftermath of two rival gangs meeting in the open world. You don't overhear a gang member talking about heading into town later in the day, then stumble upon them at the bar. The bounties you see being taken to town by others aren't the ones you could have seen the wanted poster for yourself.

When you pay it attention the way the world react is very detailed, but also very controlled.

Click to shrink...

That's not a negative. You're describing video games. There are limits and design ideas. The game wasn't about a bunch of gangs scattered about fighting for territory. I'm not really sure why that type of dynamic would even matter in this world.

There is no illusion and i wish y'all would stop downplaying actual developmental talent being put on display. Geez people. It is one of the most realized game worlds ever created and every scripted system created helps that feeling.

 

[Nintendo]

Yeah it ruined many games for me. Now it feels off when I can't have a conversation with random NPCs. Just greeting NPCs in RDR2 adds so much life to the world.

I'm also playing Far Cry New Dawn and as a game that relies on scavenging, the lack of contextual animations ruined it for me.

 

[Ryuelli]

Couldn't agree more OP, it was an amazing experience. Definitely the best game of 2018.

 

[leng jai]

That's not a negative. You're describing video games. There are limits and design ideas. The game wasn't about a bunch of gangs scattered about fighting for territory. I'm not really sure why that type of dynamic would even matter in this world.

There is no illusion and i wish y'all would stop downplaying actual developmental talent being put on display. Geez people. It is one of the most realized game worlds ever created and every scripted system created helps that feeling.

Click to shrink...

That's exactly it, every game is smoke and mirrors because it's literally impossible to create an organic world with current AI. Rockstar sells the illusion much better than an other game because they take the time to handcraft a ton of unique content/random events to litter the world with which gives off the impression that it's all happening around you naturally.

When you play a Ubisoft game like Far Cry 5 or AC Odyssey/Origins it's immediately obvious that the majority of the content is just generic cut and pasted random events with the same looking NPCs and scenarios happening over and over again. That's why something like WD2 gets more attention for its open world because in that game they do a fantastic job of filling the world with unique NPCs which all seemingly participate in their own mundane lives with little backstories behind them.

 

[Xpike]

I'd like it better if Rockstar spend some of these resources in making the actual gameplay better...

 

[Alienous]

That's not a negative. You're describing video games. There are limits and design ideas. The game wasn't about a bunch of gangs scattered about fighting for territory. I'm not really sure why that type of dynamic would even matter in this world.

There is no illusion and i wish y'all would stop downplaying actual developmental talent being put on display. Geez people. It is one of the most realized game worlds ever created and every scripted system created helps that feeling.

Click to shrink...

Downplaying development talent? What?

I'm saying that Rockstar chose to have more control over what happened in its world. The points I mentioned aren't technically infeasible - they aren't beyond the limits of the medium. It's just that when something happens in Rockstar's world its clear they prefer to place it there, rather than leave it to chance or allow systems to react in unpredictable ways. It's not like one NPC's decision to lay down a bear trap randomly intersected with another NPC's % chance of walking into it when going through that zone - it's a specifically scripted moment that's used to break up the monotony of the world.

 

[Revolsin]

It's not really some magical design choice they made though. It's a direct result of the ridiculous budget and resources the game had to begin with. Any AAA designer team would be able to do this given the same budget and resources.

Not really willing to give praise for this.

 

[mouzone]

It's not really some magical design choice they made though. It's a direct result of the ridiculous budget and resources the game had to begin with. Any AAA designer team would be able to do this given the same budget and resources.

Not really willing to give praise for this.

Click to shrink...

If any AAA studio can make games like RDR2, then why has Ubisoft never managed to make any open world game that isn't completely shit?

 

[etta]

It's not really some magical design choice they made though. It's a direct result of the ridiculous budget and resources the game had to begin with. Any AAA designer team would be able to do this given the same budget and resources.

Not really willing to give praise for this.

Click to shrink...

Lmfao

No wait, let me really drive that point.

LMFAO

Everybody has the same quality of talent when money is constant.

Fucking lol.

 

[Nintendo]

I'd like it better if Rockstar spend some of these resources in making the actual gameplay better...

Click to shrink...

This is as good a gameplay can be!

 

[Nesther]

Absolutely agree. Made the mistake of playing Odyssey after RDR2 and it just felt so dated and arcadey.

Switching to BOTW isn't as jarring though, that and RDR2 are really the creme de la creme of open world game design.

 

[Jiraiya]

Downplaying development talent? What?

I'm saying that Rockstar chose to have more control over what happened in its world. The points I mentioned aren't technically infeasible - they aren't beyond the limits of the medium. It's just that when something happens in Rockstar's world its clear they prefer to place it there, rather than leave it to chance or allow systems to react in unpredictable ways. It's not like one NPC's decision to lay down a bear trap randomly intersected with another NPC's % chance of walking into it when going through that zone - it's a specifically scripted moment that's used to break up the monotony of the world.

Click to shrink...

Ok. I know what you're saying...i just don't get the point. People are praising how good the world is realized...you keep presenting an argument design choices. Despite them having a large budget and time...they still had to focus on a theme to make their world feel alive.

If the world were meant to manipulated and messed with like Bethesda...I'm sure that design would've shown through allot more.

 

[HaL64]

You are spot on with everything you said. I would like to add that if this game had VR support we wouldn't be calling it a game anymore.

 

[Slaythe]

As someone who LOVES adventure games, and isn't too interested in TPS games, I had such an incredible blast with RDR 2.


I took my time, it felt rewarding every time, because I always found something new, some cool NPC, some cool animal, some easter egg, some lore, some side quest, just some fun gameplay (like seeing a hunter and trying to steal his prey, only to realize in horror it was a huge bear and being jumped and trashed by the beast ahah)...

I can't explain it. I understand that people who wanted super open story missions and non stop action were disappointed, but I loved the game, I loved that it let me roleplay, I loved exploring.


It felt very special.

And let's not lie, those visuals helped sell a lot of the world. I also LOVED how it let me really customize Arthur's appearance, it really felt like he went through a journey.

I have so many amazing memories of this game. I'm sorry it wasn't something everyone enjoyed.

 

[Ryuhza]

The random encounters were so good. It made travelling from point to point actually interesting.

Click to shrink...

Truth. I never once used fast travel. Plus I wanted to spend time with my favorite horse. Many times I patted that thing when there was no tangible reward beyond seeing Arthur show the creature affection.

 

[noyram23]

I found a lot of RDR2's detail superfluous, honestly. It didn't really feel like it impacted how I interacted with the world, as compared to other games, expect perhaps the camp (where I would meander around). It was impressive but not to the extent where I felt differently about other games.

Click to shrink...

Yeah pretty much and there's a HUGE disconnect between the world and story missions. I guess my honeymoon is over

 

[Mechaplum]

I think it really depends on what matters to you as a user. All those "simulations" may confer depth to you but for me the depth comes from the gameplay and how I interact with the world. The title is a tall claim and I vehemently disagree.

 

[mordecaii83]

I definitely don't agree OP that it makes other games feel dead under the surface or less interesting to play in the world, and I'll have no problems playing other open world games and enjoying them. With that being said, R* deserves all the praise they get for the game world itself. It's definitely an achievement and the best thing about the game by far imo.

 

[HardRojo]

It's not really some magical design choice they made though. It's a direct result of the ridiculous budget and resources the game had to begin with. Any AAA designer team would be able to do this given the same budget and resources.

Not really willing to give praise for this.

Click to shrink...

Huh? TR 2013 had quite the budget (marketing included), right? And even then it ended up being trash. Talent can't be measured by just a couple of scales.

 

[sleepnaught]

Incredibly beautiful world, but couldn't get over the dull gameplay and bloated animations

 

[Mr.Branding]

A positive RDR2 thread? I must be dreaming.

Click to shrink...

Is it really tho? Let's wait and see.

 

[27 Burritos]

I still haven't played it due to console issues. Can't wait. I'll probably just put the controller down and watch nature.

 

[Dremorak]

I loved the whole game, was one of the most immersive games I've ever played

 

[Valdega]

Rockstar is good at world-building. Now they just need to work on combat, traversal, stealth, mission design and basic controls.

 

[Nintendo]

It's not really some magical design choice they made though. It's a direct result of the ridiculous budget and resources the game had to begin with. Any AAA designer team would be able to do this given the same budget and resources.

Not really willing to give praise for this.

Click to shrink...

Any AAA team? lol! give me a break! Sorry, but no team in the industry can make a Rockstar quality game. Even devs themselves admit it.

 

[Linus815]

The first time I entered Valentine, I spent several hours just walking around, saying hello to people, eating, drinking, taking in the atmosphere. It was an incredible experience.

Rockstar always made highly impressive, realistic feeling worlds, but it always felt more appropiate to just tear it all down and mess around with the guns and whatnot. But RDR 2 made me feel the opposite, I just wanted to appreciate the world as is. Kingdom Come Deliverance felt very similiar to this. Much clunkier, buggier and lower budget, but one thing I adored about that game was, well, this. The commitment it had to immersion. As soon as I finished KCD, I started wondering what a higher budget take on this would be like. And a few months later, RDR 2 came out...

And it's not just window dressing. You can actually interact with the world. NPC's react to your antics, you can defuse/instigate situations, say howdy, hunt, play a bunch of minigames, etc. It's a great contrast to many open worlds out there that while look great, are still feeling static.

One of my other fav games of this gen (Witcher 3) really highlights this point. Because I think TW3 came pretty close to Rockstar's level of quality in the world layout and visuals (Novigrad is such a fantastic city) but it didn't even allow me to sit down at the tavern to take in the atmosphere. Even drinks you bought were just treated as regular loot, no animation for drinking. There was only 1 minigame (gwent) and even that sent you on a seperate screen altogether. Now one might argue that RDR2's "animate everything" approach can cause tedium, but when it comes to this sort of "immersive" fluff, it adds A LOT to the atmosphere, at least for me.

 

[TickleMeElbow]

The more I think about it, I think games like Hitman feel just as alive to me, even if the tech isn't on the same level.

There's always NPCs around doing something that feels like it matters in the game world. Helps that they're all on a clear routine that you can easily follow, and they react fairly realistically to things you do.

I started playing Hitman after RDR2, so I guess RDR2's world is great but not enough to make other games feel dead to me.

 

[Jakisthe]

I feel like its the exact opposite: RDR2, like just about every R* game, looks superficially nice but is about as deep as a puddle and at least 2 generations behind in terms of almost literally everything that's not graphics.

 

[Nintendo]

The more I think about it, I think games like Hitman feel just as alive to me, even if the tech isn't on the same level.

There's always NPCs around doing something that feels like it matters in the game world. Helps that they're all on a clear routine that you can easily follow, and they react fairly realistically to things you do.

I started playing Hitman after RDR2, so I guess RDR2's world is great but not enough to make other games feel dead to me.

Click to shrink...

Hitman's NPC's look very alive on the surface but once you get close or try to interact with them in any way, they just break.

 

[chrisypoo]

It's not really some magical design choice they made though. It's a direct result of the ridiculous budget and resources the game had to begin with. Any AAA designer team would be able to do this given the same budget and resources.

Not really willing to give praise for this.

Click to shrink...

Man what in the fuck is even going on in this post? So, if any studio has enough people and money, they can manufacture incredible works of genius?
Ok then, I got a quick question here, why aren't all AAA games comparable in scope and effect? I mean, they got the budget, they got the staff, then they should be neck and neck right?
Or maybe your post is a big salty pile of absolute nonsense that isn't rooted in any form of reality. Yeah....., yeah I think it's that one.

 

[TickleMeElbow]

Hitman's NPC's look very alive on the surface but once you get close or try to interact with them in any way, they just break.

Click to shrink...

This is true in some ways, but I also feel like the ability to interact with them through various forms of manipulation as part of the gameplay makes up for it.

 

[Memento]

Man what in the fuck is even going on in this post? So, if any studio has enough people and money, they can manufacture incredible works of genius?
Ok then, I got a quick question here, why aren't all AAA games comparable in scope and effect? I mean, they got the budget, they got the staff, then they should be neck and neck right?
Or maybe your post is a big salty pile of absolute nonsense that isn't rooted in any form of reality. Yeah....., yeah I think it's that one.

Click to shrink...

Not that I completely agree with the guy (Rockstar obviously has a lot of talent working for them and that should be acknowledged), but there is literally no other studio out there with 3000+ devs, 8 years of development time and a (very likely) 300+ million budget

 

[chrisypoo]

Not that I completely agree with the guy (Rockstar obviously has a lot of talent working for them and that should be acknowledged), but there is literally no other studio out there with 3000+ devs, 8 years of development time and a (very likely) 300+ million budget

Click to shrink...

Fair enough and a point well made.

The post was definitely still asinine though.

 

[Memento]

Fair enough and a point well made.

The post was definitely still asinine though.

Click to shrink...

That is also a merit of them though.

Having some many people working together and making something not a disjointed mess must be a logistical nightmare

Also shout out for Ubisoft. They have like 3 huge different studios making one single game and even though they are not everyone's cup of tea, it is impressive how efficient they are at making it an actual playable and concise product

 

[chrisypoo]

That is also a merit of them though.

Having some many people working together and making something not a disjointed mess must be a logistical nightmare

Here I would also shout out about Ubisoft. They have like 3 huge different studios making one single game and even though they are not everyone's cup of tea, it is impressive how efficient they are at making it an actual playable and concise product

Click to shrink...

Too true. I'm not too big on Ubisoft's AAA titles, (though I adored Origins), but the logistics are certainly impressive. During my time in the Army I saw what a nightmare it was to simply run a Brigade S1 through my poor Master Sergeant's failing sanity lol, and that was six battalions for about 3000 soldiers total, so I can only imagine what a nightmare it must be to run three studios and somehow put out a product that feels cohesive, good lord what a trial.

 

[Nightengale]

I share the complete opposite sentiment.

RDR2 is a game that feels dead inside beneath its pretty surface.

Are other open world game worlds 'believable or rich?" Nope. I used to say that games like AssCreed feels less like a real world but just movie props. And credit where it's due, I recognise that R* and RDR2 put in a TON of effort to make their world feel believable compared to their industry peers with all the different scripted events and NPC beats, which is there to give the illusion of a rich world that is beyond checklist.

Which ironically makes me dislike that world more and makes me feel like it's more artificial and skin-deep.

Because RDR2 has so much of those extra layer of moments and beats for even the most inconsequential NPCs, you feel tempted to see how deep the well goes and it's really shallow. Once you realise you can't do anything to have a meaningful influence on the 56th kicked by horse guy other than killing him before the horse does.

The way that RDR2 tempts you with the carrot of 'look at how rich this open world is in terms of its scripted beats for so so many NPCs' which makes you go "WHOA" initially, but then as you try to dig deeper, you realise that each of those beats are not as deep as it seems as it could've been, and it's disappointing.

In spite of the fact that RDR2 is leading other open world games in what it's doing, the fact that it did those things and didn't deliver on the dynamics and depth of those things made me feel more disappointed in it.

 

[Fredrik]

Absolutely agree, the level of interaction (hunting, emergent ai, world reaction to you, the accurate flight or fight behaviour of animals) and detail has made every other world seem quite dead and static, I mean I take time out just to trot along amidst the dense foliage and observe the world live without me doing a thing to influence any of it.

It's a remarkable achievement in world design and detail, and it'll be a long time until any game comes close to achieve what RDR2 has. I'd go as far to say it's perhaps the most spectacular simulation of a living world in all of entertainment, I can't think of one experience in digital form that compares. You feel as a participator in its world, not the sole reason for it, it continues to exist beyond your time with it.

This is a fascinating read; birder finds joy and despair in a realistic portrayal of wildlife in the pre-conservation era

Click to shrink...

Wow that article was a great read, makes me want to jump in again and check out just the nature post-epilogue.

Yeah I'm really nervous about the next open-world game I'm going to be playing, it's going to be hard to go back to the standard level of quality. RDR2 has termendously upped the bar when it comes to exploration and interaction with the world.

Click to shrink...

Yup. I've still got to finish AC Origins but maybe I'll jump into Odyssey instead if it feels more alive, a big world like that without the "life" will quickly become boring post-RDR2.
I'm playing RDR1 as we speak and, it's interesting to see what a huge difference it is from RDR2, R* surely hasn't been sitting on their laurels.
I understand the control issues better now though, RDR1 feels a lot more "gamey".

What's interesting about RDR2 for an open-world game is, idk if my experience is different than everyone else's, that when I beat the game it still feels like it's full of life, it still feels like there's things going on in it with people. When I play games that are open world, action adventure, when I play these games and I see people moving, interacting, it's all full of action and it feels like a fully warm embracing live world. Once I beat the games though it's like it's all dead, even if I get some post-game side missions it feels that way.

RDR2 is the one game that I just don't feel that in. GTAV was close. After I beat RDR2 I'm still out enjoying the game and not just from a mission standpoint by from how interactive and vibrant the world is.

Hope that makes sense, it's hard for me to describe.

Click to shrink...

It definitely makes sense. Good post!

Yeah it ruined many games for me. Now it feels off when I can't have a conversation with random NPCs. Just greeting NPCs in RDR2 adds so much life to the world.

I'm also playing Far Cry New Dawn and as a game that relies on scavenging, the lack of contextual animations ruined it for me.

Click to shrink...

As said above I'm playing RDR1 now, I started a playthrough when the X enhancement patch got up and about the first things I did now was walking out of my "house" and was about to greet a lady with a "Howdy" as usual, only to realize that there was no howdy button and the left trigger went directly to aiming the rifle in RDR1! Caused some panic! :s

Truth. I never once used fast travel. Plus I wanted to spend time with my favorite horse. Many times I patted that thing when there was no tangible reward beyond seeing Arthur show the creature affection.

Click to shrink...

Yeah I said sorry with some patting and brushing and feeding everytime something bad happened that got my horse spooked. I only had one horse too. It was such a powerful moment late game when Arthur took a moment to say thank you to the horse when it died. :,(

The first time I entered Valentine, I spent several hours just walking around, saying hello to people, eating, drinking, taking in the atmosphere. It was an incredible experience.

Rockstar always made highly impressive, realistic feeling worlds, but it always felt more appropiate to just tear it all down and mess around with the guns and whatnot. But RDR 2 made me feel the opposite, I just wanted to appreciate the world as is. Kingdom Come Deliverance felt very similiar to this. Much clunkier, buggier and lower budget, but one thing I adored about that game was, well, this. The commitment it had to immersion. As soon as I finished KCD, I started wondering what a higher budget take on this would be like. And a few months later, RDR 2 came out...

And it's not just window dressing. You can actually interact with the world. NPC's react to your antics, you can defuse/instigate situations, say howdy, hunt, play a bunch of minigames, etc. It's a great contrast to many open worlds out there that while look great, are still feeling static.

One of my other fav games of this gen (Witcher 3) really highlights this point. Because I think TW3 came pretty close to Rockstar's level of quality in the world layout and visuals (Novigrad is such a fantastic city) but it didn't even allow me to sit down at the tavern to take in the atmosphere. Even drinks you bought were just treated as regular loot, no animation for drinking. There was only 1 minigame (gwent) and even that sent you on a seperate screen altogether. Now one might argue that RDR2's "animate everything" approach can cause tedium, but when it comes to this sort of "immersive" fluff, it adds A LOT to the atmosphere, at least for me.

Click to shrink...

100% agreed, good post! Just the little things like how the world around you keeps on moving while you sit down and play poker is so great, day turns to night, people leave to go to sleep or comes back to the saloon after work etc. Everything is well-animated as well. They surely didn't have to do that, the gameplay got slower because of it, but they did it anyway just to never push you out of the immersion.

 

[fade]

Nuance. I'm hoping not only open world games but all games take note. The level of nuance in this game is top notch.

 

[texhnolyze]

Are you saying that you've never played any Bethesda RPG since Morrowind in 2002?

Also, RDR2 doesn't come close to the persistent world in Bethesda and lots of other RPGs.

 

[CorethPWilshire]

Totally agree. Immersive worlds are the #1 reason for my love of gaming and RDR2 is completely next-level in that regard.

 

[Nintendo]

Are you saying that you've never played any Bethesda RPG since Morrowind in 2002?

Also, RDR2 doesn't come close to the persistent world in Bethesda and lots of other RPGs.

Click to shrink...

Bethesda games are better in the persistent world aspect but sorry, nothing feels more dead than Bethesda's NPC's and their interactions.

 

[texhnolyze]

Bethesda games are better in the persistent world aspect but sorry, nothing feels more dead than Bethesda's NPC's and their interactions.

Click to shrink...

How? After you clear a bandit camp, NPC will mention it and thank you. If you equip a full steel armor, they will comment on that.

Do NPCs in RDR2 interact with you other than "You're getting too close, man."?

Also, this thread is all about how the world is still going even though you're standing still. That's pretty much how it works in Bethesda RPGs and many other RPGs.

 

[OléGunner]

Playing through AC Origins right now and there's definitely such a drop in quality in the feel of the open world. Red Dead 2 is the pinnacle of making the world feel alive.

With that said I'm enjoying the gameplay portion of Origins slightly more, mainly due to the small quality of life features (no Loot pickup animations, fast/fluid traversal etc).

Click to shrink...

This post is my exact situation and feelings playing Odyssey too!
Though I still mostly enjoyed R* gun combat.

But wow that RDR2 world is just something else.

 

[deadasdisco]

Not that I completely agree with the guy (Rockstar obviously has a lot of talent working for them and that should be acknowledged), but there is literally no other studio out there with 3000+ devs, 8 years of development time and a (very likely) 300+ million budget

Click to shrink...

From what I have researched myself going through public SAG AFTRA resumes, Linkedin, old credible info, It wasn't 3000 devs for 8 years. I'm not saying you meant that but a lot of people mix that information up just from the way Rockstar marketed 'it's grand scale'. I personally think that it was probably more a long the lines of 3 years development with most of Rockstars man power (1500-2000+) devs, excluding publishing. They are still a multi-project studio.

Edit: I did misread your comment a little. haha

 

[Fredrik]

I share the complete opposite sentiment.

RDR2 is a game that feels dead inside beneath its pretty surface.

Are other open world game worlds 'believable or rich?" Nope. I used to say that games like AssCreed feels less like a real world but just movie props. And credit where it's due, I recognise that R* and RDR2 put in a TON of effort to make their world feel believable compared to their industry peers with all the different scripted events and NPC beats, which is there to give the illusion of a rich world that is beyond checklist.

Which ironically makes me dislike that world more and makes me feel like it's more artificial and skin-deep.

Because RDR2 has so much of those extra layer of moments and beats for even the most inconsequential NPCs, you feel tempted to see how deep the well goes and it's really shallow. Once you realise you can't do anything to have a meaningful influence on the 56th kicked by horse guy other than killing him before the horse does.

The way that RDR2 tempts you with the carrot of 'look at how rich this open world is in terms of its scripted beats for so so many NPCs' which makes you go "WHOA" initially, but then as you try to dig deeper, you realise that each of those beats are not as deep as it seems as it could've been, and it's disappointing.

In spite of the fact that RDR2 is leading other open world games in what it's doing, the fact that it did those things and didn't deliver on the dynamics and depth of those things made me feel more disappointed in it.

Click to shrink...

Is it the opposite if you realize that it delivers a more alive world just because that gets you to want to dig to see the bottom on how far it actually goes?

To me it sounds like you're just not okay with the depth of it all. And know this, most other games have nothing to dig at. It's not even a movie set with props you can interact with. It's nothing. Paper thin depth. The game world is simply dead and you can wait until our own sun goes dark and it'll still be day or night or snowing etc and the same bird will still fly across the sky and the shop keeper will still stand there with a smile on his face with no customer, etc.

What fascinates me is that Shenmue started what we see in RDR2 back in 2000, you had a window of opportunity to meet someone or visit a shop during the day. Today it's 2019 and so very few games has accknowledged how shallow everything usually is in gaming.

Personally I think it's worth praising it. Devs spend years to get pretty visuals but can barely even see the need for dynamic weather and a day and night cycle. Why? And having a living wild life is just unthinkable for the most part. A Wild animal is only there to attack you for a super scripted 5 minute scene and is then nowhere to be seen. A bird is only there to set the mood for a few seconds as a camera pans over the scenery.

Most games are essentially a bunch of scripted movie scenes with nothing in between. Some enemies gets spawned and there is a brutal fight, after they're killed there is... nothing. You just loot their bodies or some flashy orbs fly to you and give you experience points and you go into the next area, if it's that type of game. Then we're off to trigger the next enemy spawn. After X enemy spawns and some puzzles and maybe a super scripted boss fight with 3 different attack patterns based on how much life the boss have we're treated with a nice movie scene and the game is finished.

The above is an action game from the 80s just as much as an action game from 2019. Time has stood still. Even if the dynamic nature of RDR2 doesn't have unlimited depth it's still great that they're pushing the medium forward I think.

 

[Ryo]

I played it after AC Odyssey and what immediately stood out to me was hunting. In Odyssey you kill an animal walk over to the body and collect loot, in RDR2 it's so much more drawn out but believable and immersive.

 

[Nightengale]

Shenmue 1/2 are among my favourite worlds. RDR2 didn't scratch that itch which I had wanted it to scratch.

Here's the thing. I recognise the intent of RDR2's labouring effort to craft that game world to be rich and full of depth. I'm saying that as great as those stuff are, it also breaks my illusion and immersion of that world so much more when I see the same world event play out for the 6th time, suck blood from the another NPC for the 4th time and be greeted with the same "go pick up something from the store, my tab!" etc.

Having more doesn't automatically equate to better. A game world is a package of developer crafted tricks to give you the illusion of a rich world and R*'s bag of tricks being so richly defined by repeated scripted mini-events spread throughout the world made me feel like the world was less believable the more I played.

P.S. the wildlife stuff are great. I'm talking the whole package .