Red Dead Redemption 2: six months later [Polygon]

[Deleted member 45130]

I just felt like it was a massive slog that didn't care for your time.

Once the initial feeling of playing RDR2 wore off I started the cracks started to appear really fast. Definitely one of the most disappointing games I've played.

 

[ara]

The input lag is horrendous.

Click to shrink...

sublime buttons

Input lag ruins a lot of stuff for me. Took me a bit to learn to tolerate it in RDR2.

 

[Marcus Brutalius]

After spending some time with the game I've realized the old rockstar is dead.


I didn't enjoy GTA V or this. The games are clunky and tedious with some truly awful mission design. Rockstar games are like dating a supermodel with zero personality. Pretty to look at but I just do not enjoy my time with them beyond looking.

It's just an exercise in excessive budget but the fun is gone.

I would rather replay sleeping dogs again then touch another rockstar game.

Click to shrink...

I agree. Call me crazy, but I think it would actually be quite easy for someone to pick up the ball and deliver a sandbox game that captures that old spirit. Saints Row 2 was that, but they crippled themselves with the direction they took. Just Cause could easily surpass GTA in the fun department if Avalanche stopped fucking around and focused on the sandbox gameplay instead of coming up with stupid design choices. I would be more excited for an polished version of a Goat-simulator type of open world game than another Rockstar narative driven game where gameplay is on the backseat.
I bet my ass that 99% of the people who bought GTA III played it the same way I did back then: just shooting people, running away from the police, causing chaos...that is GTA to me. The "style" was always just a nice bonus to me.

 

[jem]

It can only be the technical. Everything else is subjective.

Click to shrink...

That's exactly the point I was going to demonstrate. It seems the poster has gone missing though...

I just felt like it was a massive slog that didn't care for your time.

Once the initial feeling of playing RDR2 wore off I started the cracks started to appear really fast. Definitely one of the most disappointing games I've played.

Click to shrink...

I felt exactly the same.

For the initial 5-10 hours I thought it was incredible. Once the initial wow factor of the graphics and world wore off it very quickly became a massive slog.


I think as graphics tech progresses RDR2 is going to very quickly feel highly dated. The only genuinely impressive aspect of it is the detail in the world but that Ubisoft is hot on Rockstar's tails in that regard.

 

[ConradCervantes]

Felt more like work than a game, and Arthur's strength as a character could only do so much to disguise bad writing and characterization elsewhere. The visuals took a hit as well after one of the title updates, so they're hardly worth admiring like they were before. Started it twice, hit a wall twice, sold it and watched the rest of the story on youtube. Didn't miss much.

 

[ara]

It seems the poster has gone missing though...

Click to shrink...

Now that's an objective truth

 

[Mani]

I hope Rockstar doesn't change gameplay of future RD titles based on some complains . I don't want it to be like Assassins creed odyssey where you are magically plucking a tree 10 meters away while galloping full speed on a horse. AC:O gate keepes the main story under so many levels so I have to do dozens of side quests with the most boring list of laundry items because the next single player quest is 12 levels above me. If their gameplay wasn't snappy and the world settings wasn't spectacular I would have long abandoned it. So I'm glad their game mechanics were fast in order to finish the grind quickly(although I wish they hadn't designed the game around the grind). But AC:O philosophy goes against Read Dead, the latter is concerned more with its methodical and detail oriented approach to storytelling, world and mechanics. And I sincerely hope they keep it this way.

 

[supkid]

RDR was without doubt one of the best games I have ever played, and I had massively high hopes going into RDR2 but I played through to where I was in the camp and the controls got the better of me. I literally played it at launch and haven't played it since, I'll get back into it eventually but I just think the whole game just seemed a bit overwhelming or something, and the controls really don't help matters.

 

[jem]

I hope Rockstar doesn't change gameplay of future RD titles based on some complains . I don't want it to be like Assassins creed odyssey where you are magically plucking a tree 10 meters away while galloping full speed on a horse. AC:O gate keepes the main story under so many levels so I have to do dozens of side quests with the most boring list of laundry items because the next single player quest is 12 levels above me. If their gameplay wasn't snappy and the world settings wasn't spectacular I would have long abandoned it. So I'm glad their game mechanics were fast in order to finish the grind quickly(although I wish they hadn't designed the game around the grind). But AC:O philosophy goes against Read Dead, the latter is concerned more with its methodical and detail oriented approach to storytelling, world and mechanics. And I sincerely hope they keep it this way.

Click to shrink...

They don't have to change the pace to improve the gameplay.

Two things they could do which would massively improve the gameplay are:

- Try to reduce the input lag. This would go a very long to making the game feel more responsive without changing that methodical feel.
- Rethink their mission design principles. The current mission design is incredibly restrictive. Allowing the player some agency in how they complete missions would make the gameplay far more engaging.

 

[Fastidioso]

The people who describe RDR2 as slow, deliberate, and realistic remind me of those who describe Killzone 2's input lag as weighty and realistic. Coincidentally, RDR2 also has terrible input lag. I mean, even the Housers know their game isn't fun to play. It's highlighted in Schrier's article. Despite all of this, some on here are arguing that we're "objectively" wrong despite not knowing what the word means.

Click to shrink...

Killzone 2 controls are built around such laggy responsiveness. The cover system is a good example. It's a sort of smart approach. RDR2 indeed gives the priority to the animation rig over the responsiveness. At least Guerrilla tried to mask the issue.

 

[Dphex]

the game was mostly smoke and mirrors, nothing really mattered

 

[PrimeBeef]

That's exactly the point I was going to demonstrate. It seems the poster has gone missing though...


I felt exactly the same.

For the initial 5-10 hours I thought it was incredible. Once the initial wow factor of the graphics and world wore off it very quickly became a massive slog.


I think as graphics tech progresses RDR2 is going to very quickly feel highly dated. The only genuinely impressive aspect of it is the detail in the world but that Ubisoft is hot on Rockstar's tails in that regard.

Click to shrink...

Just trying to second your comment, since it will be missed by many here I believe.

 

[Anthony Hopkins]

Besides technical aspects, what are these objective measures of quality?

Click to shrink...

Voice acting quality in there respected genres

Art quality
Character responsivness
Sound design
Npc animation
Level design

Also what difference does it make if objective things are technical?

Technical things in games are responsible for some of the most frequent emotions experienced during gameplay.

 

[Anthony Hopkins]

What are these "certain components" that can be objectively better? Of course, more pixels on a screen is "more pixels" but even that isn't objectively -better- in any meaningful sense.

Also, it all started with you saying that people finding the game terrible are "objectively wrong", and the reason you gave is that the game has some objectively good aspects. Let's say for a second that you are right about that. It is still completely fine and normal and reasonable to find the game terrible.
Just like if someone had made this meal, that was so well done in almost every aspect - perfectly cooked meat, perfectly balanced sauce etc. But they also pooped a bit on the plate to the side. I'd call that a fucking terrible meal, no matter the "objectively good" qualities on the rest of the plate. And the sluggishness of the gameplay along with the lack of player agency in the missions is just that for many, many people: a turd on the plate. You can't ignore it, it's always there and it always stinks. Doesn't matter if the vistas are gorgeous or the mashed potatoes are creamy.

Click to shrink...

What makes uncharted 4 better then uncharted 1?

What makes fallout new Vegas better then fallout 76.

If you can answer these things then you will have the answer to your question.

 

[Anthony Hopkins]

Lol, there is absolutely no depth to RDR2's gameplay.

Click to shrink...

Haha your wrong cause that's subjective.

 

[Gorion's Ward]

I never liked Rockstar's clunky controls, but picked up RDR2 on launch anyway. I put 40+ hours into it before quitting in Chapter 3. Just couldn't justify spending hours on end going through this slog of a game.. and it wasn't like the story was captivating or the characters had interesting things to say. I heard it picks up in the latter parts, but I was done.

Yeah, the game is a technical achievement, but as a game, it's just not there.

 

[mogster7777]

There's a massive difference these days with how reviewers score "AAA" games in relation to how fun the actual game is and how good it is overall. I feel like scores were more accurate from before last gen as they relied more on actual gameplay, less bloat, less systems to bog you down and no marketing and buyouts of reviews etc.

Nowadays the reputation of a developer and hype train is worth more than the enjoyment of the game itself in the end. It's a shame really but another reason why I don't trust big websites who review these games. It's Rockstar so it's immediately perfect. Forget all its issues. Forget all the issues from their past games where some problems and frustrations always carry over to their next game. It's been close to twenty years and yet hear I am pressing the button rapidly to run in their recent game in 2019

Yeah I'm not a massive Rockstar fan in the first place but I could at least manage to go through their other games as they weren't fantastic but good enough to play through compared to this one.

I tried this game for the about 15 hours but it was just dull and haven't gone back to it. Everything is a chore and it gets bogged down with its insistence and reliance on awkward controls and systems that get in the way and aren't actually fun or enjoyable.

 

[Horp]

What makes uncharted 4 better then uncharted 1?

What makes fallout new Vegas better then fallout 76.

If you can answer these things then you will have the answer to your question.

Click to shrink...

How mysterious! A most exciting query!
Really though, if you're not interested in a discussion, why are you even posting?

 

[Snowybreak]

I remember getting to a point in Saint Denis where I had an exceptionally difficult time getting out of a mission, which then ended with me having an absolutely absurd bounty on my head. After that point I put it down and decided to pick it up in a few months' time.

I enjoyed the deliberate movement early on, but it slowly wore me down and eventually I just kinda went "well, I'm not really getting anywhere, this story beat is literally the same as four hours ago, I don't feel especially rewarded for finding out-of-the-way places... Fuck it, I need room on my PS4" and uninstalled it. Ended up getting Odyssey, which I also had to put down until I unlearned all the shit from RDR2 to even enjoy it.

Red Dead Redemption 2 is a game that invites you to explore its incredibly beautiful garden grove, but gives you a tricycle with a wonky wheel as your mode of transportation.

 

[Deleted member 135]

They went too far with the "realism" and made it exhausting. It's still a good game with a great story and characters, but I can't see myself every playing it again.

Compare this to RDR1 which I played through five times and got the platinum trophy for.


Honestly, Red Dead Redemption II is the biggest disappointment for me this generation.

 

[Anthony Hopkins]

How mysterious! A most exciting query!
Really though, if you're not interested in a discussion, why are you even posting?

Click to shrink...

You're the one stopping the discussion by not answering my questions.
I answered your previous question with those 2 example questions because it best shows my point, and you probably realise this which is why you refuse to answer them and deflect instead.

 

[Rolento]

Thanks OP for highlighting the article. Helped me articulate in words why I had a hard time enjoying the game.

It makes more sense now why I think I prefer the original: it's way more snappy and to the point.

 

[PeskyToaster]

My only wish is that they'd move away from their current encounter design of waves and waves of enemies. It clashes with their narrative more and more. It's hard to believe in a redemption arc when a mission forces you to gun down hundreds of police officers or that for some reason the O'Driscolls have the same number of employees as a multinational corporation. I loved the narrative and world though and I didn't mind the slower pace, it was just that the missions immediately reverted back to Rockstar tropes which clashed with the everything else around it.

 

[Horp]

You're the one stopping the discussion by not answering my questions.
I answered your previous question with those 2 example questions because it best shows my point, and you probably realise this which is why you refuse to answer them and deflect instead.

Click to shrink...

Well you didn't answer my questions. Answer a question with a question is not an answer, and my second (more important) point, you didn't adress at all.
And fucking LOL at "refusing to answer" when your post was a fucking riddle.

 

[Uno Venova]

I remember ending my session one day during launch and since then I've never even bothered to pick it up again, the pacing was too slow and just moving around in the game was a chore, a real testament that detail isn't everything that makes a game.

 

[skeezx]

just read the article and wow, i may as well have written that. pretty much 1:1 with how i felt playing it

i'm going to give it another shot someday, but holiday 2018 there was so much stuff to play and the game tested my patience so much had to take a raincheck

 

[BriGuy]

Six months to arrive at the same conclusion that took me less than six hours. I get more joy out of mowing my lawn than playing RDR2.

 

[Uno Venova]

Yeah exactly why can't every game just be like Call of Duty with a stupid fast pace regardless of setting and what is happening in said game like

Spoiler

get ready for the folk who can't back up their own arguments to link this article instead of having their own points, just like Dark Souls 2 when people link that dumb Matthewmathosis video

Click to shrink...

I would have killed for RDR2 to have responsive controls like COD.

 

[nDesh]

One of the best games of all time for me, some afternoons were pure gaming magic with this game.

I'll play it again in the 4k proper HDR PS5 version.

 

[Solaris]

The input lag, controls and feel of the game in general kill all possible enjoyment I can get out of it.

It just feels absolutely shit to play. So sluggish.

 

[jem]

Voice acting quality in there respected genres

Art quality
Character responsivness
Sound design
Npc animation
Level design

Click to shrink...

Art quality - subjective
Character responsiveness - largely technical (interesting that you bring this point up considering RDR2 objectively has some of the worst character responsiveness in any modern AAA title).
Sound design quality - mixture of subjective and technical
NPC animation quality - mixture of subjective and technical
Level design quality - subjective

Are you sure you know what the word objective means or what constitues "besides technical"?

Also what difference does it make if objective things are technical?

Technical things in games are responsible for some of the most frequent emotions experienced during gameplay.

Click to shrink...

The point is that the only aspects of game's "quality" which can be discussed completely objectively are technical. However, even then the impact of those aspects on a player's perception of the overall quality is wholly subjective. A game might be a technical masterpiece from a graphics perspective but if it's all brown then I'm still going to think it's ugly.

As an example: From a technical perspective RDR2 is objectively better than Pong. However, that does not mean that RDR2 is an objectively superior game to Pong. It just means it's technically more advanced.

Haha your wrong cause that's subjective.

Click to shrink...

The amount of depth a game possesses can be can be argued objectively to a degree. Whether or not that depth contributes to the "quality" of the game is subjective though.

As an analogy complexity of a game can be argued objectively to a degree. Again though, whether or not complexity helps or hinders a game's "quality" is subjective.

I'd argue that RDR2 has little depth because the mission design is extremely restrictive, the aiming and movement mechanics are very simplistic, the weaponry largely functions extremely similarly etc. There isn't enough player agency to allow for deep gameplay. Whether or not that's a good thing and how it affects your perception of the quality of the title is completely subjective though.

 

[Anthony Hopkins]

Well you didn't answer my questions. Answer a question with a question is not an answer, and my second (more important) point, you didn't adress at all.
And fucking LOL at "refusing to answer" when your post was a fucking riddle.

Click to shrink...

It's not a riddle,
It's simple why do you think uncharted 4 is better then uncharted 1.
Your answer is needed if you want to move this discussion further.

 

[Deleted member 17207]

I fucking loved, and I mean loved Red Dead Redemption (1). As a massive fan of Clint Eastwood spaghetti western films, it was a game I had been dying to play all my life.

But the sequel? Hell, I got maybe halfway through (maybe closer to 1/3) and ended up deleting it to make room on my PS4 for a Fortnite update or something. The sum of its parts was just...not fun for me.

 

[Tora]

After spending some time with the game I've realized the old rockstar is dead.


I didn't enjoy GTA V or this. The games are clunky and tedious with some truly awful mission design. Rockstar games are like dating a supermodel with zero personality. Pretty to look at but I just do not enjoy my time with them beyond looking.

It's just an exercise in excessive budget but the fun is gone.

I would rather replay sleeping dogs again then touch another rockstar game.

Click to shrink...

Sleeping dogs the GOAT

Such a fun game

 

[jem]

It's not a riddle,
It's simple why do you think uncharted 4 is better then uncharted 1.
Your answer is needed if you want to move this discussion further.

Click to shrink...

What if he thinks Uncharted 1 is better than Uncharted 4?

 

[Rolento]

Going back through the thread and reading comments, I want to add that though yes the game takes it's time and makes the player slow down, that is nothing unique when talking about games. There are many other long form games that exist but function more intuitively (BotW, Dark Souls, simulation games).

I think the one aspect not widely discussed here is the games wrapping (look, narrative, acting, animation, etc.) vs its gameplay (control, flow, pace, structure, etc).

The wrapping is superb but that gameplay feels good when it works, but it definitely always felt like it was fighting with itself and wasn't cohesive. It's individual parts are superb, but together it's a mess.

Don't let the wrapping blind you from a game's quality, but if you enjoy it, enjoy it for yourself while still recognizing it's flaws.

 

[Horp]

It's not a riddle,
It's simple why do you think uncharted 4 is better then uncharted 1.
Your answer is needed if you want to move this discussion further.

Click to shrink...

I do actually think UC1 is the better game.
And nothing of this has anything to do with anything objective.

Edit:
Will you adress my main point about games with some good qualities still can be terrible to some people?

 

[Deleted member 249]

Disagree with a lot of what was said there. I do agree with the problems regarding railroading the player, restrictive design, nitpicky controls, horrible menus, and the slow and deliberate nature of a lot of actions. The game is miserable to play. But any criticism of the story, characters, writing, it his the game achieves its themes strikes me as hollow and trying to extend your criticism even to those areas where the game categorically does well.

Red Dead Redemption 2 is a very good game. It's very flawed, but I much rather appreciate something like it than like fucking GTA5.

 

[ara]

I do actually think UC1 is the better game.
And nothing of this has anything to do with anything objective.

Click to shrink...

This is the wrong answer to the riddle

You may not cross

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

I still haven't gone back to RDR2, mainly because it takes forever to do anything.

The glacial speed at which Arthur grabs stuff out of a cabinet just kills me. I mean god damn, let me just take everything instantly. That's the entire reason I opened the cabinet.

I swear, sometimes the game just feels like it's trying to be slower than real life. I can't deal with that kinda shit.

 

[E.T.]

A bad game in 2018 and still a bad game in 2019. I want to emphasize the word game.
Looks amazing, but plays like it traveled in a deloreon from the year 2010. I wonder how reviews can now justify docking other open world titles for things this game did poorly too.

Mission Design - Poor
Controls - Poor
Gunplay - Below Average
Graphics - Excellent, a stunning achievement.
Animations - Great but with issues. (long cycles)
Story - Average (Arthur, Sadie and Charles stood out, everyone else was a joke, especially Dutch)
Sound - Great
Gameplay - Poor
UI - Poor

Rockstar used to have it, now they do not have it, maybe they do not know what it is anymore. This certainly isn't it.

 

[404LinkNotFound]

"....the entire goal of gaming control schemes is to create "muscle memory."

That phrase means, as a user, you don't want to even think about the controls; you just think about what you want to do. And then your body should naturally react and your character does it.
"
THIS HERE. It absolutely confuse me when i see people on this site compain about controls between games being samey and im like "But thats a good thing" . Having Standard controls for genres makes it easier for the consumer to have a much easier time understanding how to play a game. Being different for the sake of uniqueness isnt always good

 

[septmbrvrywn]

I have weird feelings about this game. In the first month, I had some of the best gaming sessions of my life. The discovery, the immersion was so intense I was able to play more than 6 hours straight which never happens to me. The story really hit me, and I cried at the end. I enjoyed a lot the post game content until I stopped playing it for some reasons and I was never able to go back in again.

Now here I am, 6 months later, and I don't find the energy to finish the Epilogue of one of my favorite game OAT. Why? it scares me...

 

[Deleted member 249]

Man, RDR2 is not a bad game. I can get someone saying "disappointing" or not for them, or whatever, but it's in no way a bad game. The production values alone preclude that assessment for it.

 

[Twstr709]

Chapters two and three were sublime, but then the game just becomes a huge chore. I stopped playing it and I don't know if I will ever finish it even though the narrative was really good.

 

[BobbyRawlins]

Never finished it and never will. I can't think of a single other game I've played that I can say that about. I tried for around 6 or 7 hours but I can't remember ever being so bored by a game; so frustrated by tedious bullshit.

 

[MistaTwo]

Yes RDR2 does not reinvent the wheel in mission structure, it just adds more variety, scale and depth, like something from a modern naughty dog game.

But the detail of the world just enhanced the experience and made it feel fresh.

Click to shrink...

I agree that the detail of the world is great, but that honestly rarely plays out in the story missions because they are so
strict in their designs.

And on my end I didn't run into failstates since I did what the game wanted and enjoyed it that way, maybe you and I just play games differently. If you think that there is a way to make mission more interesting then I would love to hear your suggestions, if they are too rigid give some examples of how they should make it better in the next game, would also be great if you could point out a mission that was frustrating to you.

Even if the majority of the game is about shootouts it's always a unique fight that can go in some unexpected ways, this and this are both what you describe but they are not as boring as you make them out to be, no two missions are alike.

Click to shrink...

There was at least one mission in Valentine where I just tried to run behind a couple of buildings as soon as I started getting shot and got a fail state in 10 seconds flat. I honestly can't remember if it was a leaving mission area message or a NPC getting shot.
I also had this exact thing happen to me except with Uncle.
And the failstates are just one issue. Everything about the missions was just too strict. For a game that is supposed to be hyper realistiic it really liked strict yellow circles for every mission throughout the entire journey. It had some of the worst waypoint design I have ever seen to be honest.
It was always annoying when the game cover system (which never worked very well for me) would place me in the wrong position.

I honestly just wish there were less shootouts. The combat was not fun or very interesting thanks to the input lag and the fact that all the detail in the world really added nothing to the missions outside of some nice physics and animations.
I also find the defense that the designers were going for a slow, methodical game silly when a good portion of the main story missions turn into endless shootouts with body counts in the dozens using a gunslinger aimbot with time slow powers.
The game seems at odds with its own philosophy to me.

The game was best when it was slow and methodical, but everything fell apart for me when it came to shootouts because I found the lock-on combat boring but turning it off made the game almost unplayable.

 

[Chirotera]

It's one of the best games ever made, even with its flaws. I get that it's not for everyone bit there are few to no games that achieve the breadth of the world Rockstar has on display. I don't feel like I played the game, I experienced it.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

One time I did exactly what the game told me to do and I still failed a mission, because my partner got killed.

Man, RDR2 is not a bad game. I can get someone saying "disappointing" or not for them, or whatever, but it's in no way a bad game. The production values alone preclude that assessment for it.

Click to shrink...

So as long as a game has good production values, it can never be considered bad?

 

[AcademicSaucer]

I played through the first one and the DLC multiple times, couldn't get past 15 hours on this one