Control scheme and core missions design in RDR2 is absolutely outdated and narrowed . 97 out of 100 metascore for this game is embarrassing. one of highly overrated R* games alongside GTAV.
-
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.
Mark Brown ( Gamemaker's Toolkit ) review of Red Dead Redemption 2
- Thread starter Toriko
- Start date
- Status
I love RDR2, but yes, the constant railroading in the missions has been a huge problem for me. I seriously thought RDR2 would be my sure-fire GOTY, but that'll probably go to God of War. There's nothing more annoying than getting "failed" screens for playing in my own pace or by getting creative.
I got a fail state once by just riding too far in front of Javier, but still in the direction of the spot we needed to go. The game just wants that I trail behind slow-ass NPCs.
I got a fail state once by just riding too far in front of Javier, but still in the direction of the spot we needed to go. The game just wants that I trail behind slow-ass NPCs.
OP
OP
Ha Ha it happened to me in one of the tailing missions lol. I was like wtf. Also did you know sometimes if you get off your horse early and walk to the destination it will not trigger the cutscene until you go back on the horse and take the 4-5 extra steps on the horse to trigger the scene starting with you getting off the horse lol
Last edited:
Hefty controls, arbitrarily removing mechanics, hand-holdy mission design, it all sounds like a Rockstar game. This has been their design philosophy for a decade now. It's long past time they shook up the formula.
I agree 100% with the review fragments copied at the first post. The game looks good, sounds good, the stories are interesting... but the gameplay is not good at all. The restrictive main quests are the main source of my frustration with the game (or the controls that are pretty unresponsive) and I hate how the game is turning off gameplay elements constantly without even tell the player.
This, the really bad HUD, the use of riding segments for everything, the bad encounter design, the poor enemy IA, the broken reward system (the mask works sometimes only),... I find more and more problems with the game every time I play it.
It's a good game more or less, but it's clearly too focused on graphic details that have no real purpose on the game, and the base gameplay leaves a lot to be desired.
This, the really bad HUD, the use of riding segments for everything, the bad encounter design, the poor enemy IA, the broken reward system (the mask works sometimes only),... I find more and more problems with the game every time I play it.
It's a good game more or less, but it's clearly too focused on graphic details that have no real purpose on the game, and the base gameplay leaves a lot to be desired.
Op, one of my best friends had the exact same complains about the lack of freedom to complete missions, very interesting. He complained about the mask and bountys too
I ended up liking the story of the game enough to finish it and by the end of it during my honeymoon phase, I felt like it was 9/10 for me despite so many flaws. Now that phase is over and it's crazy to me how the media rated the game so highly. RDR2 is a poor game but a great movie, I would only recommend people watch it so they can slip out the truly awful parts of the game, like the overwhelming amount of time wasting travel time. It's a game you really don't have to play yourself to enjoy.
I haven't read it, but I assume it's mostly negative. And I'm not surprised. This is the same guy who said Uncharted 4 was a "failure" because it was "developed backwards". He does not (or did not? I don't know what he thinks now) believe that games should be developed with story as the main focus.
Reviewers need to learn to convey their appreciation for a flawed game in ways other than showering it with 10/10s.
RDR2 is definitely one the best releases of the year, could be even in the top 3. However it's not even close to being generation defining like it is being reviewed as right now.
RDR2 is definitely one the best releases of the year, could be even in the top 3. However it's not even close to being generation defining like it is being reviewed as right now.
Might want to just read it instead of hopping into a thread and making a snap judgment based off an opinion you disagreed with from 3 years ago
That would require being critical and articulate I think you expect too much from reviewers *snark*
I'm only half sorry for this comment. I think things have gotten a lot better especially around the parts that have moved away from scores. But most reviews from the big places continue remaining pretty fluff. Call me petty but I'm still in disbelief how incompetent Diablo 3 reviews were at the time. Free passes for a loot game where the loot actually didn't work and the intended design goals by developers themselves were not met. 9-10/10
I feel like this game is like 2018's BotW in some respects. A clear masterpiece, a huge contender for Game of the year... but deeply, deeply flawed on a base level. With Zelda it was the garbage story and dungeons, and with RDR it's this insane focus on the experience it wants to craft at the expense of ANYTHING else.
Loving it though despite all this.
Loving it though despite all this.
It's ok that open world games aren't all the same. I personally didn't like the open ended kind of emergent gameplay that BOTW brought. I thought it didn't have enough structure in it's narrative and such to keep me engrossed. But RDR2 did. I think it's a very good thing both games exist though.
Yea. I like this distillation. That's how I felt about the games.
When I read things that are that misguided, I tend to not really care about what they have to say in the future. All I said was that I wouldn't be surprised if the review was overly negative based on what I do know.
No lies detected , the world is beautiful but so many of those "little" things he mentioned add up to me and keep it from being a personal GOAT
"Misguided"? That is a nice euphemism to try to discredit his review because you don't agree with the way he views games.
Well, the dude from Slant gave it a 7/10, and articulated many criticisms that are now considered common, and he received hate mail and death threats. Here's a paragraph from the review;
All checks out to me, seems well reasoned and fair. It's a shame the community constantly proves themselves unable to have their precious game take some criticism (in the form of a decent score like a 7/10, which is exactly right imo).
I liked UC4 and haven't played RDR2, but Mark has probably the best game design YouTube channel out there. He's usually talking about what games do right and how they achieve it in terms of design. Well worth listening to what he has to say in general, even if you disagree sometimes. Just pick a Game Maker's Toolkit video at random. He's a smart, thoughtful guy.
OP
OP
Most big releases will always have a higher average score, a lot because of tech stuff. It makes gaming criticism look childish when so many games score so very high.
Yeah I know as I said some places do good work and all love the waypoint letter series on the games as well. I don't even personally care about the scores(like give rdr 2 a 10 or 1 I don't care but please try to say something meaningful/insightful/informative about it in your reviews) but I feel like certain places sold red dead 2 as some amazing dynamic next level open world but I had the exact complete opposite experience where a lot of things are very railroady.
And yeah it bothers me as well that we can't even have a proper discussion cause so many have such fragile egos for any type of criticism like for god's sake nobody is saying the game is trash it's still selling tons and tons and the press has liked it at large, I don't see how you can still be so fragile to not even admit stuff like the input lag being a problem or pretending that the gameplay doesn't actually sometimes clash with the story the missions is trying to tell.
It sucks but also as I said I don't really care about the scores for diablo 3 especially I take huge issue how no review went into detail how broken Inferno was like it was nigh unplayable with certain affix combos that were unbeatable in addition to loot just being all around terrible.The designers themselves said they designed the game so players would mainly farm champion packs but because that aspect was so broken what players actually did was talking to npcs all day that would drop blue weapons. *facepalm* I truly will never get how as a reviewer you'd let that slip.
Last edited:
One man's criticism is another's enjoyment. I don't think we should have all games feeling the same and this to me feels as unique as rockstar games tend to feel.
There is a reason they sell well and it goes beyond people's misguided notions that it simply because of marketing.
GTA 5 online is massively pooular but on era people would call it a failure.
Mark is fine for feeling how he does but I really think Rockstar found exactly what this sort of game should be.
I guess it's good for those that want to feel validated that it's no good though right?
There is a reason they sell well and it goes beyond people's misguided notions that it simply because of marketing.
GTA 5 online is massively pooular but on era people would call it a failure.
Mark is fine for feeling how he does but I really think Rockstar found exactly what this sort of game should be.
I guess it's good for those that want to feel validated that it's no good though right?
Seems accurate from what i've played. These problems have been around in Rockstars games since GTA3.
I don't know too many people here who would argue GTA Online is a failure lol
I'm completely amazed by the fact that a review that came out a couple of weeks late is more accurate than most other reviews that were being rushed at the review embargo day.
As someone who've been exclusively playing the game in the past couple weeks, I mostly agree with this review. If I were to simplify it, RDR2 is a beautifully realized and immersive, yet pretty shallow and restrictive open world game.
As someone who've been exclusively playing the game in the past couple weeks, I mostly agree with this review. If I were to simplify it, RDR2 is a beautifully realized and immersive, yet pretty shallow and restrictive open world game.
It's like you're dissing their favorite sports teams except instead of say 1 per league they have dozens of them.
I think there's a pretty big difference.
Much of Breath of the Wild's complaints come from Zelda fans who miss older aspects of the series, and those are complaints most of which could be easily remedied for the next game (more variety in enemies, dungeons and shrines mainly). Fundamentally, the actual game design behind BotW and the template it sets for the series going forward is what's been heavily praised and cited as revolutionary to the genre.
Though I haven't played it, it seems RDR2 is pretty much the exact opposite going by impressions here. It's an incredibly detailed and immersive world with tons of set pieces and systems that are a technical showcase. However, the fundamental design and structure behind it seems to be pretty dated and adhere to what Rockstar has been doing for a while now, despite other devs taking leaps forward over the past decade (Mark touches on this in an excerpt from the OP)
Overall, I think that's why you see BotW more praised immediately after its release than RDR2's almost immediate backlash in some of it's elements. Again I admit that for the RDR2 part of this post I'm just kinda going on what I read here and everywhere else.
Totally agree with him actually, aside from the world and other details the gameplay is pretty mediocre to me.
I've not played RDR2 but these comments are definitely true of GTA.
The missions often feel like interactive movies where you're not in full control of the situation, instead acting out a sequence of highly scripted events.
It's incredibly outdated in terms of what Phantom Pain & Breath of the Wild set out to do.
The missions often feel like interactive movies where you're not in full control of the situation, instead acting out a sequence of highly scripted events.
It's incredibly outdated in terms of what Phantom Pain & Breath of the Wild set out to do.
I've seen it many times. It's shit for A B or C reasons it gets the same narritve as battle royal games because they are mainstream there is less appeal for some.
I don't see why all games have to follow the same methodology what some people call old I call a breathe of fresh air.
I never really had much hype for the game, it just looked like more of the same to me. I like it and have great admiration for lengths they went to with the details and such, and I like the characters and storyline, but actually playing it it is pretty tedious. RDR 1 was a lot better, that was way more pick-up-and play.
I admire the game more than I like playing it, but I certainly don't think it's a bad game. For me a lot of it is the terrible mission-design where you have to do things exactly the way they want you to or you fail. That and missions almost always end up going the same way. I've compared it to the Witcher 3 before, where the actual mechanics of the missinos are bad as well, but the reason to keep playing is the storylines around them; the context. RDR2 is the same.
I admire the game more than I like playing it, but I certainly don't think it's a bad game. For me a lot of it is the terrible mission-design where you have to do things exactly the way they want you to or you fail. That and missions almost always end up going the same way. I've compared it to the Witcher 3 before, where the actual mechanics of the missinos are bad as well, but the reason to keep playing is the storylines around them; the context. RDR2 is the same.
Why are we talking about Breath of the Wild.
I mean, yes, I know why. It just consistently impresses me how often I see threads somehow turn into BotW discussions even two years later.
I mean, yes, I know why. It just consistently impresses me how often I see threads somehow turn into BotW discussions even two years later.
Yeah, they have their own flaws, but totally different ones. That said, they also deserve all the praise they've got.
I agree. Game is not really consistent with it restriction. Sometime they let you go wild, sometime, it automatically failed you
I wouldn't call it hijacking at all. Even in the OP it's discussing how RDR2's game design relates to recent open world games including MGSV and BotW.
Influential and highly praised games are going to be discussed and compared to other games. I don't really get why people seem to have this problem with BotW in particular.
Mark Brown rocks. I'm stoked to watch his Breath of the Wild review once I've finished the game. I didn't click on this because I'm not even sure if I'm getting RDR2, but from reading the OP's excerpts I am sad to see Rockstar's keeping to a restrictive mission design philosophy.
You caught me right before I edited my post because I didn't like my own wording. :P
I just think R* played it safe and used the GTA V blueprint to have another successful title (RDO will be very interesting). I honestly can't blame them now that GTA V has sold 100m and this is at 17m currently.
I love the game but when compared to previous open world titles, RDR2 does feel slightly less innovative in some areas. Still, its another technical marvel from R*.
I love the game but when compared to previous open world titles, RDR2 does feel slightly less innovative in some areas. Still, its another technical marvel from R*.
Yeah I agree with Mark. I've never been that big a fan of Rockstar games, but I atleast found some enjoyment in their games last gen. RDR2 just make me annoyed. Everything is just so clunky, and bothersome.
Weapons having to be constantly equipped again and again, controls that are either not fun or just straight up uncontrollable.
Nah I won't believe the hype the next time R* delivers something.
Weapons having to be constantly equipped again and again, controls that are either not fun or just straight up uncontrollable.
Nah I won't believe the hype the next time R* delivers something.
What a breath of fresh air this review is. The part about the restrictive nature of Rockstar games particularly speaks to me. It was mind-boggling to me how GTAV was considered such a milestone for open-world games when you were rarely free to do anything of consequence. I remember one mission where Trevor was supposed to pour out gasoline along a yellow line. If you were just an inch off, you weren't doing it right. As a result, Rockstar games always feel very artificial and fake to me.
I mean stuff like this shouldn't surprise me anymore, but it's still hard to wrap my head around such a mindset. Why the fuck do people get so invested in a highly profitable corporate product? Why should nobody have a different opinion? It's funny: fighting for human rights is something for lame SJWs. But don't you dare offend our corporate overlords!
I mean stuff like this shouldn't surprise me anymore, but it's still hard to wrap my head around such a mindset. Why the fuck do people get so invested in a highly profitable corporate product? Why should nobody have a different opinion? It's funny: fighting for human rights is something for lame SJWs. But don't you dare offend our corporate overlords!
I didn't play the game for long, but I did play the opening and abit of the second chapter. I noticed the missions were completely fucked during the first gunfight. The first gunfight requires you to walk down a hill at an extremely slow pace behind Dutch to sneak up on the enemies. I done this the first time, but I accidentally pressed the wrong button when I died and had to start the mission from the start. The second time I got to the same place, I decided to shoot my gun in the air to get the attention of the enemies. I was hoping that would engage some sort of combat encounter and allow me to sprint down. What it actually did was engage combat, but still force me to stick to the exact same route behind dutch at a slightly faster pace.
Haven't played it since I'm not really into open world games, but the review seems fair. I think stuff like this is expected at this point. Rockstar games feel like they get made in isolation from the rest of the industry. They have very lengthy dev-cycles, so they can't really react to changes in the market. They have to predict what the gaming landscape will be 5~8 from now on their own accord. Most of the time this looks like technological advancements, or building off their own successes. Most development hell games suffer from this too, but in Rockstar's case, this is by design. They're not alone in this though. Final Fantasy and Persona suffer from this as well. It has its advantages. If you can't copy someone else's homework and follow trends, you're going to stave off the homogeneity that permeates AAA gaming. Something like a Blizzard or Naughty Dog will make infinitely more polished titles, but they stick very closely to trends and won't push anything themselves beyond tech.
The biggest problem Rockstar faces however, is that even by ignoring the rest of the industry, they don't seem to learn from their mistakes. I'm sure this is because they aren't subjected to meaningful critique in reviews. Usually same couple of issues pop up in every Rockstar game that people openly talk about post-launch, but for some reason aren't taken into account when it's time to write a review at launch. I don't think Rockstar has incentive to address any of it unless they see their metacritic score drop.
The biggest problem Rockstar faces however, is that even by ignoring the rest of the industry, they don't seem to learn from their mistakes. I'm sure this is because they aren't subjected to meaningful critique in reviews. Usually same couple of issues pop up in every Rockstar game that people openly talk about post-launch, but for some reason aren't taken into account when it's time to write a review at launch. I don't think Rockstar has incentive to address any of it unless they see their metacritic score drop.
One of the most disappointing games of all time for me. It was amazing during the first 15 hours but it completely fell apart in chapter 3 imo. Story wasn't interesting, characters weren't really interesting and once you've seen every gameplay element in the game it became a boring "go to this marker then go to that marker"-quest. It's also way too easy.
Stopped playing after five days.
Stopped playing after five days.
He's right of course.
Generally I notice that the talk around this game is becoming more objective and therefore more negative.
And not just on forums and social media.
Almost every podcast I listened to this weekend that had nothing but glowing praise last week was suddenly way more critical this week.
Generally I notice that the talk around this game is becoming more objective and therefore more negative.
And not just on forums and social media.
Almost every podcast I listened to this weekend that had nothing but glowing praise last week was suddenly way more critical this week.
Much like GTA IV this is a rockstar game that won't be looked so fondly upon once the dust settles.
There will be a very large contingent of people who still love it but I doubt we will see other developers tripping over themselves to take cues from this game. For the metacritic score I'd expect better.
There will be a very large contingent of people who still love it but I doubt we will see other developers tripping over themselves to take cues from this game. For the metacritic score I'd expect better.
User Warned: Thread Whining
Haha topic creator is desperate to post anything negative to do with RDR2.
I'm going to post a thread for every ten this game has got.
I'm going to post a thread for every ten this game has got.
- Status