Control scheme and core missions design in RDR2 is absolutely outdated and narrowed . 97 out of 100 metascore for this game is embarrassing.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.
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.
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 tooDid not see a thread for this. Lock if old. This is the review of RDR2 by one of my most favorite game critics - Mark Brown from Gamemakers toolkit. Mark is always so very insightful and even if I disagree with his criticism in some reviews I can always understand his point of view. With that being said here are some excerpts from his review that I largely agree with
His Overall Summary of the game
Do give the entire review a read. Def worth your time.
https://www.patreon.com/posts/22570692
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 agoI 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.
That would require being critical and articulate I think you expect too much from reviewers *snark*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.
Yea. I like this distillation. That's how I felt about the games.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.
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
"Misguided"? That is a nice euphemism to try to discredit his review because you don't agree with the way he views 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.
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;That would require being critical and articulate I think you expect too much from reviewers *snark*
For all of the significant improvements Red Dead Redemption 2 has made to an open-world template, however, it still maintains Rockstar's bullish commitment to a clunky control scheme. Across what's now four games and two console generations, the company's characters have lumbered along in what's meant to convey the weight of a real person in contrast to the light, effortless controls of so many other games. But the result is artificial rather than convincing. Studios like Naughty Dog have proven capable of giving characters a consequential sense of weight without making it a challenge to navigate around a table or requiring you to hold down buttons to move at acceptable speeds. Coupled with middling gunplay feedback and a few too many stealth segments, the chunky act of playing Red Dead Redemption 2doesn't feel good so much as it feels, eventually at least, tolerable.
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.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.
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).
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.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
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.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).
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.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.
I don't know too many people here who would argue GTA Online is a failure lolGTA 5 online is massive but on era people would call it a failure
Why do people act like you personally attack them if you criticize a game they like? Why do people come into threads about things they don't like only to get mad? It's almost as if you can avoid these threads all together.
I think there's a pretty big difference.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.
I don't know too many people here who would argue GTA Online is a failure lol
Yeah, they have their own flaws, but totally different ones. That said, they also deserve all the praise they've got.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.
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.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 hijacked by BotW discussion even two years later.
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.
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;