Go have a beer or something before you give yourself a stroke.
Hmm… either you edited your comment or I just missed that part. Fine. I disagree. Input delay has nothing to do with being weighty, let’s start with that. Weighty is fine when the enemy AI is balanced for it. I haven’t done many shootout missions yet because I’m stuck doing missions with world building and QTEs. Deliberateness is a double edged sword and doesn’t translate very well to fast paced combat. Either the game is balanced for immersion or it’s balanced for combat. I haven’t done much combat in this game apart from the tutorial and I got bored and stopped playing. I don’t wanna bash the game too much because like I said, it excels where it gets it right, I just think that R* prioritized immersion over gameplay.
Could you elaborate on this? It sounds like you’re accusing me of making a homophobic remark.
Nope I just simply misread your comment. Not accusing you of homophobia. I just felt that opening remark was brutish and mean-spirited.
Oh sorry it is just I though you were at least on the second chapter. Also the game really kind of kicks off around there. I get why some people would think it starts slow but as a fan of Westerns I knew what I was getting into. It is the opposite of RDR where certain parts of the game like West Elizabeth felt rushed.
Yeah, I think I’m on Chapter 2. Idk, I loved the first game but maybe it’s just not my cup of tea anymore. I love the story and the dialogue, R* is my favorite dev in this regard. Seems a little unfair to form such strong opinions about the game this early in. I’ll get around to finishing it eventually.
It gets better in chapter 3 onwards.
Different, yes, in that one is bad…putting all complexity into irrelevant things nobody will notice or care about like the behavior of horse testicles in various weathers while the other game puts all complexity where it matters…infinite choices and many stories for each mission, many ways to approach each objective, and mix in many secrets and easter eggs that reward the player and so on…things that give the game infinite replay value. So yes…they are different games…one is a pretty bad game with one way to do everything and a terribly poorly written criminal cowboy story(a massive waste of the actors’ talents) while the other is an incredibly amazing world of assassination.
It does? I assume that’s when the farming and bullshit is over, lol! Okay, thanks.
I’m sorry? RDR2’s story beats the shit out of Hitman 2’s. I wasn’t even mentioning that, I was mentioning how you want it to somehow be another Hitman game, from your post is how I got that,
Yea it’s a glitch, same thing happened to me around Chapter 6.
Actually I was just mentioning how I want RDR2 to be more than trash…zero depth, zero complexity, boring, poorly written story. All you do is grind for nothing…nothing you do matters for anything as everything plays out the same. Imagine that…how could someone expect a game to not be just trash? Unthinkable. RDR2 is for two kinds of people: a) people who love grinding for its own sake without reason or purpose, and b) people who are REALLY into horse testicles.
There it is again. Jeezus it is like the lower Mid-West, horse balls this and horse testicles that. It is like a Tom Green skit or something.
Luckily when I killed the legendary bear and found that silver chain bracelet and made that talisman and hit the [hide] button, it disappeared from my belt buckle and that made me extremly happy, now I can continue on the bandit challenge and look forward to when I unlock the bandit gun belt .
For sure. Red Dead 2 has one of the best stories, it’s an instant a classic modern western. I don’t think I even need to bring up the Hitman 2 story, I mean it’s barely even a story. I mean no offence to ioi with that, I suspect both they and I know most people don’t play for the story.
The RDR2 story has a tonne of depth to it and really gets under your skin.I did not think they could top John Marston. But they did. Arthur Morgan is up there as one of the best main characters of all time for me.
I don’t know how anyone can say its a movie game either, as there is a tonne of gameplay you can do without even touching the story and the story that it does deliver is done so in such a way that it could never be replicated in movies.
I’m talking about things like getting to know the other characters outside of the missions and the sheer amount of time you can spend with them and the huge number of unique interactions, stranger missions, details in the world, the massive original score, the journal giving you insights into Arthur’s mind, the fantastic way it ties into RDR and builds upon it. I could talk for ages about the characters and their motivations.
In terms of gameplay the gunplay details and the combat/ragdoll physics are top notch and exploring/ hunting was pretty fun and chill
What depth? In RDR2 you play as a part of a group of petty criminals acting tough…that’s it…there was nothing remotely interesting or unpredictable about it. We knew it’s a prequel and that Arthur wasn’t in RDR1 so we knew where all the characters would end up. There was nothing interesting or likable about any of them to be honest. They were all just murderers and robbers…that’s pretty much all they ever did. The only interesting thing is to just not play and pretend the law immediately caught up to them and they all hanged. The open world is a grind to drag on the on rails story rather than providing any real alternatives…like reform everyone into law-abiding citizens.
Anything the story attempts to do with Arthur is undermined by the totally random opinions he has on various atrocities committed by the gang, himself included. Kill literally dozens of lawmen who are just doing their jobs, after you decide to rob and murder people on a train - nobody bats an eyelid. But then Dutch kills one man, who had set them up to be killed, and who had also kept Johns son hostage - and Arthur reacts like this is totally outrageous! Even though the guy was way more deserving of being killed. Similarly, when a woman pulls a knife on Dutch, and he kills her, Arthur starts being a little bitch. She tried to kill him! You kill innocent people all the time… so Arthur as a character makes zero sense, he’s just a blank slate to do whatever the developers wanted at any time. And if you play the game with freedom, then 99.99% of players will have experimented with just murdering random people etc. These games aren’t about serious story telling, just a sandbox. Of course some people may like the story, but I think it’s a push to call this a great story, but I guess that is ultimately my opinion.
Come on that’s not true. Arther Morgan. Dutch. Hosea. Sadie Adler. Abigail and Jack. Hosea. Javier. Charles[GOAT]. Lenny. Susan. The Reverend. What a cast of characters
Then you have the O’Driscolls. The Murfree brood. The Pinkertons. The most detestable bastards the likes that might never be seen again
Chrysander Now you mention it I also felt a felt there was a degree of cognitive dissonance at these parts [the blurred text]
Now that I’ve finished the game I should probably give my two cents.
At the risk of sounding superfluous I think Red Dead Redemption 2 is a landmark achievement in gaming, and wholly deserving of the praise it’s received. Not only is it groundbreaking in terms of the depth and detail that is poured into the open world, but the story is equal parts convincing, well-written and poignant.
Let me preface this by saying that the original Red Dead Redemption is probably my favourite video game. It’s a perfectly crafted western and exploring that world is still, to this day, a unique experience. In Red Dead Redemption 2 the open world is once again the center of attention. Everything feels lived-in and real, from the way that animals interact with one another to the layers of mud that deform beneath your feet. There’s a level of polish that sets it apart from other open world titles of late. It’s clear that the bucketloads of money Rockstar made from GTA V have been well spent, although this game is distinctly different from their previous title. Where Grand Theft Auto was fast-paced and manic Red Dead Redemption is a slow burn with occasional bursts of action, not afraid to take it’s time when it comes to the player animations or even advancing the story. While this can at times be frustrating (e.g. the slow walking in camps) it is also a welcome change of pace in the age of flashy competitive multiplayer shooters.
Then there’s the story. I never thought that Rockstar would top John Marston but they may just have done that with Arthur Morgan. Starting as this hardened outlaw who knows nothing but loyalty for the gang, slowly becoming disillusioned and betrayed by Dutch, watching the gang begin to fragment, getting diagnosed with tuberculosis and realising that everything he sacrificed was for a selfish and flawed way of life. You could argue that things don’t really kick off until Chapter 5, and that’s mostly true, but you’ll soon miss those happy times. The final chapters are a sobering experience and that’s a testament to the effort Rockstars writers have put into creating believable characters. Red Dead Redemption 2, much like the original, asks the question “can a man change?”. This theme plays out in both Arthur and Dutch, and it results in a story that I personally felt very attached to. Spoilers for the epilogue but I find myself unwilling to continue playing the game as John Marston. When you manage to surpass a character like that you know it’s special.
I’m on my second playthrough now, going to get to Chapter 3 and then give myself some time to finish the ambient challenges, finish many of the stranger missions and just enjoy myself.
I’m convinced you are only in this thread to troll people who actually like this game. You have contributed nothing.
I am merely providing some objective analysis of the game that isn’t strictly through the rosy glasses “OMG criminal cowboys are best”…the story really isn’t that good and if you’re not into cowboys there’s nothing there. The hype train has really made many leave reason behind to where they’re incapable to seeing anything other than unconditional praise as trolling. The game really isn’t all that. I’ve pretty objectively broken down exactly why Hitman 2 is objectively better.
No you haven’t, you’ve been talking about horse testicles like you fucking worship them, and you think that anyone who likes this game at all is looking through Rose-tinted glasses.
Except you haven’t praised the game at all, or given any objectively thought-out reasons to hate the game.