Hmm. I don't really agree with that sentiment - I mean I do literally agree with your statement, but story DLC would not have been part of the same story. Take GTA 4. It was the beginning, middle and end of Nico's story. The two DLC expansion packs were completely seperate stories just set in the same city. I think we're talking about two different things here. I'm not keen on DLC being something that could have, and usually should have, formed part of the original game. You know, a single additional mission, or in the case of Assassins Creed quite literally a mission that was ripped out of the main game to sell seperately (Assassins Creed 2 (or possibly one of its immediate sequels)) but a totally new story for RDR2, bearing no significance to the main arc, would have been amazing.ThirdDrawing wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 2:53 amI find it quite refreshing to buy a game and get the complete content when I pay for it.
Red Dead Redemption II
Re: Our next podcast recording (17.1.20) - 401: Red Dead Redemption II
-
ThirdMan
Re: Our next podcast recording (17.1.20) - 401: Red Dead Redemption II
Rockstar's work still suffers from the endemic contradiction in open-world games between player freedom and mandatory content. For me the best illustration of this concerned the Murfree Brood's Beaver Hollow hideout. I first arrived at it accidentally and it was immediately my most chilling encounter up to that point. I explored the area, taking notice of the rancid corpses and human flesh strewn about the camp, before killing a number of the Brood and making my escape. However when a later mission brought me to the hideout Arthur's dialogue made it quite clear that he was seeing all of this for the first time. Yet the bodies of the men he had killed still lay on the ground in front of him! It pulled me right out of the fiction. And that's just a single encounter in a tiny area of the map. If I had spent huge amounts of time exploring the map in advance of the missions, particularly those set in Saint Denis, then so much of Arthur's reactions and dialogue would have been fundamentally contradictory. Thankfully I realised quite early on the difficulty that this presented and from that point on I explored the map in tandem with the story, not ahead of it.
Rockstar's MO is to give the player as much freedom as possible however in the stories they tell and in the missions they design, it's quite clear that you're not meant to fully exploit that freedom. And If you do then their carefully developed scripts suffer. On the Red Dead Redemption podcast James summed it up as being given the freedom to make a choice and then being punished for exercising that freedom (or words to that effect). In some of the older GTA games certain areas were locked-out until the story had been progressed. It was frustrating but it seemed to work. Modern players, including myself I hasten to add, would balk at the idea of invisible walls in a game of this scale and ambition. So I'm not suggesting Rockstar should regress and start gating content. In fact I'm not making any suggestions because I simply don't know how this problem could be addressed. But it is a problem. Rockstar are arguably the very best at making these open-worlds sing but there were times during this game where I felt that we are still generations away from open-worlds that fully deliver on their promise.
If all of that sounds ungrateful then I can assure you, it's not! Red Dead Redemption 2 sits comfortably in my top five favourite games of all time. Somewhere in my criticisms lies a compliment because only the very best games push me to consider what perfection might look like.
Rockstar's MO is to give the player as much freedom as possible however in the stories they tell and in the missions they design, it's quite clear that you're not meant to fully exploit that freedom. And If you do then their carefully developed scripts suffer. On the Red Dead Redemption podcast James summed it up as being given the freedom to make a choice and then being punished for exercising that freedom (or words to that effect). In some of the older GTA games certain areas were locked-out until the story had been progressed. It was frustrating but it seemed to work. Modern players, including myself I hasten to add, would balk at the idea of invisible walls in a game of this scale and ambition. So I'm not suggesting Rockstar should regress and start gating content. In fact I'm not making any suggestions because I simply don't know how this problem could be addressed. But it is a problem. Rockstar are arguably the very best at making these open-worlds sing but there were times during this game where I felt that we are still generations away from open-worlds that fully deliver on their promise.
If all of that sounds ungrateful then I can assure you, it's not! Red Dead Redemption 2 sits comfortably in my top five favourite games of all time. Somewhere in my criticisms lies a compliment because only the very best games push me to consider what perfection might look like.
-
ThirdMan
Re: Our next podcast recording (17.1.20) - 401: Red Dead Redemption II
When you consider the conditions under which the game was made then it's probably for the best that there's no DLC.ThirdDrawing wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 2:53 amI find it quite refreshing to buy a game and get the complete content when I pay for it.
-
ratsoalbion
- Admin
- Posts: 7926
- Joined: August 28th, 2012, 9:41 am
- Location: Brighton, England
- Contact:
Re: Our next podcast recording (17.1.20) - 401: Red Dead Redemption II
I’ll talk about this on the show, but I’ve spoken to a few people who worked on the game and they have related incredibly positive experiences. Not a project without challenges, but absolutely nothing like some of the impressions that have been given (saying that, these people all acknowledged that with a massive global workforce they couldn’t possibly speak for every single Rockstar employee).
That said, I don’t think the game really needed any single player dlc either, although they have recently added some bounties, gear and weapons via free updates.
That said, I don’t think the game really needed any single player dlc either, although they have recently added some bounties, gear and weapons via free updates.
-
ThirdMan
Re: Our next podcast recording (17.1.20) - 401: Red Dead Redemption II
Well I'm very happy to hear that. Eurogamer really had the knives out although they weren't the only ones making noise.ratsoalbion wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 11:33 pm I’ll talk about this on the show, but I’ve spoken to a few people who worked on the game and they have related incredibly positive experiences. Not a project without challenges, but absolutely nothing like some of the impressions that have been given (saying that, these people all acknowledged that with a massive global workforce they couldn’t possibly speak for every single Rockstar employee).
-
DeadpoolNegative
- Member
- Posts: 184
- Joined: April 16th, 2015, 5:00 am
Re: Our next podcast recording (17.1.20) - 401: Red Dead Redemption II
Red Dead Redemption 2 manages to be exhilarating and frustrating simultaneously, which is no small feat, but RockStar Games' open worlds do often have that effect on the player.
It also draws into sharp relief how prequels can be a mixed bag and more often than not aren't worth it. As someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, the game starts with the Van Der Linde gang already in decline. Arthur and the others constantly talk of the good old days, and sometimes question if those good old days were even that good at all, but from the jump Dutch Van Der Linde seems like an untrustworthy delusional jerk, and despite all of Arthur's protestations of loyalty- he even says at one point- "That's all I ever knew-" I still had a hard time believing he'd stick around after the first ten hours, and I especially had a hard time believing it after fifty hours, no matter how much may feel responsibility for the others. After all, they're seeing the same Dutch Van Der Linde as he is. And since the audience knows he's pretty much marked for death long, LONG before Arthur does, it just became tiresome to see him mutter "Dutch isn't the way he used to be" after Dutch's plans backfired again and again and again. Do something about it, dude! Run off with Mary! Form you own gang with John, Karen, and the others!
I Think a lot of that has to do with the fact that Roger Clark gives Arthur Morgan an intelligence and depth and breadth of emotion that is rarely seen in a game protagonist, or for that matter, most movie and TV protagonists. He says so much with a shift in word delivery or a smile, or a plea for someone to ignore their pride. It's one of the best video game performances I've ever seen, and this is in a series with many excellent performances in both games. We get to know and care about Arthur, and fall in love with him even more than we did John Marston.
I'd also like to give a shout out to the game's probably most well known actor, the great Graham Greene, for his haunting performance as Indian Chief Rains Fall. The indian side plot feels a tad shoehorned in, and goes in familiar directions, but Greene is so, so good in his portrayal of a man whose world and the world of his people is being consumed around him and by outside forces and he is utterly powerless to affect it.
RDR2's narrative galumphs, it titters, it wanders around in many diversions and parts that don't quite add up (Sure I loved blowing up that ship but can anyone explain to me the point of Guarma??). In fact, it makes the previous game feel like a model of perfect pacing. It's gone on so long I'm not entirely certain it actually ENDS, even if the game assures me I'm on "Epilogue: Part II" But the life and death of Arthur Morgan, the story of who HE is, how the player lives his life on the side quests and random encounters, the person you want him to be rather than a continually henpecked member of the Van Der Lind gang now that's a solid arc through and through.
I just wish I loved the game that contains it. As in the original, RDR2 knocks the player flat with how ALIVE it feels, the more greener, more mountainous pastures contrasted with the seemingly endless deserts of the original game. Something is always, always going on outside of the corner of your eye, but the problem is, unless you're really into the hunting system you'll find yourself tiring of it quickly. At least I did. The game locks fast travel away from you for quite a while, and many places are out of the way and can't be fast traveled to easily. Many, many, MANY missions have you riding side by side with someone, having a conversation, and while the acting and writing is fine, again, it happens so often i got wound down by it. The controls are finicky, sacrificing realism for convenience. Movement feels all screwy, whether on foot or on a horse. The gunplay and combat are different stories- they feel refined and brutal, and the occasional cut to a slo mo shot of a bullet cutting down a foe is memorable to say the least. I remember one scene where I shot a gang member at close range with a double barreled shotgun, and I was "treated" to a brief cinematic of his body falling backwards, his head completely torn off by the impact. Not since Bioshock Infinite have I seen a game balance the thrill of violence with the bitter pill of the brutality of its results like this game does.
Back to the pacing. Like I said, I'm not entirely sure this game actually ends. The epilogue has some good moments, but just as many tired boring missions that don't amount to much and feel like filler. I was more interested in John Marston, ranch hand than John Marston, bounty hunter. Often I felt that if I had never played RDR1 I would enjoy this game much more. The overall story of the fall of the Van Der Linde gang- well like I said, I never found everyone's unwavering faith in Dutch to be all that plausible, especially after the events of Saint Denis. Micah is a painfully boring antagonist, the typical "Bad" character who's nasty and mean to everyone and disruptive to make all the other characters look more sympathetic since they're all part of the same gang. (and if he was the snitch all along, then wouldn't the Pinkertons had made their moves sooner?) The side missions are where the game really comes alive, and I really wish the game's makers had made more of them part of the main mission strands.
I'm not really sure what my PROBLEM with Red Dead Redemption 2 really is, I just feel like there's something missing. I enjoy parts of it but there's a gnawing feeling that this could be better, or at the very least, less boring and somber. I wish Arthur had more to his goals than just being loyal to the gang; I felt invested in him because of the actor's performance, but I dunno, if Mary Linton were a more integral part of the plot, if his son and baby mama were still alive and he wanted to leave something for them, instead he's all about making sure John Marston gets out alive.
And we know how that ends.
And yet, I have spent over sixty hours in the world of Red Dead Redemption 2. Maybe like Arthur Morgan, I'm a sucker who can't get going while the going is good.
--Dan
It also draws into sharp relief how prequels can be a mixed bag and more often than not aren't worth it. As someone else pointed out earlier in this thread, the game starts with the Van Der Linde gang already in decline. Arthur and the others constantly talk of the good old days, and sometimes question if those good old days were even that good at all, but from the jump Dutch Van Der Linde seems like an untrustworthy delusional jerk, and despite all of Arthur's protestations of loyalty- he even says at one point- "That's all I ever knew-" I still had a hard time believing he'd stick around after the first ten hours, and I especially had a hard time believing it after fifty hours, no matter how much may feel responsibility for the others. After all, they're seeing the same Dutch Van Der Linde as he is. And since the audience knows he's pretty much marked for death long, LONG before Arthur does, it just became tiresome to see him mutter "Dutch isn't the way he used to be" after Dutch's plans backfired again and again and again. Do something about it, dude! Run off with Mary! Form you own gang with John, Karen, and the others!
I Think a lot of that has to do with the fact that Roger Clark gives Arthur Morgan an intelligence and depth and breadth of emotion that is rarely seen in a game protagonist, or for that matter, most movie and TV protagonists. He says so much with a shift in word delivery or a smile, or a plea for someone to ignore their pride. It's one of the best video game performances I've ever seen, and this is in a series with many excellent performances in both games. We get to know and care about Arthur, and fall in love with him even more than we did John Marston.
I'd also like to give a shout out to the game's probably most well known actor, the great Graham Greene, for his haunting performance as Indian Chief Rains Fall. The indian side plot feels a tad shoehorned in, and goes in familiar directions, but Greene is so, so good in his portrayal of a man whose world and the world of his people is being consumed around him and by outside forces and he is utterly powerless to affect it.
RDR2's narrative galumphs, it titters, it wanders around in many diversions and parts that don't quite add up (Sure I loved blowing up that ship but can anyone explain to me the point of Guarma??). In fact, it makes the previous game feel like a model of perfect pacing. It's gone on so long I'm not entirely certain it actually ENDS, even if the game assures me I'm on "Epilogue: Part II" But the life and death of Arthur Morgan, the story of who HE is, how the player lives his life on the side quests and random encounters, the person you want him to be rather than a continually henpecked member of the Van Der Lind gang now that's a solid arc through and through.
I just wish I loved the game that contains it. As in the original, RDR2 knocks the player flat with how ALIVE it feels, the more greener, more mountainous pastures contrasted with the seemingly endless deserts of the original game. Something is always, always going on outside of the corner of your eye, but the problem is, unless you're really into the hunting system you'll find yourself tiring of it quickly. At least I did. The game locks fast travel away from you for quite a while, and many places are out of the way and can't be fast traveled to easily. Many, many, MANY missions have you riding side by side with someone, having a conversation, and while the acting and writing is fine, again, it happens so often i got wound down by it. The controls are finicky, sacrificing realism for convenience. Movement feels all screwy, whether on foot or on a horse. The gunplay and combat are different stories- they feel refined and brutal, and the occasional cut to a slo mo shot of a bullet cutting down a foe is memorable to say the least. I remember one scene where I shot a gang member at close range with a double barreled shotgun, and I was "treated" to a brief cinematic of his body falling backwards, his head completely torn off by the impact. Not since Bioshock Infinite have I seen a game balance the thrill of violence with the bitter pill of the brutality of its results like this game does.
Back to the pacing. Like I said, I'm not entirely sure this game actually ends. The epilogue has some good moments, but just as many tired boring missions that don't amount to much and feel like filler. I was more interested in John Marston, ranch hand than John Marston, bounty hunter. Often I felt that if I had never played RDR1 I would enjoy this game much more. The overall story of the fall of the Van Der Linde gang- well like I said, I never found everyone's unwavering faith in Dutch to be all that plausible, especially after the events of Saint Denis. Micah is a painfully boring antagonist, the typical "Bad" character who's nasty and mean to everyone and disruptive to make all the other characters look more sympathetic since they're all part of the same gang. (and if he was the snitch all along, then wouldn't the Pinkertons had made their moves sooner?) The side missions are where the game really comes alive, and I really wish the game's makers had made more of them part of the main mission strands.
I'm not really sure what my PROBLEM with Red Dead Redemption 2 really is, I just feel like there's something missing. I enjoy parts of it but there's a gnawing feeling that this could be better, or at the very least, less boring and somber. I wish Arthur had more to his goals than just being loyal to the gang; I felt invested in him because of the actor's performance, but I dunno, if Mary Linton were a more integral part of the plot, if his son and baby mama were still alive and he wanted to leave something for them, instead he's all about making sure John Marston gets out alive.
And we know how that ends.
And yet, I have spent over sixty hours in the world of Red Dead Redemption 2. Maybe like Arthur Morgan, I'm a sucker who can't get going while the going is good.
--Dan
-
ThirdDrawing
- Member
- Posts: 571
- Joined: October 13th, 2016, 2:33 pm
- Location: Poverty Stricken StudentLand
Re: Our next podcast recording (17.1.20) - 401: Red Dead Redemption II
I completely get what you're saying, and I kind of agree to a point. Having Undead Nightmare, for example, as a separate release is fine. I'm just relieved the ending surprise (no spoilers) was included on the disc and not as a separate release.Alex79uk wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 1:29 pmHmm. I don't really agree with that sentiment - I mean I do literally agree with your statement, but story DLC would not have been part of the same story. Take GTA 4. It was the beginning, middle and end of Nico's story. The two DLC expansion packs were completely seperate stories just set in the same city. I think we're talking about two different things here. I'm not keen on DLC being something that could have, and usually should have, formed part of the original game. You know, a single additional mission, or in the case of Assassins Creed quite literally a mission that was ripped out of the main game to sell seperately (Assassins Creed 2 (or possibly one of its immediate sequels)) but a totally new story for RDR2, bearing no significance to the main arc, would have been amazing.ThirdDrawing wrote: ↑January 15th, 2020, 2:53 amI find it quite refreshing to buy a game and get the complete content when I pay for it.
-
ThirdMan
Re: Red Dead Redemption II
I put 20 hours into my re-play over the past 10 days, clearing just 15% of the story and doing a lot of exploration of areas I missed the first time. However I've had to put it aside as it's still too fresh in my mind. I can remember all of the upcoming story beats. It's such a gargantuan experience that I'll likely on re-play it once in its entirety so I think I'm better off waiting for the inevitable next gen remaster. By then my goldfish-memory will have kicked it and it'll look and run even better.
Re: Red Dead Redemption II
This is so cool.
Re: Red Dead Redemption II
This is coming to gamepass!
Re: Red Dead Redemption II
I wouldn't mind having a good go at the online part of this game, I'm itching to get back in the world. I don't have PS+ at the moment though so keep hoping it'll come to PS Now. I guess that it's coming to Gamepass is a step in the right direction!