Red Dead Redemption II

This is where you can deliberate anything relating to videogames - past, present and future
User avatar
Alex79
Member
Posts: 8423
Joined: September 2nd, 2012, 12:36 pm
Location: Walsall, UK.
Contact:

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by Alex79 »

That's interesting. I played the entirety of GTA V on PS4 in first person, even flying planes and helicopters, and found it incredibly immersive and satisfying. But, I couldn't get on with Red Dead in first person at all. Even turning the head bobbing off, I just couldn't get in to it and am playing in third person all the way though. Its a shame as I was looking forward to doing it in first person, but it just didn't click.
Goodman Darkness

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by Goodman Darkness »

Alex79uk wrote: January 24th, 2019, 12:08 pm That's interesting. I played the entirety of GTA V on PS4 in first person, even flying planes and helicopters, and found it incredibly immersive and satisfying.
In both games I do switch to 3rd person for driving/flying/riding. But I can see why either game would be too much in 1st person. There's a heaviness to the momentum in both games, and I think it's more present in RDR2 - maybe that affected things for you. The upside is playing in 3rd person you get to enjoy all the awesome character animation they lavished on Arthur.
User avatar
Alex79
Member
Posts: 8423
Joined: September 2nd, 2012, 12:36 pm
Location: Walsall, UK.
Contact:

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by Alex79 »

It wasn't that it was too much really, just that it didn't feel quite right. The controls and movement do feel a little more sluggish than GTA, and the aiming a little looser. May just be that I guess.
User avatar
Alex79
Member
Posts: 8423
Joined: September 2nd, 2012, 12:36 pm
Location: Walsall, UK.
Contact:

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by Alex79 »

Has anyone else encountered anything usual wandering the woods at night?
Spoiler: show
I was in the North East of the map, in the forests, slightly east of the electricity workshop place, and I'm sure I saw some sort of wild man raging through the trees in the shadows. I swear it wasn't a bear, and he was wailing and screeching! Not seen anything like it since, and he ran off before I could get a screenshot or anything. Just wondered if anyone else has spotted it and I've not just imagined it!
User avatar
JaySevenZero
Admin
Posts: 2643
Joined: August 27th, 2012, 4:28 pm
Location: Liverpool, Europe, Earth
Contact:

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by JaySevenZero »

You didn't, there's kinda more to it if you investigate the area further
User avatar
DomsBeard
Member
Posts: 3689
Joined: September 2nd, 2012, 5:03 pm
Location: Doms Chin

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by DomsBeard »

So trying to get back into it and doing better on Xbox than I did on PS4 however I have fallen asleep twice whilst holding A in cinematic mode :lol:

Looks stunning on the X can tell the difference between PS4 Pro and this
User avatar
DomsBeard
Member
Posts: 3689
Joined: September 2nd, 2012, 5:03 pm
Location: Doms Chin

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by DomsBeard »

So just to make sure I am not going to hell alone did anyone else
Spoiler: show
drop the guy off the cliff in Valentine?
seemed the sensible decision to me :lol:
User avatar
Alex79
Member
Posts: 8423
Joined: September 2nd, 2012, 12:36 pm
Location: Walsall, UK.
Contact:

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by Alex79 »

Not sure which bit you mean if it's a specific mission, but I have thrown plenty of people off cliffs, waterfalls, in to lakes, and fed to crocodiles.

:lol:
User avatar
DomsBeard
Member
Posts: 3689
Joined: September 2nd, 2012, 5:03 pm
Location: Doms Chin

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by DomsBeard »

Alex79uk wrote: February 7th, 2019, 12:01 pm Not sure which bit you mean if it's a specific mission, but I have thrown plenty of people off cliffs, waterfalls, in to lakes, and fed to crocodiles.

:lol:
It is the very first bit you get introduced to the morality system. I stole a guys horse to chase after someone. Killed the guy then returned the horse back :P
User avatar
DomsBeard
Member
Posts: 3689
Joined: September 2nd, 2012, 5:03 pm
Location: Doms Chin

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by DomsBeard »

God I love and hate this game at times!.

I read through Arthurs journal this morning and it was an interesting insight into the character.

I was then ripped out of the immersion by yet another incorrect button press at the wrong time.

I have been keeping an eye on a father and two sons building a house near Valentine. I helped them kill some people trying to extort them and when I went to press LT to converse(Xbox) Arthur pulled his gun on the father and a shoot out began. I let him kill me then went back and he is now hostile any time I go near. Really annoying.

Anyway predictions for the end game
Spoiler: show
James is Arthurs son not Johns
and
Spoiler: show
Arthur sacrifices himself to protect John/Abigail and James
Still on Chapter 2 and about to do my first mission with John. I have just got the train to Saint Denis though
User avatar
Stanshall
Member
Posts: 2370
Joined: January 31st, 2016, 6:45 am

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by Stanshall »

I've completely dropped off this. It's the reason I got another One X and a big part of why I finally stumped up for a good 4K telly. While I don't regret getting them in the slightest the game itself is gathering digital dust. It's the epitome of fur coat no knickers gaming to me. A colossal achievement, staggering in so many respects, I could write for pages about the lighting system alone even with the borked HDR, but the fundamental act of playing the game is now ponderous beyond the limits of my patience.

I posted quite shortly after release that it's a game that requires you to take it at its own particular pace - and it can still be incredible if you do - but the thought of firing it up now makes me think of slowly getting up, slowly walking across the camp to my horse, making my way out via the same paths and over the same terrain, setting my destination and sticking the cinematic camera on and going to make a cuppa or checking my phone. It has so little respect for my time or for providing any mechanically satisfying interaction.

In a weird way, I have a great deal of respect for that. It's certainly breaking the mould of games that are keen to pat you on the back and fire the old dopamine receptors in reverence to the mere act of booting them up but it's too far in the other direction for me at this point. I'd wager that a good 60% of my time with the game is either spent watching Arthur travel in cinematic camera, holding A to maintain the horse's speed while it heads towards a way point or mashing A to run from one point to the next. While that sounds like a very reductive hot take, that's my genuine conclusion from a good twenty hours of play. Most of my time is spent simply observing the game play itself.

I'm convinced that the older I get, the more my attention span is dwindling and I'm sure that if I gave it enough hours, I'd be completely absorbed in the world and the characters but by far the most engaging times I've spent were being railroaded through the missions early on. If this were a purely linear tale with the open world being a total facade to set dress the mission structure, I think it would be much more successful to my tastes.
User avatar
Alex79
Member
Posts: 8423
Joined: September 2nd, 2012, 12:36 pm
Location: Walsall, UK.
Contact:

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by Alex79 »

Most of those statements are the exact reason I love it. It's a close race against The Witcher 3, but I think this may be the greatest world ever created in a game. I love the glacial pace, and the way the story doesn't hurry you along for most of the time. It does, in places, and there is a sense of tense urgency as you head towards the end of the game, but that's in stark contrast to the leisurely freedom the early game presents to you. At the start I could spend days wandering the forests, hunting in the mountains and just exploring the world, but the closer to the finish you just don't feel like doing that because the story dictates the pace you feel comfortable with totally. I love it, its a work of art and just such an immersive, beautiful game.

I also totally understand how it doesn't appeal to everyone, but this is as close to perfect as a game gets, for me.
User avatar
Stanshall
Member
Posts: 2370
Joined: January 31st, 2016, 6:45 am

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by Stanshall »

I totally get that and can see how you could really fall in love with it. I should really have seen it through when I was in the zone. I was in the thick of AC Odyssey around the same time and after fifty hours of that, Red Dead was just a bit too soon perhaps. I'm sure I'll be looking something meatier again in time and I'll be able to sink back into that mode.
User avatar
Alex79
Member
Posts: 8423
Joined: September 2nd, 2012, 12:36 pm
Location: Walsall, UK.
Contact:

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by Alex79 »

I reached the end of chapter six last night.

WARNING: SPOILERS
Spoiler: show
It was incredible. So sad. There was a point, as I rode back to camp alone to confront Dutch and Mica, where the song comes in and you're just holding X to ride, I got a little choked and there was a tear in my eye. Genuinely. Arthur Morgan is one of the best characters I've ever had the pleasure of knowing, not just in a video game, but in any kind of media. I knew the end was near for him, and he fought right to the bitter last blow, and as that sun started to rise over the mountains and he took his last few breaths, I just couldn't help but find myself slightly overcome by sadness for him. It was a magnificent ending to one of, if not the, most amazing game I have ever played. Oh god, and when he said goodbye and thank you to his horse. A horse I'd had since about the fifth hour of the 70+ hour game. That was hard. I'm honestly going to miss Arthur and the other characters. Just brilliant.

I'm in the first epilogue now, and it's good to see John looking well, but I'm upset I've lost my level 10 beard, that thing was epic.

Man. This game.
User avatar
Alex79
Member
Posts: 8423
Joined: September 2nd, 2012, 12:36 pm
Location: Walsall, UK.
Contact:

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by Alex79 »

I do think this is the biggest unappealing to the mainstream, mainstream game in years.

And by saying that, I'm absolutely in no way dismissing anyone else's opinions, and I'm certainly not trying to hold my head above anyone and say "I just get it", that's not what I think at all. What I mean is, for such a huge AAA game, they've really taken some risks with the pacing and I can imagine a lot of casual gamers who love GTA and maybe even the first Red Dead Redemption, have come away disappointed. Even on this form, a forum of 'hardcore gamers' (yuk, I'm sorry, maybe dedicated or passionate gamers would have been a better way of putting it?) there are plenty who just haven't enjoyed it.
User avatar
KSubzero1000
Member
Posts: 3365
Joined: August 26th, 2015, 9:56 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by KSubzero1000 »

First of all, I completely agree with your analysis that the various systems of a game like RDR2 can often end up contradicting each other in a way that takes away from the overall player experience.

ThirdMan wrote: February 24th, 2019, 12:26 pm RDR2, despite its successes, still suffers from the inherent contradictions that plague all open-world games, and which I think are actually impossible to totally eradicate.
I have to disagree with the above, however. For me, the issue you've described is intrinsically tied to the western genre-mixing open world model favoured by Bethesda, Rockstar and Ubisoft, to name a few. Games with hundreds of characters, quests, missions, loot items that want to tell a linear story while also letting the player "explore" to their heart's content are going to run into these inexorable issues. Even the best of them (RDR2, TW3, Horizon, AC, Skyrim, etc...).

But I think it's a mistake to generalize too much based on that specific design philosophy. There are certain games that utilize the open world format differently and don't run into the dissonance you've mentioned. SotC never pretends to be filled with NPCs, quests and goodies and treats its sprawling barren world as an atmospheric storytelling device rather than an all-you-can-eat sandbox. MGSV has a very traditional mission structure that doesn't let the player experience any content out of order, afaik (enemy bases will simply be empty or outright inaccessible when visited prematurely). Those are open world games that commit firmly to their narrative structure first and foremost.

Conversely, there are also open world games that are completely mechanic-centered without any conventional "main quest" of sorts, like PUBG or Minecraft. Interestingly enough, those are very rarely thought of as "open world games", even though they are.

Even in the case of the current AAA model described above, I think there'd be room for improvement on that front, most notably with the concept of multiple protagonists. It's not too difficult to imagine an alternative version of RDR2 in which Abigail is free-roaming the land while Arthur is following his linear mission structure, for example. Or even an alternative version of Just Cause that ditches the main plot entirely and focuses on the explosive sandbox aspect exclusively, thus avoiding any narrative pitfalls.

The problems usually associated with the open world model aren't set in stone. I think they're in large part due to directors wanting their cake and eat it too, at the detriment of design purity.

There was another thread dealing with this exact topic last year. Well worth a read if you haven't already. :)
User avatar
Alex79
Member
Posts: 8423
Joined: September 2nd, 2012, 12:36 pm
Location: Walsall, UK.
Contact:

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by Alex79 »

I think there's a strong argument to be made that Shadow Of The Colossus is not an open world game. It just takes place in a world with no restrictions on exploration, and I don't think that they're the same thing.
User avatar
Alex79
Member
Posts: 8423
Joined: September 2nd, 2012, 12:36 pm
Location: Walsall, UK.
Contact:

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by Alex79 »

Personally, an open world game has to tick these boxes for me:

- large open map, which you are free to explore as you desire. Locking off certain parts of the map until you hit certain story beats would not exclude it from being an open world game.

- Multiple mission givers dotted across the map, and additionally, optional missions/races/events.

- Side activities. Hunting, races, fishing, games within games, just anything that passes the time in the game.

- Traders of some description. Shops, upgrade centres, places to buy ammo or clothing etc.

- A means of transport not restricted to on foot travel. Cars, bikes, horses, planes, wingsuits, whatever.

- Non linearity. There will be an overall path through the game, but you don't necessarily have a set in stone order you need to do each mission in.

I would say that's what open world games means to me. Someone else might have their own criteria, and it's not something I really give much thought to, but to me, this pretty much defines an open world game.

I wouldn't say 'open world' is a genre, either. It's just a gameplay mechanic. Open world games can be action adventure, RPG, driving, snowboarding, anything really.
User avatar
KSubzero1000
Member
Posts: 3365
Joined: August 26th, 2015, 9:56 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by KSubzero1000 »

ThirdMan wrote: February 24th, 2019, 2:25 pm So if I reframe my thoughts it would be that games that allow their narratives to be fragmented, or afford the player too much freedom over their choice of mission, run into difficulties. Yet I'm sure there's exceptions to that as well. And if there's not, perhaps there will be in future. Divinity: Original Sin 2 is a linear game, but apparently within those individual areas there's unprecedented flexibility, even allowing you to kill important NPCs without derailing the story. Using that as an example, why couldn't that philosophy be extended out to an open-world RPG, for example, even one in the Western mould?
In theory, I think it'd be perfectly feasible to design an open world RPG-type game which would dot all the i's and cross all the t's and grant the player the type of narrative agency and flexibility that already exists in smaller titles.

But in practice, I think people sometimes underestimate the sheer amount of data that would be necessary to cover every possible outcome of said flexibility, especially when dealing with multiple significant branching paths over the course of the story. I have the exact same reservations whenever people call for even more ambitious branching narrative systems in Quantic Dream-type games. Sure, it sounds great at first, but if you do the math it becomes clear by how much it would multiply the existing workload. I don't think the plot holes in Heavy Rain are a simple unfortunate oversight, but more like a constant baked-in problem given the realities of the market.

The Witcher 3 was widely praised for introducing "branching narrative elements" in the form of half a dozen (or less?) binary choice moments and slight variations to its third act and ending. And yet that was enough to necessitate huge amounts of additional voice-over recordings and NPC scripting, to the point where everyone was shocked CD Project RED were able to pull it off convincingly.

Now imagine how much more resources would need to be put into a game like RDR2 if it genuinely tried to eliminate all these little contradictions we're talking about. I think it would be possible, but perhaps not entirely realistic, especially given the 4+ year development cycle. And besides...

According to Dean Takahashi's estimate, the total development and marketing cost of RDR2 was around $944.2 million, which is more than any GDP of the world's 21 poorest countries according to the UN's 2017 Statistics Division. Let that sink in for a second. Even if his estimate turned out to be three times more than the actual amount, that should give us an idea of the kind of ballpark we're dealing with here. It's a miracle these things get green-lit in the first place.

I don't know, man. I'm just a layman, so it's possible that I'm just flat wrong or missing something important. Perhaps one day we'll be able to plug into a Matrix-esque virtual scenario with a pre-ordained storyline as well as borderline limitless potential for player/audience narrative agency. But I'm afraid it might take a while before we get there.

ThirdMan wrote: February 24th, 2019, 2:25 pm Breath of the Wild also springs to mind as an open world game that 'works'. Obviously it's a Japanese game [...]
Nice tautology there, mate. ;) :P
User avatar
Alex79
Member
Posts: 8423
Joined: September 2nd, 2012, 12:36 pm
Location: Walsall, UK.
Contact:

Re: Red Dead Redemption II

Post by Alex79 »

Having finished the main story and epilogues (thoughts in the games completed thread), it got me thinking. I hope so much we see some single player story DLC for this game. Rockstar were incredibly generous I feel with the epilogue, which I'd have happily bought as DLC, and the way the map opens up post main story is just something you never really see with games as companies try to wring every penny out of you.

I'd love to see some Mexico based DLC, or some pre-game events stories, perhaps with a younger Arthur, or even DLC linking the first and second games completely. There is so much potential, I desperately hope they do something other than put all their efforts in to online as they did with GTA.
Post Reply