Current Events > Man, trying to get back into RDR 2... it's just... such a mess

(+) Yeah! (+)

This game doesnt know what it wants to be or how it even wants you to control it

---

No, its perfect.

---

I forgot the controls and accidentally punched my horse resulting in a kick

---

How the fuck does RDR2 not know what it wants to be >_>. It literally feels built around what it wanted to be.

---

Lost_All_Senses posted...

How the fuck does RDR2 not know what it wants to be >_>. It literally feels built around what it wanted to be.

It really did not need to be an open world game

---

Irony posted...

I forgot the controls and accidentally punched my horse resulting in a kick

The first several hours of the game are this mind boggling blur of tutorial messages that show up at the same time, disappear if you follow the prompts presented in one, contradict each other, and disappear too quickly. Literally the game will, all at once, vomit dialogue, a top corner help message, and a bottom screen tutorial prompt at you. Its a fucking mess.

---

I don't think I've ever read worse opinions tbh. Again, just couldn't be more wrong. It's one the only open world games where no matter what direction you go, the world is gonna react to you. There is literally no game that has done open world better at this point in time.

---

And the missions are straight up on rails most of the time and feel entirely out of place in that open world

---

Its the reason I havent touched RDR2 after the main game but im still playing odyssey after 90 hours even though im burnt out and am forcing myself to complete all the question marks.

I think character movement control or just controls, is a very important aspect of a game. Like PUBG, the controls are absolutely dog shit.

I've waited so many years for FF7 remake, bought a PS4 in 2015 because of the announcement and now im put off buying the game day one because i played the demo and the character movement and controls dont feel so right. I waited so many years, i'll wait a bit more for the reviews and maybe a sale. Especially when its only part 1.

---

butthole666 posted...

And the missions are straight up on rails most of the time and feel entirely out of place in that open world

That doesn't make an open world pointless. Doing that and having no other elements is what makes an open world game pointless. But RDR2 is more fleshed out than any game on the market.

You just sound bad at the game so far >_>. Just get better and see how it feels.

As far as missions go. I don't really understand the need to fuck around on missions when you can literally do it anywhere else. It's like having a room full of your favorite food and it's in every corner but one. And you're just like "...but I want it in that corner too". The open world flourishes everywhere but that one corner. Which is the less logical corner for it to be in.

---

My main complaint is being rushed during every mission.Take 5 sec to walk 3 sec away and your getting yelled at.Stop and loot one body while watching your partner and they instantly die from nothing.

I'm going to do another playthrough soon though.

---

I'm only a few hours in, but boy have they been slow. Hoping it picks up

---

modena posted...

My main complaint is being rushed during every mission.Take 5 sec to walk 3 sec away and your getting yelled at.Stop and loot one body while watching your partner and they instantly die from nothing.

I'm going to do another playthrough soon though.

I'll give you that one. It took me awhile to know when I should just cut loses with the loot. Except the partner dying thing. I focused on looting and shooting a lot and don't remember my partners dying a lot. Can't even think of one instance, but I'll blame that on bad memory. It definitely wasn't noticable to me.

---

This topic is proof that opinions can be wrong.

---

And theres hardly anything else to when youre not during missions.

---

Also the fact that a vast array if things just straight up dont work right or are balanced specifically to not be fun

---

RDR2 is a masterpiece and my favorite Rockstar game.

---

fan357 posted...

RDR2 is a masterpiece and my favorite Rockstar game.

same


---

it's the worst game rockstar has put out

Kaiganeer posted...

it's the worst game rockstar has put out

Nah it's significantly better than GTA4 and 5 and Manhunt 2

---

It's a bit of a clumsy slow paced game. A mess might be a bit much though. If you're in the right mindset it's good.

---

RDR1 was a better game.

---

Cobra1010 posted...

RDR1 was a better game.

Indeed

---

I really enjoyed RDR, but I can't think of any area where I'd consider it to be better than RDR2, but to each their own.

---

Red Dead 1 was mediocre. I dont get why people love it.

---

Cobra1010 posted...

RDR1 was a better game.

Eh, I played it again right before RDR2. It has aged surprisingly poorly, despite being one of my favorites of the generation.

---

it would be good if it wasn't so BORING

---

This video does the best job at explaining the main problem with the game and how (like TC said) it doesn't know what it wants to be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvJPKOLDSos

It's a long video but humorous, informative, and well articulated.

---

boxington posted...

I really enjoyed RDR, but I can't think of any area where I'd consider it to be better than RDR2, but to each their own.

Well for one, controlling john doesnt feel like driving a boat with your feet

---

^ I've seen that video, in parts, before, but idk how the game "doesn't know what it wants to be"

I remember him making a point about how missions are pretty linear, in how deviating from an intended path, it can lead to you failing the mission. but during free-roam, you can play however you want, and I feel that this was something intentional, that the creators wanted the player to have a more cinematic, scripted experience when it came to story related stuff, and to give players freedom outside of it.

it's not a fault of the game if people don't like some of its design choices.

I agree with some of his points, though, about how some elements aren't well explained, like the bounty system, or how the gameplay can be seen as slow and/or clunky - it didn't feel clunky to me, but I wouldn't hold it against someone for thinking so.

---

butthole666 posted...

Well for one, controlling john doesnt feel like driving a boat with your feet

I enjoyed its gameplay

---

Hello, TC. It sounds like you are new to Rockstar games.

---

Jabodie posted...

Eh, I played it again right before RDR2. It has aged surprisingly poorly, despite being one of my favorites of the generation.

Do you know what aging poorly means? How the hell did that game age poorly? Like Christ. People don't know what aging poorly means.

Rdr2 just feels so damn slow to me. Like the player movement.

---

you can criticize it, but it's not a mess.

butthole666 posted...

It really did not need to be an open world game

Choose to play the story missions only

I think people do forget all of the filler that was in RDR1. The story is thinly spread out the entire game. The narrative in RDR2 is more consistent overall. It uses the same sluggish physics as other Rockstar games too.

I do like Rockstar narratives but I do miss when they'd let the player actually be creative during story missions. It's all so incredibly scripted.


---

boxington posted...

^ I've seen that video, in parts, before, but idk how the game "doesn't know what it wants to be"

I remember him making a point about how missions are pretty linear, in how deviating from an intended path, it can lead to you failing the mission. but during free-roam, you can play however you want, and I feel that this was something intentional, that the creators wanted the player to have a more cinematic, scripted experience when it came to story related stuff, and to give players freedom outside of it.

it's not a fault of the game if people don't like some of its design choices.

I agree with some of his points, though, about how some elements aren't well explained, like the bounty system, or how the gameplay can be seen as slow and/or clunky - it didn't feel clunky to me, but I wouldn't hold it against someone for thinking so.

Another example he gives is how the game markets itself as having realism but arbitrarily takes away control or does unrealistic things whenever it feels like it. Skinning a pelt takes a long time but setting up a camp is automatic. Your gun is automatically put on your horse and switched to your default ammo if you ride the horse for a while.

It doesn't know what it wants to be, he argues, because a huge selling point of the game the realism and open world which basically have 0 impact on the linear story mission parts. Half of the game isn't talking to the other half.

---

Odoylerules posted...

you can criticize it, but it's not a mess.

refer to my previous posts about the games complete inability to organize its own tutorials and make them digestible. Tons of information is thrown at you at once and the controls you are given are transient and will change situationally. Its a poorly designed game.

---

As a Naughty Dog style linear af story game RDR2 works. But it sells itself a lot on a huge open world where you have freedom to explore and experience all the realism. But then it largely doesn't know how to handle that promise.

---

Theres also enormous issues with menus and controls just flat out not working sometimes; often youll have to select an item twice in the wheel for it to do anything, or youll press a button, nothing will happen, but it will be greyed out and you need to wait 10 seconds to kindly ask Arthur to do it again.

dont even fucking get me started on all the missions that arbitrarily take all control away from you and turn into a telltale-style one button to get through the whole scene cutscene.

---

Jabodie posted...

Eh, I played it again right before RDR2. It has aged surprisingly poorly, despite being one of my favorites of the generation.

Yeah. I played all 3 RDRs last year and after playing the 2nd. Going back to 2 was such a huge downgrade in every area. It's like 2 being so above and beyond just made RDR1 feel dated faster. Still a good game though and a fun ride. I guess the shooting at times was more enjoyable cause it was faster paced. But it definitely would of messed up the pacing of RDR2 to such throw in some wacky gunfights. I like that it fully dedicated to feeling more real.

And for the zombie version. That game was pretty bland to go back to.

The side missions in the first literally being "walk up and watch a cutscene" half the time definitely feel inferior to the fleshed out side content you get in RDR2.

---

joe40001 posted...

Another example he gives is how the game markets itself as having realism but arbitrarily takes away control or does unrealistic things whenever it feels like it. Skinning a pelt takes a long time but setting up a camp is automatic. Your gun is automatically put on your horse and switched to your default ammo if you ride the horse for a while.

It doesn't know what it wants to be, he argues, because a huge selling point of the game the realism and open world which basically have 0 impact on the linear story mission parts. Half of the game isn't talking to the other half.

maybe it's because I didn't watch through the whole video, but I feel like those examples are really poor. like, the game aimed for some kinda realism, but there were always going to be some "gamey" parts (not dying from a well-aimed shot, not dying from not eating/drinking/sleeping), some fast travel system, etc.).

and just because the open-world doesn't play into the narrative outside of how long it takes to traverse from points A to B, or how big your shooting galleries are, it doesn't mean the game doesn't know what it wants to be; it just means that there's more going on outside of its missions.

---

butthole666 posted...

refer to my previous posts about the games complete inability to organize its own tutorials and make them digestible. Tons of information is thrown at you at once and the controls you are given are transient and will change situationally. Its a poorly designed game.

maybe it's because I haven't played the game since 2018, but I don't remember having an issue with the game's tutorials.

and because you did, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's "poorly designed"

---

Tbh there are a lot of weird design decisions.

Why do I need to go to dead bodies and hold down a button to search them for ammo. What does that accomplish for the player? It kinda ruins my immersion (which seems to be their goal for literally everything in this game for better or worse) to have people barking at me impatiently while I pat down the dead.

The game is filled with stuff like this. What's fun about running away and paying a bounty because my horse bumped into someone?

---

this topic is making me want to play the game again so I can see if my opinion hasn't changed.

I'll probably have to get a new PS4, though, as this one is no longer recognizing discs.

---

Red Dead Revolver was the best one

---

boxington posted...

maybe it's because I didn't watch through the whole video, but I feel like those examples are really poor. like, the game aimed for some kinda realism, but there were always going to be some "gamey" parts (not dying from a well-aimed shot, not dying from not eating/drinking/sleeping), some fast travel system, etc.).

and just because the open-world doesn't play into the narrative outside of how long it takes to traverse from points A to B, or how big your shooting galleries are, it doesn't mean the game doesn't know what it wants to be; it just means that there's more going on outside of its missions.

The open world stuff isn't integrated into anything. If you are saying "yes it's a fun naughty dog story based game, and also it's a decent but unbalanced open world game with realism except for random inconvenient times when it doesn't have realism", then yes I agree. But that's why it's a game that doesn't know what it wants to be.

Another example: One could definitely say this game encourages you to want to be an outlaw, but outside the story missions, have you ever tried to be an outlaw? He covers this in the video but between the alert system, the flawed bounty system, and randomly spawning sheriffs it's basically impossible.

If you are like me you tried to have freeplay fun being an outlaw, until you quickly had a max debt of 350 in some town even though there was no real way to prevent that from happening. You can't rob a store or bank without getting spotted, you can't rob a train without instantly being ambushed, there are very few crimes you can do without being spotted and having to stop a witness during which you are often spotted again.

There might be a better way to play with disguises and masks and being careful with the wanted/bounty system, but like he breaks down in the video, the rules for this are pretty obtuse, not well communicated, and still inconsistent.

It is a game that promises a lot of freedom but doesn't really deliver that, unless you count going to preset locations to do preset mini-games or scripted missions. That plus it's inconsistent realism (and not in service of convenience as you imply) are why it is a messy game.

It's still good in many ways, but ultimately it does have an identity crisis and doesn't come together as a cohesive whole game.

---

Darmik posted...

Tbh there are a lot of weird design decisions.

Why do I need to go to dead bodies and hold down a button to search them for ammo. What does that accomplish for the player? It kinda ruins my immersion (which seems to be their goal for literally everything in this game for better or worse) to have people barking at me impatiently while I pat down the dead.

The game is filled with stuff like this. What's fun about running away and paying a bounty because my horse bumped into someone?

All the button holding is insanely tedious. The game is designed for tedium. Its baffling.

---

joe40001 posted...

The open world stuff isn't integrated into anything. If you are saying "yes it's a fun naughty dog story based game, and also it's a decent but unbalanced open world game with realism except for random inconvenient times when it doesn't have realism", then yes I agree. But that's why it's a game that doesn't know what it wants to be.

Another example: One could definitely say this game encourages you to want to be an outlaw, but outside the story missions, have you ever tried to be an outlaw? He covers this in the video but between the alert system, the flawed bounty system, and randomly spawning sheriffs it's basically impossible.

If you are like me you tried to have freeplay fun being an outlaw, until you quickly had a max debt of 350 in some town even though there was no real way to prevent that from happening. You can't rob a store or bank without getting spotted, you can't rob a train without instantly being ambushed, there are very few crimes you can do without being spotted and having to stop a witness during which you are often spotted again.

There might be a better way to play with disguises and masks and being careful with the wanted/bounty system, but like he breaks down in the video, the rules for this are pretty obtuse, not well communicated, and still inconsistent.

It is a game that promises a lot of freedom but doesn't really deliver that, unless you count going to preset locations to do preset mini-games or scripted missions. That plus it's inconsistent realism (and not in service of convenience as you imply) are why it is a messy game.

It's still good in many ways, but ultimately it does have an identity crisis and doesn't come together as a cohesive whole game.

the open-world is full of discovery and side-missions, and it has stages that you'll come across during the narrative.

you might lack freedom during the main story, and the gameplay would most likely be more interesting if you had more of it, but the developers never said that you'd be able to do whatever you wanted whenever you wanted. that doesn't make the open-world aspect "unbalanced". in most games, there are elements/mechanics that you don't always have access to, due to limitations, for example; maybe it sucks for some of the players, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the design is flawed.

and maybe R* wanted to have "Naughty Dog" linearity during its missions, and open-world gameplay outside of them. I felt that the balance was handled well, you didn't, and it is what it is.

I can't comment on the wanted/bounty stuff, though, since I've only ever encountered bounty hunters and not law enforcement, iirc, and I don't think that I've ever tried wearing a mask.

---