Current Events > How are the Red Dead Dedemption games? They're pretty popular.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I remember the buzz the first week Red Dead Redemption 2 came out.

Why are sandbox games popular?

Played the first one. Boring as sin. Heard the second wasn't much better in that regard.

2 might crack my top 10 of all time

Surprisingly I only felt like the first one was pretty good

Dedemption

I love them, probably my all time favorite series that isnt Zelda

I'm not a fan of the setting nor the constant nihilistic writing of rockstar so I had a dreadful time with the first. I saw how crazy they went for the sequel to the point where the gameplay alone is a slog for "realism" made me skip it entirely.

Probably two of my favorite games that Ive played as an adult.

But they are very slow moving. So it all depends on what you want from a sandbox game.

Love both games. When they click for you, they are amazing.

The first dedemption game is good, it's a really good wild west game. I couldn't bring myself to finish the second game. It was so fucking boring, a real slog to get through but the graphics are phenomenal.

Loved the sequel. Fantastic game.

Never played the first one, but I intend to do so someday.

1st game is a little bit aged, nowadays. Not a bad game at all, just definitely not quite the showcase it once was.

2nd game is a great followup, plus it's a prequel. There's some faults with it, but they're not deal breakers really. Given you buy into the universe. If you don't find the story or characters engaging, it might be rough

S_A_S posted...

I remember the buzz the first week Red Dead Redemption 2 came out.

Why are sandbox games popular?

Why shouldn't they be?

Some people like freedom to go where they want when they want why they want their way. They want to do their own thing and tell their own story. Sandbox games are a playground. That's appealing to some.

They're fun!

Started 2 few days ago and really enjoyed it. Thanks you guys for recommending it.

Masterpieces, 2 of the greatest games of all time

If you find window dressing more impressive than the actual gameplay it's fine.

First one was great, second one was ok but suffers from from rockstar's trend of pushing for super realistic simulation style gameplay and putting all their post release efforts into their online service to try and sell microtransactions rather then worthwhile dlc.

Very good games, but yeah, they're slow moving. You get used to it after a while, but a lot of parts feel like a simulation.

Theyre both great. The Undead Nightmare dlc of the first one is also great. I genuinely dont get the people who say the gameplay is a slog due to realism. The whole point of games is to immerse the player and make them feel like theyre connected to the game.

I like the first one. But I love the second one; it's one of my favorite games.

Dedemption 2 has a bunch to do and I never felt compelled to do any of it. Plus the missions just felt kind of eh to me. The writing is good and it the world is pretty. I tried to get on the I line train early and sunk more hours into it but it died quick and idk.

Maybe I'll beat it one day

They were both great IMO. First one was better (less filler-y content) but they're both great.

why can't Rockstar make a game where you're a good guy? tired of having to be a villain and doing scummy things.

RDR2 is great but I didn't care for the survival aspects

2 is legitimately one of the absolute best looking games of all time (still). Fantastic game.

1 was pretty good. I didn't like it as much as everyone else back then but it was very well received.

I didn't enjoy the first game enough to give the second game a chance. I enjoyed the first third of the game, but got bored after that.

I can't imagine liking the second game if it's the same thing, but also includes survival elements.

The first game is my favorite of all time, and the second isn't far behind. They're amazing. But I love the western stuff, and Rockstar is my favorite developer.

S_A_S posted...

Why are sandbox games popular?

This part of the question got me side-eying the intent of this topic.

giant world with nothing to do

unless you like being pestered by random encounters and actually want to trophy hunt by... hunting every animal and doing the whole camping/crafting/eating rpg shit (i don't).

They are both amazing games with ridiculously great attention to detail. The first one was more limited in what you could do and did feel more like a GTA set in the wild west, with more emphasis on action and shooting missions.

The second one ramps up the level of incredibility, though. The world is super detail dense, with a lot of random encounters to experience and dark side stories to unravel that aren't always highlighted on the map. The world is *very* accurately designed, the writing is great. It is definitely a slower paced game than many other third world shooters, but I think the pacing is perfectly acceptable if you let yourself go. I have a hard time with open world games because it just feels... too *gamey* (even though I've played through all AC games minus Mirage, all FC games and many other recent Ubi titles). RDR2 feels... like a different world altogether. It can get monotonous, but it also opens a big window for you to lose yourself in if you let it.

LonelyStoner posted...

Theyre both great. The Undead Nightmare dlc of the first one is also great. I genuinely dont get the people who say the gameplay is a slog due to realism. The whole point of games is to immerse the player and make them feel like theyre connected to the game.

Taking five seconds to loot a body when there are ten bodies and your NPC friends are yelling at you to hurry up and move to the next question objective does not immerse me, it just annoys the fuck out of me.