flashfire926 said:

And there is no excuse for RDR2 to have subpar gameplay, and missions more linear than naughty dog games. 

Gunplay is subpar, but the horse riding and simulation elements are A1. These are part of gameplay, not just the gunplay.

The missions are paced well due to their linearity, I'd rather have that than another Far Cry game where you do whatever the fuck you want because it gets old.

DonFerrari said:

The gameplay on the game is very soft, even on the hardest difficult I like died once every 3h or so (mostly when doing careless exploration, as the map is so big sometimes you would be like 5min without doing nothing, so I put in cinematic mode and was watching a little the screen and sometimes looking the phone - you know we shouldn't use phone while driving... then I would be ambushed, jaguar would hunt me and the like). But during real gameplay setting I had I think a single death in the whole game.

On the horse itself there were a case where a very funny event occurred with a couch driver being shot to death outside the screen and I got run over by the cart out of nowhere. The when I gone to inspect the driver was full of arrows like a porcupine (didn't saw the killers though).

The horse was stubborn in some areas, like when you try to do some mountain exploration, take some time to change direction, terrible to go in the middle of the woods (AI will auto aim trees sometimes, and with the dumper on the control response it's quite hard to manually deviate from then while running).

So when the game have two gameplay elements, which is shooting and walking around (foot or horse) and shooting is very very very easy, then the game turns into a walk around to enjoy the story (which I did dearly until the end portion). I have played it full in like 1 or 2 weeks. That is why I "classified" as walking simulator.

Without giving spoilers, but since this game is set not much before RDR1, the end of RDR2 will lead to RDR1 events. So some things that could have been done a lot better (in my opinion) were like targeted to keep coherence.

Difficulty of a game dictates its genre? What are you saying man, you make absolutely no sense.

RDR2 is literally anything but a walking simulator, imagine you had to walk around the map collecting pieces with characters talking. That would have been a very different game. You are full of hyperbole my man.

Not every game has to be Dark Souls, get off your horse (pun intended). Red Dead Redemption has plenty of gunplay and survival simulation aspects.

I don't even like DS, but there is a big gap between DS high difficult and specialized gameplay and the 2 element gameplay of RDR2, shooting is so easy and traversing very boring with the horse ridding quite broken if you ever mounted a horse that since you have no challenge at all even on the hardest it is more of walking around and fell the story than really playing.

pikashoe said:

Open world games should have more options in how to get to the end of a mission. It isn't going to hurt the story if I have a few options on how I go about doing things. Not every mission in the game even contributes heavily to the story.

Another issue I had with the game was the horse riding. So much of my play time particularly in the late game was holding down x while on my horse and watching my phone while I wait to get to the next marker. That alone is a massive issue and completely shatters immersion in the game. I have never played a game where I can look away from the screen for large periods of time with little consequence.

Yeah, you just described Far Cry games. The do as you please approach to mission design gets old really quick.

Horse riding in cinematic mode is a choice, I prefer to ride horse while taking in the beautiful scenery like I do when travelling somewhere. Its the most immersive game I've ever played and I've played a fuck ton of them.


Mummelmann said:
Playing AC: Odyssey and RDR2 has made me appreciate Spider-Man more, to be honest. Both AC and RDR2 have a common issue for me; traversing the world becomes a chore and loses its charms after some time, which is of course a problem in a big open world game.

I do agree, to big of a map with missions occuring at opposite sides of the map. Spider-Man it felt amazing to go one place to another during all the time and nothing was ever very far because NY is really small.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"


Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"