Why was Yea Forums so disappointed by Red Dead Redemption 2?

Negros and darkies, but mostly

It was a good game but if the next rockstar game has the same restrictive mission design that rarely allows you to try different approaches and starts every mission with you riding/driving for about 5 minutes to your actual destination then I'm not going to bother with it. Shooting needs to be improved as well, it feels imprecise once you turn off the shitty auto aim and makes dead eye a crutch rather then a useful ability you use to take out 6 guys with a headshot each like a cool guy.

>get done with a firefight in a mission and want to reap the rewards
>characters wont shut up about me taking forever to loot bodies and it feels like I might fail for not doing the objective

because it was a forgettable experience.

even for all the 'new' stuff they adopted (quite a lot of stuff from the witcher 3, in fact), it still felt shallow as fuck, nothing really fleshed out of consequential.

it is very detailed and cool but it can't decide between whether it is a simulation/sandbox or a narrative-based game. doesn't help that for all the promise the story has in the first few chapters it shits the bed in the lemoyne section and doesn't recover.

arthur is a good protag though and feels like the only part of the game with some depth and humanity. he feels like he belongs in a better game/narrative, like someone else wrote him. the rest is just the same old tired brand of rockstar insincerity.

one thing the game did make me realise was that i care so little about graphics these days, we really have reached the point of diminishing returns. the game is probably the best looking game i've played but that isn't enough anymore. the more lifelike it looks, the more you expect of it, because at that point you end up comparing it to tv and film. all that detail and graphics ended up counting for very little, even if it did set a benchmark.

Attached: 1481222411757.jpg (400x400, 30K)

>the game is probably the best looking game i've played but that isn't enough anymore. the more lifelike it looks, the more you expect of it, because at that point you end up comparing it to tv and film. all that detail and graphics ended up counting for very little, even if it did set a benchmark.
I was still comparing it to other games than to real tv and movies

Lenny literally says hard R Nigger in the game, though it is Lenny to be fair.

Red Dead 2 is like a brand new high end mall, everything is exquisitely designed, it is a joy to walk around, the air smells good, and all that rot. But none of the stores are open and they all sell plain bagels anyway. Do you understand?

Well said user

Most people liked it

Absolute master piece

Attached: 03D714B6-3B93-4763-9470-7FADDCE049E2.jpg (1920x1080, 796K)

Loves it, almost done everything in the compendium just need to tame a bunch of horses and find a goddamn rio bravo turkey to study and skin.

I only heard Lenny say it once, when he talks about his father being a 'house nigger'

>Why was Yea Forums so disappointed by Red Dead Redemption 2?
I didn't watch broke back mountain so I didn't get the plot very well. And what alot of people are saying about controls being slow as shit. Confirmed why I gave up on RDR1. At least you can die by literally everything and anyone at any time. Even your own horse can kill you. Got to love Ragdoll physics or whatever it is that when you hit a corner, or get hit by a carriage you go fucking flying.

Do girls prefer guys with beards?

Maybe white girls do, all the Asian girls I know prefer men clean shaven

It wasn't, retard. All of us had faith.

Attached: 1543528561308.png (1011x434, 542K)

I don't find asians attractive. Only white girls for me.

Anymore leaks or rumors about a PC version? Also Mary-Beth a best.

Attached: Red Dead Redemption 2_20181112195829.jpg (1920x1080, 345K)

Because no amount of TECHNOLOGY will make it a real game.

I made the mistake of doing all the Hamish missions as Arthur

Yea Forums is full of Nintendo fags and PC elitists. Neither got a chance to play it, so they love shit posting about it. RDR2 was one of the best games made the past decade. Nintendo fags were by far the worst, since it got a better Metacritic score than their precious BOTW.

Not at all

beardlet ?

Opposite actually and it’s annoying to keep down. Maybe it’s because I’m 23 but girl my age don’t like beard at all

what country?

>Maybe it’s because I’m 23
It is because you are 23 entirely. Once you are past 25. You will start to understand. If you are near 30 or over you have one last denial about not being old and then accept it from there onward.

RDR was so much more immersive

i disagree

A lot of gamers tend to have short attention spans. RDR2 is much more of an experience that you are supposed to be immersed in. Thats why theres no fast travel or quick animations.

Yea Forums cant comprehend that some people have different tastes so "it's shit"

Whoa. What a rebuttal. How did you manage to think that all up by yourself?

Because they sacrificed videogame fun to tell a story. RDR1 was better.

its not like "i liked the other better" is a real argument

>Thats why theres no fast travel
According to South Park there was. You do something, unlock an upgrade for your camp and then you have fast travel.

MB was totally going to be a love interest. You can tell the game was rushed from chapter 3.5 onward. I feel like content was cut, that included honestly due to this.

moviegames generally aren't well received here
>consensus of Yea Forums on rdr2 was positive
maybe during the honeymoon period, but even then plenty of anons were calling it out

Sadie is literally Poochie

it's only to specific locations, towns only I think

i thought i was disappointed with it but then i reolayed the original and realized that wasnt even close to as good as i thought it was at the time either
wish id done that earlier

Whoa that never happens, I've stopped listening to you faggots

why do you have the worse opinions

I enjoyed the game. However I didn't enjoy the overly sensitive witness system and the spawning lawmen. I was dissapointed that Rockstar, a company that keeps trying to make each game more advanced than the last, is still using the exact same method of law enforcement they always use. Other than that I only really had a problem with a couple of missions, the rest of the game was pretty damn great.

>it's only to specific locations, towns only I think
Fast travel is fast travel. Just ironic because I bet when you get to that town with or without your hose. I bet the mission or objective is like another 5 miles still do go. And getting to it I bet more people died due to whatever killed them in their path. Great game on accidental death. Like thought Far Cry 3/4 had the trophy on it. But Rockstar are the kings of it.

Yea Forums wasn't disappointed, the first month of release the game got a lot of praise on here. It wasn't until just recently after everyone finished it that faggots on here started to claim it was a disappointment.
Same thing will happen to REmake 2.

Attached: Dutch swamp.jpg (1180x523, 78K)

? It's my game of the generation along with Nier Automata user.

bump

Hardly. The physics take you out of it. It's more engaging since random events repeat a lot - showdowns, bounties, etc. But for immersion, 2 beats it out via the world being more detailed and how much you can interact with said world. The random events (not stranger missions) really flesh out the world, and I wish more of the game was designed like that. RDR is more fun but not nearly as immersive. Hudless RDR2 is max immersion and comfy.

>make a rooty tooty cowboy shooty game
>shooting and movement feels fucking awful

Attached: 1550615376331.gif (528x292, 1.95M)

>make western-sim
>advertise it as such
>dipshits still shit and piss over themselves that it aint arcadey game game
Neck yourself

Most of the story is you shooting people dumb fuck, in the prologue you take on a whole encampent of people. Shooting is core part of the game you absolute troglodyte. So there is no excuse for the shooting to be so fuck awful. Tell me when i said it should be arcadey?

I dunno. I had no hype for the game and I ended up enjoying it a lot. There are definitely issues, but I don't think it's any worse than other Rockstar games in terms of those issues

Here's why I found it disappointing:

I think it has one of the coolest maps ever that was based on the USA. But its a huge missed opportunity. It has the bayou, it has a roanke ridge that feels like appalachie, it even has a place with geysers. But the game just seems to do hardly anything interesting with these areas. Its a big missed opportunity, instead of dealing with these cool places of Americana, its mostly a game of doing stuff around the boring camp or spending too much time in (imo) unexceptional missions. Its a waste of an amazing map.

In a weird way, RDR2 is the least "cultural" of pretty much any Rockstar game. RDR1, GTA IV and V, these games felt more genuinely like they were exploring aspects of their location and delving into the culture a bit. RDR2 feels like a very bland, on the surface portrait in 1899. It doesnt leave a strong impression on me.

Its because they spent all those man hours on H O R S E B A L L S

to give a bit more about what i mean:
look at GTA IV. takes place in new york, shows you jamaican gangs, irish gangs, talks about niko from eastern europe and the war there, has references to terroist paranoia, has new jersey and italians, etc.

gtaV takes place in LA, shows a lot of the trendy hipster trends and self help and celebreity worship, has trailer parks and that kind of culture, references to trevor being canadian, the mexicans from the border..

RDR1 doesnt have a ton, but at least it feels pretty genuinely 1915 with the industrialization and militraization from west elizabeth, political convos in mexico.

what does RDR2 have? it hardly seems to evoke the time or culture at all. At most it has basically one side mission where you explore a former slave catchers house. But it feels like a game that could have basically taken place any time before 1900. It seems to have very little cultural references to anything. hardly anything about the bayou, or the ridge or annesburg is explored. saint denis has hardly anything interesting about the french or cajun roots. when i think of the game i just think of spending a bunch of time in camp and the heists. just not enough cultural significance in the game, which is something i miss

>Hardly. The physics take you out of it.

The physics feel more natural than any other game I can think of

Maybe if youre morbidly obese

They're intentionally overdone to give it a spaghetti western vibe. Not to say they aren't good but the ragdolls are exaggerated quite a bit sometimes.

Yea Forums is disappointed by anything that doesn't have underage cartoon girls.

The game's selling point is this vast world where you are free to do whatever the fuck you want, and It's polished and beautiful. But the missions don't share this ideology of freedom. It's almost like they were made by a team that had no contact with the people developing the world. In the end the positives weigh way heavier than the negatives though, I really love this game too.

Attached: 50949518_2053914654704550_5274987517647519744_o.jpg (1920x1080, 179K)