Red Dead Redemption 2 Game Design is outdated

RDR2 showed me that it doesn't fucking matter. So what if it's outdated design? This game executed its goal in such a fashion that is truly unique and it left me speechless. That's all that matters.

Outdated is the wrong word for RDR2.

It's not outdated because they tried a lot of new things that other games wouldnt try. It was very

The problem was a lot of the shit was stupid and boring, not out dated.

>outdated

I was unaware there were rules when it came to designing a game.

BOTW doesn't hold your hand at all

The worst part is getting random game overs for not staying on the exact predetermined path they had planned for you. That shit was ridiculous.

staying up to date isn't a rule you retard

You're not allowed to do anything that would violate the "plot" and when it comes to main quests, you're not allowed any freedom in how you accomplish them. There is only one way allowed, and the game forces you to stick to it.

I think one of the things that saves Rockstar is the time they take between releases. The timegap between Rockstar games is normally pretty big, and so they always have a huge draw. They'd really run into issues fast if they followed a CoD release schedule of a game per year. People would get bored and the gameplay flaws present in all of their games would be much more apparent. But instead because there's always half a decade between each game and they're always in vastly different settings, people never seem to notice.

I'm not saying that they're bad, but the last GTA game to really innovate was San Andreas. RDR2 has the exact same mission structure as GTA3.

but what is "up to date" in terms of game design? it's a medium where you can make a game about anything you want, making it play any way you want. how is this game outdated in anyway?

You've never played BotW.

did you not watch the video? He very clearly explains what he means when he says outdated

The character movement is too physics based, makes it annoying to actually control it properly.

it's 37 minutes long, no, I'm not going to watch the video. I'd rather talk to you, unless you don't have any talking points of your own.

Just explain the points he makes because im also not gonna waste 40 mins of my life listening to some nigger rambling

Yes, I have. Otherwise I would be complaining about something trivial, like weapons breaking. I'm sure you need an example though, so I'll be happy to provide one.

>freeing Vah Naboris
>can I sneak into the gerudo village? Nope, they automaticallyu catch you no matter what
>can you fight your way in? Nope, fighting women is problematic and toxic, have to appeal to the PC crowd
>have to crossdress and appease them like a low test beta
>can I just take the thunder helm from the yiga clan and use it myself to enter Vah Naboris? Nope, for some really stupid reason, you can't use it at all
>after saving all of the gerudo from the lightning storms of the divine beast, do I get recognition or at least a promise that they won't kill me on sight again? Nope, they still hate all men and will threaten to murder you at the first sight of you near their village

Now go on and tell me how this is good game design.

Okay well basically outdated is specifically being used in this case to point out that older rockstar games had better (more dynamic and less linear) game design than RDR2. The word outdated is used on assumption that the viewer thinks that less linear game design is a bad thing. And in the video the guy backs this up by saying that it's only a "bad thing" when you have linear design in a game that has an open world that is completely at odds with the linear design since it gives off the impression that it is dynamic.

i watched this video before and still bought it. then returned it. he's right but fails to mention its biggest flaw is being boring as sin

Pong was cutting edge back when it came out because holy shit a video game, it's a new thing.

GTA3 comes out, also cutting edge, a whole open world for you to explore, in your game! (first open world iirc, new form of game)

RDR2 comes out cutting edge in terms of console graphics. And that's about it. It doesn't do anything "new", as such. It just does a lot of things really well. Like if you got a Super HD Pong.

That has nothing to do with freedom or hand holding. You can still try to do both the things you mentioned and get smacked down for it because the village is guarded. Having freedom doesn't mean having every idea you have succeed. Having a particular action be required for a task to be accomplished isn't hand holding. Handholding is the RDR2 method of giving you a bright gold yellow line and X to every single objective and giving you tutorial hints for basic shit because a mission is making you do it.

If all it took was one guy to do something nice to be let into the village then the village would be full of men and that would defeat the entire point.

>posting video from alt right nazi shitlord
Umm no thanks sweatie

This, I found myself switching to first person mode often because the game doesn't delay your fucking movement with a billion slow turning/walking animations when using it.

Obsessed.

Attached: 17944ba2c5d0ae2c4465efd6f7043eab.jpg (471x560, 36K)

I didnt like that a lot of missions had zero rewards because there is nothing to give the player other than money which becomes useless at some point too. The game could have used more RPG elements, you know like stats, skills and XP and more variety of weapons and better inventory management too.

Yes 100%
Characters and script were brilliant but missions were repetitive and gameplay was clunky.
I also agree that rockstar was holding your hand like some child which made the open world pointless.
>autoaim
>follow yellow line
>mission failed
But the biggest problem, oh dear was is it big, red dead onl*ne holy shit is that a mess.
>want to buy a gun (300-$600)? Sure just grind lobbies and hunting for 3 days or else microtransactions.
>just won a pvp game? Here's $3.
>want to make custom outfits? Sure but you are limited to 3.
>want online content? Lmao.
>want the shittiest pvp lobbies and game modes imaginable? We got you.
The only fun thing to do is lasso players in free roam and rape them before you run away so they chase after you all traumatised.

Why the fuck do BoTWlets feel so threatened by RDR2? The insecurity is real.

I didn't touch online mode yet is it fun? can you like a join a world full of players and do shit?

That is the worst fucking opinion I've read today. Not every game needs RPG elements, holy fuck.

Still going to be one of the top games this generation with all the flaws, a lot of strong games are coming out in 2020 so i wonder where RDR2 will stand at the end of the generation

It's definitely a relic from 2008. I accept the first Red Dead as a classic, but I just can't let the design of 2 slide 8 years later, especially considering the added tedium with the way weapon storage works.

No RPG elements are a must for open world

don't bother, that shit needs a serious overhaul

>I didn't touch online mode yet is it fun?
No
>can you like a join a world full of players and do shit?
You can kill them or team with players to kill other players. You also get penalised for it because muh griefing. Honestly there is nothing to do with other players other than kill them. The only fun thing in the online is poker. I would advise you not to play the online until the big overhaul update with jobs and role playing is released this summer.
Other than that there's barely any clothes/weapons in online. There are like 2 or 3 loadouts that are OP and the rest of the guns are useless. Everything is a painfully long grind like some online f2p mmo rpg. And there's barely any content after you fly through the shitty online missions.

Just wait it out there's going to he a big update this summer and hopefully they can salvage the game with content and fixing the broken economy.

I don't get this stupid shit at all. I rather have a good scripted mission than a "make your own fun" kind of approach like MGSV where in the end i will end up doing the same shit over and over because is the most efficient way to do it.

Rockstar games have always been like this. I never understood why they garnered such affection.

Attached: marios trip to the twin towers goes awry.png (474x348, 225K)

Rockstar's game design is shit, not outdated

I think the core point is that money is mostly worthless in Rockstar titles, which results in a complete lack of incentive to play half the game. RPG elements are one route, there are many other routes, but the issue has to be addressed.

Okay it looks like am going to play the single player until they fix the online, am still in chapter 5 and i have tons of shit to do

Don't get me wrong the script is good.
But the gameplay is basically
>ride your horse with someone for 10 minutes
>rob/blow something up for money
>shit goes wrong
>shoot bad guys
Rinse and repeat. The kino script suffers from the predictable "missions"

That is false. GTA3, 4+expansions, Vice City, and RDR did absolutely fine without RPG elements. It's not necessary.

Am afraid you are staying with me

I liked it but after so many sandbox games with far better structure where the sandbox is the mission (BOTW, Far Cry 5, RFG) R*'s story based structure sticks out
>game about train and bank robbers
>story is about robbing to get enough money for mangoes
>robbing trains, banks or people in the open world does not contribute anything to the story so the most likely thing you'll spend the cash on is either gear or to clear your bounty

I liked the missions.

if only they had made a good 3rd person linear action game like Max Payne 3 then instead of what we get which was a game that had no idea what it wanted to actually be

it's funny considering botw2 is based on rdr2

The scripted missions in RDR2 would be more tolerable if the controls and shooting themselves weren't so absolutely shit. I'll be damned if someone can say with a straight face they had more fun in RDR2's missions than GTA4 or whatever other Rockstar game had good mechanics.

>a game that had no idea what it wanted to actually be
That doesn't mean anything at all.

This faggot knows nothing. There is literally nothing wrong with GTAV. You don't start every mission being forced to drive slowly at 2kph over a giant map for 10 minutes, enter a short shootout with zero other objectives, then drive 2kph back to where you started

Is sadie in the first game?

This is the right decision. I really wish I had someone to warn me about the shitty online before I grinded my brain out for a gay tophat. I feel that when the update comes out I'll just be underwhelmed because I really can't see the online become any better unless it is fundamentally remade.

>Better combat
There's better ways to announce you are retarded.

My biggest issue with RDR2 were the bunch of little nitpicking details that just serve to make things slower regardless of whether the player wants them or not.

Not being able to skip any of the looting/eating animations, not being able to run in camp or indoors, having to get your gun from your horse every damn time you dismount rather than just keeping your favorite selection of guns, etc.

Those were all deliberate choices on the dev's part and they drove me mad.

Attached: 874873.jpg (1280x712, 96K)

I understand your point but from my POV the incentive is to watch the story unfold from beginning to end.

imo narrative is the strongest part of any rockstar game. I thought that's why everyone played them, guess I was in the minority the whole time.

but yes I agree with you, outside of the narrative there's really nothing else to do in these worlds.

>survival elements that aren't fleshed out
>an open world that is completely at odds with the linear mission structure
>lots of realism elements like taking care of horses and whatnot that actually have no real point
basically what I meant by that

For me, Red Dead Redemption 2 is the best Rockstar game since San Andreas by far, didn't have any problems with the mechanics or controls at all.

where did he say combat? Am I missing something?

Different guy, I thought they were garbage but I think that may be because it's only on console. I'm going to pirate it if it ever comes out on pc to give it another go and see if mouse aiming helps the gunplay and more buttons help everything else

In what world is jakey a Nazi?

Nothing wrong with any of that. They wanted to make a realistic western and that's exactly what the game is. A big world to be a cowboy in and having to take care of your horse and yourself are mechanics that make sense if being realistic is your intention.

I liked some of the missions(like the really cinematic ones). But the scripted gameplay got repetitive. I honestly prefered the sidequests with the legendary animals, or just stumbling upon something random without being guided there, because it felt like I was calling the shots, you know what I mean?
Even though all the encounters are scripted, there aren't any paths or instructions or anything I hust randomly found them.

What's really outdated is the "tap x to go fast" mechanic. Holy shit it makes the game SO tedious, especially on the fucking horse. Its the main form of transportation, and we have to tap X the whole time to go a decent pace? Absolutely ridiculous. No other company does that. Way to completely destroy all the fun out of the main way to get around in the world.

That island bit was so fucking uncharted

It isn't realistic though that's what I'm saying. Getting a game over screen for "straying to far from the path" is a far cry from realism

>BOTW has better gameplay
The health, armor and stamina systems are embarrassingly easy to exploit. Combat is shit easy with lenient bullet time triggers that let you wail on people. But you can use stasis on a rock and launch yourself so 10/10. Damn, rekt again. Im seething and coping so hard.

Attached: 18j56705j24sqjpg.jpg (792x535, 411K)

I just don't understand what all of the tedium adds to the game. It didn't feel more immersive or realistic, it just felt like the game had no respect for my time and was aggressively padded with pointless time-wasting bullshit.

I don't know how people play RDR2 without getting bored. It just feels like a terrible use of leisure time because it has such a high proportion of time spent doing shit I don't want to do.

>but you can use stasis on a rock and launch yourself so 10/10
this but unironically.

>two longarms equipped looks like shit
>every single mission has you get off your horse with two longarms automatically equipped

Attached: sign.gif (298x156, 303K)

What's realistic about magically swapping from one outfit to another instantaneously, or wiping your horse once which causes him to magically become cleansed of all the dirt on his body, or storing your most useful weapons on the horse for no reason when you're on your way to a gunfight?

What about the painful autoaim

if being realistic is your intention than make all those gameplay elements actually mean something to the overall game instead of just being there to be there

Is still a videogame.

GTA IV was just as slow the cars felt like semi-trucks

>comparing a children's game to a real game.

Yikes.

Attached: botw rdr2.jpg (1926x2162, 944K)

then why bother forcing the player to walk around while in the camp? Why make them tap x just to ride their horse? There's a line that needs to be drawn for bullshit like this when you say "it's still a videogame"

What do you mean by mean something? Eating, cleaning your horse and your guns have an impact on the gameplay and how efficient Arthur is.

Switchlets still can't get over the fact that RDR2 made BoTW irrelevant.

>muh gwafix

A video game can be successful at conveying realism, though. RDR2 just isn't one of them.

>graphics are the only thing that matters in a videogame

You walk around in camp so you don't run over everyone. Tap x is their choice and makes sense as if you tap in rythm with your horse it doesn't consume stamina, it's a way to make you involved in the riding. A simple toggle to sprint wouldn't be the same.

Barely, not enough that I'd consider them shooting for realism or survival in their overall game design. It seems like they just threw them in there to make the game seem like it has depth when in reality none of that stuff is required or really TRULY impacts that game in ways that matter

Oh yeah fuck the tapping for literally everything is so annoying my X button completely collapsed. (Yes i later learned that there was a hold option in the settings but you still need to tap on the horse)
>first chapter of rdr2 arthur walks in the valentine saloon
>smoking pair of tits starts flirting
>immediately google how to shag
>nosexrdr2.jpg

>actually defending forced walking in the camp
holy shit

Attached: 098094586.jpg (600x600, 51K)

Nothing wrong with it. The sprint walk is fast enough, my only complain about it is that that speed doesn't exist outside the camp.

I want to fuck that fat bitch in camp

>nothing wrong with it
I have nothing to say other than you're completely and undeniably incorrect

They literally are you faggot

Attached: DfRcFCjVMAAQWbW.jpg (1150x720, 150K)

BING BING WAHOO

Arthur is hung up on his oneitus Mary he could've probably got with Mary-Beth if he wanted

This game's biggest flaw is that you can't wear an eyepatch

It's always stranged how obsessed with RDR2 Switchlets are. It's almost like they envy it.

Not an argument, try again

Arthur had a bastard son already with some woman that died. He doesn't want to impregnate anyone so it's not only the Mary thing.

I think the pacing of the game and the controls just do not fit the type of game it is. If it had been a proper frontier survival/homesteading thing then fine, but not for the game we got. The level of interaction in the game is also ultimately shallow as fuck, why take the basic object investigation mechanics from Shenmue without adding an actual purpose to it.

If you find it hard to make money in the game then you seriously must be retarded, there’s always double money missions to do where you can earn 80k a game if you win and they give away money all the time

I thought GTA 5 felt smoother than RDR2.

Should i play RDR1 after am done with this one? how does it hold up today? the gamelooks like ass, why their head are so big kek

All the women in camp keep telling him to get over Mary and he still has a slight delusion of running away with her before his health fails

Had more fun on botw but was invested more in rdr2, but what’s the need in comparing them they were both great games!

reminder a dev was fired for suggesting the gameplay should be harder and more detailed.

I don't believe how out of touch rockstar could be by not including this obvious feature
>create a fluid and sexy melee fist fight system
>small fight missions in single player
>don't add fight club rings in online freeroam (come on)
>everybody's just autoaim 1 shoting with headshots and explosive bullets like faggots
>all the organised fight clubs died out when everybody stopped playing online 6 months ago
>resort to walking up to random players in saloons and beating tje shit out of them just to get my fix of melee combat

Please someone tell me you have an in on some rdr2 online fightclubs, the game is so boring otherwise

Attached: 20190605_224101.png (570x372, 66K)

!

RDR1 would be fairly easy to get into for a RDR2 player and the story picks up right after the epilogue a few years later. The core of the game is the same.

I feel bad that Red Dead 2 was such a fun vacuum for me. I did not enjoy the experience all that much. You spend most of the time riding to flags to trigger a cut scene and the combat is insanely uneven. You are a bad ass murdering machine in the missions and then get your ass handed to you if you look at another guy the wrong way - it was immersion breaking to the point that I didn't want to bother gitting gud.

Also, the lag between pressing inputs and on-screen action helped to exasperate my frustration. There were times where I'd press a button and nothing would happen on screen. They really fucked this experience.

Yes great insight there, glad you could bring your opinion to the table in such an elegant way!!

!!

Rdr2= a real man’s game
Zelda= a game for kiddos, gooks and faggots

>Make indie pixelshit games in the 21st century
>People love it
>Make beautiful looking open world game with guns, horse riding, shit load of side shit and good attention to detail
>"It's outdated"
Why are people retarded?

Attached: 1559774039951.gif (236x250, 1.47M)

You misread mate nobody finds it hard to make money in the campaign(obviously).

The online is literally just grinding for scraps. Finish a mission/match too early? Less than $5. Finish a 15 minute match but the competition was weak? $9. Finish a 15 minute gun rush match, survive to the end, get at least 5 kills and be last man standing? Fine here's $20 dollars but that's all you get. Oh and most modes have a ~$15 dollar limit so you cant win more. It's the odd occasion where everybody gets 1.5× money boost where the grind becomes somewhat human.
Want to but a pair of boots? Just play and win 10 matches.

Yes.

Have anyone seen gavin

>make fun game
>people love it
>make same boring game fifth time in a row
>it's outdated
>retarded

Best moment when i camped somewhere north of saint denis at night and two creepy dudes came to me and warned me to never camp here, it was kino.

I chased after them and blew their skulls out.
Then next day I camp out there again and they come back all like "we warned you" n shit. Had to dejavu headshot them but they were gone for good.
Also walking around Lagras at night in single player is genuinely scary.

>reminder a dev was fired for suggesting the gameplay should be harder and more detailed.
proofs?

google it fucking stupid nigger

Attached: 1557774867377.jpg (640x628, 40K)

>have always been like this
Scripting never became a thing until San Andreas. 3 and VC let you do pretty much whatever for missions.

Fucking Greaser

>Any modern day indieshit
>Fun
Ok
youtube.com/watch?v=WwCKPhlyU5M

Attached: Postmodern_RPG_Review.jpg (1920x1081, 1.13M)

In the world where he is best friends with j*ntron AKA iranian hitler

Think you're overselling the freedom of those games. Guy in a cutscene will tell you to kill a guy with a bat and you can run him over or shoot him instead.

the only thing rockstar have innovated since maybe gta vice City is better graphics. their design decisions are severely outdated. failing missions for going slightly too far from a certain character (whilst following them to a mission destination miles away while you listen to them talk endless shitty dialogue) is repellant to the extreme. I could list more if I felt like wasting more breath on rdr2 but I really don't want to

This game taught me to rob

I noticed this throughout the game and felt it, it very much felt like the devs were going for mid-2000ish gameplay and mechanics. The cover-shooter while waves of enemies show up in tiers (little soldiers, mounted soldiers, and the 'strong enemy mob' (gatling gun)), this same format is spread throughout the combat missions with little to no variation.

it is honestly bizarre to me that crimes you commit while wearing your bandana still add to a bounty. also you can't go and change your appearance and then lose your bounty that way. you have to pay at a train station of all fucking places. rockstar are fucking retarded. the game is all polish and no thought.

3 and VC were still showing the problem that the game would tell you the obvious way Rockstar expected you to handle the problem in order portray their story (Hmm, Nice BIKE!) followed by you actually being able to do whatever the fuck because the games were a bit half baked.

The problem with newer Rockstar games is now they're putting in the attention to detail in such a way as to force you to play the game their way and punish you the moment you don't.

Point still stands that you weren't forced into an arbitrary chase sequence where they become immune to bullets until you chase them to an arbitrary point. Even if there was a chase, the person you were chasing could be killed earlier than intended if you got gud. A fond memory I had playing VC was driving into the Tommy's mansion with a tank to kill Sonny in the final mission.

And yeah, I acknowledge it was a happy accident. It's a pity how they punish you for deviating from the script now. Deviating from the script gave the missions in 3 and VC some semblance of replay value.

I've heard that there's some shtick about how people are able to recognize you based on your outfit and horse as well, but I still think it's silly that you can climb onto a train in the middle of nowhere with a mask on, and still get identified as Arthur Morgan the second someone sees you.

>The problem with newer Rockstar games is now they're putting in the attention to detail in such a way as to force you to play the game their way and punish you the moment you don't.
Pretty much this, and they have no incentive to go back to that for a couple of reasons. One would be that missions can break pretty hard with all the moving parts of their modern games and the playtesting needed to make sure it doesn't break. Another would be that there's nothing to gain since a a very small number of players actually play their games that way so they're better off forcing a game over if you tyr to do anything different. It feels like a resources thing even though GTA4 actually took into account different ways of completing missions and sometimes acknowledged it. To see them go back on this game design makes not excited for any of their newer games anymore.

You can actually go undetected if you switch outfits and wear the executioner hood I've robbed every store in Valentine and got out with no bounty. Arthur's default outfit doesn't work they know it's him.

IV was a special case for GTA. It felt like it was trying to build on the GTA forumla, but also trying to deviate from it at the same time. Those different approaches you get in certain missions in IV are great, but there's no incentive to actually try them out because most players can just blindly follow the objective text and do just fine. It's like R* wanted to make a more freeform experience, but were afraid of scaring away the casual audience, so we got this awkward middle ground.

thats like saying 2d platformer / metroidvania is outdated, some people like it some don't. Why does every single game have to cater to you specifically? You're starting to sound like a SJW