Red pill on rdr2

I’m sick of this big open world just to be big shit. There’s like 3 places of value in all of RDR2

I have to disagree with you on the open world system. I thought RDR2 had a better, more exploration focused world than 1 did. 1 you could just buy the maps and be lead to what you want. 2 has so much side shit and little hidden things in it that it was always fun to walk around in. This is coming from someone who never used fast travel in either game, ever, 2 is just a more fun world to explore and run around in.

That being said RDR1 is now my second favorite open world while RDR2 was the one to put it down to second.

Yes, it's game of the gen so get it. You will want to play and experience it before all these other developers start copying it

Attached: 1560800375412.jpg (882x863, 235K)

I really like touching the horses.

I found Arthur to be a passive aggressive bitch with nothing to live or die for, and the altruism for John at the end didn’t fit. At least John had a family and property

I think it boils down to two questions.

>Do you like cowboys?
>Do you like GTA?

If both those answers are yes, then go for it.

this game isn't worth $4, it's the most boring, the most tedious, the most annoying fucking game ever put out by Rockstar and if you like this game your parents must have sat on your head as a baby.

great sandbox. shit story. shit missions. fuck game overs for walking 5 feet away from NPCs. on rails boring ass bullshit. rockstar needs to realize it isn't 2003 anymore with these garbage mission design.

>it's game of the gen so get it
Um... sweeetie that's GTA V, the most popular and most profitable game ever in the history of gaming.

it feels just like that to play, a lot of games do now

To each their own, I found the journal and Arthur interacting with other characters in stranger missions far more fulfilling than John's. I still like John though, I just like Arthur more. For Arthur the gang was his family and his life, he wanted to keep them all together.

GTAV is the most popular. RDR2 is the most patrician

The reason I said RDR1 was better for exploration was a combination of things. One was the ability to carry multiple animal skins, and thus you could get creative with hunting and get a monetary reward for it. The other is the shooting mechanic actually allowing the player to master their own relfexes and be a fast shot. This meant hunting could be satisfying and brutal. Another was the fairly rare horse breeds that randomly spawned in their respective regions.

All in all, everything combined in RDR1 to make it feel as if walking into a canyon or the mountains would yield rewards to the player int he form of currency, new clothing (which had stat boosts btw) and the best horses.

RDR2 just had a lot of NPC interactions and Easter eggs in the wilderness. That's fine and all, but it was missing the concrete gameplay advantages RDR1 gave you from wandering off and getting lost for an hour.

>The realistic features make it entertaining?
They did a real good job at building a playable realistic world, but on the flip side realism is boring as fuck.
>It's the normal version ok or the deluxe or ultimate are worth if im buying it digital?
If you really need it, just go with Deluxe. The ultimate edition is just a bunch of multiplayer shit.
>It's better than the first one?
It looks better.

I felt like everything worth doing, or put there for the player to do in RDR2, was just a hassle to accomplish. Tedious in a terrible way, also robbing trains was pretty fucking lackluster but I didn’t expect anything grandiose to be in the game after GTAV fiasco

that's like getting a participation trophy lmao

>You can just hold it to auto follow a road like The Witcher
That is completely false. It does not do that

Rockstar is far ahead that it's quite sad desu

Attached: Insecure Jap Dev.png (621x482, 78K)

Exactly. It demonstrates that Rockstar's decision makers didn't understand the reasons RDR1 was so good. On paper they probably thought RDR2 would be more awesome content, but the recipe for a good Red Dead game is not just a detailed world and story to follow. It is a combination of very specific mechanics that they didn't replicate the 2nd time around.

At this point all I want out of Rockstar is a full remaster of RDR1, but I'm not holding my breath.

Kojima literally makes movie games. Anyone is better than Kojima.

See those side things to run into for RDR2 made it better and more interesting to me. Hunting was no big deal and I never really ran into enough big things I couldn't carry before coming across the animal skin crafter guy. I never had money issues in either game and so that isn't super important to me either. Fashion hunting is great, but I enjoy crafting the outfits and looking better than some small side benefits from them. It is all personal tastes to them and what matters to you I suppose.

Running into the nicest couple, the night folk, the guy who rapes Arthur, the weirdo in the cave, the tree king, or the mad priest randomly and hearing their different conversations were personally more rewarding for me than being able to carry more skins.

Why do you people keep acting like you have to be into Westerns to like RDR? I generally don't give a fuck about cowboys and RDR2 is one of my favorite games ever. Like do you really think the 25+ million people who have bought the game were all Western fans?

Anyway just buy it OP. It's like that one guy said, if you willingly miss out on RDR2 you just aren't a gamer.

I meant incest couple. Fucking fingers.

absolutely. I've only played it through once but got to 95% completion and took my time. It's beautiful and fun to explore, story is good. Yes missions are railroaded which is a negative you will hear a lot but literally the rest of the entire game is the opposite of linear. Do whatever you want in a goat sandbox world.

Don't bother with the online and ignore the fact there is a 2 in the title of this this game.

Literally everything this user said is objectively wrong. Just straight up incorrect.

RDR2 is clearly better than RDR, and I say that with RDR being one of my favorite games last gen. It's not even funny how much better it is. Only idiots with nostalgia goggles on think otherwise.

Imagine mom sat on your face haha

>Realistic features

Sure, if you like feeling like you're under surveillance

GTA V is a last gen game.

how did they ruin the hunting?

I liked hunting bears in tall trees using the hunter outfit

Attached: E1.jpg (1680x1050, 117K)

>asking Yea Forums for opinion on Rockstar games

you're asking a bunch of retarded edgy 15 year olds and manchildren who mainly think San Andreas is the only good game R* has made because its old and they played it when they were 10.

every time they put out a new game, Yea Forums shits all over it and says the previous one in the series was way better. it was like this with gta5, and will be the exact same when gta6 comes out.

Cinematic mode you moron, you absolutely can.

If by "ruin" you mean "improved it on every single aspect" then yes, you are correct.

>that post
>that spacing
just go back to your other website if you hate it here so much

They didn't ruin it. You can kill as many as you want but you can only carry one pelt. Not that it matters after you kill like 3 bears because that is all you will ever need the pelts for.

Yes you can, and you don't even need to hold x. Just set it to the speed you want your horse to go and enter cinematic mode. It will auto run there for you.

He said you could hold it to auto follow like Witcher. You can’t do that. You can only make it auto follow in cinematic mode, which fucking sucks because the camera angles are so bad. It would be nice if it actually did work like Witcher where the horse would follow the road if you held the button

>ruin hunting

Fucking idiot. This is the greatest hunting game of all time.

Attached: Red-Dead-Redemption-2-Perfect-Pelts-Hunting-Guide-1024x576.jpg (1024x576, 131K)

The hunting was one of the few enjoyable parts of the game but it’s a pain in the ass to go turn anything in to the trapper. Legendary animals weren’t hard to find at all either, which was kind of a shame

you dont need to tap it fast, makes it a lot better.

imagine the smell haha

yea.. and like hordes coming for you out of nowhere..for one fucking guy

i see modern gaming keeps thumbling down

It has the most unique random encounters in any rockstar game, very few repeat as much as the first game or GTA V

Game of the gen my man, game of the gen. I feel insulted that you have to ask this.

>its worth $39 now that is on sale
Yes.

>The realistic features make it entertaining?
Yes, without them it wouldn't feel as immersive and atmospheric.

>It's the normal version ok or the deluxe or ultimate are worth if im buying it digital?
Deluxe is a rip-off, go with the standard.

>It's better than the first one?
For the most part, yes.

Attached: RDR2_enemy ragdoll 08 - dual revolvers killcam.webm (1280x720, 2.27M)

i don't like any gta, their only game i liked was rdr and think rdr2 is dogshit

newfag here, any tips or glitch for quick money?

>their only game i liked was rdr and think rdr2 is dogshit

what a fucking disgrace

Attached: wallhaven-744303.jpg (1920x1072, 242K)

>muh graphics
dogshit game. dropped after chapter 3

kys weeb

Attached: fuck you gaymers.png (1192x627, 723K)

That makes no sense you lying little shit.

Attached: RDR 1v2 - Fence jumps.webm (640x360, 2.15M)

At least in rdr1 they felt genuinely random because they could repeat almost anywhere. In 2, once you experience an event once, you will never experience it again, so riding through the world after awhile becomes really boring. I still prefer how 1 did it

Post trophies/achievements.

There's over a hundred random encounters in RDR2, by the time you've seen them all, you must have 200+ hours of gameplay and already done anything.

Go after the gold bars there's 16 total and you can get 15 at the start of chapter 2. Only sell a couple at a time when you need money you lose more when you die if you have alot on you.
youtube.com/watch?v=mVCE36eksfc

you should drop your life too

Attached: cuckold.jpg (1280x720, 132K)

I don't understand how the idea of someone like RDR1, but disliking RDR2, is so incomprehensible to you. The games feel very different. And what does your webm even prove? Fence jumping is almost entirely irrelevant in either game, so who cares

the point is that almost none of them are random. they are scripted to occur when you ride past a certain area. so riding through an area after the first time essentially becomes pointless because you will never experience anything again. at least in rdr1, there was always a chance you could experience a holdup or a woman needing help or something

>they are scripted to occur
everything in a game is scripted

The world would be a better place if you weren't in it

you are being intentionally dense

For the online user. I already sold many of the gold bars in single player trough that duplication glitch before it got patched.

>there was always a chance you could experience a holdup or a woman needing help or something
You say this like it doesn't get old after the second time. Also, RDR2 has repeatable random events

i have played this game a LOT and literally nothing repeats except for the old guy begging for money

>>its worth $39 now that is on sale?
yes
>>The realistic features make it entertaining?
yes
>>It's the normal version ok or the deluxe or ultimate are worth if im buying it digital?
normal
>>It's better than the first one?
yes

Attached: Red Dead Redemption 2_20190608140843.png (1920x1080, 3.21M)

fuck off dumbass. RDR1 actually feels like a videogame whereas 2 feels like a slug dipped in molasses. 1's atmosphere was also way better

-Wouldn't go above 25, no real replay value
-No
-Normal
-No

>MGS
>movie games
kill yourself zoomiezoomie.

Play more
Gang ambushes, kidnappings, and shoot offs all repeat infinitely and thats just off the top of my head

You are just wrong user. This isn't to shit in RDR1, that is still an amazing game, RDR2 is just better though.

this game was pretty imo

Attached: 1559412501528.webm (1280x720, 2.53M)

No, they don't.

no, they sapped a lot of fun out of it

yes they do

>Horse races
>Prisoners
>Captured bounties
>shooting contests
>Gang members harassing you in town
There are a lot that repeat infinitely

This

The only difference between the games is that 2 feels more weighty, the core of the games are the same otherwise but 2 has double the content.

>RDR1 actually feels like a videogame
that's what makes it generic, it feels like a video game that tries to veer into a realistic experience, thus the shitty horse controls. It's just generic video game #243243 with a twist.
RDR2 is a revolution in video games; a video game, a cinematic experience, a movie, a story, all in photorealistic atmosphere. no amount of contrarian shilling will turn this around. You are in the literal 1% minority that roams this forum. Everyone, including major game developers, agree RDR2 was a milestone in video games and the new standard.

Attached: 1556637466876.webm (1280x720, 2.87M)

nice samefag. these dont repeat like the much more repeating events in 1

seething that someone doesnt like your dogshit """""""""""""""""game""""""""""""""""
game plays like dogshit. the map is retarded, the pacing awful, gunplay absolute trash, story is meh
can't, im not at home since im working a seasonal job
>inb4 no youre not
cannot really prove it but have my timecard

Attached: IMG_20190618_010949.jpg (4160x2336, 1.22M)

Yes they do user
I dont know whats wrong with you but im sorry youre like this

They added more stuff to do, fun side quests, a better map half, and tons of easter eggs. What fun did they slap out?

I played it for a couple weeks and then forgot that I had it. honestly it's pretty boring especially the first 3 hours which is mostly unskippable cutscenes and heavily scripted gameplay. I actually considered dropping it a couple times initially but then the world opens up and you can fuck around and that's fun for a little while then you try the missions and they are all really, really shit so there's not much else to it. I can say that it wasn't worth 60 bucks.

1 is a more arcadey game that feels more like a love letter to classic westerns and a fun adventure across the west. 2 has unbearably obnoxious movement and animations and feels more like a boring commune simulator

the core of the games are not the same. RDR1 feels like GTA but wild west. RDR2 is something else, something worse. A slow, boring commune game with more but shittier content.

>it's fucking spics shitting this board up

should have known

It's probably the greatest open world game I've ever played with a middling story, shitty undeveloped side characters and acting/direction that's actually pretty good
>yes
>yes, ymmv depending on how much you care about such things though
>get a physical copy so you can enjoy the glitches that make SP better that were patched out
>i'd say they're about equal

Fucking worthless shitskin no wonder your opinions are so fucking retarded

It's GOAT if you're looking for a good SP experience and it's an improvement over the first in literally every single way.

Attached: gsdv.jpg (3840x2160, 2.7M)

>americans in charge of recognizing languages and good games
lmao

do you really not understand how someone could dislike the much slower movement/animations and nods to realism? are you really this dense that you think 2 is literally the same as 1, just with more content?

>americans
lmao 3rd worlders should all die.

>an improvement over the first in literally every single way.
except for fun factor, horse controls, ambient music, challenges and atmosphere...then yeah....

RDR1 already did the western thing in Texas and Mexico they could have easily did it again since they remade half the map, they went hateful 8 and avoided the tropes this time going further east.

the storyline missions are atrocious and completely ignore the open world aspect of the game. so no, it's not better than 1 in that regard. not by a long shot.

okay buddy

Attached: 2019-01-21_10-28-51_AM-nrwobggm.jpg (3840x2160, 1.63M)

>except for fun factor, horse controls, ambient music, challenges and atmosphere

Attached: 1532829230030.jpg (632x1952, 106K)

It’s really fucking boring.

>ITT: Rockstar shills
The only thing RDR2 has over RDR1 are story/characters/technology/world. RDR1 blows it out of the water in almost every other aspect in terms of fun, spaghetti western feel, and being an actual fucking video game.

Attached: 1529461842172.jpg (436x298, 44K)

>using american os, on an american made website

damn, wish your country could do something else besides hold our nuts

They aren't, but honestly it being a tiny bit slower for every single thing else in the game being way better is not a bad trade off to me. The slowness never bothered me because it fits with the feeling and atmosphere of the game.

They were still better integrated with the overall open world compared to the first one though...?

>frogposter thinks that 2 is better
what a shock

Not him
I thought the challenges were good
And i like that the game has a variety of atmosphere instead of just 2
Desert and mexican desert

Rdr2 is not supposed to be a spaghetti western

no, they literally weren't... 2 is so on rails that in some places you can't even engage fully visible enemies because the games doesn't recognize you as being in the correct spot. garbage mission design. easily the worst of any open world rockstar game.

doing all the challenges in 1 is actually enjoyable. in 2 its an unbelievably tedious slog

Yea Forums has a weird group of shills who think rdr2 is amazing and better than 1 in every way. almost everyone you talk to IRL and everyone else on the internet thinks that 2 is alright, but slow and boring and not really as fun as 1

Never happened to me.
Why is it that RDR1 fags have such a problem with 2 when RDR2fags can enjoy both games? Maybe "RDR1fags" never played either game and just spout memes?

are you implying none of the missions can be linear or rigid setpieces? Because that would be moving the goalposts a little bit not to mention 1 had on rails scripted missions too. On top of that it's the most mechanically complete shooters R* has ever done.

why do rdr2fags have such a problem when people claim to like 1 better? you guys always get your panties in a twist over it

One of the best games I have ever played and the best looking game to date imo (I'm a PC fag)

fucking retard, stop arguing so confidently about things you don't know shit about

>the usual americans answers
are you guys really npcs or simply all the fluoride and chemicals in your food fried your brains?

Ah, the classic [claim] with no citation post. Refute what I said.

You can't hold it to auto follow like in witcher. Cinematic mode auto follows, but its absolutely not like the mechanic in witcher at all. Maybe you should stop being a retard.

actually Yea Forums has this subhuman beaner who has been seething for the last 8 months about having to press X too fast while riding the horse so he spams these threads every day

>Never happened to me.
because you never tried to play a mission any other way than what was allowed. try killing the snipers in the mountains without moving up to the very specific point that the girl cowboy tell you to go and prepare to be disappointed. the entire illusion of player choice is broken in places like this and it happens a lot. I've lost missions for simpy trying to outflank enemies before.

You guys are the ones shitting up the thread. You can like RDR1 more as several RDR2 fans have said, but RDR2 is the better game. You can enjoy worse games more than others. Nothing wrong with that. Your posts are so angry though in responses that really you seem crazy butthurt about people enjoying the second game at all.

>its worth $39 now that is on sale?
Yes it’s fucking worth it. It was worth it at full price.

RDR2 is not the better game. And you guys come across as incredibly butthurt

Many of the challenges are identical 2 just has more categories

no, not saying that at all, actually. I'm saying rdr2 is not better in terms of mission design than 1. it doesn't even attempt to mask its linearity.

You can do that in side quests and on your own, whatever. I lost missions for running away in the wrong direction. It didn't irritate me other than it being a mild annoyance. Sure the missions are railroaded, but that is such a small part of the game that it isn't an issue. When 90% of the time that isn't happening then I guess I can't bring myself to care.

I feel Rockstar finally burnt themselves by not releasing simultaneously on PC. The hype and exctiement around the game was pathetically low and died away after a month. They got too arrogant.

>Walk into thread
>NO RDR2 IS SHIT ONLY COOL PEOPLE LIKE 1 LIKE ME
>WAAAAAA WHY IS EVERYBODY WHITE GENOCIDING ME

lol like clockwork

Attached: brainwaves_feature4.jpg (700x368, 44K)

2 overdoses on boring, tedious challenges. I stopped trying to complete them all when one of the bandit challenges had me steal wagons again for like the 3rd time. its actually pretty fun to do 1's challenges, maybe other than the flowers, but doing all the challenges in 2 is purely for completionist reasons and is the kind of thing i would never want to do again

that doesn't make any fucking sense.

Attached: 08d.png (482x450, 186K)

>burnt themselves out
>by not taking on even more crunch in order to port the game to pc
user did you think about your post before you submitted it

>You can do that in side quests and on your own
we're talking about mission design tho...

And that's a large reason why it sucked compared to the first game in terms of expectations/feel.

this thread is filled with mad dumbasses crying how 2 is better in every way. maybe you should stop projecting

1 has long ass carriage rides with dialog all the time in its story did you forget about those? John isn't even driving most of the time either.

this os goddamn much
>OP asks about RDR2
>absolutely no mention of 1
>pretend boomer fags walk in trannyparade style trying to force people to acknowledge the first game as being superior and shitting things up
these """"""""people"""""""""""" behave like literal parasitoids

Attached: 1552618394285.jpg (640x554, 71K)

I played the first one before jumping into the second and, yes, it is

Attached: jhn.jpg (3840x2160, 1.74M)

Have you read this thread at all? You guys came in and started shitting up the thread right away almost. You are the ones stirring shit. RDR2 fans can talk about RDR1 and say how much they liked it and had fun. You guys can't even do that.

those can actually be skipped. the dialogue in general was also better and more interesting and political.

Not either user but I personally prefer structured missions over ambiguous or craft-your-own-success missions. If I wanted that kind of gameplay I'd go for a RTS or something. Linear stories in open world games don't need to rely on the open world all the time for mission structure, it'd remove the purpose of having an open world for free roam.

Saying something doesn't surpass some other thing doesn't automatically make the other thing better, how is that hard to understand?

>n-no you're butthurt!

Attached: 015.png (434x327, 37K)

As somebody who couldn't even fucking bear to finish RDR1, 2 is certainly a better game

Literally every mission in RDR1 was the deal gone wrong rockstar cliche

Side quests aren't missions now?

you see what you want to see. i see 2 fags who constantly have to spout how 2 is superior in every way

>>its worth $39 now that is on sale?
>>The realistic features make it entertaining?
>>It's the normal version ok or the deluxe or ultimate are worth if im buying it digital?
>>It's better than the first one?
It's better than the first one?
>>It's better than the first one?
It's better than the first one?
>>It's better than the first one?
It's better than the first one?
>>It's better than the first one?
literally from op

>muh expectations
If you watched the trailers and expected a spag west like in the first game then you have only yourself to blame

you get a pass this time, but what about every single RDR2 thread you have to walk in unto?

Attached: 1560189025522.jpg (666x375, 24K)

>I personally prefer structured missions over ambiguous or craft-your-own-success missions.
we're not talking about that. we're talking about missions that are so linear in design that in some cases even detouring 10 yards away from a path just to flank some enemies will fail you.

You guys are being total retards. One person just posted in a RED DEAD thread how they felt 1 was probably better in some ways. then 2 fags have to constantly bitch and pout how this is ridiculous and nostalgia and how 1fags are in denial. Its amazing how you guys cant see how you appear more annoyed and buttblasted than anyone else. just the mere mention of 1 seems to send you into a frothing rage

Attached: ok.jpg (276x183, 11K)

it does in relation to that other thing as I originally postulated...

Attached: Johnny_large.png (293x462, 23K)

>I didn't spend months infesting RDR2 threads screeching about the first game
ok mate

i've posted in one (1) other rdr thread. take your meds buddy

I don't even remember any sidequests aside from the terrible one where you had to hunt doen old west legends which again, was extremely linear in how you were allowed to handle it. you aren't even allowed to disarm them when you draw evrn though this is a feature showed to you in the game. it's fucking retarded to just disable features like that when the game feels like it

Be honest Yea Forums: How much did THE BENZ leaving R* affect the end product result of RDR2?

Attached: 1529601721259.png (836x356, 71K)

you said 2 has better integrated missions than than 1. I said it didn't.

>we're not talking about that. we're talking about missions that are so linear in design that in some cases even detouring 10 yards away from a path just to flank some enemies will fail you.
Don't do that then. The game doesn't reward thinking outside the box. Rockstar games have almost never done so. I guess that's why I enjoy the alternation between complete free roam and incredibly structured missions in their games so much, you're not stuck doing the same thing or being forced to create your own strategies for 100% of the game. They've always struck a nice balance between the two at least until RDR2 it seems.

okay but you're wrong

well considering RDR2 has one of the best stories in all of vidya I dunno...

Why even bother ask v for game recommendations when all these virgins shit on everything? Yes it's worth $39 good story, good gameplay. It can get slow sometimes but still a great game.

>flanking is "thinking outside the box"
this is getting silly

^.^

What mission anyway?

It looked like two people were having a nice discussion about their preferences between the two games and then other RDR1fags came in and started to shit on 2 like they do in every RDR thread while bringing up the maybe 2 points they have over 2. It's like RDR2 fags don't remember the months of their threads being raided by the horsefag.

So you're basically upset that the map is locked off in single player missions, but it's been like this in every R* game and really any open world game for that matter

I can't make a judgment on 1 because I haven't play it in years but I can say I never remembered feeling as limited in options as I did in 2. so no, I think it is as at least as shit as 1 but probably worse.

Never played another open world game that failed me for flanking

What are you talking about everything in 1 was expanded upon in 2.

Neither have I since I never failed for flanking in RDR2. Why don't you show us your failed for flanking videos if you keep insisting they happened.

Is no one going to bring up the cranked up the graphics and put in aimbot because the controls are so unresponsive? How fucking retarded are you Yea Forums?

Then again he is a sharpshooter so aimbot would make sense.

what a stupid post.

im not the guy you were arguing with, i just agree with him
Frankly i cant recall when it happened to me but i know it did

the tutorial level is literally 2 hours of just wanting to fucking get into the fucking open world instead of doing slow bullshit cuck "missions" then you finally get into the world and realize rockstar doesn't want you to have any fun at all. the game never gets good, if you pay more than $10 you've been scammed

>pros
open world (that feels restricted and closed)

>cons
literally everything else

Are you a man? If so, you will love the story this game has to offer. If you are a woman or a faggot, you won't understand it and it will bore you. Don't even bother replying to me, lil zooms.

Back atcha

Every stick shooter on console has Aim assist, part of the fun of the game is wrangling with the floaty controls and it's still a better FPS game than anything that came out on the PC this entire gen.

Attached: qdraw_VP8_3M.webm (1280x720, 2.73M)

one example is the bounty hunting mission in the creek bed. can't run alongside the creekbed and flank them from the top... mission failure if you do
locking off the map makes sense if it's an area with limited mobility like a canyon but when you are in an open area in an open world game it stands to reason you will be given some freedom of movement. otherwise what is the point? just make a game with nothing but setpiece missions like unchartered.

name one open world game that doesn't section the main map off in any of it's story missions, I'll wait.

yeah including linearity lmao

PC fucking when, Kikestar?

Attached: 1549222986686.png (840x1000, 398K)

>otherwise what is the point? just make a game with nothing but setpiece missions like unchartered.

why can't it lay somewhere in the middle?

It's literally less restricted than RDR1, you can go anywhere outside Blackwater from the start of chapter 2 while in RDR1 you drown if you try to go to Mexico

Ghost Recon Wildlands

botw

how about you provide some arguments my guy

Attached: mm.png (500x518, 388K)

>objectively wrong

user is slightly nostalgia fagging though. Both games are decent, but RD1 had way more incentives to explore, it had better movement and combat, and it had better graphic design with the user interface(imo). However he probably enjoyed it more because he was 15.

The writing in both games is pretty similar

Attached: Shoot-in-Red-Dead-Redemption-Step-1.jpg (700x435, 196K)

Fucking john being unable to swim

And that's not a bad thing. It also has more open ended missions like the collection side quests or stealing the wagon early on or any of the hunting and material farming.

that's literally what I am complaining about... it gives you no room to breathe so there isn't even the illusion of non-linearity and freedom of choice/movement

this game was clearly not made for people who like to eschew fast travel. most of the time, riding across the map is simply too slow and tedious

I'm in the same boat. GTAV was boring as shit, and RDR2 sucks.

RDR1 is kino, though.

>ubishit
lol

Can't leave the starting zone until getting all the runes and even then the map is heavily biased into a certain direction.

Attached: oo-vaping-pepe-2741611.png (500x548, 62K)

Yeah it really grinds the momentum to a halt
>Hold down Cinematic Mode button
>Check my phone with my free hand as 10 IRL minutes pass.

And I'm saying that it doesn't have complete and total freedom but still handles it better than the first game, but seethe harder I guess

>The map is biased

>a cinematic experience, a movie, a story, all in photorealistic atmosphere
I think this works to its detriment. Red dead 2 felt like a third rate HBO series interspersed with dull shooting galleries.

Sure the graphics were gorgeous but the realism felt lacking with the constant clunky reminders that you were in fact playing a video game (press x to pick up tin of peas in long winded animation etc). That shit isn't fun.

Good point about ths plateau
>map is biased
What

It’s weird going from the really fast horses in 1 to the insanely slow horses in 2

Nobody made you make your Arthur pick up every can of food he saw

>You can only have contextual cues in prebaked situations

lol no

>shooting game is bad because it has shooting segments in it!

You could literally string the shooting galleries together and play them linearly and would still come out with a game to rival the best shooters of the '90s

wtf are you talking about, the hunting alone could be a game of its own and is more fun then huntings sims. Its improved on every aspect of the hunting system from rdr1.

yes its definitely worth it. a truly GOAT r* game. Just buy the normal version, the other versions are a waste of money and are mainly for online goodies. The single player is more fun when they dont give you shit for free. (save up money with selling some pelts, rob some stores, steal wagons, etc. way more fun)

Attached: Red Dead Redemption 2_20190515015119.jpg (1920x1080, 645K)

No, but picking up items is a frequent activity for progressing through missions and side missions. You will invariably to it multiple times

It's the most contrived thing in the game. I fucking hated it right from the get go in snowed in cabin at the start

Other than that the writing was decent, though.

idk what you even mean

I would rather movement was quick and picking up items instantaneous. Making the a cowboy shooter like LA noire is not fun

My point is that the shooting aspect is neglected and the game becomes clunky in favour of realism.

Are you stupid? Money is fucking worthless in both games dipshit. You get tons of it all the time, you dont need to explore to get money. In rdr2 you needed to explore to get unique pelts and clothes and shit

>I would rather movement was quick and picking up items instantaneous.
then stick to fortnite, zoomer

Attached: oof.jpg (357x305, 13K)

xDDDD

Stick to Chernobyl, kojimafag. Video games are meant to be videogamey

does its skin stay like that?

RDR1 has $600 bounties you can hunt too it takes 5 minutes late game to make bank and they're unlimited.

>My point is that the shooting aspect is neglected
It's the best shooting in any R* game to date and a great FPS on top, I don't know what your issue is.

RDR2 is plenty videogamey you can just go around starting firefights if you want that.

it's so bad casual normal fag e-celebs called out the dogshit game design.

honestly don't know about that

all i can say is that clearing out bandit hideouts was a fast, fun, and frequent activity in red dead 1 (in fact in multiplayer you were encouraged to clear them in time trials), while in red dead 2 everything is slower and shootouts only happen between police and missions

seething

Kojima is just a westaboo

yeah and RDR1 also had a much less robust shooting system

make your own decision.
youtube.com/watch?v=0k8otHMwy5w

>robust
whatever that means lmao

>IMAGINE Yea Forums when rdr2 releases on PC

god i miss dutch posting.

Attached: 5bfe9a3e595fe.jpg (1237x1598, 283K)

so what faggot. it feels more restricted which is the problem

Name me a better story in video games in the past decade than rdr2. Name me characters better than arthur dutch and john written in the past decade in a video. I challenge you, cucks. I insist.

Attached: AFEB2709-C0F2-4EDC-BA5B-BB3401CA087A.jpg (210x251, 19K)

2 has those camps all over with gangs and a big main base for each one but you clear out 2 of them to set up camp in the story and they don't respawn until you move on.

More shit to do/consider

For some reason riding the horse just feels way more laborious in 2. Don’t really know why.

What? Rdr1 had the exact same problem with missions but even worse. Every mission was ride to location and shoot a bunch of bad guys with few exceptions. Rdr2 didnt have that problem until chapter 5

>past decade
New Vegas
Nier automata
Bloodborne
Bastion

>characters
honestly I agree, but compared to other mediums like film and literature the writing is generic schlock

Bloodborne and new vegas are the only challengers, but are different because neither are telling a story straight up like rockstar is. I would say the writing is equal in all those games, but in terms of one story, rockstars is the largest and most complex. New vegas is my personal favorite game but its strengths lie in a bunch of intertwining stories in a well written world. Bloodborne is just setting a good tone for exploring a spooky situation. Rdr2 is one story, one cast, straight up.

get a gamefly trial. play this game return it. cancel gamefly.

>It's not the same because it's not r*!

>WE JUST NEED MORE MONEY
>ONE MORE JOB ARTHUR C'MON
>good story

Its literally shit until arthur starts dying

online is fun too. you can play as a cowgirl which i like. about to make BANK on these carcasses

Attached: Red Dead Redemption 2_20190606010608.jpg (1920x1080, 649K)

I said story retard. Story. One story
>literally didnt get it
Haha oh wow

RDR2 is carried heavily by Arthur's VA and performance. I literally couldn't give a rats ass about anyone else in the gang and Rockstar did a poor job of setting up Arthur and Dutch's relationship. Makes it very hard to root for Arthur when we as the player know Dutch is a fucking retard but we were only given small glimpses of why exactly Arthur sticks around so long, at least until the diagnoses where Arthur does have clear motivations of saving the girls in the gang and trying to get John and family a better life. Still no reason to hang around Dutch though.

Didn't know you could get such a thing. Also you finna get griefed by some shitter.

Are you kidding, the RDRniverse is one of the deepest in all of vidya

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 97K)

user arthur wanted to save dutch, too, not just the women and child

nah griefing has been drasticly decreased with the last update. Defensive mode makes you nearly invisible and they can't auto aim at you. I rarely ever get griefed and most people are bros now. All you have to do is stay away from nonblue colored players.

Attached: Red Dead Redemption 2_20190606004107.jpg (1920x1080, 178K)

There's nothing in the story that makes me, the player, want to save Dutch though. We got little in the way of seeing the adoration that Arthur has for Dutch and way too much 'uhh I dunno guys seems like Dutch is loosin' his mind'.

>There's nothing in the story that makes me, the player, want to save Dutch though
Okay, but Arthur clearly does and we already know what happens to Dutch's gang so it makes no sense to center a game around the hope that he can be saved.

rate my john

Attached: 64382875_10211497209306043_5873454222086766592_o.jpg (1920x1080, 513K)

Good thing it is arthurs story and not yours my friend. I will say this is an example of problems between the open ended world/sandbox gameplay and the story, but it isnt an actual issue with the story itself. This game has issues, but the actual writing of the story wasnt one of the main ones

Did you hang out in camp and actually interact with Dutch? You can see that Arthur respects Dutch, but I wouldnt categorize it as adoration. More like Arthur feels like he owes Dutch a debt.

If you ask me it's a lack of character exposition. I could be fully on board if the relationship was fleshed out just a tad bit more. Give me something before everything went to shit at blackwater, some more Arthur/Hosea/Dutch singing on a boat moments to really cement why Arthur fights so hard for this gang. As it stands I can't sympathize with Arthur's plight in regards to helping Dutch so much. Dutch is straight up willing to make Jack an orphan and Arthur STILL goes back to warn him that Micah is the snake. It goes full hog on the blind loyalty card with little set up to make it believable.
Arthur see's him as a father figure, or Hosea at least, Dutch something else going by the journal, but that relationship is there.

5/10. boring.

the story sucks ass, it doesnt even have an objective arthur is trying to acheive. its just plodding from camp to camp

yeah theyre on the run from the law

This has some of the best character exposition in a video game. Not everything needs to be autistically spelled out for you

>NEVER EVER

Attached: rdr2.gif (440x440, 624K)

Doubt, as much as I love Arthur, it surely isn't because of exposition. Sure it nails it in the 6th Chapter. Polygon (of all places I know) had someone write a brilliant article on RDR2's successes and flaws.

Attached: thi.png (764x327, 58K)

>polygon

lol

>Hurr why does this event that happens early in the story take so long to happen in the story!!!

What the fuck is wrong with that website

i think they set up his relationship with dutch just fine. he didnt go back to the camp to specifically tell dutch micah was the rat. that was part of it; at this point he had already chosen johns family over dutch, but he hoped there was a sliver of a chance left to save dutch by exposing micah. that, and he just wanted to finally fucking kill micah

Its a very good looking pile of shit

>its worth $39 now that is on sale?
Yes
>The realistic features make it entertaining?
No
>It's the normal version ok or the deluxe or ultimate are worth if im buying it digital?
Normal
>It's better than the first one?
No, but still above every other game of its generation with only a few exceptions (Bloodborne, Hollow Knight, Ori and the Blind Forest, Prey, God of War) and that will pretty much certainly remain the case for the generation's final year too

yes lol I agree, too bad this writer is spot on
>early
I think you could easily fill out 20 hours or so with a bit of extra side content and taking the game slow before you get midway to Chapter 3.

Attached: this.png (738x756, 143K)

It's the best single player open world game I've ever played.

Attached: 1535920072782.jpg (1171x1347, 471K)

the story starts with arthur and hosea already uneasy about dutch because of the blackwater fiasco. this isnt SUPPOSED to be the golden age of the gang where all three are just hanging out and chilling all day. That's the whole POINT. The fishing trip is placed well because it's at a moment where they think things are looking up and can they can finally relax a bit, so they do.

Game developers say this all the time about Rockstar's games (CDPR, Miyazaki, and BoTW2 have all sucked off RDR2 for example). While RDR2 gets its fair share of flack from a game development perspective it's an absolute monster. Though it comes at a considerable cost thanks to crunch, absolutely nobody in the industry compares to Rockstar's production values, technical ingenuity, and efficiency.

It's better than the first one in a lot of ways but the game is glitchy as fuck and sometimes it will ruin your experience. Animal hunting is awful and their spawns seem to be completely random other than being around their designated areas on the map. The story is entertaining and definitely addicting to keep on playing through without doing anything else. Bounties sort of make the game no fun allowed at times. And just bumping into someone accidentally which gives you a bounty is definitely frustrating. But I feel like they made the bounty system so agressive because the game dips in frames a fuck ton if you start killing around 7-8 guys in the same area. It's an 8/10 game at best so I'd recommend it problems aside

That looks so wooden its laughable

>I think you could easily fill out 20 hours or so with a bit of extra side content and taking the game slow before you get midway to Chapter 3.
Yeah and it's still early in the story, midwit.

> this writer is spot on
lmao, that extra snippet isn't doing you any favors

lol cope

Not him and I like the game but you're just making yourself look stupid

>Not him

doubt

>Can't think in advance and anticipate the way you do with your actual movements
Just how sedentary are you?

Ok retard

Attached: 1530362089226.jpg (527x88, 14K)

>post weird shit you found.

I totally forgot that nikola tesla was in this game and has missions. pretty cool

Attached: yooo_wtf_is_that.jpg (1920x1080, 685K)

You know you don't have to borrow mommy's laptop to make it look like you aren't samefagging, right?

>Actually using inspect element

To give you some perspective about this game's success, Call of Duty destroys every other game in terms of sales almost every single year. Why "almost?" Because the only two years since 2009 (a full decade) that Call of Duty didn't top the charts was 2013 and 2018.
Rockstar is the only studio able to dab on Call of Duty and RDR2 is one of said dabs.

Ok retards

Attached: 1553084691566.png (600x450, 243K)

It feels well placed because it's one of the few moments in the game that put the rest of the downtrodden mess they're in into prospective, what I'm saying is there wasn't enough build up or these moments to really drive home the brutality of the situation they're in or the actions Arthur takes; Arthur's end could have been so much more impactful than it already is if there was even an ounce more of these moments.

I do like you're argument though, that's a fantastic take and I hadn't looked at it that way before.

It still comes out of the blue far too late. If anything as states Arthur and Hosea already feeling uneasy about Dutch is a poor way to introduce character relations to the player if you're going to use that as a main contention point later on. You can't just say everything is shit then tell the player to pretend everything is rosey for 60 hours then surprise! Everything actually is shit!

Attached: ag.png (779x658, 127K)

you wont finish it, youll get bored fairly early on

100gigs of dogshit not even a game just some pretty pixels that move 10seconds after you input commands it shows how far the industry has fallen

It is theres no movement in his whole body except for the guns it looks like a block moving forwards in slowmo

>far too late
It's practically at the beginning my ADHD friend. And how is it an introduction to any sort of character relation let alone a poor one?

>You can't just say everything is shit then tell the player to pretend everything is rosey for 60 hours then surprise! Everything actually is shit!
wow it's like you didn't even play the fucking game lmao.

It's in slow-mo genius, but regardless the webm is showcasing the enemy ragdoll.

>it's an improvement over the first in literally every single way.
I do not understand how people can say this. For one thing, both the honor and wanted systems feel worse than the original. In 1, it felt like it was way more balanced, with good rewards for bad honor. In 2, there is no reason at all to have bad honor, it's clear the game basically wants you to have good honor with all the rewards being there. I also feel like instances of where honor gets docked is more consistent in 1. And the wanted system; it felt less annoying and anal in 1. In 2, even in you are wearing a bandana, you still get a bounty if lawmen see you, which is pretty silly. 1 also had pardon letters which was an interesting way to commit a lot of crimes but not have to pay. In 2 there's basically no reason to commit a lot of crimes, like train robbing at all, since you will gain a huge bounty that will offset anything you loot.

In a lot of ways, 1 was just a tighter experience. In 2 it feels like you are constantly reminded of the annoying control scheme, long animations and touches for realism, whereas 1 feels more akin to the GTA games. In many ways I would argue 1 was a better compromise between realism and fun than 2, which is often distracting in how slow and awkward it can feel

its a highly charming game, filled with interesting characters and stories you get invested in because of the high quality of writing, despite the actual gameplay being subpar with the player being very weighty and slow, gunplay and movement that is clunky, and overall lots of unnecessary bloat. The open world however is absolutely joyful to explore especially if you turn off the hud and use road signs to discover the cities and villages. Overall, its a solid 8/10 game that I forced myself to play so I can everything it has to offer. If the actual gameplay was great, it could have been a 10/10 masterpiece

Why are people like this too stupid to understand that RDR2 is a 3rd person action game aand not a FPS? Without aim assist, shooting aingle shot guns with analog sticks would slow the game down and make it shitty.

>I do not understand how people can say this.
Because it's true
>in 2, there is no reason at all to have bad honor
Incorrect
>and the wanted system; it felt less annoying and anal in 1. In 2, even in you are wearing a bandana, you still get a bounty if lawmen see you, which is pretty silly.
Just because you don't know how to work the bounty system doesn't mean it's bad. It's more fleshed out than in RDR1.

but n

Shit webm you dont have it in you user creating good webms is something you will never do shitty webm creator

>wow it's like you didn't even play the fucking game lmao
Yeah nah I put around 200 hours into it over three playthroughs.

>It's practically at the beginning my ADHD friend.
Start of chapter 3, yes. Still gives you the entirety of chapter 2 to get through, and even then not including side content. Assuming you rush through everything in 1 and 2 you'd still need like what 15 hours just to see this one scene that the rest of the conflict ends up relying on as a footnote that everything used to be good? The game has a terrible case of telling not showing and while the one scene where it does the opposite fantastically it is both too late and not explored enough.

wow cope

Attached: 2019-05-13_11-58-19_PM-wv4vpbjt (2).jpg (3840x2160, 734K)

What benefits does bad honor have in 2

40? Yea get it. Gta v still goes for 30 youre gonna be waiting awhile if you want it cheaper.

gtav was such a great game. i'm a weeb too but gta v is so well made, fuck you faggot you don't know shit about games.

>this one scene that the rest of the conflict ends up relying on
What the fuck are you talking about? The tension between Arthur, Hosea and Dutch is well established from the very first scenes in the game dude.

Better prices at the fence. Being able to rob with impunity, you know that sort of stuff.

Why do Arthur and Hosea continue to stick around then if there is that much tension?

The only people that bother shitting on it are losers with a chip on their shoulder. It's a fucking fantastic game.

Wheres that

what do you mean rob with impunity
are folks more likely to just give up if you threaten them?

no but it's not a very effective way to maintain high honor

This is why you hate the story because if a story is written to appease a smoothbrain like you then it's shit.

So theres no benefits to bad honor? Ignoring the fence, considering that money is no issue

>Just because you don't know how to work the bounty system doesn't mean it's bad. It's more fleshed out than in RDR1.
Way to sound arrogant while saying nothing at all of substance. If you are wearing a mask or banana, and lawmen see you, you WILL get a bounty, no matter what. This is a disappointing change from 1. Even if you know how to work it perfectly, committing crimes in 2 is just not as fun and there is basically no reason at all to do so.

Can you answer the question instead of resorting to insults?

The benefit is that you get better prices at the fence, money is no issue by the end of the game sure, but you're moving the goalposts a bit.

Try learning basic gameplay mechanics before sounding off on them then ;)

>lawmen see you, you WILL get a bounty, no matter what.
Incorrect, and you can still kill them before they get back to an outpost

>committing crimes in 2 is just not as fun
Wrong

>there is basically no reason at all to do so.
More of a reason than there was to do in 1 at least what with there being more useful shit you can loot.

can you not be such a pleb?

>Incorrect
No, its correct, asshole. Lawmen see you with a mask, you still get a bounty, even if you flee. This is 100% true. I dont understand why you are basically lying and acting like this isnt the case.

Well it was great arguing with you, thanks for the (You) I guess.

no it isn't, you just have to git gud.

not trying to win an argument here by moving goalposts
lets just say theres no significant benefits to bad honor

there's no significant benefit to the honor system writ large it's just some way of gauging your play style to give some aesthetic weight to your decisions. But there are more intricate ways you can live out your outlaw fantasies in 2 over one thanks to more complexity in the game design.

This is also the case in RDR1 dumbass. RDR1's bandana doesn't hide your identity from anyone, let alone cops.

doesnt your honor also affect the score?

what score

Just wait for the PC release

the musical one
Are you being sarcastic or did you think i meant a point system

yes

Ayo this nigga don't even own the game or is retarded

I hope you like walking for 2 years

it's healthy for you fat weeb

It's like Game of Thrones. Starts out amazing, and you'll fucking love it. Then the final act kicks in and you end up wondering why you even bothered partaking of the journey to begin with.

Enjoy the Consumption Simulator!

Attached: 1544138599497.jpg (204x248, 4K)

Good grief this is awful. You're able to get this kind of exposition by just talking to other gang members, doing shit with them like playing dominoes or poker. If you blitz through the game of course you're not going to see how the relationship functions.

Attached: 1391936454013.jpg (200x193, 7K)

Witcher 3 or RDR2. Whos the greatest open world game?

Have you actually played either of these games or does R* just pay you to stir up discussions online? They literally added an optional feature that didn't even exist previously, but somehow you're still seething about old thing good new thing bad

This is false, dipshit. I dont understand why rdr2fags feel the need to lie like this. in rdr1, if you are wearing a bandana, and the cops see you, you WONT get a bounty if you escape. this is NOT the case in 2, where you will keep a bounty while wearing it

I really don't get why you guys are such fucking liars. it feels like you simply arent willing to admit that rdr2 was a step back in some ways

Your choices actually matter in TW 3, and the game doesn't end like a Coen brothers film so W3 wins by default.

>making a post that has no relevance at all to the discussion
wow, im impressed

>ou can kill as many as you want but you can only carry one pelt
Factually incorrect. You can carry a bunch of pelts, but only 1 carcass or large pelt like from a buffalo

If you gave half a shit about John and/or played the first game, the late game is when it starts getting good.
Once Arthur tells John he wants him to live a real life with Abigail its just a never ending tearjerk, at least for me, because you know the whole thing is futile and Arthur died for practically nothing.
Goddamn it im getting upset thinking about it.

How could they cut John down like that, bros? It isnt fair

name this optional feature dumbass

Play the game moron, there is no way to avoid a bounty if the lawmen see you. There is also no way to avoid a bounty if civilians report you. The bandana has literally no effect on the wanted system in RDR1

Why does Yea Forums have such a weird collection of RDR2 fans who need to defend the game no matter what? I see nothing like this anywhere else.

Where’s all the post game content for John? I’m trying to find bounties and a bunch of shit to do out west but there’s fucking nothing

It absolutely does you fucking lying asshole. You obviously never played 1. I understand if you only played 2, and your standards are low because of it. But the wanted system in 1 was better.

I think RDR2 had a much better single player campaign. My biggest problem with RDR1 was how samey almost all the missions were at the start. I can hardly remember any of the missions, with the exception of the one where you can man a mexican cannon, and the one where you kill Dutch.

He as just a few bounties and the writers missions. New Austin is very empty.

The bandana in 2 allows you to commit crimes with impunity around civilians. Even if they report you to the cops, you only get a bounty if the cops catch you at the crime scene. This was not possible in RDR1

MGS is literal defination of movie games.

Is there more in the first areas?

>late game when it starts getting good
Yeah, nothing more fun than
>COUGH HACK WHEEEZE
>just a sec John, need to catch my breath by sitting down in real time, as an infection destroys my insides in REAL TIME, *COUGH COUGH COUGH COUGH WHEEEEEEEZE
>now, press button to BUILD HOUSE
Your opinion is so fucking shit and retarded, that I kind of hope you die tomorrow to spare the human gene pool any further taint.

Attached: 1559768684038s.jpg (250x196, 5K)

>in real time
Thatd be kinda cool
You know you dont have to press the buttons during that segment, right?

I agree with everything here.

>that'd be kind of cool
More like pretentious. And guess what that makes you for thinking it's a good idea?

Attached: 1559153467723.jpg (960x960, 86K)

Only your companions graves. Oh, and you can encounter some surviving mates in some locations like Valentine and Annesburg train stations. Other than that i don't remember

On the off chance that my memory and literally every resource on the Internet were mistaken, I just tested it, you piece of shit. And I suggest you do the same, right before kill yourself, you fucking liar. The bandana doesn't do a damned thing except lock the fame and honor gauges.

Who hurt you, user?

Anyone?

I don't remember getting a bounty in RDR1 at all, I wasn't even aware it had a police system to begin with.

I hope everyone can agree that the music was much better in RDR.

Donate to Dutch he has a plan

Treasure hunts/gold bars

Ehhh idk they're both great to me. Honestly might like RDR2 more

youtube.com/watch?v=JnDj1Der3Ks

Far Cry 2

It's a bad game, but the story is really fucking good. Rent it from somewhere, marathon through the story, then return it.

I honestly don't get the type of cuckold that enjoys this game. It is the worst game Rockstar has ever made, the worst AAA game this generation, and probably the worst AAA game of all time. Someone who claims to like RDR2 immediately outs themselves as having shit taste, and their opinions on anything, especially video games, should be discarded.

>It's a bad game,
no it's not stop being ridiculous

>Far Cry 2

Then Nintendo, Fromsoft, and CDPR should out themselves?

Online user

None of them say that RDR2 is good.

>you can play as a cowgirl
more like a cowtranny. literally impossible to create a good looking character in this shitty game. they even released a new character creator recently which made character creation even worse, how do you fuck up this badly?you don't, it's definitely intentional.

>virtually the same shit as 1 but with an actual way to commit crimes and dodge bounties without gunning down witnesses
>t-t-THE OLD SYSTEM WAS BETTER JUS DEAL WIT IT
my nigga I get it this game drove you fucking insane but not everything about it is a step back from 1

So they all played a game they didn't like and want to use it as an example of what they would like to do or accomplish in future titles? Are you fucking dumb?

Drop the personal vendetta user. Did rockstar touch your little peepee?

This "mash the sprint button" thing really needs to fucking die. There's a lot I don't like about the direction Rockstar has gone in the last 10 years, but this is one legacy feature I don't think anyone would defend.

I played it too. I didn't like it. You're using clickbait headlines that don't explain the full context to prove your point. Fromsoft: RDR2 is a story driven game. CDPR: It is very detailed. Some people at Nintendo played it as well. The game is still shit and that image doesn't prove otherwise.

You aren't them, I'm willing to bet before you played the game you had some sort of vendetta going in. If you would read the actual articles instead of nitpicking to delude reality in your favor you would actually see thag Miyazaki played the game and wants to make something like it in the future. Most of Nintendo's young staff is currently playing RDR2 and CD projekt Red is using it as a standard for quality everyday in and out when developing cyberpunk.

Nope, I like Rockstar and was excited to play it. It was only after I was beat over the head with completely shit gameplay that I decided I didn't like it, and that it's only successful because of the GTA brand.

Doesn't bother me, their games don't fall in line like any other game or dev. They standout in that regard. I get so so fucking tired of people acting like rockstar can't just do whatever the fuck they want. Like there's some other dev setting the rules they need to follow or something. So dumb

literally the oppisite you dipshit. 1 provided a way to commint crimes while avoiding bounties, not an option in 2.

you 2 fags are seriously so fucking dumb

>can't complete all challenges until after the end of the main story unless you do some gimmicky shit
Gee, John. Why does R* let you be TWO legends?

>he's still at it
Yeah it did, by allowing players to kill or bribe witnesses before they report to the lawmen. Which is also possible in 2. The bandana has no effect on the wanted system in RDR1, retard. It doesn't do anything except pause fame and honor. Stop lying. Play the games and then kill yourself.

I honestly can't fathom how someone could say they like RDR1 and not this. Sounds like you've changed and gotten bitter since 2010, not the other way around concerning Rockstar. There's some mission structure stuff I hope they work on going forward and maybe do something about the aiming. But that's my only concern. Before the game came out, I was playing the fuck of games that played nothing like this (Bloodborne, Hollow Knight, Nier & MHW) and still manged to love it.

I liked most of the ambient music in 2 a lot, especially that one really fucking spooky track that plays in roanoke ridge

either buy a physical copy or pirate

RDR 2 had better mission/ambient music, especially with those foreboding strings that play during certain sections. RDR 1 had enormously better vocal pieces. And no, that schlock you listen to the during the blunt force trauma symbolism was not a good piece. It was garbage. Apparently there was a song at the end of the epilogue but I ain't playing through that cancerous part so I don't care about it.

Yeah, you play a bunch of weeb virgin games. No wonder your taste is shit. Opinion discarded.

1's ambient music was so much better

oh so now you're outing yourself as a shitposter? WOAH, where's the discord I can join?

>weeb virgin games.
>RDR2

Attached: laughing.jpg (480x360, 25K)

I guess you have a point, but is that really a big deal? Did you really want to complete all the challenges before finishing the game? Were you planning on not finishing it?

>Weeb virgin shitposter looking for discords
Shocking

lol brainlet

How hard is it to get the online trophies?

Attached: 1559264895165.webm (640x1136, 2.67M)

someone just believe ....i got a god damn plan

It’s Riding a horse, listening to dialog, watching a cutscene, and repetitive shoot outs: the video game.

prefer the first. it was more arcadey shootemup fun. rdrii is still magnificent but more in the way it's almost like a living museum.

You'll have to pray you get matched with drooling retards and not sweaty 200 lvl fags decked out with special ammo and maxed memecards for the MVP trophy.

rdr2fags are so pathetic, its hilarious. they have an endless bogeyman for every criticism. lol