I'm sure the horse armor will be amazing.

Probably requires that social club nonsense too I reckon.

Is this one less tiresome than the sequel? Because in the second, these motherfuckers couldn't shut up to save their lives.

Definitely a rush job.

Looks dated as fuck. This better not cost more than $/€9.99 after 14 years.

LurkerLito wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 12:58:
Probably requires that social club nonsense too I reckon.

It will but the hypocrites don't care. Requiring an account or launcher is only wrong when Sony, Epic, Ubi or EA do it. When Rockstar or Blizzard require an account it is (mostly*) fine.


* yes, I have seen a few complaints about the Battle.net account linking on Steam but nothing major and by far none of the cry baby temper tantrum muppet shows we are always getting with other games these days (especially Sony as of late which really triggers the cry baby whiners super-hard for some reason). No review bombing either. Rockstar and Blizzard are immune to that thanks to their armies of cultist fanbois.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 13:18:
Is this one less tiresome than the sequel? Because in the second, these motherfuckers couldn't shut up to save their lives.

I finished the first one, but the second one, as you said, became too tiresome for me. The first one has a much shorter campaign than the second one, which certainly helps.

The zombie dlc on the other hand, felt like they were doing a quick cash in on the popularity of zombies at the time. I think I played it an hour or two before giving up on it.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 13:18:
Is this one less tiresome than the sequel? Because in the second, these motherfuckers couldn't shut up to save their lives.

Yes, but also, no. I thought both were fantastically written.

Beamer wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 13:50:
Yes, but also, no. I thought both were fantastically written.

Different strokes and all that. I found the second to be mind numbingly dull and felt railroaded through choices.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 13:18:
Is this one less tiresome than the sequel? Because in the second, these motherfuckers couldn't shut up to save their lives.

By that do you mean that the cutscenes and story bits went on too long, or that the NPC's kept barking at you about this or that?

Yep. The first half of RDR 2 is simply: Yo, the gang need mo' money (Dutch verbatim). This turns the game into a predictable slog. You already know before conducting any heist that it ain't gonna work out because if it did then the gang would ride happily off into the sunset and game over.

The story became slightly better in the second half with the actual redemption part but it also seemed a little far-fetched and weird sometimes. The game allows a lot of freedom so it could even become contradictory in case you did any of the side quests that require "evil" acts in the late game when Arthur was already supposed to be on his path to become an angel. That's when the story almost fell apart sometimes because it made absolutely no sense.

I really loved the world in RDR 2 and it is probably the best recreation of real North American locations in any game to date. The simulation was amazing including the wildlife, weather system, everything.

The home stretch of the story was decent but the 80% to 90% before that were not. Definitely a far cry from "fantastically written". It makes me wonder what the point of reference for that statement is? Yes. Compared to Counter-Strike 2 it was fantastically written. Compared to any other decent story game not so much. It took way too long to get to the good part of the story at the very end.

RogueSix wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 13:36:

LurkerLito wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 12:58:
Probably requires that social club nonsense too I reckon.

It will but the hypocrites don't care. Requiring an account or launcher is only wrong when Sony, Epic, Ubi or EA do it. When Rockstar or Blizzard require an account it is (mostly*) fine.


* yes, I have seen a few complaints about the Battle.net account linking on Steam but nothing major and by far none of the cry baby temper tantrum muppet shows we are always getting with other games these days (especially Sony as of late which really triggers the cry baby whiners super-hard for some reason). No review bombing either. Rockstar and Blizzard are immune to that thanks to their armies of cultist fanbois.

It probably has to do with the fact that people generally have less technical problems with Steam or Bnet. Not that I am a fan of linking those either and I haven't linked them. I already run bnet so it makes little sense to run one of their games thru steam and bnet. Rockstar's launcher is generally junk and I don't have that linked either because the games/codes I bought were cheaper for the Rockstar only version or only available on Epic/Rockstar for a month before the Steam version (RDR2 on PC launch).

Prez wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 14:10:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 13:18:
Is this one less tiresome than the sequel? Because in the second, these motherfuckers couldn't shut up to save their lives.

By that do you mean that the cutscenes and story bits went on too long, or that the NPC's kept barking at you about this or that?

Yes to both and I felt no regard whatsoever toward any of the main characters. I wanted to put a bullet through Dutch's head after about five minutes of listening to him prattle on, for example.

For myself, narrative games only work if there is choice. Not the illusion of choice by limiting the player to binary choices but actual choice. If a game wants to take me down a highly structured, predetermined path then what's the point of playing when agency is reduced or stripped away? I can read a book if I want to be a passive observer.

I never even finished the first. I got pretty bored of the gameplay after a while.

FloorPie wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 14:23:

RogueSix wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 13:36:

LurkerLito wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 12:58:
Probably requires that social club nonsense too I reckon.

It will but the hypocrites don't care. Requiring an account or launcher is only wrong when Sony, Epic, Ubi or EA do it. When Rockstar or Blizzard require an account it is (mostly*) fine.


* yes, I have seen a few complaints about the Battle.net account linking on Steam but nothing major and by far none of the cry baby temper tantrum muppet shows we are always getting with other games these days (especially Sony as of late which really triggers the cry baby whiners super-hard for some reason). No review bombing either. Rockstar and Blizzard are immune to that thanks to their armies of cultist fanbois.

It probably has to do with the fact that people generally have less technical problems with Steam or Bnet. Not that I am a fan of linking those either and I haven't linked them. I already run bnet so it makes little sense to run one of their games thru steam and bnet. Rockstar's launcher is generally junk and I don't have that linked either because the games/codes I bought were cheaper for the Rockstar only version or only available on Epic/Rockstar for a month before the Steam version (RDR2 on PC launch).

And Battle.net predates Steam by a number of years. Unlike Ubishaft, EA, Sony, and similar launchers, they're established platforms that had a purpose all along - they aren't just random extra logins intended for better data tracking.

Looks like they couldn't even be bothered to use AI to improve the texture sizes. Still looks PS3 quality.

I am sorry but I am really disappointed! The graphics did not updated for the almost 6 years old RDR2 level!!! This is shameful!

Prez wrote on Oct 8, 2024, 13:22:
Definitely a rush job.

If there is a mobile port of this game, then Rockstar will ask a team of inexperienced developers in Bangla Desh to base a pc port on the mobile game and release the pc port in less than a year.

Holy 15 years too late! *yawn*

But it has DLSS with Frame Generation, guys! Come on!