Red Dead Redemption II


With the streak of a tear, Like morning dew
Figured this was worthy of its own thread even though the original Red Dead Redemption doesn't have one (I would have just continued that). Probably has to do with the relative exclusivity of these titles since we're a PC crowd, obviously.

So, after about a week the game is pretty crazy ambitious, and basically in no hurry to run you through some interactive Western film narrative. More like it wants you to truly inhabit and live in some alternate western reality; like some kind of west... world. :carcus: My running joke is that Red Dead Redemption III will just tell you to go outside because it's basically what they're trying to recreate. I'm starting to get dangerously addicted to it as I've realized the story missions aren't the point, the place is, so now I'm playing accordingly and starting to get lost in it. The only limit on this game's immersion is the dated GTA style user interface, as advanced as they've made it, it's still building off an almost 20 year old idea. Imagine if Capcom made a Resident Evil game where you could interact with everything, clean your guns, eat, sleep, drive, build barricades, etc but you were still using the tank controls from Resident Evil 2. On the other hand, it basically comes down to it still being a video game ("you have to use your hands?") and needing to do video gamey things like utilize limited control schemes to do a ton of shit and load or remove characters you're no longer interacting with, etc. It's like it's reached some uncanny valley of interactivity; it's trying so hard to be more than a game, and succeeding well enough, that it's clashing with the reality it's still a game and not real more than you'd bother to notice or care in most games, like GTAIII or RDR1 for example. It's like you're disappointed you're not REALLY covered in mud, or when you put skinned animals on your horse they just appear tied on instead of Arthur actually getting out and tying the ropes around (because sometimes things WILL be that detailed). I actually think I've only scratched the surface and there's going to be plenty more surprises, or... unnecessary details depending on your perspective. =)

Oh yeah, funny aside, it wouldn't let me name my horse Stardust, the name of a real live horse I've actually ridden on a trail, because of "profanity" (I'm assuming for the drug slang). C'mon, Rockstar, the fact that a profanity check exists at all in one of your games, let alone that it flagged something so innocuous, is ridiculously silly and mildly disappointing. :daiba:

The last time I ran into this was on Diablo III when it would let me use the Latin suffix -anus (not the body part, Blizzard :schierke:).

Anyway, if you really want to read a review that goes in depth on some of the things I'm just touching on here, this one covers a lot with a minimum of spoilers (if you've played RDR1), especially the first half where it sticks to the game and its themes rather than the meta implications:
I'm already over 30 hours into the game and it's amazing. Level of detail, story and gameplay wise - they've really nailed everything. I love it more than GTA V.

Crimson Blade

Burns eternally hot
Still haven't played the first one yet, but I already went ahead and bought the second, haha. It's Rockstar, so I have a lot of faith.

This might be one of the first PS4 games I get to.

I know that I know :)

My post our worse
Crimson said:
Still haven't played the first one yet, but I already went ahead and bought the second, haha. It's Rockstar, so I have a lot of faith.

This might be one of the first PS4 games I get to.

You should play the first one too as it is just as good as rdr2 in most aspects ill also say the story of rdr1 might be slightly better than rdr2 story though that is my own opinion.
Top Bottom