Red Read Redeemertion 2 reviews are out

[Trunkage]

While im waiting for PC version. only reason its getting so many 10s is because of rockstar.

the game still from what i heard has tap x to run mechanic. if it was not for rockstar it would have been getting 7 or 8. I like RDR1 because of wild west. it was 7/10 good game. not masterpiece.

It's almost like Rockstar puts out quality titles and it's just you that has the problem with them.

they cant make a decent gameplay.

only quality title by rockstar imo was max payne 3. GTA is most overrated series of all time.

RDR was only good because wild west save it otherwise it would have been another boring open world game.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

It's not true though.

I, suprisingly, agree with B-Cell. GTA is pretty bad. Give me a Watch Dogs or Sleeping Dogs anyday. You know, something that has functioning game play or a decent story (WD1 is bad on this count). GTA2 was the best in the series and its been ruined since it went 3D.

I never played RDR1. I didn't by a console for a whole decade til the Switch. But it being sold as a Western GTA just sounds awful to me.

 

[DeliveryGodNoah_v1legacy]

While im waiting for PC version. only reason its getting so many 10s is because of rockstar.

the game still from what i heard has tap x to run mechanic. if it was not for rockstar it would have been getting 7 or 8. I like RDR1 because of wild west. it was 7/10 good game. not masterpiece.

It's almost like Rockstar puts out quality titles and it's just you that has the problem with them.

they cant make a decent gameplay.

only quality title by rockstar imo was max payne 3. GTA is most overrated series of all time.

RDR was only good because wild west save it otherwise it would have been another boring open world game.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

It's not true though.

I, suprisingly, agree with B-Cell. GTA is pretty bad. Give me a Watch Dogs or Sleeping Dogs anyday. You know, something that has functioning game play or a decent story (WD1 is bad on this count). GTA2 was the best in the series and its been ruined since it went 3D.

I never played RDR1. I didn't by a console for a whole decade til the Switch. But it being sold as a Western GTA just sounds awful to me.

While I can wholeheartedly understand that some people just can't get into GTA/Rockstar's brand of open world games, and that other open world games in a similar vein can offer bits and pieces that are more appealing, I don't think it's fair to say GTA is bad.

I'm curious to know what about GTA's gameplay isn't functioning in comparison though, in your opinion. Is it just a specific game that you played that hasn't clicked with you, or have you really played every game in the series and find that it's not functional?

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I think it's more that rockstar has mastered the art of the "perfect average game" where you can't find anything that is excessively wrong with their games but at the same time they're not memorable and distinct enough to be a discerning fan's favorite thing ever. It's like the standard frozen pizza, it's fine and you can't complain but to anyone with a preference, a pizza with specific ingredients that are irregular will always be better as those irregularities match up to their individual tastes better while also lacking the benchmark mass appeal of a default cheese pizza that has nothing anyone outside of the most picky eaters can ever dislike.

This both makes me think and makes me hungry.

I was hungry when I wrote it I think haha.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I have Gunslinger in my steam library so I might give it a go in the near future. I keep looking for an excuse to install and play it but there's always another game I want to play a little more. 6-8 hours sounds great though.

In a way it's just the right length. As with the best kinds of entertainment, it leaves the audience wanting more but is great while it lasts and doesn't overstay its welcome (as newer unending Ubi games). It does have NG+ too for trying out different weapons and re-experiencing the story knowing all the twists.

So you mention the Janky Dueling mechanics. I enjoyed the previous game, CoJ: Bound in Blood, except for the increasingly BS duels you're forced to deal with throughout the game. It's the sole reason I don't think I've replayed Bound in Blood despite really enjoying it otherwise. Are the duels in gunslinger as bad as those? As in the timing to actually win a duel gets tighter and tighter as the game goes on. Made worse by the fact there's literally no reason given why the two main characters even bother playing by the rules of dueling when it's made quite clear as the game on they don't care about the rules, only the money.

It has more of a "drunken" effect. The duels get progressively harder against more formidable (and well known) opponents. I think they did a similar thing in FC4/Watchdogs with the controls getting sluggish and not moving as you expect, while the reticule gets smaller.

It works. I wasn't a huge fan and lost a couple of times but while not exactly pleasant, it's just a minigame and certainly doable, and at least it is in keeping with the story, the setting and theme. Despite my thoughts on the duelling tho, it's genuinely a fantastic experience which I cannot praise highly enough. It's a concentrated burst of Wild West goodness with a cool protagonist and a great framing device for the storytelling and gameplay. I have very little positive to say about modern Ubisoft, but credit where its due, CoJ Gunslinger is well worth a play.

 

[Something Amyss]

I live in Vermont. If I wanted to groom a horse, I could go to my neighbour.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

RDR was only good because wild west save it otherwise it would have been another boring open world game.

This is brain fart. You're basically saying that RDR was only good because of what it was and if it was something that it wasn't, it would have been boring. Jesus fuckin' Christ.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Well, once you get past the 2 and a half hour long tutorial intro, the game gets engaging enough. Whereas The Witcher 3 and Horizon: Zero Dawn release you into the world within 45 minutes, and heck. Zelda: Breath of the Wild does so in 5 minutes, Red Dead 2 spends the first 2 hours and 30 minutes at least dragging through linear scripted events till you're finally allowed to partake in the open-world. Jesus Christ Rockstar! Nothing of any significance story wise even happens in that time, it's just 'you're stuck in a blizzard, go do slow, plodding turorials'. Even Kingdom Hearts 2 had some sort of point to its stick-in-the-mud intro.

But yeah, after that things pick up significantly, and it's pretty fun to pick at the open-world and see what's possible. The shooting still sucks shrinking horse balls though. Rockstar can't design a halfway decent shooting mechanic to save their life. It's either total ***** mode where you lock on to every enemy, or disable auto-aim and feel like you're aiming with a crane.

The characters are atleast somewhat likeable now compared to GTA5, where every single character was a giant obnoxious asshole cuz satire. Arthur Morgan is okay as a main character, especially now that I gave him a nice Tom Sellick moustach, but he is kind of a fucking robot. A charming robot, but a robot nonetheless. There's a scene where he runs into an old flame, and it was just impossible for me to picture this wooden stump to have any sort of warm blood flowing through his veins. And as usual it suffers from overwritten dialoge, where instead of keeping it snappy Rockstar shows off just how much period appropriate speak they can drown you in.


Overall it's pretty alright, but it shows how antiquated Rockstar has become in open-world gameplay design and pacing, where only the sheer magnitude of their game worlds is what gives them any sort of edge over their competitors.

 

[Smithnikov_v1legacy]

Doesn't sound like a whole lot has changed fundamentally aside from horse elements and hunting, and none of what I've heard as a negative really bugs me. Yea, I'll give it a chance if I get the op.

 

[Baffle]

Have you had a chance to play it? I won't say I'm on the fence with this one. From what I've heard about the production Rockstar is kinda' shit and doesn't deserve a win.
But I am Cowboy curious and might grab in on extreme sale next year. So how them horse balls treating you?

I pretty much just got to the end of the long tutorial section, but I like it well enough. The graphics don't feel any better than those in RDR1, but I reckon if I actually tried to played RDR1 I'd feel differently about that. Going to have a game day today though, so I might have more to say later.

Have yet to see any horse balls, but I'm not sure how to explain it's been mis-sold when I take the game back for a refund.

 

[Catfood220]

So, I have played very little of this game so far, so here a few of my thoughts. Wow, the game is slow. The character is slow, the horse riding is slow, the shooting is slow, doing anything is slow. I don't know if this is because I've just finished Spider-Man where you spent the entire time zipping all over the place and playing RDR2 after that feels weird. But hopefully after a while, the I'll get used to it. The graphics are great, but I'm not loving the snowy intro, it feels like they've sucked all the colour out of the world. The shooting seems inconsistent, sometimes I will get an instant kill with one shot and then his mate will take 3 or 4 shots to kill his friend.

That's all I've got, I probably should have played a bit more of the game before complaining about it, but yeah, that's how I feel at the moment.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

RDR was only good because wild west save it otherwise it would have been another boring open world game.

This is brain fart. You're basically saying that RDR was only good because of what it was and if it was something that it wasn't, it would have been boring. Jesus fuckin' Christ.

yes. remove the western setting and it would have become mediocre open world game with cover based shooter gameplay.

rockstar has always been overrated. entire GTA series is just terribly overrated that only good thing i can say is nice open world and alive breathing world. other than gameplay fall flat.

RDR was not that amazing. it was 7/10 game.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

While I can wholeheartedly understand that some people just can't get into GTA/Rockstar's brand of open world games, and that other open world games in a similar vein can offer bits and pieces that are more appealing, I don't think it's fair to say GTA is bad.

I'm curious to know what about GTA's gameplay isn't functioning in comparison though, in your opinion. Is it just a specific game that you played that hasn't clicked with you, or have you really played every game in the series and find that it's not functional?

Games like any artform aren't objectively good or bad. Just because a game functions and isn't inherently broken doesn't make it good much like a meal functioning perfectly well in nourishing your body doesn't make it a tasty meal. A game is good if I enjoy it more than what I deem to be the enjoyment level from the average game. Compared to like every other open world game with shooting, Rockstar is basically the bottom of the barrel when it comes to character movement and shooting mechanics; the character movement has never felt "good" in a Rockstar game and the aiming never feels right. I haven't played RDR2 (nor will I) but I played RDR1 for awhile (until Mexico) and I didn't enjoy really anything so I stopped playing; the shooting was mind-numbingly just whack-a-mole made joke easy with Deadeye and the writing was horrible. A few posts above has Shinji complaining about the shooting as well. That's not me trying to prove that RDR is bad but that 1 set of people can find a game's gameplay bad while another set find the gameplay good, thus games aren't objectively good or bad.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Well, once you get past the 2 and a half hour long tutorial intro, the game gets engaging enough. Whereas The Witcher 3 and Horizon: Zero Dawn release you into the world within 45 minutes, and heck. Zelda: Breath of the Wild does so in 5 minutes, Red Dead 2 spends the first 2 hours and 30 minutes at least dragging through linear scripted events till you're finally allowed to partake in the open-world. Jesus Christ Rockstar! Nothing of any significance story wise even happens in that time, it's just 'you're stuck in a blizzard, go do slow, plodding turorials'. Even Kingdom Hearts 2 had some sort of point to its stick-in-the-mud intro.

But yeah, after that things pick up significantly, and it's pretty fun to pick at the open-world and see what's possible. The shooting still sucks shrinking horse balls though. Rockstar can't design a halfway decent shooting mechanic to save their life. It's either total ***** mode where you lock on to every enemy, or disable auto-aim and feel like you're aiming with a crane.

The characters are atleast somewhat likeable now compared to GTA5, where every single character was a giant obnoxious asshole cuz satire. Arthur Morgan is okay as a main character, especially now that I gave him a nice Tom Sellick moustach, but he is kind of a fucking robot. A charming robot, but a robot nonetheless. There's a scene where he runs into an old flame, and it was just impossible for me to picture this wooden stump to have any sort of warm blood flowing through his veins. And as usual it suffers from overwritten dialoge, where instead of keeping it snappy Rockstar shows off just how much period appropriate speak they can drown you in.

Overall it's pretty alright, but it shows how antiquated Rockstar has become in open-world gameplay design and pacing, where only the sheer magnitude of their game worlds is what gives them any sort of edge over their competitors.

That particularly makes me content to wait til this is a heavily discounted GotY edition. I got used to RDR's free aim shooting but between that and the Gumby-like animation system it was nothing more than tolerable. Sucks to hear they haven't improved much on that front.

You'd think they'd have used at least a drop in the bucket from their billions of dollars to do so, or at least get close to something like MGSV's shooting and movement let alone that of Horizon: Zero Dawn. The problem seems to be these reviews are too seduced by all the frivolous "attention to detail" ("It's better than evaarrr now!!") giving them a pass on using ~17 year old mechanics, whereas everyone else would have been shunned if they'd done the same.

 

[Casual Shinji]

That particularly makes me content to wait til this is a heavily discounted GotY edition. I got used to RDR?s free aim shooting but between that and the Gumby-like animation system it was nothing more than tolerable. Sucks to hear they haven?t improved much on that front.

Youd think they?d have used at least a drop in the bucket from their billions of dollars to do so, or at least get close to something like MGSV?s shooting and movement let alone that of Horizon: Zero Dawn. The problem seems to be these reviews are too seduced by all the frivolous ?attention to detail?. (?It?s better than evaarrr now!!) giving them a pass on using ~17 year old mechanics, whereas everyone else would have been shunned if they?d done the same.

Rockstar seems unaware that the 'jack-of-all-trades' type action gameplay has significantly evolved since the Playstation 2 days. In games like The Last of Us you can switch between using a shotgun, rifle, and handgun efforstlessly, and instantly go into melee combat whether you have a gun in your hands or not. This doesn't sound like much of an achievement, and it isn't, yet Rockstar still manages to completely fumble this. In games like this melee should serve as a secondary/alternative attack method that you can quickly switch over into. But in RDR2, even if the melee combat wasn't complete shit, you need to go into your weapon wheel to activate it.


And yeah, the fact that their aiming is still so garbage.. I don't get how a game that isn't an action-RPG can feel so much worse with its gunplay than actual action-RPGs. There's times in this game where you'll get randomly ambushed by rival gangmembers, and if you don't have auto-aim enabled, yeah, get fucked. Like, the aiming is actually worse than it was in GTA5.

 

[sXeth]

I think it's more that rockstar has mastered the art of the "perfect average game" where you can't find anything that is excessively wrong with their games

Controls. So so much the controls.

Also NPC behaviour, especially pathfinding. Haven't seen enough detail on it to say about the overall state of NPCs. But more then enough ridiculous pathfinding gaffes have surfaced because of the obvious humour value. I actually kind of put the benefit of the doubt on GTA 5 that maybe it was meant to be satire about terrible drivers.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

I think it's more that rockstar has mastered the art of the "perfect average game" where you can't find anything that is excessively wrong with their games

Controls. So so much the controls.

Also NPC behaviour, especially pathfinding. Haven't seen enough detail on it to say about the overall state of NPCs. But more then enough ridiculous pathfinding gaffes have surfaced because of the obvious humour value. I actually kind of put the benefit of the doubt on GTA 5 that maybe it was meant to be satire about terrible drivers.

You still can't call the controls unplayable or the AI horrible, they're just average. I think you need a pretty low bar for both of those areas in a game like GTA for example to have them be below what makes the experience average due to them sucking so much.

 

[Baffle]

I (Arthur) was talking to some people (folks) in a small settlement (15-20 people, I guess). The two I was talking to were sitting down, but I said hello anyway, because sitting down in A-OK in my (Arthur's) book. A goat ran into me (butted me) from behind (rude), knocking me into one of the people, causing her chair to collapse (and she may have died). The man sitting next to her was much offended and opted for fisticuffs, which I delivered to him and his three friends. Then the rest of the village/hamlet wanted a bit of fisticuffs (bunch of in-breds), which I also delivered, but using bullets. All told, it did not end well for me (I died).

 

[sXeth]

I think it's more that rockstar has mastered the art of the "perfect average game" where you can't find anything that is excessively wrong with their games

Controls. So so much the controls.

Also NPC behaviour, especially pathfinding. Haven't seen enough detail on it to say about the overall state of NPCs. But more then enough ridiculous pathfinding gaffes have surfaced because of the obvious humour value. I actually kind of put the benefit of the doubt on GTA 5 that maybe it was meant to be satire about terrible drivers.

You still can't call the controls unplayable or the AI horrible, they're just average. I think you need a pretty low bar for both of those areas in a game like GTA for example to have them be below what makes the experience average due to them sucking so much.

I'm guessing you meant high bar, but anyway.

Unplayable would be a stretch. Sub-average is certainly valid. Its definitely valid when you take into account the sheer resources and experience Rockstar should have by now. This isn't some indie or low end studio trying to scrape together a game, its not even a AAA studio churning out rushed yearly releases. Its the literally most profitable dev on the planet spending years crafting their experience.

You know Ubisoft? The other purveyor of third person open world action games. They're pretty good at not having their NPCs crash into each other/random crap. To a point in WD2 or Ghost Recon that their ability to pursue you and avoid obstacles in almost uncanny.

An actual glaring example is that the horses (As you can readily find on your social media platform of choice) can crash. They will straight up run into shit full tilt. Amusing for gif makers, but a sign of the lackluster attitude, because horses literally don't do that unless they're blind or the obstacle comes literally out of nowhere. A horse would stop abruptlyand potentially throw you into whatever, but they won't run full tilt into the side of a train themselves.

Rockstar strangely, has done decent shooting controls. Max Payne was one of their top 3 franchises. Tapping X to run? Pushing the stick in to run is already a disappointing average (since its ya know, an analog stick, you should just be able to push it farther out to change speed). Tapping a button is just some weird nonsensical holdover from ancient (hyperbole) times of yore.

They certainly excel at their environmental visuals. And credible voice acting. But for the most succesful game studio out there getting tossed 10/10s ad nauseum. I expect some gameplay polish in my game-not-a-movie (and their stories aren't exactly known for doing much besides lifting from better movies) to go with it. At least it seems with RDR2 that haven't repeated the GTA5 mistake of having an open world game with the entire open world part excised and dumped in an online mode.

 

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

https://streamable.com/oc4jc

I found this from somewhere else. if this control like this. it even worse than TW3.

then holy crap how does it get 10/10???

you can praise enviroment or world or story you like but atleast criticize a freaking CONTROLS!!!. this is the main thing that can make or break a freaking game!.

All i hope is if PC version have modify controls on keyboard and mouse..