Red Dead Redemption General Chat

[Rown]

A common theme throughout the game and the DLC is cynicism. The game takes place in a world full of anti-heroes, pyrrhic victories, and bad ends. GTA IV was like this too, but at least I had a possible out, either through the ending of the game or through stranger missions. RDR never offered any of it. It was just a gorgeous world filled with mostly terrible people.

 

Maybe that's just it though. Maybe that's the point of the game, a big beautiful clusterf*ck of humanity.

 

Rown

 

P.S. Did you play all the stranger missions? It really bugged me that the two dealing with "old lovers" were practically the same. Like they didn't get enough out of the joke the first time so they told it again.

[thatstupidbug]

A common theme throughout the game and the DLC is cynicism. The game takes place in a world full of anti-heroes, pyrrhic victories, and bad ends. GTA IV was like this too, but at least I had a possible out, either through the ending of the game or through stranger missions. RDR never offered any of it. It was just a gorgeous world filled with mostly terrible people.

 

Maybe that's just it though. Maybe that's the point of the game, a big beautiful clusterf*ck of humanity.

 

Rown

 

P.S. Did you play all the stranger missions? It really bugged me that the two dealing with "old lovers" were practically the same. Like they didn't get enough out of the joke the first time so they told it again.

i've heard a lot of times words like this... "the game/movie/works/whatever is bad on purpose because it want to show us a bad aspect of life" has became a common line in recent years, but i've always found it stupid. it's an excuse. t you're right, the common theme is cynicism, but the realization of it "is bad because is badly done" , simple. there were 1000 different ways to show this theme, but NOT this way.

 

if i want to show that a game is pure crap, i do a parody, i write a review,i rant on forums, but i don't actually crap on the game and sold it ...this is my point of view

[Barry Spock]

I kind of agree with what you're saying about the tempo of the game.

 

Going to the family life was a difficult transition and I think it would've been better to have John get his family back, but occasionally still get called back to do government missions. I didn't like losing all the uniforms without any warning.

 

Personally I thought the game started running into problems before that. The writers didn't do a very good job of dealing with -a woman- -- abagail,. I can still remember the dialog of the main govt. man talking to john during the horse ride to get Dutch at cochinay. It was like what a 15yo would write.

 

And then, the family life situations - man and wife at home on the ranch. I don't think there's many people who enjoyed that. Plus the writing was terrible - it was like a bad sitcom.

 

I think there was also a lot of thinly veiled comment about the (then) current political situation in the US that they could've done without. The writing team were very much against Bush Jr. (I was too, but I don't want it in my vidya games).

[Mokrie Dela]

RDR was immersion into the old west. Hunting, ranching - that was a BIG part of life back then, so reflecting that in the missions, while admittedly slow, was the way to go. There's symbolism too with johns death comes the death of the west itself and by sacrificing himself he condemns his son to the same life, the one he didnt want for him.

 

I have to disagree with the points thatstupidbug said, at no point did i think "not this again" or "this is boring" or anything. I'd become fully immersed that it never occured to me that this was rubbish mission. Probably a differece of opinion, but i do admit that the quality of the story faltered with "The outlaw's return"

I simply never like abigail or jack, and the game didnt do enough to make me like them.

 

But i dont have any problems wth the game. Didnt come across that many bugs either (apart from weird flashing in thieves landing and the occaisional single pixel flash artifacting)

[acmilano]

Did anybody notice in UN reference to Walking Dead series.I just watched episode when survivors killed zombies locked in barn,including little girl.And it was quite similar to Bonnie mission when you have to kill zombie Drew Mcfarlan who also try to keep zombified people from his ranch in his barn.

[danjodan]

Just completed the game again Great game, But I wish their was a few more real story missions after John died Like they could have made at least 10 more story missions about getting that... guy that killed John.Dutch is the name or something, RIgh?

Im bad with names XD

[danjodan]

Edgar Ross is the guy that plotted John's assassination.

Ok, Thank's for informing me

[Snake Without a Tongue]

 

 

I have to disagree with the points thatstupidbug said, at no point did i think "not this again" or "this is boring" or anything. I'd become fully immersed that it never occured to me that this was rubbish mission. Probably a differece of opinion, but i do admit that the quality of the story faltered with "The outlaw's return"

I simply never like abigail or jack, and the game didnt do enough to make me like them.

I disagree too. I was surprised by how much I liked the grinding in RDR, something I usually hate. And I felt the missions themselves had perfect variety. There was plenty shooting, but rarely in the same context or setting twice. It was, if anything, the least repetitive shooter I've ever played. If anyone feels otherwise, I guess it's just a matter of taste.

 

The story was great, but I also didn't feel too attached to Jack. The storyline itself was heartbreaking but his character was just... meh. Like you said, the game didn't do enough to make me like them.

[Rown]

Jack is a twat.

 

With RDR, like Gun before it, I wish there had been ranching side missions in the same vein as the night watchmen where the game randomly generates a ranching task to be performed. I could have done those for hours. Fighting off cattle rustlers, moving herds to different farms, scaring crows. I'm a sucker for historical busy work.

 

Rown

[Jabalous]

 

Jack is a twat.

 

With RDR, like Gun before it, I wish there had been ranching side missions in the same vein as the night watchmen where the game randomly generates a ranching task to be performed. I could have done those for hours. Fighting off cattle rustlers, moving herds to different farms, scaring crows. I'm a sucker for historical busy work.

 

Rown

I think that a ranch side activity was originally going to be in the game, but it was cut out from the final version. An evidence to support this thought could be the following image:

 

http://www.jasonmuck.com/Images/NEW/RedDea...agecoah003d.jpg

 

It's taken from a former R* San Diego artist portfolio on his website, showing his works on RDR (here). Do you see the muck rake's symbol on the map? I think it points out to a ranching activity of some kind.

 

Remember that Jeronimo Barrera, vice president of product development at Rockstar, previously said that some contents were taken out of the final version of RDR, and they're saved for another installment in Red Dead franchise.

Edited March 4, 2012 by FiS!!HeR

[Slamman]

Source!? I never heard him say that, since peeps here still dispute the notion of a franchise, certainly skeptics about any PC release!

 

I don't agree that it was lacking or slow, or boring, when you add SP and MP experiences, and the DLC, it was well worth it, I paid for the DLC twice in buying the hard copy disc, and I'm playing the whole of Mexico over 3 times now, since a number of my saved games stopped at the Fort Mercer battle to enjoy the musical entrance to Mexico, However, all the missions with the army involve long trips from one side of the other, so glad there's a Skip Trip option, and setting a camp site allows you to resume there and transport in a jiffy

Edited March 5, 2012 by Slamman

[Jabalous]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/28181...s-for-red-dead/

 

While he didn't specifically say that they toke out contents from RDR, his sentence implicitly indicates that there are contents that didn't make their way to the final version. They could have been implemented but then taken out, and others could have been verbal or paper suggestions. Almost every game from Rockstar has features getting removed along the development.

Edited March 5, 2012 by FiS!!HeR

[Jeeebuuus]

Just made it to Mexico again. I have to say that this game is as close to perfect that a game can get. This and Half Life 2 and GTA IV.

[Linki]

Whilst RDR is one of the best games I've experienced, I felt the game wasn't as close to perfection as, say, IV.

 

Firstly, the game seems to try too much to be like a GTA. With the next game, it really needs to forget about pleasing the GTA fanbase and be it's own thing. Don't be afraid to be slightly linear or not have heaps of side quests that are thrown into the players face. Be a western. Not a GTA.

 

Secondly, the out of place side stories destroyed its chance of being a thorough, focused and flowing story driven experience.

 

Mexico was the biggest offender here. It did have some interesting missions here and there (all of Landon Rickets and some of the last few missions when you find Javier and win the war), but the story got too off course.

 

Another thing, there are no story missions that take place in Armadillo! Imagine all the interesting stuff that could've happened there. The beginning missions were good though, but once the Marshall strand ended and Dickens, Seth and Irish (who was the most tolerable of the three) took over, sh*t went downhill. I didn't feel like John because of the less than impressive story decisions, but I was helping him out because I liked him. That was my only motivation of playing through the missions after that.

 

Once the Blackwater stage started, I just wanted to get it over with. Thankfully they didn't send us on a wild goose chase this time by having only a couple mission strands to deal with. Then you finally are set free to go to your family. John's family, that is. Admittedly I grew on the family after a couple more playthroughs, but when you first meet them, you feel really disconnected.

 

However, once I found out that now we were spending our time having missions with the family, I was glad. I could get time to know them. The pace changed and it was good. I felt like I succeeded in helping out my best friend, John. The story took focus and got on the same level it was at the beginning. I was blissfully ignorant to what was going to happen next...

 

And the story was nearly entirely redeemed. I was given the best ending to a video game I have ever experienced. It went from redemption to revenge in an instant. The new objective was so organic and natural, I completely forgot I was playing a video game. That's when you know you are playing a classic.

 

And a classic it is. Perhaps a flawed one, maybe not a masterpiece. But the game itself had plenty of masterstrokes.

[The N. Bellic Man]

Don't be afraid to be slightly linear or not have heaps of side quests that are thrown into the players face. Be a western. Not a GTA.

Actually, I liked the side quests and those random events really made the world feel alive. These days I don't feel the need to complete the story again (partially because of only three save files, which is a major letdown), but hunting, random events and such keep me playing this game every now and then. Also activities like treasure hunting were really cool addition even though there's no point to complete them more than once or twice. Red Dead Revolver was pretty linear and I don't feel that the fact that it was linear made it any better. It was a good game back in the day, but there wasn't much to explore and that was a major disappointment. Also Call of Juarez series (first two parts) are linear westerns and they are pretty good games, but once again - no change for exploration, no fun. There's more than enough games that aren't open world, why should R* jump on the bandwagon.

[Linki]

Don't be afraid to be slightly linear or not have heaps of side quests that are thrown into the players face. Be a western. Not a GTA.

Actually, I liked the side quests and those random events really made the world feel alive. These days I don't feel the need to complete the story again (partially because of only three save files, which is a major letdown), but hunting, random events and such keep me playing this game every now and then. Also activities like treasure hunting were really cool addition even though there's no point to complete them more than once or twice. Red Dead Revolver was pretty linear and I don't feel that the fact that it was linear made it any better. It was a good game back in the day, but there wasn't much to explore and that was a major disappointment. Also Call of Juarez series (first two parts) are linear westerns and they are pretty good games, but once again - no change for exploration, no fun. There's more than enough games that aren't open world, why should R* jump on the bandwagon.

I'm not saying that RDR shouldn't be open world. I'm saying it shouldn't feel the need to follow the way GTA is with it's bevy of side sh*t.

 

You don't need side sh*t to have incentive to explore.

[Slamman]

How is what RDR is over Revolver even remotely bad? Even if it's echoing the Open World of GTA?!? It feels right, it's a time travel GTA formula and it's not got me thinking GTA on horses, that's just an amusing joke, really, doesn't bother me, since the game is bloody brilliant!!

[Mokrie Dela]

whilst playing i never thought of it copying gta. the game did give you a lot of freedom, and hunting alone in rdr is worthy of its own game. turn off the HUD map, then turn off auto aim, and try to shoot some birds down. If you DO overcome the challenge of hitting them, you have to find the animal to skin it - no black markers on the map to help you!

[tuareg]

Edgar Ross is the guy that plotted John's assassination.

Ross was merely a puppet even showing slight regret when walking away from Johns dead body.

[Linki]

How is what RDR is over Revolver even remotely bad? Even if it's echoing the Open World of GTA?!? It feels right, it's a time travel GTA formula and it's not got me thinking GTA on horses, that's just an amusing joke, really, doesn't bother me, since the game is bloody brilliant!!

I'm not saying that. The open world is a good thing. But I think the new Red Dead series is still in it's infant stages, trying to find it's identity. I have a feeling it will reach GTA III status with it's third outing.

[Mister Pink]

Is there plans to make another Red Dead you think?

[Jabalous]

Is there plans to make another Red Dead you think?

Why not? Redemption proved that western-themed games are still favorable by players across the world, and that was shown in the sale figures and profits that the game has achieved. It got very positive reviews from players, especially with the presentation of an open world with similar mechanics to GTA. This is enough motivation for Rockstar and the developers who worked on it, to think about doing a new installment in the franchise, and in fact, a Rockstar representative, I remember he's Dan Houser, said in an interview, that if they found a story to tell, they would do another Red Dead game.

 

In the same topic, recently, San Diego studio posted new positions to work on an unannounced open-world game. While I don't think it's anything related to Red Dead, it really might be. Rockstar still have GTA V and Agent to push on this generation, and with recent rumors about a new generation of consoles arriving in late 2013, they would probably save it to that generation.

[Slamman]

They're not saying, but it would be DAMN FOOLISH of Rockstar to just drop a series that's evolved perfectly, gotten raves, not just for the game, but one song in it, even! Killer DLC as well, let's face facts, RDR is my favorite Rockstar game, barring even GTA, that's not to say GTA is not a close second!!

[blitz]

It took me a long, long time, but I finally did it. I managed to win at Poker in Armadillo. John looks so badass in the Walton's Gang Outfit.

[Slamman]

Poker is about as easy as it gets in RDR, I tried other versions after learning the ropes in RDR, but single player or MP, it's the most fun, for whatever reason. I'm having problem with the suit/outfits as well, always one item off, like horseshoes or Five Finger Fillet ... You're required to buy from the shop in Escalera. I have, but it's not registering, what's the trick there??

[Djdevin10]

Could you eat in RDR. I haven't played in a while, and i REALLY want to know.

[WindyCityOutlaw]

God, I remember when people feared seeing the name DutchVanDerLind in their FFA. Those were the good old days.

[Linki]

Could you eat in RDR. I haven't played in a while, and i REALLY want to know.

No.

[blitz]

Could you eat in RDR. I haven't played in a while, and i REALLY want to know.

No, except for the random events when you are invited to sit at a camp. I believe you are offered a piece of meat, and John will eat it.

 

You can drink and get drunk, though.

[Lurch]

Played this through about a week ago for the 3rd time. Really think I pulled off a perfect game this time. Killed and looted the guy at the end of the land deed stranger task to keep pleasance house. Finally 100%ed the game as well. Bureau uniform makes going from Hero to Desperado as easy as a 15 minute killing spree. Felt like a pimp with the dark house (even if it isn't as 'good' as the stallions).

 

On the subject of poker, Armadillo's is easy to win. The Blackwater poker game takes a bit longer. Did the later without the Elegant suit (when John is stuck in the rancher outfit) and it was a real PITA. With the Elegant suit, it's easy. Cheat when you first deal than start switching out your cheat card with something in your hand and fold with any bad card hand you have til you've got a hand you know can win. Than conservatively up the pot til you know people won't risk folding and swap that good card in. I had a 2500 chip win in one hand this way.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Lurch