Red Dead Redemption 2: Discussion & Speculation (Part 1)

[saintsrow]

 

♪ retail dates are placeholders ♫

How do people not get this.

 

Hey, man don't rain on our wishful, hopeful, futile fantasy.

 

 

 

 

Looking forward to seeing the snow environment, imagine the survival / roleplay aspect of putting on proper gear and cozying up in a cabin to stay warm.

 

-snip-

I have no idea where this is from but holy sh*t would digging through 6ft deep snow be awesome

 

 

Seriously just imagine the realism aspect of being trapped you actually have to dig yourself out lol.

 

Adding to the role play aspect you have to stock up on supplies add on your horses satchel, if you don't eat especially in the freezing cold you slowly start to die.

 

Honestly I think if Rockstar add this realistic survival to Red Dead 2 it could be something special !

 

Shotgun near a snowy mountain or cliff face = avalanche. Just like drowning in GTAV, but you can't move at all, just have to watch yourself gasp and die.

[TheOriginalGunslinger]

I wonder if the snow will stick to your clothes in the snowy mountainous region. I know Rockstar likes to go all out on details but this would be asking for too much. lol

I wonder if we'll hear the howling of the wind as a snow storm begins in this region just to add to the atmosphere environment.

 

Edited December 11, 2017 by TheOriginalGunslinger

[SeniorDerp]

I wonder if the snow will stick to your clothes in the snowy mountainous region.

 

 

Or build on your shoulders and hat if you stand still for an extended period

[-Captain-]

I would really like to know what the thought progress behind their way of sharing information is. There surely is more behind it then just "Rockstar being lazy". Like how is it beneficial to them to announce the game really early, then delay and give minimal information. Haven't people that don't even know/care about RDR forgotten those trailers long ago? Maybe they go full out when they get really close to the release? I know that Fallout announced the game and released it in like 4/5 months and had a $750 million launch and is Bethesdas best selling game.

[arno_cat]

If the game gets delayed again it will hurt the take 2 investors. Hope I explained myself properly...

[Jason]

Announcing it so early benefits Take-Two's share price and they're able to continue announcing them so early and have these long marketing droughts because they know that it doesn't damage their sales in the slightest come launch. It just sucks for the niche fans who maintain an active presence on RDR2 fansites every day - same way it does for Fallout, Elder Scrolls etc fans who know a game is coming (cause Bethesda are a leaky ship) but have to wait for the official announcement.

[J.Dillinger Blackheart]

 

 

 

 

This game is ultra beautiful,t the expense of interactivity with the world.

Ultra beautiful but generic story nothing to do in the game outside of the main story missions which arent that great to begin with

 

But the core mechanics of that game crush GTA and even RDR, which is why it's good (in addition to the beautiful graphics). The combat is very fun and the weapons are extremely different from each other, yet all equally useful depending on the scenario. Rockstar wishes they could build the foundation of their games half as well; most GTA games have had gunplay that is mediocre or worse, and RDR was satisfying mainly because of the slow mo feature. (And I have loved most Rockstar releases, but mechanically they have always been sloppy. For a big name developer they don't pay nearly enough attention to how their game plays and feels.)

Hzd was nothing special, the combat? Its only had a rolling mechanic and ability to shoot arrows. The game was super repetitive, the story was lackluster as hell and features seen aren't new and have been uses in games for years (hiding in tall weeds, climbing). There was nothing really over the top about it besides the enemies imo. The A.i, combat and story foundation were very simple, and compared to a R* open world is very bland.

 

Combat - or more accurately hunting - in that game is extremely fun and rather deep, actually. There's stealth (not a thing in most Rockstar games including GTA Online, though you can stealth a little in GTA V). The rolling is necessary to survival, unlike combat rolling against GTA AI, which is pointless. The weapons are diverse and thoughtful: bows for regular and range attacks, slings to apply elemental effects and weaken your enemies in various ways, the ropecaster to immobilize, the tripcaster to set traps, etc. You can turn enemies against each other with corruption and hacking. The enemies all have elemental weaknesses specific to them, parts you can strip off to disable their attack modes, weak and strong points. If you just ran into the open and started rolling around shooting your bow, that's on you - there are many other ways to approach every hunt in the game and figuring out your best loadout and strategy prior to the fight while stealthing around is half the fun. GTA combat is... fine, but there's basically nothing to it except pointing and shooting, and occasionally aiming at the enemy's head. It's standard to a fault.

 

If you think the combat in HZD is one-dimensional, I guess you never beat the cauldrons on the top difficulty tiers, because they're basically impossible without a strategic approach - using traps and the tripcaster to soften up the main enemy while keeping all the smaller ones away from you as long as possible. Rolling around shooting arrows in a closed space against an angry robo-T-Rex is just a good way to die a lot.

 

As far as the features not being new - as far as I'm concerned, originality in games is super overrated. Hundreds of games come out every year and maybe 2 or 3 have anything creative about them in that way. Most are just refining formulas and what makes them good is execution, not originality. That's equally true of GTA, too: GTA V was pretty much just Rockstar's Greatest Hits. I enjoyed the hell out of it but apart from the character-switching, it did basically nothing that wasn't in a prior game. And if I stuck to just the original games that broke new ground, I'd miss out on a lot of good games.

That is all the game is about tho, u roll, shoot arrow or sling and repeat over and over. It's really a bland open world, side missions are forgettable and story is predictable. Yea alot of games do the same sh*t.. that doesn't justify anything tho. Games should be about compelling innovations, growth and creativity. Reason why i stick with R * games, the vast majority of these games nowdays are all overhype and boring, especially ones in the open world genre. Show me another game where u can switch between 3 characters, which all have their own agenda and characteristics, a diverse open world with tons of features, in depth animal & npc A.I. systems. I mean Hzd still uses lip syncing, it's compared to 1 of them weak ass games like AC or far Cry.

[Jabalous]

If the game gets delayed again it will hurt the take 2 investors. Hope I explained myself properly...

 

Actually It's a better strategy that they keep beating investor's expectations with just 'recurrent consumer spending' and no hit titles. This is the main reason why Take2's share price has been one of most consistent performers for the past few years in the whole of Nasdaq. Spring or Fall wouldn't change the company's expected results for the next fiscal year and that's what investors care about. However, the earlier the game comes out, the more copies it can sell by the end of the fiscal year, and of course, Online can kick off earlier for wannabe outlaws to build their ranches, take out rival gangs and invade gold mines for more gold nuggets.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Efreet

[Synthetic_Soul]

I've been thinking about this for the last few days: and this is the way I see it I'll try to explain the best I can.

 

Besides the info droughts r* is famous for with all their games, I've been trying to figure out why we have so little info over a year into it now, and while this may seem obvious to a lot of people let me explain.

 

it's GTAO and sure you can say there are separate teams working on the games so they have nothing to do with eachother. But I'm not talking about the delay I'm talking about the lack of info.

 

It's simple really, GTAO is the first R* game that has lasted this long with such a recurrent player base.

In the past. say, when MP3 came out the last game R* released was la noire (even though That wasn't really a R* game.) and people were definitely done with that game on a whole by the time MP3 was slated to release so rockstar was eager to show off their new game and create new revenue that they hadn't had in about a year since la noires release...same goes for GTAV.

 

BUT NOW they have a gigantic game which even 4 years later is making them billions. So they aren't as desperate to create a new revenue stream with a new game. They want to get every penny they can from GTAV while they continue RDRs development. And perhaps they are afraid to show off a new game for fear that everyone will want to play it so much so that GTAV takes a massive dip in players.

 

So until they are 100% ready to switch over from GTA to RDR we'll get nothing simply because GTA is making money RIGHT NOW and rdr2 isn't and won't be for another 5+ Months.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Synthetic_Soul

[arno_cat]

Maybe the game was intended for a 2018 release, but Take 2 forced Rockstar to announce the game way earlier so they could get more inversors

[Synthetic_Soul]

I've been thinking about this for the last few days: and this is the way I see it I'll try to explain the best I can.

Besides the info droughts r* is famous for with all their games, I've been trying to figure out why we have so little info over a year into it now, and while this may seem obvious to a lot of people let me explain.

it's GTAO and sure you can say there are separate teams working on the games so they have nothing to do with eachother. But I'm not talking about the delay I'm talking about the lack of info.

It's simple really, GTAO is the first R* game that has lasted this long with such a recurrent player base.

In the past. say, when MP3 came out the last game R* released was la noire (even though That wasn't really a R* game.) and people were definitely done with that game on a whole by the time MP3 was slated to release so rockstar was eager to show off their new game and create new revenue that they hadn't had in about a year since la noires release...same goes for GTAV.

BUT NOW they have a gigantic game which even 4 years later is making them billions. So they aren't as desperate to create a new revenue stream with a new game. They want to get every penny they can from GTAV while they continue RDRs development. And perhaps they are afraid to show off a new game for fear that everyone will want to play it so much so that GTAV takes a massive dip in players.

So until they are 100% ready to switch over from GTA to RDR we'll get nothing simply because GTA is making money RIGHT NOW and rdr2 isn't and won't be for another 5+ Months and it's only logical to spend your marketing Money on the things that will garner you money now rather than later.

sh*t I was trying to edit this post and ended up posting it again instead, my bad, is there anyway to delete this post? Or rather the original unedited one above it? Edited December 11, 2017 by Synthetic_Soul

[YouAreWrong]

Eh,it seems to be delayed again.

 

I mean,even if it is intended for a spring release,they have no more than 5 months and a half(spring ends in may in my country).

 

5 months ain't that much in the gaming world,you'd expect from them at least hints and stuff on the upcoming news by now.

 

 

I'm also starting to worry about the quality of the game.Just because company takes a hole lot of time for a game,doesn't mean it always ends up amazing.What if they have problems with it?Like serous problems?Maybe they want to add new things to impress people and they just keep failing and trying again.

 

I dunno,at this point,my hype is completely off on this game and R* in general.

[Nutduster]

 

That is all the game is about tho, u roll, shoot arrow or sling and repeat over and over. It's really a bland open world, side missions are forgettable and story is predictable. Yea alot of games do the same sh*t.. that doesn't justify anything tho. Games should be about compelling innovations, growth and creativity. Reason why i stick with R * games, the vast majority of these games nowdays are all overhype and boring, especially ones in the open world genre. Show me another game where u can switch between 3 characters, which all have their own agenda and characteristics, a diverse open world with tons of features, in depth animal & npc A.I. systems. I mean Hzd still uses lip syncing, it's compared to 1 of them weak ass games like AC or far Cry.

 

 

1 - Yes, the game is mostly about its combat. Because its combat is great. Rockstar focuses on their characters and world because the core of their games (the part you actually play) is lackluster. It's fine if you prefer story over the game, but some of us don't. Or we don't even want to choose. I play different games for different experiences, nothing wrong with that.

2 - The missions are fine, not that different from 80% of the missions in any given Rockstar game. How many single player missions in GTA V or RDR involved going from point A to point B to get a thing while an NPC yammers backstory at you, then take the thing to point C? It's fine to ask more from devs but you can't say that in the same breath as praising a developer that is notorious for packing its games with fluff and fetch quests, or "Go kill that guy" quests.

3 - World-wise I'd take Horizon's map over GTA V's, even though I loved both. It's geographically very diverse with woods, forests, plains, mountains, snowy regions, deserts, rivers and lakes, villages and ruins, caves, weird underground techno-bunkers, etc. It's my favorite open world map since RDR actually.

4 - Of course they use "lip syncing" (which isn't the right term for it but I know what you're talking about, so let's move on). That game has oceans of dialogue, just like Fallout 4. Games like that don't have distinct animations for every line spoken by every NPC because it would add a year to the development to do all that. They use a procedure to match mouth movements to dialogue automatically. It's not great - the jankiest part of a game that is otherwise a technical masterpiece IMO - but it gets the job done. If we're going to criticize that, should we also talk about Rockstar releasing games with oven-mitt hands for years after other devs were showing off actual distinct fingers? All games take a shortcut or two, otherwise they'd take a decade and a billion dollars to finish.

 

At some point I hope you figure out that your criticisms of this game (and probably others judging by your "I stick to Rockstar product" mentality) is nothing but your subjectively choosing which aspects of a game to care about. That is, you are choosing to appreciate Rockstar games for what they do well and disregarding what they don't, while treating games from other companies in the exact opposite way. That's fine if it's what you want to do, but you're not telling me anything meaningful about Horizon except that it's not to your tastes, which I figured out from your first post.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Nutduster

[JavierC]

I'm also starting to worry about the quality of the game.Just because company takes a hole lot of time for a game,doesn't mean it always ends up amazing.What if they have problems with it?Like serous problems?Maybe they want to add new things to impress people and they just keep failing and trying again.

 

I dunno,at this point,my hype is completely off on this game and R* in general.

 

More salt to the wound if you remember this:

 

In October 2009, with a deadline coming up, Sam Houser became anxious about Red Dead Redemption not being in good enough shape. He wrote an email to The Benz that month, saying, "The ups and downs are VERY extreme. We have to fix this. Quickly. Help! I'm freaking!'"

 

The very next day, Sam Houser sent another email to The Benz further elaborating on the game's problems at the time and how he wanted The Benz to assist.

 

"This [RDR] is a (recurring) nightmare," Sam Houser said. "But one i/we need to get out of. I have problems with the camera all over the place. So much so, that I can't be rational or specific about it. The darkness!!!"

 

"PLEASE help me/us get rdr [Read Dead Redemption] into shape. I am a jabbering wreck right now," he added. "I need The Benz!'"

 

 

Now without The Benz, what's going on in the drawing board?

 

I hate being so negative, but most certainly than not we can say bye-bye to something similar to the original RDR physics and say hello again to the dumb ragdoll of GTA V.

[DexMacLeod]

I've been thinking about this for the last few days: and this is the way I see it I'll try to explain the best I can.

 

Besides the info droughts r* is famous for with all their games, I've been trying to figure out why we have so little info over a year into it now, and while this may seem obvious to a lot of people let me explain.

 

it's GTAO and sure you can say there are separate teams working on the games so they have nothing to do with eachother. But I'm not talking about the delay I'm talking about the lack of info.

 

It's simple really, GTAO is the first R* game that has lasted this long with such a recurrent player base.

In the past. say, when MP3 came out the last game R* released was la noire (even though That wasn't really a R* game.) and people were definitely done with that game on a whole by the time MP3 was slated to release so rockstar was eager to show off their new game and create new revenue that they hadn't had in about a year since la noires release...same goes for GTAV.

 

BUT NOW they have a gigantic game which even 4 years later is making them billions. So they aren't as desperate to create a new revenue stream with a new game. They want to get every penny they can from GTAV while they continue RDRs development. And perhaps they are afraid to show off a new game for fear that everyone will want to play it so much so that GTAV takes a massive dip in players.

 

So until they are 100% ready to switch over from GTA to RDR we'll get nothing simply because GTA is making money RIGHT NOW and rdr2 isn't and won't be for another 5+ Months.

 

I'm not sure that makes any sense. Loads and loads of big name games have come out since GTA V and GTA Online is still going strong. To think merely releasing info about RDR2 would stop people from playing GTA online seems a bit silly.

I've been thinking about this for the last few days: and this is the way I see it I'll try to explain the best I can.

 

Besides the info droughts r* is famous for with all their games, I've been trying to figure out why we have so little info over a year into it now, and while this may seem obvious to a lot of people let me explain.

 

it's GTAO and sure you can say there are separate teams working on the games so they have nothing to do with eachother. But I'm not talking about the delay I'm talking about the lack of info.

 

It's simple really, GTAO is the first R* game that has lasted this long with such a recurrent player base.

In the past. say, when MP3 came out the last game R* released was la noire (even though That wasn't really a R* game.) and people were definitely done with that game on a whole by the time MP3 was slated to release so rockstar was eager to show off their new game and create new revenue that they hadn't had in about a year since la noires release...same goes for GTAV.

 

BUT NOW they have a gigantic game which even 4 years later is making them billions. So they aren't as desperate to create a new revenue stream with a new game. They want to get every penny they can from GTAV while they continue RDRs development. And perhaps they are afraid to show off a new game for fear that everyone will want to play it so much so that GTAV takes a massive dip in players.

 

So until they are 100% ready to switch over from GTA to RDR we'll get nothing simply because GTA is making money RIGHT NOW and rdr2 isn't and won't be for another 5+ Months.

 

I'm not sure that makes any sense. Loads and loads of big name games have come out since GTA V and GTA Online is still going strong. To think merely releasing info about RDR2 would stop people from playing GTA online seems a bit silly.

[saintsrow]

 

If the game gets delayed again it will hurt the take 2 investors. Hope I explained myself properly...

 

Actually It's a better strategy that they keep beating investor's expectations with just 'recurrent consumer spending' and no hit titles. This is the main reason why Take2's share price has been one of most consistent performers for the past few years in the whole of Nasdaq. Spring or Fall wouldn't change the company's expected results for the next fiscal year and that's what investors care about. However, the earlier the game comes out, the more copies it can sell by the end of the fiscal year, and of course, Online can kick off earlier for wannabe outlaws to build their ranches, take out rival gangs and invade gold mines for more gold nuggets.

 

I think they're actually expecting a significant profit bump from this new DLC coming out. They're hyping it up. At this point recurrent consumer spending is THE business model.

 

Recurrent consumer spending has actually become strategy at this point, so that sinking hundreds of millions of dollars into developing massive open-world games is counterproductive. There are probably TTWO investors advocating for dropping all new game development - maybe RDR2 is being grandfathered in, as long as Rockstar management can confidently predict a long tail of RDR Online DLC profit.

 

[Holland_Hicks]

Is next week a possibility?

[YouAreWrong]

 

I'm also starting to worry about the quality of the game.Just because company takes a hole lot of time for a game,doesn't mean it always ends up amazing.What if they have problems with it?Like serous problems?Maybe they want to add new things to impress people and they just keep failing and trying again.

 

I dunno,at this point,my hype is completely off on this game and R* in general.

 

More salt to the wound if you remember this:

 

In October 2009, with a deadline coming up, Sam Houser became anxious about Red Dead Redemption not being in good enough shape. He wrote an email to The Benz that month, saying, "The ups and downs are VERY extreme. We have to fix this. Quickly. Help! I'm freaking!'"

 

The very next day, Sam Houser sent another email to The Benz further elaborating on the game's problems at the time and how he wanted The Benz to assist.

 

"This [RDR] is a (recurring) nightmare," Sam Houser said. "But one i/we need to get out of. I have problems with the camera all over the place. So much so, that I can't be rational or specific about it. The darkness!!!"

 

"PLEASE help me/us get rdr [Read Dead Redemption] into shape. I am a jabbering wreck right now," he added. "I need The Benz!'"

 

 

Now without The Benz, what's going on in the drawing board?

 

I hate being so negative, but most certainly than not we can say bye-bye to something similar to the original RDR physics and say hello again to the dumb ragdoll of GTA V.

 

 

 

Jesus,just imagine what it will be like when RDR2 feel completely like GTA V.

 

I mean COMPLETELY.

 

Same-y walking style,punching,shooting,dumbed down physics,weird rubberry looking characters and sh*t/That's gonna be pretty sad if it's true.

[Synthetic_Soul]

 

I'm not sure that makes any sense. Loads and loads of big name games have come out since GTA V and GTA Online is still going strong. To think merely releasing info about RDR2 would stop people from playing GTA online seems a bit silly.

 

Perhaps I chose the wrong words there, I didn't really mean they would get a substantial drop in recurrent players, at this point I think GTAO is something people will be playing for years and I think R* will continue to offer new updates even after RDR2s eventual release.

 

I guess what I was really trying to say, is more that; they want to keep the attention on GTAO now because that's is what is currently making them money via shark cards and what not, and they could be afraid that if they begin to shift the attention to RDR before the right time they could lose a lot of recurrent spending from those people who would rather save up their money for a few months and then just dive into the new game head first..

 

not to say that GTAO won't continue to make rediculous amounts of money in the years to come but at the same time we have to remember that Strauss and T2 also believe they "undermonitized" GTA and if they think like that then you can be damn sure they don't want any mistakes when it comes to getting as much money as possible.

[eastriver]

Is next week a possibility?

Any week is a possibility. But your guess is good as anyone elses.

Edited December 11, 2017 by IG_

[SeniorDerp]

Is next week a possibility?

 

The LA Niore special console pack sale thingy ends on Thursday, cross your eyes we could get something that afternoon

[PapasHota]

Nutduster how can you say RDR, Max Payne 3 gameplay wise are lacklusters?

[arno_cat]

I really really hope they don’t change the physics, I think they dumbed them down in GTA V because hardware limitations. Sadly they didn't fixed them in the next-gen / PC release...

[Big_Smiley]

I really really hope they dont change the physics, I think they dumbed them down in GTA V because hardware limitations. Sadly they didn't fixed them in the next-gen / PC release...

That's just R* being lazy monkeys. I said this before, how the hell can IV from 2008 have better physics quality than a game from 2013?? They just did V like that because as you said they didn't even bother changing them during next-gen. I swear they better have grate ones in RDR2. A game like that needs better work. It's only reason why i still have little resepect for R*. This gtaO trash needs to stop from them.

[Journey_95]

Saints Row gets too much sh8T.

For me,SR 2 had a better story line than any other GTA game.

 

Saints Row was a medicore GTA clone with the first two games and then became more fun and ridiculous, I definitely prefer SR3 and 4. The story in SR2 was pretty lackluster tbh, worse than most GTA games.

 

As long as the Saints Row bs stays in Online (which I think is sh*t anyway) I'm fine with it but I don't want GTA to go down that road.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Journey_95

[Journey_95]

 

 

 

This game is ultra beautiful,t the expense of interactivity with the world.

Ultra beautiful but generic story nothing to do in the game outside of the main story missions which arent that great to begin with

 

But the core mechanics of that game crush GTA and even RDR, which is why it's good (in addition to the beautiful graphics). The combat is very fun and the weapons are extremely different from each other, yet all equally useful depending on the scenario. Rockstar wishes they could build the foundation of their games half as well; most GTA games have had gunplay that is mediocre or worse, and RDR was satisfying mainly because of the slow mo feature. (And I have loved most Rockstar releases, but mechanically they have always been sloppy. For a big name developer they don't pay nearly enough attention to how their game plays and feels.)

Hzd was nothing special, the combat? Its only had a rolling mechanic and ability to shoot arrows. The game was super repetitive, the story was lackluster as hell and features seen aren't new and have been uses in games for years (hiding in tall weeds, climbing). There was nothing really over the top about it besides the enemies imo. The A.i, combat and story foundation were very simple, and compared to a R* open world is very bland.

 

Agreed, very overrated game. Got bored with it real quick, its the same old boring Ubisoft esque open world formula (a bit improved). The premise for the story was good but the dialogue was often horrible and overall it was cheesy af.

 

The open world was also generic, nothing really memorable & it lacked the detail of GTA IV, RDR and V

Edited December 12, 2017 by Journey_95

[arno_cat]

 

I really really hope they dont change the physics, I think they dumbed them down in GTA V because hardware limitations. Sadly they didn't fixed them in the next-gen / PC release...

That's just R* being lazy monkeys. I said this before, how the hell can IV from 2008 have better physics quality than a game from 2013?? They just did V like that because as you said they didn't even bother changing them during next-gen. I swear they better have grate ones in RDR2. A game like that needs better work. It's only reason why i still have little resepect for R*. This gtaO trash needs to stop from them.

 

To be fair GTA IV’s map and graphics were inferior to GTA V. My bet is that they had to cut AI and physics in order to have a bigger map and better graphics. But yeah they should have fixed it in the remasters...

[Jason]

Or maybe it was a design change (most likely, seeing as the engine wasn't downgraded). A whole lot of people hated IV's physics during it's life time, they probably started V's development with that in mind.

[DarthDrizzy]

 

I really really hope they dont change the physics, I think they dumbed them down in GTA V because hardware limitations. Sadly they didn't fixed them in the next-gen / PC release...

That's just R* being lazy monkeys. I said this before, how the hell can IV from 2008 have better physics quality than a game from 2013?? They just did V like that because as you said they didn't even bother changing them during next-gen. I swear they better have grate ones in RDR2. A game like that needs better work. It's only reason why i still have little resepect for R*. This gtaO trash needs to stop from them.

 

At the time GTA IV was constantly being hated on for its physics. The driving was criticized by pretty much every GTA player and many people didn't like how the character handled. It's only after GTA V that people have decided to look back on GTA IV more favorably. Rockstar isn't lazy, they just took your criticisms of the game to heart.

[Big_Smiley]

 

 

I really really hope they dont change the physics, I think they dumbed them down in GTA V because hardware limitations. Sadly they didn't fixed them in the next-gen / PC release...

That's just R* being lazy monkeys. I said this before, how the hell can IV from 2008 have better physics quality than a game from 2013?? They just did V like that because as you said they didn't even bother changing them during next-gen. I swear they better have grate ones in RDR2. A game like that needs better work. It's only reason why i still have little resepect for R*. This gtaO trash needs to stop from them.

 

To be fair GTA IVs map and graphics were inferior to GTA V. My bet is that they had to cut AI and physics in order to have a bigger map and better graphics. But yeah they should have fixed it in the remasters... Yeah grate point. Just looking at V's map detail R* probably had other things to worry about. I just hope they really step-up the quality in phyics in Red Dead that's all.