Red Dead Online: Discussion & Speculation

[Zello]

What about face scans?

[MCMXCII]

What about face scans?

Those always cause some very comical results.

[Modojo]

I hope there's more variety of what path we choose for our MP character. It would be nice if they implemented roles to become either an outlaw or sheriff. As for game modes, I really hope they don't milk it and turn them into rehashed adversary modes like GTA V.

[Reno_]

I like the properties you are able to buy in GTA online. I can only imagine how good would properties in red dead online be. Some in the snowy forest/mountains area, some down in the bayou and so on.

[TheWordIsMarc_HD]

What about face scans?

I've got to first disagree with face scanning. It's a bane of sculpture systems everywhere. Makes devs lazy, Look at NBA 2K this year.

 

 

Going into the Online speculation.

 

First off, Creation system. I feel they could re render the parental system from gtao if they wise. They could include Red Harlow as a father option.

 

Even if they do, They need a bigger and better option when it comes to changing facial features etc.

 

Additionally body type.. Even if it's a scale from stick to muscle to chubby. I'm fine with that.

 

Clothing wise they can go deep into the different ranges of clothing of the West. Im not feeling very expensive on that right now I'll come back at some point

 

Barber cuts can be shaved, different levels of stubble from shade to thicker. The gun singers slick designs and different ranges of beards.

 

Medical should also be included with the Barber stock but if anything it'll be an apple in the corner store that'll save your life.

 

Like stores, should be possible to steal from but being in small communities they should cause quite an uproar.

 

Saloons. Drink. Gambling. Women. And the occasional fight and duel challenge.

 

I'd imagine they introduce free roam real time activities like gang attacks at a fort etc. Robberies of trains.

 

Mission wise I would expect alot more free roam but I'd imagine there could possibly be set missions in a organised setting.

 

They need to take the original posse setting and take the Ceo and MC options from GTAO and go ahead and include Gangs and Pinkertons or similar.

 

Colt Peacemakers 1873

Deringer

Colt Pocket Double Action

Gattling Model 1861

Metropolitan Navy Model 1864

Sharps Model 1867 (Carbine)

Spencer Rifle / Carbine

Webley Bull Dog

Winchester Model 1866

Winchester Model 1873

Winchester Model 1876

Winchester Model 1892 (Time Depending)

Bow and Arrows

Lancets

Spears

Knives

Pipe Tomahawk

War Hatchet

Gunstock War Club

Stone Club

Wooden Club

 

The ability to customise parts. For example search =

*Andersons Big Iron 44. Replica.

And I mean all guns and weapons w/Limitations like GTAO.

 

Stables / Where you can buy Horses, Break in Wild Horses for Cash and Leaderboard, And if you leave your horse somewhere abandoned maybe his took to the stables. Like your car gets took by the cops in GTA. And / Or Horse custom work like new horse shoes, saddles, carriage customisation, war paint.

 

Stores / You can buy and sell goods.

 

Trains which you can steal goods from.

 

Territory attacks similar to gta.

 

Saloons & Mini Games, Ladies of the night day whenever. Maybe show girls.

 

Tailors for clothing

 

Barbers & Medical for Hair Cuts and Medical Supplies

 

Tattoos possibly..

 

I don't really put too much as most of that is probably bit going to be considered but.. Parts I can think of.

[Mister Pink]

If I get a whiff of micro-transactions this is a second-hand buy for me. I wont support them or a game that peddles them. It's frustrating because RDR2 is shaping up to be a really amazing title. I'll sacrifice playing a game early instead. It balances it out for me. If you want to put your little marketplace digital retail unit in my videogame that I all ready purchased so things that I should be able to win by playing the game, not grinding then, I'll feel more comfortable buying the game on the second hand market from someone else.

 

If you want to sell me sizable DLC 6 months to a year after the initial release. Great man. Show me what you got and If it's good, 'll gladly support it and buy it. If that's great, I'll even buy more DLC. And I'll champion it. I'll tell my friends how great it. Everyone is a winner. But if you're paying to win because you can't be bothered playing the game or the prices in game are too high, it's the developers fault. And if you buy in-game currency with real currency. You're a part of the problem.

 

RDR2 Online, for me would be great if we all have the same opportunity to earn our place. I don't enjoy playing GTA Online knowing that some mongo bought his garage of cars with real cash. If we're in "pursuit of the almighty dollar" which could be Rockstar's new Shark Card slogan "pursuit of your dollar" and everyone is in competition with each other. What's the point when people spend real cash for nice things in the game? It undermines the whole economy? It's like saying your great at bowling but use lane-helper thingys. I can't have an immersive feeling in GTA Online when Cody Fiddledick has spent a few hundred quid on all his in-game possessions when Gary Gamer is grinding to get a sports car. The illusion of some empire-building, game; pursuit of the almighty dollar is shattered. It's shot itself in the foot for a quick buck. It's cheap and exploitative to sell out the potential immersive quality of a game to make a quick buck.

 

It's like paying in to college. When you get to your biology class the professor tries to sell you the premium lesson.If you don't buy it will take you twice as long to graduate. You've all ready bought the college entrance fee but now you're been shaken down for more, once inside. Microtransactions in GTA V are like Dave bragging about sleeping with 2 beautiful women in one week. And then you think "wow, Dave must be a ladies' man!" But then you realize Dave paid to be with two prostitutes. It's not like he charmed 2 beautiful women with his silver tongue and devilishly handsome good looks. No. He just paid for them. You can hardly praise Dave for being a stud. Nope just a guy with a credit card.

 

So in RDR2, I dream of a game that isn't contaminated by micro-transactions. If there's some empire building element where you can own farms, ranches etc. Own a stable of horses, unique cabins, homes with poker facilities, unique clothing, unique horses etc. I hope the guy with the best horse and best outfit got it because he's played the game like everyone else. Not because he's a Dave and couldn't be bothered putting in the work. Realistic pricing in the game has be there too in order for this to work.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Mister Pink

[Hunter S. Compton]

The main reason I'm holding out hope for future support of single player RDR2 is that I genuinely can't see the people who like GTA Online finding the same appeal from RDR2. GTA Online has been so popular because it has become a realm of intense fantasy, a bunch of hypebeasts jousting with fighter jets and jumping out with an american flag parachute streaming neon pink smoke and firing rocket launchers at each other. GTA Online is based in a culture of excess and extremes, and I don't think that would be viable in RDR2's world. All the 13 year olds will lose interest when they cant shoot their friends with gold plated deagles, and the meek shall inherit the DLC.

[J.Dillinger Blackheart]

I cant wait for RDO,

 

I hope there's more variety of what path we choose for our MP character. It would be nice if they implemented roles to become either an outlaw or sheriff. As for game modes, I really hope they don't milk it and turn them into rehashed adversary modes like GTA V.

YESSS! think something like factions would be dope for RDO, where you can choose whether you want to be a sherrif, outlaw, rustler or native american etc. Though i'm intrigued by the story of the game, im beyond excited about RDO. GTAO was absolutely fun af the first 2 years then it slowly became repetitive and dull with the focus being on only vehicles.

[Spider-Vice]

That was the original idea of GTA Online as mentioned before, wouldn't be surprised if they went back and repurposed it.

[Mister Pink]

The main reason I'm holding out hope for future support of single player RDR2 is that I genuinely can't see the people who like GTA Online finding the same appeal from RDR2. GTA Online has been so popular because it has become a realm of intense fantasy, a bunch of hypebeasts jousting with fighter jets and jumping out with an american flag parachute streaming neon pink smoke and firing rocket launchers at each other. GTA Online is based in a culture of excess and extremes, and I don't think that would be viable in RDR2's world. All the 13 year olds will lose interest when they cant shoot their friends with gold plated deagles, and the meek shall inherit the DLC.

 

I think you may hav a good point there, Mr. Duke.

 

@Spider: That was the idea for GTAO? Think I heard that before. Is there an article or video on that subject?

 

Yeah I like that idea. It has a role-playing element to it. You play a role and fit in with the world.

[Spider-Vice]

 

The main reason I'm holding out hope for future support of single player RDR2 is that I genuinely can't see the people who like GTA Online finding the same appeal from RDR2. GTA Online has been so popular because it has become a realm of intense fantasy, a bunch of hypebeasts jousting with fighter jets and jumping out with an american flag parachute streaming neon pink smoke and firing rocket launchers at each other. GTA Online is based in a culture of excess and extremes, and I don't think that would be viable in RDR2's world. All the 13 year olds will lose interest when they cant shoot their friends with gold plated deagles, and the meek shall inherit the DLC.

 

I think you may hav a good point there, Mr. Duke.

 

@Spider: That was the idea for GTAO? Think I heard that before. Is there an article or video on that subject?

 

Yeah I like that idea. It has a role-playing element to it. You play a role and fit in with the world.

 

Uhh, no, not really unfortunately. It was a bunch of findings that had a lot of buzz in the GTA V Beta Hunt thread and are still discussed from time to time. Best to search for "cops & crooks" in that thread here: http://gtaforums.com/topic/678397-the-gta-v-beta-hunt/

 

Basically involves A LOT of leftovers in game files, and an artist's portfolio that had the UI for that version of GTA Online. And, of course, the famous QA log.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Spider-Vice

[Hunter S. Compton]

What concerns me about the idea of rigid factions like that is that I feel like you run the risk of one side outpopulating the other. Unlike like a game such as For Honor, as an example, in which there is essentially no difference between groups, a distinction like cops and robbers suggest different limitations and behaviors within the game, as well as different roles in game modes. Because of this, and given that the game is about you playing an outlaw in the old west, I worry that the criminal end would be overpopulated, which would significantly complicate matchmaking (trying to pair 1,000,000 outlaws with only 600,000 marshalls, for instance). I expect this is a possible reason they abandoned it in GTAV. In a dog eat dog, outlaw vs outlaw world, however, everyone is on the same footing and can be shuffled around in whatever ways deemed neccessary

Edited October 7, 2017 by Hunter S. Compton

[DexMacLeod]

What concerns me about the idea of rigid factions like that is that I feel like you run the risk of one side outpopulating the other. Unlike like a game such as For Honor, as an example, in which there is essentially no difference between groups, a distinction like cops and robbers suggest different limitations and behaviors within the game, as well as different roles in game modes. Because of this, and given that the game is about you playing an outlaw in the old west, I worry that the criminal end would be overpopulated, which would significantly complicate matchmaking. I expect this is a possible reason they abandoned it in GTAV. In a dog eat dog, outlaw vs outlaw world, however, everyone is on the same footing and can be shuffled around in whatever ways deemed neccessary

Yeah, GTA Online already has this problem with the team adversary modes and it's not fun. I tried playing a few rounds of the new "capture the flag with planes" mode the other day and the teams always ended up with like 2 vs 2 vs 1 vs 8. I can't image how awful it would be if Free roam were like that.

 

I also just don't like the idea of playing as the law in a Rockstar Online free roam session. All the activities I can imagine them having you do would strongly resemble what most people call griefing in GTA Online.

[J.Dillinger Blackheart]

Thats maybe the reason they cut it from GTAO. Personally this is R*, if done right with balancing being the focus first..i think it could work imo. How would you like to see things go? To be just like GTAO? Where we would have to pay to become a Native American or outlaw? In a "western" game?

[Spider-Vice]

They developed it a LOT before completely cutting it off and rebasing it into GTA Online, I feel like something like this would've been thought of in the very initial design phase.

[Zello]

I'd like to be able to join factions but what if after playing for a long time as an outlaw you want to experience the other side of the law as a Marshall the problem would be that you'd have to start all over and with microtransactions involved it'd be worse.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Zello

[J.Dillinger Blackheart]

That would be f*ckin ridiculous, microtransactions to start over in a different faction? I would definitely hate spam them for some sh*t like that. But if there are underlined goals and different paths you can choose depending on your actions with each respected faction? I wouldn't mind starting over. It would add alot of replay ability as well.

[Johnson Johnson]

Kill and burn GTAOnline

[Hunter S. Compton]

They developed it a LOT before completely cutting it off and rebasing it into GTA Online, I feel like something like this would've been thought of in the very initial design phase.

Given that you seem to be a lot more familiar with this than I am, why is it that you think they ended up cutting it in the end? If not behavior limitations and matchmaking?

[Spider-Vice]

I assume a change of design direction mid-development to the current state of GTA Online. From what we could see in the build log and in findings in the beta thread (linked in my previous post), we were still going to have Freemode, but it didn't seem to be as ridiculously based in Jobs/Adversary Modes/whatever the hell as it is now, because it seemed the bulk of everything was in Freemode and with everything you could do different in every faction (cops arresting crooks and gangs, etc). It just looked like GTA IV's freemode on steroids.

[Hunter S. Compton]

GTA IV multiplayer was the absolute business. I like jobs as a concept for multiplayer progression, but the other side of that coin was that it felt like there was literally nothing to do besides shoot cops in the actual overworld. Lol I guess you could say the same thing about the base game unless you actually enjoy doing tennis or yoga.

[Mr. Jabe]

I think the main problem with GTA Online is that it incorporates two major game designs that directly compete against/contradict each other. On the one hand you've got the freedom and chaos of the sandbox design that GTA has made its name off of, and which encourages the player to go up against others just because they can. GTA just wouldn't be GTA without allowing for this and any attempt to try and curb this (such as with money-loss penalties) just come across as half-hearted. GTA IV completely embraced this inevitability, dropping everyone into a quite literal sandbox whereby everyone starts off on a level-footing but can move their way around the sandbox in order to obtain better weapons/vehicles etc.

 

GTA Online has tried to have its cake and eat it by implementing an objective-based progression system within the very same free-roam mode that still allows for/encourages PvP combat. They're two systems that just cannot live alongside of each other; it's expecting people of as little as twelve years-old to behave themselves in the exact place they come not to do so. This schizophrenic nature of the game has become especially egregious since the business/buying-and-selling DLCs; the game on the one hand encouraging people to invest 'money' and complete these objective-based missions within the open world whilst simultaneously encouraging other plays to sabotage this.

 

Now you can make the argument that Rockstar have done this purposefully as a way of making people lose their in-game money through investing in missions that then go on to be sabotaged by other players. This of course encourages players down the easy route of Shark Cards! Whether or not this is the case I think that, no matter how Rockstar would try and implement these two systems together, it would inevitably end in the same chaotic/destructive outcome whether they actively encouraged it or not!!

 

The main saving grace for something like Red Dead Online would be its more subdued and dispersed nature. The fact that a player couldn't just spend money on something like an attack chopper to get across the map in 2 minutes and rain missiles down on another player trying to ride their wagon full of stolen moonshine across a rocky road is an immediate improvement in terms of creating a more face-to-face, level playing field!! Even so, I think it's just immensely difficult to find the balance in terms of creating an online free-roam mode that encourages objective-based play within it whilst accommodating PvP that's not necessarily linked to those objectives. It's why nearly all games inevitably end up sectioning off their PvP and PvE modes; game modes need clear rules and certainties about what players can and and can't do within them. That's why races/adversary/heists have become the most popular modes in GTA Online. But when you embrace and promote those elements of the game more, such as Rockstar have done, you end up with a game that is basically at once a glorified third-person shooter, and at second a glorified racing game....

 

TL;DR - I think that trying to create an online free-roam game with any sort of complexity beyond "kill or be killed" is inherently problematic and I struggle to see Rockstar finding a satisfying route around that!!

[Hunter S. Compton]

 

The main saving grace for something like Red Dead Online would be its more subdued and dispersed nature. The fact that a player couldn't just spend money on something like an attack chopper to get across the map in 2 minutes and rain missiles down on another player trying to ride their wagon full of stolen moonshine across a rocky road is an immediate improvement in terms of creating a more face-to-face, level playing field!! Even so, I think it's just immensely difficult to find the balance in terms of creating an online free-roam mode that encourages objective-based play within it whilst accommodating PvP that's not necessarily linked to those objectives. It's why nearly all games inevitably end up sectioning off their PvP and PvE modes; game modes need clear rules and certainties about what players can and and can't do within them. That's why races/adversary/heists have become the most popular modes in GTA Online. But when you embrace and promote those elements of the game more, such as Rockstar have done, you end up with a game that is basically at once a glorified third-person shooter, and at second a glorified racing game....

 

TL;DR - I think that trying to create an online free-roam game with any sort of complexity beyond "kill or be killed" is inherently problematic and I struggle to see Rockstar finding a satisfying route around that!!

inb4 you can buy an armored stagecoach with a gatling gun

 

I think a possible viable route would simply be to have different servers for different styles of play? Or at least ones that were dedicated to GTA IV style free-roam-with-other-players gameplay. But I agree with your post all the way. It's very difficult to have progressive open world multiplayer with constant pvp

Edited October 8, 2017 by Hunter S. Compton

[tonko]

We all know that guy and his voice. He adds something to the general atmosphere.

 

I personally would like to hear him again.

 

"They have your bag", "Miners win. Dutch's gang win", "You have their bag", "Marshals vs Dutch's gang. Prepare yourself. Draw! Congratulations, your whole gang survived.", "Keep an eye on the clock".

Edited October 10, 2017 by tonko

[rtie]

Here's hoping they don't bring the explosive rifle as a purchasable weapon, but rather something you pick up after a gang attack like RDR or just get rid of it altogether.

[Hunter S. Compton]

Hey since everyone is so concerned about pay-to-win and microtransactions in the model of GTAO, I was wondering what sort of things you all think would be available that would throw off pvp balance. I'm not trying to create hysteria, I just think it would be fun to talk about. Like getting an armored stagecoach with a seat for a cannon and one for a gatling gun. Plus automobile assembly lines were running in America as early as 1901... Harley davidson, Triumph, and Indian were all producing american motorcycles by 1905.... makes you think.....................................................................................

[Hunter S. Compton]

I think the main problem with GTA Online is that it incorporates two major game designs that directly compete against/contradict each other. On the one hand you've got the freedom and chaos of the sandbox design that GTA has made its name off of, and which encourages the player to go up against others just because they can. GTA just wouldn't be GTA without allowing for this and any attempt to try and curb this (such as with money-loss penalties) just come across as half-hearted. GTA IV completely embraced this inevitability, dropping everyone into a quite literal sandbox whereby everyone starts off on a level-footing but can move their way around the sandbox in order to obtain better weapons/vehicles etc.

 

 

TL;DR - I think that trying to create an online free-roam game with any sort of complexity beyond "kill or be killed" is inherently problematic and I struggle to see Rockstar finding a satisfying route around that!!

Was reading this post again, because I really liked it, and I really think this is a possibility. I wouldn't have said so a few years ago but the rise of Battle Royale as a genre such as PUBG has definitely made this a more viable model for online play.

[Mr. Jabe]

 

I think the main problem with GTA Online is that it incorporates two major game designs that directly compete against/contradict each other. On the one hand you've got the freedom and chaos of the sandbox design that GTA has made its name off of, and which encourages the player to go up against others just because they can. GTA just wouldn't be GTA without allowing for this and any attempt to try and curb this (such as with money-loss penalties) just come across as half-hearted. GTA IV completely embraced this inevitability, dropping everyone into a quite literal sandbox whereby everyone starts off on a level-footing but can move their way around the sandbox in order to obtain better weapons/vehicles etc.

 

 

TL;DR - I think that trying to create an online free-roam game with any sort of complexity beyond "kill or be killed" is inherently problematic and I struggle to see Rockstar finding a satisfying route around that!!

Was reading this post again, because I really liked it, and I really think this is a possibility. I wouldn't have said so a few years ago but the rise of Battle Royale as a genre such as PUBG has definitely made this a more viable model for online play.

 

 

I think it's a real likelihood that Red Dead Online will incorporate something BR-esque. It just seems like the genre is too popular and Red Dead is too suited to that style for Rockstar not to try and capitalise on it somehow. Foraging for plants that give different offensive, defensive or survival capabilities; killing and skinning certain animals to craft with their materials to make more protective outfits or gun holsters that allow you to carry more weapons; having to know the map so you know where to find these things. Having dynamic events where a stagecoach gets marked on the map and you have to fight first against the NPCs to loot it whilst being aware that their may be someone waiting in the trees to kill you after you've done all the dirty work. Just seems ready made for something like that...

 

Having said that though, I really only see something like that being included as a deathmatch mode on the side. The GTA Online style of multiplayer is just too profitable for that not to take precedent. As I said before, a lot of elements of RDR are more suited to it than GTA; being able to form clear posses as well as everyone being on a more level-playing field (literally). The one thing I think could work really well from GTA Online is those free-mode events - a train being highlighted on the map that rival posses or individuals can choose to compete against robbing. Maybe have a fort that's guarded so heavily by NPCs but contains such a big reward that if forces people in a lobby to come and fight together. That type of dynamism as well as more organically rewarding players for cooperation (even if that means groups fighting against each other rather chaotic free-for-alls) could have potential for a much more compelling free-roam MP experience.

 

Edit: But, of course, any aspect only gets integrated so far as it doesn't negatively affect the game's ability to drive revenue, such is how many decisions about MP modes are unfortunately made these days.

Edited October 11, 2017 by Mr. Jabe

[Gray-Hand]

Hey since everyone is so concerned about pay-to-win and microtransactions in the model of GTAO, I was wondering what sort of things you all think would be available that would throw off pvp balance. I'm not trying to create hysteria, I just think it would be fun to talk about. Like getting an armored stagecoach with a seat for a cannon and one for a gatling gun. Plus automobile assembly lines were running in America as early as 1901... Harley davidson, Triumph, and Indian were all producing american motorcycles by 1905.... makes you think.....................................................................................

19th century Australian bushranger plate armour like what the Kelly gang wore would be era appropriate op equipment:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ned_Kelly

[greenrock]

So do you guys think the structure for the online will be different from GTAO?