Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

DiEgOw_CrAzY

Petition about that epilogue missing hair style

Recommended Posts

Holphino
7 minutes ago, hellsoldier06 said:

I notice something !

John has his own beard and own growing beard system.

Everyone don't care of this, why they just don't get the damn hair with own style and growing system instead of the beard ?

If its work with the beard it should with the hair --'

Innapprehensible...

My theory is that Rockstar is just lazy. There are 7 levels of hair for each style, there are 10 styles in total. So that's about 70 hair models. Rockstar probably didn't want to make another 70 hair models(even though left parted is just a mirrored version of right parted, so it's actually more like 63 models). If that's the case I kinda understand it, but this game was in development for 8 years, so that's more than enough time to give John unique hair models for each style. Even if that theory is correct though, there's still no excuse to not include the hairstyle at all. They could have easily made it unlock after reaching level 7, or they could have made it level 8 for right parted(I know iv'e said this before, but it's really that simple of a fix). For his original hair not to be there at all, still baffles me to this day. As for the beard that was more or less a requirement for that to grow differently, considering the scars and everything. Since there's only around 10 different full beard models(not counting different mustache, chin, or sideburns styles) it would've been way easier to make John's beard grow differently, then to make John's hair grow differently. Like I said earlier though, this game was in development for 8 years, so no matter how you slice it, there's no excuse as to why John's original hairstyle is not an option, especially when you consider it was shown on playable John in the pre-release screenshots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
O.Z
2 hours ago, DiEgOw_CrAzY said:

They will, this happened with GTA 5 too and after a few months they fixed the downgrades

 

They will? You sound optimistic. I very highly doubt it mate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DiEgOw_CrAzY
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, O.Z said:

They will? You sound optimistic. I very highly doubt it mate

Bro, It's ALL over the media already. If they don't fix things might get even uglier to them. I'm pretty positive they will fix atleast the AO

Edited by DiEgOw_CrAzY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Red Hardbro
1 hour ago, DiEgOw_CrAzY said:

Bro, It's ALL over the media already. If they don't fix things might get even uglier to them. I'm pretty positive they will fix atleast the AO

What about John’s hair? 😏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daltontigerboy
Posted (edited)
On 2/26/2019 at 10:50 PM, daltontigerboy said:

The following post is regarding the alledged graphical downgrades to RDR2, relative to the unpatched 1.00 version of the game, and the 1.02 launch version of the game.

 

This has nothing to do with downgrades/fixes in regards to mechanics, glitches, exploits, clothing differences, or anything else. It is strictly regarding the subject of graphical downgrades. 

 

Hello. 

 

I havent posted on this forum in nearly 4 years. 

I am, however, a massive fan of GTA, RDR, and RockstarGames as a whole. 

 

Red Dead Redemption 2 is now my favorite game of all time - finally surpassing GTA IV - and exceeding my sky high expectations I had built up during the grueling 2 year wait from announcement to release. 

 

Naturally, as the avid fan that I am, I have become obsessed with the game since launch. In the last month, I have been absolutely enamored in this world as I work my way towards 100% completion. 

 

I’ve always been someone who loathes the concept of game developers downgrading their games (especially post-launch), and in the case of Rockstar, I’m doubly paranoid about the idea. 

 

As someone who recently converted their gaming library to digital, and who also enjoys playing Online, it’s now a little difficult for me to retain access to the original unpatched versions of games. 

 

Therefore, the downgrade-fearing side of me was never really activated, as my first experience with Red Dead Redemption 2 on October 26th, 2018 was based on patch 1.02, a point at which the game had already suffered the graphical cutbacks. (Of which I was unaware of at that time)

 

It was only recently (earlier this month to be exact), that I had become curious about these alledged downgrades, and wanted to see what 1.00 had to offer; but before doing that I needed to see if the game had been downgraded any since 1.02.

 

After spending hours (and I mean hours) of my time watching old recorded footage I had of 1.02, and comparing it to 1.05 in direct frame-by-frame scenes, I came to the conclusion that no downgrade had taken place between these versions.  I went back and played missions using the same time of day & weather, and switched back and forth between 1.02 footage and 1.05 gameplay in several scenes/locations to do this.

 

The only visual difference - noticeable to me anyway - between 1.02 and 1.05 is the lanterns in front of Worth’s general store are turned off at night (this change was introduced in patch 1.03).

 

_______________

 

I had stumbled across this post sometime earlier this month, displaying a CLEAR downgrade in ambient occlusion from the unpatched 1.00 version. 

This obviously bothered me - but not too much - since knowing that the visuals I saw on day one (1.02) matched the current visuals of the game at the time (1.05) after my lengthy personal investigation. 

 

The funny thing about that post, and the thread its within for that matter, is that these downgrades already took place before patch 1.03, yet it was only once 1.03 released that people began to notice. 

 

Once again, I went back and watched 1.02 footage of my own (and YouTube) to confirm this. The ambient occlusion had already been downgraded on 1.02. It’s obvious as soon as you step foot in a general store (ambient occlusion missing on all of the intricate products on the shelf).  Like I said earlier, the only major visual change between 1.02 and 1.03 is the Worth’s General Store lights were turned off. 

 

However, I was now morbidly curious about the extent of the downgrade from 1.00, so I went and bought a disc copy of RDR2. 

 

I needed to see what all I was missing out on in terms of graphics. Was 1.02 & onwards really that downgraded from the pure, untouched magic of 1.00?

 

Well, after a few days playing unpatched, the answer quickly became clear. 

 

Outside of the obvious downgrade to Ambient Occlusion, and a very slight reduction in sharpness on PS4 Pro, there is no difference in graphics between unpatched and the patched versions. 

 

I performed the same techniques I used previously to compare 1.00 to my footage/screenshots of patched versions. 

 

Here are the only visual differences I noticed after playing 1.00 for a few days, and comparing it to the patched versions (which are all the same visually). 

 

TL;DR

 

RDR2 1.00 PS4 Pro

• Ambient Occlusion much better noticeable mainly on NPCs, the Saint Denis tramway, and small items laying on a table

• Resolution appears very slightly sharper, but it’s only really noticeable on grass/foliage textures

• Lanterns in front of Worth’s general store are lit at night

• Frame-rate performance is worse, especially in towns it’s super noticeable

• Map is extremely jerky/glitchy; icons lag behind as you try to scroll the map

 

Thats really it. I was expecting more and I’m honestly happy it’s not as serious as I worried it would be. 

 

Other than the points I described above - in terms of purely GRAPHICAL differences between 1.00 and patched versions - the graphics are identical. Textures, lighting, effects, character models, etc, all appear identical. 

 

Those who are claim they are seeing downgrades every time a new patch comes out are suffering from a placebo.

This post I’m quoting here is a post I made back in February - in the “v1.00 Advantages?” thread. 

 

The reason I’m quoting it now, is to clear up some rather large misconceptions that have arisen in the last few days. 

 

Everyone is up in arms about the downgrade to AO, people posting those “1.00 vs 1.03” comparison images on Twitter and claiming Rockstar downgraded the graphics a month after launch - However, there is some misinformation with those images.

 

The downgrade was actually already done in patch 1.02, which is the version the game launched with. 1.02 was available weeks prior to the game’s launch, and is the version that most reviews and walkthroughs on YouTube were captured on. 

 

I did hours of research last month to figure this out.

 

Red Dead Redemption 2 launched with the downgraded Ambient Occlusion - but for some reason - nobody noticed until a month after release when someone here decided to compare 1.03 with the unpatched 1.00. 

  

The visuals you see in those comparison images labeled “1.03” are the exact same visuals as what the game launched with on 1.02. Here’s an easy way to find out -

 

You see the general store comparisons? How in the 1.00 version, every little item has a distinct AO shadow underneath it? 

 

Go back and watch ANY footage of General stores from when the game launched, you will see that the AO on these items matches the pictures labeled 1.03. 

 

The breadrolls laying on the plate have no shadows, that’s a dead giveaway. 

 

Watch a walkthrough from October 26th of the mission “Polite Society, Valentine Style” - it’s where you go into Valentine for the first time and into Worth’s general store with Uncle. You WILL notice that the AO had already been downgraded at launch. 

 

I just wanted to clear this up so nobody thinks Rockstar sneakily downgraded the game 1 month after launch, because they didn’t. 

 

The game had already been downgraded with 1.02, and most of the top reviewers played THAT version of the game, AND used footage of it for their review, because once again, 1.02 was released weeks prior to the game even launching. 

 

The version of Red Dead Redemption 2 you see in most reviews, walkthroughs, and the one you played/enjoyed back in October has not changed visually at all, it still looks the exact same as it does today in 1.06 (other than the lanterns in front of Worths General Store that were turned off in patch 1.03)

 

1.00 (unpatched) is the ONLY version sporting the better AO, and it’s highly likely most people here never played that version. 

 

Thats all I needed to say, thank you.

 

TL;DR: The AO was already downgraded by the time the game launched on October 26th, with version 1.02, a patch Rockstar released weeks before the game was officially out. 

 

The 1.00 vs 1.03 comparisons are false...well technically true because 1.03 did look like that, but those downgrades were already there (in 1.02), it’s just that nobody noticed them until 1.03 came out in late November.

Edited by daltontigerboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tobdog
9 minutes ago, daltontigerboy said:

This post I’m quoting here is a post I made back in February - in the “v1.00 Advantages?” thread. 

 

The reason I’m quoting it now, is to clear up some rather large misconceptions that have arisen in the last few days. 

 

Everyone is up in arms about the downgrade to AO, people posting those “1.00 vs 1.03” comparison images on Twitter and claiming Rockstar downgraded the graphics a month after launch - However, there is some misinformation with those images.

 

The downgrade was actually already done in patch 1.02, which is the version the game launched with. 1.02 was available weeks prior to the game’s launch, and is the version that most reviews and walkthroughs on YouTube were captured on. 

 

I did hours of research last month to figure this out.

 

Red Dead Redemption 2 launched with the downgraded Ambient Occlusion - but for some reason - nobody noticed until a month after release when someone here decided to compare 1.03 with the unpatched 1.00. 

  

The visuals you see in those comparison images labeled “1.03” are the exact same visuals as what the game launched with on 1.02. Here’s an easy way to find out -

 

You see the general store comparisons? How in the 1.00 version, every little item has a distinct AO shadow underneath it? 

 

Go back and watch ANY footage of General stores from when the game launched, you will see that the AO on these items matches the pictures labeled 1.03. 

 

The breadrolls laying on the plate have no shadows, that’s a dead giveaway. 

 

Watch a walkthrough from October 26th of the mission “Polite Society, Valentine Style” - it’s where you go into Valentine for the first time and into Worth’s general store with Uncle. You WILL notice that the AO had already been downgraded at launch. 

 

I just wanted to clear this up so nobody thinks Rockstar sneakily downgraded the game 1 month after launch, because they didn’t. 

 

The game had already been downgraded with 1.02, and most of the top reviewers played THAT version of the game, AND used footage of it for their review, because once again, 1.02 was released weeks prior to the game even launching. 

 

If the missing AO on the general store’s goods arent aren’t enough to convince you, find launch footage of the St Denis tramway, you’ll see the missing AO there as well. 

 

The version of Red Dead Redemption 2 you see in most reviews, walkthroughs, and the one you played/enjoyed back in October has not changed visually at all, it still looks the exact same as it does today in 1.06 (other than the lanterns in front of Worths General Store that were turned off in patch 1.03)

 

1.00 (unpatched) is the ONLY version sporting the better AO, and it’s highly likely most people here never played that version. 

 

Thats all I needed to say, thank you.

I'm pretty sure reviewers had exclusive 1.01 version with proper AO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John's haircut
8 minutes ago, daltontigerboy said:

This post I’m quoting here is a post I made back in February - in the “v1.00 Advantages?” thread. 

 

The reason I’m quoting it now, is to clear up some rather large misconceptions that have arisen in the last few days. 

 

Everyone is up in arms about the downgrade to AO, people posting those “1.00 vs 1.03” comparison images on Twitter and claiming Rockstar downgraded the graphics a month after launch - However, there is some misinformation with those images.

 

The downgrade was actually already done in patch 1.02, which is the version the game launched with. 1.02 was available weeks prior to the game’s launch, and is the version that most reviews and walkthroughs on YouTube were captured on. 

 

I did hours of research last month to figure this out.

 

Red Dead Redemption 2 launched with the downgraded Ambient Occlusion - but for some reason - nobody noticed until a month after release when someone here decided to compare 1.03 with the unpatched 1.00. 

  

The visuals you see in those comparison images labeled “1.03” are the exact same visuals as what the game launched with on 1.02. Here’s an easy way to find out -

 

You see the general store comparisons? How in the 1.00 version, every little item has a distinct AO shadow underneath it? 

 

Go back and watch ANY footage of General stores from when the game launched, you will see that the AO on these items matches the pictures labeled 1.03. 

 

The breadrolls laying on the plate have no shadows, that’s a dead giveaway. 

 

Watch a walkthrough from October 26th of the mission “Polite Society, Valentine Style” - it’s where you go into Valentine for the first time and into Worth’s general store with Uncle. You WILL notice that the AO had already been downgraded at launch. 

 

I just wanted to clear this up so nobody thinks Rockstar sneakily downgraded the game 1 month after launch, because they didn’t. 

 

The game had already been downgraded with 1.02, and most of the top reviewers played THAT version of the game, AND used footage of it for their review, because once again, 1.02 was released weeks prior to the game even launching. 

 

If the missing AO on the general store’s goods arent aren’t enough to convince you, find launch footage of the St Denis tramway, you’ll see the missing AO there as well. 

 

The version of Red Dead Redemption 2 you see in most reviews, walkthroughs, and the one you played/enjoyed back in October has not changed visually at all, it still looks the exact same as it does today in 1.06 (other than the lanterns in front of Worths General Store that were turned off in patch 1.03)

 

1.00 (unpatched) is the ONLY version sporting the better AO, and it’s highly likely most people here never played that version. 

 

Thats all I needed to say, thank you.

So I played the 1.00 version the first month of release or the downgraded one ? (physical version at launch day).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tobdog
Just now, John's haircut said:

So I played the 1.00 version the first month of release or the downgraded one ? (physical version at launch day).

If you had any 'patch' download then it was downgraded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daltontigerboy
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, John's haircut said:

So I played the 1.00 version the first month of release or the downgraded one ? (physical version at launch day).

Did you update the game when you stuck it in your PS4/XB1?

 

Becasuse if so, you played the downgraded AO version (1.02) on day 1. 

 

The ONLY version with the superior AO is unpatched disc with no update installed.

 

Most people never played that. And most reviews/walkthroughs never featured that version. (1.00)

 

The game looks exactly the same in 1.06 (current update) as it did at launch (1.02). 

 

There has been no graphical downgrade since launch - period. (Unless you count the Lanterns in front of Worths General store turning off as a downgrade, but that happened with 1.03 in late November)

Edited by daltontigerboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holphino
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, daltontigerboy said:

This post I’m quoting here is a post I made back in February - in the “Version 1.00 Advantages?” thread. 

 

The reason I’m quoting it now, is to clear up some rather large misconceptions that have arisen in the last few days. 

 

Everyone is up in arms about the downgrade to AO, people posting those “1.00 vs 1.03” comparison images on Twitter and claiming Rockstar downgraded the graphics a month after launch - However, there is some misinformation with those images.

 

The downgrade was already done in patch 1.02, which is the version the game launched with. 1.02 was available weeks prior to the game’s launch, and is the version that most reviews and walkthroughs on YouTube were captured on. 

 

I did hours of research last month to figure this out.

 

Red Dead Redemption 2 launched with the downgraded Ambient Occlusion - but for some reason - nobody noticed until a month after release when someone here decided to compare 1.03 with the unpatched 1.00. 

  

The visuals you see in those comparison images labeled “1.03” are the exact same visuals as what the game launched with on 1.02. Here’s an easy way to find out -

 

You see the general store comparisons? How in the 1.00 version, every little item has a distinct AO shadow underneath it? 

 

Go back and watch ANY footage of General stores from when the game launched, you will see that the AO on these items matches the pictures labeled 1.03. 

 

The breadrolls laying on the plate have no shadows, that’s a dead giveaway. 

 

Watch a walkthrough from October 26th of the mission “Polite Society, Valentine Style” - it’s where you go into Valentine for the first time and into Worth’s general store with Uncle. You WILL notice that the AO had already been downgraded at launch. 

 

I just wanted to clear this up so nobody thinks Rockstar sneakily downgraded the game 1 month after launch, because they didn’t. 

 

The game had already been downgraded with 1.02, and most of the top reviewers played THAT version of the game, AND used footage of it for their review, because once again, 1.02 was released weeks prior to the game even launching. 

 

If the missing AO on the general store’s goods arent aren’t enough to convince you, find launch footage of the St Denis tramway, you’ll see the missing AO there as well. 

 

The version of Red Dead Redemption 2 you see in most reviews, walkthroughs, and the one you played/enjoyed back in October has not changed visually at all, it still looks the exact same as it does today in 1.06 (other than the lanterns in front of Worths General Store that were turned off in patch 1.03)

 

1.00 (unpatched) is the ONLY version sporting the better AO, and it’s highly likely most of you never played that version. 

 

Thats all I needed to say, thank you.

Thanks for posting this, you have a lot of good points here. I do wanna say I was never to bothered by the fact that the graphics were downgraded. I've been playing 1.00 for a while now. Going from 1.06 to 1.00 is a pretty big leap, from everything iv'e seen personally. The 1.00 version is definitely better than the 1.06 version(other than the glitchy map, and the items stacking weirdly for the legend of the east satchel). My main concerns are the changes that the updates have done to John. Like making his gloves freakishly huge and less accurate to how they appear in RDR, changing his pants, and sometimes a random chin scar will appear on him. Those issues were not present in the 1.00 version, but they are present in the current patch.

Edited by Holphino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John's haircut
1 minute ago, daltontigerboy said:

Did you update the game when you stuck it in your PS4/XB1?

 

Becasuse if so, you played the downgraded AO version (1.02) on day 1. 

 

The ONLY version with the superior AO is unpatched disc with no update installed.

 

Most people never played that. And most reviews/walkthroughs never feature that version. 

Damn the game is the same since day one but I find it downgraded now ? Probably since they upgraded the online bc I remember the online looked like sh*t before idk what update and now its the contrary (imo).

I really should try the unpatched version. I was convinced I played on the 1.00 during the 1st month, how beautiful the game should be on that version I can't even imagine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daltontigerboy
Posted (edited)

I understand that this thread mostly pertains to issues with fat gloves, missing hairstyles, and other non-graphical related downgrades. 

 

I just needed to clear those things up, because I know YouTubers come here, see something, and make a video/tweet about it. 

 

Next thing you know you’ve got IGN (and the like) posting “Red Dead Redemption 2 Downgraded After Latest Patch?”

 

I chimed in tonight because I really don’t want to see that happen. The Single Player game has not been graphically downgraded AT ALL since weeks before launch with 1.02

 

And due to that fact, most people never noticed. People will suffer from placebo though - as soon as they read or watch a video with false information they will immediately start seeing downgrades that never happened. 

Edited by daltontigerboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holphino
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, daltontigerboy said:

I understand that this thread mostly pertains to issues with fat gloves, missing hairstyles, and other non-graphical related downgrades. 

 

I just needed to clear those things up, because I know YouTubers come here, see something, and make a video/tweet about it. 

 

Next thing you know you’ve got IGN (and the like) posting “Red Dead Redemption 2 Downgraded After Latest Patch?”

 

I chimed in tonight because I really don’t want to see that happen. The game has not been graphically downgraded AT ALL since weeks before launch with 1.02

 

And due to that fact, most people never noticed. People will suffer from placebo though - as soon as they read or watch a video with false information they will immediately start seeing downgrades that never happened. 

I understand where your coming from, I don't want people to criticize Rockstar for something they didn't do. You are technically right, when you look at 1.05 and then look at 1.06 there is graphically no difference between them, however if the articles are written with the correct information, like the downgrade from 1.00 to 1.06. I don't see any harm in that, considering they would be rightfully criticizing Rockstar for the right reasons. Because if you look at 1.00 and then look at 1.06 there is a pretty big difference with the AO, and various other non graphical related issues. 

Edited by Holphino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daltontigerboy
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Holphino said:

I understand where your coming from, I don't want people to criticize Rockstar for something they didn't do. You are technically right, when you look at 1.05 and then look at 1.06 there is graphically no difference between them, however if the articles are written with the correct information, like the downgrade from 1.00 to 1.06. I don't see any harm in that, considering they would be rightfully criticizing Rockstar for the right reasons. Because if you look at 1.00 and then look at 1.06 there is a pretty big difference with the AO, and various other non graphics related issues. 

Yes, if you look at 1.00 and then look at 1.06, the difference is there, the downgrade is certainly there. 

 

But my point is, that downgrade happened weeks before the game ever hit shelves. 

 

People need to to understand that. The game looks exactly the same today as it did on October 26th with the 1.02 update. 

 

There should not be a huge media outrage today over some “omg downgrade” - when the downgrade has existed since prior to October 26th, and all review footage (from what I’ve seen) is based on the downgraded version to begin with. 

 

Videos such as this one are spreading false information that’s going to draw a lot of attention

https://youtu.be/FqLpWU0OPaE

Edited by daltontigerboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holphino
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, daltontigerboy said:

Yes, if you look at 1.00 and then look at 1.06, the difference is there, the downgrade is certainly there. 

 

But my point is, that downgrade happened weeks before the game ever hit shelves. 

 

People need to to understand that. The game looks exactly the same today as it did on October 26th with the 1.02 update. 

 

There should not be a huge media outrage today over some “omg downgrade” - when the downgrade has existed since prior to October 26th, and all review footage (from what I’ve seen) is based on the downgraded version to begin with. 

That's something I can agree with, if people wanted to get outraged over this issue, they should have done it a while ago. It's a bit late to complain about the issue, when the game has been like this for months. The other more cynical side of me though, says it will be a good thing for Rockstar to be criticized for once. I want to clarify once again though, that I only want Rockstar criticized for the things they actually did. Like the downgraded AO from 1.00 to 1.06, the change of John's gloves, John's weird randomly appearing chin scar, and of course the lack of an option for John's original hairstyle.

Edited by Holphino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
daltontigerboy
3 minutes ago, Holphino said:

That's something I can agree with, if people wanted to get outraged over this issue, they should have done it a while ago. It's a bit late to complain about the issue, when the game has been like this for months. The other more cynical side of me though, says it will be a good thing for Rockstar to be criticized for once. I want to clarify once again though, that I only want Rockstar criticized for the things they actually did. Like the downgraded tAO from 1.00 to 1.06, the change of John's gloves, John's weird randomly appearing chin scar, and of course the lack of an option for John's original hairstyle.

Absolutely, I’m 100% with you. 

 

These fat gloves bother me to no end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hetraet

There are even articles about the downgrade in Czech rep.

Gj @Darealbandicoot

Do you guys think media could care about the false advertisement of JM? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DiEgOw_CrAzY
Posted (edited)

I don't think It's wrong to complain about the missing AO, even though some of us were wrong to think It was there in 1.02 but If It were in 1.00 we can and we have to complain. The problem with Rockstar is that everytime someone complains about them in some way, everyone will always back them up, but we have to fight against this kind of stuff. That's false advertisement. When Ubisoft and EA dawngraded their games, everyone went full rage on them. EA Stills the same but Ubisoft is trying to change and this is what I want from Rockstar. I don't want them to become another EA but they are Full speed this way. The articles are comparing the 1.00 with the 1.06 so they aren't wrong, but sometimes they say It was a 1.06 thing to remove AO. Still, this brothers me a Lot less than John's missing hair, missing clothes and changed to his gloves and pants, but we can't say that is wrong to complain about Rockstar, since It harm all of us consumers

1 hour ago, Hetraet said:

There are even articles about the downgrade in Czech rep.

Gj @Darealbandicoot

Do you guys think media could care about the false advertisement of JM? 

I wish they would, bro

5 hours ago, Red Hardbro said:

What about John’s hair? 😏

I really wish this could bring media attention on false advertisement by Rockstar

Edited by DiEgOw_CrAzY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hellsoldier06

When we think about it, indeed, this is false advertising 😫

Just because of it, they should bring the hair on game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tobdog
13 minutes ago, hellsoldier06 said:

When we think about it, indeed, this is false advertising 😫

Just because of it, they should bring the hair on game.

They call it 'design choice' so it's super unlikely sadly. But they might 'fix' the graphics issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darealbandicoot
4 hours ago, daltontigerboy said:

Yes, if you look at 1.00 and then look at 1.06, the difference is there, the downgrade is certainly there. 

 

But my point is, that downgrade happened weeks before the game ever hit shelves. 

 

People need to to understand that. The game looks exactly the same today as it did on October 26th with the 1.02 update. 

 

There should not be a huge media outrage today over some “omg downgrade” - when the downgrade has existed since prior to October 26th, and all review footage (from what I’ve seen) is based on the downgraded version to begin with. 

 

Videos such as this one are spreading false information that’s going to draw a lot of attention

https://youtu.be/FqLpWU0OPaE

Reviewers who opted to get the game via code got patch 1.01 AFAIK 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ripvanwinkle

There's an update for RDR2. 

Around 1115.2 MB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
happygrowls
2 minutes ago, ripvanwinkle said:

There's an update for RDR2. 

Around 1115.2 MB

jSCtMq1.png

 

inb4 no hair

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JMarston
Posted (edited)

929803.jpg👀

Edited by JMarston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darealbandicoot

Holy sh*t.... Version 1.07.....Let us all pray to Rob Whitoff that Arthur Marston will be forever banished today. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ripvanwinkle

Guys I'm on 35%. Xbox One. I'll keep you posted.

55%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darealbandicoot

Nothing..... Just fixes and drip feed items for Red Dead Online... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ripvanwinkle
Just now, Darealbandicoot said:

Nothing..... Just fixes and drip feed items for Red Dead Online... 

Damn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DiEgOw_CrAzY
Posted (edited)

So still no AO fix then?

12 minutes ago, JMarston said:

929803.jpg👀

Goddamn, this makes me so sad

Edited by DiEgOw_CrAzY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hetraet

f*ck. 

So you guys have the update? There might be something new for singleplayer... Please

The way R* are heading is beyond annoying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 5 Users Currently Viewing
    2 members, 0 Anonymous, 3 Guests

    • streaz
    • DiEgOw_CrAzY
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.