Is Red Dead Redemption 2 R*'s Magnum Opus?

[RyuNova]

Or is that still San Andreas?

[Darealbandicoot]

That's a good question. If RDR2 was a LITTLE bit less clunky and wasn't downgraded, it would be very close with San Andreas in my opinion. 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Darealbandicoot

[RyuNova]

5 minutes ago, Darealbandicoot said:

That's a good question. If RDR2 was a LITTLE bit less clunky and wasn't downgraded, it would be very close with San Andreas in my opinion. 

 

I compare the two because both SA and RDR2 are R* showing off. They are the top of their game and they added stuff just for the sake of adding stuff and made utterly fantastic games.

[Jabalous]

As an overall package and how unique and revolutionary each experience is/was for its respective time, no, San Andreas is the pinnacle and likely will remain so. One primary reason is that nowadays a good number of open-world games exist with their unique presentation and features, and with impressive maps. That wasn't the case in 2004 even by R*'s standards. SA was truly something else for its time, an experience that wasn't expected. 

[Jimbatron]

In terms of the story, plot and character development I would say yes. There are so many varied and interesting personalities in the gang, it blows most TV series and movies clean out of the water.

 

As an overall game it’s very hard to compare R* productions from different eras.

[mde2]

No RDR2 isn't R*'s magnum opus. Sure it pushed the boundaries for what an open world game could do technically but is it revolutionary? No.

I'm not sure why you're suggesting that it's only between GTA:SA and this game. Are you forgetting that GTA 3 was the game that:
- Put R* North on the map as a big player in the triple A video games market

- Revolutionized contemporary open world games.

- Was the foundation for literally every single game R* has ever put out post-2001 and the foundation for many other open-world games.

 

I don't think San Andreas was particularly revolutionary, it just took what it had and turned it up to 100%. Same thing with RDR2.

[RyuNova]

17 minutes ago, mde2 said:

No RDR2 isn't R*'s magnum opus. Sure it pushed the boundaries for what an open world game could do technically but is it revolutionary? No.

I'm not sure why you're suggesting that it's only between GTA:SA and this game. Are you forgetting that GTA 3 was the game that:
- Put R* North on the map as a big player in the triple A video games market

- Revolutionized contemporary open world games.

- Was the foundation for literally every single game R* has ever put out post-2001 and the foundation for many other open-world games.

 

I don't think San Andreas was particularly revolutionary, it just took what it had and turned it up to 100%. Same thing with RDR2.

 

With respect, I don't think you understand what a Magnum Opus is.

A Magnum Opus is that artists Masterpiece. The finest example of their craft humanity has ever seen. We are not asking what put R* on the map but what is the finest example of their word to ever grace our consoles...San Andreas or Red Dead Redemption 2?

[RJX74]

4 hours ago, Darealbandicoot said:

That's a good question. If RDR2 was a LITTLE bit less clunky and wasn't downgraded, it would be very close with San Andreas in my opinion. 

Pretty much this. Though San Andreas still had more features (customization) and didn't have 1/5 of the map as useless.

[Ma-mothers-Ma-Sister]

San Andreas is still the most ambitious open world I’ve played because at the time it felt so unreal the map is absolutely massive still to this day most open world games don’t have the map size of SA.

[Tonesta]

6 hours ago, RyuNova said:

 

With respect, I don't think you understand what a Magnum Opus is.

A Magnum Opus is that artists Masterpiece. The finest example of their craft humanity has ever seen. We are not asking what put R* on the map but what is the finest example of their word to ever grace our consoles...San Andreas or Red Dead Redemption 2?

Well sure - but if you're ignoring how influential the game is and just considering the game purely on the basis of quality - if you compare them side-to-side without consideration for the technical limits when they were made - RDR2 is a better game than San Andreas on almost every measurable metric.

 

Its map is vastly more detailed and more interactive; its gameplay, though it has its challenges, is much deeper and more flexible than San Andreas (which is frankly extremely clunky when compared to games of today - to the extent that I can't really play it any more); the graphics are obviously not comparable; RDR2 also has a tonne more scripted content than SA. The only metrics where SA is even in the conversation, really, are story and variety/range of activities.

 

There's certainly an argument to be had about which game is the best compared to its peers at the time it was released. But that's no closer to the real meaning of Magnum Opus than mde2's response.

 

 

[Jimbatron]

12 minutes ago, Tonesta said:

Well sure - but if you're ignoring how influential the game is and just considering the game purely on the basis of quality - if you compare them side-to-side without consideration for the technical limits when they were made - RDR2 is a better game than San Andreas on almost every measurable metric.

 

Its map is vastly more detailed and more interactive; its gameplay, though it has its challenges, is much deeper and more flexible than San Andreas (which is frankly extremely clunky when compared to games of today - to the extent that I can't really play it any more); the graphics are obviously not comparable; RDR2 also has a tonne more scripted content than SA. The only metrics where SA is even in the conversation, really, are story and variety/range of activities.

 

There's certainly an argument to be had about which game is the best compared to its peers at the time it was released. But that's no closer to the real meaning of Magnum Opus than mde2's response.

 

 

It's an intelligent point. As I mentioned above, it's incredibly difficult to compare games from different eras. It's difficult for older games to match the more recent editions technically, but then again, newer games find it harder to be revolutionary. If they are in the same software house, then almost inevitably, they are an evolution. Still, I kind of get RyuNova's perspective, without speaking for him I assumed he was meaning his strict definition of Magnum Opus  was "what would get critical acclaim in many years time, in its own right", not what necessarily was deemed to be a bigger step forward from a lower benchmark (because in the past, the benchmark was lower, de facto).

 

Then there's another problem if you pick a commercial benchmark. By that metric GTA V wins hands down currently. But, whilst it's a point of debate, I know a lot of SP fans would disagree vehemently if that was regarded as R*'s Magnum Opus.

 

As above though, simply for a single player story, RDR 2 is something else IMHO. And plot is something you can compare across time. I have high expectations for any R* title, and RDR 2 really did emphatically exceed them. I remember stating myself before it was unveiled that I would have preferred it not to be a prequel based on Dutch's gang (can go into why I felt that way at the time but it's a longer digression), but I've never been more happy to be proved wrong and change my mind as far as a work of fiction goes.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2019 by Jimbatron

[MVP]

GTA: San Andreas (Best of the 3D Era)

 

Red Dead Redemption (A work of art)

 

Red Dead Redemption II (A work of art)

 

 

Could argue GTA IV for the time (it being the first HD Rockstar Game, it's incredible but in that era technically and beautifully RDR wins hands down.)

 

Nothing else comes close. With GTA VI I want to see the change in how San Andreas compared to IV. It will likely be hugley detailed like RDR2 and will likely be the best GTA game since GTA IV.

[jje1000]

In certain ways I think it can be- I think this is the furthest Rockstar has taken their immersive story-telling and worldbuilding. It's a game that has simmered for almost a decade, with likely countless resources and manhours poured into its development that allows immersiveness to cover up a half-decade-old backbone of clunky game mechanics.

 

No guarantee that they can retain a privilege like this going forward, IMO, especially now that RDO has no guarantee of being the smash success they had envisioned.

 

 

That being said, I think as a more complete and ground-breaking package, RDRI still outshines RDRII IMO. Same goes for GTAIV- there was no open world as detailed as it before, and there was no open-world western as fully-realized as RDRI before it. 

[Lonely-Martin]

There's no doubt that for me, this game is as close to San Andreas as any other R* game since that epic time with CJ. 

 

Of course, the graphics/detail, size, and flexibility of this game are bigger and better in so many ways. From the dynamic freemode events where interacting see's areas build up to the fishing, hunting and role-playing opportunities being on another level too compared to other HD era games of theirs. They really nailed so much of what I loved about San Andreas in this game. There's just so many little things added we can do on any given day/playthrough.

 

That said, San Andreas for me just edges it. That game was so big for its time and this game I feel would be the one had SA not been what it was. Plus the time period in SA is just more relatable for me too. But seeing how this game has expanded on so much that GTA V didn't in so many ways does excite me as to the potential that a new GTA story, or other titles from R*, could grow so much.

 

I do feel there's room for more. But if that doesn't happen, this game will be one of the best games I ever play for a very long time after its prime. I still play San An now and then Also, this is up there with that for sure. (Regardless of how online goes).

[TheSantader25]

Nope still far away. San Andreas is just in a league of its own. It's like a level higher than all other R* games and they have yet to top it. I don't think RDR2 even deserves the second place. I would give the second place to GTA III based on its time. 

Edited March 12, 2019 by TheSantader25

[Adamska_]

Yes.

 

San Andreas doesn't even compare to Vice City. 

[Sonny_Black]

2 hours ago, TheSantader25 said:

Nope still far away. San Andreas is just in a league of its own. It's like a level higher than all other R* games and they have yet to top it. I don't think RDR2 even deserves the second place. I would give the second place to GTA III based on its time. 

This.

I agree. There is way too many (basic) things that need to be fixed to consider RDR2 a masterpiece.

[Timcatgt5]

Vice City and San Andreas will always be, in my opinion, the best story driven experience for a long time. There's a variety of content and context that will keep you playing it for generations. 

 

But there's huge potential for the Red Dead series to establish itself as a building block for the script writers. 

 

If they keep the setting in the 1700s or 1800s, put a few references from Old Western films from the 1950s or 60s, and some content that was relevant back in the day, and the future will be bright for Rockstar Games developers. 

 

Either that, or the company would be divided, which will complicate things and increase the development time, and it may result in GTA or Red Dead being scrapped for a brand new series. 

[mde2]

23 hours ago, RyuNova said:

 

With respect, I don't think you understand what a Magnum Opus is.

A Magnum Opus is that artists Masterpiece. The finest example of their craft humanity has ever seen. We are not asking what put R* on the map but what is the finest example of their word to ever grace our consoles...San Andreas or Red Dead Redemption 2?

A magnum opus is the most important work of an individual or group and there's no objective definition on what makes a work "great". We can argue until the cows come home about what qualities you think makes RDR2 better than any other game (hypothetically, not trying to put words into your mouth) but its all subjective. Is RDR2 technically superior to most things we've seen in this generation or previously? Sure. Doesn't make it R*'s magnum opus however.

Edited March 12, 2019 by mde2

[RyuNova]

1 minute ago, mde2 said:

A magnum opus is the most important work of an individual or group and there's no objective definition on what makes a work "great". We can argue until the cows come home about what qualities you think makes RDR2 better than any other game (hypothetically, not trying to put words into your mouth).

 

Forgive me, I dont want an argument.

I am simply asking for peoples opinions of what is R*'s greatest work? Using the term Magnum Opus may have been a little...shall we say lofty.

[Jimbatron]

45 minutes ago, RyuNova said:

I am simply asking for peoples opinions of what is R*'s greatest work? Using the term Magnum Opus may have been a little...shall we say lofty.

I think you can argue for different answers depending on how you judge it.

 

I would say for example the following would win under these criteria:

 

Revolutionary - GTA III as it’s the first 3D open world game they made.

Open world scale - San Andreas.

Lastability - GTA IV (it still looks great today 10 years on)

Comercial success - GTA V

Story - RDR 2

 

Very much my personal opinion but how do you pick one out of any of these? I’ll always have a big soft spot for IV but that’s just me.

 

I think for many companies any one of these would be regarded as their finest game of all time. It feels like asking which of GRRMs song of fire and ice novels is best. You can justify an answer but they’re all great really.

 

As much as people will critique around the edges of each game, R* generally delivers big on scale and quality.

[Adamska_]

7 minutes ago, Jimbatron said:

I think you can argue for different answers depending on how you judge it.

 

I would say for example the following would win under these criteria:

 

Revolutionary - GTA III as it’s the first 3D open world game they made.

Open world scale - San Andreas.

Lastability - GTA IV (it still looks great today 10 years on)

Comercial success - GTA V

Story - RDR 2

 

Very much my personal opinion but how do you pick one out of any of these? I’ll always have a big soft spot for IV but that’s just me.

 

I think for many companies any one of these would be regarded as their finest game of all time. It feels like asking which of GRRMs song of fire and ice novels is best. You can justify an answer but they’re all great really.

 

As much as people will critique around the edges of each game, R* generally delivers big on scale and quality.

I think that's quite easy to answer, actually (ASOS).

 

But I agree with your overall post regarding the topic at hand.

[Hetraet]

nope.

 

 

 

 

[RyuNova]

14 minutes ago, Hetraet said:

nope.

 

First video is a joke/parody half review and again, you dont know what a Magnum Opus is. A MO is not a perfect thing, it is the best example of that artists work.

[Hetraet]

30 minutes ago, RyuNova said:

 

First video is a joke/parody half review and again, you dont know what a Magnum Opus is. A MO is not a perfect thing, it is the best example of that artists work.

Yeah it isn't, in my opinion their magnum opus is original red dead, both visually, gameplay, story and soundtrack. Rdr 2 just isn't that much for a R* title in 2018.

The original red dead also captures the wild west much better...in a spaghetti style mixed with a bit of Tarantino, I just think it's a much better game in all ways. The graphics aren't even that good in rdr 2, rdr 1 has a lot of cool visual effects that even miss in rdr 2, even physics are a lot better in the first game, I just think rdr2 is too overhyped right now, people will see more clearly after they played a sh*t ton out of it like me

[RyuNova]

16 minutes ago, Hetraet said:

Yeah it isn't, in my opinion their magnum opus is original red dead, both visually, gameplay, story and soundtrack. Rdr 2 just isn't that much for a R* title in 2018.

The original red dead also captures the wild west much better...in a spaghetti style mixed with a bit of Tarantino, I just think it's a much better game in all ways. The graphics aren't even that good in rdr 2, rdr 1 has a lot of cool visual effects that even miss in rdr 2, even physics are a lot better in the first game, I just think rdr2 is too overhyped right now, people will see more clearly after they played a sh*t ton out of it like me

 

Thank you for your input.

[Emmi]

No, it isn't.

[Cutter De Blanc]

Their greed keeps it from being their best game. I would rank it right below San Andreas however

[burger_mike]

4 hours ago, Hetraet said:

Yeah it isn't, in my opinion their magnum opus is original red dead, both visually, gameplay, story and soundtrack. Rdr 2 just isn't that much for a R* title in 2018.

The original red dead also captures the wild west much better...in a spaghetti style mixed with a bit of Tarantino, I just think it's a much better game in all ways. The graphics aren't even that good in rdr 2, rdr 1 has a lot of cool visual effects that even miss in rdr 2, even physics are a lot better in the first game, I just think rdr2 is too overhyped right now, people will see more clearly after they played a sh*t ton out of it like me

Ive replayed it 5 times and its still one of the best games i know

Edited March 12, 2019 by Equatecurl

[Jimbatron]

5 hours ago, RyuNova said:

 

First video is a joke/parody half review

I just watched the first video. What a mish-mash of inconsistent trendy comments thrown together.

 

Battle Royal Games being more creative, wtf? The rules are the same all the time (you have to kill everyone else and be the last man standing), that's nothing like an open world free mode whether it's SP or MP. That's not to say Battle Royal can't be fun, but trying to argue it offers more variability than free mode is complete rubbish. The argument that seems to imply a linear story mode and good free mode are mutually exclusive is also a bigger pile of horse do-do's than you literally see from Arthur's trusty steed in the game. It's entirely possible to have both because they player can choose how to spend their time. If he doesn't like free mode in RDR2, it's got nothing to do with how R* designed the story missions, it's just he doesn't like how they designed freemode and the options.

 

Outdated design? That's the same argument that led EA to churn out that monstrosity that was C&C 4. The old command and conquer was a classic format. Change isn't always good. There's a reason the rules of chess haven't changed in hundreds of years.

 

Then again, he's sitting on a fitness ball. I mean why? I should have known it would be guff, questioning why I bothered to watch it now.