jippa_lippa 596 Posted December 4, 2019 (edited) MANY SPOILERS INSIDE So, I just finished the epilogue and what can I say.... One of the best game I ever had the pleasure to play. As a RDR1 lover, I found the second part of the epilogue to be extremely emotional, especially when John builds the house and when he declares to Abigail. I also think the game does a great job in exploiting the main part of the map (basically everything above Blackwater); as an exploration fan I always explore the map regardless, but the mission schedule carefully makes the main character explore the whole map as missions are spread throughout the land. While riding with Sadie in one of the last missions, though, I was actually brought on a cliff overlooking the whole New Austin area and I discovered there's a hugely vast area still left in the game, with a distinct desertic feel (like the first RDR). I was amazed and I was sure some of the last missions would be set in New Austin, to showcase the new area to the players, but I inevitabely noticed the last section of the game is mostly set in the great plains and tall trees. I will still explore New Austin on my own, as I love visiting new areas; I'm also very curious to see how some of the areas I loved so much in the first game transitioned to the next, in all the newfound graphical splendor. I still think the choice of not setting any story mission in New Austin to be very weird though, leaving such an immense area "unused"... it feels weird. What do you think? I'm sure there will be some strangers missions and stuff to discover, as I'll explore New Austin in the next days, but it seems very weird for Rockstar to haven't used any of the desertic areas in the story. I think it would have been a very powerful end to the game, after visiting mostly forested and swampy areas, to transition to a more traditional desertic vibe. It would have also been an excellent tie-in with regards to the first Red Dead Redemption game, which begins in a desertic landscape. I'm very curious to learn what you think about this. That said I'm still 100000% satisfied with this game which, in my opinion, sets a new milestone in open world game design. Cheers. Edited December 4, 2019 by jippa_lippa 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mysterious hero 315 Posted December 4, 2019 (edited) There's not that much content in New Austin. It's heavily implied in the first game that John is unfamiliar with New Austin, which is why there are only two missions that include the area, "An Honest Day's Labors" from Sadie Adler and "A Fisher Of Fish" from Jeremy Gill. Edited December 4, 2019 by Mysterious hero Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jippa_lippa 596 Posted December 4, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Mysterious hero said: There's not that much content in New Austin. It's heavily implied in the first game that John is unfamiliar with New Austin, which is why there are only two missions that include the area, "An Honest Day's Labors" from Sadie Adler and "A Fisher Of Fish" from Jeremy Gill. Yes, I agree, but it feels very weird to have such a massive area (which looks graphically gorgeous) with barely any content in it. I explored a bit today and it felt like I went out of bounds into an area that I wasn't supposed to see. Given how packed with things to discover the rest of the map is, it feels very out of place to have such a big new area with almost nothing in it. I still haven't explored it all, but I couldn't even find any specific easter egg or landmark that I remember. Given the recent discoveries of mexico content inside the game files and the speculations of cut content due to lenghty development times, I strongly believe there were much bigger plans with regards to the new austin area. Don't get me wrong, it's not like I'm not greatful for its inclusion; even only seeing RDR1 areas in super HD graphics is cool, but I somehow feel like it might have almost been better to not include the area in the first place. With the way it is currently presented, it kinda breaks the flow, it's a bit weird to wonder around this amazing land but without any shootout, dialogue and story development. I have a hard time thinking of the amount of development time and resources needed to plan/model/debug such a big addition to the map and I don't see Rockstar going through all that effort only for it to be a neat extra, and nothing more. I'm sure there were more missions planned originally, or some kind of story DLC in the works (despite not knowing exactly how more content could be added considering the story is locked because of RDR1). The game is still pretty much perfect, it's just that I personally think this thing is very weird. I cannot remember of an other case where you unlock a very detailed and huge area at the end of the story (yeah...I know you can technically go there earlier), only to see it's almost completely devoid of content, that's all.ù I also remember the first gameplay trailer specifically mentioning "deserts" in teh description of the world...the mention of desertic land inflated my hopes a bit, that's it. Same thing for Thieve's Landing by the way, which is there just for being there. Edited December 4, 2019 by jippa_lippa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oldsport 702 Posted December 4, 2019 they shouldve really kept thieves landing the same, it sucks in rdr2. but we get more cowboy vibes in new austin in rdr1 than rdr2 and rdr2 takes place when their should be more cowboys in the desert than rdr1. i wish they wouldve just scrapped the areas from rdr1 and scrapped johns story and just expanded the new map. give us more area north in amborino grizzlies , maybe a town or saloon in the snowy mountains for the wandering stranger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
UpTheDowngrade 211 Posted December 4, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Oldsport said: they shouldve really kept thieves landing the same, it sucks in rdr2. but we get more cowboy vibes in new austin in rdr1 than rdr2 and rdr2 takes place when their should be more cowboys in the desert than rdr1. i wish they wouldve just scrapped the areas from rdr1 and scrapped johns story and just expanded the new map. give us more area north in amborino grizzlies , maybe a town or saloon in the snowy mountains for the wandering stranger Yeah, I kept holding out hope there was a small town or something up in the mountains during my first playthrough, when I was cautious about revealing too much of the map, too early. There really should be. It's so dead up there, I never visit. All of the towns in the game are at a relatively low elevation, except Strawberry, kind of. Edited December 4, 2019 by UpTheDowngrade 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ironside 573 Posted December 4, 2019 1 hour ago, UpTheDowngrade said: Yeah, I kept holding out hope there was a small town or something up in the mountains during my first playthrough, when I was cautious about revealing too much of the map, too early. There really should be. It's so dead up there, I never visit. All of the towns in the game are at a relatively low elevation, except Strawberry, kind of. I agree, I was really hoping for something like “Minnies Haberdashery” with a small town attached to it. The snowy parts is at the moment more or less only used for chapter one and some doodles in the diary. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kubigz 506 Posted December 4, 2019 Maybe it's more common to have missions in Online? Dunno, haven't touched it yet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
