Currently in my second play through well tried this game is so slow paced and boring

[StyxTx]

On 1/23/2021 at 5:33 AM, GinsengElixir said:

Though I had mixed feelings on RDR2, I yearn for more 'slow paced, boring' games. I wish we had more of them, ones which didn't need to entertain gamers in every second with points of interest every 30 seconds. RDR2 backdrop of a vast open world set mostly in nature is exactly what I want from a game. It came close to Skyrim in that regard, just dawdling along at times.

 

 

Yup. I was thinking about it the other day....why does every game have to be fast paced, shoot em up, full speed ahead moving around the map type of play. I can understand it with young people but there are some of us out here who prefer slower pace.

[Splice123]

It's a shame they don't utilize the open world for completing missions, which are the meat of the game. The mission design is game-breaking. I did not imagine a game could have such braindead, lazy mission design. Its totally unacceptable. I went from being really excited to play this game, now I'm just rushing through waiting for it to be over. I do love the scenery and writing and characters so its such a damn shame that we have such regressive gameplay. I'm not even motivated to do any side missions. When I see the entirety of a "mission" consists of slow-walking with an NPC, leading a horse, holding down a trigger, hitting A.... I lose interest and hop on my horse and just ride off.

 

It is entirely possible to have more freedom and options and actual GAMEPLAY, many narrative driven games have done it. The gameplay structure of Dishonored or Mass Effect would have done RDR2 justice. Instead we have gamebreaking, condescending, patronizing mission design which acts like player input is irrelevant and we should shut up and enjoy following Dutch around all game and listening to him talk (godDAMN am I tired of Dutch and his voice lines, he's in your face CONSTANTLY).

 

It's actually never been done before, I haven't seen linearity and simplicity taken to such extreme levels. This is the most DUMBED DOWN game ever made!

Don't you guys like to use your brain? Is Rockstar pandering to a different sort of people who like soap operas and movies people who didn't grow up playing games in the 90s? Like you don't conceive that a game should require intellectual problem-solving to be a GAME. 

 

I can't enjoy myself playing the main quest missions, its like being in a straitjacket I have never seen this in a GAME it is so restrictive its suffocating, completely distracts me from the dialogue & story ruining my enjoyment. 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Splice123

[StyxTx]

1 hour ago, Splice123 said:

I haven't seen ........ simplicity taken to such extreme levels. This is the most DUMBED DOWN game ever made!

 

It's been carried over to online. Auto aim, ability cards, tonics, etc. Not only do you not need any intellect for the game, you don't need any skills either.

 

The story did bother me in the sense that I couldn't improvise ways to do missions and if I tried it was a fail. I enjoy figuring out various ways to do things, but you're right, there was one way to do everything and that was that. This is coming from someone who does enjoy replaying the game but I use different approaches each time. Arthur as a decent guy the first time. Arthur as a jerk the whole 2nd time. A mixture the 3rd time, then rush through the story and leave all the stuff for John to do the 4th time.

 

You're also right about Dutch. I got tired of his mouth pretty early on the first time I played. Big blow hard.

 

My guess is that the developers don't know how to do it any other way than the way they have. The game isn't dumbed down, the people who created the game are dumb.

Edited January 25, 2021 by StyxTx

[Excalibur Voltaire]

possibly unrelated, but considering how many side content this game had, this game should've had a new game+

[GinsengElixir]

21 hours ago, Splice123 said:

It's a shame they don't utilize the open world for completing missions, which are the meat of the game. The mission design is game-breaking. I did not imagine a game could have such braindead, lazy mission design. Its totally unacceptable. I went from being really excited to play this game, now I'm just rushing through waiting for it to be over. I do love the scenery and writing and characters so its such a damn shame that we have such regressive gameplay. I'm not even motivated to do any side missions. When I see the entirety of a "mission" consists of slow-walking with an NPC, leading a horse, holding down a trigger, hitting A.... I lose interest and hop on my horse and just ride off.

 

It is entirely possible to have more freedom and options and actual GAMEPLAY, many narrative driven games have done it. The gameplay structure of Dishonored or Mass Effect would have done RDR2 justice. Instead we have gamebreaking, condescending, patronizing mission design which acts like player input is irrelevant and we should shut up and enjoy following Dutch around all game and listening to him talk (godDAMN am I tired of Dutch and his voice lines, he's in your face CONSTANTLY).

 

It's actually never been done before, I haven't seen linearity and simplicity taken to such extreme levels. This is the most DUMBED DOWN game ever made!

Don't you guys like to use your brain? Is Rockstar pandering to a different sort of people who like soap operas and movies people who didn't grow up playing games in the 90s? Like you don't conceive that a game should require intellectual problem-solving to be a GAME. 

 

I can't enjoy myself playing the main quest missions, its like being in a straitjacket I have never seen this in a GAME it is so restrictive its suffocating, completely distracts me from the dialogue & story ruining my enjoyment. 

 

Regarding main missions, for the most part I agree. They are my least favourite part of the game. It's no coincidence that the missions which stand out to me are the getting drunk with Lenny and the crayfish hunting mission on the Bayou with Dutch. The rest was mostly painful to playthrough. The general ambience of the world is what drew me in. 

 

I've never played dishonoured or mass effect, how are their missions structured? I wanted more missions with consequence, so my decisions could affect the world and people around me. But I guess R* have their narrative and we just play around that. But this is the same for most R* games, no? 

[Splice123]

1 hour ago, GinsengElixir said:

I've never played dishonoured or mass effect, how are their missions structured? I wanted more missions with consequence, so my decisions could affect the world and people around me. But I guess R* have their narrative and we just play around that. But this is the same for most R* games, no? 

If this was Dishonored, say your mission is to rob Braithwaite Manor. So they give you a mission goal, and then you're on your own. You take an entirely "open-world" approach to solving the mission. Once you reach the goal, there are some scripted parts and maybe you get to choose to spare the old lady, kill her, take her prisoner, or whatever. It's actually not super open-ended but it still gives the player the illusion of choice and freedom which is so VITAL for gaming. So it's still scripted in places, but its done tastefully and subtly. Rockstar doesn't get this concept, they prefer to blatantly shutdown all player agency and insult the player's intelligence, so you can "sit and watch" this "amazing and cool story" they have to tell. 

As the player-protagonist you are the one who gets to make decisions. Not Dutch. You actually play the game. You don't follow an NPC, hit A, pull right trigger, then watch a 10 minute cinematic that totally concludes the mission and lets Dutch decide everything while Arthur just stands there like some dumb mute who didn't do anything to complete the mission, and only acts when commanded.

If this was Mass Effect, you'd get to choose two members of the gang to take with you on a mission and customize their skills/appearance. This structure would have been amazing for RDR2. Maybe you're a fan of Sadie and John, so you always take them along, maybe they become your favorites and you take them on every mission, or you switch it up and take Strauss and Swanson. Swanson has healing abilities. Strauss can withdraw money from a bank or whatever. Once the mission starts, ARTHUR leads the mission. The PLAYER is in charge. Sure they'll give you quest marker and hints to push you along, but its so important that the player feels challenged to make decisions, solve problems, and choose from a multitude of approaches to complete a mission. Otherwise its not really a mission, its an animated 3D movie that occasionally prompts you to push a button and that's it. People with no gaming experience accept this and that's why RDR2 gets high reviews -- its the casual factor.

The Mass Effect approach requires a lot of hard work and programming. You have to program hundreds of different variables and outcomes. I suppose this is way too challenging for the mental midgets they hired at Rockstar. But Mass Effect was able to do it, so it can be done. 

[Candy_Licker]

I agree, the mission design is awful. They are wayy too scripted for my taste. I detest any sort of quick time event, and RDR 2 is full of useless quick time events. What really kills my immersion is "walk 2 steps in the wrong direction = mission failed". I don't need a game with multiple ways to pass a mission ala Hitman, but I atleast want to have the freedom to decide where I want to go in cover. There's 0 possibility to bring any creativity to the mission, like in Vice City where I could never pass that mission where you had to jump from roof to roof with a bike, and I would just use a heli instead.

 

Best explanation why the mission design sucks

 

[The Tracker]

On 1/9/2021 at 9:15 PM, SwishiestRock29 said:

You are not rockstar target demographic. 

You neither.

 

On 1/9/2021 at 9:15 PM, SwishiestRock29 said:

And yes gta 5 is a better game than rdr2 even though story was shallow. 

No, it f*cking isn't, you literally say the same sh*t everywhere but never argue, I wonder why?

 

On 1/9/2021 at 9:15 PM, SwishiestRock29 said:

You idiots need to shut up, you guys say this every time after another rockstar game, that they lost their touch.

Just like you need to with the waste of time you made of a post? With that logic of yours I would hate RDR2 as well for the sake of being a new Rockstar game, but nope, I don't

 

On 1/9/2021 at 9:15 PM, SwishiestRock29 said:

 "you guys say this every time after another rockstar game, that they lost their touch." Look at you now on your knees sucking off rockstar. 

First you say that, now you say this, talking about arguing in a solid and cohesive way, nah, that doesn't seem to exist for you.

 

 

On 1/9/2021 at 9:15 PM, SwishiestRock29 said:

If 70% of people couldn’t finish the story you took 8 years to work on, you failed as a developer, and rockstar knows it which is why they are milking gta 5 and ignoring rdr2

 

OH SURE! here we have a whiny forum user telling the industry what makes you suceed as a developer. By your retarded logic, EVERY single player developer has failed because the casuals, as always, didn't bother in finishing their game (as it was expected)

Edited February 10, 2021 by The Tracker

[The Tracker]

On 1/9/2021 at 9:22 PM, SwishiestRock29 said:

Yeah you right every game is a gallery shoot if it’s a action game but that doesn’t mean throw creative mission design out the window. And my favorite games are gta sa, saints row 2, mgs tpp, black ops 2, mw2. Wanna know what these games have in common they tell an enjoyable story with good fun gameplay. Red dead 2 is more an interactive movie than a game. There little to no freedom how you do mission, even if you sim out your gun the game mission fails you, abd idk why I’m arguing with you. 70% of people couldn’t finish this game on ps4 because it’s so boring, there only so much eye candy you can put on someone screen before they realize your game is boring. Rdr2 is not a bad game just flawed, it is far from a masterpiece. The gunplay is so terrible that they had to fix it in rdo in a patch, the game is overly dragged out

LMAO, literally EVERYTHING you are criticizing RDR2 for, applies for GTA V, GTA V literally has the worst gunplay and mission desing in any Rockstar open world game from the HD era, at least RDR2 bothered to take advantage of that mission desing to create their best storyline to date. What GTA V did with it? Play out a boring, short and unfocused plotline with no consequences, no memorable moments, no interesting characters, and everything happens for the sake of showing off dumb satire or game mechanics that you will never use again, like playing Yoga, SO FUN!

 

On 1/9/2021 at 9:22 PM, SwishiestRock29 said:

Red dead 2 is more an interactive movie than a game. There little to no freedom how you do mission, even if you sim out your gun the game mission fails you

So, GTA V?

 

 

On 1/9/2021 at 9:22 PM, SwishiestRock29 said:

abd idk why I’m arguing with you.

Arguing? More like whining.

 

 

On 1/9/2021 at 9:22 PM, SwishiestRock29 said:

70% of people couldn’t finish this game on ps4 because it’s so boring

Everyone literally told you that thing happens with every single player game, and that RDR2 was actually finished by a lot of people. But sure, let's keep insisting in the same argument because we are foolish and everyone has to give us the reason no matter what.

 

 

On 1/9/2021 at 9:22 PM, SwishiestRock29 said:

there only so much eye candy you can put on someone screen before they realize your game is boring.

Ah! GTA V again!

 

On 1/9/2021 at 9:22 PM, SwishiestRock29 said:

Rdr2 is not a bad game just flawed, it is far from a masterpiece

GTA V, is that you?

 

 

On 1/9/2021 at 9:22 PM, SwishiestRock29 said:

The gunplay is so terrible that they had to fix it in rdo in a patch

Better than GTA V's downgraded, boring, no depth, arcady, paintball-like gunplay, that's for sure. 

 

 

On 1/9/2021 at 9:22 PM, SwishiestRock29 said:

the game is overly dragged out

Oh! GTA V, so good to meet you again.

 

 

It's so funny how your whole comments is critizicing stuff GTA V did horribly, horribly, but you bother to sh*t on in RDR2 because it suits you less, and then put out dumb excuses when someones points that out. You are the best example of selective fanboyism in this forum.

Edited February 10, 2021 by The Tracker

[Guest]

Currently playing this game on pc because I got it on sale a while back and it’s not that bad the mission design is sh*t, but my opinion on the game being boring was wrong it is fun especially when not playing on god awful 30 fps. Can’t wait for dlss so I can replay again

[Guest]

On 2/10/2021 at 3:38 PM, The Tracker said:

It's so funny how your whole comments is critizicing stuff GTA V did horribly, horribly, but you bother to sh*t on in RDR2 because it suits you less, and then put out dumb excuses when someones points that out. You are the best example of selective fanboyism in this forum.

Well just seen your comment while I do think rdr2 has a sh*t mission design my first opinion was wrong, it’s a good game designed by terrible mission designer. Scripted mission work better for gta v because everything is at a faster pace. You can’t have slow gameplay and overly restrictive mission design 

[billiejoearmstrong8]

On 6/24/2021 at 12:31 AM, SwishiestRock29 said:

Well just seen your comment while I do think rdr2 has a sh*t mission design my first opinion was wrong, it’s a good game designed by terrible mission designer. Scripted mission work better for gta v because everything is at a faster pace. You can’t have slow gameplay and overly restrictive mission design 

 

Tbh even though GTA V does have overly scripted missions it is even worse in RDR2. It was the same in RDR1 as well though. I think it's just harder to make missions more free in RDR because of the nature of the game - horses instead of cars means always keeping up with people instead of driving them as passengers at your own pace, being in a gang/posse during missions again means sticking together rather than often being free to do your own thing alone, because the types of gameplay and situations etc are more limited with a past/specifically cowboy setting if they want more variation and memorable moments than just the most basic riding and shooting they kind of have to script it. I do think they could do better on it but I cut it more slack for it than GTA where past games have proved the level of restriction in V wasn't necessary.

 

But I don't think it's correct that you can't criticise RDR2's restrictive mission design just because GTA V also has restrictive mission design. Especially when RDR literally has the most restrictive mission design of any Rockstar games. It's a shame because it's so great in other areas. Mission design is its weakest aspect imo.

 

Edited June 26, 2021 by billiejoearmstrong8

[Ondr4H]

Hey, I never finished game but I have 40 hours in it and I want that time back, seriously.

But when I remember how much time consume crafting every single bullet and cleaning gun with Arthur hands Im not shocked that i get serious burnout.

And dont tell me about missions that consist of following anybody in predefined route. Arthur is second in comand, but after some mission Im not sure...

[Ayesha]

This game has lousy missions which makes the 2nd playthrough feel disappointing. However, freeroam makes up for it.

I play a lone bandit on a killing spree, It's always exciting to terrorize Annesburg and Strawberry, though other towns are pretty great as well for massacres. 

Those who can't enjoy pure freeroam without any missions have weak imagination, I can see how this game would become lousy if one expects satisfaction from missions.

I myself prefer to fool around during missions to make the experience more personal, but the restraints of mission design makes it desolate. Only freeroam is suitable for my playstyle. 

[Guest]

On 6/27/2021 at 5:26 AM, Ayesha said:

This game has lousy missions which makes the 2nd playthrough feel disappointing. However, freeroam makes up for it.

I play a lone bandit on a killing spree, It's always exciting to terrorize Annesburg and Strawberry, though other towns are pretty great as well for massacres. 

Those who can't enjoy pure freeroam without any missions have weak imagination, I can see how this game would become lousy if one expects satisfaction from missions.

I myself prefer to fool around during missions to make the experience more personal, but the restraints of mission design makes it desolate. Only freeroam is suitable for my playstyle. 

Yeah the story is cool and all, the open world is also nice but the missions are so f*cking boring, and chapter 6 imo drags on for too long hopefully with certain higher ups leaving rockstar we can get a breath of fresh new ideas from other people that are good. The Native American/Indian missions does not respect your time. Hopefully with gta 6 the missions are more fun, but I have hope seeing the casino heist and Cayo perico being more open. I’m just waiting for dlss on pc because this game has terrible anti aliasing and ghosting, even on console.

[Buddy Hightower]

On 6/27/2021 at 5:14 PM, SwishiestRock29 said:

Yeah the story is cool and all, the open world is also nice but the missions are so f*cking boring, and chapter 6 imo drags on for too long hopefully with certain higher ups leaving rockstar we can get a breath of fresh new ideas from other people that are good. The Native American/Indian missions does not respect your time. Hopefully with gta 6 the missions are more fun, but I have hope seeing the casino heist and Cayo perico being more open. I’m just waiting for dlss on pc because this game has terrible anti aliasing and ghosting, even on console.

I disagree, I felt like all the chapters were way too short, especially chapter 1.

[CynicalMexican]

If I'm being honest, RDR2 is one of those games that's best experienced the first time. The awe hits you strongly the first time, but the second time around... it's not as exciting? It's a very linear experience overall.

[Middle Class Roadman]

On 7/27/2021 at 1:35 AM, CynicalMexican said:

If I'm being honest, RDR2 is one of those games that's best experienced the first time. The awe hits you strongly the first time, but the second time around... it's not as exciting? It's a very linear experience overall.

 

I beg to differ. My first play through I kinda just sped through it in a couple of days because I didn't want the anything to be spoiled, second play through I really took my time with it and fully immersed myself in the game world - done a ton of exploring, hunting, crafting, broke a wild horse from the start of Chapter 2 that I stayed with for the entirety of the game, done the challenges etc. this was the play through where I truly realised what Rockstar had accomplished with the game.

 

I just started my 4th play through and I dunno it still has that magic for me - Just trotting along the river below camp as Arthur feels similar to when I first played it.

[SM-W]

If the game's too "slow paced", that's a fair enough personal complaint, I guess. At the same time, though, being a game set in the 19th-20th centuries, the slower pace is arguably part of the tone and setting of the game's time and place. Not to mention that I enjoyed that the game gave me more freedom to roam around the world and put off doing the story missions than GTA5, so there's a lot more freedom to pace yourself and set your own priorities.

 

Besides, I feel like there's far more wrong with the story that stops this game from being as legendary as the devs envisioned than the pacing .... But to each his own.

Edited August 13, 2021 by SM-W

[Mexicola9302]

I still haven't finished the story mode, i had cloud saving deactivated, i lost my first savegame, and had to start over again. Now im in Saint Denis, when you start working for that mafioso guy, i kinda got so bored, i haven't continued playing yet.

 

In the meantime i started playing the online mode a bit, i leveled up to rank 30 ish maybe a bit more, and im bored in that mode too. There is no real reason to earn any more money at some point, i already got the weapons i want, some decent horses, my camp is almost maxed out, i think only the fast travel thing is missing, my moonshine business is almost maxed out, i finished the few story missions the online mode had to offer. Yeah no idea what to do in the online mode anymore, i could go hunting or do other boring stuff sure, yeah at some point the game is just boring. Well im no big fan of western games, i do like the game world and all, it's very well done, but yeah it's boring. You just spend way too much time travelling on the horse from point a to b, that is what really sucks the life out of the game, having to travel such distances with a damn horse over and over again. There should be much more fast travelling/teleporting, that would make the game more fun, well for me at least, not having to travel so much.

 

The ideal game would be a mix of GTA and RDR, horses are still a thing, but also the first cars are driving around, you could choose between it mostly, that's what i would like. Maybe the 1910's-1930's or something, some better weapons already existed, radio is already a thing, so there would be some music around. Well like a Mafia but made by Rockstar lol. I mean let's be honest the Mafia games were total crap compared to GTA.

[Algonquin Assassin]

2 hours ago, Mexicola9302 said:

I still haven't finished the story mode, i had cloud saving deactivated, i lost my first savegame, and had to start over again. Now im in Saint Denis, when you start working for that mafioso guy, i kinda got so bored, i haven't continued playing yet.

 

In the meantime i started playing the online mode a bit, i leveled up to rank 30 ish maybe a bit more, and im bored in that mode too. There is no real reason to earn any more money at some point, i already got the weapons i want, some decent horses, my camp is almost maxed out, i think only the fast travel thing is missing, my moonshine business is almost maxed out, i finished the few story missions the online mode had to offer. Yeah no idea what to do in the online mode anymore, i could go hunting or do other boring stuff sure, yeah at some point the game is just boring. Well im no big fan of western games, i do like the game world and all, it's very well done, but yeah it's boring. You just spend way too much time travelling on the horse from point a to b, that is what really sucks the life out of the game, having to travel such distances with a damn horse over and over again. There should be much more fast travelling/teleporting, that would make the game more fun, well for me at least, not having to travel so much.

 

The ideal game would be a mix of GTA and RDR, horses are still a thing, but also the first cars are driving around, you could choose between it mostly, that's what i would like. Maybe the 1910's-1930's or something, some better weapons already existed, radio is already a thing, so there would be some music around. Well like a Mafia but made by Rockstar lol. I mean let's be honest the Mafia games were total crap compared to GTA.

I’m not one to tell anyone how they should play, but what’s the point of playing a game like this if all you want to do is fast travel everywhere?

 

To me that’s just doing the game a complete disservice and the bulk of the experience. You say it sucks the life out of it. Jumping between fast travel points and missing out on the world that’s being occupied doesn’t seem very engrossing at all. Might as well be playing a corridor/linear shooter.

 

I’m not against the idea of fast travel and see its value as a gameplay mechanic, but if you don’t enjoy riding horses in a Western maybe you should be playing something else?

 

Also no offence, but your idea sounds more like a 1930s GTA game with little to no regards for Red Dead. Just play one of the GTA game if you want to drives cars around.

[The Artist]

On 7/27/2021 at 6:05 AM, CynicalMexican said:

If I'm being honest, RDR2 is one of those games that's best experienced the first time. The awe hits you strongly the first time, but the second time around... it's not as exciting? It's a very linear experience overall.

Yeah it lost its magic pretty fast. First time it was incredible, now it just feels like a long repetitive chore. Can't see myself replaying all those long scripted missions in the ending chapters.

[SM-W]

On 8/14/2021 at 10:27 AM, StuntMaster100 said:

Yeah it lost its magic pretty fast. First time it was incredible, now it just feels like a long repetitive chore. Can't see myself replaying all those long scripted missions in the ending chapters.

I'm probably in the minority of people who think this, but the entire epilogue was a mess. I almost never even finished the game because of it. American Venom felt like a joke to me.

The only redeeming part to come out of that whole chapter was the House Building Theme.

[Punker104]

I know a few people in my circle who wanted to do a second play through to experience the story moments again and see anything they missed. Some never made it, got sick of galloping around. The ones that did just strictly stuck to the actual missions that made them progress through the story. They said it was a lot more enjoyable once they realised that a lot of the stuff Rockstar tries to get you to do doesn't actually add to the story in any way (hunting, collecting items for camp, crafting, eating etc) and they could just focus on progressing through the story quicker like a film. 

 

I myself haven't started again. I've recently started to spend some time on RDR2 again due to lockdowns in Australia to kill time. I just look at the interactive RDR map and wander around in game as John ticking things off (points of interest, easter eggs, etc). Never hunt, slam some canned food down every now and then to keep my health up, feed the horse a few apples here and there.

 

If I did do another play through i'd be going down the route of just story missions, i'll be buggered if i'm ever going to spend 8 hours wandering around looking for a male moose again, or even some of the other hunting things for camp that require 3 stars. Honestly wish i'd realised the first time that all of that was a waste.

[wangsparkinglot]

I am on my 5th play through

The best thing I ever did was 2 play thoughs ago was I saved when I arrived at horsehoe.

Man that Colter chapter one is tedious

 

[The Tracker]

On 8/14/2021 at 1:23 PM, Mexicola9302 said:

at some point the game is just boring. Well im no big fan of western games, i do like the game world and all, it's very well done, but yeah it's boring. You just spend way too much time travelling on the horse from point a to b, that is what really sucks the life out of the game, having to travel such distances with a damn horse over and over again. There should be much more fast travelling/teleporting, that would make the game more fun, well for me at least, not having to travel so much.

 

Oh, NO! an open world when you spend time travelling, who could have though? /s

 

I mean, if ALL you're doing in the whole game is riding on your horse, you definitely are doing something wrong, lol. I really love how many people act as if the distances in the game were that long, I mean, you can literally travel from Valentine to Rhodes in 3-4 freaking minutes if you're fast enough, people overreact the size of this game's map. 

[billiejoearmstrong8]

To be fair in RDR1 you can fast travel anywhere instantly (using stagecoaches in towns or camping anywhere else). And that's with it being smaller and horses a lot faster and safer. Fair complaint imo. I like riding places instead of fast travelling but I can't see much reason for it not to be an option - especially for people replaying or who've played a long time and have already explored the map/ridden around tons and don't necessarily always want to do it anymore and would rather get to the things in the game they do still want to do.

Edited August 24, 2021 by billiejoearmstrong8

[Badman_]

This probably isn't the best way to say this, and I have no intention to sound arrogant, but RDR2 requires a certain level of "maturity". It's a game that can be very enjoyable and fun for the targeting audience, but for other people outside this spectrum it can be just tedious. The game is by no means broken. It isn't perfect but it is very close from what perfection can be in the videogame world. If you can't enjoy it the problem is most likely you, and there's nothing wrong with that. You can always play some other game that you enjoy.

[billiejoearmstrong8]

34 minutes ago, Wolfman_ said:

This probably isn't the best way to say this, and I have no intention to sound arrogant, but RDR2 requires a certain level of "maturity". It's a game that can be very enjoyable and fun for the targeting audience, but for other people outside this spectrum it can be just tedious. The game is by no means broken. It isn't perfect but it is very close from what perfection can be in the videogame world. If you can't enjoy it the problem is most likely you, and there's nothing wrong with that. You can always play some other game that you enjoy.

 

Do you think there's any room for argument that repeated playing/playing for a long time could've been taken more into account though? It's not immature to want the option of things like convenient fast travel when perhaps it's your 4th playthrough and you've already taken your time exploring the map for hundreds of hours and would sometimes prefer to just get to the activity you want to do more quickly. Like, do you think it was a bad thing that it was an option in RDR1? Nothing wrong with a slower pace but it seems unnecessary not to include options to speed some things up or skip some things with repeated/extended playing in mind, especially when some of them were included in the previous game.

Edited August 24, 2021 by billiejoearmstrong8

[Badman_]

Well, a more developed fast-travel system would certainly be welcome. Like I said, the game isn't perfect. But still, the lack of this feature isn't a severe issue that completely ruins the experience. Just a minor flaw.