Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,329
7,421
Interesting. I guess we see this from a completely different perspective.

To come back to your original question, I think it was reasonable of Rockstar to expect their confidential information to be handled confidentially. And also to act on it when someone violated that confidentiality. I also like that they didn’t pocket the settlement money, but directed it to charity.

I feel that’s a smokescreen. It wasn’t about the money but about sending a message. It’s about letting journalists know what’s going to happen if they give information that Rockstar doesn’t want out there.
 

Taustin Powers

macrumors 6502
Apr 5, 2005
263
549
I feel that’s a smokescreen. It wasn’t about the money but about sending a message. It’s about letting journalists know what’s going to happen if they give information that Rockstar doesn’t want out there.

Absolutely. It all comes down to the concept of confidential information and the ownership of such information. Rockstar didn’t want to make money, but make sure this gets respected in the future.
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,329
7,421
Absolutely. It all comes down to the concept of confidential information and the ownership of such information. Rockstar didn’t want to make money, but make sure this gets respected in the future.

So what do you believe the role of games journalism is?
 

Taustin Powers

macrumors 6502
Apr 5, 2005
263
549
So what do you believe the role of games journalism is?

Pretty much everything they do today, report on news, rumors, developments. But this does not include releasing confidential information obtained from confidential internal documents.

In my company, I sign Non-disclosure agreements with other companies on a regular basis. To me, they are mostly symbolic. It should be understood that when you share confidential information with someone, that they do not publish it, regardless of whether you signed an NDA or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iMi

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,329
7,421
Pretty much everything they do today, report on news, rumors, developments. But this does not include releasing confidential information obtained from confidential internal documents.

In my company, I sign Non-disclosure agreements with other companies on a regular basis. To me, they are mostly symbolic. It should be understood that when you share confidential information with someone, that they do not publish it, regardless of whether you signed an NDA or not.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I feel it is the job of journalists to inform the public. As long as they don’t break any laws to get the information, it’s fair game.
 

Taustin Powers

macrumors 6502
Apr 5, 2005
263
549
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I feel it is the job of journalists to inform the public. As long as they don’t break any laws to get the information, it’s fair game.

Agreed on the disagreement! :) I agree on their job to inform the public, but my restriction is that they should absolutely respect the confidentiality of information provided to them.
 

44267547

Cancelled
Jul 12, 2016
37,642
42,491
So, trying to divert things back on topic, does anyone want to share their experience what they think of the gameplay? Likes/dislikes? Do you think Rockstar executed the ‘open world’ era with expectations? Gameplay physics? Etc......
 

Akrapovic

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2018
1,193
2,570
Scotland
So, trying to divert things back on topic, does anyone want to share their experience what they think of the gameplay? Likes/dislikes? Do you think Rockstar executed the ‘open world’ era with expectations? Gameplay physics? Etc......

The game is excellent. I'm playing the Xbox One version so this is based on that.

Technically, it's excellent. It looks great, sounds great (especially with headphones) and there's no performance issues. I've played the full story (more on that soon), and had one single crash and one extended loading time. I finished the game in one week, so played a LOT that week, so really there was no stability issues worth mentioning.

The game play is also excellent, although the world may suffer from having too much in it. I'm a pretty seasoned gamer, but the controls on this every so often were confusing because they change depending on the situation. So more than once I accidentally punched my horse, and another time I accidentally pulled a gun on someone I was just trying to focus on. But really, this isn't a major issue. The majority of the time the controls work extremely well for everything you'll be doing - riding horses, shooting, etc. It's when you get into normal situations like walking about they feel a bit all over the place.

The world has so much in it it's hard to see it all. There are side quests that I didn't complete in my story run through, and there are side quests I never even found (read about them on a wiki afterwards). So there's a LOT. It continues without you - the people all have jobs, homes, families. You can follow them about if you want. There's so many side quests and bits of detail that you can spend hours on. I've played a lot of open world games, and this one might be the most detailed and realistic feeling so far - especially when it comes to the NPCs. They do feel like they have their own thing going on, and not just standing around waiting for you to interact.

My advice is do not rush through the story. Don't hardcore play this game trying to get through the story. Really take your time, play it over several months and enjoy the world. Don't go for 100% complete or anything like that - relax and enjoy riding around and discovering things.

The story is wonderful. It's as heavy and as well written as the original Red Dead Redemption. It's serious and I love it. I won't spoil it for anyone, but if you enjoy a good story from say, Mass Effect or whatever, you'll enjoy this. If you want something stupid and OTT like GTA5, this isn't your game.

In terms of pacing, it starts off quite slow as it introduces you to things, and there are some things (such as hunting) that continue to be slow throughout the game, but you don't need to actually do those after they are introduced. The story does pick up pace though, so don't worry about the pacing being slow all game, as it isn't. Use the initial slow pacing to enjoy the world and roam around for fun.

The next bit I'll put in spoiler tags. It's a tiny spoiler about the map, not so much the story, but the option is there to not read it.

The map includes the original Red Dead Redemption map in it, but without Mexico. But everything from Tall Trees down to the river to Mexico is there. However, don't rush to it as you'll be disappointed - it's largely empty of missions and is not part of the main story. It's clearly there for DLC and for Red Dead Online, so don't rush to open up the old map and then be disappointed.

I highly recommend it if you want a serious game. Yes there's a LOT of fun and some hilarity in it, but this isn't Grand Theft Horse. This game stands on its own two feet, and IMO it's much better than the GTA series.
 

madeirabhoy

macrumors 68000
Oct 26, 2012
1,594
540
The game is excellent. I'm playing the Xbox One version so this is based on that.

Technically, it's excellent. It looks great, sounds great (especially with headphones) and there's no performance issues. I've played the full story (more on that soon), and had one single crash and one extended loading time. I finished the game in one week, so played a LOT that week, so really there was no stability issues worth mentioning.

The game play is also excellent, although the world may suffer from having too much in it. I'm a pretty seasoned gamer, but the controls on this every so often were confusing because they change depending on the situation. So more than once I accidentally punched my horse, and another time I accidentally pulled a gun on someone I was just trying to focus on. But really, this isn't a major issue. The majority of the time the controls work extremely well for everything you'll be doing - riding horses, shooting, etc. It's when you get into normal situations like walking about they feel a bit all over the place.

The world has so much in it it's hard to see it all. There are side quests that I didn't complete in my story run through, and there are side quests I never even found (read about them on a wiki afterwards). So there's a LOT. It continues without you - the people all have jobs, homes, families. You can follow them about if you want. There's so many side quests and bits of detail that you can spend hours on. I've played a lot of open world games, and this one might be the most detailed and realistic feeling so far - especially when it comes to the NPCs. They do feel like they have their own thing going on, and not just standing around waiting for you to interact.

My advice is do not rush through the story. Don't hardcore play this game trying to get through the story. Really take your time, play it over several months and enjoy the world. Don't go for 100% complete or anything like that - relax and enjoy riding around and discovering things.

The story is wonderful. It's as heavy and as well written as the original Red Dead Redemption. It's serious and I love it. I won't spoil it for anyone, but if you enjoy a good story from say, Mass Effect or whatever, you'll enjoy this. If you want something stupid and OTT like GTA5, this isn't your game.

In terms of pacing, it starts off quite slow as it introduces you to things, and there are some things (such as hunting) that continue to be slow throughout the game, but you don't need to actually do those after they are introduced. The story does pick up pace though, so don't worry about the pacing being slow all game, as it isn't. Use the initial slow pacing to enjoy the world and roam around for fun.

The next bit I'll put in spoiler tags. It's a tiny spoiler about the map, not so much the story, but the option is there to not read it.

The map includes the original Red Dead Redemption map in it, but without Mexico. But everything from Tall Trees down to the river to Mexico is there. However, don't rush to it as you'll be disappointed - it's largely empty of missions and is not part of the main story. It's clearly there for DLC and for Red Dead Online, so don't rush to open up the old map and then be disappointed.

I highly recommend it if you want a serious game. Yes there's a LOT of fun and some hilarity in it, but this isn't Grand Theft Horse. This game stands on its own two feet, and IMO it's much better than the GTA series.


an excellent summary.


agree with all of that, great game. the controls are confusing, and could be better both in terms of which buttons are used for which, its very confusing to use one button to search bodies but another to search furniture, also the logos they use onscreen to tell you which buttons to use are too hard to read when far from the tv.

and there are little oddities in the game, but nothing as much as say a fallout game . for example I was running through the forests and met a crazy Mexican who challenged me to a shooting contest. of course he won, and I was given the option of paying up, or not. I chose not and he started shooting at me so well I killed him. and robbed him. days later im running through the forest and I see a crazy Mexican. its the same crazy Mexican reincarnated. he remembers me and how he won, he's just forgotten that I killed him.

but the game is excellent, and its so easy just to wander aimlessly and see what happens next.
 

garnerx

macrumors 6502a
Nov 9, 2012
623
382
I've been enjoying this quite a lot. I was considering boycotting it because of Take Two's horrific abuse of power detailed elsewhere in this thread, but rather than deny myself a good time I bought it from a dubious key reseller. Take that, The Man! It's a good game, but...

The controls are pretty hopeless. They've crammed so much onto the joypad, with context-sensitive actions, long presses, short presses, huge pop-up menus, etc. The amount of times I've got killed while fumbling with the controls, and not just during the poorly explained duels...

All that stuff about 'cores'. What's that about? Why have all my numerous stats got a separate core? Complexity for the sake of it, when a simple health bar would suffice. And who told Rockstar that people enjoy having to put off a mission so they can make their character pretend to eat and sleep?

I'm fed up with the psychic enemies, too. There's one challenge where I have to shoot five birds from a moving train, but as soon as I fire a gun the guards stop the train and hunt me down. So I switched to bow and arrows, and as soon as I fire one of those, the same thing happens.

See also, being anywhere in the wilderness and having half a dozen bounty hunters appear. Where do all the people come from? Once I was waist deep in a lake in the middle of nowhere, stalking a 'legendary moose', and as I drew close a man on horseback rode right past me (through the lake) and scared it away. A minute later, another one came along. There was no trail there, it just seems to spawn NPCs wherever you go.
 

-aggie-

macrumors P6
Jun 19, 2009
16,793
51
Where bunnies are welcome.
So, trying to divert things back on topic, does anyone want to share their experience what they think of the gameplay? Likes/dislikes? Do you think Rockstar executed the ‘open world’ era with expectations? Gameplay physics? Etc......
It was okay IMO. I liked the previous version better. I really got tired of the long horse rides in almost all of the missions. I paid for a fast travel option in the camp and found that I hardly got to use it. You can't use fast travel in missions. I also found that hunting didn't play much of a part in RD2.
 

iMi

Suspended
Sep 13, 2014
1,624
3,200
I just about finished it. It's the first game I've ever played where the story felt so competing that it actually generated an emotional response. Have you ever seen a move where the protagonist is a tragic figure that is complex and conflicted? At the end you can't help but feel... something. That's the case here. Mix in some nostalgia brought on by the references to the original game and it really sucks you in...

This is an extraordinary game. One I will certainly play again. An instant classic and something not done in the past, even with the original -- which I consider to be one of the best games ever made. This game is magnificent and an instant classic.
[doublepost=1543204354][/doublepost]
I am psyched for this game, but my policy with gaming is to be a generation behind. I'll buy it when the GOT Edition (or whatever equivalent) has been out long enough to find for $20 used.

I hope you changed your mind. I pre-ordered it. It's quite possibly the best money I've ever spent. I typically wait for reviews to come in and somehow I always find some games on sale or on Game Pass or with Gold that I end up playing.

This is the first game I preordered in a few years. I think since at least Sniper Elite 3.

If you are still on the fence, buy it. It's beyond good .
[doublepost=1543204625][/doublepost]
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

When you spend millions of dollars and years developing a game, why should some a***** get alway with leaking it to the public. This is your show. You spent years and some serious coin. Same goes for other products, including Apple. I won't lie. I like hearing about the rumors as much as the next guy but if you think about it, it's kind of messed up.
[doublepost=1543205095][/doublepost]
I disagree a thousand percent. The media organization did nothing illegal to get the data, and publishing information is their job. If the company in question gets to decide what can and cannot be shared, the media company becomes nothing more than a mouthpiece for the company. That’s not journalism.

You are wrong. Journalism as it relates to government or public policy on issues that relate to safety or the protection of personal liberties is one thing. Revealing proprietary information about private company's commercial interests is another. There is journalism and then there is profit driven tabloid that serves no public interest and only hurts the financial investments of a private company.

Again, they are not revealing any wrongdoing. This is not a whistleblower situation. It's done for clicks, and therefore for profit. Illegally. They should absolutely pay for it. I work with product prototypes -- some for well known brands. I would pay dearly if I were to leak anything to the public. It would be wrong on so many levels. This is wrong too...
 

Michael Goff

Suspended
Jul 5, 2012
13,329
7,421
I just about finished it. It's the first game I've ever played where the story felt so competing that it actually generated an emotional response. Have you ever seen a move where the protagonist is a tragic figure that is complex and conflicted? At the end you can't help but feel... something. That's the case here. Mix in some nostalgia brought on by the references to the original game and it really sucks you in...

This is an extraordinary game. One I will certainly play again. An instant classic and something not done in the past, even with the original -- which I consider to be one of the best games ever made. This game is magnificent and an instant classic.
[doublepost=1543204354][/doublepost]

I hope you changed your mind. I pre-ordered it. It's quite possibly the best money I've ever spent. I typically wait for reviews to come in and somehow I always find some games on sale or on Game Pass or with Gold that I end up playing.

This is the first game I preordered in a few years. I think since at least Sniper Elite 3.

If you are still on the fence, buy it. It's beyond good .
[doublepost=1543204625][/doublepost]

When you spend millions of dollars and years developing a game, why should some a***** get alway with leaking it to the public. This is your show. You spent years and some serious coin. Same goes for other products, including Apple. I won't lie. I like hearing about the rumors as much as the next guy but if you think about it, it's kind of messed up.
[doublepost=1543205095][/doublepost]

You are wrong. Journalism as it relates to government or public policy on issues that relate to safety or the protection of personal liberties is one thing. Revealing proprietary information about private company's commercial interests is another. There is journalism and then there is profit driven tabloid that serves no public interest and only hurts the financial investments of a private company.

Again, they are not revealing any wrongdoing. This is not a whistleblower situation. It's done for clicks, and therefore for profit. Illegally. They should absolutely pay for it. I work with product prototypes -- some for well known brands. I would pay dearly if I were to leak anything to the public. It would be wrong on so many levels. This is wrong too...

What did they do that broke a law? Publishing information they were given isn’t illegal to my knowledge.
 

Akrapovic

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2018
1,193
2,570
Scotland
From the article:

Take-Two takes security seriously and will take legal action against people or publications who leak confidential information.

This can be taken as action against the person who leaked it to TrustedReviews, which would certainly be a violation of contracts, NDAs, etc. There is a difference between the leaker and the journalist. We also don't know how the documents were obtained by Trusted Reviews? So we're making an assumption that it was given to them.

As for Trusted Reviews donation, given the size of Take Two, all they'd need to do is withhold review copies of all their games from Trusted Reviews. Which they'd be perfectly entitled to do.

Not saying I agree with Rockstar (because I don't), but it does seem that this story is growing arms and legs and too many assumptions are being made.
 

Taustin Powers

macrumors 6502
Apr 5, 2005
263
549
Nore that this is a settlement. If Trusted Reviews was of the opinion they hadn't broken any laws and acted perfectly reasonable, they likely would have fought this and taken it to court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iMi

garnerx

macrumors 6502a
Nov 9, 2012
623
382
It's the first game I've ever played where the story felt so competing that it actually generated an emotional response. Have you ever seen a move where the protagonist is a tragic figure that is complex and conflicted? At the end you can't help but feel... something. That's the case here.
You have some low critical standards there. I thought the story was badly conceived from the start. It's typical Rockstar nonsense, just something to hang a bunch of bullet-riddled missions off.

"I'm just doing what I need to survive, but I like to think of myself as a complex sort of guy so I'll have the occasional philosophical chat with another character while we travel," said every lead character in every Rockstar game ever.

Arrive at destination, something goes wrong, shoot the heads off 20 people, flee in a hail of gunfire. You got a bronze medal. Score 15 more headshots for gold!

Not that it isn't fun to play, but the action completely obliterates any meaning the story might have had. It's impossible to take seriously when there's no correlation between what the characters say and what they do. Or maybe it's just the way I play it:

27-11-2018_12-19-03-lqhcfpp2.jpg

(edited: image size and slow forum)
 

madeirabhoy

macrumors 68000
Oct 26, 2012
1,594
540
You have some low critical standards there. I thought the story was badly conceived from the start. It's typical Rockstar nonsense, just something to hang a bunch of bullet-riddled missions off.

"I'm just doing what I need to survive, but I like to think of myself as a complex sort of guy so I'll have the occasional philosophical chat with another character while we travel," said every lead character in every Rockstar game ever.

Arrive at destination, something goes wrong, shoot the heads off 20 people, flee in a hail of gunfire. You got a bronze medal. Score 15 more headshots for gold!

Not that it isn't fun to play, but the action completely obliterates any meaning the story might have had. It's impossible to take seriously when there's no correlation between what the characters say and what they do. Or maybe it's just the way I play it:

View attachment 806822
(edited: image size and slow forum)


im in between, I think the story is excellent, and I do find myself caring, like you do in a good film.

alas I know something I shouldn't because something happened and I googled to see if it was something I could have avoided and now I know something about the late story which I wish I didn't. a bit like watching a football game when you know the score.


however there are little things that jar enough and you are right.

there's a daft scene where you rescue john from the prison, by walking a prison guard all the way to the front door and ask for john in replacement for him, when john comes out you spare him but then shoot 20 of his mates.

or you spend a lot of your time shooting animals just to skin their coats for money, but you play a mission where you and your mate find guys who've been shooting animals for fun and your mate goes into along diatribe about how awful it is, when its not much different to what you do.



but im enjoying it...last chapter...in fact on looking at the walkthrough im only 3 missions left of the main game but then there's a prologue.
 

jlyanks85

macrumors 6502a
Jan 3, 2008
629
97
Rockstar games were never meant to have compelling stories. It’s meant for the incredible open world and freedom the games have. If you don’t enjoy that you shouldn’t be playing a rockstar game.

As a story though this is the best one rockstar has ever done I think from where I’m at in the story (chapter 5). Having 2 babies makes it very hard for me to really put time in the game lol.
 

garnerx

macrumors 6502a
Nov 9, 2012
623
382
you play a mission where you and your mate find guys who've been shooting animals for fun and your mate goes into along diatribe about how awful it is, when its not much different to what you do.

I remember that one - the Indian guy is outraged about those men pointlessly slaughtering all the bison, but doesn't care that the country is littered with the skinless decomposing carcasses of all the animals Arthur has been exterminating purely to boost his deadeye stats. There are achievements and challenges based entirely on wanton slaughter of animals - it's what the game wants you to do, the 'emotional' impact of the story is crippled here.

There was a mission I did the other day where I became a deputy and had to arrest four guys who were making moonshine. All had to be taken alive - I was a lawman after all - and even getting spotted meant the mission was over, but then some of their buddies and other smugglers turned up, and the mission wasn't over until every single one of them had been killed.

The story wishes it was a serious Western, but it's like watching a new cut of Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven where every 5 minutes it's spliced with scenes from Rambo III. It has nothing to say because it's smothered by its own hypocrisy.
 

-aggie-

macrumors P6
Jun 19, 2009
16,793
51
Where bunnies are welcome.
For those thinking this game has a great story, I just don't get it. Maybe it's just me, but it seemed like we were constantly robbing and killing, and then the end (before the epilogue) just fell flat IMO (can't go into more detail without revealing spoilers).
 

jlyanks85

macrumors 6502a
Jan 3, 2008
629
97
I remember that one - the Indian guy is outraged about those men pointlessly slaughtering all the bison, but doesn't care that the country is littered with the skinless decomposing carcasses of all the animals Arthur has been exterminating purely to boost his deadeye stats. There are achievements and challenges based entirely on wanton slaughter of animals - it's what the game wants you to do, the 'emotional' impact of the story is crippled here.

There was a mission I did the other day where I became a deputy and had to arrest four guys who were making moonshine. All had to be taken alive - I was a lawman after all - and even getting spotted meant the mission was over, but then some of their buddies and other smugglers turned up, and the mission wasn't over until every single one of them had been killed.

The story wishes it was a serious Western, but it's like watching a new cut of Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven where every 5 minutes it's spliced with scenes from Rambo III. It has nothing to say because it's smothered by its own hypocrisy.


Rockstar games definitely aren’t for you then. Since their games have been this way since gta 3.
 

iMi

Suspended
Sep 13, 2014
1,624
3,200
I found the story compelling and the characters richly detailed. I did notice the odd hypocrisy present at times as many have pointed out, but honestly this is one of the best and most gripping stories I've seen in a game for a long time.
 

garnerx

macrumors 6502a
Nov 9, 2012
623
382
Rockstar games definitely aren’t for you then. Since their games have been this way since gta 3.
That was a response to somebody saying the story was moving, not a comment on the quality of the game. I've played probably everything that studio has put out, even going back to when they were plain old DMA Design, and they're almost always good games.

I don't think I've ever played a game where the story has moved me in the way a good book or movie might.
 

jlyanks85

macrumors 6502a
Jan 3, 2008
629
97
That was a response to somebody saying the story was moving, not a comment on the quality of the game. I've played probably everything that studio has put out, even going back to when they were plain old DMA Design, and they're almost always good games.

I don't think I've ever played a game where the story has moved me in the way a good book or movie might.

It shouldn’t either. I have never gone into a rockstar game expecting a incredible story that I’m going to really care about. I don’t even think rockstar thinks so either.

I don’t even remember what the of the story was in the gta games, but they were all fun to play because of the great open world they have.
 

Akrapovic

macrumors 65816
Aug 29, 2018
1,193
2,570
Scotland
If you aren't generally moved by game stories, then not being moved by RDR2 story is 'normal' for you, so not sure how that can be the games fault. I have never been moved by a book, ever, but I'd not criticise a specific book for not moving me - it's something that doesn't directly speak to me.

I feel like RDR2 is given a hard time compared to many other games. There are some inconsistencies in how the main player acts. Is he a good guy? Is he a bad guy? Does he feel bad about things? If so, why does he continue? How the world reacts to it is also a bit inconsistent (honour goes up for doing a train job with John. Honour goes down if you do it outside of the main mission, work that one out!). However, this is a problem in every game with an honour system. Mass Effect and Dragon Age have some of the best stories ever created in video games, and they have similar problems. If you create a system where you claim the game changes depending on your actions, then you will have these problems. If you look for problems then there are more issues than that. Who are our main rivals? The O' Driscolls? I've had so many gunfights with them that they can't possibly still be around. Does Colm have 500 kids or something? But again, that's a problem in every game - the need for a constant flow of enemies to keep the player occupied.

I see complaints about how the game is about riding your horse to the destination, shoot people, ride back. Which is completely true, but I'm not sure why that's a negative? That's the game. Fallout is wandering about speaking to badly animated people, shoot some mutants, maybe find an item - rinse - repeat. Skyrim is swinging your sword around in the same copy and pasted landscape until everything dies. Find an item. Leave. Assassins Creed is the same, except you make your way there via the rooftops. Mass Effect is turn up, having a massive long conversation that's very well written, uncover 10 new conspiracy trees and then get ambushed and have a fight. Dragon Age is the same as Mass Effect but involves spells and wizards. I think CoD has removed the single player now, but even during its glory years that was nothing but a corridor shooter - a glorified Time Crisis. It was very good, but again, that was its thing.

The day a game is more realistic and you don't end everything in a gunfight is the day everyone complains it's boring. You rode there to have a conversation, and then rode back? At what point does it just become the Sims? Dragon Age 2 was closest to that, and that was slated by fans for not having enough action.

It's not meant to be a serious Western. It's meant to be questioning if the old West really existed. Arthur is on a slow decline from the very start (
he actually contracts TB very very early in the game)
and the characters are continually saying the world is changing, when really the world hasn't changed - they've just gotten older and are looking back with rose-tinted glasses. There are hints of this thrown all around the game - even the gunslinger side mission, where it turns out none of the gunslingers are the legends they are made out to be (although if you're being picky - Black Belle and Landon Ricketts are the legends they are made out to be). And then again, when you get far enough into the game to make it back to the original map, bearing in mind this is a prequel, you should be making it to the 'classic' wild west. You get there...and there's nothing there. The whole game is pushing towards it's the characters in decline, not the Wild West.

The same goes for Dutch and his plans - they're always running, they always have been. It's always one more job, and the failures are put down to the world changing. But in reality, they never succeeded before either. When you listen to the stories around the camp, and the conversations with John, you realise the gang has always been like this. They talk about older members who are no longer with them, and they talk about the new guard of Micha, Lenny and Charlies - if the old days are so good, why did so many not make it to the time the game was set? Why did John run away? Why did Hosea try and get out of that life? Like the idea of the Wild West, Dutches idea of the past is rose-tinted. None of it ever existed. That theme continues in the epilogue.
John finally gets a legit life...but it isn't. It's all a fantasy. And then theme then continues in RDR1 - he fights for that fantasy again, but it never comes.

The part that people consider moving is Arthurs relationship with John. I won't put it in a spoiler tag, but this will have RDR(1) spoilers. You progress from Arthur and John not getting on, to Arthur trying to get John out of the life as Arthur knows he won't make it on. Arthur does his best in his last moments to setup, what became, the events of RDR1. And of course, we know John doesn't make it through that game (and neither does Abigail), and we finish the events of RDR1 as Jack, the kid we took fishing when we played as Arthur. If you were invested in RDR1 then it's easy to get invested in the characters of RDR2. Many won't remember the story of GTA, but many do remember the story of RDR1.

If you spend the time to get invested in the characters then there's a lot of good story in this game. A lot of it comes out at the campfire talks. It's not exactly an Oscar winning movie, but again, Fallout and Far Cry get credit for not being as well written.

That said, there are some bad characters in it. Micha is too obvious - he's clearly going to become the villain from a very early point. I feel like they're trying to make him the RDR version of Trevor, but he's got less character about him. He's too one-dimensional. The native Americans are also too dull - they are just stereotypes. More can be done with them. Also, where is Javier Escuella? He's about, but he's barely in the game compared to some of the others. Given he was a major part of RDR1, why was he given so little light in RDR2?

It's far from perfect, but I do feel like this game gets a lot of criticism that isn't particularly fair. I even saw someone say it doesn't do enough to deal with women's rights, which is amazing since it's one of the few games to actually bother bringing it up - a long with transgender and racism.

Red Dead Online is released, but I'm not finding it much fun. Having a mute character running around being randomly shot at by other mutes changes the world. I seem to get spawn killed with single shots a lot too. Maybe I'll go back to it later, but multiplayer just isn't as fun as a good single player. I'm more interested in the idea of single player story. The old map is modelled very well, and Mexico has a surprising amount of detail for an area you can't explore. Charles made mention of going to Mexico - will we see it? That'd be fun.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.