Red Dead: Redemption 2 wish list
- Thread starter hanselthecaretaker
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you're referring to them being magnificently detailed sandboxes in which to run amok as you please, then yes I'm well aware. But really, it's kind of sad that they probably put roughly half the development budget or more into something that should be a hell of a lot more respectable by now. I know I'm not alone when I say I can barely bring myself to even play through the story mode anymore in these games. Not only is the writing wince-inducingly delinquent, but they have to tack incredibly derivative mission design to it as well.Saelune said:
As far as GTA goes IMO they need to ditch the formula of nearly every character in the game vomiting the same old melodramatic, degenerate shit-sandwich satire because it's just getting depressing. The game needs a big dose of real humor. What's sad is the creators are English themselves yet every game has been almost devoid of that witty, obtuse and punchy brand of comedy they're known for. How many times will we have to endure their depiction of America the pitiful?
Maybe they'll pick a brand new location and trade in a big chunk of scripted fetch questing for a more dynamic mission structure. That's the most I could really ask for.
As for Red Dead, obviously the setting creates more limitations in terms of writing so it's not nearly as much of an issue, but this IP suffers from the same problems in general.
More variation in the random encounters. There is a certain number of times I can stopped by a distressed woman, only to be attacked by her cohorts before it gets old. That number is about 3.
1. PLEASE make each mission have something to do with the character and their journey thematically and/or narratively. RDR was fun but waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much time was spent doing missions with the drunk and snakeoil salesman (and fuck half of Mexico, Jesus). It got even dumber when Marston saw fit to take those jabroni's with him during the first encounter against his ex gang of killers *smacks forhead* talk about narrative dissonance. This is something that GTA V completely fixed and deserves even more credit for considering it has three protagonists.
2. First person view. After GTA V I don't ever want to play an open world rockstar game without the option of first person. The immersion is second to none. It's a shame fps mode in GTA V and all of the gameplay tweaks included got overlooked by so many pouty A.D.D. gamers.
3. A simultaneous pc and console release. I don't wanna have to steal my poor mothers sony system to play it upon release like I did with GTA V. Fuck that shit.
2. First person view. After GTA V I don't ever want to play an open world rockstar game without the option of first person. The immersion is second to none. It's a shame fps mode in GTA V and all of the gameplay tweaks included got overlooked by so many pouty A.D.D. gamers.
3. A simultaneous pc and console release. I don't wanna have to steal my poor mothers sony system to play it upon release like I did with GTA V. Fuck that shit.
Even if games are going for realism I agree that the mechanics should at least present the option to shoot while waking or running in any direction in first person.
Why?
Because having the option is still more "realistic" than not having it. Just because it's not accurate - even though it could certainly at least be improved through practice - doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented at all. What if I'm alone in a firefight and want to break cover for a different location; I should be able to lay down sloppy suppressing fire to either side or whatever while making a break for it. This could easily be accomplished with an augmented button assignment even without lock-on.
We're still playing a game after all, so fun and playability should always come first. Simulators shouldn't even be called games; hell, with today's tech what exactly can they accurately simulate anyways. We're still talking about looking at a TV or monitor with some peripheral in our hands, not some NASA flight chamber. I suppose VR is slowly starting to blur the line, but not quite 100% with that monstrosity on my head.
Why?
Because having the option is still more "realistic" than not having it. Just because it's not accurate - even though it could certainly at least be improved through practice - doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented at all. What if I'm alone in a firefight and want to break cover for a different location; I should be able to lay down sloppy suppressing fire to either side or whatever while making a break for it. This could easily be accomplished with an augmented button assignment even without lock-on.
We're still playing a game after all, so fun and playability should always come first. Simulators shouldn't even be called games; hell, with today's tech what exactly can they accurately simulate anyways. We're still talking about looking at a TV or monitor with some peripheral in our hands, not some NASA flight chamber. I suppose VR is slowly starting to blur the line, but not quite 100% with that monstrosity on my head.
I'm with you guys, the writing and the voice acting sucked so bad it ruined the good stuff the game did. It made it seem like you were playing some idiot child's old west fantasy instead of an actual depiction of the "old west"hanselthecaretaker said:
I also hated the combat, it was so trivial to stop time every three seconds and head shot everyone. Can't really think of anything I liked about the game actually, tho I put in about four hours so there must have been something that kept me going that long
If I had to guess it was probably for the awesome scenery and weather effects. That is all at least worth about four hours of entertainment.DrownedAmmet said:
I haven't played it in so long that I even forgot about that. Sad. I should reinstall and see what the latest mods have done for it.Ezekiel said:
That wasn't just a rapid it was a huge river that split the map in half and went as far as Tall Trees
Even your damn horse would drown if you went out far enough. I get why they did that but I remember it annoying me many times.
Even your damn horse would drown if you went out far enough. I get why they did that but I remember it annoying me many times.
There's a couple things in particular I need to see Red Dead Redemption 2 do much better:
1. A much better morality system or "honor" as they called it. With the first Red Dead Redemption there was no actual point in being anything but 100% honorable because most of the missions had you gain honor anyway with few having dishonorable options, little actual rewards for being bad, it wasn't an effective means of gaining money, (to be fair, neither was being honorable, the fastest and easiest way of gaining money in RDR was hunting) and it had no effect on the story either. John Marston was still a basically nice guy trying to live a life in peace with his family no matter what you did in gameplay and his attitude reflected that. If they are going to do an honor system again being bad needs to be an option at all times, have just as significant but different rewards for being bad, and carry actual weight in the story itself.
2. Have there be actually positive results for main and side missions. It got REALLY annoying after awhile that just about every mission the player could take on especially the side missions just ended up ending tragically. Finding a man that left a woman at the altar was simply the man being long dead and the woman was just nuts, you get a bunch of flowers for a man's wife only to then find out actually she's been dead in their cabin for a long time and the man is so delusional that he thinks she's still alive. Hell, get some optimism going for the game in general, take some cues from the brighter and more heroic classic westerns instead of just the cynical darker and edgier revisionist westerns. Hell, the morality system could feed into this by making the player character's actions help determine just how bright and cheery Vs. dark and miserable the world ultimately becomes.
1. A much better morality system or "honor" as they called it. With the first Red Dead Redemption there was no actual point in being anything but 100% honorable because most of the missions had you gain honor anyway with few having dishonorable options, little actual rewards for being bad, it wasn't an effective means of gaining money, (to be fair, neither was being honorable, the fastest and easiest way of gaining money in RDR was hunting) and it had no effect on the story either. John Marston was still a basically nice guy trying to live a life in peace with his family no matter what you did in gameplay and his attitude reflected that. If they are going to do an honor system again being bad needs to be an option at all times, have just as significant but different rewards for being bad, and carry actual weight in the story itself.
2. Have there be actually positive results for main and side missions. It got REALLY annoying after awhile that just about every mission the player could take on especially the side missions just ended up ending tragically. Finding a man that left a woman at the altar was simply the man being long dead and the woman was just nuts, you get a bunch of flowers for a man's wife only to then find out actually she's been dead in their cabin for a long time and the man is so delusional that he thinks she's still alive. Hell, get some optimism going for the game in general, take some cues from the brighter and more heroic classic westerns instead of just the cynical darker and edgier revisionist westerns. Hell, the morality system could feed into this by making the player character's actions help determine just how bright and cheery Vs. dark and miserable the world ultimately becomes.