I've said before in here that I could have quite happily lived without the epilogue as I had similar feelings to you. I agree there is more fluff than needed, even with the characters in the gang (Swanson has one mission near the beginning and then is an utter non-entity through the rest of the game).
Personally, I really liked the side missions etc but it does distract from the main tone of the game as well as the story but I'd argue that's needed or it would be a rather bleak experience overall.
@Frigate Yeah, actually, part of what I wanted to include in my post before it became so long was that — yes, the epilogue actually is a better gameplay experience than the main game in many ways. The milking cows and teaching the boy to ride a horse and such was rather boring and advanced the story very little. Also all the mumbo-jumbo with the Skinners was also drawn out, only to establish the dangerousness of John making his homestead there. Just overall the narrative was pretty meaningless because we all know what the end point is — John and Abigail get married and start a quiet family life as ranchers, and then the Pinkertons discover him. The revenge arc and the reconnecting with Sadie, Charles, and Uncle was decent closure, but way too much carrying on with Uncle’s nonsense and Sadie’s poorly executed Southern drawl by the voice actress. But as far as gameplay, it was a cleaned and tighter experience than the main game. Very little focus on eating to maintain your cores, hunting to provide meat for the cook, making sure you’re getting enough sleep, being sure to steal and loot bodies so you can contribute to camp funds, and all that busy work that the main game burdened you with. There was a little bit of it, but it was refreshing that I could just focus on the story missions and advance the story, despite them not being that great imo.
But, yes - I do totally see why you would prefer the epilogue.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Thrillho The side missions actually were some of the most enjoyable parts to the game. Meeting quirky characters and helping them out in unusual ways was fun.
It was actually the story arc that could have done without all the fluff. So many story missions just seemed to drag. I’d say probably a good 25-30% of them were unnecessary to maintain the tone and overall end point of the story. That could cut a playthrough from 80 hrs down to 50-60 hrs. Streamline the epilogue too and now you’ve got a 40-45 hour game at its core. If it was that length, then I would have felt inclined to spend more time searching for dinosaur bones and hunting legendary animals and still spent 80-100 hours exploring the wonderful world they created. But with all the extraneous story, I had to focus my time toward story completion to keep from getting bored or frustrated with it.
@Thrillho Agreed. It was kind of out of place thematically and a little nonsensical. The main thing I got out of it was seeing Dutch’s turn toward the dark side seems to begin there with the killing of the old lady in cold blood. Of course a similar plot device could have been added any number of other places without that whole tangent.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Th3solution@ThrillhoThe Guarma stuff definitely doesn't add too much. A lot of the story was pretty good with its subtleties, which is something I am not used to from Rockstar. But the Guarma stuff wasn't even redundant, it was too on the nose too. It was like the game was shouting at you "AND NOW DUTCH LOSES HIS SANITY!"
Don't underestimate me like that, game. In the past 50 hours you already made that clear.
@Th3solution It seems to mee you've forgotten a lot about Red Dead Redemption 1, but I'd love to hear your side if you disagree with me. People loved that game's ending and thus look back upon it very fondly, but if you ask me that game's story wasn't told in a tight way at all.
It's pacing is worse than RDR2 actually, with a lot of missions that don't really tie into the main story well at all. Do you remember Abraham Reyes or Seth the grave digger? That game had terrible pacing.
Also, I'd argue that the epilogue was at least as long in the first game, but in the case of RDR1, the epilogue just started before the credits rolled. After completing your mission for the FBI, you move to the farm and... well, let's say the pacing drops to close to zero. With missions consisting of just riding to MacFarlane's ranch and back, or kicking Uncle.
I liked all of that by the way, in the same way as I like Red Dead 2's epilogue. But it's hard for me to see how RDR1 is in any way more tighter than RDR2.
Not meant to attack you in any way or anything. It's just a viewpoint that's pretty far removed from how I experienced both games.
Personally I found a lot of wrong with RDR2, but (aside from the Guarma chapter), I think it was pretty well done. Even the epilogue, which I haven't completed yet, I think has a good pacing. Yes, that pacing is extremely low. But to me that fits with the Western genre and at least it's kind of constant throughout.
I can totally see how people dislike that pacing, but for me it's one of the things RDR2 does perfectly. I have never questioned why some missions were there, as they served a clear purpose; they actually needed to be there story-wise, and I think pretty much all of them were enjoyable as well.
I think RDR2 is better enjoyed by those who have a lot of free time to play it and savour everything the game has to offer. I certainly was in no rush to continue Arthur's story and was happy just to wander off hunting, fishing and meeting folks, until Dutch sent one of the gang out looking for Arthur. I can definitely see why people with limited play time would get frustrated with the game's slow pace, though.
I would agree that the whole Guarma thing was the weakest part of the game but I think it helped as a distraction to Arthur's illness symptoms.
A lot of people didn't like Sadie's voice but I loved it myself.
Sadie was a great character in general, and for most of the game her voice was fine when she wasn’t a main focal point. She has a rough raspy voice that fits her tough persona. But in the epilogue she has a lot of dialogue and when she becomes a focal point, it really becomes obvious that she is not a native Southerner. It’s a nuance that I’d expect a European to likely not be bothered with but as someone who’s spent a lot of time in the South and Western U.S., her accent is cringy and immersion breaking at times. She over emphasized the drawl to the point of sounding like she’s making a parody of the Southern accent. She needed to tone it down a little. And there were a lot of times she’d break her regional accent and say something, like just a few words or phrase without the accent at all and then go back to this overly thick but not really authentic sounding inflection. I’m sure the British out there have experienced Bad British accents by actors quite a lot and can relate. But like I say, Sadie’s character was great otherwise.
Now Arthur, on the other hand, really nailed the Southwestern accent. His voice acting had just the right amount of ‘simple uneducated man’ with a touch of subtle wisdom to make him so endearing. And I only caught him breaking the regional tone and inflection a few times in the course of all the thousands of lines of dialog he had. Truly outstanding voice acting. And maybe that’s why Sadie’s came across as such a failed attempt at the accent in comparison when she was juxtaposed to Arthur’s. I’d be interested how other people who have direct experience with the Southwestern US feel about it.
John Marston’s accent was somewhere in between — good enough, but not excellent. When I played RDR I didn’t find Marston’s voice actor to be anything annoying or difficult to believe, but in retrospect compared to Arthur it is definitely weaker.
And I’m not sure why I spoiler tagged all this, but just wanted to make sure people don’t get spoiled the fact that John and Sadie factor so prominently in the epilogue 😄
@Kidfried I appreciate your comments and take on the original Red Dead Redemption and it’s not an attack at all. 😄 I think you bring up perfectly reasonable points.
You’re right that I probably am looking back through rose-colored glasses at the experience. It has been a long time since I played it back on PS3. I really don’t remember how many hours it took me. I just don’t ever remember feeling like it dragged at all or that I was trudging through to try to get to the conclusion. I guess it’s just a perception, which is largely subjective. Time is relative after all (ie. the old adage of “a minute sitting on the stove feels like an hour and an hour of sitting with a pretty girl feels like a minute” — that’s relativity 😂)
But a quick search on howlongtobeat.com shows the original RDR takes a half to a third as long to beat as RDR2, so apparently I’m Not misremembering it too bad. The main story was only 18 hours and a completionist run is 46 hrs! I was barely getting out of Chapter 1 at 18 hours in RDR2!
But there was certainly a lot of filler in RDR as well, but the fast travel really helped speed up the pacing I think.
As for the RDR epilogue I think the shock of being able to play as Jack after John is executed so brutally in front of his family was just so perfect to me. You feel so angry that things end so tragically and to be able to carry on and get revenge and closure was great. In RDR2 I guess there is less novelty to it and you’re expecting things because you know where the story is going. The ability to play as John is not a surprise at all. And that’s fine but I’d have been happy with a quick path to the final moments of the epilogue, which I’ll avoid details since you haven’t finished it. I guess I was expecting the epilogue to be that and when it took 2 or 3 long play sessions by itself, I started to get a little annoyed.
I do agree that a Western game fits a slower pace. But it was too much of that at some points of RDR2.
But I do realize all this is strictly my take on things and I’m probably in the minority. I completely respect the opposite opinion though. 😃
Well then. Red Dead Redemption II, the Moby Dick of gaming, is done. I've tried to keep it vague overall but I'll use spoiler tags in places just in case.
I struggled with this game a little bit at the beginning. I was going up to people intending to have a friendly chat to them and instead I was drawing my gun (don't you hate it when that happens?). I trampled someone's dog and had to reload a save from an hour ago, losing loads of progress but I had to do it, because I couldn't bear the thought that I'd squashed someone's loyal puppy. I tracked an elk on foot through an entire forest, across a river and over a substantial hill, only to find I'd forgotten to whistle my horse to make him follow me, meaning I had to slowly carry a dead elk over my shoulder, like some sort of maniac, at walking pace for about three miles. It took forever. I had a lot of time to think on that walk, and the main thoughts were "what am I doing? What is this game? What am I even playing here? I'm trailing blood everywhere."
That was where the dream of completing the game by Christmas died. On that long, blood-soaked walk, I realised I was going to have to play this game slowly, and it was going to take me forever to finish. I came to terms with it. I was going to have to think like a cowboy. It would seem I was going to have to move like a cowboy. Damn it, I was going to have to BE a cowboy. I let go of the idea of trying to 'complete' it, and instead decided to just 'be'. As in, to just be in that world, a small, insignificant part of it. It took bloody ages, but the game's flaws (or what I had perceived to be flaws) began to melt away.
I started camping each night like clockwork, eating whatever I had found that day, be it a freshly-caught salmon or a tin of beans. I'd sleep until morning, maybe sit at camp for a bit before moving on. Drink some coffee. Read Arthur's journal. These, I later realised, were my favourite moments of the game. Along with tracking animals, which instead of killing, I started trying to photograph instead (my Arthur just seemed like more of a gentle soul). My version of 'hunting' was all about the framing, the focus - I would line up the perfect shot and then instead of pulling the trigger, I clicked the shutter.
That's not to say I didn't like the story, it was awesome. Yeah it was long, but in a way it had to be. People don't change overnight. Those we consider to be our friends slowly change their priorities, or we change ours. We begin to realise that our worldview no longer matches theirs and eventually we either drift apart or we come to blows. I think we have all experienced that with someone at some point and it isn't nice.
I was only half-joking with that Moby Dick comment. Red Dead II felt more like a novel than anything else. Each mission, each errand, even each conversation was so ridiculously well-written that it enhanced my understanding of the cast without me even realising it at times. It wasn't until things started going belly-up that I began to appreciate how much I cared for even the most minor of characters.
The end of Chapter Six was a bit like being run over by a milk float. Yes, you can see it coming, but it still hurts like a b*stard. The epilogue was fun as well, once I'd got over the events of Chapter Six. The finale was massively satisfying, and it threw one last surprise at me when I thought I had everything figured out. The overarching themes of family, friendship, loyalty and humility were handled with a staggering maturity that you rarely get in gaming, least of all from Rockstar. After GTA V I was a bit worried, but they pulled it off. It feels good to play a game that treats you like an adult for a change.
In the end, the closest game I can compare it to is Bloodborne. I know that sounds weird, but Red Dead II drew something out of me, it made me improve the way I play and alter my approach. It dragged me in to its world so deeply until I was in a position where I didn't want to come out. I've hardly ever been so happy to just be playing a game.
It's in my all-time top ten for sure. Possibly top five. I feel sorry for whatever I decide to play next.
@Gremio108 What an interesting and inspiring summary of your RDR2 experience. I think you hit the nail on the head with needing to alter one’s expectations in order to be fully immersed. Very interesting comparison to Bloodborne there, and I can relate. I was so frustrated with BB until I accepted it for what it was and played the game the way it was meant to be played. RDR2 is a similar animal, like you say, although for me personally the frustration mounted again late game when the inevitable conclusion to the story was dangled like a carrot for so long. Those quiet moments of just being a cowboy and feeing a part of the world were drowned out by the endless and laborious paths you are forced down. But yours is a wonderfully articulated comment about how the game evolved for you and ultimately moved you.
Actually the longer I am removed from the game completion (now having had a few days since finishing it to let it all sink in) I am less angry at the game and more appreciative. Ive been looking back more fondly at the amazing achievement in gaming that it really is. I still stand by a lot of my criticisms though. And ultimately it is why I probably can’t have it quite make my personal top 5, or even my top 10. In fact I’d still place Detroit Become Human above it for GOTY 2018, but it would be a close call (and I also haven’t played Spider-Man, God of War, or Assassin’s Creed Odyssey yet)
Part of the cool thing about RDR2 too though is how I am hearing how everyone’s experience is so different. And by that I mean the actual in game moments can be drastically different depending on how you choose to play it and how you spend your time in game. Even the story missions can vary slightly it seems. I only today found out that there are actually 4 different endings depending on your honor level. In mine Arthur died peacefully, but apparently other endings can vary. I won’t spoil too much in case you want to replay the game but there is a significant difference Hearing some of these variations makes me respect the game so much more. It’s part of why I was so impressed with Detroit as well.
And, at the end of the day, here I am still discussing the game several days after finishing it. And very much like a good movie that you ponder for days and weeks after seeing it - to me this is the mark of a really good work of art.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Th3solution Thanks man, and I got the same ending as you by the way.
It was all about letting go I think. Letting go of the time constraints and 'pressures' (ridiculous word to use but I can't think of a better one) of gaming as an adult. I started playing like I used to play games as a kid - not worrying about how long it was going to take me to complete, and willingly getting distracted by everything as I went. And accepting that Arthur moves and acts realistically (ie very slowly). Once I started doing that, it became the best thing ever. I'm not blind to its faults or anything, some of the design decisions are plain odd. But it all starts to make sense in the end. Apart from not being able to store weapons at camp.
How much more are you planning to play it, or are you done? I'm going to spend a few more hours with it, trotting about the world looking for collectibles and odd little things that I've missed, although I might have to resort to a guide, otherwise I'm never going to find them all. I can't see me playing the online side of it.
Also, I want that trophy for studying every animal. I want to see them all! I'm not so keen on skinning them though.
Good job, Parappa. You can go on to the next stage now.
@Gremio108 Yeah, I kinda want to go back and experience some things that I didn’t do before, do more hunting and collectible gathering. I understand the entire map from the first game is built into this one, which is just insane. I saw plenty of Blackwater and the Marston ranch and surrounding areas, but I’d like to revisit New Austin and spend time back in Fort Mercer and Tumbleweed for old time’s sake. And I would like to see some of the cut scenes I didn’t get to see such as the other endings and do a ‘low honor’ playthrough, but there’s really no chance of that since my backlog beckons. The most I can expect in the short term is to return and try out Red Dead Online, but I’m going to wait until the beta is over and it is ‘complete.’ I’m not much of an online gamer, but I’m curious how it will be when it’s all done. I don’t want to waste my time before then though.
With other gargantuan games like Persona 5 to complete and Witcher 3 to start, I have too much else to do rather than go back to the main story. But I will keep it on the HDD just in case.
@Th3solution Yep, Red Dead II has killed my backlog. I think I'm going to play Nioh next but I've not decided yet.
Like you, I'm going to wait until the online is no longer in beta, just in case those whispers that progress won't carry over turn out to be true (although people are so invested now that I think there'd be a riot). It's worth having a look around New Austin, even though there's not an awful lot going on. I wandered up to Rathskeller Fork when I was playing today - the nostalgia waves were real. I did actually keep a save file from Chapter Six, so in theory I could find all the collectibles as Arthur, which is tempting... But I think I'm going to stick with John.
Good job, Parappa. You can go on to the next stage now.
@Thrillho@Gremio108 I played the online for the first game a little bit. It was alright. I met up with people and raided some outposts and played some poker. But it wasn’t too enthralling. I was hoping it would be better for this game. The Battle Royale mode will be something to try. Rather than parachuting in, maybe you spawn in a canoe or a stagecoach and can travel to the spot you want to start at. The thunder storms in the main game are really impressive at some points, so that could easily be integrated into the collapsing circle that pushes people together into an every shrinking area free of the severe weather. Mix in bears and wolves who attack the outer areas and viola — you have a unique and realistic spin on BR.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Th3solution I've been obsessed with trying to get struck by lightning in Red Dead II and today I came within about five feet of a strike. The whole screen went blinding white and there were sparks raining about afterwards. It must have just missed. I've even tried climbing hills and holding the gun in the air...
Good job, Parappa. You can go on to the next stage now.
Forums
Topic: Red Dead Redemption 2 OT
Posts 401 to 420 of 431
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.