The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
Did you play the first one? I'll probably get this eventually, but I wasn't as impressed with the first one as everyone else seemed to be...the main story was good but the world was boring and the side quests terrible. I'm sure this one is better but seeing as I didn't think the first one was the best game ever made like everyone else seems to think, I'm not sure if I'll particularly like the second one either.
Yeah I played the first one, and I played it a lot. I remember grinding all the animal skins to complete all the challenges. And as far as I can remember I really liked it.
The problem is it was so long ago that it's hard to trust my memory of how much I liked it. For all I know it had the same problems as RDR2, but I didn't notice them because I was comparing it to other games released back then.
The biggest RDR2 problem for me is the way it handles. The controls feel clunky and over complicated. The movement is painfully unresponsive, and it's very frustrating when I compare it to the smooth responsiveness of other modern games.
A lot of people try to claim it adds to the "realism" but if I am not looking for a "walking round with a broken ankle" simulator.
Action & content are the Kings of entertainment. Similarly, walking around with a broken ankle adjusted through use of modifiers is RPG anyway. Gamers don't play RDR (my initials actually - lol) for rpg aspects rather than the action adventure genre. While realism would mashup rpg stylization with real time action adventure models the RDR crowd simply wants a fun shooter with a rich story.
There seems to be two distinct camps orbiting RDR2 with the latter being somewhat disappointed, but I think the game will come around considering the development and publishing teams. Only time will tell though.
I am looking forward to the reviews of the multiplayer. I can't really see the people defending the controls hold out once they start having to play against real people, as opposed to the predictability of AI enemies.
Both arguments, concerning controls and ai, have surfaced recently gaining prominence. Hopefully, Rockstar updates both systems adequately furthering the RDR brand. Even if the game gets patched, regarding control configurability and AI, a year down the road am sure consumers of the franchise will more than happily wait and if anyone can get it done they (Rockstar) can.
Don't forget the "loot box" scandals too. That's so bad even governments and stepping in.
It's a shame Bethesda didn't learn from No Man's Sky policy of "just release now, we'll actually make it game later and people can just keep downloading massive updates". Maybe they thought their name and loyal fan base would carry them.
I mean the fact that it used to be that you bought a game and you bought the game, but now you buy the game and they want you to keep buying things. Guess that's more micro-transactions than loot boxes, but they're often the same thing.
I would say that is more DLC, which has been around for years.
But yeah, the whole bunch of "added extras" is rubbish. One of the things that used to make a game good for me is the reply factor, the ability to unlock extra content by doing various tasks. Things like extra characters, or costumes, or weapons, etc.
Now you just pay extra for them, which takes away all the fun.
I believe the whole "loot box" scandal had to do with gambling laws. The way the loot boxes were set up, they worked more like digital slot machines. You pay to get them and you may or may not get anything good. It is a method to keep people spending money on loot boxes rather than playing the game.
When you are dead, you won't even know that you are dead. It's a pain only felt by others.
Good for those who like to spend big money on "added extras". Not so good for those who are starting with these games. Money can't buy everything, but in this case money can buy bigger and better costumes or weapons or shields.
When you say loot box scandal, do you mean the modern age where parents refuse to take responsibility for their children stealing from them and instead try to blame the games developers?
No he meant when games assure the parents that they have been rated for kids, but take advantage of said kids and:
1. make them addicted to the horrible system that is loot boxes
2. make them get used to the idea of loot boxes in their future games
3. and make them susceptible to more gambling when they grow up
It's not only that pay-to-win is disgusting, it's that developers are allowed to hide it by making their representative say nonsense like: restricting pay-to-win will reduce our ability to innovate. Or when they say that it doesn't affect people who do not buy the loot boxes.
It's a shame Bethesda didn't learn from No Man's Sky policy of "just release now, we'll actually make it game later and people can just keep downloading massive updates"
And how is this different from what Microsoft does?
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.