Rockstar aimed to "revolutionise" the genre, but did they?
I love Red Dead 2, but I'm not sure it was a revolution as much as it was just an evolution of the genre. Rockstar relied too much on old gaming tropes; for example, the auto-fail mission states if you for exampe lost the bounty, or "abandon the mission", or you went to point 'X' when you're supposed to be at point 'Y' - whatever. The story and mission should have just continued regardless, and those "fail-states" should have just become a part of your story canon and impacted on how Dutch and other gang members react to you. I understand that they are trying to tell a linear story, in an open world; but maybe it's time to allow the player decide how they want that story to progress. At one point I just wanted to shoot Dutch and get the whole thing over with. He was't leading me anymore and I wanter Aurthur to part with the Gang much earlier - as soon as he realised he was sick. At that point, I would have run off into the sunset with Mary Linton - again the game plays up the romance but give you no agency to affect it. The game didn't allow for any of that kind of player agency. A revolution would have been allowing the player some more of that freedom to dictate the direction of the story, and take it of the linear-story rails.
You make some valid points but if the game came to be as massive and grindy as it is today, imagine how worse it would be if missions were not lineary designed and had branching story outcomes...the game would take another decade to finish. Maybe if the story missions were half the number they could facilitate story outcome branching. Not only that but Combat felt sluggish and unresponsive, environment interaction animations were a time consuming pain in the a** after a while, I could go on. R* must go back to the drawing board and update all their systems. RDR2 was a technical achievement on all counts but an old fashioned one. They need to realize that having realism and "gamey" (example: fast/instant looting) features in in a massive game can only elevate our experience not detract from it.
Personally I loved the animations and interacting with objects and npcs while looting or whatever. It's slower than what we are used to because it's more realistic. I will never get tired of watching Arthur skin whatever animal he just hunted. But I understand people want a more streamlined experience so I get that side of the argument too.
@generic I love skining animals in RDR2 too, the whole thing. But they could have added the press and hold X to speed up or skip the animation, just like when you cook stuff on the the campsite. They didn't..
Yeah the freedom and open world seemed to clash with the on rails story telling more often than not. Would have been nice if they'd figured out a way to make them mesh better.
I think it was revolutionary in terms of NPC interactions, I think a lot open-world games will now follow en suite.
This exactly. The amount of variety with how you can choose to interact with NPCs hasn't been done in any other game to such an extent. The interaction with camp members in particular deserves a special mention.
I mean en route, not en suite (bathroom included with your room) LOL
The game wants to tell a particular story and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The ending of TLOU wouldn't have been as good if the finale came down to the player making the critical decision at the end instead of being forced to play through it as Joel.
I think I felt the same way Arthur needed an out as soon as he got sick but he cared about his family to much and thought he could correct things or steer some people like john in the right direction.
I think It was just a big open world. There was nothing new added to it's open world that I think revolutionized anything. There is a lot of attention to detail, or at least a lot of fame play mechanics which got put into the game, but it's not really advancing the open world genre, and it can be argues it's not a good way for it to go, because a hyper focus on realism which never actually achieves it, really holds the game back from being amazing all around.
the level of details and immersion in RDR2 is second to none. it's just that I don't think many other devs will want to or have the resources to follow suit with what R* have done in RDR2. the level of details in RDR2 and the little touches that filled the game will be unsurpassed for many years until maybe the next R* game comes out. and by that I mean the amount of work gone into the game but graphically, there are other games already looking better and that will continue to be the case as tech progresses and new gen incoming.
Generic Atleast give us the option to skip the same animation over and over again. 6 seconds per skinning animation or to Loot the body is way too much. Realistic usually means less fun and more power to you if you like realistic but play gta vc, sa and saibts row 2 and tell me those games weren't more fun than the recent more rradyoc open world games Part of gaming is fun and do many developers want photo drastic everything and they forget to add fun Opening last way too long but we are told enjoy it. Animations and slow and long for skinning but we are told it's realistic(BTW reastic doesn't qualify since it takes more than 6 seconds to skin an animal) the controls are sluggish but I guess that's the price for realistic I am all for realism in gaming but too much realism usually means less fun Media and fans bought into the hype now that the dust has settled people are finally seeing RDR2 for what it truly is(a great game with great story but not a master piece) But my opinion is in the minority and I get that. People can't take criticism now a days without calling others haters but fact of the matter is more realism will always mean less fun
No, it didn't. it's just another great rockstar open world game.
Was not that great, imo it was over hyped and a boring slow world
It was over hyped yes. Red Dead Redemption 1 was much better
they are padding the missions too much with dialogues and worst of all, these dialogues are mostly optional but the traversals that come with it aren't! so you can ignore all the optional dialogues but you will ultimately be stuck in these slow horse traversals doing nothing but pressing up and the X button hoping to reach your destination that much sooner. that's my biggest gripe with the game.
Very over hyped game that got a free pass from reviewers for just being a Rockstar game imo. The game concentrated way too much on maintenance IE, all the stat bars, camp, guns, clothes, facial hair, head hair. It got ridiculously boring.
it was a great open-world game. however, considering they had 8 YEARS to work on it - the story wasn't the greatest and it was very restrictive. the perfect example of this is the bank heist - you weren't allowed any freedom - you had to do it EXACTLY the way rockstar drew it up and couldn't deviate from that in the slightest......this is not revolutionizing anything.
Chang open world gaming forever? Absolutely not. The world might be the most beautiful open world I've seen, but the mission design is decades old. In fact, it's hard to quantify just how bad it is when they in other areas they are at the top of their game. And it's much more pronounced because I was going for gold medals. "Oh? You feel off your horse once, so now you have to restart the whole mission because because you need to do a flawless run? Sure thing. Oh? You know where the next mission marker is and want to ride there now because you need to complete the mission in 9 minutes? Well too bad, you are going to keep riding slowly with Dutch for 5 mins while he says a bunch of crap you've already heard.4 times now and you are going to enjoy it!!." It's like an unskippable cut scene only worse.... much much worse. Again, it's hard to quantify just how utterly pathetic the mission design is.
Nope. It's the same rockstar game there been putting out for years, just prettier with survival elements. Garbage controls and all.
yea....don't get me started on the controls! SMH
No. There was nothing revolutionary about it. God of War had no loading screens or camera cuts and the best combat and graphics this gen.
This gen isn’t over and combat will go to dmc5 or sekiro I bet and graphics last of us 2
Sekiro? I doubt it will even scratch Bloodborne and Nioh combat-wise. DMC always had garbage combat that's why it has to place walls in the doors when you're in combat, because it's tedious af. God of War barely does that except in bosses because it's actually fun and you don't notice it. Only DMC1 and 2013 are good.
i'm not saying i'm an expert; but, of the games i've played, i've never had combat as smooth and fun as in GoW4. we'll see on future games but i wouldn't "bet" anything on that if we're talking REAL money.
Dmc3 and 4 have the best combat in that genre and sekiro is looking like a dime piece I’m starting to think you are trolling especially with the 2013 dmc being superior to 3
I love DMC but Bayo series has better combat for an action game and 3 is on the way. I do think DMC5 will be amazing tho and my most wanted game.
is it just me or the "you can barely see anything that's happening" type of combat used in DMC and Bayonetta seems very dumb?
Jak & Dexter had no loading screens on PS2, so nothing new there.
I think Gow deserves more credit for it considering it's on a 350 dollar console but has the best graphics this gen and the World Serpent is the biggest and most detailed monster I've seen in a video game.
@MoshA: I’m not gonna debat that. GoW always had amazing gfx and big credit to the developers certainly. However, the amount of detail in RDR 2 as an open living world is stunning and a benchmark for future games in that genre imo. But on other areas RDR2 definitly had some flaws (controls e.g.)
Jak & Dexter didn't use the one cut camera though. so far only GoW is using that technique and it's looking and feeling marvelous in action.
God of war having no loading screens and camera cuts seems irrelevant it was a linear title overall it's played through a wide corridor like the tomb raider reboots I think graphically for a completely open world game god of war graphics will not be possible
Why is it irrelevant? Open world is the daily life of the protagonist, so camera cuts take away from that. If r* was willing to make such a lackluster fast travel system so we could really experience their world the way author did, why not for for a single shot as well. Even sleeping should force the player to sit through it. Single shot camera wouldn't make sense for this game...Except where they pretty.much tried to make it that whenever you were in a mission.
@mosha I can't compare uncharted as it's level based and not an open world corridor in this case I'm not comparing the quality of the games I'm comparing the style of the game as I see it they are open wide corridor games. Not open world
i disagree with the title
It's a great game but not as great as hyped by the media. I would say Witcher 3 and HZD are still better open world games.
I think Witcher 3 and God of War are my games of the generation so far. The shear size of Witcher 3 takes it for me, it has the best expansions ever that almost doubles the games size, all the while maintaining the remarkable quality of the game. That being said, GoW had a story that really hit me hard. I don't think a game since Shadow of the Colossus had that kind of emotional I pact on me. It's a tie between Spider-Man and HZD for shear fun I've had in an open world game. RDR2 is special but it's not that fun. I couldn't really put it down but it's so clunky that it's hard to call it fun compared to games that are so smooth and easy to use. But that world they made; the world they created for RDR2 is just spectacular, it's a place I could always stop in and visit.
Probably not, but definitely best rockstar game to date. Only game theyve put out with a script that didn't actively kill brain cells listening to it. Loved the campaign, whoever they brought on to write this story should be promoted.
that's interesting. i respect your opinion and all, but i felt the story was unbelievably awful/boring and artificially drawn out by making the player ride on horse for long distances. also, i wish i had a dollar for EVERY time dutch said "you have to give me time" or " i have a plan" or the classic "you have to trust me".......20% of the story was hiim repeating these lines over and over and over. - seriously, skank - you think this is a great story????
Lol for 'respecting my opinion' you sure are mighty condescending. I loved the story. The slow burn plotline of the progressive demise of a group of outlaws was fantastically told through the eyes or Arthur Morgan, who was constantly being torn between his conscience and obligations to the gang while following the orders of a delusional psychopath. The character development was great, John Marsden actually had some personality this time and the evolving relationships between characters was greatly portrayed imo. But again, I only base this on my experiences with other rockstar games, RDR 1 included, and this one is vastly superior in dialogue and storytelling. RDR 1 bored me to tears, maybe I'm overly optimistic on this but my insanely low expectations, given rockstars inability to compose a meaningful campaign up to now were definitely met and then some.
I thought the story of this game was terrible. It's about author, apparently, but he is just about serving Dutch. He seems to have no motivations of his own. Dutch is an ass, and you're supposed to care about him for the story, or because author does, but he has no redeeming qualities. Even when they try to make him seem like he has good reasons, he comes across as a psychopath. Some of then less fleshed out side mission stuff had better story. Where they actually made author likable. Spoiler So there was a mission where your going to get revenge on being double crossed, and you end up collecting crawfish traps and shooting an alligator. How is that good story telling? To show Dutch was making connections? Tgats great, but for all of authors travels, nothing he did was to make.those connections to advance the plot. Robberies that could help the gang were wide mission things, and completely optional. There are a lot of good things in this game, but the story is not good at all.
not at all, until they break the open world/linear mission problem still a good game tho
It hasn't revolutionized anything but it has raised the bar for world detail and complexity.
In many ways yeah. There are issues with pacing and the length of the game but theres no denying that from a narrative and technical aspect it has completely raised the bar for open world games.
from a narrative standpoint it didn't raise anything - you think that was good storytelling? if so, you must think "the cat in the hat" is a masterpiece of literature.
It's video game writing. If you can say there's one video game with a profound story, then you must think Cat in the Hat is a masterpiece. RDR2 has a better story than most in this context and yes it has raised the bar when most games are considered.
It's side narratives were good, but author himself was practically inconsequential to the plot. Can you name missions where he came up with the plan, or was it all him just tagging along? There were a couple missions where they gave you a binary choice on how to proceed, but the mission stayed the same otherwise. Some people talk about player agency, and this game had none. Author, was not a good character. His only reason for being there was as a spectator, witnessed by the constant pestering of the gang which would tell him what to do in missions. He existed to play the narrative of the other characters, mainly Dutch, who was pretty unlikable, even though author himself is likable enough if you play the good way, but hardly respectable if you play a bandit. @Nuck Cat in the hat, and many Dr guess books actually are good story telling. They have all the structure of good narrative and story. May be Not the most fleshed out characters. But ones you can come to feel something abou.
It sure did, managing to bring a living, breathing world at an unprecedented scale. Haven't felt about an open world game like this since Shenmue. From now on, it'll be the game which other open world games will be compared to.
Shenmue wasn't open world. It was full of loading screens.
That logic doesn't make any sense. I guess The Witcher 3 shouldn't be considered an open world either because you get a loading screen if you travel from Velen to Skellige.
Haha. So whether or not a game has loading screens is what determines if it's an open world game or not? Interesting.
No, it's because every area in Shenmue is its own section. No other assets are loaded into the game other than the section you are in. Witcher 3 pretty much the whole world is loaded in at once. Shenmue it's not. Things in the background when in a section of Shenmue is a 2D representation of what is beyond the boundary of the loaded area. Witcher 3 or any open world game all the world is loaded in but the areas far away they go into the low poly model but it's still all there. A couple loading screens don't make something not open world but making the game individual pockets does make something not open. The keyword here is OPEN. Shenmue is not OPEN.
"A couple loading screens don't make something not open world..." Sounds like you're contradicting yourself right there bud. You don't get to choose how many loading screens there are to not consider something open. It either is or is not. But to argue that the game that pioneered the kind of open world games we now have nowadays as "not OPEN" is just plain silly. You might as well say that the first Metal Gear Solid is not a true stealth game because you can go in guns blazing whenever you wish without any consequences.
I bought Assassins creed odyssey after I completed RDR2... yes, they did change something, because now games like odyssey all of sudden seem miles below the bar, that rdr2 set.. what a waste of money - should have played it before rdr2 :(
I don't think it changed open-world gaming at all.
Nope. Different devs will do different things
IMO definitely not
CDPR already aims for RDR2 quality for Cyberpunk 2077....so i guess that's your answer.
Well I hope it controls better than rdr2. Hell, I hope it controls better than the Witcher 3 as well, haha!
I don't think so, still haven't played it yet will do someday but at the moment really don't care cause every time I go and see some live streams of it, in each one of them most of time you are only galloping all the damn time, yes it looks great but being in damn horse all the freaking time not cool at all.
RDR1 was revolutionary. 2 was simply great.
They certainly raised the bar in world building and npc behaviour giving everyone a full week long routine of going to work home saloon etc slowly building structures over time little details that make the world feel lived in
Shenmue had that. Every NPC had a name. A daily routine. Job. Even could follow them to their home and it wasn't random.
No. Not even close.