Did Red Dead Redemption 2 Change Open-World Gaming Forever?

Rockstar aimed to "revolutionise" the genre, but did they?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
ArchangelMike26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

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.

UltraNova26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

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.

generic-user-name26d ago

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.

UltraNova25d ago


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..

bluefox75526d ago

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.

FalconofLucis9826d ago

I think it was revolutionary in terms of NPC interactions, I think a lot open-world games will now follow en suite.

goldwyncq26d ago

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.

FalconofLucis9826d ago

I mean en route, not en suite (bathroom included with your room) LOL

goldwyncq26d ago

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.

Profchaos26d ago

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.

rainslacker26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

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.

badz14925d ago

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.

neutralgamer199225d ago


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

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 25d ago
chrisx26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

No, it didn't. it's just another great rockstar open world game.

THC CELL26d ago

Was not that great, imo it was over hyped and a boring slow world

Gardenia26d ago

It was over hyped yes. Red Dead Redemption 1 was much better

badz14925d ago

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.

ControllerBreaker26d ago

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.

25d ago
nucky6426d ago

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.

CaptainObvious87826d ago (Edited 26d ago )

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.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 25d ago
awdevoftw26d ago

Nope. It's the same rockstar game there been putting out for years, just prettier with survival elements. Garbage controls and all.

nucky6426d ago

yea....don't get me started on the controls! SMH

MoshA26d ago

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.

Movefasta199326d ago (Edited 26d ago )

This gen isn’t over and combat will go to dmc5 or sekiro I bet and graphics last of us 2

MoshA26d ago

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.

nucky6426d ago

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.

Movefasta199326d ago (Edited 26d ago )

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

Segata26d ago

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.

badz14925d ago

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?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 25d ago
sagapo26d ago

Jak & Dexter had no loading screens on PS2, so nothing new there.

MoshA26d ago

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.

sagapo26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

@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.)

badz14925d ago

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.

Profchaos26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

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

MoshA26d ago Show
rainslacker26d ago

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.

Profchaos25d ago

@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