[QUOTE=NachoPiggy;52726047]I admit he was, and the new protag doesn't look too compelling himself at the moment, but there's just something about how RDR 1 ended and wrapped most of the story and details up already during the entirety of the game that I rather have the focus in the new game be something completely new.
I'll still most likely get the game and will likely enjoy it, but I hope the actual game will have enough of a compelling original plot on top of fleshing out its existing characters.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, GTA III wrapped up its own story but there were 4 good prequels featuring its characters.
Really looking forward to this. GTA has gotten extremely stale with lackluster updates, so this cannot come soon enough.
[QUOTE=Eric95;52726170]idk why everyone suddenly cares so much about the multiplayer in rockstar games, wasn't single player always the focus?[/QUOTE]
It still is, at least in the base game. GTA V's single player is fantastic as it is and even with multiplayer in the first RDR and GTA IV, it was never a notable focus. The main thing people bring up is that GTA V never got singleplayer DLC/expansions though while GTA:O got tons of content, a fair amount you needed to grind/buy shark cards to get in a reasonable timeframe. Most of that stuff never actually gave you a notable advantage unless you decided cars > weapons for some reason. Once you get a garage you're pretty much set. I think part of that comes from it being this weird cross between GTA IV multiplayer style missions and a more typical MMO.
Fuck if I know how any of that could even be transferred to a game like RDR.
I hope the free-roam MP doesn't end up like GTA5 with dumb monitization. It wasn't really that in-depth, but it was always fun to fuck around in with friends.
And I hope multiplayer gets rebalanced. Dead-eye was stupid broken.
I'm just happy that the free DLC's aren't able to be a huge assortment of cars, if they want to pop out free updates at least it will have to be gameplay oriented.
[QUOTE=Warborq;52726266]I'm just happy that the free DLC's aren't able to be a huge assortment of cars, if they want to pop out free updates at least it will have to be gameplay oriented.[/QUOTE]
Gold trimmed horses and wagons.
Or even better, literal horse armor.
[QUOTE=Eric95;52726170]idk why everyone suddenly cares so much about the multiplayer in rockstar games, wasn't single player always the focus?[/QUOTE]
to be fair there has been literally 0 DLC for SP in GTA V, with everything being for the online instead. used to even at least put the new vehicles/weapons into the singleplayer, but they stopped even doing that after the first update or so. the EFLC formula they did for 4 was great, so something like that for V would have been cool too.
cant help but just make you think that theyve realized the real money comes from microtransactions for MP stuff, and they might just focus on that more.
Honestly, the story for GTA V was kind of whatever. I don't think a single player DLC could've made it better. I've played through it twice, and I can still only remember like three things from it.
I still think Red Dead Redemption 2 is a very redundant name. Like if they named GTA 5 "GTA 4 2".
It looks pretty, though. I wonder how much they're gonna cut in the final version though if GTA 5 taught us anything.
[QUOTE=gnampf;52726296]I still think Red Dead Redemption 2 is a very redundant name. Like if they named GTA 5 "GTA 4 2". Not unless they're making it a continuation of Redemption's story but even then, I don't see it.[/QUOTE]
How is it redundant though? RDR might as well be its own franchise, no one really remembers or talks about Red Dead Revolver and that had zero connection with Redemption. It makes as much sense as "Metal Gear Solid 2" does.
[QUOTE=gnampf;52726296]I still think Red Dead Redemption 2 is a very redundant name. Like if they named GTA 5 "GTA 4 2". Not unless they're making it a continuation of Redemption's story but even then, I don't see it.[/QUOTE]
It can't really be a continuation since it's a prequel, but I can kind of get the title.
is this brokeback mountain
[thumb]https://i.imgur.com/UZra4Pe.jpg[/thumb]
I hope they announce a new bully next
[QUOTE=Joem1k;52725994]Ehh, for some reason im not impressed. Coming from a guy who loved the first one, this trailer felt lackluster for some reason, can't put my finger on it but something felt off.[/QUOTE]
This was my exact thought as well. Admittedly, compared to when the first RDR released, I don't hold Rockstar nearly as highly and that may be affecting it, but the trailer legitimately doesn't feel up to the standard of Rockstar(circa as late as GTA V).
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;52726290]Honestly, the story for GTA V was kind of whatever. I don't think a single player DLC could've made it better. I've played through it twice, and I can still only remember like three things from it.[/QUOTE]
thing about GTA 4 is that if you didn't like the main story, you were pretty much bound to like the Ballad of Gay Tony or The Lost + The Damned
i wish rockstar spent more time actually doing stuff instead of just pushing new cars and guns with the occasional new game mechanic mixed in. It feels a bit phoned in.
[QUOTE=Furnost;52725972]if theres no PC version im gonna be so mad. i loved RDR so much and i dont plan on getting a PS4/XB1 anytime soon[/QUOTE]
RDR is meant for KB/M so much that not porting it is almost criminal.
[QUOTE=Bread_Baron;52726187]To be fair, GTA III wrapped up its own story but there were 4 good prequels featuring its characters.[/QUOTE]
That's true. Though I just feel in the case of the GTA III-series of games, it was disconnected enough from the main casts of each other (with the exception of Liberty & Vice City Stories) in a way that all of them feel like fresh new stories with new faces. And when the moment arrives of seeing familiar characters, it's a very exciting sight since they don't steal the spotlight but rather provide a connective tissue for fans who played the previous entries, showing how they got there, how they were, and how they proceeded on to the other games. In RDR 2's case the protagonist is part of a gang directly involved from the previous game, which I feel might feel a little less new since a large portion of the recurring cast are people that were present in their older days from RDR 1.
I admit it's really neat to see prequels show off old characters in their earlier or younger states, and see how they evolve from that into the previous game's timeline. Part of me is even excited if the game itself will perform a bait & switch, or at least a short playable portion where the player gets to take control of a young John Marston, but I still hope the already known and established characters won't steal the entire spotlight. Though I admit it is still a bit early and there's still barely any details regarding the plot, so Rockstar might be able to pull off another compelling narrative with something that will flesh out previous characters and events even more while being able to tell a new story.
Like, the game looks good. Problem is the main character looks a bit too boring. He doesn't look like a grizzled cowboy. With John we got the sense that there was depth to his character, that he had some sort of redeeming quality. This guy just looks boring, and is probably going to be a huge asshole throughout the game.
Also I'm worried that Rockstar is gonna pull a GTAV on us and not give any single player DLC. Look forward to Undead Nightmare 2 (if it ever exists) to be a tacked on multiplayer game mode.
[QUOTE=simkas;52726299]How is it redundant though? RDR might as well be its own franchise, no one really remembers or talks about Red Dead Revolver and that had zero connection with Redemption. It makes as much sense as "Metal Gear Solid 2" does.[/QUOTE]
*Red Dead Revolver
*Red Dead Redemption
*Red Dead Redemption 2
And they couldn't have gone with Red Dead Revolution, Retribution, or any other word that begins with "R"?
they cant just randomly choose a word with R for part of the title...its gotta work with their overall story too. redemption fit because he was (being forced) wanting to right all his wrongs he did in his past life even though he had moved on from it and started an actual family
[QUOTE=gnampf;52726447]*Red Dead Revolver
*Red Dead Redemption
*Red Dead Redemption 2
And they couldn't have gone with Red Dead Revolution, Retribution, or any other word that begins with "R"?[/QUOTE]
Red Dead Revolver is only part of the series if you say it is, it has zero connection with the game. Again, Metal Gear Solid 1 - 5 exist and no one's ever had any problems with that.
I'm also not too keen on them calling it "RDR 2" if it's going to be a prequel. Usually when R* does prequels, the game has a different subtitle to indicate it's not a sequel (GTA: Vice City, GTA: San Andreas).
But it is what it is. Now we wait a year for the PC version to probably not be announced at all.
Was kinda hoping for a Landon Ricketts game because his character was really enjoyable and it would've been a decently fresh setting
This would take place what, 10-15 years before RDR? I feel like the 1890s are essentially the same atmosphere as the 1910s.
Ooh maybe they're doing the Gilded Age so they can fit more ludicrously expensive multiplayer cosmetics
[QUOTE=autodesknoob;52726101]Already posted this and its really out off topic but is someone as spoiled as me and has the desire to see monsters and other stuff in those landscapes? I feel like my mind wants as much variety as i get in fallout or other games.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. The fact that you always see "collect 5 wolf pelts" and never once "collect 5 bigfoot pelts" helps keep the story grounded in reality. Undead Nightmare is so fun but I love that it doesn't affect the main story. IMO you should play something like that after you finish the story. I want suspension of disbelief with the cowboy story before it becomes a cowboys meets scifi story.
Looks great. I'm just sad that this game probably won't have SP DLC either. :(
[QUOTE=MedicWine;52726606]I disagree. The fact that you always see "collect 5 wolf pelts" and never once "collect 5 bigfoot pelts" helps keep the story grounded in reality. Undead Nightmare is so fun but I love that it doesn't affect the main story. IMO you should play something like that after you finish the story. I want suspension of disbelief with the cowboy story before it becomes a cowboys meets scifi story.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I love it when devs do quirky spin off things like undead nightmare, blood dragon, secret weapons of ww2 and such but as you say don’t impact on the main game - loved the story of the first one
Why does it look blurry as shit? I noticed it in the first trailer too, like it's being upscaled from 720p or something.
[QUOTE=Adamhully;52726655]Why does it look blurry as shit? I noticed it in the first trailer too, like it's being upscaled from 720p or something.[/QUOTE]
I wanna joke 'Consoles' but I know that isn't the case.
[QUOTE=Anglor;52726653]Yeah I love it when devs do quirky spin off things like undead nightmare, blood dragon, secret weapons of ww2 and such but as you say don’t impact on the main game - loved the story of the first one[/QUOTE]
Yea I gotta give credit where credit is due. DLC isn't all bad, it's just often poorly handled.
[QUOTE=simkas;52726482]Red Dead Revolver is only part of the series if you say it is, it has zero connection with the game. Again, Metal Gear Solid 1 - 5 exist and no one's ever had any problems with that.[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously trying to tell me that [B][I]Red Dead[/I][/B] Revolver isn't part of the [B][I]Red Dead[/I][/B] series?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.