ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 days ago
I love this game. It has several drawbacks, some of the physics make things feel like you’re underwater the whole time, the wanted system can be extremely irritating at the worst moments, and for a game with a world that is extremely alive the missions are extremely on rails where often even doing something slightly off the developers intended path will fail you
But despite that I still love it. The game is gorgeous years later. They put so much effort into the world. It’s not just the graphics, it’s every detail that just makes it feel so alive. Walking around the town the npcs are so thought out, have so much dialogue. The animals too. I remember playing other open world games after and just noticing more so how lifeless they felt in comparison; that npcs would repeat dialogue after 2 or 3 lines, animals would run in circles, etc. and the story is great.
I hope that once gta6 is done they turn to rdr3. Its overall a much better series with a stronger narrative, better characters, etc. with red dead they seem to not be as overly concerned with shitting it up with online bullshit and microtransactions though so the series might be done for
MyNameIsAtticus@lemmy.world 2 days ago
I’ve heard some really compelling ideas to continue Red Dead Redemption either spiritually (as in with a different or slight altered cast) or literally (take Jack at the end of 1 and do something with it or tell a prequel story to RDR2). I’m really hoping Rockstar does make a 3, the franchise is too amazing to let it just die like that.
ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
I remember so many people being furious at rockstar for not releasing dlc on the scope of gta4 but honestly with this game I don’t know what form that narrative would take that could be satisfying.
The main narrative is concluded decisively obviously. It’s a prequel so continuing with John would just be rdr1. Another undead nightmare is eh, zombies are so played out. I guess you could fill in what went on with Dutch or some of the others that show up in rdr1 but frankly I don’t really want to play as them. I suppose you could intro some new character that’s part of their new gang. I dunno. I get why they didn’t prioritize it (well that and more so that dlc costs a ton to develop for a pitiful return relative to something like gta online, which is kind of sad)
MyNameIsAtticus@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Yeah. Adding onto the Undead Nightmare one, i just don’t feel like it would fit the vibe of Red Dead 2. As much as i’d love another one, Red Dead 2 feels like it takes itself a bit more seriously than the first one. i’m not really sure what it is, but i’m just not sure an Undead Nightmare would fit at all.
ragebutt@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 days ago
I think it was the illness. Even without the illness based on the first games ending and the fact that Arthur was not mentioned or existed within it I was pretty sure I knew how rdr2 was going to end before I started but the illness gave it such a somber tone. Arthur recognized his mortality and really started to reflect.
It’s been ages since I played rdr1 but as far as I remember John was more “I’m doing this to be done, for my family!”. The tone was much lighter as a result even though there were moments that were heavy. And the characters weren’t as developed so I didn’t care as much. Dutch was just a fucking monster in that game, bill and Javier were just props. But rdr2 fleshed them all out so much