Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the West Was Digitized: The Making of Rockstar Games’ Red Dead Redemption 2

vulture.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 89 posts

Re: How the West Was Digitized: The Making of Rockstar Games’ Red Dead Redemption 2

#11

Post by tkiley »

I haven't played a big-budget game in years, but I decided to give RDR2 a try, specifically because reviewers described it as slow and boring.

I think it's great, for the exact reason that other people think it's slow and boring. It's specifically designed to quash your tendency to speedrun or minmax: It requires you to simply come along for the ride.

On the one hand, this is a bit annoying sometimes. On the other hand, it revives the sense of wonder that I haven't felt since I learned to treat games as something to win rather than something to get lost in.

Re: How the West Was Digitized: The Making of Rockstar Games’ Red Dead Redemption 2

#12

Post by Fricken »

haberman wrote: post #9
bitwize wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you kidding me? My sister just about lost her boyfriend to that game.

I loved RDRI and was eagerly awaiting the second installment all year. I fully expected to get sucked in. I played it for at least eight hours and just couldn't get into it. There's nothing driving the narrative. It's an outlaw gang doing mundane robberies and trying to avoid the law. I kept waiting for the story to draw me in and it never did.

I felt the same way. While RDR2's scale and attention to detail is unprecedented, the style of play and mechanics were just too much of the same, I wasn't about to cancel my social life to play more GTA but with horses, I've had enough of that.

I've sunk hundreds of hours into Breath of the Wild.

Re: How the West Was Digitized: The Making of Rockstar Games’ Red Dead Redemption 2

#13

Post by abledon »

tkiley wrote: post #11

I haven't played a big-budget game in years, but I decided to give RDR2 a try, specifically because reviewers described it as slow and boring. I think it's great, for the exact reason that other people think it's slow and boring. It's specifically designed to quash your tendency to speedrun or minmax: It requires you to simply come along for the ride. On the one hand, this is a bit annoying sometimes. On the other ha…

I feel the Internet has quashed my enjoyment of single player games ... it’s like I gotta have a multiplayer competitive at all times , if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears , Meh who cares not fun haha

Re: How the West Was Digitized: The Making of Rockstar Games’ Red Dead Redemption 2

#14

Post by ekianjo »

aphextron wrote: post #7
onlyfortoday2 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nope. poor mission structure, boring characters, annoying controls rockstar have not really implemented anything new with this game that was not in the first game. it looks great tho!

To each his own I guess, but it’s being universally acknowledged as GOTY.

> being universally acknowledged as GOTY.

... by the gaming press who is well known to sleep with big publishers. RDR2 may be very good but I would anyway focus on what actual gamers say, and stay away from game journalists' recommendations.

Re: How the West Was Digitized: The Making of Rockstar Games’ Red Dead Redemption 2

#15

Post by ajmurmann »

abledon wrote: post #13
tkiley wrote: post #11

I haven't played a big-budget game in years, but I decided to give RDR2 a try, specifically because reviewers described it as slow and boring. I think it's great, for the exact reason that other people think it's slow and boring. It's specifically designed to quash your tendency to speedrun or minmax: It requires you to simply come along for the ride. On the one hand, this is a bit annoying sometimes. On the other ha…

I feel the Internet has quashed my enjoyment of single player games ... it’s like I gotta have a multiplayer competitive at all times , if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears , Meh who cares not fun haha

That is a shocking statement. You are there to hear the tree falling in the forest. Are you saying that your reason of playing video games is to get acknowledgement from others?

I find this shocking because it's incredibly in line with discussions and articles that claim that a large portion of younger men had been deprived by society from getting a sense of belonging and accomplishment and is now using video games as a bandaid for that.

Re: How the West Was Digitized: The Making of Rockstar Games’ Red Dead Redemption 2

#16

Post by Invictus0 »

abledon wrote: post #13
tkiley wrote: post #11

I haven't played a big-budget game in years, but I decided to give RDR2 a try, specifically because reviewers described it as slow and boring. I think it's great, for the exact reason that other people think it's slow and boring. It's specifically designed to quash your tendency to speedrun or minmax: It requires you to simply come along for the ride. On the one hand, this is a bit annoying sometimes. On the other ha…

I feel the Internet has quashed my enjoyment of single player games ... it’s like I gotta have a multiplayer competitive at all times , if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears , Meh who cares not fun haha

It's a fair sentiment and I don't think you deserve to get downvoted for expressing it. Years ago when I still had an Xbox 360, I remember Microsoft had implemented a system where all of your friends would be able to see your in-game achievements on Xbox live, even in single player games. I'd actually say it goes even farther back to the days of arcades: sure, it's fun to play arcade games on your own, but really you just wanted to beat your friends' high scores.

Re: How the West Was Digitized: The Making of Rockstar Games’ Red Dead Redemption 2

#17

Post by parabx »

bitwize wrote: post #4
onlyfortoday2 wrote: post #3

too bad the game is not good, mundane and boring :(

Are you kidding me? My sister just about lost her boyfriend to that game.

I've finished the game this week and found it thoroughly amazing. It's definitely one of the best games I've played, and lives up to the first one. The first hours were pretty hard since the controls are weird, and the pace of the game is different than the current games, but after that... My god, what an experience! Even the chores, which are designed on purpose to be annoying, are fun to do because it makes you soak in the character, in their lives.

But to me the outdoor experience was the best of all: most of the times I would set the cinematic camera, put my horse on auto mode and just enjoy the trip, and get consistently mesmerized by graphics and the overall ambient. I've played more than the estimated 65 hours and still have stuff to do to complete everything, and there are times where I would just stop to look at the place.

That being said, I think that the story is... good, I like Arthur, but to be fair the last arc was better paced, I think. There are some inconsistencies in overall but nothing major. The first RDR also has a ok-ish story to me too so I think this is fine. There are some flaws on some game mechanics too, like the camp you can build which is a bit useless IMO, and of course the controls which are sometimes hard to grasp.

Nonetheless, a fantastic game

Re: How the West Was Digitized: The Making of Rockstar Games’ Red Dead Redemption 2

#18

Post by parabx »

ekianjo wrote: post #14
aphextron wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To each his own I guess, but it’s being universally acknowledged as GOTY.

> being universally acknowledged as GOTY. ... by the gaming press who is well known to sleep with big publishers. RDR2 may be very good but I would anyway focus on what actual gamers say, and stay away from game journalists' recommendations.

I am a gamer, I've played the game and loved it. Different people, different opinions

Re: How the West Was Digitized: The Making of Rockstar Games’ Red Dead Redemption 2

#19

Post by frabert »

abledon wrote: post #13
tkiley wrote: post #11

I haven't played a big-budget game in years, but I decided to give RDR2 a try, specifically because reviewers described it as slow and boring. I think it's great, for the exact reason that other people think it's slow and boring. It's specifically designed to quash your tendency to speedrun or minmax: It requires you to simply come along for the ride. On the one hand, this is a bit annoying sometimes. On the other ha…

I feel the Internet has quashed my enjoyment of single player games ... it’s like I gotta have a multiplayer competitive at all times , if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears , Meh who cares not fun haha

Interestingly, the Internet has quashed my enjoyment of multiplayer games: so many people are playing them, there's no chance I am going to be able to compete, given that I only play occasionally. When "multiplayer" meant "lan party" or "friends come together and play a skirmish" you actually had a chance, but now? Not so much.

I really prefer single player games with a nice story and an action that's not too hectic that I can enjoy at my own pace.

Re: How the West Was Digitized: The Making of Rockstar Games’ Red Dead Redemption 2

#20

Post by parabx »

always_good wrote: post #6
onlyfortoday2 wrote: post #3

too bad the game is not good, mundane and boring :(

Nothing is safe from the HN Dismissal. What's the purpose of such flippant negativity?

In my experience here, if something is considered only marginally bad by most people here it signifies that's very good for everyone else
Post reply on HN