• RDR2 Opinions?

    From Spalls Hurgenson@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 4 20:35:39 2023
    "Red Dead Redemption 2" was one of the games I grabbed during my
    holiday frenzy (it's not /all/ about giving away games to others! ;-).
    I grabbed it because the reviews are good, and I'm a fan of Rockstar's
    other games. Yet, now that I stare at this behemoth, I can't help but
    wonder: should I bother?

    The game, I'm sure, is quality. The world will doubtlessly have an
    incredible amount of detail and character. The storyline will be
    entertaining. The gameplay will be mechanically sound. On a
    minute-by-minute basis, I'm sure I'd love this game. And I did spend
    real money on this thing; I shouldn't let that go to waste.

    And yet...

    The game looks so intimidatingly huge. Not only with its mammoth map,
    but in the sheer number of things to do; main quests, side quests, fun
    sandbox nonsense, skills, guns, NPCs... there's just so much.
    Everything is detailed to the most intimate detail (infamously, even
    the size of the horses' testicles varies with the temperature). It
    doesn't help that this is game three of the franchise; the series even
    has a history that's gigantic. There's just so much THERE... do I
    really want to immerse myself for God knows how long with this one
    game? I have a backlog running in the hundreds of games; can I really
    afford to spend so much time on just RDR2? Will it really be worth the investment of time?

    Plus, it's a western. That's never been a genre I've particularly
    warmed up to. I don't dislike it, but I've always preferred more
    settings much older or much more modern.

    So I'm torn. Do I or don't I? If only the game were smaller...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rin Stowleigh@21:1/5 to spallshurgenson@gmail.com on Wed Jan 4 21:18:49 2023
    On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:35:39 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:


    "Red Dead Redemption 2" was one of the games I grabbed during my
    holiday frenzy (it's not /all/ about giving away games to others! ;-).
    I grabbed it because the reviews are good, and I'm a fan of Rockstar's
    other games. Yet, now that I stare at this behemoth, I can't help but
    wonder: should I bother?

    The game, I'm sure, is quality. The world will doubtlessly have an
    incredible amount of detail and character. The storyline will be >entertaining. The gameplay will be mechanically sound. On a
    minute-by-minute basis, I'm sure I'd love this game. And I did spend
    real money on this thing; I shouldn't let that go to waste.

    And yet...

    The game looks so intimidatingly huge. Not only with its mammoth map,
    but in the sheer number of things to do; main quests, side quests, fun >sandbox nonsense, skills, guns, NPCs... there's just so much.
    Everything is detailed to the most intimate detail (infamously, even
    the size of the horses' testicles varies with the temperature). It
    doesn't help that this is game three of the franchise; the series even
    has a history that's gigantic. There's just so much THERE... do I
    really want to immerse myself for God knows how long with this one
    game? I have a backlog running in the hundreds of games; can I really
    afford to spend so much time on just RDR2? Will it really be worth the >investment of time?

    Plus, it's a western. That's never been a genre I've particularly
    warmed up to. I don't dislike it, but I've always preferred more
    settings much older or much more modern.

    So I'm torn. Do I or don't I? If only the game were smaller...

    You could do what I did, and just play online (while that's still an
    option, I don't think they are investing any more in it so who knows
    how long the servers will be active... another few years sure, but not
    as long as any RDR2OL fan would like).

    Then, just choose one role at a time. Like Bounty Hunter or
    Collector. Particularly for an action fan lover like myself,
    Collector role might seem boring, yet somehow I enjoyed the hell out
    of it. I did kind of cheat a bit by looking at the map of items...

    https://jeanropke.github.io/RDR2CollectorsMap/

    ..but that's because money was otherwise hard to come by in the game,
    and required to enjoy it. And, even with the map to guide me (toward
    items that would have been IMPOSSIBLE to find otherwise), it was still
    fun in an exploration kind of way. Oh yeah, did I mention I needed
    the money? :)

    Actually the most profitable thing I did was participate in races...
    that truly funded most of my activities, as I had a fast horse and
    practiced up on all the maps until I was mostly coming in first or
    second all of the time. Very profitable. But last time I tried races
    there weren't enough people in them for the prizes to be worth while.
    I still enjoyed the hell of them... its not just racing in the
    traditional sense (all going in the same direction)... on some maps
    it's just whoever shoots all the targets first.. But firing a bow an
    arrow (and guns) on horseback at those targets was addictive fun.

    I eventually became a completionist and decided to max out each role.
    Some I enjoyed more than others, but I really can't remember a game
    that inspired me to play that many hours (trust me, hundreds) just to
    have the sense of knowing I saw everything there was to see (mostly
    anyway).

    So they did release some DLC and some new roles. The very latest
    significant release (blood money or something I think its called), I
    never did finish all the missions in that, just because it took them
    so long to update it that my interest had kind of fizzled.

    Honestly I want to go back and complete the single player game one of
    these days.. Just because I enjoyed the world and the mechanics so
    much, I'd like to see the content that was created for all of the
    directed missions. Even though the missions in Online felt a little
    like "side missions", they were still more fun to me most of the time
    than "main missions" in most other games.

    But I think that had a lot to do with how much into the setting I was.
    I like western games and am of the opinion there's not enough
    representation of the genre.

    But, the fact you don't like the western theme makes me wonder why
    you're interested in it at all, honestly? For that reason, and the
    fact I think you may have no interest in online, I can't say I
    recommend for or against (in your particular case). I will say that
    if you venture into RDR2 online, you may be surprised at how often it
    feels like a single player experience.. especially in such a big world
    which I'm guessing is much more sparsely populated with other players
    than when I played it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rms@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 4 19:20:33 2023
    The game looks so intimidatingly huge. Not only with its mammoth map,
    but in the sheer number of things to do; main quests, side quests, fun >sandbox nonsense, skills, guns, NPCs... there's just so much.

    I've been told to skip all the 'sandbox nonsense', like hunting in particular. Some sidequests may be good but I'd probably stick to the main quest. But I've always been extremely leery of R* games (except Max Payne 3
    of course!) and have never played any GTA title either. As for westerns,
    I'm mostly an Outlaws guy (which apparently is getting a remaster of some sort).

    rms

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From PW@21:1/5 to spallshurgenson@gmail.com on Mon Jan 9 21:54:06 2023
    On Wed, 04 Jan 2023 20:35:39 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:


    "Red Dead Redemption 2" was one of the games I grabbed during my
    holiday frenzy (it's not /all/ about giving away games to others! ;-).
    I grabbed it because the reviews are good, and I'm a fan of Rockstar's
    other games. Yet, now that I stare at this behemoth, I can't help but
    wonder: should I bother?

    The game, I'm sure, is quality. The world will doubtlessly have an
    incredible amount of detail and character. The storyline will be >entertaining. The gameplay will be mechanically sound. On a
    minute-by-minute basis, I'm sure I'd love this game. And I did spend
    real money on this thing; I shouldn't let that go to waste.

    And yet...

    The game looks so intimidatingly huge. Not only with its mammoth map,
    but in the sheer number of things to do; main quests, side quests, fun >sandbox nonsense, skills, guns, NPCs... there's just so much.
    Everything is detailed to the most intimate detail (infamously, even
    the size of the horses' testicles varies with the temperature). It
    doesn't help that this is game three of the franchise; the series even
    has a history that's gigantic. There's just so much THERE... do I
    really want to immerse myself for God knows how long with this one
    game? I have a backlog running in the hundreds of games; can I really
    afford to spend so much time on just RDR2? Will it really be worth the >investment of time?

    Plus, it's a western. That's never been a genre I've particularly
    warmed up to. I don't dislike it, but I've always preferred more
    settings much older or much more modern.

    So I'm torn. Do I or don't I? If only the game were smaller...


    I have been stuck in the nasty cold, deep snow part of the game for
    years. Can't figure out how to move on to a warmer climate for the
    last couple of years.

    Considering a couple weeks ago it was 32 degrees BELOW zero for three
    days here in Montana, I guess I have lost interest until once again it
    warms up here.

    Impressive game though. I have not tried playing it on-line which I
    have read is fun.

    -pw

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Spalls Hurgenson@21:1/5 to iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.co on Tue Jan 10 11:09:22 2023
    On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 21:54:06 -0700, PW
    <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:

    Considering a couple weeks ago it was 32 degrees BELOW zero for three
    days here in Montana, I guess I have lost interest until once again it
    warms up here.

    Seems a valuable resource you have there in Montana. All that COLD, I
    mean. In a rapidly hottening* world, you ought to find a way to make
    use of that. Perhaps you can box it up and sell it on EBay?






    * it's a perfectly cromulent word!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimensional Traveler@21:1/5 to Spalls Hurgenson on Tue Jan 10 12:40:55 2023
    On 1/10/2023 8:09 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
    On Mon, 09 Jan 2023 21:54:06 -0700, PW
    <iamnotusingonewithAgent@notinuse.com> wrote:

    Considering a couple weeks ago it was 32 degrees BELOW zero for three
    days here in Montana, I guess I have lost interest until once again it
    warms up here.

    Seems a valuable resource you have there in Montana. All that COLD, I
    mean. In a rapidly hottening* world, you ought to find a way to make
    use of that. Perhaps you can box it up and sell it on EBay?

    Using a tornado delivery service.

    --
    I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
    dirty old man.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)