Red Thread Redemption

[maximaz]

It’s quite a bit different from the first in terms of gameplay in some regards, all depends on what you’re looking for.

The story blows the first out of the water.

I made a thread about the first one when I first played it but basically there was actually very little I liked about it: voice acting, dialogue, some writing, stuff of that sort.

I hated the story. Overall it made no fucking sense and JM was completely broken as a character. I think a lot of people got fooled by the unusual dramatic ending because the rest got ridiculously inconsistent and difficult to care about. This might be subjective though.

What makes me hesitate more is the structure and the missions in the first one. 99% were identical kill quests. Go to a marker, watch a cutscene, ride to another marker and kill clones. Nothing done in the world affected anything. No NPCs in the game except for the unkillable mission post npcs. Nothing really to do that mattered.

Gameplay was also shit. Can't play the game without autoaim (shooting someone on horseback was impossible), while the autoaim made it so you don't even have to look at your opponent to kill them.

 

[TheGM]

What makes me hesitate more is the structure and the missions in the first one. 99% were identical kill quests. Go to a marker, watch a cutscene, ride to another marker and kill clones.

So every videogame ever.

 

[KingArthur]

I made a thread about the first one when I first played it but basically there was actually very little I liked about it: voice acting, dialogue, some writing, stuff of that sort.

I hated the story. Overall it made no fucking sense and JM was completely broken as a character. I think a lot of people got fooled by the unusual dramatic ending because the rest got ridiculously inconsistent and difficult to care about. This might be subjective though.

What makes me hesitate more is the structure and the missions in the first one. 99% were identical kill quests. Go to a marker, watch a cutscene, ride to another marker and kill clones. Nothing done in the world affected anything. No NPCs in the game except for the unkillable mission post npcs. Nothing really to do that mattered.

Gameplay was also shit. Can't play the game without autoaim (shooting someone on horseback was impossible), while the autoaim made it so you don't even have to look at your opponent to kill them.

I see. A lot of that did change with 2, auto-aim is more… reasonable, in that it will only snap to people the reticle is close to, multiple endings for the “nothing matters” point, and missions usually do turn into a shootout, as is the nature of video games, but there’s also a decent amount of missions that consist of hunting or other such activities, for the purpose of story related script occurring; the mission “A Fisher of Men” is a prime example of this.

 

[maximaz]

So every videogame ever.

Not really. If we're talking free-roaming games of this sort, even GTA games will switch things up a lot more often to keep it interesting. Even when you are sent to kill, it doesn't usually feel THIS identical. Every single shootout in RDD happens the same way, in the same environment, setup, enemy type, flow, etc. You cannot tell one mission from another other than the horseback shootouts which were worse.

 

[ironmask]

I used to love Red Dead Redemption up until 2 years. I haven't played it for a while so I was excited to play it again until I realized that it wasn't as good as I remembered it, when it came out. It's a huge shame when a game is not as good you remember. It's a bigger shame because there are not that many western games out there. Much less open-world ones.

 

[CT Phipps]

I'm curious what you thought didn't make sense for RD1's story? I mean, it's a fairly straightforward story.

 

[maximaz]

I'm curious what you thought didn't make sense for RD1's story? I mean, it's a fairly straightforward story.

I don't remember much about the game now. I got into it in the old thread but it mostly had to do with the main character being very inconsistent, going through story arcs that were very contradictory to his own (when he got to Mexico especially).

I see. A lot of that did change with 2, auto-aim is more… reasonable, in that it will only snap to people the reticle is close to, multiple endings for the “nothing matters” point, and missions usually do turn into a shootout, as is the nature of video games, but there’s also a decent amount of missions that consist of hunting or other such activities, for the purpose of story related script occurring; the mission “A Fisher of Men” is a prime example of this.

Might check it out then. Are most NPCs still nameless clones who are born when you are in the area and disappear forever when you leave?

 

[KingArthur]

I don't remember much about the game now. I got into it in the old thread but it mostly had to do with the main character being very inconsistent, going through story arcs that were very contradictory to his own (when he got to Mexico especially).



Might check it out then. Are most NPCs still nameless clones who are born when you are in the area and disappear forever when you leave?

Agh… there’s more random events and such, so not really? The world definitely feels more dynamic than in 1, if that’s what you mean.

 

[ironmask]

I don't remember the story being that bad. It wasn't really that great but I wouldn't say it's bad. I also don't get how John's character is inconsistent. John is a guy who was really to do anything to protect his family and would get his hands dirty if he had too. I don't remember him doing anything to break from that defying trait.

 

[KingArthur]

I think it’s the idea of John being somewhat… written into a corner. Arthur’s personality changes with his Honor in 2, both in cutscenes and gameplay. John is always a family-oriented character, and no matter how ruthless he gets in the story, there are lines the player can cross that he feasibly wouldn’t.

 

[Señor Wally]

One of the problems I had with Read Dead 1 was that I felt I was making John act out of character or look hypocritical for being ultra violent. This was a problem also present in GTA4. Rockstar was having a dissonance issue at that time.

That's not to say John was a bad character. It's just that story John and my gameplay John seemed different enough to railroad me into playing good John.

 

[TheGM]

Not really. If we're talking free-roaming games of this sort, even GTA games will switch things up a lot more often to keep it interesting. Even when you are sent to kill, it doesn't usually feel THIS identical. Every single shootout in RDD happens the same way, in the same environment, setup, enemy type, flow, etc. You cannot tell one mission from another other than the horseback shootouts which were worse.

As opposed to the drive here cover shooter of every game ever. you walked right into this valley of rakes and you ain't getting out.

That's not to say John was a bad character. It's just that story John and my gameplay John seemed different enough to railroad me into playing good John.

Literally no incentive to be Bad John since low honor has nothing worth getting but Good John does. Arthur has finical motives since you need money to unlock things(though if you know what you are doing there are faster way then robbing people). Bad John just gets a horse with cancer-aids.

 

[Señor Wally]

As opposed to the drive here cover shooter of every game ever. you walked right into this valley of rakes and you ain't getting out.

Literally no incentive to be Bad John since low honor has nothing worth getting but Good John does. Arthur has finical motives since you need money to unlock things(though if you know what you are doing there are faster way then robbing people). Bad John just gets a horse with cancer-aids.

I was so dissapointed when I got that fucking midget retard steed. But I forgot all about that until you brought it up just now.

 

[KingArthur]

Bad Arthur also gets the “PUT ME OUT OF MY MISERY” ending which is great.

(Bad Honor Arthur, Help John. You’re welcome).

 

[TheGM]

Eh Good Arthur gets the Bubba Ho-Tep send off. And if you are gonna go out, go out like The King.

Another big difference between both games is Empty Threat John the man who threatens to kill tons of people. gets like 2. Arthur on the other hand? Don't cross that man.

 

[KingArthur]

Eh Good Arthur gets the Bubba Ho-Tep send off. And if you are gonna go out, go out like The King.

Another big difference between both games is Empty Threat John the man who threatens to kill tons of people. gets like 2. Arthur on the other hand? Don't cross that man.

I’d say that’s because, again, Arthur actually adapts to the player based on Karma. John is a good man, so he’s not about to follow through on his threats, and some characters even call him out on that.