Devs like CDPR need to take notes on Red Dead Redemption 2 NPC

[tgu]

RDR2 is heavily overrated as an actual game imo.

Gunplay is TERRIBLE. Controls in general are TERRIBLE. The mission design? IT IS TERRIBLE.

Start mission>Ride to location with 10 minutes of dialogue during forced horse ride>get into gunfight because of ambush (shytty gunfight btw because the controls and gunplay are horrid even by 2009 standards) >loot bodies> Ride back in another forced 10 minute exposition on horseback.

98% of missions are this, over and over and over again.

Now Arthur and Dutch, good characters. Their interactions are great, and I was even invested at some points (even though it dragged on needlessly at times) At the end of chapter 6 I thought ok, I liked how this wrapped up.

Only for me to roof houses for another 7 hours so they could 'connect it to RDR1' Which is cool, if the game hadn't dragged for 50 hours already to get me here while mainly focusing on DIFFERENT characters.

To me the only real great part of RDR2 is the graphics, the world, and the attention to detail.

Attention to detail isn't 'fun' though. It's cool these animals have day cycles, and how the snow melts, and the lighting, and how you sink in mud etc. Maybe they should have put that effort into making a fun gameplay experience instead.

All this is true but it’s still better than cyberpunk

 

[KushSkywalker]

All this is true but it’s still better than cyberpunk

To each their own, I will assume you beat Cyberpunk.

 

[Brandeezy]

The dumbest thing in RDR2 is the fact that you can go in the middle of the woods, kill someone and become wanted out of nowhere

R* wanted system is way out of date for a company that tries to make everything super realistic.

 

[Pure Water]

RDR2 is heavily overrated as an actual game imo.

Gunplay is TERRIBLE. Controls in general are TERRIBLE. The mission design? IT IS TERRIBLE.

Start mission>Ride to location with 10 minutes of dialogue during forced horse ride>get into gunfight because of ambush (shytty gunfight btw because the controls and gunplay are horrid even by 2009 standards) >loot bodies> Ride back in another forced 10 minute exposition on horseback.

98% of missions are this, over and over and over again.

Now Arthur and Dutch, good characters. Their interactions are great, and I was even invested at some points (even though it dragged on needlessly at times) At the end of chapter 6 I thought ok, I liked how this wrapped up.

Only for me to roof houses for another 7 hours so they could 'connect it to RDR1' Which is cool, if the game hadn't dragged for 50 hours already to get me here while mainly focusing on DIFFERENT characters.

To me the only real great part of RDR2 is the graphics, the world, and the attention to detail.

Attention to detail isn't 'fun' though. It's cool these animals have day cycles, and how the snow melts, and the lighting, and how you sink in mud etc. Maybe they should have put that effort into making a fun gameplay experience instead.

I agree with most of what you said, but this post has nothing to do with what the op was talking about lol.

 

[The Phoenix]

RDR2 is cool for the side activities, but the story drags on, and the gameplay in the missions is the same shyt over and over

Cyberpunk had a better story, and side stories. and the gameplay was more engaging and challenging

RDR2 did drag on. But I need an explanation. How was Cyberpunk more engaging and challenging? I grabbed the game at launch. Actually ended up getting it for free because I asked for a refund which CDPR sent me and then they never asked for the game back. In my time with the game, there was absolutely NOTHING engaging about it. You went from icon to icon on the map and there was no clever gameplay. I didn't see multiple ways to complete a mission. It was just, show up at said icon, kill every enemy in the area and free a hostage or pick up a package. Then go pick up all the guns and go sell them. The only missions I found that weren't that way were the Delamain cab missions. And those weren't anything special. The only reason they turned out to be different is because you couldn't shoot up the car. Otherwise, that would have been more of the same gameplay.

Keep in mind I'm not referring to any of the numerous bugs, I'm strictly talking gameplay. I found the quickhacks to be absolutely useless mainly because as soon as you used an offensive one, all the enemies on the map get alerted and there were no one shot quick hacks that completely took an enemy off the board. Even blinding them by shutting off their optics only lasted a few seconds and then after that everyone was alerted. I just couldn't understand the point. So the game always resulted in you just pulling out a gun and killing everything. And I could understand if this was just happening at the beginning of the game, but I didn't see any change 20 to 25 hours in. It's been quite some time since I've played CP at this point. Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I remember walking away from that game, not disappointed in the bugs, but disappointed in the absolutely mediocre gameplay. At the same time, any criticism I see of the game, is all about the bugs and what CDPR didn't do, or should or shouldn't have done before releasing the game. So I'd love to hear your take on why the game was more "engaging" and "challenging". I just can't see it. Which game has the better story is pretty subjective so as far as I'm concerned there isn't really anything to debate there.

 

[42 Monks]

animations for RDR2 on tape delay but ight

 

[Redguard]

IMO Cyberpunk was a better game

I agree, RDR2 get's dikk rode for having insane attention to detail but playing the game itself isn't very fun imo.

Also the story dragged crazy. There is a difference between pacing and padding.

Now that is not to say I don't like RDR2 at all, it's obviously well crafted as far as detail and general writing goes.

I notice a lot of the Cyberpunk backlash seems to be related to non RPG gamers thinking this was some sci fi GTA game.

Disclaimer: I played Cyberpunk on a good PC.

Cyberpunk 2077 is a failure, both in terms of story and gameplay.

 

[Master Teacher]

Two different types of games don't why people keep comparing the two, nobody compared Red Dead to the Witcher 3

Cyperpunk's NPCS are the actual characters you interact with not random pedestrians, it's not that type of game

there's no panam interactions with the characters, the car rides and conversations are way more immersive than anything in any rockstar games, it's a different type of game, it's not a sandbox game

 

[Zebruh]

What's wild is CDPR made The Witcher 3 and their civilian NPC's were really fukking great.

 

[daze23]

RDR2 did drag on. But I need an explanation. How was Cyberpunk more engaging and challenging? I grabbed the game at launch. Actually ended up getting it for free because I asked for a refund which CDPR sent me and then they never asked for the game back. In my time with the game, there was absolutely NOTHING engaging about it. You went from icon to icon on the map and there was no clever gameplay. I didn't see multiple ways to complete a mission. It was just, show up at said icon, kill every enemy in the area and free a hostage or pick up a package. Then go pick up all the guns and go sell them. The only missions I found that weren't that way were the Delamain cab missions. And those weren't anything special. The only reason they turned out to be different is because you couldn't shoot up the car. Otherwise, that would have been more of the same gameplay.

I feel like I played a different game. missions played out differently depending on dialog choices (which often depended on skill/class), as well as choices you made in other missions. I played stealthy, and rarely just went in and killed everyone. I would scope out locations, and there was usually a back door, vent, roof access, etc, that could be used as a shortcut (and often locked behind a skill check). not to mention all the different ways missions and combat could play out depending on what type of build you had

I bring up the challenge, because I think I could count the number of times I died in RDR2 on one hand. and most of those times it was because my horse fell off a cliff, or some dumb shyt. none of the gun fights were particularly challenging, the enemies never changed, and there were no boss type enemies (granted it's not really that type of game). in Cyberpunk on the other hand, I often found myself in a bad situation because of a decision I made. I would die and have to try a different strategy

 

[The Phoenix]

I feel like I played a different game. missions played out differently depending on dialog choices (which often depended on skill/class), as well as choices you made in other missions. I played stealthy, and rarely just went in and killed everyone. I would scope out locations, and there was usually a back door, vent, roof access, etc, that could be used as a shortcut (and often locked behind a skill check). not to mention all the different ways missions and combat could play out depending on what type of build you had

I bring up the challenge, because I think I could count the number of times I died in RDR2 on one hand. and most of those times it was because my horse fell off a cliff, or some dumb shyt. none of the gun fights were particularly challenging, the enemies never changed, and there were no boss type enemies (granted it's not really that type of game). in Cyberpunk on the other hand, I often found myself in a bad situation because of a decision I made. I would die and have to try a different strategy

After I typed that response yesterday, I went and looked at a let's play for the game, but a more recent one. I found one where this chick started playing 2 months ago and so I just watched to see if maybe I was doing something wrong. Maybe in all this time, I couldn't see the forest for the trees. But nope, the game was as I remembered. You walk into a room and loot everything in site like you are a mad man, and when the action starts you and some random enemy just kinda stand in front of each other and shoot one another in the face.

When I played, I played with a character that used a lot of quickhacks. It's been a while so I can't exactly remember all the terminology or skill tree data, but my guy definitely wasn't some brawler or shooter. And I was highly disappointed by the lack of effectiveness of the quickhacks. It just didn't make sense as a build. And in turn, that made the whole game not make sense to me. I saw a site yesterday that had a whole bunch of "builds" for CP. All I could do is

 

[daze23]

After I typed that response yesterday, I went and looked at a let's play for the game, but a more recent one. I found one where this chick started playing 2 months ago and so I just watched to see if maybe I was doing something wrong. Maybe in all this time, I couldn't see the forest for the trees. But nope, the game was as I remembered. You walk into a room and loot everything in site like you are a mad man, and when the action starts you and some random enemy just kinda stand in front of each other and shoot one another in the face.

When I played, I played with a character that used a lot of quickhacks. It's been a while so I can't exactly remember all the terminology or skill tree data, but my guy definitely wasn't some brawler or shooter. And I was highly disappointed by the lack of effectiveness of the quickhacks. It just didn't make sense as a build. And in turn, that made the whole game not make sense to me. I saw a site yesterday that had a whole bunch of "builds" for CP. All I could do is

I don't want to tell anyone "you're playing it wrong", but I didn't play the game like that. it was more of an immersive sim to me. I wasn't trying to walk in the front door, guns blazing

 

[RennisDeynolds]

Watch Dogs 2 NPCs are Olympic sprinters



Ubisoft did a great job programming their AI though. They do all kind of shyt and have all kind of convos

 

[Zero]

Cyberpunk literally ruined a company's reputation and you got people calling it better than anything

That's not an opinion, that's an objective fact


Get all the way the fukk outta here

 

[The Phoenix]

I don't want to tell anyone "you're playing it wrong", but I didn't play the game like that. it was more of an immersive sim to me. I wasn't trying to walk in the front door, guns blazing

I wasn't either. I went into the game expecting a completely different experience which is why I didn't build a strength or gun based character. I'll pick it up again at some point when I have time and explore a bit more. It's just that when I think back on my time with the game, I don't recall alternate paths and things like that. And by no means would I be shocked that they exist, I just feel like I would have stumbled across some a time or two, because I don't go all guns ablazin when I play games like this.

Watch Dogs 2 NPCs are Olympic sprinters



Ubisoft did a great job programming their AI though. They do all kind of shyt and have all kind of convos

I feel like when it comes to hacking and picking apart enemies with said hacking, Watch Dogs 2 did a much better job. That's not to say that CDPR was going for that style of gameplay, but in my opinion CP would have been better served had it taken the same approach to some degree.

Also, I'll say this and I know there is a camp out there that exists with this opinion......I really feel that game should have been in 3rd person. I remember when it was first revealed that it was in first person, a number of people were upset about it because they thought it would be 3rd person like the Witcher. I was willing to give it a shot though. After playing it though, among my many complaints with the game, one of those ended up being the perspective it was in.