GMak81

Hi guys, thanks for the answers. There's a couple of threads on the Panormaic Map (which I didn't realise). No mention of the symbols. Happy for a mod to delete this thread, as I'm done with the game now. I just was curious and I hate no knowing answers to things like this! So yeah, if it's possible feel free to delete this thread to tidy up a bit! Cheers, Glenn

Hi all, having just completed the game, and lacking the time/willpower to grind for 100%, I have looked up and found answers to many of my questions regarding certain easter eggs/mysteries. One eludes me: perhaps two; they could tie together... Up near Flaco Hernandez you find the frozen couple with the Panoramic Map. I trawled around until I found the summit area of Mt Shann. The maps in this game are sometimes deliberately misleading/ambiguous, so I'm not sure if the location has to be exact, but it seems to be a specific ledge that I found on Mt Shann. (The bottom of the map, depicting the foreground shows the outline of a ledge, hence why I do not believe it pertains to the summit area). I know there is the UFO at the summit, but this seems to lead to something else. Near the giant skeleton on Mt Shann is a narrow ledge that you can skirt along, leading you to a "star map" type symbol, similar to the one on the Panoramic Map itself (lines of different lengths and angles, not a map as such, more of a diagram). I stayed there at various times etc, but nothing happened. The place you see the UFO from is not this location, that's further towards the summit. Now the weird thing is, there's another similar white symbol, on a tree near the Tiny Church in Lakay. If you use Eagle Eye, there will be an orchid on a tree, between the road and the church: this tree has white symbols on it. What do you make of the panoramic map? have you found the symbols on Shann, or the tree in Lakay? What do they mean? Any info appreciated, I hate to leave mysteries unsolved.

Oh wow, I kinda pick up that you're joking, but I really hope I didn't spoiler this for you. I didn't think I'd need to enter the text as a spoiler, because the title of the thread contains the word spoiler in all caps. All of the major surprises in the game were spoilered for me, which is a real shame, I would never want to do that to someone else. If you think it's an issue, I'll delete my post. Let me know, and if I spoilered it, I am really genuinely very sorry.

I had the fist fight with Micah, Micah and Dutch walked off and then Arthur passes away, laying looking at the sun over the landscape, with another vision of the deer. I was at max honour.

Relatively old thread I know, but I didn't want to read spoilers, now I've completed the game I'm looking for answers to some of my many questions! My first thought when seeing the house was that it looks like a Hobbit house from Lord of the Rings. Yet it features a turtle which is the sign of the Chelonian cult. The letters on the tree kind of reminded me of the language invented by Tolkien, though I'm no expert (kinda runic looking).

Great topic, and fantastic post from the OP! THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS! I'm going to cover 2 things: the potential love interest, and the link between Arthur and John. Having just completed the game, I can now view every thing in hindsight. For me, personally, I would always talk to Sadie in camp, hoping for some sort of romantic spark to happen. It's plainly clear that for most of the game Sadie is grieving for her husband, and thus any romance would be extremely slow to blossom. It just felt natural to me that Arthur would be attracted to her. She's a good looking lady, with a fiery spirit, just the kind Arthur could respect, and desire. He is one of the 3 who rescues her at the start of the game. As the story progresses, Arthur and Sadie seem almost like a reflection of one another: tough, loyal, and willing to do bad things although with a higher moral code to try to do the right thing. They seem "right" together, and eventually do a lot of missions as the gang splits, essentially replacing Dutch's role as the "honourable outlaws". They work together closely, and as others have stated, Sadie is the only one who shows any real commitment to, and compassion for Arthur. You can see plenty of scope for missing dialogue/scenes/missions, where Arthur and Sadie spend time together discussing the changing dynamics of the gang, planning how to move forward etc. Obviously both are aware that Arthur is terminally ill, and this is a core feature of the overall story as Arthur strives for redemption in the face of his looming mortality. It would be kinda messy trying to have a non sexual romance with a TB sufferer who is dying, and the potential for it to get awkward, and seem contrived is probably the reason it was left out - as well as potentially getting too "tugging on the heart strings", which wouldn't really fit with the overall game. So for me, in terms of her inherent attractiveness, how I as a player felt it natural for him to like her and vice versa, her growing character which reflects that of Arthur, number of missions they do together, and her genuine compassion for Arthur, Sadie was definitely the love interest. Charlotte: Arthur meets Charlotte when he is trying to make up for some of his wrongs, as he reflects on his life and comes to see that much of what he has done, with his misplaced loyalty to his gang (adopted family), has been evil. Charlotte is vulnerable, and Arthur adopts an older brother/father type figure in giving her the tools and confidence she needs to survive on her own. For me this was a self-contained redemption storyline and nothing more. Eliza: During a dialogue option with Rain Falls, Arthur mentions that he had a son with a young woman, but also mentions that both were killed, so there is no possibility that she was the 2nd love. Arthur, John, Abigail, and Jack - it's clear that Abigail was a working girl, as there is dialogue between Miss Grimshaw and Abigail in camp, where Abigail states that she will not work, because she "doesn't do that any more". All of the girls (except maybe Mary Beth who is new to the gang) are working girls, and Grimshaw is clearly the madam. Throughout this game, and RDR1, Abigail and John have a strained relationship. There is little warmth between them, although it's pretty clear that John does love her - you always get this awkward sense between them, like something unspoken; the sort of post-affair type of relationship, where you're together but it will never be the same again. @YodaMan 3Dmade an excellent observation, which I noticed at the time but had forgotten: when Abigail says to Arthur "you should really spend some time with Jack". This is phrased in such a way as to imply, Arthur is the father and SHOULD spend some time with his son. Almost as if he has a sense of duty to fulfil. This would also make sense of why John left the gang for about a year: if he felt, or Abigail told him, that Jack was not his, he may have freaked out and needed to get away to clear his head. Jack doesn't really seem to like John, and although John does make an effort at times, again it's always awkward; like they both know somehow that John is not the dad (Jack subconsciously, John consciously), but they sort of get along with things because this is the situation they are in, so they just go along with it (much like Abigail and John). John is clearly not that bright. Both Arthur and Jack enjoy reading, and writing (Arthur keeps a detailed journal, picks up and can read books throughout the game, Jack always has his head buried in a book). Jack seems more like Arthur, than John in this respect. Finally, in the epilogue, Jack is reading a story about King Arthur, and John gives him the assumed name Lancelot to hide his true identity. I just found that an interesting aside. Thanks for reading, I enjoy discussions like this, cheers!

@MN32410 Red_&_Dead So you remember earlier in the thread when you blasted me for mentioning TV settings when I was trying to help? I'm glad your TV update solved your problem. I'll apologise to me on your behalf. Enjoy the game.

As a Western themed game I can see future implementations of game mechanics which work to allow more outlaw/lawman roleplaying. Currently people seem to have to kinda make up their own ways of being a good/bad guy, and I can see both points of view. There's also another point that some kids etc and genuinely nasty people want to impose misery on others...and there should be ways to do this which enhance the game, not lead to endless arguments about what is/isn't "griefing". And for anti-griefers there should be incentive to hunt these people down...like a bounty system perhaps? Should people be allowed to ruthlessly rob and kill NPCs and PCs? Clearly, yes, because all of these GTA/RDR games are focused on those themes. Should there be a penalty system built in to the game mechanics, like the bounty system...yes, because that happened in real life and is present in the single player. I don't think we should confuse people's play styles with their real world personalities: an actor plays a role; a player does the same. The character that they play is not the person playing it! I can see that The Ugly (as a stranger to me) may be the nicest person in real life, but in this game world he wants to be a nasty piece of work...that should be allowed, as this is a brutal genre, where hard people would do what it took to survive...however if people committed crime they would be hunted down, wanted, become renowned for their eveil deeds and bounties would be placed. Do the crime, do the time sort of thing. I'm not sure whether this is truly Beta, or not, due to the presence of microtransactions, however if we consider the life cycle of this game in the context of GTA Online, we can appreciate this is very early days. I think more mechanics will be introduced to reflect the Old West, bounty systems where killing leads to real consequences. The Ugly wants to play an awful, ruthless killer and that's cool, but currently the mechanics don't quite cater to a fulfilling way of doing that. Poggy and others tend more towards the Lawman role, wanting peace order and prosperity from lawful means, although I'm sure even he would not play a hunting/fishing simulator and accepts that in an outlaw game people will do bad things to NPC and PC alike! The game is SCREAMING for an official implementation of systems to allow and enhance the good guy/bad guy roleplaying elements. Also as per history, sometimes lawmen and outlaws weren't so very different, and sometimes a person would act in ways that went against their roles, lawmen committing crimes, outlaws becoming lawmen etc. So imagine a guy like The Ugly wants to be evil and get hunted down...implement a bounty system where there would be a price on his head for his crimes. Maybe at some point he is so wanted, and there is a reward for players that kill him, that he can't go anywhere without being relentlessly hunted: so there is some "redemption" system, where he can ease the heat by doing some good deeds etc. Conclusion: Rockstar may be working, watching and listening to feedback, to see what players want combined with their own vision of the game. It seems logical from the genre, the singleplayer, history of the Wild West, and feedback from players that enhanced roleplaying mechanics are needed and will most likely be introduced. Griefers could grief, with consequences that hurt ther character through fines etc. Anti-griefers could be lawmen and bounty hunters. People's online character could fluidly change from good to bad and back again as people are not generally all good or all evil. I think changes are needed, obvious, will come soon, and could make this online aspect a really good simulation of the West with its cops and robbers implemented in a truly satisfying way for all concerned.

Red Dead Redemption was a ton of fun to play when it was released. Before RDR2 was released I watched Christopher Odd's "blind" playthrough on YouTube, just to get reacquainted. Having been spoiled by the complexity and immersion of GTA V for some years now, I was kinda underwhelmed, wondering how/why at the time I had loved it so much, although the dialogue/storyline/characters do hold up well, typical Rockstar fair. I pre-ordered RDR2, which was a first for me, as I knew that to have put 8 years in to this it would be special... then I held off installing it, because there was a big stink among a very vocal sector of the PS4 Pro community about blurry graphics and lack of HDR. Finally I could wait no longer, and well, what can I say? Never have I played a game that feels so much like being in a living world. SDR or HDR, the lighting effects are stunning, the graphics beautiful and detailed, the landscapes just seem...real. In terms of pacing, sure, if you want fast and frenetic you could still enjoy the game, by charging from one mission to the next...but let us not forget this is a Western... it's a study in to an emerging nation, the nature of man, and his impact upon and appreciation of the natural landscape and flora and fauna around him (for example the Appleseed Tree Co. and their impact on the local environs). The typical Western movie will cover topics such as morality, and the Rockstar examination of what is good, and what is bad, in objective terms, is so present in this game, as it was in the time and place where the game is set: often the lines between outlaw and lawman were blurred at best! It's also a consistent theme in westerns, especially those of Clint Eastwood, of the slow burn...the smoldering tension that leads to the bloody and climactic conclusion. If you simply blow through the missions, I'm sure you can have fun, but I play this as an Arthur Morgan sim - I'm living as Arthur while playing this game, even imposing my own RPG elements in to the gameplay which I could skip or ignore almost completely. I once hogtied a fella who was kidnapping a fine young lady. I proceeded to throw him, still hogtied, off a cliff. As his screaming body smashed in to the rocks below, ragdolling as he went, Arthur casually exclaimed "well, so long mister, it's sure been nice knowin ya". I cracked up with laughter and shock! How was this possible? I've spent hours hunting for tiny critters, not even doing story missions, simply searching the world and enjoying watching sunsets and sunrises over the landscapes. Some of the collectables are so hard to find, that when you finally see one, after all the other small gameplay elements you've experienced in your search, you really feel a YES moment, where you feel rewarded for your effort. I actually add my own elements of RPG to this game, so if it's raining I'll set up camp most of the time to get some shelter, and change Arthur's clothes. If I haven't been to a town for a while, I'll enjoy a soak in the bath and maybe check some new garments. Feasibly you could see food in the game as an unnecessary mechanic, but I choose to feed Arthur as if he was a living breathing person, so he'll always have breakfast, and a coffee when waking up... We see from cutscenes that Arthur smokes - so my Arthur smokes, after breakfast and sporadically during the day, which allows me to buy extra packs because he just loves to collect those dapper little cards from the premium packs! And when I find one I haven't got on my travels...it's great! I'll do story missions and then if it feels like Arthur needs his space, because of some drama in camp, or some recent traumatic experience, I'll head in to the wilderness and enjoy the landscape. There's a book that Dutch reads which basically says America is it's landscape, that's the heart of it, and this game (as with most Western movies) glories in the beauty and intricacy of the American geology, topography, flora and fauna. Playing in first person feels like you are exploring through Arthur's eyes, and the gunplay is meaty and challenging if you don't auto-spam Dead Eye (especially with FP free aim). Really my only very small criticism, if it can even be considered such, is I would love even more survival realism - I can't remember the name of it, but there was a Skyrim mod where you would have to take shelter and build fires to stay warm...this made mountainous and snowy areas a real challenge to explore, where sometimes you would even have to turn back as you clung to life! I have yet to complete the game, having just started Chapter 4, but honestly this is a treat, and it's actually got me reading books on the Wild West, watching a whole heap of Westerns which before I would never have bothered with, and even watching a horse riding competition today! Can I understand that some people don't enjoy the game: sure; but I feel sorry for those people, because as games go, this one, if you "get it", is a simply sublime experience. I love this game, and I do whatever I can to draw it out for as long as possible, because this is 8 years work from some of the best in the business, and as an avid gamer since childhood I know that games like this don't come around very often. Thank you for reading my essay of love to RDR2, rambling with passion cos' just like Arthur, I've been drinkin'.

Hi mate, this might help (although I barely remember this far back in the game!). You're crafting at a camp fire right? Make sure to select the "show craftable" option, as I've noticed with coffee, even if you have it available it will only let you make a brew if you select this "show craftable" option. I hope this helps and you can progress in to this amazing game.

Thank you for the help mister! For everyone else: select the knife/lantern slot on the weapon wheel - with hunting knife selected, click left/right which will cycle through available alternatives. I tip my hat to you for your help.

@Ryanosaurus @Truth Thanks pardners, I have looked through satchel inventory, weapon wheel etc, I'll try as Ryan says to use the d pad. If it works, I will update as it may help others. Thanks for the speedy replies, I'm now booting it up!

Howdy, I found the Cavalry Dagger which replaces your hunting knife in the inventory. After saving and quitting the game, subsequently loading it up has seen the Dagger disappear from my inventory. I have just started Chapter 4, maybe I wasn't supposed to have found it yet (as I haven't got all the "collectables" quests yet) - has this happened to anyone else? Bug, or part of the game mechanics? Thanks for any info, I have submitted a ticket to Rockstar, but then thought... maybe it's not a bug, I'm just only able to access it after unlocking a certain quest/collectables series.

I finally installed the game a few days ago. I was really disturbed by some of the seriously bad reports being written here. I did not want to be disappointed by the game I was so looking forward to. Exiting the snowy prologue I had a chance to see the colour and definition for the first time. I usually play in "Movie mode" on my Phillips Ambilight, however with this game (HDR on), I play in "game mode" which really brings up the colours. Whether the HDR is fake or not, to my eyes it looks much more realistic and atmospheric with the muted tones of having HDR on. With HDR off, every thing is too colourful, almost cartoonish. It does take a little while to set HDR calibration, as during bright days it seemed a little dull, so I upped the calibration and it looks beautiful now. Night time is quite bright, however anyone who has been out at night under a bright moon knows that it is surprisingly capable of providing illumination, and can sometimes seem almost like a dull/overcast day level of light. HDR conclusion: "fake" or not the colouring in this game is natural, and capable of some stunningly realistic lighting effects and sense of atmosphere. Better on. Blur: I understand some of the issues you guys have mentioned now. Visuals at mid to long range do have a hazed appearance to them. Certain cut scenes have blur on characters faces etc. This is because the "crisp" face is the one the art director wants you to focus on. I would encourage any western fan to watch The Ballad of Lefty Brown, one of my favourite films. Take note of the "blur" - there is an early scene, in the first 5 minutes, where a character front of screen is perfectly in focus, while the guy holding a gun to his back is blurred, exactly as in RDR2. Regardless of what technology Rockstar have or haven't used, I believe this is an artistic choice: watch the film, and see the blurring and muted colours so common to western movies. Really it is an issue which I think people are misunderstanding, and getting worked up about, if you don't focus on the blur all the time, and accept it is deliberate, you can enjoy the game. Now before people call me troll, or tell me not to write here as I'm making them angry (lol), I do have one very valid point that may help. Sickness: Turn Boost Mode off! I had eye strain and felt nauseous as soon as I left the snowy prologue - like the game was overfocusing my eyes, and I was cross eyed. It made me feel sick. I had HORRENDOUS frame stuttering...I was so disappointed, I knew something was wrong...so I turned Boost Mode off, and the frame rate now is smooth, what's more, no more sickness or eye strain. Perspective This game is clearly made to be played in 1st person. This makes the visuals so much smoother, when turning your head etc, changing direction. It is not realistic or immersive to play 3rd person! I think the game is designed for 1st person, I tried 3rd, and the controls felt "clunky" as people report, and spinning the camera looked far worse. I won't write any more, I hope some people consider my points valid, and that my tip about Boost Mode helps. Watch the film, and understand that blur and muted colours are very much a feature of western movies, stop getting so worked up and just enjoy the game, which I think is beautiful and incredible. Sorry for the essay, I had to communicate these things, enjoy the game, cheers.

@MN32410 Red_&_Dead Wow, okay, that was a pretty intense response from a fellow gamer. Maybe you need some fresh air or something. I was polite and friendly and trying to help. I'm genuinely sorry that you guys are disappointed, but from some of the talk on here I think some of you may need a little bit of perspective on the bigger picture, that this is a game, one among many. Outside of games is a whole world to enjoy. There may or may not be an issue, as NOT EVERYONE IS REPORTING IT. Using stupidly oversized fonts as if you are shouting at me is ridiculous. Sure I won't bother commenting any more, although your logic that Rockstar will read some random guy's post on an unofficial forum, and decide not to act based on what I say, shows something about your mindset. If you are that wound up about a friendly, thought through response, maybe you should give up on the game, or wait for a patch, or buy a One X which doesn't have the problem, or play something else, or demand a refund, or go to trading standards, BUT NOT TEXT SHOUT AT PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE SLIGHTLY DERANGED. I genuinely hope the game is fixed for those having issues. But you should not think you can police what people say. I'll not write any more, because I understand that there is more to life than a goddamn game, unlike you it seems, so I'll just do one of the above steps I recommended so that this isn't a problem.

@Ross101 I wasn't trying to be awkward by making my posts wondering if this issue is Tv settings related, I was trying to work through to a viable solution to the puzzle. I'm sorry you're having issues, and those pics/videos you posted make the issue clear as day. It's just very strange to me that this isn't being reported universally by all Pro users. I conversed with a mate from a GT Sport Discord earlier today, he has a Pro and 4K TV. I asked if he had any experience with the blurring issue, and mentioned that a lot of people were very unhappy. He said it looked beautiful and he had no issues, and thought that TV settings could be the issue. In some instances, there clearly IS an issue with blurriness, but it's not universal, as another poster in this thread stated that some of their friends Pros were displaying very nice images - which means it has got to be the Tv settings. Is there any other logical explanation? How can it be the game itself, because if it was the game every player on Pro would be seeing the same thing - the only variations are individual TV/settings/PS4 Pro settings. I'm not raising these points to be annoying (that's not my intention anyway), I'm just trying to think through all the evidence in a logical manner.

Would anyone else like to see a more intense mode added to R* games, where essentially there is a penalty for failure - ie if you die, you don't just respawn, or get to restart the mission straight away. Not necessarily perma-death (although that could be an option), but something where perhaps you had to cover medical bills for a surgeon/doctor who "saves you" when you die in game. I actually mentioned this in another post, but thought it could stimulate some conversation so I created a new thread. Let's say you "die" in game, and perhaps you can't cover the bill, so you have to do something like a barter to pay your fees, or you get a credit note where the doctor says "this is the last time I can help you for free", or you owe a debt which you have to repay. Or would this be too hard to implement (at least well) and get in the way of gameplay...I suppose it could add a real challenge as like a new game+ feature. I know we all try not to die in games, obviously, but something like this would create an extra sense of urgency to stay alive, to plan ahead, and perhaps play even more realistically. Big battles would feel more epic and dangerous, with real peril. There would be an incentive to make sure you plan ahead, think through every potential encounter etc.

@Kean_1 Yeah, I think we are on the same wavelength. I completed FC3, didn't quite complete FC4 (which always looked weird on my TV), and completed FC5...some nice presentation and fairly intense moments, but ultimately felt a little shallow. That game is a good example of how hold-your-hand-arcadified games can be, when you've got vision through walls, glowing enemies with tags over their heads...that is not my type of gaming. I played it as raw and minimal UI as possible, because then you have to use awareness of your peripheral vision and audio cues to work out where enemies are, as well as sneaking and doing recon as much as possible. A massive part of my enjoyment, especially with Rockstar games, is exploration. I want this to be a raw experience, where I have to discover things, missions, locations, for myself. Stumble across things and get sidetracked, let the game flow. I want to use my brain and eyes to identify enemies, not have their locations shown to me on a GPS device (minimap). I'd also really like R* to add some sort of hardcore mode, with real penalty for failure...so if you die, you pay the price (not necessarily perma-death, but some sort of "medical fee" you have to pay to be "saved"). It spoils the experience and intensity in games for me when you die and just respawn. I want penalty for failure.

Hi, I haven't started playing RDR2 yet myself, was just wondering if anyone had played with HUD disabled? If so how did you find it? I'm the kinda player who likes minimal UI, so like in FarCry5 I would disable everything apart from interaction prompts (although that game forced you to enable UI in some instances, as you literally wouldn't know what your objective was). Is it necessary to have HUD on? Or does it simply make it harder? I'd also like to go 1st person, for immersion, and found it to be much more fun and satisfying in GTA V. Thanks, and have fun with the game!

@Rockstar74@0ldKen So what is the plan for you chaps? Yes it's only a game, and one amongst many, but I understand how disappointed you are. Rockstar games are special, and if gaming is a big hobby for you, then this would be a major downer. The stunning silence from R* seems so disrespectful to the masses of disappointed fans, especially as all the pre-sale exhibitions never hinted at these issues being present. Do you bite the bullet and buy an X? Do you simply forget the game is there and wait in anticipation of a patch? Personally I still haven't installed it, and as I'm trying to fully complete a recent re-run of GTA, I have something to keep my mind of RDR2...although I nearly caved in yesterday and installed it just to have a look. It may look fine, although I accept it won't be quite as nice as the X. It may be a blurred mess to me too, although some people seem to think it's fine. This is stupid I know, but I was seriously considering selling my PS4 Pro and G29 wheel, and using those funds to buy an X...yes, that's how much I was (and am) looking forward to this game. I can't buy an X and keep the Pro...so what have you guys decided to do? I'm genuinely sorry for your disappointment, but life goes on! You can get an X! Cheers.

That's not a glitch, it's historically accurate. People used to do that...all the time...long ago.

@pluggy Hi Pluggy, you report friends with the same console giving different visual outputs...how is this possible? This means that it is not something inherent to the game itself. Therefore, it must be something to do with PS settings, such as Boost or Super Sampling interfering with something...or, and I think this is a definite possibility, TV settings. For example, on my Phillips while playing GTA if I use Natural Motion at Max, it makes things seem more 3d. It also introduces some items flickering, like the leaves on palm trees. I had convinced myself that "maximum = best", but that is not true. I've changed it to medium, and this setting is optimum for my TV, a good rendering of depth to the image, with no weird artifacts. If it was universally an issue, then it would definitely be in the game itself, but the fact that it isn't points to other causes, the most obvious being the TV and/or settings used on that screen. I'm not trying to be obtuse, it's in my nature to be curious, want answers, try to solve mysteries. Just from what you've said, and my personal experience with how complex modern screens can be, with seemingly unrelated functions majorly altering performance and visual quality, this could be the answer (Natural Motion is to do with reducing judder, but actually alters how 3d the image looks). Cheers.

I guess I was using some wishful thinking to convince myself it was all okay. I've loved Rockstar games since the first GTA, and have played them all aside from a few add-ons. Having seen the trailers, and experienced the eye candy that is God of War, I was looking forward to something truly special with RDR2. How this situation has arisen is beyond me. I thought this would be a project of passion from R*, what with the amount of work involved to make the game. I really, really don't understand why they allowed this situation with Pro to come about. There is absolutely no way I can justify buying a One X for one game, so I guess I'll install it soon and have a look for myself, and if it isn't up to spec I'll wait to play until a patch comes out. But to not even issue a statement...wow. I guess R* know that because their titles are so unique and universally loved, people will buy them and put up with a certain amount of issues, so from a business sense they aren't losing. They already have the money from the people with Pros, and will probably get a whole lot more when online comes. Let's just sit here with no idea of if and when a solution will be patched, hoping for the best. Cheers.

I just joined the forum specifically as I had googled the PS4 Pro "blurry" issue. Having pre-ordered RDR2 (a first for me) I then decided to delay install to wait for bug patches, as I didn't want my experience marred. Therefore I can't speak from personal experience, but as I'm currently re-playing GTA V on my Pro with Super Sampling and Boost Mode, through a Phillips Ambilight 4K, I have to say GTA looks beautiful! With RDR2 I've read so many comments from people massively disappointed with the presentation on the Pro...is it really that bad? Watching footage on YT (trying to avoid spoilers) just to see what it looked like...I have to say, even through my basic PC and a HD monitor I think it looks great. So my question is: does the game really look that bad? Or is it simply that people got their expectations too high? It seems weird that Rockstar won't issue an official statement when they had a marketing deal with Sony - and the guy in the shop where I bought the game, himself a One X owner, said that he thought the game would run better on PS4 because of that relationship between Sony and R*. The fact that this doesn't seem to be a universal complaint makes me wonder whether there are some strange individual PS/TV interface issues (beyond my understanding), or whether certain people are just disappointed with the way the game looks. Is it unplayable? Maybe I should just install it and see for myself, but surely if I can appreciate GTA V with boost, RDR2 will still blow me away visually?