Kean_1
-
Posts
4,611 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
339
Posts posted by Kean_1
-
-
4 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:
When you got players saying that the fool the servers into putting them into more or less their own private server, you got to ask how good the online really was when players avoid actually playing it to it's fullest.
It's no secret. It's got to do with the playerbase the public sessions attract these days and the fact that GTAV nutty, corrupt, self-indulgent world encourages that kind of behavior. GTAV:O is still wildly successful no matter how you slice it and while some do try to find or create private / small pop sessions (like me), there are still an abundant amount of folks who are in full public sessions. Apparently, there are even some groups that have cropped up that band together on public servers so they can have a grief-free experience while completing tasks.
The trick with GTAV:O for folks like us is to play with friends, join friends only sessions or play solo. The problem I have with GTAV:O is that many of the businesses are tied to public sessions. You have to be in one in order to complete those missions. Motorcycle clubs are one of the exceptions. Having said that, heists and such are still co-op experiences where you don't need to subject yourself to the "open" world.
I've had plenty of fun when I was with friends and what I hope is that RDR2 doesn't tie such things to public sessions alone. A lot of times these missions are hard enough to without having griefers ruin your day. Trolls have an unfair advantage in GTAV:O against those trying to complete missions who stand to lose everything while the griefer does not.
I said it before, but while I have no doubt RDR2 will have griefers of its own, I do hope that the more "serious" nature of the game has led devs to create a gameworld much less friendly to trolls. Either way, it will be nice not to have jets and flying cars flying at you from across the map to ruin your day.
-
1 hour ago, YodaMan 3D said:
I not saying they haven't delivered in the past, but the industry is changing and not sure if Rockstar will continue to do what they do now or follow the rest. They didn't used to have micro-transactions or sharkcards, but GTA got them. What will be there next be change?
The never announced the release of the extended DLCs for the campaign, they did announce in an article they got cut for the sake of online stuff, that was where they thought the money was. To a point they was right, on the other hand, that told me that there could have been more story, which I enjoyed more then the online stuff. Will they now shorten the campaign for the thought extending online stuff.
Now all of this is hypothetical on my part and have no reason to believe they have changed like everyone else, but I have watched the industry as it has been changing and watching everyone, even Rockstar made changes for the sake of money.
Yeah, I saw an article from late last year where they discussed why they didn't consider DLC for the GTAV campaign. Made sense to me especially what was going on for them at that time. ....PR fluff-talk aside:
Quote"No, it was not really a conscious decision, it’s just what happened. We would love to do more single-player add-ons for games in the future. As a company we love single-player more than anything, and believe in it absolutely – for storytelling and a sense of immersion in a world, multiplayer games don’t rival single-player games.
With GTA V, the single-player game was absolutely massive and very, very complete. It was three games in one. The next-gen versions took a year of everyone’s time to get right, then the online component had a lot of potential, but to come close to realizing that potential also sucked up a lot of resources. And then there are other games – in particular Red Dead Redemption II. The combination of these three factors means for this game, we did not feel single-player expansions were either possible or necessary, but we may well do them for future projects.
At Rockstar, we will always have bandwidth issues because we are perfectionists and to make huge complex games takes a lot of time and resources. Not everything is always possible, but we still love single-player open-world games more than anything. I don’t think you could make a game like GTA V if you did not like single-player games and trying to expand their possibilities! "
R* reps have reiterated their passion for the single player experience through RDR2s development so I don't anticipate that changing anytime soon especially in this title.
Yeah, the virtual currency MTX model was new in GTAV but to be honest, I actually liked it better than some loot boxes, paywalls and P2W models others have. It can certainly be grindy but at least things are still obtainable through the gameplay.
That's not to say I think loot boxes can't be done in a reasonable way especially if that means limiting them to cosmetic items and those things that don't give paying customers an unfair advantage. Maybe they'll choose to do both in RDR2? .....I dunno.
Just remember that R* has been watching the industry as well and I'm quite sure they have taken note of the blunders we've all witnessed. Either way, you'll never be able to satisfy everyone and some will vehemently oppose MTXs regardless. We'll just have to wait for the details to be released on RDO to see what the model looks like.
-
48 minutes ago, VampireKrush said:
The thing about that too is that not everyone enjoyed the story or the characters. It had a low "repeat play" value. A lot of people didn't bother even finishing it. I think they realized it was just better to focus all their efforts with online at the point.
Well, I can't speak for others but I found the characters fun and amusing. The whole GTA game world was based on the ridiculous aspects of modern society and then kicked it up ten notches. I liked Michael and Franklin although I will admit I never felt comfortable with Trevor. ......always kinda weirded me out. :lol:
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, YodaMan 3D said:
My concern that companies are pushing to get players to get to the online gameplay with micro-transactions that the SP campaigns will become nothing more then a tutorial to get you there. I saying that GTA5 was not entertaining, but when you discover that they had DLCs in the wing and cut them, so they could focus to the online stuff. Well, I become skeptical of what will happen down the road, they are delaying RDR2 online till November, but does that mean Nov 1st or Nov 30th. How soon before they see $$$$, knowing players will spend.
......but my point is that R* has proven that they are dedicated to the SP experience by delivering good, well developed campaigns. If there is one thing I have no reservations about with RDR2 is that the SP experience will be no different in that respect. I'm not sure why your judging R* on a move that others are making in the industry? I also don't like that campaigns are being cut short or otherwise simply eliminated in favor of PvP. CoD and BF are just some examples. EA obviously miscalculated just how much of an impact it would have when they forego a campaign in Battlefront. .....leading them to add it back in Battlefront II.
As far as R* cutting DLC for GTAV, I don't believe that was anything that was ever announced by them but instead assumptions. I'm not saying they didn't discuss it but I honestly never heard anything officially announced from R* that it was in development. Personally, I would have probably like some additional content for the campaign but to be honest, I rarely buy DLCs. ....but I can understand the disappointment from someone if that is something they really value.
RDO is obviously a crap shoot at the moment as to how it will work. RDR2 will be in beta in November. .....and yeah, we don't have exact dates yet but personally, I'm likely to still be neck deep in the campaign still. I'll wager we should know the exact release for the RDO beta sometime this month. Perhaps they are waiting to make sure the main game goes off without a hitch before setting that date?
-
5 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:
The did crazy things in GTA, doesn't mean they can't be creative in RDR2. Just cause it limits the range doesn't mean it will limit the griefing.
Again, we'll have to see how it goes.
I'm not interested in dwelling on the negative to be honest. I'd rather be hopeful RDO will turn out for the better but I'm realistic about it too.
-
1 hour ago, YodaMan 3D said:
2 game manufacturers that I supported since forever was Ubisoft and Rockstar. Until the Division happened, talking with players in different forums over the past 3 years. I noticed a trend in what many players seemed to want in a game and developers adapted to impress those players. When often spoke against those changes saying that they must focus on their entire player base, not just a few but the whole. I usually found myself standing alone defending a dinosaur age.
Rockstar will adapt to what they think the players want. GTA5 got shafted, not because they didn't think it needed anymore. They scrubbed the extra DLCs for no other reason then profit margin. If GTA5 is their model for RDR2, then they will scrub any plans for the fast buck. Not saying they can't do both, but when their SP modes are nothing but a tutorial for the online game. They don't care for their player base, just a few and not the whole. I wish for the best, but really not trusting them on their words alone, but their actions too.
Ubi was one big disappointment after another for me. I gave up the AC franchise a couple titles after Black Flag. FC5 put a nail in the FC series as far as I'm concerned. While I enjoyed the Division to an extent, it still wasn't the game they said it would be during development. .....and I'm doubtful I will buy the Division 2. I did enjoy GRW especially the co-op. ...PvP was a bust and a departure from what made the core game fun IMO. I never had an interest in For Honor nor Siege. Ubi has quickly become one of those developers I don;t trust to make a game they say they are going to make or one that will meet my expectations.
R* on the other hand hasn't made a title I've played that has disappointed me. ....personally.
I'm puzzled that you would consider GTAV as merely a tutorial for their online component. ...or am I misunderstanding? That campaign was very robust from my own experience and one of the longer lasting ones compared to others. It was a full SP experience. RDR was too and I'm sure RDR2 will be even more so.
IMO, it has been their actions that have provided me with the trust I have now that they will deliver a great product in RDR2. I can't say I have agreed with everything they have done (to my own personal taste) but I've always felt their games I've played were well worth the money I paid.
-
8 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
See, I have a feeling it'll be MORE chaotic, because it was the "wild, wild west", not the "reasonably whimsical west".
😄
Well, one big difference that sticks out for me is that there won't be aircraft roaming the skies, tanks, flying cars or in this case, flying horses. No rocket launchers, homing missiles, grenade launchers, etc. Transportation in RDR2 will be on horseback, via train and perhaps fast travel points. The game world in RDR2 is also allegedly much bigger than GTAV perhaps giving folks even more room to breath.
Ultimately we have to see how it shakes out but this is what I mean by "less chaotic".
......and if the info we heard before was true about the radar being proximity based in RDR2, folks won't be visible to everyone (only those nearby).
-
3 hours ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
The entire concept of "Vote with your wallet" is invalidated here with the online portion not launching until a month or more after the game itself drops in a few weeks (which I'm getting more and more excited for).
I wouldn't say it's invalidated. RDO will only be successful if they can get people to play it. ......and keep them playing it. That's where the money is. The initial cost of the game still gets customers a robust SP campaign so even if online sucks, they should still have something to show for their purchase. R* on the other hand needs RDO to succeed or this whole things could be considered a bust for them.
In a way, players deciding not to play RDO is (in essence) voting with their wallets. They need a player base to make their MTX model successful.
-
4 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:
When you say do it better, do you mean for them or us? Cause game industries seem to be heading in the wrong direction when they say they are heading in the right direction nowadays. Not saying games haven't improved overtime, but their constant need to need more money to keep each game going for longer then 24 hours, seems a bit much.
Why can't it be both?
....and in an industry when other AAA companies are cutting back or simply eliminating the SP component from their games in favor of more profitable PvP modes, R* continues to find value in bringing the SP experience to their fans.
A bad product is a bad product. Continue to create bad products, make bad decisions, go wrong directions, piss of your customers, etc. and I don't care if you have a successful franchise or not, your sales are going to suffer. One only has to look at what some of these mistakes AAA companies have made in recent years and what it nearly cost them. ....consumers still have a voice.
Having said that, there are always going to be those who don't like a company's model regardless of how successful it is. Folks also need to realize that the age of "games as a service" has arrived and won't be going away anytime soon. It is the new business model and what is going to make companies thrive as they compete for consumers. Games will continue to evolve to reflect that (particularly PvP).
Personally, I don't see any problem with companies using successful business models to make money. As long as I still find value in their products, I will continue to buy them. ....simple as that. It's all a matter of perspective I suppose but I don't see a reason why a game like RDR2 won't turn out to be better for them and us.
-
16 hours ago, VampireKrush said:
I don't think it is a bad thing to have people playing online. I don't think they will pass up the opportunity to drop some campaign DLC on us though either. They can easily charge $15 to $30 for extended game content a pop so there is money in it for them. There will be a fan base that mostly focuses on the online side of the game but plenty of us Red Dead fans will be investing more time and effort offline on the campaign than online.
Yeah, while other AAA companies have either completely scrapped or cut back on SP elements due to a lack of profitability, R* is still committed to delivering that to their customers. They still believe in the SP experience, the story telling and the immersion it provides. There is a fan base for SP games and R* is one of those who still sees a value in producing that kind of content.
R* chose to forego DLC in GTAV, but they also have explained why. Three major factors at the time included improvements to GTA Online (which was in bad shape initially), the porting of GTA V to PS4 / XB1 and the developing Red Dead Redemption II. They also felt that the single player campaign was already quite robust as is . .....and while I would have liked DLC for it, I have to agree that it was a long and satisfying game as is.
What it boils down to is that they felt GTAV DLC was simply not "possible or necessary" at the time but they have expressed an interest in offering SP DLC in future games. .....so I think there is a fair chance for RDR2 in that regard.
Personally, I also see nothing wrong with online either. Whether I end up playing it is another story and will depend greatly on how it caters to a cooperative playstyle. .....I am definitely not a fan of adversarial gameplay especially in the chaotic form we know in GTAV:O. All I do know is that I will be playing the hell out of the campaign and I have no doubt it will at least provide me with my monies worth.
Either way, I believe R* has learned a lot from GTAV/O and I would expect that those lessons have been applied to RDR2/RDO. .....in a positive way.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:
When playing online, it was about playing a game with friends. I suggest you set that as your goal. I see no reason with the success financially that GTA did online that Rockstar would handle RDR2 any different. Though they claimed they will treat both game very different, there is no reason for them not to follow the same model in their designs for money.
I read once that Rockstar has had enough success over the years that unlike other companies, they don't make games just to make money, they don't to payback their fans by continuing to make the games their fans like to play out of loyalty, now to do that they have to make money. Industry has changed and so the one they make money to support their games have changed. Last but not least, don't lie to ourselves, they are doing it strictly for the money.
This is the only way I play PvP games is with friends. ......again, preferring co-op scenarios instead. It was unfortunate that at the time I was playing GTAV:O, I didn't have any PSN friends that were into the game so it was mostly a solo affair with me. RDR2 is a bit different as I have 3 really good friends who are excited about it and those I have also met here in the forums.
Of course Take Two and Rockstar are interested in revenue but I believe they tend to make a quality product. Also, just because a company makes a lot of money with successful titles doesn't mean their staff is bereft of passion for what they do.
The fact is that R* has been doing something right otherwise they would not have enjoyed the success they have While some other companies continue to make mistakes in their decisions and direction, I feel R* have shown a degree of wisdom in their judgments in this business.
Regardless of how I or some others may feel, you can't argue that R* has enjoyed an extraordinary level of success thus far. .....and unless they really screw something up with RDR2, I can only see that trend continuing into the future. .....but I simply cannot fathom R* / Take Two making such a blunder as to damage that reputation given their track record. If we were talking about a company like Ubisoft, I wouldn't have nearly as much confidence. ....little at all in fact.
My only hope is that R* does focus more on cooperative gameplay in their PvP this time around. Given the drastic differences in settings, I have a feeling PvP gameplay will at least be less chaotic than GTAV:O is.
EDIT: I never realized that you were limited to the amount of reactions you can give to posts in a day. I went to click on a couple here and got the message that I can't. :LOL:
-
4 hours ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
IIRC, one of the gameplay videos for RDR2 talked about skinning game and trading the pelts at a general store for cash. I'm certain there's going to be other ways to make money in the game, it's just going to require work.
I'd rather work for it than take the quick and easy path (as Vader did). I know @YodaMan 3D is no fan of The Division, but one of the few things they got right was how they handled microtransactions: randomized loot boxes that could be purchased with "keys" that are available in three ways: (1) real world cash (converted into another currency in-game that can be exchanged for the "keys" to the boxes); (2) randomized drops from defeating Named Enemies, opening free crates that are earned through gameplay such as daily quests, weekly quests, or point accumulation; OR (3) unlocking in-game commendations which have fractions of a key drop at predetermined intervals, such as killing a specific number of enemies, or completing specific tasks.Those randomized loot boxes only dropped cosmetic items, such as weapon skins, backpack skins, clothing, or emotes, and granted no statistical or measurable advantage to the player (other than looking sweet). You could purchase an assortment of randomized items with real world cash on a week to week basis, but the good stuff is usually gated behind gambling addiction, er, um, randomized loot boxes.
I can see RDR2 taking a similar tack.
Yeah, I would rather work for my in-game money too and if the gameplay is entertaining enough (with enough activities, missions, side quests, etc.), I don't mind.
Personally, I like the virtual currency model over loot boxes / crates but Take Two has already said that future MTX opportunities may not include virtual currency. They also came out in defense of loot boxes during the controversy. ....so yeah, I can see them possibly adding them in RDR2 or some mixture of both. We'll just have to see how it goes. What I do know is that these guys are not stupid and they know that all eyes are on them right now. .....a bad decision with RDR2 could really put a dent in their upward momentum.
Some folks are always going to be against MTXs but the the fact is they are here to stay. There are companies that simply do it better than others in the eye of the consumer as you mentioned in your example. However, I have confidence that R* has put a lot of thought in regard to the potential impact of such choices in RDO. .....but we'll just have to see how it all shakes out I suppose.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:
I have had that with players flying over in jets and bombing my son and I. Those same players will probably brag to their friends about what a loser you are and how great they are at PvP. lol
I still remember one of my earlier experiences in an open session with a room full of randoms.... I saw a couple players in trouble with the law (in a firefight) so I decided to drop in and offer them a lift out. One of the players promptly pulled me out of the pilot's seat, his buddy hopped in and they took off. ......luckily it was a Chinook so I had time to break out my launcher and take them out.
They respawned, killed me and then I returned the favor once again. ......same old story everyone has heard before. That was the last time I actively engaged in any PvP action in that game. I played solo almost exclusively from that time forward.
-
41 minutes ago, Cokeyskunk said:
Wow, you still own your first car?? That's incredible. Have you ever thought about selling it?
Yeah.... The Charger was my first and I still have it. I've had many offers for it over the years but I never sold it. It's currently behind a fence on the side of my house with a car cover so no one ever sees it now (sort of an RV/trailer parking area).
I also have my Dads '86 4Runner he bought brand new. .....that's still in decent shape and all original too. Here's a pic from just a year or so ago:
-
Good question.....
What was the GTAV campaign with all the side missions and such? I felt that was well worth the money. I figure with what we know about the game world size, activities and such of RDR2, it will likely be even longer than that. Some additional replayability would be nice though.
-
Now that I think about it, I should mention that in GTAV:O that I have used an exploit of sorts on my PS4 that allows me to join public, free roam sessions alone or with very few other randoms so I can do business missions in relative peace. I simply change my connection settings so the game places me in my own session. Sometimes a few others may be placed in the same session but most times they are there for the same reason I am and may even offer to help each other.
Again, not an exploit that I use in a competitive PvP scenario but thought I should mention it nonetheless.
-
47 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:
Earning $20 million isn't easy in GTA:O from level one. It was easier in the beginning then it is now in my opinion, but I say that because a 1st level guy doesn't stand a chance against players that have been playing for years. Shark Cards can help, but they don't necessarily make you a good player. Youtube, which I am not a fan of does show players easier ways to earn money, many that exploit glitches and hacks. RDR2:O will have those as well, I suppose.
We are hyped and have been so for almost a decade. Rockstar has been better then most companies, but they also gave away a lot of free updates. Not everyone who played paid for those, they came from shark card users for GTA:O and RDR2:O will have similar upgrades. It isn't all their fault either, it is those who abuse the system. Regardless of cost.
I agree with you. I am going in trying to look for the bad things till Rockstar shows me that there is no bad stuff. Meanwhile the abusers will still be there abusing cause they can.
Yeah, it's certainly a grind no doubt.
I do hope the RDO economy isn't as out of whack as GTAV:Os. I also hope it is geared more toward cooperative gameplay rather than the wildly toxic PvP while in the open world.
-
1
-
-
Never have, never will. I just don't see the point. IMO, I don't care about leaderboards, stats, etc. I play games for the enjoyment of it. Personally, I care more about the gameplay and camaraderie. ......likely why I prefer co-op over PvP.
If cheating is so bad as to dampen my enjoyment of a game, I'll simply not play.
If I've learned anything over all these years is that if there is a way to exploit, take advantage of or hack a game, there will always be people to do it.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Aimesleje said:
That's a lie. You cannot EARN a $20,000,000 yacht in GTAO. You cannot start as a level 1 character and work your way to having a hundred million dollars. The only people who've achieved that are shark card buyers and hackers. Hackers which R* doesn't even bother to get rid of.
I've earned more than that in GTAV:O without the use of Shark Cards or hacking but yeah, it's not easy to obtain such an item when you consider everything else that you buy in the game along the way (e.g. vehicles, aircraft, businesses, weapon upgrades, etc.). I never felt the yachts were worth it to be honest and felt they were just for bragging rights.
There are tons of "get rich quick" videos on YT showing you how best to grind for the cash. Some work better than others. That's how I was able to purchase all of my businesses, etc. If you would argue the point of grinding for cash in the game or the inflated prices of items, I would agree.
A liar? ....naw. It's possible to obtain those items with honest gameplay but at this point, I don't really care to convince you of it as I don't have the tolerance to be disrespected.
5 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:The best argument I can give is the Division, they showed gameplay at E3 and at release, we didn't get that, we never got it. I agree that things could get shady and get shady fast. Last thing we need to do is get over-hyped before the game gets released, regardless of who else may have played it and said it is great. That person wasn't me, so it's hard for me to believe their critiques. Soon though, I will be playing and have my day, as well as the rest of you will as well.
Yeah, the Division wasn't nearly as good as the early in-game marketing footage showed. They are one of those developers that I will no longer trust that their product is what it appears to be while in development. Although I enjoyed GRW (not PvP), they came up short once again. .....but not as bad as FC5 IMO. I'm done with their franchises of AC, FC and likely the Division too. I was burned one too many times.
On the other hand, I have not had any major disappointments with R*s products. Also, most of the in-game footage and major reveals we have had so far is recent and in the final stages of the product's development. This isn't the same situation (IMO) as the Division where we were being sold one thing and got another.
As far as the hands-on reviews, even when you cut through the subjective opinions/fluff, just hearing about the mechanics and knowing what I know about R*s previous products gives me a really good idea of the experience I should expect from RDR2.
-
16 hours ago, Aimesleje said:
I'm afraid that R* is going to strip customization features from the game in order to force microtransactions or get you to play online. What has me worried is - a. GTA Online. Enough said. And b. They're adding things like special outfits and black horses and special unique saddle gear for special editions of the game.
To me, anything that I get in game should be achieved organically. Any outfit I get should be earned or come across organically. Any horse I get should be bought or earned. I don't wanna have things given to me behind pay walls with no effort. Besides, the fact that they are offering a pure black horse as a special edition bonus means that you can't earn one in the base game. If you could the SE bonus wouldn't be special. No pure black horses in the base game. Let that sink in.
Honestly, I'm afraid that I (and this community) is too hyped. Rather like we were for GTA 5 five years ago. And we're blinding ourselves to the fact that R* has had some shady quick buck practices that strips features from the game just to net them extra profit in the past. I hope I'm wrong. I'm really excited for RDR2. I just can't keep letting myself get overhyped for things. I really need to commit to playing the game first.
If you think about it, we've all determined that this will be the best book in the history of literature, just by looking at the cover. None of us have played it yet. So... As the days get closer, I find myself getting wearier.What forced microtransactions do you speak of. As far as special game editions, this is nothing new or unique in the gaming world. The ones R* offers in theirs is nearly all story-mode related cosmetics, a couple missions and shortcut items.
I expect RDOs MCX model to be the same as GTAV:O where it is based on in-game cash that you have an option to buy. That is not the same as a paywall where items are purchase-only. You can still achieve items in the game "organically" by working for them. No one is forcing you to buy Shark Cards, etc. .....that's merely a shortcut for those who want that option and are willing to pay for it.
I have to say..... I was hyped for GTAV for many of the same reasons I am hyped for RDR2 now. ....and I was not disappointed. GTAV delivered IMO and I even enjoyed GTAV:O to an extent. I do believe RDO will be a little different from GTAV:O given some of the interviews and information we have seen so far.
What we've seen so far with the in-game footage, mechanic descriptions, hands-on experiences, etc. is a lot more than just the "cover".
Too hyped? ......naw. I base my excitement on the track record of R*, my own satisfaction with their past games and the information I have seen thus far regarding RDR2.
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
I have a '69 MG-B on blocks in my garage that I'm doing a small block V8 engine swap on. Being 6'4", I have to wear a helmet and/or goggles when I drive it because my head easily tops the windshield when the top is down. But damn it is fun to drive. It's so light that I can pick up the back end if someone is holding the brake pedal.
Fun cars. ....british sports cars in general for that matter. The nice thing is that you really don't need to go that fast in them to get the full driving experience and sensation. They are the definition of true sports cars IMO. I was always partial to the Austin Healey 3000 and thought it would be a cool car to own. .....although these days probably quite expensive for one that's in good shape and depending on year.
What's the curb weight on one of those? I'm guessing not much more than 2,000 lbs? It'll be a hoot with a V8. I wonder how it will affect the balance.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Cokeyskunk said:
My favorite car of all time. It's my dream to own one someday.
It was mine too only to be surpassed by the 1970 Dodge Challenger which proved elusive all of these years. The closest thing I got to that was when Dodge re-introduced the Challenger in '08 and I bought one in 2010. .....which I will continue to keep into the foreseeable future.
Unfortunately, the Charger remains in a state of disrepair at the moment from sitting too long.
Someday I'll get around to restoring it but for now it just sits on the side of my house. ....it's an SE with the 383 and 727 Torqueflite auto.
-
1
-
-
I get the distrust many gamers have toward developers especially these days. I share those feelings too towards certain companies but to be honest, for me, R* isn't one of them.
I found RDR's campaign to be long and very entertaining as well as GTAV's. ......and I have no doubt I will find RDR2 even more fulfilling. I also look forward to their online component when that becomes available in November as I am sure that will provide several months of fun for my friends and myself.
Where some other game companies have made really poor decisions of late in the quality and direction of their products, I personally don't count R* among them. They would really have to botch RDR2 for me to change my mind at this point but I think that chance is next to none from what I've seen.
I know we all have different checkboxes when it comes to what we value in our games but I hope your concerns are put to rest when the game finally releases.
-
10 minutes ago, Drottar said:
Is anybody still playing there?
I just recently started playing RDR again on PS Now during their free 7 day trial. I noticed that the online was still up which surprised me. There were a few folks in the session I joined but I exited after a couple minutes since I was simply curious to see (wanted to spend my time in the campaign).
I'm not sure if PS Now is tied into PS3 users or not for such things?
I swear they could have made good money on a re-release on RDR for the latest gen consoles a few months back. .....perhaps even still for the die hard fans.
Someday I'll get around to restoring it but for now it just sits on the side of my house. ....it's an SE with the 383 and 727 Torqueflite auto. 
What is your biggest fear for Red Dead Redemption II?
in Red Dead Redemption 2
Posted
Very true.
The problem with GTAV:O IMO was that it forced players who want to build businesses, do the missions with friends, etc. into a free-for-all environment that quite frankly gave griefers a drastically unfair advantage. Players doing the missions had everything to lose (sometimes 100's of thousands of dollars) while the aggressors risked nothing, could engage with anything they wanted to in their arsenal, could respawn limitlessly, etc. It essentially painted a target on players who simply want to play the game and created a buffet for trolls.
I get that some folks like that but I think they can make modes that better suit a PvP play style. HOWEVER, they also should create a mode for players who prefer a more cooperative experience where they don't force those players to have to join public free-for-all session to take advantage of activities, build businesses, perform related missions, etc. At the very least I believe they should make aggression toward other players an act with great risk as to discourage it and (rather) encourage cooperative gameplay.