Jump to content
Howdy Stranger! [Important Guest Info Inside]

CMcC

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    341

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

 Content Type 

Posts posted by CMcC

    IGN and The Telegraph’s First Look

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    On 5/8/2018 at 3:27 PM, Kean_1 said:

    I'm wondering if the animal reaction will depend on where you shoot it.  In other words, can you get a "kill shot" that will take down the deer more humanely or faster (to avoid chasing after it).  This could have an effect on some players perhaps giving them an incentive (or a challenge) to place their shots more carefully. 

    I'm very excited to see this level of interaction and detail in the game world and interested to see just how far they will take it.  .....and how much influence the player will have.  

    Does Far Cry have something similar to this? i don't recall. I just finished FC5 but didn't do much hunting.  Seems to me that if you shoot and not kill an animal, it will leave a trail of blood and not die right away. it did say in this video that the meat/hide holds more value if killed with an arrow vs a shotgun- There's some incentive to get a clean kill. I already see myself wanting to achieve that. And not let the little thing suffer. A quick death. It's funny, my cousin is a bow hunter and says that's why he practices every day. That's his biggest concern is getting that clean kill, not just wounding the animal. I...play video games. 

    What online options would you like to see?

    in Red Dead Online

    Posted

    I don't always want to have to worry about what kind of player is coming down the path, but sometimes I really like that unpredictability. Keeps things interesting. I've met and made friends online because neither one of us shot first, but could have.  What I don't want is to have to join a new session every time i want to hunt in peace, or roam around and not get into a fire fight. I shouldn't have to. Maybe i just want to ride through town passively and get into some shit somewhere else. If I've got friends in the same session that are battling it out against another posse, do i have to leave that session because i don't want to get shot collecting sage? I think people will abuse anything if they can. But it shouldn't ruin it for the folks that want to use it honestly.

    IGN and The Telegraph’s First Look

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    17 minutes ago, Benjo said:

    Well, yes and no. Not with RDR1, the online was just annoying and pointless. On RDR1 I used to just wander around doing things, making my own story, getting 100%, making money for the sake of it, hunting for no reason, that kind of thing. With R$ for me completing the story mode is just a way to get everything unlocked, and I hate to admit it but sometimes I just skip cutscenes straight away even if I haven't watched them before as I'm so uninterested in the story.

    I’m sorry Benjo. We can’t be friends. 

    Kidding of course. I do the wandering thing myself. But I save that for Online. I’m usually hyper focused on the story and run right through it. Rockstar are tremendous story tellers. 

    I'm predicting the ending now.

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    5 hours ago, tadp0le said:

    I would hate to have to play the entire game as Arthur for him to just be killed off. They have done this too many times already. Aren't there any other ways around this where Arthur maybe moves up North or something? 

    At this point, it certainly is expected isn't it?- that he'll die. Which I'm okay with, but i don't think will have nearly the impact it did with Marston. I'm becoming more and more on the fence about whether or not he goes down for the dirt nap. The predictability is what's got me thinking. Will Rockstar kill off their protagonist...again? I don't know. But why else do you fail to mention him in the next chapter? If he's still alive, where the hell is he? It's completely possible that he get's away. Maybe it's likely. Maybe Rockstar isn't as concerned with this as us dorks are. 

    • Like 1

    What percentage of players will play online?

    in Red Dead Online

    Posted

    6 minutes ago, Benjo said:

    True but that might create more of a divide like there is in GTA. I like the thought of it all being central, like the initial development of the game. That might mean it's less disjointed. Dunno, sure it will be good either way. 

    BUT.

    One thing I'd like to mention is that most of my time playing GTAO is now just buying cars, driving them round for a bit then switching it off. I can never get enough people to join a heist, and if I manage to eventually get into one someone just quits and then we have to start the whole process again. The CEO missions are boring grinds and the adversary modes are just crap. The only saviour really were the stunt races, which I played a lot, but obvisouly we're not going to be racing horses now. Really not sure what aspect of RDRO will appeal to me. If I can get into heists etc and actually play alongside people successfully then it will be good, but if I'm in the same boat I am with most other online games, where there is no one within a thousand clicks of me playing the same game, then I think I might be pretty bored.

    Fair enough. I gave up on GTAO a long time ago,...maybe a year. It's just the same damn thing each time. If there's a new car they release, something i can't live without, i get on and buy it. Maybe I do a gang hideout. But that's it. Though i did just go looking for this godforsaken golden revolver for RDR2. 

    I do disagree though about the horse races. I can totally see that happening in RDR. As for Heists and Missions or whatever it will be, I think you won't have a problem finding people to play with for a long time. This game will explode and everyone will be doing them. But, like anything else, it will fade, and you may once again be waiting for more players to join your session. This is the way that this works. 

    What percentage of players will play online?

    in Red Dead Online

    Posted

    6 minutes ago, Benjo said:

    Based on how GTA5 vs GTAO evolved, my prediction is that they will take what they have learned from that and adapt the experience for RDR2. What I am talking about is this:- When GTA5 was first launched, there was the promise of DLC. What actually happened was that this plan was scrapped and all development on the SP mode ceased. Online had map changes (additions of bunkers etc), new guns, cars, clothes etc etc. This tells me that (had they known this from the start) R$ would have developed the relationship between online and offline differently. 

    When I say that I there might not be an obvious divide between the two, I mean like GTA5. The SP mode has been left behind and is now totally separate from online, which I'm certain wasn't their first intent. If you remember, they were releasing cars etc into SP mode as well as online, all the way up to the introduction of Benny's, so that tells you that it wasn't part of their original plan to separate it. 

    Like I said, I think they will learn from that and online vs offline will be different to what we have in GTA. Not sure how they would do that, maybe you're already in an online lobby when you're playing SP, maybe there will be a single map for both online and offline and seamless interchanges between the two modes. Maybe in SP you can start an online mission. Not sure, but I'm betting it won't be the same as GTA.

    Because all efforts (North and San Diego) were focused on making this game. It'd be cool to have them split their focus after launch. San Diego works on SP DLC and North MP. Or vise versa. That will ensure maximum kick ass results.

    Who will turn on the gang first?

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    On 5/20/2018 at 9:45 PM, Benjo said:

    "Born in 1895, Jack is the only living child of John and Abigail Marston, and the sole-surviving member of the Marston family.

    In 1906, John was badly wounded in a botched bank robbery. John took this as an opportunity to abandon his life of crime after he was left for dead, as John often puts it. John left with Abigail and Jack, (and presumably his daughter, who is implied to have still been alive in 1906 as stated by Javier Escuella in "The Gates of El Presidio") relocating to a ranch on Beecher's Hope to try and start afresh as farmers and give Jack a safer, quieter life."

    what are you quoting? 

    I'm predicting the ending now.

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted · Edited by CMcC

    48 minutes ago, Benjo said:

    Also, that would make me very happy.

    Agreed. I'd like to see a happy ending for John. Though we know it won't last. Its like watching Vincent Vega walk out of the restaurant at the end Pulp Fiction. There's a sigh of relief as that situation diffuses and they leave, but we know what's in store for him. 

     

    P.S  If I've at all spoiled the end of the movie for you, it's your own damn fault for never seeing it!

    I'm predicting the ending now.

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    32 minutes ago, Benjo said:

    It's no different than how they left the last one. I mean, what could you do with Jack other than ride around? The climax of story mode would be Arthur's death, leaving you to play the rest of the open world as John.

    Right on. I see your point. That makes sense.  And so the rest of the open world is building up the ranch, yeah? That I can see. 

    • Like 1

    I'm predicting the ending now.

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted · Edited by CMcC

    2 hours ago, BelleStarr said:

    Someone said this would happen and that you become John and build up your ranch with your family before things go awry. 

    Here's the problem with this- it's very anticlimactic. Ya know? The game ends with us milking cows and feeding the chickens? Stacking hay in the barn? I'm all for a happy ending with John, we all know he needs one, but this sounds like a snoozer. Of course, maybe the last cutscene in the game is of the law riding up to house and propositioning John to go on his next adventure. Of which i hope means a re-released/remastered RDR1!

    As for Arthur's pending death? One theory I have is we switch to playing John and shoot at kill Arthur in an attempt to leave the gang. However, maybe that's a little predictable. So now I'm wondering if Dutch will be the one to do Arthur in. He kills his right hand, the man he took in as a boy and more or less raised. There's the emotional ending. There's the beginning of his decent into madness. Who know's? Can't wait to find out!

    Playing as someone else other than Arthur?

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    On 5/18/2018 at 6:52 PM, DarkShark said:

    The ending can be more interesting than just John pulling the trigger on him.

    Personally I would find it very interesting to see that play out. You’ll most likely care for both characters by the end of this. You’ve played them both. To watch one kill the other would be pretty crazy, Though maybe a little predictable. Which is why my new theory is that Dutch kills Arthur. There’s the emotional shock ending. 

    IGN and The Telegraph’s First Look

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    1 hour ago, YellowDragon said:

    What is really impressive too and something to consider, this is only a small portion of the game. I can't imagine what it will be like playing it. 

    Totally. Imagine all the surprises and tricks they have hidden up their sleeve that won’t be revealed until your playing it.  Very exciting.

    • Like 1

    What online options would you like to see?

    in Red Dead Online

    Posted

    Id like to see a Passive Mode that still lets you shoot. How annoying it would be to be out hunting- after that Master Hunter achievement, be sneeking up on an animal and be shot in the back by a 12 year old. Also would love a Lawless Lobby. Ever been in a street war on GTA? Only a matter of time before the cops show up and gun you down, over and over again.

×
×
  • Create New...