.gif.a2c453426a74ec6cd2617ea503372597.gif)
Cokeyskunk
-
Posts
474 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Posts posted by Cokeyskunk
-
-
8 hours ago, VampireKrush said:
I like the idea of adding more of these but the higher ones should take a LOOOONG time to achieve. Another forum I was on required 10,000+ posts for the highest ranking and even then, they ended up adding one for 50,000 posts but this was an old forum.
Understandable, but in reality, the usual popularity lifespan of a game like this is around 3-5 years. Sadly, by the end of 2023, I would be surprised if the majority of posters on this board will still be here. Rockstar will have moved onto bigger and better things, and likely, so will have we.
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, Archbell said:
Yeah, with Jack being around four I don't think he'll be as insufferable as he was in Red Dead Redemption. Give him a break though, although we don't see much of Jack's future develop I would hope he's not still trying to be an Old West cowboy in 1923.
Think about it this way: Jack Marston is roughly the same age as Moe Howard. Granted, Moe was born in New York, but you didn't see HIM running around dressed like a gunslinger in his twenties.
-
9 minutes ago, Benjo said:
There was a cheat where you could play as John again if I remember.
Well, that's nice to know. I'm replaying it, so when I get back there, I'll look for it. Grazie.
-
5 minutes ago, Benjo said:
In terms of COD, when someone sits in the corner of a room and waits for people to enter, then kills them, then continues sitting there until someone else turns up. That's camping. If they were on my team I would drop a smoke grenade so they had to get up and move. Jerks.
So, doesn't that just open the door for those whom the camper kills to go right back to said room and just throw the smoke grenade in to flush them out, then let them have it when they do?
Or better yet, just throw a REAL grenade in the door . . . ?
I ❤️ doing stuff like that.
-
1 minute ago, Benjo said:
Camping is never OK, especially in COD. Open world games you can't really camp.
To me, it depends on your definition of the word.
-
4 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:
Camping and griefing is not needed for PvP. Work arounds or not. I don't have a problem with PvP in a freeroam setting, I enjoyed PvP in the 1st RDR. Yet in the day and age, most so called PvP players don't want to PvP, the want to be player killers and ruin the fun of others.
See, I don't group "camping" and "griefing" in the same context.
To me, "camping" is finding a strategic spot from which to snipe enemies. However, that being said, I'm strongly opposed to *any* camp spot being "untouchable" -- meaning, once the camper is there, there's NO way to remove them or kill them. To me, that isn't a "camp" spot - that's an exploit which needs to be patched. I'm fine with it being HARD to kill them in that spot, but impossible? No way. But to me, I'm fine with good "camp" spots which offer strong defense and from which one can pick other players off. If someone finds one and starts destroying my team with it, I smile. Because hey! Guess where *I'M* racing to next time I play this location?? ???? (*NOTE: This does NOT apply to "Spawn Camping." If you camp at a spawn location and kill others the SECOND they re-spawn, you need to just pack it up and go to hell, sir. That's "griefing," in my book.)
On the other hand, "griefing," to me, is INTENTIONALLY being a butthole to everyone else playing and having fun by TRYING to ruin the fun of others. You can "camp" at a good snipe spot and just be trying to help your team. You're not TRYING to ruin the fun of others. It's not cheating, either. Hell, if you were in a real battle and could find a great defensible spot where you could pick off others and they couldn't easily get at you, WOULDN'T YOU USE IT??! Griefing, though, is a blatantly malicious act, in my book.
tl;dr - "Camping = usually okay." "Griefing = we all hate you and please die."
-
1 hour ago, YodaMan 3D said:
Jack & Carl, both hit my annoyance meter off the charts.
Worst about Jack, you *had* to finish the game with him. No option to go back to playing as John (as he was suffering from a mild case of death).
-
1 minute ago, Truth said:
I would've posted it elsewhere, but... You know... lol
It's bad enough to be level locked at 0 offline, but we should at least be able to use the dlc... We really need those local saves more than dedicated servers.
Gosh, since I started re-playing RDR, I don't think I've played Friday the 13th for close to two months now. I'm such a fair-weather fan . . . ????
-
1 hour ago, YodaMan 3D said:
I hope not. He annoyed me in the 1st game.
I'm glad I wasn't the first one to say this.
Jack annoyed me like Carl in The Walking Dead annoyed me -- trying to be a tough guy in an effort to live up to their fathers' images.
But -- sorry. As sucky as it is, it just doesn't happen. They just come off as wanna-be's who seem to be trying to convince the world they're "just as badass as Dad."
Uh-huh. Okay, Junior. You're just as cool. Go get a haircut. ????
EDIT: and if we do see Jack -- since it's 1899, he would likely be an tiny kid. And that's fine. Little kids don't annoy me. I just don't wanna see big-bad "Oooh, it's 1923 and Warner Bros. film studio just opened, but I'm still dressing like an Old West cowboy" Jack.
-
On 6/15/2018 at 12:08 AM, FLIP said:
For the number of times my horse ran off in the last game, got killed, or just didn't come back to me when called... This may be a bit of a problem. lol
This reminds me of how I used to like to lasso/hogtie bandits who tried to hold Marston up. I'd put one tied-up on the back of their own horse, then get behind the horse and start firing my shotgun in the air.
(If it didn't rear and buck him off), the horse would take off running like crazy into the wilderness.
Take THAT, Mr. Bandit. ????
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:
Revolver isn't on xbox store. Redemption is.
Oops. Sorry. I saw Revolver on the PlayStation Store, and thought since the XBox store is usually all matchy-matchy with PSN, it would be there, too.
-
11 hours ago, Archbell said:
According to her grave, Abigail was born 1877 meaning she'll be 22 in 1899 and was around 34 years old during Red Dead Redemption.
Of course, she may of lied about her age although lying to your own son about such a thing seems extreme but I guess it's possible. Many of the women in my family deal with age very differently to the men, I have an aunt who has just turned 39 seven times.
Wow! Very keen investigative work, sir! I never thought to reference her tombstone. And you're right - the woman in the trailer could be 22.
I'm just surprised they made Abigail look SO old in the original. She definitely looks older than 34.
Again, kudos.
-
1
-
-
On 7/31/2018 at 2:34 PM, liquidfire said:
I didn't really play Revolver. I played around with it at a friend's but never played the entire thing. I don't know much about the characters from that one but they likely will have things from the past brought up.
Revolver IS available for download on both the PSN and XBox stores . . . and I believe it's cheap! No reason not to check it out.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Mattdrenaline said:
Both make good points but I’m just not convinced it is her
I have to agree. Let's look at the timeline:
RDR2 - 1899:
The girl in the upper picture is obviously quite a young woman. Definitely on the lower side of her twenties, at most. Probably closer to 20 than 25.RDR - 1911: (12 years later)
Abigail looks like she's easily approaching (or has surpassed) 40. Yes, I know people tended to visibly "age quicker" 100 years ago, but you're not going to convince many that she's in her early 30s.In conclusion, it would be tough to accept she's Abigail. Logically, Abigail should be around (probably over) 30 in 1899 in order to support the way she looked in 1911. Which makes sense because Marston himself appears to be in his mid-40's or so in 1911.
That's my take, anywho . . .
-
2 minutes ago, Truth said:
You have gunslinger twice.
We need a town drunk on here! Who rambles more than the town drunk?
What?! The heck you say, sir! I most certainly do not! You suggest *I* would make such a mistake? You cad!
*glove slap*
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Benjo said:
Need some more!
How about this?
Cowhand - 0
Rancher - 10
Cowboy - 100
Gunslinger - 200
Sheriff - 300
Outlaw - 400
Public Enemy - 600
High Plains Drifter - 800
Marshal - 1000
Legend - 1500
True Grit - 2000-
2
-
-
26 minutes ago, liquidfire said:
What are some things the internet has taught you over the years? Share them!
That, no matter your religious or political beliefs, you are wrong and an idiot.
-
1
-
1
-
-
12 minutes ago, CMcC said:
I'm for it. Even if a character is mentioned in passing would be cool. Something that ties them together.
Agreed. Since Revolver takes place in the 1880's, and Redemption takes place in 1911, AND RDR2 takes place in 1899 -- that places RDR2 right in between Revolver and Redemption.
I'm certain we're going to see characters from Redemption return for this one, so it seems reasonable we'd see characters from Revolver, too. (Albeit they'd be aged about 15 years or so older.)
I think that would be mega-cool.
-
Since this is a prequel -- AND technically the third in a series, wouldn't it make sense to have some characters from Red Dead Revolver make an appearance? Talk about "coming full circle." I think that would be awesome! And it would also probably boost sales of Red Dead Revolver on the Xbox and PSN stores.
I, personally, would love to see Red come back in some fashion, or any of the other characters. Thoughts?
-
On 7/26/2018 at 4:23 PM, Truth said:
There are comfortable headsets, but no headset will always be MORE comfortable.
Call me stupid, here. (No, don't really. Jerks.) But I've never understood the need to pay hundreds (or even TENS!) of dollars on a mic'ed headset.
Y'know what I did? I paid a buck-and-a-half, ordered some earbuds with a mic in the wire from China, waited a month for them to arrive, and I use that.
I stick the mic'ed bud in one ear, then use the other to listen for misbehaving children and/or an angry wife.
Never once have I ever received any complaint from any of my fellow players. Likewise, never have *I* had a complaint about them. Great quality sound, great comfort, and everyone can always hear me clear as day.
Why buy the expensive, gigantic cans that would prevent me from hearing someone in my house shout, "FIRE!"? My cheapos are quite lovely, thankyaverrahmuch.
So, what gives?
Kisses,
- Skunk -
3 hours ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
Correct. I hate it when mechanics are involved that become part of the core game play or achievements. This goes back to Final Fantasy VII for me: If you wanted the best summon in the game (Knights of the Round), you had to go through ridiculous lengths racing and breeding freakin' Chocobos (think a Peep and an Ostritch doin the nasty) for HOURS, pray to RNGesus, and then acquire a special Golden Chocobo to walk on water to get to the esoteric part of the map that had the summon available.
Weird mechanics like fishing for materials or ingredients that become part of the meta for gameplay, or have special items/consumables gatewayed behind them are terrible for ANY game. Perfect Roe became a necessity for Elder Scrolls Online, for example, but leveling your fishing skill to be able to catch some? I'd rather watch Battlefield Earth on loop for a week than go through that again.
If they want to put fishing in the game, fine, but for the love of all that is good, do NOT tie it to an achievement or make it something that's required for progression.
Okay, you make an excellent point here. To that point, I, personally, hate racing. I *especially* hate racing when they make WINNING one of said races MANDATORY to complete the single player campaign. So, while it *MIGHT* be fun to be able to do a few races in order to get some improvements in the game, I do NOT want them to FORCE me to do it. Perhaps they can make it as an OPTION to progress in the game, but allow you to choose other avenues in order to progress as well. In that case, I'm fine with it.
So, so long as they don't make it a requirement for progression, you're okay with them adding a fun version of fishing to the game?
-
17 hours ago, BropolloCreed79 said:
I love ya, @Cokeyskunk, but I have to vehemently disagree on this with you.
Every time I've seen fishing worked into a game, other than a fishing simulator, it has sucked. Not that Rockstar couldn't pull it off (that's what she said), I just find it both impractical and repugnant. I'd rather have CLOWNS (FREAKING CLOWNS, everyone), in the game than a fishing mechanic.
And I hate clowns more than I hate light beer.
Love right back at ya, Captain. But you'z be'z wrong herrah.
You said it yourself:
17 hours ago, BropolloCreed79 said:Not that Rockstar couldn't pull it off
So -- academically speaking -- assuming they COULD (and DO) pull it off where fishing is both beneficial AND enjoyable in this game -- you STILL wouldn't want it??
-
1 minute ago, Kean_1 said:
I can already see R* doing a better job than Ubisoft in several areas in regards to gameplay. I have no doubt that would hold true for a mechanic like this if they were to implement it in RDR2. ....so yes, I can see fishing being more entertaining in RDR2 but I think it's more about the whole package (e.g. mechanics, discovery, ambiance, multiple activity choices, etc.) that helps make a difference.
DEFINITELY the whole package. That's a staple for games by Rockstar. Too too many companies rely on one great functionality of their game to try to carry it through the garbage of the rest of its dynamics. But with most games by Rockstar, often almost ALL dynamics are fantastic.
It's hard to imagine them being able to raise the bar from the original, but I feel like they're going to -- and handily so.
. . . just wish it hadn't been an almost nine-year wait fer it.
-
5 minutes ago, Jackthestripper said:
I did pop one of them off
-
1
-
What if your hat gets shot off?
in Red Dead Online
Posted
(See what I did there . . . ?)