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

Benjo

VIP
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,150

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    71

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Benjo

    Red Dead Redemption 2 General Chat

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Manco said:

    Looking at the gameplay video again. There are a couple of stills of Arthur carrying weapons or selecting them from his horse. Rather than the never-ending inventory of GTA/RDR could it be possible that we are looking at having to select the right tools for the job?

    There are a couple of examples of Arthur walking down the street with a rifle over his shoulder, a shotgun in hand and his revolver holstered. There is also a still of him selecting his rifle from his horse. Could your loadout selection be crucial in how you play the game? For example if you've decided to bring the rolling block rifle with you and you end up in a bar fight you're going to have a bad time.

    Yes this was confirmed a while back. 

    • Like 1

    Unfinished Business in RDR.....

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    7 hours ago, YodaMan 3D said:

    It was part of the game though.  Why?  To me the game should have had it.  I see no reason not to.  I have been hunting a lot in RDR and you see horses almost everywhere.  Considering how important horses were to that time.  I would think that would have been better then picking flowers.

    But not more important than picking sage though, I may add.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1

    I'm predicting the ending now.

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    We can't ignore the fact that John didn't go after him in RDR1. For me there are only 2 possible reasons for this:

    1. He died in this story.
    2. He made his peace with John, ie helped him.

    The second one sounds much more like what R$ would do. Have Arthur help John, then leave the gang. This builds your bond with the protagonist (as who wouldn't like someone who helped John Marston) and it would explain why John had no beef with him in the end. Having him die would, like we've said, be too predictable.

    • Like 1

    What Aspects of This Game will Make it Superior to the Original?

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, Archbell said:

    I totally understand where your coming from, if I had to describe GTA Online in one word that word would be "Toxic".

    It's ironic to me because when you look back at GTA IV and RDR Multiplayer and how players on there behaved compared to GTA Online there's a significant difference, players on those games weren't always friendly but it was rare to see someone play with the sole purpose of trolling or griefing other players.

    You'd think GTA Online would have less griefers, trolls and tryhards with all the anti griefer features Rockstar included as a precaution such as Passive Mode but instead a lot of the features they included just ended up being abused by the very players they were designed to protect against.

    The main problem in my opinion was that they forced all players regardless of their play style to play together in the same lobbies, if they'd kept the Friendly Freeroams from their previous titles, scrapped Passive Mode, the Kill Yourself option and the KD ratio as well as layed off the incorporation of more and more military style vehicles and weapons we might of had far better online experience.

    R$ even actively encourage griefing by highlighting you on the map when you're doing missions. They say in RDR2 you won't appear on everyone's map unless they are nearby, but judging by the "LOOK EVERYONE, SOMEONE IS TRYING TO EARN $20,000 SO THEY CAN SAVE UP FOR A RESKINNED $3m SUPERCAR THAT GOES 120kmph" way they do things now I can't see them being anything BUT that in this game. I stand to be corrected.

     

    • Like 1

    Unfinished Business in RDR.....

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    1 hour ago, YodaMan 3D said:

    So replaying RDR, some things that I started to question.  Horses in RDR, you can go out on the range and catch a horse and break them.  It was nice to upgrade your horse, but then what?  The McFarlines teach you how to, you do it for a side mission with Uncle at the end.  Why couldn't you do it to make money during the game? 

    On occasions, you could ride by a gang hideout and get shot at by the locals of that hideout.  Why couldn't you hogtie them and take them into the law.   Would that add to the bounty hunter theme?

    You could get a job breaking horses whenever you wanted. 

    I'm predicting the ending now.

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    14 minutes ago, Jono56667 said:

    Some brilliant ideas here but I don't think Arthur will survive cos Ross just wouldn't allow it so I think shits ganna go down and alot of your gang is ganna get killed on the job where John gets shot and what is left of the gang being Bill, Javier, Arthur and dutch make a run for it leaving john to think they abandoned him thn after they make it to safety Arthur tells dutch he wants out or something like that and takes Arthur's lady friend and they settle down and have a child together thn skip forward a few years and john finds him and in the reunion cutscene your given a button prompt to pull the trigger and you think your pulling the trigger as Arthur but when you do john fires and kills Arthur the a cut scene following john he gets on a ferry to backwater and lead into RDR1

    Image result for trying to read gif

    I'm predicting the ending now.

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    1 minute ago, rick249kdr said:

    I'm fully on-board with the "Arthur dies and you play the last mission and free-roam as Marston" idea. 

    However, I don't think it's going to be Marston to kill him. Personally, I just can't see it.

    The whole Dutch idea seems solid to me as he's a pretty well established bad guy type.  

    I thought I saw this is taking place ten or twelve years BEFORE the first game so I don't think the events of RDR2 will lead right up to the beginning of the first game. Unless there's a time jump.

     

    Yeah maybe John doing it would make us like him less. But again, the main protag dying at the end of the story seems a bit obvious so I'm starting to think it's just not going to happen.

    I'm predicting the ending now.

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    56 minutes ago, Cokeyskunk said:

    That was actually the first thing I thought of when I saw the main character wasn't Marston. I think you're right. And the story probably ends when John is shot and "left for dead" by Dutch, Bill Williamson, and Javier Escuela. 

    Nope. It starts with John approaching the fort where Bill Williamson is holed-up, trying to convince him to let him in. They discuss Williamson, Escuela and Dutch leaving Marston for dead. Marston takes an aggressive step forward, and one of Williamson's men shoots John in the ribs.  He passes out, then wakes up at the MacFarlane Ranch. 

    Image result for hope is kindled

    I'm predicting the ending now.

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    I've done some more thinking on this. It's been a while since I played RDR1 storymode but doesn't it start with John at Bonnie's ranch immediately after the "left for dead" event?

    My guess would be that RDR2 story will lead up to that and include it, so continuing to play as John wouldn't make sense, as that would take you straight into RDR1's storyline.

    John Marston is playable,Here's why

    in Red Dead Redemption 2

    Posted

    Seeing this trailer I'm not sure he will be playable. It's difficult to believe they will have him there all the way through the story mode, knocking around your camp and sitting by your camp fire and then have him suddenly playable. Although it would be a big twist that R$ could introduce. I just dunno.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...