Minimoni

Well, the “Uncharted” inspired part was not that good imho and I would have strongly preferred Mexico as backdrop for those events. I also think that the mechanics regarding camp upgrades, purchased and or made with pelts and animal parts should have had a much greater impact on the story. As it is now, some upgrades have no function as far as I know. I would have wished for some town and maybe even a real chapter instead of a prologue like chapter, taking place in the cold and snowy mountains. I have so many cool winter outfits but really no use for them. I would love some “hateful eight” feeling in an isolated town. But the game is more than great as is but one always wants more 🙂

“Zombied out”, a new sentence that I will use often. I have personally felt like that for many years and I am tired beyond belief when it comes ro zombies as they are the main antagonists in more or less anything and everything these days. I purchased the new version of “Resident evil 2” because I am old and used to be scared like hell playing the original on PSX. It is not a bad game but since I am “zombied out”, it takes away some of the joy playing it.

And imho, taking the game too far after the events of RDR1 and RDR2 no longer makes it a Western game. And really, RDR are Western games that has a huge fan base among fans of the old west. To me personally, I would prefer if a RDR3 went back further in time and used already known characters as cameos and focused on an entirely new repertoire of protagonists. A DLC or a single player expansion would of course be somewhat different but would still be set in an era where there still was a “Wild West” so once again, Jack is not the optimal choice in my opinion. I would much rather prefer pre Blackwater failed robbery as a DLC, so we as players once and for all can see what and why really happened. So I agree with you and think R* should stick with the timeframe of RDR2. Playing Jack as some people has mentioned is more like GTA but with cars from LA Noire.

I may seem like an idiot right now, but what is your point? I am asking this sincerely with no intentions to provoke or anything like that, I just want to know what I am supposed to notice in that video!? I own it on ps4-pro and it is an awesome horror game but not close to rdr2 when it comes to pure enjoyment in my opinion.

I am ashamed to be a Swede since the Pinkertons are now owned by a Swedish company. I really hope that R* wins this really idiotic and silly case. The Pinkertons are an integrated part of old west history and even if I know next to nothing about American judicial practices, it really seems silly that one should not be able to use their name in fiction. What is next, Detroit suing because there is a game using that cities name? I am so so tired of BS like this and once again, I am ashamed of being a Swede.

Well said, even if I differ on some already mentioned opinions. 🙂 To me the story was great, but the open world roaming was to me the best part. So even if we have different opinions on what part of the game is better or less good than the other, we still agree that we got entertainment for our $€£.

I have a group of friends that wanted to play online but we all quit since PvP is no fun for us. We just do not enjoy it and if R* decides they do not want our money, whom am I to object!? I will only retry online when there is pure PvE servers that I can roam on with my friends.

Amen! This is so spot on that it is f*****g magical. PvP players should be forced to play with their likeminded players while I and others that prefer PvE should be able to enjoy online without getting murdered all the time.

I hate the online part of this game as it is at the moment, I have decided to not continue to play the online as it is. I would play if I could PVE with a group of friends and play missions together without other people shooting me all the time. This game is not mechanically made to be PvP, it is made purely to be PVE and that is why online feels so broken.

The love interest storyline and especially a second one would not be obligatory, so one as you would not need to play them. Even the little of love story or interaction we already have is entirely possible to skip. The complaint that the game is too long is not a really good point, just do not play the extras and focus on the story and you will miss tens of hours of fun. So I hope no one ever forced you to play the stranger quests and whatever!? A game like RDR2 with its great open world will never be less great by putting more optional “quests” and other activities in them. So an optional secondary cheesy love story would only have made the game even better, and I already love the game as it is awesome.

TB was pandemic back then. More or less everyone had it but they never or very late in life got the symptoms of the disease. And the TB in the game is not really handled in a realistic way as Arthur get symptoms and... way too fast. So if R* wanted to have more alternatives in the story but with the same outcome, it would not have been difficult to do so.

My wife knew I had MS she married me and she knew and still knows that my health can change rapidly. I have had many complications because of the MS but I am happy to be alive with my wife and two children. It is not the same as Arthur’s case in the game but people that are sick, even dying loves too. And stress, danger and warlike circumstances actually makes people having more sex and not less. So I still believe the story would have benefited from having a cheesy alternative love story.

I must admit that I am utterly bored when it comes to zombies. It feels like when someone loses their imagination they just use zombies, be it a movie,tv show, book or game... I really would like something else than zombies as I am so tired to see them in every game there ever was and will be.

I have no objection to that, more freedom makes the story better and I have nothing against a homosexual or bisexual protagonist so why not!? The point is that even though not very important, a more interactive love story would have made a great game even greater. And no, I do not request an animated sex scene upon completion of the romance but I am not against it neither.

This feels like placebo... Boost mode on the PS4-pro should make no difference in RDR2 since it is already optimized for the pro, no?

As Arthur’s second or even first love interest have no further impact on the first RDR and the canonical events, I had hoped for some freedom of choice when playing. When I play as Arthur I feel that it would have been natural for him to get some companionship, and I mean emotionally as well as sexually. So I do believe that we should have got the option to try to be sweet on whomever we wanted in the camp, it would have made for an even better story. But to answer the question at hand, I am certain Sadie was the intended second love interest even if I personally would have preferred Mary-Beth or Tilly as they are more interesting as characters and less of a stereotype.

I think I found the place to buy it. It can not be purchased as a single item but it seems to belong with “The Valentine” outfit. I will see if that is correct on Thursday when I can travel back home from work.

I love that hat and I know the location where to find it. But the black estate boss makes my protagonist look like Cullen Bohannon and I find that to be awesome.

I have googled the hell out of it and no, the tailor in st Denis does not sell it. At least not in the “Estate Boss hat” page. And try to google where the hat is using the link or not, the answers will not make you find one. I have finished the story three times and on my main save I have an almost 100% completion, I know where they sell estate boss hats. But I can not find where they sell the black one whom I by mistake found that I had on one of my save throughs and not the other. So please just answer if you have something that actually answers the question.

Ok, I feel really stupid since the answer here is probably easier than I have made it out to be. Anyway, on my main save I have some cool looking outfits that I am quite proud of. But then I played a little on my alternative save and realized that I have a “black estate boss hat” with my alt character. Since I have more or less done all challenges on the main and I am almost through with the games story in my alt, there is no way I will just switch the alt save and use it as my main since I will never do the challenges again. At least not sober as many of them was horribly boring. In any case, the black estate hat lock so awesome so I absolutely want it for my main save character! So is there any nice fan of the game out there with the knowledge and inclination to help a fellow outlaw to find where to buy or steal the estate boss black hat?

I am ready to throw money at R* when the RDR2 soundtrack comes to iTunes. I really want it now!

Yup, it is indeed grey. I just feel it is weird that I got it since I bought the normal edition albeit preordered of course. And this is my third run with the main story and I did not get the horse on the other two runs. Anyway, thanks for all advices!

Hello all! Today I started a third round of the story to be played alongside my other “total completion” save. I am not sure if my age and/or memory is playing tricks with my mind but on the mission when Arthur goes to hunt with Hosea, Arthur is also getting the option to buy a new horse. All this played out just as normal except that I could also buy a huge war horse with great stats for $ 0.00. I have not been able to do this on previous runs and that is why I am really thinking it is a glitch and that I by some strange event got acces to a special edition horse or something like that. The horse can not be sold either, even if I try as I do not like the huge horses. So, is this a glitch or something introduced with the patches or did I by mistake get acces to a special edition horse by som strange event? Anyhow, the horse will not be used as I love having the Arabians and Turkomans but it do take up space in my stable.

This is all so true, I love the game in so many ways but I agree with you regarding the spoiler content.

I agree to what you say, it is obvious that Nintendo focuses on other demographics compared to Microsoft and Sony. But in the long run I think that is a mistake from Nintendo. I am 36 and have played since the first famicom and I still enjoy Mario and Zelda games. The issue here is that I would probably enjoy those games even more on the Sony or Microsoft consoles. I did buy a switch for my kids and not only was it very expensive considering the hardware one payes for, it is also very noticeable if one is a Playstation4 or Xone player that the hardware on the switch limits the games performance to a state that does not make them that enjoyable. Gaming nowadays are not only or even primarily for kids and teens and my very amateurish assessment is that Nintendo needs to grasp this instead of producing new consoles with way to short intervals. So even if some Switch games are still awesome, they could be even more awesome on other consoles.