Give your RDR2 rating, and reasons

[Benjo]

Here's mine.

+3 for story, script, acting
+3 for environment / map
+2 for graphics
+2 for immersion
+1 for later missions
+2 for crazy good weather and snow effects

-3 for crappy mission template (I've explained this before)
-2 for being so close to RDR1 in terms of movement, interactions and gameplay, ie not really progressed in 8+ years
-1 for bugs (expected but having been delayed to iron them out, the number of bugs is unacceptable)
-1 for seriously lacking clothes options

My rating: 6/10.

My 2 biggest gripes are:

1. The mission template, which again, I've explained before (go to do the thing, thing goes wrong, take cover, kill 100 bad guys, ride off, kill 30 more bad guys on horseback). This was repeated so often it became comical.

2. The oversold interactions. According to IGN and other reviewers, the peds were supposed to live their own lives. Paraphrasing: "The world isn't there for you, it is designed to exist without you even being there." The way they described this was that people would remember you and by chance thank you in the future, etc. We were sold that each ped had some kind of memory and this was almost unscripted, but in actual fact it was nothing like that. There are the same scripted encounters that were in RDR1 (albeit a few more and of differing types), and the only thing that is different is that there is another completely scripted and contrived follow up afterwards. You're walking through a town and oh, look, that guy happens to be sat on a bench outside a gunsmith and he shouts you over. @CMcC you seem to be taking great delight in my tweet to LegacyKillerHD and it does seem to be an unpopular opinion, but as with many unpopular opinions, the counter arguments are usually not particularly objective. I'm looking at this game objectively and this "living, breathing" world that we were promised has fallen way short of the mark.

The quality of the expansive map and environment is beyond doubt, but the overall gameplay mechanics are only a small step forward from RDR1, which began development 13 years ago in 2005. 

[DylBandit]

Let me get my fingers warmed up...Okay done.

First things first, the mission template isn't even that bad. There has been variety of missions that were all different. There is missions where you ride and sneak into areas, and deliver something, there is missions where you steal things without shooting a horde of people, there is missions where you destroy large areas and flea, there is missions where you need to capture someone, there is missions where you contain animal groups and escort them, the list goes on and on... This game is for people who are into the action, shooting, robbing, and stealing, this is a big part of the game, so yeah there will be plenty of shooting run and gun, sh*t hits the fan moments, and you need to hold your ground. Now that I have the "mission template" out of the way...

As far as the being close to original Red Dead Redemption complaint, yes this game is a prequel to the original Red Dead game, so the game will feel similar but drastically improves. The motion capture, levels of detail. The movement changed a lot, the horse riding is absolutely insane. The way the horse reacts to uphill riding, and the way your character leans and reacts to the hill and terrain is amazing, and it's crazy how they can motion capture to make it look so realistic in those situations. The game play has a very similar feel to the original game, because it's nostalgic, and big fans of the franchise are so use to that style, and people love the classic Rockstar 3rd person feel. However there is a 1st person option if you feel so inclined. Anyways, the game has took this franchise on a next level of gaming, not just for the franchise, but the entire gaming industry. The level of detail is phenomenal, the graphics are great, the story is great, the game play is great with minor complaints on my end, the voice acting is great, the hunting is on a complete next level for the franchise, and so is the killing effects and gore. 

Also, I have said this before and I will say it again, bugs occur in every game, PERIOD. There will always be some type of flaw or something wrong in a video game, and especially on this massive of a scale, this game is bound to have bugs. My theory for Rockstar delaying the game has nothing to do with bugs on launch, in my opinion, they were taking their time to much and then deadlines were coming and they had to make a release because they have been inactive of releasing a game for about 5 years now. The game has been out for about a little less than a week, and there will be fixes and updates. Hopefully in the future Rockstar will release a story DLC for us to get and by then they will have all the bugs knocked out so our experience will be THAT much better. However, it could have been a marketing strategy? I'm not sure, it's the worlds greatest mystery apparently.

Clothing options wasn't bad in this game, I think it's not relevant to do damage to a score of a game just strictly based on this, especially when it wasn't all that bad. If you ever played the previous title, Grand Theft Auto V, the clothing options for each character was limited and didn't have much to offer than let's say GTA Online did. GTA Online has massive amounts of clothing options because you can personalize your character even more than ever before. In my opinion, I think Rockstar limits the clothes to fit the style and story better, because it's clothes that the character would wear and fit the character during the time of the story and game. For example, in Grand Theft Auto V, Michael wouldn't have the option to wear a snap-back hat with skinny jeans, high tops, designer hoodies in a hip hop style because it simply doesn't fit the character. I think that Rockstar limited the clothing to a certain degree to have the outfits actually fit the character and make sense in the story. When Red Dead Online comes out, I can assure you the clothing options will be far more superior and better than the actual story mode. 

In conclusion, the game is an easy game of the year in my opinion, it's not everyday you get to play a open world with this much detail, a great story, an awesome hunting experience included, amazing effects and atmosphere, good graphics, amazing nostalgic memories from the previous installment in the franchise, and awesome missions that never got boring with a decent amount of variety while keeping things quiet simple, and just being a bad ass outlaw member with sucking you into the amazing story this game has to offer. 

[Benjo]

So you're giving it 10/10?

[Benjo]

4 minutes ago, DylBandit said:

First things first, the mission template isn't even that bad. There has been variety of missions that were all different. There is missions where you ride and sneak into areas, and deliver something, there is missions where you steal things without shooting a horde of people, there is missions where you destroy large areas and flea, there is missions where you need to capture someone, there is missions where you contain animal groups and escort them, the list goes on and on... 

Literally 7/10 of the missions followed the same pattern. The 3 that were thrown in per 10 that were different were fine but when you're completing 3 or 4 missions per hour it becomes VERY noticeable.

 

3 minutes ago, DylBandit said:

The game play has a very similar feel to the original game, because it's nostalgic, and big fans of the franchise are so use to that style, and people love the classic Rockstar 3rd person feel.

This isn't a design choice by Rockstar, it's because they are using the same engine they started to develop in 2005.

 

5 minutes ago, DylBandit said:

Also, I have said this before and I will say it again, bugs occur in every game, PERIOD.

I did say that bugs were expected and that I downscored it due to them delaying it to iron out the bugs. The number we're experiencing after (over) 12 month delay to iron them out is unacceptable. 

 

6 minutes ago, DylBandit said:

Clothing options wasn't bad in this game, I think it's not relevant to do damage to a score of a game just strictly based on this, especially when it wasn't all that bad.

Downscoring "strictly based on this" would mean that this was the only thing I rated the game on. It wasn't, and I took a point off because this aspect is very sparse. There are about 8 coats you can choose from that nearly all look the same, or there's the trapper clothes that you have to spend 6 weeks collecting. You mentioned GTA 5 - you could go into any clothes shop and choose from many different options, and yeah you're right in that the options were limited based on the character you are playing, but still, there were more. In any case, that game came out in 2013 - should we not expect some progression? This game took 8 years to develop and this, which is so necessary in today's customising culture, fell short.

 

10 minutes ago, DylBandit said:

When Red Dead Online comes out, I can assure you the clothing options will be far more superior and better than the actual story mode. 

Certainly, but I'm judging SP right now and it's lacking enough to lose a point. 

[DylBandit]

3 minutes ago, Benjo said:

So you're giving it 10/10?

Regarding a great story, amazing detail, awesome motion capture mechanics, phenomenal atmosphere, a fun hunting experience, tons of customization, a few minor complaints with actual game play mechanics such as shooting (but the fist fighting is amazing)...

Yes I would have to give this game a 10/10. This game has well and beyond reached my expectations, and I'm sure other people could say the same. The game simply delivers for a $60 price point disregarding added bonuses. 

[Benjo]

1 hour ago, Benjo said:

2. The oversold interactions. According to IGN and other reviewers, the peds were supposed to live their own lives. Paraphrasing: "The world isn't there for you, it is designed to exist without you even being there." The way they described this was that people would remember you and by chance thank you in the future, etc. We were sold that each ped had some kind of memory and this was almost unscripted, but in actual fact it was nothing like that. There are the same scripted encounters that were in RDR1 (albeit a few more and of differing types), and the only thing that is different is that there is another completely scripted and contrived follow up afterwards. You're walking through a town and oh, look, that guy happens to be sat on a bench outside a gunsmith and he shouts you over. @CMcC you seem to be taking great delight in my tweet to LegacyKillerHD and it does seem to be an unpopular opinion, but as with many unpopular opinions, the counter arguments are usually not particularly objective. I'm looking at this game objectively and this "living, breathing" world that we were promised has fallen way short of the mark.

What are your thoughts on this @DylBandit? It seems like an unpopular opinion but I can't see anything other than this viewpoint. 

[Poggy]

I fall between you two.

It is game of the year, but it's not 10/10.  I love it, but it could have been better - realistically better, not pie in the sky better.  It deserves game of the year, it's breath taking.  but it isn't perfect, or even 'as good as can be realistically expected for the genre and tech'.  It is slightly disappointing.

The level of bugs and glitches is too high to be acceptable - I'm not being a perfectionist about this - the level of bugs in this game is 'just too damn high'

The control layout is problematic - it could/should have been better.  In combination with an over-zealous law/crime system, it leads too easily to annoying unintended over-the-top consequences.  This should have been flagged before release, I expect it'll be tweaked, it shouldn't have been such an issue to begin with.

The NPC verisimilitude is good, but not great - it was over-hyped.  Again: it is GOOD, but it's not GREAT.  If I have to see another bounty hunter ride by having the exact same conversation with their captive ... !!  And the camp conversations, while awesome, do tend to go round and round.  A lot.

Let me put it it this way: any game that spawns huge numbers of complaints; that many report as being unplayable; that forces many to delay playing or slow play for patches; that makes people manually save a lot out of fear of unfairly losing hard won items to glitches or accidental loss; that generates worry about loss or non-access to DLC they paid a lot for; where people are regretting buying certain consoles or TVs and are contemplating swapping these just to play - such a game, no matter what their redeeming qualities, simply cannot be 10/10.

[DylBandit]

19 minutes ago, Benjo said:

 Literally 7/10 of the missions followed the same pattern. The 3 that were thrown in per 10 that were different were fine but when you're completing 3 or 4 missions per hour it becomes VERY noticeable.

 

The game was designed to be super slow and time consuming, not rushed. So when you do side missions, and other things while doing the main story missions, I bet you the template opinion would change. If you did other things in the mix such as hunting, fishing, finding all the legendary animals, customizing your camp, exploring, doing side missions, doing bounties, helping people out, finding hidden treasures in the game... 

 

19 minutes ago, Benjo said:

This isn't a design choice by Rockstar, it's because they are using the same engine they started to develop in 2005.

People love this engine, what more is there to say? Rockstar has been crowned game of the year every time they release a game. If they were to released Red Dead Redemption 2, it HAD to be on the classic RAGE engine. Also, yes the game has been in development for 8 years, do you know what year it was 8 years from now? 2010... So yeah, the game was being made on that engine for a long time, and they stuck with it, and for a engine being that old, man oh man it improved! 

 

19 minutes ago, Benjo said:

I did say that bugs were expected and that I downscored it due to them delaying it to iron out the bugs. The number we're experiencing after (over) 12 month delay to iron them out is unacceptable. 

Rockstar officially and publicly said they were delaying the game for "Polishing" now polishing could mean a few different things for each department...The game was being polished for optimization and looks for the final touches to make the game stand out. Rockstar has put in a lot of work on this game, and there is still a lot of work to be done. In the world of video games, developing them are really endless... 

 

19 minutes ago, Benjo said:

Downscoring "strictly based on this" would mean that this was the only thing I rated the game on. It wasn't, and I took a point off because this aspect is very sparse. There are about 8 coats you can choose from that nearly all look the same, or there's the trapper clothes that you have to spend 6 weeks collecting. You mentioned GTA 5 - you could go into any clothes shop and choose from many different options, and yeah you're right in that the options were limited based on the character you are playing, but still, there were more. In any case, that game came out in 2013 - should we not expect some progression? This game took 8 years to develop and this, which is so necessary in today's customising culture, fell short.

No I said "do damage to the score" meaning the score was affect by this, not strictly and only based on this complaint... To be honest, clothes weren't in the prime back in the wild west, so the time frame of this game, the clothes are really great and there is a lot to choose from. 

 

19 minutes ago, Benjo said:

Certainly, but I'm judging SP right now and it's lacking enough to lose a point. 

Don't judge, EMBRACE!

Edited November 1, 2018 by DylBandit

[DylBandit]

15 minutes ago, Benjo said:

What are your thoughts on this @DylBandit? It seems like an unpopular opinion but I can't see anything other than this viewpoint. 

I've had people remember me in the game when I was doing a lot of bad business killing people in towns. Once I came back with a bounty, people knew who I was and made comments about me. Also, the guy at the train station multiple times, and then I came back to visit later on, and he was saying "Not you again, get out of here or I will call  the law." Not sure why he would say that when I killed him many of times...but it worked... in a weird way. 

[Benjo]

Interesting. It's clear we're both of differing opinions, and although I do think we were oversold a lot of functionality, it's still a nice game. It feels good to be back on the plains again, and even though I'm griping about it feeling like RDR1 with a lick of paint, RDR1 with a lick of paint is still a great game.

Not changing my 6/10 though. 

[DylBandit]

11 minutes ago, Poggy said:

simply cannot be 10/10.

The score "10/10" can be factored into many ways. It's simply a view point of a persons opinion of the game. Everyone has an opinion and people can debate on things, that's just life. People like a game, or people do not. 

[DylBandit]

1 minute ago, Benjo said:

Interesting. It's clear we're both of differing opinions, and although I do think we were oversold a lot of functionality, it's still a nice game. It feels good to be back on the plains again, and even though I'm griping about it feeling like RDR1 with a lick of paint, RDR1 with a lick of paint is still a great game.

Not changing my 6/10 though. 

Agree to disagree 😎

[Benjo]

16 minutes ago, Poggy said:

The NPC verisimilitude is good, but not great - it was over-hyped.  Again: it is GOOD, but it's not GREAT.  If I have to see another bounty hunter ride by having the exact same conversation with their captive ... !!  And the camp conversations, while awesome, do tend to go round and round.  A lot.

I think you're the only person on my page with this. 

16 minutes ago, Poggy said:

Let me put it it this way: any game that spawns huge numbers of complaints; that many report as being unplayable; that forces many to delay playing or slow play for patches; that makes people manually save a lot out of fear of unfairly losing hard won items to glitches or accidental loss; that generates worry about loss or non-access to DLC they paid a lot for; where people are regretting buying certain consoles or TVs and are contemplating swapping these just to play - such a game, no matter what their redeeming qualities, simply cannot be 10/10.

Absolutely.

 

Also

16 minutes ago, Poggy said:

verisimilitude

[JohnConnor]

8/10  

-2 for low fps in towns and for random fps drops

8 - for everything else.

[Skinnsofa]

Games like Destiny, AC Odyssey and Fallout are games where you can move the character in all directions smoothly. In Rockstar games its like there are 4 movements. North, south, east and west. Seeing moving around is a big part of games like this, thats a big drawback.

The menu and layout on using weapons and stuff is bad. Hunting and every time I pick up something the weapon change to fist, and that is just a bad solution. 

The "missions" are very tedious and boring because you dont ever use you skills or brain. Everything is scripted and its very rigid in that. The lack of fast travel in a more traditional way is a big bummer for games like this. 

The following is never good in games, and this game is nothing but following commands in all aspects of game. Following someone is not what i hope for in a open world game and when the terrain is made as it is in this, you cant freeroam this "open world" as you can in most other open/sandbox games.

The lagging and cheating Rockstar pulled on HDR is also a pretty big negativ which seemed to be a place where I could give good notes, but no.

The bountysystem and how you interact with others in cities is bad, and as some points out, must be flawed. You get wanted for doing nothing.

The speed of the overall game is fun the first 2-3 hours, but the fun stops after you did the same just plain stupid slow speed all over the game. Its recordbreaking tedious and you dont ever use your own  brain in a game where you are limited to just follow commands. You can almost play this game putting on a movie and just hold the A button from time to time..

When you move a character in GTA its just like moving in RDR 2, but isnt there decades inbetween these games?? How is it possible to not have any progress in charactersmoothness in so many years?

Seeing the graphics are not as promised it seems the only part of the game that I thought i would give 10, I cant give more than 5 tops with these laggings etc.

Play this and then put on AC Odyssey, and its like going in a timemachine from 2000 to 2018. AC is so much more rewarding, active and fun to play as a game because you have to take decisions and are free to do what you like when you like. As a kind of tv-series with cheatHDR I guess RDR 2 can be good, but I bought a game and would like to play, not sit and follow scripted commands.

Score 3/10

 

[Benjo]

8 minutes ago, Skinnsofa said:

Games like Destiny, AC Odyssey and Fallout are games where you can move the character in all directions smoothly. In Rockstar games its like there are 4 movements. North, south, east and west. Seeing moving around is a big part of games like this, thats a big drawback.

Agree.

8 minutes ago, Skinnsofa said:

The menu and layout on using weapons and stuff is bad. Hunting and every time I pick up something the weapon change to fist, and that is just a bad solution. 

Indifferent.

11 minutes ago, Skinnsofa said:

The "missions" are very tedious and boring because you dont ever use you skills or brain. Everything is scripted and its very rigid in that. The lack of fast travel in a more traditional way is a big bummer for games like this. 

AGREE!

12 minutes ago, Skinnsofa said:

The bountysystem and how you interact with others in cities is bad, and as some points out, must be flawed. You get wanted for doing nothing.

Agree.

12 minutes ago, Skinnsofa said:

The speed of the overall game is fun the first 2-3 hours, but the fun stops after you did the same just plain stupid slow speed all over the game. Its recordbreaking tedious and you dont ever use your own  brain in a game where you are limited to just follow commands. You can almost play this game putting on a movie and just hold the A button from time to time..

Not so much the speed but repetitiveness of the missions for me. But yeah, agree.

13 minutes ago, Skinnsofa said:

When you move a character in GTA its just like moving in RDR 2, but isnt there decades inbetween these games?? How is it possible to not have any progress in charactersmoothness in so many years?

AGREE.

13 minutes ago, Skinnsofa said:

Score 3/10

Bit harsh. Maybe 3/10 compared to expectations but for me that's low compared to the majority of games. 

 

Thanks for sharing!

[Poggy]

To balance out the negatives, here's some of the key positives that explain my high score for RDR2:

The graphics are, imho, beautiful.  Especially the details and weather effects.  Simply gorgeous.  Sometimes I just stop and look around for the pure aesthetic pleasure of it all.

The game map is pretty freaking big, and reasonably varied too.  It has lots of 'stuff' in it to find, hunt, talk to, take, wonder at and so on.  This is a really big plus to me as it will give me a good set of hours of exploration, which is what I want in a free roam game.

The stories, characters, scripting, acting are all superb.  Some of them are genuinely emotionally affecting, and with a decent range too: comedic, dramatic, active, sad, silly, scary etc.  This game can make you laugh, cry, be creeped-out, be disgusted and be thoughtful.  That's pretty good for a game.

The violence and gore can be cool and fun.  OK, the controls aren't always great, and it's nothing ground breaking, but the fight and shoot sequences are entertaining and look nice.  I like the fist fights, the sepia toned slo-mo kill shot cam, and the body physics.  All quite nice, though nothing above and beyond.  Still a small plus to me.

The immersion (when it's not being all glitchy or I make a control fumble) is of a high level.  This seems to be a combination of getting the tone of the genre (quasi-historical Western) and amount of detail right.  It has RPG elements, like eating and temperature control and baths and stuff, which are levelled just about right to be valuable without being overly intrusive or essential.  You find yourself doing them without being overly forced.  It's not perfect, a couple of tweaks would be good, but it's still a plus.  I like the detail, I like the immersion.  When it works it works well.  I just wish it worked well more often and more consistently.

I think the NPC interactions are good.  OK, they're not great, they're sometimes too obviously running on tracks or looping/branching scripts, but they are usually decent enough to give an illusion of a world moving on around you - when it's working well.  It's a shame that sometimes the illusion is shattered by a poor interaction, spawn, loop, or the hyper-sensitive crime detection - but it's mostly ok, and sometimes really good.

In short, this is RDR1 but with slightly improved NPC interactions, same high quality characters and acting - perhaps even improved, much improved map and environment, similar missions, more surprises, and much improved visuals.  And given that RDR1 was so good, I can't see how RDR2 can get too low a score if it's better - and online hasn't even arrived yet, plus I expect patching to remove some of the issues.

I think this game is amazing!  It's a shame it over-promised and under-delivered ad didn't get as much testing/control as was necessary.  Game of the year, I expect.  Honestly.

[Benjo]

25 minutes ago, Poggy said:

To balance out the negatives, here's some of the key positives that explain my high score for RDR2:

The graphics are, imho, beautiful.  Especially the details and weather effects.  Simply gorgeous.  Sometimes I just stop and look around for the pure aesthetic pleasure of it all.

The game map is pretty freaking big, and reasonably varied too.  It has lots of 'stuff' in it to find, hunt, talk to, take, wonder at and so on.  This is a really big plus to me as it will give me a good set of hours of exploration, which is what I want in a free roam game.

The stories, characters, scripting, acting are all superb.  Some of them are genuinely emotionally affecting, and with a decent range too: comedic, dramatic, active, sad, silly, scary etc.  This game can make you laugh, cry, be creeped-out, be disgusted and be thoughtful.  That's pretty good for a game.

The violence and gore can be cool and fun.  OK, the controls aren't always great, and it's nothing ground breaking, but the fight and shoot sequences are entertaining and look nice.  I like the fist fights, the sepia toned slo-mo kill shot cam, and the body physics.  All quite nice, though nothing above and beyond.  Still a small plus to me.

The immersion (when it's not being all glitchy or I make a control fumble) is of a high level.  This seems to be a combination of getting the tone of the genre (quasi-historical Western) and amount of detail right.  It has RPG elements, like eating and temperature control and baths and stuff, which are levelled just about right to be valuable without being overly intrusive or essential.  You find yourself doing them without being overly forced.  It's not perfect, a couple of tweaks would be good, but it's still a plus.  I like the detail, I like the immersion.  When it works it works well.  I just wish it worked well more often and more consistently.

I think the NPC interactions are good.  OK, they're not great, they're sometimes too obviously running on tracks or looping/branching scripts, but they are usually decent enough to give an illusion of a world moving on around you - when it's working well.  It's a shame that sometimes the illusion is shattered by a poor interaction, spawn, loop, or the hyper-sensitive crime detection - but it's mostly ok, and sometimes really good.

In short, this is RDR1 but with slightly improved NPC interactions, same high quality characters and acting - perhaps even improved, much improved map and environment, similar missions, more surprises, and much improved visuals.  And given that RDR1 was so good, I can't see how RDR2 can get too low a score if it's better - and online hasn't even arrived yet, plus I expect patching to remove some of the issues.

I think this game is amazing!  It's a shame it over-promised and under-delivered ad didn't get as much testing/control as was necessary.  Game of the year, I expect.  Honestly.

I think you and I are absolutely in alignment in our positive takeaways of this game. 100%. In fact, everything you said here is bang on the money.

[MJROu812]

For me so far, and I am not going to sugar coat it.....I give it a 6/10, what made the first RDR so good was the story, it was well made and well thought out...like a good ol western novel? The sequel to the story seems to be all over the map....they have improved a lot of things in a lot of areas and that keeps me engaged?

Edited November 1, 2018 by MJROu812

[Poggy]

You not liking the story?  Fair enough,  I guess it's very subjective, but I've found the characters quite engaging.

[MJROu812]

18 minutes ago, Poggy said:

You not liking the story?  Fair enough,  I guess it's very subjective, but I've found the characters quite engaging.

I did not say I disliked the story? Its just not as well written and thought out is the first RDR, don't get me wrong I like this game very much....and I do like the characters that are in it.😄

[Poggy]

Ah, gotcha.  My bad.

[MJROu812]

3 minutes ago, Poggy said:

Ah, gotcha.  My bad.

No problem...were good😀

[Kean_1]

I agree a lot with what @DylBandit had to say.  

I'd honestly give this game a 9 or a 10.  This rating isn't based on expectations or marketing but more about my own experience, a comparison with other games I have played/enjoyed and the value I get (and/or believe I will get out of it in the weeks/months to come).  

Dylan already echoed a lot of what I was thinking so I won't get into it here.  .....and yeah, I get what you are saying about some of the negatives but it simply boils down to a difference of opinion.  

[BropolloCreed79]

1 hour ago, Kean_1 said:

I'd honestly give this game a 9 or a 10.  This rating isn't based on expectations or marketing but more about my own experience, a comparison with other games I have played/enjoyed and the value I get (and/or believe I will get out of it in the weeks/months to come).  

Part of me wonders how playthrough speed relates to folks' rating of the game.

I'm still on Chapter 2, but I've literally done EVERYTHING I could quest-wise, apart from talking to Dutch (because I know he's going to trigger a chapter shift) and I'm still finding strangers here and there (I refuse to look for help online).

If you had asked me last week, my score would have been lower while I was still fumbling about with the controls and clunky interface, but now that I've given it time to breathe, and applied myself a bit, the game is starting to shine.  It's languid storytelling pace is a motif for the entire game design as far as I can tell, one which is a breath of fresh air in an era dominated by fast paced multiplayer FPS games that give you cybernetic enhancements and jetpacks.  With RDR2, it's just me and my horse doing our thing.  For me that means exploring the world at my own pace and enjoying the thrill of discovering things--like

Spoiler

The campsite on top of the mountain near Caliban's Seat.  There's a campsite but nobody around.  One of the times I missed the jump, I saw why: the occupant of the camp had fallen over the ledge in their sleeping bag.  There was literally a skeleton in a sleeping bag laying up against some rocks downhill of the encampment.  

It's little touches like that which make the game fascinating and immersive on a level that few games are able to recreate or replicate successfully.

For my horse, it means taking MASSIVE dumps every time I stop somewhere to investigate things.

Oh, and he's fond of this too.

[Poggy]

So far we got:

 a ten

a 9 or 10

a 9

an 8

two 6s

and a 3

Thats quite a spread!

 

 

[MJROu812]

My six rating will go up......with improvements from patches, id even give it a 8 or 9 if Rockstar gives us single player DLC!😁 I do like this game very much!

Edited November 1, 2018 by MJROu812

[Jayjoejohnlongsilver]

I understand most of the negative critics but compared with other games u just cant give Rdr2 6/10 or 3/10 imo.

Its a prtty good game and i ez give a 9/10. -1 because of so many bugs after 8 year development.

But the atmosphere and the map are so fckn awesome i cant describe it.

[ghostpro71]

9.5 from me and the only reason why it's not a 10 is because of the criminal and bounty system.

- Graphics, character interaction, story, music, sound, gun gameplay are all top notch for me

- Controls are fine for me and honestly don't know why so many people think they're clunky.

- Missions are fine, although I would rather have an interface that shows me Main missions vs Side Missions without me having to go look it up online

- Criminal and Bounty system needs work IMO

 

But I still almost gave it a 10/10 because the amount of options, the gameplay, the types of systems they have in place, the graphics, and the immersion outweigh the minor negatives that are in this masterpiece.

[Skysaw]

I'm only 38% of the way through, so I can only give it a tentative score. That's actually many hours of my time, as I like to take things slowly.

When I rate a game, I usually only consider how it makes me feel when I'm playing. If I'm fully sucked in, having a blast, forgetting my real life troubles, and thinking about it when I'm not playing, then it rates highly. Based on this, I have to give it a 10. I love playing it, and that's what matters. 10 doesn't mean it's technically perfect, it just means it has consumed me. There are long stretches of time where I almost just forget that I am actually playing a game. 

One hint of how much I love RDR2 is that I very rarely post to forums for any games -- and here I am.