What is your biggest fear for Red Dead Redemption II?

[Kean_1]

1 hour ago, YodaMan 3D said:

2 game manufacturers that I supported since forever was Ubisoft and Rockstar.  Until the Division happened, talking with players in different forums over the past 3 years.  I noticed a trend in what many players seemed to want in a game and developers adapted to impress those players.  When often spoke against those changes saying that they must focus on their entire player base, not just a few but the whole.  I usually found myself standing alone defending a dinosaur age. 

Rockstar will adapt to what they think the players want.  GTA5 got shafted, not because they didn't think it needed anymore.  They scrubbed the extra DLCs for no other reason then profit margin.  If GTA5 is their model for RDR2, then they will scrub any plans for the fast buck.  Not saying they can't do both, but when their SP modes are nothing but a tutorial for the online game.  They don't care for their player base, just a few and not the whole.  I wish for the best, but really not trusting them on their words alone, but their actions too.

Ubi was one big disappointment after another for me.  I gave up the AC franchise a couple titles after Black Flag.  FC5 put a nail in the FC series as far as I'm concerned.  While I enjoyed the Division to an extent, it still wasn't the game they said it would be during development.  .....and I'm doubtful I will buy the Division 2.  I did enjoy GRW especially the co-op.  ...PvP was a bust and a departure from what made the core game fun IMO.  I never had an interest in For Honor nor Siege.  Ubi has quickly become one of those developers I don;t trust to make a game they say they are going to make or one that will meet my expectations. 

R* on the other hand hasn't made a title I've played that has disappointed me.  ....personally.  

I'm puzzled that you would consider GTAV as merely a tutorial for their online component.   ...or am I misunderstanding?  That campaign was very robust from my own experience and one of the longer lasting ones compared to others.  It was a full SP experience.  RDR was too and I'm sure RDR2 will be even more so.    

IMO, it has been their actions that have provided me with the trust I have now that they will deliver a great product in RDR2.  I can't say I have agreed with everything they have done (to my own personal taste) but I've always felt their games I've played were well worth the money I paid.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Kean_1

[Kean_1]

5 minutes ago, YodaMan 3D said:

The did crazy things in GTA, doesn't mean they can't be creative in RDR2.  Just cause it limits the range doesn't mean it will limit the griefing. 

Again, we'll have to see how it goes. 

I'm not interested in dwelling on the negative to be honest.  I'd rather be hopeful RDO will turn out for the better but I'm realistic about it too.

[YodaMan 3D]

7 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

Ubi was one big disappointment after another for me.  I gave up the AC franchise a couple titles after Black Flag.  FC5 put a nail in the FC series as far as I'm concerned.  While I enjoyed the Division to an extent, it still wasn't the game they said it would be during development.  .....and I'm doubtful I will buy the Division 2.  I did enjoy GRW especially the co-op.  ...PvP was a bust and a departure from what made the core game fun IMO.  I never had an interest in For Honor nor Siege.  Ubi has quickly become one of those developers I don;t trust to make a game they say they are going to make or one that will meet my expectations. 

R* on the other hand hasn't made a title I've played that has disappointed me.  ....personally.  

I'm puzzled that you would consider GTAV as merely a tutorial for their online component.   ...or am I misunderstanding?  That campaign was very robust from my own experience and one of the longer lasting ones compared to others.  It was a full SP experience.  RDR was too and I'm sure RDR2 will be even more so.    

IMO, it has been their actions that have provided me with the trust I have now that they will deliver a great product in RDR2.  I can't say I have agreed with everything they have done (to my own personal taste) but I've always felt their games I've played were well worth the money I paid.

My concern that companies are pushing to get players to get to the online gameplay with micro-transactions that the SP campaigns will become nothing more then a tutorial to get you there.  I saying that GTA5 was not entertaining, but when you discover that they had DLCs in the wing and cut them, so they could focus to the online stuff.  Well, I become skeptical of what will happen down the road, they are delaying RDR2 online till November, but does that mean Nov 1st or Nov 30th.  How soon before they see $$$$, knowing players will spend.

I'm not interested in dwelling on the negative to be honest.  I'd rather be hopeful RDO will turn out for the better but I'm realistic about it too.

You don't haven't dwell on the negative, all I am suggesting is don't go in blind either.  Good things, heck great things could happen with RDR2 and RDR2 Online.  Then again they could be worse.  I say be prepared for both.

Edited October 11, 2018 by YodaMan 3D

[Kean_1]

1 minute ago, YodaMan 3D said:

My concern that companies are pushing to get players to get to the online gameplay with micro-transactions that the SP campaigns will become nothing more then a tutorial to get you there.  I saying that GTA5 was not entertaining, but when you discover that they had DLCs in the wing and cut them, so they could focus to the online stuff.  Well, I become skeptical of what will happen down the road, they are delaying RDR2 online till November, but does that mean Nov 1st or Nov 30th.  How soon before they see $$$$, knowing players will spend.

 

......but my point is that R* has proven that they are dedicated to the SP experience by delivering good, well developed campaigns.  If there is one thing I have no reservations about with RDR2 is that the SP experience will be no different in that respect.  I'm not sure why your judging R* on a move that others are making in the industry?  I also don't like that campaigns are being cut short or otherwise simply eliminated in favor of PvP.  CoD and BF are just some examples.   EA obviously miscalculated just how much of an impact it would have when they forego a campaign in Battlefront.  .....leading them to add it back in Battlefront II.  

As far as R* cutting DLC for GTAV, I don't believe that was anything that was ever announced by them but instead assumptions.  I'm not saying they didn't discuss it but I honestly never heard anything officially announced from R* that it was in development.  Personally, I would have probably like some additional content for the campaign but to be honest, I rarely buy DLCs. ....but I can understand the disappointment from someone if that is something they really value.

RDO is obviously a crap shoot at the moment as to how it will work.  RDR2 will be in beta in November.    .....and yeah, we don't have exact dates yet but personally, I'm likely to still be neck deep in the campaign still.  I'll wager we should know the exact release for the RDO beta sometime this month.  Perhaps they are waiting to make sure the main game goes off without a hitch before setting that date?

[YodaMan 3D]

3 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

......but my point is that R* has proven that they are dedicated to the SP experience by delivering good, well developed campaigns.  If there is one thing I have no reservations about with RDR2 is that the SP experience will be no different in that respect.  I'm not sure why your judging R* on a move that others are making in the industry?  I also don't like that campaigns are being cut short or otherwise simply eliminated in favor of PvP.  CoD and BF are just some examples.   EA obviously miscalculated just how much of an impact it would have when they forego a campaign in Battlefront.  .....leading them to add it back in Battlefront II.  

As far as R* cutting DLC for GTAV, I don't believe that was anything that was ever announced by them but instead assumptions.  I'm not saying they didn't discuss it but I honestly never heard anything officially announced from R* that it was in development.  Personally, I would have probably like some additional content for the campaign but to be honest, I rarely buy DLCs. ....but I can understand the disappointment from someone if that is something they really value.

RDO is obviously a crap shoot at the moment as to how it will work.  RDR2 will be in beta in November.    .....and yeah, we don't have exact dates yet but personally, I'm likely to still be neck deep in the campaign still.  I'll wager we should know the exact release for the RDO beta sometime this month.  Perhaps they are waiting to make sure the main game goes off without a hitch before setting that date?

I not saying they haven't delivered in the past, but the industry is changing and not sure if Rockstar will continue to do what they do now or follow the rest.  They didn't used to have micro-transactions or sharkcards, but GTA got them.  What will be there next be change? 

The never announced the release of the extended DLCs for the campaign, they did announce in an article they got cut for the sake of online stuff, that was where they thought the money was.  To a point they was right, on the other hand, that told me that there could have been more story, which I enjoyed more then the online stuff.  Will they now shorten the campaign for the thought extending online stuff.

Now all of this is hypothetical on my part and have no reason to believe they have changed like everyone else, but I have watched the industry as it has been changing and watching everyone, even Rockstar made changes for the sake of money.

[BropolloCreed79]

59 minutes ago, Kean_1 said:

 RDR2 will be in beta in November.    .....and yeah, we don't have exact dates yet but personally, I'm likely to still be neck deep in the campaign still.

As long as I can buy Doc Brown's flying steam train time machine, I'm all good 🚂

[sniperlithius]

lol bropollocreed79

[Kean_1]

1 hour ago, YodaMan 3D said:

I not saying they haven't delivered in the past, but the industry is changing and not sure if Rockstar will continue to do what they do now or follow the rest.  They didn't used to have micro-transactions or sharkcards, but GTA got them.  What will be there next be change? 

The never announced the release of the extended DLCs for the campaign, they did announce in an article they got cut for the sake of online stuff, that was where they thought the money was.  To a point they was right, on the other hand, that told me that there could have been more story, which I enjoyed more then the online stuff.  Will they now shorten the campaign for the thought extending online stuff.

Now all of this is hypothetical on my part and have no reason to believe they have changed like everyone else, but I have watched the industry as it has been changing and watching everyone, even Rockstar made changes for the sake of money.

Yeah, I saw an article from late last year where they discussed why they didn't consider DLC for the GTAV campaign.  Made sense to me especially what was going on for them at that time.  ....PR fluff-talk aside:

 

Quote

"No, it was not really a conscious decision, it’s just what happened. We would love to do more single-player add-ons for games in the future. As a company we love single-player more than anything, and believe in it absolutely – for storytelling and a sense of immersion in a world, multiplayer games don’t rival single-player games.

With GTA V, the single-player game was absolutely massive and very, very complete. It was three games in one. The next-gen versions took a year of everyone’s time to get right, then the online component had a lot of potential, but to come close to realizing that potential also sucked up a lot of resources. And then there are other games – in particular Red Dead Redemption II. The combination of these three factors means for this game, we did not feel single-player expansions were either possible or necessary, but we may well do them for future projects.

At Rockstar, we will always have bandwidth issues because we are perfectionists and to make huge complex games takes a lot of time and resources. Not everything is always possible, but we still love single-player open-world games more than anything. I don’t think you could make a game like GTA V if you did not like single-player games and trying to expand their possibilities! "

 

R* reps have reiterated their passion for the single player experience through RDR2s development so I don't anticipate that changing anytime soon especially in this title. 

Yeah, the virtual currency MTX model was new in GTAV but to be honest, I actually liked it better than some loot boxes, paywalls and P2W models others have.   It can certainly be grindy but at least things are still obtainable through the gameplay. 

That's not to say I think loot boxes can't be done in a reasonable way especially if that means limiting them to cosmetic items and those things that don't give paying customers an unfair advantage.  Maybe they'll choose to do both in RDR2?  .....I dunno.  

Just remember that R* has been watching the industry as well and I'm quite sure they have taken note of the blunders we've all witnessed.  Either way, you'll never be able to satisfy everyone and some will vehemently oppose MTXs regardless.  We'll just have to wait for the details to be released on RDO to see what the model looks like.

[Archbell]

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 8:04 PM, YodaMan 3D said:

I hope it is more cooperative gameplay, but that isn't the way the game industry has been heading.  The market seems to support the toxic behavior in open world environment.  I hope not but I have a bad feeling in my gut closer we get to November.

I see where your coming from but I don't think a lack of cooperative orientated gameplay is the problem, Rockstar pushed cooperative gameplay to quite an extent in GTA Online and the rest of the game industry has done the same but you can't just force players of different playstyles to play together in an open world environment and expect them to get along.

In my opinion the problem with GTA Online was that they pushed cooperative gameplay while at the same time introducing vehicles and weapons that could only be used effectively in a PVP environment. We're never going to have a singular freeroam environment where players can play cooperatively with others without being harassed while at the same time other players in the same freeroam are able to run around and kill all that can be killed without being labelled griefers, I am well aware that there are players out there who are hell-bent on griefing and ruining the fun of others but there are also honest players out there who pick up a game with guns in it purely to start shootouts with other players and there's nothing wrong with that.

I've said this before but I'll say it again, there needs to be multiple types of Red Dead Online Freeroam because otherwise we'll suffer a repeat of the ----show which was GTA Online.

[Kean_1]

18 hours ago, Archbell said:

I see where your coming from but I don't think a lack of cooperative orientated gameplay is the problem, Rockstar pushed cooperative gameplay to quite an extent in GTA Online and the rest of the game industry has done the same but you can't just force players of different playstyles to play together in an open world environment and expect them to get along.

In my opinion the problem with GTA Online was that they pushed cooperative gameplay while at the same time introducing vehicles and weapons that could only be used effectively in a PVP environment. We're never going to have a singular freeroam environment where players can play cooperatively with others without being harassed while at the same time other players in the same freeroam are able to run around and kill all that can be killed without being labelled griefers, I am well aware that there are players out there who are hell-bent on griefing and ruining the fun of others but there are also honest players out there who pick up a game with guns in it purely to start shootouts with other players and there's nothing wrong with that.

I've said this before but I'll say it again, there needs to be multiple types of Red Dead Online Freeroam because otherwise we'll suffer a repeat of the ----show which was GTA Online.

Very true.  

The problem with GTAV:O IMO was that it forced players who want to build businesses, do the missions with friends, etc. into a free-for-all environment that quite frankly gave griefers a drastically unfair advantage.  Players doing the missions had everything to lose (sometimes 100's of thousands of dollars) while the aggressors risked nothing, could engage with anything they wanted to in their arsenal, could respawn limitlessly, etc.  It essentially painted a target on players who simply want to play the game and created a buffet for trolls.  

I get that some folks like that but I think they can make modes that better suit a PvP play style.  HOWEVER, they also should create a mode for players who prefer a more cooperative experience where they don't force those players to have to join public free-for-all session to take advantage of activities, build businesses, perform related missions, etc.  At the very least I believe they should make aggression toward other players an act with great risk as to discourage it and (rather) encourage cooperative gameplay.

[DylBandit]

I fear the most is micro-transactions, because I don't want to experience a pay-to-win game. 

[Benjo]

7 minutes ago, DylBandit said:

I fear the most is micro-transactions, because I don't want to experience a pay-to-win game. 

My guess is it will be pay-to-customise

[DylBandit]

1 minute ago, Benjo said:

My guess is it will be pay-to-customise

That would make the most sense, and honestly I wouldn't mind that to much, as long as the micro-transactions don't interfere with the true game play, I don't have a problem with that personally. If people want to spend the extra dollar to look cool, so bet it, I don't see a problem.