RDR2 is insanely well made on every level. Just terrific. And it’s boring the hell out of me.

Dec 20, 2018
17
8
75
#52
Felt the same way myself, the controls and mission design and it’s failstates turn me off, don’t really enjoy the characters either. I’m sure the players’ reviews don’t live up to rockstar’s expectation either. I wish they will go back to the 3 year development cycle and release at least 2 of their big title every gen, it’s crazy how thy decide to not do gta 6. Perhaps the gta online is already generating enough income for them and they’re not so keen on releasing a sequel anymore.
 
Feb 3, 2017
209
96
180
San Diego, CA
#53
Game is highly polarizing, to me I feel it's the best game I've ever played while at the same time I can recognize some of the gripes. The boredom/slowness was an absolute turn on for me as at the end of my workday/weekend I'm looking to slow down and find some escapism, putting the horse on cinematic mode while I sip a beer made it all the more convenient. To each their own.
 
Oct 30, 2017
860
723
200
#57
It's frustrated Hollywood movie director syndrome.

These people don't want to make video games. That's the fundamental problem. They want to "tell a story."

And it's dull. Dull as fuck.
I think you hit the nail on the head. Lots of western games are guilty of this. It’s like they forget that they’re making a game and spend all their time and resources on everything except gameplay.
 
Likes: PhineBuyM3
Nov 5, 2016
3,404
2,189
270
I don't care where (just far)
#59
You play it at all? It got me into poker and I watch tournaments now
I love poker. I used to play twice a month for about 12 years.

Where I’m originally from we had some pretty decent 2-5 NL Hold Em games (That’s the highest I could afford. Never sat down at a high stakes game). Where I live now has a weird law where the maximum bet can’t be more than 100 bucks. So basically you’re playing 1-2-100 or 2-5-100 Spread Limit. At higher limits it basically just becomes 100 dollar bets and 100 dollar raises at every stage. Very hard to protect your hand

Wanna make it clear, I don’t consider myself a good player. I lose more than I win.

Had a couple lucky nights. It’s a fun feeling when you’re running hot
 
Last edited:
Likes: noonespecial
Apr 24, 2011
1,579
243
495
Houston, Texas
#60
I don't really understand where there opinions come from. I had a hell of a time with the game just immersing myself in the story, hunting and gathering. I thought it was super fun. I don't really understand how I wound up having an opinion so different from so many people.
 
Likes: noonespecial
Feb 8, 2018
760
300
240
#62
I love poker. I used to play twice a month for about 12 years.

Where I’m originally from we had some pretty decent 2-5 NL Hold Em games (That’s the highest I could afford. Never sat down at a high stakes game). Where I live now has a weird law where the maximum bet can’t be more than 100 bucks. So basically you’re playing 1-2-100 or 2-5-100 Spread Limit. At higher limits it basically just becomes 100 dollar bets and 100 dollar raises at every stage. Very hard to protect your hand

Wanna make it clear, I don’t consider myself a good player. I lose more than I win.

Had a couple lucky nights. It’s a fun feeling when you’re running hot
Dang. That max 100 rule adds a whole new bluff element. I can't gamble because the risk scares the crap outta me but I got prominence poker to fuck around on PS4 (fake chips with no value) and had some good wins then immediately lost it, someone's straight beat my 2 pair. The money adds a whole rush but frankly that's something I don't care to experience because it I know what it can turn into, yk.

You watch it at all or just play it? And I'm pretty shitty at it too other than the occasional good hand
 
#63
I don't really understand where there opinions come from. I had a hell of a time with the game just immersing myself in the story, hunting and gathering. I thought it was super fun. I don't really understand how I wound up having an opinion so different from so many people.
Just what different people want from their gaming time.
Personally I think it's one of the best games I've ever played. There are so many things to see and do but you REALLY have to go out of your way to experience it. The lack of fast travel is a prime example. They force you into the world because so much of the game is meant to be organic.
They tried to break free of the Ubisoft whack-a-mole map game design. Many of the side missions don't appear on the map and the only way to do em is to explore.
To be honest I think the side missions are better than the core game story, maybe because more often they're a positive experience. The main story is pretty dark.
 
Sep 11, 2018
198
138
170
#67
I haven't played it, but the thing that sounds like the biggest turn off to me is the linearity of the mission structure and how you must do it exactly the way R* wants you to, without much room for experimentation.

Which is a shame to have in an open world game like that. Seems like they've been creating these great worlds, but not using them to their maximum potential.
 
Likes: noonespecial
Dec 12, 2013
3,553
1,480
440
#68
I agree with the OP, It's great technically and presentation-wise but on a gameplay level it's just too slow and tedious to be fun. The game would benefit greatly from having a true Fast Travel system to any point on the map. The game is 100 hours long because there's 70+ hours of horse riding just to get to where you need to go each time, it's ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Likes: EDMIX

Danjin44

The nicest person on this forum
Mar 22, 2017
5,373
4,209
390
#71
seems like after the initial excitement wore off more and more players are feeling a bit bored and disappointed in the game...it still sounds like a very good game but not as great as people were expecting
But that's the case with every game that ever comes out. No matter how good the game is there always some people out there who are not going to like the game like everybody else. This why "overrated" lost its entire meaning to me.
 
Apr 5, 2018
1,740
841
215
30
South Florida aka Outer Haven
#72
Felt the same way myself, the controls and mission design and it’s failstates turn me off, don’t really enjoy the characters either. I’m sure the players’ reviews don’t live up to rockstar’s expectation either. I wish they will go back to the 3 year development cycle and release at least 2 of their big title every gen, it’s crazy how thy decide to not do gta 6. Perhaps the gta online is already generating enough income for them and they’re not so keen on releasing a sequel anymore.
"the controls and mission design and it’s failstates turn me off,"

This.

I hate when its because you didn't kill someone a certain way even with them still dying. The controls are just horrid, I've had moments where I'm trying to get on my horse and he starts kidnapping someone.....real story lol A mission I just did he has to jump on a stage coach, but I got it to stop...tried to get on and he wouldn't do it even with the damn thing stopped....I then got on my horse and jump from the horse to the stage coach.....WHILE IT WAS STILL STOPPED soooooo why on earth are they having me do this crap when the point is to just get inside, not JUMPING from the horse, it made no sense and felt so poorly designed and thought out as if the team didn't even play their own game.

The transition from day to night is really bad, like its happening in seconds and it looks like crap compared to something like Horizon which had some of my favorite transitions from day to night etc

The narrative of the game is a joke and all over the place. They are making it seem as if you can choose to be good or bad.....yet the damn character is telling you stuff like "Make sure no one gets hurt guys" ??? WTF? Soooooo you folks are outlaws right? Then you get on the mission and the game like "You can choose to let them go" can I though? Cause sounds to me like the game has already made that choice for me and I was right.

The whole game goes on to have Arthur pretending to be some boy scout while confessing to be a killer outlaw at the same time.

Example. You get a mission where the gang goes to mansion, kills like 50 dudes and cops and Dutch kills the dude they kidnapped, the whole gang acts like "WOW, DUTCH IS crazy bro, can't believe HE KILLED THAT 1 guy"

(Game decides to ignore the 50 dudes you just killed including police) The game keeps flip flopping on them making them seem as if they are indeed about that outlaw life, then pretending to be this band of good guys that just steals and doesn't kill.....

The best thing about Red Dead 2 might just be the graphics and setting. The story is just awful and only seems to be good for a few lolz, narrative is just completely screwed up with a character that legit at one point states "I've killed for less" also him "you taught me not to kill in cold blood Dutch" Sooooooo yea. Its just a joke and anyone trying to claim its a 10/10 or GOTY etc has some massive blinders on. I bought every GTA after 3 day 1, bought Red Dead 1 and 2 day 1, but I won't pretend as if this game doesn't have massive issues as many seem to want to ignore because of the teams popularity. Maybe we wouldn't be having such issues on a game as major as Red Dead 2, if those reviews actually reflected those issues.

I mean I just can't get over the outlaw shocked at folks killing all whole going on missions killing 50 dudes no issue.....

Something is very broken with that story.
 
Mar 3, 2014
1,780
378
305
#73
Those are the people who will make their voices heard. You won't hear people shouting from the roofs and make constant threads about how amazing the game really is. Most people find the game amazing. There is a vocal minority that doesn't like the slower pace.

That's their own fault, the game is a western in every sense of the way. So yes it takes a long time to get going, and then takes a longer time to finish and come to it's conclusion. It's not afraid to take it slow and drown you in atmosphere.

You should get it if you think you will enjoy it. It's a cowboy simulator. Take that for what you will.
Yes. It's our own fault that the game is a fucking slog and has horrible controls.
 
Jun 30, 2013
1,613
165
355
London, UK
#74
I explored and did side missions in the first part of the game but the whole experience was boring me. So I decided after that to just speed through the main story missions, as soon as I reached the conclusion I started playing something else. The game has a supreme amount of effort put into it by Rockstar but it never quite hit the mark for me. It has me guessing that the experiences I enjoy changed a little once again. It could be open world burn out, or just general design of the game and feeling like I need progression to be a little more linear, that my time is being wasted with mundane activities.

I played Call of Cthulhu, Vampyr and Tales of Berseria afterwards, and I enjoy all of these games over RDR2.
 
Likes: EDMIX
Jan 20, 2018
1,087
572
285
Pittsburgh
#75
I am glad I did not purchase it. I had a feeling it was likely relatively boring. As I get older, I am starting to think Open World games are simply too big and you need to just settle for the ones that interest you in type.

Like, if you like gangsters and crudeness. GTA.
A more neo, computer type. Watch Dogs
Fantasy setting. Witcher
Pirates. Ass Creed IV
Westerns. RDR

Etc.

It is getting too much to play them all. And, makes them all seem tedious before long.
 
Oct 2, 2018
208
479
200
#76
"the controls and mission design and it’s failstates turn me off,"

This.

I hate when its because you didn't kill someone a certain way even with them still dying. The controls are just horrid, I've had moments where I'm trying to get on my horse and he starts kidnapping someone.....real story lol A mission I just did he has to jump on a stage coach, but I got it to stop...tried to get on and he wouldn't do it even with the damn thing stopped....I then got on my horse and jump from the horse to the stage coach.....WHILE IT WAS STILL STOPPED soooooo why on earth are they having me do this crap when the point is to just get inside, not JUMPING from the horse, it made no sense and felt so poorly designed and thought out as if the team didn't even play their own game.

The transition from day to night is really bad, like its happening in seconds and it looks like crap compared to something like Horizon which had some of my favorite transitions from day to night etc

The narrative of the game is a joke and all over the place. They are making it seem as if you can choose to be good or bad.....yet the damn character is telling you stuff like "Make sure no one gets hurt guys" ??? WTF? Soooooo you folks are outlaws right? Then you get on the mission and the game like "You can choose to let them go" can I though? Cause sounds to me like the game has already made that choice for me and I was right.

The whole game goes on to have Arthur pretending to be some boy scout while confessing to be a killer outlaw at the same time.

Example. You get a mission where the gang goes to mansion, kills like 50 dudes and cops and Dutch kills the dude they kidnapped, the whole gang acts like "WOW, DUTCH IS crazy bro, can't believe HE KILLED THAT 1 guy"

(Game decides to ignore the 50 dudes you just killed including police) The game keeps flip flopping on them making them seem as if they are indeed about that outlaw life, then pretending to be this band of good guys that just steals and doesn't kill.....


The best thing about Red Dead 2 might just be the graphics and setting. The story is just awful and only seems to be good for a few lolz, narrative is just completely screwed up with a character that legit at one point states "I've killed for less" also him "you taught me not to kill in cold blood Dutch" Sooooooo yea. Its just a joke and anyone trying to claim its a 10/10 or GOTY etc has some massive blinders on. I bought every GTA after 3 day 1, bought Red Dead 1 and 2 day 1, but I won't pretend as if this game doesn't have massive issues as many seem to want to ignore because of the teams popularity. Maybe we wouldn't be having such issues on a game as major as Red Dead 2, if those reviews actually reflected those issues.

I mean I just can't get over the outlaw shocked at folks killing all whole going on missions killing 50 dudes no issue.....

Something is very broken with that story.
For me this is a problem that many open world games have. Also a problem that games with any kind of similar "honor system" have.

The open world element completely destroys any chance of tightness or urgency in the story telling.
The flexibility of the honor system destroys any chance of a consistent main character.

In a sense RDR2 wants to have it's cake and eat it too.
On one hand it's looking to be a completely immersive and "real" open world adventure where you can go hear and there and do whatever you want.
On the other hand it wants you to be Arthur Morgan, a solid well defined character who participates in a tight well paced story.
It's almost impossible to be both.

In an early mission where you have to rescue Reverend Swanson he ran away and got into an altercation with 2 dudes. I shot those dudes dead. No questions asked. I do not think the Arthur that I saw in cutscenes up to that point would have done that.

When you have to go get Micah from Strawberry? Same deal. Why the hell would Arthur be doing these things? And the mission fails when Micah dies? Fuck, that guy.

I would put forward Breath of the Wild and Skyrim as superior open world experiences as the end goal is pretty clearly set out but the character is too underpowered to achieve that goal. Then the player is asked to go off and have their own adventures. Anything the player character does is moving them towards being powerful enough to achieve the goal. It's a basic story yes but it fits well with an open world videogame.

RDR2 is obviously vastly superior technically. Presentation is better. Acting is better. Scripting is better.
If it were a more "on rails" experience like God of War or Uncharted then it would be a better game for it. At least a better story. Arthur would be a better character. Spider-Man even did a better job of marrying story driven experience to open world gameplay.

As it stands, Arthurs actions and reactions in the storyline are COMPLETELY at odds with things we've been up to in the open world.

This is the same issue I've had with both of the recent Assassin's Creed games. I love the setting for both and the graphics are wonderful but the characters? Urgh. The stories have no pacing and there's no real reason to plow through story mode and then come back to go through all the side tasks.

They need to get rid of "you can be good or bad" and just give you a solid consistent character to play as (Aloy or Link would be good examples but there is little "character" there, really).

They need to come up with stories that can fit into open world scenarios.

I think FarCry 5 tried to solve this problem at least by making it such that completing side quests led to escalation by the cult.
Obviously though having your character be kidnapped etc multiple times wasn't great.
I could see what they were trying to do though.
It's a good idea to have the world be in a somewhat calm state and then have it react to the actions of the player. Triggering a well paced story moment before calming down again and building to the next big thing.

Reviewers tend to be harder to trust with open world games too. Imaging playing like 100 hours of a game over just 2 weeks. Or going through the story only and keeping side content only to what is necessary. Is that really how most players experience these?

RDR2 is still impressive to me but not really a GOTY experience.
 

Mjordan23

Neo Member
Jan 12, 2018
4
2
90
#77
The controls are just horrid
Exactly, and that is inexcusable. I find it ridiculous that one of the biggest gaming companies in the world are the worst offenders on such a basic element of gaming. In addition to the slow campwalking and loadout from horse problem, it all adds up to game that`s simply not fun to play. No matter how good others aspects of the game are.
 
Likes: EDMIX

CHEROKEEE

Neo Member
Oct 19, 2017
3
6
100
Germany
#78
It's not made for the gaming ADHD crowd who needs instant gratification at every corner. Let's just say that.

And it won't be everyone's cup of tea. But it's a cowboy simulator. If that doesn't appeal to you than the game probably isn't for you.

It's a slow game, just like any western tale should be.


my thoughts EXACTLY !!

I felt pretty burnt out on the whole OpenWorld Thing... the FarCry´s and Assassins Creeds of late felt more like "clicking checkboxes to completition" to me - Didnt even manage to get exited/interested for HORIZON ZERO DAWN or SPIDERMAN yet... but this Game man, THIS GAME !! made me find my long lost enthusiasm for the Medium again, it was so immersive and yeah... un-gamey ! Funny enough the latter is used by many as a negative :)
 
Mar 9, 2014
272
111
270
#79
After reading this thread it has piqued my interest to be honest.

I totally disregarded the game because I thought it would be the same as the first RDR and similar to all other open world RPGs where I find it difficult to immerse in the game and just end up going through the motions with the whole "travel here, do this, travel there do that, fight someone, travel back and get a reward" to progress the story before losing interest.

I like the idea of a slow burner where you are doing whatever you want at your own pace to build up to something. Although from the sounds of it there is very little jeopardy in the game?

For those who are enjoying the slow pace of the cowboy's life in RDR2, does it not feel pointless if there is no real penalty for playing it as a survival type role playing game?
 
May 29, 2017
420
386
220
#80
It's not made for the gaming ADHD crowd who needs instant gratification at every corner. Let's just say that.

And it won't be everyone's cup of tea. But it's a cowboy simulator. If that doesn't appeal to you than the game probably isn't for you.

It's a slow game, just like any western tale should be.
But RDR1 was a brilliant game, this slowness takes things from slow and worthy story pace to down right tedious with somehow worse controls than entire generation before.

This game is bad, and it might be the worst game I spent money on in the last 12 months in my eyes.
 
Mar 19, 2015
841
429
255
#82
I felt the exact same with Red Dead Redemption 1. I'm about 20% into it and it's a great title, but I feel I'm just going through it to go through with it.
I was the same with RDR1. I don't know why I bought into the hype for this.
This game is technically superior in every way to the first one but somehow manages to be even worse to play.
 

Catphish

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2017
1,352
1,250
385
Chicago, IL, USA
#83
After reading this thread it has piqued my interest to be honest.

I totally disregarded the game because I thought it would be the same as the first RDR and similar to all other open world RPGs where I find it difficult to immerse in the game and just end up going through the motions with the whole "travel here, do this, travel there do that, fight someone, travel back and get a reward" to progress the story before losing interest.

I like the idea of a slow burner where you are doing whatever you want at your own pace to build up to something. Although from the sounds of it there is very little jeopardy in the game?

For those who are enjoying the slow pace of the cowboy's life in RDR2, does it not feel pointless if there is no real penalty for playing it as a survival type role playing game?
A little, yes. Can't lie. But if you take out that expectation, and come up with your own, you can subvert the disappointment.

What I mean by that is, now that I've completed the main story, I want to go back and successfully hunt one of every animal in the compendium.. So I don't need to hunt to eat, but I do have to hunt to accomplish my goal.

There's still a lot of unexplored stuff on the map. I want to explore some of it on foot, without the horse. There's no reward for doing it, except the fun of seeing the world in a more deliberate manner.

Sometimes, for me, the most fun was forgetting the narrative entirely, and just doing my own things for my own reasons. It would be nice if R* had put more meaning into these components of the game, but there's nothing stopping me from adding the meaning myself.
 
Likes: noonespecial
Jul 1, 2017
81
28
175
Sweden
#85
I really liked the game. The story and gameplay were good, but I can agree on the open world stuff (and it's not just about RDR2). I played Spiderman PS4 directly after red dead and a lot of people were saying that Spiderman does something with an open world that a lot of open worlds don't, and that's the web swinging mechanic. I agree but somehow I always used the fast travel mechanic here as well because I really wanted to go to the next objective ASAP.
 
Likes: noonespecial
#87
For those who are enjoying the slow pace of the cowboy's life in RDR2, does it not feel pointless if there is no real penalty for playing it as a survival type role playing game?
I usually only have 2-3 hours max an evening to play, so I started rdr with a goal in mind like "complete one hunting requirement for the next upgrade bag" or "complete one story mission" or "run thru one treasure map"
But in the process of that I took my time going from a to b and anytime I saw something interesting I stopped to check it out or random events I stopped to intervene if I agreed with what was going on.
Playing that way has made the game a ton of fun for me, yeah I'm not finished the game yet affter at least 60 hours but I have never felt burnt out.

Personally I suspect that the game design is better suited to older gamers playstyle who have limited game time and prefer a more organic experience rather than needing to check stuff off a map with endless action..
 
Likes: noonespecial

Fbh

Member
Dec 6, 2013
9,750
1,376
545
#88
Impressions like these make me wonder if I'll get it for pc. They should have released it at the same time to trick more eager pc players. As the days go by the hype is fading and more people are coming away saying it's just boring.
I'm kinda hoping the PC version gets decent modding support and someone makes a "I don't care about realism" mod or something
 
Likes: brokenduck
Mar 9, 2014
272
111
270
#89
A little, yes. Can't lie. But if you take out that expectation, and come up with your own, you can subvert the disappointment.

What I mean by that is, now that I've completed the main story, I want to go back and successfully hunt one of every animal in the compendium.. So I don't need to hunt to eat, but I do have to hunt to accomplish my goal.

There's still a lot of unexplored stuff on the map. I want to explore some of it on foot, without the horse. There's no reward for doing it, except the fun of seeing the world in a more deliberate manner.

Sometimes, for me, the most fun was forgetting the narrative entirely, and just doing my own things for my own reasons. It would be nice if R* had put more meaning into these components of the game, but there's nothing stopping me from adding the meaning myself.
I usually only have 2-3 hours max an evening to play, so I started rdr with a goal in mind like "complete one hunting requirement for the next upgrade bag" or "complete one story mission" or "run thru one treasure map"
But in the process of that I took my time going from a to b and anytime I saw something interesting I stopped to check it out or random events I stopped to intervene if I agreed with what was going on.
Playing that way has made the game a ton of fun for me, yeah I'm not finished the game yet affter at least 60 hours but I have never felt burnt out.

Personally I suspect that the game design is better suited to older gamers playstyle who have limited game time and prefer a more organic experience rather than needing to check stuff off a map with endless action..
Thanks for the replies, it sounds as though there is something there in RDR2 that I might actually want to play. I am quite happy to create my own goals if the game allows that without always herding me down a particular path to progress the story. Maybe R* could add some game modes at some point down the road that cater more towards the survival aspect. It's pretty clear by a lot of the replies in this thread that this wouldn't be to the liking of the majority even if the mechanics for it are in there which is fair enough.
 
Aug 20, 2008
9,653
411
825
#91
I'm kinda hoping the PC version gets decent modding support and someone makes a "I don't care about realism" mod or something
I mean it’s not really needed as you can just skip pretty much all the survival stuff (outside of some tutorial story missions) with no real consequences.
 
Mar 29, 2012
109
96
370
#94
for me, games are all about fun and this game fails to deliver that on nearly every level
the immersion is great, but it's just so painfully boring and slow, the actual fun moments are so thin

presentation/graphics is the last thing I look for in a game. They are more of a bonus of a well made game, for example PUBG is amazing fun for me, but the presentation/graphics are awful. Still, I keep playing that game because it delivers what video games aim to do - make you have fun

I just thought this game was really awful if I'm being honest. The devs failed to deliver what video games are all about.
 
Likes: EDMIX
Feb 21, 2018
2,378
1,486
270
#95
If all these systems aren't important and can be skipped, then why were they put in the game in the first place. Is like everyone is admitting that they are boring and kinda suck, but the silver lining is you don't have to do them.

Its not really a glowing endorsment to say you can just skip all this gameplay because it has no use in the game. Its like imagine if someone said the jumping mario sucks, and then the counter argument was that you can just run straight through the level and never have to deal with the annoying jumping.
 
Jan 7, 2014
3,123
1,347
390
#96
If all these systems aren't important and can be skipped, then why were they put in the game in the first place. Is like everyone is admitting that they are boring and kinda suck, but the silver lining is you don't have to do them.

Its not really a glowing endorsment to say you can just skip all this gameplay because it has no use in the game. Its like imagine if someone said the jumping mario sucks, and then the counter argument was that you can just run straight through the level and never have to deal with the annoying jumping.
I think what most of us are saying is that there is a lot of options and you can do the things you enjoy and skip the others. Not everyone will enjoy hunting for example (count me in that group), but there are many who do.
 
Likes: noonespecial
#97
Is like everyone is admitting that they are boring and kinda suck, but the silver lining is you don't have to do them.
They aren't boring and they don't suck for a lot of us ,and they can be ignored if you just want to blaze through the game and miss most of the game world.
By playing more organically you can basically play HUD-less because you have spend enough time in the game world.

There is a lot of reflection in the game, for example one side quest has you visit and interact with a character in his house. You become friends and have several hunting and fishing outings with him. Well he dies but his house remains, where you first met him is still there. There is an actual Sense of loss when you pass by those locations later on, you recall that he's gone and the activities done with him, in game conversations.

If you skip all that then passing by that place can feel boring because you have no history with that character, his house or what happened to him, it's just another empty house that could make the game seem boring, when in reality you flew through the game and missed everything
 
Last edited:
Aug 20, 2008
9,653
411
825
#98
If all these systems aren't important and can be skipped, then why were they put in the game in the first place. Is like everyone is admitting that they are boring and kinda suck, but the silver lining is you don't have to do them.

Its not really a glowing endorsment to say you can just skip all this gameplay because it has no use in the game. Its like imagine if someone said the jumping mario sucks, and then the counter argument was that you can just run straight through the level and never have to deal with the annoying jumping.
It gives players freedom to play how they want. Some like immersive sims and want to hunt and eat to stay and perfect weight, keep the camp supplies up. Others don't and can just skip it.

If they had made it mandatory the game would be even more divisive as people that hate the survival stuff would probably just quit playing. That said, they could have handled it better. Maybe given an option at the start for a survival mode or a normal/casual mode.

In any case, I'm all for games that give players choice in how they want to play. Especially a game like this were the story is the main draw for a lot of people.
 
Last edited:
Oct 24, 2007
720
19
855
#99
It's about the story mainly so you really have to be into Westerns, and that sort of pace to really enjoy it.

The gameplay is very basic and not for everyone as it practically plays it's self. It's almost like a create you own adventure book.
It's very chilled and great for relaxing but it's not going to get anyone excited on a gameplay level. Personally I think it's a masterpiece.