Red dead redemption 2 review polygon

do you work for Kotaku? Saw you talking that review up a lot. I read it, and while it's quite eloquent in its wording, the review aspect of it itself sounds more hyperbolic, abstract, and mostly just a bunch of generalities. It even mentions some rather deep flaws to the game play, yet glosses over them as no big deal because of how amazing the rest of the game is, despite the author saying the game just isn't fun. But that's OK, because it's different than other games they consider more visceral fun.

Not much was backed up with all those generalities, with almost no examples outside the world details, but still, nothing to say how it came together. Then a good part of the review went on a tirade about the working conditions over at R*, which made a lot of assumptions and seemed more agenda driven than relevant to the quality of the game itself.

@Badz

I read the IGN review, and I agree. I see some major sites mentioning some major game play criticisms, and then waving them off as not a big deal because of how awe inspiring the game is. While I understand that some thing can be overlooked when the overall experience is great, it's still a reviewers responsibility to mention how those things come together and can bring something down. Maybe not nitpick small things, but certainly not dismiss potentially major flaws. All that awe-inspiring grandeur is cool and all, but if you're spending 50-100 hours on a game, much of that becomes less important after a while.

Christopher mentioned in another review about how you couldn't auto loot, and how that was considered cool by the review. That was mirrored in something else in the Kotaku review, where they said the game constantly forces you to slow down and appreciate the world. While I understand a game wanting to pace things differently than other games do, or what the player may expect, it is still an important aspect to consider how that affects the player, or how they may potentially feel about such a thing after the 100th, or 1000th time they may do the same repetitive thing over and over again.

I'm not going to say this game is bad. I understand many people may love this game, and I'm not one to say they're wrong. But it's not a reviewers job to gush endlessly over things, but rather inform the reader in a meaningful way about what they're getting for their money.

I’ve been playing Red Dead Redemption 2 on and off for a few months now. Sometimes I’ll get totally sucked in and marvel at the world Rockstar has created. But all too often my enjoyment of the game is tarnished by dozens of tiny little annoyances that add up to create a sense of frustration.

This article by Film Crit Hulk on Polygon does a fantastic job of really getting into the nitty gritty of what Red Dead Redemption 2 does right and what it does wrong. It’s a long old read, but I’d highly recommend putting aside your lunch hour to delve into it if you’ve played RDR2 and come away with a nagging feeling that something’s not quite right about it.

The big take-home message is that the controls just don’t make sense a lot of the time. The menus are overly complicated and inconsistent in the commands they require you to enter, for example. I’m glad it’s not just me who has been struggling with this – last night, for instance, I spent a good long while hunting through the menu system for my binoculars, despite having played the game for around 50+ hours. It’s not intuitive in the slightest.

The other main point is that Rockstar mistakes complication for realism. All the fiddly mechanics you have to deal with don’t make it a more realistic simulator of the Old West, they just make it annoying. Sure, there are plenty of lovely touches that do increase immersion, like the joyful whinny your horse emits when you feed it, but there are also plenty of supposedly realistic actions that actually break the immersion. To whit:

Cooking food in a video game can take one button press or 20, but more button presses won’t fool your brain into thinking you’re actually cooking a dish. Game designers tend to confuse “complicated” with “realistic,” and our minds aren’t wired to think something is real just because it takes a long time to happen and requires many small actions on our part.

There are dozens and dozens of excellent insights like this in @FilmCritHULK‘s article, all of which had me nodding vigorously in agreement. It’s not that I don’t like Red Dead Redemption 2 – in fact, I rather enjoy it – but often that enjoyment is in spite of the obvious annoyances that the game keeps throwing my way. It feels like the game needed some sort of uber-producer, like Shigeru Miyamoto, to swoop in and say “this bit isn’t fun, take this out or rework it” and “why did you throw in this idea and never develop it?”

RDR2 is like a 1,500-page novel from a renowned author that has been waived through the editing process on the strengths of the artist’s past works, but as a result is bloated and riddled with strange choices. And the inherent complication of the control scheme is the most obvious of those – the Polygon writer’s description of learning the game in the opening hours as “laborious” is totally spot on.

In short, RDR2 isn’t a bad game by any means – but it deliberately makes itself wilfully obscure and needlessly complex. Basically, it needed an editor with an iron will.

Is RDR2 the most realistic game ever?

Red Dead Redemption 2 is known for being one of the most detailed games of all time, both in its mechanics and visuals. The latter means it's also one of the most realistic-looking games ever. This is best observed by looking at all the animals that populate the land. The critters seem so lifelike.

What is the saddest part of RDR2?

1 The Entire Epilogue We know that John will eventually die saving his family from the law, and we know that Jack will grow up to become an outlaw just like his father and Uncle Arthur. At the end of the day, there are no happy endings with Red Dead Redemption. It's a Western tragedy for the ages.

Is it better to be good or bad in rd2?

High honor leads to reduced prices, better loot, and more outfits, while low honor yields more loot and discounts on deadeye tonics. Being good in the game requires sacrifices, while being bad has fewer rewards, but low honor makes gameplay easier and less stressful.

What is the most powerful gun in RDR2 story mode?

1 Carbine Repeater Hands down the best gun in RDR2, the Carbine Repeater is a solid weapon choice for any fighting that players will be doing. Its stats are solid across the board, with the only weakness being in fire rate, though it's still comparable to a shotgun and a lot more versatile.