So, after all the hype over this game, especially about the graphics, given folk in another thread were saying how Control for them is the best looker, 'even' more so than RDR2 - well, I'm struggling to see what the fuss over RDR2 is, visually. The textures are HD, not even UHD, the character models look blurry, and while the early stage snow was brilliant, that's about the only thing that was. Just like CoD's hyped up graphics utterly underwhelmed me, so do these. Maybe I just prefer the Breakpoint approach - superb detail at 4K and great animation, plus good optimisation. You look at the ground in Breakpoint and you can see down to the finest detail at treacle-thick resolution, but RDR2? Just looks like HD, kind of like Kingdom Come Deliverance. Just me?
The fact that you're even mentioning Breakpoint in the same sentence as RDR 2 then yes, it is just you.
I finished the game yesterday; after a year of waiting, the hype surrounding the game, and me not having played RDR or even got a glimpse of what RDR2 was about - here's my two cents. The game looks great, not stunning or breathtaking (maybe that's more so from the console peeps). The graphics are very good don't get me wrong - but not as great as people make it out to be. The sounds are fantastic, no doubt about it - the gunshots, the bullets ricocheting, the music (next to none), the dialogues, the galloping, the creaking of the floors as you walk by... just everything. There is a lot of fluff around the game; and I have mixed feelings about them. I can see some people really getting into them, but they appeared very gimmicky to me. The ability to clean your gun, create a bond with your horse, do chores around the camp, ability to camp/hunt/eat - all great, but not for me. I barely did any of those, I reckon cleaning my gun at most 4 times throughout my 60 hours of gameplay. The fluff felt very disconnected from everything else, and provided no real reason to do them... other than to do them. Character development was great; you really do start to adopt distinct sentiments towards the characters as the game progress. Your feelings even shift as the story unfolds. To an extent, you decide how you want to feel about Arthur. People complained the game was boring, and I can definitely see why now that I have played the game. Chapter 1 and 2 were engaging, mainly because I was still discovering all the things the game had to offer - and having fun with the new mechanics. Chapter 3 and 4 were a drag, and Chapter 5 was mildly interesting - because I was interested to see how everything pans out. The chapters had moments of greatness, but not enough to say the chapter as a whole was good. It mainly revolved around me going from point A to point B, while engaging in meaningless dialogues... then to Point C. The game will throw some enemies on your way, as part of the mission, to keep things interesting. Then back to Point A, just to go to point B again... to meet someone, cut-scene comes in... and another basic mission to shoot enemies. Then gallop again to your main quest, just to gallop away from it to where its taking place. Rinse and repeat for hours on end. For over half of the game, I was just holding W.... and the game didn't even allow me to run full speed at times, which just added to the tediousness. The epilogues were the most bored I have even been in any games; boring trips, mandatory chores, fishing mission, mini-game of building a house & quests just for the sake of having quests. You are essentially playing the cut-scenes; that's how I felt for half the game. The last mission was very nicely done though. I don't regret having played the game, and I will recommend the game to new players for them to make up their minds - but I personally don't see the repay the value in this game.
i think the replay for this like most grand theft games is mucking about, rdr1 i would play poker, hunt, just enjoy the world a bit once in awhile, but most rockstar games you play and maybe replay 10 years later not games you replay over and over for the branching story choices. its the side missions that make their games stand out some of the side missions in vice city are near legendary or gta4. red dead clicked all the western tropes and really do not blaze much unique missions wise, some of the strongholds were fun to fight through however and figure them out. still figuring out rdr2 the totems and hunting i barely touched because hunting is bit of pita with how big the world is, how limited you are in carrying stuff, the hunting wagon mod needs to be a official single player DLC people would fing pay for it, and the mods your skins will fall out of the cart half the time before you get back to camp not ideal. and if you get add about the upgrades and challenges your locked out wo cheating bad design that. The whole bounty and hunters system is a mess and lazy cheating ai period. dead or alive areas are ridiculous. They make a super immersive world with all this detail and f it up with stupid AI decisions and systems. i get AI is hard, but the AI can literally see you through things, will come to your location no matter how remote, and the only time i escaped their notice was dropping off a cliff and they lingered like they knew i was there even though it was impossible for them to find me, nor was it possible for them have a idea wtf i was because i was literally miles in the middle of no damn where and i got hunters crawling up my ass for no damn reason other then satellite technology must have existed in the old west and i pissed off the nsa. love getting gang banged while i am trying to hunt/fish also. console i bet this game was infuriating.
To answer the rest of the post though, I played one hour of it and haven't touched it since. I just haven't found it as compulsive as I expected to. But I must just be an *sshole for liking Breakpoint, which is basically what I was called on another forum. I've found people online utterly intolerant of others liking things they personally can't stand. Welcome to the modern world, sadly.
It is what it is. Graphics wise, I would place Breakpoint alongside RDR2; graphics have made such big strides, it would be quite a feat to really distinguish oneself from the others. Metro was quite stunning looking. I get why some people love RDR2, its apparent. It just wasn't my cup of tea, although I did drink it up.
For me the replay value is being a fan of the Wild West. No different than any other game, Fallout, Skyrim, GTA, The Witcher 3, etc. No replay value if you don't like those worlds they offer. Is RDR2 perfect? In my opinion no.
On 4x Msaa it looks much better like as great as people were and are saying. And that's if the settings are all on Ultra. But of course it's often choppy on high end PCs and because of that it may not be worth the super visuals.
Bought the game the other day and I'm having real problems running it in 4K. Feels like no matter the settings I cannot get a locked 60fps during the prologue (the benchmark is pointless since it doesn't represent actual in game FPS that well). I've tried both High on everything and even Medium on everything but once I think I got it locked, a new scene appears that tanks the FPS. The biggest one so far is when you get your caravan out of the snow where the FPS got down to around 45, this included the pre-train section. Now that I got my camp set up I'm at ~51ish on High. I've tried different guides but the settings that have the biggest impact (Reflection Quality, Volumetrics Quality & Near Volumetric Resolution) don't help my average frame rate that much. I don't want to run the game at Low settings either and I really really want to play this game on my TV. Thinking about maybe saving this game for this summer when the new cards are out. Also, is there a way to gallop someone without having to mash the A button and follow someone without holding the A button?
The benchmark is actually a very accurate representation of what your in game fps will be. When riding with someone or whenever you have a location marked on your map hold down V to go into cinematic mode and Arthur will go to the specified destination.
Well, I got a 58fps average in the benchmark with very few lows but after playing the prologue I can say that my average in-game FPS was lower than that. Thanks for that valuable tip with the cinematic camera!
Yea, I forgot about that Had a simple task in Valentine, set a waypoint and let Arthur run for himself a bit. Went out to the kitchen to get a drink and suddenly heard "You won't escape us this time Mr.Morgan" and guns started blazing. Terrified I dropped my drink everywhere and run back into the living room and got Arthur to flee. When the bandits stopped chasing me I thought I'd get back and kill every one of them bastards but really wanted my task complete (buy a horse brush, yes I know, you get it somewhere else) and when I eventually got back the bandits were gone. Funny, after that I did more automatic runs, though supervised, but no bandits! It's like the game knew I was stepping away from the screen 'bout performance...I've enabled Hardware Unboxed optimized settings but I still don't get that magical locked 60fps I so dearly wanted. I guess I can get used to having my FPS hop around between 50 and 60 but idk, would feel better at 60. I guess it's a matter of resolution? I wanted to try the new Upscaling option in the Image Sharpening feature but unfortunately my TV only supports 60fps at 3840x2160 and the next 60fps step is 1920x1080 (also this Upscaling feature is global, very weird). Anyway, I haven't tried this yet.
LMAO you remind of one of my colleges at work. We can sit there talking for any time period and nothing happens (we're in support) but as soon as he gets up to get a coffee his phone rings. Every - god - damn - time. You can see his coffee drips everywhere in the corridor leading to the kitchen. So funny.