It wasn’t as good as FO3 or NV, but it wasn’t rubbish. Where the game fell down was that they tried to dumb it down and turn it into too much of a shooter, rather than the RPG it was meant to be, by adding voice and limiting the dialogue options, all 4 of the endings being very similar to each other etc, but the game wasn’t rubbish, and it certainly was not too long.
Gaming Red Dead Redemption 2 (PC, PS4, Xbox One, Stadia)
- Thread starter JamesB__
- Start date
It wasn’t as good as FO3 or NV, but it wasn’t rubbish. Where the game fell down was that they tried to dumb it down and turn it into too much of a shooter, rather than the RPG it was meant to be, by adding voice and limiting the dialogue options, all 4 of the endings being very similar to each other etc, but the game wasn’t rubbish, and it certainly was not too long.
That's not the point. Yes you could put it down and come back to it. But having to do so either says something either about your preferences/low attention span or the games failings and inability to hook you. The notion that length (of the game) isn't relevant is something I disagree with. In fact I've played a fair few games of late that drag for no apparent reason and I find the game thinking it's a lot more interesting than I believe it is.
Rise of the Tomb Raider is one I currently feel this about. I mean, it's not even along bloody game. But it has just unecessary stuff happening that I just want to get through which is a drag. I was fine with Mafia 3 until I realised it expected me to actually play a lot of it for the story to go anywhere. There's many games, good ones and not so good ones, that had flaws and some of them were length/size of content related. Don't see the issue. It's just like a film. The movies run time does matter. A great 2 film wouldn't necessarily have been better had it been 3 hours long.
I'd give it a 6. Biggest waste of money. A wasteland not only in setting but also in quality of content.
I don’t know if it’s been my choice of games, but I genuinely haven’t experienced a game that was long for the sake of it in a long time. All the games that I’ve played over the past few years that have been long have all been great.
And more content makes me happier, that’s why I like long games. Again it may just be choice of game.
For example, I actually haven’t bought Spider-Man as yet, because from the reviews I read that the game is over within around 15 hours. Waiting to either get it on sale or get the full thing when the all the dlc’s come out.
Like I said in another post on this thread, I think it may be down to my choice of games. I have very specific likes for games, and if something doesn’t fit into it I don’t buy it, so very rarely am I left disappointed in a game.
For example, I haven’t played the new tomb raider or mafia 3, nor do I plan to, so I think this is probably where our difference in opinion stems from.
I agree that it needed more, and like I said it definitely was the worst of the three fallout games I’ve played, I just wouldn’t say it was rubbish, I still quite enjoyed it.
Ah see, this is clearly where it comes down to our own personal tastes. I get Jev's opinion on games sometimes being too long because I know I scrutinise a lot more if I know a game is over 15 hours long. For me, it really takes a special case like RDR2, or more recently Shenmue, to take me out of that mindset. Contrastly, I really like some short games (<5 hours) because it means I can play them over again. SOMA being a recent example. I also never seem to replay games that are over 15 hours long.
I guess you see it as more of a positive the longer a game is, which is absolutely fine. I know loads of people who feel that way.
I still demand respect!
But yeah, I agree with all the stuff about filler. What I don't agree with is this new "respect gamers time" nonsense. That is just buzz word shite certain sites and hipsters jump on.
It's really simple, we all want entertainment. Some are happy with short focused games, some prefer long open ones. We all want fun though. It's less about game length and more about game quality. Ironically though, GTA5 bored me to tears after a while, and Rockstar have never been the best at actual gameplay mechanics. I'll be playing this straight away though and hopefully we get the best game ever, even after the initial hype dies down and people stop being giddy.
But yeah, I agree with all the stuff about filler. What I don't agree with is this new "respect gamers time" nonsense. That is just buzz word shite certain sites and hipsters jump on.
It's really simple, we all want entertainment. Some are happy with short focused games, some prefer long open ones. We all want fun though. It's less about game length and more about game quality. Ironically though, GTA5 bored me to tears after a while, and Rockstar have never been the best at actual gameplay mechanics. I'll be playing this straight away though and hopefully we get the best game ever, even after the initial hype dies down and people stop being giddy.
Yeah that’s fair enough, I can see where you’re coming from as well. It was a surprising view point for me because I don’t know anyone who feels that way amongst the people I know, but to each their own.
In an era of microtransactions and DLC’s, where companies seem to be geared towards making as much money as possible from as little content as possible, I find longer games to be truly refreshing, when I can actually say that I got my money’s worth from a game.
That game made me so sad. I was looking forward to it so much.
You would hope that they learn from the criticism that the game got and go back to more of the RPG elements that made fallout great in the first place with fallout 5, but you never know these days.
Yet I keep getting called defensive by @amolbhatia50k for some bizarre reason when I respond to posts.
Anyway game comes on two discs. First is data disc and the second is play disc.
This has been ordered as a gift and my copy will arrive on the 26th/27th!! feck yeah!!
The problem is 3 was already dumbed down enough and people tried to say that. But as usual, we were told that it was "omg the beatest game eva!" by the usual hype crowd and it sold well enough that they figured they were on the right path. They were right too because 4 didn't do too shabby and 66 will do well.
I just hope RDR2 is great. That's all I want, another great game to waste endless hours in and be happy
The problem is 3 was already dumbed down enough and people tried to say that. But as usual, we were told that it was "omg the beatest game eva!" by the usual hype crowd and it sold well enough that they figured they were on the right path. They were right too because 4 didn't do too shabby and 66 will do well.
I just hope RDR2 is great. That's all I want, another great game to waste endless hours in and be happy
Well 3 was my first, so that was my baseline for a fallout experience. I don’t think 76 is going to do well. There’s been huge backlash about it, and a lot of the fallout faithful aren’t planning on getting it.
Even on this site, we had a whole thread of people who usually played fallout talking about FO76 and no one in the thread is planning on getting it.
Put an insane amount of time into Fallout 3 when that came out. Probably in my top ten games of all time. But i also liked Fallout 4 a lot. I mean, it was just more Fallout to me. Nothing revolutionary, but i liked it fine. Platinum'd the game and had a great time. Apart from the settlement building. Feck that shit.
Rockstar - world renowned at being the best open world developers crammed with activity and beautiful surroundings.
- Makes a sequel 8 years later that is 65hrs long for main missions.
- People complain.
You can't please everyone, and quite frankly, I don't give a shit if someone thinks it's too long, I'm gonna play it, and I'm gonna love every 1 of those 65+ hours.
- Makes a sequel 8 years later that is 65hrs long for main missions.
- People complain.
You can't please everyone, and quite frankly, I don't give a shit if someone thinks it's too long, I'm gonna play it, and I'm gonna love every 1 of those 65+ hours.
I take issue with this part. It says nothing about your preferences, low attention span or the games inability to hook me. Fact of the matter is I live a busy life that doesn't necessarily revolve around a game, and I can't be putting in 4 hours a night, it's not feasible.
My other half lives 200 miles away, I work shift pattern job inc. nightshifts, I have exams and I need to keep a certain level of social life. I'm sure loads of us are in that boat, which is why picking up the game for an hour or 2 here and there is perfectly understandable and says nothing about the game itself.
Already got it downloaded on ps4 just have to wait now!
just have to wait now!Shit, you can pre-download it?? Then is it just available to play on the 26th?Already got it downloaded on ps4
If you pre order it on psn or xbox live, yes. You can play it at midnight on Thursday.
There is simply no way that is true.
It'll be 25-30 hours at most and there's nothing wrong with that, it's more than enough.
That's what they've said. Well, cut down to 60. Do you think they're exaggerating?
http://www.vulture.com/2018/10/the-making-of-rockstar-games-red-dead-redemption-2.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insert...100-hour-work-weeks-at-rockstar/#749d2ed5eebe
They've interviewed the Rockstar guys themselves.
Of course. A 65 hour campaign/story mode is ridiculous. I don't think it would even be received well.
Even an epic story like the recent God of War was 20-25 hours. Imagine doubling that? How do you maintain interest? If I'm 40 hours deep into the story in RDR2, I'm gonna be thinking "This needs to be wrapped up" no matter how good it is.
65 hours for the story, side missions, collect-a-thons and sightseeing will be, or should be, the lot. In my opinion.
And it's hyperbole. Just like the 100 hour work weeks they were talking about but have since backtracked on. They don't need to back down on a 65 hour campaign though because it has loads of people drooling.
God of war is a tiny world compared to Red Dead Redemption. 20-25 hours is perfect for that type of game.
There’s tons more to do in Red Dead.
I don't put 4 hours a night myself. Are you going to stop playing the game for a month?
Last edited:
Kinell', alright, whatever. Relating back to my original post, I know I'm going to enjoy it and get loads of enjoyment out of it whatever length it may be. I'll let the killjoys who are quite frankly speculating debate what length a game should be.
True. But my word what's there to do in GoW is fecking incredible.
Good for you. I'm sure no one gives a shit if you love every hour of a video game either.
I'm expecting big things from RDR2 but it's strange how people can't quite bathom others not being as hyped as they are. This happened with GTA too. It's fine. You don't have to make the world feel the way you do.
So you think I prefer to live apart from my other half and see her every 4/5 weeks over playing a video game?
I don't think 'preferences' is being used in the right context here. To me, this is just 'life'.
Yeah I edited my post. But it seems you intend to play the game consistently rather than put it down and come back to it the next month. So it doesn't seem to apply to you. I was speaking about the notion that if one finds the game too long, they should play it in chunks. You seem have no issue whatsoever with long games.
I don't have a problem with long games at all, but I rarely get the opportunity to sit down and do a big binge play (I'd love to do that though, especially with some beers). I like coming back to it when I can and have never seemed to get bored of this approach. I doubt I'll be able to play it consistently at this point in time.
I just don't understand some peoples aversion to others playing the game this way, I'm not in a position to judge people on how they enjoy a game.
*shrugs*
Reading people complain about 60-70 hours of story-gameplay when I love RPGs and get wind up by not-perfect menus. 
Redlambs and others saying its about quality is right
But that's really what "respecting player time" means. If you can't make those hours in high quality then don't bloat it with shit just so you can talk about how big it is during marketing. It is mostly a issue with games like the Assassin's Creed series from my experience. I don't play gta and won't be playing Red Dead, but if I "know"anything about those kinds of games then it is that people end up making the fun for themselves with the tools the games provide.
Redlambs and others saying its about quality is right
But that's really what "respecting player time" means. If you can't make those hours in high quality then don't bloat it with shit just so you can talk about how big it is during marketing. It is mostly a issue with games like the Assassin's Creed series from my experience. I don't play gta and won't be playing Red Dead, but if I "know"anything about those kinds of games then it is that people end up making the fun for themselves with the tools the games provide.
Persona 5 was 100+ hours, TW3's main campaign was 60-70 hours. HZDs main campaign was 40-45 hours. I don't see how it's ridiculous at all for this to be 60?
To be fair, Persona 5 was criticized for being too long, TW3 had its own problems with pacing, and 60 is a bit different than 40... by the tune of 50%.
P5 and TW3 both got universal acclaim and are considered two of the best games ever in their genres now. So that criticism may be valid but it hardly shunted the games in any way.
And HZD was shorter yes but it was an example of a recent, long OWG with a lengthy campaign most people loved. And anyway, if someone is willing to do 45 hours they're hardly going to turn their nose up at 60.
The problem won't be the length but that Rockstar think storytelling is all about stealing referencing scenes from hollywood movies.