True. I believe they're shifting gears though judging on how they're designing their new GTAO heists and stuff.I can't fault Rockstar when it comes to the technical aspects of their games, but fuck their route 1 mission design approach.
To be fair the game was a huge success and a lot of people ended up loving but yeah it was picked apart. Glad to see that it and GTA IV also are being appreciated for whatever reason.Exactly, what I was thinking. When it came out, 75% of the talk about it on forums was negative and picked apart every flaw they could come up with. Now the mob wants to tear down the next big thing, so Red Dead Redemption 2 is used as the example of how to do it right.
True. I believe they're shifting gears though judging on how they're designing their new GTAO heists and stuff.
But most people probably didn't shit on Rockstar for it because they never promised very open mission design in their pre release marketing.
Red Dead 2 is the game of the generation. fight me
I don't know if you have read this already but there's an interesting interview with Rob Nelson (co-head of R* North) which addresses the mission design in RDR2 -Let's see how their next Single Player game goes.
Full Interview LinkGamesBeat: I really liked this game. I played all 105 missions. I had a colleague who felt like he wanted it to be more like Hitman 2, where you can go and do anything, tackle your target through many kinds of means. It seems to me that approach is not what you wanted to do or tried to do. Do you have a view on how you balanced this sort of directed story versus the openness of the world and the missions?
Nelson: I think all of us feel like we want to approach any situation, anything, in any way we want and have it be credible. But that’s a big, big challenge. To do that and have it feel — it’s a big world and a big story, and I think it needed to be a big world and a big story for what we set out to do. But yes, we explored a lot of different avenues early in development, like more procedural approaches to things. Hey, it’d be great if this camp could totally grow and you could hire people from towns and come back and add to your camp. We explored, at one point, if you could take anybody fishing that you wanted at any time.
But what that ended up doing was a very procedural-feeling game. You’d write a bit of dialogue, beta a bit of dialogue, and go and make these AI-type behaviors. It didn’t feel like you’re on a thing with Pearson and Bill, or you’re on a thing with Javier and John. It felt like you were on a thing with AI that just looked like those people, but they didn’t behave like those people.
Unfortunately there’s no procedural system yet that we’re happy enough with to make the worlds we make. Our worlds are handmade. Our artists will use certain procedural tools, but they’re all curated by the artists. It’s the same for the content we make. For it to make you feel anything, it has to be made by humans. It has to be written and designs and shot and acted and processed and put into place very carefully. For things that happen in the world, we have to very selectively know when they’re going to happen.
It would be great if this was all open, but people have to make this stuff happen at some point. It has to be scripted so that it all feels right. I don’t think there are procedural tools that will make it feel real.
Most of that is great, in a movie. RDR2 fails in terms of actual gameplay. Everything is too scripted/on rails (like one of the first posts in this thread outlined).Red Dead Redemption 2 is literally the benchmark by a mile in so many categories.
Open world map.
Story.
Characters.
Voice acting.
Visuals.
Soundtrack.
Small details.
How alive the world feels.
Animations.
God knows what else, no wonder it destroys CP77 (which I also loved by the way). RDR2 is by far the greatest video game I’ve ever played.
I don't know if you have read this already but there's an interesting interview with Rob Nelson (co-head of R* North) which addresses the mission design in RDR2 -
Full Interview Link
You could choose to sneak in a few missions until it all went to hell but yeah, Rockstar didn't focus on that part during missions. I don't think there's any proper stealth system in place expect scripted parts.I'll be honest. That reads like a dodge. I really resented the fact that as Arthur I had no input in mission approach with the AI companions. There was one where it about going to rob some family of Hillbillies, and I was thinking 'great it's night time..let's stealth this' but no, goddamn companion sets fire to a hut and the whole thing turns into a gunfight and we end up killing the entire family for a few dollars and a shotgun....having some dialogue options beforehand to at least flesh out a plan isn't a bridge too far.
You could choose to sneak in a few missions until it all went to hell but yeah, Rockstar didn't focus on that part during missions. I don't think there's any proper stealth system in place expect scripted parts.
The Cayo Perico Heist (and the Casino Heist to a lesser extent) is really interesting in a design way although GTAV has that same bog standard stealth anyway but it does let you do things in your own way. That gives me hope for their upcoming games.
I remember when RDR2 was criticized for all those details. They were accused of putting realism before fun.
Don't really agree with this sentiment. It's like looking at game design through a tunnel vision, where only interactivity and choice, consequence matters. Games can be of different types with different design priorities. But opening up a mission certainly wouldn't hurt.The real strength of gaming as a medium versus others lies in its unique qualities of interactivity and choice and consequence. When a game is merely funnelling you down a prescribed route with no leeway to deviate, then it's essentially the equivalent of a Mutoscope
I temd to view games like Red Dead Redemption 2 as interactive historical accounts, so to speak.The real strength of gaming as a medium versus others lies in its unique qualities of interactivity and choice and consequence. When a game is merely funnelling you down a prescribed route with no leeway to deviate, then it's essentially the equivalent of a Mutoscope
![]()
Where in your 'experience' is simply turning the handle to reach the same conclusion as everyone else.
This was my main gripe with RDR2. The missions play in the most linear way possible. Every mission in Cyberpunk can be done from at lest 2 to 3 diferent ways, sometimes getting also 2 to 3 diferent outcomes at the end depending of how you completed it.two completely different games. one is a sandbox the other is an action adventure rpg
also Rockstar mission design:
mission failed - you turned right
mission failed - you ran too fast
mission failed - you ran too slow
mission failed - you shot twice instead of once
mission failed - you walked too slow
mission failed - you farted too loud
yeah no thanks.
RDR II literally shits on every game so...
![]()
Don't really agree with this sentiment. It's like looking at game design through a tunnel vision, where only interactivity and choice, consequence matters. Games can be of different types with different design priorities. But opening up a mission certainly wouldn't hurt.
That’s because CDPR claimed Cyberpunk will offer next level open world experience but it ended up having brain dead AI infested metropolis instead.The salt this game creates is heavenly.
![]()
This. I would love to get back into it, but the incredibly convoluted control scheme is turning me away.Not when it comes to controls and mission freedom and I love RDR2.
The games aren't even in the same genre
It’s got nothing to do with hate narrative. There are people who like the game, but are also not scared to criticise its shortcomings. I think the game is great(85+ hours) however I’m not afraid to admit that it has one of the worst AI ever seen in an open world game. Comparisons being made between the two games was always going to happen and in most cases RDR2 is indeed betterShush you, don't spoil the hate train narrative.
The weirdest place Cyberpunk outdoes RDR 2 would have to be world building, I'd never have expected it but RDR 2 doesn't feel as much like a cohesive world to me, it feels like it's your gang, a couple rival gangs... but not many... the law and... well... I dunno, not a lot else. Where Cyberpunk feels like a world in a constant struggle between competing gangs, corporations and so forth. Yeah, you can interact with NPCs more in RDR 2 and they seem more life-like, but the world itself?
It’s got nothing to do with hate narrative. There are people who like the game, but are also not scared to criticise its shortcomings. I think the game is great(85+ hours) however I’m not afraid to admit that it has one of the worst AI ever seen in an open world game. Comparisons being made between the two games was always going to happen and in most cases RDR2 is indeed better
Go and do some more research you stalker, I said Cyberpunk 2077 is my game of the year! Go and look it up.Please, Weasel. You're a one-note poster whose basically been spamming GAF since the game launched with the same 'worst game evar!!' garbo about CP since it launched, riding the hate boners of WEETABIX and the rest of Doom Patrol for every like you can get (Gotta get that Dopoamine fix yo). Your post history is there for everyone to see writ large. '85 hours' yet not one post that's a positive. Whom exactly are you hoping to convince. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Game is buggy, but bugs get squashed, AI gets updated. I know it's an inconceivable concept to you that developers can and do fix things as you've loftily declared in another thread, but to those of us who've been around for a while, it a widely accepted fact that post-release updates are a thing (even for Rockstar games).
As for the CP2077 versus RDR2. They're entirely different games. The former is more akin to Open World DS:HR versus a futuristic GTA.
One can throw all the plaudits one wants at Rockstar when it comes to the detail, but their mission design is a treadmill, and albeit some people seem to really enjoy that, it's not for everyone and as I pointed out earlier in the thread, it's not really leveraging the true strength of gaming as a medium when it comes to interactive storytelling in affording you the player the means to navigate your way through an experience on your terms (even within a frame of options) and truly own it. CP2077, on the other hand, is giving you a lot more scope both through the choices and decisions you can make regarding the story but also the manner in which you can tackle missions.