Red Dead Redemption

grimly amusing that the reason it's not being released for the current-gen xboxes is because microsoft's backward compatibility / fps boost feature means that rdr already runs at 4k there if you have a copy of the 360 version

meanwhile rockstar/take two are trying to squeeze 50 bucks out of everyone else for a 'remaster' that's at best gonna be exactly what xbox owners get for free

good to see that the universally appalled reaction to their gta remasters hasn't soured them on the idea of money for old lassos

Was this even billed as a remaster? I could have sworn I saw that it was just a straight port!

And once again, Rockstar (no doubt busy with GTAVI) isn't even handling it themselves, they are outsourcing it. What could go wrong? Again?

i'd assume that since it's coming to ps4/5 there might be the possibility of running it at 4k which you might stretch the definition of remaster to encompass

but given their history of shocking laziness i guess it's entirely possible it'll top out at 720p

The demo looks very PS3 graphics wise

GTA 4 remains the game that rockstar doesn’t want anyone to play anymore

I'm bummed, because I was looking forward to it, but not for $50. Or $40. Or anything over, I dunno, $20. If RDR2 is (often) $20 and one of the most technologically accomplished games of all time, then no way am I paying more than that for a (last gen!) port of a very old game, unless it runs like a miracle or something. $50 is what you pay for, like, a boutique limited edition physical reissue.

I'm bummed because this was it. If there's ever a RDR3, they won't start producing it until 2030. I doubt they'll remaster RDR2 for the PS7 or whatever if they can't be bothered to do this one.

Hell, you already have half of the game's setting redone. How much longer would it take to scope out Mexico and make the horses gallop more lifelike?

And even if it took a bit of work to (literally) bring it up to speed, expand the map a bit, add some more connective tissue to the sequel/prequel, bump it to 60fps, etc., at least they could justify $50. But hell, they haven't even unlocked RDR2 to 60 fps. This is such low effort it's almost trolling.

Sounds like this port is perfectly fine, but as expected absolutely nothing more than that, a totally bare minimum effort, which is a bummer. Had they spiffed it up a bit I would have happily bought it at full price; I loved the second game and I've never played this one. But for $50, when a modern technological masterpiece like RDR2 can be purchased for $20, or The Last of Us Part 1 justifies its high price by offering a completely (re) polished current gen version? Sigh.

Really disappointed this wasn’t ported to PC, where at least modders could have brought it up to snuff and added new content.

Apparently they added 60fps and 4k to the PS5 version of Red Dead 1. Why didn't they have that shit ready at release just a few weeks ago?

wow crack that whip bossman. maybe because they were already worked to the bone under an unrealistic deadline???

guessing they prob did have it ready they just wanted to make sure the base version was running good before pushing it

so selfish!!

This is the bare-bones 2013 port we're talking about, which was all but surprise-dropped for Switch and PS4, priced at a shocking premium. If it was that close to being ready they should have just waited a month, it's not like it was part of some coordinated million dollar multi-month marketing campaign.

guessing they prob did have it ready they just wanted to make sure the base version was running good before pushing it

― lag∞n, Wednesday, October 4, 2023 9:32 AM (eighteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

That makes sense, I guess. Anyway, upgraded performance is certainly a greater incentive to get the game than it was before, though it's still way overpriced.

releases would go smoother if that was the general approach, turning on advanced tech on incrementally and then optimizing between steps, but they dont do that because it would be bad from a marketing perspective if they had to be all just wait a few months and the game will be better, of course they do often have to do that anyway when they ship broken shit

I honestly have no idea how much work it takes or doesn't take to unlock/increase the frame rate of a 13-year old game. Granted, this port wasn't even released for the PS5, just for the PS4 and Switch, so I guess a modest and slightly belated PS5-only upgrade by way of the PS4 version is an OK perk.

i think compared to most video game dev things is not that much work but running that stuff on your console is very resource intensive so theyd want to make sure they have it dialed

Saw someone say (think it was digital foudnry) the ps4 port seemed to be an afterthought for a switch original release based on performance. Makes sense of the timeline (and the fact that the ps4 was literally exactly the same as the switch at launch despite its ability to do higher resolution/other things with minimal technical work).

xp Tracer, I can see why you and gyac are friends

🥳😎

I don’t know anything about this game but my history professor friend wrote a book about it https://read.macmillan.com/lp/red-deads-history/

I'm finally getting around to playing the first game. I don't know how I would think about it if I had played the first game first and the second game second rather than the other way around, but it seems to be okay. Basically a jankier version of the sequel? Which is to be expected. The landscapes and the like do look pretty good for such an old game.

Is this on ps3? PS4?

PS4, playing on PS5.

Boy does this game really fall short of the sequel (so far). Not just the graphics and gameplay, which is to be expected and are totally excused, but the writing and voice acting and story, which so far is kinda dullsville boilerplate. No idea what to do with my money, no incentive to gather plants or pelts, at least not so far. Unlike RDR2, I'm mostly looking forward to it being done so I can play the Undead Nightmare DLC, which people love.

I doubt you'll love Undead Nightmare if you're that bored by the base game. It's a fun spin on the base content but it's still the same game.

I think it's more the story and writing than the gameplay that's making it drag for me. I can only assume that cowboys versus zombies is less story intensive.

Rdr2 is a massive achievement. Very few can stand up to it in comparison

I kind of assumed that much going into this, but I could have sworn I've seen discussions online about which game is better. Like, this first one is perfectly fine, but I don't see how anybody can suggest there is any real competition.

Guess most people would have played that first though and at the time it was a fantastic game.

But yeah RDR2 totally eclipses it

So - I can skip the first one, then? I was happy watching Andor without seeing Rogue One.

aw but it has a pretty nifty ending

ya rouge one is good

I had more fun with RDR1 than 2 overall, not sure if I could go back though

Saw a tweet from a Telegraph football journalist describing 2 as "Be Here Now the Video Game" and could never quite look at it the same

OK, just finished the RDR1 base game, and while it is totally competent, doubly so for being so old, yeah, there is not a single aspect that is not improved by the sequel/prequel, imo. That means graphics, music, writing, voice acting, plot, side quests, mechanics, everything. More surprising to me was how RDR2 echoed this game's epilogue, except handled it better than the first game, too. Here, when I got to the epilogue I found it almost perverse how it forced me to do all the boring stuff I'd avoided for most of the game: herding, breaking horses, hunting, following the dog around. And all for a payoff nowhere near as affecting as (iirc) even the death of my horse in RDR2. But hey, it's all good, generally what I expected, which is to say, fine. Looking forward to the zombie DLC.

You are doing the good work. Nice job

I never did finish rdr 2. Though I got close. Then my kid started playing it and over wrote my save. Shrug emoji

Red Dead 1's zombie DLC is already more fun and memorable than the base game, and, in the case of the Sasquatch quest, more affecting. The main game ... it's so weird, just a bunch of threads never quite woven into a proper tapestry. But the DLC, you can tell everyone was letting their hair down a bit.

I just caught a flaming magical horse and it was badass, and then it died and I learned I can't replace it until I catch all the other magical horses, which I don't think I can do until much further along in the game. At which point, what use for a magical horse?

Red Dead Redemption 2 is so good that Dunkey just did another video on it, maybe his third? Not bad for a 2018 game. Paraphrasing what he says, I wish graphics went back in time six years to look this good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jskq4jLQ7go

The "Undead Nightmare" DLC was more fun and even a tiny bit more challenging than the base "Red Dead" game (which I honestly found kind of unmemorable). Not sure what I'm supposed to do at the end, though, which seems to open the door to more free range adventure, except afaict there's nothing to do.

Dunkeys 20 minute tribute inspired me to start a new game

I love it when Dunkey hangs up his cynical hat and gets all gushy about a game

“Can we go back to dese graphics?”

I played RDR1 a long time ago, liked it enough but with resevations, and have finally started playing RDR2 recently. It really looks amazing but somehow I’m not sure I’ll enjoy it much… it seems very slow (travelling for instance but maybe you can have fast travel too, I don’t know yet). Also I don’t think I want to bother feeding the dude… and his horse ! So it hasn’t clicked yet and I haven’t « binged » it like other games. Actually I haven’t felt like playing it for over a week after the initial first few hours… not a good sign !

I’m sorry you feel that way

I bounced off it the first time for similar reasons - I found Arthur a bit slow and hard to control. But once I got into it, it was well worth my time

lol I saw someone joking about doing speed runs of RDR2 that take two months.

The game is huuuuuge, and there are so many stories and details to get lost in. I believe you do get fast travel at some point, but you end up missing so much in between locations. So, I dunno if the first few hours are meant to grab you, per se, but if the gameplay and acting and writing and characters and look of the thing doesn't do it for you from the start, I'm not sure if the story beats or intermittent set pieces are going to make up that deficit. Have you made it your first camp, where you can start interacting with your companions, or watch them interact with each other? I'm not sure when that stuff starts, but it's fun.