Rockstar has made upwards of $1.5 billion in GTA V micro-transactions, there is no way they don't include them in RDR2. I'm fine with Micro-transactions in multiplayer if they are cosmetic, RDR2 will be all about the story mode for most people anyway. I don't care for GTA Online.
Think it would be interesting if they allow you to re-visit the first game and see how the town evolved. I'm interested. Should be fun. But expect more or less the same game. And that's ok. I'd like more completely random cool mission discovery based on what you are doing, like stumbling onto that guy hanging off the cliff, or because you ordered a specific drink at the bar, or looked into a window, something like that to kinda push you to do some random exploration.
If what they're telling us is true, the game will be far more immersive than any other game Rockstar has made. I like the options you see in the gameplay trailer that let's you do other actions to NPC's other than shooting them in the face. https://gtaforums.com/topic/913869-new-information-from-gamestar-interview/ Spoiler New Information from GameStar Interview about the Open World-Philosophy of Red Dead Redemption 2 The information below is not brand-new or something you have never heard before, but it contains some details about the open world-philosophy that haven't been talked about in this depth before. The information was translated from english to german by the GameStar team and then again from german to english by me. So please be aware that the information may not be a 100% faithfully: - Since having an Open World is nothing special today and size doesn't make a game great (No Man's Sky), Rockstar Games set out to make their Open World different from any other. With Red Dead Redemption 2 they want to create the deepest, most detailed, believable and interactive Open World they have ever built. Everybody and everything needs to be believable, from the Barkeeper of the local saloon, to the pebble that descends a slope or tiny frogs hopping around. Small details, big difference. - Rockstar's philosophy is that players in their open worlds are increasingly likely to lose themselves, distracted from their real tasks, but not torn from the gaming experience. Barrier-free games, you could say. - If you set up your own personal camp in a dangerous area (for example near groups of people that don't like guests in their area), you will experience very different situations than before, because you are just in the wrong place, even if you thought you have been everywhere and seen everything - Next to smaller buildings like a barn (that is in the building process on first sight, but will be finished when you come back later), villages and even towns will change over time - If you complete a mission (for example with your gang members), you will see them returning to their daily schedule instead of just disappearing or walking nowhere with no specific destination. Every major character exists in the world, not just in missions. This is inspired by Michaels house and the life of his family, you could see your family in-game, not just in missions. In Red Dead Redemption 2 they are expanding on this idea. - The transition from free-roam open world gameplay to mission and cutscenes will be even more fluent and seamless than in GTAV. All types of missions, cutscenes and the general open world should feel like organic parts of the same thing, there is no clear distinction between them like in other games. - NPCs are unpredictable and believable in their actions and reactions, they have different temperaments. There will be shy people, who will give you their money without you even drawing a gun but also more aggressive people that will immediately attack you if you just antagonize them also without you drawing a gun. Some confident NPCs may ride just past you and ignore you, if you try to rob them. Some may shoot you, while others will first threaten to harm you. R* wants you to feel like you never know how this certain NPC will interact with you and with that R* wants to encourage you to test out different playstyles. You can be an honorable thief or a violent psycopath and the world will react accordingly, but you just never really know how they will react. - R* doesn't want to call the world of Red Dead Redemption 2 a sandbox. Because in a sandbox, you can do whatever you want. Sure, R* wants to give you a lot of freedom, in their Open World you can do whatever you want, but only as long as it makes sense for Arthur, his story and the world itself. Nothing should break the immersion. - There will be no "checklists-type of missions" like in Ubisoft games or Mass Efffect Andromeda. R* doesn't think in categories like 'content' and 'prefabricated content', they want to blur the lines between everything the player does in order to increase immersion. R* doesn't necessarily want you to know when you are doing a main or a side mission or when you are interacting with a main character or just an NPC, but they will inform you in a very subtle way about it. - There will be many optional things to do, but R* wants them to be just as high-quality, engaging and fun as the main missions and you should feel like you never know what to expect. This will cater to all kinds of players: Those who want to rush the main story and those who want to do everything and still have a great experience. - "Random sh*t that doesn't fit the context will not happen [in RDR2]": Random encounters aren't really random, there is a certain system in place that ensures those encounters make sense in terms of how far the players have progressed in the story, what they are currently doing and where they are heading to. The changing surroundings and random encounters provide content for the players that makes them loose themselves in the world in a very organic way and naturally provide gameplay for them (in contrast to the very forced 'checklists-sidequests' in other games). - The areas in the game not only feel different because of the looks but also because of the different gameplay-mechanics only possible in that area (like different animations for traversing different terrain and flora or different objects to interact with). Since animations influence how connected you feel with the world, R* focuses on making them as believable and fluent as possible in every situation. For example there is an animation for Arthur stowing his weapons, which he had previously strapped on his back, in the halter of the saddle. And there are different skinning animations for different animals. - Things you should do in the missions can be done in the open world: For example in Trailer #2 we see Arthur pushing a bank manager through the door. You can do exactly that with every other NPC in free-roam. - The world is as realistic as possible, as long as it is still fun - Even outside of missions and cutscenes you can listen in on conversations in your gangs camp - or approach them more closely so that the other outlaws can include Arthur in their chat. The camp, the atmosphere and the conversations should change noticeably in the course of the story. - Instead of slaughtering animals (that are degraded to polygon objects) without hesitation, in order to be able to craft a larger wallet, the creatures in Rockstar's western game are living beings with - simulated - feelings. This should always be aware of the players when they press the trigger or let the arrow zoom. To kill animals quickly without much suffering you need to take your time to learn the right techniques. - If you commit a crime and the lawmen have a hunch that you are the offender, they will first talk to you instead of shooting you instantly, and you can talk yourself out of the situation - You can modify your weapons to enhance their stats
Well, it looks incredible. Sour grapes over GTA Online aside, I'll be buying this day one and exploring this awesome-looking world.
It seems they are really trying to push the envelope with this game. If it does everything they say it will then this game will be incredible
I tend to agree. There is still more that they haven't shown us. That being said I loved the original game so much that I would love simply updated new RDR gameplay.
Look at them side by side. The original RDR holds up very well today, but the new game looks mind blowing compared to the old one. Especially the lighting, textures, and animation. Also they haven't really showed anything. They haven't showed multiplayer, missions, or even how dead eye works now.
Looking at all the different versions and trying to decide if I should get digital or physical. Is there an advantage to preordering?
Physical you can sell back once done and potentially recoup 50% of your cost. Generally you get some free minor stuff for pre-ordering. I only pre-order when I am confident the game is going to be really good and this looks like one of those games. Even then, I rarely do. The free stuffs are generally gimmicks anyways.
I'm leaning towards physical mainly because I don't want to wait for how many ever hours it takes to download.
I have an Xbox one that has been boxed up since we moved 6 months ago. This game just might make me unbox it and hook it back up.
