For me that problem was most evident during the scene where you have to carry an injured man through the swamp back to the boat where Dutch is waiting. Even if you hammer ‘x’, Dutch will yell at you to hurry up
Steven Hunt especially in online when you defend yourself from a greifer but the game takes the greifers side and makes you lose honor or forces you to pay four dollars for killing the grifers horse
Steven Hunt he attacks you if you look or stare at him for too long also if you wear his hat and you meet him in a saloon he will be hatless and attack you since you have his hat on
Besides the "omg why is it taking so long" and the "why does it take seconds for my character to start/stop moving?" this would be the main problem. Make a game where only make half the pickup animations use IK aiming and see the complaints roll in. In that case it would have been better to scrap the IK animation entirely.
Look at this human write a comment to a website where it will mostly be ignored and existence will soon be forgotten because time goes by too fast... but seriously that damn story is so sad and that music makes me think of all of it... its beautiful... i... i... I dont want to die... but... damn... rockstar you truly wrote the best damn story I've ever seen... I would have paid much more for it... also why the hell am I writing this... red dead redemption two... it made me laugh... cry... and stop progressing the story because I dont want to see Arthur die... again for the third time... I love and hate playing this game on a emotional level... also THAT DAMN RAT MICHA BELL!!!
they couldve made a "loot all" button where the main character would just "throw"/fall the stuff into his bag directly using his arm without looking at what it was.
RDR2 hardcore mode: Arthur has to pick up every single gun individually, unchamber and unload every single weapon you want to get ammo from instead of just walking over it to get the ammo. That's it, that's only change.
It maybe slow, but this is the most fun I’ve had with an open world in forever The world just looks and feels amazing and the gameplay is damn near perfect for me
Resident Evil 4 had a great compromise on door animations where Leon would open the door slowly unless you press the button again, in which case he kicks it open much faster. I always thought that was brilliant. Oh, great video as always!
It helps that Resident Evil 4 is a horror-ish game which requires a bunch of resource conservation. That encourages a pretty slow, careful playstyle, where slowly opening a door into an unknown room would fit the pacing.
RE4 is a great example of when animating a character opening a door is a part of the game. as Dan said, most people really dont care if the door opens automatically, but sometimes, you need to see your character open it. in a first person game, magic doors are fine, you can just imagine that your character opened it. in a third person game, it depends on the game. a horror game can definitely use slow creaky doors to build tension. and double tapping the button to kick it down, even in a horror environment can lead to some good and legitimate jump scares.
A third option was to hack or blast certain doors to pieces, removing them entirely. Truly, RE4 was on the forefront of door-based interactions in video games.
Honestly.. yes. It’s definitely not for everyone, but at least they went all in. They slowed the pace right down and delivered a massively immersive experience. Yes it is slow. Yes it can be tedious. Yes it absolutely isn’t for everyone. But at least they found an identity for their game and stuck to it. I can respect that.
100% agree! Despite all my back-and-forth musings on what the "best" choice is for the game, I think it's cool that they went ALL IN on this realistic pace.
With the release being as successful as it was, I’m really happy they have held off on multiplayer. Whether it’s for technical reasons or not I am unaware. But allowing a majority of the player base to be immersed in the story first is super important. The fact that they went all in on what they wanted their game to be, plus it released without multiplayer is a true gem in 2018 when it comes to single player releases. Yes it will have a huge multiplayer, but as it is now and as it has been since releases is a phenomenal single player experience that builds off the damn near perfect first game they released 8 years ago.
@@Futuart absolutely. I honestly didn't mind the slower pace. If the gameplay was too fast we would miss all the little details they took so many hours and years to perfect.
But I gotta tell you. I hate this kind of stuff in GTA Online and other Multiplayer games. It's really frustrating and makes gameplay experience really bad, it feels unfair during a battle/pvp or anything like that.
Am I the only one that actually kind of likes the slower animation? It makes the characters feel "heavy" part of the reason why I love to get into fistfights in this game
You’re definetly not alone because iv’e felt that too, the ”heavyness” of the game had makes it feel so good and realistic. Thats one reason why i didn’t like The Witcher 3’s gameplay, it was was way too fast and ”floaty” for my taste.
Rdr 2 is actually the only game where I come back to the singleplayer after a year of a play through. I turn off the lights in my room, plug in my headset and deactivate the ingame hud and just go hunting in the grizzlies for hours on end or play poker over the span of an in game week. This game gives me a sense of immersion that I haven't seen in any other game.
"aM I tHe OnLY oNe" Yes, of course you are. Im sure your opinion is so incredibly rare and unorthodox that it would genuinely make you feel like you might be one of the only or even the only one with that opinion, and totally isnt just the lamest method of gaining attention and approval. "Am I tHe ONly OnE wHO bReaThes tHrouGh thEIr NoSe anD NoT mOutH???"
Why does this sound like the alien version of National Geographic? "Look at the way he bends over, plucks a flower from the dirt, and proceeds to strip the stem of everything he wants"
@@buildawall5803 Correct, Mr. president. I literally have every possible setting properly tweaked for the highest possible sensitivity and it's still sluggish for my tastes. And I use stick extenders.
Beyond convenience for gameplay, I think another big issue is that there's a difference between looking realistic and _feeling_ realistic. Like, when I pick something up off a table in real life, I don't face the table, stand stock still, and focus all my energy on picking up that single object. I might pick it up as I walk by. I might pick up multiple small things in one hand, or use both hands to pick up a couple larger things. I might not even give the thing I'm picking up more than a glance as I reach for it. Unless I'm picking up more than a couple things, it's an action I barely even notice myself doing. So while RDR2 _looks_ more realistic, the approach of just having things teleport into my pocket when I press the button _feels_ more like how I perceive that action in the real world. It's the QWOP effect. Trying to more accurately simulate something can sometimes just make the player more aware of the disconnect between them and their character.
Didn't really think of that myself, but you clearly have a point. Especially considering how long it takes in comparison to other things. Riding a horse, shooting people and generally doing interesting things in this world is what makes it a game worth playing. Picking things up is something I do all the time and it's not even any different than it was a hundred years ago in this game. It's just not something that needs to be such a huge part of the game in my eyes.
I think another part of the issue is that the player is mentally already ahead of the game. If you push the button, you made the decision to pick up the item, carried out the required actions, and mentally moved on. But then you have to wait for the game to process that action while you have nothing else to engage with. The player isn't looking for something, observing enemies, or directing their character. And there is only so much time you can spend thinking about what your next actions will be, especially if those actions are "loot the fifteen other bodies"
I was thinking along those lines too. Like if I'm gonna pick up a thing on a table across the room I make that my goal and move body with purpose toward that goal, my eyes fixed on the target, my hand stretched out getting closer, my steps appropriately spaced, and all this subconsciously. There's so much going on before the actual action that when you press the button it's already too late for the game to start with anticipation animations.
I think that the animations are vital as a design choice. Robbing a store or homestead, looting dead bodies are crimes and are inherently dangerous. Making is so you quickly loot everything before the law arrives would take away that danger. The amount of times I’ve killed one person in this game, out in the wilderness, and the act of looting a body has resulted in a witness which has made me kill again. It’s quickly escalated and my desire to loot everything, just in case one of the bodies has a treasure map or something valuable, is strong. The time consuming animations increase the risk considerably to the point where I sometimes have to leave bodies without looting them. That’s ok sometimes because you can flee and return. But if the law show up they remove the dead bodies so your chance has gone. Rockstar knew all these animations could result in questions being asked about the need for such details, but in my opinion they are a vital design choice. Perhaps you should be able to toggle them off but I personally like it the way it is.
I mean if you could speed up the process of looting by mashing the button giving Arthur frantic animations would be better and more realistic. But as he said, its cute and great the FIRST TIME but after that? Nah.
RaginDXDemon Yeah I totally get what you mean, I also agree with you to a certain extent. Maybe they could of added that mechanic where you rush the looting and by doing so it can cause Arthur to perhaps fumble objects and drop them, like a risk/reward system. But I see why the time consuming mechanics are there. There is a way you can actually speed up looting individual bodies and that’s to park your horse directly on to of a body and jump of to loot and it’ll cut the animation. Yet I think if you do it with a dead animal it will damage the pelt. But I think if you get your horse close enough without actually standing on top of the body and the horse “blocks” Arthur, it will skip the animations of skinning, looting and picking herbs.
Harrie van der Lubbe Exactly m8. It’s just one of those games that’s designed to be taken more slowly and deliberately. It’s not a run and gun action shooter per se, more a slow paced, atmospheric game.
Fr tho sometimes when I’m looting random cabins I wonder if I should loot or not because I don’t want some random event to pull up and scare me to death while I’m doing it
One of the reasons I think the rediculous amount of animations work for this game is because they're so thematically appropriate. This is a narrative about how hard it is to exist in this wild west world. This lifestyle aurther leads is difficult and the outlaw is on the way out. It's just so on theme that even doing simple things ends up feeling slow and difficult. Sure it's not super "fun" but I think for some games it's sometimes more interesting to prioritize narrative over gameplay. I think rockstar wasn't necessarily trying to make the best "game" with rdr2, it feels like they were trying to create a specific feeling or experience rather. This feels like the gaming equivalent of watching a Cohen brothers movie. It's not super "fun" to participate but it can be still a really good experience. I just think it would actually be lesser if it was more convenient at least in this specific case. that's just my 2 cents.
The problem is because the game is very picky about what's realistic and not. The survival mechanics, for example, feel kind tacked on because Arthur is a bullet sponge and even when you die, you are barely punished, so you can mostly ignore them. A way to solve this was to have dificulty levels and give the player more options on how to customize their experience, like allowing to togle animations. But as it is, it's a half simulator, half casual shooter, both parts detracting from one another.
I wouldn't mind if Rockstar was heading in that direction, as long as the game mechanics are consistent in the world they intend to establish. If things are supposed to be an accurate depiction of real world systems and real world people, why does Arthur have to put his rifles away only for them to be teleported to the holster once he gets off his horse? Why can enemy gang members in towns shoot the player without suffering lawful punishment? Why can I not steal at least one item from a store without someone having presumably x-ray vision? Why doesn't rain extinguish campfires? Why doesn't Arthur use actual bandages, herbs and/or alcohol to heal as opposed to stuffing food in his mouth or chugging tonics? How is Arthur capable of carrying so much shit in such a tiny satchel? How are lawmen able to recognise Arthur even if he wears a mask thar covers his whole face? Why is it that when every time I stop a train, i'm immediately wanted even though lawmen don't patrol in the open fields and are nowhere in the vicinity prior to the act? Does the game really think it's so detailed that it just add annoying details like individually looting items in drawers and cabinets or stamina depleting as you draw the bow?
Austin Hansen it’s modified ammunition for way more damage changes compared to shop, if you’re spending 5 minutes to craft 100 split point bullets you’re gaining a big advantage, player choice
@@Asterious_ That was the stupidest response possible. It did nothing to address the issue. OF COURSE there's an advantage to upgrading your ammunition. There was zero reason for you to make that point. The issue is how boring and annoying they made it. Other games have crafting features that don't suck.
@@DeaconVersion It's a tactical choice. I see no problem with it. You can either use your bullets which are standard, pay money for higher damage bullets or hold down X and use bullets that you already have to make higher damaging bullets without paying money. I personally like it. Pro tip, hold down the x button and watch a youtube video on your phone, EZ
I think the problem is 2-fold and you mentioned them. 1) There's only 1 animation for each gathering. 2) They're slow. Having 2-3 animations AND making them faster would keep the realism, while cutting back on the loss of fidelity.
I'd say have an almost adrenaline or speed meter type thing where like mid gunfight actions become faster and maybe after a gunfight due to adrenaline looting and reloading becomes quicker for a short time after the gun fight or if you like are running or at a fast pace the game realises it and makes Arthur do the appropriate animation depending on his speed Also if you wanted even more realism have a chance of slip ups in reloading like Arthur slipping in a shotgun shell wrong and having to do it again or missing a mag in a pistol (obviously those animations wouldn't be too much of a hindrance)
Maybe they could play at normal speed but, as the player spends more time playing, the animations speed up a bit. Maybe he's just becoming more familiar with the kinds of things around him, so he doesn't spend as much time looking at them or being careful not to break things he's seen multiples of. It gets to show off some fancier animation in the beginning without stacking up and haunting long-time players.
For me personally, I enjoy the slower pace that these animations force upon me during my play time. As soneone dealing with a lot of mental issues, including pretty high anxiety, the more realistic pace and interactions are almost meditative for me. I can't really explain it exactly, I'm sorry for that, but it's like the game doesn't urge me to go out and do it's story if I don't want to. There's just as much meaning in taking my time to go out hunting or picking flowers as there is riding out with Dutch and shooting some fools. And as someone who uses games as a way to relax and clam down from my highly strung reality, I appreciate that quiet, calm patience more than I can put into words. I get how it can be frustrating for people who want to go on to the more exciting parts of the story, and heck I might not even be as fond of the slow pace if I had an option to speed things up. But as it is right now, the deliberateness of the animations is dignified and beautiful and quietly welcoming me to live in this simulated world.
I think the real questions should be: how engaging are these? Is engagement more immersive than detail? Imagine if you were watching a movie with no cuts and everything happened in real time, you saw the characters do every little thing. Would you be more immersed because of the sheer detail? Does Zelda feel less immersive because of its short hand animations, or does its focus on gameplay flow actually help retain immersion because you are constantly in control? I would argue Zelda is more efficient with its immersive details. It knows when to sacrifice detail for engagement, but also knows when to add detail. The details are in the world itself, in the presentation, and how the player interacts with it. Not how Link physically animates to interact with it, but how the player is engaged with it. Another great comparison for this would be with Ocarina of Time. What are some of the common complaints? Its too slow. Link has to slowly push a heavy block, slowly climb vines, slowly open and close doors (even then they knew this could be tedious, so doors in dungeons slide up by themselves). These may be more realistic animations, but Nintendo has done away with more and more of them over time as they realised they were pulling players out of the game instead of engaging with it. And sure, movies are incredibly engaging and immersive without any interaction. But they have all kinds of tricks and techniques, they can rely on cuts, camera angles, score and acting. And while video games also make use of those, they can't always rely on that. An actor might be able to make picking up every object in a room interesting somehow, but it does not translate to watching a video game character do the same.
I think immersion differs depending on what kind of game it is. Red Dead Redemption has always been more of a narratively-driven experience then say the Zelda series, a sense of immersion would then be reached differently than in Zelda or any other "gamey" world. Having said that, I do think there is an imbalance between realism and what the gameplay of RDR2 offers, as was pointed out in the video. It's a tedious imbalance but not really one that takes away from the excellent main narrative which is definitely the main focus of RDR2.
Loved your question. Is engagement more immersive than detail?. I will carry this question in my arsenal from now on! My personal view is yes, I much prefer flow over detailed animations; interactions that feel good rather than look real.
No reason in comparing movies and games. Movies are far less immersive. That is why we can spend 8 hours playing a great videogame but a 3 hour long movie feels a lot.
I completely agree with you, everyone in the comments section is talking about how the long animations make you more immersed in the game but it just disengages you lol, I hate having to watch John pull off a gun from my horse every damn time
I know I'm likely not the majority here, but for myself personally, I found the detail of animations to be entirely a positive for the sake of immersion. Immersiveness may well be at the very top of my list when it comes to open world games. Looting didn't bother me, ever, except for what the game wouldn't target the thing I wanted, but that has nothing to do with animation. The only thing I can think of that did bother me about animations was crafting. I crafted myself the maximum amount of Split Point ammo you can carry for Revolvers and Repeaters. That was tedious. I think in many other games, even open world games striving for high levels of realism and immersion, these animations might bother me. Red Dead is fortunate enough to have plenty of looting to do, yet a relatively small number of different pieces of loot you can pick up. Eventually, I wasn't looting a lot of things, not because I didn't want to wait for an animation, but because I already had all the Baked Beans I could carry, or because although I might be capable of carrying more Tobacco, I certainly didn't see myself using it all.
I had the same thought about looting in Red Dead 2, specially since I played it right after beating Assassin's Creed Odyssey which has a faster looting system as Dan showed. But then something in Red Dead happened that showed me what, perhaps, Rockstar was going for with the realistic looting. What happened was, I just finished a gang fight and after killing everyone I decided to loot the dead people since this is a video-game and this is what I was doing in AC Odyssey. Then the game characters that were with me started asking me to hurry up and then they left me. That was when the law arrived and started trying to arrest me. So yeah, I think Rockstar purposefully made looting take longer so you have to balance out if it is worth it to spend that time looting the places and the dead, you might be seen by a passerby and then get a bounty on your head or get arrested by the law for sticking in that place too long.
Exactly. I think the standard of mosts video games have put people in a box in terms of what they expect a game to be. There's soooooo many games in the market already that are fast, convenient and streamlined for player ease. The pace of this game is deliberate and if you just go along with it, you get quite an amazing experience.
exactly this. if you murder someone in the street, even for self defense, it could potentially be a risk to loot this dead man in the middle of the road, because his friends or the law could roll up on you and start another fight.
Rosencrantz The Mona Lisa doesn’t give you the option to have her frowning instead of smiling. That may seem like an obtuse analogy, but sometimes creators WANT the audience/player to experience things in a particular way. Video games exist in this weird space though where they are seen less as art and more as a product where consumers get the ultimate say. I don’t think this is a good approach for all video games. If you’re finding it to be chore, maybe just play something else man.
@Rosencrantz no, they shouldn't have. they want actions of the player to have a weight and time for them. this isn't some high fantasy rpg where it's okay to just have doors open themselves or loot magically jump into your pockets, it's a grounded and slow-paced take on turn of the century life.
@Rosencrantz ammo is essential for most of the game and you carry and need a lot of it. grabbing a belt buckle off a dead dude or out of a cabinet is not, but you can choose to do that and watch the animation for it and risk someone finding you doing so. and a trained animal following you when you whistle and then go on a coach or a train is magic? lol, okay friend
I would’ve loved these animations when I was a kid with hours on end to spend gaming, but now when I only have 1-2 hours to play per day tops, i don’t like spending half my time watching my character methodically go through animations. But for people who have the time, it’s absolutely incredible.
That's the reason I couldn't stand RDR2. I really loved the way the world looks and really wanted to play the game but in less than 2 hours I got so frustrated that I simply uninstalled it. A man in his 30s with a family doesn't have hours to just watch a guy collect cans from a shelf.
@@mateobracamonte420 Its just immersion. And that makes it fun. You can only have a couple hours a day to play the game, and still have tons of fun. And I know that, cause I've been in a spot like that before.
I think the looting aspect of RDRII works because it's not necessary, It's a choice the player makes if he wants extra stuff and the penalty is tediously going corpse by corpse and searching each one. Where RDRII falls short is where it compromises player freedom in missions and robberies for more cinematic focus.
I agree with you about feeling like they are taking away my choice in many parts of the game, but I feel like they are trying to remind me this is set character I am playing, so I actually appreciate the reminder that I am a relatively ruthless gang member. Although I am the nicest guy on the side, no one can pass me by without being greeted. :)
The game gives you choice at times that Arthur is conflicted(like helping his former lover) but times where Arthur would have his mind made up(for example he would never turn his back on Dutch or his fellow gang members) the choice is made for you because you aren't playing as a custom character, you're playing as Arthur Morgan and seeing his story.
@@Xbman123457X Yeah I get that, though I question the logic of having such a strict narrative in an open world game but even so the game could give you much more leeway to plan the heists so they don't always devolve into a mad shoot out, without interfering with the overall plot.
I think people are missing the point and just thinking they have to loot everything in sight. The game does this because taking stuff from a dead body should be a big deal. You aren't suppose to loot dead bodies, just because the game allows it doesn't mean it's designed to do that thing over and over. When you are inside someon else's home, you are infiltrating someone's personal belongings and taking them for yourself. Sometimes the game will give you negative karma for each item you take for this exact reason. As soon as I stopped looting everything in sight the game started to make more sense, this isn't Destiny 2 or Fortnite.
@@matthewcooper4248 most games are too stiff or too floaty for it to feel believably impactful. not that there aren't games where shit doesn't look powerful, but rdr2 also looks weighted and real
I like how you can jump off things onto your horse, I was in Saint Denis today and I scaled a wall and jumped off onto my horse and just galloped off lol
Some games are fast, some games are slow. I like it when developers try something different, take a risk. Here they prioritised emersion over all else, it won't be for everyone but it feels like at least a vision has been realised rather than a business has just churned out another title.
ah yes, immersion. eating popcorn to cure bullet wounds. immersion, bullets teleproting into your speedloaders when you walk over guns. dont be an idiot. there is a whole diffrent reason for the looting animations. its so you CAN get in trouble for looting by someone walking in / seeing you
During my first playthrough of RDR2 I killed maybe 3 bears. But you know what? I remember every encounter. In RDRII hunting takes some time and effort. You have to find the best quality animal, approach it without spooking it, kill it cleanly with a proper weapon, skin it, put it on your horse and deliver to the trapper or the butcher. It's meaningful and it's engaging. Now look at AC Odyssey. I killed like 20 bears during first few hours and it was fuckign meaningless. Just another animal to kill on your merry way and magically acquire all ingredients without even touching it. It's boring, uninspired and tedious. I'd rather kill 3 bears but be fully immersed than kill a thousand bears in a repetitive game with half assed animations and gameplay.
I didn't play Red Dead Redemption 2 but here's a question : Were the game designers and the animators aware that picking up every item this way was tidious ? I mean, grabing collectables in Breath of the wild is fantastic and more importantly satisfying, but it's because you're supposed to look for collectables ALL THE TIME. Seriously, korok seeds, food, things to increase your stamina/health and each of them feels just sooooo great to pick up or obtain. But in Red Dead Redemption 2, are you supposed to collect everything you see ? What if Rockstar wanted you to feel like a cowboy who doesn't loot every single object in a house, because that's not how I imagine a cowboy to be like. But by making the animation taking several seconds, the player might just pick what he needs rather than everything in sight like a skyrim player storming through a town and stealing every single apple he sees from the citizens. If the player collects less objects, maybe he will start thinking/feeling less like a player and more like a cowboy AND since the animation should be less played, it would make sense to make it more detailed. To me, having this kind of animation in a game means that the game is designed to enhance roleplay, and animating the character like a human being tells the player to behave more like a human being, it would make sense that way. I don't know if Rockstar was going for this, I don't even know if that would work, but I like this idea.
Thing is that other games have already made a better mechanic to counter hoarder problem, they just introduce a item weight counter. Skyrim and Fallout even let their NPC ask player question like why did you pick that up. If the intention was to prevent player from hoarding anything, then I'd say it still failed because in reality we don't pick up one of them at a time we just haul them all in. And you kinda see this kind of "gamey" thing in other games as well, it's the "loot all" button
I'd argue that the way the game works the player is encouraged to loot everything they see. If they meant for you to not loot all corpses, pick all the plants and open all the shelves and cupboards then they should't have made all of them interactable or put a wieght / iventory space system and some way to sort the where the important items are. Or streemline some of the animations for this actions.
That's an interesting point, but I think it ignores something important. The reason why an irl cowboy/adventurer would be selective with what they looted is because they can only fit so much in their bag and on top of that don't want to be lugging around unnecessary weight. If RDR2 had a inventory system like Deus Ex, where you have to be mindful of how much space items take up, I think that would help to encourage that attitude towards looting. In fact, I think a more realistic approach to weight limits might solve the problem I personally have with those kinds of inventory systems in games, i.e. it's too binary. It frustrates me when I'm gathering items in a game like The Witcher and go slightly over the weight limit, forcing me to sort through my inventory getting rid of all the junk I don't need and can't sell in order to go back under that weight limit. If carrying more weight affected your character's speed or how quickly they burnt through stamina, then players would think about how much they needed an item before they grabbed it, rather than completely killing the flow of the game because picking up a spoon suddenly made you too heavy to move.
I was thinking the same thing. "Do I bother picking that up, knowing that I'll spend good four seconds looting it?". I think that, in the end, it's more effective at dealing with hoarders rather than having a WEIGHT system.
@@commanderleo I think the point Alex is trying to make is that the choice the developers made to have all this animation in the game is at the core of what they want the experience to be for the players. So having the option to remove it would be like making a shooting game with an option to remove all action sequences so you can just move on with the story. That's just not what the game is about. Its philosophy regarding animation is too central to be optional.
@@katakana-kun2122 I think your thinking here is flawed, you are kind of approaching it like a video game is this piece of ART, almost like music or a painting. However, game companies want your money, they are selling you a product and want to please the "masses" Even if you say that 50% of the people LOVE the slow animations and dont mind sitting through them (I personally think its a lot less) but even IF we go with 50% love them, that still leaves 50% who are unhappy with this aspect and could potentionally be put off or even refund the game. So this begs the question, are Rockstar this team of people that care more about what they want YOU to experience? Even if it means people not buying the game? I thought the gaming industry was like the movie industry in the sense that its all about money money money! I guess if the percentage of people that HATE the slow animations and bad controls just "live" with it and still buy the game, then fair enough Rockstar can just shrug it off, but IF they have lost a huge percentage of customers simply coz they didnt want to give us the option to turn it off, then thats just bad business. I do agree with you in the sense that a game company DO need to have a vision and have to stick to that vision to a CERTAIN degree but I mean cmon! Can we really say that me standing over a body and pressing "loot" and having zero animations, just simple plain text telling me what items I looted really changes the game drastically??? I mean really?? Thats such a big part of the game is it? lol....of course not, they could easily have given those of us who want to switch it off an option! That way those customers would still buy your game, or does it hurt their ego to know that somebody somewhere in a house is playing their game without seeing their beautiful animations lol.
The way I see it, this is the choice rockstar made, at least wrt gathering animations: if you cut out 99% of the animation and just let Arthur pick up any little thing, the game suddenly is a lot more about picking up every little thing because it's so easy. That's why I have like 139 Hylian Shrooms in my Breath of the Wild save file right now. But by including all of those animations, they disincentivize collection so that (in theory) you aren't just looting literally everything. That would be too tedious. That's why picking up ammo specifically doesn't have an animation- they don't want to hinder that collectable because it's vital to the games action sequences and you need a lot more of it than you need, say, cans of beans. That's just my take tho... And whether or not it was worth the immense amount of human labor that went into it is another kettle of fish, of course. But yeah, I'd argue that in this specific case adding in those animations has a positive effect in relation to the game's ideal player experience...
titanicww2345 To me, yes. Absolutely. It’s a fucking blast. It feels like true role playing and escapism. My actions have weight. The world feels alive. It’s like being in your very own west world. I get it’s not fun for some people. Totally get that. But I’m fucking loving it.
One thing I thought about as you mentioned how video games so often have minimal or no [character] animations for opening doors, even in highly polished, luxurious, and undeniably "triple A" experiences is that it might not just be more convenient for the actual play experience -- it might also, in a way, be MORE "realistic," specifically in terms of feeling like you are inhabiting the world and the character you control in it. Because when you mentioned this fact about video game doors, I immediately thought that I, myself, *never really think about or really recognize the act of opening and closing doors as a physical action* in normal circumstances. I recognize the motion happens, but it doesn't really stand out enough to register in my psyche and memory. It "feels" like it "just happens". What I am left with is an experience that is effectively indistinguishable from one in which the door just opens at command of my thought -- an experience that can neatly fit in line with just pressing a button on your controller and a door opening without any motion from your character, I think. In this way, perhaps if a game intends to be an engrossing simulation, where the player is meant to truly feel a part of the experience to the highest fidelity, maybe it's worth considering using MORE animation shorthand on actions that the player, as a person, would never need to consciously consider the motion of doing (at least in cases where the animation would provide no useful, actionable feedback or information.) in order to INCREASE verisimilitude. Sometimes the best you can do to make something feel "real" is to present fewer details.
and what do you do when you release the door is locked or stuck or squeaks or the handle is in an abnormal condition? You literally push with some forwards force when opening doors, or backwards force.
YOU NAILED IT! You described the exact problem with theese realistic parts of the game. It stops being fun after like the 10th time. It does not motivate me to find a house and loot the resources because I know the animations would be tedious and slow. The game should actually entourage the player to explore but this game doesn't do that becauuse the realism stops being fun soon and it ruins the game
I think you need to be forced to slow down to enjoy the Old West. GTA is high speed, low drag, as city life should be. If you meet and talk to country folk, you'll realize they talk slower, and move slower than their city brethren. It is part of being at one with the land, and being constantly aware of ones surroundings. If you can't enjoy natures natural beauty, then I don't think Red Dead Redemption will fully appeal to you. You can skip most of the cut scenes if you want. Some of them are too slow for my city slicker ass as well. But I've learned to breath when they are playing, and sit back and enjoy the art work.
I just realized this was more about the individual animations. And the only one I'd speed up is looting, and I'd have an option added to speed up cooking.
This is so untrue. GTA 5 was a better mix between realism and game experience, guess what, it is GTA 5. You're basically saying Rockstar's work is only special because of how overly detailed RDR2 is, none of their other games were that detailed.
The point of a game is to make you escape mundane life not make do the more mundane task. Point i dont cate if my horse eats enough, dont care if what are the things on the shelf i want to shoot stuff and kill stuff. If i want to loot something i want to pick everything up at once not one at a time hell i dont even push a button to pick something i want to magnetically get sucked into me or my inventory.
i actually love animations, i would have loved if you could buy watches and pull one up to check the time, buy various types of watches, and if you wanted to check the map arthur would bring it up and then he would mark an x where you are and then the finger would trace when you move across the map, i like immersion.
You can buy a watch and equip those you pick up. There in you satchel under valuables or kit and if you equipped them they're in the same place on your weapon wheel where the camera is. It's glorious.
Would much prefer an option to turn them off in the menus, since mashing buttons would be a daunting task to people with motor skill disorders Marvel's Spiderman does it with their QTEs
@@m_-.430 I guess it'd be more appropriate if I said motor disabilities or even impairment That aside, the definition itself ranges from something mild from Repetitive Strain Injuries to something more severe like Parkinson's or Arthritis And that'd probably the reason why some people, like you, find it to be more of an annoyance than something strenuous I'm just gonna link Mark Brown's video on the darn subject cause I'm a lazy pos lmao ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Ufe0i26DGiA.html
For the looting shelves, they could have a multi-loot option where you pick the items you want all at once, and then. Arthur proceeds to shoves them off the shelves into his bag all at once with his arm. The same principle could be used for other animations, have a variant that does the same task faster. Or you could Just, you know turn them off in settings 😏
It's more than just realism. Animating things can give a sense of weight to actions. If an animation takes time, you have to think about it before you do it. You don't want to sit there and loot those items in the middle of a fight, not because it's tedious, but because it will get you killed. But, it could be that you could REALLY use that item. Maybe you should go for it anyway? So, that simple action now become a decision the player is forced to make, instead of a default action their brain does on autopilot. Personally, I think this is a good thing. An example of how this improves gameplay (though not through animation) is the Metro games. It can be pretty difficult to casually pick up some ammo off an enemy. Though it's not animated, you have to get up close and focus your crosshairs on specific pockets to pick up the items. Of course, in Metro, especially on Ranger difficulty, everything is extremely fatal, for both you and enemies, and ammunition is very scarce. Every bullet counts, and deciding to try and grab some more ammo in a tense firefight is a VERY significant decision.
Y'all gonna stop making excuses for R*. Stop saying it's making you think. I literally never loot anyone even after I've cleaned out a whole camp because they baked a bunch of tedious animation into the game
Some people just don't want to understand determinated games have determinated playstiles, not all games will be whacky and frenetic. Red Dead Redemption 2 is a slow game, i'm not going to say these animations are going to make you think, because many players will actually play a game without thinking, mainly mechanically they just let their brain do what it's taught to, and continue playing the game in sometimes what happens to be a monotone way, that's why the added realism, makes it more annoying. For me personally. I actually like these animation choices except the weapon ones, too fast, but it's a game. And seeing that nowadays many games do tend for a more agitated and fast gameplay especially when it comes to pve/pvp games (except some games that are based on survival) i'm not suprised of their choice. I'm pretty sure, that if people don't like the added realism, they will make either an option where the player can entirely remove many lengthy animations, or maybe, like far cry, almost all of them.
I fee like this game does not do well for impatient people that just want an arcade like experience. I like to feel like Im in a world and I like taking my time riding from point to point taking in the scenery and the little details. I dont find it tedious much like I dont find a walk in the park tedious.
This is exactly how it is for me: arcade vs sim. I always preferred Gran Turismo and Forza over the Need for Speed franchise. I enjoy every bit of this game in the same way I enjoy a several-hour endurance race. Simulation and immersion. It isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm so glad it exists.
I enjoyed it, but the longer I played it, the more the immersion began to crack. By the time I finished the game I really didn't like the game, I just really liked the story. Cause the game is just really weird and klunky, and I just saw all the issues, like how the horse riding sucks, and how the open world isn't really that freeing, etc. Don't regret buying it, just a very flawed game
Exactly. I got Spiderman PS4 and Red Dead at the exact same time, yet i beat Spiderman in a week and Red Dead is less than 20% completed. Swinging feels so much faster and enjoyable.
My preference would be opt-in animation. Like cooking in BOTW. You can watch the food bounce around for several seconds, or hold the button for a second to skip to the end. (A non-game example of this is the option to skip the intro theme songs on Netlfix shows) It's funny, depending on my mood I'll do either. If my brain is primed for an abnegation experience then I'm happy to soak in the details and slower pace of things. But other times I'm on-a-mission and those those elements trip up a good sense of pacing. I think it's great that a AAA development studio had the guts to experiment with pacing like this. Usually this level of deviation only comes from the indie scene. But like Cuphead, I feel like the aesthetics they used didn't really gel with the mechanics most of the time. Both those games feel to me like they would have benefited from a more narrative focused (NOT CUTSCENES!) experience. (to be fair, I haven't played RDR2 yet, so my opinion may change)
My default response to most gaming questions is, "Give the player options." And I think that fits here as well. Red Dead isn't my kind of game anyway, but if it were I'd become frustrated with those slow animations very quickly even admitting that they are beautiful.
Yeah if there was a setting in the menu to turn off these animations, that would help a lot to curb the repetitiveness if you've already seen them 100 times
I truly think that every minute of animation someone put into red dead two improves the experience for me. Also the corpse looting thing is more realistic and makes me feel better about it because it discourages you from running around and looting open bodies in front of enemies, leaving the looting until the end of the fight as it would be irl. Also I actually live the way you open doors, it's a lot like how you mentioned climbing in monster hunter doesnt require extra button presses, I think it's really smooth and well done.
@@buck5200 And that's why an option would be great. The default should be to have all those animations play, but turning them off would be a nice option. An example for me is looting in The Witcher, my first 2 playthroughs, I just did it as the game was intended. But for my last 2, I've added some mods that make looting certain things (notably herbs) instant. It just enhances the experience for me, just like hiding all UI outside of combat does.
It's like how in recent pokemon games (will let's go have it?), they give the option to toggle the move animations. for my first playthrough, they look pretty neat, but on a replay, or even post game sometimes (pokedex filling especially), i tend to turn it off
Creatively, I think it was well worth it. I'm sure many people, myself included, went into this experience expecting a video game. Honestly, with all their anti-video game choices (looting animations, cores system, slow walking in camp, limited fast travel), they forced me to see and play the game in a very different way. I started ignoring unlooted bodies after firefights when I knew Arthur wasn't out of the woods yet, because Arthur would prioritize evading the law rather than looting everyone. I spent far more time appreciating the world when I knew getting to an objective would actually require time and planning. Without going for full-on simulation, I would have never reached a full understanding of the mindset it was going for and would have instead been stuck in "this is just a really badly streamlined video game".
@@KingAlucard101 Animation wise I disagree for the reasons above. I can totally see entire systems of this game being boring for some, like hunting or fishing. For me they weren't though.
King Alucard it's not excuses you just don't appreciate the slow pace and attention to detail and it's fine everyone enjoys videogames in a different way
I just wish more games would draw the little moments out more like Read Dead Redemption. It makes the big exciting moments all the more big and exciting!
6:30 Maybe they could have implemented a system where you can skip those. Like that you can press the grab button again and the next animation will immediately start, interrupting the current one. As long as it's one button you can mash through those things pretty easily.
I think it would be handy if you could toggle those “detailed animations”. Some people enjoy seeing all of those little motions, but others can choose to just have the “gamey” and faster set.
@@kylespevak6781 Then play another game… It’s the whole “Dark Souls needs an easy mode” all over again. It’s clear Rockstar wanted a realistic game with realistic mechanics so why should we strip the game of all that? You take out those “unnecessary” animations and the game is a completely different experience.
@@juantsu2000 That is literally what I am saying. All these fuckers want EVERY SINGLE FUCKING GAME to be made their way. If you are into faster paced boom boom Michael Bay bullshit and hate slower paced games then there is already plenty of that out there to play, go play one of those games, this one isn't for you. There actually are people like you and me who enjoy the slower paced style and this game is made for people like us. I absolutely hate these type of people who deliberately play games that are not made for their taste and then belittle the game for being different and try to suggest that it "removes" or "changes" all the features they don't like. Like really, how goddamn entitled does one have to be to wish that every single goddamn thing ever invented should cater to their and only their personal tastes? Spoiled brats. If someone doesn't like slower paced games they just simply SHOULDN'T PLAY RDR2, problem solved. They should go play one of those boom boom nonstop action fast paced video games, there is already plenty of them out there in the market. I just wish people would realize not every single goddamn thing in the world is supposed to be made for them.
I love RDR2 just the way it is. The entire feeling of the game would be lessened with such “gamey” shortcuts. I never tire of looting, skinning, or anything else. It reinforces the role play and engrosses me into the world like no game I’ve ever played.
I love the heavyness of rdr2. I was a huge fan of gta4 and was super disappointed when they dumbed everything down in gta5. Here's to hoping they continue with realism.
Having to hold a button down to do every, little thing is very tedious for me and annoying. Especially in situations when you need to rush, like if you're getting shot at.
why are you getting shot at? you should have been fighting instead of looting. and if someone walked into you looting, well thats the **point** of the animations. if it was like skyrim and you coulc teleport everything of value into your pockets you would never have a situation someone can come in.
@@JSHADOWM Looting isn't the only time you need to hold a button. Sometimes if you need to revive your horse before it dies, while getting shot at, it's hard. Don't assume next time, bud.
@@R3fug333 if your horse is level 4 it can survive for a real time hour. So leave and come back when the time is right. Or kill everyone. Also reviving your horse should take time because it's a delicate procedure.
Many commenters have noted that the reasoning could be to limit inventory and increase versimilitude regarding item collection. I agree with that, but I also see another reason to make it tedious is to not allow it to happen during combat and to showcase that your actions are visible to others when you do it. (I haven't played the game so I don't know if the later has a strong impact.) Dan mentioned Monster Hunter and the time on the sword swings there make the weapons feel hefty and slow, but there's also a tactical purpose that forces you to factor in timing while you play. While I don't think this RDR2 factors in this kind of tactics perfectly (based on what I've seen), it does build it into your consideration. Moreso than managing your space, you have to manage your time. Eating takes time, looting takes time, grabbing items in a store takes time, skinning game takes time. You can't do these beneficial activities while doing something else or can't do them easily while in danger. That makes it tactical. Does it make it good? This is the first I've heard any complaint. Keep up the good work, Dan. Thanks!
I only have an issue with the animations when they take too long during moments that require the player to be moving fast. Like a wild animal coming up onto you and attacking while you're skinning or looting. If there was a cancel button or if the player character could look like it was hastening up their movements during action and survival moments id be fine with the animations.
@@THE_REAL_EXECUTIONER You... You didn't even read what He said. He said that at times, the animations feel way too calm in stressfull situations like firefights and animal attacks.
That's the core issue and breaks the realism argument as real people adjust to situations. Games can't fully do that yet so we often get more tedium than needed or too much speed. Finding a way to balance this is the key.
I remember being impressed with Tales of Symphonia's excellent door opening animation back in middle school. It's a tiny detail, but that world really needed some grounding to make it feel a tiny bit less ridiculous, and watching Lloyd realistically grab the door handle and swing it open did the trick.
This! Very few games actually have a door opening animation. You know another one that does it? Dark Souls. Would Dark Souls be the same if there weren't a door opening animation? I say no. If you're running from a demon or a zombie or a blob monster or a giant rat, the last thing you'd be feasibly be able to do is pull that heavy iron gate open and you'd choose to fight in the arena you're given. Dark Souls 1 puts that exact scenario into question within 10 minutes of gameplay. You're a practically naked frail undead who probably hasn't eaten anything in months and are set loose into a dark hallway. You grab a broken knife to defend yourself and take 30 paces till you reach a huge set of doors. You open them. You step through. And then immediately the biggest non-human monster you've ever seen, wielding an enormous mace, falls down, cracking the floor and disturbing the ash on the ground. Turn around and there's a fog wall blocking the way you just came. You're practically helpless and there's only two other exits from the arena you're in, and one is locked. Dark Souls would be completely different if that first door was opened automatically for you.
@@jkthegreat5687 players should be allowed to tweak certain aspects of the game. If they weren't allowed to do that, we wouldn't have graphical settings on PC, or button mapping.
"when every single action taken takes a few seconds to carry out, it affects the game's pace..." Yes! That's it, exactly. And it is intentional! They want you to take this one slow and enjoy it. It's exactly why I never fast travel, even though I have the camp upgrade -- the beauty of this game is its pacing. It forces you to make realistic decisions. When you're on the way to do something in town and see a patch of herbs just off the road, you as a gamer have to weigh whether gathering them will be worth the time spent doing it, which is exactly the thought process you'd have if it was real life. You can't just grab everything in a 30 ft radius in a matter of seconds and that's a great thing.
I'd rather the time to do this not take the same amount of time as it does in real life. A lot of real life is boring. Should they up the realism even more by making it more boring?
Personally i think the individual looting is a risk reward thing. The longer you take the time to loot the bigger the change the law will come down on you. I think Rockstar want to emphasize that. To many times i get extra bounty on me because i took too long with looting.
About the best outcome of what they implemented in the game is what you just said. You've to consciously choose what and how much you loot before you think right come on trusty stead let's ride off into the sunset.
It'd be longer in real life. Imagine fumbling through a guy's coat and pants and vest pockets for anything valuable before cops or bounty hunters come in. I say the animations in this game are nescissary.
Yes, totally agree, looting in red dead 2 is very tedious and I don’t know what to think of it, in one sense it is great how theres attention to detail, but on the other hand it has been a nuisance to pick every single thing up. Don’t think I would enjoy the game less if those animations didn’t exist soo, I agree with you.
It would be better if those items weren't useless, but they are. I think I maxed out nearly every health/stam/DE tonic in the first few ours and have barely used any since. And even if I were to use them, you can buy them in shops AND craft them, so there really is no point in taking part in the slow and tedious looting.
I see both points of this debate, but even hearing the music playing over the read dead footage I got lost in thought thinking about life in the old times and how the world itself was slower. There's something therapeutic in the calm monotony of life as presented in those times and whether intentional or not it's almost mirrored by the slow pace of the animations which can subconsciously give you some of that feeling. I can accept that, but can understand why some others may not.
Let me say, though, that I actually am in love with these slow paced animations of RDR2. I always tried to play all my games with a slower pace, walking my character instead of running, if possible, talking to as many people as I could, reading stuff etc. So in RDR2 I'm not even forced to force it upon the game, it's only natural, it's there already. I can accelerate some bits of the game if I want to, but to me it'd just lose a lot of fun. When you talked about the door opening animations that most games don't even have, that has ALWAYS bothered the heck out of me. While playing The Witcher 3, though a marvelous game, I was completely annoyed by those auto-opening-with-one-click doors.
This is a problem I had in GTA Online, *THERE IS NO SENSE OF URGENCY.* My character would get run over by some random player, and then proceed to get up as slowly as possible while the car was getting ready to hit me again. I understand *realistically* that you wouldn't go into a dead sprint after getting run over, but from a *gameplay* perspective it's very annoying that I'm now at the mercy of xXGAMERxASSASSINXx as he gets to plow into me nonstop with his armored karuma.
@@norysmo I FEEL YOU. I don't think it would be fair to immediately get up like a god after getting ran over by a vehicle. Slow animations are a cool down
Not really immersive when you need to loot or pick up bodies a little faster than just casually taking your time. Arthur/ John should really be able to make the distinction Or idk, have a speed up or cancel button like with everything else.
Another game with these sorts of system, which also came out this year, was *Kingdom Come Deliverance* . It too has specific animations for non-combat stuff like picking stuff up or sitting down on table. Although that game exhibits it's realism more with its systems (cooking, rest, cloths), compared to its moment-to-moment animations. I'm just happy to see "realism" stuff in AAA games.
Thinking about what you said about fidelity and intended experience, I want to bring up a case example that popped into mind: Opening doors in Amnesia: The Dark Descent. This does not follow the usual streamlining of clicking a door and watching it smoothly open for you. Instead, opening a door requires clicking on the handle then moving the mouse in a sweeping motion to push the door open. This is, unquestionably, awkward and slows the player down. But this is also a horror game, and forcing the player to open doors in an analogue way heightens anticipation and builds tension. A player may want to open the door just a crack to peek through before opening it fully, and open it slowly to avoid making a noise that might alert anything on the other side. Conversely, if the player is being chased by some horrible monster, they may need to quickly open a door to effect an egress, which is much, much more challenging to do when their hearts are beating wildly and they are desperately trying to work the knob. Additionally, slamming doors in monsters' faces can buy players a little extra time to hide, which requires a similar tense follow-through. Contrast this with other things in the game that do use streamlining, such as picking up items that go in the player's inventory. It underscores to me the intent of the more awkward interactions as design choices to enhance the experience.
Compared to what im used to in stuff like darksouls or horizon zero dawn, RD2 feels like I'm moving through quicksand, like everything is in slow motion.
Here's the real question: If the option existed, how many people would turn off the more tedious animations? I'd bet a surprisingly large amount of people would.
If you love realistic games, then all that "no necessary animation" is A MUST. I think REALISTIC ELEMENTS has made RDR2 the best video game ever made. I hope Rockstar keep it up. I LOVE "NO NECESSARY ANIMATION" ELEMENTS IN GAMES....thats why I love n play RDR 2. While auto-loot like Zelda and other games...
So the difference between a game for adults and a game for kids is that adult games have to be repetitive and tedious? Most people play games to have fun, not prove to other nerds just how shitty a game they're willing to tolerate.
Great topic and really nice explanation Dan. I also work in the industry and you asked yourself this question every time you start a new animation..it's a fine line. And the folks at Rock Star have indeed created something amazing. The amount of work that must have gone into all this detail. Stunning. Hope Rockstar can do right by them next time.
This! More of this, please. That comparison between the realistic RD2D and the cartoony Breath of the Wild; between gritty and realistic Playstation/Xbox against the fun, fantastical and whimsical Nintendo. It's so fascinating to see these approaches side-by-side. There was a time where I couldn't fathom why you'd want your game to look like real life, but over time (and especially thanks to this video), I've grown to appreciate just how insanely awesome and complicated it is to replicate reality. More of this, PLEASE!
There are times that the animations can be faster, but overall I love how detailed the character animations are, it’s made for probably the most immersive game I’ve ever played where you feel like you’re controlling a movie
Laboriously animated actions are effectively a delay on player input. Instead of ME performing an action, I’m commanding the CHARACTER to, and they’ll do it at whatever pace the developers decided. This is the opposite of immersion and entirely defeats the purpose of these, admittedly beautiful, animations. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that animations cannot be both immersive AND convenient. Animation is difficult and requires a lot of skill and resources, but it’s not like it’s beyond comprehension to achieve this. I would argue that fundamental actions in a game are MORE immersive when they are precise and immediate. This is particularly true when it comes to movement and combat, which is, in my opinion, far larger a problem than pickup animations. Having to slowly reach for an item is more forgivable when I don’t have to spend a full minute just trying to position my character so the prompt will appear. (Looking at you, Witcher 3)
I personally feel that the animations in RDR2 actually serve to do something that I haven't seen anyone mention before. They serve to balance out the game economy somewhat. They're basically a realistic punishment mechanism to prevent you from going around and looting every crevice, similar to what inventory limits do in other games, but less restrictive. Basically, I think that the fact that it's boring to go around and slowly loot everything is one of the main points of the animations being so incredibly realistic. They make item interaction believable when it happens, but also discourage the player from spending their time looting stuff they're just gonna sell when they could be out exploring and enjoying missions instead.
I loved the loot animations during the first few hours of gameplay. After 30 hours of game time, I am now sick of it and that is how I found this video. Glad I'm not the only one.
I also feel like in order to make these animations feel realistic, there are some non-realistic factors added into them to make them work. The most prominent examples for me are, not every skin you skin is gonna be that perfect, skinning a bear won't take the same amount as skinning a deer. Or the other, when flipping a catalogue, Arthur always flips it to the exact page. It's these tiny unrealistic things that we just accept because most games don't add realistic animations in the first place.
10:19 see this is the ultimate problem with all this “immersiveness.” They went to all the trouble animating everything else but picking up ammunition is automatic, and this bugs the hell out of me. Why? Because it’s a microcosm of what’s wrong with the game as a whole. What if I didn’t WANT to pick up the ammunition? What if didn’t want to use a gun at all to progress? The game has a big, beautiful world, but there’s a complete lack of any player freedom or agency, you have your hand held the entire time and you’re practically rail-roaded through the story. It’s a big beautiful sandbox that you DON’T get to play in.
I love the fact that the animations are “slow” and are all there. In a world of games that seem to appeal more and more to COD/Fortnite fostered juvenile “ADHD” this game is nearly a blessing. After a long day of work it’s awesome to just sit on the couch, put the headphones and play this in first person while just exploring the map. It makes me feel like I’m really in those times when our perception of time was different indeed. It reminds me how everyone hated the last Thief game animations for taking too long. For me that was a plus since it really reinforced immersion - which is why I play most games.
@@lynkingbetti I disagree. Immersion in video games are much better than movies. Why watch a character or actor in a movie when you can be apart of the immersion in a video game? Your argument is also moot when you consider the fact that movies dont allow you to participate in the immersion unlike video games.
*Slowly stand up* *Adjust my pants* *Loosen up my shoulder joints* *Pat the dust off my vest* *Clear my throat* *Gaze into your eyes* *Slowly open my mouth* "No, I think the animation is good in RDR2."
I think a good example of good animation priority is The Last of Us. It's probably one of the most enjoyable and incredibly immersive games ever! I will say though, that RDR2 details aren't as completely pointless as GTA 5's. Honestly, I can't believe they put more resources in the pointless animations (like flip flops actually flip flopping or that the ankle bone bends) rather than the euphoria physics or making the world more lived in with more complex NPC interactions (somethings that were in RDR2).
I finished RDR2 and then tried AC: Odyssey. The horse in that game speeds up momentarily like a formula 1 car. I couldn't play it after horse mechanics in RDR2.
My animations: *Takes 10 seconds to get into the fucking horse while being shot at by multiple enemies* The enemies animations: *Can shoot accurately at me during any animation without having to even look at where i am*
Rockstar Animator/programmer's friend (RA/PF), "hey man I heard you're working on a blockbuster Sony PS4 game, is that true?" Rockstar animator/programmer (RA/P), "yeah I am working on Red Dead Redemption 2" RA/PF, "sweet, what's is your job?" RA/P, "I am a part of 20 men/women team that's responsible for making sure the horses' balls works correctly in any weather." RA/PF, "say what now?"
Ironically the realistic animations that are supposed to immerse me more into this realistic Wild West simulation, make me want to look at my phone while Arthur is doing whatever task he is doing
The ridiculous level of detail and animations in RDR2's world makes me wish it had a more popular RP community, like GTA's. That's makes the realistic number of animations worth it. But as a single player game alone, while appreciated, it's definitely a bit excessive.
There's something to be said for the tone and pacing of RDR2 when living in Arthur's skin and doing everything so meticulously doesn't feel wrong when you're playing it. I was so utterly sucked in that this criticism never occured to me during my playtime. Good video, Dan.
