2
回編集
JeniferShumway1 (トーク | 投稿記録) 細 |
Michal2088 (トーク | 投稿記録) 細 |
||
| 1行目: | 1行目: | ||
Seeing as Red Dead Redemption 2 has officially been announced to the masses, albeit with no idea what the game is about (John Marston's name is not even mentioned), I thought I’d voice some thoughts. While I wholeheartedly enjoyed both Red Dead Revolver and Red Dead Redemption, I am worried by Red Dead Redemption 2. Aside from hype, which apparently can’t be stopped, seeing as the collective internet ethos freaked the hell out, let me explain why it’s important to be cautious with something like this.<br><br>Calling Red Dead Redemption Grand Theft Equine is a dumb joke, even by my standards, but the GTA influence is as visible as the scars on John's face. The game is played in a large [http://piratedirectory.relevantdirectories.com/Open-World-Adventure-Blog_224160.html Open World Game Story Guide] world map that spans part of Mexico and part of the western American frontier, divided into three regions that are unlocked as the story progresses. John's actions can influence his fame and honor which have an impact on how townspeople react to him. Helping innocent people fight off bandits may improve his reputation but gunning down those same innocent townsfolk will have the opposite effect. Like GTA titles there is a wanted system, where if John decides to commit crimes he can attract the attention of the law and depending on how far he wants to take it this may escalate into military involvement. John can surrender to the law men, kill them all or simply high tail it out of there until the heat dies down. The problem with the last two options is the law might give up on John but that just means they've decided to send a bounty hunter after him so they don't have to deal with him themselves.<br><br>Something I liked about E3 2014 is the strong focus the big 3 had on gamers. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all focused on delivering the games that we, the gamers, want to play. Aside from Sony getting a little sidetracked, E3 2014 ended up being one of the better shows in years. Let’s keep that up going into E3 2015.<br><br>Red Dead Redemption 2 is a long game and there’s a lot to do in it. The main campaign alone, along with a good number of Stranger missions, took us just under fifty hours to complete, which is exponentially longer than its predecessor. That’s barely even participating in the various other activities, such as hunting, gambling, bounty hunting and more. The Stranger missions are one of the bigger draws as they are once again whacky, over-the-top scenarios that fill out the world. Arthur may not have the sarcastic, comical timing of John Marston, but he still lends to each situation with his confusion. Sadly, I never saw a damsel tied up on a railroad track that needed saving. Speaking of Stranger missions, you're also able to make choices that may affect scenes in the main story. For example, I met one woman earlier in the campaign and she appeared as a prostitute later on, which lead to a bounty immediately put on my head. Another was a surprisingly lengthy scene with a nun who I randomly bumped into once, and Arthur opened up to her. Your choices through the campaign do hold some weight as they can affect where specific people end up in the future and might even expand upon Arthur’s character more.<br><br><br>Just across the river north of Annesburg lies an old ruin. It appears to be an old Viking tomb, and it's not entirely empty. Lying inside just waiting for someone with sticky fingers are three different it<br><br>Don’t be deceived by the number at the end of the title, Red Dead Redemption 2 is a direct prequel to its predecessor. The story takes place years before our last adventure as we follow Arthur Morgan and the Van der Linde gang. If you recognize the latter name, it was the group of outlaws that John Marston rode with back in the day. As you can expect, you’ll see our loveable Marston often, who is perfectly implemented into the story. It’s not too much fan service or focus, but just enough so he’s a solid supporting role, especially in the later half of the campaign. He has his own arc, but it’s all about Arthur and his issues. The first couple of chapters in the story, Arthur is an unlikable individual. It takes him a little while to find his footing as he’s an overly serious character who never breaks a smile and plays the rough cowboy to a T. His relationship with the group, including the gang’s leader, Dutch van der Linde, is what stands out among everything else. It’s the little things around the camp; the songs, the gestures and the interactions that expand our protagonist’s likability, and you begin to better understand him. Even the most insignificant faces seem to bring out the more positive aspects out of Arthur more than the main story ever does, and it’s sad that it’s something players can completely overlook, especially considering entering the camp setting forces the player to move at a snail’s pace.<br><br><br>There's a bit of a debate around this one. Just Northeast of Bacchus Bridge and Southeast of Donner Falls lies a hole in the ground. A somewhat familiar looking hole in the ground, for Tolkien fans. That being said, something about the whole house seems... off. Other than the obvious similarity of being a literal house in a hill, there isn't much about the house that seems like its Lord of the Rings counterpart. Style-wise, they're pretty disti | |||
回編集