Red Dead Redemption 2

[Shortbread]

To me this looks more impressive than Cyberpunk

RDR 2 honestly looks current generation - just in 4K. The geometry and mesh quality of the characters are slightly above GTA V, but nothing far removed from Rockstar's current engine (Rockstar Advanced Game Engine +), just with certain improvements. RDR 2 looks good, but nothing earth-shattering in the graphics department. And honestly, some of the fighting (hand-to-hand combat) looks stiff or GTA-ish.

 

[milk]

Rockstar are look to be repeating the trailer approach from GTA V, where as first few trailers were from cutscenes and canned sequences, then they did that five minute trailer with a female narrator explaining how big, open and varied the world was. After that GTA V trailer we got two more trailers before launch which was also two calendar months before release.

That formula is actually from the first RDR. GTAV was the repeat.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

That formula is actually from the first RDR. GTAV was the repeat.

Your memory is definitely better than mine!

 

[Ike Turner]

RDR 2 honestly looks current generation - just in 4K. The geometry and mesh quality of the characters are slightly above GTA V, but nothing far removed from Rockstar's current engine (Rockstar Advanced Game Engine +), just with certain improvements. RDR 2 looks good, but nothing earth-shattering in the graphics department. And honestly, some of the fighting (hand-to-hand combat) looks stiff or GTA-ish.

I frankly think that Ubisoft has in some ways mastered Rockstar's craft when it comes to open world rendering..Origins (and Odyssey) are simply stunning at times.
But I think that RDR2 (as GTAV before) will have a lot more unique assets (in parts because R* has a longer development cycle than UBI with AC)

 

[AzBat]

Love the trailer. I have watched it multiple times. Keep looking for other YouTube videos dissecting all the little hidden features & nuances. Can't wait for it. One thing I'm most excited for is a more detailed & interactive world & not just an empty open world. Supposedly all buildings will be open & with stuff to do in them. Plus there is supposed to be a sense of time with buildings being built over time. Looks like it might the in with seasons changing. Also, people will have jobs & schedules. They will react to you based on actions you make. So the new NPC interaction system will vary depending on how you will play. Also love how the side quests & main story will be blended together. And the moving camp mechanic looks intriguing. Can't wait for release!

Tommy McClain

 

[goonergaz]

Yes, I'm liking the sound of quality over quantity. RDR was already a great playground and place to just 'chillax', I can see this game taking over my life!!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Yes, I'm liking the sound of quality over quantity. RDR was already a great playground and place to just 'chillax', I can see this game taking over my life!!

Now they just have to get the right balance in populating it. For me, RDR was just a little to populated. It felt like you couldn't ride 20 seconds without a random track-side event, coyotes or those sodding wild cats appearing. Go to the forest and wait a minute and there are four bears.

Equally, you don't want environments quite as desolate as Breath of the Wild.

 

[goonergaz]

Now they just have to get the right balance in populating it. For me, RDR was just a little to populated. It felt like you couldn't ride 20 seconds without a random track-side event, coyotes or those sodding wild cats appearing. Go to the forest and wait a minute and there are four bears.

Equally, you don't want environments quite as desolate as Breath of the Wild.

Yes, and by the sound of it they have addressed these issues...if true this could be a true next gen type experience.

 

[Recop]

I frankly think that Ubisoft has in some ways mastered Rockstar's craft when it comes to open world rendering..Origins (and Odyssey) are simply stunning at times.

From what i've seen, it looks more consistent than Origins. Origins has very impressive vistas and good lighting, but assets often look average on a closer distance :

Animation seems to be better in RD2 too.

 

[Mobius1aic]

Now they just have to get the right balance in populating it. For me, RDR was just a little to populated. It felt like you couldn't ride 20 seconds without a random track-side event, coyotes or those sodding wild cats appearing. Go to the forest and wait a minute and there are four bears.

Equally, you don't want environments quite as desolate as Breath of the Wild.

Agreed but it's the curse of delivering an open detailed world in a compressed format. Things don't have to be as big as Fuel, but there should be alot more rural space. With the right world building tools, an increase in area size won't be that big an issue if you stick with creating rural space with randomized vegetation placement instead of putting in more towns and settlements. The leaked map is allegedly only half the size of GTAV.

 

[Malo]

The size of the world is also relative to the speed you're traversing it rather than purely the sq miles.

 

[Sigfried1977]

Now they just have to get the right balance in populating it. For me, RDR was just a little to populated. It felt like you couldn't ride 20 seconds without a random track-side event, coyotes or those sodding wild cats appearing. Go to the forest and wait a minute and there are four bears.

Equally, you don't want environments quite as desolate as Breath of the Wild.

I think the desolate areas would gain a lot from being every bit as desolate as the plains in BotW. That aspect is what sold me on BotW's world. Just have more dense settlements instead. I also think irregularity is key to an immersive world. Ubisoft games - most of them at least - have their activity hot spots spread out very evenly and very unnaturally. Now compare this to GTA V: I once switched to Trevor and he woke up from a drunken stupor in this undies on a railway track in the middle of the desert. Let me tell you, if you're on foot, that's a 10-minute hike to the nearest vehicle. The Far Cry and AC devs wouldn't dare to leave the player to his own devices for a stretch of time that long. I have played very little of AC Origins, though. So if that game's different in this regard, than kudos to the devs of course.

 

[Mobius1aic]

I think the desolate areas would gain a lot from being every bit as desolate as the plains in BotW. That aspect is what sold me on BotW's world. Just have more dense settlements instead. I also think irregularity is key to an immersive world. Ubisoft games - most of them at least - have their activity hot spots spread out very evenly and very unnaturally. Now compare this to GTA V: I once switched to Trevor and he woke up from a drunken stupor in this undies on a railway track in the middle of the desert. Let me tell you, if you're on foot, that's a 10-minute hike to the nearest vehicle. The Far Cry and AC devs wouldn't dare to leave the player to his own devices for a stretch of time that long. I have played very little of AC Origins, though. So if that game's different in this regard, than kudos to the devs of course.

That's part of the curse of delivering engrossing content. Not only does added space increase development time and resources like disc space, but I wonder if devs really consider adding quiet space, decompression, or a destressing time for the player. It's all about maintaining a fairly high amount of stimulus.

 

[Sigfried1977]

^Hasn't really hurt R* in the past, so I'm not particularly worried. I mean how many copies of GTA5 have been sold? Now compare that game's map screen to your average Ubiworld. Despite having way more side activities than GTA IV or RDR before it, GTA 5's world is comparatively empty still.

 

[Mobius1aic]

^Hasn't really hurt R* in the past, so I'm not particularly worried. I mean how many copies of GTA5 have been sold? Now compare that game's map screen to your average Ubiworld. Despite having way more side activities than GTA IV or RDR before it, GTA 5's world is comparatively empty still.

You're right, money talks, and it hasn't hurt Rockstar at all.

There is enough emptiness in some areas in their games to make it feel rural as long as you can suspend your disbelief that a major settlement or town isn't over the next hill. I can't remember the line in GTAV, but one of the main three mentions one of the northern towns (either Paleto Bay or Grapeseed) as being "hours away". I couldn't help but kind of laugh at the line. There is a feeling of distance to some degree, but you could run on foot the entire way from one of those towns to the outskirts of Los Santos, and it probably won't take more than half an hour. With the Red Dead games, empty space becomes more important, as well as giving biomes their just do. It lends to the feeling of authenticity in the game world.

Also, I need to mention I didn't like how compressed Ubi's Egypt was, and the few monuments I explored were not to scale either (specifically the Bent Pyramid). I was very dissappointed.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I can't remember the line in GTAV, but one of the main three mentions one of the northern towns (either Paleto Bay or Grapeseed) as being "hours away". I couldn't help but kind of laugh at the line.

In game hours I think, not realtime hours. In GTA V one in game hour passes every two minutes.

The wilderness parts of GTA V were good. If they adopt that level of wildlife population for the more remote parts I think that would work well.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

PlayStation Access's list of 21 things confirmed for RDR2.

Something I didn't know is that this largest world Rockstar has ever made - but full of distinctive areas "full of personality".

GTA V was pretty big.

 

[Karamazov]

GTA was actually not that big, but very detailed all around,
you could rush around the map's highway in a fast car/bike in 11min only.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

GTA was actually not that big, but very detailed all around,
you could rush around the map's highway in a fast car/bike in 11min only.

11 minutes? You slowpoke! Sure, you can get around narrow track of the entire map in a fast vehicle quite quickly, but try crossing just the city of Los Santos, east to west or north to south on foot. It's then you realise how absurdly large the game is.

I'd imagine RDR2 will be an easier world to make larger as Rockstar are almost certainly using a host of automatic terrain generation tools to create the world, it's not like they hand place every rock, tree, hill and outcropping, and there are no huge cities that need to creating. They'll have massive scope to generate a massive terrain then tweak tens of hundreds of areas in ways that would still be less work than building just Los Santos.

Equally, too large is bad. Just Cause 3 was simply too large and full of very little of interest.

 

[Karamazov]

yeah density is better than size.
Size does not matter, NEVER !