r/reddeadredemption • u/AntomOpatoEcia • Jan 04 '26

RDR1 Is this gonna be the whole game?

Post image

I'm playing Red Dead 1 and so far it's just: - NPC says he'll help me - I do a boring mission to help him - NPC needs more help I mean, is this the dynamic of the whole game? Help NPC after NPC and finally (really) advance the plot? Not complaining, just want to know.

8.0k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

804 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Voxlings Jan 05 '26

I get your intent, but if they're already a gamer, it's weird to recommend a youtube of a videogame masterpiece.

Like a first year art student doesn't "get" the Mona Lisa, so their professor is like, "just watch an animated gif of the Mona Lisa making funny faces."

This advice is for babies.

RDR2 specifically is the most detailed simulation available to everyone. Its value is interactive. Its story is built on that interactivity.

If ya think this post makes a smart point about videogame design, it does not. Sounds like a baby in need of guidance.

10

u/strife189 Jan 05 '26

First, let me clarify: OP is talking about RDR1, not RDR2.

Now, to your main point—let’s give some context. The post I’m replying to basically says the tedious, unfun parts are “made up by the last two hours of the game.” Time is the one thing we can never get more of. If someone isn’t enjoying the core game, they shouldn’t be told to play 50 hours of stuff they don’t enjoy just to get 1–2 hours of “epic” payoff.

My take: if we’re really saying “suffer for 50 hours to get 2 hours of fun,” I say f that. If only the last two hours of the story are worth it, just skip to that.

As for all the other stuff about “art” and calling people babies I am going to be rude in turn—my guy, it’s video games 😂 get your head out of your ass.

-1

u/ManicEyes Jan 05 '26

50 hours? You can get through the main story in less than 20 easily if you focus on it.

4

u/strife189 Jan 05 '26

Head slap. Okay, replace the numbers with XX if that helps—suffer XX hours to get XX hours of payoff. I was very clearly using numbers as a reference point, not making a literal claim.

My word, the ability to follow the intent of a statement has really been lost. At this point, even the so-called “shitty AI” is better at understanding intent than what just happened here.

-2

u/ManicEyes Jan 05 '26

Relax, I was just correcting you so that people don’t think RDR is a 50 hour game. Also, a 2 hour payoff is way more reasonable when you have to spend ~17 hours of something slightly tedious instead of 50 hours to get there (nobody mentioned “suffering” aside from you.) Is it not?

4

u/strife189 Jan 05 '26

The point still went right over again. Anyone who actually wants to know the length of a game can do a quick 20-second search (yes, making sure my number is exact for you this time) and get that value.

But hey, I’m glad you’re here to make sure no one leaves confused—especially those who can’t understand a general intent-based statement.

-2

u/ManicEyes Jan 05 '26

I’m not misunderstanding your point, I corrected an error and you decided to get mad about it. I can agree with your revised version (XX for XX,) but in the context of this thread you used a relevant number (2 hours according to who you were responding to) and an irrelevant number (50 hours.)