The Giant Beastcast: Episode 182

Sounds like RDR2 is just like every other game Rockstar has made since San Andreas. Unless they return to Lemmings, I don't think I ever have to check out one of their games again, seen that "this is the most revolutionary invention ever - oh wait, it's a PS2 game" cycle too many times now.

Pokemon is a weird one. It's a big multimedia property, but it's very aimed at kids. If you were high school age or older in 1998-2001 when it was really really big, there really wasn't a huge reason to play it. By being high school age or older at that time (Vinny, Jeff, etc.), your peers aren't watching the TV show or buying the merchandise, so that leaves just the game. I know people swear by all the "depth" to the IV and EV training, and the PVP battles are OK I guess, but the games really are children's RPGs in how simple they are, so I can't fault Vinny and Jeff for having skipped the games during the peak of its popularity and never getting into it after.

It's funny how Dan's arc with RDR2 is almost the opposite to mine. I started out not being in love with the game but as it went on and I became more attached to the characters and the story I liked it more the more I played it.

I'm a bit surprised that someone can love the first game so much but grow to actively hate the way this game plays. They're pretty similar in how the feel in my opinion

@danryckert If you're interested in seeing a Ryan Reynolds movie, can I recommend Safe House. He isn't snarky, it co-stars Denzel Washington, and there is a lot of cool guy action stuff.

Reggie still salty over those Wii U sales. Fuck 'Em.

RDR2 is a technical marvel and a terrible game.

Since RDR2 is such a successful game they should take advantage of the site redesign to do a second review. Maybe Dan could do it.

Pokey Mon

I wonder how much of Dan's problems with RDR2 stem from the inherent need to get it finished and move onto new games coming out. Rorie mentioned on Twitter this week about how much he was enjoying playing AC Odyssey by playing it in small doses which is something I've felt with a lot of long games this year. I feel like a lot of longer games are being harshly judged by those in the industry who by virtue of their jobs have to almost rush through them where they might be better enjoyed over a longer period of time.

"Played the game wrong" is such a strange idea. Does the game have a % counter? Then he had every right to assume that would be a valid way to play it, especially since he loved the first one so much. It's not his fault that Rockstar was so concerned about making an ultra-immersive "realistic" experience that they had their heads up their asses and forgot to make the part where it's actually fun to play.

Game looks absolutely atrocious to me.

I feel like we’re getting teams Alex/Abby/Brad vs Jeff/Dan/Vinny for RDR2 goty discussions. Not sure which side Ben is taking.

I was probably only 6 hours in to Red Dead 2 when I had that 'fuck this game' realization. It's an impressive piece of tech that isn't at all fun to play in my opinion. As I get older, I have less and less time for games, so putting up with 10 minute travel times between missions, slow ass movement in camp, bad contextual/interact prompts, etc. is just something I can't do anymore.

@glots: Based on the last Bombcast, sounds like there's other games he would vote for over Red Dead. He really liked God of War if I'm not mistaken. I can see that finishing ahead of Red Dead 2 honestly.

Typical Dan. Loving the first 50 hours of a game, then fallin of and thus suddenly thinking the game is bad. Happened with Witcher 3, is now happening again with Red Dead 2.

Game of the Year is going to be a glorious mess. Though really I'm just glad that other people are recognizing the flaws in RDR2. It might be a masterpiece in presentation, but at this point Rockstar can no longer rely entirely on its characters and (often badly paced) story to push through middling-to-bad gameplay and frustrating systems. Even if some of those things are considered choices in terms of pacing and animation, it's hard to justify RDR2 compared to other major open world games of the last few years which are rapidly improving in terms of character, story, and presentation, while also providing actually fun and compelling gameplay and associated systems.

Then again, I've always been someone who fell off Rockstar games hard mid-way through because of those problems.

I loved this episode omg! I wonder why...

Having only seen RDR2 streams: I think I'd end up like Dan if I bought it. Probably going to stay away.

Thanks again for the podcast it was very enjoyable and I like the new site!

@bisonhero: I get all that. I was in 8th grade when Red/Blue came out. I'm no superfan but I've enjoyed the 3 or so mainline games I've played. Everyone has games or genres they don't enjoy, but he tends to project an "I'm not one of THOSE people" attitude towards his. It'll be fun when his kid gets super into Pokemon.

DAN THE CAPITAL OF MISSOURI IS NOT COLUMBIA.

Not saying there's no criticism to be had about RDR 2, but some of Dan's complaints seem weird. The animation stuff can be tiresome, sure - but RDR 1 had almost identical animation stuff. There's more of it here, yes, but there were a lot of time consuming animations in the first game. He said it himself afterwards, but Dan claiming that he "fucking hates it now" seems like such an overblown exaggeration.

But yes, there's plenty about the game that can be frustrating. I'm in Chapter 4, and I finally decided to go hunting after one of those legendary creatures. Hadn't bothered to before then. I looked at my map, and saw that I had uncovered the area for a legendary sheep and thought that seemed easy. It was a far trek from where I was, but I made it. And then when I got there, all I got was a message saying "you are unable to track the legendary animal because there's too much activity in the area." What? What the hell does that even mean? I saw nothing going on, and there was no indication as to what it meant.

Jeff as he listened to Dan's RDR2 rant.

I'm now in Chapter 6 and just as riveted as I have been since the get go but listening and reflecting on Dan's criticisms I think he has some valid points....

RDR 2 offers you the illusion of freedom with its open world but is actually designed for you to tackle exploration of its world in a specific way. Most of the map is open after the first few hours but it is actually detrimental to the experience if you rush off and explore all of it straight away. As the story missions progress you are lead to each new corner of the map. The game even defines the chapters of its story around geography. The long trips that bookend each mission are intended to be your introduction/showcase of each new area. If you have already visited the region and spent a whole chunk of time there then naturally these will have less impact and will seem redundant and frustrating.

Similarly the story mission are often trying to dictate the pace at which you tackle the game's main plot. There are clearly mission that allow for breathing space between them (encouraging sidequests and other activities) whereas at other times it is clear that the plot is driving you to complete a sequence of story missions in quick succession. The developer is leading you through an 'ideal' playthrough of the game. The issue is, if you deviate from the formula things feel unnatural or lose emphasis.

It's a contradiction that I have found across the GTA and Red Dead series; by nature the game offers you almost total freedom but this freedom sits at odds with the experience the developers intend. This philosophy extends to the character of Arthur Morgan; you have a choice of how he can be played yet there is clearly a preferred story arc for him.

The part that I struggle with in Dan's criticism is how he discusses his love for the first game. These aspects have been common across all of Rockstar's games, particularly Red Dead Redemption so it is difficult to see how someone would only be taking issue with them now.

In my view, to get maximum enjoyment out of the single player campaign you need to follow the 'ideal playthrough' and I would recommend this approach to those who haven't started the game yet, but I can also understand people feeling frustrated by this aspect of the game and deciding it's not for them.

Blackjacktris is underrated. Vinny is still the naming guru.

I feel the take on "LoveROMS" here was fantastically bad.

Nintendo sued this site specifically. Maybe go take a look at some of the screenshots of what that site used to look like to see how egregious they actually were about infringing on Nintendo's copyright. Suggesting that they were about "game preservation" is a laughable stance & borders on propaganda. There are plenty of preservationists who do it in good faith; this site was about using Nintendo IP (and others) to get traffic & make money.

Unless there are other suits that I didn't hear about it seems to me Nintendo is actually rather conservative about suing ROM-hosting sites. I'm not finding it harder than I remember to acquire such ROMs (won't get into more detail on that here). So painting the picture that they're going after everybody just seems false to me.

In particular, shame on GBeast for vilifying *Miyamoto* as a bat-wielding thug. What the fuck.

I think my RDR2 game glitched exactly where Dan’s did. Crashed to PS home screen. I was just about done with a long late-game mission and hadn’t hard-saved in hours. Blue screen. I was sweating, hoping it wasn’t going to erase all that progress, because something similar happened to me before where - for some reason - the auto-save didn’t include the side mission progress I made. I only had to replay the whole mission again this time, at least. Unlike Dan, I enjoy just hunting and fishing and living in that world, so I didn’t care about the lost story mission progress too much. I understand all his criticism and rage though. It’s truly amazing there are still remnants of GTA III’s non-existent checkpointing in a game released almost 18 years later.

The ol truck train!

How spoilery does Dan's Red Dead rant get? Would like to skip it if it gets too detailed.

i'll say xbox may not have some of the top critically acclaimed titles of PS but it has great games that are fun to play and a huge variety of genres represented. it isn't like the system has 0 worthwhile games but just less internet and critical acclaim (part of this no doubt due to the still angry internet about the xbox one reveal).

Considering Dan is basically DeadPool it surprises me that he is not on board.

@danryckert Tiberian Dawn is the first C&C game, a lot of people call it that even though it wasn't the title, it might have been the working title though. I think EA might have officially retitled it at some point too, maybe to make sure that people understood which C&C series the game was part of.

Fuck Rockstar games, if I wanted to watch a shitty movie, I'd watch a shitty movie. I don't need the Housers to write a shitty movie into a game for me.

Really great episode, maybe the best Beastcast episode of this year!

I'm pretty much in the opposite boat of Dan. Wasn't in love with RDR2, but over time, i liked it more and more and now love it. It's a damn masterpiece. And that's not hyperbole. I don't call many things in life masterpieces. The story alone along with the writing, the characters and the pace, are the best Rockstar has given us and that's already a high bar compared to other games.

That being said... I don't think the game is fun to play. This year, I'd rather play Odyssey. Much more enjoyed that. So I can see where Dan is coming from. I'm curious as to what part of the story he's at. Cause if he's in chapter 5, there's so much more. If he's completed chapter 6, then that's interesting he doesn't like it, without spoiling much, the game flows in the first game very nicely.

I completely agree with Dan on Red Dead 2. I'm currently 64% thru the story and I have shootout fatigue! It seems every single story mission turns into a poor mans, third person cover shooter. Now this wouldn't be so bad if the controls and gun play were stellar. But they ain't! What is stellar are the performances, the story, the graphics; so much about this game is to be admired. But it does a massive disservice to itself by relying on a dated game play troupe that the game's engine clearly cannot handle very well.

It's kinda weird how Dan is not down with Deadpool/Ryan Reynolds, shouldn't that be right down his alley with his love for MacGruber and cheesy mouthy action heroes?

Imho this is one of these "Dan things" were he never gave it a chance, and once he does, he's probably gonna be all over it.

Also: The Voices is a way underrated Ryan Reynolds movie, tho the trailer is quite spoilery.