Why is this game not backwards compatible or on PC yet??
>>334725676
Because the game's coding is a fucking mess and barely works on 360 and PS3 as is and porting it to new systems or PC would require rewriting significant chunks of the coding.
>>334725961
>barely works on 360 and PS3
Works fine here for the almost 6 years it's been out. The only things that ever happened to me were the cougar-man, donkey-lady and flying deer, but other than that things have went smoothly.Besides 720p and the shitty refresh rateEspecially in Tall Trees
>>334725676
Didn't it work on the Xboner for a few days before they shut it down.
You need more petitions.
>>334725961
now that's just not true.
>>334727231
Yes, it worked better than the 360 version supposedly
Because there are better Rockstar games out there
>forever stuck with the PS3 version, which runs well bellow 30fps average at 1152 x 640 upscaled to 720p and has worse lightning and foliage than the x360.
port wheeeeeeeeeeeeen
>>334727823
no there isn't, redemption was their magnum anus
>>334727978
>>334725961
The game was accidentally released for use on Xbox One and people claimed it worked well, but they redacted it shortly after, probably because they're gonna wait for E3 to release a shit ton of games, and RDR will be announced backwards compatible along with the announcement of RDR3
>>334725676
I honestly believe there is a PC build somewhere in R* building.
AFAIK, RDR was game that was made by 800 people and was considered one of the most expensive games ever made.
Also, it was made in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_Advanced_Game_Engine
and that engine has a lot of M$ Win# games(i know its not as simple as tick "Compile for
>x360
PS3
Wii
PC")
,
all stuff aside, it was all about polishing with x360/ps3 and if anything is almost
full proof fact , its that it was played on Xbone(and xbone is almost laptop PC with custom Win10 installed).
But , back then , PC was considered pirateship and was on its last legs(as far as expensive blockbuster AAA+++ ;Y) gaming is concerned).
>>334725676
Because, IIRC, the game was a fucking nightmare for Rockstar to work on. If they wanted to port it to PC, they may as well do a full-on remake (a la RE1) rather than try to port over this jumbled mess of code.
>>334725676
PS3 emulation is finally gaining momentum. It wont' be long now.
>skip RDR back when it came out
>buy it later for 360
> Its literally just a western reskin of GTA with a casual bullet time gimmick
I will never understand all the hype.
someone should make a mod in GTA5 , just to piss off R*, if they managed to do Morrowind/Skyrim in GTA5 or 4(i really dont remember, but it looks really cool)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkDvPiiguSc
Now, it would be just a matter of ripping assets and putting them into GTA5 engine, its hell of a job(it would probably take 5 years to really dedicated team from all over internet).
Point is, RDR is not impossible om pc... its just a matter of various interests(and on the last place are interests of gamers).
Maybe M$ wants to make their version of The Last Guardian or something(that was brutal but genious move by sony, those previews sold more PS3 back then than all catalog up to that date)
