Red Dead Redemption 2 - the most overrated game of the gen.

Avatar image for qx0d
#101 Posted by qx0d (140 posts) -

It may have some problems, but the fact remains RDR2 is graphically amazing, and the game world is full of detail and things to do. Overall, it is a great game that is full of content. Most reviewers don't give it a 9 or 10 for nothing.

Avatar image for henrythefifth
#102 Posted by henrythefifth (1953 posts) -

Voice acting is excellent, and some npcs are genuinely interesting.

Everything else in the game is last gen, and not in a good way.

And people who think the graphics are great, have not obviously played AC Origins/Odyssey or HZD, which are all much, much better looking all round.

Be told.

Avatar image for Damedius
#103 Posted by Damedius (350 posts) -

Easily.

Critics seems to dig these types of games though. If it was a movie they watched it would get a 5/10 but because it's a video game 10/10, best game ever.

This game gets away with auto-aiming garbage combat, that would get most games torn to shreds.

Avatar image for Planeforger
#104 Posted by Planeforger (17823 posts) -

I like RDR2, but it's certainly not better than BotW or The Witcher 3.

RDR2 hits this mid point where the world is pretty and mostly interactive, but the writing and gameplay and mostly really dull. The reactive story elements are a nice touch, but don't really add anything to the game other than a little bit of continuity.

Also, despite being a huge open world, most things in RDR2 feel quite forced and scripted. Like the 'random' event where the horse kicks its NPC owner to death - it was designed to impress journalists and people who play the game for the first few hours, but it's just a scripted event that feels really hollow in hindsight.

BotW felt much more dynamic, and The Witcher 3 had much more compelling scripted content, while RDR2 sits in the middle, excelling at nothing.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#105 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (24537 posts) -
@watercrack445 said:

Some can even shotgun to the head 20 feet away. Those fucking cheats.

A head shot with a shotgun at 20 ft is not unusual, considering the effective range of one can be close to 100 ft. The effective range is extended a bit more if using solid slugs instead of pellets.

Avatar image for thehig1
#106 Posted by thehig1 (7011 posts) -

@ghosts4ever: by witcher 3 you mean doom ?

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#107 Edited by MirkoS77 (13521 posts) -
@bobothemighty said:
@nepu7supastar7 said:

@bobothemighty:

All of the Witcher 3's side quests sucked. Combat was basically a worse version of Dark Souls. It literally fails at everything an Rpg is meant to be. The only saving grace was the story.

RDR2 has awesome gunplay. The violence and gore is gracious. From decapitations and dismemberment to dead bodies decaying. Fully customizable weapons and many to choose from. Customizable horses. Hair and shaving actually has a use thanks to the hair growth system. Riding a horse actually feels like riding a horse. RDR2 manages to pull off role play better than Witcher 3 without even trying to be an rpg.

*snip*

You can put money into a tin to boost funds, or bring back meat so people can eat, or do side missions for friends like finding them items in the wild.

The problem is: none of this matters. At all.

It’s worth putting some money in the money tin so you can buy a map (which unlocks fast travel), but beyond that it makes no difference. The game’s way too easy for you to care about any benefits it might provide Arthur. And the other only thing it affects is how characters talk to you in the camp: they might grumble about not having enough food or you not pulling your weight. But that’s it."

But hey!...Arthur's hair grows! Horse balls shrink in the cold!

Not a single aspect of it's gameplay, mechanics or systems are well designed, has depth or any meaning in the game. Not a single one. Period.

Speaking on the lack of eventual consequence as being a weakness of this game just goes to demonstrate that its point and appeal has flown over these peoples' heads entirely. RDR2 is a game about the journey. If you're playing it constantly expecting future payoff for your actions by viewing the relevance of its mechanics within that context, then yes, you are going to find them utterly lacking any meaning. But the merit of their inclusion isn't measured in what they enable or offer down the road, it's what they grant in the present moment you're playing.

This is a game about immersion, and conveyance of that immersion through those mechanics affords the game meaning in the moment. To complain and criticize the pointlessness of letting Arthur's hair and beard grow out, or dressing up how you want, or modifying the appearance of weapons, or doing camp chores (all of which are meaningless in the end) that effectively lets you role-play (not in the sense of traditional RPG elements) as a wild west outlaw is so ludicrously oblivious as to what the game is attempting that it's laughable. It's like looking at Mario Galaxy and saying that jumping on platforms to reach the end of the level means nothing because the end game is always the same. Maybe it occurs to some people that the enjoyment of that game is found in its platforming and not the star achieved at the end?

By the same token, perhaps it occurs to people that the enjoyment of RDR2 is immersion into a degree of world building marvelously realized that's reinforced by mechanics and systems that aren't aiming for finality of consequence in their justification, but of supporting that level of world building at each step along the way? You and others may find it pointless and objectively flawed in that sense, but apparently many other people don't, and have scored it on a differing criteria accordingly.

Avatar image for jahnee
#108 Posted by jahnee (3863 posts) -

@texasgoldrush said:
@jahnee said:

Depends under what microscope you hold that score. A 97 is indeed very high, but what does that number of 97 actually represent? A 100/100 would be a perfect score, but on the basis of what? A perfect score for the year 2018, or a score representitive of eternity? It's a relative score, one that is opposed to other games at this current time of technology. For how big the game is, and ambitious, that score seems rather realistic especially compared to other mediocre games out there. Does that score represent my ultimate fantasy of what a video game could be? Far from it.

But RDR2 fails in a lot of ways and it shows how hypocritical game reviewers are. For example, many games such as Shadow of the Tomb Raider, AC Odyssey, and Dragon Quest XI get dinged for sticking to tradition, but RDR2 doesn't when Rockstar uses their outdated mission formula, 97. They have been shown to give free passes to certain game companies despite problems with their games. 97 is very high for a game. Thats best game of all time territory, and with the flaws RDR2, that hardly reflects the a quality of the game, but the hype of the game and the company.

Ironically CD Projekt RED praised RDR2 for it's polish and detail and are inspired to now do so for Cyberpunk 2077. The Witcher 3 to me is a fantastic RPG with excellent story telling, characters and a diverse fantasy world to dive in to. Just like Red Dead Redemption 2, it's far from perfect but it certainly set the bar high for the time it came out in. And that's what these Metacritic scores could indicate to me, how these games rank amongst other games from the same year. Gaming is far from where I want it to be, but I can appreciate a lot of things both these games have. Just play what you like, skip what you don't like. But ratings aren't facts, there is no jack of all trades even when all review sites give a game a 10.

Avatar image for jahnee
#109 Posted by jahnee (3863 posts) -

@MirkoS77: Totally on point. Give this man a holdster.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#110 Posted by texasgoldrush (12570 posts) -

@MirkoS77: Wrong

RDR2 fails in immersion because it simply put, is illogical. Once again, there is a conflict between gameplay and narrative, ludonarrative dissonance, and it takes the player out of the experience. RDR2's mission design absolutely fails to utilize the systems of the open world and forces the player to do things Rockstar's way instead of what the player thinks he should do. And RDR2's missions really fail to respond to the actions of the player in the world. There is this separation of game and story that other developers have bridged and Rockstar still hasn't.

While not perfect, Dishonored 2 molds the character based on the players actions, for example, if Emily kills lots of people, she develops a more bloodthirsty attitude and is more vengeful. If she kills few or none, she is altruistic and heroic. Rockstar doesn't even bother doing this and it shows.

Face it, RDR2 has last gen design and it shows. Other developers have manged to evolve their game design and include systemic elements in their main story. Rockstar still is behind in this regard.

Mark my words and mark them well. RDR2 will be viewed in the same light as GTAIV over time, a game overrated heavily by critics and more divisive with gamers.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#111 Posted by texasgoldrush (12570 posts) -

@jahnee: Outside polish, which is quite overrated as RDR2 had some pretty bad bugs at launch, what bar does RDR2 set? If you look at it, not only does it not set the bar, but game design wise, its heavily outdated. And MC scores are a poor indicator, a piss poor indicator, of a games ultimate legacy. Many highly reviewed games stumble with gamers, and many times, games not reviewed highly become cult classics.

For example, MGSV scored higher than TW3 on MC, but it was blasted by gamers for its shortcomings and got crushed by TW3 when it comes to game of the year awards. Wolfenstein the New Colossus, rated well by critics, panned by gamers, and it sold poorly.

Critics have also once again, shown to ignore flaws of highly hyped games, and rush their reviews. MC is initial critical reception, nothing more. gamers decide its legacy.

Avatar image for WitIsWisdom
#112 Posted by WitIsWisdom (5038 posts) -

Possibly of all time. Definitely the generation.

Avatar image for GarGx1
#113 Edited by GarGx1 (10551 posts) -
@qx0d said:

It may have some problems, but the fact remains RDR2 is graphically amazing, and the game world is full of detail and things to do. Overall, it is a great game that is full of content. Most reviewers don't give it a 9 or 10 for nothing.

Most reviewers don't give games a high score "for nothing"! There are usually swag bags, all expenses paid for trips, possibly even money involved. ;)

Avatar image for nepu7supastar7
#114 Edited by nepu7supastar7 (4703 posts) -

@texasgoldrush:

"Critic ratings mean nothing. Almost everywhere, TW3 has vastly superior gamer acclaim. TW3 has a 97% Steam rating and 9.0+ MC user rating. That's high. RDR2 MC User score is 7.6 and 7.2."

So your means to fight the critic argument is by using the user critic ratings? Do you realize how hypocritical that sounds? They're both opinion based. You just choose to roll with those because they fit your agenda.

Avatar image for nepu7supastar7
#115 Edited by nepu7supastar7 (4703 posts) -

@texasgoldrush:

"Its called ludonarrative dissonance when a player is allowed to do things outside the establishment of the character. Its basically a plot hole specific for video games, a major flaw."

But you fail to understand the logic of those activities. It's for the sake of freedom. Because it's what the game advertises and it's what most players will want. Most players don't care about personality consistency. Most players who buy these games just want to play in a vast sandbox and have fun. It's that simple! Restricting freedom IS in itself a flaw. Because it limits what players can do and for a very selfish and stupid reason. Not everyone is going to enjoy the game the same way you do. And so the devs must facilitate that and cater to the wider audience.

Even if we're talking from a story standpoint, let's look at the logic here. Humans have very complex personalities and we're not exactly 2 dimensional. Just because you're a killer for hire doesn't mean that you're not going to want to have fun once in a while. And it doesn't necessarily mean that you're a cynical person who would refuse to help anyone. Maybe you got caught in a good mood. Maybe you got caught in a bad mood. But the point is that you never truly know a person until you start spending time with them. That alone gives you plenty of leeway to make almost anything happening possible.

That's why it's left to the writer (or player in this case) to choose what happens in the character's spare time. But that doesn't make alternative choices improbable. Humans can be unpredictable at times too.

Haven't you ever had a moment in life where you just did something for the hell of it? Like if you were visiting a ranch with a friend and they asked you if you want to try horseback riding. Even if you've never ridden a horse before, that doesn't mean that you'd NEVER do it in general does it? Maybe one day, you'll want to try something new. And that's why these activities outside the story can easily coexist!

Avatar image for deactivated-5c119f32a6f78
#116 Posted by deactivated-5c119f32a6f78 (27 posts) -

Nah, God of War is. It's worse than Ryse

Avatar image for Renegade_Fury
#117 Edited by Renegade_Fury (20256 posts) -

When it comes to being overrated, nothing comes close to BotW. As for RDR2, this is the first rockstar game that I've legitimately enjoyed, because of its attention to detail and high level of immersion. Some of the things you can do in the epilogue for example, reminds me of playing Shenmue.

Avatar image for henrythefifth
#118 Posted by henrythefifth (1953 posts) -

The rubber clothing on npcs and characters are really embarrassing.

You know the effect when clothes kinda stretch in rubber-like fashion when the characters move about?

Well, its very common in RDR2. And its so last gen. I mean I have not seen such last gen clothes in any other current gen game. All other new games have very realistic clothing indeed on npcs and heroes. And RDR2 has last gen rubber suits. So embarrassing its not even funny.

For shame.

Avatar image for freedomfreak
#119 Posted by freedomfreak (50767 posts) -

Of course it is.

Avatar image for kingsfan_0333
#120 Posted by kingsfan_0333 (1840 posts) -

"Look at me, look at me! I disagree with the common opinion. I'm special and interesting!".

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#121 Posted by texasgoldrush (12570 posts) -

@nepu7supastar7: Restricting freedom when you have a character that has a set personality is a good thing, because otherwise you have a flaw in the game. Its that simple. Open characters are better for open gameplay. This is a reason why CD Projeckt is making V a more open character than Geralt as she is allowed to do more things, and V's personality adjusts to your choices.

Second, RDR2 restricts freedom as well, but in its mission design, which is why its getting criticized for being out of date. Once again, this shows game design elements at conflict with eachother.

@nepu7supastar7 said:

@texasgoldrush:

"Critic ratings mean nothing. Almost everywhere, TW3 has vastly superior gamer acclaim. TW3 has a 97% Steam rating and 9.0+ MC user rating. That's high. RDR2 MC User score is 7.6 and 7.2."

So your means to fight the critic argument is by using the user critic ratings? Do you realize how hypocritical that sounds? They're both opinion based. You just choose to roll with those because they fit your agenda.

Yes, both are opinion based, but most of the time, user ratings more accurately show the reception of the game overall.

Critic ratings show reception at launch or pre-launch, nothing more. In case of the latter, Diablo III's pre launch critics scores were great, but bombed with gamers at launch and alienated fans of Diablo II.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#122 Posted by texasgoldrush (12570 posts) -

@Renegade_Fury said:

When it comes to being overrated, nothing comes close to BotW. As for RDR2, this is the first rockstar game that I've legitimately enjoyed, because of its attention to detail and high level of immersion. Some of the things you can do in the epilogue for example, reminds me of playing Shenmue.

If RDR2 has so much attention to detail and immersion, why is it continuously broken. You know a game that doesn't break. BOTW.

So you are praising RDR2 for attention to detail and calling BOTW overrated? Wow.

Avatar image for Renegade_Fury
#123 Posted by Renegade_Fury (20256 posts) -

@texasgoldrush said:
@Renegade_Fury said:

When it comes to being overrated, nothing comes close to BotW. As for RDR2, this is the first rockstar game that I've legitimately enjoyed, because of its attention to detail and high level of immersion. Some of the things you can do in the epilogue for example, reminds me of playing Shenmue.

If RDR2 has so much attention to detail and immersion, why is it continuously broken. You know a game that doesn't break. BOTW.

So you are praising RDR2 for attention to detail and calling BOTW overrated? Wow.

I found nothing significantly broken about RDR2, or at least anything on the level of coming close to ruining my experience with it. BotW, on the other hand, was nothing but climbing and dealing with a garbage weapon durability system, while stripping everything away that made Zelda an enjoyable series. So yeah, I'll praise RDR2 and call BotW overrated, no problem.

Avatar image for jahnee
#124 Edited by jahnee (3863 posts) -

@texasgoldrush: I honestly think all those games are good (TW3, RDR2, BOTW, Diablo 3, Wolfenstein), in my opinion you seem to have a pretty black and white view on what is good and what is not. You named a handful of games, all which sold well and got scored well. There will always be some disagreement with gamers and critics, but generally speaking average reviews from critics are more reliable than the ones from gamers. Gamers whom actively go on forums take their games very personal when politics are involved, and destroy a game on metacritic with all their mental energy. Also gamers have to spent 60$ on a game, and the demographic of gamers take that money very seriously. Battlefront and Battlefield 5 are very good examples of that (Or Star Wars fans for that matter). The crowd you describe as gamers, in online reviews hence gaming forums they can be the loudest and most narcissistic ones of them all. They feel extremely entitled and are offended when an expectation didn't go their way in a new release, and they will then hammer that game into the ground because their franchise or game got ruined in their eyes. They will rate a game a 1.0, post Youtube rants, go on reddit and create a march of death etc. The difference in rating you see is because of those 1.0's. Go look for yourself on all metacritic user reviews and see the ban hammer 'gamers' put on those games. No objectivity in sight in those views. They are the ugly loud mouthed bunch, that simply didn't get what santa promised them or their daily banana delivered by their caretaker. It's true that publishers should be in touch with their customers, but if their new release doesn't fall in your taste then move on to another game. Plenty of good games out there. Games like the first Virmintide received good reviews but initially didn't sell so well. So there are opposite situations for games as well.

Also, RDR2 has so much detail within it's open world I find it to be on another level. Whether that be in it's graphics, animations, sound design, writing, dialogue, interactions and world building. I love it, a lot of other people do too. You saying it does nothing new, is an opinion you can't claim as the golden one especially considering many would oppose to it.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#125 Posted by texasgoldrush (12570 posts) -

@Renegade_Fury said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@Renegade_Fury said:

When it comes to being overrated, nothing comes close to BotW. As for RDR2, this is the first rockstar game that I've legitimately enjoyed, because of its attention to detail and high level of immersion. Some of the things you can do in the epilogue for example, reminds me of playing Shenmue.

If RDR2 has so much attention to detail and immersion, why is it continuously broken. You know a game that doesn't break. BOTW.

So you are praising RDR2 for attention to detail and calling BOTW overrated? Wow.

I found nothing significantly broken about RDR2, or at least anything on the level of coming close to ruining my experience with it. BotW, on the other hand, was nothing but climbing and dealing with a garbage weapon durability system, while stripping everything away that made Zelda an enjoyable series. So yeah, I'll praise RDR2 and call BotW overrated, no problem.

So you want them to keep making Skyward Swords? Because that Ocarina of Time formula no longer works.

And just because you do not like some thing doesn't mean its broken. How is BOTW not working as intended? Contrast this with RDR2 where the logic of the system can actually break leading to illogical scenarios. This does not happen in BOTW.

And complaining about weapon durability is just lazy. While switching weapons can be a pain, the system forces players to change their strategy, leading to more focus on its systems.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#126 Posted by texasgoldrush (12570 posts) -

@jahnee: Or how about that critically acclaimed games can have problems that are overlooked by critics. This is what happens.

Yes, I do not like Metacritic user reviews for the most part, however, that is only one site. Steam also has a review system which can easily show differences in critical and gamer opinion. which also forces you to have the game, and runs on a yeah or nay system. That is what I rely on most. However RDR2 does have its shares of 6 or 7's on Metacritic which point out flaws critics don't. You can't just pass this off.

As for Battlefield V and Battlefront, you can just ignore the detractors. There were serious problems with those games and it shows. But once again, I bring up Wolfenstein New Colossus because the reality of the gamers panning it overpowered the critical response, leading to it having poor sales. It goes to show that critic scores only represent launch and pre launch reception and not the game's legacy.

And yes, I am saying that RDR2 does nothing new, because I have played games that does what RDR2 does, but does it better. Tell me, what new thing does RDR2 do? I argue that RDR2 is stuck in the past, the opposite of bringing things new to the table. A game doesn;t have to do anything new to be good, however, in RDR2's case, no doing anything new or even evolving to match the rest of the industry hurts the game.

Once again, RDR2 in the long term will have the same reputation as GTAIV.

Avatar image for Renegade_Fury
#127 Edited by Renegade_Fury (20256 posts) -

@texasgoldrush said:
@Renegade_Fury said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@Renegade_Fury said:

When it comes to being overrated, nothing comes close to BotW. As for RDR2, this is the first rockstar game that I've legitimately enjoyed, because of its attention to detail and high level of immersion. Some of the things you can do in the epilogue for example, reminds me of playing Shenmue.

If RDR2 has so much attention to detail and immersion, why is it continuously broken. You know a game that doesn't break. BOTW.

So you are praising RDR2 for attention to detail and calling BOTW overrated? Wow.

I found nothing significantly broken about RDR2, or at least anything on the level of coming close to ruining my experience with it. BotW, on the other hand, was nothing but climbing and dealing with a garbage weapon durability system, while stripping everything away that made Zelda an enjoyable series. So yeah, I'll praise RDR2 and call BotW overrated, no problem.

So you want them to keep making Skyward Swords? Because that Ocarina of Time formula no longer works.

And just because you do not like some thing doesn't mean its broken. How is BOTW not working as intended? Contrast this with RDR2 where the logic of the system can actually break leading to illogical scenarios. This does not happen in BOTW.

And complaining about weapon durability is just lazy. While switching weapons can be a pain, the system forces players to change their strategy, leading to more focus on its systems.

I want full blown dungeons, a plethora of memorable puzzles, unique items and weapons, an unforgettable soundtrack, and a cheesy yet lovable story- basically everything that A Link Between Worlds is, and that came out after Skyward Sword, which I also liked, albeit not as much since it had a little too much filler. Regardless, I don't consider anything about the pre-BotW games to "no longer work," especially in ALBW's case since it won GOTY here. Imo, BotW is for people that like experimenting in sandboxes, not Zelda. If I wanted to play Gary's Mod, I'd do just that.

"And just because you do not like some thing doesn't mean its broken" - I think that describes every thread you've made, lol. I never said BotW is broken, only that it's overrated, though I can always go on a rant about the few enemy types, the terrible framerate, the subpar shrines, the garbage MMO like collectathon substories, etc. Anyway, I like RDR2 for completely different reasons than I used to play Zelda for (see above). In RDR2, it's easy for me to put myself in the game, a la Shenmue, so any minor issues the rest of the game has doesn't ruin my experience.

Lazy? I don't like maintenance and weapon durability in any game, whether it's RDR2, Soulsborne, Witcher 3, or whatever. There's nothing realistic about it nor does it make me want to experiment, in fact, it makes me do the opposite. Nioh is the only modern game that does it right, because weapons have no durability and there's virtually no penalty at all for redistributing attribute points. That's how you get the player to try out new things without resorting to negative reinforcement, which BotW takes to the nth degree.

Avatar image for jahnee
#128 Edited by jahnee (3863 posts) -

@texasgoldrush: Tell me, what were the serious problems of Battlefront 2 and Battlefield 5. Have you played either game at launch? You don't think the issues have been blown out of proportion for political reasons? I didn't say either game was perfect, but way far from what the 1.0's are making it out to be.

And that's ironic. GTA IV is generally considered above V due to the euphoria system and story. Red Dead Redemption 2 has over a 100 hours of entertainment. After that if the game starts wearing down I have no problem with that. What you consider a legacy, others don't. If there is a general consensus of a game holding legacy status, does not grant it that status for everyone.

And what RDR2 does new? I can tell you what it does from my perspective. For me the atmosphere and immersion in combination with the writing and characters are what stick out to me. Only a handful of games do so but non other than The Witcher 3 impressed me with this much detail. The craftmanship and story length are inspiring. Are all gameplay mechanics revolutionary? Certainly not, but there are enough subtle gameplay details that I can appreciate like the journal, amount of interaction with witty written voice lines between all characters, interesting stories attached to any side quests, the decent Texas Hold em AI, the simulation dynamics, the animation systems especially for the horses, the AI feels alive in the world and dynamic, the incredible visuals and presentation etc. I feel engaged to this game world like very other games can do. I find that deserves the recognition that it already got. I do agree that this game is not easily accessible and is not for everyone, especially for fast paced gamers. It's a pretty hard core game where you need to have patience and virtue, so I totally understand the backlash from that perspective.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#129 Edited by MirkoS77 (13521 posts) -
@texasgoldrush said:

@MirkoS77: Wrong

RDR2 fails in immersion because it simply put, is illogical. Once again, there is a conflict between gameplay and narrative, ludonarrative dissonance, and it takes the player out of the experience. RDR2's mission design absolutely fails to utilize the systems of the open world and forces the player to do things Rockstar's way instead of what the player thinks he should do. And RDR2's missions really fail to respond to the actions of the player in the world. There is this separation of game and story that other developers have bridged and Rockstar still hasn't.

While not perfect, Dishonored 2 molds the character based on the players actions, for example, if Emily kills lots of people, she develops a more bloodthirsty attitude and is more vengeful. If she kills few or none, she is altruistic and heroic. Rockstar doesn't even bother doing this and it shows.

Face it, RDR2 has last gen design and it shows. Other developers have manged to evolve their game design and include systemic elements in their main story. Rockstar still is behind in this regard.

Mark my words and mark them well. RDR2 will be viewed in the same light as GTAIV over time, a game overrated heavily by critics and more divisive with gamers.

Immersion isn't solely contingent upon the absence of ludo-narrative dissonance, and I don't quite understand where you're getting the idea that it is. RDR2's world doesn't depend on the narrative to be engrossing, it's a world captivating and immersive all on its own absent it. While the mission structure in RDR2 can at times certainly be antiquated (as I've agreed with you on) and seriously pushes the boundaries of plausible narrative continuity at times, it's nothing that can't be overlooked. It's required of the developers to strike a balance in telling a story within this medium that also affords enjoyable player agency that remains conducive to its strengths. Sure, that's going to stretch the believability of a very strict linear narrative at points, but if they were to create a game where, say, a bank robbery had you gunning down only three to five people in town to make your escape to align with what you believe would abide the consistency of the narrative better, what would be your complaint then? Probably that it's boring.

I find nothing in RDR2's narrative that breaks it so much that the game can no longer be enjoyed and that certain aspects cannot be overlooked, or at least accepted as a concession in favor of player agency within a linear construct contrasted against certain narrative discretions. Does gunning down 30+ cops in a St. Denis bank robbery only to be able to pay off a $160+ bounty to be able to walk its streets in peace a few hours later make sense? No. But in speaking of consequence, it is in the larger picture inconsequential to enjoying and being immersed in the world that R* has created......and that is what is important.

And you are still continually projecting this game onto others to try to paint it flaws when their objectives are entirely different. There's no dictate that states one design philosophy is objectively better than another, whether it be Dishonored, Deus Ex, 2077, or RDR2. There's room for all variations.

Avatar image for Baconstrip78
#130 Posted by Baconstrip78 (1131 posts) -

@texasgoldrush: Cyberpunk isn’t releasing this year so how is that game relevant to any GOTY discussion?

I’ve played every GOTY candidate that has released this year and nothing comes close to RDR2. Sorry it has wadded your panties but it’s going to win. Suck it up and at least try to act like a man when it does.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#131 Posted by texasgoldrush (12570 posts) -

@MirkoS77: However, other games did atmosphere and immersion BETTER than RDR2. As for your bank robbery example. I have played Thief II and Dishonored Death of the Outsider, robbed a bank, did not kill anyone, and wasn't bored. why? because the game gave me choices in how I did it. Rockstar doesn't. Hell, they are behind 1998 immersive sim design, much less last gen.

I am projecting this game into others because game design EVOLVES. Rockstar simply put, hasn't. they make the same game as GTA III and its tiresome. So don;t blame us who criticize Rockstar who are frustrated that the same flawed outdated formula is critically praised time and time again.

@jahnee: You think P2W schemes and shipping unfinished games are [problems blown out of proportion? The critics of DICE and EA are well justified. Those games were train wrecks at launch. BF2's reception shook the industry and perhaps for the better.

GTA IV has a more divided reception now and its game design is well criticized. Its GTA V that improved it somewhat.

Plenty of games have atmosphere and immersion. Look at AC Odyssey, look at Subnautica. RDR2 is not alone in this. And like the former, it has a lot of immersion breaking problems and even more restrictive mission design than the former. And simply put, do not give me the slow burn excuse defense. Thats not the problem with RDR2.

@Renegade_Fury:So Breath of the Wild doesn't have unique items and weapons, memorable puzzles, unforgettable soundtrack, and a lovable story? Lets analyze this. BOTW's puzzles allow the PLAYER to solve it HIS OR HER WAY, not Nintendo's way like the past games, which is a huge boost for the series. Also, for the first time, Link truly uses more unique weapons, and his items are unique. Next, this version of Princess zelda is regarded as the series best and the story revolves around her. Also, BOTW has the best, most open, most well designed, and last video gamey dungeon the series, Hyrule Castle.

Its not overrated (outside of critics scores), you just don't like it. You like stagnation instead. Stagnation led to diminishing returns with Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword, and really Link Between Worlds is not as novel as you think. And for all the "flaws" you mention for BOTW, none of them are core problems like RDR2's problems.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#132 Posted by texasgoldrush (12570 posts) -

@Baconstrip78 said:

@texasgoldrush: Cyberpunk isn’t releasing this year so how is that game relevant to any GOTY discussion?

I’ve played every GOTY candidate that has released this year and nothing comes close to RDR2. Sorry it has wadded your panties but it’s going to win. Suck it up and at least try to act like a man when it does.

And the game industry is worse for it.

Flawed games that do not stand the test of time have won GOTY, Dragon Age Inquisition for example. Hell, The Walking Dead in the long run, sunk its developer.

Avatar image for jahnee
#133 Edited by jahnee (3863 posts) -

@texasgoldrush: All I read is still you trying to push your opinion on me as fact. BF2 doesn't even show stats like k/d or win/lose ratio's. It's a game meant to have chaotic fun in. The stock abilities you get in each class were already pretty powerful, the better player can still outclass the more specced player even if they paid 1000$ lootboxes from the start. The big fuss was about the hero's being locked behind too many credits, they couldn't unlock Darth Vader(whom wasn't even the strongest hero) quick enough. Sure the game needed a patch and didn't have perfect systems but man was it fun to me. BF2 is not very competitive or not even near an E-sport, but Star Wars fans are the worst bunch so ofcourse they created an unstoppable hate train. Mind you, the plan was a free DLC roadmap with a lot more maps initially planned, which had to be cancelled because of less sales. The free dlc that has come out is still great fun, but there could have been much more. Under those circumstances I can see why they wanted to sell lootboxes, sadly they didn't tweak it the right way and got punished by the worst crowd imagineable.

Battlefield V is generally fine, also has free DLC planned. Some bugs here and there, like any other game. It's far from broken as you tout it to be. But let me guess, you just played the beta and ride of the general consensus of online reviews.

By now I know there is little discussion left to be had regarding RDR2 with you. So I will leave it at that.

Avatar image for Renegade_Fury
#134 Edited by Renegade_Fury (20256 posts) -

@texasgoldrush: No, it has none of those. There are only 4 main dungeons that all play the same and a 5th mediocre one that serves as the finale; the puzzles are bland, simple, forgettable, and a quarter of the shrines consist of only fighting guardians with larger health bars; you get only 4 tools in the beginning, two of which are bombs, and that's it for the game; there is virtually no music; and imo, this is by far the worst version of Zelda: a brat that doesn't want to do her job and is terribly voiced on top of it. Skyward Sword's Zelda is the best interpretation of her because she was central to the plot and was off adventuring and making crucial decisions on her own.

Make whatever excuses you want to discount ALBW and try to pretend that TP and Skyward Sword are bad games, but not only are they all great games, they don't abandon the core pillars of the series, but hopefully the next Zelda will try to restore some of them. Going back to RDR2 though, I still don't know what core problems it has since l was fully immersed during my playthrough.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#135 Edited by texasgoldrush (12570 posts) -

@Renegade_Fury said:

@texasgoldrush: No, it has none of those. There are only 4 main dungeons that all play the same and a 5th mediocre one that serves as the finale; the puzzles are bland, simple, forgettable, and a quarter of the shrines consist of only fighting guardians with larger health bars; you get only 4 tools in the beginning and that's it for the game; there is virtually no music; and imo, this is by far the worst version of Zelda, a brat that doesn't want to do her job and is terribly voiced on top of it. Skyward Sword's Zelda is the best interpretation of her because she was central to the plot and was off adventuring and making crucial decisions on her own.

Make whatever excuses you want to discount ALBW and try to pretend that TP and Skyward Sword are bad games, but not only are they all great games, they don't abandon the core pillars of the series, but hopefully the next Zelda will try to bring some of those back. Going back to RDR2 though, I still don't know what core problems it has since l was fully immersed during my playthrough.

No, they do not all play the same outside moving the machine and have actual more thought that past Zelda dungeons where most solutions revolve around the dungeon item and one way puzzle solving. nevermind the four tools at the beginning provide more versatile solutions than any items in past games. Lastly Hyrule Castle is an open ended, open exploration dungeon that actually provides true threats to the player, and has a sense of place that is organically designed instead of being just a level.

It is the far worst version of Zelda, than why is it the best selling? And you do not get this version of Zelda either.

Get over it, the Zelda formula you want is stale. Its dead and it deserves to die. Its the same old stagnation, the same old predictability. And if you want to talk about the core pilliars of the series, BOTW goes back to the roots of the original, so don't act like BOTW abandoned the core roots you don't know about. Also Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword were games that had great launch reception, but over time, are looked at critically. There is a reason they do not hold up like Ocarina, Majora, and Wind Waker.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
#136 Edited by 2Chalupas (6924 posts) -

@Planeforger said:

I like RDR2, but it's certainly not better than BotW or The Witcher 3.

RDR2 hits this mid point where the world is pretty and mostly interactive, but the writing and gameplay and mostly really dull. The reactive story elements are a nice touch, but don't really add anything to the game other than a little bit of continuity.

Also, despite being a huge open world, most things in RDR2 feel quite forced and scripted. Like the 'random' event where the horse kicks its NPC owner to death - it was designed to impress journalists and people who play the game for the first few hours, but it's just a scripted event that feels really hollow in hindsight.

BotW felt much more dynamic, and The Witcher 3 had much more compelling scripted content, while RDR2 sits in the middle, excelling at nothing.

By definition everything in a game is "scripted", since it's all code - even games with randomly generated levels or random encounters are still done according to a certain set of coded instructions.

Is there an open world single player game that has more "random encounters" and different NPC's than RDR 2? You make it like the horse kicking is the only event. Yeah, I'm sure everyone probably sees that one and if you 100% the game I guess everyone probably sees all of the same "random" events, but there are dozens upon dozens of random encounter events and if you don't "spoil" them ahead of time they are interesting when they pop up around the world. Random just means they can happen at different places and times, not that the NPC's don't have a script to perform. Some of them are like little mini side quests when you encounter the same character a 2nd or 3rd time. Then there are dozens more actual side quest NPC lines. Red Dead and GTA are about building a game world, a sandbox to mess around in, and at that they pretty much nail it every time.

You could probably spend 500 hours in this game and not actually see and do everything fully, unless you cheat and start using guides (which I usually do after a certain point, but right now I'm still just having run messing around in the single player on Chapter 6 and doing the hunting/fishing on the side).

Avatar image for Renegade_Fury
#137 Edited by Renegade_Fury (20256 posts) -

@texasgoldrush: "Blah, Blah, Blah" that's all I got from reading your post this time. All that your argument boils down to is that it sold more, which to I say, "big whoop." It doesn't mean that it didn't abandon the core pillars of the series, and please don't start with the whole "Zelda 1 is the same way" nonsense, when first of all, no it's not, and secondly, any obtuse things about it are due to the game being an undeveloped concept from the 1980's that wasn't properly purified until the far superior, ALttP. The only definitively thing BotW has done better than its predecessors, flaws and all, is be the type of game that appeals to the masses, you know, kind of like Rock Star games such as Red Dead Redemption 2 do.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
#138 Posted by 2Chalupas (6924 posts) -

@jahnee said:

@texasgoldrush: All I read is still you trying to push your opinion on me as fact. BF2 doesn't even show stats like k/d or win/lose ratio's. It's a game meant to have chaotic fun in. The stock abilities you get in each class were already pretty powerful, the better player can still outclass the more specced player even if they paid 1000$ lootboxes from the start. The big fuss was about the hero's being locked behind too many credits, they couldn't unlock Darth Vader(whom wasn't even the strongest hero) quick enough. Sure the game needed a patch and didn't have perfect systems but man was it fun to me. BF2 is not very competitive or not even near an E-sport, but Star Wars fans are the worst bunch so ofcourse they created an unstoppable hate train. Mind you, the plan was a free DLC roadmap with a lot more maps initially planned, which had to be cancelled because of less sales. The free dlc that has come out is still great fun, but there could have been much more. Under those circumstances I can see why they wanted to sell lootboxes, sadly they didn't tweak it the right way and got punished by the worst crowd imagineable.

Battlefield V is generally fine, also has free DLC planned. Some bugs here and there, like any other game. It's far from broken as you tout it to be. But let me guess, you just played the beta and ride of the general consensus of online reviews.

By now I know there is little discussion left to be had regarding RDR2 with you. So I will leave it at that.

Despite all it's issues I loved Battlefront II, as well as the previous one which was damn good after all the DLC gets factored in (and it should be, since the DLC was eventually free). After RDR 2 I plan to reinstall it to check out the new updates (it's been months since i've played it). But the lootboxes were there from the start. It wasn't something they conceived after it flopped, actually they only removed lootboxes AFTER it became a PR issue that destroyed the perception of the game.

While the game is fun, the "fix" still left a terrible progression system last time I checked. Something that would take an impossible number of hours (for me) to unlock everything fully, and that was intentional to drive people to pay extra $$$ to make the progression go faster. I do agree a player isn't at a huge disadvantage if not quite fully leveled up on certain classes/vehicles, but there is still no reason for it to be that way. It's just an annoyance driven by greed. I don't know what a "fair" amount of time to unlock all abilities would be, probably something like 100-150 hours in my view for an average to good player. BFII seemed like it would take like 1000 hours, or something way out of whack compared to typical shooters. What made matters worse is that if you played the game early, you may have had some classes/heroes/vehicles already maxed out randomly, and others stuck at the bottom rung. Hopefully they have tweaked it a bit more since I last checked.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#140 Posted by texasgoldrush (12570 posts) -

@Yams1980 said:

i also think its probably overrated. I'm an outsider though, i didn't hate the first game but also didn't love it either.

But i also don't like games that take place in the past where its more clunky to get around, using a horse isn't fun for me, i'd rather drive or fly. Its weird to say that though because i do like Skyrim, but its easy to abuse the fast travel system in that game so its kinda not an issue.

Not a fan of witcher 3 either, it was a really clunky game to play. Its likely more overrated than RDR2, because RDR2 actually looks like the missions would be fun to play while witcher 3, most of them were almost all the same.

The missions in RDR2 are typical Rockstar fare, however, they are worse in execution than even GTA V. If you do not play how Rockstar wants you to, you "do it again".

The Witcher 3 wasn't about the missions themselves but about the storytelling, although the mission design was far better than most RPGs. And no, they weren't "the same".

Avatar image for jahnee
#141 Edited by jahnee (3863 posts) -

@2Chalupas: I understand that pay to win lootboxes are morally not correct but at the same time it was weighted against free DLC with tons of game modes and maps and that in a lesser skill based game. We instead got a much slower DLC roadmap with fewer maps and campaign missions. The game is in a very good place right now, it feels slightly more skill oriented since the introduction of squad based spawning and weapon balancing. It still has that nasty HDR menu bug going on though, and some annoying quirks with animations here and there.

Avatar image for 2Chalupas
#142 Edited by 2Chalupas (6924 posts) -

@texasgoldrush said:
@Yams1980 said:

i also think its probably overrated. I'm an outsider though, i didn't hate the first game but also didn't love it either.

But i also don't like games that take place in the past where its more clunky to get around, using a horse isn't fun for me, i'd rather drive or fly. Its weird to say that though because i do like Skyrim, but its easy to abuse the fast travel system in that game so its kinda not an issue.

Not a fan of witcher 3 either, it was a really clunky game to play. Its likely more overrated than RDR2, because RDR2 actually looks like the missions would be fun to play while witcher 3, most of them were almost all the same.

The missions in RDR2 are typical Rockstar fare, however, they are worse in execution than even GTA V. If you do not play how Rockstar wants you to, you "do it again".

The Witcher 3 wasn't about the missions themselves but about the storytelling, although the mission design was far better than most RPGs. And no, they weren't "the same".

RDR2 has very few missions that are stealth or insta-fail, so I'm really not sure what you mean.

I actually haven't gotten around to Witcher 3 yet, but yeah, I appreciated that Witcher 2 let you approach missions different ways (stealth or not), and then how you approached a quest line might change the cutscenes or even open up different storylines and NPC's to you. I assume this is what you are referring to. But the reality was I actually didn't give a crap about the story in Witcher 2 anyway. Also, if you are aggravated by being forced to do a single mission "the right way" in RDR or else you fail, don't you find it annoying that if you do a PREVIOUS quest the wrong way, then you might be permanently locked out of that story or NPC for the rest of the game? That's what happens in Witcher. Still, the seamless execution and permanence of some things in Witcher was pretty cool, and would have been a plus if Rockstar introduced something like that. Dynamic story seems like the next most obvious thing Rockstar could add, really. But the fact that they didnt' doesn't really change my opinion of the game. RDR 2 is already near perfect open world, a dynamic main storyline like that would have just taken it to another level. Esp considering I actually prefer the Story and characters in Red Dead by far.

Avatar image for Rockman999
#143 Posted by Rockman999 (7294 posts) -

@texasgoldrush: Yeah some mediocre third world eastern european game dev is going to eat Rockstar's(a first world god tier developer) lunch. LOL I'll be awaiting your inevitable butt hurt threads when it turns out RDR2 is still selling long after Cyberpunk flopped.

Avatar image for ocinom
#144 Posted by ocinom (956 posts) -

List of the most Overrated games according to salty people:

Zelda: *insert title here

Half Life

Metal Gear

Mario Games

GTA

Halo

Any Sony exclusive that gets a 9 or 10

an Indie 2D/2.5D game

You can add more to the list.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#145 Posted by texasgoldrush (12570 posts) -

@2Chalupas: No, because being locked out of content is the consequences to your actions. For example, if I piss people off in Fallout New Vegas, or kill the wrong people. I lose quests. In fact, you cannot do every quest in New Vegas because of conflicts. Thats good. If I screw up a quest, I should face the consequences. Thats what AC Odyssey started doing. You do not fail the quest for having a key character die, the outcome just changes. Its not about completionist playthroughs. Also RDR2 has a full share of instant fails, but not only that, railroading on how the mission plays.

@Renegade_Fury said:

@texasgoldrush: "Blah, Blah, Blah" that's all I got from reading your post this time. All that your argument boils down to is that it sold more, which to I say, "big whoop." It doesn't mean that it didn't abandon the core pillars of the series, and please don't start with the whole "Zelda 1 is the same way" nonsense, when first of all, no it's not, and secondly, any obtuse things about it are due to the game being an undeveloped concept from the 1980's that wasn't properly purified until the far superior, ALttP. The only definitively thing BotW has done better than its predecessors, flaws and all, is be the type of game that appeals to the masses, you know, kind of like Rock Star games such as Red Dead Redemption 2 do.

Ummm...yes Zelda 1 was. Facts are facts, Nintendo used the first game as inspiration for BOTW along with Western RPGs.

Second, A Link to the Past restricted freedom and made the series more linear, nevermind the dungeon designs became all about the item found in the dungeon. It became worse in 3d Zeldas. Really, outside of Majora's Mask, Snowpeak Ruins in Twilight Princess, and some Skyward Sword dungeons, Zelda dungeon design sucks. If you want dumbed down games for the masses, they would have just recycled the formula. BOTW encourages thinking and actually making your own solutions. What part of this do you not get?

Avatar image for MirkoS77
#146 Edited by MirkoS77 (13521 posts) -
@texasgoldrush said:

@MirkoS77: However, other games did atmosphere and immersion BETTER than RDR2. As for your bank robbery example. I have played Thief II and Dishonored Death of the Outsider, robbed a bank, did not kill anyone, and wasn't bored. why? because the game gave me choices in how I did it. Rockstar doesn't. Hell, they are behind 1998 immersive sim design, much less last gen.

I am projecting this game into others because game design EVOLVES. Rockstar simply put, hasn't. they make the same game as GTA III and its tiresome. So don;t blame us who criticize Rockstar who are frustrated that the same flawed outdated formula is critically praised time and time again.

You insist on conflating narrative consequence with immersion. They are not synonymous, and while both can compliment the other, they are fully capable of operating independently. No game comes even close to the degree of atmosphere and immersion that RDR2 accomplishes in its world building; it would be just as immersive if it didn't have a story to tell at all. I've lost myself in this world for dozens upon dozens of hours without even touching the story or missions. You complain that the mission structure is antiquated, which it is, but be honest with yourself: if you could pull off bank robberies or approach any mission how you desired, would you then say it's immersive? No, you'd still criticize it and claim it's stagnant because (as you've previously argued), your actions are ultimately inconsequential to the end-game and/or character arc, and are, in fact, oftentimes contradictory to it.

So I really have no idea why you're arguing against their mission design when you seem to take issue with the overall game structure. Was that not your point prior? That the world fails to shift in accommodation of player style into altering the characters and narrative? That is not the type of game R*'s crafted and that's not inherently flawed. Telling a focused, unalterable, finely crafted story in an open world is a very deliberate choice, and while I agree with you about evolving the mission design that exists within that strict framework to afford more agency to the player in the micro, to claim the game is poor because it's impossible to affect more significant consequence through those missions and outside of them in the macro is criticizing it unfairly for something it's simply not attempting to be.

Avatar image for Grey_Eyed_Elf
#147 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (5970 posts) -

@texasgoldrush said:
@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:
@texasgoldrush said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: Here is the thing.

TW3 never had immersive sim elements. The world is only there really to back up the story.

Therefore, the conflict of immersion and storytelling doesn't really exist in TW3, unlike RDR2.

Shows you don't get it. You know nothing of good game design.

No I understand it fully.

You just don't understand that role playing in games doesn't end with the scripted scenes and just the story.

I'm just confused by your level of complete bias and double standards, you cherry pick on one thing that a game is not even chasing and use a game like the WItcher 3 which also isn't perfect either to defend your stance?... Let me guess stealing in a open world game and not being noticed by NPC's is not a deal breaker for you?... A person chasing immersion, that doesn't affect you one bit?... GTFO.

Cherry picking and under dog mentality that's all I see here, I hate this AAA game because its successful and people like it... Its getting old now, and its even worse when you hold it to a standard that doesn't exist.

Name one open world RPG that is perfect?... Also Red Dead is not a RPG.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#148 Posted by texasgoldrush (12570 posts) -

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: You still do not get it.

Witcher 3 is not the style of an immersive sim, its a Bioware style RPG where story matters more than systemic gameplay. It doesn't try so there is no conflict. Once again, like a Bioware game, the world is only there to stage a story. RDR2 on the other hand tries to have an immersive world and sandbox, open ended gameplay, which leads to the clash of these elements with its linear mission driven story.

There is no cherry picking, TW3 succeeds in what it tries to be, while RDR2 conflicts with itself because it involves two opposing gaming philosophies at odds with eachother and doesn't even try properly to bring them together.

All games are flawed, but not all games are flawed conceptually to where the game isn't the sum of its parts. RDR2 is the latter. There is no cherry picking here, you just don't get it.

Avatar image for dimebag667
#149 Posted by dimebag667 (1105 posts) -

Yup

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#150 Posted by texasgoldrush (12570 posts) -

@MirkoS77: Yes, the entire gameplay structure of RDR2 and Rockstar games are flawed. Its flawed antiquated mission design is at odds to its open world gameplay, which carries no real consequence. The entire concept of a linear finely tuned and crafted story does not gel with open world systemic game design. Its shoving a square peg in a round hole. Rockstar hasn't figured it out. Its what Ubisoft finally figured out all these years with AC Odyssey. Open world systemic games gel much better with alterable storytelling.

Really Cyberpunk 2077 is going to educate Rockstar in open world storytelling.