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

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

@Rockman999 said:

@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.

Last time I checked this "third world eatsren european game dev" made one of the most acclaimed games by gamers of all time, more so than any of that "first world god tier developer's" games.

Cyberpunk won't flop, mark my words. Its going to give Rockstar in education on how they are stuck in the past.

Avatar image for Vaasman
#152 Edited by Vaasman (13302 posts) -
@texasgoldrush said:

Its going to give Rockstar in education on how they are stuck in the past.

I'm sure Rockstar is deeply concerned with what education texasgoldrush of gamespot forum infamy has to offer.

Avatar image for elkoldo
#153 Posted by elkoldo (1817 posts) -

@texasgoldrush said:
@Rockman999 said:

@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.

Last time I checked this "third world eatsren european game dev" made one of the most acclaimed games by gamers of all time, more so than any of that "first world god tier developer's" games.

Cyberpunk won't flop, mark my words. Its going to give Rockstar in education on how they are stuck in the past.

Brother ignore him. Either he knows and he's trolling, in which case he can go eff himself; or he doesn't know shit and he's babbling in which case he can absolutely eff himself.

Avatar image for TheEroica
#154 Posted by TheEroica (17866 posts) -

I've been waiting for this thread from @texasgoldrush:

I really enjoy rdr2. It's one of the best open worlds I've played where I actually don't know what the next side mission or large mission could consist of... Very similar to the Witcher. Better in many cases.

It has a slow open, which I can't stand when games do that...

It has so many systems I don't think I would ever even attempt to 100 percent the game, because it's very overwhelming to keep track of so much.

But that's it for me... My only gripes. I think the "rockstar controls suck" thing is lame... The game controls exactly the way RDR1 controlled, and it wasn't intrusive or tank like. The game controls perfectly fine...

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

@texasgoldrush:

"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."

That literally contradicts the fact that it's a videogame. Videogames are about playing, not personality. You're basically complaining about basic videogame mechanics breaking the story despite the fact that its existence has nothing to do with the story. I think you forget that these kinds of sandbox games are about BEING ABLE TO DO AS MANY THINGS AS YOU CAN IMAGINE. A sandbox that doesn't do that is a failure.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#156 Posted by PC_Rocks (1434 posts) -

Well once studios or creators become a brand like Rockstar, they automatically gets perfect scores from the gaming media unless you really screw the pooch like Fallout 76. Some notable brands are Rockstar, Kojima, ND, CDPR, Nintendo, Bethesda etc. Bungie and Bioware used to be that as well.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#157 Posted by PC_Rocks (1434 posts) -

Wait, RDR2 still uses auto-aim? I thought they left it after the PS2 gen.

Avatar image for DocSanchez
#158 Posted by DocSanchez (4919 posts) -

I knew this would come. The best game of this gen gets people jelly so they try to pull it down. Not going to happen folks.

Avatar image for Rockman999
#159 Edited by Rockman999 (7294 posts) -

@elkoldo:I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? Don't worry, it'll definitely happen again. :)

@texasgoldrush said:
@Rockman999 said:

@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.

Last time I checked this "third world eatsren european game dev" made one of the most acclaimed games by gamers of all time, more so than any of that "first world god tier developer's" games.

Cyberpunk won't flop, mark my words. Its going to give Rockstar in education on how they are stuck in the past.

lmao CDPR had one hit after two flops and all of a sudden they're better than Rockstar and their 2 decades of hit after hit?

Last I checked, GTA 5 is just shy of 100 million copies sold after 5 years while the Witcher 3 has what, 15 mill at best? lmfao. The majority of those 15 million coming from the PS4 but that's for another topic.

I've had TW3 sitting untouched in my PS4 hard drive for nearly two years because it's so boring.

The gamers have spoken, the sales figures and review scores are unanimous;Rockstar is the better developer by far.

As I mentioned earlier, I look forward to your incessant threads damage controlling the flop sales and the inevitable janky buggy mess that CDPR are notorious for.

Avatar image for nepu7supastar7
#160 Posted by nepu7supastar7 (4703 posts) -

@pc_rocks:

Didn't the older GTA games have free aim?

Avatar image for Randoggy
#161 Posted by Randoggy (3372 posts) -

The game has absolutely terrible controls.

Avatar image for with_teeth26
#162 Posted by with_teeth26 (9108 posts) -
@Rockman999 said:

@elkoldo:I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? Don't worry, it'll definitely happen again. :)

@texasgoldrush said:
@Rockman999 said:

@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.

Last time I checked this "third world eatsren european game dev" made one of the most acclaimed games by gamers of all time, more so than any of that "first world god tier developer's" games.

Cyberpunk won't flop, mark my words. Its going to give Rockstar in education on how they are stuck in the past.

lmao CDPR had one hit after two flops and all of a sudden they're better than Rockstar and their 2 decades of hit after hit?

Last I checked, GTA 5 is just shy of 100 million copies sold after 5 years while the Witcher 3 has what, 15 mill best? lmfao. The majority of those 15 million coming from the PS4 but that's for another topic.

I've had TW3 sitting untouched in my PS4 hard drive for nearly two years because it's so boring.

The gamers have spoken, the sales figures and review scores are unanimous; Rockstar is the better developer by far.

As I mentioned earlier, I look forward to your incessant threads damage controlling the flop sales and the inevitable janky buggy mess that CDPR are notorious for.

how are Witcher 1 and 2 flops? Given the Witcher trilogy is CDProjekts first ever game series, they started strong with Witcher 1, and the amount of improvement between each of their games is insane.

i'm not saying they are better than R* (well, from a 'consumer friendly' perspective they are). I reckon they are both working to push open world games forward, and are at the forefront of the industry. high sales and high quality aren't the same thing.

I have a hard time understanding how someone could love RDR2 but not like The Witcher 3 (or visa versa). They scratch a pretty similar itch for me.

Avatar image for Rockman999
#163 Edited by Rockman999 (7294 posts) -

@with_teeth26: Oh you bugging fam.

I admit I was being hyperbolic by calling TW2 a flop, but TW1 was pure trash and that was when I could get the buggy mess to actually run for more than 30 mins.

As for TW3, many open world games have already scratched that itch for me. Maybe if I had gotten to it earlier then I would have been able to enjoy it.

I'm still getting Cyberpunk, cause unlike Texasgoldrush, I can actually afford to buy games but I'm keeping my expectations tepid.

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

@MirkoS77: The entire concept of a linear finely tuned and crafted story does not gel with open world systemic game design.

Utter rubbish.

The open world is there to lend immersion and greater context to a linear construct, not to be utilized as a means to alter it. Don't believe and be arrogant enough to think that just because you prefer an open world to be there to tailor itself to your approach in consequence that that automatically is an objectively superior formula within the genre. It's nothing but a differing philosophy. If you're frustrated by the restrictions and inconsistency imposed by that philosophy, there are plenty of other games on the market to satiate your needs.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#165 Posted by joebones5000 (1889 posts) -

Game got old, fast. All I did was ride around on my horse between boring missions. Looks good, but not worth $60. Overrated.

Avatar image for Vatusus
#166 Posted by Vatusus (8941 posts) -

Predictable thread

Every well received thing will be branded "the most overrated thing" by some edgy fella. People have become predictable as all fvck

Avatar image for Macutchi
#167 Edited by Macutchi (6390 posts) -

the missions can, very occasionally, feel too tightly scripted and restrictive but then you've got this giant, astonishingly detailed open world to wander and explore to compensate.

and the lethargic controls, i assume, are meant to make it feel like you're controlling a real person to add to the realism. it can make precision controlling tricky for things like item interactions and combat, but then you've got dead eye to compensate (plus extensive control customisation options too).

these and other niggles aside, the game does too many things incredibly well to deny it its place up there alongside other great games

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

@Rockman999 said:

@with_teeth26: Oh you bugging fam.

I admit I was being hyperbolic by calling TW2 a flop, but TW1 was pure trash and that was when I could get the buggy mess to actually run for more than 30 mins.

As for TW3, many open world games have already scratched that itch for me. Maybe if I had gotten to it earlier then I would have been able to enjoy it.

I'm still getting Cyberpunk, cause unlike Texasgoldrush, I can actually afford to buy games but I'm keeping my expectations tepid.

TW1 is a cult classic and a very influential RPG that would go on to kill good-bad morality systems. So no, it wasn't trash.

Second, in regards to your other posts, The Witcher 3 has a higher gamer acclaim than RDR2. Its about more than just critics. Gamers have given RDR2 more mixed reviews. Cyberpunk 2077 is also as hyped just as much, if not more, than Rockstar titles.

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

@MirkoS77 said:
@texasgoldrush said:

@MirkoS77: The entire concept of a linear finely tuned and crafted story does not gel with open world systemic game design.

Utter rubbish.

The open world is there to lend immersion and greater context to a linear construct, not to be utilized as a means to alter it. Don't believe and be arrogant enough to think that just because you prefer an open world to be there to tailor itself to your approach in consequence that that automatically is an objectively superior formula within the genre. It's nothing but a differing philosophy. If you're frustrated by the restriction, there are plenty of other games on the market to satiate your needs.

If you aren't allowing the player to make his own approach in an open world, you are not utilizing it to its full potential.

GTA style games are last two gens of game design, the medium evolved. Rockstar restricts when it shouldn't and doesn't restrict when it should. The game design has been exposed as inherently flawed. Sandbox open world design suited for open characters but they have clear cut characters with personalities which clash with the open world game design, while restricting in mission their sandbox elements while still keeping ludonarrative dissonance in many cases. Its truly baffling and truly flawed game design.

Rockstar's flawed game design in a nutshell.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for schu
#170 Posted by schu (9914 posts) -

https://twitter.com/Hellchick/status/1069113203609587716

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#171 Posted by PC_Rocks (1434 posts) -

@nepu7supastar7 said:

@pc_rocks:

Didn't the older GTA games have free aim?

I don't know. I thought GTA games on PS2 had auto-aim but they switched to free-aim during PS3 gen. THough on PC they always have free-aim if I remember correctly.

Avatar image for Epak_
#172 Posted by Epak_ (10465 posts) -

Just finished it, good, not as good as TW3. Kinda grew tired of it all at the end.

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

@texasgoldrush: You are riding the Rockstar hate train it seems, RDR2 gives you enough choice in the open world as the other guy pointed out. Literally around every corner there is an interaction and little story to be involved in; it's conversation gameplay mechanic revolves entirely around being hated or loved by the public. There are 5000000 voice lines in this game and are crafted so that a lot of your choices make the AI seem very believeable and dynamic. There are more open and seamlessly streamed buildings in one town than there were in GTA V, more side missions and event based moments in the open world than any game I can think of. If you don't like the main story and don't love the characters, you can fall in love with the intricate world brimming of audio visual detail. There is just so much to do, see and explore that at times all these scripted events can feel dynamic in nature since you do get to choose who dies, how you interact with the event by greeting/antagonizing or if you don't want to interact by simply letting the situation unfold. And it is all so seamlessly done, in such a refined presentation. This game's open world looks better than most linear levels in other games do. And I personally love the controls, the simulation aspect of maintenance and how this all ties to your character.

At this point you have to be able to see the objective picture; that you are simply not immersed by the world and can't stand it's controls, which is a subjective matter and not one you claim to be of a last generation. Each mission to me felt unique with different mechanics being introduced the more I played. It's how you eventually use all these mechanics in conjunction with each other and be creative with them in the later missions. And if by the later missions you don't feel you can connect with the writing or initiative of the mission then the game is not for you, but many people would disagree with you. To me, this game sets a new level of dedication I have seen so rarely if at all, in a DLC based generation. Only Cyberpunk 2077 has a chance for me to be able to top the experience I had with RDR2. But as MirkoS77 pointed out, they will have two very different philosophies and methodological approaches to how you interact with the game. But I'll rate them based on the total immersion and attachment I experienced. In the interest of time...

Avatar image for SecretPolice
#174 Posted by SecretPolice (34166 posts) -

Freakin hipsters these dayzzzz.

Nuttin better to do, I suppose.. lol :P

Avatar image for valgaav_219
#175 Posted by Valgaav_219 (1976 posts) -

@kingsfan_0333 said:

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

Avatar image for cainetao11
#176 Posted by cainetao11 (35689 posts) -

@boycie: “Both BotW and TW3 have also been referred as the 'THE MOOST OVEEERATED GAME OF ALL TIMES EVER!' on numerous occasions.

Who is right though that's the most important question. Who's opinion is the gold standard of games rating”

/thread

Avatar image for cainetao11
#177 Posted by cainetao11 (35689 posts) -

Another: I DONT LIKE THE POPULAR GAME OF THE MOMENT AND IM RIGHT!!!!- thread.

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

@jahnee: However world logic is part of immersion and unlike another systemic game in BOTW, RDR2 breaks far too often, nevermind once again, its systemic world is at odds with its storytelling. The problem is that the open world and the linear storytelling are at CONFLICT WITH EACHOTHER. and the problem with Rockstar is that they do not do a very good job fixing the problems with their game design.

I am not the only one pointing this out as well. Look at Game Makers Toolkit's review.

The Witcher 3 and BOTW are better games and here is why.

TW3 doesn't bother with systemic gameplay and this is the correct choice as Geralt is a set character. This means they are able to focus on storytelling and just use the world for setting the story and for exploration.

BOTW foregos its linear storytelling entirely, have Link be a blank slate, and relies on systemic gameplay and player choice. The story rarely interferes, there is very little scripting, play your way. Link cannot really act out of character being a blank slate although townspeople are unkillable.

RDR2 and Rockstar in general tries to bring two opposing philosophies together and they clash with eachother. Arthur is allowed to act out of character, and the story does not take into account your choices overall outside minor superficial aspects. RDR2 wastes its world interaction with its main story. read #1 in the link to my OP. Thats Rockstars biggest problem.

I have not even criticized much the main story itself as well, but its not greatness either. Better than the first games's story though.

And do not give me the "game isn't for you" nonsense. I am not bashing it because it wasn't for me. I am bashing it because its flawed and the formula is outdated.

@cainetao11 said:

@boycie: “Both BotW and TW3 have also been referred as the 'THE MOOST OVEEERATED GAME OF ALL TIMES EVER!' on numerous occasions.

Who is right though that's the most important question. Who's opinion is the gold standard of games rating”

/thread

However, TW3 has overall much better gamer acclaim than RDR2. Yes both games are being called overrated, but TW3 is overall more liked than RDR2.

Avatar image for Jag85
#179 Posted by Jag85 (12408 posts) -

For once, I can agree with Texasgoldrush on something.

BOTW, TW3 and GOW are all better games than RDR2.

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

@texasgoldrush: I read the link and it's ironic how the article starts off with:

"At this stage, you know EXACTLY what Red Dead Redemption 2 is, though judging by tips and tricks videos outnumber story discussions a good ten to one across the board, it seems millions of us are focusing on the world over the narrative."

The writer is clearly aware of the entire demographic of RDR2 by basing it of a statement which is irrelevant to the total amount playing the game. The active online community is only a handful of the total playerbase yet here the writer claims his views are as facts, because WE KNOW. Right...

I went through all his points and I disagreed with many concepts he mentioned. In point #1 I think he misinterprets, just like you, what the basic restrictions are of giving the player this much freedom and how the story Rockstar directed ties to the open world.

The writer says in #1:

"You CAN indulge in the nefarious nature of an outlaw, robbing trains and gutting half the local populace (they even recorded many hilarious lines of dialogue from NPCs or Arthur himself to accentuate how much fun it can be), but that will clash with Arthur's portrayal in cutscenes and the majority of conversations around camp"

This is a conflict by itself, since the wild west knows little allies and many foes and Arthur is constantly struggling doing good even in the cutscenes. Read this article:

https://www.google.nl/amp/amp.abc.net.au/article/10511534

Then tell me how exterior violence does not fit in the narrative, especially under the premise that Rockstar wanted to tell us their story with their characters. Remember when in Rhodes we couldn't even draw a weapon? Thats just an example of that Dutch is a make believe character in the entire story, and Arthur is in conflict with those views struggling to find his redemption. In fact, most characters at all times have a conflict towards their view on the world or their function in it. Hence the name, Red Dead Redemption. Despite your interpretation of the story there are many technologies and dynamics at play which make it hard to deny that makes this a current gen(or more) game at heart. Simulation aspects found in games of much lesser graphical fidelity, AI which lives and breathes and many environmental systems beyond even linear designed campaigns. Didn't like it? Yes I will give you the very reason that makes you an outlier in the sea of opinions, where your statement should be "I find this game overrated" instead of "It is overrated".

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

@jahnee: We are focusing world over narrative because narrative is the games weakness and the missions are the weakness. The do you own thing is proven to be more popular than the storytelling. I wonder why GTA Online part of GTA V and not the single player is the reason why GTA V sold so much. Nothing you said in your posts address Rockstars weaknesses in their game design.

The story doesn't tie well it the open world. Arthur would never beat suffergates for no reason. He would not kill without a reason. Rockstar allows players the choice to do actions the character would not do and that simply put is the story and the gameplay at conflict with eachother. RDR2 has the VERY same flaws as the first game presenting a character trying to seek redemption and then allowing him to commit illogical and irrational violence. Allowing a character to do actions outside his personality is a major flaw in game storytelling and immersion. Maybe Rockstar should take cues from a game they published, La Noire, which allowed the player to free roam the city but prevents Phelps from running over people or pulling out his gun. He can still drive recklessly out of character, but it fits better than what we see in RDR2.

And you couldn;t draw a weapon in Rhodes, so what? The problem still exists. Adam Jansen can't draw his weapon where he works in his Deus Ex games, but he can out of character kill innocent civilians in a murderous fashion. That is ludonarrative dissonance.

Avatar image for deeph
#182 Posted by DeepH (734 posts) -

Rockstar like Nintendo gets a bonus from the media.

Bethesda seems to have lost their cloud, lets hope Rockstar is next.

Avatar image for BigBadBully
#183 Posted by BigBadBully (2018 posts) -

Game is fantastic, really feel like the map is alive with how npcs go on about their routines. Ive just been taking my time doin all the stranger missions in between all the story missions, then going on some hunts for legendary animals and fishing. The random encounters that happen on the map, never know when im going to get double crossed or something comical as sucking snake poison out. Playing more noticed events that dont show up on the map, just free roamin around i noticed something that looked amiss, creepiest moment ever when investigating it, now know the sign to be ready for the next encounter hopefully.

Avatar image for xhawk27
#184 Posted by xhawk27 (10884 posts) -

Should I list the Sony games that are overrated too?

Horizon Zero Dawn

Uncharted 4

Spiderman

GOW

Avatar image for cainetao11
#185 Edited by cainetao11 (35689 posts) -

@texasgoldrush: post absolute numbers to every gamer on earth stating their opinion to prove that majority say this please. You’re full of shit.

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

@texasgoldrush said:

@jahnee: We are focusing world over narrative because narrative is the games weakness and the missions are the weakness. The do you own thing is proven to be more popular than the storytelling. I wonder why GTA Online part of GTA V and not the single player is the reason why GTA V sold so much. Nothing you said in your posts address Rockstars weaknesses in their game design.

The story doesn't tie well it the open world. Arthur would never beat suffergates for no reason. He would not kill without a reason. Rockstar allows players the choice to do actions the character would not do and that simply put is the story and the gameplay at conflict with eachother. RDR2 has the VERY same flaws as the first game presenting a character trying to seek redemption and then allowing him to commit illogical and irrational violence. Allowing a character to do actions outside his personality is a major flaw in game storytelling and immersion. Maybe Rockstar should take cues from a game they published, La Noire, which allowed the player to free roam the city but prevents Phelps from running over people or pulling out his gun. He can still drive recklessly out of character, but it fits better than what we see in RDR2.

And you couldn;t draw a weapon in Rhodes, so what? The problem still exists. Adam Jansen can't draw his weapon where he works in his Deus Ex games, but he can out of character kill innocent civilians in a murderous fashion. That is ludonarrative dissonance.

You think Dutch and his crew aren't coldblooded trigger-happy killers? You think the Wild West is comparable to LA Noire? You think comparing the design philosophy of RDR2 with GTA 5 even makes sense? Man I don't know, I have said what I could to give you some insight of the light on the other side of the spectrum. When you murder around cities, you will be wanted, your bounty level increases and so bounty hunters will storm you no matter where you are. People will despise you, antagonise you well knowing you are a wanted outlaw. Paying off the fine will prevent you from collecting most gear, especially if you constantly kill around. Sure you could come back to the bar 10 minutes after you have murdered the entire place and NPC's would still greet you, but keeping that up long enough will get your gameplay in trouble. It is not a simulation in the purest sense, but one that strikes a fine balance between fun and realism. It is a video game after all, let's not forget that.

I find you compare the world and story in such a black and white fashion it is hard to argue with you. There are many consequences the game gives you when you just do whatever you want and murder everyone around. But Story wise the only people Arthur cares for are the ones in his crew, for his survival and for Dutch. How he struggles with the people around him is the entire point of his character progression. There is no single time Arthur promotes himself as the hero of justice, in fact he demotes himself all the time warning strangers around him (and at times even his own crew) he isn't the nice guy everyone thinks he is. In that light, killing around innocent people could make sense for Arthur's backstory. At the same time the opposite could be true as Arthur is a grown man and we don't know his entire backstory. This is where the world and gameplay come in, and yes while there are not as many endings as Mass Effect the game again strikes a fine balance between linear writing and open ended interaction with the world around Arthur. If you feel the game doesn't do this realistic enough or you don't like the 'on the rails' narrative then wait for Cyberpunk 2077. That game will probably redefine choice and how it will affect your character throughout. In the end I will probably like both games for what they are and offer, seeing them from a different context without the need to infiltrate someone's design philosophy.

Sure, It is still a Rockstar game in a certain essence of mission structure and narrative unfolding, but they have outdone them self in my opinion. GTA 5's story or missions doesn't hold a candle to this one, I am sure many would agree. In fact I think GTA 5 is the weakest link in Rockstar's iteration of the series. I probably gave you 'this excuse' or 'that excuse' in your eyes, but I would be willing to bet your opinion is a further outlier than mine if we would look at statistical data of all the player base. I wouldn't perform such scientific research though, I play what I like and just skip what I dislike. But hating is degenerating, especially when out of bounds concerning the mass opinion of others while speaking about a medium of entertainment which has many subjective point of views. Peace.

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

@jahnee: You are not getting it.

Yes there are GAMEPLAY consequences to going on an rampage (well just like GTA), but it has no impact on the story. This is how it fails against other open world games. The bar does repopulate, you can game yourself out of serious consequences, nothing really matters. Contrast this with New Vegas and the dead stay dead and you lose story and options. Next, the morality system is straight out of last gen. Gaming has evolved morality systems past this. Just another aspect of Rockstar being stuck in the past.

Nothing in Arthur's character suggests he will get illogically stupid and go on a rampage. Its not about being a hero, he isn't, but he isn't stupid either, neither crazy. Once again, I made the argument also that none of the GTA protagonists GTA III and after would go on a rampage themselves, outside of Trevor.

No, GTA V is the best (but no where near ideal). Its much better than GTA IV in both story and design and its also better in mission variety than both RDR games. GTA V doesn't take itself seriously and sticks to satire and comedy. Every other Rockstar game had tonal clashes (especially GTA IV and RDR1), but GTA V takes and keeps its tone.

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

@texasgoldrush said:

@jahnee: You are not getting it.

Yes there are GAMEPLAY consequences to going on an rampage (well just like GTA), but it has no impact on the story. This is how it fails against other open world games. The bar does repopulate, you can game yourself out of serious consequences, nothing really matters. Contrast this with New Vegas and the dead stay dead and you lose story and options. Next, the morality system is straight out of last gen. Gaming has evolved morality systems past this. Just another aspect of Rockstar being stuck in the past.

Nothing in Arthur's character suggests he will get illogically stupid and go on a rampage. Its not about being a hero, he isn't, but he isn't stupid either, neither crazy. Once again, I made the argument also that none of the GTA protagonists GTA III and after would go on a rampage themselves, outside of Trevor.

No, GTA V is the best (but no where near ideal). Its much better than GTA IV in both story and design and its also better in mission variety than both RDR games. GTA V doesn't take itself seriously and sticks to satire and comedy. Every other Rockstar game had tonal clashes (especially GTA IV and RDR1), but GTA V takes and keeps its tone.

https://youtu.be/Sk2QsAJlT2I

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#190 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (24712 posts) -
@TheEroica said:

I've been waiting for this thread from @texasgoldrush:

I really enjoy rdr2. It's one of the best open worlds I've played where I actually don't know what the next side mission or large mission could consist of... Very similar to the Witcher. Better in many cases.

It has a slow open, which I can't stand when games do that...

It has so many systems I don't think I would ever even attempt to 100 percent the game, because it's very overwhelming to keep track of so much.

But that's it for me... My only gripes. I think the "rockstar controls suck" thing is lame... The game controls exactly the way RDR1 controlled, and it wasn't intrusive or tank like. The game controls perfectly fine...

For me, the controls would suck because you are forced to use a controller with intense auto aim powers. At least, that's how I felt with RDR1. I'm not even bothering picking up a console + RDR2 because that killed RDR1 for me. The fact that you barely played the game when it came to shooting, because every single gun fight turned into this combo: L2 -> aim up a tiny bit -> R2

Either I get the RDR 2 PC version when that comes out, and if it doesn't happen to come out(fat chance with how GTA V sold on PC), then I just won't even bother.

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

@DragonfireXZ95: you can disable auto aim

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#192 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (24712 posts) -
@jahnee said:

@DragonfireXZ95: you can disable auto aim

Yeah, I did that in RDR1, and guess what happened? It was nearly impossible to hit anything, especially on horse back. The frametimes were so atrocious, and it constantly dipped into the low 20s on the PS3, so it was completely unfeasible to actually play without auto aim. I'm not going through that again. Lol

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

@DragonfireXZ95: With the Xbox one X controller alongside 4k 55", free aim feels very fun. There is some aim assist left remaining like most console games do, which makes free aim very do-able and the best mode for the game to be played in.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#194 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (24712 posts) -
@jahnee said:

@DragonfireXZ95: With the Xbox one X controller alongside 4k 55", free aim feels very fun. There is some aim assist left remaining like most console games do, which makes free aim very do-able and the best mode for the game to be played in.

Free aim never feels "very fun" on a controller. Gotta disagree with that.

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

@texasgoldrush said:

@jahnee: You are not getting it.

Yes there are GAMEPLAY consequences to going on an rampage (well just like GTA), but it has no impact on the story. This is how it fails against other open world games. The bar does repopulate, you can game yourself out of serious consequences, nothing really matters. Contrast this with New Vegas and the dead stay dead and you lose story and options. Next, the morality system is straight out of last gen. Gaming has evolved morality systems past this. Just another aspect of Rockstar being stuck in the past.

Nothing in Arthur's character suggests he will get illogically stupid and go on a rampage. Its not about being a hero, he isn't, but he isn't stupid either, neither crazy. Once again, I made the argument also that none of the GTA protagonists GTA III and after would go on a rampage themselves, outside of Trevor.

No, GTA V is the best (but no where near ideal). Its much better than GTA IV in both story and design and its also better in mission variety than both RDR games. GTA V doesn't take itself seriously and sticks to satire and comedy. Every other Rockstar game had tonal clashes (especially GTA IV and RDR1), but GTA V takes and keeps its tone.

Sure, the NPC's staying dead is a valid point. In Oblivion a corpse would remain in the same spot if you come back 40 hours later. And that game was from 2005. But there are plenty of side quests and missions in RDR2 while being on the road where you do get to kill someone and they won't reappear in the story down the line showing up and thanking you for saving them for example. Besides that, there are other dynamic aspects the world of RDR2 does offer unlike the games you mentioned, like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrUJJgppMn4

or this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2AoQyynYFM

or this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9icg1aOo8I

Yes, those were only immersion based graphical elements. But I don't see you praising any of this, only because the game gives you restrictions where it shouldn't and doesn't restrict when it should according to you. But back to the main point...

Rockstar wants you to experience both their vision and story while still being able to go off the grid from the main story and do whatever you want outside the mission zone. Again like I said in my previous post, if you don't like the on the rails feeling and their writing that Rockstar games generally provide then stop playing the game or their games all together. Their gameplay is iterative and evolutionary like pretty much all other developers, not re-inventive or revolutionary. I am sure Cyberpunk 2077 will have many similarities to The Witcher 3, yet do things differently in progressive ways previous instalments didn't. Developers still have their in house methods to approach game design. In my eyes RDR2 is an excellent evolutionary progression to what Rockstar has established before.

In the end I still believe what you want is impossible unless it's a simulation because you said: "If you aren't allowing the player to make his own approach in an open world, you are not utilizing it to its full potential". Under certain game design philosophies that statement is impossible to achieve because of prior reasons mentioned, meaning some games will simply not be for you. I think even Cyberpunk 2077 (which again, sigh, I recommended in my last post to you since I very well understand what you want) won't have the amount of options you desire if true simulation quality is what you're after. You won't be able to kill off Jackie either at any time. The trigger button will be disabled when aiming at him or many main character in the story for that matter. By your logic, Cyberpunk's freedom of choice would be a failure since you can't kill of friendly characters at will.

Avatar image for Icarian
#196 Edited by Icarian (1822 posts) -

@texasgoldrush said:
@phbz said:

I disagree

So me having Arthur going on a murderous rampage in town and this having minimal effect on the story isn't the problem? So I can play a set character out of character and thats not a problem?

Cyberpunk is going to eat them for lunch.

To be honest: there are missions where you also do that, like the one where you kill everyone in Strawberry. And nobody seems to care the next morning. First RDR had similar issues, like the whole second act in Mexico.

And I also agree the game has too many issues to varant a score like that. Too many things feel like a chore in the game. Like hunting or looting corpses. I'm playing AC:Odyssey at the same time and that just feels much better GAME. Like one click and you loot everyone near you, or you can summon your horse anywhere.

And don't even start with the physics engine. Too many times I just bump into someone in town and I'm either forced to fight or flee the law.

Avatar image for wiiboxstation
#197 Posted by Wiiboxstation (1364 posts) -

This game is incredible. I am very happy with my purchase, the game is a masterpiece. The Rockstar development team has done it again.

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

@DragonfireXZ95 said:
@jahnee said:

@DragonfireXZ95: you can disable auto aim

Yeah, I did that in RDR1, and guess what happened? It was nearly impossible to hit anything, especially on horse back. The frametimes were so atrocious, and it constantly dipped into the low 20s on the PS3, so it was completely unfeasible to actually play without auto aim. I'm not going through that again. Lol

In RDR1 the aim assist was non existent, but with rdr2 you get an fps like style of aim assist even though the auto-aim is turned off, securing more skill whilst keeping it reasonable for a controller style of play. I myself could finish the game no problem with aim assist off. Does that mean you are not up to the challenge?

Avatar image for robert_sparkes
#199 Posted by robert_sparkes (1755 posts) -

I gave up trying to fight the auto aim and just let it flow and enjoyed it more because of it. Online sucks though.

Avatar image for Rockman999
#200 Posted by Rockman999 (7294 posts) -
@texasgoldrush said:
@Rockman999 said:

@with_teeth26: Oh you bugging fam.

I admit I was being hyperbolic by calling TW2 a flop, but TW1 was pure trash and that was when I could get the buggy mess to actually run for more than 30 mins.

As for TW3, many open world games have already scratched that itch for me. Maybe if I had gotten to it earlier then I would have been able to enjoy it.

I'm still getting Cyberpunk, cause unlike Texasgoldrush, I can actually afford to buy games but I'm keeping my expectations tepid.

TW1 is a cult classic and a very influential RPG that would go on to kill good-bad morality systems. So no, it wasn't trash.

Second, in regards to your other posts, The Witcher 3 has a higher gamer acclaim than RDR2. Its about more than just critics. Gamers have given RDR2 more mixed reviews. Cyberpunk 2077 is also as hyped just as much, if not more, than Rockstar titles.

Guy, you keep trying it but it aint going to work. I'm not wearing a MAGA hat, you can't feed me bull shit and expect me to go along with it.

TW1 released in 2007 with more bugs and crashes than a bethesda PS3 port then sulked off into the unknown for years. Only being mentioned in passing during arguments between hipsters. It didn't influence anything beyond giving the sequel a clear blueprint of what not to be. The grand consensus on TW1 was that it's an unstable mess and should only really be played if you really want an extra understanding of the lore and context of TW2.

As for that second stream of dribble; The Gamers have spoken critically and with their wallets. Not the handful of nerds that derail unrelated threads on forums circle-jerking the game, The Gamers. Their affirmations are clear. Rockstar is a Titan and easily two or three magnitudes above CDPR. The fact that other big devs and publishers have to plan their releases away from Rockstar's date proves this. Meanwhile when CDPR releases something, no one even flinches.

You just need to get over it, because this level of salt over another game is unnecessary and won't change anything.