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

Avatar image for tryit
#201 Posted by TryIt (12970 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.

no, because its very likely that is the only action the player can take other than sitting on rails and waiting for cut scenes.

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

@Rockman999: While I do agree Rockstar is a Titan, CDPR appreciates R*'s latest work and wants to at least match such refinement in the process of making Cyberpunk 2077. Judging their will based of CDPR's last game The Witcher 3, that claim has some validity. Plus, such positive rivalry is to be respected, as industry health is promoted and the consumer wins on the end side with more quality products.

Avatar image for with_teeth26
#203 Posted by with_teeth26 (9111 posts) -
@Rockman999 said:
@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.

yea its not like they fixed those problems and released this or anything...

its a cult classic, whether you like it or not.

Avatar image for jackamomo
#204 Edited by Jackamomo (1286 posts) -

@elkoldo:or I'm about the only one around who gives a shit about the rules.

I just made a thread on this exact topic before reading this thread and realised everyone was already talking about this exact thing. Which is gameplay / animation... Which is best?

@qx0d 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.

Content is another word for filler.

@Damedius 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.

It want to be a movie and a game game but falls in-between.

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

Now they don't have car's there is no reason for me to play this game as driving around aimlessly was the only thing I liked about GTA games.

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

It won’t.

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

It can.

R* just haven’t figured it out. I would figure it comes down to writing and animating a lot of scenes. Maybe ten times more. By professionals, not Dan Houser. Professional creatives charge alot but than value is not always recognised and this is a recurring theme in an industry that often fails to reward talent where it is needed and producers start taking on creative roles something you wouldn't hear of in film, radio or tv.

If your going to make an expansive epic story based game, make cohesive, interlocking narratives otherwise you are only going to be mining filler like R* always have with mission/level design.

At least Gabe Newell understands his role in funding a game and choosing the right talent is what a producer should be doing, not making the thing himself.

@nepu7supastar7 Videogames are about playing, not personality.

Unless it is a story, in which case you need to write multiple stories to account for a character arc that can take any direction.

Otherwise you are playing the dev/writer’s character which is fine. Robocop vs Terminator forced you to play a cold blooded cyborg killer and gib every single enemy on screen with a cannon for 5 hours straight. But then it’s not a sandbox game.

But games still need a thing for you to do and if you want to make a life simulator you are in the area of making a whale (Jonah) which is unachievable. Or like say making a move like Dune or Cloud Atlas which are just too long to condense into film format.

There are limitations on how much content you can create. But given R* had x-million bucks and 8 years, they are proving that this genre still needs more work in figuring out how it is executed in moving resources into areas such as planning and a writing system which is far more sophisticated.

This is turn to page x if you choose option b stuff but if you have all the time and money R* had, I would have hoped for more.

This type of storytelling should be at a more advanced place right now than it is and game writing for novel style games should be structured like novels even if they are open world.

"Oh yes please let me work out in the gym for 10 hours so I can get a hot date and actually have sex!"... Oh wait that was a hidden feature and maybe the only actual reward in a game ever. But also kind of creepy.

CDPR are nearly as dumb as R* and haven’t got a hope of making something which is not juvenile and boring and I will hate all their vanilla 'baddass' characters who will inevitably all be wearing spandex.

In TW3 every chick in town dropped their knickers if you so much as looked at them at least hot coffee made you work a bit.

But leveling up your bmx skillz at least gave you a faster bmx. Maybe you could include animal husbandry and you could breed the ultimate colt. One gameplay idea for free there R*.

Ultima 4 remains the most consequence based story game based on actions in the world, even if the story is 'don't be bad and you will get to go into a cosmic library and check out the ultimate reference book, then just go back to earth to wait for the next game to save Britannia again.'

The flawed L.A. Noire is probably the best attempt at doing this and would you believe this is actually a R* game *face palm*. For some reason that was about the last time they innovated with an actual gameplay 'system' including expressions and admittedly quite obvious cues to immerse you in the experience.

You might know the story about that game where the Australian office were forced to rush the product to market and when it didn't sell well they all lost their jobs and that talent was lost including the facial expression expertise.

It comes down to R* should have put more dev time into making pony trekking fun.

I think people should just go and play Mount and Blade Warband as that is what this game would like to be.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#205 Posted by texasgoldrush (12583 posts) -

@tryit said:
@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.

no, because its very likely that is the only action the player can take other than sitting on rails and waiting for cut scenes.

But it is a problem.

Why can't it be an open character like the good Fallout games?

Avatar image for tryit
#206 Posted by TryIt (12970 posts) -

@texasgoldrush said:
@tryit said:
@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.

no, because its very likely that is the only action the player can take other than sitting on rails and waiting for cut scenes.

But it is a problem.

Why can't it be an open character like the good Fallout games?

I cant speak to that because I only played Fallout 3 and I thought it was horrid.

but yeah story games are a problem

Avatar image for jackamomo
#207 Posted by Jackamomo (1286 posts) -

@texasgoldrush: Why can't it be an open character like the good Fallout games?

Fallout guy is just like Doom guy or Half Life guy and has no personality at all.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#208 Posted by texasgoldrush (12583 posts) -

@jackamomo said:

@texasgoldrush: Why can't it be an open character like the good Fallout games?

Fallout guy is just like Doom guy or Half Life guy and has no personality at all.

You give Fallout guy a personality and the writing of the good Fallout games have this personality.

@tryit said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@tryit said:
@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.

no, because its very likely that is the only action the player can take other than sitting on rails and waiting for cut scenes.

But it is a problem.

Why can't it be an open character like the good Fallout games?

I cant speak to that because I only played Fallout 3 and I thought it was horrid.

but yeah story games are a problem

Fallout 3 wasn't one of the good fallout games.

Avatar image for tryit
#209 Edited by TryIt (12970 posts) -

@texasgoldrush said:
@jackamomo said:

@texasgoldrush: Why can't it be an open character like the good Fallout games?

Fallout guy is just like Doom guy or Half Life guy and has no personality at all.

You give Fallout guy a personality and the writing of the good Fallout games have this personality.

@tryit said:
@texasgoldrush said:
@tryit said:

no, because its very likely that is the only action the player can take other than sitting on rails and waiting for cut scenes.

But it is a problem.

Why can't it be an open character like the good Fallout games?

I cant speak to that because I only played Fallout 3 and I thought it was horrid.

but yeah story games are a problem

Fallout 3 wasn't one of the good fallout games.

ok...well I avoid game 'story' at all costs. The only exception to that has been Elite Dangerous because the story is affected by players, other than that really avoid it. If I want a good story I will watch a movie

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#210 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (24740 posts) -
@jahnee said:
@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?

Nah, I'm not buying a console for one game. I'll wait for the PC version.

Avatar image for PAL360
#211 Edited by PAL360 (29329 posts) -

No game ever was free from problems...some have more that others. Red Dead Redemption 2 is no different, but if offers the most beautiful and interactive open world ever created. The NPC system, in particular, is insane! To be fair, most complains are related to the pacing, which is a desight choice and not an actual problem.

Anyway, i disagree with TC.

Avatar image for Advid-Gamer
#212 Posted by Advid-Gamer (4893 posts) -

It plays. Worse then a game from 10 years ago. I got to chapter 3 then took a long break and tried to go back to it a few weeks later. The controls are horrible and way more apparent after getting unused to them.

I guess I just. Hate rockstar games. The first reddead is the only game I ever completed of theresa and enjoyed it. Rd2 reminds me of la nore. Slow and boring as hell but raved about by critics

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#213 Posted by texasgoldrush (12583 posts) -

@PAL360 said:

No game ever was free from problems...some have more that others. Red Dead Redemption 2 is no different, but if offers the most beautiful and interactive open world ever created. The NPC system, in particular, is insane! To be fair, most complains are related to the pacing, which is a desight choice and not an actual problem.

Anyway, i disagree with TC.

Most beautiful maybe, but most interactive...hell,no.

And they have all these systems, yet do not make use of them in the main thrust of the game, unlike many other interactive systemic open worlds.

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

After playing the game more the one thing I dislike most of this game is summoned up here https://www.google.nl/amp/s/www.kotaku.com.au/2018/10/red-dead-redemption-2s-puppet-like-npcs-make-its-world-feel-less-real/amp

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#215 Posted by texasgoldrush (12583 posts) -

And God of War (another overrated game but better in its design and direction) upset RDR2 at the Game Awards, seems RDR2 is losing momentum fast.

Avatar image for whatafailure
#216 Edited by WhatAFailure (168 posts) -
@texasgoldrush said:

And God of War (another overrated game but better in its design and direction) upset RDR2 at the Game Awards, seems RDR2 is losing momentum fast.

I've looked at this thread and it seems you wanted more Fallout type choices. Problem is, with the amount of mocap used in RDR2 (not to mention God of War), you are not going to get 5-6 endings. It would take forever to have so many branching paths. Not just for the endings but for the middle game.

Witcher 3 had multiple endings but they were not cinematics. Fallout has multiple outcomes but none of them approach the mocap and cutscene sophistication of RDR2 and God of War.

You yourself named Life is Strange as a favorite, but notice how that game doesn't give that many choices neither. This is the developer's decision, and also a practical one. They want all players to experience the same thing, seen through Arthur, Max or Kratos' eyes. There might be some deviation and a couple personal choices you can make, but they aren't meant to be games with multiple branching storylines and multiple endings.

You can choose to make something more like Fallout but have a more cold, impersonal and distant protagonist. Or you can sacrifice more personal choices in favor of a more powerful, controlled, potent storyline - centered on a particular cast of characters, as seen in Life is Strange, Walking Dead, God of War and RDR2. Both are valid methods. It is unreasonable to ask Rockstar to record 50 more outcomes, even more NPCs dialogue, 40 Stranger Mission variations and 7 endings, when their closing credits are already 30 minutes long right now. It took them that much work just to bring this game to us.

I will agree some of RDR2's missions needed some work and redesigning, particularly in the middle sections. And that's something doable for Rockstar for future games. But there is no way they are going to make a Fallout or Baldur's Gate style game with 20 branching paths with the level of production values and cinematics they have.

And notice which games are making people cry. Games like Life is Strange, RDR2, and Walking Dead. If these types of games are so ineffective, they wouldn't have had such a powerful emotional connection with millions of gamers. Sometimes cinematics, good voice acting and writing are worthy choices (and sacrifices) as a developer.

How often do you hear people crying or being deeply moved by Fallout? Every character you meet sounds like a soulless robot. Bethesda opted for multiple choices (which is fine) but sacrificed having realistic characters you really cared for. When Max loses someone in Life is Strange, you feel it. When someone dies in Fallout, no one gives a shit, no matter what pathway you chose.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#217 Posted by texasgoldrush (12583 posts) -

@whatafailure: You aren't getting my argument.

I am arguing that the actions of the player have no real impact on the story in RDR2. Its not about number of endings etc. its about providing gameplay that does not match its story.

And when it comes to Fallout, look at New Vegas and hardcore mode where companions can die. Your example fails here. Bethesda doesn't know how to really write, unlike Obsidian.

Avatar image for PurpleMan5000
#218 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (9715 posts) -
@texasgoldrush said:

And God of War (another overrated game but better in its design and direction) upset RDR2 at the Game Awards, seems RDR2 is losing momentum fast.

I think God of War is the far more deserving game. It managed to keep me engaged from start to finish. I put a ton of time into it over a couple of weeks. RDR2 can't hold my attention for more than an hour or two at a time, and that just isn't enough time to get anything done in the game. Everything you are supposed to do is just so spread out, most of it is boring, etc. I actually fell asleep the other day waiting on my horse to reach its destination in cinematic mode. RDR2 is just not a game I can see myself finishing. It's amazing how much higher I would have rated it a couple of weeks ago, when I was judging it based upon what I expected it to be, rather than by what it actually is.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#219 Posted by texasgoldrush (12583 posts) -

@Advid-Gamer said:

It plays. Worse then a game from 10 years ago. I got to chapter 3 then took a long break and tried to go back to it a few weeks later. The controls are horrible and way more apparent after getting unused to them.

I guess I just. Hate rockstar games. The first reddead is the only game I ever completed of theresa and enjoyed it. Rd2 reminds me of la nore. Slow and boring as hell but raved about by critics

I am hearing this from a lot of players, Chapter 3 is when they drop the game.

GTA IV has a poor completion rate as well.

Avatar image for mariah_eater
#220 Posted by Mariah_Eater (130 posts) -

Any game is overrated when you don't like it and it has a high score.

Avatar image for sonic_spark
#221 Posted by sonic_spark (5664 posts) -

It's overrated for one simple reason, the mechanics still suck. Rockstar still has not figured out basic movement mechanics. Character movement is floaty, slow, responds slow, and the shooting mechanics still feel off. It's as bad as GTA. Which was turned me off from GTA after loving the original trilogy.

Everything else about the game: graphics, sound, story, art direction, objectives, things to do, are all great. But to me there's a basic flaw in the game that makes it so frustrating.

Avatar image for texasgoldrush
#222 Posted by texasgoldrush (12583 posts) -

@mariah_eater said:

Any game is overrated when you don't like it and it has a high score.

Or how about that those giving it a high score ignore clear flaws of the game?