The difference between new Zelda and Red Dead 2/GTA VI in two scenarios

There was a puzzle in Zelda Tears where I had to submerge a big ball in water so that the physics would shoot it up towards a button. There was no hint. I just figured it out by using what I knew from real life. Ubisoft, Rockstar and American Sony are incapable of that kind of design. They spoon-feed and script everything, begin every new scenario with tutorials that take the satisfaction away.

For once, I played an open world game that left me alone, for the most part. It was truly about exploration. Impossible in these American and European games because story is prioritized far too heavily.

Red Dead 2's logic is so strange. Convict in striped prison uniform asks for help. I hogtie him to bring him to the law. Stranger witnesses me "kidnapping" him. I kill him. Then another witness, then another, and pretty soon it's that scene from Mulholland Drive. Think I killed four witnesses, out in the empty plains.

The moment you deviate from the scripted path, the game falls apart.

Poor writing, too much talking for a western (They're like WOMEN.), unlikable characters, a really fake voice for the protagonist, tedious design, bad gameplay, nothing between the default walk movement and fast run, boring story. I will probably never finish it. And that talking talking talking is the only writing Rockstar knows. All this complaining, all this gossip, this revealing so much of themselves, it's so unlikable in men.

Every Rockstar game I've ever played was a complete chore to get through.

I play games for fun, not for doing chores.

@jaydan: Well then you definitely won't enjoy BOTW, because god fucking damn are those dungeon puzzle traps the most boring piece of creation in gaming history. Absolute snoozefest and there are like 700 of them to do. I was only able to force myself to do like 20-30 of those chores.

I put over 100 hours into BotW, and even more into TotK. Lol

But anyways Rockstar games suck. If all you're looking for is detail and immersion, that's pretty much all Rockstar has going for itself.

Zelda died with Zelda SS. Nothing but mediocrity since. Sorry.

I see zero appeal to Rockstar games.

I enjoyed RDR2, but not for everyone. I'd gripe more about replaying old missions with a preset inventory but that's me.

Only reason why Rockstar got its name is because 12 year old kids felt so cool to find a way to play GTA after their parents told them no.

Those kids are grown up now, and they left their maturity behind decades ago.

I actually find the snowballing killing the witness who saw you kill a witness who say you kill a witness and so on, highly amusing but that just be part of being a bad boy outlaw.

@lamprey263: It was stupid because the witness who was seen by the witness who was seen by the witness witnessed what was essentially a non-crime.

Eh, I enjoy both styles just fine myself. One being more open to player discovery and freedom to solve and the other being more directed and scripted. I have no desire for gaming to just consist of one or the other.

@jaydan: I played Tears heavily every weekend for four months, finishing the story with the highest heart container percentage (and of course stamina maxed) of any Zelda's first playthrough. The main campaign was probably the worst I've played in the series, but the other content puts any of the other open worlds I've played in the last several years to shame, except of course for Breath of the Wild's. Breath is the only one that came close in that time. Meanwhile, Red Dead 2 sits incomplete at maybe twenty hours after, what, eighteen months? I know GTA VI will be so pretentious and tedious.

I'm also sick and tired of American city planning and all the huge light trucks that have such poor visibility from the driver's view that they can't see children. Far more mass than trucks used to have, equalling many times more destructive power and slower breaking. Only reason many thousands of kids aren't killed by them every year is because Americans deep down know their cities are built so clownishly bad that they don't let their kids play outside anymore. Adults too. Many times more would be killed by cars every year, but the sidewalks are empty almost everywhere you look because the city planners have made the cities basically unwalkable with their single use zoning and prioritization of cars almost to the exclusion of all other forms of transportation. The (broken) asphalt and lack of density everywhere is so settler-like and ugly. Imagine actually wanting to experience this nightmare virtually.

Truly are masters of design. Gods of gaming.

Rockstar games showed promise with GTA2 and 3. Showed excellence with Vice City.

With San Andreas they misstepped by focusing on quantity over quality. And with GTA4, it was clear that they would never hit their peak again. RDR was the last R* game I ever played. Those games are sleeping pills, big, detailed and beautiful worlds, but also with the depth of a puddle.

TOTK and BotW dont have a lot of features, but the features they do offer offer so much depth to them, they ultimately feel far more varied than what is done in a R* game.

All in all, give me depth, not bredth.

Very different games with different strengths and weaknesses. I like both, and while I prefer BotW I could easily pick a handful of examples of stuff in RDR2 that shames every other game.

This is unironically what made GTA3 so difficult for me to play, the game was just so... ugly. It actually hurt my eyes. Vice city I could play for longer without straining my eyes. I cannot comment on San Andreas because I was just so sleepy playing that.

RDR2 looks very boring while TotK is very fun. Can't argue there.

Exploration is fun. More games should do it.

I like GTA 3/Vice City.

They are simple, not designed to be complex arcade like games in a large environment that don't overstay their welcome. A lot of it is the style getting them over.

SA it became convoluted, wasn't depth, just busy work. GTA4 reeled it back, but by that point it was stale. Especially with gaming critics telling me it was the most game of all ever time. And it's generally been apathy ever since.

BOTW has the opposite problem. It has far better gameplay, but found it a a strangely sterile experience. It had a lot more to it, yet still ended up being more boring. More likely to go back and play GTA3/VC over it.

"...too much talking for a western (They're like WOMEN.)"

Talking too much is a women thing? 🤔

@jaydan: In terms of detail and immersion R* North is completely unrivalled. Especially in the open world space.

But I can see your point about them being boring. RDR2 is the only R* game I ever actually finished the story and I'm almost did it twice but kind of gave up. The Tiktok kids would go completely ham if they saw your comment lol.

I have 35 ish hours in BOTW myself but those dungeons, man. no idea how OP would find this fun. its the exact opposite.

@uninspiredcup: The GTA IV glaze certainly needs to be studied. How it is one of only four games in history to have 98+ on metacritic and how it is the highest rated game of all time with over >100 reviews (Zelda OOT is #1, but OOT and Tony Hawk 3 + Soul Calibur have like a dozen reviews each). Blows my mind. It was the worst GTA imo and a huge letdown.

VC is my favourite, but I can see why GTA 3, GTA 5, GTA:SA and RDR2 were more ground breaking and would deserve a higher score than it.

AFAIK VC did nothing new and was pretty much just a GTA3 re-skin... But it was my first GTA.

Def a difference between GTA3 and VC.

While the basic template is the same, it adds management elements, customization and a bunch of QOL improvements. It's larger and (ever so slightly more complex) while not being busy work or badly paced, which is what SA is. It's like the progenitor for Ubisofts open world nonsense. Never actually been able to finish it.

One thing that made GTA3 stand out compared to later R* games is how relatively unscripted it was, if you knew what is going to happen, you can cheese the missions quite a bit.

Not quite as emergent as BotW or TotK, but the tech wasnt there yet so I will forgive them.

Later R* games, took more and more control away from the player, gave them more busywork, but not proper interactivity.

I like both games within there own ways and that's all I gotta say. But I will point out Rockstars games are a hit or miss, but I really had fun with RDR2 since I'm also a Spaghetti Western TV/Movie fan, so it's why I really like RDR2.

But I'm sure as hell ain't hyped for GTA6.

I had a great time with Zelda BotW and ToK.

As much as I want to like them, I just don't find R* games fun to play.

I watched about 3 seconds of RDR2's opening and that was enough to convince me not to play.

But I also don't care for BotW.

In summation open worlds suck

Open world games have a tendency of lacking a refined gaming experience.

Am I supposed to care what Tiktok kids think? Lol I'm more concerned about the amount of permanent brain rot they inflicted upon themselves for wasting their lives on Tiktok.

In general I agree with you. R* games are more about showi g coll things the developer did, then to let you do cool things. They like to set up cinematic moments and damn you if you don’t follow the script.

What made RDR 2 even more tedious than a normal R* game imo was the very long animations for even basic actions. Looks realistic, but makes it feel like you are walking in wet cement.