Why I think RDR2 isn't fun

  • 55 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for Sushiglutton
Sushiglutton

7294

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#1 Sushiglutton
Member since 2009 • 7294 Posts

Having finished RDR2 I'm just baffled how such a poorly designed game can get so high praise. So I just felt like I had to write a little post about it (which I pretty much never do). The biggest issue is that the game just isn't fun to play. Here are the reasons why imo (trying to keep it short :) ).

Movement

Every game designer has understood since forever that:

  • Standing still behind cover taking pot shots = boring
  • Moving around the stage = fun

When I say everyone, I mean everyone but R*. To achieve this you need to give the player the right tools and design levels/enemies to support it. Example of tools could be to run smoothly, climb objects quickly, slide down slopes, swing with ropes, zip-lines etc. R* just doesn't give a shit. You can sloooowly climb ladders in RDR2, that's it. When it comes to enemy design you need them to punish you for standing still, but aim poorly when you move. Again R* doesn't care. Levels should have more powerful stuff if you push forward to incentivize movement. And be designed for a more expanded movement set. But no.

Snappy controls

For a shooter to feel good a couple of things are important when it comes to controls. First you don't want to lock the player into overly long tedious animations. Secondly you want common inputs to be just a tap away. R* violates both. Looting... wtf were they thinking? Every action just feels like you are moving through syrup. Why do you have to go to the weapon wheel to access melee weapons and "grenades"? Are they serious? These things need to be at your finger tips.

Gameplay is very one note

It's tedious when a game, especially a massive OW, is just one note. It's way more fun when you can go between modes of gameplay like say combat and stealth. I understand RDR2 technically has stealth, but it is embarrassing how poorly executed it is. We have a bow, throwing knives and stealth kills. But we never get to use it freely. Only when R* wants us to and then they decide how we tackle the situation kill by kill. No chance for planning or creativity, the things which makes stealth fun.

No room for creativity in the missions

Mission design is like what games like Assassin's Creed used to be back in 2012. You do what R* wants you to do at every turn, or you get punished by "desynchronization".

Pointless progression

In most games you start out weak. Then as you progress you become stronger which allows you to take on tougher foes/or situations. In RDR2 this loop is completely broken. You can beat everything the games throw at you with the starting load out. All these tedious, tedious ways you have to level up are ultimately completely pointless because the challenge never ramps up. Why can't there be some things that are too hard to tackle in the beginning so you have actual goals? But no.

So what do you think? Did you have fun with RDR2? For me this is the last R* game I will get in a loooong time.

Avatar image for ezekiel43
Ezekiel43

1980

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#2 Ezekiel43
Member since 2017 • 1980 Posts

For me it's mainly your first two points, the poor controls. I wish their later games were quick and snappy, like Max Payne 3. I know they want their open world games to be authentic, but it's really overdone. Their games just aren't fun anymore.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for ajstyles
AJStyles

1197

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#3  Edited By AJStyles
Member since 2018 • 1197 Posts

Shooting is fine.

My only complaint is everything is so slow. Walking, Running and Horse riding all need a speed increase.

The game aims for realism, but like you said, everything is moving in slow motion syrup.

Entering a camp and forcing my character to walk like a 90 year old grandpa is jarring. And frustrating.

And the fast travel sucks in this game. Make it better. I shouldn’t have to travel 10 minutes online to do a mission.

Avatar image for Gamerno6666
Gamerno6666

6976

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#4 Gamerno6666
Member since 2013 • 6976 Posts

I wish it was on PC so we could mod out mist of the annoying gameplay crap.

Avatar image for nepu7supastar7
nepu7supastar7

5297

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 51

User Lists: 0

#5 nepu7supastar7
Member since 2007 • 5297 Posts

@Sushiglutton:

And here's what I disagree with you on:

* Standing behind cover taking pot shots is fundamental to 3rd person shooters.

* You can still move around the environment during combat.

* You can use stealth with knives and bow and arrows at any given time.

*You have plenty of creativity through most missions except for the ones that are centered on stealth.

-The only thing that I agree with you on is the level progression feeling pointless. But even then, it's optional and you don't HAVE to focus on it. The rest of your complaints about it feeling slow just goes to the game focusing on realism. And RDR2 does that beautifully and that's what we love about it.

Avatar image for with_teeth26
with_teeth26

9725

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 43

User Lists: 1

#6 with_teeth26
Member since 2007 • 9725 Posts

the game certainly moves at its own pace. if you can't get into it, then I can imagine being quite frustrated by it.

even though its one of my favorite games ever I don't disagree with any of the TC's points. except for maybe progression... its just that the progression comes from the story and not the mechanics, which again is a fair criticism.

Avatar image for PSP107
PSP107

17592

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 PSP107
Member since 2007 • 17592 Posts

@Sushiglutton said:

Having finished RDR2 I'm just baffled how such a poorly designed game can get so high praise. So I just felt like I had to write a little post about it (which I pretty much never do). The biggest issue is that the game just isn't fun to play. Here are the reasons why imo (trying to keep it short :) ).

Movement

Every game designer has understood since forever that:

  • Standing still behind cover taking pot shots = boring
  • Moving around the stage = fun

When I say everyone, I mean everyone but R*. To achieve this you need to give the player the right tools and design levels/enemies to support it. Example of tools could be to run smoothly, climb objects quickly, slide down slopes, swing with ropes, zip-lines etc. R* just doesn't give a shit. You can sloooowly climb ladders in RDR2, that's it. When it comes to enemy design you need them to punish you for standing still, but aim poorly when you move. Again R* doesn't care. Levels should have more powerful stuff if you push forward to incentivize movement. And be designed for a more expanded movement set. But no.

Snappy controls

For a shooter to feel good a couple of things are important when it comes to controls. First you don't want to lock the player into overly long tedious animations. Secondly you want common inputs to be just a tap away. R* violates both. Looting... wtf were they thinking? Every action just feels like you are moving through syrup. Why do you have to go to the weapon wheel to access melee weapons and "grenades"? Are they serious? These things need to be at your finger tips.

Gameplay is very one note

It's tedious when a game, especially a massive OW, is just one note. It's way more fun when you can go between modes of gameplay like say combat and stealth. I understand RDR2 technically has stealth, but it is embarrassing how poorly executed it is. We have a bow, throwing knives and stealth kills. But we never get to use it freely. Only when R* wants us to and then they decide how we tackle the situation kill by kill. No chance for planning or creativity, the things which makes stealth fun.

No room for creativity in the missions

Mission design is like what games like Assassin's Creed used to be back in 2012. You do what R* wants you to do at every turn, or you get punished by "desynchronization".

Pointless progression

In most games you start out weak. Then as you progress you become stronger which allows you to take on tougher foes/or situations. In RDR2 this loop is completely broken. You can beat everything the games throw at you with the starting load out. All these tedious, tedious ways you have to level up are ultimately completely pointless because the challenge never ramps up. Why can't there be some things that are too hard to tackle in the beginning so you have actual goals? But no.

Probably why I think GTA4/5 sucks.

@ezekiel43 " For me it's mainly your first two points, the poor controls. I wish their later games were quick and snappy, like Max Payne 3. I know they want their open world games to be authentic, but it's really overdone. Their games just aren't fun anymore."

Rockstar PS2 era>>>>>PS3/4?

Avatar image for fileman3
fileman3

340

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 fileman3
Member since 2005 • 340 Posts

i kinda agree with most points. I do wish missions were more varied.

all in all RDR2 is still one of the best games I've ever played

Avatar image for Macutchi
Macutchi

6935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By Macutchi
Member since 2007 • 6935 Posts

@Sushiglutton: good points, agree with them all.

i defended the controls on this forum soon after release. but i'll admit i was wrong. you can customise them to be more responsive than the default which helps early on. but as you go deeper into the game, the environments you're in become more confined and the need for precise controls becomes much more important.

they're just too lethargic, and the constant wrestling of control from you by the game as it overrides the defaults when you do things like walk into camp becomes insufferable. at first i found it quite immersive, but i admit at the time i was so blown away by the incredible detail, lighting and general visuals of the game world that i was a bit distracted. as time went on and i set my graphics whore glasses to the side i started to see the controls as ok, then annoying then utterly infuriating.

and the story suffers from gta iv syndrome. as niko made his way through the criminal hierarchy he was always just a glorified errand boy. he didn't actually progress in any meaningful way. he just moved from underworld figure to underworld figure, the missions moved to another part of the map and not much else changed. same in rdr2.

i had lots of little niggles with the game. the ultra linear, practically on rails missions juxtaposed against the huge open world was jarring. interacting with the world was fiddly. the snap to cover action was far too eager and often misread player intent, plus other stuff... but i still think rdr2 is a very good experience and rockstar's ability to craft something of this magnitude, detail and ambition deserves acknowledgement for the incredible feat it is. but as a video game, it's missing a little too much of the fun aspect

Avatar image for Nuck81
Nuck81

7864

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#10 Nuck81
Member since 2005 • 7864 Posts

I don't have much interest in RDR2 despite RDR being one of my favorite all time games.

Games shouldn't feel like a chore, I have enough of those to do around the house.

Avatar image for rmiller365
rmiller365

799

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#11 rmiller365
Member since 2010 • 799 Posts

Im one of the few who thought RDR2 was a good game, but not great. I put it on par with recent Assasins creed games. The lack of progression is what killed it for me. You're doing the same things in chapter 1 you do in chapter 7.

The story was good but not god-tier like everyone says. Its pretty predictable honestly. I knew right off the bat what was going to happen because the antagonist that betrays you literally always wears red and black like a Sith Lord and looks just like Angel Eyes in The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
PC_Rocks

2685

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#12 PC_Rocks
Member since 2018 • 2685 Posts

@Sushiglutton said:

Having finished RDR2 I'm just baffled how such a poorly designed game can get so high praise. So I just felt like I had to write a little post about it (which I pretty much never do). The biggest issue is that the game just isn't fun to play. Here are the reasons why imo (trying to keep it short :) ).

Because Rockstar is now a brand. That's all the gaming media cares about now. hey won't dare criticize such brands

Avatar image for hrt_rulz01
hrt_rulz01

19452

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 hrt_rulz01
Member since 2006 • 19452 Posts

I didn't mind the shooting mechanics, but like said above, I think the movement speed needed to be increased in general. It did become frustrating towards the end how everything just feels very slow.

I ended up using the fast travel horse carriages 90% of the time at the end of the game because I was tired of it. But still one of the best games I've played this gen.

Avatar image for TheEroica
TheEroica

18542

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#14 TheEroica  Moderator
Member since 2009 • 18542 Posts

It's not a bad game at all... It has a ton of system at play and the game is more lumbering... Its slow paced. If that's not your thing it's ok. I went to God of War after rdr2 and I must say though, if gameplay is truly your thing, gow was the game of the year over rdr2 all day.

Avatar image for Sushiglutton
Sushiglutton

7294

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#15 Sushiglutton
Member since 2009 • 7294 Posts

@ezekiel43 said:

For me it's mainly your first two points, the poor controls. I wish their later games were quick and snappy, like Max Payne 3. I know they want their open world games to be authentic, but it's really overdone. Their games just aren't fun anymore.

Yeah I really hope they switch their priorities some, from authenticity to a greater focus om moment to moment fun.

@ajstyles said:

Shooting is fine.

My only complaint is everything is so slow. Walking, Running and Horse riding all need a speed increase.

The game aims for realism, but like you said, everything is moving in slow motion syrup.

Entering a camp and forcing my character to walk like a 90 year old grandpa is jarring. And frustrating.

And the fast travel sucks in this game. Make it better. I shouldn’t have to travel 10 minutes online to do a mission.

I also think the actual shooting is fine. The weapons feel good and the feedback is great. It's more the overall design of the shootouts and the lack of supporting mechanics (movement, stealth, better melee etc) that I just think make them needlessly repetitive and stale. "90 year old grandpa" is correct about the camp walking :)!

@nepu7supastar7 said:

@Sushiglutton:

And here's what I disagree with you on:

* Standing behind cover taking pot shots is fundamental to 3rd person shooters.

* You can still move around the environment during combat.

* You can use stealth with knives and bow and arrows at any given time.

*You have plenty of creativity through most missions except for the ones that are centered on stealth.

-The only thing that I agree with you on is the level progression feeling pointless. But even then, it's optional and you don't HAVE to focus on it. The rest of your complaints about it feeling slow just goes to the game focusing on realism. And RDR2 does that beautifully and that's what we love about it.

I agree that cover is fundamental and an ok mechanic. But in games like Uncharted, WatchDogs, Vanquish and Tomb Raider I move around a lot more. I'm not saying those games are world class, but they all have more fun TPS combat than RDR2 imo. I'mean you can technically move around but most levels you start behind cover, kill enemies, move forward kill enemies etc. There was very little tactical movement like finding vantage points, flanking, choosing a stealthier route etc.

What do you mean by "you can use stealth with knives... at any given time"? Most of the time the shootouts are completely unavoidable? And in the open world are there any camps that you can take down with stealth only? Maybe there is gameplay of that?

I strongly disagree that you have plenty of creativity. For the most part it's about choosing which weapon to use and in what order to kill the enemies. At best. Many times the order to kill enemies has been decided also.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
Sevenizz

4139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#16 Sevenizz
Member since 2010 • 4139 Posts

It’s an RPG. They aren’t designed for fun. They’re designed to make the player take on a roll of a character and lose them self in a world.

Personally, I don’t like RPGs. I find them boring, repetitive, and a waste of time.

Avatar image for dimebag667
dimebag667

1349

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#17 dimebag667
Member since 2003 • 1349 Posts

@Sushiglutton: While I don't completely agree with all your points, I do agree that the game is not fun.

My main dig is that it's pointless. Hunting, base building, whatever...they can be completely avoided or embraced without any real consequence.

I bought everything for my camp (with no help from the rest of those freeloaders), and still nothing fundamentally changed. I pretty much never hunted, and still was able to walk (slowly) through the game without a problem. So what's the point?

I also can't stand how you have a faux choice of being good or bad, but are consistently forced down the path of outlaw. You get into camp and they're like "don't do anything crazy", and "keep a low profile", but as soon as possible it turns into "let's rob a train and have a shootout in town"!

There's more but I've tried to block it out. As much as I loved the first one, I can't stand this game.

Avatar image for warmblur
warmblur

3421

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#18 warmblur  Online
Member since 2017 • 3421 Posts

I know I would enjoy it on PC more with M&KB then I did on my PS4 it's a great impressive game but I would not call it fun that's for sure tech wise it's amazing.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

14636

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#19 MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 14636 Posts

@Gamerno6666: soon enough. At least it better come to PC, the train robberies are completely broken.

Avatar image for robert_sparkes
robert_sparkes

3509

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#20  Edited By robert_sparkes
Member since 2018 • 3509 Posts

One thing that wasn't fun is getting a bounty on you if someone just attacks you.

People mention input lag but I had no issues with that.

Avatar image for Litchie
Litchie

24670

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#21 Litchie  Online
Member since 2003 • 24670 Posts

It's a casual game for casuals. Your expectations were too high.

Avatar image for shellcase86
shellcase86

4566

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 shellcase86
Member since 2012 • 4566 Posts

I use cover only 50-60% of the time. In this case, your playing style is causing your own frustration, OP.

Avatar image for heathen75
HEATHEN75

906

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#23 HEATHEN75
Member since 2018 • 906 Posts

@Sevenizz said:

It’s an RPG. They aren’t designed for fun. They’re designed to make the player take on a roll of a character and lose them self in a world.

Personally, I don’t like RPGs. I find them boring, repetitive, and a waste of time.

Aren't all video games a waste of time? Unless you think achievements and trophies somehow mean something in the real world.

Avatar image for Sevenizz
Sevenizz

4139

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#24 Sevenizz
Member since 2010 • 4139 Posts

@heathen75: Depends on what kind of outcome satisfies you with your time. Everything wastes time, of course.

Avatar image for enzyme36
enzyme36

4312

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 enzyme36
Member since 2007 • 4312 Posts

@ezekiel43 Untouchable! nice moves

Avatar image for speedytimsi
speedytimsi

1052

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 speedytimsi
Member since 2003 • 1052 Posts

I think the game has real highs and lows. Once you finished a mission it seems that's like a hard crash back on reality and I essentially have to stop playing for an hour or two.

Avatar image for Pedro
Pedro

35818

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 64

User Lists: 0

#27 Pedro
Member since 2002 • 35818 Posts

There are a lot of highly rated games that are simply not fun because people get enjoyment from various things. This is why most reviews and awards are useless evaluation of games. RDR2 seems to appeal to the gamers who are story driven and like the immersion of the world.

Avatar image for hitmanactual
HitmanActual

1059

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#28 HitmanActual
Member since 2013 • 1059 Posts

Too slow and tedious for me, game is a snooze fest. Don't think I even made it to the ten hour mark and had to put it down out of boredom. Not sure if I will even try again.

Making me go back to and walk through the camp all the time was half the problem, that totally sucked ass.

Avatar image for briguyb13
briguyb13

3234

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#29 briguyb13
Member since 2007 • 3234 Posts

It was a chore to get through, because it just wasn't fun. It was more like a visual and technical experience where you look around and go "whoa, this looks amazing" and then proceed to bump around on your horse for several dozen hours.

The visuals were great, the characters and story were memorable, and the open world was superbly designed and implemented. Having said that, those things don't always turn in to a fun video game.

And the worst part of the overall product was the mission structure treating you like a robot who couldn't approach them in any way, shape or form that wasn't linear and direct. Get to far away from a mission point, mission over. Try a non-direct path not thought of by a developer, mission over.

The old Rockstar allowed many different paths to success in game missions, so I don't know why they've reduced the players' options to one way to complete them, exactly step for step how developers want you to do it from a to b only.

Avatar image for valgaav_219
Valgaav_219

2568

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

#30 Valgaav_219
Member since 2017 • 2568 Posts

I really liked RDR2. I think it was a masterpiece but I did notice that things are much faster in the original. I played it after beating 2 to complete chronologically and I swear the horses run twice as fast. I get that it's for the sake of realism but man it is a bit tedious. I still loved it, though. I've beaten it twice and I will play it again. I just have a thing for owning a whole series and playing them in order.

Avatar image for WitIsWisdom
WitIsWisdom

5450

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#31  Edited By WitIsWisdom
Member since 2007 • 5450 Posts

The game was and is highly overrated. Not a horrible game, just nowhere near as good as advertised. No need to even get into the MP.

Avatar image for Jendeh
Jendeh

168

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 Jendeh
Member since 2004 • 168 Posts

I haven't played this and based on a lot of the reactions I've seen, I'm not sure I will. Even those of you who seemed to have enjoyed the game are a bit muted in your praise of it.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
uninspiredcup

36065

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 85

User Lists: 2

#33  Edited By uninspiredcup
Member since 2013 • 36065 Posts

Still there best game. Keep your horse balls.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for ghosts4ever
Ghosts4ever

10982

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#34  Edited By Ghosts4ever
Member since 2015 • 10982 Posts

@uninspiredcup said:

Still there best game. Keep your horse balls.

Loading Video...
Loading Video...

No. its this. its their best game by far.

Time moves forward, nothing change.

Dialogues are incredible quality and art of writing.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
uninspiredcup

36065

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 85

User Lists: 2

#35  Edited By uninspiredcup
Member since 2013 • 36065 Posts

@ghosts4ever said:
@uninspiredcup said:

Still there best game. Keep your horse balls.

Loading Video...

Loading Video...

No. its this. its their best game by far.

As much as I like Max Payne 3, it has flaws. Scripted shit and some stuff they basically tried to template from GTA that just didn't work here.

Vice City is basically a flawless game with a vision perfectly realized. And, compared to the auto-lock shit on console, the mouse and keyboard PC version is a lot better gameplay-wise. It's basically the quintessential love letter to the 80's pop culture, we have alot of imitators since, but none really touch Vice City.

Importantly as well, it's a game trying to emulate movies, not forgetting that's it's a game like alot of the disgusting garbo nowadays.

It also built on top of III's fundations without suffering the massive bloat life simulator of San Andreas, Vice City, III and Chinatown are tightly paced games. Far cry from (hu hu) from Ubisoft's open-world slop shat out.

Avatar image for ghosts4ever
Ghosts4ever

10982

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#36  Edited By Ghosts4ever
Member since 2015 • 10982 Posts

@uninspiredcup said:

As much as I like Max Payne 3, it has flaws. Scripted shit and some stuff they basically tried to template from GTA that just didn't work here.

Vice City is basically a flawless game with a vision perfectly realized. And, compared to the auto-lock shit on console, the mouse and keyboard PC version is a lot better gameplay-wise. It's basically the quintessential love letter to the 80's pop culture, we have alot of imitators since, but none really touch Vice City.

Importantly as well, it's a game trying to emulate movies, not forgetting that's it's a game like alot of the disgusting garbo nowadays.

Max Payne 3 gameplay mechanics are simply 10/10. amazing. while GTA vice city gameplay mechanics are abysmal from shooting (you cant walk while shoot? lol) to driving. its only got praised because it was one of the first open world game i guess or back than open world games were not common. if it release today. it would have got hated.

Vice city like every GTA game was also trash. I remember lot of kids used to of playing vice city just to roam around the city instead of completing mission. RDR1 was also better than GTA so i assume RDR2 is also better than any GTA too mainly for western setting.

Mafia 1 was real mature sandbox/linear crime drama set in city. it was the game that crap all over GTA from mature and best story telling in video gaming to excellent gameplay to amazing atmosphere. that game was a masterpiece.

Avatar image for Litchie
Litchie

24670

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#37 Litchie  Online
Member since 2003 • 24670 Posts
@briguyb13 said:

The old Rockstar allowed many different paths to success in game missions, so I don't know why they've reduced the players' options to one way to complete them, exactly step for step how developers want you to do it from a to b only.

Probably to cater more to the casuals. Pretty smart business move that'll get them more sales. That's how it goes, the more mainstream Rockstar gets, the worse their games will be.

Avatar image for ghosts4ever
Ghosts4ever

10982

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#38 Ghosts4ever
Member since 2015 • 10982 Posts

@Litchie said:
@briguyb13 said:

The old Rockstar allowed many different paths to success in game missions, so I don't know why they've reduced the players' options to one way to complete them, exactly step for step how developers want you to do it from a to b only.

Probably to cater more to the casuals. Pretty smart business move that'll get them more sales. That's how it goes, the more mainstream Rockstar gets, the worse their games will be.

you should try max payne 3 my friend. it was pretty challenging game. after that they stop making good games and its been like 6 years or so. GTA 5 was terrible terrible game.

Avatar image for Litchie
Litchie

24670

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#39  Edited By Litchie  Online
Member since 2003 • 24670 Posts

@ghosts4ever said:
@Litchie said:
@briguyb13 said:

The old Rockstar allowed many different paths to success in game missions, so I don't know why they've reduced the players' options to one way to complete them, exactly step for step how developers want you to do it from a to b only.

Probably to cater more to the casuals. Pretty smart business move that'll get them more sales. That's how it goes, the more mainstream Rockstar gets, the worse their games will be.

you should try max payne 3 my friend. it was pretty challenging game. after that they stop making good games and its been like 6 years or so. GTA 5 was terrible terrible game.

Well I just might. I regret not playing the earlier ones though. It's 19.99 on Steam right now. I can snag it when it hits 10 bucks or so.

And yes, GTA is boring, tedious, clunky poop. I want a new top down one à la Chinatown Wars.

Avatar image for ghosts4ever
Ghosts4ever

10982

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 19

User Lists: 0

#40 Ghosts4ever
Member since 2015 • 10982 Posts

@Litchie said:
@ghosts4ever said:
@Litchie said:
@briguyb13 said:

The old Rockstar allowed many different paths to success in game missions, so I don't know why they've reduced the players' options to one way to complete them, exactly step for step how developers want you to do it from a to b only.

Probably to cater more to the casuals. Pretty smart business move that'll get them more sales. That's how it goes, the more mainstream Rockstar gets, the worse their games will be.

you should try max payne 3 my friend. it was pretty challenging game. after that they stop making good games and its been like 6 years or so. GTA 5 was terrible terrible game.

Well I just might. I regret not playing the earlier ones though. It's 19.99 on Steam right now. I can snag it when it hits 10 bucks or so.

And yes, GTA is boring, tedious, clunky poop. I want a new top down one à la Chinatown Wars.

i guess your biggest loss than. Max Payne 1 was a masterpiece. that along with Mafia 1 were 2 of greatest third person games of all time.

I think you should tried with original. its still age excellent, then 2 and finally 3. 2 is my least fav but still its good. but original is masterpiece and 10/10 game.

Avatar image for SecretPolice
SecretPolice

35360

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 SecretPolice
Member since 2007 • 35360 Posts

No doubt a great and I mean Great game but yeah, RDR was a whole lot more when it comes to..... Great fun. :(

Avatar image for ellos
ellos

2088

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42  Edited By ellos
Member since 2015 • 2088 Posts

Look the world design and its interactions are quite groundbreaking. I would actually like that stuff implemented into these new open world games. The state of npc interaction is ambitious and its an achievement. A level up from dialogue wheel npc interaction that has become the standard of these open world games. So yeah I'm a type of gamer that does appreciate the creativity in that even if they may be boring to some. After all part of these games is still chasing down the immersion illusion (f*** i hope i'm making sense lol). The issue is the part that your suppose to go through to beat the game is linear. Its restrictive and the combat is shit. Its not even as expressive as the linear games like UC for **** sake. Try to mess around and enjoy and the games tells you you cannot do that. And yes the controls are shit sluggish to the point of why gamers complain about Google Stadia. To summarize its a ground breaking shitty game I guess.

Avatar image for _Matt_
_Matt_

10495

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#43 _Matt_
Member since 2005 • 10495 Posts

I hate the ui design too, feels very archaic

Avatar image for briguyb13
briguyb13

3234

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#44 briguyb13
Member since 2007 • 3234 Posts

@Litchie said:
@briguyb13 said:

The old Rockstar allowed many different paths to success in game missions, so I don't know why they've reduced the players' options to one way to complete them, exactly step for step how developers want you to do it from a to b only.

Probably to cater more to the casuals. Pretty smart business move that'll get them more sales. That's how it goes, the more mainstream Rockstar gets, the worse their games will be.

Dunno if that's why they're doing it, because Ubisoft now does the exact opposite: newer AC games allow all the freedom in the world to complete missions, and older games in the series before Origins and Odyssey used to be just like the new Rockstar games, failing missions for any straying from the linear path.

Weird...

Avatar image for Macutchi
Macutchi

6935

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#45  Edited By Macutchi
Member since 2007 • 6935 Posts
@uninspiredcup said:

It also built on top of III's fundations without suffering the massive bloat life simulator of San Andreas

that's a good point. i really liked max payne 3 but vice city is a hall of famer

Avatar image for gtx021
gtx021

349

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 gtx021
Member since 2013 • 349 Posts

because you cant play it right now,even you installed epic & RTX 2080TI ,9900K rig.

Avatar image for MonsieurX
MonsieurX

39213

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 MonsieurX
Member since 2008 • 39213 Posts

@gtx021 said:

because you cant play it right now,even you installed epic & RTX 2080TI ,9900K rig.

You forgot to talk about the $10k price tag.

Avatar image for kali-b1rd
Kali-B1rd

2241

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#48 Kali-B1rd
Member since 2018 • 2241 Posts
@Sevenizz said:

It’s an RPG. They aren’t designed for fun. They’re designed to make the player take on a roll of a character and lose them self in a world.

Personally, I don’t like RPGs. I find them boring, repetitive, and a waste of time.

fess up, you made this stupid comment just to get responses, well colour me baited.

Things I just learnt, games like Grand Theft Auto are "RPGs" now.... anything remotely immersive is an RPG now.

my god.

hope its bait.

Avatar image for raining51
Raining51

1145

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 Raining51
Member since 2016 • 1145 Posts

Your points are fair and valid IMO... nbut also exaggerated.

Avatar image for Dragerdeifrit
Dragerdeifrit

627

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#50  Edited By Dragerdeifrit
Member since 2010 • 627 Posts

You forgot to mention how everything you do in the game ends up being pointless with no payoff. Even the unlockable inventory upgrades you get by hunting animals are completely trivial since you can buy them all for super cheap later on, Everything you do for the camp is totally meaningless, upgrades, cosmetics, quests, everything is pointless and serves no ultimate purpose. Don't get me wrong, i enjoyed the game. but i will never replay it, there's no reason to do so, the story/narrative is the only enganging feature of the game and i already experienced it.

Its a story/narrative focused game with the illusion of being something else.