I was actually thinking of getting the first one when I was making this thread.
What? So you haven't even played the first one and you're excited for the second? Ahhh...
so you HAVE to play EVERY new FPS that comes out? THIS is why i hate playing online with the 360 sometimes. WAY too many people just use the 360 as a FPS simulator. I honestly sick of xbox just making FPS games. since the original Halo came out I just havent been a fan of the series. I might play COD4 or something like that once in a while, but i dont see why everyone wastes $60 for EVERY halo game the day it comes out. halo games are the worst of the fps games IMO. at least COD games have some realism to them. Halo is just so far out there. i personally would rather wait til a friend gets it and then when they get sick of it, i'll borrow it maybe.
Damn, bitter much? 360 doesn't only have shooters. In fact, I have more games in my collection that aren't shooters. It all depends on what you're looking for. Oh, and Call of Duty is realistic? Hah, no...Sorry, it's not to anyone who has actually fired a gun in a real combat situation.
yeah, game design in general is getting poor, the amount of good games being released which are original and new is tinyOverlord93
Elitists...your arguments are so stale and without substance. Milk this, milk that, games not being "innovative" enough or "realistic" enough...Get off your high horse man. If you want to be straight with it, you can't really say that any games are innovative anymore. There's nothing you can do in Heavy Rain that you couldn't do in oldschool PC text adventure games. Seriously though...There is no more innovation to be had. Every idea stems from something else that's already been done before, it's just the way that it is presented that appears new and, if you're a n00b, will actually be new to you.
Halo Reach is the envoy of the Xbox's death. After Reach the 360 is pretty much done.
That's the only reason i'm dreading it. I expect it to be mucho fun.
How do you figure? Forgot about a little game called Gears of War 3?
Anyway, on to the topic at hand: I don't think aiming down the sight is really that big of a deal. It certainly shouldn't deter you from playing games that don't allow you to do so. To be honest, I'm a fan of not aiming down the sight, which is why I prefer Halo to other games like Modern Warfare and BC. It reminds me of oldschool FPS games like Quake and Doom, which I adore to this day. Besides, it's not completely true that you can't aim down the sights as you still have the option to zoom with the BR and the sniper rifle.
To present an objective point of view: Don't believe the hype. I did, and I am disappointed. Maybe it's due to my immense anticipation for this title but I have not even finished the story mode and already I am getting tired of the game. At this point, I feel like it is going to be a chore to finish the campaign, but I am going to do it anyhow simply because it would be nice to see how it all wraps up and if the plot actually makes sense in the end. As is, there's not much plot to speak of. I know a lot of people are hailing it for it's "good story", but even in terms of a traditional Western story the one presented in RDR feels pretty barebones. It boils down to your protagonist (or antagonist, depending on how you want to look at it) getting sent off by government agents to track down members of his ex-gang and either kill or capture them. The quirk is that the government has your family captive, and they are not telling you where they are being held until you finish certain tasks for them. Along the way you meet plenty of archetypal side characters and complete tasks for them, but none of them are ever really fleshed out as well as they could be, and just as you are getting attached to certain characters the plot decides to take you off to another part of the world where you will never interact with those characters again.
Apart from my gripes with the story, there are some serious graphical glitches that need to be addressed. Within the first hour or so of playing the game, these shortcomings can already be seen. Most of these glitches occured when I first entered the town of Armadillo, where I saw boxes floating in the air, offbeat character animations, and a musician in the local saloon who always likes to stand on top of his stool when he gets up to take a break. I also encountered floating brooms in the town of Blackwater. These glitches shouldn't be there. There's really no reason for it, and when you encounter them it can really take you out of the experience.
On top of all of these things, there's no radio on your horse. No, just kidding. But seriously, on top of all that, the main character is kind of a prick and you really want to just beat him in the face everytime he opens his mouth. At least I did. He doesn't really come off as a bad ass prick either, but instead pretty much just a prick and a douchebag. I guess that's to be expected though, seeing as the days of the true Western epic are over and will likely never see the light of day ever again, neither in Hollywood nor the videogame world.
The shooting is definitely the best part of this game, but everything else from the skinning of animals to the collection of plantlife could have been more intriguing and/or interactive. These are just my views, of course, and who am I really? Just another enthusiastic gamer with a voice who wishes he had used his money to buy Alan Wake instead.
its a bit hard for me to admit but i liked gta4 more then rdr. rdr is a bit annoying tapping the button all the time to ride the horse, plus those dumb fetch missions take up half the game and all i get as a reward is a text saying "bla bla mission complete". the game is good but as im going farther into it its too easy and every mission felt the same. its a good overall game, but i think its an 8, gta 4 is a 9, mgs4 is a 10
Hah, wrong!!! What's with the majority of PS3 owners who just love watching their games and not actually playing them?
I think they are both overrated, and I am pretty sure that RDR got all of its good reviews because of the fairly unique (for videogames) Western setting. RDR is a good game, don't get me wrong, but like most Rockstar games, it's a bit too repetetive. I'm about 75% complete with the whole game, and I have not really been challenged yet. It's way, way too easy.
nervice? imagen? What?! No, I don't think Quantic Dream should make a Wii game. I hate their games. They're so God damn boring and overrated. Case in point, Heavy Rain is accused of having a good story, while I think the story is bunk.
Something tells me if RDR was released 2 years ago exactly how it is now, and GTA IV came out last week exactly how it is now, everyone would be saying "RDR was OKAY but who wants to see horeses??? GTA IV is is better in every way!" Just a hunch...billyd5301
Maybe so, but then again if GTA IV had not been released, Rockstar would not have learned of the mistakes they made with that game, thus they would still be present in Red Dead Redemption. As it is, I am just much more strongly drawn to Red Dead in every respect because of the setting, story, timeline, and of course, the horses. So, like everyone else is saying, if Western's are your thing you should definitely get RDR. If you're just trying to play another GTA than the choice is obvious.
Log in to comment