Jump to content
downzy

Red Dead Redemption 2

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Wagszilla said:

The controls have tons a problems. That video pointed out some. You’re constantly fighting them which breaks immersion.

The suspension of disbelief is an important point. When you remove a character (John’s daughter), make important things ambiguous (Blackwater, Dutch’s ability as a leader), don’t tell the story effectively

(big spoiler)

  Reveal hidden contents

Arthur’s illness (never tells the gang but they magically know about it. Doesn’t try to get help. Etc) and his inability to ask basic questions which after a point becomes ludicrious

It all starts to add up. I don’t feel immersed. I feel annoyed. Disconnected from the story and experience.

Halfway through the game I felt like the game had become a chore with a lot of story issues. I felt like I was playing 5 different games instead of 1 game.

It’s a very flawed flawed masterpiece.

It all comes down to argument but a lot of art and media is flawless and stands the test of time. RDR2 barely stands against the present.

I agree regarding Dutch because even at the beginning of the game he’s not even remotely charismatic, but I’m glad they keep what happened in Blackwater a mystery, and I feel John’s daughter isn’t a big deal. Arthur wasn’t there, so it makes sense he wouldn’t know the details about it and John only mentions his daughter once or twice, without even saying her name, in RDR. She was never really a part of the story in either game.

Regarding the spoiler:

Spoiler

My biggest annoyance is that Arthur’s condition deteriorates way too rapidly when you get to the last chapter. While TB didn’t have a cure back then, it also took much longer to actually kill you than what’s depicted. Arthur does share his condition with some of the members he’s close with, but I think the mission where you kick Strauss out of the gang and he accuses you of acting delirious in front of everyone was the sign that everyone already knew.

I do agree with the multiple storylines thing. Chapter 5 is a waste of a chapter and just seems like they wanted to show off a new location. They really should’ve cut that chapter and made the first one longer.

Totally disagree that it’s not holding up presently. Online may suck (I haven’t played), the controls do suck, and there may be some minor plotholes, but immersion is not something that I’ve had a problem with at all. My opinion remains the same: it's a flawed masterpiece, quite simply, and the best game I've played in some time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On ‎03‎/‎01‎/‎2019 at 7:06 AM, Crazyman said:

 Then again, what masterpieces are flawless? 

Plenty. The ones that are sometimes more than 20 years old and are still loved, played and discussed to this very day.

a couple of flawless masterpieces:

- mortal kombat II, perfect dark, ocarina of time, super mario kart, street fighter II, resident evil 4, metroid prime, super castlevania IV, rogue squadron, earthbound, final fantasy VII, metal gear solid 3

They don't have any problems that come even near to the game-breaking control and gameplay issues RDR2 has. RDR2 is a heavily flawed masterpiece, that is saved by its storyline and immersion in a realistic world. But gameplay wise, it's bottom of the barrel quality and doesn't offer anything that I can't get elsewhere but better. This was a conscious decision by the developers, who chose a realistic experience over fun gameplay.

 

Edited by action

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s fun reading gossip about this game.

Supposedly a lot of the issues mentioned: cutscenes over gameplay, control scheme issues, etc. were all addressed by the dev team but overruled by higher ups.

It’ll be interesting to see what else leaks out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, action said:

Plenty. The ones that are sometimes more than 20 years old and are still loved, played and discussed to this very day.

a couple of flawless masterpieces:

- mortal kombat II, perfect dark, ocarina of time, super mario kart, street fighter II, resident evil 4, metroid prime, super castlevania IV, rogue squadron, earthbound, final fantasy VII, metal gear solid 3

They don't have any problems that come even near to the game-breaking control and gameplay issues RDR2 has. RDR2 is a heavily flawed masterpiece, that is saved by its storyline and immersion in a realistic world. But gameplay wise, it's bottom of the barrel quality and doesn't offer anything that I can't get elsewhere but better. This was a conscious decision by the developers, who chose a realistic experience over fun gameplay.

 

But isn't that due more towards nostalgia and the (now relative) simplicity of those games? I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I consider RDR2 to be simply a flawed masterpiece. I can get over the controls, similarly like I have with the most recent GTA games, because everything else is that good. 

Also I'm pretty sure the main criticism facing this game, other than the controls, is style over substance? Is that not the same criticism for every major release in this generation of consoles? This is simply the way the gaming culture is going because the business behind it is so good, hence why you see a plethora of DLC's, in-game purchases, etc. 

Perhaps it's like I said earlier in this thread: I'm now more into the richness of the story and the open world atmosphere to keep me engaged rather than the specifics over the controls or any of the smaller criticisms. I suppose that's part of becoming an old man :lol:

To each their own, obviously, and I respect the points you and Wags are making.

Edited by Crazyman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Crazyman said:

But isn't that due more towards nostalgia and the (now relative) simplicity of those games? I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I consider RDR2 to be simply a flawed masterpiece. I can get over the controls, similarly like I have with the most recent GTA games, because everything else is that good. 

Also I'm pretty sure the main criticism facing this game, other than the controls, is style over substance? Is that not the same criticism for every major release in this generation of consoles? This is simply the way the gaming culture is going because the business behind it is so good, hence why you see a plethora of DLC's, in-game purchases, etc. 

Perhaps it's like I said earlier in this thread: I'm now more into the richness of the story and the open world atmosphere to keep me engaged rather than the specifics over the controls or any of the smaller criticisms. I suppose that's part of becoming an old man :lol:

To each their own, obviously, and I respect the points you and Wags are making.

fair enough. if you like story and atmosphere, then indeed RDR2 is a little gem.

speaking of the gaming business. you'll want to keep an eye on 2019 as the next big AAA gaming crash is predicted, and is actually in progress. look up share values of companies like EA, blizzard, activision and you'll see a shocking drop in value over the last couple of months. big flops like battlefield V, the new call of duty and the likes are making investors restless. games are getting more expensive to produce and profit expectations just can't be met. on top of that, people are rushing out to buy stuff like mini retro consoles and indie games (especially keep an eye on the indie scene; it's booming spectacularly) and the big AAA companies will likely disapear or will need to heavily change their business model. in-game transactions, lootcrates, always online.... people are slowly but surely getting enough of all of it and are longing back to simpler days when gaming was more fun.

the games I mentioned aren't great, because of nostalgia, but because they are just brilliant games. there is not a single game on my list, that I don't play from time to time. some of these I play almost daily. Not because of nostalgia, but because they are great fun. there hasn't been a great arcade racer in ages apart from mario kart and so I have no choice but to go back to retro games. A challenging singleplayer first person shooter? few and far between these days. Modern AAA gaming, just doesn't cut it anymore for most people. Profits will not match production cost, as a matter of fact they don't match at all if we're taking stock value as a measure. Looking forward to 2019 and it's slew of great indie games that are coming: blazing chrome, ion maiden, prodeus, ritual of the night, DUSK.... the amount of great exciting indie games coming, is spectacular. AAA gaming is dying, and indie gaming will replace it

Edited by action
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we might have to agree to disagree a bit. I'm not shocked those games flopped - eventually consumers are going to get bored of the same carbon-copy bullshit with better graphics. My counter-point to the share price thing would be that there's been a large drop in the overall market in general; Take-Two (which owns Rockstar) just released the game we're talking about which is continuing to lead sales and the stock price has fallen off a cliff since September, akin to the rest of the market. That being said, I have noticed the retro/indie gaming boom and agree it's a blowback from what's going on in the industry as a whole. 

I've played (and loved) most of the games you listed, but I'm in no rush to get my n64 or ps/ps2, etc. out to play them, other than when nostalgia hits once a year or so. They're fun games because they were simple and the learning-curve for the controls were much simpler compared to today. I'd still play a game like Morrowind way more than I'd play Skyrim, for example, but I'm almost certain it's because I was 11 when the first game came out and in my early 20's when the second did. 

I'm sure AAA gaming will crash, just like it did in the early 80's, but wouldn't be surprised to see it come back as well. I really hope it does so that they do some soul searching and get back to what made games great years ago so that I can test my theory. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The market is gonna tank by Q4 2020 and the gaming industry will be the first one to take a bath.

I think @actionis right, re: Indie Games. Also because they can charge 200%+ markup.

I'm not against DLC, micro transactions, VGaaS, in theory.

But the industry is just doing it in the most unethical and absurd way. 

I can't imagine the fuckery that GTA VI is gonna be. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if half the game is behind paywalls and/or it's like Beyond Good and Evil 2. 

Brace yourselves friends, winter is coming.

Edited by Wagszilla
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/01/2019 at 10:37 AM, action said:

fair enough. if you like story and atmosphere, then indeed RDR2 is a little gem.

speaking of the gaming business. you'll want to keep an eye on 2019 as the next big AAA gaming crash is predicted, and is actually in progress. look up share values of companies like EA, blizzard, activision and you'll see a shocking drop in value over the last couple of months. big flops like battlefield V, the new call of duty and the likes are making investors restless. games are getting more expensive to produce and profit expectations just can't be met. on top of that, people are rushing out to buy stuff like mini retro consoles and indie games (especially keep an eye on the indie scene; it's booming spectacularly) and the big AAA companies will likely disapear or will need to heavily change their business model. in-game transactions, lootcrates, always online.... people are slowly but surely getting enough of all of it and are longing back to simpler days when gaming was more fun.

the games I mentioned aren't great, because of nostalgia, but because they are just brilliant games. there is not a single game on my list, that I don't play from time to time. some of these I play almost daily. Not because of nostalgia, but because they are great fun. there hasn't been a great arcade racer in ages apart from mario kart and so I have no choice but to go back to retro games. A challenging singleplayer first person shooter? few and far between these days. Modern AAA gaming, just doesn't cut it anymore for most people. Profits will not match production cost, as a matter of fact they don't match at all if we're taking stock value as a measure. Looking forward to 2019 and it's slew of great indie games that are coming: blazing chrome, ion maiden, prodeus, ritual of the night, DUSK.... the amount of great exciting indie games coming, is spectacular. AAA gaming is dying, and indie gaming will replace it

I really do hate what AAA gaming has become. But there's a few standouts I look forward to like anything by Nintendo, Cyberpunk 2077, The Outer Worlds and Halo Infinite; although I'm very cautiously optimistic because 343i are fucking useless. They made mistakes in Halo CE Anniversary, completely shit the bed with Halo 4 & 5 and Halo MCC was a colossal failure and is only now - 4 years later - beginning to be fixed and get to an acceptable standard.

Edited by Oldest Goat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-01-04 at 4:37 PM, action said:

fair enough. if you like story and atmosphere, then indeed RDR2 is a little gem.

speaking of the gaming business. you'll want to keep an eye on 2019 as the next big AAA gaming crash is predicted, and is actually in progress. look up share values of companies like EA, blizzard, activision and you'll see a shocking drop in value over the last couple of months. big flops like battlefield V, the new call of duty and the likes are making investors restless. games are getting more expensive to produce and profit expectations just can't be met. on top of that, people are rushing out to buy stuff like mini retro consoles and indie games (especially keep an eye on the indie scene; it's booming spectacularly) and the big AAA companies will likely disapear or will need to heavily change their business model. in-game transactions, lootcrates, always online.... people are slowly but surely getting enough of all of it and are longing back to simpler days when gaming was more fun.

the games I mentioned aren't great, because of nostalgia, but because they are just brilliant games. there is not a single game on my list, that I don't play from time to time. some of these I play almost daily. Not because of nostalgia, but because they are great fun. there hasn't been a great arcade racer in ages apart from mario kart and so I have no choice but to go back to retro games. A challenging singleplayer first person shooter? few and far between these days. Modern AAA gaming, just doesn't cut it anymore for most people. Profits will not match production cost, as a matter of fact they don't match at all if we're taking stock value as a measure. Looking forward to 2019 and it's slew of great indie games that are coming: blazing chrome, ion maiden, prodeus, ritual of the night, DUSK.... the amount of great exciting indie games coming, is spectacular. AAA gaming is dying, and indie gaming will replace it

COD was a flop?  Thought it and RDR2 we’re crushing it since release. I read somewhere that COD:BO4 is the fastest selling game on PS4 and XBONE. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

I really do hate what AAA gaming has become. But there's a few standouts I look forward to like anything by Nintendo, Cyberpunk 2077, The Outer Worlds and Halo Infinite; although I'm very cautiously optimistic because 343i are fucking useless. They made mistakes in Halo CE Anniversary, completely shit the bed with Halo 4 & 5 and Halo MCC was a colossal failure and is only now - 4 years later - beginning to be fixed and get to an acceptable standard.

Love Halo 4 but 5 was a huge mess. I feel the way about it that people who hate The Last Jedi feel about that. I am very apprehensive for Infinite 

AAA gaming has been a mess for me this cycle. So many dissapointments... Halo 5, Mass Effect Andromeda, Watch Dogs, Destiny, etc. Red Dead 2 and Witcher 3 have been the only true "next gen" experiences for me. Wish I bought a PS4. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ZoSoRose said:

Love Halo 4 but 5 was a huge mess. I feel the way about it that people who hate The Last Jedi feel about that. I am very apprehensive for Infinite 

AAA gaming has been a mess for me this cycle. So many dissapointments... Halo 5, Mass Effect Andromeda, Watch Dogs, Destiny, etc. Red Dead 2 and Witcher 3 have been the only true "next gen" experiences for me. Wish I bought a PS4. 

Why do you love Halo 4?

P.S. I'm still really enjoying Witcher 3(haven't played it til now)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, downzy said:

COD was a flop?  Thought it and RDR2 we’re crushing it since release. I read somewhere that COD:BO4 is the fastest selling game on PS4 and XBONE. 

the fan reaction to black ops 4 has been overwhelmingly negative. 

then there is the curious shift from AAA gaming to mobile

or the successor to alien isolation

again, fan reaction is overwhelmingly negative. Also, you see the further corruption of AAA gaming in the shift to mobile. No more console ports or PC versions. Much more money to be made in a mobile environment.

even nintendo is hinting to a mobile future. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@action there is no future for me with mobile gaming. If they ever dare do that I'll boycott their products and just stick with the classics. Fuck I hate mobile gaming so much, it's trash.

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, action said:

the fan reaction to black ops 4 has been overwhelmingly negative. 

then there is the curious shift from AAA gaming to mobile

or the successor to alien isolation

again, fan reaction is overwhelmingly negative. Also, you see the further corruption of AAA gaming in the shift to mobile. No more console ports or PC versions. Much more money to be made in a mobile environment.

even nintendo is hinting to a mobile future. 

 

I think mobile is viewed as an area of growth, where console games have plateaued, particularly for this generation.  But I would hardly call it a trend whereby we can say with any certainty that the time for AAA gaming on conoles/PC or in general is done.  People want to play certain games on their big screens at home.  It's the same reason why people still go to movie theatres to see Star Wars or Marvel movies.  I do think the mid to long-term future is probably with mobile, but in the sense that your mobile device will serve as console/PC conduit to home gaming (i.e. it becomes the streaming device that feeds your home television; gaming processes are done offsite in the cloud).  But I think we're still 5-10 years before both infrastructure and technology allows for that kind of portal into home gaming.  Until then I think the nature of gaming will stay confined into the traditional mobile versus home gaming content.  Regardless, AAA games won't be going anywhere.  

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say with those two videos.  Seems like releasing a smartphone specific Diablo wasn't well received, and Blizzard was forced to recover soon after (correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they still in the process of making Diablo 4?).  The first Alien Isolation was a complete bust on home consoles and perhaps pursuing a sequel on PC/consoles wasn't the best play considering they're likely not going to commit the same amount of resources to the sequel.

EA has been making the same game with Madden for decades and it still sells millions of copies every year.  Perhaps fan sentiment wasn't great for COD (though I'll have to take your word for it; nearly every person I know who owns it loves it and hasn't put it down; almost every person on my Xbox Live friends list is playing it any time I log in to play RDR2), but it still sold (and continues to sell) a ton of copies and is a huge moneymaker for Activision.  

I do think there's a place for mobile gaming as it generally requires less development costs and revenue potential can be huge.  But I just don't see developers and publishers abandoning console gaming due to backlash.  True, there's only one GTA 5, but it made Take-Two and Rockstar billions of dollars.  Many AAA games, if successful, make insane money.  I don't see that changing any time soon.  Plus, 2019 doesn't seem like it's going to be a bad year for AAA gaming.  Crackdown 3, Devil May Cry 5, Kingdom Hearts 3, Resident Evil 2, Anthem, Metro: Exodus, The Division 2, Days Gone, Rage 2, Doom Eternal, Gears 5, MK11, Jedi: Fallen Order.  I don't see publishers slowing down on the PC/console front.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost through Chapter 4, with I believe two more chapters to go.

Similar to what has already been said, the game is both breathtaking with respect to how great and frustrating it can be.  Visually, I don't believe I've seen a prettier game (save for maybe the characters).  I'm fortunate to play on the Xbox One X on a 4K LG OLED television and even after putting in 30-40 hours I'm still blown away by how authentic and realistic the open frontier looks.  The storytelling is also superb, though the first chapter or two are a bit slow and could have used some abbreviation and consolidation.  I've also enjoyed the relationships and attachments one makes throughout the game, an element that wasn't much present in most GTA games and helps differentiate RDR in its own right.  Whereas in GTA your modes of transportation are largely disposable, the attachment one has with one's horse is a nice dynamic.  In some ways it feels like you're not going through the game alone and have a partner when wondering through the wilderness.  I never got the whole pokemon or virtual pet craze, but I've enjoyed looking after my horse and have come to feel quite protective and attached to one or two of them.

But then there are the hair-losing controls.  Particularly around or on the horse, the controls are extremely wonky and have worked against my enjoyment of the game.  If the visuals immerse the player in the game, the controls do almost as good a job of doing the opposite.  While I am certainly not the best video game player out there, I don't consider myself the worst having played games for almost 35 years.  But it says something that with over 30 - 35 hours into the game I still stumble with basic character controls.  The decision to require players to access the weapon/inventory wheel to change weapons is nonsense.  I can't tell you how many times I've strangled some unsuspecting dude simply because he happened to be standing by my horse as I attempt to get on.  The dead-eye system never becomes intuitive and I'm still not 100 percent how to operate it properly.  Then there's the mess of accessing items found around your room or in cabins.  I've had to attempt numerous walk ups to desks, cabinets, shelves in attempts to take the right item.  

In many ways RDR2 is to the Red Dead series as Grand Theft Auto 4 is the GTA series.  Both upped the visual and atmospheric standards of the series in ways that were revolutionary and unseen before in the industry.  But both sacrificed elements of fun for a greater sense of realism that I think hurts the overall presentation.  The designers would have better served its audience/customer base had they included a realism slider (or different modes) to allow for players the choice in how much realism they want in the game.  Because too often I find the game gets in the way of itself for the sake of realism.  The entire warrant system feels far too cumbersome.  Too often I'll be attacked by a rival gang after coming back from a mission where I'll defend (i.e. kill everyone) against said attackers only to have some "witness" show up and attempt to report me for murder.  Which usually involves me killing the witness, and then another witness, and sometimes a third or fourth witness.  In one instance I had to kill six witnesses in addition to the 4 attackers in order to avoid being wanted and paying a heft bounty so I'm not continually harassed as I roam through that territory.  The map is so huge that it can take 5-10 minutes to get from a mission location back to the camp that it becomes cumbersome when having to fight off attackers and then mow down potential witnesses.  The moments I actually enjoy these distractions are rare, too often I just want to continue the story.  

All in all it's great game and I hope Rockstar has a follow up planned (maybe something set in a different location with different characters that aren't attached to the storyline of the this and the last game).  But going forward, let's dial back the realism (or at least, give players the option) and not let the game get in the way of the story.  And oh, perhaps do something about the insanely clunky controls while they're at it.  I'm looking forward to finishing it to see how the story wraps up and might give RDR online a chance.  If anything, I'll likely go back to complete the animal and fishing challenges.  I obtained 100 percent in RDR1 but it seems unlikely I'll achieve the same level of completion in this one.

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, downzy said:

Almost through Chapter 4, with I believe two more chapters to go.

Similar to what has already been said, the game is both breathtaking with respect to how great and frustrating it can be.  Visually, I don't believe I've seen a prettier game (save for maybe the characters).  I'm fortunate to play on the Xbox One X on a 4K LG OLED television and even after putting in 30-40 hours I'm still blown away by how authentic and realistic the open frontier looks.  The storytelling is also superb, though the first chapter or two are a bit slow and could have used some abbreviation and consolidation.  I've also enjoyed the relationships and attachments one makes throughout the game, an element that wasn't much present in most GTA games and helps differentiate RDR in its own right.  Whereas in GTA your modes of transportation are largely disposable, the attachment one has with one's horse is a nice dynamic.  In some ways it feels like you're not going through the game alone and have a partner when wondering through the wilderness.  I never got the whole pokemon or virtual pet craze, but I've enjoyed looking after my horse and have come to feel quite protective and attached to one or two of them.

But then there are the hair-losing controls.  Particularly around or on the horse, the controls are extremely wonky and have worked against my enjoyment of the game.  If the visuals immerse the player in the game, the controls do almost as good a job of doing the opposite.  While I am certainly not the best video game player out there, I don't consider myself the worst having played games for almost 35 years.  But it says something that with over 30 - 35 hours into the game I still stumble with basic character controls.  The decision to require players to access the weapon/inventory wheel to change weapons is nonsense.  I can't tell you how many times I've strangled some unsuspecting dude simply because he happened to be standing by my horse as I attempt to get on.  The dead-eye system never becomes intuitive and I'm still not 100 percent how to operate it properly.  Then there's the mess of accessing items found around your room or in cabins.  I've had to attempt numerous walk ups to desks, cabinets, shelves in attempts to take the right item.  

In many ways RDR2 is to the Red Dead series as Grand Theft Auto 4 is the GTA series.  Both upped the visual and atmospheric standards of the series in ways that were revolutionary and unseen before in the industry.  But both sacrificed elements of fun for a greater sense of realism that I think hurts the overall presentation.  The designers would have better served its audience/customer base had they included a realism slider (or different modes) to allow for players the choice in how much realism they want in the game.  Because too often I find the game gets in the way of itself for the sake of realism.  The entire warrant system feels far too cumbersome.  Too often I'll be attacked by a rival gang after coming back from a mission where I'll defend (i.e. kill everyone) against said attackers only to have some "witness" show up and attempt to report me for murder.  Which usually involves me killing the witness, and then another witness, and sometimes a third or fourth witness.  In one instance I had to kill six witnesses in addition to the 4 attackers in order to avoid being wanted and paying a heft bounty so I'm not continually harassed as I roam through that territory.  The map is so huge that it can take 5-10 minutes to get from a mission location back to the camp that it becomes cumbersome when having to fight off attackers and then mow down potential witnesses.  The moments I actually enjoy these distractions are rare, too often I just want to continue the story.  

All in all it's great game and I hope Rockstar has a follow up planned (maybe something set in a different location with different characters that aren't attached to the storyline of the this and the last game).  But going forward, let's dial back the realism (or at least, give players the option) and not let the game get in the way of the story.  And oh, perhaps do something about the insanely clunky controls while they're at it.  I'm looking forward to finishing it to see how the story wraps up and might give RDR online a chance.  If anything, I'll likely go back to complete the animal and fishing challenges.  I obtained 100 percent in RDR1 but it seems unlikely I'll achieve the same level of completion in this one.

It’s funny, I thought the same thing about GTA IV and RDR2. In its own right that’s good as while the games do have flaws with their over realistic properties that damage gameplay and the controls, the trade off is that their stories are nothing short of fantastic and rank as some of the best in gaming history to me. More specifically, I refer to the decisions you have to make throughout the story and how they shape subsequent missions and effect the characters around you, combined with realistic atmosphere and characters. These principles alone make GTA IV one of my favorite games of all time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AxlRoseCDII said:

It’s funny, I thought the same thing about GTA IV and RDR2. In its own right that’s good as while the games do have flaws with their over realistic properties that damage gameplay and the controls, the trade off is that their stories are nothing short of fantastic and rank as some of the best in gaming history to me. More specifically, I refer to the decisions you have to make throughout the story and how they shape subsequent missions and effect the characters around you, combined with realistic atmosphere and characters. These principles alone make GTA IV one of my favorite games of all time.

GTA IV was a very interesting and impressive game.  But can you say you had a lot of fun playing it?  Outside of the expansion packs, I'm not sure I can say that.  There were some fun missions near the end (bank robbery was great), but it was ultimately the story and the New York environment that kept me hooked.  

Contrast it with GTA: San Andreas.  Probably the most fun I've had playing a video game.  Not the most interesting story, but the missions were a lot of fun.  Plus I loved trying to capture rival gang territories after the main storyline was over.  

GTA V felt like a nice balance between GTA:SA and IV.  Not as strong a narrative as IV but was a bit more fun to play like SA.  

For me, RDR1 was the best overall for balancing fun, story and environment.  Its controls were relatively simple all things considered and the story did stuff that had never been attempted in video games.  Plus it didn't take itself too seriously like RDR2 does far too often.  

 

 

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, downzy said:

GTA IV was a very interesting and impressive game.  But can you say you had a lot of fun playing it?  Outside of the expansion packs, I'm not sure I can say that.  There were some fun missions near the end (bank robbery was great), but it was ultimately the story and the New York environment that kept me hooked.  

Contrast it with GTA: San Andreas.  Probably the most fun I've had playing a video game.  Not the most interesting story, but the missions were a lot of fun.  Plus I loved trying to capture rival gang territories after the main storyline was over.  

GTA V felt like a nice balance between GTA:SA and IV.  Not as strong a narrative as IV but was a bit more fun to play like SA.  

For me, RDR1 was the best overall for balancing fun, story and environment.  Its controls were relatively simple all things considered and the story did stuff that had never been attempted in video games.  Plus it didn't take it too seriously like RDR2 does far too often.  

 

 

The missions in GTA IV were often drab. They comprised of chasing someone in a car for x amount of time before the game decided to continue, stealing cars, or random shootouts. It definitely was a game that was carried by its story and at the time immersive world. When this game came out I had never seen anything like it. You could call friends to hang out, the world felt realistic, pedestrians would interact with you in such interesting ways and the world felt like a breathing and lively virtual version of New York. 

V failed to capture most of that with Los Angeles (and I live near LA so trust me, I know) in my opinion. The world feels almost dead and there isn’t a lot to interact with. However by comparison the missions were much more varied and I think the gameplay itself was much, much better.

RDR2 definitely takes the IV approach of realism over fun, like you mentioned in your original post.

It’s an interesting debate to what makes a better game. Ultimately, it may come down to the gamer’s specific taste. I prefer my games to be a bit on the immersion/story side to be quite frank. I find myself on the edge of my seat more often and excited to pick up the game night after night. RDR2 for that reason quickly became one of my favorites of all time.

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, AxlRoseCDII said:

It’s an interesting debate to what makes a better game. Ultimately, it may come down to the gamer’s specific taste. I prefer my games to be a bit on the immersion/story side to be quite frank. I find myself on the edge of my seat more often and excited to pick up the game night after night. RDR2 for that reason quickly became one of my favorites of all time.

I agree that it comes down to individual tastes.  I know a lot of people rant and rave about The Last of Us and the various Uncharted games, but I can't get through them.  I tried multiple times to get through The Last of Us and I stopped playing it somewhere close to the end.  I have to enjoy more than just the story to get into something.

RDR2 benefits from having such an immersive world that I wasn't that bothered by the slow start to the story.  I didn't feel the need to play it initially to see what happens as I didn't have any anticipation as to what was about to happen next.  But that began to change by the end of chapter 3 and now I look forward to my evenings to pick up where I left off (fyi, the O'Driscolls just hit the camp and Dutch attempts to rob the train station).  Desperation is starting to set in and the story is picking up steam which is great.  Just kind of nuts it took 20+ hours to get to this point.  But like I said, the pretty visuals and the amount of polish rendered has been enough to keep me going and thankfully now the story has my attention.  It's just a shame that the controls continually take me out of the experience and for that reason I can't put RDR2 above RDR1 or GTA:SA.

Funny how you mention GTA V not faithfully replicating LA.  The last time I was in LA (2015) I couldn't believe how much I kept thinking of the game and how well it nailed certain aspects of the city.  Santa Monica, Venice Beach, Malibu - it all felt like faithful representations (but then again, I'm just a tourist).  I understand what you mean about the lack of people (and traffic), but I always assumed this was due to a technical limitation and not one of conscious game design so I accepted the drawback for what it was.  I would assume that had the game been released during this generation of consoles the game would feel much more alive.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downzy said:

GTA IV was a very interesting and impressive game.  But can you say you had a lot of fun playing it?  Outside of the expansion packs, I'm not sure I can say that.  There were some fun missions near the end (bank robbery was great), but it was ultimately the story and the New York environment that kept me hooked.  

Contrast it with GTA: San Andreas.  Probably the most fun I've had playing a video game.  Not the most interesting story, but the missions were a lot of fun.  Plus I loved trying to capture rival gang territories after the main storyline was over.  

GTA V felt like a nice balance between GTA:SA and IV.  Not as strong a narrative as IV but was a bit more fun to play like SA.  

For me, RDR1 was the best overall for balancing fun, story and environment.  Its controls were relatively simple all things considered and the story did stuff that had never been attempted in video games.  Plus it didn't take it too seriously like RDR2 does far too often.  

 

 

I had the most fun by far playing GTA: Vice City. The setting was just perfect. I’m really hoping they go back there with GTA VI.

Edited by Dazey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, downzy said:

I agree that it comes down to individual tastes.  I know a lot of people rant and rave about The Last of Us and the various Uncharted games, but I can't get through them.  I tried multiple times to get through The Last of Us and I stopped playing it somewhere close to the end.  I have to enjoy more than just the story to get into something.

RDR2 benefits from having such an immersive world that I wasn't that bothered by the slow start to the story.  I didn't feel the need to play it initially to see what happens as I didn't have any anticipation as to what was about to happen next.  But that began to change by the end of chapter 3 and now I look forward to my evenings to pick up where I left off (fyi, the O'Driscolls just hit the camp and Dutch attempts to rob the train station).  Desperation is starting to set in and the story is picking up steam which is great.  Just kind of nuts it took 20+ hours to get to this point.  But like I said, the pretty visuals and the amount of polish rendered has been enough to keep me going and thankfully now the story has my attention.  It's just a shame that the controls continually take me out of the experience and for that reason I can't put RDR2 above RDR1 or GTA:SA.

Funny how you mention GTA V not faithfully replicating LA.  The last time I was in LA (2015) I couldn't believe how much I kept thinking of the game and how well it nailed certain aspects of the city.  Santa Monica, Venice Beach, Malibu - it all felt like faithful representations.  I understand what you mean about the lack of people (and traffic), but I always assumed this was due to a technical limitation and not one of conscious game design so I accepted the drawback for what it was.  I would assume that had the game been released during this generation of consoles the game would feel much more alive.    

For me the actual aesthetics of the city were done great but what I meant moreso was that the in game city felt so lifeless. Little to do, zombie people, crappier physics, stupid rules (standing near a police officer gets you arrested). This all took away from the immersion in my opinion and made me feel like I was living in some cartoon world. Compared to IV which felt like a breathing lively city.

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AxlRoseCDII said:

For me the actual aesthetics of the city were done great but what I meant moreso was that the in game city felt so lifeless. Little to do, zombie people, crappier physics, stupid rules (standing near a police officer gets you arrested). This all took away from the immersion in my opinion and made me feel like I was living in some cartoon world. Compared to IV which felt like a breathing lively city.

I suppose it might be relative as I've been to NYC numerous times and New York in GTA IV didn't feel all that "liveable" compared to its real world counterpart.   Then again, it's been 10+ years since I played GTA IV.  

You got arrested for standing near a police officer in GTA V?  Was it Trevor and was he drunk?  Never seen that before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got to Chapter 6. The story is really picking up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IV is heavily flawed but it felt more fresh and engaging than V which was a rehashed and half-baked SA. 

The V map is eerily similar to SA. They just made it more true to life. Google the building comparisons. 

I think RDR2 needed to be the base RDR game combined with a Mass Effect/Fallout style dialogue tree to be successful.

This way you could develop relationships and have a meta game that didn't focus on killing.

But they focused on a half-baked camp mechanic and semi-deep hunting instead. Waste of money. Doesn't fit the game.

If they wanted to make a Red Dead Survival game. They should've that would've been cool. 

Rockstar is constantly at odds with themselves.

I'm really not excited for GTA VI if they stay the course of dog shit AI and minimal changes to gameplay. 

I'm bored with them. 

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, downzy said:

I suppose it might be relative as I've been to NYC numerous times and New York in GTA IV didn't feel all that "liveable" compared to its real world counterpart.   Then again, it's been 10+ years since I played GTA IV.  

You got arrested for standing near a police officer in GTA V?  Was it Trevor and was he drunk?  Never seen that before.

 

Happens with any character. The cops in this game are stupid unrealistic. 

  • GNFNR 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×