Another embarrassing Red Dead Redemption 2 / Breath of the Wild thread (the responses within, not the topic itself).
Both games are great.
Both games are great.
Last edited:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
BotW and Red Dead 2, compared with food
- Thread starter Revolsin
- Start date
I checked his videos cause they guy had a beard and was cute ... I'm shallow. His other video of TF2 vs Overwatch was really good, had some good analogies and pointed out why I prefered TF2 overall ( The game where everything's made up and the points don't matter).
Its a medium that does whatever the directors want their games to and shouldnt be criticized simple for not adhering to the fact that "game" is in "videogame" There's no rule that videogames cant be used for interactive cinematic storytelling. RDR2 is still something you experience at your own pace, the order of which is largely at your discretion over the course of 100 or so hours. Its not something that works as a movie.
You can have both. RDR2 is full of gameplay. I have my fair share of issues with the game, but this is very far from a movie.
Yes but the gameplay is made worse by trying to make the game as realistic and movie-like as possible. That's what I'm saying.
I disagree, but it's a fair criticism and I respect your opinion. I personally think the gameplay and controls are perfectly fine. I do think some of the mission design is a bit lacking, however.
likewise BOTW's narrative suffered from the opposite and a lot of people do like a stream of strong story beats in their games. Like the video in question states, they're great for very different reasons.
Fair enough. I should have added "imo", of course.
Ah but see, BOTW didn't need additional cutscenes. Everything it lacked in its story department it could have told us through its world or NPC characters or whatever.
For you, sure. Even when you beat the game it just kind of ends unceremoniously with a particularly short and lacking ending.
The voice direction or lack thereof was also on the opposite end of the spectrum to RDR, and I dont think Nintendo could have done sprawling and meticulously detailed locales like Saint Denis (or even the smaller ones) on the switch so they wisely went for post apocalyptic and minimal which is also a stark contrast, but not a wrong one either way.
I totally agree. I thought voice acting added nothing to the game and made it worse even.
I wish people would stop with the "imitating movies" take. Humans have been telling stories since the Stone Age with cave paintings and with whatever they had, it's not a weird concept to understand that people enjoy well told narratives if it's in a movie, tv show, or a game.
Some games focus on other aspects, to downplay something because it tries to convey a story with its presented medium is some very odd thinking.
Look, for me it's a matter of opportunity costs: As a dev team, you have limited resources available. If you decide to spend most of your resources on a game's story, then of course its gameplay will suffer for it.
And there is nothing wrong with that, there are thousands of games that let you shoot and slash people in a dopamine inducing way, rdr2 stands out from the crowd because of the story, I can't say that the combat in botw left me as impressed as the story in rdr2.
Gameplay by itself isn't the medium's uniqueness - it's the interactivity, and RDR2 has that in leaps and bounds.
Did things honestly feel interactive to you? I disagree on that.
try to attack someone in a village in botw and then try the same thing in saint-denis and after that, tell me with a serious face that zelda is always more interactive than rdr2.
zelda has the neat physics system but with the npc is so much worst than rdr2 in term of interactions.
You can pick stuff from the store, pet animals, take care of your horse, loot bodies, go fishing, track animals and skin them, collect herbs, rob banks/people, talk to strangers, lasso animals/people, change clothes and buy ones that you gathered from pelts, tame wild horses, play mini games, collect wanted gang members, interact with people/objects around the camp, get a haircut/shave, steal boats and horses, find easter eggs and put them in your journal.
How is this game not interactive?
The use of Twilight Princess music for some of the Red Dead clips amused me somewhat.
I just thought that was neat.
I knocked over a tree in Zelda once, and the nearby vender screamed and ran out of her stall when the tree trunk fell on it.
I just thought that was neat.
lol keep it up.
The hunting in RDR2 is a game in itself, where observing habitat and time of day plays a vital role in being succesful in encountering, then using your surroundings to obtain a high quality kill. And lots can happen in between your hunt due to the brilliant world design and emergent AI.
it's neat, but the people on the streets run away while screaming if you crush a car near them in gta3 for ps2...this is very basic open world script-interaction, nothing impressive really compared with some great chain of events with npc in rdr2. (it's not perfect but is surely far superior)
I feel like there's a difference, though, between NPC reactions to player actions, and NPC reactions to physics events caused by the player. If you knock over a street light in GTA3, the pedestrians probably won't even notice.
Last edited:
Most of these things are an absolute chore and not fun to do. It felt like a sim with no point to it, the only thing that made sense was progressing the narrative. The awful movement/aiming/travelling didn't make me want to explore. It never felt like an exciting alive world. I never felt like I was on an adventure in red dead. It was this:
- Plod horse to location (ignoring boring person stuck in bear trap/damsal in distress which always seem utterly pointless and usually end up in a drop off sequence somewhere I don't want to be)
- watch cutscene (sometimes entertaining/interesting)
- ride somewhere with npc (more talking but never enough to distract from more riding)
- cutscene at arrival
- carry out trivial task (interactive button prompt for a unique animation like planting an explosive, stealing something etc)
- fight breaks out
- lock on, move right analogue stick up, head shot (repeat this stage from 5 to 30 times)
- gets on horse and run away
- more shooting but this time being chased! (see lockon stage and repeat 6 more times)
- end destination, cut-scene, stuck in the middle of nowhere
- see first step.
And yes I did try turning off lockon to make shooting more exciting and dear god what a mess this is. Did rockstar forget they fucking made Max Payne 3? Honestly after that game I assumed gta/red dead would be all free aim with a similar excellent system. One can dream. History books will not look kindly on RDR2 and I look forward to botw not aging a day in comparison.
It is a sim game, not an exploration game like zelda. I get it, the game might not be the open world that you like but saying that it's not interactive and breaking down what you did in missions is not helping your argument cause everyone can simplify game mechanics like that.
sure if that makes you sleep better at night thinking that.
Ok. I don't know why no one else is talking about this but... Does everyone like Toblerone? I like pretty much all chocolate but can't stand it for some reason.
BOTW is my favourite game of all time. But I really liked RDR2 as well. I agree that it feels like the open world aspect and the main story feel almost like 2 different games. I finished the game in ~50 hours sticking mainly to the main story and I've just started what I plan to be a slow burn, year + play through screwing around in the open world a lot more in between other games.
Great vid. Except the Toblerone...Yuk!
BOTW is my favourite game of all time. But I really liked RDR2 as well. I agree that it feels like the open world aspect and the main story feel almost like 2 different games. I finished the game in ~50 hours sticking mainly to the main story and I've just started what I plan to be a slow burn, year + play through screwing around in the open world a lot more in between other games.
Great vid. Except the Toblerone...Yuk!
I think you should prepare to be very disappointed on both counts.
Same experience I had with the game. The side activities were not immersive because there was no point/no thoughts required for them. Poker was kind of fun for 30 min though.
Because only physics manipulation and cutting down trees is considered interactive here.
Both are very interactive, rdr2 just has a story on top of that pile.
This post is the best example of everything that's wrong with videogame fandom.
LMFAO, didn't even read your post and posted almost the same analogy. :p
This thread confirms I'm too old for this ultra-fan nonsense.
Someone not liking what you like as much as you do doesn't make what you like less worth liking.
As for the topic, I think that the food comparison was a bit strained, but I suppose you need to stand out from the crowd on youtube.
Someone not liking what you like as much as you do doesn't make what you like less worth liking.
As for the topic, I think that the food comparison was a bit strained, but I suppose you need to stand out from the crowd on youtube.
I mean I said hyper polished? The game is incredibly well made from that perspective. I just don't think it's actually fun to play at all. Hardly hyperbolic for me to say I don't think the two should really be in the same conversation and that RDR2 is the epitome of everything I find wrong with a lot of very well received games these days.
I'm really not a fanboy at all. People are allowed to have strong opinions you know? There is plenty of evidence to backup why I think what I do about red dead. I'm not making this shit up. Then again this forum is spawned off a site that gave UC4 GOTY for 2016, so I'm hardly shocked at the offence my opinion has made to some people here.
User warned: Hostilely to other posters
No, you are absolutely an immature fanboy. Don't try to delude yourself.
When you say it's "gross to compare" two games and that one is a "turd that exemplifies everything wrong with western AAA games." And why is it a gross turd that exemplifies everything wrong with games? Because you don't like it.
That is a fanboy.
But, please, don't give yourself the credit that your opinion "offends" me. It doesn't. You're just a fanboy with a stupid hot take, it's fine, just basque in the attention. There's nothing inherently wrong with being a fanboy, but the quintessential essence of fanboyism is that you can't comprehend how someone else might like something that you don't like, so it drives you to write attention-seeking hot takes in the hopes that you'll offend someone. It's a lousy symptom of videogame enthusiasm, this inability to accept that somebody might enjoy something for a reason that I don't enjoy it, and then lash out because of it.