OP
OP
My phone always autocorrects it to it's
However, to think that people won't play a Rockstar game in 10 years is ridiculous.
-
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.
Does Red Dead Redemption 2 deserve it's MC score in your opinion?
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
However, to think that people won't play a Rockstar game in 10 years is ridiculous.
No. Too high. I loved the last 25% but the first 75% isnt that great. The problems it has with gameplay and mission design are too much. The story isn't that great for the longest time. The production values are insane but doesnt really offer much, IMO, for other devs to learn from it. You got an ungodly amount of money? Then you too can make a game like RDR2.
The game is a 6 to 7/10 if it wasnt for the last 25% where
In the end, it's a flawed game.
The game is a 6 to 7/10 if it wasnt for the last 25% where
Arthur's redemption is handled amazingly well. But only if you played as a good guy.
In the end, it's a flawed game.
It does lots of cool things but has so many flaws that I disagree with the score.
It would be somewhere in the 80s or 70s for me.
It would be somewhere in the 80s or 70s for me.
Yes. Most gameplay issues comes because it wasn't an inmersive sim. It would have been great, but it isn't meant to be that. I think It is like a 95 to me but that 02 difference is nothing
it's not arrogant if you feel as though its aggregate high score is in part attributable to a potent cocktail of brand loyalty, the fog of hype, and a shortage of self-honesty fueled by the fear of crushing disappointment.
Either speed up animations when doing tasks or outright remove them after initial discovery/use. That's my only complaint as it detracts so heavily on an otherwise extremely good game that I'm at a point where I can only play it in bursts or I get angry at having to bend down to pick up some mushroom that takes me a billion years to do.
A lot more critics prefered God of War as GOTY so I doubt it would get that higher score today.
It's a great game, to me an 8/10 but it deserves a 10/10 from people who got that much enjoyment from it, it's all subjective.
It's a great game, to me an 8/10 but it deserves a 10/10 from people who got that much enjoyment from it, it's all subjective.
Yes, someone in their infinite knowledge has figured this out better than professional reviewers, who are patently blind to it.
Smartest guy/gal in the room.
This is not to say there's not discussion to be had, but an absolutist view that it's underserved because you see some kind of magical set of factors virtually everyone else does not estimates one's perception quite highly.
Originally I didn't think so, but after a few months I went back into it and fell in love with it. It's definitely one of my favorite games of this gen. The mission structure and controls are definitely valid complaints, but the world is so beautifully crafted that I just dealt with it. I've played a lot of open world games this gen and this game makes me wish I never wasted my time with a lot of them. Even after all of the time I've put into it, I'm still in awe every time I play it. It definitely made it hard for me to enjoy other games for a little bit. I'm glad I went back to it and dug in. I can't say it's my GOTG yet because 2020 looks orgasmic, but it's definitely top 3. It may also end up being one of my favorite games of all time.
From a visual/animation/audio standpoint, it deserves tihe high praise. However the actual gameplay, the controls (how many times have you fumbled over saying hi and did something bad because of that button?), the simple things that other games have long moved passed (IE tapping a button to run, remember your weapon loadouts, etc) and the general sluggishness of the character drags it down.
It's an amazing looking game with a good story and great sense of world/characters that's hampered by it's actual gameplay imo.
I would've put it around 90'ish, I can look passed some things but there's a lot of things I just think they could've did better, Max Payne style combat controls, have your weapon loadouts stick and stay the same (why does it always change, so fucking frustrating) and others.
It's an amazing looking game with a good story and great sense of world/characters that's hampered by it's actual gameplay imo.
I would've put it around 90'ish, I can look passed some things but there's a lot of things I just think they could've did better, Max Payne style combat controls, have your weapon loadouts stick and stay the same (why does it always change, so fucking frustrating) and others.
These threads are often pointless. Of COURSE it deserves the score it has. Just because you disagree with something doesn't change the opinions of others (and thus, doesn't make it less deserving).
Many people enjoyed it, if you can't accept that and think it deserves less, then that's certainly a you problem.
Many people enjoyed it, if you can't accept that and think it deserves less, then that's certainly a you problem.
You say this while most professional reviewers also agree it wasn't the best game of its release year, God of War was. You see the problem here? Consensus would say it's the best reviewed game of the year, but that didn't translate to reality with awards. There's too much flux to use professional consensus in this sense. These same outlets gave GTAIV similar praise but hindsight says no.
Sorry it would be arrogant if you think them being honest means having to agree with you on a subjective form of entertaiment.
If I had played RDR2 in 2018, it would have been my GOTY.
I liked RDR2 so much, I decided to play RDR1 after beating it, to continue the story in chronological order. I hadn't played RDR1 since it came out. The leap in quality between it and it's sequel is incredible. (And RDR1 was cutting edge for it's time.) Going back to part 1 is more difficult than I thought it would be.
I liked RDR2 so much, I decided to play RDR1 after beating it, to continue the story in chronological order. I hadn't played RDR1 since it came out. The leap in quality between it and it's sequel is incredible. (And RDR1 was cutting edge for it's time.) Going back to part 1 is more difficult than I thought it would be.
It's a strong 90 for me. Overall it's great, but there's a few games I'd put above it as "game of the generation"
virtually everyone else? plenty of people have had a not-so-great time with it; you see some of that in this very thread. the fact is, more than any other medium, i trust the responses of "non-professionals" moreso than "professional reviewers" because I instinctually reckon that the former are more inclined to start from a place of "am i enjoying this game?" and then will go on to unpack why the answer is yes or no (to put it in an overly binary way). whereas professional critics are seemingly haunted by the spectre of how the publisher, developer, and/or reader (and sometimes even non-reader!) will react to their review. not to mention the more generalized "contamination of opinion" that occurs when you sit down to experience an artwork knowing that you have to articulate in detail your estimation of said work. but that's a problem across the board.
i understand that a great many "normal" game-players thoroughly loved RDR2. their priorities clearly do not align with mine--that's definitely part of it. but i hardly think it's fair to call someone necessarily arrogant for thinking that some outside forces are influencing a good number of opinions about a high-profile subjective experience, especially when said opinion has been solicited by the forum.
The things I didn't like was what I believe was too much detail slowing the pacing, how easy it can be to trigger attention if you have some blood, mud slowing horses down, waiting to pick up all the bullets from your camp. But other people might find these details immersive and neccessary and that's fair enough. I found the closing chapters to be slow and routine but other people loved how it matches up with the first. It's subjective.
I'm a little bit torn because I didn't really enjoy it as a game (dropped it after approx 10 hours) but it's a technical marvel and I'm kinda driven by the technical ability in games and given the exact same engine in GTA style game it will be a 10/10, so I kinda just chock it up as the game not being my type of setting but well deserving of it's high rating.
Absolutely. One of the all time greatest. The performances themselves elevate it to a place where I think not many games will be able to reach it.
Ab-so-Lutely.
It's astonishing that this thing came together.
Looked as good as it does, does as much as it does, is as interactive as it is, is as advanced as it is. All the while having a compelling story and cast, where you can remember like 15+ characters that all have their unique personalities and are all so interesting.
And taking a first-take "Boring generic stale character" Arthur Morgan and turning him into one of the most compelling well thought out game characters in years, surpassing my love for John Marston, is an incredible accomplishment.
It's astonishing that this thing came together.
Looked as good as it does, does as much as it does, is as interactive as it is, is as advanced as it is. All the while having a compelling story and cast, where you can remember like 15+ characters that all have their unique personalities and are all so interesting.
And taking a first-take "Boring generic stale character" Arthur Morgan and turning him into one of the most compelling well thought out game characters in years, surpassing my love for John Marston, is an incredible accomplishment.
There is no way in 100000 years that a game that controls as badly as it does, with mission design as boring as it is deserves a score that high.
As an experience it was a 10 out of 10 for me. I have no reason to doubt that was the case for many reviewers as well.
OP
OP
I remember me thinking I'd miss playing as John, boy how wrong I was. I started a new playthrough and I'm never going to collect debt.
The mission design for nearly every single story mission is subpar. It is literally ride horse to place (which involves nothing) while listening to dialogue, keep talking, cutscene, try to do the thing, something goes wrong, shootout, escape. It's incredibly repetitive and it doesn't remotely take advantage of the game's strengths. And so much of it is required in order to experience the full game. You can't fish until the end of chapter two, for example. And considering how much money you get from story missions, you're doing yourself a disservice by not doing them. But by the time a certain mission happens, you'll have more money then you'd ever know what to do with.
The game is at its best when you're out exploring without any goal in mind. But even then, the game has situations that will repeat themselves, making the experience feel less authentic. I have seen multiple people with a deadly snake bite, multiple people in a bear trap, multiple people getting abducted; the world is too big to support its comparatively small amount of dynamic events. And honestly, when those aren't happening, there isn't much going on.
The characters are great, the story is great, the music is great, but actually playing the game to experience those things is a chore for me. For a game with this much shooting, Rockstar could have made it more fun.
The game is at its best when you're out exploring without any goal in mind. But even then, the game has situations that will repeat themselves, making the experience feel less authentic. I have seen multiple people with a deadly snake bite, multiple people in a bear trap, multiple people getting abducted; the world is too big to support its comparatively small amount of dynamic events. And honestly, when those aren't happening, there isn't much going on.
The characters are great, the story is great, the music is great, but actually playing the game to experience those things is a chore for me. For a game with this much shooting, Rockstar could have made it more fun.