I was interested in the characters but after the first 10ish hours I got bored of playing the actual game. So RDR2 is a great TV show but meh vidya game
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Does Red Dead Redemption 2 deserve it's MC score in your opinion?
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
GTA 4 deserved its metacritic in terms of the context of its time to be fair
the world and physics of that game were groundbreaking when it came out
The game really lost me along the way. Sucks because the first was a masterpiece to me.
After about 10 hours, I was just not having fun.
After about 10 hours, I was just not having fun.
I am the complete opposite. After all, where's the fun in playing in those worlds when it's a chore to actually play in them. I went back and forth betwen playing this and AC: Odyssey and eventually dropped this because of the controls.
Technical accomplishments, absolutely. Visually, the game has moments of sheer awe and spectacle at times. However, after I put about 5 hours into this game I lost interest and moved on. So for me, no it is not deserving of that score but I can see why others can place it there comfortably. To me, something that has a metacritic that high invokes being a great "game" that keeps you hooked, not just a great "technical showpiece" to stare at. Amazing what Rockstar and crew could do with this gen.
I am 100% with you on that. We dont get W3/RDR 2 type of games/open worlds that rely on slow burn story telling ,atmophere and pseudorealism . That let you just breathe for a moment and enjoy the scenery.
Exploration, immersion, a sense of discovery, envirornmental/ambient storytelling, systems interacting in unpredictable ways. Even if a game is a chore to play, and neither RDR2 or W3 were for me, those things will always hold my interest longer & deeper than great gameplay with basic or boring or down right sterile world design around it.
Absolute masterpiece and something that simply stands out from other games. Liked it more than GOW (blasphemy I know)
In my personal opinion? I think that MC score is absurd.
It's a horrible game with an absolutely beautifully realized world and atmosphere which makes it even more frustrating that it's utter shit to actually play. The controls are one thing and I was eventually able to deal with them but the mission designs and comical levels of restriction within them, holy lord...
For me video games will always be mostly about gameplay and everything else is, in this case incredibly beautiful and atmospheric, window dressing. I just can't deal with "serviceable gameplay".
It's a horrible game with an absolutely beautifully realized world and atmosphere which makes it even more frustrating that it's utter shit to actually play. The controls are one thing and I was eventually able to deal with them but the mission designs and comical levels of restriction within them, holy lord...
For me video games will always be mostly about gameplay and everything else is, in this case incredibly beautiful and atmospheric, window dressing. I just can't deal with "serviceable gameplay".
It was a 88-90 to me
The story sucked. When I see someone praising it I just scratch my head in disbelief.
The writing is very good, Arthur's character development was nice, but the story went nowhere. A huge part of it was inconsequential, felt like filler, and the pacing was glacial sometimes, specially the epilogue.
Mission design was laughable, with a lot of restrictions on how to complete it.
Everything amazing about the game is related to the budget.
The story sucked. When I see someone praising it I just scratch my head in disbelief.
The writing is very good, Arthur's character development was nice, but the story went nowhere. A huge part of it was inconsequential, felt like filler, and the pacing was glacial sometimes, specially the epilogue.
Mission design was laughable, with a lot of restrictions on how to complete it.
Everything amazing about the game is related to the budget.
I thought the game was garbage. The game is a chore to play, the story is boring, the characters were unlikeable, the multiplayer is ass. Not even the graphics work right since HDR is completely broken (unless they fixed it now) I do not get the praise for this game at all.
Call me paranoic, but I suspect such professional reviewers wouldn't have given the same score if the game wasn't the RDR sequel by R*. Personally I think it deserves around 80-90 because it's surely an emotional journey but controls, gameplay mechanics and pacing flaws do not allow to stay beyond such score.
Last edited:
It's an 80-85 at best. Incredible production values, great narrative and characters but holy fuck is it a chore to play. I bought it on day one and couldn't finish it. I'll give it a second chance in the future.
That's a very good question. I honestly don't know the answer to that. I think we're at a point where video games are experiences as much as they are fun, no? I'd say RDR2 was an experience. I wish rockstar made enjoying it less of a chore (bad controls, ridiculous horse physics, poor gunplay etc).
yeah because I wonder how Rockstar got to the position of getting such a big budget for their games?
I wonder if it has anything to do with....hmmm, maybe making amazing games
When your game has auto aim enable by default or that you need a guide to have passable controls you gotta know something is wrong with your gameplay
this argument is always silly, because there is not many developers, if any at all that could make a game as comprehensive as Rockstar did with Red Dead Redemption 2
would you same thing for zelda games ? Mario games? Kojima games? From software games? Naughty dog games?
Doesn't every Uncharted have auto aim enabled by default? Most shooters do.
GOTG..... Game of the the generation? What a joke I only even remember it when a thread pops up on era. I would love to see statistics on the amount of people that bought it and actually played through the whole thing cause when those credits rolled up I couldn't help but think - "what a waste of my life"
look at the poll results?
634 think its a masterpiece and 577 think its still a 9/10 game
You didn't like any of the characters?
That's wild man. I mean, even outside of Arthur, I absolutely loved some of the other characters and honestly wish they somehow had more story related content to go with them like, Tilly <3, Javier, Charles, Lenny and Reverend Swanson.. hell, they could easily make a television series out of the side characters.
The shooting mechanics in TLOU are a masterpiece, and quite the contrary here...
The tech is amazing, story and characters are amazing so many people don't care about dull mission design I guess.
>ride
>shoot
>ride back
Because of the core gameplay features, you basically only have ONE playstyle for the whole game. And it started to bother me after 20-25 hours, to be honest. I finished it for the story but I didn't enjoy playing it after this time.
>ride
>shoot
>ride back
Because of the core gameplay features, you basically only have ONE playstyle for the whole game. And it started to bother me after 20-25 hours, to be honest. I finished it for the story but I didn't enjoy playing it after this time.
This is where I'm at, great story, ok gameplay that gets really repetitive.
It gets a 7 from me.
Absolutely not. They set a new benchmark for open worlds, but the controls and gameplay are pretty much garbage, not to mention the mission design where they literally take away all freedom from the player. I've never seen a game that is on one hand brilliant and on the other just a pile of shit. And yes, I finished it, but the last hours where a real struggle.
I'd score it a 7 or a 6.5, because I think addictive and fun gameplay + smooth controls are the most important aspects of a game.
If you would send me to an abandoned island and I could take Rage 2 with me or RDR2, I would pick Rage 2 without even hesitating. So much more fun to play. Just like Spider-Man and Days Gone. It's all about fun. RDR2 is, for me, not fun to play.
Lol, yeah sure. You clearly don't know the difference between full lock on auto aim where no skill whatsoever is required and aim assist.
I'd score it a 7 or a 6.5, because I think addictive and fun gameplay + smooth controls are the most important aspects of a game.
If you would send me to an abandoned island and I could take Rage 2 with me or RDR2, I would pick Rage 2 without even hesitating. So much more fun to play. Just like Spider-Man and Days Gone. It's all about fun. RDR2 is, for me, not fun to play.
Lol, yeah sure. You clearly don't know the difference between full lock on auto aim where no skill whatsoever is required and aim assist.
Last edited:
They have aim assist, not auto aim; Uncharted 4 and Lost Legacy added as acessibility options, and was off by default.
I understand the difference I just think how much assistance you are getting from the game is not indicative of a problem with the gameplay at all.
Is any aim assistance indicative that the game play is poorly designed? It's a device used to deliver the intended experience, same as RDR
Sometimes people say games look like a "real" place. This game really does and I haven't been everywhere on the map. Other games feel like dreamland compared to it lol. I don't think the mission design is bad, some of them still got some good and memorable set pieces. Can't remember much of the gameplay besides the RPG elements. I got used to shooting and riding after spending hours with it.
feel like folks still sometimes mistakenly assume that story, atmosphere, and writing aren't "video game things." to me, all of those can be just as important as core gameplay.
would also add that games don't necessarily always have to be "fun" to be impactful. i didn't have a ton of "fun" with What Remains of Edith Finch, yet it's one of my favorites of 2017 and the generation as a whole. games have gotten to the point where they can now fill multiple lanes, much like books and films.
would also add that games don't necessarily always have to be "fun" to be impactful. i didn't have a ton of "fun" with What Remains of Edith Finch, yet it's one of my favorites of 2017 and the generation as a whole. games have gotten to the point where they can now fill multiple lanes, much like books and films.
While I personally don't rate it 90+, it was certainly built like a 90+ game, with the money behind it and attention to detail. Technically it's a pretty nice achievement. For a lot of ppl that's an automatic 90+ so I don't really think it's undeserving in that sense. But I don't think it did much that was new and I'm not really into rockstar style open world games.
I voted no because, while it's world, immersion and art design are utterly 1st class, it's gameplay is still dreadful. Gunfights feel like a chore, aiming is god awful, tap X to sprint (or hold X if you toggle the option) is still utterly ludicrous in this world of analogue sticks and it still has FAR too many dreadful arbitrary fail states in its missions, where the open world freedom is removed and you are forced into playing it EXACTLY the way the designer intended, with no real freedom to innovate or improvise your approach.
Sublime world and visuals wrapping up a decidedly poor GAME.
Sublime world and visuals wrapping up a decidedly poor GAME.
Yeah, I think a lot of people here just feel videogames need constant or action or some other sort of stimulation to be considered worthwhile. Which is a pretty limiting take on what games can be.