It's so outdated it's the highest rated game on Xbox One and PS4.
I love Knack as much as the next guy, but a bit hyperbolic there mate.Every open world since The Game That Shall Not Be Named has felt outdated.
Why not?
I love when things become your "thing" and then you are stuck doing it for the rest of time, haha. It's so simple yet brilliant.every time i watch a NakeyJakey vid i have the urge to buy an exercise ball
I definatley agree with you on that one. The hold X to run and walk by default mechanic is extremely antiquated and just makes playing a chore. Gaming shouldn't feel like labour. Especially playing online where everything has a sense of urgency but to have mash X to get you player to move is just prehistoric bullshit and is unpleasant.I think it's particularly clear that their control designs and general "feel" is very clunky. They aim for a realistic weight in games, from movement to shooting, but it ends up feeling frustrating. It's just so clunky and lethargic. Your character controls like a shopping trolley and the whole "walk at a snails pace always then hold x to run and tap it to sprint" thing is SHIT AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. I'm legitimately shocked that they still felt that was OK in this day and age. We have analogue sticks Rockstar - for gods sake use them like every other game in the planet does.
It's so outdated it's the highest rated game on Xbox One and PS4.
Highest rated by critics, lets not pretend like that actually means anything. The user score is a good bit lower (Barely making it into the top 50 this gen). GTA IV is the 3rd best game of all time using that logic.
It's so outdated it's the highest rated game on Xbox One and PS4.
I think the fatal flaw of this video however is him comparing the game to Fall Out: New Vegas and almost accidentally stating that Fall Out does "Role Playing" a lot better than Red Dead. Which would make sense, due to the fact that Red Dead never qualifies itself as a Role-Playing game. And I think that is a pretty big distinction. I'm almost at the thought that Rockstar has crammed SO many things into their titles that they are now at "RPG" esque proportions and feel bare bones in that regard, when in reality they never were trying to BE a RPG in the first place.
So we should not take critics score as actual scores but instead we should take user scores as an actual reflection of games quality when it comes RDR 2? Is it for only RDR 2 or all the other games too?Highest rated by critics, lets not pretend like that actually means anything. The user score is a good bit lower (Barely making it into the top 50 this gen). GTA IV is the 3rd best game of all time using that logic.
So we should not take critics score as actual scores but instead we should take user scores as an actual reflection of games quality when it comes RDR 2? Is it for only RDR 2 or all the other games too?
Interesting, I would say other people scores should not mean shit to an individual either be a critic or forum poster.I'm not sure if you read the post I was responding to but it said "It's so outdated it's the highest rated game on Xbox One and PS4" and I'm saying it's not, unless you ignore the opinions of most of the people that played it and submitted a score.
But generally yes, metacritic is shit in general but I'd say user scores are generally a better representation of what people actually think over critic scores. It's probably better to just not appeal to metacritic at all in discussions like this.
Interesting, I would say other people scores should not mean shit to an individual either be a critic or forum poster.
Every open world in this gen has some sort of freedom in mission that is totally absent in rdr2.
In horizon i can choose stealth, trap, direct attack etc., And the game doesn't take away my best weapon for no reason at all...
Idem zelda
Idem watch dogs
Idem assassins creed
Far cry
Darksiders
Etc.
Rdr2 is the only game where you fail a mission for the stupidest things, and it's a fact.
Maybe is not totally outdated in every aspects, but sure as hell it is in some important one...
(Sorry for my english)
I just dont see that way personally , since both parties are biased as fuck when it comes to scores , so either take both of em with a grain of salt and know that its just a subjective opinion of an individual at that time and place or take none of it. People usually dont bring up user scoresWell the argument that person was trying to make was "Look how much people like this game", so picking users scores would make far more sense since it's a better representation of what more people think. My point is metacritic scores in general shouldn't mean shit to anyone, but since that poster was using them as a way to try and argue against the points being made in the video, picking critic scores over user scores makes even less sense.
I just dont see that way personally , since both parties are biased as fuck when it comes to scores , so either take both of em with a grain of salt and know that its just a subjective opinion of an individual at that time and place or take none of it. People usually dont bring up user scores
they don't come close in certain aspects, not all of them.Fair point, but each of those games you mentioned still don't come close to RDR2.
(Don't apologise for your English buddy all good)
because reviewers usually dont rate games 0/10 or 10/10 because of some obnoxious reason. Reviews , the text itself is actually a good justification for why that gave the score they did .People go to RT to check film rating first over something like IMDB, theres a reason for that.What don't you get? If someone is using scores as a way of saying 'You're wrong, look how popular this game is', why would it make more sense to use scores from a small number of critics compared to a much larger number of consumers? I don't follow the logic in that at all.
It's like saying "You're wrong because these 10 people think it's the best game of the generation" while ignoring the 100 other people who don't even think it's a top 20 game.
because reviewers usually dont rate games 0/10 or 10/10 because of some obnoxious reason. Reviews , the text itself is actually a good justification for why that gave the score they did .People go to RT to check film rating first over something like IMDB, theres a reason for that.
It's so outdated it's the highest rated game on Xbox One and PS4.
I don't think any outlet (or atleast most) mean to imply perfect game even with "perfect" score.I think the critical reception actually set up the wrong kinds of expectations. Scores that high imply some kind of second coming and, while RDR2 is a jaw-dropping achievement in many respects, it has more apparent flaws than near perfect scores across the board would imply.
Yup professional critic reviews are much more "trustworthy", than metacritic user reviews in example where people can review without even touching the game. I haven't checked but I'd assume there's some "protest" votes too for not having it on PC. Also review bombing that has been increasingly common, hurts the legitimacy of user reviews a lot. Of course critic reviews don't invalidate anyone's personal preference either.because reviewers usually dont rate games 0/10 or 10/10 because of some obnoxious reason. Reviews , the text itself is actually a good justification for why that gave the score they did .People go to RT to check film rating first over something like IMDB, theres a reason for that.
Why reinvent the wheel. I don't think Uncharted games make huge leaps into new and different directions either, doesn't seem to hurt the sales or critical reception.
All they need to do is go back to the old PS2 GTA design. Those games had missions similiary designed to this game but the difference is that Rockstar didn't as much fail states as this game so you could "break" the missions and do the objectives your own way instead of following what Rockstar wanted you to do.Excellent video. It seems the way RDR2 mixes its brand of open world gameplay with really strict scripted missions is the perfect recipe for player cognitive dissonance. Inconsistency. It breaks the established rules of the game for the player. Not really sure how to fix it without completely overhauling the mission design though . . . . maybe some mission areas could be cordoned off with the army or police or rival gang or any overt-showing of security to signal to the player that things are going to be extra finicky with this one.
I think it's particularly clear that their control designs and general "feel" is very clunky. They aim for a realistic weight in games, from movement to shooting, but it ends up feeling frustrating. It's just so clunky and lethargic. Your character controls like a shopping trolley and the whole "walk at a snails pace always then hold x to run and tap it to sprint" thing is SHIT AND IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN. I'm legitimately shocked that they still felt that was OK in this day and age. We have analogue sticks Rockstar - for gods sake use them like every other game in the planet does.
No such thingThe video is overedited, but he makes very valid points and sums pretty well why I can't stand Rockstar Games.