Garbage response.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeshhhhhh what the hell is this. You don't even offer anything to combat his opinion.
The heck????
-
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.
Mark Brown ( Gamemaker's Toolkit ) review of Red Dead Redemption 2
- Thread starter Toriko
- Start date
- Status
Garbage response.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeshhhhhh what the hell is this. You don't even offer anything to combat his opinion.
The heck????
This is going to be the prevailing sentiment about the game now the hype is starting to settle down.
You can see exactly where all their money was spent on it, but at the core there's so little of interest there with the game.
You can see exactly where all their money was spent on it, but at the core there's so little of interest there with the game.
I can say that I was disappointed in the game, but it did have some fun moments. Riding two and from missions on a horse just really left me bored most of the time. I would just either press X or just choose cinematic to make the rides less daunting. Horizon Zero Dawn is by far my most favorite open world game this generation. It felt better riding to and from missions because the world was just more alive and the machines you encounter were all enjoyable to fight.
I think the online mode will get me back into this game cause playing in a world with 30 or more people would make for a much better experience for me.
I think the online mode will get me back into this game cause playing in a world with 30 or more people would make for a much better experience for me.
It's (IMHO) still best open world in a long time for rewarding exploration. Everytime you saddle up and go out in th wilderness, you have a high probability of something wortwhile will happen.
The flaws the game does have should of course not be overlooked, but it's not like games like Far Cry and Shadow of Morder aren't without them.
I'm all for innovations in the genre to make these feel more dynamic, but in the absences of such things, RDR2 still have such large amounts of scripted content, in such a variety and quality, that the game still very much feels like a wortwhile quality addition to the genre.
For me it's such an astonishing accomplishment, and something that feels like the ultimate western games, so that a lot of the attempts to completely discredit the games feels very weird for me, based on my experiences playing the game.
The flaws the game does have should of course not be overlooked, but it's not like games like Far Cry and Shadow of Morder aren't without them.
I'm all for innovations in the genre to make these feel more dynamic, but in the absences of such things, RDR2 still have such large amounts of scripted content, in such a variety and quality, that the game still very much feels like a wortwhile quality addition to the genre.
For me it's such an astonishing accomplishment, and something that feels like the ultimate western games, so that a lot of the attempts to completely discredit the games feels very weird for me, based on my experiences playing the game.
"events" move around the game world. You could be riding by one, and miss the cues to go to it, so it puts it back into the pot and will start it in another area you are currently in at a different time.
I guess we will have to see, it's sure not the single player that made GTA5 still being this popular after this many years. RDR2 set a different but equally immersive world, we will have to see RDR online able to offer.
I don't think they're wrong with any of their points, but I also don't think that player freedom/agency is the only route to a great game. RDR2 is incredible within and arguably because of the restrictions it puts on the player. It guides them through an incredible experience. It's better than any of the games listed in the OP.
Here's my issue with RDR2 so far in terms of its scripting.
The 'beats' of the game, where you stray from the beaten path to find situation X, all so far - feels like they're all extremely scripted. It's excessive and rich in its quantity and quality, but to me, unless I'm deeply immersed in that moment, it doesn't always feel like it's something that the world generated on its own, but rather it's one of the 50,000 ridiculously well-produced scripted events in the game.
Each of these moments make me feel 'wow, this world is really immersive', but at the same time, they haven't felt like there's a compounding effect that makes the world richer.
Ah, I wasn't remarking on if it was good or bad. Just explaining why things regularly happen when you are wandering about. You'll notice if you run into a bunch of stuff at the beginning of a chapter, by the end you will be running across less "events" as you travel around. I believe so many are relegated per chapter.
Same here, seems like the game isn't for him. I understand the intention of RDR2 and I loved it for what I sets out to do. It has mediocre controls though but everything is special around it that I don't mind.
I'm not completely sure I understand how they don't make the game richer.
For me they fill up the map, makes exploration worthwhile, keep you immersed, often give you options about how to handle them, often gives you rewards, and are often mentioned elsewhere in the games (NPC's, papers, etc).
It might be that I don't fully understand what you mean by "compounding effects".
I just mean the single player, and how the opinion on that will change from what we saw at launch from critics.
I mean it is still an amazing game but I feel like just the attitude that seems to be here with how criticism is discrediting? It's something I find very sad to gaming discussion.
If the only meaningful thing we're able to say about a game that it's great I feel that is such a disservice to the medium and showcases a lack of actually taking it seriously.
The point of criticism shouldn't be a contest of which games have the most flaws or some kind of weird dick measuring contest and definitely not just to discredit something. The point of criticism at least to me is to engage with something on a deeper level and find appreciation in the way a work succeeds or fails and how especially for games the complex web of systems mesh together to create/recreate a certain experience.
When I talk about how the gameplay of the honor system and the journal in certain ways clashes with arthurs characterization that is sold through story missions that doesn't discredit that there is a lot of really great story telling going on outside of that. Things like Dutch brooding solo at certain points in the camp or John never being close to Jack in camp are great, the amount of characterization the game is doing just by showing stuff and asking the players to pay attention is great. I'm in chapter 3 and I got more out of the camp members already than I did get out of a full playthrough of FF15 from the bros. But I feel like we should be able to talk about where it doesn't succeed as well without some fragile fanboy just coming into a thread going on about some absurd reason instead of engaging with the criticism of why everyone that doesn't think it's a perfect game is wrong.
Like at least if you disagree engage well as long as it makes some sense, I'm not sure how to feel about people defending input lag as an artistic choice.
----------------------------
Looking at the responses here alas not. That this thread counts as shitting on RDR2 to some is embarrassing as fuck peace out. Every game is perfect or trash I guess I'm not going to look for actual good discussion here anymore. Too many are just utterly incapable of engaging with criticism and I'm actually feeling like I'm reading a baby rage comment section. Jesus.
So the reviewer didn't like it because he wanted Shadow of War, MGS V, Zelda BOTW, Far Cry etc. in one game. Arthur would say: "Sure!"
Edit: And I don't get why people constantly shit on the million little side stories, only because they are scripted.
Edit: And I don't get why people constantly shit on the million little side stories, only because they are scripted.
And what does that have to do with this review in particular? Instead of judging the thread based on its content, you're trying to create a reason to dismiss the thread. If you have nothing useful to add, find another thread where you can be more useful.
Anything else to say?
TC has posted multiple negative topics on this game in the space of a few days. He has found a negative review in a sea of positive reviews and decided to start a thread on it.
I could flood this board with topics on the positive reviews.
I don't mind what anyone's preferences are. If you play games for gameplay exclusively, awesome. If you love story, awesome. If you like a healthy mix of both, sweet. The problem with what he said about Uncharted 4 was that games that have a story as the main focus *should not* be that way. He did not present it as an opinion - he presented it as an objective truth. That's my issue with him.
Go do that then. You sound pretty upset that he doesn't like the game.
Dude it's not like he discovered a YouTube channel with 5 views and 1 subscriber. Mark Brown is well known and respected here.
It's kind of amusing how much people get torn up over a game being criticized.
I absolutely don't feel that the game can't be criticized, but the attitude often boils down to a game either being the best game ever or just very shit. Like when you summarize the game with "and that's despite Rockstar's extreme push towards realism. Because the game just ends up feeling like those phoney western movie sets that look like saloons and banks on one side, and unpainted planks of wood on the other. It's not fooling anyone."
Maybe it's fun lines to write, but things like that turns me off reviews, and even more when a tone like that is celebrated by others.
A lot of those things make me feel good in the moment. Ah, there's this new thing to do - a lot of flavour text and dialogue that adds to character/world.
But a lot of what I've tried so far? In spite of flavour text, they're still strangers. When I go back the next time, I don't see them there. Are they part of the world or not? The game is so dense that you can at times lose track of it. When I took another bounty hunter's game and try to redeem it myself, it turns out I can't. I can only save them or kill them. And while there are options, most of the time the option is to either help them or don't, which leads to a riding event or a combat scenario. The dynamic opportunities within these events are narrative-driven, which enhances the fact that they are scripted.
I know that these events are connected. Someone I saved might notice me in the town/etc etc. But in spite of that - they're still "strangers", and I feel like beyond the connective tissue - the core of the game doesn't feel like there's more to it beyond that 3-layer web of rob/don't rob/antagonize/greet/etc. Especially if like me, I only play the game as a good guy. I'm not interested in trying to 'break the system' to test out good or bad approaches, I wanna be a good guy but the layers of being a good guy or bad guy is one-dimensional in your actions in both sides.
It would be absolutely ridiculous for this game to win GOTY from any outlet. Hopefully people will have calmed down a bit when those discussions start going.
Not in the slightest. While I personally love the game I can see it's flaws and understand why people won't like certain aspects of it. I have absolutely no issue with controls or shooting but again can see why people will say it's outdated or whatever.
My issue is that since Saturday this user has made multiple threads being negative towards the game including picking a singular review that suits his agenda.
If I had made 4 threads since Saturday saying how much I like the game and finding anything to reinforce that then I can gaurentee I would be getting called out for it.
Look at that guy who loved FFXV and kept making multiple threads about it . Got banned in the end I think.
I like Mark Brown a lot and I'm a patron but he has very narrow ideas of what a game should be sometimes. I found this out during his Boss Keys series examining Zelda's dungeons, in which he decided that only dungeons in which you have a lot of choice as to where to go and what to tackle are 'good' Zelda dungeons, which I disagree with. I can see that mindset in this review.
I mean it feels disingenuous to quote that without recognizing that his whole review is framed from a perspective that is very gameplay focused in its criticism and it that context it makes perfect sense.
I feel that is an absolutely fair statement for someone that was looking for the gameplay to be less restrictive I can totally get the perspective although for me personally red dead 2 succeeds in other ways to such degree that I find engaging with it worthwhile beyond the gameplay. So I don't even agree about looking at Red Dead just mainly through the gameplay lens but I also don't feel the need or deny the point he is making.
But just on the gameplay a concrete example of how that facade of high production values can kinda fool you but doesn't stand up at all under scrutiny similarly to the picture he paints with that quote.
Some sidequest spoilers about how unreactive and restrictive the mission design in the game is so far.
Spoilering 2 sidequests that I approached similarly 1 in Valentine and 1 in Saint Denis (chapter 3)
In Saint Denis there is this scammer quest that lures you into a back alley and robs you. Upon meeting them again I tried to solve this quest by hogtying the scammers and delivering them to the police but you instantly land on the wanted list for doing that.
In Valentine there is this quest with a woman telling you she murdered a man in self defense. First time I helped her but it happened again and the second time I refused and hogtied her and delivered her to the sheriff which the game accepted despite her causing a big ruckus screaming on the street that Arthur attacked her unjustly.
In Valentine there is this quest with a woman telling you she murdered a man in self defense. First time I helped her but it happened again and the second time I refused and hogtied her and delivered her to the sheriff which the game accepted despite her causing a big ruckus screaming on the street that Arthur attacked her unjustly.
Ok. I understand it a bit more then, and I'm all in favor for this being further improved.
Is there any other open world game that does this aspect really well?
Oh, and as for the bounty example, do you mean when you encounter bounty hunters with a person captured? I encountered that once. I attacked the hunters, killed them, and delivered the bounty myself to the Sheriff in Strawberry for a reward. Is it that event you meant, or something else?
His reviews are all subjective and as far as I've seen he has never made the claim that his views are "objective truth." Someone doesn't need to put "imo" whenever they give their views, it is implied; for example I say "Transformers are bad movies" do I need to put "in my opinion/imo" in there? No and I should not have to. edit: added quotation marks
Is the OP breaking any ResetEra's rule? I personally haven't seen any of his topic regarding RDR2, this is the first one, and Mark Brown's perspective is interesting.
For the bolded, do it then, no one is stopping you.
Although I do find you rather petty, to be honest, which is kind of sad, but if you want to focus all your energy creating tons of RDR2 IS AWESOME threads to counter Toriko 's seemingly nefarious intentions of badmouthing RDR2 in every chance he got (according to you, at the very least), the post new thread button is there for you to use!
Edit: I just realized that the EA guy topic was created by Toriko as well. But so what? It's interesting discussion regardless. And if you can't handle having someone criticizing your game, you're free to avoid the threads doing so and find your own safe room to huddle in together with fellow-minded people.
Last edited:
Menawhile you turn this into a meta discussion about the OP.
Go on and flood the board instead of acting like an insecure teenager. Jeez.
All reviews are subjective as is your response to them. Jesus this is like elementary school stuff wtf. Why are you presuming that he is presenting it as an objective truth.
The point is he made a opinion piece with a thought through perspective that at the very least is 1000000000000000000000000000 times more valuable than contributions like "garbage review" and whining about how shit is too negative. Jesus Christ... why so fragile about one of the most critically acclaimed games this year that is selling 17 million + copies and still a total inability to actually engage with what he's saying instead of just having that instant babyrage whining gut reaction leading you to post such garbage.
Fuck man I should peace out as I said. There is no worthwhile discussion to be had about anything about this game unless I just want to circle jerk about how flawless it is.
Let's not fucking gloss over that he got banned for not engaging and basically acting in a way that is equivalent to trolling. If you go into a discussion forum to just spam "this game is the greatest ever" you deserve to be banned. You should be here because you look for discussion other perspectives, etc.(Although I guess I might be wrong on that given the quality of general discourse)
Last edited:
I don't want every open world game to be shallow narrative wise because developers push "make your own story" talk. Last night while playing RDR2 I did simple 2 minute optional thing that evoked more emotions in me than anything I experienced playing Assassin's Creed Origins for 120h. That is why I love and enjoy RDR2, I got tired of shallow narrative in 100h open world games.
I still stand with my opinion that you can't have good story and character development with "make your own story" approach.
I still stand with my opinion that you can't have good story and character development with "make your own story" approach.
I think it's the same quest. It probably bugged for me, since I went to the sheriff and I was ignored, couldn't get any reward or reaction or anything.
In that case, my example was a bad example. That being said, I think the overall impressions hold. The game is exhaustive in its details, but almost everything is painstakingly hand-crafted, and the detriment of that is that you can see the intentions of the 'moment' that R* added with its unique beats, and sometimes you just aren't able to do more than what the game decides are the 2-3 game options.
That quote, intentionally or not, sums up a great deal of what is wrong with Rockstar's approach to world design, though. Instead of trying to create a living, breathing world, they create something that feels more akin to the Truman Show. Oh, it looks living and breathing on the surface, but if you give it a shove, the facade creaks. The inhabitants of Rockstar games are overtly witty and suspiciously scripted. These little dramas play out in your immediate vicinity, for your benefit. What results doesn't have that emergent feel of various systems interacting, but instead feels like a bunch of actors waiting along your path to do their bit, before running behind the scenery to do the same thing over and over again as you walk past.
People often talk about how incredibly immersed Rockstar's games make them feel. But in RDR2's particular case, the game is basically brute forcing immersion by using a huge list of highly scripted skits it wheels out in front of the player. It's a good illusion, but it's one that falls apart if you look too closely, and its overt artificiality can be suffocating.
User Warned: Hostility towards another user
I'm not torn up over criticism, I'm just pointing out that the OP is salty over this game and he is not even subtle at all about it. Every thread he makes is for the sole purpose of shitting on this game.
How the fuck do these posts fly ?
Good read.
Exactly what I predicted before I opened the page.
Easy to predict when you've watched his Systemic Design video.
I was wishing and hoping the whole time that Rockstar knew better. After being bummed out by RDR1, I won't be getting the sequel at full price anytime soon.
Easy to predict when you've watched his Systemic Design video.
I was wishing and hoping the whole time that Rockstar knew better. After being bummed out by RDR1, I won't be getting the sequel at full price anytime soon.
Maybe, but is this case the OP is referencing a review so why not? It's no secret that people get very defensive when their favorite game is critisized. It's even funnier when that game has been critically acclaimed in general (meaning there is absolutely no reason to be defensive).
- Status