The way I understood it is that he thought Death Stranding was so bad it made RDR2 good.
-
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.
I dont think Ive seen an embargo make podcasters squirm more than Death Stranding
- Thread starter sn00zer
- Start date
He can't write women, and I have no idea who, if anyone, is even editing him on this project to try to keep his worst impulses in that respect in check.
It's one of the bigger games of the year with an embargo, and unlike an Uncharted, Gears or Mario or whatever there's probably actually stuff to spoil/talk about that makes for good podcast discussion.
I thought the rest of the podcast made it pretty obvious he meant that Death Stranding made RDR2 look good, i.e. he liked it even less than RDR2. I'm guessing it's even more slow paced/lowkey than RDR2.
I thought the rest of the podcast made it pretty obvious he meant that Death Stranding made RDR2 look good, i.e. he liked it even less than RDR2. I'm guessing it's even more slow paced/lowkey than RDR2.
But I think this shouldn't be used to describe games like RDR2. It's not divisive. It's Metacritic score is super high, it's sold like 30 million units.
That's not divisive, Days Gone is divisive and I only say that because of reportedly strong sales, not because forum folk seemed to dig the game and disagree with critical reception.
Maybe it's made him appreciate a deliberately paced walking around game and that's why he should now give RDR2 another chance.
From what I've seen though, the game doesn't have this crazy animation priority type thing. At least not when it comes to doing mundane things like picking stuff up. What I've seen in videos is comically fast for how realistic the game is. More in line with something like MGSV.
What have I missed? (outside of the clip posted above)
Every Kojima game is divisive by nature, this one will likely not be an exception.
Because allthough the MGS games were always well reviewed, there are lots of people that didn't like them because of all of the talking and cutscenes, I think people are desensitized to that now / are young enough to know no difference, as many games are incredibly cutscene heavy.
He's definitely got some stinkers in the mix, but it's not like reviewers have ever really let that hurt their scores.
He literally said life is too short to play games you don't like or something close to that.
Dan's most disappointing game of 2018 was RDR2. He did not enjoy it.
But this other open world game he just started playing is so bad that he gained appreciation for just how good RDR2 actually was.
Yeah, but even with faster animation I could see it still being being mostly a lowkey 'walking sim' with survival elements with a weird cutscene Dan doesn't understand every few hours.
I'm not sure Days Gone is that divisive either as I felt people largely agree it was like just sort of OK.
Honestly I'm kind of hard pressed to think of many very divisive games as most bigger games tend to play it safe.
Last edited:
To give RDR 2 another go because he played a game more disappointing makes way less sense to me than going back to it because he found a new appreciation of that game style he might be able to bring to it. Some new lens to view it through that he wasn't using before.
I don't watch or listen to GB, but based on these takes on Era, they did a terrible job "maintaining embargo"
That's your reason for why it'll be reviewed divisively? As sad as this sounds honestly only a very small fraction of reviewers would take issue with elements like that to the degree where they score it divisively. Gameplay will be the main issue if divisiveness exists.
Yeah, just so everyone is aware, Dan doesn't engage with the stealth in MGS games. He plays Snake like an action hero. This was probably never going to be his type of game.
Nah, there was much more in that podcast. Like him having a lot of free time and life being too short to play bad games or whatever. It was quite obvious.
Why? Why would he go back and play it if not because he thinks he might have something new to appreciate about it? I assume it's not just to cement it's ranking on a 'games I don't like' list next to Death Stranding.
But RDR2 isn't that divisive other than many people like myself saying it isn't a masterpiece but just merely a very good game with some control issues. Arguing that RDR2 is more of a 8.5 instead of 9.5 isn't going to be like Death Stranding where I think it will be 9.5 vs 5-6.
Its definitely not made for action since in every interview with people involved they say that the best thing about the game is that its not about killing. The aggressive approach seems to be very discouraged but seems to have been implemented reluctantly because its a AAA game.
This is not a 5-6 game, I can tell you that just by the gameplay shown. No way this game will have performance issues or bugs and thats enough for it not to get lower then 7 and Days gone got that despite those issues.
The elephant in the room is it looks like a game where you mostly just walk around a lot and deliver packages, with a level of simulation that seems a bit odd. It's the No Man Sky effect of people wondering what you actually do in the game, are shown it, can't believe that's it, and are now coming to terms that's it's a game where you probably mostly walk around and deliver packages.
Because it is a jab at how bad he thinks Death Stranding is. In no way is Dan going back to play more RDR2.
Just for the record, when I complain about review scores being meaningless garbage, this is actually a key component as to why
It was just a joke to hint at DS. He's not actually going to play RDR2 again.
Those who have been calling it an extremely tight NDA, which I've never heard about games in recent memory. The fact that reviewers aren't allowed to talk about the game past Chapter 3. I'm interested to know which other games were like this?
It's not clearly something that will be divisive - that is just a conclusion some people drew based on a couple of people who talked about the game being a slow burn and that it might not be for everyone's tastes (which is something you can say about most games). Some statements are signs and others aren't. No conclusions can really be drawn at this stage, based on vague passing comments in podcasts and this thread is based on those kind of comments.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Giant bomb does not hate the game. One person on the GB crew has expressed strong negativity towards it. There are more people who work there.
Not as many as if this were some no name developer, but I'm betting we see plenty of low scores.
Yeah, Kojima kept saying that he wanted this game to be about ropes (bringing people together) instead of sticks (fighting people/pushing them away)
His pitch about this is why Lindsay Wagner signed up, because the game isn't about shooting people
Also "gameplay spoiler from spoiler thread"
You apparently don't get a gun until you are 9hrs into the game
Dan has been incredibly unsubtle in his opinion of DS.
If it was WWE 2k20 under embargo, it would be like him saying, "I'm playing this game right now but I can't talk about it. By the way, that series has been bad for a while, hasn't it? They're always buggy and the graphics never seem to get better. You think they'd learn at this point. Oh well!"
I mean he gave us a top 5 gaming woman with The Boss though.
Lots of women in Kojima's games are really strong and have plenty of badass moments. The sexualization actually stands in stark contrast to that.