-
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.
Why is Red Dead Redemption 2 considered to be overrated?
- Thread starter Mecha Meister
- Start date
Just because you are annoyed by people mentioning what they dislike about a game in a thread about what people value or criticize in a game it doesn't make their criticism less legit or their opinion less valuable. What's even your point here?
Lmao. Where is this crazy idea coming from? I didn't let era influence my opinion on it. I didn't even read about it on here much when I was playing it. I'm more active on other forums anyway and the opinion on it is as divisive there as it is here. This is just a way to easily dismiss criticism without much thought.
Besides the controls, I found that:
-The game has a really poor mission design
-The combat sequences are not that great, and the aiming system feel really bad
-Lots of gimmicky mechanics with no depth
-Pacing was not that great, I felt a little bit tired of the same structure every chapter at the middle point of the game or so
-The game has a really poor mission design
-The combat sequences are not that great, and the aiming system feel really bad
-Lots of gimmicky mechanics with no depth
-Pacing was not that great, I felt a little bit tired of the same structure every chapter at the middle point of the game or so
This is a good point, but I feel that both games have the same problem: bad controls, mediocre combat and bad mission design. I can understand that graphics, writing, atmosphere, story segments... can make a game feel great even with some gameplay problems, but the two games you've listed have subpar gameplay and controls, which is a shame and makes them "good but no great", games to me.
I would be curious to see what controllers people used who say the game plays like shit. This is not an excuse for the game, but I think playing with a controller that has paddles really makes the game much more comfortable to play. I am personally fine with the "sluggishness" of the controls, but I can see how having to take you thumb off the right stick to run/ride the horse would be annoying, but paddles completely fix this issue.
It has the single worst mission design I've ever experienced in a game - not just in how restrictive it is, which people talk about a lot, but what people don't talk about is how shocking basic the missions are. Walk up to this thing, press a button, shootout, cutscene. Loop x100. Killed the rest of the game for me, along with the very poor shooting mechanics. You can't be a 10/10 with two huge flaws like that. I swear to God the Micah prison mission has a prompt that says, 'Press Triangle - Grab Lever' and then Arthur did everything for me. Player is just along for the ride, no control. R* is actually the one playing the game. It is a game that actively shatters the entire point of being an interactive experience.
No amount of graphics or story can fix the play experience. This story really shoulda been a film. It doesn't fit the game medium to be so restrictive and straightforward. Like how many times am I going to do the same mission over again? And even the story is generic as hell. They begin every plot at the end of the story, which makes sense with the themes of the game being about the end of the Wild West, but that makes it so that the player misses all the interesting politics and stuff that happened before. We're just there at the end to blow things up. Game has so many problems.
No amount of graphics or story can fix the play experience. This story really shoulda been a film. It doesn't fit the game medium to be so restrictive and straightforward. Like how many times am I going to do the same mission over again? And even the story is generic as hell. They begin every plot at the end of the story, which makes sense with the themes of the game being about the end of the Wild West, but that makes it so that the player misses all the interesting politics and stuff that happened before. We're just there at the end to blow things up. Game has so many problems.
It's vastly overrated just like GTA IV. It is far from a bad game, but due to the myriad of issues it is more of a 8.5/10 instead of a 9.5-9.7/10. It has sluggish controls, too many animations to drag things out, and just isn't that fun to play compared to the amazing graphics/presentation. Lackluster mission design yet again doesn't help either.
OP
OP
Hehe!
I'm not really concerned about Metacritic scores to be honest, in my opinion the best critic of anything is yourself as everyone has their own tastes and knows what they like, hence the reason there is this divide on the topic of the thread.
I enjoy the Gunplay, but my main complaint with it is unresponsive it can be due to the arguably high input latency and the use of analogue sticks for aiming which are slower and less precise than a mouse. Hopefully the input latency will be significantly lower in the PC version of the game.
Then there's the game's movement, which feels weighted but also appears to be significantly affected by the high input latency, it would be great to see reductions in the input latency here, as well as to see speed improvements for things such as looting objects from people and the environment.
Perhaps the game would feel much more responsive if it was 25-50% faster to loot things from people and cupboards. I think a sizable amount of this delay may rely on the speed that the animations play at, but I could be mistaken.
Edit - Made post clearer.
Last edited:
This man speaks the truth. I'd be totally enamored with the game if it wasn't for the bad input lag and controls.
Yeah, true. But I feel when it comes to reviews or whatever, a game can get away with mediocre controls as long as everything else is pretty much solid. The controls are not the end all be all of a video game. After all, games are greater than the sum of their parts, right? It's about how it all comes together and I think RDR2 nails it in that department.
This game will age just like GTA4. Hailed as a masterpiece at first but will be looked at as a great but flawed game that pioneered a few gameplay elements that will be standard by then.
I didn't like the mission design, way too restrictive. If I had made a review, I wouldn't have give it a 97 score
The amount of dissonance and arrogance to actually feel like your one singular opinion trumps general consensus must be insane. RDR2 is widely beloved and sells upwards of a million copies every quarter, it's not doing that because of its name, word of mouth would have killed it long ago if that was the case. Most people continue to love it, because it's an amazing title that achieves almost everything it sets out to do spectacularly.
It is quite possibly the least responsive and most sluggish game that I've ever played. There's a bunch of menus/subsystems and a hundred different buttons to do useless menial tasks. Coupled with a really awful aiming and sub-par gunplay, it's one of the most boring shooters ever made.
It also relies too much on cinematics to tell it's story, just let me play the damn game.
It also relies too much on cinematics to tell it's story, just let me play the damn game.
I've found the sentiment about the game being overrated is similar on other sites as well, even places that aren't filled with enthusiasts.
In so many ways the game surpasses the best of what the industry has to offer and as a technical achievement it is peerless but the controls are such a fundamental thing, the game takes way too long to register your inputs and even when it does the character continues to move far too long after your thumb leaves the stick.
Then there's the issue with the restrictive nature of the mission design, where you try to come up with a creative solution to an objective and you get a mission failed for it. The long journeys to objectives are part of the experience I guess but it would be really nice to have the option to skip them.
In so many ways the game surpasses the best of what the industry has to offer and as a technical achievement it is peerless but the controls are such a fundamental thing, the game takes way too long to register your inputs and even when it does the character continues to move far too long after your thumb leaves the stick.
Then there's the issue with the restrictive nature of the mission design, where you try to come up with a creative solution to an objective and you get a mission failed for it. The long journeys to objectives are part of the experience I guess but it would be really nice to have the option to skip them.
Yes, of course. But every player has some tolerance and preferences. I disagree with most these hyperbolic "this game is shit", "GOAT", "masterpiece"... comments most of the times, as I think that most AAA games are indeed good products overall and have both strong and weak points that will be more or less noticeable depending on the player.
I value controls, smooth gameplay over anything else, so even if my time with both RDR2 and TW3 was good (some sections were even great), and I appreciate this kind of mature, cinematic and atmospheric games, I don't consider them great as both fail in what I think should be the basics. Obviously every player wants a different thing from games, so some people will notice bad writing or bad stories in most games more than I do, so I get why this kind of games are always well received by some players.
At the end, it's IMO really easy to understand why some players will not agree that a game that has what can be considered big gameplay flaws has been rated with one of the highest scores ever.
I mean, games are more than the sum of their parts
AC Odyssey has complete free form mission design and ultra responsive controls and looting can be done on horseback while you're zooming around. Yet, I still would give that game 8/10 at most, while RDR 2 is my favorite of the gen.
I think the controls, while certainly could be improved on (and the 60+ fps on Pc will more than likely do just that, like with GTA 5) actually worked fairly well with the slow paced nature of the game. And the mission design, while, yes, annoying with its fail states, didn't bother me much at all simply because each mission felt hand crafted and part of a narrative, like mini tv episodes. If it was more free form, maybe it'd have been less frustrating at times, but quite possibly not nearly as memorable.
It could be better on both fronts, yes, but... in the end people rate and consider their overall experience, not dissect everything to bits and then average everything out. The game, as a package, absolutely blew my mind, and clearly the reviewers' too, hence the 97 average.
It's pretty much the only game ever where I walked around aimlessly in the open world and essentially "role played" as a civilian. And I did this for many hours.... it's just ridiculously immersive and detailed. It actually reminded me of the first time I booted GTA 3 up.
AC Odyssey has complete free form mission design and ultra responsive controls and looting can be done on horseback while you're zooming around. Yet, I still would give that game 8/10 at most, while RDR 2 is my favorite of the gen.
I think the controls, while certainly could be improved on (and the 60+ fps on Pc will more than likely do just that, like with GTA 5) actually worked fairly well with the slow paced nature of the game. And the mission design, while, yes, annoying with its fail states, didn't bother me much at all simply because each mission felt hand crafted and part of a narrative, like mini tv episodes. If it was more free form, maybe it'd have been less frustrating at times, but quite possibly not nearly as memorable.
It could be better on both fronts, yes, but... in the end people rate and consider their overall experience, not dissect everything to bits and then average everything out. The game, as a package, absolutely blew my mind, and clearly the reviewers' too, hence the 97 average.
It's pretty much the only game ever where I walked around aimlessly in the open world and essentially "role played" as a civilian. And I did this for many hours.... it's just ridiculously immersive and detailed. It actually reminded me of the first time I booted GTA 3 up.
I'm still waiting for the PC port but I've got an anecdote about the game. I have a friend who recently played the game and she's a very casual gamer but that didn't stop her from making a write up on her blog about how boring the game was and how its attempt for realism hurt many aspects of the experience. She was not a fan of the rigid structure either.
It's interesting to see hardcore and casual players agree on a lot about the game. I'm curious if I'll enjoy it as the first RDR was amazing and I even like LA Noire but hated GTAV.
I know a lot of people that also just bought the game at launch, only played like 4 hours and then stopped but were wowed by the presentation and graphics.
It's interesting to see hardcore and casual players agree on a lot about the game. I'm curious if I'll enjoy it as the first RDR was amazing and I even like LA Noire but hated GTAV.
I know a lot of people that also just bought the game at launch, only played like 4 hours and then stopped but were wowed by the presentation and graphics.
because some people can't handle that others disliked a game they liked.
Oh please, RDR2 fans are bad? In what way? Negative RDR2 threads vastly outnumber positive ones here on ERA. How would you feel if your beloved game got shat on day after day with "criticism" or just because people feel personally insulted by Metascore?
I'd probably feel fine knowing the game still has a 97, but that's just me.
Not to me. Every other open world game is passable at best and usually worse
well OP, when fans of a thing act like this... a thing gets a certain reputation.
Shovel Knight controls better, has more memorable characters, music, story, and environments, gameplay is linear but not nearly as restrictive, but its rated lower than RDR2 is so RDR2 is definitely overrated
Then say that.
Games like The Witcher 3 or Breath of the Wild are not "passable at best" any more than Red Dead Redemption 2 is overrated.
I don't care for trying to decipher whether it's an overrated or underrated game, I just know that my experience with it was largely positive, enough so to outweigh the negatives. It is completely understandable to me how the game didn't gel with a lot of people, most of the known issues were not something that slipped past me, I just gave myself over to Rockstar's obvious intention of having me wholly inhabit the protagonist and world. Their approach to immersion seems to share the same mentality I had as a kid, where I'd feel compelled to walk everywhere in games to create a sense of believability for myself. It's something I rarely do anymore but for the sake of this one game and in appreciation for the meticulous world they developed, I was happy to play along even with some of the more cumbersome aspects. All that being said, I'm not sure it's a game I ever want to play again; if I ever do, I know it will be years and years from now.
For the record, I actually thought the controls and movement were fine. It's no MGSV, of course, but I felt as though they were signifcantly improved from most of their previous games.
For the record, I actually thought the controls and movement were fine. It's no MGSV, of course, but I felt as though they were signifcantly improved from most of their previous games.
It is rated according to what people who played it thought it was worth.
What's the point you are getting at?
