They absolutely failed. Some people are just so used to R*'s bullshit that they think it's okay.
-
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.
God of War wins TGA's Game of the Year award!
- Thread starter Bundy
- Start date
Lol that's not how it works. It's intentional and feels good for many people. You not liking it doesn't make it a failure.
The numbers speak for themselves. A certain level of input lag for "realism" is understandable I guess, but a level that high really shouldn't be excused with how much money is going into it. Its like if I made an action movie with super bad choreography, "that was the intended effect" only works for so long before it just becomes a post-hoc excuse for incompetence.
But that's not my biggest beef with the gameplay, I can take mediocre game feel, but why it it that a game that it as touted as being open and "big" as RDR2 lacks any flexibility in its missions? With that level of linearity, it reminds me of the old saying- 10 miles wide but only half an inch deep.
I gotta say I am pretty surprised at some stuff I am reading on the internet.
Like, I thought the whole "RDR2 dont play well" discussion was typical Era bubble opinions, but I am seeing even casual players acknowledging that the game was too methodical for its own good.
Like, I thought the whole "RDR2 dont play well" discussion was typical Era bubble opinions, but I am seeing even casual players acknowledging that the game was too methodical for its own good.
The numbers speak for themselves. A certain level of input lag for "realism" is understandable I guess, but a level that high really shouldn't be excused with how much money is going into it.
But that's not my biggest beef with the gameplay, I can take mediocre game feel, but why it it that a game that it as touted as being open and "big" as RDR2 lacks any flexibility in its missions? With that level of linearity, it reminds me of the old saying- 10 miles wide but only half an inch deep.
That's lag was for one action only. Compare other actions first.
As for linearity, it's a linear game. The open world is a backdrop to the game. The story plays like a linear game.
Spidey stay winning. Also Bungie are fuckin' gods when it comes to tight controls.
The numbers speak for themselves. A certain level of input lag for "realism" is understandable I guess, but a level that high really shouldn't be excused with how much money is going into it. Its like if I made an action movie with super bad choreography, "that was the intended effect" only works for so long before it just becomes a post-hoc excuse for incompetence.
But that's not my biggest beef with the gameplay, I can take mediocre game feel, but why it it that a game that it as touted as being open and "big" as RDR2 lacks any flexibility in its missions? With that level of linearity, it reminds me of the old saying- 10 miles wide but only half an inch deep.
I played RDR2 without the mini map, three game overs at that mission lol, you had to start from the beginning every time!
Luckily it didn't happen that often afterwards but yeah, the game is strangely quite restrictive at times.
LMAO!I can understand people being mad about this. I'd be mad too if I didn't understand how GoW is a much better game than RDR2.
100% agree with decision over red dead redemption 2.
Red dead redemption is the most impressive game ever made. Specifically, the scale and depth of the world are on another level that likely won't be achieved again until rockstar releases it's next game. The narrative of the game, slowly deromatisizing the gunslinger cowboy fantasy is genius, it takes its time and expertly executed. The amount of dialogue they recorded to cover every single contingency or scenario for Arthur or his companions to say is staggering. The camp especially lives up to the promise of the living open world reacting and recognizing your actions.
The issue I have is the game is a chore to play. I never want to play it again and there is no single mission or moment that I want to play again. Alot of it it comes down to the controls. They are sluggish and clunky, trying to do too many things at once. The game feels like it's fighting your intentions instead of being an extension of your will. The mission designs often deslove into fetch quests or shooting galleries that fly in the face of open world design by being extremely linear and scripted. Chapter 5 is especially guilty of this, being so linear that in the course of 10 minutes, there were multiple instances where I was inexplicably unable to take cover where I wanted only to find out that the game was saving that cover for an npc. It was funnel to shooting gallery after funnel to shooting gallery. There wasn't a single enemy in the entire game that I felt I had to approach differently than any other enemy.
God of war is excellent. It's a joy to play with great feeling combat that evolves and becomes more nuanced as the game progresses giving the player a constant sense of mastery. The characters and the performances are delightful. It respects your time by crafting tight experiences filled with very high highs at a consistent tempo.
However, It falls short of red dead in a number of areas, and is far more by the numbers for the genre. The ambitions are different, but lesser still.
In the end, red dead was a game I played through to get through, half the time with a cell phone in hand.... while god of war was a game I couldn't put down that consistently rewarded me, making me forget I had a cell phone. God of war is my game of the year.
Red dead redemption is the most impressive game ever made. Specifically, the scale and depth of the world are on another level that likely won't be achieved again until rockstar releases it's next game. The narrative of the game, slowly deromatisizing the gunslinger cowboy fantasy is genius, it takes its time and expertly executed. The amount of dialogue they recorded to cover every single contingency or scenario for Arthur or his companions to say is staggering. The camp especially lives up to the promise of the living open world reacting and recognizing your actions.
The issue I have is the game is a chore to play. I never want to play it again and there is no single mission or moment that I want to play again. Alot of it it comes down to the controls. They are sluggish and clunky, trying to do too many things at once. The game feels like it's fighting your intentions instead of being an extension of your will. The mission designs often deslove into fetch quests or shooting galleries that fly in the face of open world design by being extremely linear and scripted. Chapter 5 is especially guilty of this, being so linear that in the course of 10 minutes, there were multiple instances where I was inexplicably unable to take cover where I wanted only to find out that the game was saving that cover for an npc. It was funnel to shooting gallery after funnel to shooting gallery. There wasn't a single enemy in the entire game that I felt I had to approach differently than any other enemy.
God of war is excellent. It's a joy to play with great feeling combat that evolves and becomes more nuanced as the game progresses giving the player a constant sense of mastery. The characters and the performances are delightful. It respects your time by crafting tight experiences filled with very high highs at a consistent tempo.
However, It falls short of red dead in a number of areas, and is far more by the numbers for the genre. The ambitions are different, but lesser still.
In the end, red dead was a game I played through to get through, half the time with a cell phone in hand.... while god of war was a game I couldn't put down that consistently rewarded me, making me forget I had a cell phone. God of war is my game of the year.
It better win here too.
GOW is a crowning achievement and easily a top 10 game of all time.
Hope this is a wake up call for Rockstar.
What good is a world that isn't fun to play in? GTA4 was so bad to me, The Lost And The Damned was so close to being black and white, and I was so bored of it trying to finish it that I couldn't make my way out of a hideout while trying to stay awake on a Sunday afternoon, no where near a time I would usually be sleep. TBoGT was a bit better with fun things to do, but the things they put back in the game were not good enough. I remember the parachute being stiff or feeling limited. GTA5 was quite a bit better than GTA4 with controls and cop aggro. RDR2 looks boring, this game will need mods if it gets to PC.
What good is a world that isn't fun to play in? GTA4 was so bad to me, The Lost And The Damned was so close to being black and white, and I was so bored of it trying to finish it that I couldn't make my way out of a hideout while trying to stay awake on a Sunday afternoon, no where near a time I would usually be sleep. TBoGT was a bit better with fun things to do, but the things they put back in the game were not good enough. I remember the parachute being stiff or feeling limited. GTA5 was quite a bit better than GTA4 with controls and cop aggro. RDR2 looks boring, this game will need mods if it gets to PC.
I think I agree with this. Just never stopped to think about it like that, that's crazy.
Agreed, plus it has great reviews and they sold a shit load of copies, RDR2 is a massive hit, far from a failure.
The controls have a certain weight to them and it's not to everyone's liking but it's still perfectly playable and it does many other things very well too. RDR2 is a fantastic game, it's weird the hate it's getting.
I was so pleased for GoW to win but that also was a massive hit, so it wouldn't have been an issue for me if RDR2 won GOTY.
The controls wasn't the biggest problem in RDR2 at least for me, it was the mission design. Ride for a few minutes, kill a few people and done. There was few missions that were great, like the train robbery. But other than that the missions were not that fun.
I still enjoyed RDR2 a lot it's still number three on my list, after GOW and Astrobot.
I still enjoyed RDR2 a lot it's still number three on my list, after GOW and Astrobot.
What is fun to you doesn't apply to everyone. Some people prefer immersion and realism as opposed to "action".
I'd of been happy with any of God of War 4, RDR2 or even Spiderman winning. Spiderman was my first platinum and i've been on PSN since they introuduced trophies so it must of been doing something right at insominiac, yes it wasn;t the most difficult but still i don't usually do all the extra stuff outside the main story. I think Arthur is the greatest lead character rockstar have ever produced and the whole cast was strong and the scope of the game was incredible but it did have flaws in mission design and controls.
God Of War 4 was probably the most well rounded of the lot, it didn't do anything wrong really, everything it did was good, very good. The combat, the story, the characters (i loved freya) and everything was done to such a high level.
God Of War 4 was probably the most well rounded of the lot, it didn't do anything wrong really, everything it did was good, very good. The combat, the story, the characters (i loved freya) and everything was done to such a high level.
Oh I'm fine with that. With so many games out there and learning from GTA4 to research like crazy before I invest time or money in them. So far since GTA4 I have a good record of getting games that I never regretted buying. So many games.
The main issue with RDR2 for me of course, was how by the final chapter (maybe even the final part of the 5th chapter) the missions kinda lose their charm... they've become for the most part direct shooting courses. The creativity/variety shown early on kinda goes away even if the story keeps improving (IMO of course). Maybe on a 2nd replay I'll notice that it was like that from the start and I just noticed it later on, but it does feel like after a while the missions don't try as much to have you do different things at all.
For such a beautiful open world that gives you loads of options in what to do to amuse yourself, the actual missions never really use it to their benefit. I kinda get it, to tell a tight story they kinda have to restrict you (and at many points the story actually calls for it, to be fair), but they also don't keep a good consistent level of quality either.
Regarldess these two (GoW, RDR2) are two of the best games of the year (if not the actual gen) along with Spidey. A top quality year for me!
For such a beautiful open world that gives you loads of options in what to do to amuse yourself, the actual missions never really use it to their benefit. I kinda get it, to tell a tight story they kinda have to restrict you (and at many points the story actually calls for it, to be fair), but they also don't keep a good consistent level of quality either.
Regarldess these two (GoW, RDR2) are two of the best games of the year (if not the actual gen) along with Spidey. A top quality year for me!
Realism ? like when you instantaneously pick up ammunition but you need 5 seconds to loot corpses ? That remind me of the awful controls of The last Guardian (which I loved). People were saying the controls are awkward because the character is clumsy...but oddly only on the ground because he is the most agile athlete in the world when his walking, climbing and jumping like a squirrel with miraculous precision on thin strings.
It's not realism: its badly designed and incoherent controls.
Bruh don't you know it's realistic to think about moving then have your leg respond a second and a half later.
What are the rdr 2 is a new standard for the industry based in? Genuine question. I feel like due the difficulty of emulating it and the heavy commitment as in years of dev it would take I never felt like Rockstar games were particularly a standard of anything for yeaaaaaars now(not sure about the gta 3 times).
I def don't see a lot of Red Dead 1 design bleeding into the games after it. It seems to me Skyrim was immediately more influential and after that the ubisoft philosophy of open world design.
But maybe someone wants to educate me where I'm missing stuff. In any case I have a hard time seeing many of rdr2 gameplay aspects being emulated. It seems like the cost/benefit there is possibly worth questioning. I can see map information being more obscured in future open world games but this seems already to be a thing happening right now with Horizon having heavily customizable UI and the explorer mode in AC Odyssey.
Or maybe I'm reading standard wrong as in it's the new high bar to surpass for some people and not standard as it will influence the industry to try to emulate it.
I def don't see a lot of Red Dead 1 design bleeding into the games after it. It seems to me Skyrim was immediately more influential and after that the ubisoft philosophy of open world design.
But maybe someone wants to educate me where I'm missing stuff. In any case I have a hard time seeing many of rdr2 gameplay aspects being emulated. It seems like the cost/benefit there is possibly worth questioning. I can see map information being more obscured in future open world games but this seems already to be a thing happening right now with Horizon having heavily customizable UI and the explorer mode in AC Odyssey.
Or maybe I'm reading standard wrong as in it's the new high bar to surpass for some people and not standard as it will influence the industry to try to emulate it.
I don't know about setting standards, but RDR2's world is the most alive one I've ever experienced and definitely should push the medium forward, from NPCs, the random events (even if they do repeat) and to the animals, everything they've done with them contributed greatly to the world.
Then there are things which it does an excellent job with like side quests, animations, characters, etc..
Also not really sure what the "new standard in the video game industry" claims are for RDR2...its got nice production values and more sheen, as you'd expect...but its largely following the same formula of RDR1, and indeed the open world template GTA3 pioneered. It didn't do anything new.
....fucking hell. They lost GOTY, not that they made a bad game.
Can you imagine the devs at Rockstar in tears, realising that not winning at the prestigious Game Awards is proof that what they made wasn't good enough. The high metacritic scores and sales now mean nothing.
RDR2 is the opposite of a new standard. The gameplay feels dated as hell and so does the mission structure. Cutscenes and visuals are obviously better but Rockstar is using the same formula since GTA 3. It's a step backwards in almost all categories. It feels outdated, it has huge pacing issues and it doesn't try anything new. The most overrated game I've ever played.
RDR2 was going to sell high no matter what, especially how Rockstar does it's marketing, keeping so much controlled until it launches. It seems like more of an experience than a game, and their control and design decisions look like bad choices to me as a gameplay first player. If they don't step up their controls and gameplay to the level of their world design/art, music, and detail then I won't mind.
I was mostly interested in how they will pull this game off to make it interesting to play, to me it's bleh so far. Though I thought the same about GTAV Online, it started rough but I found some things to do, then they kept changing things to make playing missions for credits more tedious. Maybe RDR2 Online will be even better and rake in the money. Horses and chores vs sport cars, advanced vehicles, flight, and modern world though.
I was mostly interested in how they will pull this game off to make it interesting to play, to me it's bleh so far. Though I thought the same about GTAV Online, it started rough but I found some things to do, then they kept changing things to make playing missions for credits more tedious. Maybe RDR2 Online will be even better and rake in the money. Horses and chores vs sport cars, advanced vehicles, flight, and modern world though.
I mean, for me personally, not everything has to feel and move like CoD. Sometimes the added weight and heft gives me a more tactile feel. That's just me though. It's one of the reasons I vastly preferred Killzone 2 to any BF or CoD.
Again, that's just me. I'm a weirdo and the controls in RDR2 don't bother me outside of the occasional annoyance. I wouldn't prop it up as "industry changing", though. To me that's as ridiculous as saying BotW is "industry changing" or "genre defining". Just, lol, nope!
RDR2 is one of the best games I've played this gen, easily, and probably the best open-world game I've played. But the hyperbole on both sides is pretty ridiculous to me.
With so much talk of red dead 2 I thought I would chime in.
Red Dead 2 is the game of the generation for me, if not all time so I have no problem with God of war winning someone's game of the year, as I loved it too. I know that doesn't really make sense, but on a personal level let god of war win all the game of the years, they deserve a shed load of praise, but red dead 2 is in a whole other stratosphere for me.
Red Dead 2 is the game of the generation for me, if not all time so I have no problem with God of war winning someone's game of the year, as I loved it too. I know that doesn't really make sense, but on a personal level let god of war win all the game of the years, they deserve a shed load of praise, but red dead 2 is in a whole other stratosphere for me.
The lack of a OST nod for Forsaken is criminal.
The numbers speak for themselves. A certain level of input lag for "realism" is understandable I guess, but a level that high really shouldn't be excused with how much money is going into it. Its like if I made an action movie with super bad choreography, "that was the intended effect" only works for so long before it just becomes a post-hoc excuse for incompetence.
But that's not my biggest beef with the gameplay, I can take mediocre game feel, but why it it that a game that it as touted as being open and "big" as RDR2 lacks any flexibility in its missions? With that level of linearity, it reminds me of the old saying- 10 miles wide but only half an inch deep.
Just wanted to say.