I meant it's hard to follow due to too many cuts and effects. Sorry but english ain't my native language
Tell that to guerrilla\santa monica\insomniac\naughty dog\etc.The more I think about this game and the discussion around this game the more clear one thing becomes. Developers use good graphics to distract you from bad gameplay.
The more I think about this game and the discussion around this game the more clear one thing becomes. Developers use good graphics to distract you from bad gameplay.
On my second play through now and still loving every minute of it. Being that this game is the second highest selling game this year and the highest reviewed, I would argue it is not outdated. This game could use a NG+ feature and/or an increased difficulty mode to extend it further.
Tell that to guerrilla\santa monica\insomniac\naughty dog\etc.
I mean you could have it both ways and have a game that doesnt play like molasses while also looking pretty.
Nintendo seems pretty good at that. Jake's nintendo jesus moment is the best takeaway from the video.
It's so outdated it's the highest rated game on Xbox One and PS4.
Why is the discourse in this thread so poor? So many posts that outright ignore the video and essentially say "I like the game and so do critics"
Is there any other industry where you'd be skinned alive for giving something a 7/10.... an 8/10?It's almost like the gaming media is a joke and has been for decades....
Seriously is there any other industry out there where the reviewers are as bad at their jobs as the gaming ones? We shouldn't have to rely on random youtubers for proper critique of games. Not solely at least.
I agree with you, but to be fair, it's a much more complex medium to review than movies and music, that's way more subjective.It's almost like the gaming media is a joke and has been for decades....
Seriously is there any other industry out there where the reviewers are as bad at their jobs as the gaming ones? We shouldn't have to rely on random youtubers for proper critique of games. Not solely at least.
Too afraid to find flaws in a game they like or "It works for me" in game mechanic form. The usual.
I'm struggling to finish it, honestly. When I'm playing I really enjoy it, but when I'm not, I feel no desire to start playing.
I'd honestly like a cut scene instead of having to slowly walk and talk. Let me be fully engaged or not, at least with the latter, I can put my controller down.
While I enjoyed my time with RDR2, I do agree with this video.
The more I think about this game and the discussion around this game the more clear one thing becomes. Developers use good graphics to distract you from bad gameplay.
Because is a long ass review.
Yes he is. And I don't see what's distracting about it. You can't watch someone move and talk at the same time? How do you deal lectures?I only had time to watch four to five minutes but is he always in the shots wobbling around on his Swiss ball? It's really distracting as I'm not sure why he's in most of the shots. I'm unfamiliar with his other videos so that could be his thing I suppose but I couldn't hang with it.
Movie fandom is pretty bad, not international hate movement bad, but 'force women off social media cause muh ster wurs'.Is there any other industry where you'd be skinned alive for giving something a 7/10.... an 8/10?
On my second play through now and still loving every minute of it. Being that this game is the second highest selling game this year and the highest reviewed, I would argue it is not outdated. This game could use a NG+ feature and/or an increased difficulty mode to extend it further.
No shit it's outdated, it's basically gta 3 in big and really pretty. The mission structure and fail states have not changed much since then. It's still a damn great game though!
This sentence is both hilarious and really sad, because it truly does sum up how devs use shiny graphics and animations and production value to disguise poor gameplay / game design.Being that this game is the second highest selling game this year and the highest reviewed, I would argue it is not outdated
It's almost impossible to analysis or critique a AAA game on ResetERA that has so many fucking sales and 10/10 critic scores. It boils down to "its not outdated because it sold a lot" or "its really good because all the shitty game journos liked it". Everyone is distracted by its story (which is good!), and graphics (which are great!), and its open world (which is good!) , but I think once you think about the game as a whole just a tiny bit it just fucking falls apart. I noticed this with GTAV in 2013 and quickly became bored of the game due to its weird ass design of wanting to be open but linear. Rockstar Games are super overhyped so any discussion trying to bring it down is either met with disdain or confusion.Why is the discourse in this thread so poor? So many posts that outright ignore the video and essentially say "I like the game and so do critics"
Or Infinite Warfare where you could pick missions and freely fly your jackal then choose to do space infantry combat or stay in your jackal. You can also use your equipments however you see fit rather than only using it when the game tells you to and never use it again (older COD did that). Then there's Black Ops 2 with its choice based mission design and branching narrative. Half of the times the choices were so subtle and natural that I wasn't even aware I was making a choice and it had large repercussions later on. There's this particular chase mission in BO2 where you chase a dude who has taken a hostage. For the whole mission I thought it was an entirely scripted sequence and the game would never let me catch up to the guy and even if I got to him the game would just pretend that he got away for "story reasons" because I was so accoustomed to it...like it happens so often in RDR2 where the simulation and immersion makes me expect something else. Turns out I was wrong in Black Ops 2, I could've caught that guy and avoided going through a whole rescue mission later on. In contrast I'll describe an annoying chase mission in RDR. You are chasing a kid in St Denis and he always gets away whenever you close in on him. Then at one point the kid boards a tram through the front door while I'm inches away from him and then I see Arthur give up even though the back door of the tram is right next to him...that was so awful to see and not at all what I'd do in real life. So the "simulation" and "immersion" breaks.
And I don't see a narrative reason for why that had to happen. I could have grabbed that kid way earlier rather than having to go through a terribly long and poorly done chase and then that kid could've taken me to his hideout to give me the information I needed through the same exact cutscene. No change in narrative or pacing but tons of benefits in player agency!
It's funny to hear you say that you find simplicity the problem, when that's exactly what I preferred about Red Dead Redemption (1). This game just isn't "fun" to me because there are way too many things to think about. Oh shit, my horse is dirty, oh shit, my gun is dirty, oh snap, a stranger quest - better get to it before it disappears, same with bounties, oh snap, my camp is running out of ammo and food.I would assume one of those reasons is because these people probably don't try play off the beaten track and just b-line straight to what they are told to do.
Same here, at first it was amazing but the more I played the more you could see behind the curtain at how simple everything was.
I'm an inquisitive type of player and I was failing missions a lot for trying something. Now I'm picking it up a few times a week to do a few missions doing precisely what it wants me to do.
I've made the complaint before in another thread but there's an actual side mission where they've voiced alternative outcomes but they are all fail states unless you do what the developer that created the mission wanted so it makes me wonder why they voiced it at all.
The magic is partially gone but I'm still impressed by the story telling, voice acting, animations and world itself.
I'll get there eventually, I don't hate it I'm just disappointed that such a well crafted game's major flaw is it's mission design.
I really hope they shy away from this in the future and make things a lot more creative and optional.
Stop making authorities like something out of Minority Report, give me at least the black and white option of kill or don't kill with SOME quests because I understand some need to be story related.
Holy shit yes, I never thought about that but you are right.
Some missions actually did that, but a huge amount did not.
I agree with you, but to be fair, it's a much more complex medium to review than movies and music, that's way more subjective.
But yeah, since it's more complex, better reviewers are essential
It's funny to hear you say that you find simplicity the problem, when that's exactly what I preferred about Red Dead Redemption (1). This game just isn't "fun" to me because there are way too many things to think about. Oh shit, my horse is dirty, oh shit, my gun is dirty, oh snap, a stranger quest - better get to it before it disappears, same with bounties, oh snap, my camp is running out of ammo and food.
I think that some developers prioritize good graphics because it sells better. Obviosly good gameplay needs more planning and better designers, but even if R* could do a game that offers both, they know that using most of the resources on graphics, voice actors and world detail means more money for them. You release some good trailer with incredible visuals and you'll sell a lot of copies. The problem is that reviewers don't go into gameplay details and most of them only praise and praise the cinematic feeling bla bla instead of doing a good article on the. whole game.The more I think about this game and the discussion around this game the more clear one thing becomes. Developers use good graphics to distract you from bad gameplay.
I didn't say good gameplay and good graphics are mutually exclusive. Just that whenever a developer tries to hide their bad gameplay with good graphics it usually works.
He gave an answer to that question in this video :)
Bang on. To me it seems like someone noticed that people liked survival games so they decided that they'd chuck in a bunch of systems that at face value seem incredibly important, then forgot about fleshing them out, meaning that the player doesn't ever really have to engage in them. I know I didn't for the 30 odd hours I played anyway and I felt like there was absolutely no effect on my experience, so I was just left thinking why did this shit even make it into the game?It's funny to hear you say that you find simplicity the problem, when that's exactly what I preferred about Red Dead Redemption (1). This game just isn't "fun" to me because there are way too many things to think about. Oh shit, my horse is dirty, oh shit, my gun is dirty, oh snap, a stranger quest - better get to it before it disappears, same with bounties, oh snap, my camp is running out of ammo and food.
Yet, with all that in mind, it also seems like none of it really matters. I put it to my friend like this, and I think this basically describes my feelings:
"When I watch movies like The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, and think "fuck I want to play a game like this" - they don't show them hunting for hours and making sure their buddies are stocked with food and medicine, they just ride around, be badass, shoot each other, and say cool shit."
That's what the first RDR did so well to me, and what this one is kind of failing at.
It's almost like most people don't even watch the video before posting in the thread! Craziness.
I saw the video start to finish when this thread was posted and then skimmed through it today, but I still don't remember/recall why he sits on a ball. It's a 30 min long video about RDR2 and its mechanics so its easy to miss a little tertiary (or irrelevant) detail like that even after watching the video.It's almost like most people don't even watch the video before posting in the thread! Craziness.
The video was great and echoed most of my exact complaints. I was SO excited for RDR2 and really wanted to like it, but at the end of the day, for me, it flubbed on so many big aspects that I found myself not really having fun about halfway through.
Props to Rockstar for making such a beautiful world and one of my favourite protagonists though. I can't take that away from them.
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.
Edit: Also I don't think having some freedom and choice how to differently tackle missions/quests is in any way a new idea. It's just more of a (c)RPG/Immersive Sim thing. Or open world games that don't necessarily have many set objectives to accomplish and rely on freeform gaming (Minecraft, survival games).
GotchyaOh no I meant simple in terms of mission design, the rest of what you said I completely agree with it's the menial tasks which get boring so damned quick.
Yeah, exactly. Even the whole "cores" thing seems like an over complicated way to just have...health bars. No need to reinvent the wheel, especially with an overly complex and unnecessary alternative.Bang on. To me it seems like someone noticed that people liked survival games so they decided that they'd chuck in a bunch of systems that at face value seem incredibly important, then forgot about fleshing them out, meaning that the player doesn't ever really have to engage in them. I know I didn't for the 30 odd hours I played anyway and I felt like there was absolutely no effect on my experience, so I was just left thinking why did this shit even make it into the game?
Naughty Dog's gameplay is below average. The others do an awesome job, though.Tell that to guerrilla\santa monica\insomniac\naughty dog\etc.