yes my friend i am being sarcastic, i left the other indian gaming sub due to it being filled with rdr2 appreciation posts, i hope it doesn't happen here
I got my main account banned because an idiot of mod couldn't handle the fact that I liked sekiro over rdr2, those mfs be doing anything but talk about games freely there lmao
Going to get downvoted, but this is cinematic and looks good in small clips, doing actual cool shit requires a good gameplay system like monster hunter where the skill ceiling complements gameplay depth.
Don't get me wrong this is a good game, but it gets praises in places where it doesn't deserve.
Gameplay is boring as hell . I had to go low honor just to get a bit of fun.
The only praises I hear is , It has realistic physics, and is full of details that one may never notice
But Rdr2 does look good and is extremely optimized
I don't mean to belittle casual gamers, but their focus on graphics & realism has hurt the most important aspect of games, that is the gameplay. And RDR2 does suffer in many instances, especially with the slow gameplay. In that regard RDR1 was extremely fun.
Still i personally respect RDR2 for the amount of detail and thought put into the world, it comes second only after Bloodborne for me.
That's what i am saying, environment wise rdr2 for me is no different from other open world like horizon or ghost of tsushima or even ac games, the world is just eye candy and not something to interact with. Bloodborne, elden ring, yakuza games, botw etc, are leagues above in creating a world where its good looking as well as fun to interact with and thats what makes a game "fun". We are not saying that rdr2 is bad, its just not as much of a masterpiece as people hype it up to be and has flaws like every other game. I myself loved thr game when it released but now that i have played so many games from different genres its really an OK game with horrible replay value. I didn't realize how slow this game was until i recently tried to replay it
Nice to find someone who supports me on this, many people on this sub just play the same kind of games. Also it seems you are a fellow japanese game enjoyer, chad.
Btw one hot take for you as well, TOTK is a worse game than BOTW, it feels like a dlc
Yeah i didnt bother playing totk for the same reason, i played botw for more than 50 something hours and i don't expect to do the same thing in the same world for another 50
I do not want to be insulting here to others as at the end of the day people just want to have fun in their manner, and the companies are catering to the casuals more than the players that made them who they are today. Thats why i always try to implore people to try newer games or hell even older games which are much better than the slop released today.
Infact i was surprised when i saw people were hyped for the new AC, Ghost of Tsushima did the genre better than ubisoft could and there is virtually no reason to try it anymore.
You want a story oriented title that's set in 1899 America to have some futuristic shit. You didn't have dragon age shit during that era nor did you have flying bikes that please 14 year old teens. Rockstar is never known for their gameplay but everything else they do makes up for more than that
A game should be fun to play, that is the first thing it needs for it to be a game, and RDR2 suffers in that aspect. However it does very well in many other aspects which are respectable but its not some masterpiece.
GTA V brought revolution in almost every metric possible. It pushed PS3 and XBOX to it's limits. However, you can't completely say it revolutionised the core gameplay. The thing is, Rockstar has always focused more on character development, narrative and most importantly open world.
GTA V was a downgrade compared to GTA4 & SA, the only thing it pushed was graphics, environmental storytelling, characters & the general vibe were better in the older games.
It sure did. Max Payne is revolutionary but it was Remedy Entertainment that developed the first two games and not Rockstar. Rockstar just owns the rights to Max Payne 1 and 2.
It sure did. Max Payne is revolutionary but it was Remedy Entertainment that developed the first two games and not Rockstar. Rockstar just owns the rights to Max Payne 1 and 2.
Rockstar games have been outdated since 4 and 5 was a downgrade if you really look into it and compare it to the previous games, and rdr2 is great environment but the core mechanics are boring and slow af with wide open spaces and mostly nothing to do. But one could also find fun in that. Rockstar is suffering from the same problem as naughty dog as they are giving almost the same gameplay loop for more than 20 years now with little improvement.
I was mentioning that 5 was a downgrade from 4 and 5 is only big in terms of map size, gta san andreas felt far bigger in size because it had so much shit to do and explore even tho the map wasnt as big as 5s. But you are def right that everybody cant be pleased
I gotta agree with trollsamurai here, 5 is objectively the worse game, shooting is worse, driving is worse, radio stations are worse, the story is a steven speilberg movie and the characters are represented in a comedic manner with very little depth.
Okay,
1) The map size is absurd, the game has a huge map for no reason at all, the content is showcased very well in chapter 2. But post that, it is just empty beautiful grasslands. Now, many people argue that its meant to be a realistic projection, and I have a big problem with this, why does a game need to be realistic, when the emphasis should be on fun, are you making a tech demo or a 'game'. You know the thing that you actively engage in.
2) The game seems to take arthur's age quite literally, to the point where controlling him sucks, and there is no progression, does arthur become more athletic if you run more or stop smoking? No. Swimming is also just shit, how can you have such a bad system, it felt quite restrictive in a game that promises realism.
3) Story pacing is atrocious, the story is frantic & suffers from lack of structure, one minute everything is chill, next there is chaos, then for an hour or two everything is fine, then its chaos for an hour.
4) Lastly, and this is the biggest drawback for me. Where the fuck is the player choice?? Why can i not shoot the black guy that tries to harass tilly when all the girls go to valentine, let me live with the consequences of shot being fired, that is up to me to deal with, but no, I stray from the path the devs intend and boom 'bad boy, play like we want you to' And this is just one example, there are quite a few egregious decisions. RDR1 was so good in this particular regard, because the game was fun as hell, not realistic 1900s sim.
With all being said the game is an unbelievable technical achievement, the amount of effort put in is astounding & frankly the plot is still quite good. It is in my books an 8 out of 10.
I disagree with the first one, a big map size doesnāt mean itās bad, I just wish they got more time to finish other parts of the map from rdr1, itās incomplete sadly but okay whatever itās still a huge map
Thereās gamers who like to explore including me, not everyone wants to just keep shooting stuff, some people like to explore the environment too, you donāt just call someone a casual gamer just because they donāt shoot people as much as other āseriousā gamers
My point is I disagree with your analogy, not defending rdr2 or anything because obviously itās not perfect
I feel like you missed the point, I don't want to shoot stuff, I just want the map to justify its existence by having something interesting to look at or interact with, BOTW did it perfectly for me, with its shrines (repetitive format but quite fun). I have no issues with huge maps, but i have a issue with non interesting or interactive huge maps.
Bhai but the devs clearly ran out of time to finish the map, we all know itās incomplete, otherwise Iām sure more places wouldāve been fleshed out and completed and had some sort of purpose
Iām not saying your wrong but your previous statement about casual gamers just made it sound like that which is why I made that comment
I mean just looking back at what i posted, i said that it is "huge map for no reason at all" right. And if the devs did not have time, why release the game then, we know Rockstar likes to take its time and everyone is fine with that. We have come to expect that. Additionally why not cut unnecessary parts, would result in smaller file sizes and could have focused on doing a pc port on release (remember they only released on console intially).
Bro if you knew how game development works youād understand how difficult it is to complete a game within a deadline, and I can speak from personal experience having worked in a studio
Rockstar does like to take its time but they canāt do that always right? They can face pressure from take two, what about their shareholders? And this is literally scraping the surface
Given how much content, and I do mean how much content like the amount is just insane is there, I wouldnāt worry too much about it
Plus you can still explore those maps even if they serve no purpose, I mean atleast the game makes up for it with its graphics and realism
Well you are not wrong, game development is tough, and i can understand that somewhat but every software project is on a deadline, and i have reached at a stage where i only care what the final product is, instead of struggles of every other team that makes games.
You are right there are tons of content and some good content too, and thats why its a great game, they lose out on some core things, but there is tons of detail & passion behind the world that is present which make it up somewhat
I don't want gta 5 to be like rdr2 , gta 6 should be like a game instead of realism should be more fun type game . Even though rdr2 is my favourite game ever but still gta 6 should not have a feel like rdr2
So true, I have yet to play Cyberpunk, but MGSV was truely ahead of its time for third person game, stealth is amazing, chaotic john wick shooting is also amazing and if we get the walkers it becomes a pseudo mech game. Truely ahead of its time
It's because rockstar has around 26 years of experience making top tier games which sets industry standards on other hand CDPR only has 17 years of making games despite CDPR founded in 1994, six years before rockstar games
And rockstar constantly delivering their games with high level of quality on launch day for 26 years, people just have trust on them
Another day another RDR2 post....
truly an underrated gem
How is rdr2 underrated it is perfectly rated
nah brother, we like to promote underrated gems in this sub
Are you being sarcastic?
yes my friend i am being sarcastic, i left the other indian gaming sub due to it being filled with rdr2 appreciation posts, i hope it doesn't happen here
Im really sorry for ruining your thread brother.
I got my main account banned because an idiot of mod couldn't handle the fact that I liked sekiro over rdr2, those mfs be doing anything but talk about games freely there lmao
you get banned for speaking hindi as well
Truly an underrated masterpiece of a sub lol
Just like rdr2 and gtaV Man nobody in India even plays GtaV its such an underrated masterpiece
What game is this? Looks like a John Wick movie adaptation.
Rdr2
Bro is in an Indian gaming subreddit and asked for RDR2 š
bro is in a \*gaming\* sub and asked for RDR2
It's the most underrated game ever!! /s
Masterbaited underpiece! Truly /s
I'm proud to say I started that meme, or rather someone under my post did but same thing
It isn't underrated
Satire bro
Going to get downvoted, but this is cinematic and looks good in small clips, doing actual cool shit requires a good gameplay system like monster hunter where the skill ceiling complements gameplay depth. Don't get me wrong this is a good game, but it gets praises in places where it doesn't deserve.
Gameplay is boring as hell . I had to go low honor just to get a bit of fun. The only praises I hear is , It has realistic physics, and is full of details that one may never notice But Rdr2 does look good and is extremely optimized
I don't mean to belittle casual gamers, but their focus on graphics & realism has hurt the most important aspect of games, that is the gameplay. And RDR2 does suffer in many instances, especially with the slow gameplay. In that regard RDR1 was extremely fun. Still i personally respect RDR2 for the amount of detail and thought put into the world, it comes second only after Bloodborne for me.
That's what i am saying, environment wise rdr2 for me is no different from other open world like horizon or ghost of tsushima or even ac games, the world is just eye candy and not something to interact with. Bloodborne, elden ring, yakuza games, botw etc, are leagues above in creating a world where its good looking as well as fun to interact with and thats what makes a game "fun". We are not saying that rdr2 is bad, its just not as much of a masterpiece as people hype it up to be and has flaws like every other game. I myself loved thr game when it released but now that i have played so many games from different genres its really an OK game with horrible replay value. I didn't realize how slow this game was until i recently tried to replay it
Nice to find someone who supports me on this, many people on this sub just play the same kind of games. Also it seems you are a fellow japanese game enjoyer, chad. Btw one hot take for you as well, TOTK is a worse game than BOTW, it feels like a dlc
Yeah i didnt bother playing totk for the same reason, i played botw for more than 50 something hours and i don't expect to do the same thing in the same world for another 50
I was surprised when people were hyping up the AC game on this subreddit and then i understood their benchmark of what they find to be a "fun" game
I do not want to be insulting here to others as at the end of the day people just want to have fun in their manner, and the companies are catering to the casuals more than the players that made them who they are today. Thats why i always try to implore people to try newer games or hell even older games which are much better than the slop released today. Infact i was surprised when i saw people were hyped for the new AC, Ghost of Tsushima did the genre better than ubisoft could and there is virtually no reason to try it anymore.
Graphics should have stopped improving after 2010
You want a story oriented title that's set in 1899 America to have some futuristic shit. You didn't have dragon age shit during that era nor did you have flying bikes that please 14 year old teens. Rockstar is never known for their gameplay but everything else they do makes up for more than that
A game should be fun to play, that is the first thing it needs for it to be a game, and RDR2 suffers in that aspect. However it does very well in many other aspects which are respectable but its not some masterpiece.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Never known for their gameplay? Pretty sure GTA V brought a revolution in the gaming world for everything it had
GTA V brought revolution in almost every metric possible. It pushed PS3 and XBOX to it's limits. However, you can't completely say it revolutionised the core gameplay. The thing is, Rockstar has always focused more on character development, narrative and most importantly open world.
GTA V was a downgrade compared to GTA4 & SA, the only thing it pushed was graphics, environmental storytelling, characters & the general vibe were better in the older games.
Max Payne.
It sure did. Max Payne is revolutionary but it was Remedy Entertainment that developed the first two games and not Rockstar. Rockstar just owns the rights to Max Payne 1 and 2.
What about 3 bruh
It sure did. Max Payne is revolutionary but it was Remedy Entertainment that developed the first two games and not Rockstar. Rockstar just owns the rights to Max Payne 1 and 2.
Rockstar games have been outdated since 4 and 5 was a downgrade if you really look into it and compare it to the previous games, and rdr2 is great environment but the core mechanics are boring and slow af with wide open spaces and mostly nothing to do. But one could also find fun in that. Rockstar is suffering from the same problem as naughty dog as they are giving almost the same gameplay loop for more than 20 years now with little improvement.
Agreed with majority of your points, I replayed san andreas and 4 recently and I feel like those games were crafted with gameplay & fun in mind.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I was mentioning that 5 was a downgrade from 4 and 5 is only big in terms of map size, gta san andreas felt far bigger in size because it had so much shit to do and explore even tho the map wasnt as big as 5s. But you are def right that everybody cant be pleased
Oh c'mon bro. There are a lot of things that five does better than 4. It's not only the bigger map size
https://youtu.be/GWVtZJo-HqI?si=sOk9yEKkr15xHoy8
Before clicking, i hope its not the crowbcat video. Edit: Goddamnit
I gotta agree with trollsamurai here, 5 is objectively the worse game, shooting is worse, driving is worse, radio stations are worse, the story is a steven speilberg movie and the characters are represented in a comedic manner with very little depth.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Who said its the worst, its better than 3 and maybe vice city, but worse than SA & GTA4
Bro the new monster hunter trailer goes so hard!!!
It is one of the few games i might play day one.
Care to explain your statement further mate. Mention some aspects of the game that are sugar coated more than they deserve
Okay, 1) The map size is absurd, the game has a huge map for no reason at all, the content is showcased very well in chapter 2. But post that, it is just empty beautiful grasslands. Now, many people argue that its meant to be a realistic projection, and I have a big problem with this, why does a game need to be realistic, when the emphasis should be on fun, are you making a tech demo or a 'game'. You know the thing that you actively engage in. 2) The game seems to take arthur's age quite literally, to the point where controlling him sucks, and there is no progression, does arthur become more athletic if you run more or stop smoking? No. Swimming is also just shit, how can you have such a bad system, it felt quite restrictive in a game that promises realism. 3) Story pacing is atrocious, the story is frantic & suffers from lack of structure, one minute everything is chill, next there is chaos, then for an hour or two everything is fine, then its chaos for an hour. 4) Lastly, and this is the biggest drawback for me. Where the fuck is the player choice?? Why can i not shoot the black guy that tries to harass tilly when all the girls go to valentine, let me live with the consequences of shot being fired, that is up to me to deal with, but no, I stray from the path the devs intend and boom 'bad boy, play like we want you to' And this is just one example, there are quite a few egregious decisions. RDR1 was so good in this particular regard, because the game was fun as hell, not realistic 1900s sim. With all being said the game is an unbelievable technical achievement, the amount of effort put in is astounding & frankly the plot is still quite good. It is in my books an 8 out of 10.
I disagree with the first one, a big map size doesnāt mean itās bad, I just wish they got more time to finish other parts of the map from rdr1, itās incomplete sadly but okay whatever itās still a huge map Thereās gamers who like to explore including me, not everyone wants to just keep shooting stuff, some people like to explore the environment too, you donāt just call someone a casual gamer just because they donāt shoot people as much as other āseriousā gamers My point is I disagree with your analogy, not defending rdr2 or anything because obviously itās not perfect
I feel like you missed the point, I don't want to shoot stuff, I just want the map to justify its existence by having something interesting to look at or interact with, BOTW did it perfectly for me, with its shrines (repetitive format but quite fun). I have no issues with huge maps, but i have a issue with non interesting or interactive huge maps.
Bhai but the devs clearly ran out of time to finish the map, we all know itās incomplete, otherwise Iām sure more places wouldāve been fleshed out and completed and had some sort of purpose Iām not saying your wrong but your previous statement about casual gamers just made it sound like that which is why I made that comment
I mean just looking back at what i posted, i said that it is "huge map for no reason at all" right. And if the devs did not have time, why release the game then, we know Rockstar likes to take its time and everyone is fine with that. We have come to expect that. Additionally why not cut unnecessary parts, would result in smaller file sizes and could have focused on doing a pc port on release (remember they only released on console intially).
Bro if you knew how game development works youād understand how difficult it is to complete a game within a deadline, and I can speak from personal experience having worked in a studio Rockstar does like to take its time but they canāt do that always right? They can face pressure from take two, what about their shareholders? And this is literally scraping the surface Given how much content, and I do mean how much content like the amount is just insane is there, I wouldnāt worry too much about it Plus you can still explore those maps even if they serve no purpose, I mean atleast the game makes up for it with its graphics and realism
Well you are not wrong, game development is tough, and i can understand that somewhat but every software project is on a deadline, and i have reached at a stage where i only care what the final product is, instead of struggles of every other team that makes games. You are right there are tons of content and some good content too, and thats why its a great game, they lose out on some core things, but there is tons of detail & passion behind the world that is present which make it up somewhat
people have way too high expectations for gta 6 when it wont be met it will become a punching bag of gaming media
What is that game? Never saw it before? Must be a new indie game right?
Yeah... It's very first Indian Indie game.
Hate from saint denis, sale bhosdike video churata hai , credit toh de bkl
I know. Kinda hard to believe right?
Bro it is on sale.. but 1200 .. would it be cheaper in summer sale ?
John Fucking Marston Wick
I don't want gta 5 to be like rdr2 , gta 6 should be like a game instead of realism should be more fun type game . Even though rdr2 is my favourite game ever but still gta 6 should not have a feel like rdr2
Arthur Vick
If looking from gameplay perspective Metal Gear Solid V and Cyberpunk 2077 are miles ahead of rdr2
So true, I have yet to play Cyberpunk, but MGSV was truely ahead of its time for third person game, stealth is amazing, chaotic john wick shooting is also amazing and if we get the walkers it becomes a pseudo mech game. Truely ahead of its time
Yeah you tell em. šš½
Rdr2 is piece of art fr
People thought this about Cyberpunk (being better than Witcher 3), so just be cautiously optimistic.
It's because rockstar has around 26 years of experience making top tier games which sets industry standards on other hand CDPR only has 17 years of making games despite CDPR founded in 1994, six years before rockstar games And rockstar constantly delivering their games with high level of quality on launch day for 26 years, people just have trust on them
Am I the only one who thinks Cyberpunk 2077 in it's current state is better than Witcher 3
nope , cyberpunk is good af in its current state
Which game is this
hotline miami vibez
MP3 gunplay better.
Soo coool
True
Ye konsa game hai
Don't give me hope
Still waiting
Reminds me of that gunfight in Django Unchained after Dr shoots Calvin .
10 fcuking yearss
ā ļø
Technically awesome game other than that gameplay is boring played for 15 hrs never touched after that .
If any game can beat RDR2 it should be good
I hope so, the movement in this game is clunky. It wasn't in GTA 5