Red Dead Redemption 2 - the most overrated game of the gen.

No, MGS V is.

It's not even about weighty animations, it's about there being literally 10+ frames/333ms+ of input lag before you even see anything on the screen. But sure nothing wrong here.

I had way more fun playing botw or red dead than the witcher 3. W3 was one of the most borrring overated games ive played this gen. I hate the setting, the characters, the dialogue, the combat, the only positive for me were the graphics.

Damn hipsters always stating their opinions as facts like everyone has to think like them. You're like @ghosts4ever just with proper grammar lmao

@ghosts4ever: Everything is beyond your simple narrow minded view.

I never said nothing was wrong with RDR2.

I'm just trying to point out to cherry picking double standard gamer's that no game is perfect, so all this elaborate in depth analysis on a game is daft... Especially when you have nothing even remotely close to compare it to.

I would love some of these die hard "role playing immersion" high standard gamer's no name me ONE open world RPG that is perfect?... It doesn't exist.

Red Dead Redemption 2 is THE greatest open world game I have ever played. Is it perfect?... No, is there anything better?... no.

RDR2 is the only PS4 game I've sold. It amazes me that a game with such crummy controls, ESPECIALLY in Free Aim, gets perfect reviews. Unbelievable.

No.

It belongs to MGS V:

1. A game which doesn't respect players time at all.(Unskippable heli rides , no fast traverse when free roaming ,(Excluding a limited way of using cardboard boxes which was quite annoying) , weapons and equipments that take days to be developed . MGS V also at first encourages players to explore everywhere since they may find some diamonds but after 10-20 hours you realize it was a waste of time since those diamonds give you a small amount of GMP.

2.A complete empty open world.(Even Driv3r had those Tommy Vercetti imposters to find in each city. MGS V had nothing important outside of bases which consist of 70-80 percent of each map)

3.The game is being advertised as a sandbox game and yet it punishes you whenever you use lethal weapons to pass the mission fast.

4.A bad combat due to having regenerating HP.(Which then allows you to just use cover and kill everyone)

5.The most boring protagonist of all time.(Even Claude in GTA 3 has a more interesting character than Venom Snake)

6.MGO 3 was a complete disappointment compared to MGO 2 according to a lot of MGO 2 fans.(Which is the main reason that it died)

7.Stealth is also a kind of joke. You can just use the stun-fulton tactic whenever that you want.(And it also has some cool stuff that are exclusive for FOB like infared censors)

Nope. While they both have issues with clumsiness/controls ( and RDR 2 being much, much worse at that), Witcher has broad variety of enemy types/movesets/resistances, different skills/abilities, boss fights, spells, melee+ranged, etc, etc.

RDR 2: use auto aim to shoot + regenerate health against the same types of enemies over and over. That's literally it.

Plus Gwent>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All side activities in RDR 2 combined.

R* and its games are always overrated. The name R* is an automatic free pass to game reviewers.

They could do a turd simulator game and it would rate in the 90's on metashitic lol.

That game is stupid. When I'm trying to rope my character always misses. Also, there are always people trying to kill me so I just report those little fucktards.

Some can even shotgun to the head 20 feet away. Those fucking cheats.

It would be if it didn't get butchered by TW3 when it came to GOTY Awards.

Normally I would tell you that you don't have to use auto aim, but the manual aiming is so awful that it's almost a requirement. I refuse to play it with auto aim, which forced me to sell it.

Rockstar games play like azz.

I guess gamers don't care about gameplay anymore.

Not even half as overrated as Life is Strange.

On the other hand, Telltale is the most underrated developer of all time.

The game's phenomenal. It's not RDR2's fault that people expect something different and then cry and blame the game when it doesn't play as they wish. Yes it has some issues (most notably with its cover system and precise controls indoors, both of which can be mitigated by using the 1st person camera, inconsistent game logic, and the oftentimes arbitrary honor and bounty systems), but what it accomplishes overall far exceeds these flaws. It's a game that's far, FAR greater than the sum of its parts, so to deconstruct those parts in the attempt to demean that sum is just plain asinine and extremely myopic.

@Grey_Eyed_Elf said:

@texasgoldrush said:

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: Here is the thing.

TW3 never had immersive sim elements. The world is only there really to back up the story.

Therefore, the conflict of immersion and storytelling doesn't really exist in TW3, unlike RDR2.

Shows you don't get it. You know nothing of good game design.

The controls are clumsy and stiff, movement is slow and annoying, the so-called aim assist does nothing to help and is most often off target in the heat of the action, the check point system is unbelievable (Just now, I spent 2 hours hunting rare animals and stowing their hide on the back of my horse, then a stupid gun fight broke out and I died, when the game resumed, all hides where gone!) And thanks to the poor cover system, I'm always defeated im gun fights (they shoot you straight through the cover and you have to shoot an entire clip to kill an enemy).

Either the reviewing community, especially Metacritic have been instructed to share favorable reviews, or I'm about the only one around who gives a shit about the rules.

Wait... OP trusted critics before this?

No it isn't.

Giving player freedom with very little consequence is not being a sum of its parts, its actually the opposite. The parts conflict with eachother. Arthur can do things his character not only does not allows but the story really doesn't adjust to his actions. Contrast this with Dishonored 2, where Emily or Corvo's actions shape not only the story of the game but their characters themselves. Cyberpunk 2077 will use a similar system.

The mission designs are terrible as well and clash with its open world freedom, a typical Rockstar problem. The whole game is different parts clashing with eachother.

Nothing is accomplished with RDR2, it doesn't drive the industry forward and in reality, relies on outdated last gen gaming conventions.

somewhat....but not anymore.

Only as they fit the agenda of the day. Perfect lineup of opinion? Critics are flawless and entirely credible. Slight deviation from the narrative? Critics are worthless and don't count as support for an argument.

I guess expecting some common decency from you is expecting too much, you haven't even got enough decorum to add a spoiler warning for others coming in.

I second this as well and some of us are still waiting for RDR2 PC release.

First of, I just did and second off, the link on the first page has a spoiler warning as well.

Yet once again, the link has a spoiler warning, you fail to read it, then you blame me for your failure to read it. Sorry, it doesn't work like that.

You created the thread, the onus is on you for adding a **SPOILERS warning to your thread, not relying on the page you link. At least you've tried now, if somewhat halfheartedly.

@GarGx1: Doesn't work that way. There is no such rule or onus on me to announce spoilers when the link already does so, especially when it says "Full Story Spoilers inside" on the first page.

Once again, blame yourself for not reading, you made the mistake, not me.

@bobothemighty:

All of the Witcher 3's side quests sucked. Combat was basically a worse version of Dark Souls. It literally fails at everything an Rpg is meant to be. The only saving grace was the story.

RDR2 has awesome gunplay. The violence and gore is gracious. From decapitations and dismemberment to dead bodies decaying. Fully customizable weapons and many to choose from. Customizable horses. Hair and shaving actually has a use thanks to the hair growth system. Riding a horse actually feels like riding a horse. RDR2 manages to pull off role play better than Witcher 3 without even trying to be an rpg.

A sub-note that's easily missed is not a forum spoiler warning, you should have that in your OP from the start. I would argue that the article is badly presented and should have a proper spoiler warning at the top in the title, not a sub note at the bottom of the first page.

Etiquette, decorum and common decency are not rules but ignoring them does not make you right.

Wrong

Role playing is also about consequence and TW3 trounces RDR2 badly in that department. The are consequences for your story decisions in TW3, which shape the ending and what you can do in later quests.

Everything you do in RDR2 really has no meaning in the end.

No, you just do not want to blame yourself for your failure, therefore the excuses.

my opinion is right! your opinion is wrong!

@texasgoldrush:

There's more to an rpg than decision making. If it were like that then Final Fantasy and Persona suddenly don't fit the mold of an rpg. An rpg of and foremost is about role playing. As in, playing the role of the main character. Making you step in the main character's shoes.

Once again, RDR2 accomplishes that better than Witcher 3. Arthur eats, he grows out his hair, he bathes, he shops for provisions, he hunts and provides for his friends. Things that add to taking the role and responsibility of Arthur Morgan.

But none of that matters as you a restricted to a linear story. You cannot play the missions how you want, you will fail. You cannot change the story through your actions. And once again, the actions you can do with Arthur do not match the character of Arthur in the story. Some roleplaying. Geralt won't be able to do the things Geralt the character would not do, which is a plus.

And the things you describe. Kingdom Come Deliverance did it better as how you do most of the above you listed actually has an impact on how the game is played and how NPCs react to you, which can even change how the mission goes.

Depends under what microscope you hold that score. A 97 is indeed very high, but what does that number of 97 actually represent? A 100/100 would be a perfect score, but on the basis of what? A perfect score for the year 2018, or a score representitive of eternity? It's a relative score, one that is opposed to other games at this current time of technology. For how big the game is, and ambitious, that score seems rather realistic especially compared to other mediocre games out there. Does that score represent my ultimate fantasy of what a video game could be? Far from it.

Giving the player freedom doesn't necessitate narrative consequence for it to be of merit or viewed as justifiable in its design. RDR2 tells a very linear story in an open world construct. The open world is a pretense to lend authenticity and greater context and scope to the narrative being told within it, and there's nothing there that is incompatible between the two. What actions do Arthur's character not allow? He's an outlaw, his moral compass is dictated by entirely arbitrary considerations and opportunism, much like how the camp and its members operate. And in fact, contrary to what you posted in another response, RDR2 has four different endings depending on your choices near the end, do you not consider that consequence?

Where I will agree with you is on R*'s archaic mission design structure, it definitely needs to evolve in accommodation to be more along the lines of the freedom it affords the player outside of missions. This has been a problem since GTA III, and it needs to be addressed.

But RDR2 fails in a lot of ways and it shows how hypocritical game reviewers are. For example, many games such as Shadow of the Tomb Raider, AC Odyssey, and Dragon Quest XI get dinged for sticking to tradition, but RDR2 doesn't when Rockstar uses their outdated mission formula, 97. They have been shown to give free passes to certain game companies despite problems with their games. 97 is very high for a game. Thats best game of all time territory, and with the flaws RDR2, that hardly reflects the a quality of the game, but the hype of the game and the company.

Yes, he is an outlaw, but he is not the type to go into town and mass murder everyone. Outside Trevor, rampages were ludo narrative dissonance in the GTA games as well.

Second, those endings don't really vary, the same thing happens in every one. its absolutely lazy.

And really, linear scripted storytelling does not mesh with systemic open world, because one kills the other. Rockstar hasn't gotten this yet.

Haven't played it, but it probably is the most overrated game of the gen like .... like GTA4 and GTA5 before it.

If not, then it's the Witcher 3.

Lol..all of it. Witcher is literally universally praised for side quests.

Not a single aspect of RDR 2 gameplay is even decent...hell, it would be better if they replaced it with awesome button QTE. And seriously stop embarrassing yourself and learn at what makes a game an "rpg": it's about choices and consequences and how it affects your character and the world instead of watching hair/beard grow.

Nothing in RDR2 has any consequence, mechanical depth or real meaning. No skills, no abilities, no narrative choices, no dialogue options, no systematic depth or connection.This is highlighted above all else with classic Rockstar disconnect with player being an outlaw while spending entire narrative lamenting about being...an outlaw.

Mark Brown ( best video game analyst and critic) elaborated on this:

"Like most Rockstar games, these missions are extremely restrictive in what you’re allowed to do. The game constantly tells you what to do, with a pop up command at the bottom of the screen, and if you don’t follow this script to the letter you’ll be hit with a “Failed” screen.

I’ve failed missions for trying to flank around the bad guys - that’s counted as leaving my crew behind. I’ve failed for trying to take enemies out using stealth, instead of loud gunfire. I’ve failed for trying to solve problems in creative ways. I’ve failed because I broke the law - never mind that I’m playing as an outlaw, and the game has a whole police response system built in.

The missions can also remove mechanics arbitrarily. In one, I wasn’t allowed to take my gun off my horse. In another, I wasn’t allowed to whistle for my horse so I had to chase on foot. And the bandit mask system works randomly during missions - most of the time you’ll still get a huge price on your head and have to use most of your earnings from that mission to pay off your bounty.

Unfortunately, most of the missions are also simply quite dull. There’s so much riding towards waypoints. Waiting for characters to do stuff. Listening to people go on and on. Bad insta-fail stealth missions. Endless cover-based shootouts that feel like they’re from the previous generation. Following characters as they walk slowly through the woods.

And the annoying thing is: the game almost had an interesting solution for this! You see, the game’s got this camp thing going on, where your band of outlaws is hanging out in the wilderness. And the idea is that everyone is contributing to the camp.

You can put money into a tin to boost funds, or bring back meat so people can eat, or do side missions for friends like finding them items in the wild.

The problem is: none of this matters. At all.

It’s worth putting some money in the money tin so you can buy a map (which unlocks fast travel), but beyond that it makes no difference. The game’s way too easy for you to care about any benefits it might provide Arthur. And the other only thing it affects is how characters talk to you in the camp: they might grumble about not having enough food or you not pulling your weight. But that’s it."

But hey!...Arthur's hair grows! Horse balls shrink in the cold!

Not a single aspect of it's gameplay, mechanics or systems are well designed, has depth or any meaning in the game. Not a single one. Period.

My failure? I literally read the article to page 3, saw spoilers and closed the page. Then posted that you could have put in a spoiler alert to allow people coming to read your thread that the article you had linked contained spoilers, instead of wasting their time. Not everyone has played RDR 2.

The fact that you have then later added a spoiler warning shows who is wrong here.

I have to admit, I'm kind of disappointed with RDR2 so far. RDR was one of my favorite games last gen and I was really looking forward to this. That said, it just feels kind of boring so far and very slow paced. I'm not an ADHD type player and don't need games that are guns blazing all the time, and I enjoy a good story in a game, I think it essential. But this game feels really slow. I had much more fun with Assassin's Creed Odyssey.

@texasgoldrush:

"And once again, the actions you can do with Arthur do not match the character of Arthur in the story. Some roleplaying. Geralt won't be able to do the things Geralt the character would not do, which is a plus."

So in what way is restricting actions because "It's not what the character would do" a good thing? It's a restriction no matter how you slice it. Players want freedom. No one gives a shit about if it's true to the character's nature or not. And what about the extra activities don't fit with his personality?

Arthur robs and he's a murderer. You can rob, kill whoever you want. But by nature, he's neutral. He's too dirty to be considered a good guy but he's too honorary to be considered a bad guy. In that stance, everything is fairly possible. John Marston was the same way.

The gun fights are not hard on normal difficulty at least. Use dead eye in tight spots.

Lmao people wanting that random actions made by The player to affect overall story. No game does this and as long as theyre story based, they never will.

Stop whining and go play detroit of something

@bobothemighty:

And still, RDR2 is rated higher than Witcher 3. Also, I wasn't stating that RDR2 is an rpg, I was giving you examples of everything RDR2 does better than Witcher 3. And RDR2 does a much better job at making you feel like you're Arthur Morgan than Witcher 3 does at making you feel like Geralt.

Obviously the only rpg games you've been playing are western because I've seen tons of great rpg's that don't rely on decision making. It's a feature literally any game can have but I'd hardly consider it genre defining.

Critic ratings mean nothing. Almost everywhere, TW3 has vastly superior gamer acclaim. TW3 has a 97% Steam rating and 9.0+ MC user rating. That's high. RDR2 MC User score is 7.6 and 7.2.

Ummm...Fallout games not made by Bethesda had this. Your choices mattered. Divinity Original Sin 2 as well.

Its called ludonarrative dissonance when a player is allowed to do things outside the establishment of the character. Its basically a plot hole specific for video games, a major flaw.

Even criminals have logical limits. Niko in GTAIV, for example, would not go on a rampage. Arthur's character matches a higher honor playthrough and clashes with a lower one, which his personality does not fit. Same with Marston.

Just wait till you play it. Apparently, the controls are worse than The Witcher 3. At least, many people think the controls are complete garbage in RDR2.

Personally, I thought the controls in The Witcher 3 were fantastic. Put it on Death March difficulty and loved every second of it. Only thing I hated was you'd die from a 15 foot fall, but CD Projekt fixed that problem.