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

no, because its very likely that is the only action the player can take other than sitting on rails and waiting for cut scenes.

@Rockman999: While I do agree Rockstar is a Titan, CDPR appreciates R*'s latest work and wants to at least match such refinement in the process of making Cyberpunk 2077. Judging their will based of CDPR's last game The Witcher 3, that claim has some validity. Plus, such positive rivalry is to be respected, as industry health is promoted and the consumer wins on the end side with more quality products.

yea its not like they fixed those problems and released this or anything...

its a cult classic, whether you like it or not.

@elkoldo:or I'm about the only one around who gives a shit about the rules.

I just made a thread on this exact topic before reading this thread and realised everyone was already talking about this exact thing. Which is gameplay / animation... Which is best?

@qx0d It may have some problems, but the fact remains RDR2 is graphically amazing, and the game world is full of detail and things to do. Overall, it is a great game that is full of content. Most reviewers don't give it a 9 or 10 for nothing.

Content is another word for filler.

@Damedius Critics seems to dig these types of games though. If it was a movie they watched it would get a 5/10 but because it's a video game 10/10, best game ever.

This game gets away with auto-aiming garbage combat, that would get most games torn to shreds.

It want to be a movie and a game game but falls in-between.

@Planeforger BotW felt much more dynamic, and The Witcher 3 had much more compelling scripted content, while RDR2 sits in the middle, excelling at nothing.

Now they don't have car's there is no reason for me to play this game as driving around aimlessly was the only thing I liked about GTA games.

@texasgoldrush Really Cyberpunk 2077 is going to educate Rockstar in open world storytelling.

It won’t.

The entire concept of a linear finely tuned and crafted story does not gel with open world systemic game design.

It can.

R* just haven’t figured it out. I would figure it comes down to writing and animating a lot of scenes. Maybe ten times more. By professionals, not Dan Houser. Professional creatives charge alot but than value is not always recognised and this is a recurring theme in an industry that often fails to reward talent where it is needed and producers start taking on creative roles something you wouldn't hear of in film, radio or tv.

If your going to make an expansive epic story based game, make cohesive, interlocking narratives otherwise you are only going to be mining filler like R* always have with mission/level design.

At least Gabe Newell understands his role in funding a game and choosing the right talent is what a producer should be doing, not making the thing himself.

@nepu7supastar7 Videogames are about playing, not personality.

Unless it is a story, in which case you need to write multiple stories to account for a character arc that can take any direction.

Otherwise you are playing the dev/writer’s character which is fine. Robocop vs Terminator forced you to play a cold blooded cyborg killer and gib every single enemy on screen with a cannon for 5 hours straight. But then it’s not a sandbox game.

But games still need a thing for you to do and if you want to make a life simulator you are in the area of making a whale (Jonah) which is unachievable. Or like say making a move like Dune or Cloud Atlas which are just too long to condense into film format.

There are limitations on how much content you can create. But given R* had x-million bucks and 8 years, they are proving that this genre still needs more work in figuring out how it is executed in moving resources into areas such as planning and a writing system which is far more sophisticated.

This is turn to page x if you choose option b stuff but if you have all the time and money R* had, I would have hoped for more.

This type of storytelling should be at a more advanced place right now than it is and game writing for novel style games should be structured like novels even if they are open world.

"Oh yes please let me work out in the gym for 10 hours so I can get a hot date and actually have sex!"... Oh wait that was a hidden feature and maybe the only actual reward in a game ever. But also kind of creepy.

CDPR are nearly as dumb as R* and haven’t got a hope of making something which is not juvenile and boring and I will hate all their vanilla 'baddass' characters who will inevitably all be wearing spandex.

In TW3 every chick in town dropped their knickers if you so much as looked at them at least hot coffee made you work a bit.

But leveling up your bmx skillz at least gave you a faster bmx. Maybe you could include animal husbandry and you could breed the ultimate colt. One gameplay idea for free there R*.

Ultima 4 remains the most consequence based story game based on actions in the world, even if the story is 'don't be bad and you will get to go into a cosmic library and check out the ultimate reference book, then just go back to earth to wait for the next game to save Britannia again.'

The flawed L.A. Noire is probably the best attempt at doing this and would you believe this is actually a R* game *face palm*. For some reason that was about the last time they innovated with an actual gameplay 'system' including expressions and admittedly quite obvious cues to immerse you in the experience.

You might know the story about that game where the Australian office were forced to rush the product to market and when it didn't sell well they all lost their jobs and that talent was lost including the facial expression expertise.

It comes down to R* should have put more dev time into making pony trekking fun.

I think people should just go and play Mount and Blade Warband as that is what this game would like to be.

But it is a problem.

Why can't it be an open character like the good Fallout games?

I cant speak to that because I only played Fallout 3 and I thought it was horrid.

but yeah story games are a problem

@texasgoldrush: Why can't it be an open character like the good Fallout games?

Fallout guy is just like Doom guy or Half Life guy and has no personality at all.

You give Fallout guy a personality and the writing of the good Fallout games have this personality.

Fallout 3 wasn't one of the good fallout games.

ok...well I avoid game 'story' at all costs. The only exception to that has been Elite Dangerous because the story is affected by players, other than that really avoid it. If I want a good story I will watch a movie

Nah, I'm not buying a console for one game. I'll wait for the PC version.

No game ever was free from problems...some have more that others. Red Dead Redemption 2 is no different, but if offers the most beautiful and interactive open world ever created. The NPC system, in particular, is insane! To be fair, most complains are related to the pacing, which is a desight choice and not an actual problem.

Anyway, i disagree with TC.

It plays. Worse then a game from 10 years ago. I got to chapter 3 then took a long break and tried to go back to it a few weeks later. The controls are horrible and way more apparent after getting unused to them.

I guess I just. Hate rockstar games. The first reddead is the only game I ever completed of theresa and enjoyed it. Rd2 reminds me of la nore. Slow and boring as hell but raved about by critics

Most beautiful maybe, but most interactive...hell,no.

And they have all these systems, yet do not make use of them in the main thrust of the game, unlike many other interactive systemic open worlds.

After playing the game more the one thing I dislike most of this game is summoned up here https://www.google.nl/amp/s/www.kotaku.com.au/2018/10/red-dead-redemption-2s-puppet-like-npcs-make-its-world-feel-less-real/amp

And God of War (another overrated game but better in its design and direction) upset RDR2 at the Game Awards, seems RDR2 is losing momentum fast.

I've looked at this thread and it seems you wanted more Fallout type choices. Problem is, with the amount of mocap used in RDR2 (not to mention God of War), you are not going to get 5-6 endings. It would take forever to have so many branching paths. Not just for the endings but for the middle game.

Witcher 3 had multiple endings but they were not cinematics. Fallout has multiple outcomes but none of them approach the mocap and cutscene sophistication of RDR2 and God of War.

You yourself named Life is Strange as a favorite, but notice how that game doesn't give that many choices neither. This is the developer's decision, and also a practical one. They want all players to experience the same thing, seen through Arthur, Max or Kratos' eyes. There might be some deviation and a couple personal choices you can make, but they aren't meant to be games with multiple branching storylines and multiple endings.

You can choose to make something more like Fallout but have a more cold, impersonal and distant protagonist. Or you can sacrifice more personal choices in favor of a more powerful, controlled, potent storyline - centered on a particular cast of characters, as seen in Life is Strange, Walking Dead, God of War and RDR2. Both are valid methods. It is unreasonable to ask Rockstar to record 50 more outcomes, even more NPCs dialogue, 40 Stranger Mission variations and 7 endings, when their closing credits are already 30 minutes long right now. It took them that much work just to bring this game to us.

I will agree some of RDR2's missions needed some work and redesigning, particularly in the middle sections. And that's something doable for Rockstar for future games. But there is no way they are going to make a Fallout or Baldur's Gate style game with 20 branching paths with the level of production values and cinematics they have.

And notice which games are making people cry. Games like Life is Strange, RDR2, and Walking Dead. If these types of games are so ineffective, they wouldn't have had such a powerful emotional connection with millions of gamers. Sometimes cinematics, good voice acting and writing are worthy choices (and sacrifices) as a developer.

How often do you hear people crying or being deeply moved by Fallout? Every character you meet sounds like a soulless robot. Bethesda opted for multiple choices (which is fine) but sacrificed having realistic characters you really cared for. When Max loses someone in Life is Strange, you feel it. When someone dies in Fallout, no one gives a shit, no matter what pathway you chose.

@whatafailure: You aren't getting my argument.

I am arguing that the actions of the player have no real impact on the story in RDR2. Its not about number of endings etc. its about providing gameplay that does not match its story.

And when it comes to Fallout, look at New Vegas and hardcore mode where companions can die. Your example fails here. Bethesda doesn't know how to really write, unlike Obsidian.

I think God of War is the far more deserving game. It managed to keep me engaged from start to finish. I put a ton of time into it over a couple of weeks. RDR2 can't hold my attention for more than an hour or two at a time, and that just isn't enough time to get anything done in the game. Everything you are supposed to do is just so spread out, most of it is boring, etc. I actually fell asleep the other day waiting on my horse to reach its destination in cinematic mode. RDR2 is just not a game I can see myself finishing. It's amazing how much higher I would have rated it a couple of weeks ago, when I was judging it based upon what I expected it to be, rather than by what it actually is.

I am hearing this from a lot of players, Chapter 3 is when they drop the game.

GTA IV has a poor completion rate as well.

Any game is overrated when you don't like it and it has a high score.

It's overrated for one simple reason, the mechanics still suck. Rockstar still has not figured out basic movement mechanics. Character movement is floaty, slow, responds slow, and the shooting mechanics still feel off. It's as bad as GTA. Which was turned me off from GTA after loving the original trilogy.

Everything else about the game: graphics, sound, story, art direction, objectives, things to do, are all great. But to me there's a basic flaw in the game that makes it so frustrating.

Or how about that those giving it a high score ignore clear flaws of the game?

@ghosts4ever:

Difference is, Metal Gear Solid V isn't overrated. Most people recognise its flaws but if you found it repetitive, it's because you didn't employ the vast array of gameplay mechanics to tackle missions differently.

For repetitiveness, I'd say both Red Dead Redemption 2 and The Witcher 3 take that.

Rdr2 has the same mission structure as any GTA game, you'll gallop along a linear path whilst listening to verbose chatter before performing a scripted shoot out somewhere that plays the same every time. Stray too far away or hit the wrong person and the mission fails.

The Witcher 3 is the same. Combat plays out the same without the depth and versatility of a Souls game, side missions (especially Witcher contracts) are identical with you always having to use your Witcher senses to track someone or something down, then you kill them or talk them out of it. RDR2 did side missions better at least.

And I'd wish people would stop going on about critic awards and ratings. By that logic, Call of Duty games and bloody Skyrim are better games (and we know that's not true) so forget critic awards and ratings.

I like RDR2 and The Witcher 3 but they're both overrated. RDR2 doesn't have the best story or narrative, Yakuza 0 did that better in my opinion.

The Witcher 3 isn't the first of its kind either, it's just a more polished Gothic game and you can see the developers took inspiration from it right down to the camera, aethestics and how dialogue appears above the heads of the numerous NPCs that repeat themselves and can't be interacted with.