I'm curious. What is the deal with this "game"? Why do people act like this games open world is so much more special so different from the rest? I've heard it hailed as "the only good open world game" by even Gankertards here. To be fair I've heard the same said about Elden Ring fanboys. But I've also heard a healthy amount of "there was no point to the open world" so I don't take those as seriously. But some of the people on here GENUINELY seem to respect RDR2.
It CANT just be graphics right? Because that would be crazy, and there are an abundance of open worlds with good graphics. It can't just be vague "details" because this is too vague to me. What does this even mean? What does that have to do with gameplay? How is that not just an extension of graphics? Im genuinely curious. The closest thing to "compelling" I've heard about this game is that it has an immersive world. And whenever I think of an "immersive" world. I think of Death Stranding, arguably it's only flaw (or actually secretly it's strength) is that it's not open world, and it's fairly one dimensionally focused solely on delivering (not a bad thing, just that an immersive world can be more)
I'm just skeptical, because it feels like Breath of The Wild all over again. There are unironic people that think that games open world is special despite the Ubisoft towers because of its physics and chemistry system, as if that couldn't exist outside an open world. So yeah, I'm asking. What does it mean to "do open world right?" and why do so many say that RDR2 does exactly that?
kek fail thread who wants to guess how long till OP posts it again?
the consequences of allowing morons access to the internet
Seriously. Why do we even allow discussion morons on this board. They try to have discussions and understand games like morons that don't just already know what games are good, they need to be told! EVERYBODY knows that only considering your own narrow perspective and never considering anything else or seeking other perspectives is the mark of a true intelligent person
>ubisoft towers are… LE BAD!
Okay how are they not?
Personally I feel there should be more creative ways employed of revealing parts of a map or...you could just have a basic map like the Metroid games where things get revealed as you simply explore. Wait...lmao I just realized map stations are basically Ubisoft towers. Wait scratch that. Something more like Hollow Knight or System Shock. Hollow Knights method in particular seems like it would be perfect for open world. You explore for the most part without a map until you find a map maker and buy a map, but you STILL have to update the map, it isn't just instantly complete, it just gives you a rough outline, and whenever you reach a "save" point like a campfire or bonfire maybe, you get to update the map with the places you've explored.
That sounds cool. Sometimes I forget how good hollow knight is. It sounds better than Ubisoft towers atleast. What's the argument for Ubisoft towers being good since you're making fun of me for calling it bad?
>Wait...lmao I just realized Super Metroid map stations are basically Ubisoft towers.
They're not, and they don't completely fill the area.
Pic related is a map of Brinstar. It shows the wall-jumping area at the bottom, but not how to reach it.
>Ride around empty world using auto-aim on gacha animals and Irish people
There are people that like Westerns, hunting, fishing, poker, wanting to be transported into a Wild West 19th century U.S. Dudes that like the movie Tombstone or The Good the Bad and the Ugly. The people that can play RDR2 just doing the background activities and not even the story and still like it.
Then there are people like OP that post on Reddit with their mouth wide open with a vape pen and Fruit Loops cereal, how much they love Rick and Morty and Zelda on the Switch. How much they support the latest localization of High School Girl Fumiko since it does its best to respect women.
So there you have it OP.
>Then there are people like OP that post on Reddit with their mouth wide open with a vape pen and Fruit Loops cereal, how much they love Rick and Morty and Zelda on the Switch. How much they support the latest localization of High School Girl Fumiko since it does its best to respect women.
Oh. So this is one of those threads. The threads where one attempts to have a discussion and instead of anybody doing that, everybody just focuses on OP and throws their favourite buzzwords at them to dismiss them. I see. Not sure if I should even be disappointed since I can't say I'm surprised.
You didn't even play the game. Do you know how easily I can kick you out of the discussion? Play the game and say some good shit about it.
it's simply a product that would appeal to white males with healthy levels of testosterone. Incidentally, it also shits on every other games in terms of quality and immersion, especially the Japanese shit (only a few western RPGs come close, and I say this as someone who hates R), so of course le soulgays, troonsisters and tendies will be le bittermad.
You talk like a homosexual. You should get that checked out. Or just check out of life. homosexual.
>TLOU2 is a better open world than RDR2
is a better open world than RDR2
Who said that? And why? That makes no sense.
Characterizing TLOU2 is kind of weird, but I'd just settle at saying it's a better adventure game, and a better game period that uses "realism" far more meaningfully for gameplay than literally any game I've ever played. The realism isn't just fluff. But ignoring that, it means the focus is a lot more on the player (since human beings and what they can do is kind of where any of the depth comes from in the world) rather than the world itself. But I'd argue exploration atleast is more meaningful than most games since it ACTUALLY feels like you're looting for survival, not just to have stuff. That's all
Have you at least opened a YouTube video, OP? The marketing phase is long over, so you will have to see for yourself. It's a hunting simulator/horse riding simulator for women, it replaces The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.
"Open world"
>Have you at least opened a YouTube video, OP?
Yeah. And I didn't hear good stuff. But I also didn't hear good stuff about Death Stranding and that put me off for a while but it was great. And I ended up learning that there was some weird perceptions around the game because people were mad Kojima wasn't doing Le based stealth action all over again. And couldn't simply appreciate something that was different.
>It's a hunting simulator/horse riding simulator for women,
I mean, I'm not a women, but why would women care about hunting or horseriding? Not that I particularly care for it either, but I also never thought I would care for delivering shit. But GOOD games can make you enjoy things you never thought you would.
>it replaces The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.
lmao, what does this mean? could you elaborate? Is it the modern day Ocarina of Time? I didn't very much like OoT, but I wanted to, so hopefully it's a better OoT lol
Literally no one cares about your extremely long essays OP, what's the point of using Ganker for that shit anyways? Reddit or Neogaf is more up your alley imo.
A good open world game has good mini games that differ from the main gameplay (like RDR2 has poker and fishing etc..). It's why old GTAs are also better because they have paramedic, package delivery, etc missions and stuff. Elden Ring is a bad open world game, it's only good game because of its combat.
Frick. if Ganker was fun and cool, this could be SUCH an interesting discussion to have. But I'll try anyway.
>Elden Ring is a bad open world game, it's only good game because of its combat.
I agree completely. But I want to talk about something. Couldn't stuff like "evergaol" (or whatever it was called) and caves, and catacombs or whatever be considered "mini games" too? What makes them less valid than what RDR2 does, and why are mini games necessarily good for an open world? I already have a theory, very simply: Immersion. A long time ago when I played GTA San Andreas, I was very addicted to the game and I think there was a "strength" mini game that I enjoyed. The gameplay is all ultimate simple, and in retrospect I'm not even sure how I enjoyed the game because I hate open worlds. But it worked to keep me engaged. WHY does that "work" better in an open world? If it's "immersion" why does an open world need to be "immersive" and why do the "immersive" aspects that Breath of the Wild employs fail for me? None of it is engaging, the warm weather, the killing animals for food, the gathering enemy parts for potions, etc. I don't believe something being fantasy necessarily means it cant be immersive because I'd argue that the original dark souls feels "immersive" even if less so than something like GTA, I'd also say Death Stranding feels immersive, and it absolutely has fantastical characteristics.
>Couldn't stuff like "evergaol" and caves, and catacombs or whatever be considered "mini games" too?
I think those rather fit in the collecting stuff in open world category than minigames. And yeah immersion and taking a break from the main gameplay while not quitting from the game (which should be the goal for every dev). RDR1 farm patrolling was also fun.
RDR2 has the worst poker minigame I’ve ever played in any video game. It’s horrendous.
I just really like the story. Every few years i just boot it up and play through it without doing much side stuff.
It's the immersion and it does require a high level of IQ to appreciate unlike BotW or ER wherein the former is made for children and the later for teenagers.
>does require a high level of IQ to appreciate
>literal goyslop made for lowest common denominator with auto horse riding and auto aim shooting
Ok brainlet.
You do know I was messing with you when I said 1/8th right? Besides this probably the most israelite hating game. Strauss as a debtor, Micah as a rat etcetera.
The game valued good european morals above anything else.
Rockstar fans are ultra moronic, i have access to many gaming websites, every single time i read a moronic take or read through a moronic review, its a 100% a Rockstar and RDR2 fanboy.
Those dumbfricks are on another level.
I’ve heard “Arthur Morgan is the best character I’ve ever seen across all media” multiple times from these people. It’s absurd.
>handholding throughout the entire game
>high IQ
Rockstar of David Fanboys are evolving
>High IQ
>Auto-aim
lol
>he plays with controller and auto aim on
You're the moron
It's an actual mechanic in the game you dumb moron Black person poop
The open world is decent. The game just plays like shit. What's worse is they deliberately designed it that way. That's why they lost goty
it's the best game for homies that frick with spaghetti westerns
>I've heard it hailed as "the only good open world game" by even Gankertards here
no you haven't
Cowboy game filled with mindless busywork and characters that could fit right into modern day sóyboy society and that's a good thing!
this reads like the most entitled little piece of shit pissbaby zoomer not realising the monumental achievement that rdr2 is
genuinely sincerely i hope you grow up but please on behalf of everyone you ever met in your life go frick yourself
I don't get it? Either I have to believe these are real people? Or that Ganker just has fun being moronic and never engaging with anything meaningfully? I didn't even say anything against the game? The entire reason this thread is even being made is because I'm being open minded to the idea of an open world even BEING good. Despite literally every single open world game feeling trash, so much so that I almost wholeheartedly dismiss a game just for being open world. I did it with Horizon Zero Dawn despite buying the game because I heard "Ubisoft towers" and instantly checked out. But when I consider games like "Outer Wilds" or "Death Stranding that are quasi "open world". And the fact that RDR2 is often highlighted as having an especially good open world. I become curious in understanding if that's really the case.
Zoomers like the game because of the story, not the gameplay. TV is so shit these days that a mediocre story moviegame is somehow extraordinary. That's why last of us was so successful. That's why spiderman games are popular. It's just a movie simulator game to turn your brain off and play. If you want to talk about the intricacies of the game you're not going to get much discussion because the only people that played it are people that played it for the story.
This is also the only reason anybody played BG3, or witcher 3, or any other moviegame in existence.
You're asking people to provide you with well reasoned and thorough arguments that justify their thinking blue jeans look good. Very few people think about it that hard. Most people will just laugh at you over the question, It seems stupid. Even if you're just sort of looking for a lesson in culture, there aren't really clearly defined answers for why people like what they like. That's why professional studios spend millions of dollars to make bad games, and then blame their audience for not "getting it". People just like what they like. Try it on for size, come back and tell us why it was or wasn't for you. Make sense?
>People just like what they like.
Nah. Just because it's subjective, doesn't mean it's nebulous. One can very specifically point out and articulate why a game works for them. Obviously some games are more elusive than others but still.
It has nothing to do with being subjective. Videogames aren't like food, or music, or art where it's literally just a vague "omg it looks, or tastes good". They're closer to books, and movies, and TV's and almost all of these can have a specific point or experience they're trying to convey beyond simple "consumption" for lack of better word. The medium is just the unique way they express that.
I could and have written essays on why I like or dislike specific games. I'm not saying it's easy. Infact it IS very hard. Required me to literally nap and take a break I could figure out how to express an idea or concept in the most robust way possible.
People are just lazy and shallow. Simple. I'm not asking everybody to be a genius, I'm just asking people to not be overly dismissive, and just try to think a little. If someone is GENUINELY sub 80iq and that's impossible then fine. Sure, I can't do anything about that. But don't resort to the bad faith shit. And atleast be open to hearing out people's thoughts.
you sound like a woman, and i don't know how to talk to women, but good luck or whatever
>you sound like a woman
bruh what
>and i don't know how to talk to women, but good luck or whatever
I've literally never see women care about analysis so I don't even know what you mean but whateva
>And the fact that RDR2 is often highlighted as having an especially good open world
It rewards curiosity and exploration, simple as that.
You are responding to a known spammer and all-around nuisance.
Be aware this is the Tomb Raider/Alan Wake 2 schizo, formerly known as Socrates. A neurotic individual who repeatedly claims he wants to discuss games he never finishes (nor gets 1/3 in) who types like he's writing a script to a 6 hour video essay. If you look at the timeline of some of his archived posts alone, it becomes obvious he's a lying freak. He was shilling out the ass for Alan Wake 2 before he even finished the game a single time, while decrying all comparisons to games like REmake 2 (while he shat on the game, pretending to have played it). This then led to the freak actually attempting to play a resident evil game a week later. He is also fond of spending more time watching video essays from the likes of Joseph Anderson and Hbomberman instead of actually playing video games.
Reminder: this mentally ill adhd troon schizo has already ruined:
- tomb raider discussions
- alan wake discussions
- resident evil discussions
- dead space discussions
- last of us discussions (lol)
- void stranger discussions
- darkwood discussions
- outer wilds discussions
- tunic discussions
- max payne discussions
- silent hill 2 discussions
- signalis discussions
- disco elysium discussions
- returnal discussions
- system shock discussions
- prey discussions
- dishonored discussions
- deus ex discussions
No game is safe from his troon walls of schizo text
wtf does pissbaby mean
Just about every GTA game encourages playing fast. Get faster vehicles to go from point A to B quicker. Get better guns to kill more people faster. Faster = more fun. RDR toned it down to better fit the setting. Now with RDR2, there was actually a serious attempt to make the game slow and to everybody's surprise, a slow R* game can be fun. That doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be fun for people who hate R* games.
It had really nice depth of detail. It's not that you can just wave to the townsfolk, but that it heavily studies the context to see if your character has a conversation about something relevant instead. You see this big fat motherfricker in Strawberry and go up to him, and the game already knows you want to call him a big fat piece of shit.
It's because the game is ridiculously easy, it basically plays itself. My dad struggles like hell on even easy games (because he's 60) but he has no trouble playing RDR.
This game has the worst movement of any game I've played. Controlling Arthur feels so terrible especially having to hold down the button every time you want to loot or pick something up
I just wish some enjenuat anon would figure our how to make a "Blood Meridian" mod.
I genuinely wish I was a filibuster durring the "old west" and would emencly enjoy the experience of of living it out in a video game environment.
dumb thread nobody cares
the mistake is everyone thinks its a game
but its essentially an interactive media tech demo
i guess the confusion comes from the fact that it was developed by rockstar games so most assume its a game because theyre not famous for doing anything else
>an interactive media tech demo
>botw was also a tech demo
what's the deal with open worlds being tech demos?
Really it’s so they can stagger technology by revealing shit that’s already plateaued because graphics are going to hit a bottleneck until they spin ai scented graphics cards or reach some other marketing bullshit.
People probably just mean that they got immersed by the amazing graphics and how real the world felt, they don't actually care about whether the world is fun to explore or not.
basically the game is gotd because a corpse will rot and you can revisit the where the corpse was and see it in various states of decay
>basically the game is gotd because a corpse will rot and you can revisit the where the corpse was and see it in various states of decay
wow, deep gameplay, truly game of the decade
name 1 other open world game with that type of shit, you can't, moron.
That's called a gimmick
Dragon's Dogma 2 does it
I wouldn't know, I used to feed my dead Black folk to gators
why so salty, I'm sure also weeb hames will catch up in 15 years or something
Because it is
Compare it to literally anything and rdr2 will won by a huge margin
>RDR2
>Better gameplay than TLOU2
lmao. I'm just so glad that both normies and Ganker hate that game so I can always group up Ganker with normies and hammer home my point that Ganker is never that meaningfully different from them.
A game where half of its "realistic" mechanics are visual fluff, vs a game where literally EVERY "realistic" mechanic meaningfully feeds into every other aspect of gameplay to create a coherent whole that instills REAL feelings of tension or resourcefulness via context of its gameplay mechanics.
>counters with an actual linear moviegame
please post less
>using linear as a "bad word". unironically using "moviegame" too peak midwit that doesn't know how to articulate anything so just used buzzwords
le hecking ironic woke political meme!
should I even be asking Ganker this question? they don't even play the games they criticize, and can't even pretend to look at a game objectively without injecting their biases and preconceptions.
the ultimate filter for how I'd determine how valid ones opinion is here, is by asking them what they think about Death Stranding and seeing how they "describe" it.
what do you think of kingdome come: deliverance?
you sound hysterical unironically, but in the original meaning of female hormones (HRT in this case?) messing up with you
>you sound hysterical unironically
And what objective psychological guidelines are you using to determine this diagnosis? inb4 the moron says his feelings or some variation of "it's just obvious" aka circular reasoning, and exposes the fact that he's just throwing labels he doesn't understand, at criticism he can't engage with
you are clearly upset in that post, it emerges by the way the language and the format escalates, but one could easily tell by its (lack of proper) syntaxis alone, since, on the other hand, you don't seem to have a poor vocabulary. A post truly deign of a salty redditor. Only women and low T males do that.
>you are clearly upset in that post
I wasn't even that mad. But even so, there's nothing wrong with expressing anger or frustration. They're healthy human emotions, aslong as the behaviour or action that accompanies them isn't wrong. It's not good to bottle up ones emotions to conform and fall in line with how everyone else wants you to act. You'd think Ganker would understand that with their disdain for normies but I already know this place is superficial.
>it emerges by the way the language and the format escalates
There's nothing to suggest such escalation you imply is uncalled for or unwarranted. not that I even see what escalation you're pointing to
>but one could easily tell by its (lack of proper) syntaxis alone
uhh sure bro this is the internet, although grammar and syntax is relevant for clarity, we already take a multitude of liberties with expression, I don't think its particularly difficult to understand my words clearly.
>since, on the other hand, you don't seem to have a poor vocabulary.
yeah, people point to this a lot to try and imply I'm pretentious or haughty but I never get that, I guess this is one of those things you can only notice from an outside perspective.
I don't try to be super formal, sure I like words? but only insofar as they aid in me expressing concepts that are hard to talk about.
>A post truly deign of a salty redditor. Only women and low T males do that.
Nah. Reddit hates me. You either don't understand Reddit, or are dumb. Reddit doesn't like abrasiveness, criticism, or emotions. Any evidence of frustration and redditards will immediately start suggesting therapy, like programmed bots "you need therapy"
>Reddit hates me.
>Reddit doesn't like abrasiveness, criticism, or emotions.
Imagine being hated by your own kind
>You either don't understand Reddit,
how can you understand that which is irrational?
>by your own kind
I feel like you either don't understand what words mean, or are on some race realist level of moronation regarding "own kind". They're obviously not my kind if I'm not like them, and therefore get mass reported, banned and rejected from the community. My type of expression isn't alike, and you're a moron that doesn't even know what he's talking about. Now stfu and let the thread return to videogames.
i dont understand your words because you are reddit
this thread was never about vidya because rdr2 is interactive media, just a glorified visually impressive dvd menu
>this thread was never about vidya because rdr2 is interactive media, just a glorified visually impressive dvd menu
That's isn't necessarily a bad idea in theory. Its just about how it's implemented hmmm
Ive always thought it would be kind of cool to experience one of the world of my favourite shows or manga. To follow and be part of their stories somehow. But I am EXTREMELY picky when it comes to writing so that's why I don't tend to like "story" or "narrative driven" games.
The closest I've found is disco elysium, and outer wilds.
in outerwilds the story IS the gameplay to some significant degree. you're uncovering an alien universe, and everything that occured there through another species' story and journey through it.
In disco elysium you're following an alcoholic cop who hates himself, and uncovering his story and the story of the residents in the city he lives, he's also a detective so it's very natural how the "gameplay" progresses, which is essentially just talking to people.
These are the single two games that I think do storytelling in videogames well, and the former is one that I don't even think is well written, I just think it's good because the story is literally gameplay.
But yet still, I yearn for some videogame that is able to make me connect to a characters experience of the world so much so, that I feel as if I'm right there with them. Especially because TV and Anime haven't been able to provide that for me, for some time.
you use reddit spacing, logic and terminology, you are not different from them, just too obnoxious even for their standards
culminates all together the feelings of tension in the lives of young troons in a harsh world that doesn't understand their stunning and powerful message
>Get RDR2
>Friend calls it best Open World game ever.
>Cant go anywhere because snow kills you. VERY OPEN. ok ok I joke, its the tutorial obviously.
>Friend says overlook is where the real game begins.
>Get to overlook
>Now to enjoy the openness of the world.
>Go to mexico
>Fricking Die.
>Cant refund game, tutorial is 4 hours.
I'm gonna punch him in the frickin mouth.
This actually sounds cool. The environment affecting you enough to have to kill you and having to manage that, if it's done well, then I could see value in the "immersive" aspects of its world.
Yeah no.
You just get shot by a magic invisible moron.
???
it was a lawmen, the minimap even shows you where they are coming from in large advance
Mexico, you esl moron. Not tall trees.
but mexico is not in the game (without modding), you gaylord?
>Fricking die
skill issue
the only thing that doesn't really make sense is guns being locked behind game progression, just fricking make them expensive
Its an overrated mess by Redditors that somehow went under the radar for few years so the schizo and moronic trolls of Ganker forgot about it and didn't bombard it with shitposts.
In reality the game is heavily flawed and overrated as frick, its not a good game, but it receives less hate because the trolls are busy with other games.
>Shit gunplay where its just auto aim and cover taking
>Enemies that are the same throughout 100 hours of gameplay making things dull and boring to fight espeically with its piss easy combat
>Mission design that is on rails and the same scripts since the days of San Andreas which is go to a letter on the map, watch cutscene, move in a linear line to from A to B watch another cutscene, fight bad guys, repeat.
>Economy and loot system that is boring and has no value after 5 hours, you buy the same stuff and there is nothing valuable to make you go out and explore
>Horrible controls
>Story that starts good but loses its pace at part 5 (the island) then shits the bed completely in the epilogue
>Side content the features chores of realism that has no relation to good gameplay (e.g fishing, cleaning stables, play poker and milking cows)
>Outside of Arthur and Dutch the characters are morons and contrived to be plot devices
>Terrible traversal tools
Game is just mediocre, it has good graphics, good attention to detail with realism chores and half a good story with a touching ending which is enough to get the normies to suck your dick.
it's cozy, I'm working towards getting the legend of the east satchel right now
Imagine Death Stranding but there are actually stuff and points of interests around the world. DS is more fun in terms of traversal but for the most part it's always just going from point A to B. RDR2 on the other hand has you going from point A to B as well but you always get sidetracked due to random events and stuff.
>Imagine Death Stranding but there are actually stuff and points of interests around the world. DS is more fun in terms of traversal but for the most part it's always just going from point A to B. RDR2 on the other hand has you going from point A to B as well but you always get sidetracked due to random events and stuff.
Almost literally selling me the game just based off of likening it to death stranding. So much of the criticism against that game was superficial and I enjoyed it despite. I might need a little more of a push, but I'm basically at the train station at this point. I just hope it's the same case with RDR2 where the criticisms are generally just not liking something trying to be different or atypical.
Yeah I don't think they're really going for the same thing, DS is understandably devoid of any living things considering the setting and the whole game is designed around going from one point to the next. RDR2 is the opposite where it's teeming with life that constantly distracts you from going to your original destination at every corner.
From what I've seen of RDR2 threads, the biggest complaints are the absurdly linear story missions and moronic gameplay compared to the first game. Both are very valid points but if you can get over those then you'd probably be able to enjoy it a bit more.
that looks like a female character. you can play a female character?
>Yeah I don't think they're really going for the same thing
I don't need them too. Infact it's better if they don't. I don't like playing redundant games. Aslong as they embody the same principle of "immersive world where you need to engage with the world and it's rules to progress" then I'm Gucci. This is a SURPRISINGLY rare type of game. Atleast in the specific way I've seen in death stranding, I'll have to deliberate more on this if I care enough, and outline reasonings for why.
>RDR2 is the opposite where it's teeming with life that constantly distracts you from going to your original destination at every corner.
hm, that's not bad, aslong as it doesn't feel time wasting like the evergaol and caves, and catacombs shit in Elden ring where I end up feeling like I'm forcing myself to complete a checklist because that's "just the gameplay"
>and moronic gameplay compared to the first game.
In what way is it moronic?
moronic as in slow
it's slow
very slow
literally every action you do in 2 feels like you're moving through molasses
it's ebin
Because it's a comfy setting that is also rare in modern video games with enough different random encounters to keep the player entertained. The wildlife behaves somewhat realistically and the mini games like hunting, fishing and gambling are fun enough even though they are dumbed down for normalgays
>even though they are dumbed down for normalgays
dumbed down compared to what?
compared to rdr1 which did gambling better and allowed you to cheat. I don't remember how hunting legendary animals worked in rdr1 but activating your assassins creed eagle vision ability and looking for highlighted shit in 3 different areas before the animal shows up is moronic and boring
>but activating your assassins creed eagle vision ability and looking for highlighted shit in 3 different areas before the animal shows up is moronic and boring
frick. this is discouraging. why is it so hard for me to justify buying this game lmao maaan...maybe I should just stick to death stranding idk
Greatest game of the decade
RDR2 still stands with the last two Zelda's, ER and probably TW3 as the best open world games of the last 10 years. No game does it better than these and makes you want to actually explore and not just beeline the main quest.
What about Dragon's Dogmaballs 2?
>RDR2 still stands with the last two Zelda's, ER and probably TW3 as the best open world games of the last 10 years.
Oh. If it's just the same as all of them, then it must be equally as bad. Unlucky
>RDR2 still stands with the last two Zelda's, ER and probably TW3 as the best open world games of the last 10 years.
Oh. If it's just the same as all of them, then it must be equally as great. Based
Horrendous taste.
Breath of the wild isn't notable because of it's world, it's notable because they made traversing the world the main part of the game as opposed to it just being a filler between 'islands of content'. Kind of like Death Stranding except not shit.
I don't think RDR is in any way exceptional in the game design-sense, but it is exceptional in it's attention to detail and visuals. Visuals means more than "good graphics" btw.
>It can't just be vague "details" because this is too vague to me. What does this even mean? What does that have to do with gameplay?
Everything, most devs wouldn't take the time to add extra animations for something like this, just one example. Other games feel cheap/gamey in comparison after playing RDR2
how do you do that fast hip shooting and the cool animation afterwards?
To hip fire just fire your gun without aiming (works with any gun, even rifles), and to do the holster animation just press the holster button twice quickly.
nice, thanks. I have around 250 hours in RDR2 and I didn't know that.
You can even do tricks with revolvers like Revolver Ocelot but sadly those are stuck in RDO.
Thanks Rockstar
Because despite not being big it's by far the most detailed open world ever made, there's almost a bit of something to every location in the game, almost every random house you'll find in the open world will have something, more or less valuable, and even random NPCs like store clerks or Sheriffs have some backstory.
There's just a lot of things that contribute to the world that isn't just marked on the map or anything that make it feel alive, including plenty of stuff that's actually important to the franchise that you can just miss out on, like what Strange Man's up to in RDR2, or where the Braithwhite gold is, though I'll say the clue to a lot of these is hidden behind encounters so rare it feels like hunting for shiny Pokemon.
Normies are easily impressed and they NEVER actually finish video games they buy. This has been true forever, people didn’t finish the old GTA games either.
People generally like what they’re told to like and latch on to whatever is the popular thing. RDR1 was an incredible game, RDR2 is not. It doesn’t matter though cos it’s made by Rockstar and they get a special guaranteed 10/10 bonus on every game they put out.
So yeah it’s basically just the graphics. Also gamers in general are generally quite stupid and very easily impressed by things that books and movies have been doing forever. That’s why they put the shitty Oscar-bait style storyline in there, and why you have gamers who proclaim Arthur as some incredibly well-written protagonist. It’s because they’re essentially moronic even in comparison to your average capeshit viewer. 2222
The real reason is simply because there's no other game that does an open world wild west 1800s setting like this game does. It's that easy, there's no competitors.