Frito_Pendejo
Member
I’m at 53% and just fired it back up again. I love the game but I’ve been taking as much time in between playing as possible. I know I won’t get another great Rockstar game for a while so I try to take my time finishing them.
It sounds like this game isn’t for you. The intro is long but after that it opens up.I'm about an hour in and quit out. The game didn't even give me an opportunity to save. In that time the gameplay probably consisted of 10-15% and the rest of the time was dialog/story exposition.
Don't really know if I have time for it - I'll give the online a go with friends, maybe the gameplay is front and centre in that mode.
It sounds like this game isn’t for you. The intro is long but after that it opens up.
Multiplayer is not where your attention should be.
Still a better pick than rdr2, although it could still be debatable with other titles such as BotW or Bloodborne.
Still a better pick than rdr2
It doesn't push anything. It has stellar production values but as an actual game, it's archaic. The dreadful controls, the input lag, killing you when you stray an inch from the linear mission path (such realism!), shooting mechanics straight out of 2008, etc, etc.Not really.
RDR2 it's a masterpiece, a game that pushes the medium. Nier at best it's good, if you can put up with the visually insipid graphics, the camera, the nothing to write about it gameplay and the overall feeling that you are playing a half made game with some good ideas.
It doesn't push anything. It has stellar production values but as an actual game, it's archaic. The dreadful controls, the input lag, killing you when you stray an inch from the linear mission path (such realism!), shooting mechanics straight out of 2008, etc, etc.
Best movie of this gen.
I loved it, easily one of the best games this generation.
However as a few others have mentioned the mission design needs a proper revamp for whatever game they make next.
thanks the gigantic budget\1000+ workforce and 8-9 years dev time for that.It has production values never seen in a videogame. The sheer amount of detail it's just groundbreaking and never seen before. That's already pushing the medium forward.
That'd still be better than in RDR2, where the game is only good if you can put up with the game itself.Not really.
RDR2 it's a masterpiece, a game that pushes the medium. Nier at best it's good, if you can put up with the visually insipid graphics, the camera, the nothing to write about it gameplay and the overall feeling that you are playing a half made game with some good ideas.
thanks the gigantic budget\1000+ workforce and 8-9 years dev time for that.
That'd still be better than in RDR2, where the game is only good if you can put up with the game itself.
Yeah, but a game where you have to put up with the game itself is not a good game as a whole. In fact, its usually a terrible one.But if you put with the game, it's a masterpiece.
Yeah, but a game where you have to put up with the game itself is not a good game as a whole. In fact, its usually a terrible one.
RDR2 only gets a pass despite its horrendous mechanics an terrible game design because of the money oozing out from its every hole.
I think we got to the problem here. RDR2 could great as a TV series, but as a game it sucks. Game elements end up detracting more from the experience than adding.It gets a pass because it's a totally astonishing and unique experience that unravels to you in a very slow pace, which adds more to the experience if you are capable of handle it.
It's like watching The Wire vs watching Heroes (Nier automata).
I think we got to the problem here. RDR2 could great as a TV series, but as a game it sucks. Game elements end up detracting more from the experience than adding.
Then we have titles like Nier Automata and Undertale, where its game elements ADD to the overall experience and complement it.
They're great examples of good game storytelling. On the other hand, RDR2 is a good story with a bad game attached to it, and terribly so.
I wanted a story told as a game, you wanted a TV series, thats why our opinions diverge.
-It might make the game better, but it also makes the story worse when the game sucks.Telling a good story through a game makes the game better. And let's not forget the gun gameplay in RDR2 it's quite good, also. And the world is super immersive, I literally never use the fast travel because I just love wandering through that vast world discovering this beautifully and super detailed lands and interact with the NPCs (the capacity to interact with every NPC is amazing too, especially with the sheer amount of NPCs, both human and animal kind).
Nier automata is more direct, for sure, but to me lacks both in the gameplay and the presentation department, therefore the story department suffers from it. It's so visually boring and plain; not only the graphics are shitty, but the art, the colours and the stupid camera angles (talk about dated gameplay elements) makes it ugly and inspid. And when you have a videogame that doesn't enter you from the eyes, then that's a far more bigger problem than having a slow pace, in my book.
Red Read 2 is one of the greatest games ever made. Arthur Morgan is maybe the best protagonist in gaming history. Glad to hear you're enjoying yourself Jon Neu
Wait till you see how it all plays out in the end. Be sure that you make the right choices as Arthur.