Well the positive i see from watching on Twitch is players are often finding immersion,that is a good thing. The bad? well that immersion i talked about is pretty much the ONLY good thing i see,the game play looks imo boring,the quests and interaction is at least to me boring.Like some chick streamer spent over an hour just trying to get a date for her cowboy,is that fun to you,perhaps,to me it is immersive yes but kind of boring.
But hey,it's a western,how exciting could they make the game?Shotguns,six shooters,taverns,cowboy hats you know same old same old.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Well the positive i see from watching on Twitch is players are often finding immersion,that is a good thing. The bad? well that immersion i talked about is pretty much the ONLY good thing i see,the game play looks imo boring,the quests and interaction is at least to me boring.Like some chick streamer spent over an hour just trying to get a date for her cowboy,is that fun to you,perhaps,to me it is immersive yes but kind of boring.
But hey,it's a western,how exciting could they make the game?Shotguns,six shooters,taverns,cowboy hats you know same old same old.
LOL I watch twitch and can t form my own opinion. So dumb.
For me, Red Dead 2 wins by far. (TW3 was my previous favorite open world game) However, I think they are so different that it is hard to compare the two other then them both being open world games. I think as an Open World RPG TW3 is still the top of class. But Red Dead 2 absolutely has the crown for best open world game. One thing I will say though, is that I think RDR 2 has a story that is absolutely unparalleled in any game I have played in years. TW3 story isn't good at all comparatively. They set a new bar in this regard, undoubtedly.
For me, Red Dead 2 wins by far. (TW3 was my previous favorite open world game) However, I think they are so different that it is hard to compare the two other then them both being open world games. I think as an Open World RPG TW3 is still the top of class. But Red Dead 2 absolutely has the crown for best open world game. One thing I will say though, is that I think RDR 2 has a story that is absolutely unparalleled in any game I have played in years. TW3 story isn't good at all comparatively. They set a new bar in this regard, undoubtedly.
LMAO yeah unless you think having 36 possible outcomes is worse than being forced to SPOILER INCOMING;;; kill the main character you started out with and going on to another guy to even finish the game.
Witcher 3 give actual choices and consequences to those choices that arent eventually pigeon holing you back to some forgone finish. Important characters and even 'main' character can be saved or killed in Witcher 3 but no deaths are really forced on you.
I havent seen enough people 'finish' RDR2 yet to see if there even are multiple finishes or not, but I know that they are all steered to the same storyline no matter how good or bad you try and make your character with the 'kharma' system. So IMO its all just window dressing and making peope think what they do matters, which in reality it doesnt. No matter HOW you play everyone who finishes is going to end up in the same place eventually.
Well the positive i see from watching on Twitch is players are often finding immersion,that is a good thing. The bad? well that immersion i talked about is pretty much the ONLY good thing i see,the game play looks imo boring,the quests and interaction is at least to me boring.Like some chick streamer spent over an hour just trying to get a date for her cowboy,is that fun to you,perhaps,to me it is immersive yes but kind of boring.
But hey,it's a western,how exciting could they make the game?Shotguns,six shooters,taverns,cowboy hats you know same old same old.
I find watching videos of people playing games boring. I find RDR2 very non boring to play but it would be boring for me to watch others play it.
For me, Red Dead 2 wins by far. (TW3 was my previous favorite open world game) However, I think they are so different that it is hard to compare the two other then them both being open world games. I think as an Open World RPG TW3 is still the top of class. But Red Dead 2 absolutely has the crown for best open world game. One thing I will say though, is that I think RDR 2 has a story that is absolutely unparalleled in any game I have played in years. TW3 story isn't good at all comparatively. They set a new bar in this regard, undoubtedly.
LMAO yeah unless you think having 36 possible outcomes is worse than being forced to SPOILER INCOMING;;; kill the main character you started out with and going on to another guy to even finish the game.
Witcher 3 give actual choices and consequences to those choices that arent eventually pigeon holing you back to some forgone finish. Important characters and even 'main' character can be saved or killed in Witcher 3 but no deaths are really forced on you.
I havent seen enough people 'finish' RDR2 yet to see if there even are multiple finishes or not, but I know that they are all steered to the same storyline no matter how good or bad you try and make your character with the 'kharma' system. So IMO its all just window dressing and making peope think what they do matters, which in reality it doesnt. No matter HOW you play everyone who finishes is going to end up in the same place eventually.
Huh? There are plenty of dialogue choices in Red Dead 2. Remember though, Red Dead is not an RPG. It is an open world game. Most of the choices you make have nothing to do with the main story. There are absolutely decisions that change the way you play the game. Choice does not make a game better. I am not saying TW3 had a bad story, I just think that RDR2 is on a different plane of existence when it comes to story telling. Sounds to me like you were just watching Twitch though, so your opinion is invalid. You basically just described how game design works fundamentally as part of your argument in a way to make it sound bad. Game developers JOB is to make everything players do feel like it matters when it really doesn't. That is what RDR2 does better then anything else out there and TW3 does the same thing. You are not suddenly playing a whole new game because a cut scene or some voice lines changed.
I have only played a few hours and it makes my head spin. You have to feed your horse, pet your horse, shave yourself, and make sure you are wearing the right clothes for the weather. I was also chasing a guy on a horse, hit a tree and my horse got knocked out for like 1 min. I didnt even get to hunting/fishing/cooking/crafting yet...... It is a little bit too much for me. It is a game that you definitely need to sit down and play for a while.
The controls are a bit funky for me. I was trying to shoot a wolf while riding a horse and i wanted to smash my controller. I had to turn on the aim assist. I have free aim on for "on foot", but it is pretty difficult. I am sure it would be much better on PC if it ever makes it there. The combat in The Witcher is much better IMO.
One thing that drives me insane is the horse movement when zoomed out or in cinematics. It is very choppy and robotic and I do not understand why they left it like that?
Its a Cowboy Simulator , Its not GTA in the Wildwest . It is more on par with the freedom and deep RPG experience of say Skyrim than the Witcher 3. You dont Play Red Dead Redemption you live in its world. Very immersive experience. My first 4 hours i was claiming RDR2 was the best game of this year now after 10 + hours Im claiming this is one of the best games i have ever played.
To me RDR2 blows Witcher 3 out of the water, not even close. Bountys, eat, cook, hunt, fish, poker, random encounters, TONS of character customization, random events in the world a morality and weight system , your character grows facial hair, Its a life simulator set in the west, Absolutely fantastic game.
There is just to much detail to go into and i wouldn't want to ruin the experience by telling you every facet of the game
This is pretty much my feelings-
I loved Witcher 3 but it was a story driven themepark in a zoned open world- RDR2 is a Wild West simulator with a main story and a dynamic and living world the likes of which ive never seen in gaming.
One of the reasons I rank Morrowind as one of my favorite games (and by far the best of the Elder Scrolls) was its ability to help you totally suspend disbelief and 'live' in the world- This is the feeling I get with RDR2 , but as a bonus it has a really good (if a bit cliched) main story.
Ive put some time in with both games- far more with Witcher 3 and all the Xpacs and have completed Witcher. This game has a far better living world, hands down...If its a better game is subjective (It is for me) but nothing has come close to the living world aspect of rdr2 by a mile.
Just out of curiosity, has anyone gone straight to Blackwater to try and figure out what went down there? Or is it "locled" behind the story?
I'm curious, because I hear "open world" and "live in the world", yet I see scripted events and actions undo-able/unavoidable thanks to scripting. You WILL get thrown through the window in the bar fight (in Valentine?). You CAN'T use a Gatling gun in one encounter.
Also, does anyone else in the camp DO anything without your help?
Yes there are scripted events as part of the main story or while on a mission- The fight you are speaking of is one, the drunken trip to town where you 'lose' your friend (was one of the most hilarious things ive ever seen in a game) is another- That doesnt negate anything in the 'living world'...Those 2 events especially were more a part of the tutorial as well as each thing you can do in the game (fighting or getting drunk) is exposed to you via scripted missions.
Shoot an NPC but dont kill him- He will have bandages on his wounds when next you see him and sometimes comments about it- Leave a corpse on the ground, it decomposes and attracts scavengers- buildings that are being will actually progress towards being finished, logging camps deforest areas... Sitting in a saloon, playing cards and seeing the world go by, NPCs talking together etc.
Man, I could go and on- Its so many small details that have never been done before on top of the things we've all come to expect from an open world game.
You can go off the main story or just 'live' in a way that seems very real, in a world that reacts and presents dynamic events.
And yes, the people at your camp do things (just not as much as you) and also donate goods and money to the camp. Play some gambling games with them and while youre playing you can look around and watch what happens in your camp (and hear a ton of banter which add to their (and your) backstory.
Thanks for this. I do enjoy the banter one hears all over the place. Some of the scripted events are fun to watch, like the drunken bar scene with Lenny. Others not so much, where you witness things happening and can do nothing, because... script/story. This is true with any heavily storied game, Star Wars (almost any title) included, not RDR 2 specifically.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
@kertin ; if your being a witcher fan boy be it but dont try to tell me which to compare and which not to i can compare everything so if you think the topic is useless then just gtfo here and dont keep trying to tell people which to compare and which is useless and if you think comparing game is useless then you need to see a doctor and test your little brain and get a life
nothing is more useless than one here sitting on his pc 24/7 and got nothing better to do than posting useless comments since 2009 maybe witcher 3 is good for you as it got more than 300 hours story and more with dlc so having it you could dive into the fantasy world and have a normal life for hours and hours before coming to your real life where nothing better to do than posting your " useless comments" back again on mmorpg forum and maybe you cant buy rdr 2 with the 60$ you get from your mom every year but doesnt mean that everyone should like witcher 3 and should not compare it
dont want to talk about it more as it seems your special as its rude to insult retards like you and also dont want to make you feel sad by talking about your only fantasy world which you live in :P
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
For me, Red Dead 2 wins by far. (TW3 was my previous favorite open world game) However, I think they are so different that it is hard to compare the two other then them both being open world games. I think as an Open World RPG TW3 is still the top of class. But Red Dead 2 absolutely has the crown for best open world game. One thing I will say though, is that I think RDR 2 has a story that is absolutely unparalleled in any game I have played in years. TW3 story isn't good at all comparatively. They set a new bar in this regard, undoubtedly.
LMAO yeah unless you think having 36 possible outcomes is worse than being forced to SPOILER INCOMING;;; kill the main character you started out with and going on to another guy to even finish the game.
Witcher 3 give actual choices and consequences to those choices that arent eventually pigeon holing you back to some forgone finish. Important characters and even 'main' character can be saved or killed in Witcher 3 but no deaths are really forced on you.
I havent seen enough people 'finish' RDR2 yet to see if there even are multiple finishes or not, but I know that they are all steered to the same storyline no matter how good or bad you try and make your character with the 'kharma' system. So IMO its all just window dressing and making peope think what they do matters, which in reality it doesnt. No matter HOW you play everyone who finishes is going to end up in the same place eventually.
Huh? There are plenty of dialogue choices in Red Dead 2. Remember though, Red Dead is not an RPG. It is an open world game. Most of the choices you make have nothing to do with the main story. There are absolutely decisions that change the way you play the game. Choice does not make a game better. I am not saying TW3 had a bad story, I just think that RDR2 is on a different plane of existence when it comes to story telling. Sounds to me like you were just watching Twitch though, so your opinion is invalid. You basically just described how game design works fundamentally as part of your argument in a way to make it sound bad. Game developers JOB is to make everything players do feel like it matters when it really doesn't. That is what RDR2 does better then anything else out there and TW3 does the same thing. You are not suddenly playing a whole new game because a cut scene or some voice lines changed.
So then it doesnt matter it comes down to an OPINION not anything fundamental about HOW a game plays or the options one has within the game.
Shrinking horse balls and bandages on NPCs dont make a game 'better'. Nor does it make the 'mechanics' better. Its just something they threw in to make it more 'immersive'.
As for watching Twitch...what better way to see how dozens of people play the game and all the so called options one has. THATS why I drew the conclusion I did I have watched a half dozen guys play hours upon hours of it. Some try to be good, some try to be bad some do every 'evil' thing they can. Game still plays almost exactly the same.
You also explain why the replayability of this game is almost zero. Its a one and done. And even the 'cool' stuff once you see it the next time its no big deal. Thats why its a complete hype game more or less. It has an initial 'wow factor' (not world of warcraft) and then its over. A lot of games have those 'cool' little things and a lot of games have 'easter eggs' (another 'cool' thing) but theyre just that one and done 'surprises' or things to make you smile. Then theyre just there....
So there is why its all opinion on which is 'better'. Probably always was. But in some cases overwhelming things like content, graphics, 'bang for buck', performance, updates, bugs (or lack of), etc can most definitely make one game 'better' than another on sheer fundamentals. But generally those clear cut improvements arent seen for a few years of difference between when a game was made compared to another one. And even then some things that are clearly 'better' in one game can outweigh many of the improvements another might make. SO even then it still comes down to an opinion based on preference. But then again some people still think SWG was the best game ever made so....
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
For me, Red Dead 2 wins by far. (TW3 was my previous favorite open world game) However, I think they are so different that it is hard to compare the two other then them both being open world games. I think as an Open World RPG TW3 is still the top of class. But Red Dead 2 absolutely has the crown for best open world game. One thing I will say though, is that I think RDR 2 has a story that is absolutely unparalleled in any game I have played in years. TW3 story isn't good at all comparatively. They set a new bar in this regard, undoubtedly.
LMAO yeah unless you think having 36 possible outcomes is worse than being forced to SPOILER INCOMING;;; kill the main character you started out with and going on to another guy to even finish the game.
Witcher 3 give actual choices and consequences to those choices that arent eventually pigeon holing you back to some forgone finish. Important characters and even 'main' character can be saved or killed in Witcher 3 but no deaths are really forced on you.
I havent seen enough people 'finish' RDR2 yet to see if there even are multiple finishes or not, but I know that they are all steered to the same storyline no matter how good or bad you try and make your character with the 'kharma' system. So IMO its all just window dressing and making peope think what they do matters, which in reality it doesnt. No matter HOW you play everyone who finishes is going to end up in the same place eventually.
Dont even bother with this guy. He apparently ran to his local Walmart to get the sales forecast.
RODARIN "they didnt sell a single special console at the wal mart here they had 10 of 10 left. Sold a couple copies of the game the guy said. But like I said in my first comment here PC master race and besides that console gives these guys more of a license…"
$725,000,000 in sales the first weekend. Obviously your Walmart story was BS.
He also claimed everyone will be complaining once people dig into the game. He could not have been more wrong on both comments. Some people just create their own war against a particular video game for some reason. Picking RDR2 is a strange decision but hey looks like hes all in on his make believe war he already lost against RDR2.
For me, Red Dead 2 wins by far. (TW3 was my previous favorite open world game) However, I think they are so different that it is hard to compare the two other then them both being open world games. I think as an Open World RPG TW3 is still the top of class. But Red Dead 2 absolutely has the crown for best open world game. One thing I will say though, is that I think RDR 2 has a story that is absolutely unparalleled in any game I have played in years. TW3 story isn't good at all comparatively. They set a new bar in this regard, undoubtedly.
LMAO yeah unless you think having 36 possible outcomes is worse than being forced to SPOILER INCOMING;;; kill the main character you started out with and going on to another guy to even finish the game.
Witcher 3 give actual choices and consequences to those choices that arent eventually pigeon holing you back to some forgone finish. Important characters and even 'main' character can be saved or killed in Witcher 3 but no deaths are really forced on you.
I havent seen enough people 'finish' RDR2 yet to see if there even are multiple finishes or not, but I know that they are all steered to the same storyline no matter how good or bad you try and make your character with the 'kharma' system. So IMO its all just window dressing and making peope think what they do matters, which in reality it doesnt. No matter HOW you play everyone who finishes is going to end up in the same place eventually.
Dont even bother with this guy. He apparently ran to his local Walmart to get the sales forecast.
RODARIN "they didnt sell a single special console at the wal mart here they had 10 of 10 left. Sold a couple copies of the game the guy said. But like I said in my first comment here PC master race and besides that console gives these guys more of a license…"
$725,000,000 in sales the first weekend. Obviously your Walmart story was BS.
He also claimed everyone will be complaining once people dig into the game. He could not have been more wrong on both comments. Some people just create their own war against a particular video game for some reason. Picking RDR2 is a strange decision but hey looks like hes all in on his make believe war he already lost against RDR2.
obvious fanboy accounts are obvious. You started this account how long ago? It has how many comments and how many of them are completely pro RDR2? You even start troll topics with the usual fanbois passive aggressive rhetorical question or comment.
The point is Witcher did more as far as gameplay. RDR2 possibly improved some graphics and juvenile catch alls. like Ark did with shitting and whatever game that came out with pissing or farting or whatever they do to feed into the adolescent crap most gamers never outgrew.
Horses have shrinking balls whoopedy frigging doo. How does that improve gameplay? And what other things are there that are effected by the environment? Nothing that I saw. Health or stamina or food needs dont even speed up due to being in the cold. Nope but they 'changed the genre' because horses balls shrink in cold weather. People dont even realize it has nothing to do with anything other than where it is on the map and not due to temperature (even though they make sure to show the temps when you zone in and out of areas) but those temps really dont matter at all. Yet they trick people into thinking they do with their horse balls gimmick.
You can see how fast people that have 'finished' the game are already onto to the next thing or their 'main' game. Some are obviously taking their time but there is still a finite amount of time you can spend in this 'amazing open world' within the confines of the single player experience they released. And it pales in comparison to what Witcher 3 offers. Not even counting DLCs and additions. Base game to base game Witcher still has 2-4 times the amount of possible hours of play time. Not to mention the replays you can do and get a different outcome each time without getting shipped back onto the rails again.
RDR2 forces you into a direction regardless of the decisions you make. No matter what happens everyone is going to end up with the same ending scenario more or less. There MIGHT be some change in dialogue but I havent seen it yet. I have seen a few ways Arthur dies. But he still dies and he cant be saved and you cant finish the game with him. Youre still forced to play John, and Sadie becomes a focal character as well. No matter what you try to do. There are no 'what ending did you get' discussions when it comes to this game. And enough people have finished it already to get a decent idea of the possibilities.
Of course theyre going to make a lot of money selling it. It costs 80 bucks and console players have always shown a propensity to pay too much for games that arent even that good. This game is decent but it isnt Witcher 3, and when Cyber Punk comes out I am sure that game will really expose a lot of the things people are willing to ignore when it comes to the short comings RDR2 has. I also think that if theyre going to release a PC version of RDR2 it will have to be before Cyber Punk comes out, which might be as soon as 18 months but more than likely Oct of 2020 would be my guess. Which unfortunately for Rockstar is their typical timetable. But some people dont think they will ever release a PC version. SO playing a game of 'chicken' with people who are waiting for it to release on that platform. Almost forcing them to buy a console, used or otherwise, to play it. Problem is once the hype dies down and they have seen it played enough they wont really care either way if they play it or not. Which again doesnt matter because theyre going to sell a billion dollars worth of it for sure. But again if they had released it solely on PC they would have gotten 3 times that at least. But its what they do and how they do it and like I said theyre masters at monetizing everything so who am I to argue with their results.
Why do people keep saying it costs 80 bucks? It costs 60 bucks the same as theTW3 and any other triple A title. Stop spreading misinformation. I spent $80 for the special edition and will be buying it again when the pc version releases. I also feel like I got my moneys worth. Essays of argument over what? If you dont feel its worth the money dont buy it. I feel like it is, for me at least. I haven't even finished TW3 yet but I know I will be finishing this, the story is great and running around the open world is too, I actually enjoy it more than I did TW3 open world. And I will be booting up the first game to play again after finishing this one, hopefully the rumours of a RDR1 remaster are true. I hope they add some DLC where you could play as some of the other characters, like Hosea or Sean and track what they where doing while Arthur is off doing his stuff.
I finished the main story of RDR2. Its really good, I probable wouldn't do it again though. I think the gameplay is definitely raising the bar, especially what they have done with the world design choices and the way NPCs react to your character and the way wildlife works. Going into a store and picking up a can of corn to purchase or physically seeing Arthur take a rifle off the horse saddle to actually physically clean it never gets old.
I loved the story for what it was worth. It was like being in a big budget Western. Its worth the hype. I hate comparisons of two very good products but I guess its fun to think about.
The Witcher 3, I have spent 1000+ hours in. I've gotten 6 of the 32 ish endings in the game. I am still playing it to try and get at least 10 endings. I think gameplay wise Rockstar's RDR2 has a slight edge but its because of tech. CDPR though has the story edge in TW3.
TW3 is a modern day classic, and so is RDR2 but not for the same reasons.
"Beliefs don't change facts. Facts, if you're reasonable, should change your beliefs."
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
For me, Red Dead 2 wins by far. (TW3 was my previous favorite open world game) However, I think they are so different that it is hard to compare the two other then them both being open world games. I think as an Open World RPG TW3 is still the top of class. But Red Dead 2 absolutely has the crown for best open world game. One thing I will say though, is that I think RDR 2 has a story that is absolutely unparalleled in any game I have played in years. TW3 story isn't good at all comparatively. They set a new bar in this regard, undoubtedly.
LMAO yeah unless you think having 36 possible outcomes is worse than being forced to SPOILER INCOMING;;; kill the main character you started out with and going on to another guy to even finish the game.
Witcher 3 give actual choices and consequences to those choices that arent eventually pigeon holing you back to some forgone finish. Important characters and even 'main' character can be saved or killed in Witcher 3 but no deaths are really forced on you.
I havent seen enough people 'finish' RDR2 yet to see if there even are multiple finishes or not, but I know that they are all steered to the same storyline no matter how good or bad you try and make your character with the 'kharma' system. So IMO its all just window dressing and making peope think what they do matters, which in reality it doesnt. No matter HOW you play everyone who finishes is going to end up in the same place eventually.
Dont even bother with this guy. He apparently ran to his local Walmart to get the sales forecast.
RODARIN "they didnt sell a single special console at the wal mart here they had 10 of 10 left. Sold a couple copies of the game the guy said. But like I said in my first comment here PC master race and besides that console gives these guys more of a license…"
$725,000,000 in sales the first weekend. Obviously your Walmart story was BS.
He also claimed everyone will be complaining once people dig into the game. He could not have been more wrong on both comments. Some people just create their own war against a particular video game for some reason. Picking RDR2 is a strange decision but hey looks like hes all in on his make believe war he already lost against RDR2.
obvious fanboy accounts are obvious. You started this account how long ago? It has how many comments and how many of them are completely pro RDR2? You even start troll topics with the usual fanbois passive aggressive rhetorical question or comment.
The point is Witcher did more as far as gameplay. RDR2 possibly improved some graphics and juvenile catch alls. like Ark did with shitting and whatever game that came out with pissing or farting or whatever they do to feed into the adolescent crap most gamers never outgrew.
Horses have shrinking balls whoopedy frigging doo. How does that improve gameplay? And what other things are there that are effected by the environment? Nothing that I saw. Health or stamina or food needs dont even speed up due to being in the cold. Nope but they 'changed the genre' because horses balls shrink in cold weather. People dont even realize it has nothing to do with anything other than where it is on the map and not due to temperature (even though they make sure to show the temps when you zone in and out of areas) but those temps really dont matter at all. Yet they trick people into thinking they do with their horse balls gimmick.
You can see how fast people that have 'finished' the game are already onto to the next thing or their 'main' game. Some are obviously taking their time but there is still a finite amount of time you can spend in this 'amazing open world' within the confines of the single player experience they released. And it pales in comparison to what Witcher 3 offers. Not even counting DLCs and additions. Base game to base game Witcher still has 2-4 times the amount of possible hours of play time. Not to mention the replays you can do and get a different outcome each time without getting shipped back onto the rails again.
RDR2 forces you into a direction regardless of the decisions you make. No matter what happens everyone is going to end up with the same ending scenario more or less. There MIGHT be some change in dialogue but I havent seen it yet. I have seen a few ways Arthur dies. But he still dies and he cant be saved and you cant finish the game with him. Youre still forced to play John, and Sadie becomes a focal character as well. No matter what you try to do. There are no 'what ending did you get' discussions when it comes to this game. And enough people have finished it already to get a decent idea of the possibilities.
Of course theyre going to make a lot of money selling it. It costs 80 bucks and console players have always shown a propensity to pay too much for games that arent even that good. This game is decent but it isnt Witcher 3, and when Cyber Punk comes out I am sure that game will really expose a lot of the things people are willing to ignore when it comes to the short comings RDR2 has. I also think that if theyre going to release a PC version of RDR2 it will have to be before Cyber Punk comes out, which might be as soon as 18 months but more than likely Oct of 2020 would be my guess. Which unfortunately for Rockstar is their typical timetable. But some people dont think they will ever release a PC version. SO playing a game of 'chicken' with people who are waiting for it to release on that platform. Almost forcing them to buy a console, used or otherwise, to play it. Problem is once the hype dies down and they have seen it played enough they wont really care either way if they play it or not. Which again doesnt matter because theyre going to sell a billion dollars worth of it for sure. But again if they had released it solely on PC they would have gotten 3 times that at least. But its what they do and how they do it and like I said theyre masters at monetizing everything so who am I to argue with their results.
You just wrote Six paragraphs that nobody will read on a video game you dont like, haven't played and wont be playing. That says all there is to say about you. Enjoy your weird obsession over RDR2 while millions enjoy it.
Also try and keep the spoilers out of the threads about games that are new to the market. Thanks.
Beth dies!
Constantine, The Console Poster
"One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
Comments
The bad? well that immersion i talked about is pretty much the ONLY good thing i see,the game play looks imo boring,the quests and interaction is at least to me boring.Like some chick streamer spent over an hour just trying to get a date for her cowboy,is that fun to you,perhaps,to me it is immersive yes but kind of boring.
But hey,it's a western,how exciting could they make the game?Shotguns,six shooters,taverns,cowboy hats you know same old same old.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Witcher 3 give actual choices and consequences to those choices that arent eventually pigeon holing you back to some forgone finish. Important characters and even 'main' character can be saved or killed in Witcher 3 but no deaths are really forced on you.
I havent seen enough people 'finish' RDR2 yet to see if there even are multiple finishes or not, but I know that they are all steered to the same storyline no matter how good or bad you try and make your character with the 'kharma' system. So IMO its all just window dressing and making peope think what they do matters, which in reality it doesnt. No matter HOW you play everyone who finishes is going to end up in the same place eventually.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
nothing is more useless than one here sitting on his pc 24/7 and got nothing better to do than posting useless comments since 2009 maybe witcher 3 is good for you as it got more than 300 hours story and more with dlc so having it you could dive into the fantasy world and have a normal life for hours and hours before coming to your real life where nothing better to do than posting your " useless comments" back again on mmorpg forum and maybe you cant buy rdr 2 with the 60$ you get from your mom every year but doesnt mean that everyone should like witcher 3 and should not compare it
dont want to talk about it more as it seems your special as its rude to insult retards like you and also dont want to make you feel sad by talking about your only fantasy world which you live in :P
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Shrinking horse balls and bandages on NPCs dont make a game 'better'. Nor does it make the 'mechanics' better. Its just something they threw in to make it more 'immersive'.
As for watching Twitch...what better way to see how dozens of people play the game and all the so called options one has. THATS why I drew the conclusion I did I have watched a half dozen guys play hours upon hours of it. Some try to be good, some try to be bad some do every 'evil' thing they can. Game still plays almost exactly the same.
You also explain why the replayability of this game is almost zero. Its a one and done. And even the 'cool' stuff once you see it the next time its no big deal. Thats why its a complete hype game more or less. It has an initial 'wow factor' (not world of warcraft) and then its over. A lot of games have those 'cool' little things and a lot of games have 'easter eggs' (another 'cool' thing) but theyre just that one and done 'surprises' or things to make you smile. Then theyre just there....
So there is why its all opinion on which is 'better'. Probably always was. But in some cases overwhelming things like content, graphics, 'bang for buck', performance, updates, bugs (or lack of), etc can most definitely make one game 'better' than another on sheer fundamentals. But generally those clear cut improvements arent seen for a few years of difference between when a game was made compared to another one. And even then some things that are clearly 'better' in one game can outweigh many of the improvements another might make. SO even then it still comes down to an opinion based on preference. But then again some people still think SWG was the best game ever made so....
RODARIN "they didnt sell a single special console at the wal mart here they had 10 of 10 left. Sold a couple copies of the game the guy said. But like I said in my first comment here PC master race and besides that console gives these guys more of a license…"
$725,000,000 in sales the first weekend. Obviously your Walmart story was BS.
He also claimed everyone will be complaining once people dig into the game. He could not have been more wrong on both comments. Some people just create their own war against a particular video game for some reason. Picking RDR2 is a strange decision but hey looks like hes all in on his make believe war he already lost against RDR2.
The point is Witcher did more as far as gameplay. RDR2 possibly improved some graphics and juvenile catch alls. like Ark did with shitting and whatever game that came out with pissing or farting or whatever they do to feed into the adolescent crap most gamers never outgrew.
Horses have shrinking balls whoopedy frigging doo. How does that improve gameplay? And what other things are there that are effected by the environment? Nothing that I saw. Health or stamina or food needs dont even speed up due to being in the cold. Nope but they 'changed the genre' because horses balls shrink in cold weather. People dont even realize it has nothing to do with anything other than where it is on the map and not due to temperature (even though they make sure to show the temps when you zone in and out of areas) but those temps really dont matter at all. Yet they trick people into thinking they do with their horse balls gimmick.
You can see how fast people that have 'finished' the game are already onto to the next thing or their 'main' game. Some are obviously taking their time but there is still a finite amount of time you can spend in this 'amazing open world' within the confines of the single player experience they released. And it pales in comparison to what Witcher 3 offers. Not even counting DLCs and additions. Base game to base game Witcher still has 2-4 times the amount of possible hours of play time. Not to mention the replays you can do and get a different outcome each time without getting shipped back onto the rails again.
RDR2 forces you into a direction regardless of the decisions you make. No matter what happens everyone is going to end up with the same ending scenario more or less. There MIGHT be some change in dialogue but I havent seen it yet. I have seen a few ways Arthur dies. But he still dies and he cant be saved and you cant finish the game with him. Youre still forced to play John, and Sadie becomes a focal character as well. No matter what you try to do. There are no 'what ending did you get' discussions when it comes to this game. And enough people have finished it already to get a decent idea of the possibilities.
Of course theyre going to make a lot of money selling it. It costs 80 bucks and console players have always shown a propensity to pay too much for games that arent even that good. This game is decent but it isnt Witcher 3, and when Cyber Punk comes out I am sure that game will really expose a lot of the things people are willing to ignore when it comes to the short comings RDR2 has. I also think that if theyre going to release a PC version of RDR2 it will have to be before Cyber Punk comes out, which might be as soon as 18 months but more than likely Oct of 2020 would be my guess. Which unfortunately for Rockstar is their typical timetable. But some people dont think they will ever release a PC version. SO playing a game of 'chicken' with people who are waiting for it to release on that platform. Almost forcing them to buy a console, used or otherwise, to play it. Problem is once the hype dies down and they have seen it played enough they wont really care either way if they play it or not. Which again doesnt matter because theyre going to sell a billion dollars worth of it for sure. But again if they had released it solely on PC they would have gotten 3 times that at least. But its what they do and how they do it and like I said theyre masters at monetizing everything so who am I to argue with their results.
And I will be booting up the first game to play again after finishing this one, hopefully the rumours of a RDR1 remaster are true.
I hope they add some DLC where you could play as some of the other characters, like Hosea or Sean and track what they where doing while Arthur is off doing his stuff.
I loved the story for what it was worth. It was like being in a big budget Western. Its worth the hype. I hate comparisons of two very good products but I guess its fun to think about.
The Witcher 3, I have spent 1000+ hours in. I've gotten 6 of the 32 ish endings in the game. I am still playing it to try and get at least 10 endings. I think gameplay wise Rockstar's RDR2 has a slight edge but its because of tech. CDPR though has the story edge in TW3.
TW3 is a modern day classic, and so is RDR2 but not for the same reasons.
"The Society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."
Currently: Games Audio Engineer, you didn't hear what I heard, you heard what I wanted you to hear.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다