Ed M writes "Somehow, despite all of the incredible things Rockstar has achieved with Red Dead Redemption 2, shooting and moving still feels like it’s in 2008. And that's not all."
"We gave it our highest possible score" "5/5" "getting our highest recommendation doesn’t mean we think a title is perfect" ...right
lol, i never understood that reasoning.
Like even 4.5...still high but shows there is "issues" from reaching that top spot I mean every game has it's flaws but usually the issues are tiny but Red Dead Redemption 2 has a long list of small annoyances and questionable gameplay choices. If a character has clunky movement, an issue going back to 2008 then you need to say something using a score to reflect that.
A perfect grade in school doesn't imply you are perfect... A game is judged by fan factor and replayability value. I see no issue in giving a game max grade if these two are there.. People have different expectations and that's what make grades in reviews debatable..
@bouzebbal Lol Okay so lets say there's an exam and I get a few answers wrong, one of them being the same mistake I've kept making since 2008, I'm pretty sure the teacher wouldn't give me an A or an A+. I'd get a B+ at most.
Foxtrot Your example is the opposite of getting a PERFECT SCORE! It does not address what Bouszebbal is saying at all! He is saying if you get a PERFECT SCORE ( which means you got EVERY question RIGHT ) and you get a A+ your still not perfect! I know this for a fact because me, and another person got an A + for all four years! And both of us have some major flaws, for one I cant stop thinking of hot women for more than 1 thousandth of a second .....it's that split second between being awake and sleep. And as soon as I am asleep I'm dreaming of women. I'd give FFVII and The legend of heroes trails of cold steel a 10 out of 10. But despite this I would be reasonable enough recognize that they have flaws.
@Bouzebb Your analogy suggests that to get a 100, R* did the extra credit to make it perfect. While there is some merit to that, given that it is based on the total experience, media outlets reporting that the game play isn't fun, that the game play is clunky, and them glossing over that entire part to talk at length about all the beauty and interaction of the world, then its not really a perfect game, as the game play is going to have more of an impact on the game than if its pretty to look at, or if you can fondle your horses special places. @indy In this analogy, R* didn't get all the questions right though, as a couple of the criticisms are actually pretty serious, and other games easily get ripped apart for it because they don't have 200 million dollar budgets, 8 years to make, or a scope as big as this game. So, if the websites want to disregard one of the most important aspects of a game....the game play, when determining their score, then they need to do that across the bored, and not just for those special devs with huge marketing budgets, and an extreme amount of hype and expectations behind their games. You know...the things all gamers have said at one point in time they want from reviews.
Then only flawless/perfect game should be a 10/10? 10/10 should be given to the best execution of the criteria, of the genre, at that time. Graphics, sound, and even story telling are going to drastically change by generation and year. There is no flawless game, a game can be 10/10 and have flaws, just depends on how good it is in other areas to overlook them.
the mechanics should be a big deal when it comes to video games no?
there is no such thing as a perfect game so 10 = perfect is impossible which means having a 10 is useless I take 10 to mean "best in its class." botw, the last of us, witcher 3, odyssey, gta v, bioshock, rdr2 etc alllll have flaws. but they're all 10s
the shooting is bad and the movement is horrible. it does't deserve a perfect score. yes the rest of the game is great so at best i would give it an 8.5
I hope you mean Super Mario Odyssey and not Assassin's Creed Odyssey, because if Ass Creed, LOL.
I know right, then what is a score system for then? Stupid.
No game can ever be 100% perfect. So it makes perfect sense. 10/10 signifies a masterpiece, but it doesn't mean that it won't have any flaws. It just means that those flaws aren't enough to take a point or half a point off the score.
Except in some games, which have better game play than RDR2, it is what they use to take points off. There's a consistency issue, because people are so mesmerized by the graphics and interaction. What I see with many of these reviews, is that the next time they downrate a game based on game play, then we can just say that they only care about graphics or games of a large scope, where they give extra points because as reviewers they can't do their jobs properly, hence, the term, "free pass".
Agreed. People will defend it and say it's the best ever because it's R*. I find the game to have a ton of issues. Story isn't great by any means, the attention to detail gets in the way of fun factor, the animations become redundant and you can't skip it, the constant dirty horse crap, your guns must manually be taken off of your horse or else all you have is pistols, and some things feel overly complicated. I believe it is a very impressive game but it has a lot of flaws and I feel like it's getting a pass. To me the focus on realism is hindering the fun.
No it's not getting a pass, I have 0 clue wtf y'all talking about when it comes to it's flaws. What bad about the shooting? What's bad about the movement. I'm still waiting for someone to break it down specifically to me. Oh ya cause you can't cause those complaints don't exist. Newsflash if you're horse is startled it's not gonna listen fully/ completely/ timely so its gonna feel like lag when you try to turn it. It's ment to to be like that.
@Chief Despite having been told this on countless occassions, I'll humor your feigned ignorance on the subject as you try to dismiss people's claims by implying that they don't know they're talking about. I'll even use "reputable" sources which praised the game highly. From Kotaku, which I believe you called an extremely well written review. https://kotaku.com/red-dead... After numerous examples of what he was talking about. "That consistently imposed slowness forced me to slow down and take in what is arguably this game’s defining characteristic: an incredible, overwhelming focus on detail." Or earlier "Try to move too fast, and it will almost always punish you. Its pace is outrageously languid compared with any other modern game, especially in its first half. I spent a good chunk of my time just riding from place to place, and once I got where I was going, often went on to engage in extremely low-key activities." Or an example of the tedium "I picked up the hat, put it back on, and rode back to town. Was that experience fun? Not exactly. Was it rewarding or empowering? Quite the opposite. It began with the game violently reacting to an action I hadn’t intended to take. It ended with some backtracking to retrieve a hat that I later would learn I could’ve just magically conjured from my horse." In terms of movement or pacing "It moves with the clumsy heaviness of a 19th century locomotive," In terms of fun factor "I only rarely found Red Dead 2 to be “fun” in the way I find many other video games to be fun. The physical act of playing is rarely pleasurable on its own. It is often tiring and cumbersome, though no less thrilling for it. No in-game activity approaches the tactilely pleasing acts of firing a space-rifle in Destiny, axing a demon in God of War, or jumping on goombas in Super Mario Bros. Red Dead 2 continues Rockstar’s longstanding rejection of the notions that input response should be snappy, that control schemes should be empowering and intuitive, and that animation systems should favor player input over believable on-screen action." I could add a couple other sources if you'd like, because they're copious, but I believe this review says everything that people have said about this game. And again, if you want, I'll add more sources from reviewers who apparently should now be trusted if they gave this game a 10.
But here is Kotakus cited dislikes of the game "Fudgy controls[not responsive] and animation-based interactions[long animations that have to play out] can be frustrating; under-explains its interlocking systems to a degree that can sometimes be confusing. But for elaboration "Red Dead 2 continues Rockstar’s longstanding rejection of the notions that input response should be snappy, that control schemes should be empowering and intuitive, and that animation systems should favor player input over believable on-screen action." Or "Pressing a button in Red Dead 2 rarely results in an immediate or satisfying response. Navigating Arthur through the world is less like controlling a video game character and more like giving directions to an actor. Get in cover, I’ll tell him, only to see him climb on top of the cover. Did I press the button too late? Did my button-press register at all? Dude, get down, I’ll cry, as his enemies begin to open fire. He’ll slowly wheel around, then slide down to the ground with an elaborate stumbling animation. GET IN COVER, I’ll command, pressing the “take cover” button for what feels like the sixth time. He’ll haul his body weight forward, then finally crouch behind the wall" "Arthur’s horse adds yet another degree of remove. With a press of a button, Arthur coaxes his horse forward. Pressing it rhythmically in time with the horse’s hoofbeats causes him to urge the horse to a gallop. But you’re still controlling the man, not the horse. Mind your direction, for it is perilously easy to broadside a passing civilian and instigate a firefight, or to collide with a rock or tree, sending man and horse careening catawampus to the ground. Red Dead 2’s horses are meticulously detailed and gorgeously animated, and move through the world like real animals, right up until they don’t" "Almost every interaction must be performed through the same gauzy, lustrous cling-wrap. Firefights are chaotic and random, and aiming often feels wild and unmanageable. Rifles require separate trigger-pulls to fire and to chamber a new round. Enemies move quickly and melt into the world’s overwhelming visual milieux, and my resulting reliance on the heavily magnetized aim-assistance turned most fights into pop-and-fire shooting galleries. Arthur moves slowly, particularly while in settlements or indoors. It’s also possible to make him run too fast, crashing through doors and into civilians." And most importantly "Navigating this world is arduous, heavy, and inelegant. Even the simple act of picking an object up off the floor can require two or three moments of repositioning and waiting for an interaction prompt." Now I know you've been informed, with examples....so stop this act of you pretending to not understand what people are talking about, and discuss the criticisms, instead of discussing those who levy said criticism.
Despite all this, Kotaku spends more paragraphs talking about how detailed the world is. Another equal number of paragraphs, if not more, about how beautiful the game world is. And then twice as much time talking about the crunch they feel was inappropriate. To me, this review read like they'd give it a 10, if they still did scores. But they said almost nothing good about the game play, except that it ultimately was OK and not too bad after you just accepted that it wasn't anything special. I don't know if the definition of "free pass" is clearly defined, but to me, that seems like a pretty damn good example of one, and Kotaku is not the only site to do this. For fairness, this is what they liked about the game. "Engrossing, unbelievably detailed world; well-written script full of carefully considered characters; technically astonishing audio-visual production; brilliant acting; very good horses." Tell me, how is all of that visual greatness, and interaction somehow enough to overcome the kind of game play they talk about in the review? It's a prime example of a kid being easily distracted by a new shiny over there....and it's coming from a reviewer, who's supposed to be reviewing these games to inform the potential players of the game. Kotaku put the game play stuff in the middle of two exhaustively long sections of the game. Kotaku is well versed in the TL:DR aspect of journalism, and they knew that many people would never reach that part of the review. Yet to me, that aspect of the game should have been front and center after the general overview, not in its own section, barely mentioned how all those great things were actually making all the beauty....well, tedious and boring.
Well...they aren't IGN. Apparently, R* put enough grass in the game to not lose points. Even though IGN openly says the game play is lacking.
It's a western
What does that have to do with how polished those aspects of the game are? You can have a western with smooth, precise controls without having to use that excuse.
Lol if you think that play games from 2008 trust me it's not as bad as you think it is.
The shooting is lame but I put on auto aim so I don't have to care. The movement is no worse than any other third person game, maybe a step slower when walking. Witcher had the over running, even Horizon to an extent. But again it seems that people are hung up on the fact that walking is the defualt movement. So what? Change your settings and go tear up the West. It just feel like people want to complain. I know they're not "wrong" but "petty" might be the right word. To each there own, I guess.
"We gave it a perfect score, but its flawed in two pretty major ways." Score should have reflected that, makes no sense.
I love this game, every time I get sucked in due to the well written characters. Havent felt this way about a game since Witcher 3
Screw that, I love the gameplay.
The controls are terrible. Killed it for me.
I found the controls to be just fine, guess it's the player, not the controls.
The controls are a bit clunky no matter how good you are at the game.
I really enjoy the physics based controls. And RDR2 is one of the best games I've ever played. To each his own.
There’s a certain point in the storyline that makes you have to heavily rely on precise movement and aiming without deadeye. It really shines a light on how bad the controls are. I love the game but that part is fucking wretched. You’ll see.
We'll see when they get the inevitable overhaul. Rdr2 is a very easy game anyway regardless of control scheme but why fight with some garbage that was conceived with gta3? Games have come a long long way since then.
It's slow paced you guys are too use to fast paced games offering over the top controls.
hard to pick a "biggest" flaw - there are a few very irritating ones. -forced to slo-mo walk in so many situations -just riding/walking near somone can make them mad and cause them to attack you and leave YOU with a bounty on your head. - it's a real chore to just hitch your horse -when trying to pick up something, the game seems to default to you picking up the NPC that lays next to what you really want to pick up -riding down a road (in town or in the country- doesn't matter) is nothing but trying to avoid oncoming traffic that seems hellbent on getting in your way -guns that you are carrying magically disappear when you get off your horse. -pelts that are on your horse disappear for no reason. these are a few issues that leap to mind. it's a very fun and entertaining game; but, it's also a pain to play because of these types of issues. edit - it's hard to believe play-testers didn't flag a few of these situations as potential problems.
You just don't get it. All those things are realistic. Seriously though, I'm sure the play testers did flag many of those things. It's not like these things go unnoticed. It's just a matter of if they decided to fix them, had time to fix them, or thought that was what it was intended to do. In most development houses, there is even a place where play testers can put in recommendations on how to make parts of game play or certain things better, and I wouldn't doubt that of a hundred or so testers playing this game for 10-12 hours a day for months on end wouldn't have come up with every single one of those things in that time. The general public was quick to notice them, and I noticed them all in the first few short hours I've had with the game. And despite popular belief, despite how much play testers can annoy the devs because they point out flaws, play testers are encouraged to be open and free with their criticism and to recommend positive changes. They won't always be implemented, but sometimes they are.
Aim sensitivity can be tweaked in the options to get faster response. There are tutorials on youtube. Or maybe realistic movement isn't your thing. Thats fine, go play AC Odyssey or Spiderman.
It's biggest flaw is that its FPS is chugging along in the 20's & not on PC, that's its biggest flaw.
People will defend it and say it's the best ever because it's R*. I find the game to have a ton of issues. Story isn't great by any means, the attention to detail gets in the way of fun factor, the animations become redundant and you can't skip it, the constant dirty horse crap, your guns must manually be taken off of your horse or else all you have is pistols, and some things feel overly complicated. I believe it is a very impressive game but it has a lot of flaws and I feel like it's getting a pass. To me the focus on realism is hindering the fun.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.