The Last of Us Director Criticises Lack of Player Freedom in Red Dead Redemption 2

Bruce Straley, game director of The Last of Us and Uncharted 4, has criticised some gameplay decisions in Red Dead Redemption 2.

[NecrumOddBoy]

It's so amazing how the story can alter your perception of a topic based on a headline. After digging through the Twitter comments, I get the complaint that a game that's open world can feel a little off-balance when story missions kind of give you the freedom to move but are not designed to go too far off the rails. R* still is archaic in some ways, but it's still pretty difficult to bring that true cinematic experience into the open world but I think they were getting pretty close there.

[thedr904]

The tweets specifically refer to a mission in the game where Bruce's choices led to him failing, and he criticised this choice of focusing on "epic stories" over gameplay. Not sure how the headline would alter your perception of this, it seems pretty accurate to me.

[salmonade]

Bruce is so right too.

I Platinumed Red Dead 2 ok, but so many times in some missions, I would move ahead of the other character and FAIL. Like, for example, killing people easily (the game is NOT hard at all in any sense of the word) and moving too far ahead, and because I didn't read a little message saying "wait for Charles"... the mission FAILED me.

Using my Eagle Vision and seeing the trail of the bandit, but having to wait for Sadie to get through her lines before I could move. At times the game absolutely forces you to stop. At other times you drive a carriage to the house you're supposed to go to, but nothing happens because you need to get back on and move it one meter into more of the 'yellow section'.

[nucky64]

what salmonade says is true - and it was very frustrating.

[Helljumper92]

I don't get the big deal. Games have set objectives and ways to do them. You can't get mad for failing the mission or being punished.

[zeuanimals]

But it's a sandbox and Rockstar's supposed to be the kings of the sandbox. It's entirely possible to make their missions have some flexibility in allowing you to finish them in your own way, you know, how Rockstar used to make their games.

[StormSnooper]

I don’t think this was a diss of Rockstar or even the game, he is pointing out something that he feels underwhelms or is ineffective because player choice/creativity in his opinion are too high a price to pay just so a cutscene can make sense. He is saying player choice should be given priority and the story has to be implemented so it doesn’t take that away.

[P_Bomb]

Yes you can get mad when the game breaks its own inconsistent rules re. honor, looting, loadouts while harping about realism. In real life, if I hop on my bike with my phone in my pocket, it doesn’t bloody disappear when I get off the bike.

I’ve had missions launch me with only my pistols when seconds earlier I was carrying a bloody Arsenal. My horse is two feet away. It’s right there. Let me go get my BFG. Let me line up my shots. What’s that Sadie? No no no don’t shoot my targets for me I got this wtf I was just choosing my gun!!!! No ones moving! Why you rushing me Sadie? I got this I’m aiming I’m gonna shoot I want my gold medal...argh she shot one of them! Moron! THAT HAPPENED

[Helljumper92]

Why did everyone wait until now to complain about this when this has been in all the GTAs.

[toxic-inferno]

I find this fascinating. Naughty Dog are possibly the masters of interactive storytelling... and they are one of the only high profile developers still focused on making linear games.

What is even more remarkable is that they were one of the companies who were instrumental in shaping the 3D open world genre with Jak and Daxter.

[zeuanimals]

You could still tackle encounters how you liked in The Last of Us and Uncharted 4 though, the two games he worked as a game director for. And they don't hamstring the experience by making you sit and wait for dialogue to end with a game over screen as the consequence for not staying to chat.

[rainslacker]

TLOU and UC aren't designed around player freedom to do anything they want. There is choice within the confines of the actual levels or scenes, but beyond that, they aren't sold on the premise, or designed for the player to be able to do whatever they want whenever they want.

RDR2 is set up like that, but often sets up scenarios where there is no choice. In many ways, it's more restrictive, because once you enter a mission, its about as linear as it gets. About the only choice you have is the weapons you can use, and for about 1/4 of the missions, that isn't even a choice. You are forced to follow the narrative, and play the scene the way they want it to be played for cinematic effect. This can lead to all sorts of issues depending on how you're approaching the scene. If you're just playing through, no biggie. If you are trying to try things to see what happens, it's pretty much a failed mission. If you don't follow the path, you are penalized, which is why this game only offers the illusion of choice.

[Pennywise138]

@Necrum
One thing I don’t think Spider-Man gets enough credit for, same with God of War though it’s not a fully open world game, is how well it does bring a great cinematic experience into the open world. Spider-Man basically keeps you on track with certain story threads then saying ok now is a good time to go out and explore. I think we are finally starting to see the end of open world games giving you a mission that basically says “go save this person because they are about to be killed any minute” but before you can finish the quest the game throws countless distractions and other side missions at you that by the time you get to the end of that mission a week has gone by and you forgot what even led to that mission in the first place and clearly that person wasn’t killed by your lack of getting there in a timely matter. Getting the pacing right in open world games I hope will be the focus going forward and not just throwing countless amounts of repetitive side missions out there.

[Nu]

lol says the guy that's only developed linear games like Uncharted and The Last of Us.

[Strafe]

It is ironic. Let's criticise this developer of games that are far more ambitious than our own, and far away from our comfort zone. Where we have nothing to compare against. Let's criticise them.

Rockstar are far more forward thinking than ND. ND makes games in a bubble.

[TGGJustin]

He's absolutely right on this.

[chiefJohn117]

No he's not

[Rachel_Alucard]

Elaborate why he's wrong?

[salmonade]

Look. If you take the butthurt out of the situation and look at what he's saying... he ABSOLUTELY is correct about this. There are soooo many examples of this in so many ways in so many missions. Look, I love Red Dead 2 and I platinumed the game friggin weeks ago, grindy boring trophies and all, and I would rate the game a 9 or 9.5, but his criticisms are SPOT ON

[NarutoFox]

Yes he is

[chiefJohn117]

He's right and a sense but it's like that on purpose and it has to be like that to tell a great story. If you give the player freed how do you end up with emotional moments of deaths and confrontation and other triggered events. Without contradicting cutscenes?

Open world isn't an open sandbox that's what y'all are confusing it for. Plus if red dead 2 was it's story wouldn't be as good.
No one is butt hurt there's nothing to be upset about I'm just using common sense and know what's required yo tell a great story. For example halo 4s campaign and Spartan ops? One allows way more freedom but it's story and quality lacks because of it. Someone brought up vice city having more freedom and GTA 5 limiting it. GTA 5 hands down had a better story than vice city because of it. If I want to tell a story and capture specific moments you have to limit appoarch other wise you have a game without much substance.

[Razzer]

He is talking about an open mission design being reduced down to a singular path because the story required it. He isn't saying players should be able to dictate the story a la Quantic Dreams type games.

[Rachel_Alucard]

I understand the need to do things that make sense in Arthurs perspective for immersion, but they go too hard on it many times. They did the same thing in GTA5 and I assume their game design philosophy changed because their new design contradicts everything outside the story missions. Like you can do whatever you want outside of story missions, but as soon as you activate one you'll be pushed down a specific path.

[ziggurcat]

@razzer: the story missions aren't free roam, so why should people expect them to be?

[Rachel_Alucard]

@ziggurcat

If you're going to restrict what you can do in a specific piece of the game for immersion, why let the player freely do what they want outside of that if they don't want them expecting that type of freedom everywhere?

[ziggurcat]

@alucard:

again... because the missions aren't free roam. it's no different than any other game (especially one from R*) that involves some form of free roam mode, and story missions (i.e. Spider-Man, inFamous, Mafia II/III, Horizon, Assassin's Creed, etc...).

[Moe-Gunz]

@Ziggurcat

Those games you mentioned you can tackle the mission in ways you want. One of the best examples of giving the player choice and freedom in missions is MGS5. You can stealth it, guns blazing, drop a crate on a guards head to proceed, blow up a watch tower to create a distraction and enter from the other side, etc.

This is what he’s talking about. People are failing to understand that he’s not referring to how the story is told but more so about how the missions are executed.

[ziggurcat]

@moe:

some missions you can choose to do stealth or go in guns blazing, so...

[ClayRules2012]

“They need me to do what the story requires [and] continually remove my choices. The [environment] was open [and] I had the skills, but they punished me for thinking for myself instead of rewarding me.” I feel his pain. Happened to me sometimes as well.

“I want to continue thinking of how to honor the mechanics and opportunities we’ve afforded the player-not wedging them into sequences I felt would be epic because of some story outcome”

Right on, Bruce. Can’t wait to see what he does next.

[FalconofLucis98]

Hes left Naughty Dog, doubt hes doing anything of the sorts.

[ClayRules2012]

Yeah, I’m aware he left Naughty Dog. But on his Twitter I think I read something about him doing something new or he hinted at something new.

[TheOptimist]

Most ironic thing I have heard this generation.

[Rimeskeem]

Someone doesn't listen to American politics

Also, someone doesnt read

[TheOptimist]

1. I am not American, so I wouldn't care

2. I was talking only in terms of the gaming industry

[Rimeskeem]

I still hold the single player games dont matter at the top.

[bluefox755]

Why? They made an open world game. How is it ironic to criticize an open world game that often pulls you back on rails? The whole point of a sandbox game is to give you freedom. If ND had made an open world game and did the same thing, then maybe you'd have a point, but otherwise I'm not sure what you mean.

[Profchaos]

They made a structured narrative that takes place in an open world which gives you full freedom outside of the structured narrative.

Like most open world games this generation going over to random parts of the map when you need to achieve XYZ will kill you as it doesn't help drive the story.

We had full freedom in vice city where if you struggled with a mission there was nothing stopping you from driving to a army base and stealing an attack chopper for example gaming has moved on from that because it doesn't work story wise anymore.

[opc]

you certainly are the optimist haha

my man, the idiocy in American politics right now is going to impact the entire world. Aside from the geopolitical chaos, we seem to be in a race with the UK to see who can hit a recession first. That typically ripples around the world within a year.

[ArchangelMike]

I agree with this. There were too many times when I failed the mission because I wanted to flank. I would get the "You abandoned Dutch" or some such message and the mission would insta-fail. That's bad design in an open world game.

[pasta_spice]

The insta-fails are a big reason I didn't enjoy a lot of the main story stuff, and preferred side missions and doing my own thing. My first fail was one of the early missions where you have to ride a cart into town. I had almost made it to town, but got my wheels stuck on something small like a bush. "That's ok, I'll just reverse it" I thought. So I start reversing the cart, only for an insta-fail to pop up saying I couldn't move the cart (even though I could!) and it restarted the entire mission! Very frustrating.

[DrumBeat]

That happened to me on a different mission and the fail text literally read "The cart got stuck." I was literally in the process of getting the damn thing unstuck.

[DrumBeat]

And to add to the frustration of going through all the dialogue (again) it pulls you out of the immersion it wants you to experience. How can I be immersed if you keep pulling me out of the story? I always felt under pressure for all the wrong reasons in these missions, and it really hurt the experience for me.

Don't drive that cart too fast (we want you to drive it slow so you take in the sights and pay attention to dialogue) or it may get stuck on fencing. It was a tooth gritting, fist clenching experience to say the least.

[DrumBeat]

Or I would fail because I would take too long looting. The game's single player missions simply aren't designed with player freedom in mind. They force you onto a very linear path where you're punished if you move ahead of the exposition, and punished if you take your time. This makes it hard for many players to enjoy the story missions. The writing and scripting force the player to keep in timing with it, because if it didn't force the player to do that, it wouldn't flow naturally like a story. They want it to be like a movie.

Imagine watching an action movie where the protagonist would constantly stop to search the dudes he's killed or knocked out for clips and weapons and supplies. In reality they'd actually do this, but this would bore moviegoers and hurt story/narrative continuity, so they don't.

RDR2's story missions are trying to be these perfect show pieces, but it hurts game play.

[P_Bomb]

Yes. Dear lord yes the looting. Whoever disagreed with you, fight me!

Can’t tell you how many times I’ve been yelled at to hurry up. Well then don’t make your search mechanic so #%^* slow!!!!! Don’t pile up a dozen bodies that I damned well know have loot on them, money, ammo, sometimes exclusive weapons like the Mauser. Take “too long”...game decides to play itself and 9 times out of 10 some idiot walks into something he shouldn’t and DIES. INSTA FAIL!

The gold medal challenges are terrible and more on rails than on rails games like RE umbrella chronicles/dark side chronicles. Combine that chain gang gameplay (which I’ve mercifully chosen to ignore) with horrible AI partners getting killed moving ahead without me, losing honor for looting civilian dead bodies you find in the wilderness that also have exclusive items on them, having your load outs reset or frozen on missions, randomly losing honor if you defend yourself in a fight (I fought soldiers at a camp, was attacked, killed like 5 of them but one guy made me lose honor lol wtf). Throw in some online griefing handicaps. It’s a structural mess.

I’m on a mission, carrying a guy outside after being yelled at for searching it (I found documents + the Mauser so stop RUSHING ME)! Night time, big shoot out. Can’t see squat cuz it’s dark and I’m carrying a lump. Trip going down the stairs cuz the game loves rag doll physics. Fell a half foot to the ground and the guy I was carrying apparently died! Insta fail. GTFO

[rainslacker]

Yeah, the looting of this game is terrible. Outside the animations which seem to take forever, and its even more pronounced where you have a lot of bodies, it's so random on if it's right to loot a specific body. Sometimes, it's OK to loot random bodies....like in missions. Loot a random body on the road, even if you didn't kill him, and you lose honor. Other times, you lose honor, and suddenly you're wanted by the law, then you have to pay a bounty. That really sucks when you maybe get a belt buckle and a few cents off the body. Then you have to either go and pay the bounty, or just hope it doesn't cause problems. God forbid you have great honor, always greeting people. People are all nice to you. Then you happen to lose some honor somewhere because you loot a bottle, then suddenly everyone is an a**hole to you.

This game is so random, it makes me wonder if they even really had a solid design on what is acceptable, and what isn't.

But I certainly agree that the way they rush you through missions to the next point, despite having all these bodies around, which usually have good loot, or lots of money in missions from chapter 3 onward, is really annoying. The one that starts chapter 4, I got so sick of the guy nagging me while I looted the 12-15 bodies around the house. Then of course, once it's all done, I have to carry the bodies in the house out to the swamp, because the a**hole pestering me the whole time to move to the next scripted event couldn't be bothered to loot all these bodies, despite this constant notion that the gang needs money to finally be free of their past.

So many bad design decisions. So many things that don't make sense. Those things take away from the good things the game does.

I guarantee that if they gave the option to have quick loot/skinning options, 100% of people would turn them to quick loot. That's the kind of thing when designing a game you have to consider. It's all great they want realism, but when their choices on what to make realistic are the things that are the most annoying to the player, it's bad design.

Back in the day, the creator of Gran Turismo was asked why crashing in the game didn't end the race, or make the car undrivable. He said, "Because we tried that, and its not fun". This is something R* should have recognized when designing the game, or at least playing it themselves during the many years of development. Surely, their testing crew would have mentioned it, because testing teams are allowed to put in opinions on how to make the game better, so the director can consider it.

[salmonade]

lol... Abandoned? Biatch, he's just over there on the other side of the house. I didn't hop on a train and travel off into the sunset without him. hahaha

[rainslacker]

Outside of a few choices on how to maybe enter a area(like by foot or on a coach for the oil refinary), there is absolutely no choice on how one can play the story missions. The most variety you get is what weapons you can use, and many times, they even decide that for you. There are a few missions where you can stealth it out some, or decide to go in guns blazing, but going in guns blazing usually penalizes you by dropping your honor. So the game offers choice, but doing anything that is what the dev doesn't want you to do means you get penalized.

I personally don't mind the structured path so much in narrative missions, but this penalty for doing what you may want, despite the devs wishes, for the sake of story, is kind of opposite of what this kind of game is supposed to offer.

In fact, wanting to be bad in this game so heavily penalizes the player, it's actually not even fun to be bad, or means you have to spend a lot of time doing extra work to be able to do anything in towns. For a game where you're playing a bandit, it seems like an absurd design, and it's one of the reasons why I claim that this game only gives the illusion of choice, because while you can play things in almost any order you want, you are still mostly required to do it their way....not your way.

@Pasta

I like the side stuff of this game a lot. But I almost dread advancing the story, because it's not really all that fun or engaging.

[P_Bomb]

@rain
100% agree on the side stuff. Much like the Yakuza series, a lot of the game’s soul is in the sides. Far less mission constraints, no one’s rushing me, the characters are good with a nice mix of funny and tragic.

Strauss’ missions started to grate on me the most but then, they started to grate on Arthur too! The end to that series turned a seemingly throwaway bunch of collections into a must see finale.

Times I’ve had a few story missions lit up on my map, but went straight to Charlotte instead. Straight to the civil war vet who invited me fishing at his cabin after I accidentally stumbled upon him in the wild. Wrapped up Marco, took the Braithwaite elopers on a train ride lol. Wrapped up the photographer, the competitive brothers, the circus freaks, then watched them actually do a show on stage in St Denis. Good times.

[DrumBeat]

Agreed on all points. I also agree with what you wrote earlier about the games systems reacting randomly to what you do. I wrote something very similar a few months back. Looting a 'stranger' is bad... sometimes. Killing a search party of bounty hunters that are chasing you is ok... sometimes.

Onto the bad guy play style.

Unfortunately, being 'bad' goes against what I'm assuming Rockstar wants to be canon. This is supposed to be a "redemption" so if you play as a 'bad guy' you're essentially going against canon and the game penalizes you. I guess. In any case, it makes what should be fun choice (who doesn't want to be an outlaw-ish outlaw?) into a punishing one. Like you said, it's ultimately a bad design choice. If you want to be bad, maybe give the player a different ending depending on how you played? There are just so many things that hamper the enjoyment of the game, no matter how you choose to play it.

[rainslacker]

"so if you play as a 'bad guy' you're essentially going against canon and the game penalizes you. I guess."

I get that mentality, and I actually agree that's probably what R* is trying to build with this system.

the problem is, Arthur constantly recognizes that he's a muscle man for the group. Taken along to be the one that can do the bad stuff. Dutch himself, despite all his lofty and self-righteous reasoning, is still a murdering bandit, and none in the gang, including Arthur have a problem doing the bad stuff in the story missions. The story missions themselves are almost always them committing some crime which are usually more horrendous than anything you do in the side missions, or randomly to people throughout the game. Even if it's not, 9 out of 10 of those mundane fetch quests end with some sort of gun fight....usually against a rival gang coming after you. Collecting debts, or getting people to talk, there are no qualms about beating or threatening another character.

So, in this game, the dev is fine with you being bad when it's about narrative, but punishes you if you want to be bad on your own. it's like the dev gets to decide when it's OK to be bad, otherwise, you better play nice....or hope the random bounty system doesn't kick in.

The game justifies these actions as they are standing in the way of the protagonist. People protecting the plantations are the enemy, despite doing nothing against the gang...until the gang does something against them. It's a warped sense of morality that they're presenting, and to me, these aren't even the likable bad guys like you see in some games or movies where the protagonist is not a good guy.

So, for whatever the game is trying to present, it doesn't do it very well, and since it's so tied to the game play, it's actually a problem, regardless of their reasons for doing it like that, because it breaks continuity when you get to missions, compared to the rest of the gang. They want you to be good, and promote that through the game. but the character of Arthur is staged for you to have a sense of connection of undying loyalty to Dutch, but Dutch is completely counter to what the dev is trying to portray. There is no sense of remorse from Arthur up through about halfway of Chapter 4. Maybe that comes a bit later, since that's where I'm up to, but it's not staged to be anything other than a sudden change for no reason than to be surprising, and even if that's their purpose, the narrative and game play don't support what's going on now in the game, so the two are disjointed.

[bluefox755]

It does feel a bit disjointed. The open world and freedom never truly mesh very well with the on rails story bits.

[Profchaos]

It's extremely ironic because you can't deviate from objectives wildly in the last of us either so that's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

Seems like he's bandwagoning here

[bigmalky]

TLoU isn't an open world game. It was made to carry you through the story in a sequence. RDR2 promises the freedoms of open world, but drags you back to the mission structure constantly.

I like RDR2, but veering off the path tends to make you spend a lot of time on travel to get back to the story.

[jaycptza]

this is a completely fair assessment though

[Nitrowolf2]

I think it’s more so as to how you advance in the story and not so much outcome of the objective.

In the last of Us I found during my second and third playthrough that you can indeed go pretty much any level without killing anything. Its more so how you are given options for different approaches.

I found myself even skipping a vast majority of enemies my next few playthrough in areas I originally went loud with.

RDR2 doesn’t really offer that kind of option, Although at the same time it’s not really in the nature of the character to do things quietly. There are missions when you are with the Indian that allows you to go silent.

Idk for me it’s an odd complaint because of how differently the games are. Ones cater to offer those different play style whereas the other kind of puts you in the whole gunslinger Wild West outlaw role

[Razzer]

The Last of Us is not an open world game.

[ppm1100]

I don't remember ever failing a mission in TLOU for not following designers decisions.

[Baza]

TLOF is mostly linear. There’s never an opportunity to venture far away from the current mission

[starchild]

@Razzer

I find that a very weak argument. You're basically putting labels on something and acting like it must follow some exact formula based on that label.

In reality, most games these days are hybrids of a variety of different styles and approaches. Red Dead Redemption 2 takes place in an open world and does offer a huge amount of freedom much of the time, but it also has a structured narrative that is a core part of the experience and during certain points they take control away from the player for the same reasons Naughty Dog have done so in their games.

[gangsta_red]

@profchaos

This is what is baffling me too, even if RDR2 is an open world game it still has to have a somewhat linear structure for completing missions like most, if not all open world games.

Even in Spider-Man, the latest open world game I personally played, when you accept a mission and deviate too far from what's going on you fail that mission. In terms of progressing through a story, open world and linear games are not really too different from each other.

Why this guy is choosing to single out RDR2 is strange.

It would be nice if a game being open world meant you could tackle a given mission from any which way a player had access too, but as of now it just doesn't seem possible to do that and tell the story the developers created for the player.

[rainslacker]

Spider-Man fails in the same way here though...at least at times. However, the structure of the missions themselves tend to be more encapsulated to singular tasks most of the time, so even though you are often required to finish a specific task right away, the next task in that narrative can be taken at your leisure. Most of those tasks are usually in their own instance, which is separated from the city itself. There are some exceptions in the missions that take place in the open world and require sequential order...such as when you're working with Mile's Father at that factory.

As far as why he choose RDR2, I couldn't say. Maybe because it's a popular game right now, and it's easier to exemplify what he's trying to say.

@49

Spider-Man was called out for falling into the open world tropes, which this is one of them. The guy here is just focusing in on a specific trope. But, Spider-Man wasn't so restrictive in its mission structure based on what I said above, while RDR2 tends to have larger sections of story presented at a time, and in those missions, they force you to slow down with things that can't be skipped...namely the travel or long narrative sequences within missions. In most missions in Spider-Man, you can't venture off the beaten path because of where they take place(often indoors) but in the ones you can go back into the city, you do fail, and I don't think that's so much what he's talking about here, rather that in RDR2, even the slightest variance you are punished for. Spider-Man will warn you to return to the mission area, while RDR2 just goes grey, and you get the failed mission logo on the screen.

The same problems exist in Spider-Man, however, Spider-Man is more forgiving, or the structure is such its not really noticeable because the individual parts of the mission are typically short and you aren't forced to finish one right after the other.

[P_Bomb]

No it really isn’t the same thing. You haven’t played TLOU and RDR2 have you? Be honest. Ellie can’t be killed for wandering around. I don’t instafail TLOU because of AI or being hounded to rush when absolutely nothing is going on. Same sant be said for Red Dead.

The irony is in the accusations you’re making.

[rainslacker]

In some ways, RDR2 story mission structure is more restrictive in it's story missions than TLOU or UC is. There is little room for error in how you progress through those sections, and if you decide to do something that detracts from the narrative, the NPC's tend to pester the shit out of you, or you fail the mission. At least in TLOU you can explore the area, maybe approach situations differently, loot without Ellie bickering at you about taking to long to go five feet to the left, and there is really no penalty for those areas where you can explore around a bit. Often, you are rewarded for going off the beaten path, but in RDR2, you fail.

A good way to look at how to do these story missions right is more in the side content. While some are structured into scenes....like that Draco guy, many are just brief narratives of your purpose, then you can go and accomplish the task given you in the way you want. It's how many MMO's structure their content, because it works, and leaves things open. If you structure this into the main story mission, it basically means that whatever your task may be, your possee will be waiting for you when you're damn good and ready to accomplish the task. Sometimes, that may detract from the narrative, but most of the story missions in this game, it wouldn't.

[ps5fanboy]

totally agree , red dead is beautiful , but so so lacking in places. the lack of guns is a travesty , no old school walking winding mini gun>?? pffthh bahh humbug.

[Stanjara]

I don't know what to think of this. If last of us was an open world game, should you have the option to let Ellie die or not. He wants that kind of freedom?

[EazyC]

Now that would be awesome

[Rachel_Alucard]

Plot critical details is not what he's saying. In both RDR2 and GTAV, when you play any story mission, the game forces you to complete your objectives a very specific way, often removing movement control so that you can only run forward for example. Many times in RDR2, when you get in a showdown, I would always try to shoot the gun out of the others hand to prevent a death. Doing this to midnight just makes him pull another gun out and he shoots himself with the second gun, you can't shoot this out of his hand. The same thing happens in 2 other showdowns in this questline, except they are just invincible on the hand area and you have to kill them. These are just stranger missions so they aren't plot critical. Not only that but all stealth missions in the game involve following someone on a linear path instead of just being told to sneak in and do whatever.

[chiefJohn117]

Because the story wants him dead! Keeping the guy alive ruins the story R* wants to tell. Plus more work on adding alternative endings etc. Lol like wtf

And no not all the sneak missions are following in a linear path. Many missions have the option to go in guns blazing (many do) but you do have the option to sneak usually. ( Many don't)

[Rachel_Alucard]

@chief

Except making them invincible from hand shots is not how you go about killing a character. Even Telltale did it better. The parts where you can choose to go guns blazing or stealth are nothing but choosing a different track to railroad onto. Most all objectives only have one way of doing them, you can't move too far from npcs, you can't take different paths during chase sequences, you can't even move any direction but forward many times in the game.

[rainslacker]

***Spoiler about midnight***

Midnight frustrated the hell out of me. I didn't realize he was supposed to die.

I spent half an hour trying to get the timing right on the quick draw until I went online to figure out how to do it because I didn't want to skip to the next part.

I did the female gunslinger in the Bayou first, and I thought it'd be more like that. So, I figured it'd was me chasing him down, until he decided to give up. No such luck. I read the other two male gunslingers were the same.

@Chief

The mission given to you was to find out more about these guys, and gal. Not kill them and snap their pic. Thought I was supposed to talk to him to get his story, not just snap a picture of a dead body. I assumed since the guy was writing a book, and said he wanted to find out more about these guys, the intent wasn't to show off some washed up gunslinger, but to actually give some sort of insight into the old west gunslinger, that could have maybe helped show what Dutch and the gang were leaving behind. Show how the world moves on with or without you.

Instead, they made the story about how Midnight(and I assume the other two you kill) are now not part of society, and apparently suffering from dementia. It's like saying, "These guys aren't part of today's world, they deserve to die".

But then you get to the female gunslinger, and you have a nice shoot out. Learn a bit about her and how she kept her pride, and she rides off into the sunset.

[OpenGL]

Rockstar really forces you to play missions the way they want you to, and it has a lot of annoying things like "places dynamite on the x" where you just slowly walk to each objective and do it exactly as they want.

[roland82]

They're probably mad that Arthur is not a lesbian woman.

[Stanjara]

Lol

[P_Bomb]

You sure about that? How come every time he gets propositioned by a lady the only reply options are basically no or hell no? This *is* Rockstar, right?

Guy can’t even hook up with Charlotte who makes him food, heals him when he’s sick, says what’s her’s is his, has some DNM conversations, and kisses him on the cheek. Off he scurries back to his horse. Atta booah!

[rainslacker]

Don't forget when getting the deluxe bath, if you decide to converse, he talks about his dog. What a waste of a 50 cent prostitute.

[theshredded]

Wow, The Last of Us has zero freedom and is one of the most linear games ever made. What a hypocrite. You had only 1 or 2 choices throughout the whole game that you don't even notice and you can only kill and hide. Meanwhile in RDR2 you could do so much more. Rockstar specializes in making atmospheric games with structured narratives, every developer compromises somewhere. The Last of Us has: one ending, no customization right away unless they changed that in the remaster or beat the game, no skill points. The Last of Us is one the worst games when it comes to player freedom. Some PS1 games had more freedom smh.

[Razzer]

What is with folks comparing an open world game to a linear game? He is not saying RDR2 should have been more like TLOU whatsoever so stop with the silly comparisons. Read what he says:

"The game killed me when I tried to flank in that mission - like so many RDR2 story missions. They need me to do what the story requires & continually remove my choices. The env was open & I had the skills, but they punished me for thinking for myself instead of rewarding me."

He is saying these missions appear to be open when in reality there is only limited choices that were dictated by the story. If this were a linear game then that would be normal. But it is open.

[theshredded]

I'm criticizing his stupid player freedom argument when Naughty Dog is barely criticized for it's archaic toddler gameplay in the Last of Us or the first 3 Uncharted games. Don't give me that BS that they're like playing a realistic movie so they make up with sequences and cutscenes instead for the limited freedom. Oh maybe that's what Rockstar also does with RDR2 but with 10x more effort since it's a much bigger game. Rockstar is at its best in story missions and had always been.

[Razzer]

And yet you are not trying to understand or address his criticism of the game at all. You are lashing out at a completely different type of game and making stupid comparisons. I don't care what you think of TLOU or the UC series. They are not relevant to the discussion at all. Perhaps if you actually tried to read the words that I copied and paste for your inconvenience then you would have something worthwhile to add. As of right now, I can sum up your post with "TLOU sucks. RDR2 rulez"

[chiefJohn117]

So an open world game can't have a linear story?
I see nothing wrong with forcing the player to snipe at a distance so his A.I partner can go in with a cool cinematic action sequence that wouldn't be possible unless the player is far away. A story is linear, (at least good ones) altering a story for the sake of gameplay freedom usually dilute the quality of the story and you potientally/ more than likely end up with a bland/ no sense story cause they let you use a bazooka for every mission when the cut scene implies bullets and gun were used. You miss out on action sequences the developer wanted to capture if you allow full freedom

[logotero]

The last of us is one of the most criminally scripted games ever made. And before you come with the ridiculous argument that "every game is scripted" let me tell you there are two kinds of obstacles in a vgame: real ones and fake ones. fake ones are the ones you can figure out like in an easier way than a crossword, by just pressing a button, discarding every other possibility. Real ones are the ones that actually require skill. That's the problem with movie-like games, they don't ask nothing to the player.

[starchild]

@Razzer

"The game killed me when I tried to flank in that mission - like so many RDR2 story missions. They need me to do what the story requires & continually remove my choices. The env was open & I had the skills, but they punished me for thinking for myself instead of rewarding me."

If what he's saying in that quote has any validity it is equally true of Naughty Dog's games. It doesn't suddenly become not true just because you slap them with the label of "linear games". That's just a huge cop-out.

Most games don't fit neatly into the little genre categories people want to fit them into. God of War has turned into a hybrid action / third person story driven game with substantial RPG mechanics. Should we criticize it based on traditional RPG standards?

With many games being hybrids I think it only makes sense to judge games based on what they ARE as a whole, not some arbitrary standard based on whatever category people choose to pigeonhole them as. Red Dead Redemption 2 is a highly narrative driven game that happens to take place in the context of an open world. That open world aspect, though, doesn't mean that it can magically circumvent limitations that even the best creators of other story driven games haven't been able to solve.

To completely avoid what you're talking about Red Dead Redemption 2 would have to become just another old style open world game with "emergent gameplay" and without a highly structured narrative. They wanted to have a highly developed narrative and they wanted to tell it a particular way. Given the limitations of today's technology and just the inherent limitations of telling that kind of story I think they did about as best as they could do.

Basically, you're criticizing RDR2 for not being something else. For not being a pure sandbox game with purely emergent gameplay. But that's not what the game was ever intended to be. It's a hybrid just like most other big games these days.

[Razzer]

"If what he's saying in that quote has any validity it is equally true of Naughty Dog's games. It doesn't suddenly become not true just because you slap them with the label of "linear games". That's just a huge cop-out. "

Actually, the lack of freedom is more true in a linear game. That is why it is called a "linear game". You can't just go and do whatever you want in that world. It is restricted, by design. So no, there was no "cop-out" here at all as I never claimed Naughty Dog's games granted any "freedom" at all. Neither did Staley.

Keep in mind.....I'm not criticizing RDR2 at all here. I'm saying folks taking Staley to task for his criticism because he created a linear game is way off base. I have not played enough RDR 2 to have an opinion on his criticism and I have offered none. But people should do what you have done and address his criticism and explain why they think it is wrong and not try to make this about TLOU and Uncharted. They should not call him out as a hypocrite, like theshredded did above, because he designed a non-open world game and thus, is never allowed an opinion on "freedom" mechanics in an open world game. This is just silly. That's the last I'm going to say on this. Feel free to disagree. out

[P_Bomb]

@logotero

And then Wapiti Reservation happened. You been there, or anywhere near there? You wanna talk about scripted and obstacles. The forced crawl is excruciating and 50-100hrs later evokes more apathy than empathy. I try to steer clear, but there’s a good bear spot nearby and camping puts me right by the res’ again.

[rainslacker]

@Star

He's saying a specific example of how the game wants you to process the scene in a specific way, and if you want to do something outside that, you can't, and typically fail the mission.

Even on his specific example, the last few ND games actually do allow you to approach almost all situations in the game in more than one way. Want to flank the enemy? you can do that. Want to stealth, often you can do that. Want to distract a group of enemies, and then pick them off one by one, you can do that. Want to go balls to the wall, you can do that.

So, in this case, for what he's talking about, ND games aren't like RDR2 at all. They are actually what he's saying...giving players the choice on how to proceed in the individual missions. RDR2 punishes you for wanting to do it differently from the dev. RDR2 has a few missions scattered in there where you have a choice on how to proceed, but its rare, and usually more about if you want to go left or right, but ultimately, eventually, it comes to following to a singular path that the dev forces you to.

Linear or not, it doesn't matter, because he's not talking about the linearity of the game, or it's missions. He's talking about how the game play options are limited within the missions themselves.

[P_Bomb]

What do you mean TLOU has no skill points etc? You people I swear. Max health, healing, crafting speed, listening mode, gun sway, shiv. SMH is right. When you lie you’ve already lost.

[Yi-Long]

I absolutely LOVE RDR2, but I have to agree with this criticism. I understand why it exists, considering they're telling a story, but too often you're a bit TOO limited when you're inside a mission, where the game only gives you 1 or perhaps a few ways of dealing with the objective, while in reality your own plan would have worked out much better for you...

Then again, if I had total freedom in a game like this, I'd kill Dutch in pretty much the first chapter and be done with this whole 'being in a gang' BS, and just find a cool place for me and my girl to retire. Essentially, me given complete freedom in this world would simply result in me having a cool little farm, and going fishing and hunting with my new best friend, 'The Veteran' (Hamish), riding my horse (dear Flint) all over the place, and simply enjoying that gorgeous world Rockstar created for us...

[-Foxtrot]

He has a point...even the pace you go when riding with someone on a mission is restricted

You either go too fast when you get control or you are locked at a slow walk pace

[EazyC]

I kinda agree re:gameplay, however I feel concflicted about narrative choice; games that offer you unlimited choice would never have achieved a character as compelling as Arthur Morgan... Or indeed Joel in TLoU. However, if Arthur was a more of a blank slate, and they let you branch into different story paths, it would afford replayability that is far less monotonous and more rewarding than the RDR 2 endgame of grinding via hunting, collectibles and mission challenges. This would dilute his character arc though, so I guess freedom in terms of story comes at a price.

R* is facing a dilemma at the moment, their games are being far more vocally criticised than first party games, I feel this gen that GoW, UC 4 and Horizon:ZD will be looked upon far more favourably than RDR 2 is. The same thing happened with GTA V, people liked it but then backlash ensued.

[starchild]

"their games are being far more vocally criticised than first party games"

Their games are largely being criticized by a vocal minority of platform fanboys that have a history of downplaying big multiplats and exclusives on opposing consoles. On all the forums I frequent it's mostly the hardcore platform fanboys involved in this. They are joined, of course, by a smaller number of people that the game legitimately didn't appeal to (which are present for any game, since no game is going to appeal to everyone).

Even a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, fanboys going around leaving comments and reviews on various sites can make it seem like a significant number of people hold a particular viewpoint, when in reality these people constitute a tiny fraction of the wider gaming community. That's why I never take user reviews on metacritic and such sites very seriously. It's HIGHLY driven by a fanboy dynamic. People trying to overrate certain games and downplay others for fanboy reasons. That's why you see so many 0s or 1s and 9s or 10s.

[EazyC]

Great points, well made!

[Ausbo]

I honestly disagree. The game is near perfect. I mean aside from the outdated shooting controls. The world, the tech, the immersion, the story were all top notch.

[goldwyncq]

If this game had Uncharted's gunplay, this would honestly be the best game ever.

[Giblet_Head]

I'd be more concerned with having whomever tags along with Ellie not being invisible to enemy AI like she was the last time. Still in awe that managed to squeeze past testing without mention of a "go here", "stay there" mechanic for the sake of maintaining immersion. Nothing hampered suspense more than trying to be stealthy and your companion just nonchalantly shortcuts across and crouch walks literally two feet past the peripheral of view an enemy facing them, ignored.

[Imalwaysright]

I've been saying something similar to this for some time now. Most open world games offer an illusion of freedom. We're given a set path defined by the developers and we're given a list of tasks to do. Very few open world games give incentive to explore their worlds and almost none of them give us a sense of discovery or allow us to play the game how we want to.

[chiefJohn117]

Huh? Idk what open world game you've played but that doesn't apply to most I've played. Have you heard or side missions and collectables? These thing are put in for that very reason. So you can explore and discover Easter eggs and parts of the maps you would've never thought was in the game. Anyone that played red dead 2 would tell you this

[Imalwaysright]

As in a list of tasks to do? Devs tell you where to start a side mission so you go do the side mission. Devs tell you that they hid some collectibles so you go find them but you're only going because they "dangled a carrot" in front of your face. You don't go exploring the world because you want to. You do it to, just as Straley said, tick some boxes. That's not freedom, that's an illusion of freedom and most open world games have this sort of design.

[chiefJohn117]

Yup you clearly didn't play red dead 2. Yes I've went exploring and discovered things without a task leading me. Exploring had me discover hideouts before I even knew this was a task, find rare animals, treasure maps, random events, etc. Honestly Red dead specifically is the first open world game that encouraged me to explore and do side missions over paying attention solely on the main story.

[Imalwaysright]

I didn't say anything about RDR2. I was talking about open world games in general. I said that few open give us incentive to explore the world on your own but I also said this: "allow us to play the game how we want to." which RDR2 doesn't exactly allow us to do.

" Red dead specifically is the first open world game that encouraged me to explore and do side missions over paying attention solely on the main story." Oh? The 1st? Really? https://i.pinimg.com/origin...

[EazyC]

It's a big issue, and generally why I don't like the directions devs have taken.... I would say R* is an exception, because they are the progenitor of open-world games. Reusing assets and creating vast expanses of playable areas, while you perform repetitive tasks just isn't very stimulating. There was something horrific about realising how sterile MGS V was at its core when it set in that you were just doing the same thing over and over again in strikingly similar locations. In many ways it pushes the notion of level 'design' out of the picture.

For most, I think linearity is the way to go. I returned to Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory recently and I was reminded just how much you can get out of a fleshed-out linear level, that also encourages multiple approaches and exploration. Less is more, I guess!

[starchild]

I agree with you, Imalwaysright. But with current technology it's always a balancing act. You can go more toward the complete freedom, emergent gameplay approach, but those games don't usually have the quality in gameplay or narrative that more structured games have. At the other extreme you have very linear games that are highly restrictive, but also more focused. I tend to like games that offer a little bit of both.

But everyone's different. We all have our own tastes.

[gangsta_red]

I also agree with a lot of what said, but then how do you do the complete freedom aspect without having some sort of structure to lead the player in? NMS you had something of complete freedom and that game for me got boring real quick because of it.

The issue I have with a lot of open world games are the side missions feeling more like busy work than actually having an impact on my character. Some might give me an extra weapon/armor and definitely more XP, but nothing significantly changes the story, my character or the world i'm playing in.

I would like to see open world games trim down the repeated, busy side missions. Maybe have a few separate teams craft their own side stories that are almost or just as expansive as the main story, possibly even intertwine with the main story.

[chiefJohn117]

No game with a story is gonna give complete freedom otherwise you'd ruin the story they're trying to tell.

[EazyC]

Fallout: NV let you do virtually anything within its narrative structure. Can't really think of other full-fledged titles that ever did anything like that. It does use world-design to coerce you (or certainly tempt you) into following a particular path but you're certainly not forced. Still amazing to think it was made under such a tight schedule, considering what it accomplished.

[DuckOnQuack35]

And to alot of people the story sucked

[salmonade]

RED DEAD 2... I Platinumed the game, but I agree 100% with his criticism

[Helljumper92]

People find anything to complain about today.

[Xaevi]

Most open world games if not all have the same problem. Freedom to go about however you choose while exploring, but linear story where you have no choice and get a mission fail or game over. Played Gravity Rush 2 recently and those super linear missions really ruined it for me

[goldwyncq]

Pot, meet kettle...

[Petebloodyonion]

So you're telling me that I should care about the comment about lack of freedom and outdated tech from a guy known for games built on the same engine since 2007 and where we are offered next to zero freedom on how the game is played?

[DuckOnQuack35]

Lmao exactly. Guy has no room to talk.

[salmonade]

Did he say the game was bad? He just said what happened to him, from a gameplay standpoint and criticised it, harmlessly. Stop reading more into it. Come on man

[SuperbVillain]

Ign - not enough lesbians 7.7

[OC_MurphysLaw]

It's not a perfect game and there are most certainly some choices that could be frustrating. I think overall they pulled off what they wanted to which was an epic narrative driven game inside of an open world setting that gave you lots of freedom at time, but when engaged in story missions was more restrictive as a way of delivering the story they way they wanted to deliver it. I found the blend perfectly fine. Not perfect mind you but that was OK for my style of play. I wanted to let them pull me through those narrative moments and let me experience their vision/story.

[DrumBeat]

Tell em, Naughty Dog. Tell em why it sucks.

[logotero]

Says the one who made a game that is focused on cinematics, story, and anything but gameplay. He's the maker of one of the most scripted and linear games ever made.

[Razzer]

Of course, TLOU is linear. Just like Batman Arkham Asylum, Halo, Gears of War, and plenty of others. None of these games claimed to be open world. That is the point you and others are missing entirely. Just because Staley designed a linear game, why is it somehow forbidden for him to critique a game that is designed to be open?

[logotero]

He should show us how to do it, not brag about it. But of course, that's not gonna happen since naughty dog and sony only care about videogames becoming movies so they can hype the press and do marketing to make profit. Gameplay? Who cares about gameplay? they say.... Literally, they say that.

[Razzer]

Naughty Dog games have plenty of gameplay. Just because they have great stories and great cinematic value doesn't change that. If you don't care for it, fine, but don't say it isn't there or they don't care about it. That is false. And this "movie" nonsense is just that, nonsense. These are games. I spent a hell of a lot more time playing in Uncharted and TLOU than I did watching the cutscenes.

And Staley didn't "brag" about shit. What are you even talking about? Did you actually read what he said? You have said nothing at all about his criticism of a very specific aspect of RDR2.

[logotero]

Gonna reply here cause its enough bs. You can say all day just because you can walk for 3 minutes in a game full of cinematics is enough to call it a game, but that's not the point. The whole point is that these companies don't care about gameplay as the main core of the videogame technique. Their design tables are filled with hollywood ideas, camera angles, character development, and they put gameplay in the last place. That is what this is all about. And i did read the article, that doesn't change the fact it sounds ridiculous because is coming from someone who cares too little about gameplay. Who he thinks he is to talk about player freedom? For any sake...

[Razzer]

Uncharted series and TLOU are among the most fun gameplay I've even played. Disagree? Fine. Stop pretending you know anything about Naughty Dog's "design tables". You don't. But this isn't about any of that. At this point there is no sense talking to you as you do not even try to understand the criticism that was made. And if you had read what Staley had said then you would not have claimed he was bragging. So nah....I don't buy it. You are talking from your ass. Enjoy your ignorance.

[logotero]

@Razzer

Yes, that's the best you can do, going with relativism "it's ok for you" and then always defend the gameplay of those mediocre games (in the gameplay section) with the argument: " the most fun gameplay I've even played ". Get over your posmodernism, this is not about subjective matters is about plurality in a videogame market that is based upon technique to actual develop them, so i'd recommend giving some factual examples of why gameplay in Uncharted, The Last of Us, etc, is so great, because i've never said is the worst gameplay, is just that the game is not made around it, its make to a certain target of people who will be amazed at how cinematic it is and stuff, the game can be fun for you if you are so little demanding on the department. So yeah, you probably don't care about innovative gameplay and don't care about the fact this greedy corporations like Sony are trying to make games like movies, making skill obsolete, which they will never do. There are other who do, like myself, and i just came here to say this guy you call Stanley like its your bro is looking ridiculous talking about things he merely or should i say never showed himself. But yeah, fanboys gonna fanboy all day.

And btw ignorance is actually the act of making an argument that is build up in relativism just because someone say something you don't agree.

[P_Bomb]

@logo
It’s not on anyone to explain to you why Uncharted, TLOU or even Red Dead are good. Look up the reviews yourself.

It’s hard enough as is to edit as I go, through big words broken english “greedy corporations like Sony” sides. No one’s calling Bruce their “bro” as you claim. There’s plenty of “walk for 3min” in RDR2. Don’t know why you chose that example. Can’t even run at my own base camps. I don’t know what you’re trying to say as it pertains to Red Dead.

[logotero]

Got nothing to say to someone who actually believes in reviews. Lol. Seriously, go over there and you will see that the moments that take you out of the core gameplay loop for exposition is why this games always receive such good scores. They all give the story a bigger focus than gameplay and journalists desperately want to be movie critics. So, yeah, no, the review argument is totally nonsense. Also, i didn't say anything about RDR2, that's an experiment more than a game with auto-aim bullshit.

[Smokehouse]

Lmao of all people.. co-director of TLOU criticizing player freedom.. okay...

[Ezio2048]

Hahaha seriously

[Cueil]

the main mission is written as a linear story so I really have no issues with the problems people are crying about

[KINGS47]

He’s right

[kevnb]

Seems odd coming from someone who works on fairly linear games.

[Smclaren1985]

You know I get what he is saying here I really do at some points in red dead a was genuinely surprised at how silly things would fail story missions but at the same time the game is an absolute masterpiece way way ahead of any uncharted game which are actually very restricted in terms of freedom and extremely linear. Infact I was really disappointed in uncharted this time it was just more of the same and it was actually quite boring. My jaw was on the floor the whole way from start to finish in red dead where as uncharted i didn’t see anything I hadn’t seen in all of the other games. Although the last of us is really something special the changed it up completely and it was perfect but none of there games had much freedom atall lol. The world rockstar has created this time round is so complex at the end of the day a game is a game they all have there limits in terms of freedom it’s an action based role playing game not a hardcore rpg like dragon age or Skyrim. Rockstars game is light years ahead of any of naughty dogs projects in terms of scope tech and complexity as well as freedom

[Persian_Immortal]

Hope you all realize Bruce Straley also worked on the Jak and Daxter games which are Open World games and last I checked God Of War won 155 Game Of The Year Awards vs the 110 RDR2 has so clearly a linear game is smoking RDR2 alive so don't try that linear, open stuff here when RDR2 mission structure is flat, controls are dated, animations look like they belong in 2008, shooting is bad which is hilarious considering how well Max Payne 3 a game in 2012 plays better including Uncharted 2 a game that came out in 2009 and both games are linear rack em up. Lastly there are gays in RDR2, in fact, Arthur Morgan can get raped by men in the game but not Hetero sex even though he had a love interest so don't try the SJW agenda here and the game also first wave female feminists so don't try that.

[Ezio2048]

Your whole comment is baseless. Just wanted you to know that there's no longer just one goty site that lists all goty.

Gotylist.com

This one has rdr2 winning.

And fyi. For "animation belonging in 2008" rdr2 has way more graphics award than gow. Check on the same site you got your goty info from

[Persian_Immortal]

Lol Robingaming, Angry Joe and a whole bunch of YouTubers now decide goty thats on the same site you sent me with a whole bunch of other sites that have no mind share traffic dead sites.where is the professionalism. I wouldn't be surprised if you made it up yourself site opened up 6-8 days ago sounds reactionary if you ask me, and looks like it isn't the only one all with the different winners from other sites trying to move goal posts. There is large discrepancy of sites not being listed for GOW, including readers choice the 15 year site has 53 readers Picks for God Of War the 6-8 days site, has 41 and to reiterate started a few days ago in January by that metric its just as invalid as the other recent sites opening the past 6 days.

Lmao there are tons of great graphical games with terrible animations, animations are only movements so you fail on that regard with your rebuttal. God Of War has more awards in the Aciton Adventure Genre which i recall RDR2 is in that very same genre and GOW is smoking it. Including Narrative and Gow will clean up GDC, and D.I.C.E.

[Ezio2048]

Rdr2 has more awards for narrative too. Check yourself. Also more awards for music, sound and performances. Gow just has more for action adventure.

[Ezio2048]

And gow didn't even clean up tga. Except goty, it won only two technical awards and Rdr2 won 4. Including narrative.

[Persian_Immortal]

Hey man its lost cause God Of War already smashed your boy(pun intended), and the narrative awards has been back and forth between the two and it might change again or RDR 2 sticks it, but Game Developers Choice, D.I.C.E and Baftas you know the Holy grail Gotys will be going to God Of War. The genre sections are cool excess accolades but when Zelda was at 189 it was only about the 189, not the other stuff, same for The Last OF US otherwise we would have games saying they won over 400 awards by adding stuff like music, acting and other stuff even developers acknowledge Goty over the other stuff ask CDprojekt RED, Naughty Dog, Bethesda you will get the same answer.

[Nucler100]

That literally never happened to me. I never felt restricted lol.

[wonderfulmonkeyman]

Is this internal dissent? I mean, both of these games were huge hits for PS4 and earned their acclaim. I don't get why they'd be taking shots at each other at this point...

[Gamist2dot0]

I love the game, but it's annoying that some parts of the game allow you to search the bodies for loot while others you won't know until the fail screen comes on. smh.

[Indo]

Off-topic but can we bring back couch co-op games back like Conflict:Desert Storm or even "Story Mode Co-Op".

[tochi]

Illusion of choice is a part of open-world game designs. It is an outdated technique for sure, however it still works pretty well when creator's mind is in right place.
Actually, Rockstar happen to be my favorite developer of 'illusion of choice'. For me, the best part of GTA and RDR is a very good story with interesting character development. They clearly have theme and philosophy that pose certain challenges to players. So, they use 'illusion of choice' to navigate players to designated path, It is fine to me, I would want to know fate of characters Rockstar has set.

That is for Rockstar.
I really don't like Fallout 4' illusion of choice. I'd be all for it, if Bruce Stanley was on FO4.

[discobastard]

RDR2 was boring. A horse riding sim. A pretty looking thing that bounced you between cut scenes with outdated design decisions and awkward control systems. Just my opinion. It's not a popular one

[Strafe]

Yeah, there was so much player freedom in TLOU. So many choices you could make in that narrow path you were led on.

[Gamer128]

The last of us ppffffft sucks!