Yeah, man. They did Team Bondi dirty. Hypocritical actions even, considering Rockstar itself is under the microscope for overworking its employees.
That was so shocking and hilarious
I would love to see a little bit of spontaneity like that in Cyberpunk 2077
Post automatically merged:
I would love to see a little bit of spontaneity like that in Cyberpunk 2077
Having played both TW3 and RDR2 (not yet finished with it though), and the previous games in TW series and RDR1, I value my opinion on this topic. Of course I also value my opinion when I have no clue what I'm talking about, so there's that.
Anyway, my thoughts
Anyway, my thoughts
- RDR2 is slightly better than TW3 graphically, but not by much. I'm comparing to TW3 on a high end PC though, so not sure what RDR2 might look like if / when it ever comes to PC. To me that's a pretty amazing statement about the quality of graphics in TW3 when it came out.
- The story in TW3 is vastly superior to what I've seen so far in RDR2, and what I've read about it. Might change somewhat as I complete RDR2, but I doubt it. I think the story in RDR1 is also superior to RDR2, because I absolutely despise something that happens to you in Chapter 2. To avoid a spoiler I won't mention what it is, but after numerous experiments I've concluded that there's zero way to avoid. Stupid mandatory missions that screw over your character. But that's all completely subjective.
- The open world in RDR2 is vastly superior to anything I've ever seen in a game, except maybe RDR1. It's superior to RDR1, but not vastly. It's incredible in scale, functionality (or at least the appearance thereof) and in attention details. I think purchasing RDR2 is worth the price just to experience it.
- I can't compare any of them yet to CP2077 because there isn't yet a CP2077. However, I'm optimistic about what CDPR can / will do with the years of development between it and TW3, especially since they were sufficiently confident in it to risk letting us see a pre-alpha build in action. That's really pretty amazing when you think about it.
- @asheram and @Audie_Carpenter : don't walk behind horses. Bad in the game; bad in life.
There's also those missions where you collect the debts owed to the camp; one of them was of a farmer living his last days at his ranch and we had to rough him up to collect money. I'm playing at a high honor scale, so I didn't wanted to do that to the guy. But it was a forced narrative to open more character depth on Arthur. Right after, he expressed regret and distaste for his action, but it was a necessity for his gang to get back on their feet. Later on, I've listened to his dialogs with other members where he starts to second guess his stance in life and Dutch's ideals. Are they really befitting those who have been served with injustice or are they just a rotten gang of outlaws lead by a derange and cult-like leader? For Rockstar, that's not bad. They don't make robust RPG games, so I understand they want their story to go a specific way.
I sure do love me some Grand Theft Horses. I loooove horses. In all seriousness, Witcher 3 is the only game I've every played without fast traveling unless I was forced to.
It's the debt collection missions I was referring to. I wasn't going to do them in the first place because I think the guy who sends you on them is slimy. But it's a mandatory mission and then something not very good happens to you. @asheram , I wasn't thinking about the Micah mission, but that one bothered me too. I had been trying not to play as a psychopath, and then that mission happened. But that's Rockstar -- they always seem to force widespread destruction on you at some point. In spite of all of that though, the game is quite impressive.
barely opened chapter 3. Gonna milk every section of the map before I finish the story
To keep this on topic, please use https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?threads/red-dead-redemption-2-red-dead-3.74322/ for discussing only RDR2.
How is this even a thing? Comparing "open world games" like this is like arguing about what the best "side scrolling" game is or what the best first or third person perspective game is. Coming up next: "Apples to Oranges, the thread!" and "The best mouse and keyboard game of all time".
I don't think so at all. "Open-world" is definitely a genre of its own. It normally aims for non-linear, mostly seamless, focusing on a responsive environment. The elements could be done in 2D, 3D, or even as a bunch of different viewpoints (like Darklands or XCOM). Far different from a more focused, level-based game. The differences between one open-world title and the next leave a lot open for discussion.
1. Joust. Obviously.
2.Bloodlines
3. Also Bloodlines.
4. Oranges. Flavourful AND Vitamin C.
5. Bloodlines. Not really. Torment. I might go with W3 but that's also for console.
See? This was -easy- Vol. Easy easy easy.
I don't know... I see it more like a format. The idea itself is only relevant in contrast to independent levels, but doesn't describe the game too well. Can you compare "level based games"? Pac Man vs. Doom? What about strategy and city building games? They're technically "open".
Think about "open world" and it doesn't tell you much about game mechanics, just that you can walk around and pick up tasks. What these tasks involve, how conflicts are resolved, their effects on the world, what your goals are, how you interact with the world and how your choice (if at all) of character affects everything, and so on, can often be answered by other labels (genres?). "Open world" could be action, FPS, RPG. How do games like No Man's Sky, Far Cry and Fallout 1/2 compare? You could say Far Cry is an "open world FPS" and Fallout an "open world cRPG", but "open world" alone is not enough.
You could compare the world simulation aspect of these games, sure. I just think as a whole it is silly, like saying No Man's Sky has better and more varied wildlife but Fallout has better dialogue... In the end it seems like anything can be "open world", just like anything could be a "focused, level-based game". With no distinguishing features of its own other than "the lack of levels" there isn't much to compare between "open world" games.
PS: I just like arguing, please don't take it personally. I'm grumpy and tired and just venting
Also I like it when people use precise terms, not that "open world" bullshit
Last edited:
I don't know... I see it more like a format. The idea itself is only relevant in contrast to independent levels, but doesn't describe the game too well. Can you compare "level based games"? Pac Man vs. Doom? What about strategy and city building games? They're technically "open".
Think about "open world" and it doesn't tell you much about game mechanics, just that you can walk around and pick up tasks. What these tasks involve, how conflicts are resolved, their effects on the world, what your goals are, how you interact with the world and how your choice (if at all) of character affects everything, and so on, can often be answered by other labels (genres?). "Open world" could be action, FPS, RPG. How do games like No Man's Sky, Far Cry and Fallout 1/2 compare? You could say Far Cry is an "open world FPS" and Fallout an "open world cRPG", but "open world" alone is not enough.
You could compare the world simulation aspect of these games, sure. I just think as a whole it is silly, like saying No Man's Sky has better and more varied wildlife but Fallout has better dialogue... In the end it seems like anything can be "open world", just like anything could be a "focused, level-based game". With no distinguishing features of its own other than "the lack of levels" there isn't much to compare between "open world" games.
PS: I just like arguing, please don't take it personally. I'm grumpy and tired and just venting
I think "genres" are challenging in general. It's extremely rare for a "new" genre to appear, but it's a bit more common for a game to leave people saying: "It's tough to explain. It's really unique! You just sort of have to see for yourself." Whenever that happens, it's pretty clear that the term to describe the genre doesn't exist yet -- we've got a new genre!
So, for me, I think the very first "Open World" game I played was Ultima VII, followed closely by X-COM: UFO Defense. Until that point, I had never experienced mechanics like that, and they were (literally) game-changers. Now, they tend to be remembered as standards that helped define "a whole new type of gameplay". I'd say that's enough to identify a whole new genre...but they didn't.
It's also a bit hard, since purely Open World games are pretty few. GTA, definitely. Mercenaries. Prototype. Minecraft- / Terrarria-likes... Most Open World titles are mixed heavily with other genres: Bethesda is primarily Adventure / RPG; same with TW3 or Bioware's games. XCOM is definitely Strategy. Something like Vangers or Lander would be more Action. The X series, Elite, or Evochron would be primarily Simulation.
But how would we define something like Minecraft? It's not an RPG. It's not a story-driven Adventure. It's a poor example of an Action game. There are certainly no in-depth Simulation aspects. It's not a Puzzle game. There's no reliance on Strategy or Tactics. No 4x involved. It's not inherently Horror / Survival. Certainly not Sports. Sure, there are elements of all of these things in it, but it relies primarily on its Open World. It's mostly about exploring, being creative, making discoveries, and basically doing whatever you want however you want. I'd say that GTA also offers exactly the same focus: Open World is its most salient feature.
So, to bring it back around to the topic, I think it's perfectly legit to focus praise or criticism on "Open World" as distinctive feature. (Personally, I'd like to see the genres for videogames more clearly classified. We seem to have no issues doing it for literature, film, or music...but for some reason, categorizing games into their appropriate genres is a mucking fess.)
Last edited: