Quantcast
RDR2 Reviews! Metacritic - 97(PS4)/97(XBO) / Opencritic - 97

Forums - Gaming Discussion - RDR2 Reviews! Metacritic - 97(PS4)/97(XBO) / Opencritic - 97

What's your score prediction?

96 above 47 47.47%
 
91-95 43 43.43%
 
86-90 6 6.06%
 
81-85 0 0.00%
 
80 below 3 3.03%
 
Total:99

Barkley said:

I've played both, and Witcher 3 definitely sets a higher bar in my opinion. When it comes to content it eclipses botw.

BOTW has quite a basic world. It's really not very varied when it comes to content. If you actually think about it there's not an awful lot of unique content in the game, shrines are numerous and very similair, random events you can encounter are very sparse (oooh look the 8th person I've talked to that is an assassin hooray). There's very few types of enemies in the game. The Korok Trials were a highlight because they were finally something a bit different. Even the inside of the divine beasts all felt so similar.

Witcher 3 has 100+ hours of content with fully voice acted side quests and stories, Zelda's side quests are pretty much "Yo I want 55 rushrooms boi."

I think BOTW has a lot of things that are overlooked because it's a new direction for Zelda, but considering how long the game was in development, outside of the main questline the world is very sparse and the content very repetitive.

Every stable looks the same... that's another example... It's just copy and pasting shrines and stables and enemy camps, and putting in side fetch quests so the vast empty world isn't a completely vast empty world.

Well if you look at any game the way you just did with BOTW than of course you are going to dislike it compared to TW3. For starters BOTW is easily 100+ hours. Also graphics and visuals isn't everything. Zelda isn't trying to mirror TW3 or other openworld games, its doing its own thing. BOTW has one of the most immersive worlds iv ever played. The things you can do in it on top of the survival aspects are some of the best iv seen. The world feels alive and Nintendo did it on Hardware far inferior to any current console.. the WiiU. 

But it is your opinion and fair enough, TW3 is a juggernaut of a game however so is BOTW. 



Around the Network

It saddens me that these recent reports of poor crunch time working conditions at R* are probably going to cost the game some metascore points with the SJW critics. Especially since Rockstar devs have now came out saying that the reports are bogus, saying that they've never had mandatory overtime and only ever volunteered for extra hours to help get the game ready for launch.



Also, since I see a debate on rather BotW or Witcher 3 is currently the king of open world games, I have to go with Witcher 3. I haven't played BotW yet since I don't own a Switch but from what I've seen of the game on youtube and such, it doesn't hold a candle to Witcher 3. Witcher 3 is the bar that RDR2 will be measured against, Witcher 3 and GTA V of course, since it's Rockstar's previous game.



It's a Rockstar game. Of course it'll get above a 90. GTAIV had terrible driving controls and still got above a 90.



shikamaru317 said:

It saddens me that these recent reports of poor crunch time working conditions at R* are probably going to cost the game some metascore points with the SJW critics. 

Didn't know that the only people who were concerned about possibly poor work environments were SJWs.



Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
shikamaru317 said:

It saddens me that these recent reports of poor crunch time working conditions at R* are probably going to cost the game some metascore points with the SJW critics. 

Didn't know that the only people who were concerned about possibly poor work environments were SJWs.

If it was real sure, but the reports seem to be bogus, and yet the outrage is still happening, mainly being perpetuated by the SJW types. Watch and see if some of the known SJW sites like Polygon don't give RDR2 some of it's lowest scores. If those critics give RDR2 high scores I will be amazed. 

Last edited by shikamaru317 - on 19 October 2018

shikamaru317 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Didn't know that the only people who were concerned about possibly poor work environments were SJWs.

If it was real sure, but the reports seem to be bogus, and yet the outrage is still happening, mainly being perpetuated by the SJW types. Watch and see if some of the known SJW sites like Polygon don't give RDR2 some of it's lowest scores. If those critics give RDR2 high scores I will be amazed. 

The reports seem bogus? So far the only good reports we've gotten is from employees that still work there.... and one of the employees who still works there said it was entirely up to which division, department, etc. you worked under. Rockstar is a big company, it's not like these people are claiming every Rockstar employee works 100 hour weeks.



I predict a 95 for it. Would love for much higher than that, but 95 it is.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
shikamaru317 said:

If it was real sure, but the reports seem to be bogus, and yet the outrage is still happening, mainly being perpetuated by the SJW types. Watch and see if some of the known SJW sites like Polygon don't give RDR2 some of it's lowest scores. If those critics give RDR2 high scores I will be amazed. 

The reports seem bogus? So far the only good reports we've gotten is from employees that still work there.... and one of the employees who still works there said it was entirely up to which division, department, etc. you worked under. Rockstar is a big company, it's not like these people are claiming every Rockstar employee works 100 hour weeks.

I have now read multiple statements from Rockstar devs saying that any overtime they have worked they volunteered for. One woman said the longest week she has worked since she began on RDR2 2 years ago was 58 hours, far less than this 100 hour figure that is floating around. The 100 hour figure came from an interview and was very likely exaggerated because Dan wanted to show the level of dedication to making the game as good as possible that his team has. 

Also, even if it is true, critics shouldn't let it affect their scores. They are there to judge the game, not the working practices of the developer. They might actually do more harm than good, if these devs really have been busting their butts working long weeks to get the game ready for release and make sure it is polished and perfect, it would be devastating for them to see the game review lower than expected, it would mean all of their hard work was for nothing. Some publishers even deny their developers a cash bonus if a game's metascore falls below a certain level, any critic who let lets this news affect their score could actually be directly hurting the developers they claim to be defending. Not sure if Take Two is one of those publishers, but I know that Zenimax (Bethesda parent company) has been guilty of doing that in the past. 



shikamaru317 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

The reports seem bogus? So far the only good reports we've gotten is from employees that still work there.... and one of the employees who still works there said it was entirely up to which division, department, etc. you worked under. Rockstar is a big company, it's not like these people are claiming every Rockstar employee works 100 hour weeks.

I have now read multiple statements from Rockstar devs saying that any overtime they have worked they volunteered for. One woman said the longest week she has worked since she began on RDR2 2 years ago was 58 hours, far less than this 100 hour figure that is floating around. The 100 hour figure came from an interview and was very likely exaggerated because Dan wanted to show the level of dedication to making the game as good as possible that his team has. 

Also, even if it is true, critics shouldn't let it affect their scores. They are there to judge the game, not the working practices of the developer. They might actually do more harm than good, if these devs really have been busting their butts working long weeks to get the game ready for release and make sure it is polished and perfect, it would be devastating for them to see the game review lower than expected, it would mean all of their hard work was for nothing. Some publishers even deny their developers a cash bonus if a game's metascore falls below a certain level, any critic who let lets this news affect their score could actually be directly hurting the developers they claim to be defending. Not sure if Take Two is one of those publishers, but I know that Zenimax (Bethesda parent company) has been guilty of doing that in the past. 

This is an incredibly weak argument from you and I pretty much already addressed it. People do not like challenging authority. People who complain about long dev times are less likely to find good jobs as developers for major companies. And "volunteer".... hm ... wonder how that can be exploited. 

The best thing to do is just not take a side on the matter. I don't think Rockstar is inherently guilty or innocent, and quite honestly most of the testimony saying that Rockstar is a good company does not actually go against or disprove testimony that states the opposite.  We don't have enough information right now. But the answer is not to just label those who are concerned as SJWs. Give me a break. This is the same kind of crap you did with The Witcher TV series where you over reacted and then got denied the satisfaction of being right. Even if Rockstar is innocent, your condemnation of people who have some concern is ridiculous. STOP IT. 

As for your last point, none of that is disagreeable. Luckily, that's not the part I was responding to. 

Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 19 October 2018