John2290 said:
It is if you are into big beautiful, spectacle type games that are paced properly. People are speaking negatively too soon as is usual with big releases on these forums. If you were to take the first 5 hours of The Witcher 3 you'd come away with a pretty shit view of the game, after ten or fifteen hours your opinion will change and add a few more hours to that and it becomes the second coming of Christ in video game form. For me at least, the same thing is happening here, everything is coming together like fine brandy even the systems I thought were shit the first few hours make much more since now and work fantastically to keep engagement. The story though, even though I know pretty much the middle and end from playing RDR1, it's still surprising the hell out of me and it's as cinematic as a Sony first party game and as well written as a HBO flagship show. Apparently, I have another 40 hours of story and half that again in side content ahead of me. Not as big as The witcher but the pacing is just as solid if not better story wise. There is a reason reviewers are expected to play the game through fully before evaluating the game fully. ;) |
@ the bolded I can't speak for anyone else but Witcher 3 grabbed me from the beginning and didn't have near the boring moments to start out like red dead 2 does tho I am still enjoying it. Witcher 3 also didn't treat you like an idiot with all the damn tutorials. Don't get me wrong I like rRDR2 but Witcher 3 I immediately thought this was one of the best game I played early on. I'm not getting that feeling from RDR 2
