carlos710 said:
Ryuu96 said:
Do you mean the setting looks uninteresting? I like cowboy western stuff so that didn't bother me. I'm not really a fan of something like Fallout's setting though, all dead and depressing, Lol. I like the vibrant Elder Scrolls settings. But as for RDR 1/2, I would actually rate them highly still, I think around 9/10. But RDR2...These complaints about Starfield's slowness while RDR2 received universal praise, I don't know...Maybe I'm forgetting how RDR1 played but I'm in a weird spot with RDR2...It's a game which I can appreciate - story wise, technically, the world is alive and interesting but the gameplay is so fucking slow, it's like I'm walking through molasses for most of the game. And so I would never want to replay RDR2...I know the story and that's good enough for me, I have no interest in replaying the exact same story in that slow ass gameplay, which Imo never becomes any faster, Lol. Every activity just feels like they're trying too hard to be realistic, that was a nice technical achievement but doesn't make for fun gameplay. The story even is practically nothing going on for the first few hours. |
I'm talking more about the gameplay, no issue for me about being in the western. I actually think western games could use more (and better) representation But from a gameplay perspective, I did not see RDR doing anything particularly great for me. I would say for example Bully it's a better game, older, from the same company and relatively similar in gameplay, but I think Bully just does things better. The positives that I see for RDR is that it obviously has high production values and if you actually like it there are a bunch of things you can do to get more hours out of your investment, just wasn't the case for me. |
Oh okay, I can't actually remember if RDR1 was as slow as RDR2 or my tastes have just changed.
I would agree there's nothing exactly special about it.
