Red Dead Redemption 2

OT: is it possible to love Fallout NV, 3 and 4? I've one mate who's finished all 3 multiple times and thinks 3 is the best but loves them all.

I loved the old GTA games, loved the PS2 era GTA games, hated (really hated!) GTA IV but loved GTA V and RDR.

Open world Rockstar games are usually a pretty safe bet for me. I doubt I’ll be picking up RDR2 any time soon though, time and money is tight at the moment and if it is anything like GTA V, it’ll be a long time before RDR2 gets a decent sale price (£20 or less).

Hime wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:...Breath of the Wild...

Fallout New Vegas
MGSV: Ground Zeroes
Mount and Blade: Warband

I might argue for Minecraft, Just Cause 2 and Assassin's Creed 2 as well. Vice City is damn good though.

Maybe this shows a difference in taste, I love BOTW but I don't think it does much, if anything for the open world template. Mechanically I'm with you in that MGSV and BOTW are the best out there.

Those a pretty niche selection of games. F:NV is good but the fanboys have gone way overboard.

Of course taste plays a big role, but I think all of these games are especially well designed as open worlds.

BOTW is a game that rewards exploration above any other. The climbing and gliding mechanics add a verticality mostly missing from open world games and mean that almost any area can be approached from almost any direction - there is no linear design disguised in an open world through funneling the player, and no artificial barriers or walls. Likewise the game gives you every tool/mechanic you need from the beginning, so there are no locked areas. Many open worlds have you unlock the world in a linear fashion as you progress through the game, but in BOTW you can literally go anywhere and explore the world in any order. There are almost no waypoints or quest markers, and the result is to liberate the player and offer true freedom of exploration. Mechanically the entire world is built as a physics sandbox, and it makes the world far more interactive than just a map containing points of interest and things to complete. It's a level of integration far above what open worlds have offered in the past.

MGSV: Ground Zeroes is a small and dense open world that is reused across multiple missions. That means that not only can every individual mission be completed in a multitude of contrasting ways to suit how you want to play the game, but every mission is also distinct and offers something new compared to the last. Few open worlds reuse locations in such an engaging fashion and it give the base a genuine life and character.

Mount and Blade: Warband puts the player in a world that does not rely on the player in the slightest. Most open world design has the player be the instigator of all events, where missions wait for the player to start them and everything is dictated by player choice. You can stand still in Warband and the world will change around you. This of course isn't revolutionary for a strategy game, but the locked-down roleplaying perspective of playing as a single character in the world makes it far more immersive than any game in that genre.

Fallout: New Vegas is a masterclass in player choice. Every playthrough of New Vegas has the potential to be strikingly different from the last, and that comes down to the excellent writing of alternate scenarios and the choice given to the player in who they side with and how they approach (or don't approach) various situations. It's an open world that is shaped by the player, and perhaps in contrast to Warband fundamentally driven by their actions and choices. And yet despite this, the game is very well designed for keeping the player from losing the critical path, always subtly driving the player onwards in their story and accounting for any diversions or alternate paths that the player takes.

Moggy wrote:I loved the old GTA games, loved the PS2 era GTA games, hated (really hated!) GTA IV but loved GTA V and RDR.

Open world Rockstar games are usually a pretty safe bet for me. I doubt I’ll be picking up RDR2 any time soon though, time and money is tight at the moment and if it is anything like GTA V, it’ll be a long time before RDR2 gets a decent sale price (£20 or less).

Do what I did: get talked into buying a copy between a few workmates.

Photek wrote:OT: is it possible to love Fallout NV, 3 and 4? I've one mate who's finished all 3 multiple times and thinks 3 is the best but loves them all.

NV is my favourite but I do love all three. The reasons differ though, if it wasn't for base building I would have been very disappointed with 4.

Saint of Killers wrote:

Moggy wrote:I loved the old GTA games, loved the PS2 era GTA games, hated (really hated!) GTA IV but loved GTA V and RDR.

Open world Rockstar games are usually a pretty safe bet for me. I doubt I’ll be picking up RDR2 any time soon though, time and money is tight at the moment and if it is anything like GTA V, it’ll be a long time before RDR2 gets a decent sale price (£20 or less).

Do what I did: get talked into buying a copy between a few workmates.

Share?

Dan Houser is desperately attempting to walk back on his statement regarding staff being tied to their workstations like in a Victorian workhouse. People, sorry, dickheads, still defending R*

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018 ... -criticism

60hr story, 500k lines of dialogue, 300k animations, 1200 actors, 7yrs to build.
https://www.gamesradar.com/red-dead-red ... uffer_grfb

This game is huuuuuuge.

Can't wait

KingK wrote:60hr story, 500k lines of dialogue, 300k animations, 1200 actors, 7yrs to build.
https://www.gamesradar.com/red-dead-red ... uffer_grfb

This game is huuuuuuge.

Can't wait

Someone will be shown speed running it on day one in 20 minutes.

Preezy wrote:[

Mafro wrote:I'd probably rate Watch Dogs 2 better than GTA V too.

Blasphemy!

He's not wrong.

OrangeRKN wrote:

Hime wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:...Breath of the Wild...

Fallout New Vegas
MGSV: Ground Zeroes
Mount and Blade: Warband

I might argue for Minecraft, Just Cause 2 and Assassin's Creed 2 as well. Vice City is damn good though.

Maybe this shows a difference in taste, I love BOTW but I don't think it does much, if anything for the open world template. Mechanically I'm with you in that MGSV and BOTW are the best out there.

Those a pretty niche selection of games. F:NV is good but the fanboys have gone way overboard.

Of course taste plays a big role, but I think all of these games are especially well designed as open worlds.

BOTW is a game that rewards exploration above any other. The climbing and gliding mechanics add a verticality mostly missing from open world games and mean that almost any area can be approached from almost any direction - there is no linear design disguised in an open world through funneling the player, and no artificial barriers or walls. Likewise the game gives you every tool/mechanic you need from the beginning, so there are no locked areas. Many open worlds have you unlock the world in a linear fashion as you progress through the game, but in BOTW you can literally go anywhere and explore the world in any order. There are almost no waypoints or quest markers, and the result is to liberate the player and offer true freedom of exploration. Mechanically the entire world is built as a physics sandbox, and it makes the world far more interactive than just a map containing points of interest and things to complete. It's a level of integration far above what open worlds have offered in the past.

Fallout: New Vegas is a masterclass in player choice. Every playthrough of New Vegas has the potential to be strikingly different from the last, and that comes down to the excellent writing of alternate scenarios and the choice given to the player in who they side with and how they approach (or don't approach) various situations. It's an open world that is shaped by the player, and perhaps in contrast to Warband fundamentally driven by their actions and choices. And yet despite this, the game is very well designed for keeping the player from losing the critical path, always subtly driving the player onwards in their story and accounting for any diversions or alternate paths that the player takes.

I agree that navigating the world in BOTW is exceptional and as you the say the ability to complete the game in any order you like is unique for an open world game but in doing this they sacrifised story and meaningful characters. Wondering the world is fantastic but as for exploring I'm not sure there is a great to find other than shrines and korok seeds. In RDR and GTA V you stumble across scenarios like people asking for help, gang fights, etc that when you initially find them feel them like you've stumbled across something you might have missed had you not been going passed that location at that specific time. This is the difference for me in that I think you could call BOTW a sandbox Zelda game rather than an open world.

I'm not really interested in Mount and Blade but it sounds like I need to play Ground Zeroes and NV has been on my list for a revisit for some time. I do remember NV being a bit harsh on exploration though as you could stumble into enemies that were much too powerful for low level players.

Gemini73 wrote:Dan Houser is desperately attempting to walk back on his statement regarding staff being tied to their workstations like in a Victorian workhouse. People, sorry, dickheads, still defending R*

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018 ... -criticism

Did he actually say that?

Hime wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:Dan Houser is desperately attempting to walk back on his statement regarding staff being tied to their workstations like in a Victorian workhouse. People, sorry, dickheads, still defending R*

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018 ... -criticism

Did he actually say that?

No he did not, but he may as well have done is the point. Thinking that having one's staff working 100 hour weeks is perfectly acceptable is an appalling mindset. That Houser is now attempting to backtrack shows he damn well knows it's not acceptable. Anyone defending R*, or any games company, in this regard need to take a good, long look at themselves.

But as already said, once RDR 2 is out and the media have faunicated all over it, this whole scenario will be brushed under the carpet and forgotten about. strawberry float people's health, both mentally and physically, as long as the game is good eh?

Hime wrote:I agree that navigating the world in BOTW is exceptional and as you the say the ability to complete the game in any order you like is unique for an open world game but in doing this they sacrifised story and meaningful characters.

This is true (with the caveat I still think there are memorable characters in BOTW), but I don't think that BOTW's design precludes a good story and characters. I think it would be possible to somewhat combine BOTW's open world exploration with say New Vegas' quests and approach to story.

Hime wrote: In RDR and GTA V you stumble across scenarios like people asking for help, gang fights, etc that when you initially find them feel them like you've stumbled across something you might have missed had you not been going passed that location at that specific time.

My problem with these is that the illusion quickly falls apart once you run into the same event for a second time. BOTW actually suffers similarly with the few people you can run into being attacked on the road, although I'd say the dragons are better done due to their time-of-day specificity (if still ultimately predictable) and finding the Lord of the Mountain is a genuine discovery in that sense. I can't really think of a game that solves this specific problem though. (Actually, Morphite did it by limiting events to only happen the once per playthrough, but randomised as to where they happen, so they sacrificed repeating content in favour of making the events feel unique. I kind of liked that.)

Hime wrote:I'm not really interested in Mount and Blade but it sounds like I need to play Ground Zeroes and NV has been on my list for a revisit for some time. I do remember NV being a bit harsh on exploration though as you could stumble into enemies that were much too powerful for low level players.

For my money Ground Zeroes is better than MGSV, even if MGSV does refine the gameplay mechanics even more. It's the small and well-designed open world that elevates it.

NV is definitely unforgiving with the high level enemies, but that's actually a big positive for the game. It makes the world much more realistic and immersive compared to aggressive level scaling (e.g. Oblivion ) and they actually use it as part of the design to prompt the player into taking a certain route across the map without artificially forcing it. The deathclaw infestation just outside of the opening town is meant to drive the player south, but if you really want to it is possible to run the gauntlet and make it straight through to New Vegas, and I love that!

The main reason I got bored of BotW is because I felt like I was just aimlessly wandering around looking for shrines and Korok seeds. The quest structure was wank and there was no sense of story progression at all, and I put 70 hours into it. It's a fun game, but it's not the Best Thing Ever.

Yeah BoTW gets repetitive very fast, and with no story to speak of really, it kinda killed it for me.

I don't agree, I was still discovering things 100 hours in. There is also a solid story direction from the opening through the great plateau, Kakariko and Hateno to Zora's domain and the first divine beast, if that's what you want to follow, which can occupy the first maybe 20 hours or so. It's lacking in narrative but I couldn't say there is no story progression at all. I think the Gerudo desert has a decent flow to it too, from getting into the city through the Yiga clan and culminating with the divine beast. I also liked the progression of Tarrey Town.

To bring it back on topic though I'm fully expecting RDR2 to be an awful lot more narrative driven. I hope it leaves enough breathing space in the plot for taking on side activities and generally exploring.

Photek wrote:Yeah BoTW gets repetitive very fast, and with no story to speak of really, it kinda killed it for me.

My brother in law felt the same. I really do think it's a question of taste. There is most certainly a story there to uncover, more so than in the other Zelda games I've played, but as it's predominantly an exploration game the plot is woven into this aspect rather than presented wholesale. It's not a 'do this mission, get some story' game, it's an 'explore this area, find some story nuggets' game.

It's also the closest thing there is, I think, to the perfect expression of what an open world game should be, one that utilises the vast open spaces not as largely empty terrain to be traversed on your way to a mission marker (a la the GTA games, and even The Witcher) but as spaces for emergent gameplay through sidequests and unmarked elements. The joy of stumbling across the accordian playing eagle by chance is far greater than making it to a mission marker and starting another chase mission. Nintendo's first go at such a game completely shifted the paradigm for the genre.

I think the reason I'm not excited fot RDR2 is that, no-one seems to have told Rockstar this.

Gemini73 wrote:

Hime wrote:

Gemini73 wrote:Dan Houser is desperately attempting to walk back on his statement regarding staff being tied to their workstations like in a Victorian workhouse. People, sorry, dickheads, still defending R*

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018 ... -criticism

Did he actually say that?

No he did not, but he may as well have done is the point. Thinking that having one's staff working 100 hour weeks is perfectly acceptable is an appalling mindset. That Houser is now attempting to backtrack shows he damn well knows it's not acceptable. Anyone defending R*, or any games company, in this regard need to take a good, long look at themselves.

But as already said, once RDR 2 is out and the media have faunicated all over it, this whole scenario will be brushed under the carpet and forgotten about. strawberry float people's health, both mentally and physically, as long as the game is good eh?

Don't you think we need a few more details before jumping to the conclusion that the work environment is akin to a sweat shop? Where I work there we have be very seriously u derstaffed to the point that some have been working 75 hour weeks for almost 3 years now, the thing is it is entirely optional and as staffing has improved it's actually become an issue as some have become so accustomed to inflated salaries.

The point is you don't know if Rockstar's staff are working voluntarily, being rewarded or being threatened that they'll lose their jobs of they don't put in extra hours and I think you need to know these things first.

Don't like your job? Get another one.

Can we get back to discussing the game now please you Bolshevik scum.