Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Gaming and Hardware Forum' started by SarcasticGoodGuy, Oct 19, 2016.
In any case, it seems like this discussion should be its own thread.
Looks like RDR 1 updated but nothing much from the teaser to get excited about. Though I imagine a whole bunch of 'gamers' suddenly became hyped for that teaser alone.
I enjoyed RDR for what little I could play (especially when roaming around like a gunslinger with wanderlust and handling encounters) but I never got into it (I think it was due to how long the story dragged on and how annoyed I got with the horse mechanics). Hopefully, the game avoids having an excessively serious story and just plays as a Wild West game that does not take itself too seriously.
I thought LA Noire was pretty good honestly, but I'm not a historian I'll admit. 1940's LA was recreated to the point where someone found their family restaurant in it which is an impressive amount of detail. They did take some liberties though, the Intolerance Set being the most obvious. Though they did that for Rule of Cool and considering how much effort went into the map, I can accept a little coolness.
Like what was stated above "they attacked because they took our oil" was apparently what most thought back then from what I've read. Not saying it's THE reason, but I doubt Phelps was great with politics.
I dunno, I think of Red Dead Redemption as working best when they played the story straight versus trying to do the Grand Theft Auto thing. The most eye-rolling part of the story for me was having to deal with the anthropologist high on cocaine spouting his "wacky" gibberish versus the simple joy of wandering around the ranch with Bonnie MacFarland. I was also blown away to realize the game had fast travel as it was so well-hidden but it made the game so much better without the horrible horse physics.
I think of RDR as basically equivalent to The Last Of Us for "Games which you trot out to say is art."
It was Rockstar making commentary about the Iraq War, which felt incredibly out of place in talk about WW2. There's also the fact the reason the US sale of oil was cut off was because the Japanese were committing countless war crimes in China. The lack of context seems like it was vilifying the US and attempting to create a moral equivalence which I found to be extremely offensive.
It did, however, do a good job of establishing while Cole Phelps was an extremely talented Detective, he was an extremely shit military commander who didn't have the respect of his men or the ability to command his way out of a paper bag.
I just saw the trailer and the scenery for the game looks gorgeous. I definitely got that western vibe that I love so much. From the looks of it the scenery maybe some of Rockstar's best yet but sadly nothing was said about about the protagonist or the game's story.
Yea but to be fair the last time people were sold on some impressive visuals we got Watch_Dogs so that doesn't absolutely nothing for me. The lack of an announcement for a PC release while theres already been one for consoles doesn't help either.
The biggest thing this game needs is an actual justification for being an open world game.
Yeah that is one of the things I am bummed about. Why is there no PC announcement? Then again, judging from the recent string of bad PC ports lately I am not overly disappointed.
I'm actually kind of pissed Aiden Pierce got replaced for Watch_Dogs. He was a generic boring character but that just means you should actually work to fix him and his story arc.
Those minor moments where the game takes itself seriously are alright but I think it would be better if the story did not take itself too seriously. RDR was a game where you could kidnap people, tie them up and leave them in front of trains even when John Marston was supposed to be some kind of ex-bandit trying to seek redemption (while being blackmailed). Essentially the character may act out of character outside the game's story as with all open world games which can hurt the game at times. Take Niko Bellic of GTA 4 for instance; as a character on his own, I like him. He was a complex, nuanced man broken by war and had allowed violence to define who he was so he bears a lot of resentment and cynicism towards the world (and himself). However Niko is the wrong character to place in a goofy GTA game where players can do whatever they want because the game actually took his story seriously while allowing Niko to do plenty of the things he would not actually do if he was not player controlled. I've read posts by other gamers about how inconsistent Niko's character is, how hypocritical he is out on the Net and how he is worse than other GTA protagonists (YMMV I know) but what those posters tend to do, from what I can tell, is confuse their own in-game actions as Niko's in-character actions (as in they treat their actions in free roam as though he is voluntarily doing them).
I don't mind the game taking itself seriously in small chunks but there should be restraint to it lest they make the character seem inconsistent and downright hypocritical. It's why I never gravitated to Michael or Franklin since for all of their claims of wanting to change/improve, the game still treats their free roam actions as part of their character (Michael is referenced to frequently cause road accidents at times).
This one seems to be about bandits so they may avoid making the characters seem inconsistent on that front at least.
It's interesting because Ashley Burch (Tiny Tina and other annoying characters) talked about how she couldn't get into Red Dead Redemption. Her brother (Borderlands 2's writer) and all of her friends talked about how the game was genuinely moving with the finale bringing tears to their eyes. However, she had played the game in full mayhem mode so she couldn't get invested in the story as her John Marston regularly murdered people for shit and giggles throughout.
I personally loved Nico Bellic's story and I think Grand Theft Auto IV is the best of the series. Grand Theft Auto V is closer to the way people expected GTA to play but it's a grossly inferior storyline because really, the problem is Franklin and Michael are irredeemable assholes like previous protagonists but they're BORING ones.
Nico's story really approached a work of art, IMHO.
Franklin is basially CJ if you remove all of CJ's likable qualities and all the "cool" of being an evil rap star manager/gangster with a great antagonist to play off of.
Michael is basically a GTA protagonist if you have him treated as a complete joke by a family which doesn't appreciate him.
Trevor is horrifying and awful but at least he has fun in his life.
In short, the problem with GTA5 is two out of the three characters are whiny (is there a non-gendered version of bitch I can use here because I really am stuck with whiny bitches and I don't think that's quite right)
Tbh I found Michael interesting. They should've done way more with his family though, imo. Watching him try to help and his family hating him for it. Can't name another gta protagonist that actually has a family or friends for that matter. Franklin could've been more interesting if they had done more with Lamar and and the ex That gets mentioned like onc and then shows up outta nowhere and she's like help Lamar! Trevor ia good enough as is.
The situation with Michael struck me as the idea we're supposed to think Michael should get back with his family. The thing is I never believed once they weren't awful people who made each others' lives worse and it would be better if they got out of each other's lives for good.
Michael is an awful father and husband while his children are awful brats and his wife is an awful wife and mother. So why are we rooting for them to get back together? The game seems to assume we're supposed to root for the nuclear family when both of the children are adults and the marriage is a sham.
Trevor is the only one to give a shit when Michael's daughter is being extorted for sex. Which is part of why people love him as, despite how fucked up he is, he actually seems to give a shit about his friends and their loved ones. Which is something I half suspect Rockstar did accidentally.
Franklin (again, I need a word better than bitches) bitches and moans the entire game even when he's got a free 10,000,000 Hollywood mansion and more money than he's made in his entire life.
It's basically, "Entitled Prick: GTA."
It's weird when Tommy Vercetti is more sympathetic and humanized.
Tommy vercetti is the best gta protagonist though...
Then it's a tie between nico and Trevor for me.
Tbh I found Trevor to be the most emotionally resonant protagonist in gta V.
I hope they manage to top the first game. I had problems with RDR but damn, if it didn't sell me on the ride into Mexico when 'Far Away' by Jose Gonzalez started playing. Parts of it felt like a Cormac McCarthy novel. This might get me to get a Rockstar game for the first time since then, I love Westerns.
Pretty much why I liked it.
Is there no love for bully on this forum? Thought the concept was pretty neat.
Yeah bully was a pretty great game. I like it's approach to the "new guy" story where the new guy is basically an an asshole rather than the "nerd". Tbh I would like a sequel.
Yeah, I loved it because RS took a risk. I don't know how well the game did commercially but it was pretty well received. Missions were more varied compared to GTA, but probably because without guns they were forced to get creative.
Yeah both red dead games have great music.
This track is my motherfucking jam.
Ah damn! I've never played Revolver, but didn't they just port it to the PS4? Might be the right time to try it.