Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Red Dead Redemption

9,087 replies to this topic
Cosmic Gypsy
  • Cosmic Gypsy

    It's time for a trip

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#8581

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:21 PM Edited by Cosmic Gypsy, 11 May 2013 - 01:25 PM.

QUOTE (Sgt. Foley @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 05:10)
QUOTE (Master of San Andreas @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 00:12)
QUOTE (Sgt. Foley @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 08:14)
He strikes back...

my lord.

Anywhore, I got RDR a while back, never played it... Can anyone tell me how the Multiplayer is ? good, horrible?

Multiplayer bad? It's awesome. I know I haven't played RDR but it definitely won't be horrible.

Like Reaper said I suggest you get the GOTY edition, It comes with the DLC and a handful of updates, I wonder why you never played it though.

I haven't played it because I've gotten a few other games that I'm into. That's all.

Multiplayer is very good, especially stronghold, or land grab on free roam. If you have a busy game it's one of the best Online games available.

Not sure how busy it is these days, free roam is still decently populated.

RDR however does have a problem with hackers, invincible people riding around everywhere. (PS3)

The problem is there is a LOT of dead game modes. I think games are going over board with the amount of game modes they have for online these days, either 7/10 of them end up with absolutely no players, or all of them end up with a small amount of players because there are just too many modes. Last time i checked, stronghold, free for all and team deathmatch still had plenty of players, which is good, they are the best competitive modes. (Pokers also good, but expect to come across non responding players that make it impossible to finish a game, or expect games that last far too long for any one with a normal attention span to finish) I heard you can also cheat while playing poker.. (Legitimately, not with hacks etc.)

Harley
  • Harley

    Cyclop 9

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2003
  • None

#8582

Posted 11 May 2013 - 01:27 PM

QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 12:29)
QUOTE (GtaIIIFanBoy @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 02:42)
relax man lol little be sensitive to other people opinions are we?  dozingoff.gif   i was just saying my opinion people do tend to overate IMO get over it  lol.gif and i said i still thought it was a great game so...... and i just type for quickness not to impress people with my grammar. as long as you can understand me its all good.  smile.gif and Yes i do think Gta iv is a far better game but again that's just me neither was it my point. and i also disagree with San Andreas being a lower caliber game but that's your opinion so im gonna respect that and  not  get all angry and start insulting you over it. (like you seem to do) get over yourself.  confused.gif

You clearly lack the ability to understand what I was trying to convey.

No I'm not saying that you're not entitled to have your opinion, I'm simply stating that you gave no proof whatsoever to support what you were saying. It'd be fine for you to voice your thoughts and views on the game if you'd actually bothered to think logically about not only what you were saying but what I myself have said to you.

A great example of this is the fact that Red Dead Redemption is technically a better game then Grand Theft Auto IV, not to say that you can't prefer Grand Theft Auto IV over Red Dead, but you gave no reason to support the claims that you were making so again I ask you to present proof that Grand Theft Auto IV is a better game then Red Dead.

Lastly I have to ask, what about the game's overrated exactly? I mean come on you can't say that Red Dead's an overrated game when in every respect it out does Grand Theft Auto IV, in case you're wondering what I mean by this I mean to say that every game mechanic from graphical fidelity, to the soundtrack (the first Rockstar open world game with a dynamic soundtrack in the background) to the game's vast array of activities and multiplayer modes.

There's simply no way anyone could argue that Grand Theft Auto IV is a better game then Red Dead Redemption, one again you can of course prefer IV but arguing that IV was a better game in general then Red Dead and then claiming that the game was overrated and ran off of its hype with no proof for any of those points is idiotic.

Chill the f*ck out. Not everybody likes the game as much as you do. Not everybody plays Red Dead with one hand down their f*cking pants. I love the game, but it wasn't perfect. Not by a long shot.

And stop hounding him for proof. It's an opinion, he doesn't need proof.
Back off and realise you are berating someone for having an opinion. About a video game. On the internet. And all throughout your fanboy bitch fit he's been calm and actually quite pleasant.

Zancudo
  • Zancudo

    Soldier

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • Poland

#8583

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:10 PM

QUOTE (Harley @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 13:27)
QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 12:29)
QUOTE (GtaIIIFanBoy @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 02:42)
relax man lol little be sensitive to other people opinions are we?   dozingoff.gif   i was just saying my opinion people do tend to overate IMO get over it  lol.gif and i said i still thought it was a great game so...... and i just type for quickness not to impress people with my grammar. as long as you can understand me its all good.  smile.gif and Yes i do think Gta iv is a far better game but again that's just me neither was it my point. and i also disagree with San Andreas being a lower caliber game but that's your opinion so im gonna respect that and  not  get all angry and start insulting you over it. (like you seem to do) get over yourself.  confused.gif

You clearly lack the ability to understand what I was trying to convey.

No I'm not saying that you're not entitled to have your opinion, I'm simply stating that you gave no proof whatsoever to support what you were saying. It'd be fine for you to voice your thoughts and views on the game if you'd actually bothered to think logically about not only what you were saying but what I myself have said to you.

A great example of this is the fact that Red Dead Redemption is technically a better game then Grand Theft Auto IV, not to say that you can't prefer Grand Theft Auto IV over Red Dead, but you gave no reason to support the claims that you were making so again I ask you to present proof that Grand Theft Auto IV is a better game then Red Dead.

Lastly I have to ask, what about the game's overrated exactly? I mean come on you can't say that Red Dead's an overrated game when in every respect it out does Grand Theft Auto IV, in case you're wondering what I mean by this I mean to say that every game mechanic from graphical fidelity, to the soundtrack (the first Rockstar open world game with a dynamic soundtrack in the background) to the game's vast array of activities and multiplayer modes.

There's simply no way anyone could argue that Grand Theft Auto IV is a better game then Red Dead Redemption, one again you can of course prefer IV but arguing that IV was a better game in general then Red Dead and then claiming that the game was overrated and ran off of its hype with no proof for any of those points is idiotic.

Chill the f*ck out. Not everybody likes the game as much as you do. Not everybody plays Red Dead with one hand down their f*cking pants. I love the game, but it wasn't perfect. Not by a long shot.

And stop hounding him for proof. It's an opinion, he doesn't need proof.
Back off and realise you are berating someone for having an opinion. About a video game. On the internet. And all throughout your fanboy bitch fit he's been calm and actually quite pleasant.

On the other hand, where does it lead in discussion if all somebody can say is: "I don't like X as much as I'm into Y". It doesn't bring anything revelant to the topic. Equally, he could just not write anything at all, because what's the point in making an opinion without stating reasonable causes?

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#8584

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:10 PM

QUOTE (Harley @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 13:27)

Chill the f*ck out. Not everybody likes the game as much as you do. Not everybody plays Red Dead with one hand down their f*cking pants. I love the game, but it wasn't perfect. Not by a long shot.

And stop hounding him for proof. It's an opinion, he doesn't need proof.
Back off and realise you are berating someone for having an opinion. About a video game. On the internet. And all throughout your fanboy bitch fit he's been calm and actually quite pleasant.

Ugh.

Right where do I start, firstly I never, ever argued that Red Dead was perfect. What I wanted was for him to tell me what these flaws that he apparently found in the game were, that was it. To say that I said Red Dead was perfect and has no discernible flaws is just as idiotic as arguing such a thing in the first place.

Secondly, I asked him for proof of why he believes that Red Dead Redemption is a technically worse game then Grand Theft Auto IV, when as we all know that's simply not the case. So if you're going to go ahead and insist that I'm displaying blatant fanboyism in favour of Red Dead you've clearly not bothered to read the entire conversation.

Therefore, he does need proof as what he's said is extremely hypocritical. He says that no-one notices the flaws that Red Dead Redemption has, but fails to mention any of them, then though he proceeds to say that everyone seems to pick on Grand Theft Auto IV for its flaws yet it's a much, much better game.

The fact is that if he personally prefers Grand Theft Auto IV over Red Dead Redemption I've no issue with that, but arguing that the game was over hyped and nowhere near as good as Grand Theft Auto IV technically without providing a bit of proof as to how Red Dead Redemption is a technically inferior game? That's deserving of a response.

Oh and if you think that I've been bitchy you do realise that he went into an entirely separate section of the forums to go to a thread and then insult both my appearance and stroke his own ego saying that he's quite possibly the best looking member on the forums. I'm sorry but he's acted rather childishly throughout this entire thing and you getting involved and moaning at me for the way I've talked to him isn't really helping.

Lazyboy.
  • Lazyboy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#8585

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:24 PM

Lightning Strike. Is Red Dead technically better than GTA4 in its driving mechanics, aircraft, rocket launchers, weapon variety, ability to swim, multiplayer possibilites and clothing choice?

No.


RDR is good, just not amazing.

Cosmic Gypsy
  • Cosmic Gypsy

    It's time for a trip

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#8586

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:28 PM

QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 14:24)
Lightning Strike. Is Red Dead technically better than GTA4 in its driving mechanics, aircraft, rocket launchers, weapon variety, ability to swim, multiplayer possibilites and clothing choice?

No.


RDR is good, just not amazing.

Technically no, but then again RDR doesn't have any of that stuff apart from weapons. and what with RDR being a cow boy western, can't really compare GTA's weapons to RDR's.... RDR is superior in terms of multiplayer compared to IV though, very much so.

Lazyboy.
  • Lazyboy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#8587

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:36 PM

QUOTE (Cosmic Gypsy @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 14:28)
QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 14:24)
Lightning Strike. Is Red Dead technically better than GTA4 in its driving mechanics, aircraft, rocket launchers, weapon variety, ability to swim, multiplayer possibilites and clothing choice?

No.


RDR is good, just not amazing.

Technically no, but then again RDR doesn't have any of that stuff apart from weapons. and what with RDR being a cow boy western, can't really compare GTA's weapons to RDR's.... RDR is superior in terms of multiplayer compared to IV though, very much so.

RDR is limited in MP. No cars, no boats, no large urban areas, no aircraft, all you have are guns and horses with a few minigames.

No racing which is a huge setback.

Billy james
  • Billy james

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2011
  • Australia

#8588

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:39 PM

QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 01:36)
QUOTE (Cosmic Gypsy @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 14:28)
QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 14:24)
Lightning Strike. Is Red Dead technically better than GTA4 in its driving mechanics, aircraft, rocket launchers, weapon variety, ability to swim, multiplayer possibilites and clothing choice?

No.


RDR is good, just not amazing.

Technically no, but then again RDR doesn't have any of that stuff apart from weapons. and what with RDR being a cow boy western, can't really compare GTA's weapons to RDR's.... RDR is superior in terms of multiplayer compared to IV though, very much so.

RDR is limited in MP. No cars, no boats, no large urban areas, no aircraft, all you have are guns and horses with a few minigames.

No racing which is a huge setback.

Are you seriously complaining that this not having cars, boats, plane, etc... It's a game set in the 1900s why the f*ck would it have them

Zancudo
  • Zancudo

    Soldier

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • Poland

#8589

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:41 PM Edited by Zancudo, 11 May 2013 - 02:44 PM.

QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 14:24)
Lightning Strike. Is Red Dead technically better than GTA4 in its driving mechanics, aircraft, rocket launchers, weapon variety, ability to swim, multiplayer possibilites and clothing choice?

No.


RDR is good, just not amazing.

Again, you. Please understand, really now, that Red Dead Redemption is set in the first decade of 20th century and we can't possibly compare it to Grand Theft Auto series by taking in account such things as cars, water or rocket launchers. Red Dead don't have those so you can't unequivocally says which one is better. You can only say which one gives you more fun, but again - it is only you and your personal feeling. None of those games are better than the other, in general. They're completely different from each other. They're set in absolutely different settings, preseting various different themes. Understand that, man. Perhaps modern eras are more appealing to you, but it's only your opinion, it doesn't make a general fact! For some other people, RDR might be more 'attractive' than any GTA to date. Got it? And please don't compare it technically in such things as water. RDR may don't have it, but it's still more advanced in terms of graphics, animations and physics than GTA. And that's a fact here.

Hodgey.
  • Hodgey.

    GTA III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS, IV, TLAD, TBoGT and V all 100%

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2008
  • England
  • Best Avatar 2012
    Winner of Euro 2012 Prediction League

#8590

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:42 PM

QUOTE (billy james @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 15:39)
QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 01:36)
QUOTE (Cosmic Gypsy @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 14:28)
QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 14:24)
Lightning Strike. Is Red Dead technically better than GTA4 in its driving mechanics, aircraft, rocket launchers, weapon variety, ability to swim, multiplayer possibilites and clothing choice?

No.


RDR is good, just not amazing.

Technically no, but then again RDR doesn't have any of that stuff apart from weapons. and what with RDR being a cow boy western, can't really compare GTA's weapons to RDR's.... RDR is superior in terms of multiplayer compared to IV though, very much so.

RDR is limited in MP. No cars, no boats, no large urban areas, no aircraft, all you have are guns and horses with a few minigames.

No racing which is a huge setback.

Are you seriously complaining that this not having cars, boats, plane, etc... It's a game set in the 1900s why the f*ck would it have them

Hes not saying that they should have put cars and boats etc in MP. Hes saying because of the lack of those things MP isnt as much fun as say a Grand Theft Auto is or Far Cry 3 MP etc is.
I agree with him as RDR MP is very limited due to to time the game was set.

Lazyboy.
  • Lazyboy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#8591

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:45 PM

So because it's set in 1900s it is devoid of all criticism and that it cannot be compared to GTA which instantly makes it better?

Zancudo
  • Zancudo

    Soldier

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • Poland

#8592

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:46 PM Edited by Zancudo, 11 May 2013 - 02:49 PM.

I'm lost here. Do we have a total retard here or someone's 'trolling' my ass?

Let me ask - if you were a reviewer, would you give Skyrim a 1/10 for it not having cars, rocket launchers and multiplayer mode? Because I think that is the way you look at things.

Billy james
  • Billy james

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2011
  • Australia

#8593

Posted 11 May 2013 - 02:55 PM Edited by billy james, 11 May 2013 - 02:58 PM.

This whole argument makes no sence, lazyboys logic is confusing, if a game don't have a drivable Cars or an RPG in its weapon slot then the game an automatic fail, What???

Hodgey.
  • Hodgey.

    GTA III, VC, SA, LCS, VCS, IV, TLAD, TBoGT and V all 100%

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2008
  • England
  • Best Avatar 2012
    Winner of Euro 2012 Prediction League

#8594

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:00 PM

I kinda get what Lazyboy is trying to say here (I think biggrin.gif ) however you cant always compare games against each other when they arent the same type of game.

For example as you are trying to compare RDR with GTA you can compare in certain aspects of the game like Graphics, Storyline, Sidemissions, Characters, Shooting Mechanics, DLC content etc against each other. However what you cant compare two games like GTA and RDR when its topics about vehicles you can drive (or ride), types of weapons (you can compare how the weapon aiming system works against both games) but not the weapons itself, as they are set in different time frames and you have to stick with what was avaliable back then. If i played RDR and saw John Marston running around with a rocket launcher before he jumped in a helicopter before he parachuted onto a boat i would of been f*cking pissed as that is not what you want or expect for a game with the time period that its set in.

Thats why i dont think you can really compare games like for like unless it is in the same series, you could compare AC II against AC Brotherhood or GTA : VC against GTA : IV, but you cant compare a GTA : VC aginst a game like Dark Souls its not going to work.

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#8595

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:17 PM

QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 14:24)
Lightning Strike. Is Red Dead technically better than GTA4 in its driving mechanics, aircraft, rocket launchers, weapon variety, ability to swim, multiplayer possibilites and clothing choice?

No.


RDR is good, just not amazing.

You use the different features from each game to build an argument? That's foolish, everything in Red Dead is superior to what it was in Grand Theft Auto IV from the physics, to the graphical fidelity of the game to of course the introduction of a fully functioning and thriving ecosystem in the game.

Regardless of what you come up with feature-wise from Grand Theft Auto IV, there's no debating that it is the technically inferior game.

Joe Chip
  • Joe Chip

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jun 2010
  • Palau

#8596

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:25 PM

QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 10:45)
So because it's set in 1900s it is devoid of all criticism and that it cannot be compared to GTA which instantly makes it better?

No, he's giving you reasons why the game doesn't have most of those things you mentioned.

It's like criticizing a pencil sharpener for not being able to staple your papers. They're meant to serve two different purposes.

Lazyboy.
  • Lazyboy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#8597

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:38 PM

QUOTE (zoo3891 @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 15:25)
QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 10:45)
So because it's set in 1900s it is devoid of all criticism and that it cannot be compared to GTA which instantly makes it better?

No, he's giving you reasons why the game doesn't have most of those things you mentioned.

It's like criticizing a pencil sharpener for not being able to staple your papers. They're meant to serve two different purposes.

So the pencil sharpner is much more important than say, a computer, because it can sharpen pencils and the computer can't?

Billy james
  • Billy james

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2011
  • Australia

#8598

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:45 PM

QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Sunday, May 12 2013, 02:38)
QUOTE (zoo3891 @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 15:25)
QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 10:45)
So because it's set in 1900s it is devoid of all criticism and that it cannot be compared to GTA which instantly makes it better?

No, he's giving you reasons why the game doesn't have most of those things you mentioned.

It's like criticizing a pencil sharpener for not being able to staple your papers. They're meant to serve two different purposes.

So the pencil sharpner is much more important than say, a computer, because it can sharpen pencils and the computer can't?

facedesk.gif facedesk.gif facedesk.gif

Cosmic Gypsy
  • Cosmic Gypsy

    It's time for a trip

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#8599

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:51 PM Edited by Cosmic Gypsy, 11 May 2013 - 04:09 PM.

QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 14:36)
QUOTE (Cosmic Gypsy @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 14:28)
QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 14:24)
Lightning Strike. Is Red Dead technically better than GTA4 in its driving mechanics, aircraft, rocket launchers, weapon variety, ability to swim, multiplayer possibilites and clothing choice?

No.


RDR is good, just not amazing.

Technically no, but then again RDR doesn't have any of that stuff apart from weapons. and what with RDR being a cow boy western, can't really compare GTA's weapons to RDR's.... RDR is superior in terms of multiplayer compared to IV though, very much so.

RDR is limited in MP. No cars, no boats, no large urban areas, no aircraft, all you have are guns and horses with a few minigames.

No racing which is a huge setback.

In what way is RDR limited online?

I'll give you the short answer, it's not, in fact it's far more in depth than GTA IV for example. With far more available activities and options.

Just because a game replaced cars with horses and doesn't have any air craft and boats doesn't make the game limited, seriously, wtf? Oh yeah, and GTA IV has no country side just like RDR has no heavily built up urban areas, your argument makes no sense, since you can do everything in RDR's country side you can do in GTA's urban city, and more.

Pretty sure RDR has horse racing also.

Does GTA online have Land Grab in free roam? No.
Does it have Gang Hideouts? No.
Does it have Public Enemy? No.
Does it have crews/posse? No.
Does it have half the game modes RDR has? No.
Does it have Team Deathmatch, etc etc? Yes, as does RDR.
GTA online is extremely limited, fact is RDR has everything GTA has and quite a bit more. Not only that but GTA online (PS3) runs like a piece of sh*t to the point where some game modes don't even work, cops and robbers for example. It lags and is foolishly segregated between 3 games. (IV, TLATD & TBOGT) making it very hard to find a populated game. Where as RDR runs fine and isn't segregated in anyway.

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#8600

Posted 11 May 2013 - 03:51 PM

QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 15:38)

So the pencil sharpner is much more important than say, a computer, because it can sharpen pencils and the computer can't?

No you're not quite understanding the point of the analogy.

What he means is you've only said that Red Dead is lacking things that simply wouldn't work in the game's setting, you're criticising it for something that simply shouldn't be in the game in the first place.

Red Dead is as a much more technologically advanced game then Grand Theft Auto IV, it can render further distances, has vastly superior graphics and even has an awesome weather system that works entirely dynamically. Grand Theft Auto IV's great, but it was a base that they built Red Dead Redemption off of, comparing the two is like comparing a child to an adult in terms of who's stronger, faster and quicker.

Lazyboy.
  • Lazyboy.

    could you PLEASE stop using that f*cking blue font?!

  • Members
  • Joined: 27 Jun 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#8601

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:12 PM

It can render further distances because it doesn't have to render buildings, car models and many pedestrians.

If I made a game that contained really really really amazing super realistic toenail physics, does that mean it's good?

Can I not criticise it and call it bad because it has less explosions than say, GTA?

RDR is good, but I can criticise it for not having something, no matter what reason you give. Hodgey explained my point perfectly.

Cosmic Gypsy
  • Cosmic Gypsy

    It's time for a trip

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2011
  • United-Kingdom

#8602

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:13 PM

QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 16:12)
It can render further distances because it doesn't have to render buildings, car models and many pedestrians.

If I made a game that contained really really really amazing super realistic toenail physics, does that mean it's good?

Can I not criticise it and call it bad because it has less explosions than say, GTA?

RDR is good, but  I can criticise it for not having something, no matter what reason you give. Hodgey explained my point perfectly.

You are free to criticize the game, just do it in a way that makes sense.

Falsely claiming that RDR is limited online compared to GTA IV isn't the correct way to go about it.

GtaIIIFanBoy
  • GtaIIIFanBoy

    Rat

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2013

#8603

Posted 11 May 2013 - 04:40 PM Edited by GtaIIIFanBoy, 11 May 2013 - 04:48 PM.

QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 11:29)
QUOTE (GtaIIIFanBoy @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 02:42)
relax man lol little be sensitive to other people opinions are we?   dozingoff.gif   i was just saying my opinion people do tend to overate IMO get over it  lol.gif and i said i still thought it was a great game so...... and i just type for quickness not to impress people with my grammar. as long as you can understand me its all good.  smile.gif and Yes i do think Gta iv is a far better game but again that's just me neither was it my point. and i also disagree with San Andreas being a lower caliber game but that's your opinion so im gonna respect that and  not  get all angry and start insulting you over it. (like you seem to do) get over yourself.  confused.gif

You clearly lack the ability to understand what I was trying to convey.

No I'm not saying that you're not entitled to have your opinion, I'm simply stating that you gave no proof whatsoever to support what you were saying. It'd be fine for you to voice your thoughts and views on the game if you'd actually bothered to think logically about not only what you were saying but what I myself have said to you.

A great example of this is the fact that Red Dead Redemption is technically a better game then Grand Theft Auto IV, not to say that you can't prefer Grand Theft Auto IV over Red Dead, but you gave no reason to support the claims that you were making so again I ask you to present proof that Grand Theft Auto IV is a better game then Red Dead.

Lastly I have to ask, what about the game's overrated exactly? I mean come on you can't say that Red Dead's an overrated game when in every respect it out does Grand Theft Auto IV, in case you're wondering what I mean by this I mean to say that every game mechanic from graphical fidelity, to the soundtrack (the first Rockstar open world game with a dynamic soundtrack in the background) to the game's vast array of activities and multiplayer modes.

There's simply no way anyone could argue that Grand Theft Auto IV is a better game then Red Dead Redemption, one again you can of course prefer IV but arguing that IV was a better game in general then Red Dead and then claiming that the game was overrated and ran off of its hype with no proof for any of those points is idiotic.

it all comes down to preference its as simple as that i enjoyed gta iv alot more than did red dead redemption the storyline in Iv was IMO Far and beyond Superior Liberty City is a much better location and it has much more replay value. and i just thought red dead was not a perfect 10/10 game that so many of its fanboys try to claim it to be. you need to grow up and understand that not everyone will agree with your opinion. and you need to get your facts straight bully (released in 2006) was the first open world rockstar game to have a soundtrack in the background.

Harley
  • Harley

    Cyclop 9

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 18 Jul 2003
  • None

#8604

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:03 PM

QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 15:10)
Ugh.

Right where do I start, firstly I never, ever argued that Red Dead was perfect. What I wanted was for him to tell me what these flaws that he apparently found in the game were, that was it. To say that I said Red Dead was perfect and has no discernible flaws is just as idiotic as arguing such a thing in the first place.

Secondly, I asked him for proof of why he believes that Red Dead Redemption is a technically worse game then Grand Theft Auto IV, when as we all know that's simply not the case. So if you're going to go ahead and insist that I'm displaying blatant fanboyism in favour of Red Dead you've clearly not bothered to read the entire conversation.

Therefore, he does need proof as what he's said is extremely hypocritical. He says that no-one notices the flaws that Red Dead Redemption has, but fails to mention any of them, then though he proceeds to say that everyone seems to pick on Grand Theft Auto IV for its flaws yet it's a much, much better game.

The fact is that if he personally prefers Grand Theft Auto IV over Red Dead Redemption I've no issue with that, but arguing that the game was over hyped and nowhere near as good as Grand Theft Auto IV technically without providing a bit of proof as to how Red Dead Redemption is a technically inferior game? That's deserving of a response.

Oh and if you think that I've been bitchy you do realise that he went into an entirely separate section of the forums to go to a thread and then insult both my appearance and stroke his own ego saying that he's quite possibly the best looking member on the forums. I'm sorry but he's acted rather childishly throughout this entire thing and you getting involved and moaning at me for the way I've talked to him isn't really helping.

I never said that you said it was perfect. But the way you were bumming it like it was the only thing in the world that matters, I felt like I needed to let you know. Although if you knew it wasn't perfect, then why did he need to list everything wrong with it? He didn't post to point out the flaws, he was only saying the hype makes people blind to them. Then you snapped around "FLAWS?! WHAT FLAWS?! WHO SAID THAT? YOU THERE BOY! TELL ME THESE FLAWS NOW".


QUOTE
Firstly you say that the game runs entirely off of its own hype and that's simply not the case, the game runs off of its own awesomeness and that's pretty much the only reason people flocked to the stores in hoards to buy the game

I thought you were big on proof? Where's your proof? It's okay we'll drop it, probably an accident.

QUOTE
You call Grand Theft Auto IV a fantastic game that people "bash" for its flaws, yet the fact remains Grand Theft Auto IV has a large number of flaws, flaws that were addressed in Red Dead Redemption and from where I'm standing it almost seems like you're arguing that Grand Theft Auto IV is the better game (technically of course) out of the two when it's simply not the case.

Whoops, looks like you fell into the apparently unforgivable hole of mentioning flaws but not listing them.

QUOTE
regardless of what you think drove Red Dead Redemption to be popular I can tell you for a fact that it wasn't false hype that made the game out to be something more then it was/is.

Woahhhhh this is freaky, there isn't any proof here either...? Surely you just forgot again.

QUOTE
Oh and please, please try to structure your posts so that in future people of English decent can actually understand the point that you're trying to convey.

You mean descent? Or maybe even decency? No wonder you were having trouble understanding him.

QUOTE
try harder next time before attempt to criticise a game of this scale and scope.

Attempting...? I don't like being that guy, it's just that you're doing a sloppy job of correcting someone.

QUOTE
A great example of this is the fact that Red Dead Redemption is technically a better game then Grand Theft Auto IV, not to say that you can't prefer Grand Theft Auto IV over Red Dead, but you gave no reason to support the claims that you were making so again I ask you to present proof that Grand Theft Auto IV is a better game then Red Dead.

But... where is your proof that Red Dead is technically better? I thought you were leading somewhere with this -
QUOTE
in every respect it out does Grand Theft Auto IV, in case you're wondering what I mean by this I mean to say that every game mechanic from graphical fidelity, to the soundtrack (the first Rockstar open world game with a dynamic soundtrack in the background) to the game's vast array of activities and multiplayer modes.

But alas, I was misled. Just a load of hot air. You haven't explained or proven anything. I was going to give you the whole 'first Rockstar open world game with a dynamic soundtrack' bit, but as someone else pointed out Bully already done it. And I prefer the radio anyway.

You say Red Dead is technically the better game. Technically. You said technically like seven times. Please indulge us with these technicalities if you are going to f*cking ramble on about them so much.


Obviously I didn't originally reply because you are a hypocritical little c*nt, I did it because you were berating somebody with your faux eloquence (which is transparent as f*ck, btw. Give it up.) when all they wanted to do was come in here and give a friendly opinion. Read his posts again, he was more than amicable.
Even in the member photos topic the worst he called you was butthurt. If that annoyed you then well... I guess he wasn't wrong.

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#8605

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:25 PM

QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 16:12)
It can render further distances because it doesn't have to render buildings, car models and many pedestrians.

If I made a game that contained really really really amazing super realistic toenail physics, does that mean it's good?

Can I not criticise it and call it bad because it has less explosions than say, GTA?

RDR is good, but  I can criticise it for not having something, no matter what reason you give. Hodgey explained my point perfectly.

Lazy you and I both know that those are silly and pathetic reasons for denying Red Dead Redemption's technical superiority over Grand Theft Auto IV.

You cannot make the argument that just because the game didn't have rocket launchers or automobiles it was a technically inferior game. The fact remains that Red Dead was set in 1911 and not in 2008, therefore Rockstar have to be somewhat realistic when it comes to developing features for said game.

I can tell you for a fact that I'd have stopped playing Red Dead the moment I was given an RPG or a Bugatti Veyron, y'know want to know why? Because then the game would have ceased to be a Western game and would have instead been turned into some horrid, mutant hybrid of a game that didn't know what it wanted to be, a la Saints Row The Third.

The point that I originally made stands, the game at least in a technical sense is far, far superior to Grand Theft Auto IV. To argue that it isn't is almost as foolish as declaring that Bully was more technically impressive game then Grand Theft Auto IV, there's simply no way you can easily compare the two and considering that one was made after Rockstar had vastly upgraded their engine you can't really debate this as it's a fact, therefore there's no debate to be had here.

Lastly, no-one's said that you can't criticise the game for not having something, of course you can. The issue is that no-one then needs to take your criticisms seriously, Red Dead Redemption not having the amount of explosions that Grand Theft Auto IV had is a pathetic piece of criticism. You can surely do better then that can't you?

Master of San Andreas
  • Master of San Andreas

    Leaving with a big bang, you guys rock.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2012

#8606

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:38 PM Edited by Master of San Andreas, 11 May 2013 - 05:52 PM.

QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 22:55)
QUOTE (LazyboyEight @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 16:12)
It can render further distances because it doesn't have to render buildings, car models and many pedestrians.

If I made a game that contained really really really amazing super realistic toenail physics, does that mean it's good?

Can I not criticise it and call it bad because it has less explosions than say, GTA?

RDR is good, but  I can criticise it for not having something, no matter what reason you give. Hodgey explained my point perfectly.

Lazy you and I both know that those are silly and pathetic reasons for denying Red Dead Redemption's technical superiority over Grand Theft Auto IV.

You cannot make the argument that just because the game didn't have rocket launchers or automobiles it was a technically inferior game. The fact remains that Red Dead was set in 1911 and not in 2008, therefore Rockstar have to be somewhat realistic when it comes to developing features for said game.

I can tell you for a fact that I'd have stopped playing Red Dead the moment I was given an RPG or a Bugatti Veyron, y'know want to know why? Because then the game would have ceased to be a Western game and would have instead been turned into some horrid, mutant hybrid of a game that didn't know what it wanted to be, a la Saints Row The Third.

The point that I originally made stands, the game at least in a technical sense is far, far superior to Grand Theft Auto IV. To argue that it isn't is almost as foolish as declaring that Bully was more technically impressive game then Grand Theft Auto IV, there's simply no way you can easily compare the two and considering that one was made after Rockstar had vastly upgraded their engine you can't really debate this as it's a fact, therefore there's no debate to be had here.

Lastly, no-one's said that you can't criticise the game for not having something, of course you can. The issue is that no-one then needs to take your criticisms seriously, Red Dead Redemption not having the amount of explosions that Grand Theft Auto IV had is a pathetic piece of criticism. You can surely do better then that can't you?

You said in the previous page that RDR outdoes GTA IV in every department. can you please explain that?

Zancudo
  • Zancudo

    Soldier

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2012
  • Poland

#8607

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:43 PM

This became smelly. Either stop this pointless arguing or it's probably never gonna end. Decide now.

Secura
  • Secura

    Fallen and Reborn

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 04 Dec 2010
  • United-Kingdom
  • Discussion Award [Gaming]
    Literary Prowess [General Chat]

#8608

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:50 PM

QUOTE (Master of San Andreas @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 17:38)

You said in the previous page that RDR outdoes GTA IV in every department. can you please explain that?

Yes, the game is a refinement of everything Rockstar achieved with Grand Theft Auto IV.

The reason for this is that the game was made with an upgraded RAGE engine, far superior to its base counterpart that ran Grand Theft Auto IV.

Therefore in terms of gameplay, graphics, physics, size and just pure content Red Dead Redemption does indeed out do Grand Theft Auto IV, there's simply no debating that.

Master of San Andreas
  • Master of San Andreas

    Leaving with a big bang, you guys rock.

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2012

#8609

Posted 11 May 2013 - 05:53 PM

QUOTE (Lightning Strike @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 23:20)
QUOTE (Master of San Andreas @ Saturday, May 11 2013, 17:38)

You said in the previous page that RDR outdoes GTA IV in every department. can you please explain that?

Yes, the game is a refinement of everything Rockstar achieved with Grand Theft Auto IV.

The reason for this is that the game was made with an upgraded RAGE engine, far superior to its base counterpart that ran Grand Theft Auto IV.

Therefore in terms of gameplay, graphics, physics, size and just pure content Red Dead Redemption does indeed out do Grand Theft Auto IV, there's simply no debating that.

OK you got a point there, Expect GTA III fanboy to bash you up. tounge.gif

Let's put an end to the discussion here, I guess.

TensaZangetsu
  • TensaZangetsu

    Kawaii-desu!

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Sep 2011
  • United-States

#8610

Posted 11 May 2013 - 06:22 PM

I bought the original game, I'm playing around on my old completed file, should I start the entire game from the beginning again? What do you guys think?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users