Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

GTA V vs Red Dead Redemption

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
214 replies to this topic

Poll: Which game has a better world (map) design (188 member(s) have cast votes)

Which game has a better world (map) design

  1. Red Dead Redemption (107 votes [56.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 56.91%

  2. Grand Theft Auto V (81 votes [43.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.09%

Vote
Emmi
  • Emmi

    Li'l G Loc

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2012

#151

Posted 02 April 2014 - 05:44 PM

RDR's wilderness is fantastic! In my opinion way more immersive than GTA V's. But overall GTA V's world wins.

Of course RDR's wilderness is better, no doubt about that - however in GTA V the wilderness isn't supposed to play much of a role when it comes to animals and hunting, it's just a little extra they added but I wouldn't really complain if it wasn't there after all. The dogs make this game a little better and definitely should be included in every future GTA. For me GTAV's world wins too.


Zodape
  • Zodape

    CABINETS

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013
  • Argentina

#152

Posted 02 April 2014 - 06:12 PM

 
Anyway, the comparison is stupid. Two completely different maps, 2 completely different objectives for it.

If that's the case every map comparison (regardless of what) is stupid since every map is different with a different objective in mind.

Yes and no. If the question is "Which is the better map?" then you can't really compare any map. They were all created with different mindsets and different objectives. I think VC's map is sh*t and I like III's more. I don't think the latter is superior to the first. I'm simply not a fan of small maps with '80s settings.

If you talk about vibe and details, then I think a comparision is understandable, but still keep in mind that they had different objectives.

RDR had a nice countryside because it was nothing but that, with small cities in the middle. V had a not so good countryside but that's because they wanted to implement a huge city with it. There is a balance. V has more detail in certain aspects and RDR has more details in others.

Now about the other aspects you mentioned, and this is more of a personal opinion:

-Tall Trees was nice but not epic. It was okay. I liked the forest in SA more. It was really creepy at night. Shame bears weren't implemented back in '04 :p

-I never felt Armadillo quite alive. Just like in V, you see the same peds doing the same thing all the time. The walton gang guys sitting in the same table, the guy playing the piano in the same spot, the girl being attacked by a drunk guy over there, the religious guy in the same spot doing the same thing. Just like in V.

Jimbatron
  • Jimbatron

    Gangsta

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2009
  • United-Kingdom

#153

Posted 02 April 2014 - 07:24 PM

Both games were simply excellent in my view. If ever there was an apples versus oranges debate though, this is it. Whilst there is similarity in the game play mechanics to a degree, the overriding fact is one is a Western, and one is a modern day crime drama. Which setting do you prefer?


InfernoV
  • InfernoV

    Dont you just hate keyboard warriors!

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#154

Posted 02 April 2014 - 07:42 PM

Both games were simply excellent in my view. If ever there was an apples versus oranges debate though, this is it. Whilst there is similarity in the game play mechanics to a degree, the overriding fact is one is a Western, and one is a modern day crime drama. Which setting do you prefer?


Three words

THE DOLLARS TRILOGY

^Ill add 6 more words to that

THE GOOD THE BAD THE UGLY

Ill add another 6 words to that^

THE GREATEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME

Fan GTA III
  • Fan GTA III

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Feb 2011

#155

Posted 02 April 2014 - 08:53 PM Edited by Fan GTA III, 02 April 2014 - 08:56 PM.

 

 

 
Anyway, the comparison is stupid. Two completely different maps, 2 completely different objectives for it.

If that's the case every map comparison (regardless of what) is stupid since every map is different with a different objective in mind.



-Tall Trees was nice but not epic. It was okay. I liked the forest in SA more.It was really creepy at night. Shame bears weren't implemented back in '04 :p

 

 

 

You must be joking there. SA's woods are horrible hands down ! Everyone knows that. Also, you compere the forest of a 2004 PS2 game with a 2010 ps3 game that  is ALL about woods and wildlife?

 

This is like I'm saying that Fiat panda is better than Bugatti veyron.


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#156

Posted 02 April 2014 - 08:57 PM

 

 

 
Anyway, the comparison is stupid. Two completely different maps, 2 completely different objectives for it.

If that's the case every map comparison (regardless of what) is stupid since every map is different with a different objective in mind.

Yes and no. If the question is "Which is the better map?" then you can't really compare any map. They were all created with different mindsets and different objectives. I think VC's map is sh*t and I like III's more. I don't think the latter is superior to the first. I'm simply not a fan of small maps with '80s settings.

If you talk about vibe and details, then I think a comparision is understandable, but still keep in mind that they had different objectives.

RDR had a nice countryside because it was nothing but that, with small cities in the middle. V had a not so good countryside but that's because they wanted to implement a huge city with it. There is a balance. V has more detail in certain aspects and RDR has more details in others.

Now about the other aspects you mentioned, and this is more of a personal opinion:

-Tall Trees was nice but not epic. It was okay. I liked the forest in SA more. It was really creepy at night. Shame bears weren't implemented back in '04 :p

-I never felt Armadillo quite alive. Just like in V, you see the same peds doing the same thing all the time. The walton gang guys sitting in the same table, the guy playing the piano in the same spot, the girl being attacked by a drunk guy over there, the religious guy in the same spot doing the same thing. Just like in V.

 

I was gonna respond to him, but you summed it up nicely :^:

 

I hope you don't mind me jacking this comment lol.

  • Zodape likes this

RolfStarGames
  • RolfStarGames

    Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Aug 2013
  • European-Union

#157

Posted 02 April 2014 - 09:37 PM Edited by RolfStarGames, 02 April 2014 - 09:38 PM.

If it weren't about the animals, it would be pretty boring riding through all this, wouldn't it???

 

 

Overall I think you can't really compare RDR to GTAV or vice-versa as it's two completely different games with different approaches, that's basically it.

 

 

We are not comparing games, we are comparing map design.  Obviously RDR is  more detailed and organic.


GTA564
  • GTA564

    gta>

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Mar 2013
  • None

#158

Posted 02 April 2014 - 09:38 PM

This discussion could be much more interesting
If we make a detailed comparison about the two games's world design

Zodape
  • Zodape

    CABINETS

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 20 Jun 2013
  • Argentina

#159

Posted 02 April 2014 - 09:46 PM


 

 

 
Anyway, the comparison is stupid. Two completely different maps, 2 completely different objectives for it.

If that's the case every map comparison (regardless of what) is stupid since every map is different with a different objective in mind.


-Tall Trees was nice but not epic. It was okay. I liked the forest in SA more.It was really creepy at night. Shame bears weren't implemented back in '04 :p
 
 
 
You must be joking there. SA's woods are horrible hands down ! Everyone knows that. Also, you compere the forest of a 2004 PS2 game with a 2010 ps3 game that  is ALL about woods and wildlife?
 
This is like I'm saying that Fiat panda is better than Bugatti veyron.

I never said it was better. Hell, I said that it was my opinion. I simply like SA's forest more than Tall Trees. That doesn't mean that I think that it's technically superior or something.

I was gonna highlight that part, but you did it yourself. Stop doing drugs, man.

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#160

Posted 02 April 2014 - 09:50 PM Edited by Official General, 03 April 2014 - 05:52 PM.

To try and put it simply, RDR just did a much better job of achieving its objectives than GTA V ever did. RDR was a near-perfect, if not perfect game based on Western-themed action, it more or less did everything it was supposed to do so brilliantly, even more - it surpassed it's own expectations. This is main the reason why many Rockstar fans believe RDR was their best game of the last console generation.

 

GTA V just did not hugely impress enough to capture the hearts and minds of many Rockstar fans. Because of one too many flaws regarding the story, gameplay and the persistent omission of great features from previous GTAs, and having a massive weight of great expectations on it's shoulders, V in end was a letdown for many, and this is understandable. The letdown was quite significant enough to ensure that V will never be highly regarded in the same vein as RDR.

 

Haters can keep bringing up stuff about V having a bigger map, having a city, 3 protags, being in modern times, bla bla bla, I just think it's all in vain. Straight up, RDR was Rockstar's best game in the last console generation. 

  • AnDReJ98, Cutter De Blanc, coach_wargo and 5 others like this

Jvaz615
  • Jvaz615

    Homeboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2014
  • United-States

#161

Posted 03 April 2014 - 04:06 AM

To try and put it simply, RDR just did a much better job of achieving its objectives than GTA V ever did. RDR was a near-perfect, if not perfect game based on Western-themed action, it more or less did everything it was supposed to do so brilliantly, even more - it surpassed it's own expectations. This is main the reason why many Rockstar fans believe RDR was their best game of the last console generation.
 
GTA V just did not hugely impress enough to capture the hearts and minds of many Rockstar fans. Because of one too many flaws regarding the story, gameplay and features, and having a massive weight of great expectations on it's shoulders, V in end was a letdown for many, and this is understandable. The letdown was quite significant enough to ensure that V will never be highly regarded in the same vein as RDR.
 
Haters can keep bringing up stuff about V having a bigger map, having a city, 3 protags, being in modern times, bla bla bla, I just think it's all in vain. Straight up, RDR was Rockstar's best game in the last console generation. 


RDR was their masterpiece of the last generation. V feels like 2 steps backwards to me
  • Official General likes this

godforgivesthelostdont
  • godforgivesthelostdont

    Prankster

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jun 2013

#162

Posted 03 April 2014 - 06:00 AM

I know GTA V has a ton of flaws, but Red Dead just wasn't a well-designed game conceptually.

 

The overworld in Red Dead was basically divided into towns (story-driven cutscenes) and wildnerness (core gameplay).  And that's a metaphor for the entire game's problems.


EOL_92
  • EOL_92

    Finesser

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Mar 2014
  • United-Kingdom

#163

Posted 03 April 2014 - 09:30 AM

 

RDR's wilderness is fantastic! In my opinion way more immersive than GTA V's. But overall GTA V's world wins.

Of course RDR's wilderness is better, no doubt about that - however in GTA V the wilderness isn't supposed to play much of a role when it comes to animals and hunting, it's just a little extra they added but I wouldn't really complain if it wasn't there after all. The dogs make this game a little better and definitely should be included in every future GTA. For me GTAV's world wins too.

 

 

GTA V's wilderness a 'little extra'? It took up the majority of the map and is was near lifeless and with alot of it just mountains which served little purpose. If GTA 5 was just Los Santos alone it would be one of the smallest gta's in the last decade so they clearly wanted the wilderness to play a big part in creating an immersive world and sadly they didn't achieve that like rdr did.

  • Cutter De Blanc likes this

Niko Valentine
  • Niko Valentine

    Passion in acting with Hasselhoff Fever.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2014
  • None

#164

Posted 03 April 2014 - 01:52 PM

Red Dead Redemption and Grand Theft Auto V are amazing in different ways.

 

Red Dead for the story and characters. The story is full of emotion and the characters are told very well.

 

On the other hand, GTA V has beautiful scenery, handling and weaponry.


Tilemaxx
  • Tilemaxx

    POV City Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • None

#165

Posted 03 April 2014 - 01:59 PM

RDR's wilderness is fantastic! In my opinion way more immersive than GTA V's. But overall GTA V's world wins.

 

GTA V wasn't designed with wilderness in mind. GTA is all about the urban enviroment.


InfernoV
  • InfernoV

    Dont you just hate keyboard warriors!

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 May 2012

#166

Posted 03 April 2014 - 02:09 PM

 
On the other hand, GTA V has beautiful scenery, handling and weaponry.


1) Red dead has more beautiful scenery
2) Handling? What???
3) Weaponry? What did u expect? A granade laucher or sticky bombs in red dead?

I actually prefer red dead guns because in online it takes more skill to kill othrr players with it. In gta v any noob can use a powerfull weapon to auto aim and destroy!
  • dtsmucker and EOL_92 like this

Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#167

Posted 03 April 2014 - 05:41 PM

 

RDR's wilderness is fantastic! In my opinion way more immersive than GTA V's. But overall GTA V's world wins.

 

GTA V wasn't designed with wilderness in mind. GTA is all about the urban enviroment.

 

 

Well GTA V still implemented wildlife and wilderness, so the game still has to be judged on how well it did that. In my view and many others, it was a very weak effort. It was nothing compared to RDR's, not even half as good. And to think RDR is a good 4 years older than V is what makes this even more unacceptable. 

 

If Rockstar were not gonna do wildlife and wilderness properly, they just should not have bothered going into detail about it at all. They should have just stuck to making a huge, very detailed city with many interiors, or multiple cities with similar qualities too. 

  • dtsmucker and EOL_92 like this

Jvaz615
  • Jvaz615

    Homeboy

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Mar 2014
  • United-States

#168

Posted 03 April 2014 - 05:48 PM


 


RDR's wilderness is fantastic! In my opinion way more immersive than GTA V's. But overall GTA V's world wins.

 
GTA V wasn't designed with wilderness in mind. GTA is all about the urban enviroment.
 
 
Well GTA V still implemented wildlife and wilderness, so the game still has to be judged on how well it did that. In my view and many others, it was a very weak effort. It was nothing compared to RDR's, not even half as good. And to think RDR is a good 4 years older than V is what makes this even more unacceptable. 
 
If Rockstar were not gonna do wildlife and wilderness properly, they just should not have bothered going into detail about it at all. They should have just stuck to making a huge, very detailed city with many interiors, or multiple cities with similar qualities too. 

I wouldn't care about the wilderness in GTA V if Rockstar didn't make it a point to say "hey we have this awesome wildlife in V" when it's just not really impressive at all
  • Official General and coach_wargo like this

richard1997jones
  • richard1997jones

    Welsh Boy

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2012
  • United-Kingdom

#169

Posted 03 April 2014 - 06:48 PM

I was expecting a larger and better detailed San Andreas map with both San Fierro and Las Venturas on it. That would have made the map much better.


Toshio_maxoS
  • Toshio_maxoS

    Heisenberg's pal™

  • Members
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2012
  • Red-Cross

#170

Posted 03 April 2014 - 07:29 PM

It's hard... but... both storys are great, but because of the little better story of RDR (Not a story like reality TV)

I'm taking RDR.


Emmi
  • Emmi

    Li'l G Loc

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 09 Jun 2012

#171

Posted 03 April 2014 - 07:36 PM Edited by Emmi, 03 April 2014 - 08:14 PM.

Red Dead Redemption has everything and more, which makes it one of the greatest games of all time, including:

 

+ great physics (best version of RAGE so far)

+ great animations

+ great ragdoll

+ horses

+ great map (diversity, different regions, etc.)

+ lots of random & unexpected events which last for quite some time

+ worthwile and fun challenges (hunting, flowers, etc.)

+ great inventory system with quick access to bandana or campfire, etc.

+ very motivating because of a marvelous honor & fame system

+ lots of different animals

+ amazing story (one of the few that actually touched me & the first one to take an unexpected approach in the very last part when Marston gets back home)

+ cool and fun to play minigames, including gambling

+ appealing hunting system

+ rewards for lots of stuff you do

+ dead eye system

+ exploring

+ lots of different outfits, unlocking them adds another load of tricky but nice challenges

+ there's so much to do in this game, it literally never gets boring

+ great soundtrack with amazing songs (Far Away, Dead Man's Gun, etc.)

+ amazing graphics (better than GTAV)

+ runs smooth at any time (unlike GTAV, at least for me)

 

I could list lots more stuff which make RDR stand out for me, and yes, it's R* 's best game of this generation.

 

I'm starting to wonder if R* will ever again be able to make such a great game as it was/is RDR. (I'm confident they will though, no doubt about that.)

 

If you like RDR just as much as I do, make sure to RT this https://twitter.com/...814621733584896

  • coach_wargo, TirkaneX and Voggs like this

nomoris
  • nomoris

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2013
  • Brazil

#172

Posted 03 April 2014 - 08:02 PM

from afar, it looks like a rockstar san diego is more creative than a rockstar north

  • Official General, coach_wargo and Jvaz615 like this

redx165
  • redx165

    Making the GTA fanboys dance

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2012
  • None

#173

Posted 03 April 2014 - 08:18 PM

RDR is better than GTA V and that's just a fact of life. 

 

Anyone who disagrees is a fanboy. 


Geralt of Rivia
  • Geralt of Rivia

    Gwent Master

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Jul 2012
  • United-States
  • April Fools Winner 2015

#174

Posted 03 April 2014 - 11:21 PM Edited by TheMasterfocker, 03 April 2014 - 11:28 PM.

RDR is better than GTA V and that's just a fact of life. 

 

Anyone who disagrees is a fanboy. 

Is the fantasy world inside your head as magnificent as you make it out to be?


Official General
  • Official General

    I'm from Broker, LC, we always carry heat around here.

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Apr 2010
  • None

#175

Posted 03 April 2014 - 11:41 PM

from afar, it looks like a rockstar san diego is more creative than a rockstar north

 

Come to think of it, I reckon GTA V would have been better served by Rockstar San Diego. 

  • BlackNoise, nomoris and dtsmucker like this

im_stoned
  • im_stoned

    Hustler

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Jun 2013

#176

Posted 04 April 2014 - 12:08 AM Edited by im_stoned, 04 April 2014 - 12:12 AM.

RDR. It's the only game I can kidnap and drown women. I have a lake I take them out too. It's even more epic that it's possible to do the whole thing and not get a bounty on your head that was always my goal. I didn't wear a mask either that's for cowards

GTA v claims it has open world freedom but it doesn't you get wanted for breathing in that game yet it claimed it had the most open world freedom LOL playing tennis and golf ain't freedom. Being able to do what you want that's freedom

Tilemaxx
  • Tilemaxx

    POV City Hustler

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jun 2008
  • None

#177

Posted 04 April 2014 - 01:50 AM

 

 

RDR's wilderness is fantastic! In my opinion way more immersive than GTA V's. But overall GTA V's world wins.

 

GTA V wasn't designed with wilderness in mind. GTA is all about the urban enviroment.

 

 

Well GTA V still implemented wildlife and wilderness, so the game still has to be judged on how well it did that. In my view and many others, it was a very weak effort. It was nothing compared to RDR's, not even half as good. And to think RDR is a good 4 years older than V is what makes this even more unacceptable. 

 

If Rockstar were not gonna do wildlife and wilderness properly, they just should not have bothered going into detail about it at all. They should have just stuck to making a huge, very detailed city with many interiors, or multiple cities with similar qualities too. 

 

Yes, it does. But the main focus of critique shouldn't been targeted towards "lazy wilderness design". It's pointless, and unfair. RDR was designed with wilderness/wildlife as a number one priority. GTA V is Los Santos first, and the rest of the county second. Sandy Shores are simply magnificent, the desert location was perfectly implemented. Yes, mountains and forests are somewhat lacking quality in comparison with RDR, but that's not unjustified.

You have to consider the memory constrains of PS3/360. I already stated this is the IV vs. V thread. RDR has to render FAR less things on the screen than V does. People should first read a few things about game development before making assumptions. Yes, we can all obsess over RDR and constantly criticize GTAV, but what we are asking here is the moon that cannot be had.


Drunken Cowboy
  • Drunken Cowboy

    Proud Asshole

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2013
  • United-States
  • Best Poster [GTA] 2014
    Best Topic [GTA] 2013

#178

Posted 04 April 2014 - 02:36 AM

RED DEAD REDEMPTION IS THE GREATEST GAME MADE OF ALL TIME FOREVER AND WHOEVER DISAGREES SHOULD HAVE THEIR SOCKS RIPPED OFF AND FED TO THE JACKALS


BlackNoise
  • BlackNoise

    Ghetto Star

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Nov 2011
  • None

#179

Posted 04 April 2014 - 02:37 AM

Why do people keep saying you can't compare them because they had different objectives? Who cares if it's "apples and oranges"? People know what fruit should taste like, so the comparisons are fair. 

 

You judge them based on how successful they were at completing their objectives. 

 

@Tilemaxx, why do we need to consider the memory constraints of PS3/360? That's for developers. All we need to consider is how well a developer utilized whatever platform they decided to develop for. People understand why the wilderness looks the way it does in GTA V, but why would that change what our eyes see when we try to appreciate it? 

 

R* made the decision to include a wilderness in GTA V. You say "people should read a few things about game development before making assumptions", but wouldn't you think R* knows a few things about it? Why is it okay to know the limitations, but still choose to produce something that isn't up to your standard?  If they couldn't do it right, they should've figured something else out. Or we should at least be able to criticize that aspect of their game. 

  • Official General, coach_wargo and dtsmucker like this

heroe
  • heroe

    V

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2009

#180

Posted 04 April 2014 - 02:51 AM

Spot on. ^^^




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users