Red Dead Redemption vs. Grand Theft Auto IV

[RockStarNiko]

Red Dead Redemption is a much better game than GTA IV.

 

But if we are comparing Red Dead Redemption Game of the Year vs GTA IV The Complete Edition, then that is a much tougher contest.

[redx165]

Youre asking this on a GTA forum. You aren't afraid of people being a little biased?

I don't really think so, i'm pretty sure most GTA fans f*cking love Red Dead Redemption, i know i do, and it's obviously the better game technically, but i slightly prefer IV, only slightly.

This is a GTA forum. So people will vote for GTA. Go to the videos I posted and you're see the real results.

Real results? That wasn't the one and only decider, dude. Opinion's are varied across all sectors.

Dude this is a forum for HARDCORE GTA fans. They will believe GTA is better than every game. Look at the comments of the youtube video. You'll see the real people that vote. Not the hardcore fans but the average and casual fans.

[Linki]

Have you checked this thread, redx165? Plenty of people have chosen Redemption over IV. For a GTA forum, the bias isn't that strong for GTAIV, if there is any at all.

 

 

[redx165]

Have you checked this thread, redx165? Plenty of people have chosen Redemption over IV. For a GTA forum, the bias isn't that strong for GTAIV, if there is any at all.

But the thing is, that this is a GTA forum and there are some people that will vote for GTA just cause of the name or the PC gamers. In ever video that has Red Dead Redemption vs Grand Theft Auto IV the one that always win is Red Dead. Even on Yahoo people prefer Red Dead more. Red Dead was a step in the right direction for many gamers while they think IV went in the wrong direction and took out what made GTA so fun.

[Linki]

and took out what made GTA so fun.

And what was that, redx?

[Algonquin Assassin]

and took out what made GTA so fun.

And what was that, redx?

 

This could get interesting.

[redx165]

 

and took out what made GTA so fun.

And what was that, redx?

The fun. I was playing GTA 3 on my PS3 and already I'm having so much fun and it's bringing back so many memories.

 

In IV:

- They took out all the FUN SIDE MISSIONS and instead has random stranger missions which isn't even that good. Red Dead had better ones.

- Missions in IV were MOSTLY the same. Drive me here or shoot this guy. The III era had way better missions.

- The rewards suck in IV. In the III era you got a nice reward for taking your time out to do a side mission.

- Too many cops on the street in IV.

- No fun cheats in IV. SA had the best cheats in GTA.

 

Just to name a few and

 

Still GTA IV has some good things too

- Good Protag

- Good Story

- Better Breathing City

- Better Pedestrian talk

 

Just to name a few

Edited October 4, 2012 by redx165

[Linki]

and took out what made GTA so fun.

And what was that, redx?

The fun.

"The fun"? That's not an argument. Fun isn't something developers choose to include or not. It's not like Rockstar said, "Let's take out the fun! It's a sh*t feature lol"

 

I understand you miss certain features from the older ones, but the things you are complaining about (side missions, cheats) aren't things I'm too concerned about, quite frankly. I was playing III again on PS3 and remembered how boring, tedious and frustrating the R3 missions were - what's the appeal?

 

In the end, GTAIV is more fun and entertaining to screw around in, and that's what really counts to me - that's what GTA is all about. So don't tell me the older GTAs are better because they have a lot of sh*tty side missions. Give me Stranger missions with great writing and stories over endless and irritating R3 missions any day.

[redx165]

and took out what made GTA so fun.

And what was that, redx?

The fun.

"The fun"? That's not an argument. Fun isn't something developers choose to include or not. It's not like Rockstar said, "Let's take out the fun! It's a sh*t feature lol"

 

I understand you miss certain features from the older ones, but the things you are complaining about (side missions, cheats) aren't things I'm too concerned about, quite frankly. I was playing III again on PS3 and remembered how boring, tedious and frustrating the R3 missions were - what's the appeal?

 

In the end, GTAIV is more fun and entertaining to screw around in, and that's what really counts to me - that's what GTA is all about. So don't tell me the older GTAs are better because they have a lot of sh*tty side missions. Give me Stranger missions with great writing and stories over endless and irritating R3 missions any day.

The fun is the reward you get at the end of the day. Not so much in III but in SA you got so much for doing them. These Stranger Missions offer nothing to change the gameplay unlike the R3 missions.

[Algonquin Assassin]

and took out what made GTA so fun.

And what was that, redx?

The fun.

"The fun"? That's not an argument. Fun isn't something developers choose to include or not. It's not like Rockstar said, "Let's take out the fun! It's a sh*t feature lol"

 

I understand you miss certain features from the older ones, but the things you are complaining about (side missions, cheats) aren't things I'm too concerned about, quite frankly. I was playing III again on PS3 and remembered how boring, tedious and frustrating the R3 missions were - what's the appeal?

 

In the end, GTAIV is more fun and entertaining to screw around in, and that's what really counts to me - that's what GTA is all about. So don't tell me the older GTAs are better because they have a lot of sh*tty side missions. Give me Stranger missions with great writing and stories over endless and irritating R3 missions any day.

Agreed. One thing that has always bugged me about this forum is the way people describe "fun" like it's a physical feature.

 

How can they take something out which is so subjective to begin with? It's like humour or taste in music. You can't say they took out the fun because YOU don't find it fun.

 

I've been a GTA fan for 14 years and GTA IV is no less fun to me than the old GTAs are.

 

They all have their strong and weak points, but for whatever reason GTA IV gets picked on the most even though it actually is better in a lot of ways and a lot of the ways it's better is non debateable like A.I, physics, detail etc. Things like side missions, missions, features etc can be argued about until the end of time because what one person sees as fun another might not.

 

You can't exactly ignore all the technical advancements in GTA IV which make it a better game than the old GTAs, but everything else is left open for debate.

[redx165]

and took out what made GTA so fun.

And what was that, redx?

The fun.

"The fun"? That's not an argument. Fun isn't something developers choose to include or not. It's not like Rockstar said, "Let's take out the fun! It's a sh*t feature lol"

 

I understand you miss certain features from the older ones, but the things you are complaining about (side missions, cheats) aren't things I'm too concerned about, quite frankly. I was playing III again on PS3 and remembered how boring, tedious and frustrating the R3 missions were - what's the appeal?

 

In the end, GTAIV is more fun and entertaining to screw around in, and that's what really counts to me - that's what GTA is all about. So don't tell me the older GTAs are better because they have a lot of sh*tty side missions. Give me Stranger missions with great writing and stories over endless and irritating R3 missions any day.

Agreed. One thing that has always bugged me about this forum is the way people describe "fun" like it's a physical feature.

 

How can they take something out which is so subjective to begin with? It's like humour or taste in music. You can't say they took out the fun because YOU don't find it fun.

 

I've been a GTA fan for 14 years and GTA IV is no less fun to me than the old GTAs are.

 

They all have their strong and weak points, but for whatever reason GTA IV gets picked on the most even though it actually is better in a lot of ways and a lot of the ways it's better is non debateable like A.I, physics, detail etc. Things like side missions, missions, features etc can be argued about until the end of time because what one person sees as fun another might not.

 

You can't exactly ignore all the technical advancements in GTA IV which make it a better game than the old GTAs, but everything else is left open for debate.

If you talk about technical advancements for any game than the newer game will always be better. But why do people always go back to old games??? Because these new games are missing something, and what do you think it is???? I can speak for alot of fans and say it was the fun taken out. Why is SA so popular?? Because of all the features they had in it. You could find atleast one thing fun in that game while in IV it is only for 25% of the GTA fanbase.

[Algonquin Assassin]

and took out what made GTA so fun.

And what was that, redx?

The fun.

"The fun"? That's not an argument. Fun isn't something developers choose to include or not. It's not like Rockstar said, "Let's take out the fun! It's a sh*t feature lol"

 

I understand you miss certain features from the older ones, but the things you are complaining about (side missions, cheats) aren't things I'm too concerned about, quite frankly. I was playing III again on PS3 and remembered how boring, tedious and frustrating the R3 missions were - what's the appeal?

 

In the end, GTAIV is more fun and entertaining to screw around in, and that's what really counts to me - that's what GTA is all about. So don't tell me the older GTAs are better because they have a lot of sh*tty side missions. Give me Stranger missions with great writing and stories over endless and irritating R3 missions any day.

Agreed. One thing that has always bugged me about this forum is the way people describe "fun" like it's a physical feature.

 

How can they take something out which is so subjective to begin with? It's like humour or taste in music. You can't say they took out the fun because YOU don't find it fun.

 

I've been a GTA fan for 14 years and GTA IV is no less fun to me than the old GTAs are.

 

They all have their strong and weak points, but for whatever reason GTA IV gets picked on the most even though it actually is better in a lot of ways and a lot of the ways it's better is non debateable like A.I, physics, detail etc. Things like side missions, missions, features etc can be argued about until the end of time because what one person sees as fun another might not.

 

You can't exactly ignore all the technical advancements in GTA IV which make it a better game than the old GTAs, but everything else is left open for debate.

If you talk about technical advancements for any game than the newer game will always be better. But why do people always go back to old games??? Because these new games are missing something, and what do you think it is???? I can speak for alot of fans and say it was the fun taken out. Why is SA so popular?? Because of all the features they had in it. You could find atleast one thing fun in that game while in IV it is only for 25% of the GTA fanbase.

I can see why people go back to the old games. Hell even I do. Why did I download GTA III on PSN? The thing is I get sick and tired of people thinking their opinion is a fact.

 

The "fun" wasn't taken out of GTA IV. It's obviously not a game for eveyone and that's fine, but I just don't understand how the hell something which is extremely broad can be taken away. R* don't want to create a game which isn't fun afterall.

 

GTA IV will always be the underdog. It was the first current gen GTA which stepped outside of everyones' comfort zone and had a lot to prove. I respect your views redx, but it seems you spend way too much time speaking for everyone rather than for yourself.

 

Just like the Youtube video in regards to RDR and GTA IV. Just because more people choose RDR doesn't make it a better game. More people obviously prefer it, but they're still expressing an opinion and the same can be said every time SA and GTA IV get compared here, but you know what?

 

Despite all the sh*t that gets thrown at GTA IV I still love it and always will.

[redx165]

and took out what made GTA so fun.

And what was that, redx?

The fun.

"The fun"? That's not an argument. Fun isn't something developers choose to include or not. It's not like Rockstar said, "Let's take out the fun! It's a sh*t feature lol"

 

I understand you miss certain features from the older ones, but the things you are complaining about (side missions, cheats) aren't things I'm too concerned about, quite frankly. I was playing III again on PS3 and remembered how boring, tedious and frustrating the R3 missions were - what's the appeal?

 

In the end, GTAIV is more fun and entertaining to screw around in, and that's what really counts to me - that's what GTA is all about. So don't tell me the older GTAs are better because they have a lot of sh*tty side missions. Give me Stranger missions with great writing and stories over endless and irritating R3 missions any day.

Agreed. One thing that has always bugged me about this forum is the way people describe "fun" like it's a physical feature.

 

How can they take something out which is so subjective to begin with? It's like humour or taste in music. You can't say they took out the fun because YOU don't find it fun.

 

I've been a GTA fan for 14 years and GTA IV is no less fun to me than the old GTAs are.

 

They all have their strong and weak points, but for whatever reason GTA IV gets picked on the most even though it actually is better in a lot of ways and a lot of the ways it's better is non debateable like A.I, physics, detail etc. Things like side missions, missions, features etc can be argued about until the end of time because what one person sees as fun another might not.

 

You can't exactly ignore all the technical advancements in GTA IV which make it a better game than the old GTAs, but everything else is left open for debate.

If you talk about technical advancements for any game than the newer game will always be better. But why do people always go back to old games??? Because these new games are missing something, and what do you think it is???? I can speak for alot of fans and say it was the fun taken out. Why is SA so popular?? Because of all the features they had in it. You could find atleast one thing fun in that game while in IV it is only for 25% of the GTA fanbase.

I can see why people go back to the old games. Hell even I do. Why did I download GTA III on PSN? The thing is I get sick and tired of people thinking their opinion is a fact.

 

The "fun" wasn't taken out of GTA IV. It's obviously not a game for eveyone and that's fine, but I just don't understand how the hell something which is extremely broad can be taken away. R* don't want to create a game which isn't fun afterall.

 

GTA IV will always be the underdog. It was the first current gen GTA which stepped outside of everyones' comfort zone and had a lot to prove. I respect your views redx, but it seems you spend way too much time speaking for everyone rather than for yourself.

 

Just like the Youtube video in regards to RDR and GTA IV. Just because more people choose RDR doesn't make it a better game. More people obviously prefer it, but they're still expressing an opinion and the same can be said every time SA and GTA IV get compared here, but you know what?

 

Despite all the sh*t that gets thrown at GTA IV I still love it and always will.

But you're saying that if more people like a game that it isn't better??? For a example: So you're saying if people like GTA more than COD than it isn't better???

[Linki]

He was saying that opinions vary and aren't the sole thing we use to judge something on. Also, your example was silly, because COD is probably more popular right now than GTA.

 

You say that SA was popular because of all the features it had in it, but maybe for some people it's popular because of the map, or maybe because of the characters or the music etc. You see what I'm getting at? You cannot speak for everyone.

 

[redx165]

He was saying that opinions vary and aren't the sole thing we use to judge something on. Also, your example was silly, because COD is probably more popular right now than GTA.

 

You say that SA was popular because of all the features it had in it, but maybe for some people it's popular because of the map, or maybe because of the characters or the music etc. You see what I'm getting at? You cannot speak for everyone.

I'm talking about COD being sh*t compare to GTA. Most of COD fans hate it but the 12 year old kids and the causal gamers.

[Algonquin Assassin]

 

and took out what made GTA so fun.

And what was that, redx?

The fun.

"The fun"? That's not an argument. Fun isn't something developers choose to include or not. It's not like Rockstar said, "Let's take out the fun! It's a sh*t feature lol"

 

I understand you miss certain features from the older ones, but the things you are complaining about (side missions, cheats) aren't things I'm too concerned about, quite frankly. I was playing III again on PS3 and remembered how boring, tedious and frustrating the R3 missions were - what's the appeal?

 

In the end, GTAIV is more fun and entertaining to screw around in, and that's what really counts to me - that's what GTA is all about. So don't tell me the older GTAs are better because they have a lot of sh*tty side missions. Give me Stranger missions with great writing and stories over endless and irritating R3 missions any day.

Agreed. One thing that has always bugged me about this forum is the way people describe "fun" like it's a physical feature.

 

How can they take something out which is so subjective to begin with? It's like humour or taste in music. You can't say they took out the fun because YOU don't find it fun.

 

I've been a GTA fan for 14 years and GTA IV is no less fun to me than the old GTAs are.

 

They all have their strong and weak points, but for whatever reason GTA IV gets picked on the most even though it actually is better in a lot of ways and a lot of the ways it's better is non debateable like A.I, physics, detail etc. Things like side missions, missions, features etc can be argued about until the end of time because what one person sees as fun another might not.

 

You can't exactly ignore all the technical advancements in GTA IV which make it a better game than the old GTAs, but everything else is left open for debate.

If you talk about technical advancements for any game than the newer game will always be better. But why do people always go back to old games??? Because these new games are missing something, and what do you think it is???? I can speak for alot of fans and say it was the fun taken out. Why is SA so popular?? Because of all the features they had in it. You could find atleast one thing fun in that game while in IV it is only for 25% of the GTA fanbase.

I can see why people go back to the old games. Hell even I do. Why did I download GTA III on PSN? The thing is I get sick and tired of people thinking their opinion is a fact.

 

The "fun" wasn't taken out of GTA IV. It's obviously not a game for eveyone and that's fine, but I just don't understand how the hell something which is extremely broad can be taken away. R* don't want to create a game which isn't fun afterall.

 

GTA IV will always be the underdog. It was the first current gen GTA which stepped outside of everyones' comfort zone and had a lot to prove. I respect your views redx, but it seems you spend way too much time speaking for everyone rather than for yourself.

 

Just like the Youtube video in regards to RDR and GTA IV. Just because more people choose RDR doesn't make it a better game. More people obviously prefer it, but they're still expressing an opinion and the same can be said every time SA and GTA IV get compared here, but you know what?

 

Despite all the sh*t that gets thrown at GTA IV I still love it and always will.

But you're saying that if more people like a game that it isn't better??? For a example: So you're saying if people like GTA more than COD than it isn't better???

 

All I'm saying is just because a certain demographic typically flocks to a certain product doesn't make it better.

 

With your COD comparison even if more people like GTA it doesn't necessarily make it better. What myself and Linki are saying is opinions vary considerably. Think of anything a majority like that you don't and does it skew your opinion?

Edited October 4, 2012 by Miamivicecity

[matajuegos]

Red Dead all the way!!! was better in everything, at least for me. (I always feel so lonely when i walk through the desert at night)

[BullworthAcademy]

Red Dead Redemption is my favorite game of all time.

[Cheddarhead7]

Red Dead Redemption, no contest. RDR is my favourite game and the only game I have ever given a 10/10.

[gta player13]

Who is the better protagonist - John Marston (and Jack too)

 

Which has the greater storyline - GTA IV

 

Which has the better map - RDR better and much,much bigger map

 

Which has the greater features - RDR I loved the hunting,selling and horse riding features and I also liked the knife mini-game.

 

Overall - Red Dead Redemption

[redx165]

 

Who is the better protagonist - John Marston (and Jack too)

 

Which has the greater storyline - GTA IV

 

Which has the better map - RDR better and much,much bigger map

 

Which has the greater features - RDR I loved the hunting,selling and horse riding features and I also liked the knife mini-game.

 

Overall - Red Dead Redemption

See that's the thing. RDR was a improvement on GTA IV. Kinda like GTA 3 and Vice City.

 

This is how it is.

 

HD era

 

GTA V

RDR

GTA IV

 

3D era

 

GTA SA

GTA VC

GTA III

 

Each one improves from the last one and that's what makes it better. Keep in mind this is comparing these era's with how they're similar.