GTA V vs Red Dead Redemption

[redx165]

 

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?

 

What you mean?

 

Clearly by the votes RDR is a better game. Does it hurt you that your favorite game is getting hated on?

[Tilemaxx]

 

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.

No. They couldn't "do it right". We could either have a 50/50 detailed city/countryside, or a super-detailed city (like now), and a less detailed countryside. In the first hypothesis, people would still complain, so personally i'm happy with the direction they finally went with.

[Official General]

 

 

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.

No. They couldn't "do it right". We could either have a 50/50 detailed city/countryside, or a super-detailed city (like now), and a less detailed countryside. In the first hypothesis, people would still complain, so personally i'm happy with the direction they finally went with.

 

 

We don't have much of a super-detailed city with GTA V's version of Los Santos. That's where the problem lies. If this was the case, many people probably would not complain so much about the poorly implemented wildlife. LS was detailed nicely as far exteriors are concerned, but when it came to interiors and vibrancy in the streets, it scores low marks. Very small number of interiors ruined the immersion, and the failure to make the hood feel very dangerous again like in previous GTAs, made the city feel generic across the board. LS could have been much bigger too, especially when you look at how much space they wasted on that map. Too many things went wrong to really class it as a 'super detailed city', and to add to this, the wildlife was sub-standard. In a situation like this, you can expect critics to call Rockstar out on messing up a feature like wildlife.

[InfernoV]

Red Dead Redemption is better on every level

[coach_wargo]

One of the overall themes from people like me who complain that there is no large forested wilderness area, just a bunch of mountains that offer next to nothing. It's pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if some of the mountains were an after thought or late edition.

 

We already know that they cut much of the vegitation out of the final game, just look at the trailers v/s the final product. Perhaps early on they tried to create a large forest and it was just too much graphically for the systems to render. But by that time they had already announced that the map was going to be massive, RDR + SA + IV, or so the early hype said. So the solution is to plop in a big ass barren mountain where the forest used to be. And that's how Mt. Josiah came to be.

[Jvaz615]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

No. They couldn't "do it right". We could either have a 50/50 detailed city/countryside, or a super-detailed city (like now), and a less detailed countryside. In the first hypothesis, people would still complain, so personally i'm happy with the direction they finally went with.

 

We don't have much of a super-detailed city with GTA V's version of Los Santos. That's where the problem lies. If this was the case, many people probably would not complain so much about the poorly implemented wildlife. LS was detailed nicely as far exteriors are concerned, but when it came to interiors and vibrancy in the streets, it scores low marks. Very small number of interiors ruined the immersion, and the failure to make the hood feel very dangerous again like in previous GTAs, made the city feel generic across the board. LS could have been much bigger too, especially when you look at how much space they wasted on that map. Too many things went wrong to really class it as a 'super detailed city', and to add to this, the wildlife was sub-standard. In a situation like this, you can expect critics to call Rockstar out on messing up a feature like wildlife.

"Explorable exteriors"

[.Emmi]

Bully or Red Dead Redemption ... could you make a decision?

 

 

I definitely couldn't. Two of the best games I've ever played!

[Geralt of Rivia]

 

 

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?

 

What you mean?

 

Clearly by the votes RDR is a better game. Does it hurt you that your favorite game is getting hated on?

 

You know exactly what I mean. I really shouldn't have to explain it to you.

Edited April 4, 2014 by TheMasterfocker

[BlackNoise]

 

 

 

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.

No. They couldn't "do it right". We could either have a 50/50 detailed city/countryside, or a super-detailed city (like now), and a less detailed countryside. In the first hypothesis, people would still complain, so personally i'm happy with the direction they finally went with.

 

 

We don't have much of a super-detailed city with GTA V's version of Los Santos. That's where the problem lies. If this was the case, many people probably would not complain so much about the poorly implemented wildlife. LS was detailed nicely as far exteriors are concerned, but when it came to interiors and vibrancy in the streets, it scores low marks. Very small number of interiors ruined the immersion, and the failure to make the hood feel very dangerous again like in previous GTAs, made the city feel generic across the board. LS could have been much bigger too, especially when you look at how much space they wasted on that map. Too many things went wrong to really class it as a 'super detailed city', and to add to this, the wildlife was sub-standard. In a situation like this, you can expect critics to call Rockstar out on messing up a feature like wildlife.

 

Exactly. Most people don't talk about this. I think LS looks pretty, but that gets old quickly. The city is made up of "super-detailed" facades. If the actual city was super-detailed, we would see more interiors, better ped/police behavior, more activities. I know some of it is personal preference, but stuff like golf, tennis, and yoga don't really appeal to me when I decide to play a game like GTA.

 

R* should've focused on the aspects of LA that most people think about, especially from a criminal perspective. And I completely agree about the feeling of the hood in GTA V. The people look different, but their behavior is exactly the same as other peds across the city. You get too close, and they want to fight or shoot you. It's all up to the player. Nothing feels dangerous or random. Places actually felt dangerous in RDR.

 

@Tilemaxx, people complain about both, because neither was done properly. What I'm saying is R* should've developed GTA the same way they developed RDR. I couldn't swim or drive cars in RDR. I couldn't dive or fly planes in GTA IV. If you have limitations, focus on the most important aspects of your game. R* spread themselves too thin with GTA V and the entire game feels unfinished IMO.

 

People complain about the city, wilderness/wildlife, mechanics, GTAO, etc. You can say "people will always complain" and that's true, but the reality is there are real problems with almost every aspect of GTA V.

Edited April 4, 2014 by BlackNoise

[zticky]

both not in pc.

[DrAnomalous]

Red Dead Redemption had diverse regions and those regions felt more impressive because Red Dead was a polished game with closer attention to detail.

Edited April 4, 2014 by DrAnomalous

[redx165]

 

 

 

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?

 

What you mean?

 

Clearly by the votes RDR is a better game. Does it hurt you that your favorite game is getting hated on?

 

You know exactly what I mean. I really shouldn't have to explain it to you.

 

I'm just saying if there is more votes for one game than its the better game. #FACT

[woggleman]

 

 

 

 

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?

 

What you mean?

 

Clearly by the votes RDR is a better game. Does it hurt you that your favorite game is getting hated on?

 

You know exactly what I mean. I really shouldn't have to explain it to you.

 

I'm just saying if there is more votes for one game than its the better game. #FACT

 

It is still down to opinion. These things are subjective.

[Geralt of Rivia]

 

 

 

 

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?

 

What you mean?

 

Clearly by the votes RDR is a better game. Does it hurt you that your favorite game is getting hated on?

 

You know exactly what I mean. I really shouldn't have to explain it to you.

 

I'm just saying if there is more votes for one game than its the better game. #FACT

 

The amount of stupid/delusions that resonate from your brain is simply astounding.

Edited April 4, 2014 by TheMasterfocker

[redx165]

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

What you mean?

 

Clearly by the votes RDR is a better game. Does it hurt you that your favorite game is getting hated on?

 

You know exactly what I mean. I really shouldn't have to explain it to you.

 

I'm just saying if there is more votes for one game than its the better game. #FACT

 

The amount of stupid/delusions that resonate from your brain is simply astounding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The amount of stupid/delusions that resonate from your brain is simply astounding.

 

Once again I think you're a bit upset that your favorite game is getting beat by a 3 year old game. At least RDR won GOTY race that year unlike GTA V.

[Geralt of Rivia]

God, the stupid...

[redx165]

God, the stupid...

If a game wins GOTY over the other games its better.

 

Seeing that GTA V didn't even come close to first while RDR did means GTA V is garbage compared to RDR.

 

Once again its a fact only the fanboys won't see it as that.

[Geralt of Rivia]

You need to learn what a fact is, what an opinion is, and what subjectiveness is.

 

---------------------------------------

 

Anyway, I'm about to blow your very little mind. You ready?

 

It's not fair to compare GOTY awards straight up, as the number of GOTY awards change every year.

 

In 2013, there were, according to the list in your sig, 519 GOTY awards. There were 385 in 2012, and 402 in 2011.

 

So, we must look at percentages. It's the only way to truly see which has more GOTY awards.

 

Leaders and their %'s:

 

2013:

 

The Last of Us won 248 GOTY awards out of 519. That equates to 48% if you round up.

 

TLoU = 48% of GOTY votes

 

---------------------------------------

 

2011:

 

Skyrim won 226 GOTY awards out of 402. That equates to 56%.

 

Skyrim = 56% of GOTY votes

 

---------------------------------------

 

So, going by your exact logic, Skyrim is better than TLoU.

 

Do you admit that? I mean, it's what you believe, right?

Edited April 4, 2014 by TheMasterfocker

[InfernoV]

Bully or Red Dead Redemption ... could you make a decision?

 

 

I definitely couldn't. Two of the best games I've ever played!

Are u being serious

 

RED DEAD REDEMPTION OBVIOUSLY

 

Bully vs gta v= gta v

 

Bully vs san andreas= san andreas

 

San andreas vs gta v= san andreas

 

San andreas vs rdr= DAYUM! Ill go with rdr

[Rock Howard]

They are both 2 of my all-time favourite games. GTA V only just edges it for me because you can drive cars.

[.Emmi]

 

Bully or Red Dead Redemption ... could you make a decision?

 

 

I definitely couldn't. Two of the best games I've ever played!

Are u being serious

Yes, I am being serious!

 

They were way more fun and original than it was GTA V, you can't deny that and as I said, obviously two of my most favorite games of all time. Hoping for Bully 2, time is right now.

[Cutter De Blanc]

 

 

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?

 

What you mean?

 

Clearly by the votes RDR is a better game. Does it hurt you that your favorite game is getting hated on?

 

The topic was merged, but the poll as I voted for it was for map design, not overall if the game was better. That is a more difficult question to answer.

[Zancudo]

redx, no one agrees with what you write. You're officially wrong. #FACT

[Ash_735]

Red Dead Redemption has the benefit of no flying, that meant the map could be more natural (where as most GTA Games have to be Islands now), so on top of the vast amazing detailed land we did get, we also had that horizon stretching out of the lands we couldn't get to, those mountains and far off plains, that's something we'll never get in a GTA game sadly.

 

So yeah, in terms of map design, as much as I like Los Santos, I can't forgive Rockstar's disgrace on their attempt at the Palm Deserts, etc, being so damn pathetically small, at least Mexico and the deserts were nearly half of the map and actually felt like hot wandering lands. The ONLY part of the Redemption map I didn't like was the snowy mountains of Tall Trees, that area just felt a little to "quick" to becoming snowy and ice cold in contrast with the rest of the map where it feels more gradual when crossing plains and fields into different areas.

[Jabalous]

The ONLY part of the Redemption map I didn't like was the snowy mountains of Tall Trees, that area just felt a little to "quick" to becoming snowy and ice cold in contrast with the rest of the map where it feels more gradual when crossing plains and fields into different areas.

 

I've to agree on this. I always tried to avoid the snowy areas of Tall Trees. They feel out of the place for some reason. It breaks the immersion for me somehow, which is the complete opposite for the rest of the map.

[FranklinDeRoosevelt]

The next GTA needs to improve on the map, and we already know the "leaked" info in which city it's taking place.

[.Emmi]

The next GTA needs to improve on the map, and we already know the "leaked" info in which city it's taking place.

If that leak turns out to be true I'm a happy man

[Wesk_]

 

The next GTA needs to improve on the map, and we already know the "leaked" info in which city it's taking place.

If that leak turns out to be true I'm a happy man

 

which leaked info?

[.Emmi]

 

 

The next GTA needs to improve on the map, and we already know the "leaked" info in which city it's taking place.

If that leak turns out to be true I'm a happy man

 

which leaked info?

 

That GTA VI will be set in Liberty City (State) again.

[woggleman]

LIbert City is way too soon. It needs to be set in three cities which are New Orleans, A Texas City and Maybe Memphis or Virginia Beach. There can be surrounding countryside inspired by Alabama.