Straight Edge Steve Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Where have you just pulled that fact from? Show me the figures saying more people play COD than GTAV 26.2 million people bought Black Ops by November 2013. Less than 20 million people have purchased GTA V. Black Ops is widely considered as 'bad'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donnits Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Whoever says CoD isn't popular doesn't have a clue. Straight Edge Steve 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dbzk1999 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 /quote] Black Ops is widely considered as 'bad'. Really? That's a surprise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straight Edge Steve Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 /quote] Black Ops is widely considered as 'bad'. Really? That's a surprise I really liked it, but just about every person I've talked to hates it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Oh no but a couple of fan boys have an opinion that RDR is better so it must be. It isn't just a couple. The majority of people who have posted in this thread seem to have the opinion that RDR is a better game. If anything you're the only one trying to convince everyone RDR is a poor game by gloating about how successful GTA V has been. Of course it's made more money being released on 4 consoles and soon to been released on PC. RDR was only released on 360/PS3 and I'd say a large contributing factor to GTA V's success is the fact GTA is a much longer running/popular series than Red Dead, but that doesn't take anyway from RDR. In 2010 it was considered a surprise hit because it was still a young series, but this was when people actually appreciated games on their own merits. Not metacritic scores and the money they raked in. DrAnomalous, Official General, jamieleng and 5 others 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Leone Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I'm pretty convinced if you polled anyone who's played the last gen console since the beginning about V and RDR, they would say RDR was better. V isn't adored by older gamers, they would probably question your sexuality and call you a casual. RDR worked because they didn't need to make a city like LS or an underwater area, the barren landscape was perfected because it didn't make the consoles sh*t themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
American Viking Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I saw this topic last month and didn't reply because Grand Theft Auto V couldn't lace Red Dead Redemption's boots, but since this caught on and people seem to think it's a worthwhile comparison, I'll give my two cents. The only thing, and I mean the only thing Grand Theft Auto V does better than Red Dead Redemption is map size and density, both of which is expected with newer and better technology. Red Dead Redemption has a story equivalent to any blockbuster film I can think of, and definitely better than any Grand Theft Auto story including Grand Theft Auto IVs'. John Marston John Marston has more personality and charisma than every Grand Theft Auto V character combined. A real man of Conviction. He is honorable, respectful, humble, but above all else he is loyal. He is constantly helping those in need even when it interferes with his own goals. He's a man who can be violent, reckless, and a killer when need be but he doesn't try to prove himself a badass...as was the case when he first arrived in Mexico. He is also compassionate albeit not the best at showing his affection. The only negative thing I can say about John is that occasionally he is too lenient on those who do him wrong, such as Irish. Grand Theft Auto V Characters I wont say nothing about them here since they have been covered at length several times. Setting Climbing on a horse and riding through the desert on a quiet, starry night is quite the sight to behold. Animals stir nearby, raccoons and armadillos scurry across the path ahead, rattlesnakes hiss in the distance...John adjust his hat and his horse shakes it's head...it's incredible. West Elizabeth, Nuevo Paraiso, and New Austin are all very distinct from eachother, unlike GTA V's setting which looks largely the same. The area called Tall Trees gives me a feeling a paranoia that I haven't had since roaming Back O' Beyond in the original San Andreas. GTA V's forest is little more than an excuse for an abysmal hunting mini game. If they had just gotten rid of Mt. Chiliad, that big waste of space, and replaced it with a larger forested area...than it would give Red Dead a run for it's money in that department. GTA V features a desert but it doesn't feel like a desert. It is way too populated. There are civilians and trailer parks around every turn, and no real sense of "escape" that was easily achievable in Red Dead. Also, where are the animals that live in the desert? They could have ripped them straight from Red Dead and I wouldn't have complained. Essentially, it's a big sandy area. Red Dead knew how to do a desert. GTA V is of course much bigger but bigger isn't always better. All of Los Santos looks much the same. It's ghetto, which should have been featured heavily since Franklin is in the game, is literally a few streets of apartments. I never feel like I'm walking through the "hood", even with gangmembers standing on every street corner. It's the complete opposite in Red Dead Redemption. Each town feels alot different, Thieves Landing really feels like a bad place to be and the absence of law enforcement makes it even more ominous than the dark setting it's known for. Blackwater captures the feeling of the coming of age brilliantly. Story GTA V's story is the worst part of the whole game. It makes little sense, is rushed, and the entire selling point of the game, the heists, are little more than follow the leader events that rarely raise my excitement above a slight groan. It's backstory, about a double crossing, is completely forgettable and by the end of the game I really didn't give a sh*t what happened to Brad. A person, which by the way, the game expects us to care about when we only see the guy for 2 minutes in the entire game. Trevor is such a despicable character that I didn't give a rats ass about his "emotional turmoil" at his betrayal, or even what happens to the guy. Franklin is thrust into the story as little more than filler and an excuse to bring Grove St. back. RDR on the other hand, is a brilliantly written story equivalent to any Hollywood blockbuster in recent memory. A former outlaw, a man trying to do his best to escape his past and live a life of fortitude in the midst of what he's been through, is blackmailed by the Government into bringing his former partners to justice. The game takes us to two different countries in pursuit of these men. After finally capturing his former buddies, reclaiming his family and returning to a normal life, the game throws a twist at us that nobody expected but left many of us either heartbroken or pissed off. Extras It's funny that GTA V brought back random events that aren't even random. Not only do they have predetermined spawn points, they are also marked on the radar. That is not random. What is random, is riding your horse through the desert and coming upon a crying man holding his dead spouse before putting the gun to his own head. That is not marked on the radar and is actually decently rare, but worth it. There are many things like this in Red Dead. Even the random events that show up on the radar, such as a stagecoach being robbed or someone being chased by wolves, only show up when you are in close proximity to it and it's location is completely random. There is no randomness in GTA V. Each playthrough the same ppl can be found at the same location. These events are more like hidden triggers. Weapons in RDR sound better, pack more punch, and overall are just a pleasure to use. Most guns in GTA V are so identical that I see little point in using anything other than the Carbine Rifle. Hunting - Someone should have told R* that if they were gonna add hunting to GTA than it needs to at least meet the expectation set by RDR. Instead, we've got this tiny area where we blow a dead woman's (whistle?), kill the animal, and take a PICTURE of it before sending it to Cletus. WTF? Meanwhile, in RDR, we not only can hide in a bush, we can set bait out, kill, skin, and sale the goods in different locations for better prices. Wildlife - I give R* props for including animals in a GTA game, I'm sure it will get better, but they were poorly done in GTA V. Rabbits for example, run into bushes and despawn. Cougars kill with one strike and we have no chance of fighting them off except to kill them before the attack (which actually isn't hard because they show up on the radar). Animals like coyotes won't even attack, neither will boars. Like I've said, it was a good first try but it needs work. On RDR, they've got a full fledged ecosystem on there. I literally have to head North to the lakes of Tall Trees to find Beavers. That, is how in depth it is. Not to mention the plethora of predatory animals. SCOOBASTEEB, UAL, Uncle Marston and 10 others 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Leone Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 thank you based American Alpha American Viking 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwenshy Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I saw this topic last month and didn't reply because Grand Theft Auto V couldn't lace Red Dead Redemption's boots, but since this caught on and people seem to think it's a worthwhile comparison, I'll give my two cents. The only thing, and I mean the only thing Grand Theft Auto V does better than Red Dead Redemption is map size and density, both of which is expected with newer and better technology. Red Dead Redemption has a story equivalent to any blockbuster film I can think of, and definitely better than any Grand Theft Auto story including Grand Theft Auto IVs'. John Marston John Marston has more personality and charisma than every Grand Theft Auto V character combined. A real man of Conviction. He is honorable, respectful, humble, but above all else he is loyal. He is constantly helping those in need even when it interferes with his own goals. He's a man who can be violent, reckless, and a killer when need be but he doesn't try to prove himself a badass...as was the case when he first arrived in Mexico. He is also compassionate albeit not the best at showing his affection. The only negative thing I can say about John is that occasionally he is too lenient on those who do him wrong, such as Irish. Grand Theft Auto V Characters I wont say nothing about them here since they have been covered at length several times. Setting Climbing on a horse and riding through the desert on a quiet, starry night is quite the sight to behold. Animals stir nearby, raccoons and armadillos scurry across the path ahead, rattlesnakes hiss in the distance...John adjust his hat and his horse shakes it's head...it's incredible. West Elizabeth, Nuevo Paraiso, and New Austin are all very distinct from eachother, unlike GTA V's setting which looks largely the same. The area called Tall Trees gives me a feeling a paranoia that I haven't had since roaming Back O' Beyond in the original San Andreas. GTA V's forest is little more than an excuse for an abysmal hunting mini game. If they had just gotten rid of Mt. Chiliad, that big waste of space, and replaced it with a larger forested area...than it would give Red Dead a run for it's money in that department. GTA V features a desert but it doesn't feel like a desert. It is way too populated. There are civilians and trailer parks around every turn, and no real sense of "escape" that was easily achievable in Red Dead. Also, where are the animals that live in the desert? They could have ripped them straight from Red Dead and I wouldn't have complained. Essentially, it's a big sandy area. Red Dead knew how to do a desert. GTA V is of course much bigger but bigger isn't always better. All of Los Santos looks much the same. It's ghetto, which should have been featured heavily since Franklin is in the game, is literally a few streets of apartments. I never feel like I'm walking through the "hood", even with gangmembers standing on every street corner. It's the complete opposite in Red Dead Redemption. Each town feels alot different, Thieves Landing really feels like a bad place to be and the absence of law enforcement makes it even more ominous than the dark setting it's known for. Blackwater captures the feeling of the coming of age brilliantly. Story GTA V's story is the worst part of the whole game. It makes little sense, is rushed, and the entire selling point of the game, the heists, are little more than follow the leader events that rarely raise my excitement above a slight groan. It's backstory, about a double crossing, is completely forgettable and by the end of the game I really didn't give a sh*t what happened to Brad. A person, which by the way, the game expects us to care about when we only see the guy for 2 minutes in the entire game. Trevor is such a despicable character that I didn't give a rats ass about his "emotional turmoil" at his betrayal, or even what happens to the guy. Franklin is thrust into the story as little more than filler and an excuse to bring Grove St. back. RDR on the other hand, is a brilliantly written story equivalent to any Hollywood blockbuster in recent memory. A former outlaw, a man trying to do his best to escape his past and live a life of fortitude in the midst of what he's been through, is blackmailed by the Government into bringing his former partners to justice. The game takes us to two different countries in pursuit of these men. After finally capturing his former buddies, reclaiming his family and returning to a normal life, the game throws a twist at us that nobody expected but left many of us either heartbroken or pissed off. Extras It's funny that GTA V brought back random events that aren't even random. Not only do they have predetermined spawn points, they are also marked on the radar. That is not random. What is random, is riding your horse through the desert and coming upon a crying man holding his dead spouse before putting the gun to his own head. That is not marked on the radar and is actually decently rare, but worth it. There are many things like this in Red Dead. Even the random events that show up on the radar, such as a stagecoach being robbed or someone being chased by wolves, only show up when you are in close proximity to it and it's location is completely random. There is no randomness in GTA V. Each playthrough the same ppl can be found at the same location. These events are more like hidden triggers. Weapons in RDR sound better, pack more punch, and overall are just a pleasure to use. Most guns in GTA V are so identical that I see little point in using anything other than the Carbine Rifle. Hunting - Someone should have told R* that if they were gonna add hunting to GTA than it needs to at least meet the expectation set by RDR. Instead, we've got this tiny area where we blow a dead woman's (whistle?), kill the animal, and take a PICTURE of it before sending it to Cletus. WTF? Meanwhile, in RDR, we not only can hide in a bush, we can set bait out, kill, skin, and sale the goods in different locations for better prices. Wildlife - I give R* props for including animals in a GTA game, I'm sure it will get better, but they were poorly done in GTA V. Rabbits for example, run into bushes and despawn. Cougars kill with one strike and we have no chance of fighting them off except to kill them before the attack (which actually isn't hard because they show up on the radar). Animals like coyotes won't even attack, neither will boars. Like I've said, it was a good first try but it needs work. On RDR, they've got a full fledged ecosystem on there. I literally have to head North to the lakes of Tall Trees to find Beavers. That, is how in depth it is. Not to mention the plethora of predatory animals. Yet another person supplying complete bias opinion. I doesn't matter if you think certain places feel/look better or if you think the story is better. I'm not commenting on these aspects now. I did give my opinion at the very start of this thread but since then I've been talking solely about facts and RDR as a Sandbox game. It can't lace GTAV'S boots when it comes to non scripted content and variety of self made activities that can be attempted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwenshy Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) Where have you just pulled that fact from? Show me the figures saying more people play COD than GTAV 26.2 million people bought Black Ops by November 2013.Less than 20 million people have purchased GTA V. Black Ops is widely considered as 'bad'.If you knew anything about business you would understand why COD ghosts was a hit but ultimately sh*t. I'll try and explain simply for you. All COD games before Ghosts were very good games and received very good reviews and the franchise deservedly built up a massive amount of respect and trust.....so when ghost came out everyone assumed it would be a good game and went out and purchased it.....including me. It took me and my friends (sort of in denial) 2-3 months to realise it was actually a sh*t sh*t game. So the sales figures for Ghosts is actually good because it lived off the franchises reputation.(before you say GTAV is living off GTA franchise reputation ill point to the fact that it got average score of 97% whereas ghosts was in the 80% ish region) Now that people lost the trust of COD sales figures have slipped EVER since and are down by 30%. And Activision have actively avoided releasing figures for Advanced warfare because they are suspected of being so poor. To say that COD is still popular is ignorant....it's dying and as when all big companies die...it's a slow process. BUT DO NOT COMPARE RECENT COD GAMES TO GTAV and try and say that my figures and facts are not valid. What would be a telling stat is the number of people still playing COD ghosts or AW. But I can't find these stats. Edited January 22, 2015 by fwenshy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDeSanta Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 You are persistent little cus ain`t ya? @American Alpha gave you the best arguments on how RDR is less scripted than V but yet you`re saying it`s reverse. Self made activities? You`re saying like RDR has none of it. Well if you lack of imagination and shooting sprees & police chases are the only thing you can come up with then yes, V is better in this aspect. But when it comes to quality side activities then RDR wins. Btw @American Alpha, this has to be one of the best posts i ever read on GTAF. You should consider about writing the game reviews. . Maybe then they`d at least be fair and neutral instead of biased like the most of them on the web are now. American Viking and Official General 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwenshy Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 (edited) ^ my point has always been about the spontaneous aspect of the game (which what defines a sandbox game) and for spontaneity GTAV beats RDR by miles. As I've said before LAND SEA AIR CITYS TOWNS DESERTS MOUNTAINS WEAPONS VEHICLES. People think that sandbox means open world. It doesnt Edited January 22, 2015 by fwenshy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
American Viking Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 You are persistent little cus ain`t ya? @American Alpha gave you the best arguments on how RDR is less scripted than V but yet you`re saying it`s reverse. Self made activities? You`re saying like RDR has none of it. Well if you lack of imagination and shooting sprees & police chases are the only thing you can come up with then yes, V is better in this aspect. But when it comes to quality side activities then RDR wins. Btw @American Alpha, this has to be one of the best posts i ever read on GTAF. You should consider about writing the game reviews. . Maybe then they`d at least be fair and neutral instead of biased like the most of them on the web are now. Oh hell, I'm not nearly talented enough to do that but I appreciate you saying so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UAL Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Setting Climbing on a horse and riding through the desert on a quiet, starry night is quite the sight to behold. Animals stir nearby, raccoons and armadillos scurry across the path ahead, rattlesnakes hiss in the distance...John adjust his hat and his horse shakes it's head...it's incredible. West Elizabeth, Nuevo Paraiso, and New Austin are all very distinct from eachother, unlike GTA V's setting which looks largely the same. The area called Tall Trees gives me a feeling a paranoia that I haven't had since roaming Back O' Beyond in the original San Andreas. GTA V's forest is little more than an excuse for an abysmal hunting mini game. If they had just gotten rid of Mt. Chiliad, that big waste of space, and replaced it with a larger forested area...than it would give Red Dead a run for it's money in that department. Only quoted part of what you said but your whole post hit the nail on the head and pretty much summed up everything. To the part I highlighted, I was thinking about this and sure Chilliad can be cool to look at and stuff, but you're right ultimately it's just a waste of map space. I feel the same way about the Alamo Sea. Sometimes I think Rockstar just added things to the map for the sake of adding them. "Oh we've never had a lake in a GTA game before, lets take a huge chunk of the map and throw one in" It was cool when I first heard about, but after a while you realise how much of a waste it was. Official General and American Viking 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fwenshy Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) ^90% of RDR is a desert and you have the cheek to complain about a lake that takes up 5% or 10% of GTAVs map. The lake in GTA has a purpose, it provides a whole inland coastline for starters and Raton Canyon wouldn't work without it and it's also meant to replicate the Salton sea which apparently it does a pretty good job of in parts. The ignorance and blind bias hatred for GTAV on a GTAV forum really baffles me. Edited January 23, 2015 by fwenshy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 ^90% of RDR is a desert and you have the cheek to complain about a lake that takes up 5% or 10% of GTAVs map. The lake in GTA has a purpose, it provides a whole inland coastline for starters and Raton Canyon wouldn't work without it. Doesn't this work both ways? I can't see how RDR's map would work if it wasn't made up of mostly desert. How many Westerns have you actually seen? SCOOBASTEEB and UAL 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillBellic Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 ^90% of RDR is a desert and you have the cheek to complain about a lake that takes up 5% or 10% of GTAVs map. The lake in GTA has a purpose, it provides a whole inland coastline for starters and Raton Canyon wouldn't work without it. Doesn't this work both ways? I can't see how RDR's map would work if it wasn't made up of mostly desert. How many Westerns have you actually seen? I have not seen many Westerns, however they would look totally out of place, if they were set in any other place other than a desert environment. Algonquin Assassin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UAL Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) ^90% of RDR is a desert and you have the cheek to complain about a lake that takes up 5% or 10% of GTAVs map. The lake in GTA has a purpose, it provides a whole inland coastline for starters and Raton Canyon wouldn't work without it and it's also meant to replicate the Salton sea which apparently it does a pretty good job of in parts. The ignorance and blind bias hatred for GTAV on a GTAV forum really baffles me. You don't seem to understand that that RDR is about the old west and takes place in a rural setting. 90% of western movies take place in a desert/rural setting/places with a low population. The fact that the map is majority rural/desert/forest/countryside with a handful of small to medium sized towns scattered through out is one of it's selling points. The context of RDR's setting has gone completely over your head. Besides if the Alamo Sea was replaced by desert or dense forests, I wouldn't be complaining. Edited January 23, 2015 by UAL Official General 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillBellic Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 ^90% of RDR is a desert and you have the cheek to complain about a lake that takes up 5% or 10% of GTAVs map. The lake in GTA has a purpose, it provides a whole inland coastline for starters and Raton Canyon wouldn't work without it and it's also meant to replicate the Salton sea which apparently it does a pretty good job of in parts. The ignorance and blind bias hatred for GTAV on a GTAV forum really baffles me. You don't seem to understand that that RDR is about the old west and takes place in a rural setting. 90% of western movies take place in a desert/rural setting/places with a low population. The fact that the map is majority rural/desert/forest/countryside with a handful of small to medium sized towns scattered through out is one of it's selling points. The context of RDR's setting has gone completely over your head. Besides if the Alamo Sea was replaced by desert or dense forests, I wouldn't be complaining. UAL, I would not have it any other way. I was skeptical when I played it at first, however shortly after that my fears were allayed, and as a result, RDR earned a very high spot in my all time favourite games list. UAL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Algonquin Assassin Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 ^90% of RDR is a desert and you have the cheek to complain about a lake that takes up 5% or 10% of GTAVs map. The lake in GTA has a purpose, it provides a whole inland coastline for starters and Raton Canyon wouldn't work without it and it's also meant to replicate the Salton sea which apparently it does a pretty good job of in parts. The ignorance and blind bias hatred for GTAV on a GTAV forum really baffles me. You don't seem to understand that that RDR is about the old west and takes place in a rural setting. 90% of western movies take place in a desert/rural setting/places with a low population. The fact that the map is majority rural/desert/forest/countryside with a handful of small to medium sized towns scattered through out is one of it's selling points. The context of RDR's setting has gone completely over your head. Besides if the Alamo Sea was replaced by desert or dense forests, I wouldn't be complaining. The context of each game in general seems to go over his head. He seems to forget RDR is a Western after all. In saying that there are things about RDR that would fit in fine in GTA V. Such as better bullet damage, being able to tie people up, moving inside of trains. GTA V also has those Fleeca Banks scattered around the map which are basically useless. Why can't we rob them like how we can rob banks in RDR? It's simple really. GTA V has a bigger map with more features, but like it or not it somehow misses a lot of core mechanics from previous titles. DANIEL3GS and UAL 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillBellic Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 ^90% of RDR is a desert and you have the cheek to complain about a lake that takes up 5% or 10% of GTAVs map. The lake in GTA has a purpose, it provides a whole inland coastline for starters and Raton Canyon wouldn't work without it and it's also meant to replicate the Salton sea which apparently it does a pretty good job of in parts. The ignorance and blind bias hatred for GTAV on a GTAV forum really baffles me. You don't seem to understand that that RDR is about the old west and takes place in a rural setting. 90% of western movies take place in a desert/rural setting/places with a low population. The fact that the map is majority rural/desert/forest/countryside with a handful of small to medium sized towns scattered through out is one of it's selling points. The context of RDR's setting has gone completely over your head. Besides if the Alamo Sea was replaced by desert or dense forests, I wouldn't be complaining. The context of each game in general seems to go over his head. He seems to forget RDR is a Western after all. In saying that there are things about RDR that would fit in fine in GTA V. Such as better bullet damage, being able to tie people up, moving inside of trains. GTA V also has those Fleeca Banks scattered around the map which are basically useless. Why can't we rob them like how we can rob banks in RDR? It's simple really. GTA V has a bigger map with more features, but like it or not it somehow misses a lot of core mechanics from previous titles. I reckon GTA V would have also been improved with the inclusion of horses. "Work you damn nag!" Jack Marston. theGTAking101 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UAL Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 ^90% of RDR is a desert and you have the cheek to complain about a lake that takes up 5% or 10% of GTAVs map. The lake in GTA has a purpose, it provides a whole inland coastline for starters and Raton Canyon wouldn't work without it and it's also meant to replicate the Salton sea which apparently it does a pretty good job of in parts. The ignorance and blind bias hatred for GTAV on a GTAV forum really baffles me. You don't seem to understand that that RDR is about the old west and takes place in a rural setting. 90% of western movies take place in a desert/rural setting/places with a low population. The fact that the map is majority rural/desert/forest/countryside with a handful of small to medium sized towns scattered through out is one of it's selling points. The context of RDR's setting has gone completely over your head. Besides if the Alamo Sea was replaced by desert or dense forests, I wouldn't be complaining. The context of each game in general seems to go over his head. He seems to forget RDR is a Western after all. In saying that there are things about RDR that would fit in fine in GTA V. Such as better bullet damage, being able to tie people up, moving inside of trains. GTA V also has those Fleeca Banks scattered around the map which are basically useless. Why can't we rob them like how we can rob banks in RDR? It's simple really. GTA V has a bigger map with more features, but like it or not it somehow misses a lot of core mechanics from previous titles. This just goes back to a point that someone raised (might have been yourself come to think of it) of the map just being superficial. I never knew that huge bank in Vinewood was even there until someone in the interiors debate thread mentioned it. But when you go inside it's just like the Fleeca banks, non interactive and no NPC's what so ever. Algonquin Assassin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillBellic Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 ^90% of RDR is a desert and you have the cheek to complain about a lake that takes up 5% or 10% of GTAVs map. The lake in GTA has a purpose, it provides a whole inland coastline for starters and Raton Canyon wouldn't work without it and it's also meant to replicate the Salton sea which apparently it does a pretty good job of in parts. The ignorance and blind bias hatred for GTAV on a GTAV forum really baffles me. You don't seem to understand that that RDR is about the old west and takes place in a rural setting. 90% of western movies take place in a desert/rural setting/places with a low population. The fact that the map is majority rural/desert/forest/countryside with a handful of small to medium sized towns scattered through out is one of it's selling points. The context of RDR's setting has gone completely over your head. Besides if the Alamo Sea was replaced by desert or dense forests, I wouldn't be complaining. The context of each game in general seems to go over his head. He seems to forget RDR is a Western after all. In saying that there are things about RDR that would fit in fine in GTA V. Such as better bullet damage, being able to tie people up, moving inside of trains. GTA V also has those Fleeca Banks scattered around the map which are basically useless. Why can't we rob them like how we can rob banks in RDR? It's simple really. GTA V has a bigger map with more features, but like it or not it somehow misses a lot of core mechanics from previous titles. This just goes back to a point that someone raised (might have been yourself come to think of it) of the map just being superficial. I never knew that huge bank in Vinewood was even there until someone in the interiors debate thread mentioned it. But when you go inside it's just like the Fleeca banks, non interactive and no NPC's what so ever. Furthermore, if you find a Fleeca Bank location, you come up to the doors, only to realise that the doors are locked. UAL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Official General Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 ^90% of RDR is a desert and you have the cheek to complain about a lake that takes up 5% or 10% of GTAVs map. The lake in GTA has a purpose, it provides a whole inland coastline for starters and Raton Canyon wouldn't work without it. Doesn't this work both ways? I can't see how RDR's map would work if it wasn't made up of mostly desert. How many Westerns have you actually seen? Even then RDR's map still had a big expanse of actual forest. And the open areas were not all desert, in fact most of it was semi-arid brush land and chaparral. Then you also had wide rolling plains and grasslands. The topography of RDR's map actually made sense and was recreated much better. V's map was hugely wasteful, 90 percent of it being mountainous terrain and one small desert and lake. V did not have a forest, because Paleto forest is not a forest to me. UAL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Tiger~ Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 This has gone far enough. Closed. Amistrulez and Algonquin Assassin 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts