Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. Los Santos Summer Special
      2. The Diamond Casino Heist
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

Lock n' Stock

Grand Theft Auto V vs. Red Dead Redemption 2

Grand Theft Auto V vs. Red Dead Redemption 2  

70 members have voted

  1. 1. Which game is better?

    • Grand Theft Auto V
      12
    • Red Dead Redemption 2
      58


Recommended Posts

Lock n' Stock

Two of Rockstar's most recent games. Personally, I feel they dropped the ball with alot of things with GTA V, but RDR 2 is a step in the right direction in many ways.

 

I imagine this is going to be very one-sided, but what do you all think?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
El Penguin Bobo

I honestly love both games, but if I had to choose between RDR 2 and GTA V, I would pick RDR 2. But if I was at a, let's say, a Gamestop, and I had to choose between those two games, I would definitely buy both of them.

Edited by xXPinguXx
Forgot to put a period at the end.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sinner!

GTA V Is far better IMO

 

GTA V I have played through 5 times and enjoyed it thoroughly each time, such an underappreciated masterpiece. it also felt unique fresh & original. (unlike RDR II)

 

RDR II on the other hand just felt like a mostly prettier & bigger version of RDR its a game with very little innovation & which bored me profoundly half-way through. a lot of the open-world I explored EIGHT years ago & the rest is also not all that interesting to explore. It's not even been two weeks and I'm already bored with it & there's no chance I will play through its drawn-out plot again.

Edited by Sinner!
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25

Close one. GTA V is my 2nd favorite game of all time. While RDR2 picked the 3rd spot. 

 

Alright here's a little rant. A sad one. Cause I really love R* but I just have to do this. 

 

I can't help but think that R* really seem to have a very similar problem with each of their games since GTA IV. They always tend to fix the broken things with their previous games which really shows they listen. But weirdly they keep breaking the strong points of their previous games as well.

 

- With GTA V they fixed many problems of GTA IV. they fixed the driving, weapon variety, vehicle variety, parachute, planes, a diverse map, customization,clunkiness... BUT they broke IV's strong points. They ruined the AI and physics and the conclusion of the story.

 

-With RDR2 they brought back physics and AI.They forgot some of gameplay elements previously in GTA V and RDR. you cannot blindfire in a game from 2018.You cannot throw throwables while crouching,In Opposition to RDR and GTA V. these are small obvious things that you'd expect the game to have but they seem to be FORGOTTEN.

 

I feel like Rockstar's recent focus on the problems really has made them forget what the strong points of their previous games are. The Clothing options seem to be a letdown. The bandana is a letdown from RDR. The mission design seems to be a step down from V. The weapon variety seems to be a bit lower than RDR while you expect them to "expand". But the Story and characters are far, far, far better than V.

 

-A hangout system(Like IV and V)  for free roam with gang members could be PHENOMENAL with the awesome characters of this game but it's missing. It's just so weird. It seems like R* keep running in a circle. Fixing issues and breaking strong points at the same time. 

 

Another worrying thing is the pattern each R* game is taking with linearity of missions. The missions keep getting more and more linear. In V, any creative scenario would lead to a mission fail message. Now we've come to the point that they control your movement in RDR2. I miss the old R* where they gave you an objective and you just were free to to do anything as long as you accomplished the objective. No restrictions

 

I miss when there was tools available to you in a sandbox game that you would use any way you wanted.

 

Features>Content. If a game is feature heavy it leads to unlimited possibilities since you can make your own scenarios with them. But content(Story and Side content) will always end no matter how good they are.  

 

This rant may indicate I didn't like the game but I loved it and I easily give it a 9.5/10.But it always hurts me when I think of ways that could make this game much better but R* forgot about them. It does not seem like they neglect these features but actually "forget" about them due to how much work they already need to do. but I gotta say the thing that always seems to remain strong is the world and details. Always phenomenal in all R* games. And yeah. The stealth is still sh*t. R* are the only dev left who try new things. Even if they don't work,they are fresh. The Multiple Protagonist System from V and the dialogue flexibility of RDR2 easily show that they are still creative. Unlike other devs who keep punching the Same sh*t out every year. It's impossible to be perfect but well I am free to have hopes. And My hope is that R* finally create the closest experience to perfection. 

 

 

Edited by TheSantader25
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Algonquin Assassin

Red Dead Redemption 2.

 

I still haven't finished the story yet and I'm enjoying it far more than I did of GTA V 3 weeks after its release. The switching mechanic was one of those things I was really hoping wouldn't make its way into the game and thank f*ck it didn't because Arthur's 10 times the character the three stooges are in GTA V.

 

No game is perfect and there are obviously things that could've been done better however I feel it respects its predecessor more than GTA V which tried to remove every trace of GTA IV from existence, but just ended up pissing off fans of GTA IV AND the 3D era. Red Dead Redemption 2 brings back the good vibes I had about R* in the late 00s.

  • Like 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emmi

Red Dead Redemption 2.

 

I also haven't finished the story yet but I've enjoyed every second of this game so far ... unlike GTA V which I put on my shelf in October 2013, shortly after release and never touched it again since.

For me, GTA IV and RDR 2 are the pinnacle of (modern) gaming up until this point.

RDR 2 really reminds me of the good old R* from the PS2 and early PS3 era ... it's certainly their best game yet and I can't wait to see their next one!

Edited by Emmi
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KrabsAreKool
On 11/8/2018 at 3:01 AM, Sinner! said:

GTA V Is far better IMO

 

GTA V I have played through 5 times and enjoyed it thoroughly each time, such an underappreciated masterpiece. it also felt unique fresh & original. (unlike RDR II)

 

RDR II on the other hand just felt like a mostly prettier & bigger version of RDR its a game with very little innovation & which bored me profoundly half-way through. a lot of the open-world I explored EIGHT years ago & the rest is also not all that interesting to explore. It's not even been two weeks and I'm already bored with it & there's no chance I will play through its drawn-out plot again.

GTA V is not underappreciated in the slightest. It is one of the most overrated Rockstar games of all time, considering how much of a downgrade it was.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tez2

The timing is important, GTAV did well in its time.

From 2014 to now, the gaming industry changed a lot. Every year the fans expect much more from new games as every game tries to compete with others by introducing features that over time becomes standard for the whole industry.

I always thought game developers will make better games with a totally new engine, turns out it's the opposite.

A new engine will require you to design the whole thing from the start, creating and designing the "standard" features that already exist in your old engine, you could save time and stick to the old engine. Doing so will make you focus on much more important ideas that the fans suggest.

Anyway, my opinion is that GTAV did well in 2013/2014 compared to other games of that time period, and the same apply to RDR2

Technically, RDR2 is the new version of RAGE (Rockstar engine). For me personally, this is more like comparing update V1 and update V2 and see which one did better.

Edited by Fun 2
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Algonquin Assassin
On 11/12/2018 at 9:04 AM, KrabsAreKool said:

GTA V is not underappreciated in the slightest. It is one of the most overrated Rockstar games of all time, considering how much of a downgrade it was.

Yeah. No way is it underappreciated. People on this forum might a bit firmer with the stick, but that's because we're GTA fans and the flaws are more apparent to us than say people that aren't necessarily "GTA" fans, but only play them occasionally. If anything Red Dead Redemption 2's underappreciated since so many wrote it off for being "boring" and "slow" despite the fact it's one of the most unique and breath taking open world experiences in years.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Self-Destructive Man

GTA V is a great game, I really liked it, but Red Dead is better in every possible way.

 

The thing I look forward the most in any R*'s game, it's the story. Different of what many people say, I think Rockstar is very good when it comes to tell a good story in their games, and in that regard, GTA V disappointed me, the story is weak IMO, very generic, with forgettable characters, including the protagonists, except Michael. Meanwhile Red Dead Redemption 2 is easily the best story ever written by R*.

 

Another point in favor of Red Dead it's the world exploration. Open World is my favorite genre, but I never get to really explore the world. Red Dead is pretty much the first game that I actually felt interested in explore the map, the world is packed with things to do; you can easily forget the story, despite how good it is, because you can get distracted with the things happenings around. It's probably the most alive world from Rockstar.

Edited by Mafia Assassin®
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emmi

^ It's the most alive world from ANY developer!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jabalous

Red Dead Redemption 2

 

The story of GTA 5 was very underwhelming even compared to the previous entries in the series. It'd also be unfair to compare this side of both games because they take place in very different periods and carry different messages, but this could at least speak about how the writing in the Western title is more grounded and evokes emotions and care for the world, its main characters and inhabitants. It's time for the writing in Grand Theft Auto to develop into a more mature form. The in-game media also needs to grow and drop the exaggerated silly jokes that can be heard on talk shows or read on the internet, or any other form of media. I'd prefer no parody over the blatant forms of it that were pushed everywhere in GTA V. The writing can make or break immersion in a rather well-realized and beautiful open world environment. 

Edited by Jabalous
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm nice bike
On 11/8/2018 at 2:41 AM, TheSantader25 said:

Another worrying thing is the pattern each R* game is taking with linearity of missions. The missions keep getting more and more linear. In V, any creative scenario would lead to a mission fail message. Now we've come to the point that they control your movement in RDR2. I miss the old R* where they gave you an objective and you just were free to to do anything as long as you accomplished the objective. No restrictions 

The linearity you describe for both games is pretty annoying. It's like they feel the need to either hold the players' hands, or they want to force you to play the game in the way that THEY want you to, instead of being free to do stuff on your own. Remember being able to fail GTA IV missions in a ton of different ways? And if you've seen the "All Possibilities" series on YouTube, they really came up with a bunch of different scenarios and new dialogue, cutscenes and phone calls for each mission depending on how you failed it. You could even shoot Roman if you wanted to or attack other allies, but by V and RDR, they prevent you from doing so.

 

Having said that, I find RDR2 to be a much better game than V, and even IV. It feels like Rockstar tried harder with it during development. V, despite taking quite a few years to make, still felt like a half-assed experience to me, and I think GTA Online/Shark Cards taking priority had a lot to do with that (even before the game came out, I think they probably knew that they could make a ton of money on it). Why bother with improving a single player experience when you can hype up the Online mode and sell your cash cards? I'd be willing to bet that a majority of GTA V's sales after 2014 was for Online only, people started treating it like COD and ignoring anything to do with single player.

Edited by Hmmm nice bike
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25
23 minutes ago, Hmmm nice bike said:

The linearity you describe for both games is pretty annoying. It's like they feel the need to either hold the players' hands, or they want to force you to play the game in the way that THEY want you to, instead of being free to do stuff on your own. Remember being able to fail GTA IV missions in a ton of different ways? And if you've seen the "All Possibilities" series on YouTube, they really came up with a bunch of different scenarios and new dialogue, cutscenes and phone calls for each mission depending on how you failed it. You could even shoot Roman if you wanted to or attack other allies, but by V and RDR, they prevent you from doing so.

 

Having said that, I find RDR2 to be a much better game than V, and even IV. It feels like Rockstar tried harder with it during development. V, despite taking quite a few years to make, still felt like a half-assed experience to me, and I think GTA Online/Shark Cards taking priority had a lot to do with that (even before the game came out, I think they probably knew that they could make a ton of money on it). Why bother with improving a single player experience when you can hype up the Online mode and sell your cash cards? I'd be willing to bet that a majority of GTA V's sales after 2014 was for Online only, people started treating it like COD and ignoring anything to do with single player.

Well I liked V better than IV and I like it more than RDR2 but that's just because it's a GTA. When I look at things Objectively RDR2 reminds me a lot of the old R* and it's probably their most flawless game since SA. it's definitely a step in the right direction. 

 

In terms of linearity there are still signs of different directions a mission can go(Like the mission with Lenny where you can get caught or not). R* did a good job once again for predicting different Scenarios. I believe they've been doing that well since IV. Even in V the fact that you could switch to another protagonist after a mission and hear his opinion about what just happened was a nice touch IMO. Or missions like bury the hatchet which could have two different beginnings. V actually had quite a handful of these because it had 3 protagonists. the main problem isn't the scripted directions a mission can go. It's how they basically don't let you do the things you can do normally(in freemode) . Why do they control my movement? Why can't I open my weapon wheel? Why can't I jump now? Why doesn't my lasso work on this particular guy? These are the main problems. 

Edited by TheSantader25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm nice bike
6 minutes ago, TheSantader25 said:

When I look at things Objectively RDR2 reminds me a lot of the old R* amd it's probably their most flawless game since SA. it's definitely a step in the right direction.  

I was actually gonna say, RDR2 is reminding me a lot of GTA SA. I'll hold off any premature judgements until I get further into the game and finish, but I wouldn't be surprised if I find it to be on-par with SA. In a lot of ways, it does feel like "old Rockstar."

 

And last night, on a mission with Javier to rob a ranch, I actually found that I was only able to jump but the game otherwise controlled my movements. It looked weird as hell, since Arthur was jumping faster and going ahead of Javier. Still, it was a little bit of an unrestricted moment during a part of the game where they tried controlling your movement, and I realized that I hated not being able to just control my own character. Moments like that feel like they catered those parts towards the idiots who don't pay attention to anything that's going on and who would end up lost 20 seconds in because they let the guy they were supposed to follow go ahead of them.

Edited by Hmmm nice bike
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25
1 minute ago, Hmmm nice bike said:

I was actually gonna say, RDR2 is reminding me a lot of GTA SA. I'll hold off any premature judgements until I get further into the game and finish, but I wouldn't be surprising if I find it to be on-par with SA. In a lot of ways, it does feel like "old Rockstar."

 

And last night, on a mission with Javier to rob a ranch, I actually found that I was only able to jump but the game otherwise controlled my movements. It looked weird as hell, since Arthur was jumping faster and going ahead of Javier. Still, it was a little bit of an unrestricted moment during a part of the game where they tried controlling your movement, and I realized that I hated not being able to just control my own character. Moments like that feel like they catered those parts towards the idiots who don't pay attention to anything that's going on and who would end up lost 20 seconds in because they let the guy they were supposed to follow go ahead of them.

I know they did these to force people with zero attention span to focus on immersion and dialogue. And I might not even use such basic movements during serious missions. But the fact that I CAN'T do these when I want to feels like I'm stuck in a cage and I'm treated like a kid who's stupid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Journey_95
On 11/8/2018 at 9:01 AM, Sinner! said:

GTA V Is far better IMO

 

GTA V I have played through 5 times and enjoyed it thoroughly each time, such an underappreciated masterpiece. it also felt unique fresh & original. (unlike RDR II)

 

RDR II on the other hand just felt like a mostly prettier & bigger version of RDR its a game with very little innovation & which bored me profoundly half-way through. a lot of the open-world I explored EIGHT years ago & the rest is also not all that interesting to explore. It's not even been two weeks and I'm already bored with it & there's no chance I will play through its drawn-out plot again.

Only unique feature of GTA V was the multiple protagonists angle and it felt more like a cheap gimmick than anything fleshed out so I'm not sure how it was "unique and original". RDR2's immersive and interactive elements are far more innovative and better.

 

RDR2's plot is long but that's the way I like it. GTA V's story was a short rushed mess in comparison because they pandered to GTA IV haters who also thought it's story went on for too long. 

 

Overall RDR2 wins this easily. GTA V was still a good game and at times it does get too much hate but the story and characters while entertaining felt underwhelming compared to GTA IV while in RDR2 they are some of the best they have written (alongside GTA IV). The missions in GTA V were over the top for the sake of it and I think they may have spoiled your average gamer with the fast pacing. RDR2 isn't that much slower than pre GTA V Rockstar games.

Edited by Journey_95
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Algonquin Assassin
On 11/19/2018 at 3:39 PM, Journey_95 said:

RDR2's plot is long but that's the way I like it. GTA V's story was a short rushed mess in comparison because they pandered to GTA IV haters who also thought it's story went on for too long. 

When I first played through GTA V even doing exploring in between I still only finished it in about 10 days which was really disappointing because even though I felt like I was taking my time it just left me feeling like "wait that was it?". First GTA game to ever do that.

 

Granted some of Red Dead Redemption 2's missions are a little imbalanced with some only comprising of a cutscene and others being really long, but I enjoyed the overall long length as it gave me satisfaction I got my money's worth and would happily do it all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25
On 11/19/2018 at 8:09 AM, Journey_95 said:

Only unique feature of GTA V was the multiple protagonists angle and it felt more like a cheap gimmick than anything fleshed out so I'm not sure how it was "unique and original

Subjective Opinion. IMO it was a unique feature which added a lot to the mission design. 

Quote

RDR2's plot is long but that's the way I like it. GTA V's story was a short rushed mess in comparison because they pandered to GTA IV haters who also thought it's story went on for too long.

 

GTA V's story is as long as IV and San Andreas and takes 13-14 hours of time when you count all the mission times. RDR2 Is longer than all of them(This is objectively true) which is actually remarkable considering how less filler missions it had compared to IV. You can see it for yourself. Also note that this is when I don't even count the two possible ways to do heists. Only counted one of the ways. 

Also proof is here as well. http://howlongtobeat.com/

Quote

 in RDR2 they are some of the best they have written

 

Agreed. But apart from the Antagonists I don't think V's characters were weaker than IV. at least having three protagonists brought some consistency in the personalities. 

Quote

RDR2's immersive and interactive elements are far more innovative and better

 

Agreed but don't forget to compare the two games based on their time. If you haven't Forgotten Random events in freemode first started with V and RDR and now are perfected in RDR2 because this is now possible. R* have now mastered this element. But everything has a start. Improvements come later based on experience. 

Quote

 The missions in GTA V were over the top for the sake of it

 

I think you never had a bad first impression with V. You're acting a bit biased. RDR2 is very much like V when it comes to missions.I would like to ask you which missions felt over the top? RDR2 is also Full of heists, explosions and badass moments. IV had the Weakest mission design in R* history based on it's time. It's the only one that stands out from other R* games. 

 

Overall RDR2 is a much more flawless game than V. But just barely when you compare the two game's scales based on their time. However Story wise RDR2 beats V and any R* game by a VERY long shot. I'd say it's R*'s most flawless since SA. but having a "perfect" GTA is a bit harder IMO. 

Edited by TheSantader25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Journey_95
11 hours ago, TheSantader25 said:

Subjective Opinion. IMO it was a unique feature which added a lot to the mission design. 

 

GTA V's story is as long as IV and San Andreas and takes 13-14 hours of time when you count all the mission times. RDR2 Is longer than all of them(This is objectively true) which is actually remarkable considering how less filler missions it had compared to IV. You can see it for yourself. Also note that this is when I don't even count the two possible ways to do heists. Only counted one of the ways. 

Also proof is here as well. http://howlongtobeat.com/

 

Agreed. But apart from the Antagonists I don't think V's characters were weaker than IV. at least having three protagonists brought some consistency in the personalities. 

 

Agreed but don't forget to compare the two games based on their time. If you haven't Forgotten Random events in freemode first started with V and RDR and now are perfected in RDR2 because this is now possible. R* have now mastered this element. But everything has a start. Improvements come later based on experience. 

 

I think you never had a bad first impression with V. You're acting a bit biased. RDR2 is very much like V when it comes to missions.I would like to ask you which missions felt over the top? RDR2 is also Full of heists, explosions and badass moments. IV had the Weakest mission design in R* history based on it's time. It's the only one that stands out from other R* games. 

 

Overall RDR2 is a much more flawless game than V. But just barely when you compare the two game's scales based on their time. However Story wise RDR2 beats V and any R* game by a VERY long shot. I'd say it's R*'s most flawless since SA. but having a "perfect" GTA is a bit harder IMO. 

Never felt that way to me, maybe because of the multiple protagonists or how fast paced the story is? But SA and GTA IV definitely seemed to go on for a much longer time.

 

I think they were..side character wise we basically only have cartoons with no real human moments. GTA IV's side characters felt more grounded and real to me. Comparing Michael's family, Ron & Wade etc. to the McReary family, Roman etc. shows that well. Only Lamar was really memorable in terms of side characters. The villians were sh*t compared to GTA IVs (and SA and VC's) as well.

 

Main character wise I definitely think Niko is more compelling but Michael is also pretty well written. Trevor is too over the top to take seriously but entertaining and Franklin is just a bland & boring af dude.

 

Three protagonists definitely felt like a gimmick to me and made the game too fast paced (which has clearly spoiled people when you look at RDR2's criticism) + the story didn't have any real focus and felt random.


Agreed but I think RDR1 started the random events although they were pretty lacking compared with GTA V and especially RDR2.

 

GTA V had you attacking the military, going into CIA secret facilities and getting some nerve gas sh*t, going against a paramilitary organization, ridiculous "stunts" performed by Michael and Trevor etc. RDR2 while still "epic" felt far more grounded. I mean they robbed people and went against the cop..hardly over the top. And actually I have seen some complaints regarding RDR2's missions for being too "samey", just like I did for GTA IV. So no I would say RDR2 is more like RDR1 and GTA IV than GTA V in terms of missions

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25
35 minutes ago, Journey_95 said:

Never felt that way to me, maybe because of the multiple protagonists or how fast paced the story is? But SA and GTA IV definitely seemed to go on for a much longer time.

 

I think they were..side character wise we basically only have cartoons with no real human moments. GTA IV's side characters felt more grounded and real to me. Comparing Michael's family, Ron & Wade etc. to the McReary family, Roman etc. shows that well. Only Lamar was really memorable in terms of side characters. The villians were sh*t compared to GTA IVs (and SA and VC's) as well.

 

Main character wise I definitely think Niko is more compelling but Michael is also pretty well written. Trevor is too over the top to take seriously but entertaining and Franklin is just a bland & boring af dude.

 

Three protagonists definitely felt like a gimmick to me and made the game too fast paced (which has clearly spoiled people when you look at RDR2's criticism) + the story didn't have any real focus and felt random.


Agreed but I think RDR1 started the random events although they were pretty lacking compared with GTA V and especially RDR2.

 

GTA V had you attacking the military, going into CIA secret facilities and getting some nerve gas sh*t, going against a paramilitary organization, ridiculous "stunts" performed by Michael and Trevor etc. RDR2 while still "epic" felt far more grounded. I mean they robbed people and went against the cop..hardly over the top. And actually I have seen some complaints regarding RDR2's missions for being too "samey", just like I did for GTA IV. So no I would say RDR2 is more like RDR1 and GTA IV than GTA V in terms of missions

 

 

 

 

Probably because you were having way more fun😉

 

-Well SA definitely earns a lot of it's length because there is no taxi fast travel in a very huge map. On the other hand V has checkpoints and easier missions. Also the vehicles are faster. That's probably why you FELT it was shorter. But objectively it's pretty much the same,Even if you don't count the assassinations and Michael's Optional family missions. 

 

-I agree with you in terms of villains. They were weak. But the rest were real IMO. The World is a big place full of different personalities. I've seen many like the types in V. Especially in here. The USA. I think R* earned themselves a happy story in V after so many f*cking protagonists dying in their games but the "humanized" moments in IV felt a bit forced to me. They felt like they were trying to do something where it didn't belong for the sake of it. RDR1 and RDR2 on the other hand used these moments perfectly IMO. 

 

-As for The Multiple Protagonist System I felt it was a neat feature and it still has a potential to be much better.Just like the Random Events. Everything has a start. That's why despite the fact that I really don't care if we have 3 or 1 protagonists in the next game as long as they are good, I think it would be nice to see this feature at it's full potential now that R* have more experience. 

 

-We attacked the military with special suits and weaponry. We didn't go empty handed.I don't remember any stunts by Michael. Trevor does these because he is insane and he isn't afraid to die because he has nothing to lose so he just goes for it. Non of these are impossible. Difficult. Just like killing 1000 men which you do in every R* game. But not impossible. 

In RDR2 you jump on a horse from a moving train and back on it again, You destroy a battleship in the middle of an Island, You defeat countless numbers of USA army members and Also Cuban military members. See where I'm going. I think when you look at things objectively(based on their time(1899 and 2013)  both games are very similar. I don't consider any of them over the top in a videogame perspective but I think it's a bit biased to call one over the top and not the other. IMO RDR2's missions are pretty well designed based on the era. Because there wasn't much R* could do. They did their best based on the available things for the era and mixed things up as much as they could. But IV really had a low sense of creativity. I won't bring up TBOGT because I know how you feel about it. But just look at TLAD. It had a far better mission design in comparison to IV while being grounded(as you call it). You can have good mission design while being grounded but IV lacked it IMO. 

Edited by TheSantader25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Journey_95
1 hour ago, TheSantader25 said:

Probably because you were having way more fun😉

 

-Well SA definitely earns a lot of it's length because there is no taxi fast travel in a very huge map. On the other hand V has checkpoints and easier missions. Also the vehicles are faster. That's probably why you FELT it was shorter. But objectively it's pretty much the same,Even if you don't count the assassinations and Michael's Optional family missions. 

 

-I agree with you in terms of villains. They were weak. But the rest were real IMO. The World is a big place full of different personalities. I've seen many like the types in V. Especially in here. The USA. I think R* earned themselves a happy story in V after so many f*cking protagonists dying in their games but the "humanized" moments in IV felt a bit forced to me. They felt like they were trying to do something where it didn't belong for the sake of it. RDR1 and RDR2 on the other hand used these moments perfectly IMO. 

 

-As for The Multiple Protagonist System I felt it was a neat feature and it still has a potential to be much better.Just like the Random Events. Everything has a start. That's why despite the fact that I really don't care if we have 3 or 1 protagonists in the next game as long as they are good, I think it would be nice to see this feature at it's full potential now that R* have more experience. 

 

-We attacked the military with special suits and weaponry. We didn't go empty handed.I don't remember any stunts by Michael. Trevor does these because he is insane and he isn't afraid to die because he has nothing to lose so he just goes for it. Non of these are impossible. Difficult. Just like killing 1000 men which you do in every R* game. But not impossible. 

In RDR2 you jump on a horse from a moving train and back on it again, You destroy a battleship in the middle of an Island, You defeat countless numbers of USA army members and Also Cuban military members. See where I'm going. I think when you look at things objectively(based on their time(1899 and 2013)  both games are very similar. I don't consider any of them over the top in a videogame perspective but I think it's a bit biased to call one over the top and not the other. IMO RDR2's missions are pretty well designed based on the era. Because there wasn't much R* could do. They did their best based on the available things for the era and mixed things up as much as they could. But IV really had a low sense of creativity. I won't bring up TBOGT because I know how you feel about it. But just look at TLAD. It had a far better mission design in comparison to IV while being grounded(as you call it). You can have good mission design while being grounded but IV lacked it IMO. 

Lol, I did enjoy GTA V a lot but at the end I was left with a "is this it" feeling since the story got really weak in the last part and the final mission was lazy af. I still probably enjoyed it more than SA because I prefer Michael and Trevor

 

Disagree but I know many GTA fans think this, I think it's because GTA IV is the first and only GTA game to have more human moments and a darker narrative so it feels "off" to some because that's not how they know GTA..unlike RDR which has established itself that way. Not saying GTA IV's writing was perfect but it was a huge step up over the rest of the games and I think if people actually let Rockstar keep going with the mature direction, they would have only improved (like they do with many other things)

Anyway I never felt like Michael's family or Wade & Ron  etc. were real enough. They all seemed to follow the same obnoxious over the top type that TBOGT characters already fell into. Even GTA VC and SA had better side characters with Lance, Sweet etc.

 

I think RDR2 showed again that Rockstar does best with just one protagonist. There is far more investment in the story and it builds up more gradually. GTA V was far too focused on the multiple protagonists feature, they never let the characters exist on their own. Not to mention you will have people whining for a female protagonist in the next GTA VI..and I honestly would rather Rockstar doesn't go that road.

 

Michael's splinter cell sh*t when he infiltrates the CIA facility in "Three's company" was pretty over the top for someone like him. Also like I said sh*t like Monkey Business just feels more over the top than anything in RDR2 to me.  Really wish we got more gang focus in GTA V instead of the dumb CIA/FBI and Merryweather sh*t imho, RDR2 still has you primarily going against other gangs and cops from that time which fits. GTA V has you going against corrupt government agencies (who have some sort of "war" going on,wtf) and a paramilitary organization, just felt like an overly extended version of the Desert sh*t from SA which I wasn't a fan of either. Add to that the very lighthearted goofy tone and you can definitely say that it's more over the top than RDR2 imho

 

I didn't like Chapter 5 at all and definitely felt it didn't belong in the game, only weak part of RDR2's otherwise great story.

I liked GTA IV's missions a lot but I know they could have used more variety, just saying I have heard the same thing about RDR2 that they feel too similiar (but you are right, considering the time period and tone of the franchise, not much else could have been done). TLAD was definitely an improvement in terms of mission design and variety (although it did only have 23 missions) but TBOGT and V went way too far for me. 

 

Edited by Journey_95
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Algonquin Assassin
4 hours ago, Journey_95 said:

 So no I would say RDR2 is more like RDR1 and GTA IV than GTA V in terms of mission

Quite a number of missions made me feel like they were paying homage to other missions from the GTA series.

 

To avoid spoilers for those who haven't played Red Dead Redemption 2 yet or finished it..

 

 

 


 

-A Quiet Time is CLEARLY Red Dead Redemption 2's take on Did Somebody say Yoga? Except it isn't boring and tedious.

-The Joys Of Tobacco felt like Are You Going To San Fierro? Especially when you torch the tobacco fields.

-Urban Pleasures made me feel like I was playing Three Leaf Clover again. Well actually almost all the robberies particularly the bank ones made me feel like they were tipping their hat to Three Leaf Clover.

 
 

 

 

There are others, but their names slip me atm. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm nice bike
2 hours ago, Miamivicecity said:

Quite a number of missions made me feel like they were paying homage to other missions from the GTA series.

I was thinking the exact same thing. I won't open that list since I haven't beat the game yet, and I won't name off the details of the specific ones I've seen so far, but already I've felt like I was playing modernized versions of a couple of missions from SA and IV, and I think they were clearly inspired by those missions.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
universetwisters

GTA 5 for me surprisingly. I never had a thing for westerns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25
8 hours ago, Journey_95 said:

Lol, I did enjoy GTA V a lot but at the end I was left with a "is this it" feeling since the story got really weak in the last part and the final mission was lazy af. I still probably enjoyed it more than SA because I prefer Michael and Trevor

 

Disagree but I know many GTA fans think this, I think it's because GTA IV is the first and only GTA game to have more human moments and a darker narrative so it feels "off" to some because that's not how they know GTA..unlike RDR which has established itself that way. Not saying GTA IV's writing was perfect but it was a huge step up over the rest of the games and I think if people actually let Rockstar keep going with the mature direction, they would have only improved (like they do with many other things)

Anyway I never felt like Michael's family or Wade & Ron  etc. were real enough. They all seemed to follow the same obnoxious over the top type that TBOGT characters already fell into. Even GTA VC and SA had better side characters with Lance, Sweet etc.

 

I think RDR2 showed again that Rockstar does best with just one protagonist. There is far more investment in the story and it builds up more gradually. GTA V was far too focused on the multiple protagonists feature, they never let the characters exist on their own. Not to mention you will have people whining for a female protagonist in the next GTA VI..and I honestly would rather Rockstar doesn't go that road.

 

Michael's splinter cell sh*t when he infiltrates the CIA facility in "Three's company" was pretty over the top for someone like him. Also like I said sh*t like Monkey Business just feels more over the top than anything in RDR2 to me.  Really wish we got more gang focus in GTA V instead of the dumb CIA/FBI and Merryweather sh*t imho, RDR2 still has you primarily going against other gangs and cops from that time which fits. GTA V has you going against corrupt government agencies (who have some sort of "war" going on,wtf) and a paramilitary organization, just felt like an overly extended version of the Desert sh*t from SA which I wasn't a fan of either. Add to that the very lighthearted goofy tone and you can definitely say that it's more over the top than RDR2 imho

 

I didn't like Chapter 5 at all and definitely felt it didn't belong in the game, only weak part of RDR2's otherwise great story.

I liked GTA IV's missions a lot but I know they could have used more variety, just saying I have heard the same thing about RDR2 that they feel too similiar (but you are right, considering the time period and tone of the franchise, not much else could have been done). TLAD was definitely an improvement in terms of mission design and variety (although it did only have 23 missions) but TBOGT and V went way too far for me. 

 

-So it could also be because of having 3 protagonists. 

 

-I don't have a problem with a dark tone if it feels like it's believable to the story. Once again it felt right in TLAD. but in IV it seemed like R* were shoving it to my face like "look at this! Pretty emotional right? Now sympathize with Niko who is sad one moment and kills someone because he insulted his friend the other moment". It just felt like R* were trying too hard for a story which lacked the material for such things after the Broker Missions. 

 

-I don't think they are better than VC, SA characters but they were decent enough In my book. 

 

-I'm not a fan of a female protagonist at all. If they wanna have multiple protagonists just for including a female in there as well I'd say f*ck that. Stick to one. But R* now have enough time and resources to pull off what V started at it's full potential. 

 

-On the top of that Niko Jumps on a Moving Chopper from a Moving Boat, He Tries to pull some of his "stunts" on a moving truck and he also pulls off a bank job with no real organized plans. In RDR2 you're basically fighting the army in chapter 5 and chapter 6.the Pinkertons are an agency. Just like the FIB and IAA. I don't think none of what happened in any of these games and GTA V is over the top because it all made sense for the story. Once again I think you're judging many unrelated things in V based on the characters because characters probably are a make/break feature for you. 

Edited by TheSantader25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Journey_95
1 hour ago, TheSantader25 said:

-So it could also be because of having 3 protagonists. 

 

-I don't have a problem with a dark tone if it feels like it's believable to the story. Once again it felt right in TLAD. but in IV it seemed like R* were shoving it to my face like "look at this! Pretty emotional right? Now sympathize with Niko who is sad one moment and kills someone because he insulted his friend the other moment". It just felt like R* were trying too hard for a story which lacked the material for such things after the Broker Missions. 

 

-I don't think they are better than VC, SA characters but they were decent enough In my book. 

 

-I'm not a fan of a female protagonist at all. If they wanna have multiple protagonists just for including a female in there as well I'd say f*ck that. Stick to one. But R* now have enough time and resources to pull off what V started at it's full potential. 

 

-On the top of that Niko Jumps on a Moving Chopper from a Moving Boat, He Tries to pull some of his "stunts" on a moving truck and he also pulls off a bank job with no real organized plans. In RDR2 you're basically fighting the army in chapter 5 and chapter 6.the Pinkertons are an agency. Just like the FIB and IAA. I don't think none of what happened in any of these games and GTA V is over the top because it all made sense for the story. Once again I think you're judging many unrelated things in V based on the characters because characters probably are a make/break feature for you. 

Well to each their own. I think Niko's story worked well, what people seem to forget is that his hypocrisy was a huge part of it..some characters (like Darko) call him out on that as well.


There needed to be more balance, most GTA V characters are unlikable and annoying, we needed some more grounded likable characters.

 

If multiple protagonists happen again, a female protagonist is extremely likely imho. Lots of people whined about GTA V's lack of good female characters (and previous GTA's as well for that matter) and Rockstar may be feel pressured to add a female protagonist. If they just go with one they wouldn't do that since that would limit the game too much but with multiple protagonists, they even have an excuse.  

 

Probably but I can definitely say that I didn't enjoy the huge focus on the FIB/IAA and Merryweather, more over the top or not (I still think it was, even when you fight the Pinkertons it's never as over the top as infiltrating some secret facility and getting some nerve gas, Monkey business didn't feel like a GTA mission to me), it just doesn't feel right in a GTA game. Previous GTA games always focused for the most part on different gangs with some corrupt government subplots here and there. GTA V made it the main focus and shafted potentially interesting gangs like the Madrazzo Cartel in favour of the protagonists being the FIB's bitches. That's why I prefer the story before Trevor comes to LS

Edited by Journey_95
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25

@Journey_95

 

Each GTA represents it's era IMO. GTA V was released in 2013. The year when people started turning into the douchebags we see today. The game is still relevant in that regard. The FIB was relevant to the story because they made a deal with Michael. You always say things should have Consequences. And what happened with Trevor and the FIB was exactly what Michael had coming.

 

Not every GTA has been about gangs. Though GTA V had it's own share(LOST MC, Aztecas, Ballas, O'neils,Triads...) IV went ahead and turned Niko into a Hitman for most of the game and the Russian Mafia didn't make enough Appearance IMO. Bulgarin an incredible character was magically forgotten to be milked in TBOGT. That's why I felt the game lost it's focus after Niko moves to Algonquin. It was absolutely top notch until that point.  Little Jacob and the Yardies and basically the UNDERGROUND life of Liberty City which is a huge part of NYC weren't explored well. However I agree that Madrazo was a huge waste of Opportunity in V.  Devin as well. He could be someone like Leviticus Cornwall in RDR2. V's story IMO lacked a lot ONLY in the Final Chapter. It did not have a good closure and satisfaction at the end and that's why you're like "Uhm Ok I guess? 

Edited by TheSantader25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Algonquin Assassin

I just started a new save of Red Dead Redemption 2 and I'm amazed by how many small things I missed compared to when I first played it. I suppose I was just excited and overwhelmed by it and I have to be honest some of the story bits went completely over my head. This time I'm going to go through it at snail's pace.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSantader25
1 hour ago, Miamivicecity said:

I just started a new save of Red Dead Redemption 2 and I'm amazed by how many small things I missed compared to when I first played it. I suppose I was just excited and overwhelmed by it and I have to be honest some of the story bits went completely over my head. This time I'm going to go through it at snail's pace.

It always amazed me how a very unimportant mission(in looks) and character becomes such an important thing later. R* pulled the strings right under our nose. 

Edited by TheSantader25
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.