I am truly shocked, disappointed and disgusted by Rockstar

[Vulgadrop]

I haven't played the game for ages now and this weekend I'm giving it a shot, I don't see any downgrade people is talking about, but I do find very stupid everything in online like new roles and expensive gold.

[Raj The Rager]

The downgrade sucks but at the same time it isn't even that big of deal. You're just sitting here making a thread just to cry and whine.

On 9/27/2019 at 10:23 AM, HelloMyNameIsHuman said:

 

 

it simply is not the best looking game of the generation. Nothing rockstar does has ever had that title. Ever. Rdr2 looks good but it is nowhere near the cutting edge or best graphics of the year let alone the generation. 
 

you can subjectively think it’s the prettiest to your own eye, but it is objectively lower quality visuals than all the games I named, tomb raider games, far cry 5, witcher 3, all of those games have better graphics. 

 

the list is a lot longer than that, I could go on. Rdr2 is rockstars prettiest game. It is less impressive than gta v technically speaking

 

division 2. Wwii.  . Spider man. 

watch dogs 2 may not be anywhere near as good a game as gta v, but it looks better than anything rockstar has ever rendered. 
 

max payne 3 has objectively better visual fidelity than rdr2.

 

 

 

 

.....Is your sight ok or are you just trying to mindlessly knock RDR 2?

Edited September 28, 2019 by Arsewipercareerman20

[6fangedcutthroatTV]

9 hours ago, Arsewipercareerman20 said:

The downgrade sucks but at the same time it isn't even that big of deal. You're just sitting here making a thread just to cry and whine.

 

 

.....Is your sight ok or are you just trying to mindlessly knock RDR 2?

My sight is fine - whoever says "rdr2 is the best looking game of the generation" is living under a rock or needs their own eyes checked.

 

Good looking game? Hell yes. Great graphics? All the way. One of Rockstar's best graphics games? Absolutely. In the "Top Ten Best Graphics", let alone "the best" of the generation? Absolutely, unequivocally NO.

 

Rockstar Fanboys can say it's the best graphics, and people can Subjectively like its look the best. But OBJECTIVELY speaking, it is not even in the top ten of objectively best graphics.

 

Detroit Become Human can look like actual live action footage at times. Doesn't matter what "kind" of game it is, it is a game, real time rendering, and objectively - repeat, Objectively - higher fidelity, more realistic looking than RDR2 by a landslide. It's just a fact. There is no bias, there is no need to bash a beautiful game or think I am bashing a beautiful game like RDR2 for saying it. It's just an objective fact.

 

It is also an objective fact that there is a long list of games that are in fact similar to RDR2 game style that look better and get more out of the hardware than RDR2 does. Once again: Witcher 3 Wild Hunt, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Horizon Zero Dawn. There's three similar types of games (open world, wilderness) that get more out of the hardware than RDR2 does.

 

The HDR is not a good implementation in RDR2, I am not the first person on the internet to point it out.

 

The textures are low resolution in a lot of places. It has all of the staples of a rockstar game: High attention to detail, in a lower fidelity than its contemporaries. It is just the truth.

 

Is it a bad game? That's a subjective thing. It's a one of a kind as far as I am concerned. It's slow as hell and somewhat boring pace, but it's the only game like it and it's incredibly put together. That mission drinking with Lenny is amazing, too. There's A LOT of "best of the generation" when it comes to RDR2. Graphics is not even close, and that is, once again, a purely objective statement in fact, without any bias or blinders on to say it.

 

Show me any person who thinks RDR2, or any Rockstar game for that matter, is the best graphics of the generation and I will see a fanboy or someone who has not looked at many other games this generation.

 

Frankly, only a fanboy could even imagine refuting the fact. If RDR2 had the buffer width or the texture resolution of some of these games it would easily take the spot. It doesn't, though. It has amazing art and the renderer does not do it justice. It's close, but no cigar. It's just the reality of the conversation we are having.

 

Now if a PC version shows up... that MIGHT be a different story... But not likely.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by HelloMyNameIsHuman

[7th Ward Charizard]

I play on 1.00, and this is such a dramatic post. I don’t like some of the changes they did (John, Arthur in NA, draw distance, etc) but cmon, a PS2 game? even on the latest patch the game is absolutely stunning. 

[6fangedcutthroatTV]

42 minutes ago, BallinBallas said:

I play on 1.00, and this is such a dramatic post. I don’t like some of the changes they did (John, Arthur in NA, draw distance, etc) but cmon, a PS2 game? even on the latest patch the game is absolutely stunning. 

It absolutely is. I think it's some of the prettiest stuff to my eye possible, I just want to throw that out there. I love how it looks, I'm just saying, it's not the best graphics of the generation, not by a long shot. OP is nuts calling it a PS2 game, it's absolutely one of the best looking games of the generation, especially to my own eye. The beauty is unmistakable to me, but as far as graphical achievements go, as much as I like it, it's still not in the top ten of the generation. to ME it's probably top 5 for aesthetic and variation, detail despite low fidelity and muddy textures in many places, but I love it. It's gorgeous. If it wasn't so pretty I absolutely would not bore through its incredibly slow pace. If it didn't look so good, I would not play it at all tbh. But there are a lot of games that are much higher fidelity achievements on the same hardware. It's a cross platform game, it's never going to look better than single-platform Sony games. A single platform means no least common denominator development trade offs. Horizon, Spider Man, God of War, The Order. You can just do so much better when you're only dealing with one platform.

 

I do hope a PC version is coming for RDR2, more than ever, because it's been so long without even an announcement, it would probably look utterly incredible with higher resolution and targeting these current PC GPU's that are multiple hardware generations beyond PS4 Pro at this point. Hell, PC is already beyond what is said to be in the Scarlett/PS5 consoles, imagine how good RDR2 could look today on PC.

 

It is probably the best horse simulation I've ever seen in many ways. It has a lot of detail. It looks great. It has awesome scenarios and there is really nothing like it out there. It's just not the best graphics ever or of the generation, that's all.

Edited September 28, 2019 by HelloMyNameIsHuman

[Raj The Rager]

3 hours ago, HelloMyNameIsHuman said:

My sight is fine - whoever says "rdr2 is the best looking game of the generation" is living under a rock or needs their own eyes checked.

Wow... Bro the examples you're using are just laughable. RDR 2 isn't the best game when it comes the graphics. But the graphics and it's attention to detail puts it up there.

 

Quote

Good looking game? Hell yes. Great graphics? All the way. One of Rockstar's best graphics games? Absolutely. In the "Top Ten Best Graphics", let alone "the best" of the generation? Absolutely, unequivocally NO.

 

Rockstar Fanboys can say it's the best graphics, and people can Subjectively like its look the best. But OBJECTIVELY speaking, it is not even in the top ten of objectively best graphics.

You're talking about people being pretty opinionated. But all I'm seeing from you are subjective points as well. We are talking graphics and this discussion can be full of different opinions.

 

Quote

 

Detroit Become Human can look like actual live action footage at times. Doesn't matter what "kind" of game it is, it is a game, real time rendering, and objectively - repeat, Objectively - higher fidelity, more realistic looking than RDR2 by a landslide. It's just a fact. There is no bias, there is no need to bash a beautiful game or think I am bashing a beautiful game like RDR2 for saying it. It's just an objective fact.

Detroit become Human is f*cking linear interactive video game while RDR 2 is an open world game. So DBH has a lot to process than RDR 2 so they can put more emphases on graphics. That's why DBH looks so real. So yeah, it does matter what type of game it is. And for RDR 2 to look so good and be open world that says a lot.
 

 

Quote

 

It is also an objective fact that there is a long list of games that are in fact similar to RDR2 game style that look better and get more out of the hardware than RDR2 does. Once again: Witcher 3 Wild Hunt, Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Horizon Zero Dawn. There's three similar types of games (open world, wilderness) that get more out of the hardware than RDR2 does.

 

Witcher 3 Wild Hunt?

Horizon Zero Dawn??

AC: Odyssey????

You're joking right? Have you played any of those games???? I'll admit Witcher 3 is a beautiful gem and quite possibly in the top ten games I played of this generation, so as HZD but do they look better than RDR 2? Hell no. Especially AC Odyssey. That's just an insult. Look at these examples side by side examples:

 

 

 

 

Quote

The HDR is not a good implementation in RDR2, I am not the first person on the internet to point it out.

HDR has to do with colors and contrast. Just because it's lacking in that department doesn't mean it's behind those games in terms graphical capability. The results above show.

Quote

 

 

Show me any person who thinks RDR2, or any Rockstar game for that matter, is the best graphics of the generation and I will see a fanboy or someone who has not looked at many other games this generation

 

Well I've played a lot of games of this generation and the games your listing beside DBH doesn't look much better  Ever think RDR 2's graphics gets a lot of praise because it just looks far beyond expectations for an open world game? No there's no way. Because since Rockstar is a popular publisher and Developer everything they come out with is just overrated and have bunch of fans play their games only. You're on a website where fans give Rockstar criticism all the time and often praise other games. So show me these fanboys...

Quote

.
 

 

Now if a PC version shows up... that MIGHT be a different story... But not likely.

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously COD WW2 and the Division 2??? You think those look hot? Especially the Division 2? That game looks and feels f*cking rushed. Give me a break, man.

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by Arsewipercareerman20

[6fangedcutthroatTV]

That division 2 screen looks like a movie. And that WWII gameplay is like a generational leap over RDR2.

 

I repeat: Doesn't matter what kind of game it is. Linear or not, regardless: RDR2 is not the best graphics this generation, which is what I responded to in the first place.

 

You agree that Detroit Become Human looks better graphically. No ifs, ands, or buts, it does. Therefore, on that sample alone, RDR2 is not the best graphics of the generation. Point blank.

 

There is no "yeah but this game is open world and has more against it..." - that is irrelevant to the point: RDR2 is NOT the best looking game of this generation. It doesn't matter that the game is open, closed, linear, long, short, fat, thin. It's not the best looking game of the generation. 

 

There are PS3-era games that look better than RDR2. Whatever excuse given for it, valid or not, open world vs linear, and so on, many games are more higher quality render than RDR2.

 

This is not an arguable thing. It is not an opinion. It is an objective fact. I'd like to say that RDR2 is the best graphics of the generation, but then I would be a liar.

 

All of that said, it is absolutely the most detail oriented and best simulation of a lot of different things that I have ever seen. The graphics are great, they are. It's gorgeous. It's just not the best graphics of the generation. Of Course detroit can look better. It did and it does look better. Yes, there are reasons that it "can" and "does" look better.

 

The point is that it Does. I am not here to discuss why it does or why RDR2 can't. I am simply and plainly, and factually, saying that RDR2 is not the best graphics of the generation.

 

I absolutely like looking at RDR2 more than most of Detroit. I like the look of RDR2 better. But I would be foolish to think it was better graphics. It's so close. Up those texture resolution, tweak that hdr, widen that back buffer - put a PC version out that uses today's hardware, it would *easily* be the best graphics of the generation, but I wouldn't be able to run it

Edited September 28, 2019 by HelloMyNameIsHuman

[Raj The Rager]

16 hours ago, HelloMyNameIsHuman said:

That division 2 screen looks like a movie. And that WWII gameplay is like a generational leap over RDR2.

Considering you used a screenshot from an E3 demo when the retail version actually looks worse doesn't say much not to mention. I could show a little bit of pictures of RDR 2 and it will look way more impressive than that. But since I'm on my phone right now I can't do that. COD WW2 gameplay is so much better?  A boots to the ground repetitive shooter with scarce content? Stop lying to yourself. It's embarrassing.

Quote

 

I repeat: Doesn't matter what kind of game it is. Linear or not, regardless: RDR2 is not the best graphics this generation, which is what I responded to in the first place.

It kind of does and no one said it was. 

 You're just trying to say a few games look better than RDR 2 when they're obviously not. Don't know why you're doing this.

Quote

 

 

There is no "yeah but this game is open world and has more against it..." - that is irrelevant to the point: RDR2 is NOT the best looking game of this generation. It doesn't matter that the game is open, closed, linear, long, short, fat, thin. It's not the best looking game of the generation. 

Now you're just repeating yourself 

Quote

 

There are PS3-era games that look better than RDR2. Whatever excuse given for it, valid or not, open world vs linear, and so on, many games are more higher quality render than RDR2.

LMAO. "Games from the Ps3 era" Can you believe this guy?  Ok I'll bite... Name 5. Because the best graphics I seen on the PS3 was the last of us. Although very impressive for that gen but now it doesn't really hold up. Especially against a game like RDR 2.

 

 

As for the rest of your paragraphs is just you repeating yourself. 

 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Arsewipercareerman20

[6fangedcutthroatTV]

WWII Gameplay Video. We're talking about graphics. The fact that you didn't realize that's what I was talking about boggles my mind, but, you know what though? You know what graphics RDR2 has that's the best of the generation so far? It has the best subsurface scattering. It does not excel at much else, but damn are those ears looking good. So are the horses and the attention to detail. Like horseprints filling with water and such. But it's not the best rendering, it's not the highest quality, it's not the best graphics of the generation by any stretch of the imagination.

 

WWII graphics are far better than RDR2. It's a first person game and that is expected. Detroit Become Human has far better graphics. It's a slow paced *somewhat* linear game, so we expect that.

 

Therefore, RDR2 does not have the best graphics. Whatever reason it is, is irrelevant. That's about as simply as you can put it. Someone said "RDR2 best graphics of the generation" - I said "Not by a long shot". And I was correct.

 

And yes, Sony Exclusives take the cake on best graphics of the generation, among many pc versions of cross platform games.

 

Plus, please. And I don't even like battlefield:

 

 

RDR2 is easily top 10 though if I am honest, I take back what I said earlier.

Edited September 29, 2019 by HelloMyNameIsHuman

[Jackiboy]

Wow! What an utterly pointless thread.

[Failed Again]

16 minutes ago, Jackiboy said:

Wow! What an utterly pointless thread.

I think your giving him too much credit.

 

lol

 

[Johnnyb17]

Although i think OP went overboard with the ps2 comparison .... 

 

you are absolutely kidding yourself if you don’t see a difference between 1.0 and current state. That’s ok though keep grovelling and eating up whatever they give you.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Johnnyb17

[ten-a-penny]

"looks like a PS2 game".... really?

 

All this time, I've been saying that Horizon: Zero Dawn has A M A Z I N G L Y flawless graphics..... and it does. Then, just a few hours ago, I've been riding my good ol' stolen Nokota(?) horse around the the wilderness that surrounds the camp, close to Valentine. Then, I take a look at the scenery (normally I either focus on any random [email protected] coming in to ruin the fun or for animals).... wow. Then a couple hours before that. Got a random encounter where I needed to treat my Aeonbarr as a taxi cab. Someone needed a ride to Valentine & I was like, why not. Gave her a ride, whole sky was grey. Then, a thunderstorm lit up.... never seen anything like that - not even in REAL LIFE, and I've seen a couple of harsh thunderstorms. And just to clarify, I've been playing this game on and off before and after I downloaded the updates. Haven't noticed sh*te.

 

 

So please, kindly take this sh*t and shove it up Micah's ass.

[Johnnyb17]

5 hours ago, ten-a-penny said:

"looks like a PS2 game".... really?

 

All this time, I've been saying that Horizon: Zero Dawn has A M A Z I N G L Y flawless graphics..... and it does. Then, just a few hours ago, I've been riding my good ol' stolen Nokota(?) horse around the the wilderness that surrounds the camp, close to Valentine. Then, I take a look at the scenery (normally I either focus on any random [email protected] coming in to ruin the fun or for animals).... wow. Then a couple hours before that. Got a random encounter where I needed to treat my Aeonbarr as a taxi cab. Someone needed a ride to Valentine & I was like, why not. Gave her a ride, whole sky was grey. Then, a thunderstorm lit up.... never seen anything like that - not even in REAL LIFE, and I've seen a couple of harsh thunderstorms. And just to clarify, I've been playing this game on and off before and after I downloaded the updates. Haven't noticed sh*te.

 

 

So please, kindly take this sh*t and shove it up Micah's ass.

Ooooh you’re brave haha

 

go back to 1.0 then you’ll notice 

[Darealbandicoot]

8 hours ago, Johnnyb17 said:

Ooooh you’re brave haha

 

go back to 1.0 then you’ll notice 

Most don't want to notice. Rockstar can do no wrong. Casuals don't notice a difference, but hard-core notice straight away. In a game that's filled with and goes overboard with tiny details, you'd think people would notice that details are missing now. 

[Johnnyb17]

3 hours ago, Darealbandicoot said:

Most don't want to notice. Rockstar can do no wrong. Casuals don't notice a difference, but hard-core notice straight away. In a game that's filled with and goes overboard with tiny details, you'd think people would notice that details are missing now. 

That’s why we need to keep pushing back man may not seem like such a big deal but a game like this, I really feel is a work of art.  Imagine if every couple of months someone took a piss on the Mona Lisa and people were okay with it haha... mind blowing. 

[Darealbandicoot]

32 minutes ago, Johnnyb17 said:

That’s why we need to keep pushing back man may not seem like such a big deal but a game like this, I really feel is a work of art.  Imagine if every couple of months someone took a piss on the Mona Lisa and people were okay with it haha... mind blowing. 

Something I just do not understand at all is, why are some people borderline AGGRESSIVE about telling them there is a downgrade and they deny it? "I don't see ANY downgrade, YALL crazy and lieing saying Rockstar is downgrading the single player. It's a non issue for ME. Your not real Rockstar fans, your Rockstar Stans, toxic losers!!" 

 

We ALL paid for this game. If I bought a new TV and the picture quality degrades one month after launch, should I just shut up and accept it or try to get it fixed or my money back? 

Edited September 30, 2019 by Darealbandicoot

[Yoona]

6 hours ago, Darealbandicoot said:

Most don't want to notice. Rockstar can do no wrong. Casuals don't notice a difference, but hard-core notice straight away. In a game that's filled with and goes overboard with tiny details, you'd think people would notice that details are missing now. 

Could you tell me what exactly was downgraded in version 1.13 compared  to version 1.00 ?

 

And could you provide screenshots of the same locations at the same time and weather conditions to show me? Where are these big downgrades everyone is talking about? I want to know what I'm potentially missing.

 

If the downgrade is so obvious you should have no problem showing it to me.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Yoona

[ten-a-penny]

16 hours ago, Johnnyb17 said:

Ooooh you’re brave haha

 

go back to 1.0 then you’ll notice 

"sO bRaVe"

What part of "been playing BEFORE & AFTER 1.13" do you miss? I've played both this game and HZD before the patches & after them, in both games I haven't noticed one single change. GTAV? Did notice. PS3 Skyrim? Noticed. Oblivion? Noticed. GTA4? Noted. TBoGT? Done. This game? Horizon Zero Dawn? Nada.

[Johnnyb17]

7 minutes ago, ten-a-penny said:

"sO bRaVe"

What part of "been playing BEFORE & AFTER 1.13" do you miss? I've played both this game and HZD before the patches & after them, in both games I haven't noticed one single change. GTAV? Did notice. PS3 Skyrim? Noticed. Oblivion? Noticed. GTA4? Noted. TBoGT? Done. This game? Horizon Zero Dawn? Nada.

Okay, so you’re full of sh*t 

[CH14R1]

1 hour ago, Yoona said:

Could you tell me what exactly was downgraded in version 1.13 compared  to version 1.00 ?

 

And could you provide screenshots of the same locations at the same time and weather conditions to show me? Where are these big downgrades everyone is talking about? I want to know what I'm potentially missing.

 

If the downgrade is so obvious you should have no problem showing it to me.

 

[Yoona]

8 minutes ago, CH14R1 said:

 

Why are you showing me 1.0.7 version if 1.10 already improved on the downgrade?

[CH14R1]

11 minutes ago, Yoona said:

Why are you showing me 1.0.7 version if 1.10 already improved on the downgrade?

Fixed the ambient occlusion but what about shadows, texture, transparency? The actual game looks more to 1.0 or 1.07 on this video for you?

[happygrowls]

 

looking for the missing ambient occlusion like

[Darealbandicoot]

5 hours ago, Yoona said:

Could you tell me what exactly was downgraded in version 1.13 compared  to version 1.00 ?

 

And could you provide screenshots of the same locations at the same time and weather conditions to show me? Where are these big downgrades everyone is talking about? I want to know what I'm potentially missing.

 

If the downgrade is so obvious you should have no problem showing it to me.

Check the 1.00 thread or my twitter for the comparisons. I have no problem showing what the game has become. 

Edited September 30, 2019 by Darealbandicoot

[Cutter De Blanc]

The grass for sure. The grass looks different. Its considerably less defined in the upgraded version. You can see individual blades of grass way on out in 1.00. Its like putting on stronger glasses everything has more definition 

 

 

[Johnnyb17]

Imagine thinking that the AO was completely fixed wow some of you guys must have sh*t for brains 

 

it was a half ass fix only in some areas

[Jason]

Well this thread has been predictable.

[Johnnyb17]

46 minutes ago, Jason said:

Well this thread has been predictable.

Disappointed that some of us might actually speak up about things are ya? 

 

 

[Jason]

10 minutes ago, Johnnyb17 said:

Disappointed that some of us might actually speak up about things are ya? 

The topic at hand is never the issue, it's always that people can't discuss it without being d*cks - and yes, it's on both sides.

 

If people come in this thread or other threads asking for proof of downgrades of features/details being removed then feel free to provide it, but you can do that without attacking them. If they are the ones being d*cks then report them and mods will deal with it.

 

We've had a v1.0 thread that's basically this thread without the b*tch and moan going for some time and it's never once been an issue because the discussion there has always been civil, so again, zero problem with people discussing this topic or raising awareness about it in any shape or form.