Can't argue with these. Rockstar games are always sort of buggy, and that usually prevents me from wanting to start playing again once I've stopped. Fair complaints.Diablo27 said:- Most of the time I'm playing it and when I'm not playing it I don't want to touch it with a 10ft pole.
- Glitches and bugs.
That was pretty much the point. RDR is meant to be a deconstruction of the Old West genre. As such, no characters are idealized or romanticized, and those that are are quickly revealed to be frauds.Diablo27 said:- While the characters were pretty fleshed out and human, that doesn't mean they aren't unlikeable pricks.
On the surface, it's as simple as this: John Marston may have done what he was told, but he was still a criminal. Hunting down his old buddies didn't absolve him of what he did in the past. The law doesn't work like that.Diablo27 said:- This may be a misunderstanding but the ending made no sense, why did the army come after him? He did what he was told to do.
The game has a fast travel option, but it bears pointing out that this is a game set in the Old West. If you don't like travelling by horseback or carriage, you probably shouldn't be playing it at all.Diablo27 said:- I usually like travel time such as in Just Cause 2 but the travel in this game was excruciating.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Personally, I thought Rockstar did a great job of making me care about John and his family.Diablo27 said:- It might be different if I played Red Dead Revolver but I really couldn't give two shits about John Marston.
It's called hyperbole, and it's a perfectly acceptable literary technique. Get over it.Blackadder51 said:You are never the only one.
What....in the name of Jesus Christ, Our Holy Lord and Savior....is this supposed to mean?Diablo27 said:CONS -
- Most of the time I'm playing it and when I'm not playing it I don't want to touch it with a 10ft pole.
I'd say it's more of a reconstruction, with deconstructed elements.moretimethansense said:1. They're supposed to be pricks, it's kinda the point of the game.Diablo27 said:CONS -
- While the characters were pretty fleshed out and human, that doesn't mean they aren't unlikeable pricks.
- This may be a misunderstanding but the ending made no sense, why did the army come after him? He did what he was told to do.
- I usually like travel time such as in Just Cause 2 but the travel in this game was excruciating.
- It might be different if I played Red Dead Revolver but I really couldn't give two shits about John Marston.
2. for the love of god man use spoilers!Because the proto FBI guy (who's name escapes me) wanted to see him dead and until then didn't have authority over the army.
3. Then use fast travel.
4. They're largly unrelated, 'cept for a few references they might as well be different franchises.
Revolver is a spaghetti western action game.
Redemption is an open world deconstuction of the romantic old west, it's pure opinion which is better.
You're never the only one, ever.
If it's not to your tastes, then it's noit to your tastes, making a thread about it is just attention whoring.
.SpiderJerusalem said:Yeah, because something that's popular most certainly can't ever, never, in a thousand years, be bad!NickCooley said:Oh joy another "Wahh something I don't like is popular" thread. Although taking pot shots at the popular stuff is practically a sure fire way to make friends on this site. The place is crawling with the gaming equivalent of hipsters.