Will The Last of Us 2 be better than Red Dead Redemption 2?

[Sundr0wn_]

20 hours ago, TJ_Solo said:

 

What a crazy time we live in. Attention to detail is now a bad thing.
Also, saying something has faults is not revelation. 

It's not a bad thing in itself, it's a bad thing when it becomes so important to the creator that he sacrifices a fluid gameplay loop and elements for it.

Though some people like that, after all we have an entire genre for hyperrealistic simulator games.

But it is a niche audience who probably still would consider RDR "too gamey".

[BlackTorito]

TLOU has an exceptional narrative, and an exceptional gameplay when it launched in PS3, it also had a surprising good Online. Masterpiece of his generation.

 

RDR 2 has set a new standard this year (im playing AC: Odyssey right now and im like wtf is this after playing RDR). The story was actually good, and the gameplay is solid (though the Online is a bit cancerigenous). All in all, its an outstanding game. Though, the combat trailer I saw about TLOU2 got my jaw down to the ground; its still years above of any game if it is really like that in a natural way. I cant guarantee the Narrative will be another masterpiece and I cant guarantee another good online experience again (if they even implement it); maybe they will be out of their way and put a bit of open world (which would be nice).

 

So, yes I would bet TLOU will be better, but we have to wait I guess.

Edited December 4, 2018 by BlackTorito

[TJ_Solo]

9 minutes ago, Sundr0wn said:

It's not a bad thing in itself, it's a bad thing when it becomes so important to the creator that he sacrifices a fluid gameplay loop and elements for it.

Though some people like that, after all we have an entire genre for hyperrealistic simulator games.

But it is a niche audience who probably still would consider RDR "too gamey".

 

I don't know how one can make a video game(or any large scale product) without some sacrifices and concessions. Devs simply being able to decide what players will do in their game is enough to create a functional gameplay loop. Whether or not you enjoy what is presented to you is pretty far removed from the process of designing that game. 

 

RDR is still a game and every element is highly gamified. However, R* has added layers and layers of elements together into one package or presented in a slightly different ways. Hell, the "Core" system for health, stamina, and dead eye is basically the same for any game except the regeneration rate is represented as a core you upkeep instead of a percentage that you increase. To me topping off my stats in RDR2 is only slightly different than eating buff food in WoW.

[JohnCenaSong-]

4 hours ago, Feral said:

Have you even played it though or just watched others play it since it's not on your profile. People aren't talking about because they're likely still busy playing it and to also avoid spoilers. 

That was covered a bit in my point, a lot of people moved on without finishing the story to play other games that came out. Obviously I can't speak for a super large amount of people, just observations in the circles I hover around in, probably most noticeable around Twitch.

 

I saw a lot of people jump on it, then put it on hold intending to go back to it after checking out some other new releases that were hyped up, but then just kind of forgetting about it and not really talking about it or revisiting it. Compared to R*s other releases such as GTAV or even RDR1 I feel like this is getting too easily brushed to the sidelines. R* games are usually the talk for ages, you almost can't escape them, does it not seem super quieter than usual to you? It certainly does to me I find. I almost feel like I have to remind myself the game actually exists.

 

The fact that the steaming turd known as FO76 has been getting more attention in some places is... genuinely baffling actually, but, actually happening. (And I don't mean the shit-talking lol, I mean the people who are actually playing it) I'll never genuinely dump on anyone for enjoying FO76 though. Pther people having fun with something I think sucks doesn't effect me negatively in any way, no reason to force my opinion onto others.

 

And to answer your first part, yes I have played it, but not to 100% because I don't continue playing something I'm not enjoying. I feel like I gave it a fair shot though, I just found it repetitive with very bland mission structures and gameplay and I felt no connection to the world or story. It felt like a chore to play through, games should never make you feel like that, at least not for the whole experience.

[Kittens Are Awesome]

3 hours ago, TJ_Solo said:

 

No games needs to please you and nothing I've said hinges on your personal tastes.

 

I agree. Also, I was just letting you know where I was coming from. I'm older than Spaz, by the way.

[ONLINEGAMR360]

It's almost like we should reserve judgement on a product, before said product releases.

[Haysi_Fantaysee]

Some of the comments to the original posters question in this thread are terrible, I thought this community was better than that.

 

All they did was ask if one game could be better than another game, it dont matter if they are different genre's, it wouldn't even matter if they were different formats, it was just a simple question.

 

Any new people reading this thread could be put off from ever posting here, like seriously. (Having now read the whole thread and noticing that the OP has not replied again I am not surprised in the least).

 

Any way to answer the question myself, I hope TLOU2 is better than RDR2, aside from their differences I accept it is possible for apples to be better than oranges in any one persons opinion... imagine that.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Haysi_Fantaysee

[Kittens Are Awesome]

4 hours ago, Haysi_Fantaysee said:

Some of the comments to the original posters question in this thread are terrible, I thought this community was better than that.

 

All they did was ask if one game could be better than another game, it dont matter if they are different genre's, it wouldn't even matter if they were different formats, it was just a simple question.

 

Any new people reading this thread could be put off from ever posting here, like seriously. (Having now read the whole thread and noticing that the OP has not replied again I am not surprised in the least).

 

Any way to answer the question myself, I hope TLOU2 is better than RDR2, aside from their differences I accept it is possible for apples to be better than oranges in any one persons opinion... imagine that.

 

 

 

Oh sweetheart. You aren't going to last very long here if this thread triggers you. 

 

As an aside, thread openers not responding to their own thread is common on this site. I believe the kids call it flame posting, or some shit like that.

[TJ_Solo]

8 hours ago, Haysi_Fantaysee said:

Some of the comments to the original posters question in this thread are terrible, I thought this community was better than that.

 

All they did was ask if one game could be better than another game, it dont matter if they are different genre's, it wouldn't even matter if they were different formats, it was just a simple question.

 

Any new people reading this thread could be put off from ever posting here, like seriously. (Having now read the whole thread and noticing that the OP has not replied again I am not surprised in the least).

 

Any way to answer the question myself, I hope TLOU2 is better than RDR2, aside from their differences I accept it is possible for apples to be better than oranges in any one persons opinion... imagine that.

 

 

 

The question itself is terrible. A person that isn't trying to hate or fanboy over either game would have a hard time answering the question for themselves That's assuming they want to play and have played both games.  To be honest I don't evalute my games against each other like that.  

[Sundr0wn_]

23 hours ago, TJ_Solo said:

 

I don't know how one can make a video game(or any large scale product) without some sacrifices and concessions. Devs simply being able to decide what players will do in their game is enough to create a functional gameplay loop. Whether or not you enjoy what is presented to you is pretty far removed from the process of designing that game. 

 

RDR is still a game and every element is highly gamified. However, R* has added layers and layers of elements together into one package or presented in a slightly different ways. Hell, the "Core" system for health, stamina, and dead eye is basically the same for any game except the regeneration rate is represented as a core you upkeep instead of a percentage that you increase. To me topping off my stats in RDR2 is only slightly different than eating buff food in WoW.

Listen i just woke up so i dont have the mind tackle your entire reply, but i'm not talking about the cores, one piece of meat and it's done.

 

I dont find it enjoyable to have to get off my horse and give it a pet ever 2 minutes cause it's sudenly pissy. The hunting system is garbage, NPC interactions are way to finicky, and you cant do anything without having someone call the cops.

I spent my entire playthrough with a permanent debuff, because no matter how much food i eat my character keeps being underweight. I mostly dont give a damn about the long animations but it's annoying to have to position yourself so damn precisely to interact with anything, while at the same time your characters movements are momentum based.

Cover system sucks balls too, but that's a different issue.

 

All these things dont take away from the game as a whole, i've finished it and am still playing. But it still could've been even better than what it is, by a lot.

And i'm not alone with that sentiment, just cause you disagree with me.

[TJ_Solo]

Quote

 

I dont find it enjoyable to have to get off my horse and give it a pet ever 2 minutes cause it's sudenly pissy. The hunting system is garbage, NPC interactions are way to finicky, and you cant do anything without having someone call the cops.

I spent my entire playthrough with a permanent debuff, because no matter how much food i eat my character keeps being underweight. I mostly dont give a damn about the long animations but it's annoying to have to position yourself so damn precisely to interact with anything, while at the same time your characters movements are momentum based.

Cover system sucks balls too, but that's a different issue.

 

All these things dont take away from the game as a whole, i've finished it and am still playing. But it still could've been even better than what it is, by a lot.

And i'm not alone with that sentiment, just cause you disagree with me.

 

 

You sure you played the game? Pretty much all that has been covered in the most basic "things you didn't know..." articles/videos from every video game media outlet. 

Being underweight or overweight isn't a debuff. It's a tradeoff to what stat you want to have higher. 

Cover is all physical. Sure there's a cover button but if you can get behind something then -taadah- you're in cover.  I guess you can't do any fancy stuff like blind-firing but I find it better to be more mobile than stationary. Some objects can be hard to interact with. Welcome to gaming in 3D.

 

I feel all this is getting pretty far from the original point. The fact the game has layers of details doesn't change because of your personal tastes. Many of the details aren't even unique to RDR2. They just changed names and how the values can be altered/controlled. 

 

No one is alone in their opinions. Maybe bringing that up makes you feel better about yourself. I truly don't know what other people have to with what we're saying.

[AJ_Radio]

On 12/3/2018 at 7:19 PM, Dreakon13 said:

 

I hate to be the "because opinions" guy... but it's very possible AAA games don't give you the satisfaction that certain popular indie genres do, well, because opinions.  Just like you'd have a hard time convincing me that any point and click puzzle games have objectively better gameplay than God of War or Spider-Man, despite their graphics and WOW factor.

 

Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean that it must be missing some integral piece of the formula.  Maybe a lot of these games aren't necessarily "more about graphics and the WOW factor than the gameplay"... but it's just a different kind of gameplay that you don't like as much.

 

I will say again like I have said to many people that these are my opinions. Nobody should take them all as fact and I'm certainly not trying to force people to stand by my opinions. What was wrong with being vocal?

 

I have played plenty of AAA games in my life and have come to enjoy them. But I think the whole formula of having to be all dramatic, and making a drama story out of something just to sell it has gotten very old at this point. The new God of War was basically mostly all drama with some comedy relief, the story I felt in ways took away from the gameplay, which was the vital reason why so many people loved the old God of War titles.

 

The Last of Us set the standard to where more video game developers feel they have to make a drama story out of their games in order for them to sell. Now I wholeheartedly admit that point and click games are a crapshoot. They have also lost a majority of their appeal simply because anybody can just look up a guide for the game and have it done in a matter of hours. But there were some that I really liked, such as The Little Acre. You will never see anything like that from EA, Activision or Ubisoft. The closest thing Ubisoft has to goofy, fun and quick gameplay that doesn't take itself too seriously is Rayman.

 

The point is, I think more people out there need to try out different games and not just rely on a few AAA developers who may come out with a disappointment. Fallout 76 is a good example, most of the bitching and complaining I've heard about that game is unjustified and just ridiculous. Ever since the Mass Effect 3 and Dead Space 3 debacles back in 2012 and 2013 respectively it's been a trend for gamers to bitch about the newest AAA game that falls short of the standards that other games have followed by and set.

[AnAppealToHeaven]

rating wise they will probably be around the same. but to answer which is better is almost impossible because video games are art and art is subjective. they are different genres, play styles, goals, etc. only real answer is whichever one you enjoy more.

[Quink666]

RDR2 will be the better western 3rd person shooter, while TLOU2 will be the better Action Adventure title.

 

Can't really see how you would compare the two to begin with. Both will probably be equally great since both games are from solid developers that rarely disappoint. 

 

Can't wait to get a release date for  TLOU2.

[Dreakon13]

9 hours ago, Spaz said:

 

I will say again like I have said to many people that these are my opinions. Nobody should take them all as fact and I'm certainly not trying to force people to stand by my opinions. What was wrong with being vocal?

 

I have played plenty of AAA games in my life and have come to enjoy them. But I think the whole formula of having to be all dramatic, and making a drama story out of something just to sell it has gotten very old at this point. The new God of War was basically mostly all drama with some comedy relief, the story I felt in ways took away from the gameplay, which was the vital reason why so many people loved the old God of War titles.

 

The Last of Us set the standard to where more video game developers feel they have to make a drama story out of their games in order for them to sell. Now I wholeheartedly admit that point and click games are a crapshoot. They have also lost a majority of their appeal simply because anybody can just look up a guide for the game and have it done in a matter of hours. But there were some that I really liked, such as The Little Acre. You will never see anything like that from EA, Activision or Ubisoft. The closest thing Ubisoft has to goofy, fun and quick gameplay that doesn't take itself too seriously is Rayman.

 

There's no way I can respond to this without coming across like a jerk for extrapolating and/or disagreeing with your opinion, which I regularly get burned on since a lot of people really don't like having their opinions disagreed with... so eh.  Sorry in advance if I offend at all.

 

I think your "bad AAA" net is being cast a little too wide to include games like The Last of Us / God of War / Spider-Man, next to the latest yearly installment cash cow series from EA, Activision or Ubi.  If nothing else, it seems like you're more interested in "goofy, fun and quick gameplay"... which is perfectly fine.  Everyone has their tastes.  But then to turn around and say God of War is lacking in anything or following in some downward AAA trend simply because it's not "goofy, fun and quick gameplay" seems a little self-important.  Just because games have an approach to gameplay that you don't agree with, doesn't mean the gameplay isn't there.  It's not less, it's just different.

 

Though all that aside, I agree that gamers should be open to more than just AAA releases.  There's a lot of great experiences out there.

Edited December 6, 2018 by Dreakon13

[Firmamento]

Well, TLOU got GoY while RDR2 loses to GoW, you tell me. 

[Hakoom]

i got no crystal ball to see how good tlou 2 is but if its just on par with tlou1 or beter than yes it wil be better than rdr2

[lildunkin342]

If Last of Us 2 plays like the trailer they showed at E3 I have no doubt that it will be better than RDR2. They've definitely got their work cut out for them though.

[XjaegerbombX]

Will a Caramel Frapachino taste better than a White Chocolate Mocha?

[Amonares]

Since they are trying to push politics into a zombie apocalypse game, I think I'll go with no.

Edited July 19, 2021 by Amonares

[Iris Heart]

Grand Theft Horse won't be better than The GOTY of Us, I can be sure of that.