Lurker > kg88222

I'm pretty burnt on gta v and rdr2 at this point. I'm usually always playing something off and on and open world games really didn't go the way I thought this gen. Games in general. They are all mass marketed and all the knock off games out there. They all kind of mix action with fluff. They don't really have that oldschool developer feel to them either. Like games like stellaris is out there even outer worlds or outer wilds but games like that are still pandering to the mainstream. LA Noire is actually prettty good, but I just say it's good. They could do more with the open world itself. The gameplay loop gets pretty repetitive too. I'm about done with the homicide desk on my second playthrough from last gen and starting to get a little bored.

I haven't played Bully. I've been messing around with LA Noire because I'm burnt on RDR2. Thinking of giving Control a try but I might play Bully instead.

I'm not saying GTA V is a bad game. It's pretty awesome actually. I just think how gaming is now Rockstar is such a powerful company. If other games are mostly derivative they follow suit. So there isn't the same focus on certain things. It affects how games are made all the way around. Games now aren't bad. But a lot of them are a combination of sales and quality. You also don't see the same variety of AAA games. It's a lot of the same ips over and over.

There really haven't been that many new ips this gen that are AAA games that are that outstanding that I can think of. There are good games and games trying different things yes. But as far as new ips these developers kind of all follow suit.

Cyberpunk is coming. Watchdogs was not what they advertised it as to begin with followed the same formula with 2. They made it more "fun and twitchy". It's not that good. Why would I play that when I can play GTA V? It's the same game but worse.

GregorTheBug posted...

what post is that a response to?

I was just responding to the what am I trying to say. What I'm saying is GTA V is bad that way. Because there aren't that many open world games done right imo. If Rockstar keeps dumbing down their gameplay that's not really good. Because other games are even worse.

It costs money to make games now. Most developers can't keep up if games like GTA V is getting all the sales. There are other big budget games but if GTA V is dumbing down their gameplay that's not really good.

Red Dead 2 is also better than GTA V although I don't know on that. I think Red Dead 2 is better than Red Dead 1 although it's close and has the same problems. I play NAughty Dog games as well. They are good but really there aren't many truly great AAA games this gen imo. It's the same top developers. Fallout IV is alright. I guess HZD is too but I never got into it. IT's basically Rockstar or bust for me at this point. There aren't a whole lot of AAA games I like that much. I liked AC last gen. AC Odyssey is good if you want a single player massive rpg that really repeats a lot of stuff and is really annoying.

The games I spent the most time playing the past 2 gens are probably

1. GTA IV
2. Red Dead 2
3. GTA V
4. Witcher 3
5. LA Noire

Fallout 3, Mass Effect the entire series got a lot of play time from me although I think I only finished the 1st two. I may have blocked out the 3rd ending because I remember playing it, but I heard the ending sucked and may have shut it off. I remember the game itself not being all that good. I didn't even finish Red Dead 1. I've played some AC games and Naughty Dog games. Other games too I've played or tried. There aren't that many modern games I really like. GTA IV was a really great game. All these other knockoff games seem derivative. Games were better in the 90's imo. There was a lot more variety as far as the best games.Now not so much. I think that's always been the case.

It's about sales. Red Dead 2 did not sell as well as GTA V so who knows what Rockstar will do. GTA V is the biggest selling video game ever.

What game do I consider the best overall? I don't know. Witcher 3 is really good but it's an rpg. I prefer Action Adventure. The best game I've played the past 2 gens is either GTA IV. I liked Mass Effect and Fallout last gen as well. GTA IV is still probably the best. I liked it better than Red Dead Redemption as well.

I really like and want to like LA Noire as wll but I just consider it good.

I think IV is the better game. Euphoria wasn't developed by Rockstar. It was developed by Natural Motion. They have it integrated now but who knows what direction they will take it. I enjoyed IV more. Whether it's a better game overall GTA V looks better has a more open world. . GTA IV still has that focused story and side activities and things to do. I liked IV better.

The euphoria physics are so much better IV. GTA V looks better but it's not. I'm hoping GTA 6 is better this way. The story too. There are a lot of things in IV it does better actually. They basically integrated Euphoria into their Rage engine but they made V like they did.

The issue too is when Rockstar is basically the best there is and getting so many sales it just becomes redundant. It's still a really good game. I just see games trending this way. They might focus on their next batch of games to improve this stuff. It would be great if other developers weren't doing this too but I can only play so many rockstar and ubisoft ips before they become redundant.

It's a matter of opinion if you like that twitchy gameplay but the physics in the game are not better.

Just watch this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWVtZJo-HqI

It's gameplay isn't even better. Haha.

I wouldn't care if most open world games weren't trending this way. If you look around the internet it's like that too where most of these games get the most hype this generation. Where there are quite a few things GTA IV actually does better. It still had stuff it needed, but they went the total other direction. The next Rockstar game we will see if they really hype it a certain way or focus on what I'm talking about. It really doesn't see like Rockstar wants to do that. Most of these games don't.

Explain to me how GTA V is really that much better than previous games though. It's just more. It's more fast paced. It's more an adrenaline rush if you need that. It has a better online mode. I could go back and play Vice City and San Andreas and think it's apples and oranges too because I don't think either game is necessarily that much better. They do different things well. IV and V is the same thing. I prefer games that are more focused at times although if done right it depends. Just because a game sold more doesn't make it necessarily better. It's marketing. It sold to more people because it has more in it. Does San Andreas really feel that much better than Vice City? It's matter of opinion.

IT's not that my brain can't handle the awesomeness that is GTA V either. I just don't think it's that great. It has scope and all of that and comes together well.

That wasn't an opinion. It actually had those things and was just responding to why I thought it managed to look like crap. GTA IV I actually liked better than V in ways. I thought it was more focused and had a better story. Out of all those games I liked it the best . That is an opinion.

I get they were just messing with different filters and hardware specifications then. GTA V doesn't really have that problem. But the console versions vs the pc version there was a pretty noticeable downgrade in graphics. They all ended up looking different and they tried to sell it as that when it's not really their fault.

Overall GTA V is probably the better game. I can't say I enjoyed it all that much more though. It was just more and really seemed to come together as far as having 3 characters and this huge playground which was meant to be more over the top and enjoyable.

The ps3 version was native and didn't upscale as was more colorful. On the 360 it had that weird hue. It was almost green and blotchy. They even messed with it and added other filters for the expansions the lost expansion where it looked grainy.

There were serious issues with GTA IV when it came out as far as that weird filter and blur effect they had. It either looked completely discolored and drab or like you were driving through mush. PS3 or 360. Take your pick. It didn't even have upscaling on the ps3. And the 360 version was completely drab looking.

The random events are some of the more engaging parts of their games and GTA V has some of this as far as driving hitchikers up the cult and all of that. But GTA IV did some of this better where there were whole story lines. I think Packie was a random event. Both games did that well in ways. There are weird side missions and characters you can meet in GTA V too like Barry and the border control. Chinatown wars had drug deals and all of that. GTA V has a pot shop you can buy and Barry.

Red Dead 2 had a really good story. Exploration is better in Red Dead 2 as well. I think Red Dead comes together better as a whole. GTA V is more over the top.

I really didn't come away with feeling like Red Dead 2's story was that great though. It was good. Arthur was memorable and some of the supporting characters. The whole aspect of the gang. I still found it annoying at the same time and like they were pandering or peddling something. Micah was probably one of the more memorable characters. But it's still like they stole him out of the movie platoon. John C McGinley could have played him.

I think most things have been mentioned already. The controls are wonky. The story itself just feels over the top and all over the place. It's not as good as the originals which were more focused. They strove for realism and satire at the same time but lost some of it's charm. The activities aren't that fun or engaging. Exploration isn't really the best. There are collectibles and fun things to do but it's not that engaging. Online mode is supposed to replace that but the single player really suffers. The graphics and gameplay all play well but just something about it. It basically appeals to a lot of people at the same time and manages to feel pretty derivative.

I like it. They still have the fun police chases but it really hasn't changed much. GTA IV was equally frustrating. It had all those new physics but really still managed to look like crap. GTA V looks good. The gameplay is fun. But they've basically just been adding to the same formula. And I can't say I was wow'd by it. Or Red Dead 2. Some things sure as far as the actual scope and polish they achieved as far as combining a huge world and fun gameplay.

If you look at the internet it's probably rated the best as far as mass appeal. It's also probably the worst for the same reasons. Also my horse just got stuck on a fence in Red Dead 2 when I was trying to take my time looking around the environment.

I think it's lack of originality and doing what is right because money. They just mix it up and are lazy and people developing the games don't know what they are doing. You aren't going to see developers coming up with something totally original that actually plays the way it should too, because they don't have to and really just can't because of what they have done to gaming. They are assholes. Game developers are like the Death Star. Same with the media hyping this stuff. They are evil. They messed up and sold their souls to the devil.

The Saboteur was actually good if you want a good shooter. And a mish mash of a lot of stuff. Lots of customization and twitch gameplay though set in a good world. It seemed pretty shallow otherwise. Sleeping dogs etc. But again all these games feel like pretty shallow shooters or fighting games with customization. Even Mad Max is like that. The Sabateur still seems like a mish mash of a lot of stuff. And I remember that game had terrible screen tearing.

What would they do if they made a part 2? I can't see those games really being that great. This is a problem with games in general.

The actual world they built is really good though is the point. It just needed more time and development. It should have been a really great game. Unfortunately we don't see any games like that. I think the mainstream games are really trash for the most part at this point.

I'm serious about the free running too. AC they use the analog stick but then they have it where x and o or whatever are free running controls where you can go up and down. They should have it where tapping x is a boost. Rockstar doesn't use the analog stick at all for that. I'm guessing there is some reason for it but they should be able to map the controls that way and none of the alternate controls do it.

Graphically as well a lot of games this gen, particularly open world seem to be thrown together. LA Noire for what it is it feels like a living world at times. It's also another IP that hasn't been done to death even though noire has been done. It's not original but it's at least different.

I don't mind customization, but a lot of dev time must go into that in other games. A lot of other games there is a lot of meaningless customization too. There is some of that in LA Noire but it's basically a stripped down version. I hope they make another one. I think if anything other games are more that as far as show and no substance. It's still a rockstar game so all the facial animations and hollywood stuff is that but it's done so well. I actually like interrogating suspects too because it makes you think and it will throw curveballs at you sometimes. They could do even more with that. I'm not saying it's perfect but it at least does something different.

I think it's more just about individual thought. I think games like GTA appeal to a bigger demographic. But games have gone that route in general. I don't see games that really stray away from that much. LA Noire really does a lot right that other games do wrong. It needed more time but what is there is pretty polished.

I'm actually serious though. I've played Red Dead 2 and GTA V and honestly those games feel like a mess in comparison. Other developers are even worse. They still haven't figured out basic running mechanics in their games. GTA still has that GTA feel to it but as control schemes have gotten more complex and graphic detail their games suffer from it. As far as actual storytelling and games that aren't a mish mash of a bunch of nonsense too. It's because developers have sold out. There really isn't much to choose from outside of that. It's the same major developers. Ubisoft, Rockstar and Bethesda force feeding the same stuff.

Now hear me out. I get a lot of developers this gen has concentrated on giving people what they "want" more and more, but something is lost in all of this. Just playing LA noire the world they built, I get there isn't much to interact with. but as far as storyteling and atmosphere and how players animate and their faces and all of that. As far as actual gameplay mechanics as well that stray away from the usual over the top action. Rockstar liquidated Team Bondi and fired them. I hope there are still developers left that know how to make good games.

It just needed more time. I could have been pulling people over with my police car. The cases themselves didn't need to be so linear and have so many inconsistencies in them. They could have had more things to interact with. But controls in games have become too over the top. Developers this gen are striving for twitchier gameplay and what we end up with lousy framerates and more "detail" and activities that aren't all that interesting. The graphics may not be as detailed but I'm amazed how clean and clear and refined the graphics look in this game. I've played all 3 rockstar games and the control schemes need work. I don't understand why any of these games don't use the left analog stick to run and walk like it was meant. Then pressing a button to sprint or whatever. GTA V, Red Dead 2 and LA Noire all suffer from this. I think other games might but it seems like they have gone the way of twitchy over the top control schemes that don't flow nearly as well.

I actually really love the atmosphere. They nailed that oldschool LA Noire vibe with all the car sounds and voiceovers and everything. This game also seems to do weather right and makes me want to explore even though there isn't much reason too. Hopefully developers haven't forgotten how to make good open world video games in this cyclical modern "realty" star world we live in. Gamefaqs can go suck a @#@# too.

I don't know if it has better gameplay. Rockstar the pedestrians and how players act is just funnier.

I'm probably giving WD2 too much credit. Because it just feels generic in comparison. It looks good but I hate screen tearing and how the cars handle and everything from different sounds and everything else. GTA V is a much more polished game and doesn't have all the clutter WD2 does either that is supposed to "encourage" exploration. It more feels like chores and stuff I don't want to do.

GTA V is pretty cartoonish and isn't a top movie quality crime drama or anything. But it's much more stylized and polished. LA Noire even has that rockstar feeling to it like I really feel like I'm an LA cop at times.

WD2 overall feels generic. Odyssey did a better job of feeling a bit more like the oldschool AC games but even that has gone the way or cartoonish characters. It's better than WD2. WD2 has hacking though.

It's a good game. I like Odyssey too. It's just Ubisoft's marketing they always seem to find that middle ground and aren't quite a good as Rockstar or CD Project Red imo. The hacking mechanic is cool and all and it's well implemented but the game itself is just loaded with rinse and repeat stuff like that. They do it purposely.

What's weird is rockstar bought the rights to LA Noire and saved it off the scrap heap. I hope they don't completely abandon single player games. Watch Dogs originally looked like it was going to be a completely different game and Ubisoft just sold out. They even advertised it as something different. Watch Dogs 2 was about sales and nothing else. Watch Dogs 1 was such a flop and did not even come close to what they hyped it as. Cyberpunk does. End of gen.

I get it has the hacking mechanic and these companies like Ubisoft and Rockstar are competing with each other and have their brands but it's basically the same game. The way they advertised Watch Dogs at first as well. It's a totally different game and has just become GTA with hacking. Ubisoft and their marketing. Cyberpunk will probably be more close to what the original Watchdogs looked like as far as technology. GTA without the personality and has some added stuff in it like how the AI reacts and everything. It still feels generic with that ubisoft shooting mechanic. It's a good game but after playing both extensively I feel like I'm playing the same game. Just cheesier story in watchdogs and characters. I hope rockstar and their attention to detail with their single player doesn't lose it.

I don't even care if it's lovecraftian horror, as long as it has good story bits and investigation and action mixed in with a cool atmosphere. The stinking shitty seems like my best bet. Not a whole lot to choose from. Is the screen tearing fixed? That's one thing if I'm going to be engrossed in a game if it gives me motion sickness. Screen tearing is the worst. Does anyone know?

I'm still on the fence on this game. I really want something that is outside the usual action and shallow gameplay of open world games. Only other games I can think of that are open world that do this are LA Noire, Judgement, Vampyr. Murdered Soul Suspect. Yes? No? Maybe? These other games don't really appeal to me either. They all seem pretty bad and I've played LA Noire already.

What isn't helping is it's stil $60 on playstation store. $75 for the necromicon edition which has the 3 extra missions and some other stuff. I'd pay $30 for it but all the stores are closed and don't even carry it either.

Any gamers here who have been playing games for a while? I'm messing around with the casebook of arcadey smith and it's everything I've always wanted as far as a bladerunner open world sci fi crime solving driving around game except it's not. It's about as barebones and underdeveloped as a game could possibly be. Games like this could be so fun if they actually existed and there was a mix of combat and exploration and story. I've played LA Noire. GTA and Red Dead really don't have any of this. And LA Noire was pretty linear. Most open world games are pretty focused on action.

People sold out. I can say these things because it's true. And people ate it up. When a vast majority of games out there just insult my intelligence it just is. AC Odyssey is sort of good though if you like a game with all sorts of mass marketed stuff in it all thrown together in what is not really even an Assassin's Creed game. It's a whole lot of stuff though in a huge open world with good graphics. It's actually a good game but super time consuming and the mechanics are really copying so many other games like Wticher 3 and Shadow of Mordor with the mercenary system and gimmicks like that.

I played LA Noire this gen and last as well and what could have been a good game is actually simplified to the nth degree and got hyped as well. There is nothing to do in this game. It's the same simplified interrogation and gun and chase mechanics over and over. Watch a cut scene etc. The story is actually decent. But again anyone could come up with decent storylines if the population wasn't so dumbed down. Corporations that have the budgets only care about selling to the bottom line.

I'm older I admit and shouldn't even be playing games but the direction of games was not always like this. And I still like to play a good game every so often. I've played fallout 4 etc. And they just cut corners everywhere. And as far as other types of games and genres they don't exist. My intelligence can honestly see through all this bs.

these are what I feel are some of the best games I've played too. That's the ridiculous part. AC Odyssey, Red Dead 2, Fallout 4, LA Noire. These are supposed to be the best games. All of them are so margainalized for the masses. As far as actual game design and making good games with good storylines and characters and gameplay I don't know. They have good graphics. AC Odyssey does some creative stuff. So does Red Dead. But really.

Topic. I grew up playing computer games and not expecting the world here. But playing Red Dead 2 and AC odyssey. I don't know how people buy this stuff. These games are pretty to look at. Corporations are lying. Ubisoft could have released much better games if they didn't release so many. AC3, Unity, Syndicate etc. It's abotu the bottom line. Red Dead 2 is still drive here watch a cut scene. The gunplay is dumbed down and too easy. The story is not that great. Other publishers don't have the budgets to make games, if game designers havn't been beaten down enough, if the creativity even exists any more. All these games become too political. They have the same force fed agendas as the media. People buy the hype. Youtubers are idiots just trying to feed off the same stuff. AC Odyssey is actually a pretty good game but I could do without a lot of the rest of the series and it's not that good. Ubisoft is just going to force feed watch dogs and legions anyways. Games could be so much better if people actually cared.