pretty dark how far the Downes widow fell on hard times

I mean that is where the conflict wlll come for this game. Some will want to be able to carry every weapon imaginable at once. Others will want to be able to carry limited weapons and be less whacky. I think either is finie as long as there is a form of consistency. yes its a video game but immersion in the video game story certain elements help depending on the game.

wow a reasonable human being on KTT2 who has enjoyed something for 100 of hours and is secure in their own opinion but can see where other opinions exist. Without insulting them or silencing them.

I am just rejoicing as a joke i dont think it sucks please dont lecture me about hating or trolling when Vegan is clearly joking

God of War 2018 shouldnt be the game you use against Red Dead Redemption 2 when you talk about Game Design

Let me know your thoughts when you play more of RDR2. But I think it has bad game design in many ways

Better gameplay but worse pacing and story at times. Story overall neater in 1 without being as hamfisted

God, seeing this just makes me think how insane this game is gonna look at night in the rain.

So far to me its not bad game design. Its just incredibly easy for me to put down and have no rushed desire to come back. But currently I dont have headphones which I will be getting again soon. I am someone in general where mission design itself I need a bit more than go to this location kill this guy or go to this location chase then kill this guy. Because that gets tedious for me. the story isnt personally gripping me like others. I am only so many misisons in though. think the last thing I did was hunt a bear

why did youtube start disabling playback on other sites

Both were nominated for GOTY that year. RDR2 is widely considered the best story in gaming, best protagonist. Gameplay was probably the deciding factor for many voters

Do you think the combat in God of War 2018 and the loop is in any way revolutionary? Genuine question. I think its accessible. I think it serves a large common denominator but its a formula that they are still doing 8 years later with ragnarok and laufey. It winning doesnt mean its better. It serves its audience. Same way Death Stranding 2 really improved many elements got great reviews still lost to E33

No, but does RDR2 do anything revolutionary in its combat and gameplay loop? Not every game needs to be revolutionary to be the best of its year

I didn't say it's better, but I do believe God of War is less flawed than RDR2. There must be a reason GoW won if RDR2 has amazing plot, amazingly detailed open world, can't be faulted on it's graphics. I think the answer is obvious

Automatically unequipping weapons does very little/nothing for immersion. Nothing would be lost if Arthur just kept a consistent weapon wheel everytime he gets on/off a horse. Things like this makes me say it's bad game design, inconveniencing the player for no real reason

Record 15 minutes of your RDR2 gameplay and tell me you're not spending too much of that time awkwardly trying to position Arthur correctly because he doesn't move like you'd expect him to and watching looting animations

Bad game design

you would probably love this video

I posted it in here before, I agree with a lot of it. I can't remember if he mentions the sluggish movement and looting though, it's mainly focused on the mission design

Mission design I agree but when you are an older man in a western I am not expecting his motion to be perfection

I can understand Red Dead 2 feeling sluggish to play for some even though I enjoy it. But is the gameplay feel that much different from Kingdom Come Deliverance games? I'm assuming if folks are knocking RDR2 for having bad gameplay/game design because it isn't snappy enough , while bringing up God of War 2018 winning GOTY, therefore, better game, doesn't this kinda miss the point of playing the game on its terms and taking the time to learn the systems, without expecting something else from the game?

This not like the "He is not your savior" stupid argument to end discussions in hip hop circles about Kendrick (yes I'm all over the place idc lol). You can still criticize the titles of course is my overall point, but based on what they're trying to accomplish, and less on what you generally prefer in your gameplay.

Like, I hate turn based games because I hate waiting a turn and will never play Final Fantasy but I wouldn't call it bad gameplay just because I prefer to play something else. Wait, I got a better example to illustrate the "don't enjoy gameplay therefore bad" dichotomy, hollon

If I go into Kingdom come deliverance and complain that it's not snappy like DOOM, then I might be missing the point of KCD. Accessible doesn't necessarily mean "therefore, better."

As for the game design philosophy earning it's keep, that's a different story. Yes, positioning yourself for am action to be triggered is something I can agree to be annoying ( @RedEyeJedi This is a valid critique) .

Hell, I've got plenty of games that did some small annoying things here and there, and I wouldn't recommend to play something if the gameplay design accumulates to tedium for the player, but that didn't always necessarily mean that there is something wrong with it. It's just a preference thing. I can play RDR2 and Dead Cells and still love both gameplay philosophies because they're after different outcomes.

If friction in video games was the boon to having fun, then all games would be donkey Kong bananza . Another example that is pertinent to this discussion is Rain World. Genuinely divisive but also very much misunderstood in its gameplay design. If this game was truly awful, it wouldn't have accumulated it's dedicated fanbase but if you go in not knowing that it does away with gameplay niceties and don't adjust, you will have a terrible time. At the end of the day, I'm all about playing what you like. Life's too short to slog along

With the GoW thing, I'm asking you guys to tell me why you think it won. What separates these two games? Because RDR2 is the most detailed open world in gaming, considered the best story/writing/characters in gaming and it's a gorgeous game. The answer is obviously gameplay to me but if you guys are saying RDR2 has perfect gameplay as well, how did a PlayStation exclusive at the time (so less reach) end up beating it for GOTY at an award show where the public constitutes 10% of the vote?

While developing RDR2, Rockstar had 2 paths ahead of them. Either make this game realistic to the point that it makes playing it feel tedious/frustrates the player or compromise on some of that realism to make their game feel more fun to play because it's still a video game. Rockstar chose to go the first path with many aspects in RDR2 and that's what makes it bad game design

I tried to play the game on its terms, adapt to its systems. That's why I started doing the weapon s*** on my horse but the game still forgets what weapons you equipped like 5 seconds after Arthur starts galloping. I had to ensure I have the correct weapons every. single. damn. time I got off my horse. If I'm going the extra mile to the point where I'm OCD equipping my weapons every few seconds to avoid an outcome and the outcome still happens - I'm going to criticise the design. There's literally no benefit to this feature but it resulted in numerous occasions where I don't have the weapons I just equipped. You're making your game more frustrating to play for the player for what reason? That's bad game design imo

RDR is considered GTA but cowboys. There was nothing wrong with how Niko/John moved/felt to control, nobody was saying "This isn't realistic enough"

Y'all know damn well that if Jason/Lucia controls and moves like Arthur does, you would not be f***ing with it So why when it's a game set in the wild west, I can't criticise Rockstar because I view some of their design choices behind RDR2 as missteps?

They‘re still talking about RDR2

Another day closer.

but if you guys are saying RDR2 has perfect gameplay as well,

I addressed this without resorting to calling it perfect gameplay. There are minor annoyances but the intent is real. Whether it stacks up is a different topic. I gave multiple examples regarding this.

how did a PlayStation exclusive at the time (so less reach) end up beating it for GOTY at an award show where the public constitutes 10% of the vote?

This is a moot point that positions GOTY awards as the end-all-be-all determinant of finding value in a game. Again, I already addressed this with the whole preference vs intent angle. I have no issue with God of War having won. In fact, from all accounts I've heard, it's an incredible title. But what is the point of this argument when The Witcher 3, with its infamously mid gameplay, won GOTY over Metal Gear Solid V, which has excellent/way better gameplay? The story, right? So....

While developing RDR2, Rockstar had 2 paths ahead of them. Either make this game realistic to the point that it makes playing it feel tedious/frustrates the player or compromise on some of that realism to make their game feel more fun to play because it's still a video game. Rockstar chose to go the first path with many aspects in RDR2 and that's what makes it bad game design

All subjective, down to the framing of the game design philosophy

RDR is considered GTA but cowboys.

This is categorically false. You played the game, you know this. If you still believe this, then this might be in bad faith.

So why when it's a game set in the wild west, I can't criticise Rockstar because I view some of their design choices behind RDR2 as missteps?

I hope I'm wrong, but you might be confusing folks engaging with your critique as folks attacking YOU for not enjoying the game. Cant speak for everyone but that's certainly not how I feel.