Can’t speak about the mad part, but what I meant about RDR2 is that it obviously got less love from the community than GTA V, which is why it’s essentially been shuttered in terms of any expansions/online components - while GTAO keeps receiving new mini-expansions even with GTA VI around the corner.
Not to mention there are no talks about furthering the series…
That’s why I consider it underappreciated.
Edit: also to add, RDR2 is to RDR1 what GTA V is to GTA IV.
If we’re talking about GTAO, I agree. However I have a different opinion about RDO, it had the potential to be less of a griefer cesspool than GTAO, but Rockstar had even less motivation to prevent cheating than they did in GTAO, so…
Only in terms of graphics and world size. I found GTA V to be worse on net than GTA IV:
less interesting/relatable protagonists
side content feels tacked on, while it’s relevant to the GTA IV story
driving went back to arcadey nonsense
I found it an extremely disappointing return to Los Santos, whereas I found GTA IV to be an interesting return to Liberty City.
Yes, GTA V is gorgeous, but it was a slog to play IMO. Once it’s replaced by newer, prettier GTA, will you want to replay V? That’s certainly true for me for SA and IV, but not for V. The only reason it’s somewhat interesting is because it’s the latest entry.
RDR2 is to RDR1 as GTA IV is to GTA III: same setting, different story, and much much prettier.
Im not sure if you are joking right now but RDR2 IS the ‘GTA VI’ to RDR1, a game well deserved of its sequel. Underappreciated? Are you mad?
…is my math fucked up or are two and six the same thing these days? Seems they’d need a few more before they get to “VI.”
Ohh no. This guy doesn’t know about the new math. Should we tell him?
Ah this is that Commoncore Math I’ve been hearing about? Thought a supergroup of Dillinger Escape Plan and Converge made a new genre.
Can’t speak about the mad part, but what I meant about RDR2 is that it obviously got less love from the community than GTA V, which is why it’s essentially been shuttered in terms of any expansions/online components - while GTAO keeps receiving new mini-expansions even with GTA VI around the corner.
Not to mention there are no talks about furthering the series…
That’s why I consider it underappreciated.
Edit: also to add, RDR2 is to RDR1 what GTA V is to GTA IV.
I think not having an online component is a feature there.
GTA lives of the story and dense world. Online is just mayhem, which is fun for a bit, but gets bland quickly.
If we’re talking about GTAO, I agree. However I have a different opinion about RDO, it had the potential to be less of a griefer cesspool than GTAO, but Rockstar had even less motivation to prevent cheating than they did in GTAO, so…
Only in terms of graphics and world size. I found GTA V to be worse on net than GTA IV:
I found it an extremely disappointing return to Los Santos, whereas I found GTA IV to be an interesting return to Liberty City.
Yes, GTA V is gorgeous, but it was a slog to play IMO. Once it’s replaced by newer, prettier GTA, will you want to replay V? That’s certainly true for me for SA and IV, but not for V. The only reason it’s somewhat interesting is because it’s the latest entry.
RDR2 is to RDR1 as GTA IV is to GTA III: same setting, different story, and much much prettier.