• @samus12345
    link
    English
    71 year ago

    RDR2 was still phenomenal after getting the GTAO money. Rockstar can still make great single-player content when they want to.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      I agree. It’s just that this is the same series… Idk maybe it will kick ass, I’m just overly cynical I guess lol

      • @samus12345
        link
        English
        31 year ago

        My expectation is that it will be very good, but will have no single player DLC whatsoever in lieu of GTAO2 or whatever they call it. And no, I’ve never forgiven them for doing that with V. At least this time I won’t be expecting it.

        • @dangblingus
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          What if it doesn’t need DLC? When the concept of DLC first came out, everyone complained that devs were just releasing unfinished games and that you were obligated to buy DLC to enjoy a full experience. Now people only buy games because they’re expecting DLC?

          • @samus12345
            link
            English
            6
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Because Rockstar did some good DLC for GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption. I agree that DLC isn’t a good thing if it’s carved out of the base game, but Rockstar had a good track record of making good DLC for already feature-complete games.

      • @dangblingus
        link
        English
        01 year ago

        Unnecessarily cynical. The same series? Are Vice City, SA, and 4 considered bad games?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Did you even read my initial comment?

          I explicitly said that I have never been let down by a GTA campaign. What I was saying was that RDR2 is a different series that plays by different rules. For that reason I don’t feel like it’s necessarily fair to use RDR2 as an example of how they will treat GTA with the respect the series deserves.