GTA 6 Is Delayed Again Until November 2026

[UnbornTao]

16 minutes ago, Basman said:

RDR2 is unironically the best horse game on the market. You could buy the game just as a horse simulator.

True.

Edited 9 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Leo Gura]

45 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Did you know that the horses' balls shrink in cold weather?

As a matter of fact I did.

To me this is a sign of improper resource allocation. if you got time to model realistic horse balls, then your game is not going to be fun enough.

Reality simulators make for bad games.

I don't even want to see horses in my game. Horses are the most uncreative, uninspired creature imaginable.

A rat is more interesting to me than a horse. I would rather ride a giant rat than a horse.

Edited 9 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Schizophonia]

46 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

Do you watch movies or shows?

Rarely

I find it boring

Quote

Video games is another medium - arguably a better one in certain ways.

Imagine a great movie that's interactive and immersive, one that involves you as a player rather than just a passive viewer.

It's largely game-dependent, of course. Sometimes what you're looking for is a simple, chill game, and that's OK too.

43 minutes ago, Basman said:

RDR2 is unironically the best horse game on the market. You could buy the game just as a horse simulator.

Yes but why not just do an activity

Go to a real-life stable and take a riding lesson; i did once and will do it again and it's much better than pressing a joystick to move a pixelated horse.

 

[Schizophonia]

33 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I would rather ride a giant rat than a horse.

 

Edited 9 hours ago by Schizophonia

[RisingLane]

37 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I would rather ride a giant rat than a horse.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, RisingLane said:

That's my vibe! 

[UnbornTao]

55 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

As a matter of fact I did.

To me this is a sign of improper resource allocation. if you got time to model realistic horse balls, then your game is not going to be fun enough.

Reality simulators make for bad games.

I don't even want to see horses in my game. Horses are the most uncreative, uninspired creature imaginable.

A rat is more interesting to me than a horse. I would rather ride a giant rat than a horse.

It's the GTA company - what else to expect but an insane focus on detail? We'll probably see the realism pushed to almost comedic levels in GTA VI.

The game is what it is: a story-driven, open-world "Western" set in a fictional land reminiscent of the American West, inspired by real events.

It's all about the story and creating a believable world - like traveling back in time and immersing yourself as if you were personally there.

If anything, think of the realism as a pretext to fully dive into the story.

You wouldn't ask Walter White to ride a pony into the sunset or drive a spaceship.

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Schizophonia said:

Rarely

I find it boring

Yes but why not just do an activity

Go to a real-life stable and take a riding lesson; i did once and will do it again and it's much better than pressing a joystick to move a pixelated horse.

The horse riding is just a rather minor aspect here and is specific to this game.

It isn't about the medium per se, but about the experiences you want to go through (in the games). It'd be like saying "But why read books?"

It's fine, to each their own. You could even do both activities.

Edited 7 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Ramasta9]

 

[Basman]

2 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Yes but why not just do an activity

Go to a real-life stable and take a riding lesson; i did once and will do it again and it's much better than pressing a joystick to move a pixelated horse.

just riding in real life is not enough for these horse freaks. It's also cheaper.

Gaming is in fact one of the cheaper hobbies relative to how much time you can spend on it.

[Schizophonia]

2 hours ago, RisingLane said:

Abomination

[Basman]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

To me this is a sign of improper resource allocation. if you got time to model realistic horse balls, then your game is not going to be fun enough.

Exactly. It's excessive and uncreative.

They are so risk-averse due to how bloated their budgets are that they push nothing but graphics and cinematic qualities at the expense of novel gameplay, since it is more accessible to play a movie simulator. 

1 hour ago, UnbornTao said:

If anything, think of the realism as a pretext to fully dive into the story.

You wouldn't ask Walter White to ride a pony into the sunset or drive a spaceship.

You don't need realism to tell a compelling story. Most fiction isn't realistic.

In fact, some light supernatural elements would make a western way more interesting, like Blood Meridian. It's about having an interesting hook, which RDR2 lacks in my opinion. It's part of why so many call it boring. 

[UnbornTao]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

Exactly. It's excessive and uncreative.

They are so risk-averse due to how bloated their budgets are that they push nothing but graphics and cinematic qualities at the expense of novel gameplay, since it is more accessible to play a movie simulator. 

You don't need realism to tell a compelling story. Most fiction isn't realistic.

In fact, some light supernatural elements would make a western way more interesting, like Blood Meridian. It's about having an interesting hook, which RDR2 lacks in my opinion. It's part of why so many call it boring. 

The realism doesn't detract at all, though. It even adds a nice layer of immersion and believability. This is the direction these kinds of games are heading.

I recommend you actually experience the story, and then assess its quality.

Edited 5 hours ago by UnbornTao

[Basman]

18 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

The realism doesn't detract at all, though. It even adds a nice layer of immersion and believability. This is the direction these kinds of games are heading.

What else are you going to spend your billion dollar budget on? Cinematic games don't prioritize gameplay and minimize creative risks.

[UnbornTao]

4 hours ago, Basman said:

What else are you going to spend your billion dollar budget on? Cinematic games don't prioritize gameplay and minimize creative risks.

That may be. And Red Dead likely earned them plenty, too; it's just well made, even if it's not your type of game.

Seven years on, few games match its graphics, technical complexity, or the sense of a truly alive open world. How many games evoke that feeling? Not many.

Even if you don't like it, it's the sort of game that breaks new ground in the industry, even if just in the technical aspect.

Edited 1 hour ago by UnbornTao

[Basman]

29 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

That may be. And Red Dead likely earned them plenty, too; it's just well made, even if it's not your type of game.

Seven years on, few games match its graphics, technical complexity, or the sense of a truly alive open world. How many games evoke that feeling? Not many.

Even if you don't like it, it's the sort of game that breaks new ground in the industry. 

I had more a more fun and engaging experience beating Momodora: Moonlight Farewell, an indie 2D metroidvania for 15 dollars, than playing RDR2. I played both for circa 10 hours. It was more artisctic than RDR2, which isn't hard when the latter is just going for realism. Realism isn't artistically interesting to me. I find it funny how a game is considered groundbreaking just for graphics essentially and being more like a movie.

That to me is not what video games are about. RDR2 is the absence of player agency in service of realism and story. Cinematic games are a very corporatized stage orange style of game design (even though many of the people who make these games are fairly green themselves), minimizing everything that make their game less accessible, primarily gameplay. 

[UnbornTao]

6 hours ago, Ramasta9 said:

 

Talk about immersion.

[UnbornTao]

8 minutes ago, Basman said:

I had more a more fun and engaging experience beating Momodora: Moonlight Farewell, an indie 2D metroidvania for 15 dollars, than playing RDR2. I played both for circa 10 hours. It was more artisctic than RDR2, which isn't hard when the latter is just going for realism. Realism isn't artistically interesting to me. I find it funny how a game is considered groundbreaking just for graphics essentially and being more like a movie.

That to me is not what video games are about. RDR2 is the absence of player agency in service of realism and story. Cinematic games are a very corporatized stage orange style of game design (even though many of the people who make these games are fairly green themselves), minimizing everything that make their game less accessible, primarily gameplay. 

I get that realism is not the be-all and end-all. All things considered, in my view, it is a nice addition to the world, gameplay, and story. But for this game it requires more than ten hours of playtime to really give it a chance and offer a fair take. At least that's how I see it.