Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.
Hello all! This is just a quick reminder to ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere.
Red Dead Redemption 2
Comments
-
super_furry wrote: »If people want the game on Steam earlier, they should get on at them to cut their 30% margin.
It already drops to 25 and 20% at larger sales figures...0 -
-
Id imagie there will be a minority of people disappointed in this game on PC as there was on console.
All that hype,myself included,and the game turned out to be very average and boring to me.
The issues with the game can't be fixed with a port.
It already looks great even on console, the story (for the most part) is good but the missions are Rockstar's most unimaginative yet, the controls feel an entire gen behind the times & riding across the overly large map on horseback to get to the next mission markers loses its charm after 20 hours.
I'm glad I finished it when it was out as I could be part of the conversation about it then, I didn't have much of it spoiled & I think if I stopped playing half way through I'd never have gone back to finish it.0 -
The issues with the game can't be fixed with a port.
It already looks great even on console, the story (for the most part) is good but the missions are Rockstar's most unimaginative yet, the controls feel an entire gen behind the times & riding across the overly large map on horseback to get to the next mission markers loses its charm after 20 hours.
I'm glad I finished it when it was out as I could be part of the conversation about it then, I didn't have much of it spoiled & I think if I stopped playing half way through I'd never have gone back to finish it.
That’s what happened to me. I just felt the game was long winded and cumbersome so I stopped halfway through.
I think the game suffers from trying to be far too realistic, and it ends up being less fun and more sluggish than RDR1.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
The thing is with Rockstar it feels like the people who make the open world and the people who make the actual missions are two different companies. Every single mission in a Rockstar game feels like a tutorial for mechanics you'll never use again, they don't implement any of the basic controls that you do in the open world and are far too linear. I think that flaw becomes apparent when you have devs like CDPR coming out and doing great stuff.0
-
Would red dead redemption on line be suitable for a 12 year old? All his mates are playing it...0
-
-
The Phantom Pain wrote: »No...
Would it not be the case that the violence and profanity are removed from the campaign so jusr coop gameplay?0 -
Interesting points here...
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/game-reviews/red-dead-redemption-2/user-reviews/adult0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 47557
super_furry wrote: »Red Dead Redemption 2 PC, gross margin per store:
Rockstar Launcher: 95%
Epic Games Store: 88%
Steam: 70%
If people want the game on Steam earlier, they should get on at them to cut their 30% margin.
30% is in line with all other storefronts and it also pays for the servers running all the steam works functionality. The epics gamestore margins is not sustainable and is only temporary according to epic.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 47557
Interesting points here...
https://www.commonsensemedia.org/game-reviews/red-dead-redemption-2/user-reviews/adult
Rated not suitable for anyone for being crushingly boring.0 -
Retr0gamer wrote: »30% is in line with all other storefronts and it also pays for the servers running all the steam works functionality. The epics gamestore margins is not sustainable and is only temporary according to epic.
He's since commented on the 12% figure again making it very clear it's their permanent revenue sharing rate. There's practically no wiggle room in that statement either so he's opened himself to some perfectly legitimate criticism, even if operating costs were to rise in the future.
There's an interesting debate to be had about whether developers should be forced to eat the full 30% cost of running the additional services Steam offer which take them from a mere storefront to a platform but I'd rather not drag this thread off topic.0 -
Would red dead redemption on line be suitable for a 12 year old? All his mates are playing it...
If all his mates are playing it, let him at it. They will be talking about it anyway. So long as he knows it’s a cartoon and not real life what’s the problem.
Unless he’s some kind of mentaller that will start killing horses because he seen it on Telly.0 -
A lot of those reviews are biased because they themselves have played the game and it enjoyed but objectively RDR2 is not appropriate for 12 year olds. For one you play a bandit doing scummy things - in online there are choices you and your team make at the end of a mission and often the more treacherous you are the more you're reward. And yes, the game is violent.
I personally, think age 16 is about right for RDR2.0 -
The Phantom Pain wrote: »The thing is with Rockstar it feels like the people who make the open world and the people who make the actual missions are two different companies. Every single mission in a Rockstar game feels like a tutorial for mechanics you'll never use again, they don't implement any of the basic controls that you do in the open world and are far too linear. I think that flaw becomes apparent when you have devs like CDPR coming out and doing great stuff.
This is slightly hyperbolic to say the least. The majority of Rockstar missions boil down to travel to X location, engage in combat scenario, done. If there is mechanics brought in then dropped, it's usually to add some cinematic flair to the missions (see the alligator attack mission for example). At their core, Rockstar make third person action games with tightly scripted narratives, so comparing Rockstar to a dev like CDPR who make RPGs which allow for build diversity and have a much bigger focus on branching narratives etc. is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
Variety in mechanics is a very strange criticism to level at a game. If anything I'd say one of the biggest issues I had with RDR2 was too many one dimensional missions that revolved round the monotonous gunplay. I mean you say every single mission ina Rockstar game revolves around mechanics you never use again....I dont even know where to start with that, considering the first ten hours are basically a tutorial for the things you will be doing for the rest of the game.
I'm no Rockstar fanboy, in fact I hated RDR2, but your take on the game and Rockstar in general seems strange.
Each to their own though.0 -
Would red dead redemption on line be suitable for a 12 year old? All his mates are playing it...
Online is terrible, I wouldn't recommend it for anyone tbh. It's an 18+(16+) game. If you want to expose your 12 year old to any of the following:
- Tying a character up and feeding them to a crocodile and watching it devour.
- Laying them on train tracks and watching the train mangle.
- See what a shotgun does at close range to a head.
- Watch slowed down and dramatised animation of limbs getting dismembered by gunfire.
Sure listen to the reviews recommending it for -18's for how beautiful and detailed the game is if you want but be aware.I have a 11 year old child that asked for this game recently so I looked into it and was pushed away. There is horse genitalia but it is hardly noticeable and really adds to the experience since they shrink in the cold and get bigger in the heat. The skinning of animals has a detailed animation but in my opinion it adds to the experience. I let my son get the game and he absolutely loved it! He's played so much and I'm pretty happy about the purchase. This game does not have a battle royale mode which is a big down for my son, but it is still really fun. I was never really into video games but I tried playing it and had some fun. It has swearing but if your child is older than 11 they have definitely heard it at school and won't affect them if they are mature enough. It also reinforces the second amendment and is based in the wild west which can be a learning experience for your child. You are able to kill people which can be a turn off for some but again if your child is mature enough it won't matter.
Yeah sure... who probably got the bad language from a video game they should not have been playing!0 -
Unfortunately had a couple of my ps4 games robbed during the week, by some subtle heure while having a party
Not missing red dead though cause he only took the data disc since the play disc was in the ps40 -
goon_magee wrote: »This is slightly hyperbolic to say the least. The majority of Rockstar missions boil down to travel to X location, engage in combat scenario, done. If there is mechanics brought in then dropped, it's usually to add some cinematic flair to the missions (see the alligator attack mission for example). At their core, Rockstar make third person action games with tightly scripted narratives, so comparing Rockstar to a dev like CDPR who make RPGs which allow for build diversity and have a much bigger focus on branching narratives etc. is a bit like comparing apples and oranges.
Variety in mechanics is a very strange criticism to level at a game. If anything I'd say one of the biggest issues I had with RDR2 was too many one dimensional missions that revolved round the monotonous gunplay. I mean you say every single mission ina Rockstar game revolves around mechanics you never use again....I dont even know where to start with that, considering the first ten hours are basically a tutorial for the things you will be doing for the rest of the game.
I'm no Rockstar fanboy, in fact I hated RDR2, but your take on the game and Rockstar in general seems strange.
Each to their own though.
It's not hyperbole or a "strange" opinion.
There are controls for mission specific tasks throughout that you never use again in the open world or even in the next campaign mission, causing you to constantly stare at the top left corner of the screen for instructions (or is it top right? Can't remember).
Yes, it would be like comparing apples to oranges if I was comparing Rockstar to CDPR in terms of narrative structure like you say but I wasn't... I was comparing in terms of freedom of gameplay. There are too many auto fails in the main missions for not playing it exactly as R* intended. You're following a gang member on a horse and spot rabbit 10 feet away. It takes 5 secs to shoot the rabbit and plonk it on the horse but the game is going to auto fail you for not riding with your gang member even though said gang member is right there beside you and there is no time limit. In Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Kassandra can get off her horse and her companion will wait for her before continuing.0 -
The Phantom Pain wrote: »It's not hyperbole or a "strange" opinion.
There are controls for mission specific tasks throughout that you never use again in the open world or even in the next campaign mission, causing you to constantly stare at the top left corner of the screen for instructions (or is it top right? Can't remember).
Yes, it would be like comparing apples to oranges if I was comparing Rockstar to CDPR in terms of narrative structure like you say but I wasn't... I was comparing in terms of freedom of gameplay. There are too many auto fails in the main missions for not playing it exactly as R* intended. You're following a gang member on a horse and spot rabbit 10 feet away. It takes 5 secs to shoot the rabbit and plonk it on the horse but the game is going to auto fail you for not riding with your gang member even though said gang member is right there beside you and there is no time limit. In Assassin's Creed Odyssey, Kassandra can get off her horse and her companion will wait for her before continuing.
Narrative structure and freedom of gameplay go hand in hand at times. My point is, Rockstar designed the main missions in RDR2 to be tightly scripted set pieces or narrative vehicles 99% of the time more in line with a naughty dog game, whereas AC is intended to let you have as much freedom as possible to get your to your objectives. If RDR2 wasn't an open world game, people wouldn't bat an eyelid at the linearity of the main quests, but because its open world, there is this expectation that player agency should mirror the likes of AC or a CDPR game when that isn't what they're going for in the slightest.
So yeah, comparing developers who are aiming for two entirely different experiences in terms of freedom gameplay is certainly comparing apples and oranges in my eyes. As I alluded to above, if you're looking for points of comparison for gameplay freedom, a developer such as naughty dog makes much more sense as they're aiming for the same thing on a cinematic level.
And I stand by saying that your original post was full of hyperbole. Yes their is context sensitive actions in some missions, but that's hardly a new concept for gaming, especially when your main missions are completely driven by narrative. But you said each mission serves as a tutorial for something you never do again, ignorant of the fact that there are many, many repeated mechanics that come up across various missions and open world activities throughout the game (hunting, fishing, cooking, crafting, combat etc.) in amongst those context sensitive actions you're carrying out.0 -
Advertisement
-
goon_magee wrote: »Narrative structure and freedom of gameplay go hand in hand at times. My point is, Rockstar designed the main missions in RDR2 to be tightly scripted set pieces or narrative vehicles 99% of the time more in line with a naughty dog game, whereas AC is intended to let you have as much freedom as possible to get your to your objectives. If RDR2 wasn't an open world game, people wouldn't bat an eyelid at the linearity of the main quests, but because its open world, there is this expectation that player agency should mirror the likes of AC or a CDPR game when that isn't what they're going for in the slightest.
So yeah, comparing developers who are aiming for two entirely different experiences in terms of freedom gameplay is certainly comparing apples and oranges in my eyes. As I alluded to above, if you're looking for points of comparison for gameplay freedom, a developer such as naughty dog makes much more sense as they're aiming for the same thing on a cinematic level.
And I stand by saying that your original post was full of hyperbole. Yes their is context sensitive actions in some missions, but that's hardly a new concept for gaming, especially when your main missions are completely driven by narrative. But you said each mission serves as a tutorial for something you never do again, ignorant of the fact that there are many, many repeated mechanics that come up across various missions and open world activities throughout the game (hunting, fishing, cooking, crafting, combat etc.) in amongst those context sensitive actions you're carrying out.
I'm glad you brought up Naughty Dog games - which you feel is a more appropriate comparison - because NG make linear games that somehow feel less restrictive than RDR2 in its main campaign, mainly because the only auto fails are death. If you want to walk around and explore for a bit or even just not move Nathan Drake in Uncharted, the game won't punish you for it. So no, I'm afraid using the, "it's a story driven game!" as an excuse for the RDR2's main campaign being ridiculously linear doesn't work because other games I have mentioned, including NG games, are very much story driven (are you going to pretend the Witcher 3 isn't story driven for the sake of proving a point?) and yet do freedom in gameplay better.
Also, if you're having to compare an open world game to a linear one that in itself shows something is wrong. I play open world games for the open world. It is entirely reasonable to expect more freedom as to how the player approaches a mission when the open world does it so well. Therefore, RDR2 doesn't need to "mirror the likes of other games", it should look to its own as an example. It doesn't mean Arthur has to go completely off course but you shouldn't be auto failed merely for stepping off your horse to pick a plant either, that's extreme.
Years ago, Ubisoft used to make players desync in AC if you didn't follow the path the ancestor took but that in itself has a narrative reason - you were replaying memories, and even then it was far less restrictive than RDR2. The devs eventually found a way to make it less linear by turning what used to be a requirement into optional objectives while still making the campaign guided. And don't tell me ACII isn't a story/character driven game. Your excuse that narrative structure impedes gameplay freedom is nonsense because other devs find a way to make both work.
I'm not referring to hunting, fishing or the mechanics that get repeated - I'm aware that there are repeated mechanics obviously. I'm referring to the ones that DON'T i.e. the context sensitive actions which are numerous throughout the campaign. Uncharted has context sensitive actions too but the controls are always the same - either tap triangle or push with circle, making it easy to play the game without HUD because you don't have to look at the top of the screen for instructions every 5 seconds. I didn't think that needed spelling out or clarifying but here we are.
You say you're not a R* fanboy but you certainly sound like one with your defensive overprotection of the game when it's not needed, as I enjoyed the game overall despite some very obvious flaws.0 -
The Phantom Pain wrote: »I'm glad you brought up Naughty Dog games - which you feel is a more appropriate comparison - because NG make linear games that somehow feel less restrictive than RDR2 in its main campaign, mainly because the only auto fails are death. If you want to walk around and explore for a bit or even just not move Nathan Drake in Uncharted, the game won't punish you for it. So no, I'm afraid using the, "it's a story driven game!" as an excuse for the RDR2's main campaign being ridiculously linear doesn't work because other games I have mentioned, including NG games, are very much story driven (are you going to pretend the Witcher 3 isn't story driven for the sake of proving a point?) and yet do freedom in gameplay better.
Also, if you're having to compare an open world game to a linear one that in itself shows something is wrong. I play open world games for the open world. It is entirely reasonable to expect more freedom as to how the player approaches a mission when the open world does it so well. Therefore, RDR2 doesn't need to "mirror the likes of other games", it should look to its own as an example. It doesn't mean Arthur has to go completely off course but you shouldn't be auto failed merely for stepping off your horse to pick a plant either, that's extreme.
Years ago, Ubisoft used to make players desync in AC if you didn't follow the path the ancestor took but that in itself has a narrative reason - you were replaying memories, and even then it was far less restrictive than RDR2. The devs eventually found a way to make it less linear by turning what used to be a requirement into optional objectives while still making the campaign guided. And don't tell me ACII isn't a story/character driven game. Your excuse that narrative structure impedes gameplay freedom is nonsense because other devs find a way to make both work.
I'm not referring to hunting, fishing or the mechanics that get repeated - I'm aware that there are repeated mechanics obviously. I'm referring to the ones that DON'T i.e. the context sensitive actions which are numerous throughout the campaign. Uncharted has context sensitive actions too but the controls are always the same - either tap triangle or push with circle, making it easy to play the game without HUD because you don't have to look at the top of the screen for instructions every 5 seconds. I didn't think that needed spelling out or clarifying but here we are.
You say you're not a R* fanboy but you certainly sound like one with your defensive overprotection of the game when it's not needed, as I enjoyed the game overall despite some very obvious flaws.
Lol who pissed in your soup lad? Since when is challenging someone's points suddenly classified as defensive overprotection? Don't post on public forums if you don't want your opinions challenged. My defense of the game isn't needed? As I said I don't like the game, but my critique on your opinion is just as needed as your original points were...that's how public discussion works...can't engage in critical discussion then don't post in the first place. I could just as easy say you sound like an over offensive Rockstar detractor what with your hyperbole and intolerance.
Your "my way or the high way" attitude is perhaps best exemplified by saying something is wrong if I have to compare open world games to linear games. You obviously have a certain expectation of what an open world game for be and are completely intolerant it ses lof any deviation from your expectations. To you it should mean player agency and freedom to tackle things how you see fit whereas Mafia 2 and Sleeping Dogs, perhaps my two favourite open world games ever, were extremely linear when it came to gameplay freedom in critical path missions. In fact Mafia 2 is perhaps one of the most linear games I've ever played, but also one of the best examples of the genre (IMO).
It's a different style of storytelling which bleeds through into the gameplay, it's not inherently bad just because it doesn't align with your expectations. I didn't say RDR being a story driven game was an excuse for it being linear, my point is that they aren't trying to mimic the points of contrast you keep pointing to. Is it perhaps a tad excessive sometimes? maybe, but you're getting on like it's a constant issue, when I know that returning to camp with a tasty kill on my horse after completing a main mission was a regular occurrence for me, so obviously the game isn't as constantly restrictive as you make it out to be, with it only really cropping up when Rockstar felt the narrative required it. And hey if you keep getting caught by auto fails, learn from your mistakes and just go with the narrative as intended. As you point out, there is a whole world out there that promotes agency and freedom, go off and do that if that's what you want and come back to the critical path when you're ready to go with the flow and with the tighter core experience that the main game provides. I mean as you say, you play open world games for the open world, so what's the problem when the narrative reigns in the scope? The multitude of distractions and reasons to explore after the mission is done still exist.
Also your insistence on using the Witcher 3 as a contrast doesn't hold much weight with me. Outside of branching narrative, the actual main missions of the Witcher 3 were extremely linear when it came to main quests.
Anyway, I doubt we will see eye to eye on this so best to just draw a line under it. You seem to think me countering your points makes me a RDR fanboy (go back and read my previous posts on the game, I believe my previous post was along the lines of calling it one of the most overrated games I've ever played....total fanboy right?). No point in engaging in dialogue with someone who reverts to the fanboy remark because they don't like to have their points challenged.0 -
goon_magee wrote: »Lol who pissed in your soup lad? Since when is challenging someone's points suddenly classified as defensive overprotection? Don't post on public forums if you don't want your opinions challenged. My defense of the game isn't needed? As I said I don't like the game, but my critique on your opinion is just as needed as your original points were...that's how public discussion works...can't engage in critical discussion then don't post in the first place. I could just as easy say you sound like an over offensive Rockstar detractor what with your hyperbole and intolerance.
Your "my way or the high way" attitude is perhaps best exemplified by saying something is wrong if I have to compare open world games to linear games. You obviously have a certain expectation of what an open world game for be and are completely intolerant it ses lof any deviation from your expectations. To you it should mean player agency and freedom to tackle things how you see fit whereas Mafia 2 and Sleeping Dogs, perhaps my two favourite open world games ever, were extremely linear when it came to gameplay freedom in critical path missions. In fact Mafia 2 is perhaps one of the most linear games I've ever played, but also one of the best examples of the genre (IMO).
It's a different style of storytelling which bleeds through into the gameplay, it's not inherently bad just because it doesn't align with your expectations. I didn't say RDR being a story driven game was an excuse for it being linear, my point is that they aren't trying to mimic the points of contrast you keep pointing to. Is it perhaps a tad excessive sometimes? maybe, but you're getting on like it's a constant issue, when I know that returning to camp with a tasty kill on my horse after completing a main mission was a regular occurrence for me, so obviously the game isn't as constantly restrictive as you make it out to be, with it only really cropping up when Rockstar felt the narrative required it. And hey if you keep getting caught by auto fails, learn from your mistakes and just go with the narrative as intended. As you point out, there is a whole world out there that promotes agency and freedom, go off and do that if that's what you want and come back to the critical path when you're ready to go with the flow and with the tighter core experience that the main game provides. I mean as you say, you play open world games for the open world, so what's the problem when the narrative reigns in the scope? The multitude of distractions and reasons to explore after the mission is done still exist.
Also your insistence on using the Witcher 3 as a contrast doesn't hold much weight with me. Outside of branching narrative, the actual main missions of the Witcher 3 were extremely linear when it came to main quests.
Anyway, I doubt we will see eye to eye on this so best to just draw a line under it. You seem to think me countering your points makes me a RDR fanboy (go back and read my previous posts on the game, I believe my previous post was along the lines of calling it one of the most overrated games I've ever played....total fanboy right?). No point in engaging in dialogue with someone who reverts to the fanboy remark because they don't like to have their points challenged.
Project much? It's you rather who seems to have a problem with differing opinions on this forum which is why you were crying in the Final Fantasy thread when I said the controls in FF were awkward. Yes, I recognised your whingey tone and went back to that thread and surprise, surprise it was you. :rolleyes: In that very thread, it was only when I said I was enjoying the game overall that you calmed down.You also brought up Witcher 3 for no good reason. In fact, you seem to be hung up on Witcher 3. What happened? Did CDPR hurt your dog or something?
Your response comes across like a self-absorbed snowflake who doesn’t understand that different people have different tastes and you seem to think that someone’s dislike of one aspect of a game is “intolerance” lol. Um, no people like and dislike different things. Deal with it.
You throw around words like "critical discussion" because you think it makes you sound clever but you clearly don't understand what critical discussion is, mainly because your argument is based purely on emotion (i.e. your aggro that someone doesn’t like something you do), rather than logic and reasoning. You are free to critique anybody's opinion but there is a way of doing it that doesn't come across as overly defensive and angry which you have yet to master, “lad” (talk about ignorant). Yes, I will continue to post even though it hurts your feelings so no point urging me not to lol.
You talk about “mimic the points of contrast” but you shot yourself in the foot earlier by referring NG games as a more apt comparison because that’s an example of a linear, story focused game that I think does it right, especially Uncharted 4. My issue is simply that RDR2 doesn’t nail the balance between story and gameplay in the main campaign. You either don’t understand that (even though it’s been explained over and over) or being willfully obtuse in order to continue venting. I didn’t say that form of story telling is inherently bad, I just said that Rockstar didn’t do it well. Comprehend. And yes, you can explore the open world after doing the main missions but it’s a time saver to grab bits and bobs while you’re doing the mission.
Yes, run along and whinge at someone else for the next inevitable opinion you find offensive. I'm done with you.0 -
The Phantom Pain wrote: »Project much? It's you rather who seems to have a problem with differing opinions on this forum which is why you were crying in the Final Fantasy thread when I said the controls in FF were awkward. Yes, I recognised your whingey tone and went back to that thread and surprise, surprise it was you. :rolleyes: In that very thread, it was only when I said I was enjoying the game overall that you calmed down.
You also brought up Witcher 3 for no good reason. In fact, you seem to be hung up on Witcher 3. What happened? Did CDPR hurt your dog or something?
Your response comes across like a self-absorbed snowflake who doesn’t understand that different people have different tastes and you seem to think that someone’s dislike of one aspect of a game is “intolerance” lol. Um, no people like and dislike different things. Deal with it.
You throw around words like "critical discussion" because you think it makes you sound clever but you clearly don't understand what critical discussion is, mainly because your argument is based purely on emotion (i.e. your aggro that someone doesn’t like something you do), rather than logic and reasoning. You are free to critique anybody's opinion but there is a way of doing it that doesn't come across as overly defensive and angry which you have yet to master, “lad” (talk about ignorant). Yes, I will continue to post even though it hurts your feelings so no point urging me not to lol.
You talk about “mimic the points of contrast” but you shot yourself in the foot earlier by referring NG games as a more apt comparison because that’s an example of a linear, story focused game that I think does it right, especially Uncharted 4. My issue is simply that RDR2 doesn’t nail the balance between story and gameplay in the main campaign. You either don’t understand that (even though it’s been explained over and over) or being willfully obtuse in order to continue venting. I didn’t say that form of story telling is inherently bad, I just said that Rockstar didn’t do it well. Comprehend. And yes, you can explore the open world after doing the main missions but it’s a time saver to grab bits and bobs while you’re doing the mission.
Yes, run along and whinge at someone else for the next inevitable opinion you find offensive. I'm done with you.
Lol You're actually gas. So I asked a genuine question to see what your issues were with the controls in FFXV....and that's crying? How insecure are you? Blimey governor, you really don't like anybody questioning your opinion do you. It was a genuine question out of interest you absolute princess. I'm completely open to the fact that people like and dislike different things, hence why I pulled you up on expressing your opinion on how am open world game should play as if it was objectively true.
Funny how the ones who throw about the term snowflake are always the most precious little divas isn't it...almost always the elitist ejits trying to mask their own insecurity at being challenged who sling it about, never a good look and it almost always comes across like they're describing themselves.
Oh and BTW, I've no dog, so no need to worry about anybody hurting it, appreciate the concern for the hypothetical pooch though, maybe you're not such a bad lad after all0 -
goon_magee wrote: »Lol You're actually gas. So I asked a genuine question to see what your issues were with the controls in FFXV....and that's crying? How insecure are you? Blimey governor, you really don't like anybody questioning your opinion do you. It was a genuine question out of interest you absolute princess. I'm completely open to the fact that people like and dislike different things, hence why I pulled you up on expressing your opinion on how am open world game should play as if it was objectively true.
Funny how the ones who throw about the term snowflake are always the most precious little divas isn't.
Oh and BTW, I've no dog, so no need to worry about anybody hurting it, appreciate the concern for the hypothetical pooch though, maybe you're not such a bad lad after all
lol so it looks like you've been accused of being a snowflake before.That's surprising. Not. If you call whinging about how the critique of the controls is unfair because of how the Witcher has similar controls asking a "genuine question" then sure, let's pretend that's real.
You are also soooo not open to the idea that people like and dislike different things no matter how much you protest lol. The fact that you're so insecure as to worry that I think my opinion is objectively true when it's fairly obvious that it's down to taste is full snowflake. Maybe you should find a safe space to crawl into...
0 -
The Phantom Pain wrote: »lol so it looks like you've been accused of being a snowflake before.
That's surprising. Not. If you call whinging about how the critique of the controls is unfair because of how the Witcher has similar controls asking a "genuine question" then sure, let's pretend that's real.
You are also soooo not open to the idea that people like and dislike different things no matter how much you protest lol. The fact that you're so insecure as to worry that I think my opinion is objectively true when it's fairly obvious that it's down to taste is full snowflake. Maybe you should find a safe space to crawl into...
Lol I literally said I was curious as to how you thought the controls were nonsense cause to me they were pretty similar to the Witcher, albeit with a button flipped. As I said, it was a legitimate query as to what your issue was (cause you know, I'm interested in considering differing viewpoints) and frankly it's hilarious that you're so desperate to have your points go unchallenged that you think that's whinging. But sure keep manipulating things to fit you're little narrative.
If you think that is whinging, then mammy and daddy have let you live a very sheltered life, poor people must be flat out lifting your toys off the ground what with your fondness of throwing them outta the pram!
Anyway, I thought you were done with me chappy0 -
I like fluting about on my horse with not much to do a lot of the time.0
-
SureYWouldntYa wrote: »Unfortunately had a couple of my ps4 games robbed during the week, by some subtle heure while having a party
Not missing red dead though cause he only took the data disc since the play disc was in the ps4
Are ye putting a posse together? I'm off work Wednesday.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement