Why do these type of games get the best reviews and sell the most?

>mature rating
>something for everyone
>low point of entry, low skill ceiling
>story driven
>good visuals
>hyped
i mean there's a ton of different reasons. they're both solid games but nowhere these generation definers like journalists will harp on about

Why not? I enjoy mine and it's the best console for multiplats

Attached: 20190123_160612.jpg (3264x1836, 1.76M)

any it did have were a disaster too. Real shame, but here we are.

>Being this contrarian

I mean, it's your shitty opinion but saying that both are awful is just sad

Attached: combing___twin_tail_day_by_maysakaali_d92y1wj-pre.jpg (544x1469, 89K)

why is RDR2 constantly lumped in with Sony movie game trash when GTA V isn't?

RDR is literally the opposite of that kind of game, it's like all you retards did was play through the story and ignore everything else

Try not being a braindead autismo

youtu.be/wB8Nkum3QAY

.

Attached: 19A56895-2670-49D8-947C-C4BEAB7B1301.jpg (676x569, 148K)

You really think the gameplay in Rdr2 is that good? I like the game but damn nigga that shit is annoying to play sometimes

not spending $500 for games I can play on my PC for free, multiplats have been extraordinarily shit this gen as well.

because you can't bing bing wahoo everywhere

Because the vast majority of modern gamers value other things than you. You are not the center of the universe, reviewers get money by generating clicks, the easiest way to do that long term is by confirming your readers opinion, since people don't want to read things that disagree with them.

Well yeah if you own a PC that's more powerful than XboneX, you might as well stick with that. Personally I don't like PC gaming so I got the X instead

Not OP, but Last of Us is a 4/10 at best. The gameplay is ridiculously barebones and they still manage to fuck it up with terrible AI. The story is just a carbon copy of The Road/Children of Men/28 Days Later. The only good part is the voice acting.

It took like maybe 1.5 seconds to pick up things

It's not as bad as majority of people here make it out to be. Out of the cinematic experiences I've played last year I'd rate it above GoW which came off very cartoonish and annoying how you get stopped by kneehigh walls.

Because Yea Forums wasn't obsessed with the movie game buzzword when GTAV came out, now that Sony dominates the industry it's the go-to complaint.

Because it's sort of trying to be both. It has horse grooming and realistic beard growth and all the makings of a simulation-type game, but it also has the """"cinematic""" mission structure

I agree with this to an extent but I also think it’s bidirectional. Dumb people like what they’re told to like by reviewers. If Last of Us came out and got an average score of 5/10, normalfags would have lampooned it or otherwise largely ignored it, and Yea Forums would conversely be holding it up as one of the most underrated games of all time.

Rockstar games have always had some of the shittiest controls in gaming for nearly 2 decades, is that still the case for RDR2?
Is it all sluggish and delayed?

But people on Yea Forums have been shitting on TLOU1 and Uncharted since last gen, what are you talking about?

Yeah. It's achievement comes from the world they built and Arthur Morgan's character.

"cinematic" is a shitty zoomer/contrarian meme. any game with cutscenes is cinematic

And yet nobody whined about GTAV being a "movie-game" despite it being as cinematic as either of those.

Because no one played it for the story, it was all about what you could do in it, the gameplay.

You're right. I think the most reasonable point of criticism, though, is the fact that the simulation elements don't extend to the actual missions and trying to think outside the box or stray from the objective gives you a failure.

>Rockstar games have always had some of the shittiest controls in gaming for nearly 2 decades, is that still the case for RDR2?
>Is it all sluggish and delayed?
Yes. Dunno why OP is comparing Rockstar to Naughty Dog. The latter dev provides more openness than usual for their genre and the mechanics remain tight despite cinematic pacing. Rockstar, CDPR, Bethesda, and Bioware are the worst examples of AAA, which is otherwise the cutting edge of gaming.

Attached: reddeadredemption_2653053b.png (1920x1080, 148K)

You really think GTAV had any memorable gameplay?

if they didn't Yea Forums would consider them hidden gems normies don't understand

The thing is, I don't care about playing higher resolution versions of games that odds are aren't very good. I can play good exclusives and good versions of games on my PS4. Anything else? It's on PC as well. Some games are on Switch which makes it a lot more appealing. Xbox One? I want it to be good. It needs games but that seems like it's microsoft's next gen plan, not their current gen one.

Attached: jp xbox games.png (1083x889, 2.34M)

GTAV had shitty mechanics and laggy controls. Pretty much all the big competitors live up to PS2 GTA legacy better than GTA itself

Because they appeal to the culturally underdeveloped minds of manchildren in positions of power such as video game journalism. From a simple glance, these games share the same gritty worlds and aesthetics of movies such as Pulp Fiction or A Clockwork Orange, yet they contain none of the expert technique or profound substance within those films. These journalists will rant and rave about how "games can be art, just look at The Last of Us!" Citing it as the Citizen Kane of gaming, when the reality is it's nowhere near as influential nor as important to the medium. There have been thousands of games like it before its conception, and there will be thousands more after it's faded from everybody's memories.

Also, if we're going to be swinging around terms like "Citizen Kane of gaming!" Then Metal Gear Solid from 1998 is arguably the video game Citizen Kane considering it's the original movie game that paved the way for cinematic bullshit in a medium about interactivity.

Attached: anton.jpg (600x600, 37K)

RDR2 at least makes huge improvements on characters, you actually care about Dutch's gang. It looks like TLOU2 is going to ruin the characters in the first by making Joel useless or probably kill him off and making Ellie full blown lesbian in your face.

it has the best shooting and driving in the series
yes yes gta iv has more realistic driving but it's just a pain in the ass during missions

>whenxboxwasgood

Character lore is irrelevant if the actual game is restrictive, laggy and boring.

Yes, and true about every fucking R* game, which is why it’s hilarious to see so many retards reee about the controls in the first place.

good japanese games change everything

>PLAYSTATION HITS
FUCKING DISGUSTING.
REMEMBER IF YOU COLLECT PHYSICAL GAMES ONLY BUY THE ORIGINAL BOX ART.

>Why do these type of games get the best reviews and sell the most?

Attached: 6a00d8341c72e153ef019affbbe7ab970b-800wi.jpg (800x800, 99K)

The real issue with a cinematic experience game is the focus on story. They put too much focus on story and spread the gameplay too thin to add in things like exposition(the walking segments) now this isn't to be confused with level navigation. Walking segments are where you literally cannot do any kind of proper input and are used for exposition. Now the issue is this. With a game like TLOU which puts such a huge focus on story. Let's say the story bores you or isn't entertaining in the slightest. Let's say the characters make you feel nothing and you see their struggle as worthless melodrama. The story has lost you, now the game has to stand on its own merits. The problem is that the story is the focus. You play the game for a bit, then you have more exposition, only you can't skip it, in fact you can't let it play out because its a walking segment. You need to push the stick up, it's fucking boring. Then you reach a "hidden loading screen" and have a cinematic where they lift up the person to a ledge so they can drop a ladder for you. It's slow, its tedious, it's boring. You finally get to an encounter and its fun, but then its time for more story. So you go back to being bored.
The game's live and die by their stories and characters, the second they lose you, the game becomes shit because you're seeing boring shit, barely playing, and sitting around while exposition happens. The gameplay is fun... when you get to play it. They also put moments of rising action in the cutscenes instead of in the gameplay. So you can have moments where it's no gameplay, rising action happens in a cutscene and resolves itself. BACK TO NO GAMEPLAY until you sit through more exposition. It's a gameplay loop with no player driven rising action.
This is why they're called movie games, not for their "cinematic flair", not for their graphics, but because the gameplay loop favors exposition, story or scenes of rising action not driven by the player.
>Brief cont.

Basically the game sours the player with bad story or characters but nothing to redeem it. This isn't to say the gameplay is utterly trash 3/10 tier. It's the fact it's so heavily limited in when it happens. The game could stand on its gameplay and do well but the story focus drags it down and can even make it a struggle to play through due to how tedious or boring the non-gameplay segments are. Even with cutscenes skipped, the huge focus on player control being revoked so often for some kind of story element is where the issue stands.

>TFW you have a press friend who went to the Days Gone press preview and came back with "Its significantly worse than Crackdown 3" and they absolutely hated Crackdown 3

Attached: 1543268014900.png (1256x364, 826K)

Yeah, but it follows the Sony patented cinematic formula so even despite being a crock of shit it'll still get high praise just because it's a glorified movie.

They look nice, they're easy and the characters are cute and relatable.

What were his main complaints?

Dude proof read your posts. That came off as very rambling. At least add paragraph breaks and remove redundant sentences.

Also, I disagree that focusing on story is a problem when you can have games that have a large story focus AND good gameplay like MGS3.

maybe something like fornite is more of your speed

Apparently even the story parts are bad and it's got between five-six hours of cinematics. Also 12 hours to do main story line. 25-28 to do all the side-quests. Not a huge amount of content to it.
Their main complaints were that the crafting was super basic (Far Cry basic) and combat is really bad and clunky. Enemy variety sucks as its only got two or three "Freaker" types and you only really see batches of 10-12 in an open area. The "Zombear" is a boss you can only fight once otherwise its just Zombie wolves and the massive Freaker horde are a scripted sequence during story missions that you can't encounter in the world. Travelling on the bike and the weather system was apparently really good but other wise, said to expect aA lot of "Zero expectations and it still manages to be a let down", "Sony's worst game in a very long time" and "Would suck even if it was a launch window PS3 title".

You're either a liar or your friend's a dumbass.
No 1st party AAA Sony game this generation could even be close to as bad as Killzone Shadowhatever, Knack and The Order.

>combat is really bad and clunky
As soon as I saw that terrible animation work in the preview a year ago, I fucking called it. The hitscan looked shit, the animations weren't finished and the movement looked bad. Yet for some reason, there were fully complete and voiced cinematics.
Whatever happened to finishing the game's mechanics first?

TLOU was entertaining the fisrt 2 hours then I got bored and 'you can kill zombies, instead make a noise and run' it's really meh.
Then I see al the praise on RDR2 never played the first one but GTA SA and Bully where funny so I believe this one was a GTA with horses where I can have fun killing cowboys and hunting, play like an hour and still in the fucking camp, dude just wanted to do random stuff in the old west.
I'll just have like 3 free hours between work, sleep and eat, just be fun.

The problem isn't really with having significant focus on the story, because that in and of itself does not directly prevent the game from also having good gameplay. Hell, the best stories games can tell may even make use of the interactivity which a game provides to make a point or deliver emotional impact in a way in which other mediums are entirely incapable of.

I'd say the problem isn't really story at all, rather it's the focus on overall presentation. That's where the real problems start, because gameplay mechanics can get in the way of how a game is presented and the impression it makes. Like, you character can't control snappy as fuck and turn on a dime if you want the game to be 'realistic' and as such good, snappy controls are dropped in favor of slow and clunky, but realistic character animations. You can't have your epic 'platforming' set piece in Uncharted if the player is given options and full movement control because he may deviate from the intended path and as such miss your epic set piece. You can't let the player do whatever he wants in your slow walking segment because he may do something silly or run through it too quickly to see it all.

Calling these sort of games 'movies' is exaggerated but also fairly accurate, because they do not focus on their gameplay and instead focus on showing you a canned sequence of events in the exact same way the devs intended, while providing only castrated gameplay so the player cannot significantly interfere with the dev's vision.

The Rockstar Fanboy Checklist:
>go back to Fortnite
>zoomer
>you have ADD/ADHD
>impatient
>short attention span
>nitpicking
>you're opinion doesn't matter
>I never had a problem/it's on you
>Rockstar sold x amount of copies
>the horses are better than RDR1
>the controls are better than RDR1
>it's only the beta
>10/10
>Online review scores
>reddit spacing
>angry PC gamer
>nintendie
>muh realism
>muh immersion
>it's a single player game
>it's not a twitch shooter
>nobody complains about x
>masterpiece
>regurgitated Dutch memes
And their personal favorite
>you didn't play the game
If you think you're arguing with a fanboy, simply resort to this checklist, call him a fanboy, then ignore him. Watch him cower and recoil as he's been found out.

My friend has it on the one x 4k tv and it honestly looks so fucking over saturated I don't even like it

fuck it sucks we wont see anymore D4 that game was so tits