I had more fun with assassins creed or horizon zero dawn than with RDR2...

In case you haven't noticed I brought assassins creed and HZD up exactly because they are shit, but I'm still putting RDR2 below. It's like saying that I'd rather shove a cockroach up my ass than have anything to do with you in real life. It doesn't mean I'm particularly fond of cockroaches, it means that you are so fucking insufferable that I'd rather do something undesirable than spend time with you.

Sometimes its just about letting a game take its time. If you want quick action there are plenty of games. This game is about being part of the world.

That is because a majority of gamers are retarded user.

I guess it depends on what you're in to. I recently played AC:7 and loved it because it's pretty much non-stop gameplay. The story and narrative aren't that good and certainly don't make a lot of cohesive sense but that's irrelevant because the game is still good. I feel RDR2 is on the flip side of this. The story and narrative are excellent as is the voice acting, but at the cost of mission design and constant gameplay. A lot of the gameplay loop of RDR2 is just riding around look at pretty scenary in between random encounters or missions. This is something you don't have an opportunity to do in AC:7 since you'll get hit by a missile and have to start over.

But you should know by now Rockstar has been pushing cinematic experiences for 10 years now user.

you are a faggot

I'm not the one making topics of popular games I hate so I can garner attention.

Neither am I. We're just having a discussion and that was my conclusion to your post.
Taking things slowly is only acceptable if they add value or meaning at some point. In RDR2's case, they were just there to piss off the player and waste their time.

They're immersive, user.
Who cares about videogames being videogames, user? That's too videogamey and childish. To mature the genre they must strive to achieve a cinematic feel and level of realism that will make them look like movies, gameplay be damned.

Played it once, sorta rushed story. Not for any particular reason, just did.
Went and started a second run to 100% it, but lost interest fairly quickly.

>It's just not your thing. Not the games fault.
The story being good or bad doesn't affect that the animations are very drawn out and the game is filled with inconvenience for the sake of realism.

Yeah, you're a faggot.

t. faggot

I don't know, look at RDR1 itself, for example: While it was a fairly grounded game, there were still plenty of things put in place for the player's convenience, like
>fast traveling from a portable camp (and it having an upgrade to refill ammo),
>teleporting your horse to you,
>having it respawn a while after death and deeds giving you unlimited access to a specific horse breed.
>Bandanas completely shielding you from Honor and Fame effects.
>Hunting giving you items you automatically store in your satchel instead of having to haul the carcasses to a butcher for selling, heavily limiting what you can gain from hunting trips.
Stuff like that.

Because the controls are shit and handling Arthur is clunky as hell.

But I don't get it. Why can't I be a cowboy with a sword? Cavalry sabres were common back then and I want to live the dream of dual wielding a sword and a revolver.

Unironically this

you can get one near sandy knees

Because you’re a zoomer.

Unfortunately most people don't care about gamefeel OP, or they subconsciously recognize it but can't put it into words.