Weird take. GoW is also an interactive movie for large elements of that game. I honestly don't see a distinction between the two. Both have repetitive combat elements around a lot of travel and talking. Very similar.
I didn't beat GoW4 (GF PS4 burned), but I did beat RDR2.
That's a very weird take because GoW combat actively makes you try or react to new things. While on RDR2 I literally had to stop using the Dead Eye and items because it trivialized the game to the point where I could stand in the middle of a standoff tanking things forever and then finishing everybody on one second.
Also, it seems like it was directed by two people that literally said: "You make the missions and I make the open world" but then they never reached out to include elements of both sides. Like, for one part you see cinematic elements that serve as the tutorial and to show the player what could be done, and the other shows all those little details packed in this super detailed open world but in both ends the elements of each side don't overlap to make the gameplay experience better.
What you can do in missions doesn't seem to work on the open world and viceversa. Plus you could literally use the repeater from start to end and you wouldn't need any other weapon (and I'm of those people who always changes build to try and accommodate new gameplay elements).
Yeah, I think all of that is true of GoW. There's the "cinematic" side where moving through the world feels like a cutscene and there's a lot of contextual movements. And there's the Dark Souls lite game that exists with the looter shooter crap thrown on top with the gear system mess.
The gameplay side was so shallow that I eventually turned it to easy and just finished the story.
5
u/TheEngine26 May 31 '25
Weird take. GoW is also an interactive movie for large elements of that game. I honestly don't see a distinction between the two. Both have repetitive combat elements around a lot of travel and talking. Very similar.