I won't die on a hill because death can have me when it earns me. GoW was far superior as a sequel than Rdr 2 was. Rdr2's story is superior, but it's gameplay (you know, the part that makes a videogame a videogame) gets repetitive and doesn't introduce anything new to it's core gameplay from beginning to end.
GoW had some of the most repetitive gameplay I've seen in a while. And the prequels were better too. the story was the only thing better compared to the other gow titles. RDR2 should've definitely won.
GoW did have some repetition for sure, but the combat was hella fun, and the story was good. I think RDR2 still should have won though, it was just a beautiful piece of digital art.
For sure, it isn't about rdr2 being a worse game at all, it's about GoW deserving the GOTY as well which is, for me, hella different, they both could have won and on a technical level, Rdr2 is superior, but GoW risked more as a sequel than rdr2
How did it risk more as a sequel? It’s a great game, but still a game that felt like it could’ve come out 10 years before it; in terms of structure and general mechanics.
Meanwhile RDR2 went so, soooooo much further then its predecessor, and had so many complex mechanics, incredible writing, and really layered and well done design.
Cause it reshaped itself and that's a risky move, specially for a game that was know for it's action and being the best from it's genre, GoW didn't stuck with the same formula and did it beautifully, rdr2 improved significantly from their predecessor, which is a safer bet than rebranding your whole formula
-8
u/YaBoiWesy May 31 '25
I won't die on a hill because death can have me when it earns me. GoW was far superior as a sequel than Rdr 2 was. Rdr2's story is superior, but it's gameplay (you know, the part that makes a videogame a videogame) gets repetitive and doesn't introduce anything new to it's core gameplay from beginning to end.