Dan's Red Dead 2 talk was frustrating. Not because of his take, because of his etiquette.

I love Dan and appreciate his unique views on the site, but damn, the way he goes about tearing down a game he doesn't like really rubs me wrong. The Red Dead 2 talk (in Most Disappointing, especially) felt like a repeat of his vehement attempts to tear down Dream Daddy last year.

He tends to not actually listen to the other side. He starts lobbying efforts to tear down a game's credibility in any way he can, latching onto anyone else's small beefs even if it's a complaint he never shared himself. He reminds me of a lawyer: where at some point I can't even tell if he believes everything he's saying or just thinks it'll help his case.

To be clear: his take on RDR2 is totally valid. I have separate issues with his narrow scope of what makes a game good. I think he'd benefit from confronting the idea that a visual novel is legitimate and RDR2 doesn't want you to sprint through the streets (those bounties you get for knocking ppl over aren't an accident, the game is telling you to stop running ppl over), but that's just me. He came around on Anime after a life of unfounded hatred, so who knows.

He's also not the only person I've ever seen do this, but he's the only one that makes a pattern out of it. 99% of GOTY arguments are civil while people still stick to their guns, but I don't like how Dan can sometimes go about it.

I definitely thought Dan was a little dismissive of Dream Daddy last year, but I don't know where you're coming from on Red Dead. All his complaints appeared to be sincerely held and he acknowledged the things that did work for him, like the story.

It was definitely a lesser case compared to Dream Daddy. I felt it throughout the RDR2 talk, but it'd take a big relisten to ring up some receipts. I relisten to GOTY stuff all the time, so I'm sure I will one day.

What definitely felt familiar was impassioned accounts falling on his deaf ears. Instead of directly engaging a rebuttal, he reframes the discussion in a new context that is supposed to make the game look worse. If Brad is talking about the joys of walking through a town, Dan wants to repivot to Red Dead Online's bad start. It's not that he's saying invalid things, it's that he's more goal-oriented towards getting his way than having a meaningful discussion that could maybe ever change his mind. Because he doesn't change his mind, largely.

Isn't this..

Kind of what this whole process is for?

Like.. I'm going to tell you why this is the most disappointing. Not Convince me Why This Isn't the most disappointing.

Well historically, no. No matter the category, the deliberations have always been an active discussion to build a list. "Let me tell you why this game doesn't belong here" is an important part of the process.

...I feel like this process was All Knives in the past so maybe we have differing histories...

I don't think we're on the same page, that's for sure. I love when All Knives come out as much as the next person, but it's also important to really talk things out in a complete back-and-forth. Rarely does it result in changed minds, but it does make for a full understanding of each other. Dan, in these few cases, treated the discussion more like a lawyer: disengaging with what he didn't like and finding angles that supported him. It's a disservice, in my eyes.

I still think his take on the game was bad and I wish there had been a bit more interrogation on WHY RDR1 is his "game of the generation" because it doesn't really line up with his stated values. However, I never felt he was being particularly difficult in the way he was arguing.

Good points! I think he tried to explain it saying standards have changed and he was expecting RDR2 to change with them, but I would have enjoyed more exploration of that.

I dunno, he repeatedly said that Brad liking the game is valid and that having opposing opinions is fine. It's a mature way of handling a discussion when people don't agree.

He was talking about how the game personally made him feel.

Right, obviously he's not some crazy person that thinks people can't disagree with him. But I'll point to my other comments above to explain how this was a bit different.

@cptmorganca said:

if i'm being honest, i really don't see much connection between the dream daddy discussion of last year and his treatment of read dead this year. i'll grant you his take on dream daddy was somewhat myopic- he got hung up on the gameplay aspects of the game and seemed unable (if not unwilling) to see past that.

but with read dead this year, he spoke honestly and directly from his own experience with the game- both mechanically and emotionally. i never got the sense that he was being disingenuous, and frankly since he was arguing in the affirmative ("i found this game disappointing because x") vs. the pro-red dead crowd's general sentiment of "i did not have that experience and therefore it cannot be disappointing," i found his case far more persuasive. he also never dismissed the staff's positive experiences with the game- he simply held that he had never been so disappointed by a game before, and argued that his negative experience was significant.

but ultimately- it's separate conversations. the arguments (and dan's positions) surrounding dream daddy for 'best top 10 game' vs. RDR2 for 'most disappointing' are different beasts.

Dan was fine, just passiomate. He was always rational through out the whole debate.

I found myself persuaded by his arguement a hell of a lot more than Brads

I haven't listend to this year's yet but I thought Dan was totally fine during the Dream Daddy segment last year so I'm going to say I probably disagree with you here too.

I'll have to go back and listen again, but I still don't know why he was disappointed. I don't know what he expected from RDR2 because he won't explain it. Saying it "should move on" isn't enough. Move onto what? All other open world games are now nothing but

• Protagonists who can run super fast and turn on a dime
• A map full of icons of mostly copy pasted activities - tower proxies, fort full of dudes proxies, hunting, collect-a-tons
• RPG style upgrade mechanics
• Some sort of stealth mechanics - usually.

Similar to his argument about Bethesda pretty much telling you what to expect of Fallout 76 - what material from Rockstar led Dan to believe RDR2 would have any of that stuff or be anything other than a Rockstar game? What advancements did he expect or actually want? The only thing I can remember him saying was that he wanted RDR2 to make him feel the way RDR did EIGHT YEARS AGO. But what is that? What does it even look like?

I think Dan has a tendency to be crappy and dismissive about certain games like Dream Daddy last year and Celeste this year but I thought his argument about Red Dead 2 was pretty good.

Yeah, I think that part was more frustrating to me than anything else. Most of the time anyone leveled a complaint against it, he just invalidated their complaints with "well, I didn't personally have that issue" or "you get used to it once you're 30 hours in." I get that it's immersive, and that it drove him to want to role-play (which you can theoretically enjoy doing in almost any game if you actually try to, but I digress), and that's great! I love it when games grab hold of me like that, and I totally understand why Brad feels so strongly about it. But in the end it felt like it just caused him to be unable to recognize any criticism whatsoever and hand-waving away lots of perfectly valid issues because of it.

Agreed. I am a big Dan fan but he was miserable about it all and when he actually went full heel on purpose... he was being a big jerk.

In the past, yes one person did CHAMPION games to get on lists and things, not one guy went so far out of his way to try to tear one down. And taste is taste, but how you can love RDR 1 and hate RDR 2... I think you haven't played RDR 1 in a long time and forget what the game was like.

Except what do you say but you disagree? When Jeff and Dan say every gameplay part of the game is absolutely terrible and for me I seriously LOVED the shooting, the movement, the pace more than any other games I have played, what do you say? Their arguments there were the same when they shit on The Witcher 3 gameplay wise for example to the point where they acted like you couldn't even walk around in that game. And as with RDR, I think Witcher 3 has better combat and movement than most any game out there. They're wrong from the gameplay perspective on both those games totally to me but some people have different tastes I guess. There's no reasoning with that stance though, especially with Jeff and Dan who don't even acknowledge slower paced games have their place and purpose, they just say they are bad.

Hating on Brad for his well reasoned support of the game is ridiculous. You can't just say "oh you can RP in any game" because Brad isn't an RPG guy and is the last guy who would ever RP in a game and THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. This game got to him that way and that's special. I mean, for me I was thinking where were you with Geralt in Witcher 3 but RDR 2 is special that way too. Arthur is a fantastic character and it isn't a coincidence that effect was created in Brad.

Like RDR 2 exactly. That's the thing. Taste is taste but his reasoning on that was so silly and I think he hasn't played RDR 1 in a long ass time.

I've noticed that the problem with any back and forth about Red Dead 2 has become that one side will say that they liked the game despite a weird control scheme and had fun playing it, to which the opposing argument is that Red Dead 2 has terrible gameplay and this subjective opinion is presented as an objective fact. Time and time again you see people say "this was a great game" and the counterpoint is that "yah it has great atmosphere but it controls awful" and this is often said like an irredeemable truth, like of course it plays bad, everyone knows this and you can't defend it. It's a stubbornness to admit that maybe the gameplay isn't the problem, maybe it's just personal taste. People had the same problems with Dark Souls until it garnered so many fans of the objectively "flawed" gameplay that it spawned an entire genre that keeps influencing other titles in design to this very day.

@humanity: All giant bomb discourse sounds like opinion presented as fact. Not because any of them believe that, but that's the semantic and linguistic flavour. It's a problem I have always had, and felt it was much less prevalent this year since they changed up the format. Jeff has always talked this way, and while it serves a purpose for entertainment it is a severe detriment to any serious discussion about games.

@humanity said:

lol come on.

@vortextk: Believe me I'm not one to usually exaggerate and I honestly don't even like the Dark Souls series all that much but it really did. Those games went from a niche ass title like Demons Souls that had a fervent but small fanbase, to a franchise where each year we say something has "souls elements" in it. At the time of release, even early Dark Souls days, many dismissed them as controlling poorly, and yet they carved out an entire genre that people really love. It's just an example of course because Red Dead gameplay isn't breaking away from the norm all that much, when you're on foot it very much is still left trigger, right trigger action - but it shows that what some may think as bad controls, others will absolutely fall in love with.

If you think this game won't be influential at all you're really kidding yourself. It's a very apt comparison. It's a different gameplay style that's not for everyone but the thing that is grating is that those who don't like it so often dismiss it entirely. To me, this game, Witcher 3, and Zelda BOTW are going to be and keep being huge influences on open world games as we continue.

And humanity, I totally agree on your Red Dead 2 gameplay take, wrote something similar in my post. Witcher 3 got the same treatment. The movement in that game and the combat are outstanding but I had to hear how no one likes them and likes the game in spite of it over and fucking over again.

There's no better shooting in any open world game than Red Dead 2 for me. And the movement is fantastic and physical.

Mentioned this in another thread, but a bunch of people are hating on Brad for defending and arguing for a game he said blew RDR 1, his best game of the last generation, out of the water in every way. That's ridiculous.

That's why I stopped listening to their GOTY stuff a couple years ago. Brad was the worst at that. It's all basically "screw that good or great it has these little flaws, the good/great game I like is way better". It would be a fun conversation to be in, but as I've gotten older it's not fun to hear since I don't want to hear nitpicking or really care about someone else's GOTY.

The entire purpose of GotY is to present a list of games the crew liked. As with games criticism in general, it's an entirely opinion-based process. What "facts" are you looking for, exactly?

How about the game isn't bad because it's slow paced, it's just a choice. We know it's all opinion man, it's about the arguments and how everything is said and presented.

As I said, there were about 4-5 times Jeff or Dan told Alex or Brad they thought the gameplay was bad in RDR 2 but suffered through it, and they said no we actually like the gameplay but it was said again later as a fact to them that the gameplay was something they were suffering through for the rest. Then at one point, Jeff said, as Brad was deep diving into the hunting and fishing because of the weight of a story moment and to RP Arthur, that Brad was doing that in that moment to avoid playing the story because it was bad apparently now because he liked the gameplay.

It was BS and bad faith arguing. We all know what subjective opinion is.

That isn't what I was trying to say at all. The language used harms the discourse. That was it.

You can dislike the movement in RDR2 sure, but for the purpose of what they wanted to achieve, the movement and animations in that game serve it very well. A dislike of that doesn't make it bad movement, yet Jeff will present his opinion as if it is a fact on the matter. Jeff will say "the movement in RDR2 is ass and terrible" and then shake his head in shocked disbelief when someone else says they actually liked the movement as if someone just tried to tell him that hot is cold. It's much more interesting, to me anyway, to have them discuss the merits or demerits as it may be of choices made for the game, instead of just saying "HE MOVES SLOW ITS LIKE ASSSSSSSS"

People have strong opinions and disagree with other people's strong opinions. That's how this works.

Your opinion that the movement in RDR2 serves the story well is not a fact.

Doesn't seem like you actually listened to the cast cause everyone who did is right on. The tone was shitty and the arguments were disingenuous. It's not that you can't think it doesn't serve it well, it's that it was said it doesn't as a fact and even when Brad and Alex said they liked it and it did support the story and pacing, they were told they didn't even actually think so later.

If you can't see why telling others what they think is shitty, don't know what to tell you.

Red Dead 2 is better in every way than the first game, lmao

This is a topic from 2015 where someone has crudely scratched out and replaced 'Witcher 3' and 'RDR2'.

I listened to every minute of it.

I think there's a pretty serious disconnect here as to what "fact" means. Strongly stating an opinion is not the same as representing that opinion as fact. When people in this context say something like "this thing is x", it's understood that they're stating their opinion. It's up to people who disagree to challenge it... or not.

GotY is one long rhetorical tug of war. That's just the way it is and the way it's always going to be unless GB starts hiring robots.

You'll have to find the quote for me where I said that.

@frytup: since I used the comparison and word “fact” then let me straighten out that I know what the word means. Of course I realize that they’re all stating impassioned opinions. That said I don’t really know how else to describe it when a lot of the arguments about RDR2 were very hard “opinions” that it plays poorly with little room for discussion. I don’t remember Dan ever acknowledging that some people might prefer that style of slow gameplay, that it’s just not for him - he always countered that the gunplay is bad, the movement is bad, and everything involving playing the game is downright bad. OF COURSE we all know this is said as an opinion but the way it was stated sure made it sound like it was something you can’t deny.

Of course that is just MY opinion and interpretation of how the talks went down. If you have a different one then sure I respect it.

So, you understand that saying "You can dislike the movement in RDR2 sure, but for the purpose of what they wanted to achieve, the movement and animations in that game serve it very well" is an opinion, but you don't understand that Jeff saying the movement is terrible is also an opinion?

@frytup: @humanity clears it up better. Jeff and Dan state their opinions as fact and won't listen to the idea that other's *might* actually like the movement in the game. There's literally a moment when either Alex or Brad say they do actually like how slow and plodding the movement is and Jeff just won't hear it.

I dislike the movement in Assassins Creed games, I think it's too frantic, but it serves what they want you to feel in that game well. It's just not for me, though for anyone who wants to feel like a demi-god human parkour champion - I can see it being extremely good. I think personally it feels bad - but it serves the game well and I'm not going to tell people they're wrong or crazy for liking it.

In a discussion like this you don't preface everything that comes out of your mouth with, "this is just my opinion and I understand other people also have opinions." That's just assumed. It's the nature of the format. Dan was not shouting anyone down. If they wanted to disagree, they could. And did. Many times.

It sounds like the people in the room didn't disagree the way you would have liked them to, and you wanted to be there to tell Dan why he was wrong. That's fair, but obviously that's not the way this works.

@frytup: I didn’t want anyone to shout him down and I think I reiterated many times that I understand they don’t have to say “this is my opinion” before every criticism. I think you’re kind of assuming a lot of what my intent is without understanding what I’m trying to get across here - a point of view that several people in this thread share. Which I guess is a great example of how the crew get into these long discussions: where either side can’t seem to understand where the other is coming from.

I do admire the restraint of some of the crew because I know any discussion with me would grind to a terribly awkward halt if told that in fact I don't like the thing I say I like.

What exactly is Dan's argument against RDR2?

Why must it always be explicitly stated that so and so's argument is their opinion? Isn't that obvious?

Haven't gotten to this yet but still lol at people taking GOTY stuff a bit too seriously/overanalyzing it. I don't have a horse in the RDR2 debate but I may side with Dan since I found Witcher 3 a bit of a slog to control (IN MY OPINION, heh). No big deal any way, merely amusing to debate but I'm not getting bent up about anybody's ettiquete.

@efesell: you mean like how somebody might enjoy not having the option to unlock content with the press of a button?

Oh...

@frodobaggins: I do not recall accusing you of being disingenuous about any of that.

Only that the reasons you gave for not letting others do that were selfish and weird.

I think if you objectively compare the control scheme of any Rockstar game to any contemporary game, you can't really argue that it isn't bad... or at least significantly poorer. Does the slower, dare I say sluggish controls serve a purpose? Sure. Can you get used to it? Yeah. Can you even learn to like it? Of course. That doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of other open world games or games in general that are all about having animation heavy, fluid movement that still feel a lot more responsive and easier to control.

I say this as someone who has never finished a Rockstar game precisely for this reason. But I will probably finish Red Dead 2 and in fact am pretty close to doing so being mid chapter 5. The game has immersed me and I have gotten used to the controls and have no real issues with them. That doesn't really change the fact that almost every other open world game, including the Witcher control a hell of a lot more responsively with a button layout that makes a lot more sense.

The comparison to Dark Souls is less apt in my opinion then the comparison to Witcher. The thing about the Witcher was that CD Projekt Red listened to their fans and added in an alternate control scheme that made Geralt move and respond quicker. Rockstar will most likely never take this criticism to heart and change anything, even if it means adding in an alternate selectable control scheme.

@liquidprince: I guess I have a hard time saying if it’s objectively better or worse when it suits the atmosphere. I would love to have an arcadey, fast paced western game where you have stunt position on horses and all that - but I don’t know if I want that in this game. For instance Max Payne 3 is very divisive among people because it also has a very weighty control scheme compared to previous entries which were absolutely split second twitch shooters. I really love Max Payne 3 the way it is, and think the control scheme they chose really fits. Does Dark Souls control objectively poorly compared to Devil May Cry? I dunno if I can really conflate the two but each is going for a different vibe. It’s a tough conundrum really because we’re discussing the ever subjective “feel” of a game. That’s something that is unique to each person.

So like I get what you’re saying - I also love snappy games with extremely responsive controls. I’m just not sure if those snappy controls can be transplanted into any other game and not take away from the experience in a negative way.

@liquidprince: I never saw anything wrong with RDR2 or Witcher 3's gameplay. They're both different from most games out nowadays on purpose, which seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way or they can't be bothered to learn something different. I saw the IGN staff play the game day one and they were getting confused over small stuff and blaming the controls when it was really them.

If we're talking about awkward or lame controls I'd bring up Monster Hunter. The controls were weird and the attacks lack a vicersal feel - it felt like I was playing some MMO. It also had one of the worst co-op systems I've ever played. I'm not trying to crap on the game, it just seems like RDR2 gets nitpicked to death while other 2018 games get a pass. I loved GOW, but they were holding back too much for sequels. Fighting only one well known Norse god multiple times was a little silly.

I'd grant weird controls for Monster Hunter but lacking a visceral feel?

I dunno, hit with something larger than the knives.

@dgtlty: RDR2 put almost 100% focus on story, doubled down on the busywork-style role playing elements, and the animation-priority styled control scheme from the first game felt even more slow, unresponsive and unwieldy than before.

Dan is the kind of person who doesn't give a shit about a games story unless it's the equivalent of a summer blockbuster and he isn't the person to get so immersed in an experience that actual role-playing adds anything (edit: I asume Dan also doesn't give a damn about Ludonarrative Dissonance), so those portions of RDR mean nothing to his opinion of the game and are more of a negative than a positive. This means that only things left that really mattered to his opinion of the game is how it plays. When it comes to the game-play of RDR2 Dan felt like the game didn't evolve past the 1st version while doubling down on all the bullshit time-wasters, like not being able to skip skinning animations that take WAY too long and add nothing to the game. He was able to look past that before, but with RDR2 the story went more in a direction that meant nothing to him, the game was filled with even more boring busywork, and the controls felt even more like garbage than before so you now have a recipe for games Dan doesn't like. He mentioned that he had those complaints about the first game but, after Jeff pried it out of him, it seemed like RDR2 doubled down on the stuff Dan hated and minimized the crazy, vidya-game aspects Dan liked from the 1st game.

At least that is what I seem to remember from the discussion.