It was always the feeling of Arthur's movement that was just too unresponsive for me so I agree, I've played this game much more and enjoyed it far more aswell.

Days gone is one of the best z games I've played.

Days gone should be a standard in term of character handling and gunplay, in fact it's very smooth and responsive.

The animations are also quite good, the character speed etc... every thing seems well balanced.

But the game lack of depth, of gameplay mechanics.

Way better.

I seem to hate a lot of things that EVERYbody likes (Witcher 3, Shadow of War, RDR2), but I like this game quite a bit.

I can understand the comparison. Maybe it's the fact that everywhere is depopulated into these small towns/camps or something, but this game almost gives me western vibes. Like those old school western movies. Deacon rides his motorcycle around the new "wild west" post-apocalypse.. the bike basically being like a 21st century horse.

IIRC the game does in fact take place in the west too... the pacific northwest to be exact. I think there are numerous references to Oregon in the story.

I had more fun with DG than RDR2.
Motorbike better than a horse.

Those two games have absolutely nothing in common.
And they are serving different target groups, so they're not comparable.

You can compare bullets with bubble gum if you want -- you can't pull the 'different' card imho.

In any case, RDR2 is different (as a game/western/cowboy/insanely detailed) as an "experience", but as far as games go I agree, DG takes the win.

Both great games though.

These games are so different it's like comparing a bicycle to an airliner jet. Sure you can do it, but you're gonna get funny looks from everyone.

There both open world with grind aspects, story elements, craftinging, sleeping etc and a form of mount. Imho, they're in the same ball park. Omes more survival in a zombie world, the other is survival in a western world.

If for instance someone was saying DG is better than FC24 I'd be scratching my head but I don't feel the op was that far off.

The thing is RdR had a zombie mode in it and many requested this for rdr2 so it says to me that this really is quite a reaosnable comparison.

Originally posted by MysticDude:

These games are so different it's like comparing a bicycle to an airliner jet. Sure you can do it, but you're gonna get funny looks from everyone.

Eh. They're both third person open world games.

Originally posted by TimeTraveller:

There both open world with grind aspects, story elements, craftinging, sleeping etc and a form of mount. Imho, they're in the same ball park. Omes more survival in a zombie world, the other is survival in a western world.

If for instance someone was saying DG is better than FC24 I'd be scratching my head but I don't feel the op was that far off.

The thing is RdR had a zombie mode in it and many requested this for rdr2 so it says to me that this really is quite a reaosnable comparison.

Well said

Originally posted by LegionIscariot:

I had more fun with DG than RDR2.
Motorbike better than a horse.

Horse riding could've been fun like the witcher or the first red dead but yeah motorbikes for the win

Originally posted by harken23:

I seem to hate a lot of things that EVERYbody likes (Witcher 3, Shadow of War, RDR2), but I like this game quite a bit.

What other unpopular games that wasn't quite well received you liked?

Originally posted by C_M_G:

Eh. They're both third person open world games.

Oh, really? So according to this logic:
What car is better: A Mercedes G 63 or a Lamborghini Gallardo?

Both have 4 wheels and cost about the same.