Assassins Creed or Red Dead Redemption - Which has better hunting?

#11ish0turfac3Posted 11/5/2012 10:42:29 AM
haterstotheleft posted...
ACIII has extra stuff like tracking, bait, and snares. All you do in RDR is stumble onto an animal then hope you can shoot it before it runs away.


Rdr has bait.
---
GT: ish0turfac3
Please tell me more while I'm sitting over here in my corner eating popcorn not giving a crap about your opinion.
#12agenttravPosted 11/5/2012 10:42:33 AM
red dead. by a flippin' mile.
---
I'm unmolestable!
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9362727/agenttrav.jpeg
#13pothocketPosted 11/5/2012 10:46:34 AM(edited)
haterstotheleft posted...
ACIII has extra stuff like tracking, bait, and snares. All you do in RDR is stumble onto an animal then hope you can shoot it before it runs away.


Exactly. AC3 features actual hunting of animals, RDR features animals that you can kill. You don't "hunt" at all in RDR. The responses in this topic confirm that RDR is one of the most overrated games ever made.
---
well I am not like your dad. I worked as a chef at TGIF-Mattson
#14MurphirothPosted 11/5/2012 10:46:27 AM
From: ish0turfac3 | #008
Red dead redemption by a mile. All of those reason given as to why ac3 hunting is better are just stupid as hell.


"Hey guys, stop liking what I don't like!"

The reasons they've given are perfectly valid. Skipping the skinning animation is a godsend after hours of seeing it in RDR. AC3 gives you multiple ways to approach hunting, and you can end up damaging the goods if you want to rush.

RDR is basically just shoot, shoot, shoot. Maybe put some bait. Maybe stab it with your knife. There's no real variation in it and the state of the goods never changes due to your actions. You also have only one real option for the pelts and whatnot: sell it at a shop. In AC3 you can do that, use it to craft something, or send it on a convoy and make even more money. It feels much more rewarding IMO.
---
Gamertag/PSN-Murphiroth
"Would have liked to run tests on the seashells..."
#15ish0turfac3Posted 11/5/2012 10:47:33 AM
bish0p2004 posted...
ish0turfac3 posted...
Red dead redemption by a mile. All of those reason given as to why ac3 hunting is better are just stupid as hell.


It's even more stupid that there are no reasons given as to why RDR has better hunting.


No reason needed. But here's a few anyway.

Dangerous animals are actually dangerous, I don't get qtes which a ten year old couldn't fail.

Actually takes some skill to kill an animal, whereas in ac3 animals runa round in circles making it easy to just stab em.

Any game that makes it this easy to kill an animal by stabbing it should not have its hunting aspect taken seriously.
---
GT: ish0turfac3
Please tell me more while I'm sitting over here in my corner eating popcorn not giving a crap about your opinion.
#16cubegod69erPosted 11/5/2012 10:48:03 AM
Neither is better. RDR is more realistic, AC3 is more fun and arcadey. I have more fun with AC3 hunting, being able to tree run over prey is just a blast.
#17art_of_the_killPosted 11/5/2012 10:48:13 AM
ish0turfac3 posted...
Red dead redemption by a mile. All of those reason given as to why ac3 hunting is better are just stupid as hell.


I love how you expressed your thoughts thoroughly without insulting anyone.

Oh, wait. No, you didn't.
---
"You've lost this argument!"
--- John Marston while lassoing/hogtying someone. Favorite quote this gen.
#18ish0turfac3Posted 11/5/2012 10:50:05 AM
Murphiroth posted...
From: ish0turfac3 | #008
Red dead redemption by a mile. All of those reason given as to why ac3 hunting is better are just stupid as hell.


"Hey guys, stop liking what I don't like!"

The reasons they've given are perfectly valid. Skipping the skinning animation is a godsend after hours of seeing it in RDR. AC3 gives you multiple ways to approach hunting, and you can end up damaging the goods if you want to rush.

RDR is basically just shoot, shoot, shoot. Maybe put some bait. Maybe stab it with your knife. There's no real variation in it and the state of the goods never changes due to your actions. You also have only one real option for the pelts and whatnot: sell it at a shop. In AC3 you can do that, use it to craft something, or send it on a convoy and make even more money. It feels much more rewarding IMO.

Stop liking what I don't like!.. see how dumb that sounds?
---
GT: ish0turfac3
Please tell me more while I'm sitting over here in my corner eating popcorn not giving a crap about your opinion.
#19whiteboygenePosted 11/5/2012 10:50:54 AM
The concept of bait in both games is pretty funny, but I love how the snares in AC3 don't actually snare the animal, it just kinda... dies. What attention to detail they have included in this game. The fact that you are punished for using your bow and arrow is laughable.

Any praise RDR got it deserved, not "overrated" at all...
---
Chairman of the Correct Opinion Board.
"Your still a psychopath Whiteboygene" -Offworlder1
#20MurphirothPosted 11/5/2012 10:50:58 AM
From: ish0turfac3 | #015
bish0p2004 posted...
ish0turfac3 posted...
Red dead redemption by a mile. All of those reason given as to why ac3 hunting is better are just stupid as hell.


It's even more stupid that there are no reasons given as to why RDR has better hunting.


No reason needed. But here's a few anyway.

Dangerous animals are actually dangerous, I don't get qtes which a ten year old couldn't fail.

Actually takes some skill to kill an animal, whereas in ac3 animals runa round in circles making it easy to just stab em.

Any game that makes it this easy to kill an animal by stabbing it should not have its hunting aspect taken seriously.


Shooting animals in RDR really doesn't take much skill at all. And the only animal that was even remotely dangerous was the cougar.
---
Gamertag/PSN-Murphiroth
"Would have liked to run tests on the seashells..."