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

#21bish0p2004Posted 11/5/2012 9:51:57 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.


Seriously. Both games are pretty much equal with the hunting...however, AC 3 has more ways than one to kill the animals (more is not always better, but in this case it is).

How anyone can even dispute this is quite silly. This is just a very obvious case of people being bias.

Sure, I can see people liking RDR more than AC 3...that's understandable, but to say the hunting is better when AC 3's is far more realistic and complex (in a good way) is just pure stubborness and nostaglia.
#22MurphirothPosted 11/5/2012 9:51:59 AM
From: ish0turfac3 | #018
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?


It does sound dumb, which is why I'm criticizing you for it.

I remember now why I try to stay away from game boards here. Terrible, terrible users.
---
Gamertag/PSN-Murphiroth
"Would have liked to run tests on the seashells..."
#23whiteboygenePosted 11/5/2012 9:53:00 AM
Murphiroth posted...
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.


You've obviously never been attacked by an angry group of bears before. Also, shooting animals in RDR with no dead-eye or auto-aim takes much more skill than anything you can do in AC3.
---
Chairman of the Correct Opinion Board.
"Your still a psychopath Whiteboygene" -Offworlder1
#24bish0p2004Posted 11/5/2012 9:53:59 AM
ish0turfac3 posted...
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.


I'm sorry, but the only thing hard about the hunting in RDR were the cougar surprises.
#25MurphirothPosted 11/5/2012 9:55:09 AM
From: whiteboygene | #023
Murphiroth posted...
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.


You've obviously never been attacked by an angry group of bears before. Also, shooting animals in RDR with no dead-eye or auto-aim takes much more skill than anything you can do in AC3.


Way to make wrong assumptions! I've been attacked by multiple bears, cougars, and even groups of cougars and wolves. Guess what? They're still easy. Just shoot them.

I love when people say things like "You've obviously never done blahblahblah" like it means something.
---
Gamertag/PSN-Murphiroth
"Would have liked to run tests on the seashells..."
#26ish0turfac3Posted 11/5/2012 9:58:20 AM
Murphiroth posted...
From: ish0turfac3 | #018
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?


It does sound dumb, which is why I'm criticizing you for it.

I remember now why I try to stay away from game boards here. Terrible, terrible users.


So because I have an opinion you don't like means I am a terrible user?? Contradict yourself much?
---
GT: ish0turfac3
Please tell me more while I'm sitting over here in my corner eating popcorn not giving a crap about your opinion.
#27MurphirothPosted 11/5/2012 10:02:08 AM
From: ish0turfac3 | #026
Murphiroth posted...
From: ish0turfac3 | #018
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?


It does sound dumb, which is why I'm criticizing you for it.

I remember now why I try to stay away from game boards here. Terrible, terrible users.


So because I have an opinion you don't like means I am a terrible user?? Contradict yourself much?


Yes, that is why I said you're a terrible user. You totally got me! Whatever will I do?
---
Gamertag/PSN-Murphiroth
"Would have liked to run tests on the seashells..."
#28whiteboygenePosted 11/5/2012 10:02:46 AM
Yeah, with dead-eye and auto-aim, sure.

Also, which are they, dangerous or easy? You're contradicting yourself.

Let me put some bait on the ground and then hide in the bushes right next to it so I can jump out and kill this bear with just my two hands, because this is realistic hunting. This works both ways really...
---
Chairman of the Correct Opinion Board.
"Your still a psychopath Whiteboygene" -Offworlder1
#29MurphirothPosted 11/5/2012 10:05:31 AM
From: whiteboygene | #028
Yeah, with dead-eye and auto-aim, sure.

Also, which are they, dangerous or easy? You're contradicting yourself.

Let me put some bait on the ground and then hide in the bushes right next to it so I can jump out and kill this bear with just my two hands, because this is realistic hunting. This works both ways really...


Neither game is remotely realistic when it comes to hunting. I prefer AC3's because it feels like there's more to do. But apparently my reasons for this are "stupid."
---
Gamertag/PSN-Murphiroth
"Would have liked to run tests on the seashells..."
#30dubc82Posted 11/5/2012 10:08:28 AM
AC3 has the more in depth fleshed out hunting experience but RDR is one of my fav games of all time.
---
xbox live gamertag: crawdad1757
"winners don't quit; that's why they win."