Honestly I cant believe you guys are arguing over which has the more realistic hunting... Honestly neither of these games are that realistic when it comes to hunting.... this arguement is akin to having an argument over which is closer to the color blue - red or orange
AC3 by a mile the RDR hunting wasn't even that great. Like another poster said it was just you see an animal and you shoot it in this you can track an animal, hunt them from the trees bait them and use snares to catche them there is way more to this games hunting.
AC3 has cooler utilization of baiting, tracking, snaring, and generally sneaking up on animals than RDR. But i still usually end up just running and knifing any animals... But the QTE's kind of make fighting deadly animals lame... Only wolves can really be an issue if you mess up the button press... Sure in RDR you have guns but cougars wolves and bears could still be a threat... And if I killed one with my knife I felt accomplished in RDR... Not so in AC3
But at least in AC3 you can skip the skinning animations..
"You're never too young to have a Vietnam flashback." --- Gamertag: Gobey6
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.
I prefer AC3 over RDR no I don't hate RDR either but being PA hunter the whole environment hits home to me. The choice between traps, the bow, weather, skinning and trying for perfect pelts. I believe they laid a good foundation for a better hunting system.