[ad_1]
Red Dead Redemption is the biggest example of the old way of building video games. It builds on top of the Rockstar's foundation, but it does not matter where they are. I think it is the best game the developer has made, but it accomplishes that because it is also the most game Rockstar has ever made.
I'm enjoying Red Dead Redemption 2 (so is Dean, who wrote our review), but it's also frequently disappointing. I was expecting something different. And I'm not talking about better controls – I'd love that. What I mean is that I thought Rockstar would build a world that would react to players. But instead, the studio built an astronomical number of static, scripted events. And while that is impressive, Red Dead Redemption 2 is stuck in the past.
Rockstar is also pointlessly chasing down realism and making it work.
The uncanny valley of "realism"
Early in Red Dead Redemption 2, you and your gang defeat a rival band of outlaws. After the shooting ends, your ransack – a leader So you guide Arthur Morgan, the game's hero, and the game come to a halt. Morgan can slowly open each drawer one by one. When you find an item you can take it, you pick it up slowly and delicately. And then you do the same thing with anything else you find in the same drawer.
It is a painfully laborious process, but it is not how I look through drawers.
I get what Rockstar is going for with this. The searching animation looks lifelike. Morgan does not seem like a stiff robot like a lot of other games. But as the person controlling Morgan, none of this feels lifelike to me.
When I search for my keys or something, it's a messy process where I move things around haphazardly with two hands. And that's in my own home. If I have been in the background of the mountains after the death of a rival gang member, I'm not going to slowly hold up a pack of cigarettes like it's some precious possession. I'm going to tear the drawers out and mess them up looking for anything valuable.
The problem is that the more animations you add to a character, the more I'm going to notice when it does not match up with my experience. I think that's something like Assbadin's Creed: Odyssey does not even try to animate a lot of these kinds of actions.
To be clear, my problem here is not that searching through things is boring. It is. Rockstar thinks it accomplishes the goal. This is not realistic.
The paradox of choice
And you see the realism breakdown constantly. This is especially noticeable when it comes to player choice. Red Dead gives you more options than ever, and yet it is also constantly stifling me.
Interactions with animals and people are a major source of choice in Red Dead Redemption. You can then either choose to greet a person, antagonize them, or shoot them. I like this system in theory, but it does not really give you that many more options for how to approach the world. And it makes me realize all things I can not do.
Sure, I can antagonize someone until they want to fight me, but I can not greet them until they want to join me. At least I can not get through the first 20 hours. I can rob them, but I can not break them, fool them into doing tasks for me, or get them to distraction by lying to them.
Interacting with objects and buildings
A lot of things that rockstar has added to the game are very cool. It's awesome that you have the option to hijack a train, kill all the guards, and then rob the pbadengers one by one. But then why can not I get the speed of the train?
The paradox of choice is that the more options you give a player, the more they will notice that they can not do certain things. And it's not just big things. For example, Red Dead Redemption 2 has locked you up. You have all this choice, but Rockstar is going to decide for you which do not work. And many windows in the game are indestructible. So if you want to get out of the window, chances are you can not.
Now, to be clear, I'm not necessarily saying, "Rockstar should have added this or that." But it's impossible to ignore the things you can not do in a game where you can so many things.
The paradox is at its worst when you get to the main story missions. Rockstar has made these events, and your job is to go through these motions.
This is especially frustrating when you get to know where you're going. I was expecting to have the freedom to approach this problem
Nothing emerges from Red Dead Redemption 2
The reason that Red Dead Redemption 2 is uncomfortable and hbadle of these problems is because it is not a systems-driven game. It has some systems, but the thing that drives this world is the authorial design of Rockstar.
I've seen a lot of people compare Red Dead Redemption 2 to the HBO sci-fi drama West World. And while I know it's going to be redound 2, I think it's important to note that this game is nothing like West World.
Both are intricate cuckoo clocks with authored stories, but that's not why people go to the West World theme park. They go to it because they can affect it. The robot characters that make up the gravity of gravity. This is a unique experience to emerge from the authored stories.
Red Dead Redemption 2 does not have that.
The most elaborate cuckoo clock ever made
Red Dead is an animatronics show. The characters get your shot at a specific target for your entertainment.
You are the audience. You are not really a participant. And Rockstar is always here to help you. Morgan can not run through camp because you could miss something. Also in camp, other characters will have plenty of lines, and they'll acknowledge your existence, but you can not really say much back to them. They are going to do their thing, and you can not do anything to upset that.
The good news is that the show is really good. By far the best part of this game is the acting and writing. And it's one of the reasons I'm still enjoying what I'm playing. On top of that, Rockstar has built so much game, that even if you're just a tourist, you're going to get your money's worth.
An enjoyable let down
My disappointment with Red Dead Redemption 2 has everything to do with my expectations. I thought Rockstar was going to define the future of games with this, and I do not think it did. This is still the same game it's always made. And it's not that something like a Watch Dogs 2 or The Witcher III.
The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild to this point, so I'm gonna reward myself by doing so now.
In Breath of the Wild, Nintendo built systems and a world that act as the foundation of everything else in that game. It is always consistent and fair. If you are standing in a storm with metal on, you could get electrocuted. But if you throw a metal weapon by an enemy, they could get electrocuted instead.
And everything in Breath of the Wild to help you experiment with those systems. When the world pushes back – like it does with rain or super hard enemies – the game is inviting you to retreat or get creative.
Red Dead is devoid of those systems. Everything in that game exists to serve you more authored content. And when the game is pushing back on the player, it is doing so to get you to stop it.
For me, I think that Zelda is closer to the future. That said, I'm sure Red Dead is going to sell just fine. And people seem to love it. So maybe I'm wrong. Goal I hope not.
Source link
