[ad_1]
Red Dead Redemption 2 is the greatest example of the old way of creating video games. It builds on the foundations of Rockstar, but it does nothing to reshape or challenge these underlying elements. I think it's the best game ever created by the developer, but that's what it does because it's also the "best game" ever created by Rockstar.
I take advantage of Red Dead Redemption 2 (along with Dean, who wrote our review), but it's also often disappointing. I was expecting something different. And I'm not talking about better controls – though 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 has built an astronomical number of static and scripted events. And while this is impressive, I can not help but think that Red Dead Redemption 2 is stuck in the past.
Rockstar also seeks to achieve realism unnecessarily and tries to give players the choice without creating the systems that would really allow it. job.
The Strange Valley of "Realism"
At the beginning of Red Dead Redemption 2, you and your gang beat a group of rival outlaws. After the shooting is over, Dutch – your boss – orders you to ransack a nearby house. So, lead Arthur Morgan, the game's hero, to draws that look promising … and the game stops so Morgan can slowly open each drawer. When you find an item you can pick up, you pick it up slowly and gently. And then you do the same thing with everything you find in the same drawer.
It's a laboriously painstaking process, but worse: it's not like that I look in the drawers.
. The search animation is realistic. Morgan does not seem to be a rigid robot like in many other games. But as a person controlling Morgan, none of this looks like me.
When I search for my keys or something, it's a complicated process where I move things at random, with both hands. And it's at home. If I looted a hut in the middle of the mountains after killing a group of rival gang members, I will not allow myself to slowly hold a pack of cigarettes as a precious possession. I will rip the drawers and ruin them in search of valuables.
The problem is that the more animations you add to a character, the more I'll take note of them when they do not fit. my experience. I think that's why something like Assbadin's Creed: Odyssey does not even try to animate this kind of action.
Let's be clear: my problem here is not that looking in things is boring. It is. But the problem is that it does not even fulfill what Rockstar thinks to achieve. It's not realistic.
The Paradox of Choice
And you constantly see realism collapse. This is particularly visible when it comes to choosing the player. Red Dead offers you more options than ever before, and yet it constantly suffocates me.
Interactions with animals and humans are a major source of choice for players in Red Dead Redemption 2. One of its most impressive features is the ability to lock on living things without taking out your weapon . You can then choose to greet, upset or shoot at someone. I like this system in theory, but it does not really give you much more options to approach the world. And I realize everything I can not do.
Of course, I can annoy a person until she wants to fight, but I can not greet her until she does not want to join me. At least I can not go through the first 20 hours. I can steal them, but I can not bribe them, trick them into doing tasks for me, or get them to distract them by lying to them.
Interacting with Objects and Buildings
Many things that Rockstar has added to the game are very cool. It's great that I have the opportunity to hijack a train, kill all the guards, and then steal the pbadengers one by one. But then, why can not I also set the engine up to speed before jumping on my horse so the authorities are trying to stop a runaway train?
The paradox of choice is that the more options you give to 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 doors that you can not open anyway. You have all that choice, but Rockstar will decide which doors work and which ones do not. And many windows of the game are indestructible. So if you're stealing a place and want to go out through the back window, chances are you can not.
Let's be clear, I do not necessarily say that "Rockstar should have added this or that". impossible to ignore what you can not do in a game where you can do so much.
The paradox is at its height when you arrive at the main missions of history. Rockstar has created these events so that they happen in a very specific way, and your job is to follow them.
This is especially frustrating when you arrive on a stage where one of your gang mates is rotting in a jail. his execution. I expected to have the freedom to tackle this problem as I wished, but it was not allowed.
Nothing Comes Out of Red Dead Redemption 2
The reason Red Dead Redemption 2 is disappointing and presents all of these problems with intuitive design and choice is because it's not a game based on systems. It has some systems, but what drives this world is the Rockstar author project.
I've seen a lot of people compare Red Dead Redemption 2 to the science fiction drama HBO West World . . And although I know it's a hobby to evoke this show in relation to Red Dead Redemption 2, I think it's important to note that this game has nothing to do with West World .
stories written, but that's not why people go to the West World attractions park. They go there because they can affect it. The robotic characters that make up the attraction have deep systems that respond to and react to the decisions of the player characters. This allows written experiences to bring out unique experiences.
Red Dead Redemption 2 does not have that.
The most elaborate cuckoo clock ever made
Red Dead is an animatronic show. Characters come on stage to dance and sing at specific times for your entertainment, but Rockstar restricts you to pressing a few keys to get specific results.
You are the public. You are not really a participant. And Rockstar constantly reminds you that you exist to testify to his creations. Morgan can not cross the camp because you might miss something. Also, in the camp, the other characters will have many lines and they will recognize your existence, but you really can not tell them more. They're going to do their thing, and you can not do anything to upset that.
The good news is that the series presented by these characters is excellent. By far, the best part of this game is the actor and the writer game. And that's one of the reasons I always enjoy what I play. On top of that, Rockstar has built so many games that even if you're just a happy tourist, you'll get your money's worth.
A pleasant disappointment
My disappointment for Red Dead Redemption 2 has everything to do with my expectations. I thought Rockstar was going to define the future of games with that, and I do not think so. It's always the same game that has always been done. And it's not that different from something like Watch Dogs 2 or The Witcher III.
I did well not to mention The Legend of Zelda: Wild Breath until now, then I will reward myself. by doing it now.
In Breath of the Wild, Nintendo has built systems and a world that form the foundation of everything else in this game. It's always consistent and fair. If you stand in a thunderstorm with metal, you could be electrocuted. But if you throw a metal weapon by an enemy, it could be electrocuted instead.
And everything in Breath of the Wild serves to reinforce your experiences with these systems. When the world recedes – as is the case with rain or extremely difficult enemies – the game invites you to retreat or to be creative.
Red Dead is devoid of these systems. Everything in this game exists to serve you more content created. And when the game repels the player, he does it to make you watch more of that content.
For me, I think Zelda is closer to how developers will create games in the future. . That said, I'm sure Red Dead will sell very well. And people seem to like it. So maybe I'm wrong. But I hope not.
Source link
