There is no doubt that Red Dead Redemption 2 is a game packed to the brim with enthralling content. One of the most precise definitions of an "open world" as it allows you to explore a vast, beautiful, wild west frontier with striking detail paired with one of the most enthralling stories and empathetic characters in video games.
Although you're playing a game filled with outlaws in nearly every definition of the word, there's beauty in the souls of repeat criminal offenders. The player comes into contact with several different people among many different walks of life, leading to dynamic encounters both scripted and even player-driven (if not in a railroaded mission) that make this world and its characters feel so genuine. The sheer number of "important" characters to the narrative is intimidating, leading to an expected lengthy runtime; a runtime that is understandably a bit much for many, and itching close to a dealbreaker for me. Thankfully, the aforementioned strong narrative guides the player through an often dark, sometimes beautiful, and tear-jerking narrative that you won't forget anytime soon.
Red Dead Redemption 2's story and aesthetics are admittedly its saving grace among a litany of long-standing issues with Rockstar's game design. There's no need to go over every one of them, but if you've played any other open-world Rockstar game, you'll find yourself in the samey travel, talk, shooting gallery, talk mission structures found in their games of yore. Be prepared, come the later chapters of the story, that's going to be a large majority of story missions.
As long as you stick to Rockstar's strict guidelines on what it wants from you in its story, you'll have an amazing time with this game. While I did enjoy my time, I found being railroaded through extensive - and sometimes quite boring - missions and travel bloated the completion time more than it should have. Red Dead Redemption 2's scenery does make the tedious-to-swallow travel time easier to digest. Eventually, the player will even gain access to fast travel, yet like many other mechanics in Red Dead Redemption 2, it's buried under heaps of poor UI and the game's assistance in sticking to its underwhelming survival mechanics.
In this attempt to create a more "realistic" open-world experience, you're bound from the beginning to engage with some (mostly optional) survival mechanics. Some of these may be fun and even turn into decent companion missions (ex: hunting, fishing, ambushes), but many slog down the pace of the game and introduce more burdens on a game that demands a lot of your time. Having to worry about babying Arthur around to make sure he eats, gets proper sleep, bathes, as well as cleans and feeds his horse gets old when you need to do these things and have to take extended breaks from the story. All of this comes from someone who hasn't had many positive experiences with survival games as it is. I know that in the grand scheme of survival games, Red Dead Redemption 2 doesn't go very far; that begs the question though as to why they'd bother to implement these features if they weren't going to go all-in?
It's sad to know that many developers literally hurt themselves for the production of this game; something we should never excuse or forget. With that crunch and strong ambitions for what Red Dead Redemption 2's world was to be, there are some problems worth discussing. Many have pontificated already about the need for these 100+ hour work weeks to code in your male horse's balls shrinking in the cold (obviously unnecessary), but that also sheds a dichotomy to Rockstar's overall mission structure. With how many obsessive little things there are to find and do throughout Red Dead Redemption 2, the gameplay structure of many story missions buckles down into drawn-out shooting galleries with a janky cover system and less-than-stellar shooting controls. There's good reason to question Rockstar's priorities when it comes to game design.
At the end of the day, my experience with Red Dead Redemption 2 is obviously a positive one. That said, when you're expected to be railroaded through very specific mission structures, with specific half-baked survival mechanics, and with clunky, outdated gameplay on behalf of an overly-detailed animation system, I begin wondering if Rockstar is ever going to evolve beyond its writing and tech prowess and will begin providing better gameplay experiences in the future.
Although you're playing a game filled with outlaws in nearly every definition of the word, there's beauty in the souls of repeat criminal offenders. The player comes into contact with several different people among many different walks of life, leading to dynamic encounters both scripted and even player-driven (if not in a railroaded mission) that make this world and its characters feel so genuine. The sheer number of "important" characters to the narrative is intimidating, leading to an expected lengthy runtime; a runtime that is understandably a bit much for many, and itching close to a dealbreaker for me. Thankfully, the aforementioned strong narrative guides the player through an often dark, sometimes beautiful, and tear-jerking narrative that you won't forget anytime soon.
Red Dead Redemption 2's story and aesthetics are admittedly its saving grace among a litany of long-standing issues with Rockstar's game design. There's no need to go over every one of them, but if you've played any other open-world Rockstar game, you'll find yourself in the samey travel, talk, shooting gallery, talk mission structures found in their games of yore. Be prepared, come the later chapters of the story, that's going to be a large majority of story missions.
As long as you stick to Rockstar's strict guidelines on what it wants from you in its story, you'll have an amazing time with this game. While I did enjoy my time, I found being railroaded through extensive - and sometimes quite boring - missions and travel bloated the completion time more than it should have. Red Dead Redemption 2's scenery does make the tedious-to-swallow travel time easier to digest. Eventually, the player will even gain access to fast travel, yet like many other mechanics in Red Dead Redemption 2, it's buried under heaps of poor UI and the game's assistance in sticking to its underwhelming survival mechanics.
In this attempt to create a more "realistic" open-world experience, you're bound from the beginning to engage with some (mostly optional) survival mechanics. Some of these may be fun and even turn into decent companion missions (ex: hunting, fishing, ambushes), but many slog down the pace of the game and introduce more burdens on a game that demands a lot of your time. Having to worry about babying Arthur around to make sure he eats, gets proper sleep, bathes, as well as cleans and feeds his horse gets old when you need to do these things and have to take extended breaks from the story. All of this comes from someone who hasn't had many positive experiences with survival games as it is. I know that in the grand scheme of survival games, Red Dead Redemption 2 doesn't go very far; that begs the question though as to why they'd bother to implement these features if they weren't going to go all-in?
It's sad to know that many developers literally hurt themselves for the production of this game; something we should never excuse or forget. With that crunch and strong ambitions for what Red Dead Redemption 2's world was to be, there are some problems worth discussing. Many have pontificated already about the need for these 100+ hour work weeks to code in your male horse's balls shrinking in the cold (obviously unnecessary), but that also sheds a dichotomy to Rockstar's overall mission structure. With how many obsessive little things there are to find and do throughout Red Dead Redemption 2, the gameplay structure of many story missions buckles down into drawn-out shooting galleries with a janky cover system and less-than-stellar shooting controls. There's good reason to question Rockstar's priorities when it comes to game design.
At the end of the day, my experience with Red Dead Redemption 2 is obviously a positive one. That said, when you're expected to be railroaded through very specific mission structures, with specific half-baked survival mechanics, and with clunky, outdated gameplay on behalf of an overly-detailed animation system, I begin wondering if Rockstar is ever going to evolve beyond its writing and tech prowess and will begin providing better gameplay experiences in the future.
3 Comments
Great review, pretty much exactly my thoughts on the game too. The story and characters really carry this game, if the characters were more flat and less important I think this game would suffer dramatically. Also i’m all for detail in games, but when so much of it is pointless and putting strain on devs for no real reason, it’s simply not excusable
@CheesyChip & @TheGaming N00b thanks very much for your kind words! :)
TheGamingN00b
1 year ago
I really loved RDR2, but it's mainly because of the setting (There are far to few wild west games), writing and because I was just in the mood for sth like it.
I treated it almost like a TV Series :D