A small response *Spoilers* (Gaming)

by cheapLEY , Monday, April 22, 2019, 18:12 (2049 days ago) @ Cody Miller

I don't really have a specific response to this piece. He makes good points, and some I disagree with.

I ultimately came away from Red Dead Redemption 2 having enjoyed it quite a bit, but also wishing it was half as long.

There are lots of absolutely amazing story moments, from the grand and epic, to the small and intimate. Sadie Adler's character arc is particularly compelling. I also like the way they handled John Marston.

It also has lots and lots of filler. The tropical island section is the worst offender here, along with the stuff with the Native American tribe directly after that. It's story that could have benefited immensely from a heavy-handed editor, I think.

I'm one of the few that didn't have any real problems with the gameplay or controls. Never once did I accidentally shoot someone or punch my horse. I'm legitimately confused that it happened to anyone, to be honest. The controls aren't bad at all in that regard. I came away thinking it was a really good execution of context sensitive controls and modifying buttons. I think it worked well.

Some of the systems very quickly became irrelevant. The whole "Greet" or "Antagonize" system was laughably shallow given how much it was hyped up. You could greet someone and get one of three or four generic "Hello!" lines from any NPC, or you could antagonize someone two times in a row to start a fist fight with them. That's literally as deep as it was. It's silly.

The best moments of the game absolutely rise above its flaws though. Some of the story beats are great, and wandering back into camp and seeing what was going on with the gang always felt important and amazing for me. Some of the smaller moments, sitting around a fire, listening to someone tell a story or sing a song, witnessing the arguments between members, the friendships, the ebb and flow of emotions from the gang as the Pinkertons closed in--it was all fantastically done, in my book.

I'm also a real sucker for "immersion." I don't need to rant about the Witcher 3, again, and getting lost in that world. The same thing happened in Red Dead Redemption 2. I spent weeks (in game time) camping in the mountains, wandering through the prairie, exploring the forests. Just being in that game world is inherently compelling for me. I really came away from that wishing there were some more systems around that, or at least ones that actually mattered. For all the hunting, camping, eating, core management, etc--none of it actually mattered. Arthur Morgan could be starving, skin and bones, or full and chunky, and it never felt like it made any difference at all. I'd have loved to see some more heavy survival mechanics there.

Most importantly for me, though, I played that game as Arthur Morgan. I performed countless actions in that game, not because it had any effect, but because it felt right to do, as Arthur Morgan. Night time? Okay, set up camp.

There's a part in the game where Arthur is captured and basically tortured. He gets rescued by the gang, and there's a time jump of like a month as he recovered. After that happened, I took of with my horse and camped in the wilderness for a week or more, explored the mountains. I did that literally because it didn't feel right in that moment to just pick up the next mission and go back to killing people. Not many games have that effect.

Red Dead Redemption 2 is a behemoth of a game. It's also an incredibly messy game. I happen to like that. It's interesting in a way that not many big AAA open world games are. It's confident enough in its vision to just be what it is, and doesn't make many concessions for player convenience if those conveniences don't fit the vision of the game. Love it or hate it, I can respect it for that.