Admittedly a rant: The author's choice to bookend this review by highlighting Rockstar's labor issues really irks me, since it's one of the barest displays yet of RDR2-related... I don't know,...
Exemplary
Admittedly a rant: The author's choice to bookend this review by highlighting Rockstar's labor issues really irks me, since it's one of the barest displays yet of RDR2-related... I don't know, "kabuki leftism"? Something you bring up only in service of a take that was already critical. Garnish, or an apertif.
The author writes that distinctions between oily and muddy water don't justify 100-hour work weeks. OK, granted; Rockstar San Diego sounds like a shit place to work. What's written throughout, however, is "what they spent their time on disappoints me," not "hitching your art team up to wagons and racing them around the parking lot is wrong". If you feel that the thing's a product of labor abuse, and you're going to pretend that matters to you in a major publication, putting yourself in the position of judging whether that abuse of labor was justified or not is fucking garbage. You either accept the labor abuse and judge the game on its merits, or decry the practices and hang the product.
The author writes that "Rockstar looks a lot like Dutch van der Linde, the idealism that made it so singular back in the day now deteriorating into an unchecked hubris". They loved RDR1 and this game is a real disappointment. So was Rockstar SD a better place to work in 2010, or were the 100-hour weeks okay because "Rockstar's original masterpiece is, in no small part, responsible for [the author's] decision to make video games [their] career"?
I mean, my god, if you're going to take a stand on labor issues, at least be consistent. Why are the labor practices of two notoriously rapacious industries not mentioned in all the other TV and videogame stuff the author has covered recently? If labor practices aren't part of the author's remit, fine, but don't touch on it if you're going to touch on it in the way an asshole touches on it. This is "writing about labor abuse" abuse!
I don't mean to take some high ground -- I CONSUME in the same way that the author CONSUMES. But at least CONSUME honestly. If the game's quality is the problem, the labor practices don't bother you that much; likewise, acting like the labor practices are a minor problem compared to the game's focus on horse ball physics cheapens the labor issue.
This is precisely what separates a good open world game from a shitty one. I have no interest in Skyrim or Fallout because there's just a ton of pointless stuff. Side quests are cut and paste, go...
Like the Vegas Strip, the glut of stuff to do bedazzles: Realistically meticulous hunting! Realistically boring fishing! Realistically unsettling debt collection! Realistically anxious relationships to food and hunger! Realistically involved horse bonding! Realistically cavalier homestead and campsite robbing! Realistically routine grooming! Realistically laborious housework like moving hay! Unrealistic Black Jack!
This is precisely what separates a good open world game from a shitty one. I have no interest in Skyrim or Fallout because there's just a ton of pointless stuff. Side quests are cut and paste, go into a cave kill stuff and come back. This does not interest me.
This same issue is why many people fell out of love with the assassin creed games. The endless side-quests weren't even really side quests so much as collectibles (most had zero story and were simply fetch quests).
Contrast this with a game like Witcher 3 and while you absolutely do still have some cut and paste storylines, there were a ton of very unique stories and side-quests to do. These stories and side-quests were short but engaging story lines. Sure many of them were perhaps cut and pasted from mythology, but at least there was diversity - it wasn't just kill or fetch quests.
While I understand why RDR 2 won quite a few awards at the VGA, I'm not surprised in the least that it did not win GOTY and it's very clear why God of War won instead. Rather than fluffing up the game with so much content you can't possibly get to it all (nor would you want to, in many cases) there is a deliberate choice to tailor the content that is in the game so that more time may be spent on ensuring that it's high quality content.
I posted this because it provides an alternative to the fawning reviews that have come out. I think it's reaching, but makes some good points about missed opportunities in the story and some of...
I posted this because it provides an alternative to the fawning reviews that have come out. I think it's reaching, but makes some good points about missed opportunities in the story and some of the lauded, but ultimately tedious, game mechanics such as how you eat, drink, etc.
I sort of wonder, since I can't think of any -- are there any games where ancillary "life tasks" are rewarding? There must be some... each time I think of one where chores were a'ight, like...
I sort of wonder, since I can't think of any -- are there any games where ancillary "life tasks" are rewarding? There must be some... each time I think of one where chores were a'ight, like Stardew or Animal Crossing, I keep convincing myself that in those games the chores weren't "ancillary" per se.
The Sims is a game literally based entirely on chores, and when it came out it was one of the most addicting, engaging games I'd ever played. I remember, after weeks of binging the game thinking...
The Sims is a game literally based entirely on chores, and when it came out it was one of the most addicting, engaging games I'd ever played.
I remember, after weeks of binging the game thinking "Why the hell do I spend all of my time doing virtual dishes, mopping virtual floors, and doing virtual remodeling instead of just doing it with my actual house? Why is this so much more fun?"
To this day I still don't have a good answer, I just know that it was.
I had so much fun with the pathing the characters used in that original game. I had a ridiculously efficient house setup with two central bathrooms off the kitchen so they had to move the absolute...
I had so much fun with the pathing the characters used in that original game. I had a ridiculously efficient house setup with two central bathrooms off the kitchen so they had to move the absolute minimum amount to reach everything they needed. I spent hours designing that thing and getting it just right. Why it was so much fun I can't answer, but I do know it was very engaging.
I'm glad somebody is saying it. This game is gorgeous and it has everything RDR had. It also has about four, six, maybe EIGHT TIMES what RDR had. In the name of realism, they've run all the fun of...
I'm glad somebody is saying it. This game is gorgeous and it has everything RDR had. It also has about four, six, maybe EIGHT TIMES what RDR had. In the name of realism, they've run all the fun of the game into the ground (for me, anyway). I love this quote from the article:
Red Dead Redemption 2's selective realism shatters all illusion that its obsequious fetish for detail contributes to immersion in its story.
Real life sucks. The more you make your game like real life, the more it will suck. Games need to tread a fine line between realism and escapism. Otherwise they're just a second job. This game was not fun for me. It was tedious. I can't mindlessly hunt and collect pelts. I have to concentrate and use several different flawed mechanisms (because hunting is hard irl!). Yeah, no thanks.
I see your point and mainly agree with you, but there is a market out there for sim-level mundane activities. That said, I don't really think it has a place in triple A gaming.
I see your point and mainly agree with you, but there is a market out there for sim-level mundane activities. That said, I don't really think it has a place in triple A gaming.
I took a 4+ year break from gaming and came back to a PS4 Pro with RDR2. (Okay a little Mario Odyssey in there.) I was blown away by how far consoles have come and really enjoyed the movie like...
I took a 4+ year break from gaming and came back to a PS4 Pro with RDR2. (Okay a little Mario Odyssey in there.) I was blown away by how far consoles have come and really enjoyed the movie like quality of RDR2's story throughout. I played a grand total of 0 side quests (white question marks, or grey dots) and powered through the main story only. Absolutely fantastic game and I feel a lot of the criticism here doesn't hold up. Is it perfect? No. Is it a fantastic effort by a talented team? Definitely.
I really can't say what's wrong with RDR2 and why it got a lukewarm reception from many people. But I myself admit that I have no interest in playing this game, even though it looks amazing. It's...
I really can't say what's wrong with RDR2 and why it got a lukewarm reception from many people. But I myself admit that I have no interest in playing this game, even though it looks amazing. It's a really perplexing thing.
Unrelated, but I think that the way we consume single player games has changed in recent years. Highly anticipated games get a shitton of hype and discussion during its release, everyone binges the game in a week so they can keep up with the online discussion and memes. Critics give it a high rating and players mostly agree that it is good. Only a few days after the release, some players already complete the game and start posting guides on the best strats/builds/tricks etc.
Eventually people feel burnt out from over exposure, and they lose interest.
I have a personal theory that if games like Shadow of the Colossus, Darksouls and Half Life 2 were released today, their legacy would've been nothing like their current one.
This may not be true at all though, I haven't been playing new games since the early 2010's, so my opinion is only based on what I observed.
Admittedly a rant: The author's choice to bookend this review by highlighting Rockstar's labor issues really irks me, since it's one of the barest displays yet of RDR2-related... I don't know, "kabuki leftism"? Something you bring up only in service of a take that was already critical. Garnish, or an apertif.
The author writes that distinctions between oily and muddy water don't justify 100-hour work weeks. OK, granted; Rockstar San Diego sounds like a shit place to work. What's written throughout, however, is "what they spent their time on disappoints me," not "hitching your art team up to wagons and racing them around the parking lot is wrong". If you feel that the thing's a product of labor abuse, and you're going to pretend that matters to you in a major publication, putting yourself in the position of judging whether that abuse of labor was justified or not is fucking garbage. You either accept the labor abuse and judge the game on its merits, or decry the practices and hang the product.
The author writes that "Rockstar looks a lot like Dutch van der Linde, the idealism that made it so singular back in the day now deteriorating into an unchecked hubris". They loved RDR1 and this game is a real disappointment. So was Rockstar SD a better place to work in 2010, or were the 100-hour weeks okay because "Rockstar's original masterpiece is, in no small part, responsible for [the author's] decision to make video games [their] career"?
I mean, my god, if you're going to take a stand on labor issues, at least be consistent. Why are the labor practices of two notoriously rapacious industries not mentioned in all the other TV and videogame stuff the author has covered recently? If labor practices aren't part of the author's remit, fine, but don't touch on it if you're going to touch on it in the way an asshole touches on it. This is "writing about labor abuse" abuse!
I don't mean to take some high ground -- I CONSUME in the same way that the author CONSUMES. But at least CONSUME honestly. If the game's quality is the problem, the labor practices don't bother you that much; likewise, acting like the labor practices are a minor problem compared to the game's focus on horse ball physics cheapens the labor issue.
This is precisely what separates a good open world game from a shitty one. I have no interest in Skyrim or Fallout because there's just a ton of pointless stuff. Side quests are cut and paste, go into a cave kill stuff and come back. This does not interest me.
This same issue is why many people fell out of love with the assassin creed games. The endless side-quests weren't even really side quests so much as collectibles (most had zero story and were simply fetch quests).
Contrast this with a game like Witcher 3 and while you absolutely do still have some cut and paste storylines, there were a ton of very unique stories and side-quests to do. These stories and side-quests were short but engaging story lines. Sure many of them were perhaps cut and pasted from mythology, but at least there was diversity - it wasn't just kill or fetch quests.
While I understand why RDR 2 won quite a few awards at the VGA, I'm not surprised in the least that it did not win GOTY and it's very clear why God of War won instead. Rather than fluffing up the game with so much content you can't possibly get to it all (nor would you want to, in many cases) there is a deliberate choice to tailor the content that is in the game so that more time may be spent on ensuring that it's high quality content.
I posted this because it provides an alternative to the fawning reviews that have come out. I think it's reaching, but makes some good points about missed opportunities in the story and some of the lauded, but ultimately tedious, game mechanics such as how you eat, drink, etc.
I sort of wonder, since I can't think of any -- are there any games where ancillary "life tasks" are rewarding? There must be some... each time I think of one where chores were a'ight, like Stardew or Animal Crossing, I keep convincing myself that in those games the chores weren't "ancillary" per se.
The Sims is a game literally based entirely on chores, and when it came out it was one of the most addicting, engaging games I'd ever played.
I remember, after weeks of binging the game thinking "Why the hell do I spend all of my time doing virtual dishes, mopping virtual floors, and doing virtual remodeling instead of just doing it with my actual house? Why is this so much more fun?"
To this day I still don't have a good answer, I just know that it was.
I had so much fun with the pathing the characters used in that original game. I had a ridiculously efficient house setup with two central bathrooms off the kitchen so they had to move the absolute minimum amount to reach everything they needed. I spent hours designing that thing and getting it just right. Why it was so much fun I can't answer, but I do know it was very engaging.
I'm glad somebody is saying it. This game is gorgeous and it has everything RDR had. It also has about four, six, maybe EIGHT TIMES what RDR had. In the name of realism, they've run all the fun of the game into the ground (for me, anyway). I love this quote from the article:
Real life sucks. The more you make your game like real life, the more it will suck. Games need to tread a fine line between realism and escapism. Otherwise they're just a second job. This game was not fun for me. It was tedious. I can't mindlessly hunt and collect pelts. I have to concentrate and use several different flawed mechanisms (because hunting is hard irl!). Yeah, no thanks.
I see your point and mainly agree with you, but there is a market out there for sim-level mundane activities. That said, I don't really think it has a place in triple A gaming.
I took a 4+ year break from gaming and came back to a PS4 Pro with RDR2. (Okay a little Mario Odyssey in there.) I was blown away by how far consoles have come and really enjoyed the movie like quality of RDR2's story throughout. I played a grand total of 0 side quests (white question marks, or grey dots) and powered through the main story only. Absolutely fantastic game and I feel a lot of the criticism here doesn't hold up. Is it perfect? No. Is it a fantastic effort by a talented team? Definitely.
I really can't say what's wrong with RDR2 and why it got a lukewarm reception from many people. But I myself admit that I have no interest in playing this game, even though it looks amazing. It's a really perplexing thing.
Unrelated, but I think that the way we consume single player games has changed in recent years. Highly anticipated games get a shitton of hype and discussion during its release, everyone binges the game in a week so they can keep up with the online discussion and memes. Critics give it a high rating and players mostly agree that it is good. Only a few days after the release, some players already complete the game and start posting guides on the best strats/builds/tricks etc.
Eventually people feel burnt out from over exposure, and they lose interest.
I have a personal theory that if games like Shadow of the Colossus, Darksouls and Half Life 2 were released today, their legacy would've been nothing like their current one.
This may not be true at all though, I haven't been playing new games since the early 2010's, so my opinion is only based on what I observed.