The author here would benefit from an editor, there's a lot of words to basically just say the controls can be bad and that results from intentional design decisions, not bugs. It's true, I had...
The author here would benefit from an editor, there's a lot of words to basically just say the controls can be bad and that results from intentional design decisions, not bugs. It's true, I had several goofy moments - once I dropped the controller, which caused Arthur to punch a gate in St Denis, which is apparently a crime so all the cops started shooting at him. There were definitely a couple times I shot people on accident, or fumbled around with the buttons in the heat of the moment. Hell, I was probably 60% through the game before realizing you can save. Why would you nest the save/load menus and require an extra click for the two most common functions?
Overall it was a good game; I played all the way through, but I have zero interest in the multiplayer because it seems like micro transaction pit and haven't fired it up since finishing it.
I like that he goes beyond "the buttons are confusing" and into very in-depth analysis of concrete examples and what decisions might have led to this very expensive game having some of the worst...
I like that he goes beyond "the buttons are confusing" and into very in-depth analysis of concrete examples and what decisions might have led to this very expensive game having some of the worst interaction design of this generation. Maybe he repeats a few points but this is a huge game with huge problems and quite an important position in gaming pop culture, it deserves being dissected like that. I liked, for example, how he explains that splitting tasks into a greater amount of sub-tasks, while more realistic-sounding in a verbal description of what you do, comes off as less immersive since you spend more time in confusing menus and answering button-prompts.
I believe RDR2 is a great example of the limits of "simulation" in games when those simulations can't be captured by actual interaction mechanics. It's a colossal failure. The story is ok (even if it's delivered in a rather hamfisted way), the nature simulation runs at a level of detail that is quite fascinating but in pretty much every way this it is a "game" it's a failure. I just never saw it spelled out in as much detail and it helps me make sense of the game and of the larger gaming trends it exemplifies.
This was more interesting than I expected. The summary of the interaction design issues is really good. This is long though and I was afraid to read on after some point since I still am not...
This was more interesting than I expected. The summary of the interaction design issues is really good.
This is long though and I was afraid to read on after some point since I still am not through with the game and have no interest in spoiling the little fun I have with exploring the story further.
The author here would benefit from an editor, there's a lot of words to basically just say the controls can be bad and that results from intentional design decisions, not bugs. It's true, I had several goofy moments - once I dropped the controller, which caused Arthur to punch a gate in St Denis, which is apparently a crime so all the cops started shooting at him. There were definitely a couple times I shot people on accident, or fumbled around with the buttons in the heat of the moment. Hell, I was probably 60% through the game before realizing you can save. Why would you nest the save/load menus and require an extra click for the two most common functions?
Overall it was a good game; I played all the way through, but I have zero interest in the multiplayer because it seems like micro transaction pit and haven't fired it up since finishing it.
I like that he goes beyond "the buttons are confusing" and into very in-depth analysis of concrete examples and what decisions might have led to this very expensive game having some of the worst interaction design of this generation. Maybe he repeats a few points but this is a huge game with huge problems and quite an important position in gaming pop culture, it deserves being dissected like that. I liked, for example, how he explains that splitting tasks into a greater amount of sub-tasks, while more realistic-sounding in a verbal description of what you do, comes off as less immersive since you spend more time in confusing menus and answering button-prompts.
I believe RDR2 is a great example of the limits of "simulation" in games when those simulations can't be captured by actual interaction mechanics. It's a colossal failure. The story is ok (even if it's delivered in a rather hamfisted way), the nature simulation runs at a level of detail that is quite fascinating but in pretty much every way this it is a "game" it's a failure. I just never saw it spelled out in as much detail and it helps me make sense of the game and of the larger gaming trends it exemplifies.
This was more interesting than I expected. The summary of the interaction design issues is really good.
This is long though and I was afraid to read on after some point since I still am not through with the game and have no interest in spoiling the little fun I have with exploring the story further.