author image

Red Dead Redemption II – Rockstar under fair

A reader is please Rockstars game didnt win the biggest prize at The Game Awards and explains exactly what he thinks it gets wrong.

Id written this feature already, about the reasons why I think Red Dead Redemption II has been overrated, but once I saw that it failed to win The Game Awards Game of the Year prize I quickly changed the title to show how much I agree with the decision. Especially once I saw Rockstar fans complaining about the loss and immediately inventing conspiracy theories to explain it all.

Red Dead Redemption II is not a bad game by any means, I might even go so far as to call it a good game but I dont think it is anywhere close to being game of the year (even given this year hasnt been that great) and certainly not the ridiculous game of the generation label that some have tried to attach to it.

Advertisement

Advertisement

For me it fails in three key areas and Id like to address each one in turn:

1. Gameplay

This is the key one for me, such that even if there wasnt a single other flaw the game would still be severely compromised not matter what else it got right. Red Dead is just not particularly fun to play. The game as a whole is fun to experience but the horse-riding and particularly the combat is well below the standards of even a fairly low budget third person game.

The sad thing is its actually pretty good by Rockstar standards, but for some reason the industrys most successful developer seems to have little interest in gameplay mechanics and has never sought to better itself. The controls are fiddly and awkward and thats even when youve got auto aim on, as it gets considerably worse without it.

Hand-to-hand fighting is even worse, with hardly any moves and strangely awkward animation that suddenly turns the game into a sub-par wrestling sim, with no sense of weight or impact. Even using a bow isnt that satisfying and thats usually the best bit in any historical game.

There is nothing interactive in the game which is either well made or intrinsically entertaining and that for me is a huge problem. Especially when more competent third person shooters are a dime a dozen.

2. Pacing

In terms of storytelling Red Dead Redemption II is clearly its own biggest fan. I think exploring the wilderness seems so much more entertaining simply because its the only place you can get some peace and quiet to yourself. Otherwise youre listening to computer characters jabbering on and on, sometimes taking up the majority of a story mission just with talking.

Advertisement

Advertisement

GC posed the question in their review of whether the game had so talking because there was a lot of horse-riding or whether it had a lot of horse-riding because Rockstar wanted an excuse for lots of talking. You got a bit of this in GTA, where it sometimes seemed like you were controlling the Knight Rider car as it jabbered away to itself, but in Red Dead Redemption II the amount of pointless conversations are never-ending.

And they are largely pointless because they fail to fill in key details about the characters. Why is Arthur so loyal to the gang and what is he getting out of hanging around them? You can see in the game that whenever you go off and do your own thing youre much more successful so what, in the games world, is the logic thats supposed to be keeping him back? That much loyalty requires explanation but its based on things were told about but never really see, which makes it all seem just like a contrivance.

But the biggest problem is how long the game takes to get to its point. Red Dead Redemption II is just too long and even when it seems to be building to a conclusion it still takes ages to get there and you have dozens more story missions – mostly involving riding along and talking to people – to complete. Even the epilogue goes on for far too long, and far past my point of caring.

Advertisement

3. Innovation

The odd thing about Red Dead Redemption II is that despite the amazing graphics and huge budget its actually a very old-fashioned kind of game. You can tell the design was nailed down years ago and it just took this long to make, as compared to Zelda: Breath Of The Wild or The Witcher 3 its world seems very static and nailed down. The lack of real interaction with people – you can talk to them but rarely get much choice in what you say – is also very disappointing and makes the endless dialogue even harder to put up with.

Not that it has to be similar to any other game to be considered good but theres nothing in Red Dead Redemption II that is new or original. It looks better than other games but its still doing the same things as other open world games from five or so years ago. Take away the presentation and the prestige of who made it and Red Dead Redemption II would be viewed as a very average game.

The graphics and atmosphere elevate it to something more but they certainly dont make it game of the year material, and Im glad that God Of War – which really does transform its franchise into something completely different, both in terms of gameplay and narrative – was recognised as being the better game.

By reader Rocquet

The readers feature does not necessarily represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.

You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. As always, email [email protected] and follow us on Twitter.

Advertisement

Advertisement