First things first, it's important to note that Red Dead is a spectacular game. Which is to say, it's certainly a spectacle, but the underlying gameplay is while varied, quite awkward. Ostensibly concerned with authenticity, it struggles to move beyond the tired old mechanics of Grand Theft Auto, and this ties up the game in messy elements that prevent it from truly shining as an experience. The world Rockstar have created here is beautiful, it feels real and it teems with life, solving the common sandbox problem of soullessness. Your actions have purpose, filling bars, acquiring items, gaining levels, and the locations you roam through change the opportunities that arise. It feels more like an environment and less like a map than any sandbox game preceding it.
Unfortunately this feeling doesn't spread to the game's other facets, with an intrusive HUD detracting from the lush setting and some bizarre and robotic physics and animation forming the framework. The reliance on a minimap isn't too much of a problem, I wouldn't have minded the real world skill required in occasionally pausing to refer to the proper map, but I can see it is useful. The constant clutter of button prompts and status updates I could have done without though, they definitely took away from what I wanted of the game, a realistic world to explore and inhabit. Majorly more detrimental to this is the fundamental style of play, a woeful cover system combining with a ridiculous lock on system which couldn't steal more gameplay from you without actually pulling the trigger itself. It can safely be considered from this perspective given how useless the free aiming is, the reticule is so invisible you're awarded a trophy just for getting a headshot using it. Red Dead's combat is made frustrating by it's button press intensive nature, unreliably switching in and out of cover (a problem exacerbated if, like me, you try to loot as many defeated enemies as possible) and requiring something in the region of seventy presses to run to cover and kill someone. The configuration in general could have been more economic, especially given Rockstar's experience with Euphoria physics, the game could have easily adapted to your playstyle, sprinting by holding the button, or, (gasp) on it's own (after all, who in the world just moseys through a gunfight?)None of this is to say that Red Dead is a bad game, it's just... Hmn. Okay well the main missions are a bad game. The meat of the game is in it's ambient challenges, consistent, powerful mood and living, exciting world. These more than make up for the poor shooting gameplay. I only wish they'd gone the whole distance with that absorbing world, they'd introduced sleep, hunger and thirst dynamics that changed the way you play, making your aim poorer or reducing your health and stamina, making the land less something you play in, and more something you inhabit. Imagine riding through the mountains, periodically needing to find a safe place to camp out where you can light a fire and rest, eating to get your energy back and riding out again. Perhaps you run out of food in your saddlebags and game to hunt, and your vision occasionally blurs as you ride, tired and ragged into Armadillo, for a welcome bed and drink at the saloon. That'd be a fantastic game no matter how terrible the shooting was.
Gameplay: 6/10
Varied and functional, but far from ideal.
Art and Narrative: 9/10
A better realised story and world than any western film I've ever seen.
No comments:
Post a Comment