Gaming and Writing Gab -- Red Dead Redemption
I picked up Red Dead Redemption a few days ago upon the recommendation of a few friends. Although our tastes vary in different ways, both pointed out nuances that they knew would be essential for me, so I figured I'd give it a shot.
And they're right -- this is a good game. I just don't think it's my kind of game.
Lemme 'splain.
From a straight mechanical point, the game is excellent. The graphics and animation are stunning. Game play is well handled, save for a few nitpicks. I could complain about how the game uses a red line for path navigation in the minimap, and that these red-green colorblind eyes get me lost on occasion, but it's not a game killer. Movement controls are ipswitched depending on whether you're on foot or mounted. On foot, you just point the stick in the direction you want to move, but on horseback, forward is move and left and right are strictly turning. Also, the weapon selection screen needs a pause given how unintuitive it works.
But those are all quibbles. I can get used to those things, which means that the control/mechanics aren't really an issue. If you want to see a game with shitty controls, look no further than Robotech: Battlecry, an early X-Box title that featured three different and counter-intuitive control sets for each of the three modes your mecha could take. Add to that crappy documentation, sluggish response, and a tutorial that couldn't tell you which button to press to do whatever, and you've got a terrible game.
Let me repeat: That's not the case with Red Dead Redemption. Any issues I have with the controls are merely me hitting the learning curve after four playthroughs of Mass Effect 2. For the record, that's the only reference I'll make to that game in this entry.
The writing is also strong -- mostly. The dialogue is excellent, probably ranking among the best I've seen in a game. James Marston is a smart, sharply spoken outlaw with a gentleman rogue touch. It reminds me of James Garner as "Maverick" but more gritty than smooth. That alone endears me to the game.
Then there's the plot. For some reason, Marston has to go back to the wild frontier to kill the head honchos of his former gang. Apparently federal agents need the job done and hold Marston'sfamily hostage so he can do the deed. Here's the problem -- I got the second part of that from the back of the box, not the game itself.
It's a simple violation of POV. If I'm supposed to be playing the role of Marston, I need to be in his head. As a writer, if I want the reader to be deep into that POV, I can't hide the character's thoughts from the reader. That means the reader needs to know what's at stake, as Marston already knows it. The only way to get around this is to go with an unreliable narrator and Marston is NOT that. Thus, like with Isaac Clarke in Dead Space the game is hiding something or lying to the player.
But unless the game tries to reveal the hostage family as a shocking twist, that doesn't make it a bad game.
I don't find fault in the plot, either. It suits the genre of westerns, as does the setting elements. I rather like the fact that it's set in 1911, well past the Civil War and only a few years before the First World War. It's an interesting era, marking the end of the cowboy and the Wild West.
So why has my motivation for playing this game has fallen to "Well, I paid $60 for it"?
I think the problem is I don't hear a clock ticking. Marston isn't given a time limit to get the job done, and that sucks some of the urgency and tension out of the game. Not having a deadline is a modern element to sandbox games -- this I realize -- but it doesn't work for me. When I have a definite set of plot points to visit, I tend to prioritize those to further the story, which makes exploration a low priority
This might have worked if I didn't have a little dot on the map that said, "there's plot here," which would encourage me to explore and meander about the countryside. At the same time, I noticed that the passage of time is marked -- I had to spend two days in jail for accidentally shooting an officer of the law. If there's no deadline, then why does the passage of time matter?
Sandbox style gaming is not new -- what is new is the current level of sophistication provided by more powerful technology. A number of computer RPGs back in the day had sandbox elements to them -- Wasteland is one that comes to mind, along with various iterations of The Bard's Tale and Ultima series. Ultima VII was among one of the more memorable and groundbreaking titles in this vein. You had a large world to explore, no specific "go here" mandate and the ability to approach things as you saw fit -- within the limits of game mechanics.
But the big difference between these games and Red Dead Redemption is that the former always had some sense of purpose presented in-game. The first cut-scene that opens Red Dead is with Marston getting on a train out west and listening in on a bunch of filler conversation. We aren't given the reason why he's out there and we don't know what's at stake. As a result, I have a hard time connecting with Marston or the game at large.
Without that connection or motivation, I have a hard time wanting to keep playing.
That's why I say Red Dead Redemption is a good game, but I don't think it's my kind of game.
And they're right -- this is a good game. I just don't think it's my kind of game.
Lemme 'splain.
From a straight mechanical point, the game is excellent. The graphics and animation are stunning. Game play is well handled, save for a few nitpicks. I could complain about how the game uses a red line for path navigation in the minimap, and that these red-green colorblind eyes get me lost on occasion, but it's not a game killer. Movement controls are ipswitched depending on whether you're on foot or mounted. On foot, you just point the stick in the direction you want to move, but on horseback, forward is move and left and right are strictly turning. Also, the weapon selection screen needs a pause given how unintuitive it works.
But those are all quibbles. I can get used to those things, which means that the control/mechanics aren't really an issue. If you want to see a game with shitty controls, look no further than Robotech: Battlecry, an early X-Box title that featured three different and counter-intuitive control sets for each of the three modes your mecha could take. Add to that crappy documentation, sluggish response, and a tutorial that couldn't tell you which button to press to do whatever, and you've got a terrible game.
Let me repeat: That's not the case with Red Dead Redemption. Any issues I have with the controls are merely me hitting the learning curve after four playthroughs of Mass Effect 2. For the record, that's the only reference I'll make to that game in this entry.
The writing is also strong -- mostly. The dialogue is excellent, probably ranking among the best I've seen in a game. James Marston is a smart, sharply spoken outlaw with a gentleman rogue touch. It reminds me of James Garner as "Maverick" but more gritty than smooth. That alone endears me to the game.
Then there's the plot. For some reason, Marston has to go back to the wild frontier to kill the head honchos of his former gang. Apparently federal agents need the job done and hold Marston'sfamily hostage so he can do the deed. Here's the problem -- I got the second part of that from the back of the box, not the game itself.
It's a simple violation of POV. If I'm supposed to be playing the role of Marston, I need to be in his head. As a writer, if I want the reader to be deep into that POV, I can't hide the character's thoughts from the reader. That means the reader needs to know what's at stake, as Marston already knows it. The only way to get around this is to go with an unreliable narrator and Marston is NOT that. Thus, like with Isaac Clarke in Dead Space the game is hiding something or lying to the player.
But unless the game tries to reveal the hostage family as a shocking twist, that doesn't make it a bad game.
I don't find fault in the plot, either. It suits the genre of westerns, as does the setting elements. I rather like the fact that it's set in 1911, well past the Civil War and only a few years before the First World War. It's an interesting era, marking the end of the cowboy and the Wild West.
So why has my motivation for playing this game has fallen to "Well, I paid $60 for it"?
I think the problem is I don't hear a clock ticking. Marston isn't given a time limit to get the job done, and that sucks some of the urgency and tension out of the game. Not having a deadline is a modern element to sandbox games -- this I realize -- but it doesn't work for me. When I have a definite set of plot points to visit, I tend to prioritize those to further the story, which makes exploration a low priority
This might have worked if I didn't have a little dot on the map that said, "there's plot here," which would encourage me to explore and meander about the countryside. At the same time, I noticed that the passage of time is marked -- I had to spend two days in jail for accidentally shooting an officer of the law. If there's no deadline, then why does the passage of time matter?
Sandbox style gaming is not new -- what is new is the current level of sophistication provided by more powerful technology. A number of computer RPGs back in the day had sandbox elements to them -- Wasteland is one that comes to mind, along with various iterations of The Bard's Tale and Ultima series. Ultima VII was among one of the more memorable and groundbreaking titles in this vein. You had a large world to explore, no specific "go here" mandate and the ability to approach things as you saw fit -- within the limits of game mechanics.
But the big difference between these games and Red Dead Redemption is that the former always had some sense of purpose presented in-game. The first cut-scene that opens Red Dead is with Marston getting on a train out west and listening in on a bunch of filler conversation. We aren't given the reason why he's out there and we don't know what's at stake. As a result, I have a hard time connecting with Marston or the game at large.
Without that connection or motivation, I have a hard time wanting to keep playing.
That's why I say Red Dead Redemption is a good game, but I don't think it's my kind of game.