I have so many problems with Red Dead Redemption II, the incredibly detailed, wonderfully realised, lavishly polished sequel to the open-world sandbox, Red Dead Redemption, 2010. That being said, I’m coming at this whole thing from a rather unique perspective, that being: this is my first ‘next generation’ game, having missed out on pretty much everything preceding this landmark development in semi-interactive storytelling.
Ya see, I’ve been working as an ESL teacher in Guangzhou, China since August, 2017. Previously, I was working in retail, trying to save enough to actually make this transition, getting by on sporadic re-explorations of ‘classic’ games from my childhood, or occasionally indulging in smaller, independent releases, providing they would run on my computer, and were on sale. As such, I haven’t played anything from the past few years, or anything released exclusively on next-generation consoles, including Horizon: Zero Dawn, God of War, Mass Effect: Andromeda or Bloodborne, the latter of which was particularly disappointing.
I’m approaching Red Dead Redemption II from said perspective, from the perspective of someone fully expecting to be blown away, who’s been living off Psychonauts, Stardew Valley and Fallout: New Vegas for the past few years. Ultimately, the game succeeded in many ways, in regards to the remarkable visuals, the writing, the somewhat indulgent animations, the attention to detail, the characters - there’s a real home-cooked, handmade feel to the game, as though everything’s been placed with complete precision and care. I was, without a doubt, effectively blown away - also, by how remarkably restrictive it all is.
On multiple occasions... actually, constantly - the game was tearing away control, instructing me on where to take cover, when to crouch, how to approach each given situation so as not to interrupt the writers’ vision for each particular sequence. This is most noticeable during the home invasion sidemissions - which should have been open-ended, and randomised to encourage creativity, but were actually controlled scenes, tightly scripted. In one instance, my partner was accosted by two outlaws in a farmhouse, yet the game wouldn’t allow me access to my weapons, effectively getting the jump on the situation. Instead, I had to wait for them to open fire, long after I had already made the decision to actively interject.
In this respect, it’s a semi-interactive sandbox, which contradicts its own nature, encouraging you to ‘make your own fun’ while insisting you approach everything undynamically. It’s essentially the antithesis to Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain - which was equally preoccupied with grand narratives, yet reframed from interfering with the player’s enjoyment of the core gameplay. I suppose, that’s the trouble: Red Dead Redemption II’s core gameplay is awkward and unsatisfying, so they’re constantly trying to hide the action behind these exuberant, automated set pieces.
Besides that, there’s other problems, too. Travelling from place to place is slow, for instance - so much so, the game gives you the option of automating the process entirely. Likewise, the majority of missions - especially in the second half - involve travelling to the far side of the map, watching a cutscene of two characters having a conversation, following them on horseback to another nearby location, while continuing said conversation, and inevitably shooting a bunch of people. Then, the game dumps you somewhere in the middle of nowhere, usually just a few minutes before lawmen show up - and, if you want to continue to the next mission, you have to travel all the way back.
Undoubtedly, the game’s obsessed with realism, which is why everything’s so slow, every action so methodical. But, that’s not really the case because, besides the actual gameplay, the story and characters - while lovingly crafted - aren’t consistent, which contradicts this realist portrayal. Dutch is the exception, of course - a poetic, rambling hypocrite with dangerous delusions, slowly making more and more compromises to his own moral philosophy - but, Arthur Morgan is completely bipolar. He’s whatever the script needs him to be, a man who says without remorse, ‘you act like killing is something I care about’ yet is constantly volunteering for charitable services with minimal reward.
There’s a massive ‘dissonance’ issue here, which is a word massively overused in gaming, admittedly. However, Arthur’s motivations aren’t merely unreflective of his actions, but rather, his actions aren’t reflective of anything. He’s the product of a hundred writers, as bipolar as you’d expect him to be with so many different voices in his head. I mean, there’s one mission in which the player is expected to return a stolen wagon to a wayward doctor - only no incentive is offered. Eventually, you’re given a book for your trouble... which naturally, your entirely satisfied with, for some reason. In another sequence, the protagonist accidentally murders an innocent man right in front of his wife, for owing him money.
Ultimately, Red Dead Redemption II was admirable in scope and design, but frustrating. It’s trying to be realistic, but the characters are inconsistent, which is a fundamental aspect of storytelling. Naturally, I was enamoured by the visuals - but repelled by the restrictive, uncreative gameplay, which was more concerned with hiding technical shortcomings than allowing me to approach things intuitively.
5/10.
