The New 'Red Dead Redemption' Reveals the Biggest Problem With Marquee Games Today: They're Boring as Hell. (theoutline.com)

An anonymous reader shares a column: Everything about "Red Dead Redemption 2" is big. The latest open-world western, released in October by Rockstar Games, constantly reminds you of this. It takes roughly 15 minutes for its bland everycowboy star, Arthur Morgan, to gallop across the 29-square-mile map. It has 200 species of animals, including grizzly bears, alligators, and a surprising number of birds. It takes about 45.5 hours to play through the main quest, and 150-plus hours to reach 100 percent completion. There are more than 50 weapons to choose from, such as a double-barreled shotgun and a rusty hatchet. It's big, big, big.

[...] On top of all the bigness, "Red Dead Redemption 2" is also incredibly dull. I've been playing it off and on since it was released, and I'm still waiting for it to get fun. I'm not alone in thinking so -- Mark Brown of Game Maker's Toolkit called it "quite boring" and Mashable said it's a "monumental disappointment." There are a glut of Reddit posts from people complaining about how slow the game feels, usually with a tone of extreme self-consciousness. Unless you're a real a**hole, it's not exactly fun to stray from popular consensus. Perhaps the general hesitancy to criticize the game is due to the fact that it's not technically bad. Its graphics and scale really are impressive. It is designed to please.

And yet "RDR2" seems to exemplify a certain kind of hollowness that's now standard among Triple-A titles. It's very big, with only tedium inside. Call it a Real World Game. The main problem with "RDR2" is that it's comprised almost entirely of tedious, mandatory chores. It always feels like it's stalling for time, trying to juke the number of hours it takes to complete it.

Comments

Re:15 minutes to ride across the map?

[DontBeAMoran]

It's a western-based game that has a western-based environment and western-based tasks to accomplish.

Maybe the author doesn't like westerns.

Alternatively, it's just not the game for you

[jeff4747]

If you think riding across the map is boring, don't do it. Use fast travel, or use it as an indicator it's not a game you find enjoyable.

We don't say there's a terrible problem in books today when someone who likes mysteries does not find an autobiography interesting.

An open-world RPG is going to have certain game elements, no matter what the setting. Like repetitive "chores", and a slow pace. If you don't like those elements in your video game, don't play an open-world RPG.

It's not like RDR1 was a frantic experience, so you should know this going in to RDR2.

Re:15 minutes to ride across the map?

[JD-1027]

This game is definitely of a slower pace. Maybe it's because I'm getting older, but I've enjoyed that pace just fine.

Besides fast travel, you also have "Cinematic Travel"... it is basically auto-steer... set a waypoint, and you can set the controller down and enjoy the (very well done) scenery as it takes you to your destination. I've not seen that in a game before, but I don't play a ton of games, so it has probably been done before.

Re:Every review of Red Dead I saw

[fazig]

But how long did the average player have to practice the game before they could beat it without virtual deaths? I'd wager that most players of these old games have never reached the ending on their own before saving features were introduced.
I would say that this practice made the games still repetitive. So that's not a good argument here.


Disclaimer: Now I'm talking about myself here in a more subjective manner. Your mileage may differ.
I used to play games. I'd still do if most of them weren't just so terrible. What do I mean by terrible?
When I was first confronted with video games, this new form of media thrived on innovation. Practically all games had their unique angles that required the player to either learn new motor skills or new ways of thinking to solve the problems the game posed. You had to learn to master these new skills in order to beat the game, which then was a reward on its own.
Today however, most of the games have to play pretty much exactly the same, because apparently you can't ask from your consumers to learn and train a new skill, which can lead to frustrating experiences if it doesn't work right away. Therefore pretty much every big first person shooter has to play exactly like Call of Duty or Battlefield. Every 3rd person shooter has to play like Uncharted. Every 3rd person action RPG has to play like Dark Souls. And so forth. Then there's also this competitive-multiplayer craze, which I won't touch here because it'll take too long.
From my perspective the few things that make these games different are their graphics and the stories they try to tell. The one thing that distinguishes games from other forms of media -- interactivity -- appears to become less and less important.
So I came to the realization that I do not need to spend $60 every time a big studio craps out one of these games, just in order to get essentially the same experience that I can get on platforms like youtube or twitch (played by a trusted streamer) for almost no additional costs. There's no more need for an expensive gaming computer or maybe a console as I can watch these things on my phone, while I'm on the go. If I want good stories there are even simpler ways like picking up plain simple book or even audio book if I'm lazy.

Now and then I still pick up some simulation games like ArmA or DCS. The odd low budget indy game can be interesting to me. But all in all I've shifted my focus on other, factually healthier activities for my spare time.
Maybe I'm just getting old and bitter.