Hmm... I don’t know what you expected here. Also, did you finish the story or just stop playing? If it’s the latter, then you’re hardly qualified to comment on the story outside of something akin to “it didn’t grab my attention quick enough”. You rate animation as a positive but then complain about being forced to watch them instead of interrupting them. I only just started playing two days ago, but I have to say I disagree that it is bad for the genre or that the developer doesn’t value the gamer’ time. I simply think you want it to be something other than it is. They intended for the player to immerse themselves in the world and all the insane details show they definitely value the time the gamer is willing to do just that. Surely having such a detailed and vibrant old west world is good for the genre and draws necessary attention. Do you know anyone else doing anything close? All that said, it is their prerogative to tell their story how they see fit and not feel apologetic about doing so. I believe it is why the story missions operate so differently than just free roaming the world; they want to tell a specific story but also give players a chance to operate freely as well. Honestly, there are too many games with weak stories because they give the player too much control instead of following a directed narrative. RDR2 seems a good compromise of options to me.
I can see your point on its intensity so far, but it may just be a design choice on their part we’ll have to live with. I think they are more concerned with players experiencing the world and story.
All that said, you should know better and be ashamed to call this a point and click adventure.
Your review 3.5/10.
Your stance is made clear, but there is an apparent lack of effort on your part to fully exhaust the game’s content. I had to deduct for the ridiculous “point/click” assertion and you ultimately missing the point of the game. Applaud your efforts though.
I listened to a Ken Levine interview once where he was asked how he consumes games. He said he plays a lot, but only one or two levels after the tutorial to get the gist of the game. For the most part, games don't radically change as you progress. Developers have a hard enough time finding one gameplay loop that works.
I played one third of Red Dead Redemption 2. I highly doubt my opinions will change much if I play the next 40 hours.
We'll agree to disagree on our definition of "valuing the players time". I think it's like a buffet. The kitchen prepares a bunch of items they're proud of, and we the player should be able to pick and choose what we want to spend time with. Rockstar straps it's patrons to a chair, shoves tubing down our throat, and pulls the lever on the mash potato machine while telling us how good their potatoes are.
Call me crazy but being forced to watch Arther bathe for the 20th time isn't as appealing as it was the first time.
I think you're wrong about player control stomping on narrative too. Here's what RDR2's narrative loop looks like.
You run to a yellow icon on the map, which cues a cutscene. You then follow an NPC to another yellow icon on the map (listening to them talk along the way) where you will watch another cutscene. You then partake in the missions action sequence, and when you kill that missions primary antagonist, the next cutscene starts with you walking up to the dead guy on the ground.
This is the exact same structure as a game like MGSV. Only that games "action sequence" gives you more time, and more options to get you to the missions primary antagonist.
I can't see how giving players more options to tackle missions would harm the narrative in any way, as long as each mission ended with a dead bad guy on the ground.
I called this game a point and click adventure because it doesn't feel very interested in being a game. It wants to be a movie. The player isn't the star of the show here. Rockstar is. Not only are those not my type of game, but I don't think that's where the strength of the medium lies.
TLDR: RDR2 isn't for real gamers. It's for babies who want to be coddled.
