In reality, they are just too bogged down in traversal issues and minor design flaws that roll up in to a pretty frustrating experience over time. All the popular trappings: no in-mission save system, TONS of time spent getting from point A to point B, cut scenes that are inconsistent with the player's previous in-game choices, etc. I finally wised-up after plopping down 40 bucks for Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars for the DS and turning it off, forever, after about 3 hours of play time. I got hit by a lot of bricks, but now I don't even consider stepping back in to that world.
Now, after putting in about 30 hours in Rock Star's Red Dead Redemption, I think I've come to realize that it's not so much the genre as the world it creates. Red Dead is definitely a second cousin to Grand Theft Auto, no doubt. But a turn-of-the-century western setting feels much more appropriate for an open-world game than a modern-day urban environment. The vast open spaces with pockets of civilization are more in-line with what the technology is capable of delivering.
For as much as I loved Oblivion (until I realized the monsters level up along with you) and Fallout 3, I couldn't get over the lack of life. I get that Fallout 3 takes place post-apocalypse, but, come on, who built Megaton? Certainly not the 6 derelicts that live there. How does the doctor make a living treating the same handful of people?
I won't do an IGN-style review of Red Dead, but I will say it is certainly worth spending some time with, especially if you're interested in Rock Star's other properties. It still suffers from some of the annoying design flaws that plague the GTA games (really? a 10 second animation every time I find loot?), but the diegesis provides a much better foundation for a game and encourages me to overlook this kind of stuff.
More on Red Dead when I finish it.
No comments:
Post a Comment