First of all, yes, I fully intend to review Red Dead Redemption 2 at some point but seriously, it's Red Dead Redemption 2... it deserves for me to take so time. Or at least for me to do a fully exhaustive playthrough. (Plus the game is only coming up to a year old. Knowing how late I like to do things, it might be more 'on-brand' for me to wait a few years.) However, yesterday I did briefly bring up an element of that game I think is interesting; the Online component. Although I believe it is only starting to reach it's full form, as Grand Theft Auto Online did long ago, I think I've experienced enough to sum up my thoughts on the affair. But before I get there, it would make sense to start at the beginning.
The year is 2013 and September has just rolled around. Rockstar have finally released the long anticipated Grand Theft Auto V after delaying the game by six months, which definitely wasn't because they purposefully announced the game early to build on hype (>wink<). Fans flocked to the game- (Okay, that's not entirely true.) Everyone and their mother flocked to the game, making it a undeniable success in it's launch week. Although it is difficult for me to say how much they made in that first week, (No one has boasted about it strangely.) I can confirm what you likely already know; the first day of sales amounted to 11.21 million copies sold (about $800 million) with that number climbing up to 16 million within three days (breaking the $1 billion mark.) For perspective, that means that GTA V broke six world records (as observed by Guinness) before 2014; Best Selling Action/adventure videogame in 24 Hours, Best selling video game in 24 hours, fastest entertainment property to gross $1 Billion, Highest grossing videogame in 24 hours and Highest revenue generated by an entertainment product in 24 hours. It was a bit of a success then.
Yet, somehow, impossibly, fans were still upset when they got the game. "Why?" I hear you ask, because the online portion; which, for the record, had only been announced and detailed in August of 2013, after the original release date, (But I'm sure the delay wasn't a marketing ploy >wink<) didn't release with the rest of the game. People had to wait an additional 18 days to get their hands on the exciting multiplayer mayhem that the trailer promised. (18 days!? but that's an eternity!) As you can imagine, mass riots broke out across the world as people took to the streets to voice their displeasure; resulting in several broken bones, casualties, and the overthrowing of the Kaznian government. Okay, maybe that last sentence was entirely false, but seeing the reaction of people online, you'd have thought that rioting was just around the corner.
When GTA Online did finally drop, it wasn't exactly what everyone was expecting. Although, to be fair, no one knew what they were expecting. GTA Online was essentially a sandbox environment for people to murder each other perpetually, broken up by a string of fun missions that led into nowhere. There was also a few unimaginative game modes, a horde mode which I played to actual death and a meta that revolved around grinding as much money as humanly possible in order to buy the most mundane things in the game. (I don't even want to think about how much effort I had to put in to buy my garage of classic/super cars.) Thus was born the foundations of the Grand Theft Auto experience for the next six years.
There was one huge omission that did draw considerable ire from the public, however. You see the premise of the main game followed a washed-up forty five year old seeking some excitement in his life by falling back into a world of crime (most importantly bank robbery.) The game focused around 3 huge spectacle robberies (and 1 James bond-esque robbery) and Rockstar promised that there would be even more in the online portion. People would have a greater amount of control over them and it would essentially be the highlight of every online experience to rob a bank. Reality set in, however, when the online mode launched without any heists whatsoever. Although an official reason was never given, I believe that this was a balancing concern. Rockstar had no idea how profitable their new online service would be and didn't want to upset that balance by adding a way for players to pocket truckloads of money off-the-bat.
Yesterday I mentioned how much I enjoyed that model, and I stand by my words. I've always enjoyed the concept of "If you work hard, you'll get there in the end." maybe because I've experienced the exact opposite in real life so I find the concept quaint. That being said, I do understand that this system, and it's success, is the main reason why GTA never saw any substantial DLC or 'mix up' like Red Dead Redemption had with 'Undead Nightmare'. The biggest new asset that I've seen that team cook up in the past 6 years is that giant casino that they plopped in the middle of Los Santos. Which, by the way, actually breaks the lore of the game. (Allow me to get nerdy.)
You see, GTA Online officially takes place before the events of the main game, which is indicated when Lester mentions knowing an operative but immediately scraps the idea by saying that they're too 'unpredictable'. Therefore, the Los Santos skyline shouldn't hold any significant changes to the one from the main game, however, here we are with a brand new Casino. Are you telling me that the entire building disappeared one night, the same way it appeared? What is this, a ghost casino?
Anyway, GTA Online ended up making all the money in the world and grossing something stupid like $6 billion, beating out Endgame and single handedly making gaming the most profitable entertainment medium in the world. It is also the reason why every soulless game's company out there is desperate to make their own hit 'live-service' despite the fact that they all lack the recognition, scope, and talent of Rockstar. (Looking at you; EA, Bethesda and Ubisoft.)
Anticipation swelled when Red Dead Redemption 2 was announced, as people guessed what that game would do to push forward the formula. Rockstar confused everyone, however, by refusing to release even so much as a trailer hinting at such. (despite promising one.) Then they turned around to their parent company, Take-Two, and assured them that Red Dead Online (the name that Rockstar filed their trademark under) wouldn't be a competitor to GTA Online. So what does that mean? Would Red Dead Online not be a live-service? Of course it would be, it would just be seeking a different demographic.
Personally, I see Red Dead Online as GTA Online 2.0. Much of the core concept itself is unchanged, there is a free-roam portion, a mission mode and a whole bunch of online competitive modes (However this game's competitive modes are almost all uniquely imaginative.) Plus, a lot of the game is built around the grind for money, the only significant difference I can see is that the price points have altered. Instead of saving up for millions in order to buy that new supercar, you end up saving just as long for that $600 horse. The biggest overhaul has been the inclusion of a brand new currency in gold.
I struggle to call this a 'premium currency'. As although you can, and are likely expected to, buy this outright; you can still earn this money in game and consistently. This separates this from other premium currencies like those found in Mobile games (that limit how much you can earn to make buying anything fun damn near prohibitive.) and other AAA games. (Like how Fallout 76 drip feeds Atoms through daily activities in order to hook concurrency.) Plus, a lot of the time, gold can be used as a substitute for in-game money, achieving... I'm not sure what, to be honest. (Likely just an incentive to spend real money on gold, honestly.)
The problem comes from the fact that there are some incredibly fun elements of the game that are locked behind gold and cannot be purchased with in-game money. This ranges from particularly cool pieces of equipment to entire portions of the gameplay loop that were added in the 'specialisations' update. Again, you can feasibly make up this Gold by just grinding away at the game, but not everyone is unemployed and talentless, some people out there have lives. I'm not blind to how manipulative this all is, but similarly, I'm not blind to how Rockstar will support this game mode substantially for years to come. It feels like such a betrayal to say that I am fine with this model, but I truly hope you can see my reasoning when I admit that I am. (Although that does not extended to GTA's Casinos. Literally, screw the GTA O team for that.)
One aspect of this game that has certainly improved over GTA Online is the way that they handle progression. Just like in every other live service, you'll find yourself being drip fed things you can buy, like clothing and weapons, as you level up. Standard procedure. But when Rockstar added the 'specialisation' update, an interesting evolution was made to that system. Instead of just earning more clothing, or endless new pistols (GTA Online), you could unlock specialized pieces of gear or skills that could be used in the main game. For example, if you level up your bounty hunter skills, you'll eventually unlock a bolas, which can knock someone off their horse from a distance and tie them up. Keep working your way through to the upper levels and you'll even learn how to duck on your horse, dodging shots from players or NPCs and becoming an invaluable tool for multiplayer matches. It's important to note that neither of these two mechanics were present in the main game and both were realized exclusively for the online.
The free roam has been expanded upon too, learning from the mistakes of GTA Online. In that game, people were upset that missions took place in their own instanced space, meaning that players couldn't run into each other or interfere unless they grouped up in the mission lobby. Red Dead Online fixes this by not just having mission occur in the open world, but actively encouraging near by players to join in. (Usually aggressively.) This can make a standard wagon delivery mission turn into a deadly chase scene, which I may be alone in liking but I enjoy it nonetheless. Maybe I'm just a sucker for dynamic game play scenarios.
The controls and gameplay are fantastic for it's mastery of all things simple, but that is a topic that I think is best left for my review of the main game. (Whenever that will be.) and Rockstar even took the effort to make movement a lot easier, by allowing you to put your horse on 'auto mode'. Yup, if you go into cinematic mode whilst you have a destination on your map, your horse will take you there. Now, if only Rockstar could make sure that doing this didn't net you with the customary "You will be logged out in 13 minutes for inactivity" threat, then I could really enjoy myself by looking at the scenery.
Red Dead Online is a game that is hell bent on taking all of your free time, and that is a little bit a problem considering every modern video game wants the exact same thing. However, with the sheen of quality over every aspect, I don't feel as dirty donating my considerable free time to the West as much as do whenever I play Fallout 76 or... well, mostly just Fallout 76. I haven't even gone into the real deep end yet; like, did you know that RDO has a Battle pass? But I am enjoying what I have played on a surface level so far. I really do hope, however, that whatever success Red Dead Online garners does not end up putting a dampener on the chances for real Red Dead DLC, as I think the single player is ripe for some extended content. Now, if you don't mind, I have to collect some bounties.
No comments:
Post a Comment