Smile and Nod: I, John Marston

[Russ Pitts]

Smile and Nod: I, John Marston

A profound RPG experience isn't just possible in Red Dead Redemption, it's unavoidable.

Read Full Article

 

[Yvl9921]

This article really made me think. I'd always seen realism as a sin in gaming (after playing and hating GTAIV and comparing it to Crackdown), but now that you mention it RDR really does show that realism not as bad as I made it out to be. A game just needs to either be consistently real (Red Dead) or consistently fake (Disgaea). For me, at least.

 

[Generic_Dave]

I have to wholehearted agree. As a role to play, Marston was one of the first characters that guided my actions, rather that the game guiding my actions. I constantly found myself trying my best to do what that dang cowboy would do.

I found myself grudgingly fighting for the Mexican army, even though I despised them. And I found Liza's story-line heartbreaking and was deeply affected by how it ended. I would say it was the first time I genuinely cared about a character's life. For me, NPCs are normally just targets.

It kind of forces you to play a role in an extremely subversive manner. Even little things like the character fobbing off the hookers because he has a wife at home. The nobility and determination of the character drags you into his role, while very much glossing over the fact that you can only play the pre-defined role. The bars are there, they are just well hidden.

When compared to something like [Prototype] that encouraged you to kill anything that moves, innocent or otherwise (those weapons were NOT designed with an eye to reducing collateral damage) but then tries to paint its character as a noble and torn wronged man.

Of all the games I've play I'd think only Bioshock was as engrossing and immersive an experience.

 

[Jared]

I did love the way they protrayed Marston, and how his character worked. He made me really feel I was in the wildwest. The mannerisms, motions, combat. It put me into the shoes of what it would be like to be in those times, and, I would try to act accordingly (be that an outlaw, or a man of justice ect.)

The way they paced his story is really well done too, it makes you want to press forward, to see his kid, his wife, and the way he lived

 

[KEM10]

I enjoyed the GTA IV tie in, they are narratives that are set in stone and you can only tweak them. The problem with your definition of "Role Playing" (or the industry's) is that because they have a designed beginning and end with certain chapters in between that you must hit, all of the Final Fantasy games are not role playing games.

To be completely honest, the only true role playing game would be The Sims since you can go on your adventure into the world and save the girl while killing the bad guy, or you could paint a picture instead and head off to work tomorrow.



Great article, may have to look again at the RDR prices.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

*Claps* Very well written. I played a noble Marston, one trying to redeem himself. Like you said, I was extremely tempted to piss about and shoot up a town, or rob the nearest store, but I didn't. While helping a man rescue his wife from being hanged I accidentally shot him and felt terrible for it. I did kept with the Ranch missions without pause though, wanting to see what happened, and then afterwards tied the last loose end as Jack by killing that government official. Afterwards I felt like I had nothing to do, sort of how Jack must have felt. I saw Jack as somewhat vengeful after his father was killed: inspired even by how is father tried to redeem himself. Afterwards I felt like I had nothing left to do, bar helping out strangers, which is when I succumbed to shooting random people. At one point I got so frustrated at this one guy beating me at poker that I got up from the table and shot him in the head.

 

[Enigmers]

Red Dead Redemption is a great game for exactly the reasons you described. I prefer it to GTAIV because of how it puts you in a world in such a way that you begin to feel very attached to your surroundings - everything gets very familiar very quickly and you really do care for the various NPCs, or hate them for not understanding your situation. In GTAIV, the amount of freedom you have is too ridiculous to suspend your disbelief; it just doesn't feel as "epic" a game (and I do try to use the word "epic" sparingly).

Red Dead Redemption is by far one of the best games I've ever played.

 

[scnj]

I applauded Red Dead Redemption for being one of the only games I'd ever experienced that actually had a playable denouement. So many other games would have ended with John Marston finishing his mission, but this went one step further and was all the more satisfying for it.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

Now that you mention it, I did feel guided by the character. As John, I stayed on the straight and narrow, trying to atone for my past life, whilst throwing out stories that revealed how much I missed it, really.
As Jack, I felt it was inherently part of the character to be a little angrier, a little bit vengeful - I started breaking the law more often, I cheated at poker (well, I tried), I tied a bandana round my face and went achievement hunting...
It was definitely one of the best games I've ever played, and I'm glad I bought it on a whim when I saw it pre-owned (2 days after it came out)

 

[Yvl9921]

I enjoyed the GTA IV tie in, they are narratives that are set in stone and you can only tweak them. The problem with your definition of "Role Playing" (or the industry's) is that because they have a designed beginning and end with certain chapters in between that you must hit, all of the Final Fantasy games are not role playing games.

To be completely honest, the only true role playing game would be The Sims since you can go on your adventure into the world and save the girl while killing the bad guy, or you could paint a picture instead and head off to work tomorrow.

That's the problem with Russ' definition - he's defining simulators, not RPGs. RPGs have always required stats and stat growth, usually in the form of level ups. It's not a complicated definition, people just get thrown off because they've apparently never heard of Dungeons and Dragons, or haven't connected it to the genre of today.

 

[Captain Pancake]

I played it in a similar way. It was one of the most profound gaming experiences of my life, far more than just "Grand theft horse", as I once naively tweeted to you. It actually did feel like (And temporarily became) my life, I would see entire hours of my life pass by and wouldn't care. The characters had character, the story was gripping, I actually longed more for the atmosphere and the people I would meet more than the gun-fights, which were superbly designed anyway.

I don't think I'll experience anything like it in a long time.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

I completely agree. In many ways it's like Grand Theft Auto, but supremely better in almost every way. The world felt more natural, more real, more genuine. I couldn't really get into the GTAIV world, but I immersed myself in RDR.

The only disappointments I really had with the game were the few things I found I couldn't do at any point, like hold up a train at any time. Sure I could go in and kill the people and take their money, but it's not the same.

RDR also had one of the most emotional moments I've ever experienced in gaming. Descending the mountain after dealing with Dutch, while hearing "Compass" by Jamie Lidell was fantastic. Perfectly captured the emotion of the moment, and since then it caused me to learn to play it on guitar. Singing it is a pain, though, Jamie has such a high voice.

 

[Therumancer]

I jump around games quite a bit, so I haven't finished RDR, but I will point out that I don't see why so many people act like that achievement is a big deal. I think the way most people go about it says more than the achievement itself and it's existance.

To put things into perspective, as many people point out pretty much all the women that you meet outside of towns are honey traps out to rob you, kill you, or both. There is no reason why you need to abduct a nun, a prostitute, or some innocent lady, and then murder her with a train.

Me? I got one of those encounters where the lady yells "help" near a wagon and then you get ambushed (including her going red). I just shot the dues, lassoed her, and engaged in a bit of frontier justice with the train. I mean she did try and kill "me" after all, right? I otherwise would have just shot her. There is no real bounty for turning in these general interlopers either, so it's not like you can put them in jail or whatever.

I suppose you can say it's a bit brutal, but hey, in that encounter she was the ringleader apparently.

You've also got the ladies who try and steal your horse, I've never used one of those, but again horse theft is a death penelty offense.


All told RDR is a good game, not sure if I agree with the role-playing arguements for the most part though. As I've said before what makes an RPG is the use of stats to resolve problems rather than the player's own abillities, and even if not the most difficult game out there, RDR is definatly an action game, that depends on the player's reaction time and abillities. I typically make the point that they very first RPGs had absolutly no plot or anything else, the appeal being mostly to wargamers who took nerd-like joy in having been able to create statistical engines to simulate individual battles rather than larger scale engagements. Adding plots and storylines and such came later, maybe not a lot later, but still down the pipe. Unless RDR goes stat based, it will never be an RPG unless you try and re-define what that is all about, since RPG in thise case does not use the term "role playing" in the sense of an actor playing a role or whatever, but in the terms that it's the abillity of the role/character to resolve events rather than that of the player.

 

[dochmbi]

Well written article, it really made me appreciate RDR even more. I was emotionally touched by the story, and now it seems even more profound.

 

[pneuma08]

I do not agree. For me, there was no temptation to go "off the rails" - yeah, I could shoot a random guy, but why? There is no reason for it, and in fact the game punishes you for it, and you get no benefit. Yeah, I could steal a horse, but I already have a better one that appears on command, and if I wanted a new one I could either go out and get one (which is not much more difficult, and more rewarding), or buy an instantly-reviving one at a store with my copious amounts of cash laying about (which is much easier but less rewarding). Yeah, I could start a fistfight in a bar, but everyone rushes over to fight me then and if I knock someone out they get back up in a matter of seconds. There was no real reason to break the law, no real reason to go hunting, no real reason to play any of the minigames, no real reason to go "off the rails". The game kind of falls apart because of this.

For me, the game simply didn't allow what I wanted to do with it. I couldn't go tell the Mexican Army to screw itself, I couldn't deny the strangers' request even though it is clear that I am being scammed, can't disarm a guy in a duel if he is meant to die - sure, I could ignore them, but then I had already agreed to help, and there's always that little note in my to-do list nagging at me.

No, I can't say that I felt I had played a significant part in John Marston's life.

 

[tlozoot]

Enjoyed the article, and I feel the points you made on GTA4 are explroed further <url=http://designreboot.blogspot.com/2010/03/open-world-design-problems.html>here if anyone would like to read more about it (not an ad for me by the way, I just enjoy this design blog).

Picking up on something an above poster mention, my grievences with the game were how it seemed too authoritive in its sandbox approach. There just wasn't enough incentive to do the majority of what the game offered, and the missions were painfully linear. Go hunting and sell the meat? Why! I already have enough money because I don't actually need to buy anything. Steal a horse? I already have one I can call anywhere.

I felt the game lacked enough cohesive gameplay elements to make it truly excellent, although the narrative was the best I've experienced in a game in a long time.

 

[subtlefuge]

I enjoyed the GTA IV tie in, they are narratives that are set in stone and you can only tweak them. The problem with your definition of "Role Playing" (or the industry's) is that because they have a designed beginning and end with certain chapters in between that you must hit, all of the Final Fantasy games are not role playing games.

To be completely honest, the only true role playing game would be The Sims since you can go on your adventure into the world and save the girl while killing the bad guy, or you could paint a picture instead and head off to work tomorrow.

That's the problem with Russ' definition - he's defining simulators, not RPGs. RPGs have always required stats and stat growth, usually in the form of level ups. It's not a complicated definition, people just get thrown off because they've apparently never heard of Dungeons and Dragons, or haven't connected it to the genre of today.

Your own definition is also only half true. If RPGs required stat growth, then Legend of Zelda would not be considered an RPG. While you may personally believe that, you would have a hard time convincing very many people.

 

[Derelict Frog]

Excellent article. Games like Red Dead Redemption truly show that video games can be just as profound and moving an entertainment medium as any other of the last few millennia.

Spoiler

Was it just me or was one segment near the end where Bonnie bids you a final farewell quite touching (the one where she melancholically watches you ride off with your wife, awkwardly shuffling her feet)?

 

[Burningsok]

I enjoyed the GTA IV tie in, they are narratives that are set in stone and you can only tweak them. The problem with your definition of "Role Playing" (or the industry's) is that because they have a designed beginning and end with certain chapters in between that you must hit, all of the Final Fantasy games are not role playing games.

To be completely honest, the only true role playing game would be The Sims since you can go on your adventure into the world and save the girl while killing the bad guy, or you could paint a picture instead and head off to work tomorrow.

That's the problem with Russ' definition - he's defining simulators, not RPGs. RPGs have always required stats and stat growth, usually in the form of level ups. It's not a complicated definition, people just get thrown off because they've apparently never heard of Dungeons and Dragons, or haven't connected it to the genre of today.

Your own definition is also only half true. If RPGs required stat growth, then Legend of Zelda would not be considered an RPG. While you may personally believe that, you would have a hard time convincing very many people.

An RPG is based on how you play your character. In RDR the protagonis's character has already been laid out for you. John Marston is a middle aged cowboy who was once an outlaw but years later has decided to turn a new leaf and try and redeem himself. All this has been set in stone, and you can't change his destiny. The reason this game can be considered an RPG is because you can decide if John Marston will fulfill his destiny or not. You can go off on your own and be the outlaw that he once was. You have control of what he does. You can be the law abiding citizen, or the lawless bandit. Games like Devil May Cry have a protagonist that not only has the character part set in stone but the actions as well. As Dante you will fight demons and you will fight your brother. In RDR you don't have to do each mission if you don't want to. Your adventures are what you make it. The story having a definite beginning and ending is probably the only thing that makes this a non-RPG game, and the fact that the character you play already has some qualities set in stone.

 

[Squaseghost]

I shed a multitude of manly tears through all of the end sequences of RDR.