Red Dead Redemption
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The mistake here is to equate meaningful with fun. Metal Gear proved that commando crawling up to snakes and a gurgling tummy were not the true path to gameplay fulfilment.
Making foraging a secondary gameplay mechanic and tying it to filling your Dead Eye works for me. You can play the game without Dead Eye it but if you go the extra yard to eat you are rewarded with Dead Eye.
Making foraging a secondary gameplay mechanic and tying it to filling your Dead Eye works for me. You can play the game without Dead Eye it but if you go the extra yard to eat you are rewarded with Dead Eye.
Now Horse Seduction would make an excellent game. It would also make for some funny deaths when a malnourished John Marston mistakes a hungry mountain lion for his trusty steed while on the verge of heat stroke
I haven't played this game, and it is likely that I never will. But the last comment just made laugh like an idiot. I was flying so high with the roflcopter that the Homeland security had to send jets to get me back to base.
I absolutely do NOT want a "survival" meters/mechanic implemented, that is a terrible idea.
Fine, it's more realistic, but I don't always want realism. Having to constantly tidy up my character is like having a dog, or more accurately, the Sims. You have to feed them, make them sleep, do all this micromanagement bullshit that has no place in the game and kills the fun. I could see someone halfway done with a quest or just wanting to roam about, and instead of being able to fully enjoy the experience, they have to break flow and nanny their character every five minutes to make sure they're not gonna drop dead. This is why at the very end of Dead Rising, the free roam mode sucked, because your health was ALWAYS depleting. And people just wanted to kill zombies, they didn't care about the "realism of the physical toll battle and mental stress would have on the character", WE JUST WANNA KILL ZOMBIES.
Some things are done to make the game unrealistic so they can serve the greater purpose of making a more engrossing game.
This is why health bars are gone, designers didn't want the players to be so focused on their health, rather, focus on the fun of shooting. And yes, there can be fun found when you have only 5hp and it's you against the world and the nearest medkit is across the battlements, but that applies to a too narrow range of gamers. Also, and more often that not, it can produce frustration leading to rage quits.
I get what Yahtzee is trying to say, but it wouldn't work. Maybe in a survival horror game, but not RDR.
**On an incredibly nitpick note,
Fine, it's more realistic, but I don't always want realism. Having to constantly tidy up my character is like having a dog, or more accurately, the Sims. You have to feed them, make them sleep, do all this micromanagement bullshit that has no place in the game and kills the fun. I could see someone halfway done with a quest or just wanting to roam about, and instead of being able to fully enjoy the experience, they have to break flow and nanny their character every five minutes to make sure they're not gonna drop dead. This is why at the very end of Dead Rising, the free roam mode sucked, because your health was ALWAYS depleting. And people just wanted to kill zombies, they didn't care about the "realism of the physical toll battle and mental stress would have on the character", WE JUST WANNA KILL ZOMBIES.
Some things are done to make the game unrealistic so they can serve the greater purpose of making a more engrossing game.
This is why health bars are gone, designers didn't want the players to be so focused on their health, rather, focus on the fun of shooting. And yes, there can be fun found when you have only 5hp and it's you against the world and the nearest medkit is across the battlements, but that applies to a too narrow range of gamers. Also, and more often that not, it can produce frustration leading to rage quits.
I get what Yahtzee is trying to say, but it wouldn't work. Maybe in a survival horror game, but not RDR.
**On an incredibly nitpick note,
And that's why doing it would give you bad karma (so to speak), because you're doing something unnecessary (as well as breaking the law). Know what I do? I steal horses, kill them, skin, then sell them to the nearest town. I get bad karma because there was absolutely no need to kill the man or his steed when I could be picking flowers, killing outlaws, or doing quests instead.
That actually happens, like, kinda often. But it is satisfying to call your horse back and have the thief either on it or jump off (which makes sense, horse recall really only is unrealistic when it comes from across the other side of the damn map), then hunting them down and slaughtering them like the dog they are before looting their body.
"Ooh ooh ooh, another great idea: some kind of "sexual frustration" meter, inviting you to make use of the prostitutes that already exist in the game. And if you're far from civilization, you could always seduce your horse, but you'd better hope the society papers aren't watching."
I was half expecting something like this at some point. >__>
I was half expecting something like this at some point. >__>
His argument back to that point would be that you could just go back to town if you forgot something in this game.ModusPwnens said:
Of course blatantly omitting the fact that every mission you are provided any materials that are necessary to finish the mission. They are in a chest before you leave your base of operations in the mission zone.
But just forget that particular review, there was a vendetta going on that time methinks
.I am interested to play RDR, then again this review just makes me want to play oblivion again.
If he was talking about a weapon you'd be fucked, because not having a weapon and getting mauled by a cougar ends you (or being robbed).rapchee said:
If he was talking about any secondary items, they already existed in a box gift wrapped for you the moment the mission started.
You could only go back in RDR if you remembered before it became a vital issue, which is no different in MHT
.
Definitely would work, but only as a seperate game mode.
Then everybody's happy. Except the gimps who have to program/test it.
Then everybody's happy. Except the gimps who have to program/test it.
Though I haven't played RDR, I was under the impression that it was supposed to be like a spaghetti western video game. None of the survival meter shit would have made sense if you're trying to go for the feel of a Sergio Leone inspired epic. But then maybe we shouldn't make games that are achieving the same feel as such movies, as it would be impossible to do given the masterpieces that inspired the tone of such a game.
Also, as somebody else said: John Marston with a hooker? No thanks. That's not his style... he loves his wife and his family. That's the point of the game. Don't spray ridiculous ideas for the sake of it. It sounds like you don't understand the story if you say this.
A brilliant idea, one which would enrich most of these types of games.
If you are going into a wilderness, why not throw in a survival mechanism? Yahtzee already answered this - the casual gamer aspect gets thrown out. Bogun Bob doesn't want to come home from a hard day of dole-bludging to try to figure out whether he has enough food in his knapsack to survive a trip out into the mountains, or need to clean or repair his weapons - he just wants to kill things and get the base thrill out of the experience.
Imagine a game like Fallout, a wide open area with many spots of interest dotted amongst the landscape. Add in the gun mechanisms from Far Cry 2 (guns used more often begin to jam, and overuse causes a cataclysmic failure), the survival techniques from Snake Eater (hunt for food and medicine). Certain guns would be easier to clean but would probably be less powerful, and you would need to learn how to clean and fix them in order to get maximum efficiency. You eat what you kill, and use flora to heal wounds or boost yourself.
Some games (like Fallout and Oblivion) have mods which add these in. I think with some professional work, a game developer could definately work something like this into a top-rate game. They just need to stop thinking of gaming for 'quick fix' users and more indepth players, for people who want to enjoy the universe they are visiting, not just killing faceless sprites.
If you are going into a wilderness, why not throw in a survival mechanism? Yahtzee already answered this - the casual gamer aspect gets thrown out. Bogun Bob doesn't want to come home from a hard day of dole-bludging to try to figure out whether he has enough food in his knapsack to survive a trip out into the mountains, or need to clean or repair his weapons - he just wants to kill things and get the base thrill out of the experience.
Imagine a game like Fallout, a wide open area with many spots of interest dotted amongst the landscape. Add in the gun mechanisms from Far Cry 2 (guns used more often begin to jam, and overuse causes a cataclysmic failure), the survival techniques from Snake Eater (hunt for food and medicine). Certain guns would be easier to clean but would probably be less powerful, and you would need to learn how to clean and fix them in order to get maximum efficiency. You eat what you kill, and use flora to heal wounds or boost yourself.
Some games (like Fallout and Oblivion) have mods which add these in. I think with some professional work, a game developer could definately work something like this into a top-rate game. They just need to stop thinking of gaming for 'quick fix' users and more indepth players, for people who want to enjoy the universe they are visiting, not just killing faceless sprites.
Survival mode could be additional content/unlockable at end of game thus RDR would not lose the casual gamer market but at the same time would entertain those sorts of people who play pokemon with only 1 pokemon (well 1 other who learns the HM's).Simalacrum said:
The game could be more akin to the Survival mode in dead rising?
I enjoy RDR just fine as it is, thanks. The game is about an open world with many things to do and a wonderful story and it delivers on both counts. Like it or not, a lot of gamers simply don't have time to be as hardcore as they used to be.JohnTomorrow said:
RDR isn't a quick fix kind of game, but it doesn't get bogged down on frankly stupid mechanics such as food and drinking. That's EverQuest 1 age mechanics for fuck's sake.
You are thirsty.
You are hungry.
Fuck that. It's about taking part in a world, not being reminded that you're playing a game.
I think, in the long run, it just boils down to the type of player you are. I, personally, find it interesting to think of what items would be best for the type of trek i want to take. It brings me closer to the game world if i am doing some of the simple jobs that we as human beings usually do automatically, because then its not just 'gee, I'm getting hurt, I'd better use a medkit', its 'damn, i'm bleeding from the chest and i don't have enough gauze, hope i don't bleed out before i make it to a town'.VulakAerr said:
Maybe it doesn't boil down to your playing style. Maybe it just boils down to how easily you can assimilate yourself into a world through the controller. Your mind can handle John Marston drinking a miracle elixir that cures the fifteen bullets he's taken, whereas i prefer the Snake Eater 'dig out the bullets, apply antiseptic and gauze, bandage' approach. To me, the game moved for a realistic tone - and that would be as realistic as it gets.
(Even though Snake Eater was full of mystical mumbo-jumbo, but hey, who cares, i still loved it ^^)
This is why I love reading your stuff, Yahtzee; you have a very clear understanding of what videogames are all about. More than that, you know what you like..sometimes, I wish I could just stick to my guns and avoid hype. Platformers are my favourite games, but I still find myself buying shooters every so often for no reason other than "it's supposed to be good". No more!
I didn't get RDR, and I won't be getting the next 10 shooters to hit shelves, either..so many of them just have you pumping carbon-based life forms full of lead, with little else to justify picking up the controller repeatedly. Story adds a lot to a game like Bioshock, but the most important aspect of videogames, for me, is a challenge, one that's built right into the game mechanics: Modern Warfare's multiplayer feels like an arcade game (putting in another quarter, getting better to play longer), Resident Evil places limitations on your abilities (with scaled upgrades acting as the carrot-on-a-stick), Goldeneye and Perfect Dark had more mission objectives on higher difficulties...all these things keep me coming back for more.
Sandbox games like GTA, though, have little appeal for me, as it can be hard to keep a consistent difficulty curve in such an open-world game (or there's cheats that take any challenge out of the picture). Shooting guys + driving cars + delivering packages/transporting people safely (ie. can't just let cars crash and burn, jumping into another transport) = something that I'll find interesting. Just having one of the above isn't enough for me: killing X number of guys, driving a car from A to B, that's not enough. It happens a lot where some missions are brilliantly deep while others just feel like a chore, and I think it's that inconsistency that takes some of my enjoyment out of games like Red Dead.
Anyways, I think that's enough of my rambling, for now! Keep up the the great work, Mr. Croshaw.
I didn't get RDR, and I won't be getting the next 10 shooters to hit shelves, either..so many of them just have you pumping carbon-based life forms full of lead, with little else to justify picking up the controller repeatedly. Story adds a lot to a game like Bioshock, but the most important aspect of videogames, for me, is a challenge, one that's built right into the game mechanics: Modern Warfare's multiplayer feels like an arcade game (putting in another quarter, getting better to play longer), Resident Evil places limitations on your abilities (with scaled upgrades acting as the carrot-on-a-stick), Goldeneye and Perfect Dark had more mission objectives on higher difficulties...all these things keep me coming back for more.
Sandbox games like GTA, though, have little appeal for me, as it can be hard to keep a consistent difficulty curve in such an open-world game (or there's cheats that take any challenge out of the picture). Shooting guys + driving cars + delivering packages/transporting people safely (ie. can't just let cars crash and burn, jumping into another transport) = something that I'll find interesting. Just having one of the above isn't enough for me: killing X number of guys, driving a car from A to B, that's not enough. It happens a lot where some missions are brilliantly deep while others just feel like a chore, and I think it's that inconsistency that takes some of my enjoyment out of games like Red Dead.
Anyways, I think that's enough of my rambling, for now! Keep up the the great work, Mr. Croshaw.
Sounds to me like someone should have been playing Far Cry 2 instead
In the end I have to agree that RDR holds your hand a little too much.
My main complaint is the multiplayer though. Such an intriguing concept, an open western to coop and duel in!!
Unfortunately the game does little to for prevent Halo kids to treat it like a death match. After all, worst that can happen is you respawn 100 feet from last location. No, you challenge someone you lose a level, or a golden gun or something else that really hurts. And you don't get to challenge someone who isnt within 10 levels or so from you.
And, for chrissake carry over stuff I unlock in single player. I didn't knife those cougars so I coulnt use the buffalo rifle online. Or the legen outfit.
Still, a fun game, but too many missed opportunities.
In the end I have to agree that RDR holds your hand a little too much.
My main complaint is the multiplayer though. Such an intriguing concept, an open western to coop and duel in!!
Unfortunately the game does little to for prevent Halo kids to treat it like a death match. After all, worst that can happen is you respawn 100 feet from last location. No, you challenge someone you lose a level, or a golden gun or something else that really hurts. And you don't get to challenge someone who isnt within 10 levels or so from you.
And, for chrissake carry over stuff I unlock in single player. I didn't knife those cougars so I coulnt use the buffalo rifle online. Or the legen outfit.
Still, a fun game, but too many missed opportunities.
But how annoying would it be to have your horse die when you say a 15min run to a town and there are no roads near by or no one crosses your path on the way back, that?s 15min run back just to get a horse again.
Also the whole fatigue and hunger well it was annoying in GTA San Andrea?s it would be annoying for RDR as it is in every other game that has a hunger system.
The dehydration mechanic might work so would removing the regenerating health and replacing it with something similar to MGS snake eater. Also something more worth while to spend your money on would of been good.
Also the whole fatigue and hunger well it was annoying in GTA San Andrea?s it would be annoying for RDR as it is in every other game that has a hunger system.
The dehydration mechanic might work so would removing the regenerating health and replacing it with something similar to MGS snake eater. Also something more worth while to spend your money on would of been good.