Red Dead Redemption
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think the Survival mode idea is fantastic. The key to the whole thing, though, is being able to switch it on/off, which Yahtzee already pointed out. That's the best way to handle a game aspect that might turn people away from it, just make it an option rather than a requirement. Like turning off Vita-Chambers in Bioshock.
Driving a car sometimes is needed for survival. Nobody too drive no one gets to work.ideitbawx said:
The thing is, the game kind of wants you to play in character. Marston isn't like the GTA protagonists, he's a former criminal rather than a current one, and faithful to his wife.
Truthfully, it was nice that the game WASN'T just Wild West GTA, even though people called it that. It may have used the same (improved) engine, but expecting it to feel like a GTA game is misguided I think. It's also misguided to treat it like a historical fiction rather than an homage to the popular Western films of yore, which would explain why the game wants to make you feel like a Clint Eastwoodesque badass.
And frankly I was pretty disappointed with GTA4, I enjoyed Red Dead immensely even if it did sometimes show symptoms of GTA4's "here's some boring missions so we can supply plot exposition" disease. Even then I found John Marston more interesting than Niko Bellic. And the way you continue the game after the main plot missions is pretty interesting, I'm glad they didn't pussy out on a real ending but still gave you the ability to keep doing the stranger quests and ambient challenges.
Truthfully, it was nice that the game WASN'T just Wild West GTA, even though people called it that. It may have used the same (improved) engine, but expecting it to feel like a GTA game is misguided I think. It's also misguided to treat it like a historical fiction rather than an homage to the popular Western films of yore, which would explain why the game wants to make you feel like a Clint Eastwoodesque badass.
And frankly I was pretty disappointed with GTA4, I enjoyed Red Dead immensely even if it did sometimes show symptoms of GTA4's "here's some boring missions so we can supply plot exposition" disease. Even then I found John Marston more interesting than Niko Bellic. And the way you continue the game after the main plot missions is pretty interesting, I'm glad they didn't pussy out on a real ending but still gave you the ability to keep doing the stranger quests and ambient challenges.
I can't say that I don't find RDR interesting in it's current state, however, I agree full heartedly about your survival idea Yahtzee. A game that is too easy, is just that, too easy. I'm getting tired of the panzy diddle fairies of today's gaming world always wanting dimwitted little nose picking minigames that are really supposed to be the make up of an entire game. A good difficult challenge is exactly what we need, and a survival western shooter just appeals. RDR could definitally use a patch that would allow this to be engaged by the players with a taste for more than just television that we get to push buttons with.
Don't worry Celtic, you're correct on the basis of information in which you know. The human stomach was indeed more capable in earlier times. But other than that, there were less diseases and parasites in which to catch. It's only natural that in time more of these bacteria and parasitic organisms would develop. So, not is it that their stomachs were stronger, persay, but a combination of a hardier immune system and less chance of catching foreign organisms to cause harm to the body. Riven... is just an argumentative troll who wanted to shoot down your own basis due to the fact that he's an idiot. Though this is all in theory, it's quite sound and easily traced and recognizable by the scientific community.
Personally, I think that the early hours of Fallout 3 did a good job of capturing the survival-esque feel. On your first playthrough, stimpacks and money are hard to come by, meaning you have to be extremely careful with your limited ammo and health, and it's a hard decision whether or not to drink irradiated water to restore your health.
Of course, things get really easy pretty quickly, but still... the beginning was, to me, one of the most enjoyable parts (after the beginning tutorial area, that is).
Of course, things get really easy pretty quickly, but still... the beginning was, to me, one of the most enjoyable parts (after the beginning tutorial area, that is).
I'm totally behind this idea. I mean, I love RDR. And I think its story is one of the best I've ever seen in a video game. But honestly, the only thing I spend money on was medicine, apples, and the Bolt-Action Rifle. I got that "more then a fistful" achievement before I cleared Fort Mercer.
I know what you mean, and I agree. The game certainly does lean towards being a good guy. But I think it's pointless for someone, Yahtzee or otherwise, to give the complaint that even though you have the choice to be evil, you have no reason to be. Having more choices in a game is a good thing, but to whine that the developer isn't giving you a reason to make a specific choice is dumb. The reason for making a choice is your own thoughts, beliefs, morality, what have you. If you want to be evil, you'll choose to be evil. If you really want to be evil, you'll choose to be evil even when the game is leaning towards you being good.Celtic_Kerr said:
On a side note regarding your complaint about how being evil is too hard, it's about time they made a game where being the good guy is easier than being the bad guy.
You touched on a pretty good idea, Yahtzee. Games really about survival are few and far between nowadays. The biggest reason I'm looking forward to Fallout:NV is the inclusion of hardcore mode, because food and water are necessary to survive. Having to constantly worry about where the next meal will come from will add a sense of desperation to the experience, as well as increase game length (instead of just worrying about quests, you'll have to go out and find nourishment).
They tried this kind of 'role-play mechanism' in GTA: San Andreas, and the community seemed to hate it.Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Then again you can always play: Robinson Requiem [http://www.mobygames.com/game/3do/robinsons-requiem] which also seems to alliterate very nicely.
I think I would kind of disagree with this actually. I mean, back in KOTOR all of your "influence" in people was always run through dialogue options, so it was either"daftalchemist said:
Good option
Neutral option
Bad Option
In modern games you actually have to DO something to earn this morality. Sure in Red Dead Redemption, you see people on the side of the road in trouble and such, but most of them arn't really choices. Before I realized that your horse respawned, some woman asked me for help and then stole me horse. my first thought was some evil variation of "DIE ***** DIE!" and I shot her, netting 5 honesty... I wasn't really being hoenst. ***** stole my horse, ***** gets shot.
But it's not JUST that there's no incentive to be Evil, There's no reason at all. People in the old west were outlaws and bad guys for a reason. Money, Fame, Power... You did what you had to do in order to survive as well. In red dead redemption, You basically have to slaughter all the towns (turning them into ghost towns), kill all the people on the side of the road you run into. Steal horses, drag people from YOUR horse... BLAH BLAH BLAH...
And then the moment you get a couple of quests done... You're this wonderful person and that massive rampage you went on was just a cruel joke you were playing on the world...
Usually the whole survivalist gameplay wouldn't be such a great idea in most games. However, RDR sets up the atmosphere for it quite nicely. Shooting a bird, or killing a cougar with my knife was already enjoyable, but, without a reason to constantly do it (other than to make useless money) I'd have rather spent my time completing the other missions and side quests. Indeed in other games this may seem like a chore but RDR could have certainly gotten away with this extra mechanic and would have added an extra layer of immersion and difficulty. I don't know about you guys but I found it way to easy to constantly have full health in the game and the dead-eye made killing a breeze. I was never short on cash either.
Wow... you're idea makes the game boring. Seriously. It's essentially mandatory grinding. Some of the other ideas sound alright, but does that really create incentive not to break the law? Or rather to break the law, other than to refill stats? Why would money become useful? To eat tastier food you say? It's virtual... As long as you get health and stamina no one would dish out more to eat it.
But Marsten isn't a bad guy. That's readily obvious to anyone who plays the game. But Rockstar understands the people who play their games expect to be able to do bad, so they included the option to in order to appease them. At no point does the game try to suggest that Marsten is anything other than good, and therefore there is never any reason to be evil (unless it's a quest requirement). Rockstar just included it to please the people who would have been complaining that they couldn't shoot up a saloon or rob a bank if they hadn't included those options.Celtic_Kerr said:
So it's pointless to complain that there's no reason to be evil. John Marsten is not evil. He is on a mission to ultimately save his wife and child. There is nothing remotely evil about that. But if Rockstar had left the bank robbing and train hijacking out entirely, this article would have been about how it's so lame that you can't rob a bank or hijack a train wild west style. It was a pointless complaint to begin with.
nah because than there would be very little need for food unless its to eat in a combat situation. I think food and drink should drive the player to get it under any means necessary, desperation is exactly what brings people to do crime in real life. In games it just means making the player more morally questionable than they already are.Voltano said:
There are very few games that did this sort of thing, a harsh western would be a good idea for a game because than we would do things the way they did.
At the moment the game doesn't pose much danger or reward for turning criminal.
Hunger+Thirst+Exhaustion & getting rid of the horse recall button immediately adds so much to the game, depth; greater difficulty, actually needing to think about what you need to pack before leaving a town, morality (which can slide from doing what you need to survive vs being a good boy vs greedy/uncaring).