Red Dead Redemption

[Dracosage]

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.

 

[VulakAerr]

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.

 

[JohnTomorrow]

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.

 

[Fortunefaded]

I do actually like the idea of the 'survival' thing.

While some people might complain "I want a game, not real life", a Western survival would be a real life that we don't know - and I think putting myself in the shoes of another life is actually quite exciting, just as living our lives for those people might be interesting for them.

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).

The game could be more akin to the Survival mode in dead rising?

 

[VulakAerr]

Snip!

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.

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.

 

[JohnTomorrow]

Snip!

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.
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'.

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 ^^)

 

[My1stLuvJak]

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.

 

[joest01]

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.

 

[jodko]

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.

 

[moshineko]

I probably missed someone mentioning this, but didn't Yahtzee spend nearly a whole two reviews bitching about these things in Sims and Fable 2? Oh, and Mass Effect 2 as well. I seem to remember the phrase "Normal Boring Life" creeping up there too.

Dunno about the rest of you, but when I was watching westerns, it wasn't to see the hero gunslinger taken down by a stray snake that bit his horse and forced him to crawl twenty feet in the blinding desert sun to be taken down by dehydration within an hour. It was the gunfights, the riding, the story I was looking for. RDR gives me that. Story. John Marsden is a badass gunslinger, trying to escape a past that keeps catching up to him, either through the machinations of those who want him to kill an rob for them, or simply through his own, brutal nature.

Seems funny Yahtzee calls himself a writer and game designer, and forgets that most people don't need or want detailed description and re-enactment of people eating dinner and taking a crap. There's a reason such things are only lightly touched upon in books, video games and other media. We want to escape the normal borning, shit lives we have where we have to eat bran flakes to poop properly, and can't shoot people without serving half a lifetime in jail.

Maybe if he wants realism in his game, we can add this: instead of John being sent to jail for his crimes, he can just be hung by the posse, or shot by a lazy sherrif, and boom, game over, tough shit, no more playing for you, ever. Sure would raise the stakes, wouldn't it? It'd also make a game so fucking frustrating that I'd make sure never to do anything that I thought would piss anyone off. No shooting, no horse-stealing, no deals with a shadowy government. Just run off with the family and hole up somewhere in the wilderness. Hmmm. Maybe that'll work for DLC. I can see it now; RED DEAD REDEMPTION, THE ANNE FRANK CHAPTERS.

Sorry, but at this point, Yahtzee's just bitching for bitching's sake. His vids and writing are still somewhat amusing, but I'd no more use them to make judgements about the games I play than I let my dog tell me what to fix for dinner. They're both just yelling for attention and snacks, and they'll get each when I'm damn well ready to give it to them.

 

[KDR_11k]

I got a game called Pathologic for the PC out of a bargain bin, that has hunger and sleep to worry about but doesn't play in the wilderness, instead you're in some kind of sick town where people are going on crazy witch hunts (if you pick the wrong character to play as you start as the target of the hunt and have to sneak through the town, avoiding the townsfolk that want to murder you on your way to the important NPCs) and you have to worry about your reputation because you don't want them to think YOU are the witch. The crappy graphics somehow make the game's appearance even creepier because the townsfolk look like distorted humans and the lack of emotion shown by them makes it even worse.

 

[Spacewolf]

wasnt he complaining about having to keep an eye on hunger and weapon stats in the monster hunter reveiw?

 

[CopperBoom]

It does sound more fun and realistic, but I worry of it becoming like the Sims or something. Something meant to make it more realistic just being another element of the "videogameiness" of it.

It could do to deal with morality more besides the ruminatings of NPCs while slogging to a mission. If you were forced to face it more directly in your travels would be cool. I am planning to play it to completely, but lord knows I wanted a western game and I think I deserve better.

 

[Spookimitsu]

Red Dead Redemption treats players like dogs instead of wolves.

I kinda agree with this situation. I was instantly enthused by the idea that you had to hunt and skin animals, BUT then I was also instantly let down that there was no way to wear, or cook and eat them.

This would also give more incentive to killing every living thing I happen across in free roam, without making myself out to be a digital sociopath.

I understand with the previous comments about the desire to not turn this into a micromanaged "Sim"s-esque avatar raising application, But they have already programmed many of the aspects of this IN THE GAME already, i.e. you can already hunt/gather, store/use items, shop and interact with NPC's.
Rabbit meat rewards little health, Cow/Sheep meat rewards alot, eating a wolf heart fills dead eye, unlimited for 30 seconds, eating a bear heart greatly increases melee damage and effect (k.o. punches send enemies flying). Maybe even various plants alleviate ailments like cholera and snakebites, etc, etc

I think it would help to immerse most players into the games atmosphere greater than before.

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

This is what always got me about Zelda games. "Why doesn't this elfish bastard get tired!?" I would ask myself after running across the expanse of hyrule for 75 days (in game) straight. O.T. I think that if they put those mechanics in, Red Dead Redemption could've been the best sandbox ever... and on a related note, I just saw a hands-on segment of Fallout: New Vegas on G4 the other night, and it seems that the idea of the ability to turn such a system on and off is exactly what they are doing, including adding whieght to ammo.

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

Am the only person that places self-constraint (some call ir Role Playing) on themselves when they play games?

It's not that fucking hard children.

So you're don't like the break in realism where you can whistle your dead horse back to life. Here's a tip, don't press that fucking button. Resist your lazy self. You see, constraint at work. Now, let's see how patient you are trying to hike back to town/camp etc. Oh, you can't stand walking in a game? You can't stand repeatively tapping a button to run?

[HEADING=2]You are the problem![/HEADING]

[HEADING=2]The unimaginative, the lazy, the impatient![/HEADING]

Despite my prior comment, I do actually fully support this manner of thinking. It's like everytime I discuss games with my freinds "Ohh it's too easy. VATS is for fags. The health system is retarded." etc. Well its like the damned easy mode, YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT JUST 'CAUSE IT'S THERE.

 

[Orekoya]

"Players would have to be sure they were properly equipped before heading out of town."

Didn't you complain about this mechanic in Monster Hunter Tri?

Wasn't it just two weeks ago that Yahtzee was saying how awful it was of Monster Hunter to "make sure you were properly prepared before setting out", and having "constantly decreasing meters" to be more realistic?

You have a very simplistic way of looking at things. I can make it simple.

Being prepared and well stocked before leaving =/= Having to go home every time you want to change equipment out that you are carrying on you.

It works in Monster Hunter, which is not set up as a sandbox game like RDR is. It's too easy to assume the other person is being too simplistic in thinking.

In RDR, you'd have to Fast Travel or ride yourself back to a town, if you weren't prepared for a mission. In Monster Hunter, if you find you aren't prepared for a mission, you can Abandon it -- Abandoning a mission in Monster Hunter sends you straight back to town, exactly as you were before you left. If you used up all your potions before abandoning, they're back. You don't get to keep anything you might have carved, but if you were being successful, you wouldn't have abandoned. It's not like you'd have to run, on foot, down a mountain, into town, change your armor and weapon, pick up flash bombs, and then run right back up the mountain. It was very easy.

If you haven't played MH, stop parroting Yahtzee. There's a reason the MH Extra Punctuation thread is so long.

I never said he was right, but that is still you looking at things very simply. Since I didn't immediately agree with you 100% then I MUST be Yahtzee's personal foot-bather and think of him as the embodiment of God himself. I simply stated that you were over simplifying what you thought his opinions were and offered clarification what his complaint stated in his MH review was not the same as what he was suggesting now.

If you want my opinion, I can offer that too. Including this option for those who want it as a Survival Mode would work fine because it'll cater to multiple audiences' tastes. Having Infinity Mode in Dead Rising felt like playing a whole new game when having to worry about such things. If you want to worry about it. Having it a core part of gameplay such as it was in Sims 3 World Adventures would be irritating as all get out.

Oh, and I didn't hate MH. But I already have a subscription for two mmos and it did feel just like playing one.

 

[Wolfram23]

Actually, I agree a lot. I enjoyed RDR for the most part so far but it's losing it's appeal more and more. I'm a little ways into the Mexican part of the story.

 

[Something Amyss]

If not having hunger/thirst/sleep/bladder meters is gearing a game towards casuals, I'm glad the casual market is gaining steam. I think the most telling element of this is that it seems the answer to a stated problem with an existing solution. No incentive to be bad? Add incentives. No risk? Bring back the risk. Other Rockstar games have it.

It amazes me, however, that the guy who lauded Saints Row 2 and has bashed other sandboxes for not "getting it" is now suggesting we toss hunger and thirst bars into such a game.

Hell, I don't even get why games should be anything other than shiny toys. Hunger and Thirst meters are nothing more than another knob to make a funny noise. Something for us to coo at. Games are a diversion. Adding busywork to games may enhance the "realism," but it doesn't make you any less a dog for being involved. At best, you're still exactly what you were before: A dog playing wolf.

And I can do that in Saints Row 2.