Red Dead Redemption

[solidstatemind]

sometimes, I find myself thinking that Yahtzee really needs to get that rod surgically removed from his ass, even if it is part of his schtick, really.

I am put in mind of that Moby quote a few years back:
"It just seem like musicians want to sell a few records and put out a perfume line, and I think it's so sad that there are so many musicians who don't want to change the world... Music has been so much more."

The first thing that came to my mind was "A lot of the time, people just want to hum along to a brainless song." I think the same principle applies here: sometimes you just want to play a game, ride around, and shoot stuff.

So rather than bemoaning how flawed every game is, why don't we appreciate at least some of them for what they are? (I know, I know: he wouldn't be Yahtzee if he did that.)

 

[EightGaugeHippo]

Nice Idea for the survival thing, but it sounds alot like the Fallout new vegas hardcore mode. But yes, a survival meter would bring back needing to do things that you are not proud of, making the crime part mean somthing.

 

[Tommy T.]

Just a bunch of ass-kissers ITT.

Perfect example why Yahtzee is not a game dev.

 

[daftalchemist]

Funny, my favorite part of the game is how there's no point, reason, or need to be evil. Marsten is a good guy. He's faithful to his wife even though she's off being kidnapped somewhere, helps others out even though they're often retarded, and only breaks the law when he absolutely needs to. I like that. That makes his character interesting to me.

I don't see why there needs to be a reason to be evil. Is it just because it's a Rockstar game or is it because people have completely forgotten what it means to be an honest guy in this world of moral choice games? I, for one, am glad to have a character that is three dimensional while still being good. It isn't cut and dry like Mario or Link where their whole purpose is just to be good and save the day. The things Marsten does are still a little morally questionable, but he does them for good reasons.

Honestly, which is more of an exciting character? The guy who robs people and acts like a bastard all the time? Or the guy who helps a crazed man transport bodies he dug up to a secluded area so he can search them for a treasure map because he needs the crazed man to help him find and kill a former friend? I'm going with the second one personally.

 

[ZealotGrunt]

i think you're going to like new vegas' survival mode (that is, if you're inclined to ignore the whole fast travel routine)

 

[Riven Armor]

The human digestive system in the stone age was so strong, you could stop at any muddy creek, drink from it, and you wouldn't have any stomach issues. Today, if it's not "Bottled" or "Purified" it's bad for your system. I walk in the rain all the time, I don't get colds anymore, just one nasty virus per year. My friends that all use their umbrellas or stay in when it rains get 20 colds a year. Rather than deal with heat, we got air conditioners to make us comfy. Rather than deal with cold that in the past would have made us uncomfortable can kill us nowadays because of our systems. THAT is what Yahtzee means.

How do you know Stone Age humans didn't die of water-borne diseases? Rain doesn't really relate to catching colds. Heat in Arizona or California can kill people or seriously deprive them of quality of life, and that's not because they're pansies. Likewise with cold in Alaska. Etc etc...

There is something to be said about exposing yourself to the outdoors earlier in life, but most of what you said is unfounded.

 

[Jorias]

I was looking forward to this review for some time now (they are playing the Commercials for RDR over and over where i live it is figgin annoying). I liked the idea of simulating a nobody in the wild west. By nobody i mean somone who doesn't have a set-in-stone agenda like Yahtzee points out in his review. The game is ultimatly a time sink, which is what a game should be in my opinion. By time sink, i mean something you sit back and waste time doing not really learning anything or being productive.

 

[ideitbawx]

Referring to the start of the topic. We may have not been able too hunt before but our cavemen ancestors certainly couldn't, say, drive a car(well).

i wouldn't exactly call driving a car a survival technique. it's more just a way to get around. have you ever had to stave off raging beasts on a regular basis just to stay alive? well, neither have i, but i wouldn't be prepared for it. even if i had a weapon, i'd be shitting myself with fear

 

[Straz]

With any luck (read: with some seriously unbelievable luck and altruism on Rockstar's part), when the game gets its inevitable crappy port to the PC, they'll add mod support and let people add that sort of thing by themselves. I gotta admit, it would be fantastic, especially seeing as that's the sort of thing I already enjoy in Fallout 3 (with mods).

I was gunna make that point too.

While the meters sound like a good idea they would have to be used in a good fashion. Most games out today that have those meters tend to fuck it up, you leave with full everything and have to come back three hours later because, lo and behold, your asshole character is hungry. If they did it on a not so realistic scale I could see it being a fairly interesting concept, but the idea of rockstar doing ANYTHING interesting is laughable.

I concur with you there.
My friends are all getting incredibly excited for rdr and I really don't know how long their enthusiasm will last...

 

[Penitent]

I really liked this article; I think it had one of your best introductory paragraphs to date.

I tried to get into Red Dead Redemption the same way that others did, but I stopped short of a few hours. I see what Rockstar were going for, it almost felt like a rugged life in the west, but moving around, doing the missions felt more like a simulator - it lacked a physical connect, a survivalist urgency. I felt like I was wasting time.

For the sake of comparison, let me bring up Metal Gear Solid 3. That game knew how to manage its stamina feature, which the player was constantly thinking about. It wasn't impossible to manage it, and it certainly wasn't difficult once you understood it in full, but the impression it left on the player stuck with him for every part of the game. Red Dead Redemption could have benefited from that a great deal, no matter how frail the reality of such a system would have been.

 

[EdinK]

hah it makes me lulz. survival in this game would be crap it would only disturb and take you away from an intresting story, a great story btw.
and MGS3 stamina bar was stupid. you got hungry every five minutes and had to open up the menu to eat cuz your sights was shaking when you had some punks head in the crosshair. yeah great.
Survival mode fit into SURVIVAL GAMES. last i checked RDR never was a survival game like Fallout or

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

The human digestive system in the stone age was so strong, you could stop at any muddy creek, drink from it, and you wouldn't have any stomach issues. Today, if it's not "Bottled" or "Purified" it's bad for your system. I walk in the rain all the time, I don't get colds anymore, just one nasty virus per year. My friends that all use their umbrellas or stay in when it rains get 20 colds a year. Rather than deal with heat, we got air conditioners to make us comfy. Rather than deal with cold that in the past would have made us uncomfortable can kill us nowadays because of our systems. THAT is what Yahtzee means.

How do you know Stone Age humans didn't die of water-borne diseases? Rain doesn't really relate to catching colds. Heat in Arizona or California can kill people or seriously deprive them of quality of life, and that's not because they're pansies. Likewise with cold in Alaska. Etc etc...

There is something to be said about exposing yourself to the outdoors earlier in life, but most of what you said is unfounded.

All of what is said is based of what my father's friend, a bio-engineering and biology major. He's studied the human body and knows what it is and has been capable of. I'm using the stone age just as a time lapse but he's said such things were possible as close to 200 years ago. besides, in the stone age, did they have any ways or filtering the water like we do now? They did drink water from wells that came from the ground and while it's not TERRIBLY filthy, it can't be said that it was the cleanest water either. Lakes, Rivers, ponds... If you had to hike from point A to point B and there was no town nearby, did nobody drink at all? You found water where you could.

Not saying we're pansies either. Just saying that people were able to live and find meaning in life without technology making it easier for them in the past, but we rely on that technology now, and it's made us softer. Not putrified jelly, but softer. In the Australian outback, where it's sometimes too hot (yes, I know the poisonous insects and such contribute too) to go, explorers are STILL finding tribes of natives that have never had contact with "Civilized" people (civilised used to describe modern society). They live without technology with bows and arrows and are comfortable when explorers DO meet them. THey're a bit tougher than us, as they don't have the technology to make it easy for them.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Funny, my favorite part of the game is how there's no point, reason, or need to be evil. Marsten is a good guy. He's faithful to his wife even though she's off being kidnapped somewhere, helps others out even though they're often retarded, and only breaks the law when he absolutely needs to. I like that. That makes his character interesting to me.

I don't see why there needs to be a reason to be evil. Is it just because it's a Rockstar game or is it because people have completely forgotten what it means to be an honest guy in this world of moral choice games? I, for one, am glad to have a character that is three dimensional while still being good. It isn't cut and dry like Mario or Link where their whole purpose is just to be good and save the day. The things Marsten does are still a little morally questionable, but he does them for good reasons.

Honestly, which is more of an exciting character? The guy who robs people and acts like a bastard all the time? Or the guy who helps a crazed man transport bodies he dug up to a secluded area so he can search them for a treasure map because he needs the crazed man to help him find and kill a former friend? I'm going with the second one personally.

I think it's because they give you the whole "Dishonesty" choice and they make this massive meter up and thell you that if you are a good boy, you get rewards, and if you're a bad guy, you get different rewards. Normally when they give you the "Good/Bad" choice, there is meaning behind it, but it all falls to be one sided.

Bad Guy Perk: Bandits don't shoot you on sight.
My response: This is true, but you shoot THEM on sight, so I dont' see the point fo being able to walk into their midst, surround yourself with them before opening fire. No point for me.

All the perks that are worthwhile in the game come from being a good guy, they one sided it so heavily. So if Rock Star set out to make a game that is solely good, they shouldn't have put the meter in. Just the fame meter would have done. I spent the entire game being good and yet when I finished it, my Honesty meter was only full but my fame meter was only 3/4.

True, a game where morality is a good and the only thing is fine, but in order to make that game work, they shouldn't have put in a Good/Bad meter and told you to have fun. I did a play through trying to be dishonest, but I would finish a mission and gain Honesty. I was pissed! Here I was shooting down every carriage, cowboy, and speck of law enforcement I could lay into my rifle sights, and it's FORCING my meter into honesty!

Killing somsone drops honesty by 1-2 points, and completing your standard level (without an honest/dishonest choice at the end) will net you 50 Honesty... I would have had to kill the world to keep up!!! It's a two sided approach with a one-sided solution.

 

[midget_roxx]

Less metaphores, more talking about the game. That wolf-puppy talk was a bore

 

[Tehshi]

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.

 

[Biffy Cakeo]

Referring to the start of the topic. We may have not been able too hunt before but our cavemen ancestors certainly couldn't, say, drive a car(well).

i wouldn't exactly call driving a car a survival technique. it's more just a way to get around. have you ever had to stave off raging beasts on a regular basis just to stay alive? well, neither have i, but i wouldn't be prepared for it. even if i had a weapon, i'd be shitting myself with fear

Driving a car sometimes is needed for survival. Nobody too drive no one gets to work.

 

[MpSai]

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.

 

[Demakya]

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.

 

[Demakya]

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.

 

[UltimatheChosen]

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).