Red Dead Redemption

[J-Alfred]

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.

 

[daftalchemist]

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.

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.

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.

 

[internetzealot1]

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).

 

[Paladijn]

What it needed was a survival mechanic. On-screen meters for hunger, thirst and exhaustion, which constantly tick down as you adventure, requiring that you frequently eat, hydrate and camp out or hire a room for the night. Neglecting these stats worsens your aim, striking power and sprinting ability and decreases the size of your health bar, and may eventually cause you to pass out...

They tried this kind of 'role-play mechanism' in GTA: San Andreas, and the community seemed to hate it.

Then again you can always play: Robinson Requiem [http://www.mobygames.com/game/3do/robinsons-requiem] which also seems to alliterate very nicely.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

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.

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.

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"

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...

 

[zedjay72]

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.

 

[SFR]

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.

 

[daftalchemist]

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...

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.

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.

 

[Kuhkren]

Apparently the new fallout game, Fallout: New Vegas, will have a survival mode complete with hunger, thirst, exhaustion, and so on as a harder difficulty.

 

[TheUnbeholden]

I agree, though I think some modifications to the current statistics would justify a survival idea. Food could restore health, so greater meals restore more health. Water/food combined may restore the "quick-shot" meter and resting somewhere instantly refills these meters.

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.

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).