Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Farce]

Hey guys, what's going on in this thread.

I played a super-goody goody.  Some dude in Esquela ratted me out to the police for sliding down a hill or something, and the bribe hit me for like -400 honor, which was kinda stupid.

I beat it, and have not been assaulted by any save-breaking glitches.  Yay me.

[warhammer651]

Yes because RPG's have to have swords obviously oh wait Deus Ex.

Yet for some reason you insist that RDR is not an RPG?

It isn't an RPG. at least, not by my definition. By my definition, Rpgs have Character stats (Str, Dex, Cha, etc), levelling up (via XP points), CHaracter classes/ skills (Usually upgraded by skill points), and (generally) deeper story lines (and MANY more made up words).

Instead, I would classify RDR as a Sandbox action/adventure game.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

They didn't market it as "GTA IN THE WILD WEST" that's just for stupid people.
And it's not the same division of Rockstar.

this article (it's page 2, so you could go back and read page 1 if you like), is on the Rockstar mouthpiece "news" website. They mention GTA more often than anything else. They mention that in the beginning of development they tried to just use the GTA engine and it would have worked, but it wasn't a perfect fit. At the end they actually ask themselves

"So comprehensively does it build on the groundwork of GTA that we can't help but wonder whether there was ever any temptation to call this GTA 1910?"

And the answer is, gosh no, even though GTA is awesome and a lot of the same people worked on RDR. But it's totally a different game guys.

BBC interview.
"Scott Fulton: Why do you think so many people love your games?

Fortunately the same team that created GTA III is the same team that's behind Red Dead Redemption."

IGN article
"But by 2006 a core team was in place, headed by veterans of the first game as well as talent plucked from Rockstar's many global studios."

Even if some people changed, there were a lot of the same people there.

Apple, you claimed that Rockstar hasn't marketed RDR as "Wild West GTA" and you claimed that it was an entirely different team of people and I have proven you wrong on that. You are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Please stop on that point now.

Also, on a really base level RDR isn't meant to be super immersive, it's not an RPG.

Every game is meant to be immersive. Pong is meant to be immersive. A Mario platformer is meant to be immersive. You're meant to lose your awareness of what's going on around you and focus on the game. The game requires your attention. It's not just RPGs that are immersive.

But let's say you take a weird definition for immersive: that the game creates an alternate reality that you imagine is your reality. Well again, a game does not need to be an RPG to achieve or attempt immersiveness: Thief 1 had no RPG elements whatsoever (including the vague "but there's a Strength stat" kind of RPG argument). Spelunky has immersiveness and it's a straight arcade roguelike platformer. Civilizations I, II, III, and IV (I can only speak for the ones I've played) had immersiveness and they're turn-based strategy games.

BBC interview

"Dan Whitworth, Newsbeat technology reporter: What are your hopes for RDR?

I hope that for the people that do pick it up that it evokes an emotional response. That people will feel they're part of our world and that they'll become immersed in the time period. We did so much research into everything. What the guns of the time looked like, what the clothes looked like, what the interiors in the game are like. Those interiors were all specifically researched by our people in great detail, so I hope they'll love it and that it'll put a smile on their face."

He says they want an emotional response. He says they aim for immersion. I don't care if the game is actually immersive or not, they wanted to try for it. THE GAME IS MEANT TO BE IMMERSIVE.

Apple, you claimed that Rockstar didn't mean for RDR to be immersive and I have proven you wrong on that. You are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Please stop on that point now.


This is not something vague that you can keep arguing about. I have disproved your "2+2=5". Apple if you don't know anything about what you are talking about just don't hit reply. Misinformation is worse than not saying anything. And yes, I went through this effort because (A) I knew you were wrong, and (B) I was sick and tired of seeing you spout off about this garbage.

[LeoLeonardoIII]

His character is an evil cowboy Who does everything he does in the game for the love of his wife and child. You cant murder your brother (or cousin, whoever that annoying guy was) in GTA4... You can't cheat on your wife in RDR. The only evil thing you can't do is goto whores. It seems like Andir's entire problem with the morality of the game is that you can't visit whores. You can still be a cold blooded bastard, or a paragon of justice. You just can't whore around.

You can still play an evil character. The cut-scenes are done in a way that your character can be ambiguously good or ambiguously bad (allthough I don't feel it works very well TBH). The moral slider bar works very well for what it's intended. I don't see at all how it isn't finished, please give some examples. Yeah most of the story missions give you honour, but infamy isn't hard to come by. And you can buy a bandanna to stop anything changing your morality bar at all.

Repeatable missions don't make sense? So races don't make sense if you do them more than once? Or the horse breaking missions? How about the returning the stolen cart, or stopping the thief missions you get when you're in the wilderness? Repeatable missions make sense sometimes. Don't act like it's some entirely new unkown phenomenon to RDR, or that it's a completely unworkable stop-gap to lazy programming.

As I keep saying, there are problems with the game. Some of them serious. These just aren't them. If you're going to criticise the game, talk about the huge amount of wierd bugs, system link being broken, the lacklustre writing, etc. Focusing on not being able to whore it up, and not having helicopters just seems ridiculous.

Fenrif,

By repeatable missions I meant the ones where you win, and then get to do it again. And yes, I think those are stupid and are a sign of lazy design. it's not going out to catch a different thief. It's going out to catch the same thief in the same camp over and over again.

Second, in GTA, you SHOULD be able to kill your stupid cousin! In RDR you SHOULD be able to cheat on your wife. Heck, you should be able to decide (or roll for it) to see if you're married and how many kids you have. You should be able to choose what your motivation is, even if it's from an enormous list of Rockstar-approved motivations. They go on and on about emergent gameplay, and then lock your nose to the rails so hard it makes your whiskers burn.

You keep bringing up very specific examples of arguments that you can easily dismiss out of hand (the helicopter, the whores) when we're talking about systemic problems. And that's a logical dishonesty that I hope you abandon.