Ironically, Kotaku doesn't understand the concept of NPCs at all; or further proof that their staff doesn't really know much about games.

https://archive.fo/baK5q (archived link as to not give this trash any clicks)

This is what passes for "games journalism" these days. Somebody complaining that NPCs are scripted and not powered by some incredible (non-existent) AI. How little do you have to know about games and how they are made to even suggest such non-sense is beyond me. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that an NPC doesn't understand the concept of NPCs, they're not created to think for themselves after all, but only to regurgitate the narrative they've been fed.
It's pretty pathetic to host an article on an third party site to avoid traffic going to that site. Really seems like that shouldn't be allowed. I'm gonna go ahead and post a link to the genuine article: https://kotaku.com/red-dead-redemption-2s-puppet-like-npcs-make-its-world-1830081078. And whenever I see someone try to steal an article I always end up going to the genuine article and clicking on all the ads.
 
The other group question the masculine impulses of pushing numbered buttons whilst being confined to a man-made metal cage that is designed to operate in a binary fashion in an overtly phallic tube housed in an erected statement of man's inflexible and indelible impression on the natural world.
Wow. How could anyone think of that.... unless.... you are a game journalist.

GET HIM
 
It's pretty pathetic to host an article on an third party site to avoid traffic going to that site. Really seems like that shouldn't be allowed. I'm gonna go ahead and post a link to the genuine article: https://kotaku.com/red-dead-redemption-2s-puppet-like-npcs-make-its-world-1830081078. And whenever I see someone try to steal an article I always end up going to the genuine article and clicking on all the ads.
That’s your opinion. I share the opposite. Exactly why I didn’t post a thread when I was made aware of the article. I would have to encourage this type of trash by adding clicks to it.

It’s really a good business decision if I’m being honest. They get clicks from people who support the narrative and those who don’t. Very Money Mayweather.
 
It's pretty pathetic to host an article on an third party site to avoid traffic going to that site. Really seems like that shouldn't be allowed. I'm gonna go ahead and post a link to the genuine article: https://kotaku.com/red-dead-redemption-2s-puppet-like-npcs-make-its-world-1830081078. And whenever I see someone try to steal an article I always end up going to the genuine article and clicking on all the ads.
It's even more pathetic to virtue signal.

Ya'll act offended over a dumb article.
Offended? Do you see anybody up in arms about it? We're just commenting in shock at the state of games journalism in 2018. Being offended is what the people over at the asylum do, they would write angry tweets at the author, doxx and harass the author, contact the author's employer to get them fired, and so forth... Do you see anybody here doing that or calling for that? No, because we are sane people. I just think that crazy needs to be pointed out lest it be allowed to become the norm should we ignore it too long.
 
It's even more pathetic to virtue signal.


Offended? Do you see anybody up in arms about it? We're just commenting in shock at the state of games journalism in 2018. Being offended is what the people over at the asylum do, they would write angry tweets at the author, doxx and harass the author, contact the author's employer to get them fired, and so forth... Do you see anybody here doing that or calling for that? No, because we are sane people. I just think that crazy needs to be pointed out lest it be allowed to become the norm should we ignore it too long.
Exactly. I’m not outraged over it. I am doing nothing but rolling my eyes and discussing it on Neogaf.

I’m not contacting the author, not trying to get her fired, not trying to start a boycott about the website.

I just think it’s trash journalism and discussing it on Neogaf. If that’s outrage, every topic on Neogaf is outrage lol. It’s a discussion board after all.
 

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
It's pretty pathetic to host an article on an third party site to avoid traffic going to that site. Really seems like that shouldn't be allowed. I'm gonna go ahead and post a link to the genuine article: https://kotaku.com/red-dead-redemption-2s-puppet-like-npcs-make-its-world-1830081078. And whenever I see someone try to steal an article I always end up going to the genuine article and clicking on all the ads.
Why shouldn't it be allowed? I find it more pathetic to do what you state and far more childish to boot.

Exactly. I’m not outraged over it. I am doing nothing but rolling my eyes and discussing it on Neogaf.

I’m not contacting the author, not trying to get her fired, not trying to start a boycott about the website.

I just think it’s trash journalism and discussing it on Neogaf. If that’s outrage, every topic on Neogaf is outrage lol. It’s a discussion board after all.
Agreed wholeheartedly. The article is trash and it should be discussed. I find that the people who pipe up with "y'all act offended" or some variation of which are the ones who are *actually* offended.
 
Why shouldn't it be allowed? I find it more pathetic to do what you state and far more childish to boot.

Agreed wholeheartedly. The article is trash and it should be discussed. I find that the people who pipe up with "y'all act offended" or some variation of which are the ones who are *actually* offended.
These same people do not appear to understand the distinction between "taking offense" and "disagreeing". To them, the terms are synonymous.

For rational humans, however, the words describe two completely different processes.
 
The "state of game journalism" can't be considered in isolation from the readers. Some of the politically charged reactions to articles like this are just as bad as the old console wars.
 
This isn't the first criticism I've seen of this aspect of RDR2 outside of the popular-to-hate sites like IGN, Kotaku, Polygon etc. so I'm actually giving it the benefit of doubt. Apparently we've crossed some kind of boundary with NPCs in games like Witcher 3 (I'm inclined to agree, they were well programmed and "biome"d to the locations) and RDR2 somehow falls flat in contrast.
 
https://archive.fo/baK5q (archived link as to not give this trash any clicks)

This is what passes for "games journalism" these days. Somebody complaining that NPCs are scripted and not powered by some incredible (non-existent) AI. How little do you have to know about games and how they are made to even suggest such non-sense is beyond me. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised that an NPC doesn't understand the concept of NPCs, they're not created to think for themselves after all, but only to regurgitate the narrative they've been fed.
What narrative? This is a pretty fresh take on a component of a very new game? She is asserting that the non-playable characters are not as lively as the world they inhabit. This is her opinion and she is entitled to write on it (seriously am I missing something?) Also despite not liking basically any of kotaku's writers, I think it's intellectually dishonest to claim they know nothing about games. Jason Schreier may be insufferable but he knows his stuff, and that goes for a few of its writers.

Kotaku , the click bait masters since forever......

Haha. No. This can't be real. Kotaku has an editor. A male editor, who must know men can also be raped. There's no way this is real right?
 
Westerns are a complex and problematic genre tied to a violent history that gave rise to the myth of the gun as an egalitarian tool (e.g., the oft-quoted “God made man, Sam Colt made them equal”) and rugged, self-reliant masculinity. As a result, interactions with Red Dead Redemption 2’s NPCs exist within that masculine framework. Arthur and the player’s actions are expressions of a mythic masculinity.
:unsure:

I smell a gender studies dissertation cooking.
 
What narrative? This is a pretty fresh take on a component of a very new game? She is asserting that the non-playable characters are not as lively as the world they inhabit. This is her opinion and she is entitled to write on it (seriously am I missing something?) Also despite not liking basically any of kotaku's writers, I think it's intellectually dishonest to claim they know nothing about games. Jason Schreier may be insufferable but he knows his stuff, and that goes for a few of its writers.
I honestly don't have a problem with someone even claiming that the NPCs in RDR2 may be less "believable" than the NPCs in other games and even RDR2 is not above some measure of criticism. However, my main gripe with the article is that it just wasn't very well written and the overall impression I received was that of a weak criticism conveyed in a very poorly written manner. After reading it twice I still have no idea what the point of the article was or how the NPCs in RDR2 are any less "real" than in any other video game. So the takeaway for me was that the article seems to have as its target some kind of strawman that the author created but somehow all other previous games with NPCs are immune to the same criticism.

My other big problem with the piece is that the now completely all too expected "SJW" rants are inserted into just about every online article written now to the point of parody - the words "masculine" and "masculinity" each appearing twice in the fourth paragraph for example. And so what if a game allows the player to play out some kind of male power fantasy centered around mythical Western movies, novels, and tropes? Is there something wrong with it? I get that the author's purpose in adding that paragraph was her attempt at including another point at trying to show how "unrealistic" the NPCs are when their "only" interactions are with the player via stereotypical "masculine" conventions which are admittedly a big part of the entire Western myth (the strong hero protecting the poor people on the frontier from evil bandits, selfish cattle/train/oil barons, and savage "Injuns") but her point here was very weak and felt forced.

So yeah - it was a trash piece just to generate ad revenue from clicks. News flash - Red Dead Redemption 2 gives its players the ability to play out their very own "Wild West" fantasies! No shit? Isn't that what we all expected and wanted? I know I did and I'm damn happy for my purchase. Rockstar delivered. I didn't want "Brokeback Redemption" - the story of two cowboys and their forbidden love for each other. I wanted "Red Dead Redemption 2" - the story of an outlaw and his gang who robs and kills people. (Apologies to whoever on this forum I stole the phrase "Brokeback Redemption" from but it's funny and it has stuck with me; sorry I don't remember who to give credit to on that.)
 
Last edited:
I still have no idea what the point of the article was or how the NPCs in RDR2 are any less "real" than in any other video game.
I think the idea is that the world is more lively so there's a disparity there. Not the the NPC's in this game are any worse than other games, but they don't join the rest of the world in being industry-leading.

If the article was a strawman related to recent alt-right activity it would be PRAISING NPC's, not knocking them?
 
These same people do not appear to understand the distinction between "taking offense" and "disagreeing". To them, the terms are synonymous.

For rational humans, however, the words describe two completely different processes.
This is exactly what it is. They think they have a grasp on nuance, but they can't seem to process the distinctions of various emotions and terminology.
 
Last edited:
This isn't the first criticism I've seen of this aspect of RDR2 outside of the popular-to-hate sites like IGN, Kotaku, Polygon etc. so I'm actually giving it the benefit of doubt. Apparently we've crossed some kind of boundary with NPCs in games like Witcher 3 (I'm inclined to agree, they were well programmed and "biome"d to the locations) and RDR2 somehow falls flat in contrast.
That's not actually her complaint.

She disguises the article as these NPC's are a step back and not very realistic. She displays this as the primary point in her write up. The complaint about Morgan being a Mary Sue (LOL) Macho Man is presented as a small point.

However the primary is only presented to her because he is Macho Man Arthur Morgan. Heather can't relate to him. He isn't believable to her, and causes the rest of the characters to be unbelievable as well.

Thats how she reaches the conclusion that all the NPC's are in the game world to further cement Arthur Morgan as a Macho Man. The rugged Cowboy is fake to her.

The truth is that you, the player is the rugged cowboy. The Macho Man. And the other members of your camp are also just like you, both the Men and Women. The only helpless one being the child Jack.

But of course Arthur isn't invincible. He does require help. However he is more capable than most others in the game world. As are most main characters. In order to live his lifestyle as well as the lifestyle of everyone in the gang, they would have to be more than simply capable of shooting, riding, and hunting. They have gotten as far as they have over many number of years by being better than their competition, whether that's rival gangs and law men.

The fact that she encounters people in need in scripted events and finds this unbelievable is actually her problem, not the games. The world is a sandbox. It gives you opportunities to feel empowered, to feel emotion.

Heather not feeling connection to Arthur in these moments of empowerment and opportunities to be more than average says more about how Heather sees herself in real life imo. The fact is she feels the world is fake because Arthur (her as the player) is Top Dog. Capable of rescuing and changing the outcome. In control of who he is and his own destiny.
 
I think the idea is that the world is more lively so there's a disparity there. Not the the NPC's in this game are any worse than other games, but they don't join the rest of the world in being industry-leading.

If the article was a strawman related to recent alt-right activity it would be PRAISING NPC's, not knocking them?
I get that, but I disagree with the author's point because whereas I agree that RDR2's world is more "lively" than other open world games I also think that the NPCs are more lively than other open worlds as well. The author just didn't do a good job of presenting her case and it really could have used better examples. But mainly I just don't see the purpose in the article even existing aside from either being just something written about RDR2 in an attempt to drum up clicks and/or yet just another SJW agenda article.
 
This is exactly what it is. They think they have a grasp on nuance, but they can't even grasp distinctions of emotions and terminology.
It's funny that you say "they think they have a grasp on nuance" because that does actually manifest as a grasp, as in a grip, as in desperately clinging to authority over what is considered nuance and what isn't.

Their idea of "grasp" has nothing to do with internal reflection or enlightenment. For you and me, "grasping" something means understanding it with some depth. To them, "grasping" means control. Grasping means they can successfully wield it to serve their ideology. Grasping means "I get to define what is nuanced and what is crass" which is why Democrats can make jokes about all black people looking the same but Republicans are smeared for using the term "monkey it up".

Edit: a typo
 
Last edited:
With each passing day, my decision to completely give up reading anything about gaming except the most bare-bones previews seems smarter and smarter. I've gone back to the way it was when I was a kid...a game is announced, and some months later it magically appears on shelves for me to buy and play, with little to no thought about how it got there or what other people, aside from those I talk to in real fucking life, think about it.

It's fucking wonderful.
 
With each passing day, my decision to completely give up reading anything about gaming except the most bare-bones previews seems smarter and smarter. I've gone back to the way it was when I was a kid...a game is announced, and some months later it magically appears on shelves for me to buy and play, with little to no thought about how it got there or what other people, aside from those I talk to in real fucking life, think about it.

It's fucking wonderful.
As have I. And the only time I really talk/read about games, are interacting with people on here or one of my good friends.

Feels good man.
 
Last edited:
I get that, but I disagree with the author's point because whereas I agree that RDR2's world is more "lively" than other open world games I also think that the NPCs are more lively than other open worlds as well. The author just didn't do a good job of presenting her case and it really could have used better examples. But mainly I just don't see the purpose in the article even existing aside from either being just something written about RDR2 in an attempt to drum up clicks and/or yet just another SJW agenda article.
In the days after any release, but especially a major one, we're going to see impressions. Can't always be talking about what's coming out.
 
What narrative? This is a pretty fresh take on a component of a very new game? She is asserting that the non-playable characters are not as lively as the world they inhabit. This is her opinion and she is entitled to write on it (seriously am I missing something?) Also despite not liking basically any of kotaku's writers, I think it's intellectually dishonest to claim they know nothing about games. Jason Schreier may be insufferable but he knows his stuff, and that goes for a few of its writers.



Haha. No. This can't be real. Kotaku has an editor. A male editor, who must know men can also be raped. There's no way this is real right?
Its a joke/ meme , but obviously resembles the "click bait" tendency all media ( including videogames pages ) uses to get attention.
 
You people aren't able to think this through: it's the same old anti
white
male agenda.

The game’s interactions are constrained largely due to its inspirations. Westerns are a complex and problematic genre tied to a violent history that gave rise to the myth of the gun as an egalitarian tool (e.g., the oft-quoted “God made man, Sam Colt made them equal”) and rugged, self-reliant masculinity. As a result, interactions with Red Dead Redemption 2’s NPCs exist within that masculine framework. Arthur and the player’s actions are expressions of a mythic masculinity. We rescue women and lesser men—after all, better men would be able to fight off bandits and manage their horses— and compete against would-be gunslingers while using unique abilities like Dead-Eye to our advantage. We tip our hat like a proper gentleman, and we kill anyone we want. The game rewards those masculine impulses without fail. The Western framework leads to only certain kinds of interactions, and those interactions inevitably lead to rewards: outshoot someone in a marksmanship contest and you’ll gain some cash; rescue a man from wolves and he’ll give you a treasure map.
It's "sex dolls should be programmed to say no and dial 911 in case of forced sex" applied to sex. Gamers shouldn't be allowed to be sexist or do any harm to anybody, especially in a diverse game, however fictional the context may be. Thought police.
 
Last edited:
> gives impressive examples of NPC behavior
> complains that NPCs are not lifelike enough

This is basically a Kotaku writer trying to sound deep, using 1.300 words only to end up saying nothing of substance. RDR2's open world is a simulation that exists purely for the sake of the player. If there's nobody to play it, the simulation ceases to exist, it's as simple as that. Judging by the examples given by the article, the love of detail that went into scripting NPC behavior is absolutely stunning and there's absolutely no reason at all to knock the game down for that.

Why are people still reading that stuff? You merely end up being informed worse than before.



"Players aren't necessary for games to exist", wtf is this supposed to mean? A game with no player interaction is called a "movie" and even movies need a receptive audience for them to exist. A medium is a means of effecting or conveying something, so if there is nobody this something can be conveyed to, the medium ceases to function by definition.

This is just another example of a games journalist losing himself in pseudo-intellectual babble in order to come across as "smart".
for real... this kind of thinking is destroying common sense... Basically what is being said is "I don't think we should put a label on games... " "I don't want to define what a game is"

What a dangerous slope we as a society are on... I get justifying the way you think about your own self and who you believe yourself to be... but now we're talking about actual products... and not wanting to define what a product is ... is nonsensical. Games don't need players to exist? ... maybe i'm just not woke enough ...
 
Heather Alexander is easily one of the worst most clickbaity writers out there. thanks, OP, for not directly linking.

every game requires a suspension of disbelief. unlike movies they are not set in the real world, you cannot just roll a camera and rely on real life to drive home half the illusion, you have to create everything from the ground up. picking apart a videogame like this must be the easiest thing in the world.

also it's incredible disingenuous to run a bunch of stories criticizing Rockstar for crunch and then run a story complaining that you can see the seams in a videogame. like, the only solution to this would be make every dev crunch mandatory and devote a full year to hand coding every NPC interaction. the truth is they already did that to an extent, and they got flack for it, yet Kotaku wants to have it both ways.
 
Last edited:
They just keep getting more and more bizarre.

How long until these "gaming" websites like Kotaku start advocating that no one plays video games at all anymore? Like are openly calling for an end to the whole medium? "Games don't need players" is already pretty close.

They are fucking parasites.
 
Can we all agree that Kotaku's, IGN's, Polygon's etc. and those who think similarly to them don't have the gamer's first interests in mind, rather than just force us to accept their liberal message?
Honestly I feel like it’s done for increased clicks and money.

Lets be real, if she had written an article that said “Hey, I like RDR2”, it would have never gotten as many clicks. There would be a thread here talking about it.

It’s driven by money imo. If it presents a narrative that aligns with a agenda... bonus.

But this way she A) increased her clicks B) she went on Twitter and told people who is agreed with her to fuck off (even the majority that weren’t shitty to her) and C) then pretended to be the victim of harassment.

The Triple Crown Winner Of being a gaming “journalist” right there.
 
I'll admit to drive by visits of Kotaku but holy shit balls, I learned awhile back to NEVER read an article by this person. Ever.
 
Its a joke/ meme , but obviously resembles the "click bait" tendency all media ( including videogames pages ) uses to get attention.
Erm, no. I understand what you're referring to, however you're attaching any reference to that, to this article, yourself (and so are a few people in this thread). Again; if there was some underlying meaning here, surely she'd be praising the NPC's, not criticizing them. As such it seems to be an innocent enough opinion piece on the fact that she feels the non playable characters let down an otherwise very persistent and believable open world design.
 
Last edited:
Erm, no. I understand what you're referring to, however you're attaching any reference to that, to this article, yourself (and so are a few people in this thread). Again; if there was some underlying meaning here, surely she'd be praising the NPC's, not criticizing them. As such it seems to be an innocent enough opinion piece on the fact that she feels the non playable characters let down an otherwise very persistent and believable open world design.

Get your point but can not denie that those kind of articles are more enforced to get more views than just send a message or comunicate something; my 1st post was a joke but being honest you can see that tendency on a lot of media to overexagerate events or create controversy just to get more attention, like some weather reporters....






From my point of view the writer just wants to create controversy around NPCs but at the same time contradicts herself. Feels like she needed to write about something and the easy way was just to focus on the "weak" spots of a great game. And being hones RDR NPCs feel a lot better than most games these days...
 
Last edited:

Claus Grimhildyr

Vincit qui se vincit
Oh, my... this is pre-2016 meltdown too. My mind is actually malfunctioning just by reading that title. I remember reading something similar, I think, last year? About how all men are raping telepathically.
That was a confirmed fake post, sad thing is how easy it was to confuse people as it is so similar to their normal "journalism".
 
Get your point but can not denie that those kind of articles are more enforced to get more views than just send a message or comunicate something; my 1st post was a joke but being honest you can see that tendency on a lot of media to overexagerate events or create controversy just to get more attention, like some weather reporters....






From my point of view the writer just wants to create controversy around NPCs but at the same time contradicts herself. Feels like she needed to write about something and the easy way was just to focus on the "weak" spots of a great game. And being hones RDR NPCs feel a lot better than most games these days...
Those gifs are fucking great. 😄
 
And people bash insanely popular games for clicks! News at 6!

It's pretty pathetic to host an article on an third party site to avoid traffic going to that site. Really seems like that shouldn't be allowed. I'm gonna go ahead and post a link to the genuine article: https://kotaku.com/red-dead-redemption-2s-puppet-like-npcs-make-its-world-1830081078. And whenever I see someone try to steal an article I always end up going to the genuine article and clicking on all the ads.
Eye roll.