Support NeoGAF

[pa22word]

Not necessarily the act itself, but more in that the setting and aesthetics being what they are combined with Rockstar's insistence on creating such a believable and well-crafted world really hams everything up. I could suspend my disbelief enough to get by in GTA because GTA is set in a sort of effigy of modern cities, so killing 20 dudes in a sea of effectively (and more importantly, narratively) millions of people feels like a really small drop in the pond whereas comparatively in RDR I'm roughly 1/3 through the game (just started Mexico) and I've killed over 200 people. 200. In an effective sea of what, 3-5 thousand people? If this goes on I imagine I'll have committed genocide by games end! Needless flippant discourse aside, It's getting to the point of being very damaging to the immersion in the game, and undermining R*'s outstanding recreation of the american frontier of the early 20th century.

I understand why they have you killing loads of people for the plot's sake (spaghetti westerns didn't have to fill up what amounts to a 30 hour plot, lol) and for gameplay reasons, but I feel as if they could have played around with perception more--and ffs also just flat minimizing death dealt period (going from mass quantity killing of redshirts + small quantity impactful killing to dealing with less redshirts and more killing of impact targets would do wonders without really damaging what R* is doing with the game too badly)--in order to skew the raw numbers of death dealt out by marston. Stuff like instead of killing 20-30 wagons-worth of baddies in a chase scene (

Spoiler

seriously R* that shit was just lazy in that runaway doctor mission, 'cmon you're better than that

) you could have 10 recurring wagons that simply get damaged in numerous ways throughout the chase only to inevitably give up once you hit town.

Sorry if all this seems like inane rambling, but after playing this and Tomb Raider--which pulled the same shit with much, much less plot justification--back to back I had to get this off my chest.

But yeah. At Mexico. Am I suddenly going to start hating the game like most of the internet seems to imply I'm about to >.>?

 

[To Far Away Times]

Killing people bothered me more in GTA than in RDR.

RDR felt like I was playing a western, so some lawlessness and killing was to be expected.

GTA has you killing people in a modern day city.

 

[DonMigs85]

Killing people bothered me more in GTA than in RDR.

RDR felt like I was playing a western, so some lawlessness and killing was to be expected.

GTA has you killing people in a modern day city.

Did you kill Playboy X

 

[xJavonta]

I think you're thinking too much into it.

I think of it as a game and that's that. Nothing more, nothing less.

Doesn't faze me one bit.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Yeah, the number of people you gun down in Red Dead doesn't feel jarring because the situations you're put in, and the setting of the game, makes for justice via shootin' iron feel a little more expected/forgivable than the mayhem of GTA, where you're rolling tanks through playgrounds and building piles of burnt vehicles as a barricade from which to fire rockets at police.

Red Dead is like "Bandits are going to try to shoot you. A gang of bandits can be anywhere between 5-40 dudes. These are the last, desperate days of the Old West. Guess how you're gonna have to solve this problem."

 

[Doctor Decimate]

but that's how you know it's a Rockstar game

 

[pa22word]

RDR felt like I was playing a western, so some lawlessness and killing was to be expected.

That's not really at all what I'm having trouble digesting, though. It's the fact that by game's end I am most likely going to have killed a good percentage of the effective population of the game's world, and that's something that is totally left at the door by the plot. It's like R* is in my house trying to tell me this great story while an 800 lb gorilla is banging on the door outside, and R* is totally ignoring said gorilla.

 

[zoukka]

That mission where you hunted down a mysterious murderer (was he a cannibal?) really did kill the atmosphere of the game for me. Once you tied the man down, the mission was "done" and I was left with the tied down murderer and the lady who I rescued from him just started to walk towards the desert... a certain death? And I couldn't do anything with the murderer. I took him to the sheriff and no triggers at all...

The game truly felt broken during that mission.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

That's not really at all what I'm having trouble digesting, though. It's the fact that by game's end I am most likely going to have killed a good percentage of the effective population of the game's world, and that's something that is totally left at the door by the plot. It's like R* is in my house trying to tell me this great story while an 800 lb gorilla is banging on the door outside, and R* is totally ignoring said gorilla.

I think your conception of how populated the Old West was is kinda skewed.

If you kill a couple hundred people throughout the game (and once you end up doing GTA styled bullshit as a side-mission/diversion you've already engaged in the act of breaking whatever "realism" the game might adhere to in its main storyline) that's maybe 1% of the total people occupying the towns/regions you run through over the course of the game.

There's the storyline, and then there's whatever you do when you just feel like fucking off in-game. The one can't really blend with the other. The other is there specifically so you can break away from the game's narrative and simply do some patented "video-game shit"

 

[AOC83]

The shooting mechanics are a core part of RDR and they are fun, so you get to use them a lot. It´s a video game at last.

 

[Shtof]

I think you're thinking too much into it.

I think of it as a game and that's that. Nothing more, nothing less.

Doesn't faze me one bit.

I used to force myself to think like that, like you still do. I won't force myself anymore, and I demand change. I'm tired of genocide simulators.

 

[pantsmith]

Whats interesting is that I don't think John likes it, either.

You really get the sense that hes one of the best guns in the West, almost supernaturally so, and though he already tried giving it up various people are using him as a tool to get their jobs done and he has to play along if he wants to see his family again. The endless "work" thrown at him is just as tedious to him as it is to you.

As far as killing outside of missions, you can control what kind of a man he is, in that sense. My John avoided violence as much as possible, but sometimes slipped up, which illustrated his tragic nature kind of beautifully.

 

[MormaPope]

I'd say the killing ties in to John as a character and the fate he receives. By the end of my recent 90% playthrough I killed over 1000 people.

 

[Fusebox]

That mission where you hunted down a mysterious murderer (was he a cannibal?) really did kill the atmosphere of the game for me. Once you tied the man down, the mission was "done" and I was left with the tied down murderer and the lady who I rescued from him just started to walk towards the desert... a certain death? And I couldn't do anything with the murderer. I took him to the sheriff and no triggers at all...

The game truly felt broken during that mission.

I left him on the train tracks. Best game ever!

 

[pa22word]

I think your perception of how populated the Old West was is kinda skewed.

The game doesn't go out of its way to recreate the entire "old west" though. Just a small vertical slice of Texas and Mexico. The Texas side (which has been what I've been faffing about in) has comprised of one really small town, a good sized ranch, and an outlaw enclave. It feels as if I've killed more people than could realistically make up the entire population of the little town and its surrounding areas already, and I've done very few side missions.

If you kill a couple hundred people throughout the game that's maybe 1% of the total people occupying the towns/regions you run through over the course of the game.

But here's the thing: I've already killed a couple hundred people and I'm not even close to being finished with the game. By game's end I could see me killing well over a thousand, and that's just insane given the size of the region.

There's the storyline, and then there's whatever you do when you just feel like fucking off in-game. The one can't really blend with the other. The other is there specifically so you can break away from the game's narrative and simply do some patented "video-game shit"

I understand that and agree with you, however these numbers come from the plot's missions. Stuff like using the machine gun to mow down scores of people in the fort mission, killing like 30 people while acting as a glorified taxi to justify moving the doctor back into town, etc. are needless events that really damage this game's attempt to immerse me in its environment.

 

[zoukka]

I left him on the train tracks. Best game ever!

Yeah I dragged him behind my horse into a pit. But it didn't ease the pain.

 

[Net_Wrecker]

Normally I'd agree and would want devs finding different ways to dispatch a smaller number of enemies.....


...but it's a western with God-tier body physics. I can make an exception. Continue to Peckinpah up the joint, Rockstar.

 

[MoGamesXNA]

I think you're thinking too much into it.

I think of it as a game and that's that. Nothing more, nothing less.

Doesn't faze me one bit.

This ^. I never understand the logic behind these kinds of arguments. My meager powers of empathy clearly fail me in these instances.

 

[pa22word]

This ^. I never understand the logic behind these kinds of arguments. My meager powers of empathy clearly fail me in these instances.

Empathy has absolutely nothing to do with it. I've probably killed over one-hundred thousand baddies in the Ninja Gaiden games, but that doesn't create dissonance because everything about those games feed right back into that. In RDR R* is trying to get me to fall in love with its stunning recreation that is grounded in reality, while I am dispatching enemies in quantities that is incredibly disproportionate to the environment that house them.

To reiterate in tl;dr diagram fashion:

NG2's atmosphere = "you here, dey there; kill dey ass". The game's plot and gameplay feed into this. No dissonance.

RDR's atmosphere = asks you to take the environment and its locals as a serious recreation of the wild west. You disproportionately kill vs what the game shows you as its environment and population. Dissonance created.


But please (re)read my opening post if you're having trouble grasping why the game doing what it does is problematic as far as immersion goes.

I'm not saying the game is bad, or that I'm going to stop playing or anything over this, but it is a problem with the game.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Normally I'd agree and would want devs finding different ways to dispatch a smaller number of enemies.....

...but it's a western with God-tier body physics. I can make an exception. Continue to Peckinpah up the joint, Rockstar.

there we go. That's a great way to look at it.

Red Dead isn't a realistic Old West simulator. It's a Sam Peckinpah simulator. If you can't immerse yourself into a Peckinpah movie, Red Dead might not be a good fit for your sensibilities.

 

[Windom Earle]

We call it the Nathan Drake syndrome.

 

[dan2026]

So if you don't shoot people what would you do in 80% of the missions?

I'm not saying you are wrong, but you would be removing most of the game.

Its weird, I can't say it bothered me at all in RDR, but in Bioshock Infinite it felt beyond ridiculous.

We call it the Nathan Drake syndrome.

Actually yeah Uncharted is worse.

Happy-go-lucky Nathan is a bigger monster than any of his villains.

 

[AlexBasch]

I only killed people in shootouts and mission objectives, never went full bandit.

Guess I played it wrong.

 

[One Foul Note]

I actually found RDR better then most at dealing with the mass killing issue. I think it was the fact that for me the game has 2 lives, one where it is this very personal revenge and redemption story. And the other where it is this story of how the world was during this time of great change and upheaval. In the 2nd game Masterson is less a man and more a zeitgeist of the times, the crushing force of new world law and order eroding and genociding the old west lawlessness. So the main dude just killing legions of faceless old world goons just felt natural. These 2 stories do sorta oppose each other, but for some reason it just worked for me.

 

[xbhaskarx]

They're not real.

 

[Tellaerin]

Empathy has absolutely nothing to do with it. I've probably killed over one-hundred thousand baddies in the Ninja Gaiden games, but that doesn't create dissonance because everything about those games feed right back into that. In RDR R* is trying to get me to fall in love with its stunning recreation that is grounded in reality, while I am dispatching enemies in quantities that is incredibly disproportionate to the environment that house them.

To reiterate in tl;dr diagram fashion:

NG2's atmosphere = "you here, dey there; kill dey ass". The game's plot and gameplay feed into this. No dissonance.

RDR's atmosphere = asks you to take the environment and its locals as a serious recreation of the wild west. You disproportionately kill vs what the game shows you as its environment and population. Dissonance created.


But please (re)read my opening post if you're having trouble grasping why the game doing what it does is problematic as far as immersion goes.

I'm not saying the game is bad, or that I'm going to stop playing or anything over this, but it is a problem with the game.

The fact that you can't satisfactorily reconcile the mild dissonance between the game's interactive elements and its narrative/presentation, to the point where that's actually a sticking point for you, doesn't mean that the game has an issue. It means that you have an issue with the game. There's a difference.

 

[Trent Strong]

The terrible shooting mechanics and boring horse riding bothered me a lot more than any ludonarrative dissonance.

 

[Kageshinzo]

Jesus Christ, these kinds of arguments make it seem like killing hundreds of people in a video game is a new concept.

Gamers have been slaughtering thousands of soldiers as far back as CONTRA in '87 for crying out loud. This is a game, people. You're supposed to do things you can't do in real life.

Jesus.

 

[pa22word]

The fact that you can't satisfactorily reconcile the mild dissonance between the game's interactive elements and its narrative/presentation, to the point where that's actually a sticking point for you, doesn't mean that the game has an issue. It means that you have an issue with the game. There's a difference.

I'd say that because there's the dissonance at all it's fairly evident there's a fault with the game, and not with how I'm interpreting it. And again, it's not a major deal that totally undermines the game or anything like it was in Ninja Gaiden 3, but after playing three games (BS:I, TR 2013, and RDR) back to back with similar issues it drove me to make the topic about the third that I'm currently playing.

Jesus Christ, these kinds of arguments make it seem like killing hundreds of people in a video game is a new concept.

Gamers have been slaughtering thousands of soldiers as far back as CONTRA in '87 for crying out loud. This is a game, people. You're supposed to do things you can't do in real life.

Jesus.

See:

To reiterate in tl;dr diagram fashion:

NG2's atmosphere = "you here, dey there; kill dey ass". The game's plot and gameplay feed into this. No dissonance.

RDR's atmosphere = asks you to take the environment and its locals as a serious recreation of the wild west. You disproportionately kill vs what the game shows you as its environment and population. Dissonance created.

 

[Bedlam]

The fact that you can't satisfactorily reconcile the mild dissonance between the game's interactive elements and its narrative/presentation, to the point where that's actually a sticking point for you, doesn't mean that the game has an issue. It means that you have an issue with the game. There's a difference.

No, it's definitely an issue that action games increasingly struggle with as characterization, narrative elements and visuals become more and more life-like.

In this case, looking at the game as an interactive Peckinpah Western is a viable way to achieve the suspension of disbelief. But in a number of other games, the ludonarrative dissonance is even stronger and it'll become an even bigger issue in the coming years. I'd even say it's probably the biggest challenge that (AAA / action) game creators are facing these days.

 

[tassletine]

I'd love to see a game where this was taken seriously. Game-alteringly seriosly. Like if you committed enough crimes, you effectively become wanted for the entire game and have to severely alter your tactics. The game would become much harder and more stealthy and the game would effectively turn into a completely different genre.

The writing in Rockstars' games is their main problem I think. It's just not up to par with the rest of the package. The company prides it's self on hyper detail, but the characters all sound like they are written by one person. And that person sure sounds like he's done a hell of a lot of coke. Constant monologues, shouting, self important, angry dialogue that goes on for far too long.

It can be very funny, but it's so inconsistent and unbelievable it taints the rest of the package. They also seem to be more focused on copying movie cliches than real life.
It's all very well copying a scene from Heat (in GTA5) but that scene was copied from a real life incident so why not go there for your reference. They will never get to that Michael Mann level of dramatic realism they aspire to, if they are always looking up to him.

 

[thefro]

The only thing that bothers me at all is all the gangs that somehow have 50+ members.

 

[Niwa]

Did you kill Playboy X

I demand an answer to this Question.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

Nathan Drake (from Uncharted) killing bazillions of "baddies" was worse. Considering that the baddies never killed that many people.

 

[6.8]

Nathan Drake (from Uncharted) killing bazillions of "baddies" was worse. Considering that the baddies never killed that many people.

But they wanted treasure bro

 

[zoukka]

They're not real.

I felt emotion once that wasn't related to a real person, what is wrong with me?

 

[tassletine]

I used to force myself to think like that, like you still do. I won't force myself anymore, and I demand change. I'm tired of genocide simulators.

I agree. As games get more realistic they have to take on new genres and styles to cope with that. Leave the genocide simulators to games like Bulletstorm as they're much better at that sort of gameplay anyway. Keep the shooting but make the consequences when you shoot civilians more severe.

The thing is, guns back then weren't very powerful so they could have easily tempered the violence. Head shots kill but the rest wound. Shoot someone in the leg. Walk over and then shoot them in the head if you need to as they beg for their lives.
Have people act more realistically. and have them running away when you show that you are proficient with your weapon. A gunfight in real life is hard, so why not make it like that in game as well. The violence would have much more impact then too.

There's very little sense of gameplay progression in all Rockstars' games, and I think that's one of their biggest problems. You are usually extremely capable from the start and not much changes after that. If this was incorporated into the gameplay better it would solve things. Bully did it best.

 

[Zeouterlimits]

Hey OP, I felt somewhat similarly. It was just so many people dying in such a sparsely populated space.
Max Payne 3 was the same for me coincidently enough, an unbelievable amount of bodies for the settings involved.

It breaks the immersion in a world they're trying so hard to make real and believable.

 

[Kassu]

Max Payne 3 is even worse. I did not have any problem with endless killing in Max Payne 1-2, but since third one seems to have a lot more serious and sadder plot, it feels weird to kill so much people all the time. Specifically chapter in New Jersey felt weird..

I didn't have any problems with RDR though.

 

[Scrabble]

Do people need to keep bringing up Uncharted? Yes we know the dissonance is more striking in that, but it doesn't make the OP's point any less valid.

 

[Bedlam]

The writing in Rockstars' games is their main problem I think. It's just not up to par with the rest of the package. The company prides it's self on hyper detail, but the characters all sound like they are written by one person. And that person sure sounds like he's done a hell of a lot of coke. Constant monologues, shouting, self important, angry dialogue that goes on for far too long.

The problem is indeed the writing and the characters but for the complete opposite reason: the rest of the package is not up to par with the narrative. It's way better than in other videogames (in genera) which is why the dissonance between gameplay and narrative becomes really prominent. What you do in these games just doesn't fit with what is presented in cutscenes.

The thing is, guns back then weren't very powerful so they could have easily tempered the violence. Head shots kill but the rest wound. Shoot someone in the leg. Walk over and then shoot them in the head if you need to as they beg for their lives.
Have people act more realistically. and have them running away when you show that you are proficient with your weapon. A gunfight in real life is hard, so why not make it like that in game as well. The violence would have much more impact then too.

It sounds easy but it isn't. You can be sure approaches like that have been discussed long before you even thought about it. But it comes down to this question: "Is it fun?"

There's very little sense of gameplay progression in all Rockstars' games, and I think that's one of their biggest problems. You are usually extremely capable from the start and not much changes after that. If this was incorporated into the gameplay better it would solve things. Bully did it best.

They're not RPGs. Pretty much all action games/shooters are like that.

 

[Messofanego]

Jonathan Blow brought this up on why the ending was "totally absurd".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRIEj-QN81o#t=46m08s

"Imagine a movie that's trying to be a serious drama. A serious drama where the main character shoots 860 guys. And then goes to his family at the end and you try to have this touching moment where he's caring for his family. It simply doesn't work because you've changed the value of human life.

Like, part of that shooting 860 guys was burning down a village of poor peasants so that you could get in with the Mexican army. Throwing molotov cocktails into their house. Those are families just like your family that they're trying to have their poignant moment with. That poignant moment just does not work in that kind of game."

 

[Red Blaster]

Max Payne 3 is even worse. I did not have any problem with endless killing in Max Payne 1-2, but since third one seems to have a lot more serious and sadder plot, it feels weird to kill so much people all the time. Specifically chapter in New Jersey felt weird..

I didn't have any problems with RDR though.

max is a grumpy asshole who doesnt give a fuck in mp3, seems like the perfect vessel for killing shit

 

[rosaceadude2112]

I'd love to see a game where this was taken seriously. Game-alteringly seriosly. Like if you committed enough crimes, you effectively become wanted for the entire game and have to severely alter your tactics. The game would become much harder and more stealthy and the game would effectively turn into a completely different genre.

The writing in Rockstars' games is their main problem I think. It's just not up to par with the rest of the package. The company prides it's self on hyper detail, but the characters all sound like they are written by one person. And that person sure sounds like he's done a hell of a lot of coke. Constant monologues, shouting, self important, angry dialogue that goes on for far too long.

It can be very funny, but it's so inconsistent and unbelievable it taints the rest of the package. They also seem to be more focused on copying movie cliches than real life.
It's all very well copying a scene from Heat (in GTA5) but that scene was copied from a real life incident so why not go there for your reference. They will never get to that Michael Mann level of dramatic realism they aspire to, if they are always looking up to him.

God I'd love a shooty game that could actually emulate that Heat scene. Something based more on positioning, suppression fire and tactics instead of scoring headshots. Where a single bullet is truly dangerous and not just a minor tick on your health bar.

 

[codhand]

Braid tried to have a touching moment after watching a chubby fat cartoon hop on the heads of gumbas for five hours.

 

[Bedlam]

God I'd love a shooty game that could actually emulate that Heat scene. Something based more on positioning, suppression fire and tactics instead of scoring headshots. Where a single bullet is truly dangerous and not just a minor tick on your health bar.

Again: easier said than done. How do you make that fun? And how do you make the game mechanics work at all? One little mistake and you're dead, just one of the many problems with that line of thought. You sure could alleviate some of these issues by making heavy use of slow-motion and rewind mechanics but if you have to rely on those and force the player to replay short shootouts over and over, players will probably hate the game.

 

[Patrick Bateman]

But they wanted treasure bro

So, Nathan Drake is a greedy and violent asshole then?

 

[rosaceadude2112]

Again: easier said than done. How do you make that fun? And how do you make the game mechanics work at all? One little mistake and you're dead, just one of the many problems with that line of thought.

Shooting at cops is its own reward.

 

[Brinbe]

I never felt this way at all playing RDR and it's not really all that similar to an Uncharted (or indeed Max Payne 3) situation. It's an open-world game, I didn't go out of my way maiming everyone and whoever did get murked was usually a means to accomplishing my objective.

If you played it as a crazy civilian murderer dude, that's on you.

 

[Bedlam]

Shooting at cops is its own reward.

Not in a videogame. It's just one frustrating "missed the target" experience after another.