Support NeoGAF

[Scrabble]

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.

Brothers in Arms handled fire and suppression very well, and that was back in 2005. Man those first two Brothers in Arms games are so good.

 

[Haunted]

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.

Seems like you're not into it as much as the OP is, and that's ok. It's only becoming a bother once you want to really immerse yourself in the world, treat the story it tells seriously. I know people who only play GTA to blow shit up and play MP, never did many story missions with Niko Bellic, didn't care about him and just continued to wreak havoc.

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.

Brothers in Arms, where are you.

 

[Messofanego]

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.

Payday The Heist didn't do it for you? I mean you still had headshots of course.

Suppression fire in a shooter would make it more tactical like Brothers in Arms games or Full Spectrum Warrior where if you don't, you can't move your squad ahead or they're dead.

 

[Farslain]

I felt exactly the same as you OP.

In fact I couldn't make it past Mexico for this very reason.

Which was a shame, as I rarely stop playing a game, and to put one down that was as enjoyable as RDR felt like a diservice to the game.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

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.

I had posed an idea where I'd prefer 1-3 very smart and effective AI in unique situations over 10-20 braindead fodder in killrooms. Imagine the AI working together, creating cover fire while an unseen enemy flanks you. Shit'd be intense.

 

[Magic Mushroom]

Marston bothered me more than Drake, because it's played more serious. Drake to me is just the game version of Indy. A treasure hunter who kills the bad guys that want to kill him. It's an action movie in videogame form. We even see him making a distinction between the Eastern European war criminals and the innocent guards in the museum, who are kept alive because he uses tranquilizer darts.

I had way more trouble accepting Gordon Freeman, a friggin' theoretical physicist who probably never fired a gun, killing tons of people. WTF?

 

[Shtof]

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.

Well, whoever figures it out will be a millionaire. Been waiting for years for that on game that finally make a gunfight feel realistic. Last of Us looks like a step in the right direction, but still way too unrealistic.

 

[Haunted]

I had way more trouble accepting Gordon Freeman, a friggin' theoretical scientist who probably never fired a gun, killing tons of people. WTF?

He's a quick learner.

 

[Messofanego]

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

There is no touching moment in Braid. You don't play as a nice person in the game. Did you get to the brilliant ending?

 

[Village]

max is The Punisher who doesnt give a fuck in all 3 games, seems like the perfect vessel for killing shit

Fixed for accuracy

 

[Shtof]

Marston bothered me more than Drake, because it's played more serious. Drake to me is just the game version of Indy. A treasure hunter who kills the bad guys that want to kill him. It's an action movie in videogame form. We even see him making a distinction between the Eastern European war criminals and the innocent guards in the museum, who are kept alive because he uses tranquilizer darts.

I had way more trouble accepting Gordon Freeman, a friggin' theoretical scientist who probably never fired a gun, killing tons of people. WTF?

Yeah, Drake is kind of an unfair poster boy for the "genocide simulator" genre since the games are generally cartoony and not very violent. Also everything happens in remote locations on the planet.

RDR, Assassin's Creed and GTA, however, are all set in populated areas and feature insane amounts of genocide to be frank. Ezio and and Connor can basically slaughter dozens of guards in the middle of street, and the game world generally won't respond with anything else than increased notoriety. Niko and CJ slaughter tens of rivaling gang members in some firefights, as well as police. Well, enough about that. Gameplay design is hard, but I honestly think that we can get rid of the murder sim type of gameplay. Designers just need to stop trying to appeal to a larger audience and start thinking more about what can make their game stand out among dozens of other murder sims.

 

[Bedlam]

Well, whoever figures it out will be a millionaire. Been waiting for years for that on game that finally make a gunfight feel realistic. Last of Us looks like a step in the right direction, but still way too unrealistic.

Definitely. The industry needs that one game that figures out how to make shooting fun without having the player mow down small armies.

We're pretty much stuck with old gameplay paradigms while the narrative quality in videogames advances at a rapid pace. What's a worthy sustitute for "shooting people" that is at least equally as engaging and satisfying? It seems to be an almost impossible task and the only answers that game creators could come up with so far to at least partly solve the problem is taking elements from other genres to enrich the experience. (exploration, character progression, to a lesser extent puzzle solving because hardly any player has the patience for that anymore). But that's not the paradigm shift that we need.

Designers just need to stop trying to appeal to a larger audience and start thinking more about what can make their game stand out among dozens of other murder sims.

Indie devs can do that. But the risk involved in AAA productions such as RDR, GTA, AC etc. is way too big. They have to appeal to a large audience.

 

[Tenrius]

I had way more trouble accepting Gordon Freeman, a friggin' theoretical physicist who probably never fired a gun, killing tons of people. WTF?

You can do pretty much anything if you already do theoretical physics!

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."

That's great, I can agree with that. Especially the part about that Mexican village. The examples of games, whose plot is supposed to be serious and doesn't feel disconnected like that, are rather rare in general though. To name a few, maybe Max Payne 1-2, Metal Gear Solid and Spec Ops: The Line (which is a special case).

 

[Red Blaster]

Yeah, Drake is kind of an unfair poster boy for the "genocide simulator" genre since the games are generally cartoony and not very violent. Also everything happens in remote locations on the planet.

RDR, Assassin's Creed and GTA, however, are all set in populated areas and feature insane amounts of genocide to be frank. Ezio and and Connor can basically slaughter dozens of guards in the middle of street, and the game world generally won't respond with anything else than increased notoriety. Niko and CJ slaughter tens of rivaling gang members in some firefights, as well as police. Well, enough about that. Gameplay design is hard, but I honestly think that we can get rid of the murder sim type of gameplay. Designers just need to stop trying to appeal to a larger audience and start thinking more about what can make their game stand out among dozens of other murder sims.

why was that a problem for cj, he was a gangbanger who was primarily interested in reestablishing grove street and fighting the police department that kidnapped his brother

 

[Zabka]

I feel the exact opposite but for similar reasons. Rockstar's games need to dial down the dramatic elements to match the tone of the world instead of the other way around.

Although I did feel RDR was perfectly fine I that regard. They never tried to hide that Marston was a bad person and I never felt the game was going for "realistic". Giant shootuts where the hero kills dozens of men are right in line with the movies the game is directly pulling from.

 

[zoukka]

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.

Yeah the new jersey level was wacked. Some douchebags deserved a good ass kicking, but old Max decides to shoot them, their friends, their relatives and a small percentage of the citys population.

 

[oneils]

Does the game have a stat tracker that can show you how many people you have killed?

I finished the game, but did not try to "complete" it. I'm curious as to how many people I actually killed. I don't remember the game the same way as the OP.

Then again I usually play Rockstar games pretty "straight." That is I don't usually go on rampages. When I do, I save first - then rampage and quit without saving.

 

[Dragon1893]

It's amazing how much this bothers people. Why does the fact that Marston never goes to the bathroom not break immersion for you? Or the fact that he never eats and drinks? Or the fact that when you reload you don't lose the bullets that were still in the clip? Or the fact that when you get shot you can shrug it off by hiding a few seconds behind cover?

It's a game and suspending your disbelief for these things is, always was and always will be a part of it.

 

[Shtof]

why was that a problem for cj, he was a gangbanger who was primarily interested in reestablishing grove street and fighting the police department that kidnapped his brother

Because, y'know, it's not normal to mow down thousands of people in peace time.

Indie devs can do that. But the risk involved in AAA productions such as RDR, GTA, AC etc. is way too big. They have to appeal to a large audience.

I'm not sure. But the risk of being the same as everyone else is even more dangerous I think. GTA and AC are strong franchises because they introduced innovation in their game worlds. But the elements that sent them to the top was definitely not the murder sim part of the games.

 

[Seanspeed]

ludonarrative dissonance

I really hate this term.

Anyways, RDR went for authenticity with the setting, but its still very much a video game at heart.

 

[TheSeks]

Did you kill Playboy X

Yes, for his pad. Then I killed Dwayne. Whiny git.

 

[dab0ne]

The only killing that bothered me in RDR is when R* killed my dreams of it ever coming to PC.

Edit:

If it makes you feel any better just pretend the outlaws came there from other parts of the country.

 

[Bedlam]

It's amazing how much this bothers people. Why does the fact that Marston never goes to the bathroom not break immersion for you? Or the fact that he never eats and drinks? Or the fact that when you reload you don't lose the bullets that were still in the clip? Or the fact that when you get shot you can shrug it off by hiding a few seconds behind cover?

It's a game and suspending your disbelief for these things is, always was and always will be a part of it.

Because shooting about 1000 people is more visible?

You could imagine that Marston does those little things you mentioned during the 6 hour sleep/save period.

I really hate this term.

Why?

 

[Dragon1893]

Getting shot hundreds of times in the game also contradicts what I see in cutscenes where characters die when they're shot.
Let's discuss why Cloud didn't use a phoenix down on Aerith while we're at it.

 

[Bedlam]

Getting shot hundreds of times in the game also contradicts what I see in cutscenes where characters die when they're shot.

Also true.

Let's discuss why Cloud didn't use a phoenix down on Aerith while we're at it.

No one ever questioned it because the narrative was removed enough from reality.

 

[LiveFromKyoto]

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 >.>?

Never played Red Dead, but I know exactly what you mean. I get the same thing from Assassin's Creed games. Percentage wise you must have killed a relative of every person in the known area, yet it just gets ignored so far the game can maintain the fiction that somehow you're the good guy.

Edit: somebody mentioned Uncharted, it's definitely worse there. I have to turn off a part of my brain to play those games. (Still love them though, almost platinumed the original.)

 

[ElyrionX]

I agree. It's a problem that many open world games struggle with and it's part of the reason why Bully was such a great game.

 

[Haunted]

Getting shot hundreds of times in the game also contradicts what I see in cutscenes where characters die when they're shot.
Let's discuss why Cloud didn't use a phoenix down on Aerith while we're at it.

Both are bad and things like cutscene incompetence or plotline death are quirks we've learned to live with in videogames (I expect these bad tropes to diminish as gaming evolves), but only one of these completely undermines the personality and character of the main protagonist, which is much worse than clashing game mechanics (or game mechanics clashing with the real world).

 

[Mr.Wreckless]

I'm so glad I'm not bothered by this sort of thing. I'm just into gaming for having fun. If the game is fun I don't care about all this dissonance stuff.

 

[MCN]

Talk about overthinking! It's a video game. Play it like one.

 

[Haunted]

I'm so glad I'm not bothered by this sort of thing. I'm just into gaming for having fun. If the game is fun I don't care about all this dissonance stuff.

Talk about overthinking! It's a video game. Play it like one.

It's fine to approach games in such a shallow way, but please don't berate others for looking deeper into them.

 

[Gek54]

I am not remembering the game having you kill innocents. Though I do catch feels for all the innocent turtles I crushed looking for some frog crap princess.

The only part in RDR that didnt sit well with me was when John tried to shoot the mysterious man in the back. Seemed uncharacteristically cold blooded.

 

[Rolf NB]

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.

Just look at the reaction to Uncharted 1's final level to see how well that would fly.

 

[Dragon1893]

It's fine to approach games in such a shallow way, but please don't berate others for looking deeper into them.

Serious business.

 

[Dunan]

Let's discuss why Cloud didn't use a phoenix down on Aerith while we're at it.

Because phoenix downs don't bring the dead back to life; they bring unconscious/knocked-out people back to consciousness.

 

[Village]

Yeah the new jersey level was wacked. Some douchebags deserved a good ass kicking, but old Max decides to shoot them, their friends, their relatives and a small percentage of the citys population.

Wait didnt they threaten someone at gun point, then shot at him, then chased him with guns.


I am sure he had some right to shoot back

Because phoenix downs don't bring the dead back to life; they bring unconscious/knocked-out people back to consciousness.

I think its because the items used in final fantasy , a lot of them aren't used in the narrative. Unlike Pokemon where all the pokestuff exists in the universe. The ultima weapon in a Square game isn't relevant to anything its just a thing you can get. And in the narrative he or she is using thier old weapon anyway. And the characters in the game in the narrative didn't suck so much they had to use some type of revival item.

 

[BigTnaples]

The last 3-4 hours of that game are something I will always remember.


Some of the best moments in gaming.

 

[Can Crusher]

It doesn't bother me at all in this game. Because the main character is a killer.

It's not like in Uncharted or Tomb Raider.

 

[4lejandro]

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.

This.

I would've liked something like that, wounding or scaring people off instead of killing every last one of them. Just like you could in most of the duels.

That said, all the killing and stuff didn't bother me much for a videogame.

 

[Spirit of Jazz]

It doesn't bother me at all in this game. Because the main character is a killer.

It really bothered me because the agency for his killing was so weak when he was trying to be played as someone who no longer wanted to kill. I mean killing a man to save your wife and child makes sense, butchering a whole town to protect a snake oil salesman who screwed them and should have faced justice all in order to get a coach that you could get by without is fucking dumb. I feel the killing in the game absolutely ruined the narrative it tried to build.

Also I really didn't like the fact you couldn't take tied up criminals to the sheriff for rewards.

 

[Messofanego]

Wait didnt they threaten someone at gun point, then shot at him, then chased him with guns.
I am sure he had some right to shoot back

Those dudes did threaten, the leader pistol-whipped a woman, then Max shoots him point-blank. Max shot first. I like to pretend that third game doesn't exist, but for other reasons.

 

[JB1981]

They're not real.

Lol

 

[rosaceadude2112]

Just look at the reaction to Uncharted 1's final level to see how well that would fly.

i don't see the comparison at all

 

[zoukka]

Those dudes did threaten, the leader pistol-whipped a woman, then Max shoots him point-blank. Max shot first. I like to pretend that third game doesn't exist, but for other reasons.

Yep, althought the instant transition to the douche whipping the girl and max pointing a gun at him was "cool", the whole scene played out like an LSD dream.

 

[bengraven]

In fairness, a character like John Marston would have a legend attached to him already as a notorious bandit with Dutch's crew.

In the Old West, thanks to journalists hungry for numbers, penny dreadful writers trying to sell books, and uneducated people who lived in a harsh world and loved to tell stories to one up each other, a lot of legendary people like Billy the Kid and Bat Masterson had their true kill counts over-dramatized. Someone like Billy, who later researchers figured killed only FOUR people was, at the time, considered by some to be a butcher who killed hundreds.

Just like how they say a person a night died in Deadwood for over a year - some researchers actually doubt this and believe that maybe one person died by gun fire in THE ENTIRE WEST each day during the hey day of the cowboy days (early 1870s through late 1880s).

Definitely not the bloodbath that shows like Lawman and Have Gun Will Travel would make you believe.

That's how I justify it - this isn't the true story of John Marston - this is his legend.

 

[Village]

Those dudes did threaten, the leader pistol-whipped a woman, then Max shoots him point-blank. Max shot first. I like to pretend that third game doesn't exist, but for other reasons.

They threaten people with a gun, and max shot first. I am sorry but I fail to see the issue here. Maybe they shouldn't be threatening people with guns, if they didn't want to get shot.

The 3rd game was gold.

 

[Ace Harding]

Are there any games that include some combat that DON'T have this problem? I guess something like Heavy Rain, or the Walking Dead? But that's the exception not the rule.

I thought it was much less of a problem in RDR than in GTA. You don't do anything in RDR that would feel out of place in the westerns it pulls from. In GTA, you go way above and beyond what you are used to seeing in films. Also, the "wild west" isn't a setting we all live in. There is some fantasy there. In GTA, the modern setting makes the craziness more jarring because that's our world.

 

[Rawket Lawnchair]

I guess some people on GAF live games, don't just play them.

 

[Messofanego]

They threaten people with a gun, and max shot first. I am sorry but I fail to see the issue here. Maybe they shouldn't be threatening people with guns, if they didn't want to get shot.

The 3rd game was gold.

I don't have an issue with Max shooting first, just the whole moment felt really forced like the whole game.

 

[David H Wong]

Talk about overthinking! It's a video game. Play it like one.

We're playing it exactly like Rockstar wants us to - that's why it includes lengthy, emotional cutscenes and employed voice actors who could pull them off. It wanted us to feel something in one scene (as part of the fun - fiction is fun because it makes you feel something) then in the next scene we're to take control and start mindlessly killing dudes like they're aliens in Space Invaders. It's combining two different types of "fun" in a way that diminishes both.