Red Dead Redemption - I done hit that dusty trail

Bahimiron · 2011-01-07T07:51:20.000Z

Did you get off your horse?

Papageno · 2011-01-07T08:21:42.000Z

Yup, getting off your horse will interrupt it. That happened to me the first time I played.

dermot · 2011-01-07T09:23:49.000Z

Bahimiron:

Did you get off your horse?

No, it never even started as far as I can tell. As soon as I got on my horse I brought up the map and set a waypoint to Chuparosa so maybe that’s what did it.

I’d go back to an earlier save but if I never see the cliche that is the drunken Irish again I’ll die happy.

Rock8man · 2011-01-14T11:46:18.000Z

I wanted to thank JeffL for encouraging me to not abandon this game, but to put my head down and just somehow get through the Mexico section of the game.

Now that I’m in the third unlocked area, the game is a LOT better. Suddenly the writing is like it was at the beginning of the game. The dialog is once again very well written and acted and beautifully presented in the in-game cutscenes with appropriate music and a cutting tension in some scenes. It’s hard to believe that the beginning of RDR and this third section are the same game as the vast majority of the middle of the game, which was just absolutely a bore-fest.

MrPerson · 2011-01-14T11:56:05.000Z

It’s frustrating in that the third act would be stronger with another hour or so of gameplay, which the second act could easily stand to lose. They spent way too much time both in terms of gameplay and development on Mexico that could have been added to bring a little more to the ending.

Enidigm · 2011-01-14T12:58:16.000Z

Mexico was awesome :/. The discomfort you feel is truly Mexican. Out of character more or less, but still awesome. Train Gatling Guns ftw.

BlueJackalope · 2011-01-14T13:01:10.000Z

I started playing the Undead Nightmare DLC

It is very well done, I’m really digging it and the writing if anything, is actually better than than in RDR itself.

I actually had a very hard time deciding what to do at the conclusion of the “Birth of Conservation” storyline. I am even tempted to reload and not start that mission at all. Which isn’t to say it is bad, just - pretty rough.

jason · 2011-01-14T13:01:58.000Z

The action in Mexico was fine… it was the lameness of the rebel who treats women poorly, the woman who idolizes him and the general “Why should I care about this?” feeling of it that makes the second act clearly the weakest of the three.

Enidigm · 2011-01-14T14:39:38.000Z

I guess you have no interest in Mexico. They pretty much framed Mexican politics as it has played out over the last 150 years in one act. They showed how easily, just across a river, a similar environment becomes dysfunctional, and why. Hard not to love that.

JeffL · 2011-01-14T16:06:05.000Z

Enidigm:

I guess you have no interest in Mexico. They pretty much framed Mexican politics as it has played out over the last 150 years in one act. They showed how easily, just across a river, a similar environment becomes dysfunctional, and why. Hard not to love that.

What I hated was how Marston behaved in Mexico. I had no problem with the politics and general chaos and conflict in Mexico. But for the entire first act, you have Marston talking about trying to go the straight road, make amends for the bad things he did in the past, he won’t even fool with the ladies in his hotel. Then he crosses the border and he helps these guys rape and pillage innocent villagers, no problem. Part of one of the missions for him is helping a general burn down a village. He is suddenly an amoral character that is a completely different person than the one I’d gotten to know in the first part of the game (and the last 3rd.)

Grifman · 2011-01-14T22:28:20.000Z

JeffL:

What I hated was how Marston behaved in Mexico. I had no problem with the politics and general chaos and conflict in Mexico. But for the entire first act, you have Marston talking about trying to go the straight road, make amends for the bad things he did in the past, he won’t even fool with the ladies in his hotel. Then he crosses the border and he helps these guys rape and pillage innocent villagers, no problem. Part of one of the missions for him is helping a general burn down a village. He is suddenly an amoral character that is a completely different person than the one I’d gotten to know in the first part of the game (and the last 3rd.)

Do you have to take that mission?

Marcin · 2011-01-14T22:48:12.000Z

Grifman:

Do you have to take that mission?

Yes. The game is totally linear.

Delta · 2011-01-15T05:59:36.000Z

Just to be clear - Marston is not actually involved in the raping. He happily destroys the village, and then peculiarly shouts something like ‘you make me sick!’ before leaving.

JeffL · 2011-01-15T09:31:21.000Z

Delta:

Just to be clear - Marston is not actually involved in the raping. He happily destroys the village, and then peculiarly shouts something like ‘you make me sick!’ before leaving.

Yeah, but he does their dirty work repeatedly, knowing what they are doing to the villagers. The “You make me sick” line is just that much more annoying - he knows exactly what these people are doing yet goes along with every mission for them.

A much better/more consistent approach would have been for him to realize what these people in power were doing, then immediately go against them, organizing villagers such that the missions are repelling these attacks, setting up assassinations of the leader and his guys, etc. right from the beginning. It would have fit much better in his search for salvation and redemption.

Delta · 2011-01-15T10:01:04.000Z

Oh, Jeff, I agree. That part really grated with me from a design front. What I wanted to head off was if Grifman was worrying that he’d be involved in some rape scene.

Papageno · 2011-01-15T12:37:50.000Z

JeffL:

Yeah, but he does their dirty work repeatedly, knowing what they are doing to the villagers. The “You make me sick” line is just that much more annoying - he knows exactly what these people are doing yet goes along with every mission for them.

A much better/more consistent approach would have been for him to realize what these people in power were doing, then immediately go against them, organizing villagers such that the missions are repelling these attacks, setting up assassinations of the leader and his guys, etc. right from the beginning. It would have fit much better in his search for salvation and redemption.

I agree that that part of the story was pretty tone-deaf.

Lizard_King · 2011-01-15T23:31:44.000Z

I would have settled for any acknowledgement of that incongruity, even if it came down to “well it’s evil but I’m doing it for my family and what happens in Mexico stays in Mexico”, ideally with toned down nefariousness. As JeffL says, I just didn’t get the point of switching gears so radically for the middle stretch of the game, and I kept waiting for some explanation that never came (and I’m sure of that, having 100%ed the game).

JeffL · 2011-01-16T11:21:04.000Z

It is so out of synch with Act 1 and Act 3 that it makes me wonder if they had two teams working on this in parallel, one doing the Mexico section, another doing the U.S. section.

Rock8man · 2011-01-16T11:55:44.000Z

JeffL:

It is so out of synch with Act 1 and Act 3 that it makes me wonder if they had two teams working on this in parallel, one doing the Mexico section, another doing the U.S. section.

Most of Act 1 (if you’re counting the whole section of the game before Mexico as Act 1) is just like the Mexico section: after you leave Bonnie’s Ranch and hook up with the grave robber and the snake oil salesman, the game is a series of one boring monologue after another with unlikable characters who I have no interest in. The Mexico act just continues that same trend from most of Act 1.

But yes, if you’re counting Act 1 as the beginning of the game up to the point where Bonnie’s missions stop, then yes, Act 1 and Act 3 do seem to be done by a completely different team than the rest of the game. It’s just a shame that their work is so much shorter/smaller in proportion to the majority of the game done by the other team.

JeffL · 2011-01-16T12:02:45.000Z

Rock8man:

Most of Act 1 (if you’re counting the whole section of the game before Mexico as Act 1) is just like the Mexico section: after you leave Bonnie’s Ranch and hook up with the grave robber and the snake oil salesman, the game is a series of one boring monologue after another with unlikable characters who I have no interest in. The Mexico act just continues that same trend from most of Act 1.

But yes, if you’re counting Act 1 as the beginning of the game up to the point where Bonnie’s missions stop, then yes, Act 1 and Act 3 do seem to be done by a completely different team than the rest of the game. It’s just a shame that their work is so much shorter/smaller in proportion to the majority of the game done by the other team.

Except that in Act 1 and 3, Marston is clearly trying to amend for his past, feels bad about what he did in the past, wants to go the straight and narrow, let’s people know he’s a changed man, etc. Act 2, he seems to have no problems enabling rape and pillaging of helpless and downtrodden villagers, over and over again. Just doesn’t fit the character. Would have been simple to design the Mexico act so that he sees what is happening to the people, then his missions are defending against the soldiers trying to rape and pillage and murder the villagers, etc. Again - would have fit his story of a man seeking salvation and redemption for past bad deeds.