While I agree with you on all that about Act 2, I still don’t see how he showed many redeeming qualities in the Snake oil-salesman and grave-robber parts of Act 1. Most of Act 1 he was just going wherever the next despicable person wanted him to go in order to give him more information about the next person who would lead to him getting to his old gang. That same trend continued in Act 2, like you said. He didn’t care so much about the consequences of his actions as the fact that it got him closer to his goal.
JeffL
1622
One - the fact that it REALLY bugged me is, I suppose, a testament to the game, in that I was invested in the character that much. ;)
But I made a distinction in my mind between helping an old snake oil salesman and helping the grave robber, in terms of how much that really hurt anyone, vs. leading a bunch of evil men into a village and helping them kill the villagers and enabling them to rape the women and execute the old men. And after seeing them do that once, continuing to help them. Same for helping the general burn down the river-side village. Just no way that Marston - at least the character I thought him to be - would go along with that.
But killing people by the score when they come after a con-man who swindled them out of their savings is fine?
For those who think the Mexican material is out of line, it might be worth considering that it’s your opinion of Marston, and not the game’s that’s out of whack—especially when you consider the period.
The snake-oil salesman is played for laughs - rape and pillage, not so much. That’s why, Dave.
Enidigm
1626
If you see the Mexican chapter as not so veiled commentary it is also clear what Rockstar was saying about the USs attitudes and involvements in Mexico through Marston. From the village thugs he first meets to the atrocities he helps one side, these people are always second class, inferior enough that the Americans drift above them.
Razgon
1627
Sure you are not just reading things into it? I know some games like to make small statements, but this seems way to political to me.
Well, think about the old cowboy you meet when you get there. You know, the guy who actually cares.
hong
1629
One might say that there is a difference between hearing of acts of political rat bastardry in the news, and actually having control of the D-pad and thumbstick when carrying out those acts.
JeffL
1630
This.
I did not enjoy actually having to participate in enabling the soldiers rape and murder. Watching the guys I was helping make old men get on their knees as they stood behind them and executed them, and watching the men I was helping carry off screaming women to rape them, and then continuing to help and enable these people, was far different than helping a snake oil salesman escape some guys trying to shoot him.
Unfortunately for them they chose a storytelling medium in which it would have been better for John Marston to be a consistent character rather than a walking commentary on the US involvement in Mexico. He wasn’t a commentary on the US involvement in Mexico in act 1 and he wasn’t a commentary on the US involvement in Mexico in act 3, so for him to throw away all of the characterization the game had attempted to give him until that point (that he had some sort of code of honor, for instance) so he could become a commentary on the US involvement in Mexico in act 2 makes for a shitty turn for the character. Unless… oh man… is he really a were-commentary-on-the-US-involvement-in-Mexico?!
Enidigm
1632
Have you ever been to Mexico and seen the hordes of drunken foul mouthed giggling coeds slumming their way through a local grocer while the populace looks on in horror?
I’m not saying Mexico isn’t somewhat of a shock but the idea that Americans can l go out of the country and do horrible things to the despondant locals is not completely out of character; especially as you see Marston get a bit bushwhacked by the result of the missions themselves. To be fair he wasn’t told “were going to rape and pillage some locals”, and he also takes revenge upon the Mexican leaders eventually.
I have been thoroughly enjoying RDR for the first time for about a week now playing a couple hours every night or so. I just have a few questions that probably have been answered in this thread or others but I’m too fearful of spoilers to delve too deep.
I think I finally have lassoing/hogtying figured out but it is still tricky. Especially when I do it from horseback and need to get off… think when I had to for the Bonnie mission it took me 10 tries and I finally did it by accident. Can someone simplify this for me (Xbox)?
How important is it to unlock the extra rooms/safehouses in all of the different locations? Money isn’t super tight but I’m saving up to buy the deed for the 3 star horse that I got shot out from under me running away from a gang.
How exactly does the quicksave-using-the-horse-deed thing work? I think I need this if only because of what happened the last time I made camp to save my progress. I got warned that I was close to a hide-out (wasn’t looking for any particular bounty so was a total surprise) and then I could see a blue (friend) dot on my mini-map and I started putting two and two together and decided I needed to save my progress before possibly getting jumped and when I came out of the campfire it told me that I was too late and a sheriff had been killed. :-/
I have realized after the fact that I left Bonnie’s ranch too soon so I went back to do some more missions. Now I juggle between Bonnie, the Marshall in Armadillo, and this new fella “W” something (snake-oil guy). Some have said the game is super linear but this feels pretty open-ended to me… am I missing some order here?
Going “out of order” won’t be too bad. You can’t screw yourself by not having the correct weapons or whatever, so don’t worry about that. You will come across some weird dialogue instances in which an NPC will talk about another NPC in a manner that suggests you already know him/her very well and have done things up to a certain point which can be off-putting.
The bigger worry is that you can progress the story past a certain point which will lock you out of going back to questlines that you haven’t finished. No spoilers, but you’re a long way off from that gate.
dermot
1635
I’m enjoying this game still but I think the bum note it strikes in Mexico is down to the way the story is presented. We’re not really told explicitly what’s happened to Marston’s family from the outset - it’s all implied and hinted, at least as far as I’ve played. What that means is that we don’t really get a sense of Marston’s desperation and it’s hard to empathise with his situation. If we were told straight out why he’s doing what he’s doing (perhaps during the introductory cinematic) then it might be easier to understand why he throws his lot in with anyone that he thinks might be able to help him do what he needs to do regardless of how unsavoury they are.
I just finished the game. Very powerful stuff. I’ll comment more in the spoiler thread if I feel up to it later. But this is definitely a game I would now put in the top games of last year. That’s not something I would have done during the long, seemingly never-ending lame portion of the game before Act 3 though. But just like with Prince of Persia 2008, sometimes a strong ending can really elevate a decent game into a truly great game.
JeffL
1637
Rock8man, I agree. In fact, the Mexico act wouldn’t have bugged me so much had I not become so invested in Marston’s story.
This was a game that was, for me, more than the sum of its parts. The “random” encounters that were the exact same thing, time after time after time (why would you spend the money you spend on development of a game like this and then have a stranger pretend to need help and then hijack your horse dozens and dozens of times, the same for the lady with the broken down wagon, etc.???,) the Mexico act, and other parts just felt like disdain for the player at worst and lazy at best. Little things like:
SPOILERS PAST THIS POINT…
… his wife and kids being held in a farm that you’ve ridden past dozens of times before with no sign of life. That was tempered with a really nice world/environment, and an interesting character with a Western Noir tale of redemption. When he looked out the barn doors after sending his wife and kid away to safety, looked out the barn door at the crowd with their guns drawn, sighed and stepped through the doors to sure death but hopefully salvation for his family, I had a gaming moment that was impressed on me in the same way some of the great games of the past have made their mark (e.g. Floyd’s death.) The son avenging his father’s death was the “right” end to the story, and I felt no need to play after that - I felt closure and a profound sense of sadness.
I’m still not sure who was redeemed, though.
No one has to be redeemed in a game or movie or book or song or campfire tale in order for the name to fit. A major theme of this game right from the beginning is the idea of John Marston seeking redemption for his past life. Whether or not someone is actually redeemed in this tale doesn’t have to be a criteria for whether redemption is a fitting name for it.
