Well done, sir.
*thinks, "It's OK, because we all knew it would never get finished anyway".
*calls Ben a dick.
I would have loved to see DLC for the game in which you got to play as Marston during his "gang" days. There was a lot of talk about John's past and it left me wanting to know more and to experience it firsthand.
awesome bro.
Cool way to go through the game. Its interesting that for all the cheating and robbing, your black-hat John never made his goal. I have to admit I never played much RDR, so I don't know how fast or slow you accumulate money, but I understand Mexico is the second act in the game much like opening up the other islands in a GTA game. When playing a more conventional white-hat John, would you have around the same ammount of cash at that point or did the thieving and murdering at least give you a leg up there?
I've always found it weird how in games with karma ratings and good/bad guy story lines and decisions, they often make the good guy just as powerful and richly rewarded as the bad. For all its glory, Bioshock was like this. My first play through of course I saved every little sister and was concerned that I was going to be power straved all game. When I went to replay on hard to achievement whore I was merciless to the little sisters. It was win/win, I would get the bad guy achievement and be more powerful for the hard game. In reality though, I found myself about as ADAM rich as normal. Yeah you get more per sister, but Tennenbaum's little gift packages for going the good route seemed to balance everything out.
I think it would have been a stronger design choice to reward that morally bankrupt greed. To justify all that social Darwinism and underscore the real sacrafice being a decent man in that situation would require. I'm just wondering if RDR works kinda the same, or did being bad net you some concrete self-gain?
Again, great article!
I'm playing as a good guy at the moment...hopefully it pays off.
@mrandydixon - I HACK YOUR BLOGS FOR IDEAS. I HACK YOUR BRAIN FOR IDEAS.
@SteezyXL - Thank you, sir! Backstory DLC would be MORE THAN WELCOMED. HEAR THAT DEVELOPERS?
@jashoeuh - You're my Superman.
@mratomix - Your praise is seriously well received. I really am compelled by these sort of concepts in games. Morality and struggle and ethics and how it can be wrapped in a entertaining package. I think the the player's experience both in and out of game is really interesting and, as someone from a background of fiction, I can't help but talk about it like a story. I love story.
@Wrenchfarm - Your appreciation makes nerve endings tingle like they've caught fire. You arsonist of love, you.
The money was better in the villainous story, but not by enough to make it worth it as a viable way to make cash. Really, I never had any issues having adequate funds when I played the hero. Which is why I so rarely get pulled into the evil track. So you're absolutely on the money with your last assessment. If games made the evil option beyond enticing, would just the abstract idea of being a 'good guy' be enough to keep the player playing the hero? It's a damn interesting concept.
@Zwooooooooooooooooooooooosh - Thanks, man! That's really an amazing compliment to say it's better than playing the game. I think there's a power to the story of what happens when you play a game, your interactions and reactions, and I love writing about it.
@LawofThermalDynamics - The bandanna has some effect, but it's minimal overall. I refused to use it, for the sake of this experiment. Sorry you can't read it without spoilers! I need to make sure to do more story-free No Clip entries in the future.
Steezy's backstory comment is pretty much what my blog is about, though the "protagonist" in my imaginary DLC is Dutch van der Linde, 'cause that dude kicks way more ass than ol' scarface :)
Though if I were playing I'd already have one advantage, in that if I were to encounter two men chasing down a third shooting at him with their guns, my confusion on who the bad guys were would atleast be justified....I dunno about you but I assume a man's getting robbed when a guy is getting chased by a couple other guys with guns.
This is actually taking out a part of the game that's not intended to be a cheat, but rather a part of the character. John is such a good marksman it's almost like science fiction, thus the dead eye. You not only made him the villain, you thought "lawl hardcore no dead eye" and ruined a part of his personality.
I'm supremely jealous of your frontpage abilities, Disco. Keep up the amazing articles. You're a pro!
I applaud you sir.
"You not only made him the villain, you thought 'lawl hardcore no dead eye' and ruined a part of his personality."
Everything about this experiment dealt with "ruining" aspects of Marston's character in one way or another.
"That's what I get out of aim-assist targeting. It bridges that gap from someone like John Marston's inherent ability to handle a fire-arm even in the most chaotic moments to myself, whose proudest moment of hand-eye coordination was this one time I caught both pieces of toast as they popped out of the toaster.
And it's just damn fun to have that confidence to roll into a room and blast someone away with the revolver like John was born to do. "
But, for the sake of my challenge of, you know, taking things away from his character to make it interesting and "hardcore," I think it did just that. Reading lawl.
Looking forward to the next one.
"All it really ended up doing though was reaffirming why I didn't like RDR much at all."
How could it have done that? This sounded amazing.
"How could it have done that? This sounded amazing."
Yeah it is an amazing piece, and all I could think about the entire time I read it was how badly R* dropped the ball on actually making the sandbox actions we did, or ever do in their games, matter one single iota to how the story plays out or how the character is really perceived.
When the gamer has to go the extra mile to make the game's internal systems write such a moving tale as this and yet absolutely avoid the main quest because it cannot match up with the actions, or better put, the persona that the player has crafted for the character he controls, it ultimately means that the developers have mostly failed us. We shouldn't have to work this hard to make being evil in this game make sense.
Wonderfully written blog, by the way.
Anyway, you've completely reminded me of the strange juxtapostion Marston is involved in during the course of the story. On one hand, he's given the freedom to do whatever he likes, yet in the cutscenes, he's a restrained character, bound by the confines of the plot. I never really understood why Rockstar gave you that sort of desperado accessibilty if Marston rarely used his infamy out of your hands.
Of course, as a player you want that kind of freedom in a videogame that allows expansive exploration, but considering how it was also trying to tell a story of redemption and how you were conditioned into acting more heroic (despite the countless bandits you kill), it seemed almost pointless to have this evil side in it.
The thing is, if you leave something like this out, people complain about a lack of vision. Put it and see how it's at odds with the story and people want something taken out, be it story or the ability to be pure evil.
I guess it made a lot more sense when Undead Nightmare came out. John Marston has a "get out of jail" card to kill anybody he wants in that one.
I liked the statement made about how you could be ruthless and evil but still remain a hero in the end if you finished the games missions. You claimed that any good karma earned during that play through would be a waste.
I love how at the end, you hinted at the same feeling for playing strictly evil. The gains of your plundering becoming worthless to you because when you're dead, money doesn't matter. It's is almost poetic in a way that the only true "ending" for being evil is death.. the final retribution for all the crimes you had committed.
I actually agree with Welch about removing dead-eye. Your Marston was gunned down in a situation that Marston+deadeye probably would have escaped from (doubtfully unscathed, though). And I've gotten killed even when playing a saintly Marston and using deadeye, so it's not like it removes all difficulty. You would have likely made it farther in the story, and in an experimental case like this, the farther you get in the story, the more cracks, seams, inconsistencies, or surprising juxtapositions you could have experienced. To me, those are the most rewarding part about reading these posts, so I advocate being able to actually get to them.
On the other hand, I fully advocate permadeath and expert targeting; these are things that make your actions incur consequences.
In kind of a meta-point, I find it both natural and dismaying that in order to conduct an experiment like this with genuine emotions tied to it, one must be pretty freaking awesome at the game, which basically disqualifies me from most games. It's a lucky thing you're talented!
Oh, and if you couldn't tell, this post rules so hard, just like all the rest.
"We shouldn't have to work this hard to make being evil in this game make sense."
Really? because entire schools of thought have arisen around making "delay" in Hamlet make sense, or around "solving" problematics that exist in Moby-Dick, or in orienting the ambiguities of Blood Meridian's epilogue. It seems to me that truly great works are made that way not by the author (or developers) but by the readers (or players) who detect a spark of meaning beyond the "working" parts of a text and toil towards a solution to a text's inconsistencies.

surf dtoid with 

Rising (10+)
People you follow


























follow