The Curmudgeon

I am planning to rent Red Dead Redemption, and I have kind of been hoping I hate it.

I know! That's a crappy way to approach a video game, but there it is and rather than hiding behind some artificial veneer of objective detachment -- not that anyone would really believe me anyway -- I'll just come out and embrace the fact that I usually wish companies like Rockstar and Activision would wither on the ripe vine.

Is it fair? Is it reasonable? Is it even justifiable? Frankly, I'm not sure.

I tend to be the kind of person who paints colors in broad strokes, and once momentum is carrying me toward a certain preconceived bias I am too often comfortable riding that wave of discontent straight through the breakers and on to shore. But, if I'm practical, realistic and for a rare moment unburdened by my knee-jerk reactionism, I have to wonder if Rockstar has really done anything but have kind of an inflated ego and a tendency to step happily into the mire of cultural controversy.

Maybe they are just the Quentin Tarantino of video games. Shameful self-promoters so wrapped up in the trappings of their own constructed image that they become almost caricatures of themselves, and yet at the same time irritatingly talented. I watched Inglorious Bastards with something very near the same kind of pouty reprehension that I have now, and in the end I was dragged grudgingly to something like a bitter admission that while the star of the film was clearly Tarantino, it was a fine directing job.

Of course, Rockstar isn't an individual. When I speak of the company, what I speak of is the aggregate of how they choose to portray themselves, but let's not pretend like companies don't end up creating identities. Let's also not pretend that Rockstar hasn't embraced controversy, and too often responded in a way designed to inflame and irritate. And, that all comes back to me sitting here kinda hoping Red Dead flops, subverting what I'm sure is the hard work of countless talented and otherwise innocent workers.

I don't necessarily like being this way, but I also don't think that I'm alone. I think a lot of people hide biases exactly like this, and worse try to pretend like they don't even exist. To me, that's actually a bigger problem.

Comments

Ravenlock wrote:

EDIT: Apparently if you're ccesarano, everything I said there is a lie. Is it because I played it on the PC? I found the controls in GTA IV to be very easy to handle, and never had a problem with the driving physics or the on-foot action.

I'm sort of a two-fold guy when it comes to games. I can deal with mediocre gameplay for a good story. I can deal with an atrocious story for decent to excellent gameplay (since, in our medium, this is nothing new).

But when your gameplay violates so many basic laws of good design, then any interest in the story is forfeit.

Which is a shame, because the stuff you mention DOES sound awesome. It's just the sort of immersion I want in a game. Hell, I was interested in the story and technically still am. But when my participation in this world, the interactivity, is a joyless chore, HELL NO.

However, the living-embodiment of the city...that's probably reason for me to be interested.

As such, if trusted websites are able to review this game positively, I may consider it. However, not at $60. I am not supporting Rockstar since they already make enough money off of tripe. I need to know for a fact that they can make a quality title first before risking $60. Since I know Remedy can do well after playing Max Payne, I am going to risk $60 on Alan Wake.

Rockstar still needs to prove themselves.

All other points aside, Rockstar is pretty good at creating sandboxes in which to explore your own moral boundaries.

Case in point: http://bit.ly/bVx9Is

YMMV, but if you've ever wanted to "try on" each of the characters from The Wild Bunch and have been nothing but disappointed by the likes of GUN and the Call of Juarez series, this may finally scratch that western itch.

Rockstar's game Bully was one of my favorite gaming experiences in recent years. I look forward to Red Dead Redemption not because of GTA, but because of Bully.

Vanilla GTA IV's story just didnt catch my attention and I have yet to finish it. On the otherhand, even though its the same setting, I couldn't get enough of the Lost and the Damned. If I look at Bully versus GTA, story aside, the scope of the sandbox was quite different. This may bite me in RDR as I am faced with the open prairie, but hopefully it pulls on the same interests that kept me going back to Oblivion and Fallout 3, just a constant variety of things to do and discover. Hopefully, it doesnt fall into the same challenge as what I experienced with Red Faction: G, a great game, but one for which those open landscapes of Mars could also feel quite desolate between the spurts of activity and mayhem.

I think different studios within Rockstar did Bully versus RDR, so my hopes might be based on a faulty basis, but.... oh well, we'll see.

Elysium, if RDR goes from a Rent to a Buy over time, I hope you post an updated article on what won you ever.

Elysium wrote:
I played Saints Row 2, which basically shined a big light on the crime sandbox genre while screaming, "Look at this, look at how ridiculous all this is, have fun!"

This! Saints Row 2 was phenomenal.

What's not to love about a stripper clown with a rocket launcher?

DSGamer wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

Dear Sean,

Thank you for validating my feelings towards Dragon Age: Origins.

Sincerely,

Nelson

Really? Why?

Couple of reasons:

- I'm much more into sci-fi than ye olde fantasy adventures (at least as far as gaming goes), so I sometimes just psyche myself out of even considering games like this

- Expansive time-consuming RPGs are always a daunting prospect in my private mind garden, and thus create a little bit of anxiety just thinking about them

- I have this built up preconception that links fantasy adventure games with LARPers and Cosplay folks, and that triggers my knee-jerk reaction of "damn, that's nerdy even for me"

However, after having sunk almost 15 hours into my first playthrough, I am enjoying this much much much more than I thought I would. Writing and dialogue is excellent, but the graphics are a bit 'meh' when compared to Mass Effect, and even Splinter Cell: Conviction. But they have crafted a world so deep that it kinda makes up for whatever graphical shortcomings it has. I still don't see myself doing more than 1 playthrough though.

Irongut wrote:

I think different studios within Rockstar did Bully versus RDR, so my hopes might be based on a faulty basis, but.... oh well, we'll see.

Yes. Bully was Rockstar Vancouver (currently working on Max Payne 3), RDR was Rockstar San Diego (who previously did Red Dead Revolver, Table Tennis, the under-appreciated Smuggler's Run series and a whole bunch of Midnight Club games). The GTA games are all Rockstar North.

The image people have of Rockstar seems to stem almost entirely from what comes out of Rockstar North. Granted it's their biggest, and arguably main studio, but the games that come out of Vancouver or San Diego have their own distinctly different flavours. Midnight Run or Table Tennis were hardly controversial, and Bully never felt like it was steeped in ego.

The one exception is the poor management, which by all reports is pretty much universal across the company.

I try not to write off whole companies blanket like that, but I can't say I've never done it. Rockstar does have a harder row to hoe getting into my house than, say, Altus.

I liked Bully, from the standpoint of basically being able to play a John Hughes film, but GTA has spent more time as a machinima studio in my house than played. Even by my grown sons.

But part of that is genre. They'd rather be shanking people in medieval Italy or trying to hit those tiny orange bits of Hunters, and I just don't care for what I refer to as "thug training video" games. Even if you approach it crab-wise like with Tony Hawk or Need for Speed. I spend too much time keeping that stuff out of here and away from my family in real life to be very comfortable doing it for fun.

But what about the opposite? How many of you guys will give a game a free pass and buy it just because of the people who made it? I mentioned Altus, and I'm pretty much the same with Square Enix. Ubisoft carries a lot of residual good-feelings from Prince of Persia, Rayman 3 and Beyond Good and Evil (though they're squandered a lot of it lately with that DRM nonsense).

momgamer wrote:

But what about the opposite? How many of you guys will give a game a free pass and buy it just because of the people who made it? I mentioned Altus, and I'm pretty much the same with Square Enix. Ubisoft carries a lot of residual good-feelings from Prince of Persia, Rayman 3 and Beyond Good and Evil (though they're squandered a lot of it lately with that DRM nonsense).

Anyone who reads what I write around here knows that Nintendo has a corner of my wallet reserved just for them.

momgamer wrote:

But what about the opposite? How many of you guys will give a game a free pass and buy it just because of the people who made it? I mentioned Altus, and I'm pretty much the same with Square Enix. Ubisoft carries a lot of residual good-feelings from Prince of Persia, Rayman 3 and Beyond Good and Evil (though they're squandered a lot of it lately with that DRM nonsense).

If the box says "Valve" or "Bioware", I'm almost undoubtedly buying it. If it says "Firaxis", I'm taking a long, hard look, at least, same with Pandemic back in the day.

momgamer wrote:

But what about the opposite? How many of you guys will give a game a free pass and buy it just because of the people who made it? I mentioned Altus, and I'm pretty much the same with Square Enix. Ubisoft carries a lot of residual good-feelings from Prince of Persia, Rayman 3 and Beyond Good and Evil (though they're squandered a lot of it lately with that DRM nonsense).

All my favorite developers have bloodied my nose at one time or another, so none of them get a free fanboy pass these days.

In fact, I disliked Eternal Sonata so much that my sphere of disdain expanded to envelop any developer within 100000 miles of Tri-Crescendo. Which, unfortunately, is the entirety of Japan.

Used to be that Squaresoft was my boi, but lately it's been hit or miss.

You have kidnapped my Mr. Yuck.

Pistols at dawn.

No, dude, I'm trying to make you famous! See?

My feelings about a studio fit for a kharmic fall are similar and were well summarized by an old Penny Arcade newspost during the Hot Coffee Fiasco of ought-five. In this post Jerry says it's a shame that when we talk about defending the industry from media backlash and censorship it often means defending Rockstar specifically.

Still, I believe that you can separate the product from the creator and sometimes you have to if you want to see any art or growth come from the work.

Wagner's operas are amazing works of music. The man was a despicable anti-semite. His music is not performed in Israel. James Levine, one of the greatest opera conductors is from Jewish parentage and has been leading the Met into a new golden age with Wagner's operas. Who's winning this fight?

It's a blight for the masses!

I tend to hope RDR sucks just because I've got so much else to play right around now. (-: Reviews have been generally good so far, but then reviews were insanely positive on GTA IV, and I agree with every criticism of that game that's been brought up in this thread and then some, so I clearly have very different tastes than the typical reviewer when it comes to these sorts of games.

I will, however, second the motion that everyone who says they've never enjoyed a Rockstar game needs to check out Bully. Fantastic, charming little game, with none of the crass thuggishness that mars GTA and with controls that actually work. (And in support of my previous point, reviews were fairly mixed on it, although to be fair that was mostly based on issues with the PS2/Xbox1 version that have been ironed out with the Scholarship Edition for 360/Wii/PC.)

If it wasn't for Bully, not only would I have a bias against Rockstar games based on their previous record, I probably wouldn't bother giving any of their games a chance at all. But due to my love for that one title, RDR (and just about any non-GTA title from them in general) will get a rent from me just in case they manage to crank out another gem.

ccesarano wrote:

...Final Fantasy Tactics Advance (taking a game whose... story was literature....

IMAGE(http://www.411mania.com/siteimages/lol-calvin_and_hobbes_31322.jpg)

nel e nel wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

Dear Sean,

Thank you for validating my feelings towards Dragon Age: Origins.

Sincerely,

Nelson

Really? Why?

Couple of reasons:

- I'm much more into sci-fi than ye olde fantasy adventures (at least as far as gaming goes), so I sometimes just psyche myself out of even considering games like this

- Expansive time-consuming RPGs are always a daunting prospect in my private mind garden, and thus create a little bit of anxiety just thinking about them

Okay, this is why I asked the question, because I'm in much the same boat. Between my hobbies, TV shows I like, my work, time with my wife, etc. I can't conceive of spending 70 hours on a SP game. That's happened like twice in my whole life. I just have too much going on.

So then I too get frustrated. I want someone to explain to me why the game is worth me putting aside all other hobbies for 3 months to play the game (which is what it would take).

I actually really like Dragon Age. However, I haven't gotten very far into it precisely for this reason. Bringing it back around to RDR, I hated GTAIV, so even though the hype has gotten to me too someone needs to convince me why this is better GTAIV and worth spending time I wasn't willing to spend with that game when I could be playing Just Cause 2, Skate 3 or Forza 3 (which I'm just getting into).

0kelvin wrote:
Irongut wrote:

I think different studios within Rockstar did Bully versus RDR, so my hopes might be based on a faulty basis, but.... oh well, we'll see.

Yes. Bully was Rockstar Vancouver (currently working on Max Payne 3), RDR was Rockstar San Diego (who previously did Red Dead Revolver, Table Tennis, the under-appreciated Smuggler's Run series and a whole bunch of Midnight Club games). The GTA games are all Rockstar North.

The image people have of Rockstar seems to stem almost entirely from what comes out of Rockstar North. Granted it's their biggest, and arguably main studio, but the games that come out of Vancouver or San Diego have their own distinctly different flavours.

While I haven't played any games under the Rockstar umbrella besides GTA, which I'm guessing is the root of Elysium's hatred/bias, I do know that Rockstar has multiple studios, each making their own games. For this reason, I don't agree with wishing failure on one development studio simply because they are under the same umbrella as another one that may have a Tarantino-like ego.

I pre-ordered RDR based only on what I saw of the game itself, and am anxiously waiting for it to arrive from Amazon.

When I speak of the company, what I speak of is the aggregate of how they choose to portray themselves, but let's not pretend like companies don't end up creating identities. Let's also not pretend that Rockstar hasn't embraced controversy, and too often responded in a way designed to inflame and irritate.

I guess I don't see why this is a bad thing: I kinda like their identity.

I was figuring the issue would be with wanting to not like the game that lead to Rockstar Spouse's discontent. That's what is giving me second thoughts about the game. I like people acting like, well, 'rockstars'; just don't turn around and act like 'The Man' towards your employees while asking me to buy into this image of you as a rebel with a cause.

I was figuring the issue would be with wanting to not like the game that lead to Rockstar Spouse's discontent. That's what is giving me second thoughts about the game. I like people acting like, well, 'rockstars'; just don't turn around and act like 'The Man' towards your employees while asking me to buy into this image of you as a rebel with a cause.

That's part of it as well, but this was a short piece and I didn't want to belabor the point.

0kelvin wrote:

The image people have of Rockstar seems to stem almost entirely from what comes out of Rockstar North. Granted it's their biggest, and arguably main studio, but the games that come out of Vancouver or San Diego have their own distinctly different flavours. Midnight Run or Table Tennis were hardly controversial, and Bully never felt like it was steeped in ego.

A fair point, although this sort of identity crisis is part of Rockstar's problem. I think it's fair to say that we here at GWJ are probably more knowledgeable about this sort of thing than the average gamer. If WE have trouble keeping track of which parts of Rockstar make the games we like and which ones make the games we don't, what does that say about the job they're doing at establishing a positive brand with the gaming public in general?

By way of contrast, if I buy a Blizzard game, I can expect a certain level of quality regardless of whether it's Blizzard or Blizzard North or Activizzard or whatever. Fair or not, it's a brand I've come to trust.

DSGamer wrote:

Okay, this is why I asked the question, because I'm in much the same boat. Between my hobbies, TV shows I like, my work, time with my wife, etc. I can't conceive of spending 70 hours on a SP game. That's happened like twice in my whole life. I just have too much going on.

You kind of answered yourself. I personally see many RPG's as a hobby in and of themselves, like a lot of people who play WoW consider it a hobby.

DSGamer wrote:

So then I too get frustrated. I want someone to explain to me why the game is worth me putting aside all other hobbies for 3 months to play the game (which is what it would take).

The problem is that with gaming there is no straight answer. Big RPG's (Dragon Age / Fallout for example) are something you either love or not. I know that sounds like a cop-out of an answer but it is true. There is no scientific formula that says; "X + Y = RPG's rule". Gaming preferences (like all preferences really) are more qualitative than quantitative.

For exampl; I, like nel e nel prefer Sci-fi to all other genres (not exclusively). Ask me why and I will spout all sorts of reasons. Keep asking me over an hour period until all the surface and cosmetic reasons have been said and you will get to the bedrock of the issue; Sci-fi more than any other genre resonates with me for emotional reasons not rational ones. Another way of thinking of it is like asking why is Blue my favourite colour? In truth I have no bloody idea, it just is and always has been.

Gaming is no different (imo). I prefer RPG's over other genres. I love nothing more than sitting down with BioWare's (in particular) latest epic adventure and engrossing myself in their world for the next week or so.

In summary (and after a lot of tangential crap) the ONLY person who can explain to you why you do not want to play these games is you. And no matter the reason, remember it is a valid as my reasons for loving it.

Ohhh, for reference, I am a 30+ yr old father, husband, worker etc and gaming is my #1 hobby. So I do not feel like I have to justify playing games once the kid(s) are bathed and fed, parents have eaten and the house is quiet for the night. I hate most (95%) of TV so I play games.

DSGamer wrote:

I actually really like Dragon Age. However, I haven't gotten very far into it precisely for this reason....

Chin up dude, the ending is awesome!

If I decide to hate a game, it's usually because I'm renting it, so I don't get too attached to it.

I'm about 15 hours into GTA IV on the PC and am completely enjoying it.

Wuppie wrote:

Ohhh, for reference, I am a 30+ yr old father, husband, worker etc and gaming is my #1 hobby. So I do not feel like I have to justify playing games once the kid(s) are bathed and fed, parents have eaten and the house is quiet for the night. I hate most (95%) of TV so I play games.

DSGamer wrote:

I actually really like Dragon Age. However, I haven't gotten very far into it precisely for this reason....

Chin up dude, the ending is awesome!

It's not a matter of justifying it. I just find other things interesting. I'm teaching myself how to write software for the iPhone and Android. I'm a programmer, so that brings with it its own off-hours time commitment. I like cycling, working in the yard, watching TV with my wife, catching every NBA game I can and playing board games with friends and just generally socializing. And I'm an avid reader. So it's not so much that I have to justify playing a game like Dragon Age. Just that Dragon Age has to explain to me why it's worth my time. And, by proxy (going back to the point of this thread) people who are going crazy over a game kind of bother me if they can't explain why it's worth the hype.

I will eventually finish Dragon Age. The ironic thing is that I'm a sci-fi nerd. I read sci-fi all the time. So I am definitely, firmly in the sci-fi camp when it comes to RPGs. However, the lore and the world that they created for Dragon Age is so incredibly rich. I actually prefer it to Mass Effect because the world is so much deeper, IMO.

DSGamer wrote:

It's not a matter of justifying it

Probably a poor choice of words on my part.

DSGamer wrote:

Just that Dragon Age has to explain to me why it's worth my time. And, by proxy (going back to the point of this thread) people who are going crazy over a game kind of bother me if they can't explain why it's worth the hype.

Specifically for Dragon Age, I believe it deserves the hype by building on the great foundations that BioWare (and others) have laid for the Fantasy RPG genre over the last 10+ years. The characters are not shallow cookie-cutters like most games. There is a large amount of choice that has significant repercussions, especially if you play to the conclusion. The mechanics whilst not perfect are very tight taking best practices from MMO's (Tank, DPS & Heal) with the strategy of turn-based combat. You yourself acknowledge the richness of the setting - this is a big reason for Dragon Age being held with such reverence.

Side note:
I remember "back in the day" Origin (the makers of Ultima) had a catch phrase "We create worlds" (or something very similar), Dragon Age is the best example of a modern game where the world was not just rich and deep, but one where you can see and even feel the love and care that the creators have for this setting.

DSGamer wrote:

And, by proxy (going back to the point of this thread) people who are going crazy over a game kind of bother me if they can't explain why it's worth the hype.

I dont think that you can truly explain why something is worth the hype. Preference and excitement are too personal to be rationally explained (which you seem to want). And ultimately if you dont like the game (or are disappointed by it) then you will naturally believe it wasn't worth the hype - for example: I cannot understand the hype people have for Halo. Something I find derivative, boring and not worth spending the 6 hours to finish.

I also can't explain why Mass Effect was instantly (and still is) my favourite game of all time. It is probably due to being my favourite game genre (RPG) set in my favourite fiction genre (Sci-fi). Add to this the changes in my taste in Sci-fi fiction (books and movies) over the years - Starting with Star Wars as a kid, Blade Runner, Babylon 5, Foundation series, Mars Trilogy (Kim.S. Robinson) through to Knights of the Old Republic just to name a few. This all being inspired by one of the very few things my father and I have in common - a love of Sci-fi - create some sort of alchemical mixture that leads to me identifying within Mass Effect so many themes, settings and characters that I love. Now if that 'is' a good explanation of why I love Mass Effect then great.

Edit: Whilst you are specifically talking about "hype", I personally cannot separate that from the discussion of "favourite" as hype to me is tied into fandom. Don't kid yourselves people, we are all fans of something. The big problem is when people associate the object of their fandom with their own identity. I personally love BioWare as a company. They seem to love making their games. They make games I almost always enjoy and want to spend a lot of time exploring. They "seem" to not be driven by keeping the masses happy and just do what they do to the best of their ability. Some of my RL friends hate BioWare games (and by extension BioWare) and really, I'm cool with that.

Trying to understand why people like certain things is a noble goal. The problem is you are dealing more with the emotional side of people rather than the rational side. It is like trying to understand why Bob loves pancakes but Joe thinks they taste like crap. No one answer is more reasonable than the other (assuming Joe isn’t just being a contrary tool).

f*ck me! That did not look like a wall'o'text when I typed it... Sorry folks...

Wuppie wrote:

f*ck me! That did not look like a wall'o'text when I typed it... Sorry folks...

Don't worry - This is the place for that sort of thing. There are a lot of us around here who don't even get warmed up before the 2000 word mark. Your post is not even close to a "wall of text".

MacBrave wrote:

I'm about 15 hours into GTA IV on the PC and am completely enjoying it.

I loved the first 15 hours, then it wore out its welcome almost instantaneously.

This... this is why I am purposefully distancing myself from the industry hype machine. I'll look at a few screen shots here or there and maybe watch a game play video on Youtube near release. I'm sick of the talking heads, media gimmicks, blogs, podcasts, preview after preview, etc.

Oddly I don't have the same view on Rockstar - probably because I've avoided swimming in their river of media BS and developers acting like... Rockstars. I have played and enjoyed their products but made the decision to purchase RDR on it's features and setting, not the history of the developer.

I am enjoying it quite a bit. Ignorance in relation to the media blitz of the gaming industry might just be bliss.

I can't bring myself to support Rockstar endeavors simply because they do have talent, but I don't like the direction they apply that talent. With the exception of Table Tennis, to me it feels like every game they put out there was designed to save money on marketing by making the sorts of people that gamers love to hate angry. Without Jack Thompson, Rockstar would look more like Pandemic, except they'd be owned by Activision instead of EA.

On the subject of Red Dead Redemption, I'm keeping my eye on it. I've been waiting for a decent western theme game for ages, but Red Dead Revolver was a huge disappointment to me.

On a side note, game developer do realize that other people besides Sergio Leone made westerns, right? Could someone please take up the mantle of John Ford for once? Maybe Bethesda-- I'm thinking western RPG with a VATS kind of system that only works when your weapon is holstered-- change the name to "quick draw deadeye" or something like that. Let the main character have a dog, like in Hondo.

And for the love of pete, don't have the main character saving the entire west from some big evil. Corrupt landowners squeezing out small cattlemen would be enough of a plot for me.