• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Red Dead Redemption 2 (Fall 2017, PS4/XB1, Trailer 10/20 @ 11 AM EST) announced

What will ultimately anger people the most about this game?


Results are only viewable after voting.
"Zero excuse"... So you're saying that someone creating a piece of art literally doesn't have the right to deliver their own vision? Obviously you're not referring to any actual legal requirements as there are none, so you must be saying there is some kind of universal moral imperative that any creator must obey regardless of what they actually feel like making?

I cannot stand this kind of entitled attitude. "How dare anyone create something that doesn't prescribe to my particular sensibilities!" Here's the thing: you can absolutely be disappointed if it's not what you wanted. Everyone has preferences, and you should absolutely tell a company that you are interested in (your preferred experience here). They might even do that at some point. But there is a difference between saying "I'm super disappointed this doesn't have a female protagonist! I would have really liked that" and "Fuck you dev you slimy racist bastards how dare you make the game you want and not the one I want!". That's the problem. The complaint is always that it's wrong that they didn't make what you wanted, which is the definition of entitlement.

This angers me because I want to have the freedom to make what I want to make. I don't want to be yelled at because I told a story that was on my heart, but it wasn't exactly what someone else would have created. The greatest works of art come from creators expressing their visions, because it's a story they have to tell, a picture they have to paint, music they have to write.

There is a TON of media that doesn't interest me. Things like the Saw movies disgust me. I think the world would probably be better off without that, so should I campaign to have those banned? Should I form an oversight committee to govern the direction of a sequel so that it's something I want? Or should I leave the creative direction to the people who actually wanted that to begin with?

Rockstar committed a grave sin here by releasing a picture that only has men in it, which means this is clearly going to be a horrible sexist game, right? So I'm curious. Would you go back in time and complain about Seven Samurai because the leads are men? I mean, that's seven lead characters and they are all men. That's bad, right? And yet, for some reason, as summarized by Wikipedia:



It almost seems like it might have actually been a good movie with a good story despite starring only men. How about The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings? Some of the greatest, most influential works of fiction in history, and they predominantly star men. Do you know why? Because these are the stories and the characters that the creators wanted to create.

Here's the truth: there are a lot of video games, that feature all manner of characters. Are there not as many representing what you are looking for? Here's an idea. Don't demand a creator change their vision to match yours. Instead of bitching about it, go make the game you want. That's what I'm doing. I will enjoy what media I enjoy, and will add what I think is missing.

Ahhh, the old "WELL YOU GO MAKE A GAME" defense.

Unlike Seven Samurai, The Hobbit, or Lord of the Rings, this is being made in 2016. Rather than over 50 years ago.

Also I don't see how the comparisons to Hobbit or Lord of the Rings are in any way valid. Firstly, both were written over 50 years ago, which weren't really great times for women or people of color... Secondly, neither is somehow above criticism. There are plenty of less-than-savory aspects to Tolkein's attitudes, and some of which become more uncomfortable in his work as time passes. He's also dead, so it's not like he can be asked to expand his worldview. And lastly, when both were adapted to film, attempts were made to atleast make the few female characters more prominent in the story.

Hell, everything about Arwen could take up less than a page of the total of Lord of the Rings. And yet they reworked the character, had her save Frodo instead of Glorfindel, made her a prominent figure in the marketing, added a whole subplot through all three movies about her, and even filmed unused footage of her fighting at Helm's Deep which was eventually scrapped. Evangeline Lily's character in the Hobbit movies was never in the books at all, and for all of the Hobbit's problems, her inclusion was the least egregious.

How many games does Rockstar need to put out until those creative choices become a pattern? And uhh, it's not like Rockstar's games haven't already had issues with their portrayal of women before...
 
space_cowboys_poster_01_lrg.jpg

I honest to god just thought to myself 'who's Clint Donald?'
 
"Zero excuse"... So you're saying that someone creating a piece of art literally doesn't have the right to deliver their own vision? Obviously you're not referring to any actual legal requirements as there are none, so you must be saying there is some kind of universal moral imperative that any creator must obey regardless of what they actually feel like making?

I cannot stand this kind of entitled attitude. "How dare anyone create something that doesn't prescribe to my particular sensibilities!" Here's the thing: you can absolutely be disappointed if it's not what you wanted. Everyone has preferences, and you should absolutely tell a company that you are interested in (your preferred experience here). They might even do that at some point. But there is a difference between saying "I'm super disappointed this doesn't have a female protagonist! I would have really liked that" and "Fuck you dev you slimy racist bastards how dare you make the game you want and not the one I want!". That's the problem. The complaint is always that it's wrong that they didn't make what you wanted, which is the definition of entitlement.

This angers me because I want to have the freedom to make what I want to make. I don't want to be yelled at because I told a story that was on my heart, but it wasn't exactly what someone else would have created. The greatest works of art come from creators expressing their visions, because it's a story they have to tell, a picture they have to paint, music they have to write.

There is a TON of media that doesn't interest me. Things like the Saw movies disgust me. I think the world would probably be better off without that, so should I campaign to have those banned? Should I form an oversight committee to govern the direction of a sequel so that it's something I want? Or should I leave the creative direction to the people who actually wanted that to begin with?

Rockstar committed a grave sin here by releasing a picture that only has men in it, which means this is clearly going to be a horrible sexist game, right? So I'm curious. Would you go back in time and complain about Seven Samurai because the leads are men? I mean, that's seven lead characters and they are all men. That's bad, right? And yet, for some reason, as summarized by Wikipedia:



It almost seems like it might have actually been a good movie with a good story despite starring only men. How about The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings? Some of the greatest, most influential works of fiction in history, and they predominantly star men. Do you know why? Because these are the stories and the characters that the creators wanted to create.

Here's the truth: there are a lot of video games, that feature all manner of characters. Are there not as many representing what you are looking for? Here's an idea. Don't demand a creator change their vision to match yours. Instead of bitching about it, go make the game you want. That's what I'm doing. I will enjoy what media I enjoy, and will add what I think is missing.

Could the answer be because Lord of the Rings was written during a time when women and people of color were treated even shittier than they are now? The same reason most of the original, iconic comic book heroes are white maybe?

People should apologize for discussing this issue, quit their jobs, and take up positions in game development. That's definitely a reasonable argument to make. It makes me sad to imagine a struggling white, male dev forced to endure the hours and hours of backbreaking labor working on a female character when he really just wants to relay the untold tale of a white man in America.
 
I think people saying "just develop your own game" are being way too simplistic. It's damn hard to make a game and even harder to be a creative lead for it, much less in a AAA game. There's only so many spots and the industry is already not great when it comes to hiring women and minorities. It is simply not an equal playing field when it comes to the ability for entrenched white men to tell the stories they want to tell compared to women minorities. Everyone wants artists to tell the story they want to tell, they just want those stories to have more variety as well, and that starts with the industry having more variety and/or white men deciding to take risks with the stories they want to tell.
 
well, quality is what's important to me personally. i like a game with a good story. that's subjective. the rest is on them with the story they want to tell and it's subject to opinions like mine.

I'm not clear where you're really going with this- a critique of narrative design, writing, and storytelling is separate from what I'm talking about entirely.
 
Also, I haven't seen it mentioned, but with RDR2 now set to come out next year, it's likely that we may not see GTA VI for...quite some time.

GTA V didn't come out until 3 years after Red Dead Redemption.

Given the increasing complexity of game development and resources involved, we may not see GTA VI until well after 2020.
 
Can I get a role call for folks hyped for RDR2 Online as much or more than the story? As much as I loved GTAV's single player campaign I've spent far more time in Online over the years, and love it to bits. Can't wait to see what they have in mind for RDR Online, though I suspect that won't be the focus at all for Thursday.

*Raises hand*

Some of the most fun I've ever had online has been with RDR. I loved the single player but the multiplayer in RDR was just... stupid fun. It was simple, yes, but all of the nonsense you could do is what made it great coupled with roaming the world on horses with friends made it even more special.

Boating on stagecoaches online was the most silliest and funniest shit I've ever done in an online multiplayer. And it's one of the reasons I've gone back to that MP in recent months with some friends. Just too funny and awesome atmosphere.
 
Ms. Mcfarlane in the last red dead was a pretty great character, so they clearly do acknowledge them.

Honestly, it's there story to make. Quit trying to tell them what to do.

i'm not telling them what to do. i'm excited about rdr2, i just think there's also an interesting discussion to be had about why rockstar wont make games with female main characters that goes beyond 'it's just coincidence stop talking about it'.
 
Diversity in media doesn't matter? With attitudes like this it's no wonder gaming is so far behind the curve. People get overly defensive and trying to shut down any conversations about their precious games and hobbies are pathetic.

did i say that? i said it doesn't matter if there is a female in the game or not. i would like to see a female character but if there isn't then i'm not gonna care.
 
They could have called this game Red Dead Doody and I'd still be unbelievably pumped. RDR is arguably in my top 5 games of all time and I can't wait to see what Rockstar San Diego has been cooking up this entire time. Immediately vaults to my 2nd most anticipated game of 2017 behind BotW.
 
i mean, consider that rockstar has made like...16(?) games that could be reasonably described as having an important story and only one of them has had a female protagonist, and that's only because it was based on a property that already had a female protagonist. at some point you have to begin to wonder whether 'they're just making good stories they want to tell!' cuts the mustard as a reason for why they're completely blind to the existence of 50% of the population.

Plus, it's seemingly a game where the vocal point is a group of 7 people. They really couldn't have found a way to fit in a single woman in the main 7? And every single one of those is absolutely key to the story they want to tell? I mean, come on.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong come Thurseday, and not because I would therefor hate the game or Rockstar if I wasn't wrong. It's because I would be pleasantly surprised and happy if we'd have a solid female voice in the main cast in a Rockstar game for once.
 
I feel like it's a difficult thing to portray realistically.

Either you show that situation honestly, with a tone of belittlement and sexism, at which point that might detract from the story you actually want to tell and get claims of unfair treatment of characters thrown at the creators, or you get the Hollywood 'two guys are shooting at bottles on a fence, then the female character comes along and knocks all the bottles down with one bullet while firing from the hip, and the male characters look dumbfounded at eachother' ugh-ness.

I can see why it might just be avoided entirely.

They had good female characters in RDR already, they did fine with them (there were some minor complaints, but you can't please everyone).
Bonnie was a "tough woman" character, Abigail too, but they weren't cartoony (not more than the males, anyway) and Luisa Fortuna was an exploited idealist, but it went beyond it being because of her gender.
They depicted sexism, but it wasn't the absolute center of their character.
 
"Zero excuse"... So you're saying that someone creating a piece of art literally doesn't have the right to deliver their own vision? Obviously you're not referring to any actual legal requirements as there are none, so you must be saying there is some kind of universal moral imperative that any creator must obey regardless of what they actually feel like making?

I cannot stand this kind of entitled attitude. "How dare anyone create something that doesn't prescribe to my particular sensibilities!" Here's the thing: you can absolutely be disappointed if it's not what you wanted. Everyone has preferences, and you should absolutely tell a company that you are interested in (your preferred experience here). They might even do that at some point. But there is a difference between saying "I'm super disappointed this doesn't have a female protagonist! I would have really liked that" and "Fuck you dev you slimy racist bastards how dare you make the game you want and not the one I want!". That's the problem. The complaint is always that it's wrong that they didn't make what you wanted, which is the definition of entitlement.

This angers me because I want to have the freedom to make what I want to make. I don't want to be yelled at because I told a story that was on my heart, but it wasn't exactly what someone else would have created. The greatest works of art come from creators expressing their visions, because it's a story they have to tell, a picture they have to paint, music they have to write.

There is a TON of media that doesn't interest me. Things like the Saw movies disgust me. I think the world would probably be better off without that, so should I campaign to have those banned? Should I form an oversight committee to govern the direction of a sequel so that it's something I want? Or should I leave the creative direction to the people who actually wanted that to begin with?

Rockstar committed a grave sin here by releasing a picture that only has men in it, which means this is clearly going to be a horrible sexist game, right? So I'm curious. Would you go back in time and complain about Seven Samurai because the leads are men? I mean, that's seven lead characters and they are all men. That's bad, right? And yet, for some reason, as summarized by Wikipedia:



It almost seems like it might have actually been a good movie with a good story despite starring only men. How about The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings? Some of the greatest, most influential works of fiction in history, and they predominantly star men. Do you know why? Because these are the stories and the characters that the creators wanted to create.

Here's the truth: there are a lot of video games, that feature all manner of characters. Are there not as many representing what you are looking for? Here's an idea. Don't demand a creator change their vision to match yours. Instead of bitching about it, go make the game you want. That's what I'm doing. I will enjoy what media I enjoy, and will add what I think is missing.

+10 post

Folks your argument ends when the entitlement begins.. Rockstar or any other dev/creative doesn't own anyone a damn thing

On top of that it's only Hour Zero so chill the fuck out
 
How problematic was GTA 3, 4 and 5?

It's a non issue, the story doesn't need to be related just because it has 2.

I guess I'm thinking that way because they wanted to establish their own sort of narrative with the original Redemption instead of going with Revolver 2. I know they didn't develop Revolver so I'm sure that has something to do with it. Marston and his story was such a central part to what made Redemption what it was. I don't know if any of the GTA characters are tied that strongly to the franchise.
 
Eh?

If anything it'll be held back by the XBONE, Pro isn't even in the same family of devices.

I think he means that Ps4 pro will be the more popular of the two upgraded consoles and therefore, developers will have to cater more to that system instead of taking full advantage of scorpio
 
I mean, it's just a poster with dudes on it. I would be surprised if there is 7 playable characters.

Could at least wait for more information and/or the trailer before pushing agendas and complaining about evil white male characters.
 
it doesn't. some people just like to get upset and offended.

Personally I'm hardly upset or offended as much as I find it fucking boring, and that out of seven characters, I really wouldn't mind some more substantial variance. The excuse that it's trying to fit into the period has already been debunked and even if that is the case there's nothing wrong with some artistic liberty and pragmatic adapting.
 
Belle Starr maybe?

'Belle always harbored a strong sense of style, which would feed into her later legend. A crack shot, she used to ride sidesaddle while dressed in a black velvet riding habit and a plumed hat, carrying two pistols, with cartridge belts across her hips.

In 1880 she did marry a Cherokee man named Sam Starr and settled with the Starr family in the Indian Territory. There, she learned ways of organizing, planning and fencing for the rustlers, horse thieves and bootleggers, as well as harboring them from the law. Belle's illegal enterprises proved lucrative enough for her to employ bribery to free her cohorts from the law whenever they were caught.'

Yeah, that's the kind of person I'd be looking for. And I'm not making the argument that female outlaws didn't exist, but that I feel like addressing what it means to be a female outlaw might not be part of the story Rockstar want to tell (such as how character's would treat you as an outlier) , whilst ignoring it might also not be part of the story Rockstar want to tell.

They had good female characters in RDR already, they did fine with them (there were some minor complaints, but you can't please everyone).
Bonnie was a "tough woman" character, Abigail too, but they weren't cartoony (not more than the males, anyway) and Luisa Fortuna was an exploited idealist, but it went beyond it being because of her gender.
They depicted sexism, but it wasn't the absolute center of their character.

And I'm sure they'll do the same again. But I'm talking about a female protagonist, where it seems like the sexism would have to become a fairly core part of the story to accomodate that.
 
Ahhh, the old "WELL YOU GO MAKE A GAME" defense.

Unlike Seven Samurai, The Hobbit, or Lord of the Rings, this is being made in 2016. Rather than over 50 years ago.

Also I don't see how the comparisons to Hobbit or Lord of the Rings are in any way valid. Firstly, both were written over 50 years ago. Secondly, neither is somehow above criticism. There are plenty of less-than-savory aspects to Tolkein's attitudes, and some of which become more uncomfortable in his work as time passes. He's also dead, so it's not like he can be asked to expand his worldview. And lastly, when both were adapted to film, attempts were made to atleast make the few female characters more prominent in the story.

Hell, everything about Arwen could take up less than a page of the total of Lord of the Rings. And yet they reworked the character, had her save Frodo instead of Glorfindel, made her a prominent figure in the marketing, added a whole subplot through all three movies about her, and even filmed unused footage of her fighting at Helm's Deep which was eventually scrapped. Evangeline Lily's character in the Hobbit movies was never in the books at all, and for all of the Hobbit's problems, her inclusion was the least egregious.

How many games does Rockstar need to put out until those creative choices become a pattern? And uhh, it's not like Rockstar's games haven't already had issues with their portrayal of women before...

But why does art HAVE to be all encompassing all the time? Personally, I am more interested in people being honest with the stories they want to tell. I do think sexism and racism exist in videogames and in particular, film but that doesn't mean I want the creators to always change their original vision to cater to a mass audience. That is precisely how whitewashing works.
 
did i say that? i said it doesn't matter if there is a female in the game or not. i would like to see a female character but if there isn't then i'm not gonna care.

So it doesn't matter to you personally, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't matter to other gamers or to the industry at large.
 
Well that's completely killed my interest.

I mean, I know it's Rockstar, but it's also 2016. I genuinely didn't even remotely consider the lack of a PC version a possibility. I do own a PS4, but I rarely use it for games. IQ and framerate really do matter a lot to me.

Call me an "old school gamer" but I love games, nothing else.
Maybe because I played games that made history and they all had aliasing or other minor issues.
I'll never judge a masterpiece by having or not aliasing or underperforming framerate,
 
I suppose but will Rockstar make the game look and run better on Scorpio than PS4 Pro? probably just do what they can with PS4 Pro and limit the Scorpio to the same.

Nah, I expect both will have same ultra assets and Pro will do checkerboard upscale with Scorpio native.
 
No, but at the expense of historical accuracy?

It's been pointed out numerous times that the american frontier was not 100% white and male. RDR has nothing to do with historical accuracy. Nearly a third of outlaws were black. The term cowboy comes from Spanish, the exclamation buckeroo comes from the Spanish word that was translated into cowboy.
 
please be more interesting than the last one!

Please have a better story than the last one that doesn't ask me to see my character as the good guy while he helps the bad guys and complains about it but helps them anyways. Oh yeah, and walks right into traps while complaining that it is obviously a trap.

And oh yeah, enough with all the damsels in distress (That you don't help anyways but just bitch about it. I guess you do help some but some you just watch so as to make sure you know teh bad guy is a bad guy. But your character will make snide comments about it but it won't let you do anything about it other than listen to him bitch cause that makes it so much better).

(Yes, the whole mexico arc really turned me off of red dead redemption. I could have so many rants on how the story irritated the shit out of me during that part. Enough to overshadow the rest of the game).

Honestly, thinking about it, I think I'm way more annoyed by how Red Dead Redemption treated females than GTA. They were just there to be the damsel in distress mostly. Or to illustrate how the bad guy was bad.
 
Consider how Neil Druckmann said how Anita's work influenced The Last of Us and Uncharted (among other devs and games)

It's not about telling developers what to do and forcing them to include or not include but about encouraging more representation and breaking free of old stereotypes (ie woman and people of color not being outlaws and lawbringers in the west)
Wait, are you implying that my hollywood movies lied about the old west and that it WASN'T full of solely white men? Don't do that, it doesn't conform with my whitewashed version of reality, now stop arguing for more representation, this historical game needs as much white people as possible as that's just the story that needs to be told by the creator's hearts and they are really committed to delivering an accurate representation of the setting. Now excuse me while I use my super human slow motion bullet time.
 
Could the answer be because Lord of the Rings was written during a time when women and people of color were treated even shittier than they are now? The same reason most of the original, iconic comic book heroes are white maybe?

People should apologize for discussing this issue, quit their jobs, and take up positions in game development. That's definitely a reasonable argument to make. It makes me sad to imagine a struggling white, male dev forced to endure the hours and hours of backbreaking labor working on a female character when he really just wants to relay the untold tale of a white man in America.

Actually you can read LoTR as an early feminist text. Look at the Eowyn plotline. In the end, only a woman can kill the Witch King of Angmar. Just sayin.
 
What a time to be a gamer.

2017
Horizon Zero Dawn
Cyberpunk 2077
Red Dead Redemption 2

2018
God of War
Spider-Man PS4
Death Stranding
Bloodborne 2 (I know it won't happen but I still believe)

giphy.gif
 
Top Bottom