Red Dead Redemption had the WORST ending out of any game I have ever played. [spoiler] Ripping control away from the player is incredibly cheap and stupid way to create drama at the expense of gameplay. I would not have minded if the game left you in control, but threw waves of enemies at you until you ran out of ammo or died, like the ending to Halo Reach. I would not feel cheated then because I would have had the choice- fight to the end or give up and die quickly. I would know I had done everything I could but escape was impossible. Instead the game just takes control away from you and says YOU DO THIS NOW. YOU DIE. HAHAHAHA DRAMATIC! There weren't that many people. If I was actually playing, I could have taken them. Marston did not have to die. He could have escaped, caught up with his family and fled to Mexico. Or anywhere else on the entire continent. But he didn't, because... because... I've seen people say he did it because he knew his family would never be safe if he didn't. That's just the stupidest thing in the world. I mean, if the guys who are after you can find you at your home address five minutes down the road from where they are, they can find you anywhere, right? Wrong? They needed Marston to track down Marston's gang because no one else could find them? Now there are no other members of the gang left and he could just disappear and live out the rest of his days in blissful peace? Where's the forced tragedy in that! Games don't work the same way as movies. Especially open world games. I wish Rockstar would realise this. [/spoiler]
First off, mr. unimformed Gamespot user, use f******* spoiler tags. Surprisingly, not everyone in the world has plated this game. Second, [spoiler] John knew that if he died his family would be safe. If he ran away with them, the government would keep looking for them. Thereby causing the family to live in fear. John didn't want that. So he died. We all know that John could have easily taken all them out. But how bout you use your head for a second? Hmmm, killing a government offcial and some of the army is totally illegal right? Even more people would be after him after that. Thus repeating the cycle [/spoiler]
Please. Try to think about things before you say them.
[QUOTE="Jonzey123"]Red Dead Redemption had the WORST ending out of any game I have ever played. Ripping control away from the player is incredibly cheap and stupid way to create drama at the expense of gameplay. I would not have minded if the game left you in control, but threw waves of enemies at you until you ran out of ammo or died, like the ending to Halo Reach. I would not feel cheated then because I would have had the choice- fight to the end or give up and die quickly. I would know I had done everything I could but escape was impossible. Instead the game just takes control away from you and says YOU DO THIS NOW. YOU DIE. HAHAHAHA DRAMATIC! There weren't that many people. If I was actually playing, I could have taken them. Marston did not have to die. He could have escaped, caught up with his family and fled to Mexico. Or anywhere else on the entire continent. But he didn't, because... because... I've seen people say he did it because he knew his family would never be safe if he didn't. That's just the stupidest thing in the world. I mean, if the guys who are after you can find you at your home address five minutes down the road from where they are, they can find you anywhere, right? Wrong? They needed Marston to track down Marston's gang because no one else could find them? Now there are no other members of the gang left and he could just disappear and live out the rest of his days in blissful peace? Where's the forced tragedy in that! Games don't work the same way as movies. Especially open world games. I wish Rockstar would realise this. Part of the RDR story was how the "wild wild west" was dying, or more accurately being "civilized" by the western expansion of government. John Marston's story was part of that, he was an old-time gunfighter and outlaw who knew that people like him no longer had a place in the world, he was a dinousaur and it was his destiny to die out. The game also has a second ending, which I won't spoil for you, which I believe the message is "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Old gunfighters die out, new ones take their place. "Wild wild west" dies out giving way to "wild wild Chicago." New criminals, new gunfighters, new crazy times, it never ends, just changes scenery. Govt was, is and always will be corrupt and full of wicked people, but at the same time is somewhat necessary for human survival.
Umm... The thread is about the endings of RDR and Mass Effect 2. I would assume people reading it are at least familiar with the endings of RDR and Mass Effect 2. The freakin' title even says possible spoilers! Nevertheless, I've put it in spoiler tags now to protect the stupid and innocent.
Secondly,[spoiler] one third of the game is set in Mexico. He now has "friends" in high places in Mexico. He could probably hide out there, or anywhere else on the entire continent of South America and live out his days in peace. I can't believe you're actually getting angry at me for daring to question Rockstar's poor storytelling techniques. GTA4 and L.A. Noire did not work as story driven open world games either. [/spoiler]
Are you serious? I'm not saying that Rockstar is the greatest storyteller ever. I'm saying that you misinterpreted the ending. And yes. Fleeing to South America is totally possible with 3 people with two horses.
[QUOTE="Jonzey123"]Red Dead Redemption had the WORST ending out of any game I have ever played. Ripping control away from the player is incredibly cheap and stupid way to create drama at the expense of gameplay. I would not have minded if the game left you in control, but threw waves of enemies at you until you ran out of ammo or died, like the ending to Halo Reach. I would not feel cheated then because I would have had the choice- fight to the end or give up and die quickly. I would know I had done everything I could but escape was impossible. Instead the game just takes control away from you and says YOU DO THIS NOW. YOU DIE. HAHAHAHA DRAMATIC! There weren't that many people. If I was actually playing, I could have taken them. Marston did not have to die. He could have escaped, caught up with his family and fled to Mexico. Or anywhere else on the entire continent. But he didn't, because... because... I've seen people say he did it because he knew his family would never be safe if he didn't. That's just the stupidest thing in the world. I mean, if the guys who are after you can find you at your home address five minutes down the road from where they are, they can find you anywhere, right? Wrong? They needed Marston to track down Marston's gang because no one else could find them? Now there are no other members of the gang left and he could just disappear and live out the rest of his days in blissful peace? Where's the forced tragedy in that! Games don't work the same way as movies. Especially open world games. I wish Rockstar would realise this.ZombieKiller7
Part of the RDR story was how the "wild wild west" was dying, or more accurately being "civilized" by the western expansion of government. John Marston's story was part of that, he was an old-time gunfighter and outlaw who knew that people like him no longer had a place in the world, he was a dinousaur and it was his destiny to die out. The game also has a second ending, which I won't spoil for you, which I believe the message is "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Old gunfighters die out, new ones take their place. "Wild wild west" dies out giving way to "wild wild Chicago." New criminals, new gunfighters, new crazy times, it never ends, just changes scenery. Govt was, is and always will be corrupt and full of wicked people, but at the same time is somewhat necessary for human survival. And that's part of my problem with it. It's gone from an individual story of (sort of)[spoiler] redemption [/spoiler] and one man trying to [spoiler] save his family [/spoiler] (sorry, I'm going to spoiler tag everything now in case people who have not played the game want to read a thread about it's ending without having the ending spoiled), and then Rockstar decides to turn it into [spoiler] an allegory for the unchanging nature of human behaviour. [/spoiler] I am familiar with the [spoiler] second ending, although I never played it given how much the original ending pissed me off [/spoiler] and again, I think it would have worked much better if [spoiler] we had full control over Marston's last stand, because then you would know there was truly no way out. [/spoiler] Did John really not expect that [spoiler] getting himself brutally gunned down by the government would result in his son harbouring some kind of resentment towards them? [/spoiler]
Oh, and thank you for responding in a mature, intelligent way.
Are you serious? I'm not saying that Rockstar is the greatest storyteller ever. I'm saying that you misinterpreted the ending. And yes. Fleeing to South America is totally possible with 3 people with two horses.
Hmm... yes... yes... horses are so hard to come by in the old west. And I apologise for accusing you of calling Rockstar the greatest storytellers ever. Sometimes I see a lot of people imply it and it just annoys me because all of their stories are deeply, deeply flawed.
Portal 2 was my favorite ending to a game in a long while. Others I really liked were Mass Effect 1, Braid, PoP Two Thrones, WC3 the frozen throne, and starcraft 1 (the plain ending and the brood war ending are both great)
Both of RDR's "endings" were quite poor. Especially the second. A non-descript bush beside a river isn't what I would call "epic." Now, flying a space ship to the centre of the galaxy to fight a reaper, THAT is epic.
As much as I liked ME2, I have to say RDR's ending was much better because I did not see that coming lol. With mass effect, you know whats gonna happen (even with the changes of squadies) but RDR made me connect emotionally with John as it led to the ending
Log in to comment