4d ago

Rockstar has some of the most restrictive mission design I've ever experienced

I've been playing Red Dead Redemption 2 again recently and have been thoroughly enjoying it, but this one thing has always bugged be about this game and Rockstar games in general, and that's how restrictive they are with their mission design. You decide to get off your horse too early when riding to an objective, mission failure. You stand outside a building too long while your friends go inside, mission failure. The list goes on, but you get the point. If you go even slightly outside the railings of the amusement park ride Rockstar has setup, instant mission failure.

This whole issue is made even worse by how in contrast the missions are with the open world. The open world is a sandbox where you can handle situations how ever you want. It feels like a living, breathing world where NPCs will react to your actions. It almost feels like there were two entirely separate teams working on the open world and missions, who aren't coordinating. Given how big Rockstar is that could absolutely be the case.

I've also been playing Kingdom Come Deliverance II and that game is in a lot of ways quite similar to RDR2 with it's set protagonist, realism, and open world sandbox. The flexibility of how you can handle quests in that game really highlights the shortcomings of RDR2. I know KCDII is an RPG and focuses more on player dialogue choices, but the existence of the honor system demonstrates how Rockstar is willing to let player actions dictate the story and world, so they could at least let some of that bleed into the missions. Maybe sprinkle a few high and low honor choices into missions, and don't fail the mission if you do something slightly wrong. Have the world react to the player not doing what you want. Have your friends call after you if you're lagging behind or something. I'm pretty sure that already happens in the game at some point.

Thank you for listening to my rant. This is just something I've been meaning to put into words for awhile.

18 comments

I think a lot of my creativity is stunted because I don't generally notice these issues in rockstars games until someone points them out lol. I think it would be pretty cool if they gave people more choice and options

This is well treaded ground and I agree with pretty much everything. I tried to get through RDR2 twice last year but whenever I was doing main story missions I would get frustrated. Partly because of your points, but also for another reason: how the hell can you maintain immersion in the story when the protagonist effectively commits genocide? Seriously the kill count in the missions is so ludicrously high I want to quit every time I do a couple of main story missions. Like I get it, you want to sprinkle some action sequences in there to keep up the tempo, but I can't take killing a hundred lawmen in some town in a main mission and then have the world go on as if nothing happened.

To me, this is different choices in player autonomy/agency. No player is truly autonomous in a game world, but giving the player choices and having the choices have outcomes that actually impact the gameworld makes it feel like it's your own agency making the choice.
For example, why would I eat the fish in Nier Automata? Doing so kills me. Why would they give me the option to have a game-ending early on in the game based on eating a fish? Because in giving you the choice to do so, they've given you a level of autonomy. They let you find out for yourself what the consequences are, and the consequences make sense in the context of the game world.
Rockstar is bad at respecting player agency, but you know what the worst was in my experience?
Hogwarts Legacy. (Note: I pirated this trash to not give Rowling any money)
Right off the bat, at the beginning of the game, you're meant to follow your Professor through a dark seemingly endless empty space. If you leave the side of your Professor, nothing terrible happens, just big red scary words cover the screen saying you've failed because you lost track of the Professor.
In a game that actually respects player agency, you wouldn't just be like "Hey, you're doing THIS MISSION WRONG" (which is basically what the message said in nicer terms), you would give the player an actual event showing why it was dangerous.
What would be so hard about animating a shadowy horror coming out of the shadows and snatching you, instantly killing you? At least then you have learned why you shouldn't venture alone. Because there are scary monsters in the dark and they could kill you! This respects the players agency by allowing them to explore but also giving them clear limits that fit the theme of the world in which they exist. There's definitely scary horrors in Harry Potter, and a myriad of things that could kill a new student. We don't see any of them, just big all caps "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!"
The game would pose further issues, like not being able to jump over obstacles that your character is clearly jumping higher than. Invisible walls is another thing which disrespects player agency and breaks world immersion.
It's been a while since I played it, but the whole game was crammed to the gills with these kind of wag of the finger "we didn't tell you to play that way so don't" instead of using compelling story-based reasons to keep people from doing those things.
- Every so often i like to boot up Automata, and just remove the OS chip. And then close the game out.
  It just feels good on certain days.
  
  Go to Bunker
  L3+R3
- I'm reminded of the abyssal words in Elden Ring's expansion. There are signs that tell you "Don't let them see you!" and "You have to hide and run!". You find an area with some tall grass and some creepy eye-monsters. And sure enough, if they see you they come running at you. They'll knock you over, grab you, and explode your head.
  Clearly you're supposed to sneak by them.
  But...
  
  I also read that on release, Star Wars Outlaws that being seen during a stealth mission was an insta-fail.
  Unlike, say, Alien Isolation where you get to see yourself swallowed up by the Xenomorph when you fail.
  Apparently they sent an update to Outlaws that changed that, because people hated it obviously.

Far cry 5 gives the opposite experience. You get railroaded into missions, but can do whatever you want to during them.
While getting pushed into missions is a bit irritating, the open gameplay and drop in co op made it one of the most fun games out there. Finding ways to break missions with my friends turned into the real objective of the game.
One portion, you have to scale a mountain while dodging sniper fire to kill a cult leader at the top, and I spent 15 minutes slowly making my way up to him. As I finally get to the top, before I could make the kill, a friend dropped in and crashed a fighter jet into him, completing the mission.

A good contrast is something like Outer Worlds, where there is usually multiple possible outcomes. I think it comes from their Fallout lessons learned and GURPS background. Love the game design. (Dislike the combat, but that is a separate thing.)

I loved the environments in RDR2, but holy hell, the missions' persistent denial of player agency drove me up a tree. Railroading is annoying in the best of cases. I could tolerate it in The Last of Us, which limited the places I could go but offered a wonderfully engaging story in those places and never dropped a 10-ton FAIL anvil on my head for trying something creative. In an open world game (a genre that I like because I'm encouraged to find creative solutions) I find it unforgivable.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance drove me away for similar reasons. I like games where the challenge comes from learning how to work with available tools and moves, developing my skill with them, and figuring out how to use them most effectively. Making progress that way is satisfying. KC:D chose the polar opposite of that, interfering with my ability to control my character until I slogged through seemingly endless time sinks thinly disguised as "training" sessions. This mechanic had nothing to do with developing my skill as a player, but instead just arbitrarily denied me agency. I hated it, and since the reports I've read suggest that the sequel does the same, I won't be buying it or anything else from those game designers.
I guess my point is just to let you know that you're not alone. :)
- I dropped KCD 1 after ~30 hours for the same reason as you, but at least KCD has some justification - the whole point of the game is to be an ultra-realistic simulation of medieval life, a roleplaying game in the truest sense of the word.
  Your character starts out not even knowing how to read, even though you, the player, obviously do to interact with the GUI. He's the son of a blacksmith who never would have learned anything else, so he, the character, has to spend time learning basically everything, even if you, the player, already have it figured out.
  You and I think that design is unfun. Clearly, though, there's an audience for it, as KCD 2 sold something like a million copies on launch day and instantly recouped their development costs.
  
  Yes, I'm aware of that justification. I like the idea in principle, but it doesn't hold water in this game, because the mechanics they used to simulate ultra-realism are not realistic at all. Picking up a weapon in real life doesn't impose a state of bodily malfunction where you have about as much control of yourself as a blind drunk standing on one stilt. I've used swords and bows, and trained in a fair number of other physical skills. Even my very first time, there was never a point where I suddenly found my arms or legs failing to work. The most forgiving way I can describe this implementation would be to call it a ham-fisted attempt.
  Clearly, though, there’s an audience for it
  It seems so. If some people enjoy slogging through those mechanics, then I'm happy for them. I have better things to do with my time.

Reminds me of an interview Gaben did

18 comments