Will you play Good or Evil in your 1st RDR2 Playthrough?

[AGNT009]

Lets talk about the REAL problem with RDR games they hope you wont think about. RDR gives the player a false representation of choice. In RDR1, my first play through I played it Good. I knew the game seemed to have ramifications of playstyle choice, but I never truly felt that when the game ended after being mostly good the whole time. I consider myself a good guy in real life, so I played it to my natural instincts. This choice was easier to make for a first playthrough because just based on the title, the character was SUPPOSED to be good. Heck, they wouldnt even let us screw hookers in RDR1 because we were supposed to be loyal to our wife.

 

And now here it is again, they didnt name it Red Dead REDEMPTION 2 for no reason. Its obvious Arthur Morgan is supposed to be overall good with a good ending. But then they put their reputation system on steroids for this game to make you think you have a choice, but really you dont. To play Evil in RDR2, while the game's story shows this character playing Good is really jerking our chains again and being disingenuous with the player. Playing against the story is really immersion breaking. It reminds me of how annoying it was in Batman Arkham City where you would put on a DLC suit, but in all the cutscenes Batman was back in the default story suit. Immersion breaking, and they realized it and fixed that for Arkham Knight.

 

At least in Grand Theft Auto V, the story title or the story ending I chose didnt imply I had to be good that whole time the way RDR1 does. (I only played story once so far, and choose to kill psycho Trevor) Id imagine youd feel bad for playing Marston as Evil the whole time after that ending. Im going to play the RDR1 story again for only the second time soon before the prequel is out, and this time I might as well play Evil and screw around since I know how the story goes. But I doubt it will feel much different than the Good path and it certainly wont change the story outcome.

 

Is it possible that RDR2 will truly have two different story endings for Morgan, a Good ending and an Evil ending? Possible. But since they named it Redemption again, theres a 99% chance it will only have 1 Good ending. And a VERY very specific type of Good ending for Marston or the other characters to NEVER mention Morgan again in RDR1. Whatever the specific reason is, its Redemptive undercurrents dont lend itself to being told two different ways, a Good ending and an Evil ending, yet somehow both Redemptive.

 

How will you play RDR2?

[Red Dead Rebel]

I only played RDR1 as a good John. Evil doesn't fit him in the story.

 

Rockstar said Morgan's actions contextualize depending on your playstyle so playing good or evil make more sense.

[AGNT009]

I only played RDR1 as a good John. Evil doesn't fit him in the story.

 

Rockstar said Morgan's actions contextualize depending on your playstyle so playing good or evil make more sense.

I still expect that to be a lie. Im betting they make insignificant supporting characters and random city folk make you feel the difference between choices, but the core characters and main storyline will still stay on Good rails, and making the ending feel no different for having been an Evil ahole the whole time.

[Potter145]

Yeah and I wouldn't call it good or evil. I will decide how I act as Arthur in the context of the situation, but generally I will play as a good guy, if it makes more sense for the story, just like RDR1.

 

And calling it good or evil is a bit misleading. I think the choices R* gives you during the game are not good and evil in their essence. For example you can decide if you help the camp or go out on your own, if you go out on missions with members or do things yourself, hunt animals, buy them, or steal them, do a robbery quietly or loud.

R* hasn't made a big statement out of this, like Mass Effect for example. I believe they just want to give us more freedom in how we approach a situation and build a sandbox where everything you do feels seamless and makes sense.

[Red Dead Rebel]

 

I only played RDR1 as a good John. Evil doesn't fit him in the story.

 

Rockstar said Morgan's actions contextualize depending on your playstyle so playing good or evil make more sense.

I still expect that to be a lie. Im betting they make insignificant supporting characters and random city folk make you feel the difference between choices, but the core characters and main storyline will still stay on Good rails, and making the ending feel no different for having been an Evil ahole the whole time.

 

 

That's not what they meant. Arthur's actions in cutscenes will be the same regardless of your playstyle I think but they could be interpreted as good or evil. Like the "Where's our money" scene in the trailer, you can understand it as Arthur is just an asshole or that he cares for his gang and desperately trying to feed them.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Red Dead Rebel

[Jason]

I really hope that the story doesn't revolve around very obvious "good" and "evil" choices tbh. Likewise I hope the honour system from RDR1 isn't so black and white and doesn't reward you for maxing out "hero" or "villain". The reason being that in those good vs evil, paragon vs renegade systems, you end up having no choice in what you say because every time you're given a choice you know what you're going to pick cause you've already decided to be good or evil. It's uninspired story design and doesn't create unique playthroughs IMO.

 

The real magic of choice in story games comes when you're given choices inbetween, the grey areas so to speak. Choices that make you think if you've done the right thing after you've done them, where the options given to you all have downsides in some way or another. Where killing the bad guy comes with negatives and saving them comes with benefits, etc - stories that allow you to make deals with the devil while you're still trying to be the good guy, essentially.

[Nutduster]

I'm going to play him to where the story seems to lead, basically. I've done the same with every Rockstar title in the HD era. I played Niko as basically decent but with a hair trigger temper and low respect for human life. I played Marston as almost purely a good guy, never murdering randoms unless they started it and trying to avoid fights outside of missions. I played the GTA V trio appropriately as well - Michael with a short fuse, not a maniac but able to get drawn into bloodshed easily; Franklin as basically not violent outside of missions; and Trevor was my outlet for every possible bad impulse.

 

I don't know enough about Morgan yet to really make a determination, but he seems a little more violent and less honorable than Marston from the trailers. We will see.

 

I'd like to play a game where you really can determine your character's morality, but making such a game is a programming migraine, and it undermines any chance of building a truly complex and good narrative. (You either can't do a consistent narrative at all, or you have one with tacked-on alternate endings that feel completely wrong - or you craft a handful of wildly divergent complete narratives, which would take so much extra time that no developer will ever do it.) Even full RPGs often fall short on that front. Most recently I played Divinity: Original Sin and Fallout 4, and both let you be "evil" if you want, but if so, your actions in many missions and your dialogue in cut scenes often ends up making not a lick of sense. So I just went with the flow. Maybe eventually a studio will crack the nut of merging complex narratives with true choice, but until then I stick close to the main trunk and choose not to follow side branches that lead nowhere.

[Cutter De Blanc]

I will use situational ethics and do what the situation calls for as I determine it. Sometimes the carrot is preferable to the stick.

[Yelda]

I play Arthur depending on the situation in the first round. Depending on how the story develops and how I would act in his situation, but I would also like to play him really evil. His character/situation seems suited better, than Marston as a former outlaw. Once I tried to play John bad, but that didn't feel good ... Now I'm looking forward to this expierence

Edited May 7, 2018 by Yelda

[Jimmy Darmody]

Probably a mix of both good and evil, depending on the situation. I can see myself helping old ladies crossing the street as much as i can see myself sticking a gun in a random NPC guy«s but who asked me what time is it.

[rtie]

I'll take the grey hat, OP.

[Cutter De Blanc]

If I see Herbert Moon all bets are off though

[The Algerian]

I can't do evil playthroughs, I always play the way I would act.

[Dr.Rosenthal]

I'll probably do a bit of both.

 

One thing that I'm excited about is the fact that it'll probably feel worse going around killing strangers this time around, because the game world will be more alive with more detailed graphics, more life-like behavior for NPCs, and decaying corpses + vultures and stuff.

 

I remember in RDR I was trying to be good, but after having finished the game I greatly enjoyed shooting up saloons in the most gruesome ways.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Dr.Rosenthal