A minor whinge

Inconsequential spoilers for Red Dead Redemption follow:

When I started the movie director quest, I was expecting to see in the next movie theatre some bizarre cheesy singing cowboy version of John Marston. That would have been AMAZIIING! I'm pretty disappointed they gave us another animation, this time a joke (old-time misogyny is hilariously stupid!!1) they had made in the newspapers at least three times already.

But I guess at this stage, romanticised westerns would be far more anachronistic than animation, huh?

(I keep hearing and spelling 'John Marston' as 'John Marsden' arrrrrrrgh!)

Also, I hope my favourite quest-bearing NPC show up one more time or at least gets some closure, or I'm going to experience disconsolate shipper rage.

( Bigger spoilers for the Who Are You? storyline )

Yeah, it's a public entry. People are watching me now, so I might as well. (Even if I'll likely turn them all off)

If ideas were dollars I'd live in a blimp

In GTA (and RDR) you're forced to do things for other people (sometimes utterly stupid or abhorrent things, that your character may or may not comment on but will go ahead with anyway) before they are willing to help you. This is a fact of life in all video games (collect 20 wolf pelts anyone?), but in Rockstar games it takes on its own tenor for me, for some reason. Part of the reason I'm so enamoured with Red Dead Redemption and didn't think much of the GTA games I played is because it's blatantly obvious the main character is only doing these things because he's held at ransom and he's resigned to being a criminal and a murderer, not because someone asked him to set a village on fire and he went 'why the hell not'.*

I also found that distressing blog article by that would-be pick up artist today. I'd rather eat a live piglet than read it again or describe it, but I can find the link if you really want to know. Suffice to say it's the belief that a man deserves sex if he gives a woman gifts or privileges taken to a distressing extreme.

So that combined with RDR gave me this strange inclination to make a game based on the concept of such 'obligations'.

You'd have a very clear goal, that means a great deal to the player. The quest-bearing NPCs help you, but start expecting things in return, either that you do things for them or that you give them things that belong to you, which may involve body and soul. If you don't give it to them, they become unhelpful, start refusing to help and eventually grow malevolent. But what else are you going to do? Fight an entire city/government/crime organisation/swarm of flying jellyfish/whatever by yourself with a stick and a garbage can lid?

It doesn't have to be a huge game, it could even be a little statement like increpare's take on Mass Effect 2. I suppose the pivotal thing is that the game give you the benefits that you need to proceed in the game first and THEN makes you work for it, not the other way around.

When I put it like that it sounds like just the sort of art-trendy-statement game people on indiegames.com hate. Heh.

The other problem is that Rockstar has the benefit of huge money and employees willing to be flogged into creating a game that's good enough on a storytelling and etc. level to give you an incentive to do these things. Some budget indie text adventure game or what have you would need horrifyingly good writing to give people the same inclination. Still, it's something to think about.

* But I'm not your average GTA player and I'm probably one of like... ten people, ever, who cares about this. I'm the only person I know IRL whose first actions in a Rockstar game aren't 'steal a car' and 'make like Frank Miller'. I will concede however that the mission in The Ballad of Gay Tony where you steal a train is baaaadaaass.