Forums - Gaming Discussion - Kotaku's RDR2 article states NPC's acts like NPC's and thats weird.

Okay it literally doesnt say that, but wtf is this article even trying to covey? it doesnt even make the AI argument . Anyone have any explanations?

Link:-https://kotaku.com/red-dead-redemption-2s-puppet-like-npcs-make-its-world-1830081078



Around the Network

Kotaku, desperate for clicks. Or has the NPC-meme really made them snap completely now?



Nothing to see here, move along

Why is the intent difficult to understand? In the writer's opinion the NPC's in RDR2 feel out of place in the midst of the game's otherwise meticulous strive for realism. They come off as fake and puppet-like, while the rest of the game succeeds much better in its attempts at making the world around the player seem real. Basically, the NPC's feel like actors putting on a play, rather than real people, which stands out a lot from the rest of the game. I haven't played the game myself, so I can't really say much about the NPC's or the game's world, but the article is perfectly understandable to me.



My Most Recent Articles:

1. Video Game Music Spotlight #14: A Moment of Calm

2. Gods and Superheroes: The Story of Clover Studio

3. Video Game Music Spotlight #13: Winter and Cold

For my non-video game related writings you can check my blog below.

Latest Post: Disney Canon: Dumbo (1941)

It is kinda immersion breaking when you rob a train and all the passengers stay in their seat, patiently waiting to be executed one by one. Or when you complete one of the attention grabber side things they simply stop after completing their script and don't respond anymore. The animals have better AI than the humans. Although I have only seen animals attacking each other on script, never random in the wild.

Btw bodies do not stay and shooting people in the leg has no effect. Not sure what that reddit story writer was smoking.

There are some 50 different randomized encounters to run into, so at least it doesn't instantly feel repetitive.



Darashiva said:
Why is the intent difficult to understand? In the writer's opinion the NPC's in RDR2 feel out of place in the midst of the game's otherwise meticulous strive for realism. They come off as fake and puppet-like, while the rest of the game succeeds much better in its attempts at making the world around the player seem real. Basically, the NPC's feel like actors putting on a play, rather than real people, which stands out a lot from the rest of the game. I haven't played the game myself, so I can't really say much about the NPC's or the game's world, but the article is perfectly understandable to me.

But isn't that what a video gaga is? Who expects npcs to behave that realistically with today's tech? The articles main complaint seems to be that the NPC's are there only because of the 'player' and they only exist to serve the 'player' ,well isn't that the whole point of a game? 



Around the Network

And does the bear shit in the woods? Genuine question because in RDR2 it may not.



AnmolRed said:
Darashiva said:
Why is the intent difficult to understand? In the writer's opinion the NPC's in RDR2 feel out of place in the midst of the game's otherwise meticulous strive for realism. They come off as fake and puppet-like, while the rest of the game succeeds much better in its attempts at making the world around the player seem real. Basically, the NPC's feel like actors putting on a play, rather than real people, which stands out a lot from the rest of the game. I haven't played the game myself, so I can't really say much about the NPC's or the game's world, but the article is perfectly understandable to me.

But isn't that what a video gaga is? Who expects npcs to behave that realistically with today's tech? The articles main complaint seems to be that the NPC's are there only because of the 'player' and they only exist to serve the 'player' ,well isn't that the whole point of a game? 

Not really sure what you are missing. 

As he said, the have strives for realism in almost every way, to the detriment of gameplay and fun. They are building s believable world. But the NPC's break this illusion because they don't appear to respond realistically.



twintail said:
AnmolRed said:

But isn't that what a video gaga is? Who expects npcs to behave that realistically with today's tech? The articles main complaint seems to be that the NPC's are there only because of the 'player' and they only exist to serve the 'player' ,well isn't that the whole point of a game? 

Not really sure what you are missing. 

As he said, the have strives for realism in almost every way, to the detriment of gameplay and fun. They are building s believable world. But the NPC's break this illusion because they don't appear to respond realistically.

I understand that part , its just the way the argument is constructed in the article comes off very strange to me personally.



AnmolRed said:
twintail said:

Not really sure what you are missing. 

As he said, the have strives for realism in almost every way, to the detriment of gameplay and fun. They are building s believable world. But the NPC's break this illusion because they don't appear to respond realistically.

I understand that part , its just the way the argument is constructed in the article comes off very strange to me personally.

what exactly makes it strange?



AnmolRed said:
Darashiva said:
Why is the intent difficult to understand? In the writer's opinion the NPC's in RDR2 feel out of place in the midst of the game's otherwise meticulous strive for realism. They come off as fake and puppet-like, while the rest of the game succeeds much better in its attempts at making the world around the player seem real. Basically, the NPC's feel like actors putting on a play, rather than real people, which stands out a lot from the rest of the game. I haven't played the game myself, so I can't really say much about the NPC's or the game's world, but the article is perfectly understandable to me.

But isn't that what a video gaga is? Who expects npcs to behave that realistically with today's tech? The articles main complaint seems to be that the NPC's are there only because of the 'player' and they only exist to serve the 'player' ,well isn't that the whole point of a game? 

i mean its a fair think piece, i disagree the notion thats it better to have no/fewer NPC's because then the world be accused of being barren. I think its more interesting looking at it of clash of technologies (comparing with your own experince) versus an inherent design fault like the writer is implying.