Dan Hauser was surprised by how angry some players were about Red Dead Redemption's ending

This article was written for the first time on the site Gimfa Gimfa: news, reviews and reviews of games, cinema, movies and series in the link Dan Hauser was surprised by the extreme anger of some players towards the ending of Red Dead Redemption. The ending of Red Dead Redemption (2010) is one of the most enduring masterpieces in video game history. Spoiler alert: The following parts of the story of Red Dead Redemption and Red Dead Redemption 2 will be revealed

The ending of Red Dead Redemption (2010) is one of the most enduring masterpieces in video game history.

Spoiler alert: The following parts of the story of Red Dead Redemption and Red Dead Redemption 2 will be revealed.

For dozens of hours, we are given control of the protagonist, John Marston, who wanders across the American West, seeking revenge on the former leader of his group, Dutch van der Linde. Of course, he achieves this revenge in one of the final stages and in a snowy encounter. But John cannot spend the rest of his life in peace; Because such an ending would be too perfect and clichéd. Instead, the outlaw is gunned down in the barn of his family farm by members of the military.

This was a novel twist at the time. Open world games and video games in general did not have such an approach. It initially drew mixed reviews, but has since been hailed as a masterpiece of narrative design. Former VP of Rockstar Games and writer of Red Dead Redemption Dan Hauser recently spoke with IGN Media on the IGN30 Icons special and said that the decision was just as difficult to make as it sounds.

I remember discussing this with the game's lead designer, Christian Kantamsa. He welcomed this idea, so did I; But considering the realities of production… how does an open-world game continue to work if you kill the protagonist? So I said: I think maybe we should kill him. He replied: It is a great idea. We must do the same. I said, "I don't know if… Let me think about it a little bit more, because we were dealing with voiceovers and dialogues here." The nature of an open world game is that when you finish the story, you return to the game world to complete all the side content if you wish. For this we had to play someone else's role. We could play Jack, but what would that mean? So I had to think for a while about the implications of this idea in terms of the production process.

Jack is John's son and is only 16 years old during most of Red Dead Redemption. In order for the transfer of character control to be done properly and the game world to make sense, he had to become an adult; That's why we see a 3-year time jump to 1914 to take control of 19-year-old Jack after his father's death. But that was just one of the obstacles that Howser, Kantamsa and the Rockstar Games team faced.

Recalling the questions he had in mind at that time, Houser said:

Did we have the necessary skills and work capacity to implement playing Jack? Did this idea work? I mean technically, not fictionally; Because we were finally doing the story part. If you go to a side character that has a three-step storyline and you've already done one step (with John), what does that really mean when you come back (with Jack)? How does this system work? We had to think about all these things and finally decided that we could probably make it work, but we were still afraid.

In the final story mission of this 2010 masterpiece, Jack gets his soothing revenge by killing the person responsible for the murder in a duel. This is the moment that brings everything to fruition and closes the story of the game.

I think people really liked that moment where you kill the murderers and found it very viscerally moving. I think there was a broad consensus that it was the right decision, but obviously it was also an unusual and strange decision; However, I believe the company (Rockstar) would have survived by making the same decisions. But when the game came out, we were surprised at how angry some people were about the decision. There were people who were very angry with you. Part of you says at these times: That's great, because it means you've really connected with the story and the characters.

But the other part of it was that you forget, or I forget sometimes, that we're not making movies, we're not writing books; We are making a game. A game cannot survive without players. So the players have a sense of ownership of what you and they are co-creating in that moment, in a way that someone looking at, say, a painting doesn't, and I think they felt really frustrated and disappointed with that decision.

Now, I think it was the right decision because you want those big, strong reactions to form; But I think people were really confused by that. As a writer, I felt like he had to die for the story to have weight, and I've wanted that in several previous versions of GTA, but we've never really done it for the same technical reasons we discussed earlier.

It seems that Houser had so much fun with this that a similar trick was used in its sequel, Red Dead Redemption 2; This time it was with arguably even more impact, as the prequel tied us in with Arthur Morgan's character, before Marston once again took control of the situation.

In the post-RDR2 world, Rockstar Games will once again look to improve its storytelling capabilities in GTA 6; By placing us in the role of a fugitive couple named Jason and Lucia. Will we still be able to play as both of them by the time the end credits roll?