I like the game a lot. The single player is great fun, but I actually really like free roam and the gang matches are like something out of Gears of Horse. However: perfect? No. But it's set the bar for the Western genre much higher.
Poll: Is Red Dead Redemption Overrated?
- Thread starter wkrepelin
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I love RDR and it is definitely not overrated. Whatever that really means. How can something be overrated really? If people like it then they like it. There are always going to be people that don't like it and the game doesn't appeal to them. But to call it overrated because a major of people like playing it is a bit silly.
Like most others have said, perfect scores don't neccesarily mean perfection. Nothing is. But to me and those reviewers the experience was flawless, even though the game might not have been.
I think it is overrated.. everyone was saying how amazing and awesome it was, i bought and played it, the horse riding got dull and boring, the combat just felt like gta with a slow-mo thing.. basically, very pretty game, a very good idea, but the gameplay just isnt as good as everyone says it is.. as for the multiplayer, it was glitchy and clearly rushed and not tested fully..
I found a lot of problems with it personally. Most of the content in the game didn't have a purpose, so there was little sense of progress or accomplishment for, say, spending an hour hunting, skinning and selling pelts.
The combat was functional but otherwise average and the missions were painfully linear when compared to the otherwise sandbox structure of the game.
The story, while having a phenomenal ending, was otherwise just Marston playing errand boy for about 25 hours. Until the ending ranch missions, it was just paced at a meandering plod.
It was still a good game though, in my eyes. The characters were fantastic, the world was beautiful, and the ending was touching, but I was expecting a lot more from all the hype surrounding it.
The combat was functional but otherwise average and the missions were painfully linear when compared to the otherwise sandbox structure of the game.
The story, while having a phenomenal ending, was otherwise just Marston playing errand boy for about 25 hours. Until the ending ranch missions, it was just paced at a meandering plod.
It was still a good game though, in my eyes. The characters were fantastic, the world was beautiful, and the ending was touching, but I was expecting a lot more from all the hype surrounding it.
I think the story and character of John Martson are overrated. Martson pissed me off becuase of his attitude, constantly reminding me of how he "would rather not be doing this", and how it was "not his choice." It ended up making me not give a shit about what he was doing becuase he himself had no interest.
The story itself seemed to drag on forever as well, especially at Mexico.
Many other things I dislike, but there is no point listing them because nobody cares
The story itself seemed to drag on forever as well, especially at Mexico.
Your chasing Williamson for a few hours, and when you get to him, it's just a short chase scene which results in a quick death, in fact, for me, the president shot him (forget hs name). Just didn't like how it drags it out, then rushes it when you actually FIND Bill.
Many other things I dislike, but there is no point listing them because nobody cares
I think it is.
I got to the last few missions of Mexico, and never bothered finished the game.
On the other hand, I've beat GTA IV almost 3 times. Gonna be 4 when the complete edition launches. And I've done each of the DLCs once.
I got to the last few missions of Mexico, and never bothered finished the game.
On the other hand, I've beat GTA IV almost 3 times. Gonna be 4 when the complete edition launches. And I've done each of the DLCs once.
I've never really been into Rockstar's open world games. The only Rockstar game I ever liked was Oni.
Yes it is, it starts way too slow, the choices that you are suposedly allowed to make aren't (as of yet atleast) available outside of missions or side quests and there isn't really that much that I felt drove me to play it.
So I did think it was over hyped for what it was, it wasn't a terrible game but it didn't hold my interest for very long.
So I did think it was over hyped for what it was, it wasn't a terrible game but it didn't hold my interest for very long.
That's a very good point. Critics definitely stroked it up a bit much, like with any big release. I loved the game, but I do think it's overrated. The story, immersion, and aesthetics of the game were awesome; but the gameplay felt a bit bland at parts.starfox444 said:
I do not believe it could be considered overrated simply because any positive review the game has received has mentioned the technical problems (that is the glitches and whatnot) and the uninspired combat. The thing is, what the game does right in terms of atmosphere and pacing and narrative execution is sufficient excellent to overcome these flaws for most.
thought RDR was great. It took me maybe 35 hours to finish, but it NEVER dragged, and the missions were varied enough to keep things interesting. The story was also excellent.
There were no babysitting missions like in GTAIV, and the stranger missions were all interesting enough that I wanted to do them.
There's a ton of things to do if you WANT to drag out the playing time, but even if you don't, there's still plenty of gameplay to be had.
The controls are never clunkier than in GTAIV, and are usually much better. There is a little ambiguity about who you can shoot or what you can take....until you actually learn to PAY ATTENTION.
Also didn't encounter any more bugs than in most other games.
There were no babysitting missions like in GTAIV, and the stranger missions were all interesting enough that I wanted to do them.
There's a ton of things to do if you WANT to drag out the playing time, but even if you don't, there's still plenty of gameplay to be had.
The controls are never clunkier than in GTAIV, and are usually much better. There is a little ambiguity about who you can shoot or what you can take....until you actually learn to PAY ATTENTION.
Also didn't encounter any more bugs than in most other games.
I think ppl put too much focus on the rating system. A game with a score of 10 or a one with a score of 7 don't matter much as long as it's fun to you. Most of the rating isn't so much based on "this game is perfect" but rather compared to all other games of it's genre as a whole and rates the innovation of the game compared to the industry. There are plenty of games with great scores that everyone seem to hate, like FF13 where a majority of ppl treat it like it has leprosy. In the end it just matters how much fun you have in it, I found the game Alpha Protocal to be pretty damn fun despite it's low scores. Nothing that I'd wanna keep playing for hrs but it was worth the gamefly trip, and the play through.
I have not played it yet.
I'm holding out for a PC release due to what I've heard about the controls I know would be solved with a PC port.
Particularly being unable to aim or look around while galloping on a horse (why is gallop not mapped to a shoulder button?) also the aiming system I'm not a fan of, the lock onto a single pixel and headshot. I like to aim myself with a highly precise control like with a computer mouse.
I'm holding out for a PC release due to what I've heard about the controls I know would be solved with a PC port.
Particularly being unable to aim or look around while galloping on a horse (why is gallop not mapped to a shoulder button?) also the aiming system I'm not a fan of, the lock onto a single pixel and headshot. I like to aim myself with a highly precise control like with a computer mouse.