Poll: Read Dead Redemption Rant: A Rarely Rousing Romp

[The Cherman]

Forgive the poor alliteration; I'm tired.

I had high hopes for RDR, hopes kept aloft by raving review after raving review (just like GTA4). And yet I'm afraid to say that the GTA formula has made for a rather bland game. For example, late in the game there's a mission to provide assistance to an important character you haven't seen in a while. You drive a wagon across the map, listen to some decent dialogue, and then drive your wagon back. Exciting? Not so much. Sadly, this is basically what most of the missions are: drive, er, ride from A to B, perhaps do some auto-aiming, er, shooting along the way, and then head back. Repeat.

Or, for example, a side mission (SPOILER ALERT) where you help a guy building a glider. Helping him requires some tedious item collection (what fun!). The pay off--well, it's not getting to try the glider yourself. You watch him nose dive off the cliff.

Fundamental problems:
1) Lack of freedom of choice compared to other contemporary open-world games (e.g., Fallout).
2) Boring, repetitive missions. Gun play too easy and therefore not particularly exciting or fun. Rescuing someone from a mine might be a really cool mission in another game; here, it's dull.
3) Basic story could make for a good western, but because of the GTA formula, it unfolds too slowly and with too little suspense (e.g., if there are two active missions available, you can be sure you'll not be getting the bad guy this time).

Masterpiece? No.

What do you think?

 

[erbkaiser]

Hmm.

Plus side:
-Real western feel
-Interesting story (but not stellar writing)
-Horses feel realistic
-No harsh punishment for dying (you respawn in the closest safehouse, and missions have checkpoints so you don't need to replay 20 minutes because of one stray bullet)
-The wildlife is awesome. The first time I was suddenly attacked by a cougar while I was hunting wabbits was one of the coolest things I've ever seen, and I often see coyotes chase other animals... the world just feels alive.

Down side:
-Missions can be very repetitive
-Mini-games are annoying and pointless
-Mexico forced me to play my character the way Rockstar intended it to, a problem they have had in all games since GTA 3. Do not presume to allow me full control and then take it away by forcing me to side with characters who do things I'd never agree with!

So masterpiece? No. But a really good game. I'm not sure it's Rockstar's best game yet (that'd be Bully Scholarship Edition for me), but it's certainly in the top three.

 

[Chamale]

It's the best game for someone who wants a third-person Western. If you don't want a third person Western, it's not a good game at all.

I think this game accomplished its goals very well, within the narrow framework of creating a third-person Western.

 

[The Cherman]

Well, I appreciate your comments, but I did want a third-person Western (or first-person). And I definitely agree about the Mexico missions.

 

[PTSpyder]

Sorry, but you are completely wrong about the guns being too easy. If you are having too easy of a time with the auto aim, turn the settings to expert and its basically full free aim. All this said, Im not saying the gun physics are not pretty broken, because they are. Its either full on hold your hand auto aim, fucked up semi-auto aim, or your own ***** no aim. None of these choices really work well.

Overall, the game is pretty average, with the worst multiplayer experience I've ever had the misfortune of being stuck playing for achievement whoring. The only thing that is even remotely interesting is the hunting aspect, and after you get the $10k trophy, there is no point to earning any more money so then it loses its fun. Honestly, I dont know who thinks a sandbox game in the old west sounds like a good idea. The reason sandbox games almost always take place in a city is there is nothing fun to do in a field, even if you have a gun.

 

[Tattaglia]

It's the best game for someone who wants a third-person Western. If you don't want a third person Western, it's not a good game at all.

I think this game accomplished its goals very well, within the narrow framework of creating a third-person Western.

I agree. It's open world, but don't expect to be given full freedom - it's not an RPG. You can't completely skip missions or towns like Fallout. Like Yahtzee has said, it's more of a bag of toys approach on top of a structured and linear story. I still quite like the game, but still, it's not a masterpiece. So far, no game is a masterpiece.

 

[vance32]

i was never could play gta so when rdr came out i have been playing 2 weeks non stop with my friend(i got it 2 weeks ago) so its fun when you run into your friend with dynamite in your hand

 

[K84]

I was pleasantly surprised, it met my expectations, but then again i never have high ones.
Not for any game, so i won't be disappointed.

Loved the nods to various famous Westerns, the story was okay, Mexico sucks, and the online is pretty sweet.
The recent DLC is fun to play too, i liked "The River" a lot.
(still wish you could swim...)

 

[Nwabudike Morgan]

I think it all depends on how much you played cowboy as a kid. I did a lot, so I adore Red Dead. It's more than just GTA in the west, it's a cowboy simulator where you can do a hell of a lot of the cowboy shit you'd want to do in a western game. The first thing I did when I walked into the saloon in Armadillo once you go back there after the opening missions was shoot the piano player. And it felt GREAT.