Game Debate #30: Red Dead Redemption

[Reed Rothchild | 9,588]

[Gloves | 11,841]

I didn't like it, from the little I played. That said, I was deep in the trophy hunting game and only actually played it for a specific trophy for a competition, so that may have negatively painted my view of it.

[JamesRobot | 5,837]

Meh.  By then, I was over the sandbox games.  It's too bad, because westerns are particularly underrepresented in video game media.  If it came out in-between Vice City and San Andreas, I would have really liked it.  After San Andreas, I lost interest in the formula.  The scope of those games is just too much for me anymore.

Edited December 31, 2020 by JamesRobot

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

I've never played it, but it looks good.

[Webhead123 | 687]

7/10...but much of that is probably down to personal preference. Because of the setting, I like it a touch more than the GTA games, but I still have a tendency to lose interest in most open-world games rather quickly and RDR didn't avoid that fate. What I played of it, I enjoyed.

Edited January 1, 2021 by Webhead123

[AstralSoul | 503]

Easily a 9. I love the world, the story is fun, and I prefer it over GTA. Probably slightly better than the sequel but both are fantastic.

Castlevania 64 needs more recognition so I voted for that for the 2nd poll. Everyone likes to dump on the game but I honestly like it a lot.

 

[cj_robot | 546]

Haven't played it yet. Always looked appealing to me, but knowing how much time I'd have to invest keeps me from starting it (like with most modern games for me, tbh)

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

8/10. I played it last year before Red Dead 2 came out and I thought it was great. It holds up well and is still fun to play, despite being 10 years old. I actually enjoyed it quite a bit more than RDR 2 and the epilogue is very satisfying.

Edited January 1, 2021 by DoctorEncore

[Strange | 1,701]

One of the best series to come out of the modern era. 10/10

[Sumez | 2,995]

I hear people often describe this game as wild west GTA or "Grand Theft Horse". Which makes sense to some degree, since you got the same overall mission structure, and a lot of the same philosophy.

But there are some very important differences to the point where playing any GTA game feels almost miserable to me, while RDR was incredibly enjoyable.
I haven't played either the game's predecessor nor its sequel, but both have been critically panned so I'm not sure I'd ever bother. But this one felt just right to me. I loved just riding around the beautiful scenery. It feels more natural that a desert like this would be barren as opposed to a seemingly busy modern city. And Rockstar did a much better job recreating the genuine western feel compared to their embarassingly hamfisted attempts at "satire" from the GTA games.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make this post about GTA. In general, even though RDR falls into many of the typical "open world AAA game" traps, of endlessly repeating samey missions just to check off a list, I always found the moment to moment experiences enjoyable enough that I never grew tired of the game. Definitely one of the best examples of how to do this thing.

7/10

[Brickman | 4,017]

8. Once I just focused on the story instead of all the extra stuff I loved it. The story was great (loved the ending) and the soundtrack was really interesting.

[Strange | 1,701]

6 hours ago, Sumez said:

I hear people often describe this game as wild west GTA or "Grand Theft Horse". Which makes sense to some degree, since you got the same overall mission structure, and a lot of the same philosophy.

But there are some very important differences to the point where playing any GTA game feels almost miserable to me, while RDR was incredibly enjoyable.
I haven't played either the game's predecessor nor its sequel, but both have been critically panned so I'm not sure I'd ever bother. But this one felt just right to me. I loved just riding around the beautiful scenery. It feels more natural that a desert like this would be barren as opposed to a seemingly busy modern city. And Rockstar did a much better job recreating the genuine western feel compared to their embarassingly hamfisted attempts at "satire" from the GTA games.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make this post about GTA. In general, even though RDR falls into many of the typical "open world AAA game" traps, of endlessly repeating samey missions just to check off a list, I always found the moment to moment experiences enjoyable enough that I never grew tired of the game. Definitely one of the best examples of how to do this thing.

7/10

My honest recommendation to you is that if you enjoyed RDR you will LOVE RDR2. It’s the same just... better. And more of it. The world is even more fleshed out and beautiful, the story has great nods and foreshadowing to Red Dead Redemption 1, and they somehow make you love the protagonist more than you loved Marston in the first game which I didn’t think was possible.

RDR2’s fault was coming out in an era where outrage headlines gets clicks and people look for the smallest molehills in games to make into mountains. A criticism I actually saw someone make an entire post about on a different forum was that you had to ride your horse places. In a cowboy/western game. 

Overall I thought the game got rave reviews?

[Reed Rothchild | 9,588]

23 minutes ago, The Strangest said:

Overall I thought the game got rave reviews?

It did.  But outrage gamers gotta outrage

https://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-4/red-dead-redemption-2

[Brickman | 4,017]

30 minutes ago, The Strangest said:

My honest recommendation to you is that if you enjoyed RDR you will LOVE RDR2

When does it get good? I put about 6 hours into it and found it to be so slow and boring. I was so disappointed with it but I want to like it. 

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

24 minutes ago, Shmup said:

When does it get good? I put about 6 hours into it and found it to be so slow and boring. I was so disappointed with it but I want to like it. 

I thought the plot of RDR2 was plodding and filled with annoying characters (OMG Dutch... Why are these people following him???).

It got 9s and 10s because Rockstar created an amazing world full of incredible details and intricate gameplay systems. They just forgot to include much fun. Also, the systems breakdown almost immediately when you try to push the boundaries (looting a whole town, tying people to railroad tracks, etc). From a story perspective, I think they really hamstrung themselves by making it a prequel. There is no tension. The first one is a much more focused affair, which I appreciate.

I mostly rate games based on fun factor, so RDR was an 8/10 for me and RDR2 was a 7/10. I can recognize that RDR2 is a technical and artistic masterpiece, but that doesn't mean I have to love it as a game.

Also, can we all agree that starting your open world game in a restricted area where you can't do anything is a horrendous strategy? Valhalla does the same thing. BotW does it too, but they introduce systems smartly in that area so it's not too bad.

Edited January 1, 2021 by DoctorEncore

[Strange | 1,701]

1 hour ago, Shmup said:

When does it get good? I put about 6 hours into it and found it to be so slow and boring. I was so disappointed with it but I want to like it. 

I was invested in it long before that mark, so to each their own I guess.

The game is a love letter for people that are emotionally invested in the story and characters from RDR. I guess I could see the differing mission structure turn some people off. In RDR you’re bounty hunting, in RDR2 you are the hunted/surviving. But the core mechanics of the series are all still there plus more to do. If you’re looking to get more invested in the actual story, I will say the first chapter or two are introductions to/bonding with the gang without much direction and then shit hits the fan almost immediately when you get to the Deep South.

Like I said though, to each their own. It’s the only game in the modern era that I feel compelled to play a second time through. And I don’t have time to do stuff like that anymore (except for now, while I’ve got COVID, but that’s beside the point).

(I thought the above arguments from others sounded familiar, then I realized it took me a similarly long long amount of time to find any fun in BOTW. )

[SpoonMan Abrams X | 697]

10/10 for me

I love me some cowboy, western shit. This game really hit the spot for me

I legit need to play through this again at some point

Still need to play through Red Dead Redemption 2.... though considering that the "spiritual prequel" was Red Dead Revolver, instead of just RDR2, They should've went with like "Red Dead Reckoning" or something neat like that. Someone get Rockstar Games a dictionary/thesaurus!

[SilverspoonGaming | 334]

This game was absolutely amazing!  I hated the second one, but this game, I think I finished like 95% of the story and got stuck, but I loved every second of it.  One of the top PS3 games for sure!

[Brickman | 4,017]

7 hours ago, DoctorEncore said:

I thought the plot of RDR2 was plodding and filled with annoying characters (OMG Dutch... Why are these people following him???).

It got 9s and 10s because Rockstar created an amazing world full of incredible details and intricate gameplay systems. They just forgot to include much fun. Also, the systems breakdown almost immediately when you try to push the boundaries (looting a whole town, tying people to railroad tracks, etc). From a story perspective, I think they really hamstrung themselves by making it a prequel. There is no tension. The first one is a much more focused affair, which I appreciate.

I mostly rate games based on fun factor, so RDR was an 8/10 for me and RDR2 was a 7/10. I can recognize that RDR2 is a technical and artistic masterpiece, but that doesn't mean I have to love it as a game.

Also, can we all agree that starting your open world game in a restricted area where you can't do anything is a horrendous strategy? Valhalla does the same thing. BotW does it too, but they introduce systems smartly in that area so it's not too bad.

I think you’ve summed up my feelings on the game perfectly. It felt like more of a chore than a game to me.

 

5 hours ago, The Strangest said:

I was invested in it long before that mark, so to each their own I guess.

The game is a love letter for people that are emotionally invested in the story and characters from RDR. I guess I could see the differing mission structure turn some people off. In RDR you’re bounty hunting, in RDR2 you are the hunted/surviving. But the core mechanics of the series are all still there plus more to do. If you’re looking to get more invested in the actual story, I will say the first chapter or two are introductions to/bonding with the gang without much direction and then shit hits the fan almost immediately when you get to the Deep South.

Like I said though, to each their own. It’s the only game in the modern era that I feel compelled to play a second time through. And I don’t have time to do stuff like that anymore (except for now, while I’ve got COVID, but that’s beside the point).

(I thought the above arguments from others sounded familiar, then I realized it took me a similarly long long amount of time to find any fun in BOTW. )

Thank you for the write up. I think my biggest issue was that it felt like a chore to eat and look after my horse, a bit too detailed for me. I will revisit it when I get a chance and try and make it to the Deep South. 

[Sumez | 2,995]

14 hours ago, The Strangest said:

RDR2’s fault was coming out in an era where outrage headlines gets clicks and people look for the smallest molehills in games to make into mountains. A criticism I actually saw someone make an entire post about on a different forum was that you had to ride your horse places. In a cowboy/western game. 

Overall I thought the game got rave reviews?

I haven't read a single review, but I know a ton of people who played it, and basically everyone said the same things about it. Almost no one likes it, and mostly for the same reasons. The game is cumbersome to play due to all the excess nonsense that occupies it, and rather than enjoying doing missions you end up getting frustrated when your character does the opposite thing that you want them to, etc.

This is definitely not a case of "outrage gamers". But fans who bought it, mostly at full price on release, who were disappointed in a game that didn't meet their expectations at all.

This is all paraphrasing, but it's pretty unanimous among people who have played it - I genuinely think you're the first person I've seen praising it.
I really wanted to play the game though, because I think what you say makes sense. The game does look good.

Edited January 2, 2021 by Sumez

[Hammerfestus | 3,888]

Definitely would like to try this out when I find it cheap enough.  Looks interesting.  Though I’ve had a copy of Red Dead Revolver for years and never touched it.

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

1 hour ago, Hammerfestus said:

Definitely would like to try this out when I find it cheap enough.  Looks interesting.  Though I’ve had a copy of Red Dead Revolver for years and never touched it.

You can definitely skip Red Dead Revolver. It has a certain charm, but it is not a good game.

[The Count | 531]

I really wanted to love this game. I bought it when it came out and was so excited to play it. Then I did play it and was immediately overwhelmed with the buttons/actions and the vastness of the map and all the quests and items. Such an awesome genre and so much potential but way too ambitious in scope.  2/10.

[themisfit138 | 523]

17 hours ago, The Strangest said:

My honest recommendation to you is that if you enjoyed RDR you will LOVE RDR2. It’s the same just... better. And more of it. 

I just want to make a counter point here. RDR is fun, and the story and world of RDR2 are quite good. There is just too many problems in RDR2, that turn it into a chore and not a game. I don’t want to worry about sleeping, shaving, eating, drinking, doing chores, missing missions because I took too long on another mission, just to name a few. Also the pace at which you move in RDR2 feels like I am constantly walking through water. RDR overall is a faster paced and more enjoyable game. 

 

Edited January 2, 2021 by themisfit138

[Strange | 1,701]

19 hours ago, Shmup said:

I think you’ve summed up my feelings on the game perfectly. It felt like more of a chore than a game to me.

 

Thank you for the write up. I think my biggest issue was that it felt like a chore to eat and look after my horse, a bit too detailed for me. I will revisit it when I get a chance and try and make it to the Deep South. 

Two points: the Deep South is called Lemoyne in this game, it’s based on Louisiana and the major city is New Orleans but I just called it the Deep South.

The second point to you, @Sumez and @themisfit138: You don’t really have to worry about all of that stuff. I don’t think I ever washed my horse, ate, I shaved maybe once, I donated a dollar into the camp deposit box a few times just to get Dutch off my back. I think Rockstar added those things for “immersion” but the game doesn’t limit you by making you do them.