<img src=http://www.juegos.tv/blogjuegos/wp-content/uploads/red-dead-redemption.jpg>
If there is one thing I won't deny when it comes to my taste in videogames, it is that I prefer linearity as opposed to sandbox games, certain exceptions aside. Sandbox games lead to stories that are incoherent at worst and arbitrarily slapped on at best, leading to me losing interest. Yet one of the most successful franchises of sandbox games, Grand Theft Auto, has been selling like a street corner prostitute that dispenses free crack cocaine by sidestepping the problems of story and incoherence by making the story just an excuse to mess shit up. If sales figures are to be believed, that's what people want in their sandbox games, the fallout of which lead to some mediocre to crappy shallow attempts to rework that formula (Brutal Legend, Prototype, Just Cause 2, etc.) into enough money to pay their "bills and taxes." I went into Red Dead Redemption with a pretty clear inclination to compare it to drinking a crap smoothie, but after spending a good week with it can only compare it to a soda with sand mixed in it.
The story of Red Dead Redemption is about local badass cowboy, John Marsten, who looks like the illegitimate son of Sam Elliot and John Wayne with Jonah Hex being the godfather, who is sent by the government to hunt down members of his old gang in exchange for a chance at the simple life. John is dropped into the wide open plains of New Austin and gets to killing his gang, while also being a ranch hand, sheriff's assistant, a set-up for an elixir salesman, a game hunter, a guy you don't wanna play at Texas Hold 'Em, a nuclear technician, writer of a best-selling novel.... As I've said before, Red Dead Redemption is definitely a sandbox game in that you can spend almost a whole day doing nothing but just messing around. At the same time, the loosely placed story and rural aesthetic actually help it in this respect. The story is there and it still hangs over the game but since it is in the Old West there's an air of easyness about it that quashes any urgency. In other words, the story works with the environment and setting, something that can also be said about my Game of the Year last year, InFamous.
Unlike InFamous, however, is the liberating feeling of exploration. It's a good thing Rockstar kept their game historically accurate (to a degree) but in terms of scenery, it works against them. Seriously, most of the time I spent riding on horseback could have been simulated by watching an old episode of Roadrunner and Coyote, repeating backgrounds and all. On the other side of historical accuracy, the gunplay is pretty damn accurate. If there is one thing you can learn from Red Dead Redemption it is this: bullets hurt. Your guns take a while to reload and most gunfights are done by hiding behind cover and people usually go down after about three rounds are pumped into them, John Marsten's Wolverine Syndrome aside.
<img src=http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/982/982182/red-dead-redemption-20090512040227580_640w.jpg>
We don't like your well-dressed kind around here.
Another aspect that Red Dead Redemption gets is the feeling of the world being alive. Walk into a town and you'll find everything is there. The sheriff taking a shot out of a hip flask, people walking around talking about current events, some guy outside a bar stabbing a hooker, you know, what you would normally see in a sane western town. What also helps is how you interact with people, leading to the game's Honor and Fame system. Your Fame is measured by your progress in the game and helps change what people think of you. On the other hand, the Honor system is pretty much a moral choice system which measures you as either an outlaw or a true blue lone ranger. The problem with this system is that, major taboos aside, certain things aren't exactly spelled out as honorable or dishonorable, usually due to a game bug. There was one instance where I saw a guy attempting to take advantage of a woman, so I pulled out my sawed off shotgun and blew his brains out, an act of which usually got me Honor points, but since no one saw the full situation through selective amnesia or something, it was counted as murder and I was forced to hightail it out of town before I became wormfood. Speaking of bugs, Red Dead Redemption has its share of unusual moments. Sometimes the game freezes, the models beoome off and flicker in and out, and there was one weird moment where the horse I was riding lost his legs and kept gliding like it was rocket-powered or something.
On the bright side, the voice-acting and character models are really well done. Sure, a good deal of some of the characters are stereotyped and one-dimensional but I doubt it was done with any ill-intent in mind. It would have been easy for the actors to just phone in some southern sounding voices and called it quits, but thankfully, that doesn't apply here. John Marsten is a well-rounded individual, the supporting cast is well done, and even the C-list cast brings a degree of believability.
Red Dead Redemption is by no means a perfect game. In addition to the graphical glitches and occasional moments of social faux pas, the majority of gunfights you get into are easy and somewhat interchangeable, mostly due to healing items being irrelevant due to your regenerating health and your bullet time mode almost never running out. Imagine if you will a sandwich with some hints of your favorite condiment. It is good and it has some genuine moments of deliciousness but inbetween those bites are tastes of bland "been there, done that."
<img src=http://gamerant.com/wp-content/uploads/red-dead-redemption-john-marston.jpg>
So what's the verdict, partner?
Buy or Rent? I'd say if you're a fan of Rockstar's games, Grand Theft Auto in particular, and don't mind some small immersion breaking hiccups, Red Dead Redemption is a Buy. For everyone else I'll have to say give it a rental and see if its your thing.
