As most people will be well aware, there are two historic events that Americans seem obsessed with revisiting time and time again in computer games. When a World War Two game isn't in the works, you can pretty much go to whatever friends you have and bet most of your savings that a Western game is in the works. You could easily make the point that there has only been two noticeable Western games within the last two or three years, but then I could easily make the point about the absence of, say, Revolutionary War or Vietnam games about. Sure they lurk about here and there like a good and well made modern horror movie, but they're far and few in compared to Western and World War Two games. So here we are, as an American developer has decided to revisit the West, back in the days of solving problems with bullets and most people wore leather. So imagine the gay district in Detroit.
Before I begin, I would like to point out something: The title. Red Dead Redemption. The previous game was called Red Dead Revolver for a good reason. The main character was called Red, people wanted him dead and his only way to track down the person who killed his parents was a burn mark in his hand from a revolver. Red Dead Redemption though, while I understand how the main character wants to seek redemption from his past, and maybe sort of how people want him dead, but red? I know it's for the sake of ?it's a sequel!? but it may have been better to just rename the game something like ?Wild West X? or even just ?Redemption?.
Anyway, you play as John Marstow, a character with a shady past who tried to settle down as a farmer before the police came knocking asking for him to track down his old friends who left him for dead years back and will kill his family if he doesn't. I can't help but feel like I'm playing a game which is one part Sharpshooter and two parts a typical Mel Gibson movie (Payback springs to mind, although Edge Of Darkness may be more relevant) in terms of it's story. Nothing in here surprises you and nothing here feels unique.
The game play functions as a sandbox game. Now, I know we're sick of the phrase ?it's like GTA but...?, however, Red Dead Redemption is very similar to GTA IV, but western. You have the collection of off-the-wall characters which exploits every stereotype and every dark corner there can be in certain situations. In this case, you have the drunk Irish guy, you have the twisted law-men, you have the angry miners, you even have people selling drugs (English guy in a very stereotypical accent selling opium). You have the ability to gun down innocents and get a wanted level which gets increasingly harder the more you piss off the law. You have the shops you can go into and get what you wish. You have a collection of different clothes. You have an assortment of vehicles. You can ?flag down a taxi? (if you can call going to a spot in a village and going on a stage-coach flagging down a taxi). It really goes on. Is this a bad thing? Well, mostly no. However, you will get the feeling of nothing new here, besides the theme. Like a coat of paint on a house. Yes, there is still the bricks of the house there, even if you switch a few bricks around and repaint it a little.
You get a large array of guns, but it starts getting to a point of ?I could, but should I?? when it comes to gun choice. Like, you COULD shoot someone with a shotgun or you COULD use a revolver, but why should you when you have a semi-automatic pistol and it does a good amount of damage? You could even argue there's no point of changing from the rifles since you'll rarely get into a situation where rapid fire isn't just preferable, but a requirement to survive. Even if you do die, so what? You get moved back to the nearest safe-house when not on a mission and allowed to do the mission from the nearest checkpoint again when on one. Oh, and don't worry about running out of ammo. It's metaphorically impossible. Sure you could shoot into the wind a lot, but if you even have a remote ability to point, hold left trigger and shoot with right trigger, you will have more than enough ammunition. The enemies rarely pose much of a challenge after all since they usually are more than happy to keep their head exposed just long enough for anyone, with the reflexes of someone who's absolutely hammered and stoned, to remove their heads.
Before I begin, I would like to point out something: The title. Red Dead Redemption. The previous game was called Red Dead Revolver for a good reason. The main character was called Red, people wanted him dead and his only way to track down the person who killed his parents was a burn mark in his hand from a revolver. Red Dead Redemption though, while I understand how the main character wants to seek redemption from his past, and maybe sort of how people want him dead, but red? I know it's for the sake of ?it's a sequel!? but it may have been better to just rename the game something like ?Wild West X? or even just ?Redemption?.
Anyway, you play as John Marstow, a character with a shady past who tried to settle down as a farmer before the police came knocking asking for him to track down his old friends who left him for dead years back and will kill his family if he doesn't. I can't help but feel like I'm playing a game which is one part Sharpshooter and two parts a typical Mel Gibson movie (Payback springs to mind, although Edge Of Darkness may be more relevant) in terms of it's story. Nothing in here surprises you and nothing here feels unique.
"So I heard you need an actor for a film involving a family being killed or kidnapped."
The game play functions as a sandbox game. Now, I know we're sick of the phrase ?it's like GTA but...?, however, Red Dead Redemption is very similar to GTA IV, but western. You have the collection of off-the-wall characters which exploits every stereotype and every dark corner there can be in certain situations. In this case, you have the drunk Irish guy, you have the twisted law-men, you have the angry miners, you even have people selling drugs (English guy in a very stereotypical accent selling opium). You have the ability to gun down innocents and get a wanted level which gets increasingly harder the more you piss off the law. You have the shops you can go into and get what you wish. You have a collection of different clothes. You have an assortment of vehicles. You can ?flag down a taxi? (if you can call going to a spot in a village and going on a stage-coach flagging down a taxi). It really goes on. Is this a bad thing? Well, mostly no. However, you will get the feeling of nothing new here, besides the theme. Like a coat of paint on a house. Yes, there is still the bricks of the house there, even if you switch a few bricks around and repaint it a little.
You get a large array of guns, but it starts getting to a point of ?I could, but should I?? when it comes to gun choice. Like, you COULD shoot someone with a shotgun or you COULD use a revolver, but why should you when you have a semi-automatic pistol and it does a good amount of damage? You could even argue there's no point of changing from the rifles since you'll rarely get into a situation where rapid fire isn't just preferable, but a requirement to survive. Even if you do die, so what? You get moved back to the nearest safe-house when not on a mission and allowed to do the mission from the nearest checkpoint again when on one. Oh, and don't worry about running out of ammo. It's metaphorically impossible. Sure you could shoot into the wind a lot, but if you even have a remote ability to point, hold left trigger and shoot with right trigger, you will have more than enough ammunition. The enemies rarely pose much of a challenge after all since they usually are more than happy to keep their head exposed just long enough for anyone, with the reflexes of someone who's absolutely hammered and stoned, to remove their heads.
Is it possible to miss?
The missions are usually the good old-fashioned ?go X, kill everyone?, sometimes mixed up. Sometimes you need to race someone, which is usually easy. Sometimes you need to plant explosives, which are usually easy. Even when you have to subdue someone, it's easy since they're more than happy to just run than shoot at you. There's just no challenge to it. No ?observe the patrolling pattern and quietly take the enemy out?. No ?shoot them in a fashion so the other guards don't notice?. Not even an ounce of ?this guy is REALLY hard, hope you shoot him at his weak point?. Just ?go to X, maybe follow Y, shoot all of Z?. This works, but you can't help but feel unchallenged in all this.
Another problem that often rears it's ugly head is travel. There are three modes of travel: Horse, camp-fire and stage-coach. The horse, will often be a hit or miss. For me, it was often a miss as going from one needed place to another needed place was often filled with impatience. I wanted action and I wanted it right away! I could use the camp-fire which was also troublesome since it became annoying in it's requirements of when I could use it. While I could understand it telling me to stay the hell away from villages and bandit towns, I could never understand how obsessed it became about being away from water. It was like John Marston grew up scarred after a freak tidal wave on his camp and washed his family out to sea since you're not allowed to even see the water from where you are. You can also use the stage-coach, which is reasonable except one thing that and the camp have in common: You're not allowed to transport across regions. Like say you need to get from Mexico to Blackwater. You'd need to take a camp-fire or stage-coach to Chuparosa, then ride a horse into America, and then use the camp-fire again, go to Thieves' Landing and then ride from there into Blackwater. Is this all necessary? Really? I could understand maybe exchanges like going from Chuparosa to Armadillo, then to Thieves' Landing which from there to Blackwater. However, the ride between just breaks up the flow needlessly.
The multi-player, while good, has it's own faults as well. While you can customise your things, it's only good for certain areas like your choice of character is instantly ignored during team games. One thing that I can't help but be bugged about is the distinct lack of free-roam mode with the friendly-fire off. Some people, while they like the co-op experience, don't want to be shot by other people. There's also a weird shortage of co-op missions. There's about six, all with a lengthy ride in between. When you do a co-op mission, it ends up annoyingly easy as something you could do on your own becomes a walk in the park as you do the same task on the same difficulty with more people. There's also a very uneasy feeling of each gun getting progressively better all around. A feeling that the weaker guy will constantly get screwed by the higher leveled guy or the newly dead guy will be screwed by the first-kill guy because he has access to better guns. I'm also uneasy about if a few of the guns are actually real and maybe, not to sound like a typical Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare player, over-power? I don't think they had Mauser pistols that could shoot almost like an Uzi with a small clip..
Oh, and on a side note, £10 for three objects that really wouldn't define the game in any special way, a casing that doesn't really stand out as even interesting and a map you can find on the internet? Not worth it.
However, even considering all the faults in the game, it's a generally good game. It redefines the western genre. I just can't help but be unable to wash out the feeling from my mouth of ?...That's it??. I'm not saying the game is bad, it really is good, but there's nothing here that blows my mind or even makes me look in awe. There's nothing here that could be considered new. Free-roaming in a Western environment was first observed in GUN and, as previously mentioned, most features are cowboy spin-offs of Grand Theft Auto IV. However, the sum of all the done-before and somewhat-mediocre parts end up a very enjoyable game that can be constantly played. Sure it will get boring after a while in the west, but during the time you'll be entertained, you will have a lot of fun being the law that strikes fear into the hearts of bandits, or the bandit that strikes fear into the hearts of the law if you're in a rampage mood. Either way, it's worth a buy if you have enough money for a copy. As much as it sounds like the game is problematic, it's safe to assume that most of the things not mentioned are either somewhat done well or adequately. Not to say it's an easily forgettable game, but it'll be a game that nothing stands out as astounding. It looks to be one of the most interesting games this year.
Wishes that he could collect a bounty on a wanted man so he can have his own copy of the game instead of having to receive a bounty on his head for temporary stealing a copy from his own brother over and over again.
The missions are usually the good old-fashioned ?go X, kill everyone?, sometimes mixed up. Sometimes you need to race someone, which is usually easy. Sometimes you need to plant explosives, which are usually easy. Even when you have to subdue someone, it's easy since they're more than happy to just run than shoot at you. There's just no challenge to it. No ?observe the patrolling pattern and quietly take the enemy out?. No ?shoot them in a fashion so the other guards don't notice?. Not even an ounce of ?this guy is REALLY hard, hope you shoot him at his weak point?. Just ?go to X, maybe follow Y, shoot all of Z?. This works, but you can't help but feel unchallenged in all this.
Another problem that often rears it's ugly head is travel. There are three modes of travel: Horse, camp-fire and stage-coach. The horse, will often be a hit or miss. For me, it was often a miss as going from one needed place to another needed place was often filled with impatience. I wanted action and I wanted it right away! I could use the camp-fire which was also troublesome since it became annoying in it's requirements of when I could use it. While I could understand it telling me to stay the hell away from villages and bandit towns, I could never understand how obsessed it became about being away from water. It was like John Marston grew up scarred after a freak tidal wave on his camp and washed his family out to sea since you're not allowed to even see the water from where you are. You can also use the stage-coach, which is reasonable except one thing that and the camp have in common: You're not allowed to transport across regions. Like say you need to get from Mexico to Blackwater. You'd need to take a camp-fire or stage-coach to Chuparosa, then ride a horse into America, and then use the camp-fire again, go to Thieves' Landing and then ride from there into Blackwater. Is this all necessary? Really? I could understand maybe exchanges like going from Chuparosa to Armadillo, then to Thieves' Landing which from there to Blackwater. However, the ride between just breaks up the flow needlessly.
The multi-player, while good, has it's own faults as well. While you can customise your things, it's only good for certain areas like your choice of character is instantly ignored during team games. One thing that I can't help but be bugged about is the distinct lack of free-roam mode with the friendly-fire off. Some people, while they like the co-op experience, don't want to be shot by other people. There's also a weird shortage of co-op missions. There's about six, all with a lengthy ride in between. When you do a co-op mission, it ends up annoyingly easy as something you could do on your own becomes a walk in the park as you do the same task on the same difficulty with more people. There's also a very uneasy feeling of each gun getting progressively better all around. A feeling that the weaker guy will constantly get screwed by the higher leveled guy or the newly dead guy will be screwed by the first-kill guy because he has access to better guns. I'm also uneasy about if a few of the guns are actually real and maybe, not to sound like a typical Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare player, over-power? I don't think they had Mauser pistols that could shoot almost like an Uzi with a small clip..
You know you're screwed when you're up close against someone with a Mauser, no matter who you are and what you have.
Oh, and on a side note, £10 for three objects that really wouldn't define the game in any special way, a casing that doesn't really stand out as even interesting and a map you can find on the internet? Not worth it.
However, even considering all the faults in the game, it's a generally good game. It redefines the western genre. I just can't help but be unable to wash out the feeling from my mouth of ?...That's it??. I'm not saying the game is bad, it really is good, but there's nothing here that blows my mind or even makes me look in awe. There's nothing here that could be considered new. Free-roaming in a Western environment was first observed in GUN and, as previously mentioned, most features are cowboy spin-offs of Grand Theft Auto IV. However, the sum of all the done-before and somewhat-mediocre parts end up a very enjoyable game that can be constantly played. Sure it will get boring after a while in the west, but during the time you'll be entertained, you will have a lot of fun being the law that strikes fear into the hearts of bandits, or the bandit that strikes fear into the hearts of the law if you're in a rampage mood. Either way, it's worth a buy if you have enough money for a copy. As much as it sounds like the game is problematic, it's safe to assume that most of the things not mentioned are either somewhat done well or adequately. Not to say it's an easily forgettable game, but it'll be a game that nothing stands out as astounding. It looks to be one of the most interesting games this year.
Wishes that he could collect a bounty on a wanted man so he can have his own copy of the game instead of having to receive a bounty on his head for temporary stealing a copy from his own brother over and over again.
