So while I'm definitely not saying Red Dead Redemption is a bad game, I really feel like we almost arbitrarily give some games great scores simply because they hit the right notes for long enough to impress us. We are captured by the game play and it sways us to believe a game is better than it really is.
In the end all that really matters is that people enjoy a game, of course, and Rockstar isn't renowned because they suck at making games. They know their business. But by the end of the first section of the game I personally had experienced enough of the game play and story. I was finished. with it And since I knew the game was going to go on for a considerably longer time, it was the perfect place to stop.
This articles credibilty ended when you said Rockstar sucks at making games. Way to show your unbiased-ness.
@ Guillermo: if you're talking about the following sentence: "and Rockstar isn't renowned because they suck at making games." then please note the "isn't" part in there
I think I agree with the author. I enjoyed RDR, but I felt that personally it was overrated. I had far too many issues with it in many respects.
- Bloated story.
- Boring missions like herding cattle.
- Dreadful ending segment (though the very last epic battle was good).
- Soulless world.
I think a lot of people have rose tinted glasses with RDR.
I didn't say Rockstar sucks at making games. Sorry if anyone interpreted my poorly constructed sentence that way.
@Chris Soulless world? You didn't catch references to the context of the times -- and how those thoughts and feelings run in today's politics? You didn't enjoy Rockstar's first strong female character? You didn't enjoy just rambling around the Old West? I'm sorry. I thought Red Dead had more soul than anything Rockstar's made.
I can see how some view cattle herding as boring. I enjoyed the challenge of herding an uncooperative group of cows, trying to lasso horses, and many of the other nonviolent activities in the game (like poker).
@Jason, I think all of the action and story elements were good. No problems there. The problem comes when an action adventure lasts more than about 10 hours. I'm not saying it can't, developers can do whatever they want of course and gamers definitely love RDR, so it worked. But for me it all gets too repetitive. It all comes down to user preference but I just think that RDR is too highly rated for what it gives you.
@Chris: The game is two months old. I don't think rose-tinted glasses can exist yet.
@Gary: "Action-adventure" is an incredibly broad genre. To say that every game in the genre should be under ten hours is unrealistic. RDR is clearly in the "open world" sub-genre, where it benefits from having a massive world with a lot to do. Perhaps you simply don't enjoy open world games, and prefer a more linear and scripted experience. That's fine.
Gary, I agree with your opinion that the game is simply too long, which, in turn, makes the gameplay feel repetitive. The game is definitely overrated, but I still had a blast with it. Had Rockstar stripped away the boring cattle/ranch missions, I could get behind the higher review scores.