There have been a few situations in gaming where sequels have come out and, either due to hype or the title, folks don’t even realize that they’re not the first game in the series. For example, Maniac Mansion’s sequel Day of the Tentacle, and The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which most people just know as Oblivion and neglect the “IV” on the box.
The same thing seems to be happening with Red Dead Redemption, even though the name makes it pretty obvious that it’s a sequel to 2004’s Red Dead Revolver. I figured with the current popularity of Redemption, which seems like it’s going to receive a fresh new boost with its upcoming DLC, people will start flocking to the original to get their Red Dead fix until the inevitable part three.
The history of Red Dead Revolver is pretty interesting, staring with its E3 announcement in 2002 by Capcom. That’s right, Revolver was originally going to be a Japanese published game, however development was handled on the other side of the Pacific at Angel Studios, now Rockstar San Diego. It looked pretty similar to the final product, with the main visual difference being the HUD. The Capcom version had a gigantic HUD that took up just about the entire bottom third of the screen. It showed all the details that the Rockstar version ended up having, but also had a mini-map with radar. While Rockstar removed the giant HUD, they did add the film grain to the cut-scenes, which went along with the “spaghetti western” feel that they were trying to give the game. Capcom was supposedly aiming for something a bit more serious.
On a personal note, I was insanely excited for this game when it was announced. A western-themed game wasn’t really normal, and still isn’t today. Ask me to name a western game other than these two and shooting gallery type games like Mad Dog McCree and Wild Gunman and I’d have a hard time thinking of one. No, Custer’s Revenge doesn’t count.
The fact that this was a Capcom game also had me excited. Although I’m generally biased towards Japanese developed and published games, at the time I was even more so. The game kind of fell off the radar for a bit until finally it was announced that Capcom had dropped the project, but Rockstar, who had recently acquired Angel Studios, was going to finish it. This really saddened me and I was upset I’d never get to play the game that Capcom had intended. Not being a fan of the Grand Theft Auto series, I had no plans on playing the new version. Once impressions of the game first came out and were generally mixed, my excitement receded a bit and I never ended up trying it out.
Fast forward to 2010, when Rockstar actually put out a “spiritual” sequel to the game, Red Dead Redemption. I suppose it’s not actually that surprising since Revolver did well, selling over a million copies. Still it was a franchise that looked like it would fall off the map.
Thankfully it did not, and another chance for the western game genre was born. The quick way to describe Redemption is GTA, but in the old west. So is this what fans should expect if they decide to go back and play Revolver? It turns out that’s not even close.
After all those years of ignoring the game since it lost its ties to Capcom, I decided to join those who decided to give it a try after enjoying Redemption. The game is extremely different, and honestly way more Capcom shines through this than Rockstar. What Rockstar has reportedly changed seems to be all that was altered: film grain in the cut scenes, the trimmer HUD, and more of a lean towards a spaghetti western type game. Little things made it feel more like a Japanese developed game, like the loading screen with Red, the main character, doing tricks with his gun as the sun sets, to the way the cut scenes freeze before slowly fading out.
Unlike the open world experience of Redemption, this is linear and broken up into chapters. Each chapter starts with the opportunity to buy some guns (you get money just by shooting enemies) or other items and then you’re shown an intro cut scene that explains what’s going on. They are usually pretty over the top and amusing. An early cut scene has Red delivering a cart full of corpses to a town sheriff for his reward. The sheriff says he doesn’t have enough money to reward him because of the outlaws in town. On cue, they all show up, and Red slowly turns and the action starts. The music, the attitude, everything just comes together and shines as a parody of the genre.
Alas the actual game play is where it all falls apart. The shooting isn’t too bad, but aiming is a bit difficult. Also it takes way too many shots to take down an enemy, no matter where you hit them, and no matter what weapon you’re using. The cover system doesn’t cooperate very well either. You can be standing behind something that you should be able to use as cover, and it takes try after try hitting the cover button until Red finally ducks. Once in cover, peeking around corners and getting out of cover is smooth, and in fact aiming in cover is great as you have an auto aim. There’s also a “Dead Eye” mode, where you slow down time and you can target as many spots on an enemy as you have bullets. Unfortunately this doesn’t really improve anything except your aim. Even after unloading a clip directly into a guy’s head using Dead Eye mode, I still would have to shoot a few more times once it wore off.
That’s pretty much it to explain Red Dead Revolver. It’s incredibly dated looking now, but a nice history lesson to see the product of a developer going from Japanese bosses to, well, Rockstar, and of course to see the origin of the blockbuster Red Dead Redemption. Just don’t expect a game that plays anything like it.
