Red Dead Redemption 2
Click to rate
America, 1899. The end of the wild west era has begun as lawmen hunt down the last remaining outlaw gangs. Those who will not surrender or succumb are killed.
After a robbery goes badly wrong in the western town of Blackwater, Arthur Morgan and the Van der Linde gang are forced to flee. With federal agents and the best bounty hunters in the nation massing on their heels, the gang must rob, steal and fight their way across the rugged heartland of America in order to survive. As deepening internal divisions threaten to tear the gang apart, Arthur must make a choice between his own ideals and loyalty to the gang who raised him.
From the creators of Grand Theft Auto V and Red Dead Redemption, Red Dead Redemption 2 is an epic tale of life in America at the dawn of the modern age.
Where to buy
Red Dead Redemption 2 reviews and comments
Cut to 2019 and Red Dead Redemption has been replaced. That gunslinger I once loved has been replaced by a caring bad guy who is self-aware of the bad deeds he continues to do. He can't help himself and he knows that, which is probably why I love his character so much. With one of the realist villains I can remember with Dutch Van Der Linde and some of the most realistic gameplay in a videogame, I was enamored for 80 plus hours of gameplay.
I can't wait to remember it again.
Rockstar obviously put a lot of effort into creating an immersive and visually stunning setting. All locations are beautifully crafted, incredibly rich in detail, and full of things to do and places to explore. Like in most open-world games, the map is enormous just for the sake of it, with most events concentrated in the rather small cities and camps, but I guess that's how it really was back then. While graphics are impressive for a game of such scale, I wish they could work a bit more on at least the main characters' models. Facial animations and skin textures are pretty good, but hair mostly looks like something from a late seventh-generation game.
The story is nothing new but delivers: it's backed up by a lot of memorable, all-round characters, and writing, acting, and direction are top-notch for a videogame. It was great to meet the rest of Dutch’s gang and see their development throughout the 40+ hours of the campaign. The connection with the events of the original game is well thought, and Arthur is a surprisingly likable main character. It takes quite a considerable amount of gameplay to get to properly remember everyone, get attached to them and finally get sucked in, but it will pay off in the end.
The gameplay is incredibly outdated: controls are clumsy, unresponsive, and convoluted. Combat and shooting suffer the most as everything is as flat and clunky as it was in the first game over eight years ago.
Missions are repetitive, monotonous, and rarely rewarding. They can all be summed up as endless horse rides, shoot-outs, and fetching/moving objects with not much interaction. The game also decides to reset or change your inventory depending on the mission, leaving no room for strategy in selecting good equipment. The rest is just an endless list of way too many unnecessary and tedious chores to remember. Shaving, trimming, hunting for food, cooking, eating, cleaning weapons, wearing the right clothing, looting, collecting money, taking care of your horses, etc. Most of these tasks surely add realism but are not that much fun to play. The game also gives you the opportunity to donate part of your rewards and loots to the gang to update the camp, which I liked, but it's mostly minor graphic additions and some provisions which you can easily find in the game anyway.
Overall, I really enjoyed the story, setting and characters, but the monotonous and outdated gameplay needs a lot of improvement. It would still recommend this game if you like open-world experiences but this is far from being the masterpiece professional reviewers are talking about (7.2/10).
Let’s start by saying this: Red Dead Redemption 2 is great… for an interactive movie. That’s what a large portion of this game feels like: a cinematic experience over a gaming experience. Rockstar decided to make RDR2 a prequel to the first game. The first Red Dead Redemption didn’t involve much plot. You are given the protagonist, John Marston, and introduced to the hunted antagonist, Bill Williamson. It gets a little more complicated later, but it was generally simple. RDR2 heavily involves its innumerable characters, especially at the beginning of the game. The first chapter is nothing short of a long, dragging, no-fun zone.
There’s about five minutes of legitimate gameplay in the first mission. If you decide to watch the uninteresting cutscenes, then a great deal of time is spent watching them, and then riding your horse. Then the game gives you about 5-10 minutes of what would be considered fun: taking down enemies. Then it is time to loot and travel back to your camp again to repeat the same process. This introduction leaves a bad first impression that doesn’t improve much.
Back to the first point: RDR2 is fundamentally an interactive movie. Rockstar does not care much about the player at all. Rockstar tries to make you care about their characters. Character development and an interesting plot are great when you’re watching a movie or TV show, or reading a book, but Rockstar does not seem to understand that this is a video game. A player picks up their controller to have complete agency over their character. RDR2 has barely any, and it is so tedious with its brief animations, constant cutscenes, conversing NPCs (non-playable characters), and method of traveling that playing it feels more like a movie you have to press a button to once a minute to keep it running.
The purpose of spending lengthy amounts of time on your horse is to get a sense of the map, and to admire the beauty of the game along with its abundant amount of detail that Rockstar littered throughout it. This is something many critics and fans have been praising emphatically: the detail. Detail is enjoyable, but much of it serves no purpose other than just gazing at it. It’s not wrong for a game to look beautiful, but players still misunderstand that Rockstar failed to create an engaging experience by combining beauty and detail with enjoyable gameplay (the fact that the "cinematic camera" exists doesn't help). The characters, detail, and gameplay are all incoherent with one another in RDR2.
Another factor that bruised Rockstar was realism. This explains every single brief animation and unnecessary task. At one point in the 2nd chapter, a message pops up on the screen telling the player that they should shave their character’s beard because it’s getting too long. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what video games have come to, this is what everyone is praising. Red Dead Redemption 2, the video game meant to be watched, the video game meant to mimic our boring lives.
RDR2 also disappoints in comparison to its predecessor in some ways. The controls are much more restrained and harder to handle than the loose, breezy controls of the first one, as well as the unnecessary addition of convoluted inventories for your items and practically useless horse commodities. Simple equals better, Rockstar.
Rockstar spent so much time polishing detail, writing characters, and worrying about realism that they forgot to make a fun gaming experience. Rockstar is not the only game developer who includes these elements in their games, but Rockstar stressed them so much in this game that they failed at making it fun to play. Again, I have not played it the entire way through, nor is the whole game like this, but it did not leave me with a good first impression. I only hope that the game improves, and that I have the patience to push through the tedious sections to complete it. And keep in mind that this is just my opinion. I am clearly in a really small minority.