While I definitely found fun in Red Dead Redemption, as I played the game I also found a story not unlike most stories by the revered developer. In other words, it took itself a bit too seriously. RDR has the typical bloated story, just like all of the Grand Theft Auto games, and while the actual game play is well polished, it doesn't really have the variety that most reviewers claim.
Are there really that many different activities to do in RDR? Or are there just dozens upon dozens of missions that repeat the same game play over and over again? I really think it's the latter. And while that's not a bad formula, and one that definitely serves gamers whose main interest are action games, it can wear on some of us.
In my mind a great action adventure should know its limits. While it's suitable to give gamers 30 - 100 hours worth of similar game play in an RPG, 10 hours is really all we need for an action adventure. Too much of a good thing can turn people away and keep them from ever seeing the end of a game. And when you throw in random events such as animal attacks that can almost instantly kill you, you also run the risk of alienating gamers through frustration alone.
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.