Red Dead Redemption Review (MyGaming)

Love this game!
Absolutely LOVE IT!

I've only just crossed into Mexico, and I gotta say, this is so far one of the most gripping titles I have played in quite a while.

The bugs are easily overlooked, but yes as you say, can be most annoying at some times.

About the honor system... try this one for keeping you honor bouncy:

Whenever you ride through Armadillo or a similar town, go as fast as you can and hit everyone, including their dogs, as you pass the main street.

Both hilarious and fun to drop down to evil and build it back to superhero.
 
Though a superb game the graphical glitches and bugs bring it down from its high perch. If this had been any other developer it could have been forgiven but this is Rockstar, the developer who first gave us sandbox games. This title stinks of rushed development, most, if not all, of the bugs and graphical issues could have been ironed out with a bit more QA.
 
OmegaFenix22 said:
Though a superb game the graphical glitches and bugs bring it down from its high perch. If this had been any other developer it could have been forgiven but this is Rockstar, the developer who first gave us sandbox games. This title stinks of rushed development, most, if not all, of the bugs and graphical issues could have been ironed out with a bit more QA.
Click to expand...

Are you saying we should judge games differently depending who who the developer is?
 
Tinman said:
Are you saying we should judge games differently depending who who the developer is?
Click to expand...

Nah. Games can be judged based on the developer, but only on other games that developer has created. In this case GTA4 was better in the sense that it had less blatent bugs (for the console that is, the PC version was total clusterf%$k).
 
Toxin said:
Nah. Games can be judged based on the developer, but only on other games that developer has created. In this case GTA4 was better in the sense that it had less blatent bugs (for the console that is, the PC version was total clusterf%$k).
Click to expand...

I disagree strongly. Every game should be judged on its own merits. Remember, the point of a review is to inform people about the game, and help them decide whether to buy it or not. I don't think the quality of previous releases from the developer should come into it at all.

Imagine you have two games, both of identical quality and equally deserving of 8/10. However, game A was developed by a new studio, and B was developed by, lets say Naughtydog (Uncharted 2).

Would it be fair to decrease the score of game B just because it does not match up to Uncharted 2?

If so, then you have two games, both deserving of an 8/10 score, but one is given 7/10 because of previous work by the developer. This is definitely problematic in my view, as it gives the impression that game A is more enjoyable than B, while in reality they are equal.

And for the record, I think RDR is far superior to GTA IV, which I thought was overrated. The bugs in RDR very rarely come into play, and in the 20 hours + I have sunk into it, I have experienced less than 10 bugs, all of which were pretty minor. No system lock ups, and nothing game breaking in my experience. I feel it falls well within the realms of acceptability.
 
Grimspoon said:
I will wait for the bargain bin on this one.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that.

Tinman said:
Are you saying we should judge games differently depending who who the developer is?
Click to expand...

Im saying a developer who basically defined an entire genre will always be held to a higher standard than a developer who is entirely new to the specific genre. Imagine if Bungie released a bug ridden FPS, we would all be going WTF? Similarly, though Read Dead Redemption is by no measure a "Bad" game. The story, voice acting and world is brilliantly realized. However watching a man sit 4 feet away from a chair, AI NPC's running at Mach speed, and some rather bizarre mission failure glitches do bring it down. From my 8 or so hours in I would only give the game a 85 - 90 score.

Sometimes a AI or graphical glitch could breath life into a [game] universe, but those same glitches can completely destroy immersion in a title, especially if it comes in as frequency as it does in RDR.
 
Tinman said:
I disagree strongly. Every game should be judged on its own merits. Remember, the point of a review is to inform people about the game, and help them decide whether to buy it or not. I don't think the quality of previous releases from the developer should come into it at all.

Imagine you have two games, both of identical quality and equally deserving of 8/10. However, game A was developed by a new studio, and B was developed by, lets say Naughtydog (Uncharted 2).

Would it be fair to decrease the score of game B just because it does not match up to Uncharted 2?

If so, then you have two games, both deserving of an 8/10 score, but one is given 7/10 because of previous work by the developer. This is definitely problematic in my view, as it gives the impression that game A is more enjoyable than B, while in reality they are equal.

And for the record, I think RDR is far superior to GTA IV, which I thought was overrated. The bugs in RDR very rarely come into play, and in the 20 hours + I have sunk into it, I have experienced less than 10 bugs, all of which were pretty minor. No system lock ups, and nothing game breaking in my experience. I feel it falls well within the realms of acceptability.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say rate it lower because it doesn't measure up to a previous title. But I do expect more from more experienced developers, i judge them for what they have done before. I would compare Call of Duty 4 (MW1) to Call of Duty 6 (MW2) since it was made by the same studio.

It does also seem from your last paragraph that the bugs are inconsistent. In your 20 + hours you only encountered a handful, I, on the other hand, in my 8ish hours had experienced multiple bugs, even complete Save failures resulting in having to redo 3 missions, there is an autosave function after each mission isn't there, this is something i had encountered in GTA IV also.
 
OmegaFenix22 said:
I wouldn't say rate it lower because it doesn't measure up to a previous title. But I do expect more from more experienced developers, i judge them for what they have done before. I would compare Call of Duty 4 (MW1) to Call of Duty 6 (MW2) since it was made by the same studio.

It does also seem from your last paragraph that the bugs are inconsistent. In your 20 + hours you only encountered a handful, I, on the other hand, in my 8ish hours had experienced multiple bugs, even complete Save failures resulting in having to redo 3 missions, there is an autosave function after each mission isn't there, this is something i had encountered in GTA IV also.
Click to expand...

OK point taken, but in that case we should really compare this to Red Dead Revolver, since it is its direct sequel.

Strange about the bugs, it really has not been that bad my side. You playing the 360 version? Have you patched it?
 
Tinman said:
OK point taken, but in that case we should really compare this to Red Dead Revolver, since it is its direct sequel.

Strange about the bugs, it really has not been that bad my side. You playing the 360 version? Have you patched it?
Click to expand...

Well if compared to Red Dead Revolver its a MASSIVE improvement. But wasn't Red Dead Revolver also bug ridden?

I have not, i got it 2 days after release I didn't think a patch was necessary. Will patch it tonight and see if it improves.
 
I also have not experienced a lot of bugs in the 40 or so hours I've spent in the game so far. In fact, the only glitch I can actually remember was that Marston kept running forward and nothing I did made any difference, he just kept on running forever. Another thing I picked up is that the stats menu has to be glitched or something, it's showing that I have been playing for 87 hours and that is just impossible. :confused:
 
Tinman said:
And for the record, I think RDR is far superior to GTA IV, which I thought was overrated.
Click to expand...

+1

I definitely wouldn't look at Rockstar's past work as a reference point for RDR. GTA IV was mediocre at best, which is something I only realised after playing the Episodes from Liberty City expansion recently: The framerate is awful, the overall graphics quality is miles away from the supposedly inferior (if you believe the ratings) Uncharted 2, and the missions all follow a formula of "drive for bloody ages, kill someone/everyone, drive for bloody ages again."

Sigh. The hype machine ensured that GTA IV will always and forever remain on the top spot of the ratings leaderboard.
 
RustPuppet said:
+1

I definitely wouldn't look at Rockstar's past work as a reference point for RDR. GTA IV was mediocre at best, which is something I only realised after playing the Episodes from Liberty City expansion recently: The framerate is awful, the overall graphics quality is miles away from the supposedly inferior (if you believe the ratings) Uncharted 2, and the missions all follow a formula of "drive for bloody ages, kill someone/everyone, drive for bloody ages again."

Sigh. The hype machine ensured that GTA IV will always and forever remain on the top spot of the ratings leaderboard.
Click to expand...

I never even finished it. What i did like about GTA IV was the world, on the surface it appeared a living, breathing world. Look too close those and the illusion dissolve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top