NYT wites, "In the more than 1,100 articles I have written for this newspaper since 1996, I have never before called anything a tour de force. Yet there is no more succinct and appropriate way to describe Red Dead Redemption. Rockstar rides again."
Surprisingly detailed review. New York Times FTW!!!
agreed, really strong review from someone who reads like they enjoy the medium. well done.
I was already convinced but this just strengthens my high opinion of this game. I can vouge for his 1,100 articles. I've counted them. Ah ah ah
there is nothing but great reviews coming out of the New York Times,don't you remember the one on Heavy Rain,it was like reading a great book.
yep ... glad to see someone who actually know how to right a review... and the BEST thing is ... no score... :) so no fights over the 8s, 9s and 10s. props to NYT peace
Live stream here @ http://www.ustream.tv/chann...
I like reviews with no score on them!
Yep, this review has convinced me. Hello Amazon, here is my money.
WOW...he seemed very excited...Great week of gaming coming up for me...Expensive month...Alan Wake looks incredible as well...
Bravo, Mr. Schiesel, bravo. That last paragraph gave me chills.. Tomorrow's midnight cannot come soon enough!
The praise of Red Dead Redemption is unanimous.
This could be the GOTY. Possible contenders so far: Mass Effect 2, God of War 3 and Red Dead Redemption.
Yea, finally NY Times actually gets something right for a change! Its a miracle, haha!!!
No news on the PS3 version? Heard it was sub-HD...I need confirmation Good review
There's no confirmation yet but this is what MazingerDUDE said: PS3 resolution unknown (MazingerDUDE thinks it's subHD-640p) 600MB install Gamespy for online exclusive content: gang outfit and gang hideout for US only Custom soundtrack is supported P.S. It's pretty funny how MariusElijah *who obviously a ps3 fanboy* now is getting burned by ps3 fanboys for only asking if the ps3 game is sub-hd. This site is something else. Not even ps3 supporters are safe from the ps3 fanboys. lmao. Not even Kevin Butler is safe from implying something bad about the ps3 in here.
yeah I been seeing that all over Gaf, I thought by now R* would have said something. I dont really understand what Gamespy means, just heard that its a bad thing. As for your P.S. I hope I dont loose a bubble :(
and BTW the 360 version uses gamespy as well. look in the back of the box.
gamespys a really horrible multiplayer service plagued with ads
Is it the Planet will explode if the PS3 have the sub HD Version? EDIT Gamespy Online? Gamespy is not a good supporter with servers online.
Somehow resolution doesn't matter when it comes to PS3 games. When Alan Wake was rumored to be sub-HD people were talking so much crap. I'm going to get it on PS3 because that's just my preferred console, but woe to the hypocrites.
Agree guys. I posted in the other thread to let people know what is going on with the PS3 version, and I get classed as trolling. These fanboys are the biggest hypocrites around, weren't they bagging out SCC and Alan Wake for the last month for being 'sub-HD'? I have the option to get it for either system so It doesn't bother me. Yes Gamespy servers are the real problem here, no the resolution stuff.
no one would care.
Exactly, because that's what everyone expects from 360... I wouldn't be suprised if it is SubHD for PS3 because, guess what, it's not an EXCLUSIVE. This game looks absolutely AMAZINGLY fun, but it's not a graphics beast. Even if it is HD on 360, it doesn't look that great. This game isn't about graphics, it's about gameplay and story. The difference here is that with UC2 and AW, everyone and their mother was saying that the graphics will rape, murder and cannibalize everything that came before it. Unfortunately for xbox, UC2 did rape, murder and cannibalize everything that came before it. AW didn't even come close. PS3 owners are used to some multi-plats not being so great on their system. The problem is that Xbox owners don't seem to understand why their exclusives don't even come close to PS3 exclusives. This game, as awesome as it is, is running on an old graphics engine. Rockstar hasn't really perfected their PS3 development... yet. When Agent comes out and has better graphics than any other R* game before it, then all this will be a moot point. Regardless, graphics aren't what matters, gameplay is. This game has 9's and 10's because it's a good game, not because it has the best graphics. Even OPM gave it a 10, and guess what, they played it on "sub HD" PS3 version. None of the reviews I've read claim that this game has the "bestestestest" graphics. They say the game is good because of it's gameplay and story.
such denial. @ above - glad to see SOMEONE understands what Im saying.
how can you say that with a straight face, knowing that the 360 has been pulled apart and bashed for sub-HD with the release of nearly every multiplat and exclusive? And on a site dominated by Fanboys, i mean just look at exnihilonihilfits response.
Directed @ kaveit,booni3 Being called the 360's "buh buh just wait for Alan Wake!" -- "utilizing the 360's hardware" - remedy.. Then... It cant run high res models in game, swaps out models/processing for cut scenes, doesn't stream load. Then the developer themselves say if they had stronger hardware, they could run everything in-game. I mean if you want to compare, lets compare. Then it comes out SUBHD. I know you guys are always grasping at straws here with Alan Wake, but I'll laugh the day Uncharted3 comes out and is Sub-HD right next to you. Problem is, it wont happen, because the hardware is capable of it. Multiplatforms are generally always subhd, and that door swings both ways. Developers aren't top notch at both hardware sets. But when your own exclusive developers can't get 720p out of a non-sandbox linear game, AFTER 6 YEARS, yeah. Thats why people are pointing and laughing out of their seats. Sure you can pretend RDR is the pinnacle of PS3 development and the example of how its supposed to be done, but no. Its a multiplat. I know the 360 community has a difficult time understanding what Multiplatform means, seeing as how all multipaltforms on the 360 are "exclusive", but its really not the same thing. You and others can pretend it is, but its really not. Much like in the case of AW, resolution doesn't make a bad game, it just means if its the ONLY proof of the consoles hardware power and it comes out SUBHD, well... it proves something. The PS3 has its graphical juggernauts all running at 720p+/Streaming/Winning GDC awards. As example of what the hardware does in capable hands. The 360 doesnt. Simple as that. I mean, we are all waiting for reach now apparently. Remind me who has been saying RDR is the UC2/GOW/Heavy Rain/Kz2 killer? As people were claiming AW was? The difference is hyping something, talking trash about other things, then it comes up flat.
I never once bashed Alan Wake or any Xbox game for being SubHD. If you read my post correctly, you'll see that I believe a SubHD game can look better than an HD game. E.g., I believe AW looks better than RDR. My point was that regardless of whether or not it's HD or subHD, Xbox has not produced a game with the graphical prowess of many of the PS3 exclusives. Good thing graphics aren't what matter, gameplay is! Which I said like 4 times in my post. It's not about fanboyism, it's about statements of fact. Fanboys claimed AW was the best thing ever before it even came out, I simply pointed out that they were way off base and that HD vs SubHD arguments are irrelevant when it comes to Multiplat games (especially ones running on older engines) because everyone knows that most multiplate engines are optimized for the Xbox, and produce shoddy ports to the PS3. If I'm a fanboy, you're just as much of one.
@ kaveti6616 alan was 900x576p not 640p... it's almost 100 pxl blurrer. Also GTA4 was subhd on ps3 but digital foundry give ps3 overall win because gta4 looked worse on x360..
i have proof. stop with the rumours!
Where did you get that?
it doesn't prevent it from being "upscaled" to 720p. If you saw all the articles about games not being 720p, you'd understand what I mean.
Means nothing, the "resolution" there is just the supported HD output, but that could be, hell, 480p upscaled to 720p.
I thought that the PS3 does not upscale games unless you tell it too.
I don't know the technical explanation for why it happens, but from my understanding (nontechnical terms): To relieve stress/make due with limitations on the hardware from trying to render/process all the things that go into the game at 720p, some developers to choose to output their game at sub-HD levels (i.e. 640p or 576p) thereby relieving some of the stress and limitations. And obviously, since 640p and 576p resolutions don't exist for TVs, they are 'upscaled' to 720p. This is partially the reason why stuff looks a bit blurry or unclear due to the lower resolution. **Anyone with more technical backgrounds can please dissect my explanation and hopefully provide a better one.
@SprSynJn, I told my ps3 not to become sentient and nuke the planet ala skynet, and it hasn't happened yet. That said, I ordered it to grill me up some steaks, and all I got were fries. :(
Are you aware that there are other factors to consider besides just resolution? The PS3 version of GTA IV had a lower native resolution than the 360 version, but it also had less tearing and to me was more pleasant to look at, although both were pretty similar. There are many other factors to balance besides just the resolution. Slightly higher resolution might add a bit of draw distance and make the game look better in static screen shots, but it could make actual performance during gameplay decline in quality.
I started off GTA4 on PS3, but went over to the 360 version as it was much less jaggie and had a better framerate.Ive got both consoles and have no axe to grind, but GTA4 was much better on the 360, and i was wondering if they had sorted it out for RDR, seems by all the fuss unlikely.
bought gta 4 on ps3 first( I even didn't feel comfortable with gta on xbox cause I grew up on ps2, in fact, Im a ps2 gta fanboy) , then played it on 360, everything is much better in 360 version from resolution to AA to jaggies and to performance,the graphical and performance clarity on the 360 version is noticable on your fisrt glance, gta 4 ps3 should be treated as much as ps3 bayonetta, gta 4 on ps3 felt weak running next to the xbox version and that is no exaggeration, these issues(running issues, fuzziness and framerate, jaggies especially when drive fast with your car at dusk time) with ps3 lessen the gameplay quality a bit and when you install gta 4 optionally on 360, pop-in reduced big time Im getting RDR on 360, because it's on the same engine as gta4 and quite frankly xbl is a better service to play on than psn
Noticable at first glance? What a bunch of BS! I happen to have a very clear memory of people's first impressions of GTA IV and how that miraculously changed after the frame counter story came out. Most accounts thought the PS3 and 360 versions looked very similar, with the PS3 version getting slightly more positive praise. Then, when the "sub HD" business surfaced, suddenly everyone "knew all along" and said "it is so obvious" that there were these gigantic differences. People with little knowledge of how many other factors in play have brainwashed themselves into thinking that resolution is the ultimate enhancement of graphical quality. It makes a difference, but there are often several other factors that could have a greater impact, many of which are less costly to performance. This is why Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, God of War III, and most of the best looking console games do not have a native resolution of higher than 720p. There are factors other than resolution that made it look and perform better. And sometimes lowering the resolution a bit can help improve performance. Try playing some high end PC games and tinker with the settings. You might be surprised to find that several factors improve the visuals more than resolution; the jump from 720p to 1080p in a game like Crysis is very costly to performance, whereas other components such as texture detail and effects may cost considerably less but have a more significant impact on improving the visuals. For consoles, around 720p tends to be where it performs best, and I can certainly understand why a develper might drop that a bit in an gigantic open world game to increase other aspects of performance a bit. BTW, I have played all versions and own the PS3 and PC versions. I have all consoles and a nice PC. I can get whatever version I want.
You know, I played the PS3 version of GTA IV. Loved it (see my bio). GTA IV episodes came out, bought it on my 360 (disk, not downloaded). The 360 version was noticeably worse. I normally don't care about that stuff but you've always said the 360 version felt like a whole other game cause it was so much better. The tunnel that connects islands 2&3 never worked right. The floor and ceiling always disappeared. The buildings by the freeway by the Lost clubhouse never load when you drive too fast. From my experience, the PS3 version was better. Especially because when you flick the controller in the PS3 version you reload (immersive). But performance wise, from my experience, PS3 version was better. And I'm getting the PS3 version of RDR. And only because I use my PS3 more, not because of resolution or anything like that.
Some considered GTA4 PS3 as the best version, 360 version had a LOT of distracting texture pop in than the 360 version, so to each his own I guess. IGN considered the PS3 as the best GTA version.
Troling, everybody knows that GTA 4 was a better game on the PS3 and some áreas the same but bout have diferent colors i think and this color thing is been normal in all old multiplat games
looks like the the pro PS eye goggles you wearing gave you conclusion that xbox version is weaker, loool, I've never seen such amount of crap in my whole life any one with a normally active brain (fanboy free) will say that gta 4 looked, ran and loads much better on xbox on his first glance check your brain immediately, this could be a serious\sever mental condition
Who cares? Enjoy the game regardless of the resolution. Here's a better screenshot of the boxart, but as PirateThom stated that doesn't matter. I think GTA4 read 720p on the back of the box but was 640p upscaled.
I just checked GTA lV's case (uk) and it says 720p,1080i & 1080p .... o_O. Regardless though, if RDR plays better than GTA 4 then that'll do for me. I may just be able to finish it, unlike gta4.
Mooey, you're such a hypocrite. It's incredible.
stop calling people fanboys. have you looked at yourself in the mirror lately?
Have YOU looked in a mirror?
are mirrors even ALLOWED in the Vatican these days?
It would be interesting to see the reaction if the 360 version was sub HD.
The PS3 fanboys hammered everyone, laughing at how pathetic Alan Wake looked, even thought they hadn't even played it. And the 360 fanboys said, resolution doesn't matter. It was pretty pathetic on both sides.
Correction: I never saw anybody say that resolution didn't matter, only that it is not the most important determinant of graphical quality.
360 version is but like with Alan Wake and FFXIII and most other major 360 games it doesn't matter as they still look great running on 360 hardware. I think the problem is devs really have trouble getting great looking games running at native 720p on 360 as its not got the power to do it. Wouldn't be surprised if PS3 version is sub HD with this game either as its probably a console to console port rather than a rebuild. Honestly though who gives a crap I say as long as it looks good?? People on here know my views and know I only own a PS3 (3 dead 360s is the reason I'm a ps3 only console owner now) but I will tell it straight. http://us.playstation.com/p...
All the Xbox fans said that AW would be the best game graphically since real world, actual in your face sliced bread. No one ever came close to claiming anything of the sort about Red Dead Redemption for either PS3 or Xbox. We all knew it was a multiplat, so we all knew it wasn't going to be graphics king on any system. Even if it is SubHD on PS3, there are sub HD games on Xbox that have better graphics (AW being one such). This game is running on the same engine as GTA IV, that game got a 10/10 not because of graphics at all, but because of it's gameplay and it's story. It's one thing to make comparisons between graphics of the games with the BEST graphics, but it's another thing to make comparisons between games that have mediocre graphics to begin with.
Nobody knows which version will be the best. If it's sub HD so what ? Alan Wake is sub HD too, so is Halo.
Official 360 version runs at 540p and is then upscaled no word on PS3 yet but no doubt the 360 lover N4PS3G will be the first to let you know.. Still this game just proves even at sub par HD with upscaling you can still make a game look good... Just because S-E failed doesn't mean every dev will. This was just lazy developing.
This truly wasn't even on my game sniffing radar machine until last week and now I really am moist from the anticipation and by the sound of it I'm gonna need a weeks sick leave, "no no sir I really do have man flu"!"Red dead *sniffle* what Sir, never heard of it sir *peowpeow* Goodbye sir I just died", beeepp.....
I feel EXACTLY the same way. 3 days ago I was questioning what everyone was so hyped over. 2 days ago I saw crappy footage leaked online and saw the possibility. Today I saw good footage, got excited and now this review. I'm convinced.
Are you by chance proficient in the ways of the butler? Having to refer to your superior as 'sir' is why I ask.
A man servant no sir not me sir though I am proficient in butlering sir, yet only for my own fambly sir. ;) now would you like ice in that sir.
and I'm pumped!
GOTY in April?? Sorry but everybody knows the only games that ever get approved for GOTY come out just before the end of the year.. I disagree too with this but its because by then people have forgot about games that came out earlier in the year.
Why no one mention Red Dead Revolver? Because Redemption is the sequel of that. Is just only comparisons with GTA IV.
It's a spiritual successor, not a sequel(correct me if I'm wrong). I think it has more similarities to GTA4. Time/Setting is the major difference between the two.
well as far as i'm aware this is very different to red dead revolver and more comparible to GTA this time around
great and amazingly well written...i suggest everyone read it and enjoy. I'm more pumped for this game now than i was before i read that review
I agree. Those are real Professionals writers.
Been playing it and what the game truly needs is an ultra high difficulty level. The survival elements are there, as is the monetary system, but like all Rockstar open world games there is no real use to those systems. It's too easy as is. All the activities are nice distractions but they need more purpose. PC release and subsequent mods that will make this America's Stalker - I can only dream.
I've heard that Red Dead Redemption is really easy too. Supposedly it takes an enormous amount of bullets to kill you, whereas most enemies go down in one or two shots. Looks like I'll be playing on 'Hard.'
They actually don't even call it a 'difficulty' level in the menu, but rather an aiming mode since there are no actual changes to the game itself. Without the absurd advantage of slo mo, multiplayer is where this game will shine.