Top
230°

Rockstar Took Five Years To Develop Red Dead Redemption

Good things don’t usually come easy unless you’re Paris Hilton, like wise good things come to those who wait, and work hard, with enduring patience, to see their effort not only come to fruition, but also stand out amongst the crowd.

Read Full Story >>
gamesthirst.com
The story is too old to be commented.
electricshadow2644d ago

It shows. It's a great game and I'm having a blast playing it. Online and off. Can't wait for the co-op pack!

nycredude2644d ago

I went to the midnight launch. Love the game and it's great. Me and a bunch of my friends are having a great time rolling with our posse but this game needed another 6 months at least in the oven. It's glitching as hell!

BeaArthur2644d ago

I don't know if it needed another 6 months but it's definitely a great example of why large scale beta testing is necessary. I agree with you about free roam, that is a great innovation for multiplayer.

nycredude2644d ago

They definitely should have had a closed beta at least. But I am sure they will work things out shortly...

himdeel2644d ago

...really like single player, and multiplayer coop. I don't like competitive modes as much right now ONLY because I haven't unlocked the good stuff or better competitive modes yet :(

RedDevils2644d ago (Edited 2644d ago )

Uncharted 2 is like almost 2 years and is just as/or more awesome lol But I still enjoy red dead though, really fun, I have to admit I still play uncharted 2 online, still addicted :)

edit*
ooh wow why the disagree, cause I mention uncharted 2 the game that you can't play on your belove console that is sad indeed

vickers5002643d ago

*shakes fanboy spray*

Go away.

captain-obvious2644d ago

is the co-op pack free ??
it should be

raWfodog2644d ago (Edited 2644d ago )

5 years and they couldn't optimize the PS3 version just a little bit more?

But then again, Im not a developer so I dont really know what it takes to make a game of this caliber. Still, it's sad to see. Especially when other developers clearly have a better handle on the PS3 hardware...

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2643d ago
Hank Hill2644d ago

This is the quality a game should have if it took 5 years to make it. What the heck was Remedy doing for the last 5 years?

Elven62644d ago (Edited 2644d ago )

Rockstar San Diego is a huge studio and the way Rockstar is structured means they have external studios like Rockstar Lincoln helping studios with development. San Diego already had an engine to work from, Remedy had to make one from the ground work and given how the game looked in 06 and how it does now, I wouldn't be surprised if they had to make a new one or heavily modify it midway in.

Remedy only has 45 employees as of 2010, besides, you're making it sound like Alan Wake is somehow a horrible experience when it's a good game.

Hank Hill2644d ago (Edited 2644d ago )

I'm not saying Alan Wake is horrible. It's a decent rental. However, when you consider the 5 year development time and massive hype from the media and fanboys you have to admit that the game was a disappointment. It was hyped to have the best graphics, even better than Uncharted 2 and failed and it was hyped to be GOTY and I'm going to go out on a limb and say it won't even be nominated by anyone.

@Eleven6

Still, hardly the graphics king and GOTY game the fanboys hyped it to be. Since you brought up Metacritic, go look up any GOTY game and I'll assure you that no GOTY game has a Metascore in the low 80s. Uncharted 2, GTA 4, MGS4, Demon's Souls, Bioshock, LBP, and COD4 all have Metascores in the 90s.

Inside_out2644d ago (Edited 2644d ago )

Maybe 6 years and they wouldn't of butchered the PS3 version...;}

Edit...AW is a great game...games like AW won't please everyone...The level of detail in ONE chapter of AW is more than most games have in their entirety...

Elven62644d ago

The media did not hype the game to be an end all be all experience. And I don't count run of them mill sites on N4G as the media either since most of the are just in it for hits.

Alan Wake as an 83 on Metacritic and some great scores from some very influential websites.

http://www.metacritic.com/g...

Elven62644d ago

FYI Hank, publications don't award GOTY based on what other people thought or what MetaCritic says, they base it on what that publication thought of the game.

And why do you put so much into what fanboys say especially if it is ruining your enjoyment of a game like it seems to have done with Alan Wake?

PS360_372644d ago

@ HAnk Hill

N4G fanboy hype is a little different than regular media hype.

RedDevils2644d ago

I notice I play a game like Alan wake before it was on a nintendo game, it used the same torch light to kill monster lol I forgot the name I think it something mansion, Fack I forgot the name

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2644d ago
thief2644d ago

I too felt Alan wake was disappointing, not as good in terms of story or gameplay as I expected.
But, just remember one thing – remedy is a really small team, maybe 40 people. The cost of the game, even over 5 years of development, would be $25m, at most $30m. Red Dead would have a much bigger team (but I suspect much smaller than the GTA team) and would have cost maybe 50-60m, much more than competing games such as Just Cause

Trilogy2k2644d ago

Five years to evolve into the blurry graphically gimped version that I expected.

I wasn't dissappointed then!

(tbh I was really)

movements2644d ago

I'm really amazed on how great that game turned out. Rockstar's really great at what they do!

Charmers2644d ago (Edited 2644d ago )

I am just wondering will it take 5 years for news submitters to get the hint that this game is NOT available on the PC. The devs have stated that they have no plans to bring it to the PC so will you please keep RDR stories to xbox 360 and PS3 channels only.

I know if PC news submitters started spamming the xbox and PS3 channels with news about Starcraft 2 no one would like it so the same goes for the PC channel.

2644d ago Replies(1)
Xof2644d ago

From my experience, 2-3 years development time seems to be the best. If games take longer (Dragon Age Origins, Final Fantasy XIII, both 5+ years) they tend to suffer for it. Generally because long development times are the result of lack of direction, major difficulties/issues, or trying too hard to polish a turd, so to speak.

RDR would appear to be an exception proving the rule. It is one imminently polished game. Though with 5 years of development, there shouldn't be any inferiority with the PS3 version.

UltimateIdiot9112644d ago

I say it depends if it's 5 years including diddle dattle (deciding multiplatform or not, switching engines, etc) or 5 years of actual work.