Red Dead Redemption 2 is a disappointment

Red Dead Redemption 2 is the biggest example ever of the old way of building video games. It builds on top Rockstar’s foundation, but it does nothing to shake up or question those underlying elements.

Read Full Story >>
UltraNova1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

Nice article, the title does disservice to it though.

"I thought Rockstar was going to define the future of games with this, and I don’t think it did. This is still the same game it’s always made." - I thought so too, since they actually said something like that prior to release. I would finish the above quote "... its always made" with > just a lot more of it.

oasdada1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

But i find it hypocritical that one expects too way too much out of a high pedigree studio but is ok with ubisofts highly formulaic games considering both games are selling for the same price.. We see this too much from sony studios where people have too much unrealistic expectations from games that are already ultra high quality

Christopher1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

When you can tell someone hasn't played Origins or Odyssey.

Ubisoft actually changed the whole formula towards an RPG, but that's old and formulaic compared to RDR2 changing nothing other than slowing down the pacing entirely?

How about we try not to distract from the issues of one game being discussed by trying to make it look worse than a game that you misrepresent?

oasdada1796d ago

Changing genre doesnt mean they innovated.. Origins and Odyssey are as text book an rpg as it gets.. They took ideas from a bunch of different games and just mashed em together as it is

Christopher1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

***Changing genre doesnt mean they innovated..***

What type of goal post moving is this? No one said RDR2 needed to innovate either, just not use gameplay concepts from over a decade ago. Gameplay concepts that have been innovated in tons of other games over the last decade and have improved the enjoyment of game by ridding users of the need to waste time doing micro-managing or the like and instead focus on the actual game.

*** Origins and Odyssey are as text book an rpg as it gets.***

They're 'good' RPGs, which overall isn't textbook unless you ignore all the bad RPGs. And being 'text book' doesn't mean bad, but you seem to want to throw that connotation at it. I bet people ignore the fact that BioWare RPGs are also textbook in design and they've been pulling concepts form the 90s/early 2000s into their moderns games still, but they're 'good' RPGs unlike this others who do the same thing?

***They took ideas from a bunch of different games and just mashed em together as it is***

And we know how horrible that has worked out towards making successful games. CoD, WoW, etc. You're trying to act like taking good parts of other games into one is a bad thing, but isn't that _exactly_ what we want them to do to make better games?


If Odyssey/Origins had just built upon what they were, they would be argued as being all the same. But, RDR2 does just that, but we can't call them out for being more of the same with controls and gameplay concepts?

Seems like some situational opinion being thrown around here rather than actual concern for better games. But, hey, it's the 'cool' thing to hate on Ubisoft even if you don't actually play their games, just like people complain about CoD, don't play them, but it still sells millions upon millions.

Skull5211796d ago

It's easily the finest crafted game of this generation. I find it strange when people complain about its pacing. The game has been in development for seven year and you want to burn through it in two sittings or something? I guess I knew what I was in for because I decided it was the only game I was buying this fall so I could play it properly and not feel like I need to rush it to get on to playing titles that aren't nearly as good.

Christopher1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

***The game has been in development for seven year and you want to burn through it in two sittings or something?***

No one is saying that. But, I'd rather be playing the game than micro-managing stupid stuff that is just tedious and unnecessary.

I'm playing the game after spending over 100 hours in AC Odyssey. I have no issue spending a lot of time in a game. But, in Odyssey I wasn't sitting there spending the majority of my time watching the game, managing meaningless things, or worrying about inventory like in RDR2. Fast travel was unlocked immediately. The focus was on you playing the game and not micromanaging everything around you. And cut scenes happened, but they gave you choices and didn't involve long, drawn out scenarios where you have to actively keep up with someone just to hear them talk before you get to a cut scene.

The arguments over which is the 'better' as far as story and graphics doesn't matter here. It's about actually playing a game rather than wasting time doing filler stuff and forced to sit through slow things that prevent you from actually playing something rather than travelling slowly through the world.

R* nailed atmosphere, but, and because I have to put this here otherwise people will think I'm claiming it's a fact, IMHO, they freaking failed entirely on making a modern-day game with moder-day gameplay concepts that aim to reduce menial tasks let alone help to ensure that you're quickly getting into the actual story and gameplay versus trudging between them very slowly. And, please, they should have updated that UI on so many levels. Or at least made it option that 'level of immersion' because for some of us having to bump our character into everything in a room to find something isn't fun, it's waste of time doing sometihng menial rather than entertaining.

Strafe1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

Or Christopher, RDR2 is a better game? Not in your eyes? Maybe not, but you're in the minority.

EDIT:'How about we try not to distract from the issues of one game being discussed by trying to make it look worse than a game that you misrepresent? '

How about an admin that doesn't dictate what we should talk about?

n1kki61796d ago

Ok. I will play. So what about bethesda and their xonstant glitchy games. Fpr years they got a pass because of the scope of the game, until fallout r came out and people qere sick of it.

In the case of rockstar they have done nothing to evolve the controls and game mechanics and it still plays like a ps2 game and people are cool with it becausw the hoese nuts shrink and grow with the temperature.

sammarshall1021796d ago

I'm kind of glad I didn't read reviews because going into this game blind I'm still blown away

Christopher1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

***Or Christopher, RDR2 is a better game? Not in your eyes? Maybe not, but you're in the minority.***

I might be in the minority of opinion who don't think it's as great as people make it out to be, but guess how much more valuable that makes the opinion compared to the opinion of everyone else? Hint: same value. At least it's the opinion from someone playing the game and still enjoying it for what it is, but really wishing it unleashed itself from old concepts that have nothing to do with improving gameplay.

***How about an admin that doesn't dictate what we should talk about?***

How about an admin that's allowed to have an opinion just like anyone else? It wasn't a command, but my absolute opinion on how oasdada decided to deflect from the issues of RDR2 by bringing up another game, as if that somehow changes the issues of RDR2.

deafdani1796d ago

Rockstar's games take way longer to develop than Ubi games, generally speaking, have a way higher Metascore than that of Ubisoft's games.

Because of that, expectations are higher for games coming from Rockstar than Ubisoft. It's really not that hard to understand. If I take 8 years to make a game, people will expect more from my game than what they expect from an annual release.

WickedLester1795d ago (Edited 1795d ago )

I dont blame R* for what they made nearly as much as I blame critics for showering this game with perfect 10's. Dont get me wrong, I'm enjoying the game but it has definite issues. It's certainly not a perfect game.

WickedLester1795d ago (Edited 1795d ago )


"Its easily the finest crafted game this generation."

That's completely subjective. It's a good game but there are several others I enjoyed so much more. RDR2 is certainly a beautiful game with interesting characters and dialogue, but I find it a bit of a chore to play. It's just not very fun IMO. And if you're not having fun, what's the point?

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 1795d ago
1796d ago Replies(14)
nitus101796d ago

Jim Sterling on his Jimquisition of Red Dead Redemption 2 is quite interesting.


His take is that the game is very good and highly detailed, but sometimes ridiculous attention to detail starts to actually get in the way of the game.

-Foxtrot1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

Jim nailed it with that video, it's basically them wanting it to be too realistic where it gets in the way of fun

I loved hunting in the first Red Dead Redemption because it made me want to upgrade all my gear so I can hold more but with the way the hunting is in this game it's put me off doing it for now...it'll probably be one of the last things I do so I can say I've done it. They need to add an option for Arthur to fast travel to either your camp or local town butcher once you've hunted an animal down and pick up the pelt/body.

There was nothing wrong with the hunting and there was nothing wrong with the massive weapon wheel to house most of your weapons.

If they did it where you could only select one weapon for each slot and if you wanted to swap you had to go to your horse then FAIR ENOUGH, I'd be completely fine with that.

UltraNova1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )


Exactly, I dont like hunting in this game that much. The fact that I have to worry about the pelt quality when killing the animal, then that it decays with time and having to mount it on my horse and ride to the closest butcher or that roaming guy(forgot his name) for God knows how long is a major time waste to the point I'm considering nof avoiding hunting altogether until I'm literally forced to for nessesary upgrades.

Its details like this that show Rockstar's ...old fashioned...approach to game mechanics.

bluefox7551796d ago

Yeah, it's great and all, and I'm very much enjoying it, but it didn't live up to the hype, whereas game like God of War greatly exceeded the hype for me. My favorite things about the game are exactly what I thought they'd be, the world they built, and the story. The parts I thought that would be weaker by comparison, like gameplay, are predictably weaker.

majiebeast1796d ago

Who knew just another overrate Rockstar game i hope all the reviewers that gave it a 10 got a nice fat cheque.

Obscure_Observer1796d ago

I find funny how a game which is on its second iteration and have improved on every single front is considered more of the same?

Will the same people complaing of more of the same when second new iteration SoT, Ori, Quantum Break, Horizon, TLOU come out?

I doubt it. Hypocrisy will be on spotlight. Soon.

MrVux0001796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

"Will the same people complaing of more of the same when second new iteration SoT, Ori, Quantum Break, Horizon, TLOU come out? "

If the media-outlets and reviews over-hype them like they did with RDR 2 ? Definitely.

rainslacker1796d ago

It's improved on some things, but is worse in others. Some of the "improvements" are actually a detriment to the quality of the game, so this game is a good example that changing something for the better isn't always an improvement.

When you have major publications saying that the game play isn't fun, then there is a problem with the game....regardless of if it's improved or not. The fact they gloss over that fact to go on at length on the amazing world and attention to detail/interactivity just means that the game is being overhyped, and it's allowing people to ignore problems that shouldn't be problems for a game 7 years in the making.

monkey6021796d ago

"I thought Rockstar was going to define the future of games with this, and I don’t think it did"

I am absolutely loving Red Dead so far but I haven't played a lot of it. I also agree many had this expectation. Which I think is unfair. There's very little can truly be done to shatter the foundations and bring us something forever going to change how we see games.

Expect to see these same headlines about CyberPunk 2077 when it releases too, as the media generates an unrealistic buzz about breaking the mould. Which it can't live up to

(I'm also looking forward to Cyberpunk)

Saijahn1796d ago

i think this is the overall problem with gaming in general, the lack of innovation. RDR2 is fantastic in every regard, but it's still the same old same open world adventure. I'm not sure how much innovation can come out of gaming even though there's so much tech to play with yet we still keep getting essentially the same games every year.

bloop1796d ago

I don't really understand how much innovating you can do with a 3rd person action game though, when it comes to game mechanics. It is what it is, a 3rd person action game. I don't know how far many people are in to the game either, but what I've come across so far just out in the open world is ground breaking for me. I'm coming across unique random events practically every few minutes, and I'm not just talking about the ones where someone's horse died and they need a lift to town or sucking venom out of the leg of some guy that's been bitten by a snake. I don't want to spoil anything here, but I'm being absolutely blown away by things I just happen to come across randomly. The amount of work they put in to the world is just absolutely insane.

-Foxtrot1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

I feel like Rockstar have done to Red Dead Redemption what they did with GTAIV

A great, well made game in terms of being a technical marvel but in the process has lost some of the fun factor the previous game had, a case of where being too realistic has made things more inconvenient when trying to do something...the weapons not sticking while getting off your horse, hunting feeling more like a chore in terms of taking them back to camp, the long, tedious animations whether it's animals or looting bodies and even the heavy, clunky controls of the main character.

I mean be honest guys if the game for example was EXACTLY the same but the weapon wheel housed all the guns you collected in the game, would that ruin the game for you and knock scores off journalists reviews? God no, nothing would have changed so who are they trying to impress?

BlueBlue1796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

In my opinion, an all-weapons wheel would have downgraded that
being-overpowered experience when dealing with lawmen, or enemies of any kind. (which I enjoy, as it gives a rewarding feeling when you are able to overpower them).

DarkVoyager1796d ago

I disagree with the article. RDR2 is the best looking open world game ever made. Horizon: Zero Dawn coming in at a close second.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1795d ago
MrVux0001796d ago (Edited 1796d ago )

That is what overhyping things does to game experience.

That is why i tried ignoring the over-the-top quotes from numerous reviewers and some fanboys/fans.
To mention some:

"With Red Dead Redemption 2 Rockstar Games has set the bar so high that other games of this nature seem infinitesimally lesser because of its existence."
"'Red Dead Redemption 2' is unrivaled in design, gameplay, and storytelling."

^ With scores of 9s and 10s all over the board, while still criticizing the very same elements they praised in those very same quotes (namely gameplay and narrative).

And as such, ignoring those hyped up reviews, im having a much pleasant experience while clocking somewhere around 45 hours in the game. It's a really well done cowboy-simulator i always wanted, and even tho it may not win a GOTY 2018 in my book it will still go hand-in-hand with the rest of the masterpieces in my personal list.

1796d ago Replies(3)
rainslacker1796d ago

Some of the problem comes because some people want it to be so amazing. So any criticism is seen as someone saying the game is bad.

I could go on at length about what the game does exceptionally well. About the amazing technical achievements in the game. I could even say what parts of the interactivity and game play they got right.

But at the same time, I take issue where people ignore actual problems, or more so when reviews state that there are problems, then ignore them because they're so enamored with other things as I feel that is a disservice to the readers. And what makes it worse, is that other games that do the same thing will get raked to the coals because the dev may not have spent as much time on building those enamoring things.

How many articles did we see about Spider-Man doing nothing new in terms of open world games? Then this game, which does a bunch of new things, but still has the poor controls of a R* game, coupled with all those new things being horrendously repetitive and "not fun" gets praise upon praise for the innovation. But in the end, Spider-Man was fun from start to finish, although it had it's frustrating tasks as well.

Spider-Man didn't force you to slow down to appreciate the world, it made you WANT to slow down and enjoy the world. That is a big difference in the two games, and I think is a better thing to try and achieve than shoving one's technical prowess in the players faces. Go look at all the beautiful games we've seen over the years. What's the biggest thing you hear? That people just had to stop and appreciate it. R* could have achieved that without forcing people to do so.