Let's Talk About Red Dead Redemption 2's Biggest Flaw

Ed M writes "Somehow, despite all of the incredible things Rockstar has achieved with Red Dead Redemption 2, shooting and moving still feels like it’s in 2008. And that's not all."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
-Foxtrot719d ago

"We gave it our highest possible score"


"getting our highest recommendation doesn’t mean we think a title is perfect"


sampsonon719d ago

lol, i never understood that reasoning.

-Foxtrot719d ago

Like even 4.5...still high but shows there is "issues" from reaching that top spot

I mean every game has it's flaws but usually the issues are tiny but Red Dead Redemption 2 has a long list of small annoyances and questionable gameplay choices. If a character has clunky movement, an issue going back to 2008 then you need to say something using a score to reflect that.

bouzebbal718d ago

A perfect grade in school doesn't imply you are perfect...
A game is judged by fan factor and replayability value. I see no issue in giving a game max grade if these two are there.. People have different expectations and that's what make grades in reviews debatable..

-Foxtrot718d ago



Okay so lets say there's an exam and I get a few answers wrong, one of them being the same mistake I've kept making since 2008, I'm pretty sure the teacher wouldn't give me an A or an A+. I'd get a B+ at most.

indysurfn718d ago (Edited 718d ago )

Foxtrot Your example is the opposite of getting a PERFECT SCORE! It does not address what Bouszebbal is saying at all! He is saying if you get a PERFECT SCORE ( which means you got EVERY question RIGHT ) and you get a A+ your still not perfect! I know this for a fact because me, and another person got an A + for all four years! And both of us have some major flaws, for one I cant stop thinking of hot women for more than 1 thousandth of a second's that split second between being awake and sleep. And as soon as I am asleep I'm dreaming of women.

I'd give FFVII and The legend of heroes trails of cold steel a 10 out of 10. But despite this I would be reasonable enough recognize that they have flaws.

rainslacker718d ago (Edited 718d ago )


Your analogy suggests that to get a 100, R* did the extra credit to make it perfect. While there is some merit to that, given that it is based on the total experience, media outlets reporting that the game play isn't fun, that the game play is clunky, and them glossing over that entire part to talk at length about all the beauty and interaction of the world, then its not really a perfect game, as the game play is going to have more of an impact on the game than if its pretty to look at, or if you can fondle your horses special places.


In this analogy, R* didn't get all the questions right though, as a couple of the criticisms are actually pretty serious, and other games easily get ripped apart for it because they don't have 200 million dollar budgets, 8 years to make, or a scope as big as this game. So, if the websites want to disregard one of the most important aspects of a game....the game play, when determining their score, then they need to do that across the bored, and not just for those special devs with huge marketing budgets, and an extreme amount of hype and expectations behind their games.

You know...the things all gamers have said at one point in time they want from reviews.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 718d ago
Eidolon719d ago (Edited 719d ago )

Then only flawless/perfect game should be a 10/10? 10/10 should be given to the best execution of the criteria, of the genre, at that time. Graphics, sound, and even story telling are going to drastically change by generation and year. There is no flawless game, a game can be 10/10 and have flaws, just depends on how good it is in other areas to overlook them.

sampsonon718d ago

the mechanics should be a big deal when it comes to video games no?

Lilrizky719d ago

there is no such thing as a perfect game so 10 = perfect is impossible which means having a 10 is useless

I take 10 to mean "best in its class."

botw, the last of us, witcher 3, odyssey, gta v, bioshock, rdr2 etc alllll have flaws. but they're all 10s

sampsonon718d ago

the shooting is bad and the movement is horrible. it does't deserve a perfect score. yes the rest of the game is great so at best i would give it an 8.5

CaitSith718d ago (Edited 718d ago )

I hope you mean Super Mario Odyssey and not Assassin's Creed Odyssey, because if Ass Creed, LOL.

mogwaii718d ago

I know right, then what is a score system for then? Stupid.

nyu1718d ago

No game can ever be 100% perfect.

So it makes perfect sense. 10/10 signifies a masterpiece, but it doesn't mean that it won't have any flaws. It just means that those flaws aren't enough to take a point or half a point off the score.

rainslacker718d ago

Except in some games, which have better game play than RDR2, it is what they use to take points off. There's a consistency issue, because people are so mesmerized by the graphics and interaction.

What I see with many of these reviews, is that the next time they downrate a game based on game play, then we can just say that they only care about graphics or games of a large scope, where they give extra points because as reviewers they can't do their jobs properly, hence, the term, "free pass".

718d ago
Moe-Gunz718d ago

Agreed. People will defend it and say it's the best ever because it's R*. I find the game to have a ton of issues. Story isn't great by any means, the attention to detail gets in the way of fun factor, the animations become redundant and you can't skip it, the constant dirty horse crap, your guns must manually be taken off of your horse or else all you have is pistols, and some things feel overly complicated.

I believe it is a very impressive game but it has a lot of flaws and I feel like it's getting a pass. To me the focus on realism is hindering the fun.

chiefJohn117718d ago (Edited 718d ago )

No it's not getting a pass, I have 0 clue wtf y'all talking about when it comes to it's flaws. What bad about the shooting? What's bad about the movement. I'm still waiting for someone to break it down specifically to me. Oh ya cause you can't cause those complaints don't exist. Newsflash if you're horse is startled it's not gonna listen fully/ completely/ timely so its gonna feel like lag when you try to turn it. It's ment to to be like that.

rainslacker718d ago (Edited 718d ago )


Despite having been told this on countless occassions, I'll humor your feigned ignorance on the subject as you try to dismiss people's claims by implying that they don't know they're talking about.

I'll even use "reputable" sources which praised the game highly.

From Kotaku, which I believe you called an extremely well written review.

After numerous examples of what he was talking about.

"That consistently imposed slowness forced me to slow down and take in what is arguably this game’s defining characteristic: an incredible, overwhelming focus on detail."

Or earlier

"Try to move too fast, and it will almost always punish you. Its pace is outrageously languid compared with any other modern game, especially in its first half. I spent a good chunk of my time just riding from place to place, and once I got where I was going, often went on to engage in extremely low-key activities."

Or an example of the tedium

"I picked up the hat, put it back on, and rode back to town. Was that experience fun? Not exactly. Was it rewarding or empowering? Quite the opposite. It began with the game violently reacting to an action I hadn’t intended to take. It ended with some backtracking to retrieve a hat that I later would learn I could’ve just magically conjured from my horse."

In terms of movement or pacing

"It moves with the clumsy heaviness of a 19th century locomotive,"

In terms of fun factor

"I only rarely found Red Dead 2 to be “fun” in the way I find many other video games to be fun. The physical act of playing is rarely pleasurable on its own. It is often tiring and cumbersome, though no less thrilling for it. No in-game activity approaches the tactilely pleasing acts of firing a space-rifle in Destiny, axing a demon in God of War, or jumping on goombas in Super Mario Bros. Red Dead 2 continues Rockstar’s longstanding rejection of the notions that input response should be snappy, that control schemes should be empowering and intuitive, and that animation systems should favor player input over believable on-screen action."

I could add a couple other sources if you'd like, because they're copious, but I believe this review says everything that people have said about this game. And again, if you want, I'll add more sources from reviewers who apparently should now be trusted if they gave this game a 10.

rainslacker718d ago (Edited 718d ago )

But here is Kotakus cited dislikes of the game

"Fudgy controls[not responsive] and animation-based interactions[long animations that have to play out] can be frustrating; under-explains its interlocking systems to a degree that can sometimes be confusing.

But for elaboration

"Red Dead 2 continues Rockstar’s longstanding rejection of the notions that input response should be snappy, that control schemes should be empowering and intuitive, and that animation systems should favor player input over believable on-screen action."


"Pressing a button in Red Dead 2 rarely results in an immediate or satisfying response. Navigating Arthur through the world is less like controlling a video game character and more like giving directions to an actor. Get in cover, I’ll tell him, only to see him climb on top of the cover. Did I press the button too late? Did my button-press register at all? Dude, get down, I’ll cry, as his enemies begin to open fire. He’ll slowly wheel around, then slide down to the ground with an elaborate stumbling animation. GET IN COVER, I’ll command, pressing the “take cover” button for what feels like the sixth time. He’ll haul his body weight forward, then finally crouch behind the wall"

"Arthur’s horse adds yet another degree of remove. With a press of a button, Arthur coaxes his horse forward. Pressing it rhythmically in time with the horse’s hoofbeats causes him to urge the horse to a gallop. But you’re still controlling the man, not the horse. Mind your direction, for it is perilously easy to broadside a passing civilian and instigate a firefight, or to collide with a rock or tree, sending man and horse careening catawampus to the ground. Red Dead 2’s horses are meticulously detailed and gorgeously animated, and move through the world like real animals, right up until they don’t"

"Almost every interaction must be performed through the same gauzy, lustrous cling-wrap. Firefights are chaotic and random, and aiming often feels wild and unmanageable. Rifles require separate trigger-pulls to fire and to chamber a new round. Enemies move quickly and melt into the world’s overwhelming visual milieux, and my resulting reliance on the heavily magnetized aim-assistance turned most fights into pop-and-fire shooting galleries. Arthur moves slowly, particularly while in settlements or indoors. It’s also possible to make him run too fast, crashing through doors and into civilians."

And most importantly

"Navigating this world is arduous, heavy, and inelegant. Even the simple act of picking an object up off the floor can require two or three moments of repositioning and waiting for an interaction prompt."

Now I know you've been informed, with stop this act of you pretending to not understand what people are talking about, and discuss the criticisms, instead of discussing those who levy said criticism.

rainslacker718d ago

Despite all this, Kotaku spends more paragraphs talking about how detailed the world is. Another equal number of paragraphs, if not more, about how beautiful the game world is. And then twice as much time talking about the crunch they feel was inappropriate.

To me, this review read like they'd give it a 10, if they still did scores. But they said almost nothing good about the game play, except that it ultimately was OK and not too bad after you just accepted that it wasn't anything special.

I don't know if the definition of "free pass" is clearly defined, but to me, that seems like a pretty damn good example of one, and Kotaku is not the only site to do this.

For fairness, this is what they liked about the game.

"Engrossing, unbelievably detailed world; well-written script full of carefully considered characters; technically astonishing audio-visual production; brilliant acting; very good horses."

Tell me, how is all of that visual greatness, and interaction somehow enough to overcome the kind of game play they talk about in the review? It's a prime example of a kid being easily distracted by a new shiny over there....and it's coming from a reviewer, who's supposed to be reviewing these games to inform the potential players of the game. Kotaku put the game play stuff in the middle of two exhaustively long sections of the game. Kotaku is well versed in the TL:DR aspect of journalism, and they knew that many people would never reach that part of the review. Yet to me, that aspect of the game should have been front and center after the general overview, not in its own section, barely mentioned how all those great things were actually making all the beauty....well, tedious and boring.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 718d ago
rainslacker718d ago

Well...they aren't IGN. Apparently, R* put enough grass in the game to not lose points. Even though IGN openly says the game play is lacking.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 718d ago
Sgt_Slaughter719d ago

What does that have to do with how polished those aspects of the game are? You can have a western with smooth, precise controls without having to use that excuse.

AK91719d ago

Lol if you think that play games from 2008 trust me it's not as bad as you think it is.

RememberThe357718d ago (Edited 718d ago )

The shooting is lame but I put on auto aim so I don't have to care. The movement is no worse than any other third person game, maybe a step slower when walking. Witcher had the over running, even Horizon to an extent. But again it seems that people are hung up on the fact that walking is the defualt movement. So what? Change your settings and go tear up the West. It just feel like people want to complain. I know they're not "wrong" but "petty" might be the right word. To each there own, I guess.

derek719d ago

"We gave it a perfect score, but its flawed in two pretty major ways." Score should have reflected that, makes no sense.

719d ago Replies(3)
Show all comments (50)
The story is too old to be commented.