Red Dead Redemption (Xbox 360, PS3): Review Scores Justified?

As most of you will be aware by now, Red Dead Redemption is now available to buy on either the Xbox 360 or PS3 in the U.S. The game received pretty amazing reviews – now that you have had a chance to play it, do you think the review scores are justified or not?

[trounbyfire]

no one said that anything was wrong with the scores.

[LTC]

probably justified on the 360 version but not the PS3.
Due to the differences the PS3 version should have scored less. I'm sure R* had something to do with the PS3 reviews so it wouldn't affect sales.

Consumers have a right to be told the quality of something they are buying and not "hidden" which seems to have been done here.

Not one major site has mentioned any differences which is wrong. We as consumers should know what we are purchasing.

Lazy developers should not be aloud to get away with it which is what will probably happen here.
R* aint taking my money.

[SprSynJn]

Please do inform those of us who are planning to get the game oh wise one.

[RememberThe357]

Because the PS3 version has a slightly lower resolution you want to get all butt hurt and not buy an obviously great game? Grow up...

If not one major site has mentions the difference then it's probably not worth mentioning.

EDIT: Yep the PS3 version has bonus content: http://n4g.com/news/523076/...

It seem like that would be a version to get, but I suppose you guys would rather cry about graphics then get more game for the money.

[rob6021]

TLC is right.

I have the PS3 version, and I was left very disappointed with the visuals, given what I had read, where sites like IGN gave it a 9.5/10 on visuals. And I had seen videos of the 360 version in action. I wonder if R* gave out the PS3 bonus content because they knew it wasn't up to par. Graphics do effect a game - they're a big part of it, when they're choppy/blurry/aliased it takes away from the whole experience.
Parts of it look pretty good, but other parts look like they're out of 2006 or 07..

They better get their sht together for AGENT, hopefully it won't run on RAGE.

[kneon]

I've been playing the PS3 version and I'd only give the graphics an 8. They are ok, but nothing special. And there are obvious aliasing issues on the PS3 version.

But that's ok, I love great graphics but great graphics alone don't make a great game. I'm finding the game play kind of dull and the shooting is really pretty crappy. I'd give the game a 7.5 overall. I had more fun with the Saboteur which received far lower scores than RDR. Even with the obvious pop-in issues in the Saboteur I liked the look of it better and the game play was more fun and intersting

Maybe RDR will improve as I get further into it but I doubt I'll ever get used to the controls.

[Dread]

funny look at all the sony fanboys arguing that graphics are not important. It is hard to keep up with all of your constant spining.

wow

[Argento-Nox]

@LTC

I understand your reasoning, but the same should have been said for FFXIII on the 360. The 360 version of FFXIII actually scored higher or equal to the PS3 version of FFXIII (even at metacritics) despite the PS3 version being the superior version in all regards (visuals, load times etc.).

Mind you, the difference for Red Dead Redemption seems relatively minor in comparison to the FFXIII fiasco (PS3: 1080p for cut scenes, 720p in game --- 360: 576p for both cut scenes and in game) . The fact that game play isn't affected (load times etc.), while having extra content for the PS3 version of RDR is enough to satiate most gamers IMO.

[cereal_killa]

The only reason that the 360 version scored higher is that Metajoke placed certain low scores on the PS3 version only and not on the 360s.

LTC whatever you say I'm playing RDR on my PS3 and it looks and plays fine stop counting pixels, play the game and STFU.

[bjornbear]

agree'd

anyone vexed by this is looking way too into it.

if im playing a game, and thinking "wow this looks bad, the 360 version looks better", am I really ENJOYING THE GAME?

NO

if i was enjoying the game, i wouldn't be thinking of anything but "YEHAW IMA SHOOT ME SOME CRIMINALS!!"

so, next time you play, try to play the game, not the fanboy warz

[Nicholas Cage]

the ps3 actually scored higher than the 360 version but we cant have that can we...

editor: sir the ps3 version of final fantasy is amazing on ps3, great graphics, great textures, and i think we should give the ps3 a higher...

ign: higher what?!

editor: uhh higher score sir...

ign: your fired!

[IHateYouFanboys]

the 360 version is better though.

also, IGNs scores arent averages.

[PiTCHBLaCK]

better? how?
oh you mean the graphics? the missing grass etc? I thought Graphics doesn't mean anything? It's all about game play, now suddenly graphics and textures mean something?

[lh_swe]

You know he's not talking about RDR right? He's talking about FXIII.

[RatFuker]

there editors are payed off, nuff said.

[BYE]

If the bribe was high enough, yes /jk

Amazing game!

[ClownBelt]

I think so. To be honest, I haven't seen anyone who dislike the game so far.

[F4sterTh4nFTL]

........

[ZombieAutopsy]

People are Sheep

[vickers500]

Sheep are sheep

[Kerrby]

Lemmings are sheep.

[GameOn]

The above are sheep :)

[djfullshred]

arrogant people think others with a different opinion are sheep.

[Unicron]

This just in - scores are still arbitrary and useless.

[bviperz]

WHAT?! NOW you tell me?

I'm still picking it up and startin me up a posse! Bounty huntin for dem outlaws, ya hear! *spits* 'ding'

[pinkyxyz]

the ps3 has a lower resolution but gets free dlc, maybe its a "CONSOLATION PRIZE" for the community

[darkvenom]

really lower resolution?,beacause i have my ps3 hooked up to my hdtv with hdmi,and truthfully it looks amazing.

[Marquis_de_Sade]

I've heard the native resolution of the PS3 version is lower, not that it matters a great deal, just like FFXIII on 360, as long as it plays the same I'm happy.

[Cryptech]

Same here. I saw the vids and I thoguht the PS3 version looked on par. I have been playing this on my PS3 and I thinl the graphics are really nice. I dont get all the hoopla.

[xg-ei8ht]

I see sheeple amongst the people.

But doing more per pixel same as GTA4.

[Figboy]

when Final Fantasy XIII was noticeably (and without the need for a side by side comparison) inferior on the 360 compared to the PS3, but reviewers just felt OBLIGATED to give both games the same score because, "the core game play is the same."

Red Dead Redemption no doubt looks better on the 360. i've seen the videos, i've seen the comparison screens.

however, the CONTENT of both versions is identical with one difference: the PS3 has some additional content (the costume and the extra gang hideout).

i'm getting the PS3 version of Red Dead Redemption, because i prefer the PlayStation controller, and i don't/refuse to have a LIVE account.

all of my close friends are playing it on the PS3.

this video here, puts it in perspective for me:

http://www.gamepro.de/index...

the differences aren't on the same level as Bayonetta, or, back in the day, Splinter Cell: Double Agent, which was simply pathetic on the PS3.

i'm eagerly awaiting my copy to arrive from Amazon in the next few days, so i can judge it for myself, but my impressions from the video above, and the many screen captures in the Neogaf thread have me convinced that, as usual, this shit is being blown WAAAAAAY out of proportion.

this tends to happen a lot after a major PS3 exclusive release visually impresses (so far this year, Heavy Rain and God of War 3 have been the two graphical showpieces for 2010, as in, people are still comparing new games to them so long after their releases, along with Uncharted 2).

the pessimist in me says this is simply the dissenters trying to reinforce their own fears that the PS3 is indeed a graphical powerhouse when 360 exclusives like Alan Wake, while rather good-looking graphically (anyone thinking Alan Wake ISN'T a nice looking game is fooling themselves), doesn't hold a candle to the current crop of PS3 exclusives.

i'm trying to believe that the people on threads like this and in Neogaf are honestly trying to decide which version they prefer because they are multi-console owners, but mostly it's just useless trolls and fanboys. the Neogaf thread took 3 pages before someone actually started posting legit comparison pics/vids.

[stuntman_mike]

i couldnt see what the differences were in that video to be honest (a kart is there in 360 and aint there in ps3??) they showed close ups of all ps3 stuff but none of 360, i hadnt seen any comparisons until now and that was BS. luckily im getting RDR for £10 on PS3.

[Figboy]

it's kind of the point.

the main difference is that the PS3 looks a little less sharp compared to the 360 version, but other than that, the game plays exactly the same, and the PS3 version has a little bit o' extra swag just for kicks.

honestly, having to zoom into an image to point out graphical issues is, to me, the epitome of REACHING for reasons to slag off a game.

the differences are simply too minimal to raise a ruckus about.

now, Splinter Cell: Double Agent, on the other hand, holy SHIT was that a terrible port in EVERY WAY: the character models were different and low poly, the lighting was piss poor, and the textures were practically PS2 era. there was NO EXCUSE for that game being the way it was. i posted some links to some pics of both versions in another thread, so i won't do it here.

i'm not trying to make excuses for the PS3 version, but the facts are the 360 version looks sharper, but anyone freaking out and blowing a gasket (read: Neogaf), are simply being drama queens at this point, especially when looking at the "evidence."

[Jack Klugman]

the performance of the game was the same! that is not the case with RDR.

the differences between the ps3 and 360 version of FF was the video compression on the FMV's and the audio compression. That is all! Once you hit the gameplay it was the same. not the case with RDR so stop crying about old FF13 news.

[retrofly]

So we are reviewing reviews now?

What a load of toss

[dizzleK]

wow, that was quick.

[niceguywii60]

I

[AllroundGamer]

after finishing the game yesterday i see the review scores identical with the GTA4 ones, so definitely not justified IMHO. The game has many bugs (i was like wtf, when i was standing near a river, i called my horse and he just fell in the river and died :D ), the character movement controls are bad (just don't go near water, you'l see why... :) ) and many boring passages (like the forced horse riding with the NPCs which can't be skipped), also why couldn't they make the animal knife cutting cutscenes skippable??? I found GUN better than this (finished Xbox and Xbox360 version :) ). I know many people will disagree with me, but just play the game and see for yourself, the GTA4 debacle will repeat itself, where at start everyone was hyped and attacked anyone saying a bad word about the game and a little later most people were saying it is just a overhyped piece of $hit.

[bjornbear]

actually thats a minority.
´
it just seems like a majority because those are the ones constantly blowing their horn

(im not saying GTAIV wasn't over hyped, but its not a piece of sh!t)

[Obama]

My only beef with the game is that you can rape anyone lol. What's with all the whores doing there if you can't do anything to them except putting them on train tracks?

[SnukaTheMan]

Glad I bought the game....I have seen the horse buggie hydrolic glitch and it is hilarious.

[iamnsuperman]

I would expect a game to be on Par for both consoles..... There should be a difference in scores from 360 and PS3 especially on visuals. Gameplay might not be different but visuals make playing games more enjoyable. I have seen the differences there is a big difference between the 2. PS3 looks murkier and apparently Rockstar tend to do this for all PS3 games which is a shame because it doesn't looks right.
The extra content for the PS3 makes me think Rockstar know they are short changing PS3 owners...extra content is OK but I would rather have a complete game

[divideby0]

as with the previous GTA this game is overscored..
its great and I am having fun. I bought the PS3 version and its as we all know flawed... I played the 360 version last nite on the same XBR9 I own at a friends and it also has its graphical issues.
now we are starting to see the pretty bad glitches.
scoring a 10 for this game is total BS...9.5 max for me on the 360 and 9.2 on the PS3 are more real

[djfullshred]

Who is to decide if someone else's review score is "justified"? If people have a different opinion, then they should write their own review. It makes no sense to review a review.