Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Review: Red Dead Redemption

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the remind-me-to-stay-away-from-men-with-guitars dept.

Games 148

Western-themed shooters are not a particularly well-explored video game genre. When the first details of Red Dead Redemption began leaking out, there was skepticism that an open world in such a setting could rival the depth of the Grand Theft Auto series. One of Rockstar San Diego's biggest challenges was building a world that looked and felt like the cultural and historical image we have of the Wild West. It's a task with more constraints than in many similar games — futuristic sci-fi settings, stylized interpretations of modern places, or Tolkien-esque fantasy all allow nearly unbounded creativity — yet no less in scope. In Red Dead Redemption, Rockstar achieved this, building a world that is huge and unknown, yet still deeply familiar. Read on for the rest of my thoughts.

  • Title: Red Dead Redemption
  • Developer: Rockstar San Diego
  • Publisher: Rockstar Games
  • System: PlayStation 3, Xbox 360
  • Reviewer: Soulskill
  • Score: 7/10

The look and feel of this game is by far its biggest strength. From the start, you're dropped into a setting that looks like a cross between an archetypal Western movie and what you would expect to see if you stepped into the wilderness of Texas. It's not that the graphics are perfect; they're good, but probably not the best you've seen on your console of choice. It's that the art direction was so consistent and detail-oriented that almost everything just looks right. What was also surprising to me was the variety of climates — everything from the dusty desert with tall, eroded rocks and scattered boulders, to the sparsely treed plains, to the snow-covered forest at the base of a mountain — each inhabited by an internally consistent set of fauna.

The towns, too, are very detailed and unique. Most are what you'd expect a frontier town to look like; shoddy construction, worn down signs, broken walls, horse hitches everywhere. Again, there's quite a variety; in the east you have the largest, richest town, with brick buildings and streets. Further west you've got heavily worn, grubby wooden buildings with built-up fronts. Across the border in Mexico, you have dirt roads winding through white stone walls and sculpted walkways. There are also quite a few scattered, smaller outputs, and the occasional isolated farm. Comparing the tiny bastions of civilization to the vast wilderness encompassing them lends a fascinating sense of how isolated this era's settlers really were.

That immersion is broken a bit by how many people you end up running into. The towns and farms have an appropriate number of NPCs wandering about, but the number of bad guys you run into during your travels must outnumber the normal folks 10:1. As you ride around the wilderness on your horse, you frequently come across other travelers, or NPCs that need help (or want to kill you), and it makes the game world seem much more populated than it could ever be in reality. It's a gameplay conceit, and I can't really fault them for it; a game world with a truly appropriate number of people would either be infeasibly huge (think Daggerfall) or so barren that you have almost nothing to do.

The game starts slowly, easing you into the various control schemes while introducing you to your character, John Marston, and the mission he's on. He's a former outlaw, trying to leave a life of crime behind, but forced to fight again by government men who want him to track down other criminals. But there's more to him than just gun-slinging, as the first set of missions clearly demonstrate. Red Dead Redemption is comprised partly of a variety of sub-games, and they're used both for furthering the plot and for providing an entertaining way to take a break from the story. You do things like driving cattle, catching and breaking new horses, and racing.

There are also more obvious games; you can find hands of poker and blackjack in most towns, as well as arm wrestling, horseshoes, and "Five Finger Fillet," a game where you tap buttons in a certain order and rhythm while Marston correspondingly drives a knife into the table around his splayed fingers. The sub-games are hit-and-miss as far as fun goes; if you enjoy the card games in real life, you'll probably enjoy a few hands in-game. You can even try to cheat at poker. The controls for horseshoes are annoying, and Five Finger Fillet is awfully easy. But the broad selection is what provides depth, here — everybody can probably find something they enjoy, at least for a little while.

One of the major skills the first missions try to teach you is how to control your horse, which you'll be riding for a big portion of the game. They did reasonably well with the button setup and the riding part of the engine — maneuvering the horse is a bit clumsy, but not much more than you'd expect it to be. As with most third-person shooters, you move with one analog stick and rotate your camera with the other. This works fine except when you want to maintain speed with your horse, which requires you to hold down another button. If you want to pan your camera around, you have to let go of the button, which makes your horse slow and stop. The horse can also be tough to move through tight spaces, or anywhere with lots of small obstacles — a little bit of pathing AI would have gone a long way here.

The next big thing to learn is how your weaponry works. You don't have a targeting crosshair while moving around normally. Instead, you hold down a button to aim your gun, which pops up a little dot showing where your bullets will go. There are three settings for aiming behavior: on Expert, your aim is entirely manual; on Normal, the dot will lock onto an enemy near the center of your screen, and track it for a few seconds; on Casual, it will lock onto whichever enemy is closest to the center of your screen, track them for a much longer time, and turn red when you've got a shot lined up. If you're on Normal or Casual, you'll be able to kill things very, very easily.

Combat in Red Dead Redemption is fairly simple. There is a basic cover system, and between that and the auto-aim, it's pretty hard to lose a fight. The enemy AI isn't very isn't very smart; they rarely move, they don't try to surround you or work around your cover, and they often fire round after round at you while you're safely behind a boulder. Most of the times I died were when I got into a fight I wasn't expecting. For example, as you ride around the game world, you occasionally come across random situations that need your attention. Sometimes it'll be a guy who wants help picking flowers, sometimes a stranded citizen will need a ride back to town, and sometimes a group of bandits will be hijacking a horse and carriage. Since you often can't tell what's going on until you ride up to them, you'll have times where three guys suddenly turn and start shooting you in the face, which is hard to recover from.

Mounted combat is a little less predictable. In addition to riding your horse, you'll have missions where you're driving a cart or a carriage, or riding on a train, and have to defend against hijackers. Since you don't have cover, it's a bit more hectic trying to shoot down everybody before you take lethal damage, and thus a bit more fun. Health and damage isn't tracked explicitly by the UI; instead, as you get shot, your screen starts to turn increasingly red and bloody. If you can avoid fire for a few seconds, the red will recede, and you'll heal back up. (Another gameplay conceit, since it's unlikely outlaws in the old west could shake off a few bullet wounds by hiding behind a rock for a few heartbeats.)

The guns themselves are mostly unremarkable. You get the standard pistols, rifles, and shotguns, which behave similarly with slight variations. You can punch people, which gets old very quickly, and use a knife. More interesting is the lasso, which you can use to subdue wild animals and people alike. Once you've caught a person, you can hogtie them and carry them around, or throw them on your horse. Subduing somebody without killing them is usually rewarded. Or, if you're feeling like a jerk, you can drag the person behind you on your horse. Or toss them on the train tracks like a true olde tyme villain. Lawmen tend to frown on that, though.

Infrequently, you'll get other toys to play with, but once the novelty wears off, they aren't much use. You can't use the dynamite to collapse walls or knock a train off the tracks. The throwing knives don't let you turn into the dude from Thief. The regular guns, on the other hand, have some fun uses. If you're squaring off with somebody, you can shoot the gun out of their hand. Pulling this off in duels impresses the spectators and boosts your fame. You also have an ability called Dead Eye, which you can activate to slow time to a crawl and paint a red X on multiple targets. When you pull the trigger, you shoot each X extremely quickly. It's an odd ability for a historical shooter. I can only suppose it's intended to give a quick-draw feel, but you can literally kill half a dozen targets in the time it takes them to draw their weapons. It seems excessive, especially when combat is already stacked in your favor.

The main story is divided up into missions you go on with particular NPCs. The individual missions themselves are fairly short, perhaps 15 minutes on average, part of which is travel time. When the Marshall wants your help taking down a gang, you actually get on your horse and ride to their hideout. It's a few minutes where you aren't doing anything, but the characters keep up a running dialogue during that time. You get details about the mission, information about Marston's past, and background about the other characters all while watching the pretty scenery, so it's not as boring as it may sound.

The main characters are well-written, and the voice acting is excellent. Marston's character is built as much from the tone of his voice as by his actions, and some of the supporting cast is extremely good at investing a great deal of emotion into a few short lines. Listening to the Marshall express skepticism over the government's motives, or hearing the snake-oil salesman work himself up to a new pitch almost makes you forget it's a video game. The animation work on the cut scenes is absolutely top-notch as well. The way shots are framed, the way the characters move, and in particular the way background characters and animals move seem incredibly natural and realistic — some of the best I've seen in any game.

By contrast, most of the other NPCs in the world might as well be fenceposts for all the conversation options they offer. They'll nod a greeting at you, swear at you if you shoot at them, and pick randomly from a selection of common phrases, but you can't meaningfully interact with the vast majority of them. Unless you want to kill them. The roads are flush with travelers, saloons are packed, and even the churches have a few visitors, but they're essentially just scenery. Add to that the uniformity of the parts of towns you interact with (i.e. every town has a general store, and they're all pretty much the same; ditto poker game, gunsmith, train station), and the immersion brought on by the fantastic visuals starts to fade.

Red Dead Redemption has a lot going for it. In addition to the story, there is great breadth of gameplay — there are a lot of different things you can go and do to pass the time, even if none of them are particularly deep in themselves. The gameplay elements also come together in strange and satisfying ways — you can scare somebody into starting a bar fight and then watch them get taken down by a deputy, or pull somebody off their horse, then ride over and knock off a poker game to get money to pay your bounty.

The story and characters are engaging, and if you're looking for a game where the fighting and strategy don't get in the way of a great old west adventure, then this is right up your alley. If you want complex combat mechanics, gameplay that's balanced and challenging, or more shooting and less storytelling, then you'll probably want to pass. All in all, Rockstar should be extremely proud of the world they created. With this game they've nicely demonstrated the viability of a western setting for this type of game.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

GTH (5, Funny)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337176)

I thought they were going to call this Grand Theft Horse?

Re:GTH (4, Funny)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337266)

Grand Theft Equine sounds better...

Re:GTH (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337792)

Next thing you know Volition will make their own horse game. Paint's Row?

Re:GTH (3, Funny)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 4 years ago | (#32338862)

I vote for "Grand Theft Pony".

Re:GTH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32339848)

I don't care what you call it as long as I can find some Native Americans in need of blankets ;)

Re:GTH (1)

hansede (1521535) | more than 4 years ago | (#32339440)

Grand Theft Lasso

Re:GTH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32337420)

Grand Theft Oughta

Re:GTH (1)

Degro (989442) | more than 4 years ago | (#32339020)

While funny, you'd likely use the same horse, maybe upgrading once or twice, throughout the entire game.

Re:GTH (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32339612)

Grand Larceny Horse?

All I want to know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32340966)

Can I shoot a horse in the cocks?

Can I delve into the game?

At what point does the game begin?

If all these questions are answered satisfactorially, I may buy it tomorrow during my lunch hour.

Wow, thanks for sharing. (-1, Troll)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337196)

Despite the massive advertising campaign, I'd never heard of this game, and even if I had, I've have no idea where to go to find the massive number of reviews, pastiches and commentaries that have been readily available just about everywhere in the intartubes since last week.

Slashdot: warming up yesterdays stale news, tomorrow.

Re:Wow, thanks for sharing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32337324)

Hey, at least give them some credit. It took some convincing for Slashdot to take the bri...incentive to publish this shamelessly paid-for review.

Re:Wow, thanks for sharing. (1)

SCPRedMage (838040) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337980)

I would think that a bri... paid-for review would score a little higher than a 7/10...

Re:Wow, thanks for sharing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32340146)

shamelessly paid-for review.

Proof or you're lying.

Re:Wow, thanks for sharing. (2, Insightful)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337438)

Slashdot is not a professional video game review site, they probably accept a handful of games from publishers and review them when they get around to it (ie. playing in their own free time). It's their responsibility after receiving a review copy to, you know, actually review it, and just because it's not a zero day review doesn't mean it's stale. The game is just a week old.

Re:Wow, thanks for sharing. (2, Informative)

mattdm (1931) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337542)

It's a review, not a news item. Your complaint seems off-base.

Re:Wow, thanks for sharing. (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337834)

No complaint against Slashdot is off-base.

obligatory (1)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32338568)

All your base are belong to us.

Re:Wow, thanks for sharing. (1)

anomnomnomymous (1321267) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337578)

To their credit: It's one of the first reviews I see who doesn't give it an automatic 9/10. I feel this is warranted (disclaimer: I haven't played it yet), as it seems to be yet another rehash, albeit in another setting, of the Grand Theft Auto series.

Whereas I really enjoyed the GTA-games, most of my fun was to be had in the sandbox itself. I played GTA IV for about 50%, then got very bored with it: The missions in the end got really boring, as they were all small variations on the 'go to A, kill/smash X, go back to B for your reward'-gamemechanic.

This game seems to have much less going for it with regards to the sandbox (if not only because the scenery is much more empty)... But nevertheless, I will prolly buy it (secondhand), as it's still a lot better than most of the games out there.

The multiplayer (roaming mode) looks kinda cool though.

Coming back to my initial point: I think it's refreshing to see them give a 7/10, as even though the game is quite good as all the other crap that is out there, it doesn't warrant an automatic 9/10 just because it's Rockstar.

Re:Wow, thanks for sharing. (1)

AugstWest (79042) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337832)

There isn't a lot of mention in this review of sandbox activities, but there actually are a hell of a lot of them.

I don't think I've ever finished a GTA game, but I've put well over 50-60 hours into each of them. I don't play them for the missions, I find missions mostly boring, but a pleasant diversion from the sandbox on occasion. Kind of the opposite of what's expected by the developer, I guess.

But there *are* a lot of non-mission sandbox things to do in this one. Hunting and skinning for extra cash is kinda fun, and readily abundant, there are random people all over the place that need help/saving/shooting...

Re:Wow, thanks for sharing. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32339004)

Whereas I really enjoyed the GTA-games, most of my fun was to be had in the sandbox itself. I played GTA IV for about 50%, then got very bored with it: The missions in the end got really boring, as they were all small variations on the 'go to A, kill/smash X, go back to B for your reward'-gamemechanic.

I was exactly the same. If you haven't tried Saints Row 2, I recommend it. It's got a lot more stuff to do outside of the missions. I didn't buy the first one because the best thing people seemed to say about it was "wow, it has swearing, AWESOME!". This confused me as GTA also has swearing, and it was never really a deciding factor in how good the game is.

Anyway, I thought SR2 would just be a cheap rip-off of GTA - it's not. It certainly copies a lot of the game, but it then builds on it and makes it its own game. It is much more reminiscent of the GTA III games in graphics but I actually like that style better than trying to make everything ultra-real. It also has a much better sense of humour than GTA IV :)

You get to play the story in co-op multiplayer - something GTA has always been lacking, but which is actually awesome.

Re:Wow, thanks for sharing. (1)

mike260 (224212) | more than 4 years ago | (#32339936)

To their credit: It's one of the first reviews I see who doesn't give it an automatic 9/10.

What makes you think the 9/10s are 'automatic'? Is it so hard to believe it's a very good game and that at least some reviewers are offering an honest opinion?

I feel this is warranted (disclaimer: I haven't played it yet), as it seems to be yet another rehash, albeit in another setting, of the Grand Theft Auto series.

The two are both open-world games featuring guns, yes. Aside from that, how could RDR be any less like GTA? It has different mechanics, a different story, a different atmosphere and a different environment in a different century. Not to mention the game allows you to play it while retaining some basic morality, which is nice.

Anyway, it'd be a shame to miss out just because you're sick of (or never liked) GTA - it is really a very, very cool gaming experience.

I'll wait for a thought-out review (1)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337720)

Especially when we are talking about Rockstar here. Remember GTA IV? Remember how all the sites competed to give it 100's more rapidly than the other sites? And remember how it wasn't nearly as good as the reviews said?

I'd rather wait for a review that is more thought out and comprehensive than read reviews that just rush to gush.

Re:I'll wait for a thought-out review (1)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337914)

I actually thought this review as well-balanced. Things he liked, things he got bored of quickly, complaints about the environment, easy battles, etc. Along with things he enjoyed. I'm not sure what to expect from a review if it isn't the above.

Re:I'll wait for a thought-out review (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 4 years ago | (#32338272)

All I remember is playing it for about ten minutes and getting hella bored. I don't give a flying fuck about that russian guy and that manipulative skank they expect me to court.

The greatest thing about GTA 1 and 2 were that you could jump right into the game and start driving/killing/smashing things right away. It was instant gratification. GTA 3 was still some of that, in 3D - still quite a bit of fun. GTA IV didn't have that feel at all, I found it extremely tedious. Go here, watch this cutscene, idiot brother/uncle/half-landed-sack-of-shit-making-sure-you-get-the-stereotype tells you where to poop, you go there and poop, then go back to the garage/brothel/bananarepublic and have yourself another cutscene. It was like Final Fantasy 9 with cars.

Now if someone's really going to write a review of Red Dead Redemption, perhaps a nod to Call of Juarez might be in order ? When I read the write-up for RDR, I think of Juarez. Cowboys, sandbox, shitty combat mechanic, and a whole lotta barren land reminiscent of the march of doom from Halas to Freeport in EQ1.

Astonishing environment (4, Interesting)

rbanzai (596355) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337206)

I've been playing computer and console games as long as they've existed and the environment in RDR blew me away. Great set design and decoration, wonderful sound and lighting. As impressive as the density is of cityscapes like GTA 4 and Saints Row 2 convincing nature settings are extremely hard to pull off but RDR does it. Sun, dust, shade, scrub, elevation changes... it makes the attempt by games like Oblivion and Fallen Earth almost laughable.

I've spent the first hour just riding around and hunting, or looking for people to interact with.

Re:Astonishing environment (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32339070)

Just Cause 2 also has a really nice environment, I haven't played RDR yet though. I saw an ad for it at one point but I didn't realise it was an open world Rock Star game. Just finding that out alone makes me want to try it :)

Re:Astonishing environment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32340046)

It looks like something I'd buy, if it were available for PC.

Re:Astonishing environment (3, Informative)

justin12345 (846440) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340300)

I have to say I agree with the review. The art and sandbox activities are great -- the combat system, not so much. I love hunting, and roping wild horses. The beauty of the landscapes honestly made me want to go out west again this year for vacation (though I can barely stay on a horse at all).

As far as combat goes, I quickly got to the point that I wasn't even bothering to use the cover system, just doing the most tactically ridiculous thing possible, usually running (inappropriately on horseback where possible) into a crowd of enemies to see if I could survive dispatching them all, which usually I could. Not only do they make it extremely easy to do naturally (you can get shot about 5 times before needing to take cover for 5 seconds to heal), but you have medicine and Deadeye at your disposal, at which point you might as well be invincible.

Setting the combat to expert doesn't help, as it simply makes combat frustrating. Aiming in free mode is impossible as the cursor moves too slowly to react. Its like moving underwater.

Its funny that you mention Oblivion, as I find myself comparing this game to another Bethesda title: Fallout 3. The scenery is similar, as is some of the weaponry. Both blatantly recycle game engines from previous titles. The two games are somewhat opposite to one another as far as what they get right and what they get wrong. The art, animation, voice acting, and attention to detail go to RDR, probably because Rockstar has more money then god to throw at art. The controls and combat go to Fallout 3: I would very much like to be able to switch to first person in combat in RDR, and VATS is much better then Deadeye, especially with its slow motion cinematic kills. With RDR you don't really get the "feel" of the gun you are using like you do in Fallout 3. In Fallout 3, the 44 Magnum "feels" a lot different then the 10mm, even on "very easy" where they both do about the same damage. In RDR, it doesn't really matter what gun you use. Some are more powerful, but the game doesn't "fetishize" the weapons like Fallout 3 does. Speaking as someone who owns some of the weapons portrayed in RDR, they missed a huge opportunity there.

Fallout 3 also gets right that you need to pay attention to your character's overall well being. Part of being in the Southwest is that the environment itself will kill you. You need water, shelter, sleep, food, etc. So does your horse. In RDR you can ride for 5 days and nights having never slept or even gotten off your horse to no ill effect; In Fallout 3, by then you would have radiation poisoning, be addicted to a few drugs, and maybe have a few crippled limbs had you not maintained yourself.

Don't get me wrong, I love both games, but it would be great if Rockstar could steal a few pages from Bethesda's playbook, and Bethesda could spend a little more attention to graphics, physics, voice acting and all the little things that draw you into RDR but you have to just try to overlook in Fallout 3 or Oblivion.

Re:Astonishing environment (1)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340902)

Both blatantly recycle game engines from previous titles.

Not to disagree with your other points, but I don't understand this complaint in particular. "Recycling" a game engine is the entire point of creating a game engine. Quite frankly, it's a waste of money to rewrite an engine too often. Money otherwise spent re-inventing technology can be put into art and gameplay development.

Re:Astonishing environment (1)

justin12345 (846440) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341398)

Actually I didn't mean it as a criticism, just as a fact. I meant to say that neither company was introducing significant, new technology; something I would take into account when making a comparison between two games. By using the word blatant I meant "openly" not "unashamedly".

Re:Astonishing environment (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340368)

With the GTA games and now this under their belt, it looks to me like they could go for something space-based.

Like, oh, the Firefly/Serenity franchise. That would be awesome.

Re:Astonishing environment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341120)

I was similarly impressed! My mate bought it and I went to check it out on the weekend. The first time there was a big lightning storm we were both extremely impressed.. I remember thinking.. fug it i'll find somewhere dry to tie up the horse and hunker down with a fire"

Amazing game... (2)

Schnoogs (1087081) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337214)

been playing it for a week now. The word that I keep using to describe it is "authentic". It just looks and feels like an interactive western movie. I absolutely love doing nothing more than just riding my horse around the country. It has the polish we would expect after countless Grand Theft Auto games. Rockstar really has the formula down to a science. It's escapism at it's finest and the story is well written.

Re:Amazing game... (3, Interesting)

mike260 (224212) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340208)

Second. I find myself unwittingly slipping into serious role-playing all the time in this game. Small example from today's play:

I was riding through the desert at sundown when I came across an overturned wagon and an injured marshall who asked me to catch his two escaped prisoners. I quickly spotted them running off on foot and easily caught up to them, lassoed each one, hog-tied them, carried them back to the marshall on my horse and dumped them squirming on the ground in front of him. He gave me a nice thank-you and a few bucks to go with it. I was trotting off into the sunset with a satisfied feeling when two gunshots echoed from the road behind me. I stopped and thought about looking back, then an armadillo scurried across the road in front of me and I rode off.

The atmosphere the game generates is really something else.

Been wanting to play it, but... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337256)

...I recently had the misfortune of discovering a couple of older gems on the Nintendo DS. Etrian Odyssey, Summon Night: Twin Age, and a couple of others have been taking up nearly all of my gaming time lately :/

Re:Been wanting to play it, but... (1)

Theoboley (1226542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337552)

Kudos to you on summon night. I've got swordcraft story 1 & 2 for the gba.. i love them both

PLENTY of time logged into them

Re:Been wanting to play it, but... (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337620)

The one for the DS ("Twin Age") feels like a cross between Diablo and Seiken Densetsu 2. I don't generally dig games on the DS that are stylus-only, but it's good. The storyline at first glance follows a generic formula, but it's done so well that I don't even care...it got its hooks in me early!

Why not make it huge ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337346)

That immersion is broken a bit by how many people you end up running into. The towns and farms have an appropriate number of NPCs wandering about, but the number of bad guys you run into during your travels must outnumber the normal folks 10:1. As you ride around the wilderness on your horse, you frequently come across other travelers, or NPCs that need help (or want to kill you), and it makes the game world seem much more populated than it could ever be in reality. It's a gameplay conceit, and I can't really fault them for it; a game world with a truly appropriate number of people would either be infeasibly huge (think Daggerfall) or so barren that you have almost nothing to do.

why not just generic terrain thats dynamically created, and make an encounter system, and just make a huge, real world size map which will work with coordinates ? remember how fallout and fallout 2 handled it ? a huge, real life size map, with real life size travel speed, on which you could have encounters. you can generically create the encounter environment and the environment can be limited, therefore maintaining the memory and resource constraints. and this still would maintain the immersion. after all, in real life, you do not remember every bush you pass by while traveling a 1000 mile road, do you ? nor you even care.

Re:Why not make it huge ? (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337660)

I find travel maps in and of themselves to break the immersion in a game. They're necessary in many games, don't get me wrong, but I actually like traveling around by memory, where that bush really is a landmark I use. Fallout 1 & 2 were great, but I wouldn't hold up their random encounter system as the best approach. Personally, I'm a fan of the way the handled it in Fallout 3; the map is available, but if you want to play it with greater immersion, walking everywhere is feasible. They just collapsed the distances between locations and gave you an increased walking speed, so you can travel the map solely by foot, navigating by landmarks if you like.

The enemy to neutral NPC ratio is always going to be a problem in a world like that, but I prefer the inconsistency of the random encounter enemies to the inconsistency of a world with continuously changing geography. I can believe that people move around all the time, but unless you're in a really geologically or meteorologically unstable region, the landscape shouldn't constantly change.

Re:Why not make it huge ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340026)

immersion in fallout 3 ? you encounter some town, you walk 1000 meters, you encounter a whole bunch of super mutants with miniguns, who are enemies of the town you saw before. one would think that if they fired their miniguns from 1 km, they would obliterate the town they are the enemies of, but it doesnt happen that way, for some reason.

entire factions, technologies, resources are placed in some few km2 areas. THAT breaks the immersion.

in addition, had you been doing this thing in real life, you WOULD be actually using a map.

Re:Why not make it huge ? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337764)

Haven't played Daggerfall but I think its similar to how you described. The area available in the game is supposedly twice the size of Britain, most of which was generated randomly. The Wikipedia article says that it is still the largest amount of explorable terrain in any game to date. (May, 2010). Apparently, its also downloadable and runnable in Dosbox, I'm going to have to check it out. Anyways, the point I was trying to make:

For these kinds of games, you -NEED- a fast travel kind of mechanic. You can't expect your player to get wrapped up in the storyline if he spends an hour playing each day, but it takes him a week to progress the story. Whatever misconception you had that size was limitted by the computing resources available - that's not it. It's about feasable gameplay. At what point is it too much? Daggerfall has been considered too much. Apparently it got that reputation early on and it has stuck throughout time. Bethesda has taken some time to fine tune the size of things - you'll notice Oblivion and Fallout 3 are roughly the same size, and both of them feature real world exploration, and fast travel. You can't fast travel to a place without exploring your way there first. This was an excellent way to balance the need for real-time traveling and fast travelling, which balance both immersion aspects of immersion into the world and immersion into the storyline.

I also haven't played Red Dead Redemption, but if they follow the same philosophy, I think I'll give it a try. If it's closer to GTA or Red Faction, I think I'll enjoy it, but not as much. That kind of travel, where the idea generally boils down to getting from A to B as fast as possible, doesn't do much for me. I always find myself repeating the same steps: Steal a vehicle, drive down highway, pull into the safe house. No matter what I do, be it the story, a side mission, or just exploring, it always ends like that.

Now - question is, has anybody I know played through it enough to lend it to me...

Re:Why not make it huge ? (1)

Like2Byte (542992) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337930)

and this still would maintain the immersion. after all, in real life, you do not remember every bush you pass by while traveling a 1000 mile road, do you ? nor you even care.

Ah, yes, I practically do. I travel a lot. A lot. So much so that I live, full time, in an RV. Being able to recognize your surroundings is a basic human trait so one can "orient" their inner mental image of their own personal map so they know where they are in relation to everything else.

Some objects, bushes included, can be center to any one particular tribes' (American, European, Asian, etc...) geography. Some peoples use more permanent objects like statues or mountains to orient themselves. But what if the jungle is so thick that you can not see these particular markers. Therefore, trees and bushes begin to take on more prominence. Also, as a mountain biker, I am constantly being exposed to new areas in the middle of the woods and routinely find myself in areas I've never been to before. I've developed a sense about new areas so I can track whether I've been to a particular section of trail before. Cruising at about 6mph to 15mph, being able to quickly inventory or locate trail-markers (whether someone else placed it or I locate my own) has become a very useful skill of mine.

So, yes, people do care. Moving this discussion to the virtual world, I also find being able to recognize areas a useful skill. Getting lost in a game world because of lazy programmers or dynamically created content such as trees not being where I expect them to be is really annoying.

Grass? Fine. Dynamically create grass. It usually can not be used as a marker unless there is a section of grass in, say, some location where it sticks out as a section of grass.

If "it" sticks out due to the rest of its surrounding then it generally can be used as a marker and should be permanently-located in the game. Put larger items in some location and leave them there.

Re:Why not make it huge ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340050)

Some objects, bushes included,

youre talking about TYPES of bushes. whereas im talking about a SINGLE, PARTICULAR bush.

Bah (4, Informative)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337352)

Let me know when it comes out on PC, till then, bah.

Re:Bah (4, Insightful)

Narishma (822073) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337470)

If it's anything like their previous game, it'll come out on PC in 6 months and require a 4 or 6 core CPU to run correctly. They'll probably also want you to subscribe to 2 or 3 different services that you will have to run before you can start the game.

Re:Bah (2, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337540)

Yeah, Rockstar can go fuck themselves when it comes to PC ports, which are usually of a shitty quality to top their insane DRM. Actually, given that I do not have a console and will not get one, they can go fuck themselves completely.

Re:Bah (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337662)

Their port of Vice City was pretty sweet, actually. Then again, that was, as The Dark Crystal put it, another world and another time.

Re:Bah (1)

Demonantis (1340557) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337538)

Even then it might be a lame port where the controls are horrible.

Re:Bah (4, Informative)

kitserve (1607129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337664)

Not that the two games are in any way on the same level of polish, but if you're wanting some multiplayer cowboy fps fun on the PC, I suggest checking out Smokin' Guns [smokin-guns.net] . It's a free game based on the Quake 3 engine, been around for a few years now, it's showing its age but I've had a fair few entertaining evenings playing it with my gaming buddies.

Re:Bah (1)

SethJohnson (112166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340048)



I'm with you. I prefer PC shooters. But don't get your hopes up. Console shooter ports are tied to a poor mapping of the controls from the original platform. All kinds of annoying menu systems and such, too.

Five Finger Fillet (1)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337360)

"Five Finger Fillet," a game where you tap buttons in a certain order and rhythm while Marston correspondingly drives a knife into the table around his splayed fingers.

Anyone else remember doing that in the bar in Full Throttle, except you had to click between the fingers very quickly?

Re:Five Finger Fillet (2, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337486)

I most definately do. I also remember clicking on different part of the hand just to see how bloody and scarred I could make it.

Rockstar rot. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32337398)

Another game infected with the rockstar's latest bloat.

They used to be the must have gotta buy it asap game devs...

Now they produce mostly sorta ok pretty good games. but the bloat and problems makes them not worth anything but bargain bin prices.

That is when they bother to produce a pc version at all. You know... those crappy ass console ports they call the pc version.

Uh hello? Mad Dog McCree (1)

zippo01 (688802) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337404)

I still have and play the first any only awesome western game. Mad Dog McCree. With its overly pixelled video and awesome kill shots. This new came can only hope to come close it.

Re:Uh hello? Mad Dog McCree (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337480)

I still have and play the first any only awesome western game. Mad Dog McCree. With its overly pixelled video and awesome kill shots. This new came can only hope to come close it.

Uh....Outlaws? [wikipedia.org] Hello?

Re:Uh hello? Mad Dog McCree (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340002)

Yes, this! Outlaws was the best western themed shooter made to this day. Great game, great voice acting, great story, and kick ass music. Why is it so hard to make a game like this now and why didn't Lucasarts ever make a sequel? I fired up my old copy a couple years back and had a blast playing it even at 10 years old.

Re:Uh hello? Mad Dog McCree (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340152)

YES! Outlaws was terrific in its day, and the soundtrack is a classic that still sets the standard. I've actually popped the game CD in an audio player just to have a moment listening to the soundtrack for its own sake. Great stuff.

Re:Uh hello? Mad Dog McCree (2, Insightful)

mattack2 (1165421) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340228)

...or Law of the West? It's at least earlier than the one you mention, though obviously debatable how 'awesome' it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_West [wikipedia.org]

Bugs and wives (5, Funny)

kyz (225372) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337416)

As a bonus, if you get the game now, you can also check out some of the hilarious bugs in the game, like the amazing donkey-lady [youtube.com] or the woman flapping her wings [youtube.com] .

I knew I was going to get something full of bugs when the Rockstar Spouse [gamasutra.com] told us about the mismanagement at Rockstar San Diego - burned out coders and testers working 6-7 days a week don't notice things like women with the face of a donkey, or dogs that shoot guns, or flying people.

Re:Bugs and wives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32337658)

Some more for the list that I encountered on my playthrough:
- character voice audio cutting out, requiring a restart
- Luisa's brother's stagecoach and horses getting stuck in the ground
- horses vibrating and tromping noisily in place
- raccoons vaporizing when shot (not as much fun as it sounds when you're working on the hunting challenge)
- various rocks and props hovering over the ground

Re:Bugs and wives (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32338138)

Some more for the list that I encountered on my playthrough:
- raccoons vaporizing when shot (not as much fun as it sounds when you're working on the hunting challenge)

Not actually a bug, try hunting them with a less powerful gun. A lot of the smaller critters will splatter if you use a big gun on them. Which is why I spent 15 minutes last night chasing rabbits with a sawed-off.

Re:Bugs and wives (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 4 years ago | (#32338536)

I was thinking of getting this game this week - and after seeing that donkey bug, now I KNOW I want to get it. That's one of the best. bugs. ever.

Re:Bugs and wives (4, Funny)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 4 years ago | (#32339980)

dogs that shoot guns

So the saloon door swings open, the piano player stops, and a dog with a bandage on one foot and packin' a six-shooter limps in.

He heads up to the bar, tosses a coin to the bartender, and laps up a glass of whiskey.

Then he turns around, looks out at the folks in the saloon, and growls, "I'm lookin' fer the man who shot my paw."

Re:Bugs and wives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341036)

am I the first one that thought of some show in a Mexico border town when "amazing donkey-lady" was strung together like that. Don't want to even see the wing flapping part...

Re:Bugs and wives (1)

Call Me Black Cloud (616282) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341346)

Don't forget about cougar man [youtube.com] .

Appropiate (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337452)

Don't you think the western is much more appropiate to the life you'll probably live in a Grand Theft Whatever game?

After all, in a modern world it's quite a stretch to imagine you can enter a city, kill twenty people, steal a car, go away and never be found. However, in the far west it's just something that could happen and that they were specifically aware about.

I hope it comes to the PC so I can see how well they implemented the possibility of killing an entire city and burning down everything until only a long stain of blood and ashes remains.

Otherwise I'll be forced to carry on with my plan to conque... Some personal project I'm not ready to talk about.

Yet.

Re:Appropiate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32340322)

"I hope it comes to the PC so I can see how well they implemented the possibility of killing an entire city and burning down everything until only a long stain of blood and ashes remains."

Like a videogame version of High Plains Drifter [wikipedia.org] ?

You were talking about a videogame, right?

Re:Appropiate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32341112)

I was thinking more of the town of Tull [wikipedia.org] .

I like it (1)

pdp1144 (599396) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337478)

Got this day opening day. Was difficult to get; went to 4 places and they were sold out. Number 5 hit the jack pot. Looking forward to spending long hours playing this like I did with GTA-IV. I can't say enough about the on-line play. R* did good work on history and a lot of the slang from the 1900's. A few of the structured on line games are a bit confusing. Random interactions with other players and their posy's is true to the lawlessness that you would run into with people with weapons and questionable ethics.

Re:I like it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32337652)

Posse'?

Re:I like it (1)

pdp1144 (599396) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340598)

sorry the word might be spelled "possy".

I'm enjoying it quite a bit more than the reviewer (3, Interesting)

Itchyeyes (908311) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337560)

I've been playing this game pretty much non-stop since last week, and loving every minute of it. I've never been a fan of the GTA games, but despite RDR playing almost identically it appeals to me significantly more.

Perhaps it's just the atmosphere, but it feels much more like an RPG than a shooter or action game. It's certainly every bit as much of an RPG as Mass Effect 2 was. I'd definitely recommend it to anyone looking for something good to play.

Conceit (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337642)

"It's a gameplay conceit" ...

No, it's a compromise.

Re:Conceit (1)

DarkOx (621550) | more than 4 years ago | (#32338140)

Non its a conceit because they game would be no fun otherwise. The reality is you could very well spend a day or more riding to the town and not see more than one or two other people possibly traveling in the other direction; you might spend a day not seeing anyone at all. That does not sound like very fun video game to me.

Re:Conceit (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32338450)

Go look up 'conceit' in the dictionary and them come back and tell us what word you thought you were using.

Re:Conceit (1)

merigold77 (156634) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341304)

Probably using the definition of conceit where it means a far fetched idea or metaphor.

2.something that is conceived in the mind; a thought; idea: He jotted down the conceits of his idle hours. ...
5.an elaborate, fanciful metaphor, esp. of a strained or far-fetched nature.

taken from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conceit [reference.com]

Makes perfect sense to me; the idea that you meet a lot of people is far fetched, but makes the game play work, so you use your imagination to pretend it isn't unrealistic...

This game is amazing (4, Interesting)

DragonTHC (208439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337654)

truly a great game. I can't stop playing it.

If only rockstart would do a pirate game like this now.

That would be great!

Re:This game is amazing (1)

lilo_booter (649045) | more than 4 years ago | (#32338812)

I'm sure there are some people working on that pirate version right now...

Re:This game is amazing (1)

PincushionMan (1312913) | more than 4 years ago | (#32339916)

I dunno. Most cultures frown on Grand Theft Boat.

First impression (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32337694)

Finally popped this game in after a few days (had impulse bought it at HMV because EB gave me attitude for having not pre-ordered when I laughed at the idea of a game being sold out).

After having to patch the PS3 a few times and the game probably too and install it or something, I got in and it searched for DLC and said I had to go to the PS Store to get DLC. Click, YOU MUST PATCH. Exit game, patch, retry. NO DLC AVAIALBLE.

Start game, giant red shit-your-pants warning screen saying I have no saved game yet, would I like to create one? Well, yes!

Loading screen... goes on... and on... with no loading indicator...

Finally a cutscene with pretty asstastic graphics. Checked the box - game doesn't support 1080p. Poor developers being stuck on ancient hardware :( I can tell the scenes are trying to look pretty and if I sort of squint and blur everything it's somewhat epic.

After my dude does his stupid shit in the intro and I bear another super long loading screen, I practice aiming (FF 12 had non-configurable reversed x-axis and that screwed me up but I wanted to fix myself). So I'm circle strafing around some bottle with my gun out, and I bump into some lady and she runs screaming and a dude runs up and shoots me.

I reload and run up and shoot him and the game ends instantly because I broke the law :(

After comically shooting a bunch of people and reloading, I finally proceeded onto the horse back combat intro and insta-snap-auto-aim killed various coyotes and rabbits.

Then I had to go!

LOVE this game... (3, Interesting)

AdamTrace (255409) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337730)

I've been playing computer games for about 30 years now, and RDR has grabbed me like few other games before it. Very few games would compel me to take time out of my day to write a post about it.

I don't like or dislike Western movies/games any more than the next guy, but they really nailed the atmosphere and setting. The game is beautiful. I've stopped to admire the vistas by starlight, and watched the sunrise from the porch of the general store while I waited for it to open. Riding through the wilderness in a thunderstorm, I was struck at just how wet and miserable everything looked. At atmosphere is great.

The writing and voice acting in the game is superb. Seriously, top notch. The writing is especially smart and poignant, and very engaging.

I really enjoyed both GTA:SA and GTA IV. I'm a big fan of the open world, where you can choose to follow the story line missions, or do side missions, or simply go out and explore. RDR has this in spades. It's so fun to load up your game and decide "what do I want to do today?" You always have a list of jobs to do, and they are all optional, so you can choose your own adventure. Hunting animals for skins (to sell for money), playing poker and other mini games, deciphering and following treasure maps, getting in shootouts with bandits, to say nothing of advancing the storyline by doing the set missions.

I haven't set foot in multiplayer yet, but I hear that is a lot of fun as well. I feel like I could go on and on. I'm completely smitten by this game.

A brief caveat is that there are some bugs. I've only seen one or two myself, but lots of people are reporting lots of issues.

If you've watched or read any reviews and the game sounds at all interesting, I can't recommend it enough.

Adman

Re:LOVE this game... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32338128)

RDR has this in spades.

RDR is cheatin'! Kill th' bastard!

PC, Normal and Casual. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32337738)

"There are three settings for aiming behavior: on Expert, your aim is entirely manual; on Normal, the dot will lock onto an enemy near the center of your screen, and track it for a few seconds; on Casual, it will lock onto whichever enemy is closest to the center of your screen, track them for a much longer time, and turn red when you've got a shot lined up. If you're on Normal or Casual, you'll be able to kill things very, very easily."

If you think is fun how "Expert" is the normal mode of aim on a PC game, you are like me.

Enemy AI as smart as Slashdot reviewer (0, Troll)

teshuvah (831969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337770)

"The enemy AI isn't very isn't very smart"

LOL, how appropriate.

PC version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32337960)

Anyone know if a PC release is planned? I don't own any type of console (I hate console controllers; all of them).

Great Setting (1)

Blackeagle_Falcon (784253) | more than 4 years ago | (#32337978)

As someone who grew up in the southwest and spent a lot of my childhood hiking and camping, the best part about this game was the setting. The developers obviously made a huge effort to make each area of the game's world realistic. Each region has it's own flora, fauna, and geology, all drawn from real life. I can match every region up to part of Arizona, Utah or Colorado that looks just like it. Outstanding work!

niggA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32338502)

But gno3 they're [goat.cx]

Dead Eye (5, Informative)

Tobor the Eighth Man (13061) | more than 4 years ago | (#32338658)

I like how the review complains about Dead Eye, and notes that being able to shoot a bunch of people really quickly with a pistol is an "odd ability for a historical shooter." Have you ever even SEEN a Western? The lone man fanning the hammer on his pistol and dropping four people in moments is pretty standard fare in any of the spaghetti/Eastwood westerns.

Re:Dead Eye (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32339926)

I like how the review complains about Dead Eye, and notes that being able to shoot a bunch of people really quickly with a pistol is an "odd ability for a historical shooter." Have you ever even SEEN a Western? The lone man fanning the hammer on his pistol and dropping four people in moments is pretty standard fare in any of the spaghetti/Eastwood westerns.

Well the review did use the phrase "historical shooter", not "western film shooter".:p

The "problem" seems to be one of internal consistency. Beyond the damage system, which was purely a mechanic to make the game playable since a more accurate damage system would be far less fun for most players, it seems the developers tried to limit what your character can only do (more or less) what a physically fit and well coordinated adult human could do. Now I have seen real-life demonstrations by people who have practiced their quick-draw skills to the point where they can both draw and shoot accurately in under one second. Yet they usually only manage one shot in that time-frame, especially if they are using a period-appropriate revolver (due to most lever-actions moving slower than is possible with a modern semi-automatic pistol). The "Dead Eye" ability as described is utterly unrealistic and while not something that should totally ruin the gaming experience; it is an egregious departure in a game that otherwise seems to have only mild departures from reality.

Re:Dead Eye (4, Insightful)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340488)

There are many, many shooters who can shoot multiple times in a second, from a holstered gun. Hell, there's something called "cowboy action shooting" which almost specializes in such feats. I've seen videos of people emptying a revolver in under 2 seconds - accurately and on target.

Likewise, there are people who can accurately hit, at 100 yards, a moving target or a small fist-sized target. Some have even learned to do this while moving (usually under their own power).

Those Western movies weren't all that far off the mark in what was possible. It happened a couple times in the Old West, probably. And similar feats are regularly accomplished against targets which don't shoot back.

Hell, I remember as a kid walking in the woods with my grandfather. He had his Colt Woodsman on his hip. I was walking behind him and slightly to the side. Mid-step he drew the pistol and shot a rattlesnake directly in his path - twice. One of the shots hit in the head, the other through the body directly below it. Such shooting ability might be uncommon, but it is by no means unheard of.

Cowboy (1)

Beer_Smurf (700116) | more than 4 years ago | (#32338988)

I prefer to play cowboy with real guns.
http://www.sassnet.com/ [sassnet.com]

GUN for PS2 was the first (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32339602)

this is nothing, GUN was the first Open ended Western shooter that is like GTA. Copy cats. People soon forget these things.

Re:GUN for PS2 was the first (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340568)

Yeah... how dare the makers of GTA make a "GTA + Western" game, when someone else made that already!

I don't know Gun, but I search and this is the last paragraph from a review:

"Despite a great presentation that'll likely give a very positive first impression, Gun ultimately offers too little content for it to be a truly satisfying game. Most all of the right ingredients are here in some quantity. But the hastily delivered storyline (which, fittingly, concludes with an incredibly abrupt ending) and the lack of any real depth to the gameworld make Gun much better suited for some quick, fleeting thrills instead of for the long haul."

Doesn't sound all that hot to me, and certainly not open ended.

Uh, yeah? (2, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32339838)

It's a gameplay conceit, and I can't really fault them for it.

Well, yeah, what with it being a game and all.

been playing since 5/22 (1)

forgottenusername (1495209) | more than 4 years ago | (#32339914)

It's GTA4 in Teh West.

Pros:

- Really beautiful scenery
- Hilarious dialog. "I never heard so much shit come out of one mouth".
- You can be as good or evil as you like which somewhat changes the game
- It's the old west. C'mon.
- Bullet Time.. oh I mean 'Dead Eye' is kinda entertaining, though I almost never use it.
- You can shoot and skin your own horse. lulz?

Cons:

- Completely unrealistic physics. You can run full force into another horse or wagon and everyone's just fine.
- As mentioned in the review, the sheer number of random NPC density and badguys is unrealistic and gets really repetitive. Lots of issues like that.. like literally hundreds of horses randomly running around with no riders you can just hop on. Horse theft was a hanging crime 'back in the day'.
- I don't like the horse control. Spamming X (ps3) forever is tiresome and wears out the thumb. Some of the races are lame. Repetitive challenges with no skill involved, just button mashing, and AI that cheats^Wadjusts if you get too far ahead
- Mob AI is lulz. I have yet to be in a challenging gun battle :(
- The travel time is effing ridiculous. Sure, it's pretty terrain, but who wants to spend 5min travelling for a 15m mission.. every..single..time. Ugh.

That's all I got for now. If I had to describe the game, I'd call it a "hot mess". Compelling, but I'm holding final judgement until I get through the (trite and banal) storyline. It's a shame that the world designers have been let down by gameplay elements.

Rating: 7/10

LucasArts' Outlaws. (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340374)

How is this game compared to old Outlaws [wikipedia.org] game for PC/DOS?

They didn't even market it very well (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32340398)

I grabbed the free "classic rockstar downloads" from rockstar.com (GTA I and II, in particular) some time ago for my PC. Since then they have sent me weekly updates on the progress of red dead revolver / red dead redemption as they progressed along. Yet in all of that advertising they never seemed to care that I ended up on their lists after downloading PC games, and they were singing the praises of games that are at this moment not slated to ever see a PC release.

Oblivion Sequel? (1)

Garrett Fox (970174) | more than 4 years ago | (#32341396)

So it's basically "The Elder Scrolls: Texas"?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?