Red Dead Redemption - PS3, 360

  • Thread starter Thread starter GTjazzabrandy
  • 499 comments
  • 32,481 views
Definitely. For around $15 there's heaps of content.
Well, it's top of my list of games that have caught my attention. Need for Speed Most Wanted has no personality of its own. Max Payne 3 seems a little too bloody and violent in places (yes, BioShock Infinite is absolutely brutal at times, but it's handled as a function of the story and isn't gratuitous). And L.A. Noire is apparently quite repetitive.
 
FahrerGott
Just put it in the console the other day (After watching Django)

Sounds like exactly what I did :lol:
The dentist in the movie is eerily similar to the guy with the horse and cart you meet near the start. And he is a dentist too if I remember correctly?
And about the map, it sometimes feels a bit empty, but it is the wild west so it fits I think. And if you're lost, there always hunting to do
 
I just saw this thread and realized something. I bought rdr new when it came out. Never played it. Ended up trading it in for another game. Then, I had a group of friends playing it, so I bought it again used. Played some online stuff for about a hour and loved it. Then I got hooked on gears of war 3 and traded rdr in towards the gears 3 le console. I just bought my ps3 in February, looking for games to buy, I bought ; gt5, grid, skyrim, and you guessed it. Rdr. Maybe I need to play it since I've basically put $120 in it and haven't played it past the first 1-2 missions.
 
Haha. Watch Django Unchained or Once upon a time in the west, A few dollars more etc then you'll want to play it.
Once you get past the first few tutorial and cow rustling missions it gets going.
 
prisonermonkeys
Pardon me for reviving this thread, but I have a few questions after I saw this game on sale today.

I'm looking for something that will keep me engrossed for a while, with plenty of stuff to do. As much as I enjoyed Tomb Raider and BioShock Infinite, they're really quite linear and don't offer much in the way of replay value. Is Red Dead Redemption the kind of game that you can keep coming back to? For the record, I'm not interested in playing online, so how much content is there in the single-player campaign?

Secondly, I've heard a few complaints that the world of the game can be quite boring, and that althought it's large, there are some sections that are not sparsely-populated. Are these complaints justified? And how big is the world in comparison to, say Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas?

one of the greatest games ever made, From the story to the game mechanics everything is perfect. To the argument that its quite empty and unpopulated? What do people expect? A sprawling neon metropolis? Its the wild west, even though there are some large open expanses it has plenty of built up settlements aswell especially with the main city Blackwater. All You have to ask yourself is do you like open world games, if the answer is yes you should get it. Being a wild west fan is irrelevant as you will become one by the end anyway. :)

As others in this thread have said though, Make sure you get past the first few farming/tutorial missions first before forming any strong opinion on it.
 
I found the game to be quite enjoyable however sometimes traveling from town to town on your horse did become quite boring.
 
A great game well worth playing if you like cowboys,action and any GTA style game.
Plenty of content if you take your time it took me about 50 hours to get 100%,one of my favourites.
 
Finished RDR a few months ago but I will give some quick thoughts anyway. I really liked the characters and narrative in the game (Irish was very well done in particular) and just the style and atmosphere were spot on imo. Shooting felt great, loved hunting and experiencing what the wild west may have felt like. Also, entering Mexico was one of the great moments of gaming this gen for me.

It's not among my favourite games though, for a few reasons. Firstly, as others have said, fast travelling is quite arduous and traveling everywhere on horse takes ages and can get boring even with the random encounters. Secondly, I thought the middle section of the game is bogged down with some average missions. Entering Mexico was awesome but I found it a little hard to get invested in the game at some points in that section.

The game is very good but held back from greatness by some repetitive gameplay and average missions around the middle of the story.
 
Secondly, I've heard a few complaints that the world of the game can be quite boring, and that althought it's large, there are some sections that are not sparsely-populated. Are these complaints justified? And how big is the world in comparison to, say Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas?

Echoing what others have said. Gameplay-wise, it's very much GTA in the wild west, but that's no bad thing IMO. As with all Rockstar games, the story is great and the atmosphere is spot on. There's plenty of typical RS humor in there too. Again, as with all Rockstar/GTA games (and all games in general to be fair) some of the missions can be repetitive, but if you intersperse the main story missions with side missions, there's plenty to keep you interested. The landscape is sparse in the most part, but what do you expect in the wild west? Even then, those parts don't feel like large swathes of San Andreas where there's very little to do, with the constant threat of being attacked by wild animals or bandits you'll constantly be looking over your shoulder.

What it boils down to is, if you like GTA, you'll love this. The DLC is worth while too 👍
 
Is Red Dead Redemption the kind of game that you can keep coming back to?

Absolutely, yes.

For the record, I'm not interested in playing online, so how much content is there in the single-player campaign?

The single player story is huge. Even if you remove all of the side missions, hunting, challenges and exploring, the main storyline itself is massive. Depending on how often you play, it can still take a lengthy amount of time to finish, which in my opinion, is great. A long single player campaign is what I look for in a game.

If you put everything else that I mentioned above back into the game, it's even better. There's so many different things to keep you moving and that'll make you want to come back. I didn't ever find myself becoming bored because every character you encounter is new. Each have their own particulars.

Secondly, I've heard a few complaints that the world of the game can be quite boring, and that althought it's large, there are some sections that are not sparsely-populated. Are these complaints justified?

Yes and No.

Many parts, if not most of the landscape are very vast and unoccupied. I didn't find this an issue. If you're looking for people, the towns are full of them most days. Some days you may go to a town and it could be deserted. It all changes during the day/night & weather transitions.

The world is far from boring though. The scenary is beautiful, especially when you venture into the Northern Region of the game. A combination of both snowy forrests and mass expanse of prairie. Don't let the view full you, however, there's always wild, hungry animals on the loose that'll attack you totally unaware. Those damn Cougars. :ouch:

It really is a wondeful experience and I still love spending time riding out in the wilderness, with only a rifle and basic gear to help me survive. When you're playing it, and you forget about trying to compare it to other games, it's some of the most enjoyable time you'll spend on a game. It's totally stressless.

What a soundtrack too! 👍
 
Also keep in mind that if you go into it expecting just GTA in the wild west you'll be disappointed. The game is much more directly story-driven and extremely atmospheric compared to any GTA game (and, honestly, notably more linear too).


You can just take your horse out into the woods on a night just to look around to take everything in. It's a beautiful game in that situation, and it more than makes up for the rather weak structure it has.
 
Well, we'll see how we go, but it might be a while before I get around to it. The stars have aligned quite nicely in the past few days, giving me an opportunity to I can't say no to, but it's going to take some time to get everything organised, so any plans for future gaming are going to have to be suspended for the time being.
 
I'm not sure I understand why people say travelling in RDR is boring because you can fast travel on a stagecoach or camp,like taxis in GTAIV.
If you like GTA/adventure/action/drama/fun you won't be disappointed.;)
 
Red Dead Redemption is one of the best games I have ever played. I played it prior to GTA 4. I would say they are both equally great. I can't believe it took me so long to get into both these games.
 
Shame it never came out on PC. I'll have to pick it up on console one day.

I wonder if they'll do a HD remake on the PS4 or next Xbox. Might just wait to see what happens if the next red dead ever gets made.
 
Okay, so the whole time-consuming element of my life right now was not nearly as time-consuming as I first thought. After getting through everything that needed to be done, I bought a copy of the game on the back of everyone's recommendations ... and was thoroughly blown away by it.

I'm not afraid to admit that the ending was genuinely moving; I was overjoyed at the end of "And The Truth Shall Set You Free", and was very nearly in tears at the end of "The Last Enemy That Shall Be Destroyed". The overall story was fantastic, and I think it would make for a fantastic film. Or four:
The first would involve the New Austin chapter of the game, with Marston killing Bill Williamson at Fort Mercer - only for Agent Ross to reveal that he wanted Williamson alive, and that if Marston had done as instructed, he would be free to go home.

The second would involve the Mexico chapter, with Marston venturing into Mexico to find Javier Escuerra; with Williamson dead, Escuerra is the only person who knows where Dutch van der Linde is.

The third would center on New Elizabeth, with Marston finally catching Dutch van der Linde and being free to return home.

The fourth would open with Ross's attack on Beecher's Hope, and would follow Jack as he puts together the pieces of what happened: when Nate Johns' presidential bid lost support, the attack on Beecher's Hope was carried out to gain support. After ruining Johns' reputation, Jack goes after Ross. He never reveals his name, and instead tells the now-legendary Ross that he is only a common criminal.
Of course, film adaptations of video games never have much in the way of success.

Back to the game and strangely enough, the one thing I truly didn't like was Jack (though the final mission was infinitely satisfying). Particularly his way of spurring the horse on with "Come on, you damn nag!". Now, I'm assuming that the horse is the same horse I've been playing for most of the game with, and it has taken me from Gaptooth Breach to Cochinay to Escalera to Torquemada. And back. It's not a damn nag. It's my horse, which always found me, even when I didn't want to ride from one end of the map to the other, and so left it in Blackwater while I took a stagecoach to Chuparosa.
 
Jack is the only disappointment of RDR to me, but nowhere near enough to ruin an otherwise stellar experience. Remains a stand out game of this generation of console to me, the one word which always comes to mind with RDR is 'atmosphere' the game is absolutely soaked in it.

I'm generally quite a tough critic on games and I built myself up one hell of a hype for this game and for a change wasn't even close to disappointment.
 
I don't think anyone liked Jack, especially the "Come on, you damn nag!" line. Other than that I really enjoyed RDR and look forward to another in the future.
 
I think the issue with Jack is that it is kind of difficult to accept him as a gunslinger like his father, given that his character development is limited to abandonment issues. Which are totally justified, of course, but it's a bit of a shock to see him go from an angry teenager to a gunslinger in his own right. His one mission was extremely satisfying, but I can't help thinking that it would have made for a better sequel. Or at least as part of a sequel.
 
Id like to see a sequel with him as the main badguy. But as a developing/fluid plot twist. Continue on shortly after RDR and as the game moves along he starts to turn his focus and ends up being the villian.
 
I don't think that's a great idea - the entire point of the ending was that John saved Jack from the life of the outlaw. John could have run from the barn and joined his family, but he knew that as long as he was alive, his family would never have been safe because Ross would have continued to pursue him (though he probably would have been welcomed by Abraham Reyes if he had made for Mexico). By confronting Ross and the army, John left Ross with no reason to continue following Abigail and Jack.
 
prisonermonkeys, I'm glad you've had the chance to play through it and more-so that you really enjoyed it. Red Dead Redemption truly is such great story, one that I could always return to, years after I first arrived at the train station in Armadillo - on a calm, quiet day, with a very red and warm setting sun.

I agree with what others have said about Jack. He came across as very annoying, especially when you play as him after John's killed. I remember when I played through for a second time nearly a couple of years ago, I didn't go as far as the last Beechers Hope mission, purely to avoid playing as the boy. Indeed, very satisfying though, to end the game on the Stranger Mission, Remember my family?.


Now, I'm assuming that the horse is the same horse I've been playing for most of the game with, and it has taken me from Gaptooth Breach to Cochinay to Escalera to Torquemada. And back. It's not a damn nag. It's my horse, which always found me, even when I didn't want to ride from one end of the map to the other, and so left it in Blackwater while I took a stagecoach to Chuparosa.

I couldn't agree with this more. I felt that my connection with my horse was more than just an animal I used for transport around the world. When I wanted to ride somewhere, it was there. When I needed to escape a pack of wolves, or a bear, or a gang of outlaws, it was there. Even when I didn't need my horse, she was still there, by my side. Every step of the way.

I would even go out of my way to buy the apples you can feed your horse as snacks. As strange as this bond may sound, I think that's just another great part of the game that makes RDR so much fun and more worthwhile playing.


What would you say was your favourite part of the game, prisonermonkeys?
 
It's kind of hard to choose one particular moment. It was probably the mission to rescue Reyes from El Presidio (which was also my favourite location). And the one where you had to escort Luisa's sister to the ferry before the Mexican Army found her. But it probably would have been better if I had done Da Silva's missions before the Ricketts, Luisa and Reyes missions.
 
Caz
Id like to see a sequel with him as the main badguy. But as a developing/fluid plot twist. Continue on shortly after RDR and as the game moves along he starts to turn his focus and ends up being the villian.
Okay, I know I said I thought this was a bad idea, but I've been considering it, and I think I might have come up with a way for it to work. It's a bit long, but I think it would work:

The story would have to re-tell "Remember My Family". Agent Fordham is inexplicably absent from the final cut-scene of "The Last Enemey That Shall Be Destroyed". A sequel would explain this absence as Fordham's disgust at Agent Ross going back on his deal with Marston, whom Fordham believed had redeemed himself. Fordham requested a transfer and left West Elizabeth, but Ross realised that he had taken the original files on the deal with John Marston with him, and arranged for Fordham's death. Fordham saw it coming, and bequeathed a letter to Jack Marston as part of his will. The letter explained what had happened, and included all of the files. It told Jack to seek out Agent Ross; what he chose to do then was up to him, but he had to give Ross a letter of his own first. Jack follows this instruction, and Fordham's letter to Ross explains that Fordham felt that what Ross did to John Marston was wrong, but rather than go through a lengthy trial, he thought the best thing to do was to tell Jack everything and let him decide what Ross's fate should be. One Ross finishes the letter, he asks Jack what he wants to do, and the two duel.

The story then jumps forward to a new character, a US Marshal who was disgraced and sent out to the province beyond New Austin. This character is given the chance to resume his former position if he investigates the death of Agent Ross. The player begins chasing after Jack Marston, believing him to be a villain. At the end of the second act, the truth comes out: Nate Johns, the state governor during the events of Red Dead Redemption, conceived the plan to use John Marston to bring in his former gang, credit it to the FBI, and use this to stay in power as governor. When he started losing support, he and Ross conspired to kill John Marston and present it as the FBI bringing in one of the country's most-wanted outlaws. Johns was re-elected and Ross became one of the FBI's most-decorated agents. Now, three years later, Johns is seriously considering a bid for the presidency at the next election, but realises the implications of Ross's death and tries to have the player character kill Jack Marston to cover up what happened. The third and final act starts with the player character and Jack going after Nate Johns.
 
As much as that sounds like it could be a great story to play, I personally wouldn't like there to be a sequel to Red Dead Redemption.

At the end of the game, after playing "Remember my Family", I felt like that was it, the story was over. No more. It was a good way to end, in my opinion. What Jack does with himself is now totally up to your imagination. He's gone his own way, obviously not the way his parents had intended for, but he did what he had to do under the circumstances. Made a choice.

For it to brought back and dramatised so that Jack's now portrayed as the bad guy, I can't see it living up to its predecessor, and if anything, would probably spoil a really, really great original. Just my view on it, obviously.
 
As much as that sounds like it could be a great story to play, I personally wouldn't like there to be a sequel to Red Dead Redemption.

At the end of the game, after playing "Remember my Family", I felt like that was it, the story was over. No more. It was a good way to end, in my opinion. What Jack does with himself is now totally up to your imagination. He's gone his own way, obviously not the way his parents had intended for, but he did what he had to do under the circumstances. Made a choice.

For it to brought back and dramatised so that Jack's now portrayed as the bad guy, I can't see it living up to its predecessor, and if anything, would probably spoil a really, really great original. Just my view on it, obviously.

I agree and the new things they can introduce in terms of gameplay is quite limited, I'd be more than happy to settle for new GTAs more frequently.
 
I had this game for ages and forgot about it,playing for the pat week and wow arguably one of the best games I've played so far.
 
Back