Red Dead Redemption Review

This was a game I played around the time it was still new, I recall how much praise it received and the amount of game of the year awards it got was staggering to teenage me at the time. I finally played it and at the time I was very underwhelmed and never understood the "hype" behind it. This was a younger me and in a time where praise and awards were something I really cared about. It's been over 10 years since I originally finished it. I've mellowed out now and mainly just want to experience games by extension media because I want to enjoy them. I'm not someone who wants to passionately rant about media I don't enjoy because many people liked it and I'm cursing them for "lying" to me. With all that said, when playing RDR, it was very hard to keep my composure while playing mainly due to how much I disliked my time playing the game. I wouldn't call it "terrible" or "bad" there are no doubts worse games than this but every time I was playing RDR, I kept asking, "why am I still going?" It's one of those games that felt like a personification of the sunk cost fallacy. When playing RDR, I already knew the gameplay I wasn't really going to enjoy since I don't like much of the design mentalities Rockstar puts in their titles. I was hoping for at the very least that it's a "good story, okay gameplay most your time is spent playing" kind of game. Something along the lines of Legacy of Kain Soul Reaver 2, Second Sight, or to a lesser extent the first Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed even what I remember of Call Juarez and it's sequel Bound in Blood. Much to my shock, Red Dead Redemption wasn't even that. The entire game's story was one massive learning experience of "what not to do" which is shocking for a game as big and acclaimed as this. 

Long intro out of the way, in spite of me disliking the story immensely I will talk about gameplay first since in spite of there so much of it, there is almost not much to really chew on. 

To sum up all my criticisms towards Red Dead Redemption's gameplay as I simple as I can it's this question:

Why play Red Dead Redemption when you can just play Grand Theft Auto instead? 

I don't like GTA either but every time I play RDR, it's just a copy and paste job of the former in the wild west. Sure RDR being labelled as "GTA in the wild west" is a marketing slogan but that's really all it is. RDR has everything that GTA does but nothing to accomadate for the wild west setting. 

My big example to illustrate my point is the horse. Horseback riding follows the same rules as riding an automobile in GTA but instead of holding the trigger you tap x. When you place a quest marker on the map, the game even marks a line for the player to follow to get to their destination as long as you don't go off road and stick to the main road, it's also faster to stay on the road...wait this is horseback riding, these are just following the same rules as driving an automobile. 

There is also the fact that GTA takes place in populated cities where there are pedestrians, obstructions, maintaining vehicle speed, as well dealing with traffic, AND vehicle damage. These are multiple factors you have to consider when driving a vehicle in GTA. 

Horseback riding in RDR has you deal with none of these factors. It's just tapping x and getting to the finish line. You may need to worry about stamina but the horse will maintain some speed even the x button isn't being tapped after starting the sprint, doing that makes it go faster. The key is to start the sprint and every few seconds tap x instead of right away tap x. 

Once I figured this out even the chases on horseback were never once a challenge. I don't ever recall getting one game over because I failed a horseback ride sequence. I did get a few due to Rockstar's rigid mission design but that's something in most of their open world games including Grand Theft Auto. Which furthur illustrates my point with it's wild west setting could have a different take on the mission system but it doesn't. It's just as scripted and rigid as ever. 

To praise the horse gameplay for a second, cattle hearding was interesting since there is another factor the player has to account for which is the cows veering off course and the player has to lead the herd through the destinations as he watch out for multiple cows and obstructions. This is something not in GTA and wish there were more ideas like this. 

There is also the bountry system. This is one of the more amusing aspects of the GTA copying. I didn't even know there was this system until the mission with Seth happened. 

Which is yet another thing that GTA does better. The wanted system is one of GTA's most famous systems where the more crimes you committ, the more police aggression is enforced. This is something that every player will encounter since they will no doubt run over civilians on purpose or by accident and this meter will inevitably start rising. 

Now compare that to the bounty system of RDR, it follows similar rules. Everything is barren and empty. There is almost no civilians or much of anything the player can do to accidentally get a bounty which makes me wonder why this system is even here. You can just get "fame" and "honor" just by playing the missions which is another aspect that is never accomdated for. 

This just leaves the combat and once again, it's just GTA with the auto lock where you just aim, target reticle tracks enemies, shoot. Might as well not even have free aim and over the shoulder shooting. Most of the guns are all the same since it's the wild west and all the rifles are different variations of bolt action and pausing inbetween shots. Most of the pistols are the same too and just different takes on reloading shots between each round. 

So the gunplay is like GTA, so why play this over it? That series gives you more of a variety of hitscan weapons than weapons that pause between every shot. 

There is also Dead Eye and this annoyed me when I first played but it annoys me even more now. This was a carry over of Red Dead Revolver but the main differences is that Revolver had a moderate enemy count where enemies had moderate amounts of health where the bullets were projectile. Dead Eye in that was a means to get some quick shots in while so many enemies were firing bullets at you and to more reliably widdle at their health. 

In Redemption, enemies have the health of infantry solidiers of a Call of Duty campaign so partner this with the auto aim and Dead Eye and no shootouts hardly have any tension. There might be some deaths here and there but you will have to try hard or get a game over by accident due to the lack of challenge keeping you on edge. 

If I were to raise the difficulty, none of this shooting would be more interesting than the shooting mechanics in Grand Theft Auto. Which comes back to that question that started this whole thing again. 

The shooting and horseback riding are dull and most of the game's missions revolve around these two things. Rockstar even knows there so much horseback riding which is why there are parts where Marston rides a wagon and later a car to some of the destinations which is just a glorified cutscene. This wouldn't even make for a good movie scene where it's just people riding a car with mostly uncomfortable silences. It's also grating since you never know in the moment if characters will talk to each other or it's going to be minutes of uncomfortable silence. 

The waiting for npcs at a certain time to do a mission is a pacing killing grievance since all you need to do is sleep on a bed and it will eventually set to the time you want. Also diminishing Marston as a outlaw who supposed to be taken seriously. 

There are also a few cinematic gun duels the whole game, I especially started to just roll my eyes that the final duel with Edgar Ross which is supposed to be a final boss of sorts has a tutorial reminding you how it works because Rockstar knows how infrequent it is. At least Red Dead Revolver has these moments sprinkled throughout it's campaign on top of it's gun duels being with people you have fought throughout the levels which is yet another aspect it does worse than that game. 

Enough on the gameplay, I already knew most of this going in when replaying the game again. I was younger when I played first played RDR, I wasn't nearly as game and by extension media "literate" as I am now. Maybe the story was too complicated for me to get in the moment but since I'm older, I will appreciate it more than I originally did. The story is RDR's last line of defense. The one thing that could make me tolerate the dull gameplay. This could be the thing that it does better than Grand Theft Auto and have an defrenciate it from that franchise. 

Unfortunately, I might just dislike the story even more than the gameplay. So RDR for me is, "terrible story and extremely dull gameplay" or "enjoy the story, skip the game". It almost shocks me for how a story with such a fascinating premise and how it loves to drive home how interesting John Marston's backstory is, so much of it feels like a boring empty mess. 

To sum up my two biggest issues with the story. It's two things, it's protagonist and the antagonists. These two things work in tandem to make the story as dull as it is. 

John Marston is one of the most fascinating fictional anti heros in any mainstream media I have ever witnessed, not because he is well written but because of how much the writers get wrong. 

There is an interesting point proffesional wrestler Scott Steiner makes where he says, "threats are apart of wrestling, what matters is those making the threats". It took me a long while to notice but so much fiction I enjoy follows this logic to varying degrees. 

The reason why I could never remember John Marston after over a decade of playing RDR but I can with Kratos from the God of War 3(both released the same year after all) is because the former doesn't follow this line, the latter does. John Marston spends so much of RDR being bossed around and never really feeling like someone you should never annoy or mess with. Marston spends so much of his time doing errands and what other people want that it's hard to take him seriously after a point. Which is yet again another carry over of Grand Theft Auto because in those games the characters are trying to get furthur into the criminal underworld and not annoy the mob bosses. 

Kratos in God of War 3 brutally murders anyone who gets in his way even innocent people to get what he wants. The begginning establishes that with the death of Poseidian, later in the game Gaia betrays Kratos and then the latter kills her. Later on Hephastus betrays Kratos and sends him to Cronos and then kills them both. The former betrayed Kratos because he's been shown to be such a monster that he doesn't want his daughter Pandora anywhere near her. Point of this is, Kratos is the kind of character who is protrayed as threatning but he follows up on those threats, giving him the vibe that he shouldn't be messed with to the point where his allied even become afraid of him

John Marston is supposed to be the last of the cowboy who is so good at what he does that he is being used to wipe out whatever outlaws that are left. The ones that aren't your run of the mil. Yet Marston never does anything heinous or questionable. Early game Marston and various npcs have frequent conversations about what the latter does is even right and how how he finds ways to rationalize his actions. Marston is annoyed by Wes Dickens and the latter points out what he does is no different. These conversations are sort of interesting but it highlights that the story will tell you about how questionable Marston is but never has him do anything questionable that you might agree with what Wes Dickens and Bonnie MacFarland says to Marston. 

There's a scene later on in the Mexico portions where De Santa gets caputred and Marston interrogates him on where Javier Esqualla is. Marston either kills him or the revolutionaries do. There's a shootout and it ends with Javier not even being at the place where he was told and the mission amounted to nothing. De Santa lied to Marston and he got away with it. After this, I just couldn't take John Marston seriously as a character anymore. Any crediblity he has left was gone. 

This now leads to the villains? What villains? RDR is the kind of story that loves to tell you about how awesome it's backstory between John Marston and his former gang are. The way it's worded can almost hook anyone in the story. John Marston once rode in a gang? They were like family to him but then they left him there to die despite the bond they formed? He survived after all that and wants to live with his family but needs to kill his former family members who left him there to die in order to erase his path and start a new life due his family being held hostage by the government? Add in some ideas of the cowboy and the west slowly dying and leading to modern civilivation and if this premise was a movie or TV show, I watch would in a heartbeat. The way John Marston delivers this backstory and how it's worded, it can make anyone believe that the story of RDR is going to be an awesome classic. It's why I played this game at all again because of how interesting it sounded. Who wouldn't want to check out a story with a premise like this? 

Here's the thing, most of RDR's story is nothing more than a series of wild goose chases. This is what I mean by the villains are poor. A good villain can bring out the best of the hero. This is why good villains are often valued in stories. This is what I mean in how the poor protagonist and antagonists work in tandem. 

You go to Fort Mercer and go after Bill Williamson, he shoots John and then it starts him on a series of quests to assault the place. Now here is the thing, Bill Williamson does absolutely nothing while John is slowly gathering the means to assault the fort. No inverentions, no antagonizing npcs, not being annoying to John or anything to just want to motivate the player to kill him. He's never even shown to leave Fort Mercer after killing John which is what makes it even weirder when he knew the latter was coming with a gattling gun to storm the place but there would never be any kind of clue to what would even tip him off run to Mexico. 

Apart of me was scratching my head and waiting, "wait we organized all that to assault Fort Mercer and it all ends with Williamson escaping? I thought he served his role as being the antagonist for that section of the game?" Little did I know the truly artifical reason why he didn't die during the assault will come later. 

Here comes Mexico and it's painfully dull and despite Williamson escaping Marston has to go after a guy who just got named dropped at the end of the Fort Mercer mission. Williamson is now completely invisible along with Javier Esqualla. I wonder if you could make a drinking game out of how many times John asks where the latter is, you could in more shots add the former too. Marston has to help out a rebellion going on Mexico that is disconnected from the main story and the biggest kicker is Williamson and Esqualla only make on screen appreances at the end of this portion. Remember what I said about that artificial reason? Williamson only survived Fort Mercer so John Marston has an actual reason to stick around to see the Mexican civil war come to an end since the evil government was hiding Bill Williamson the whole time. If he just got Esqualla, he would've just left like nothing mattered and there'd be no payoff to the hours spent in this boring sub plot. 

Then there is the Mexico sections itself which is so fascinating that it manages to do a great job at being, "too bleak, stopped caring". Marston is completely or tries to be impartial during the Mexican civil war and then he supports the corrupt government but he joins the rebels and rescues their leader Abraham Reyes and somehow he manages to have more screen time and despicable than the people John Marston is actually trying to kill. He doesn't even come off as a dependable leader since the story has no problem showing how much indulges having sex, Luisa loves him so much but he doesn't even know who she is and never remembers her name once and the only reason he is able to turn things around on the corrupt government is because he keeps roping and manipulating Marston into doing what he wants. It's hard to even recall any moment where he shows compassion, virtue or just giving the player a reason as to why he's any better than the corrupt government. With how much contempt this villain brings out of me by talking about him, you'd think he was the main antagonist of RDR but he isn't. This is someone you are supposed to help and the story deems will make a positive difference. With a guy like Reyes running things, this new regime wouldn't even last a year let alone 6 months. This is a good portion of the game and your most destable villain isn't heel heat, he's go away heat. 

Now this leaves Dutch Van Der Linde, I didn't even remember anything he did when I first beat the game. He did get a prequel with Red Dead Redemption 2 that was made 8 years after this game and I wondered why I liked him there but don't remember anything he did in the game he debuted in. I already strongly dislike this story but apart a large part of me wanted Dutch to be to RDR what Raul Julia's portrayal of M. Bison was in the 90s Streer Fighter movie. "I can't stand Red Dead Redemption's story but when Dutch was on screen, he made me believe the story he was in good or even great". That's the power of what a good villain can do. Wesley Snipes was also this in Demoliation Man. 

Dutch Van Der Linde is like the father John Marston never had, he was once someone who had honor and cared for people but slowly went crazy over time and lost his way. He's the reason why everything happened the way it did to Marston. Why his family was even held hostage by government, why he did all the stuff he did for those government officials. Why the whole game happened, Dutch got the Prequel. He has the backstory the game will remind you of multiple times. This should be the part where everything comes together, right? Nope.

Rob Wiethoff has been praised as John Marston many times but something was already off with how his voice direction doesn't even seem to change in any way at the start of the West Elizebeth chapter. No sense of shock, dread, desperation, or just anything that makes Marston feel different from before. His voice is the same it's been since the start of the game. The journey is about to end, the government is having him kill the last member of his gang as one last favor and it will finally be over and it sounds like any other job he always did. 

Then Dutch shows up and the first major thing he does is killing an innocent woman he took hostage to escape. What annoys me about this scene is that on paper it works really well, the problem is while Dutch is holding her hostage John is just standing around and there is no sense of any emotion or him doing something he hasn't done before. Dutch called John's wife Abgail a whore multiple times in this scene and Marston is taking forever to even do anything. A good villain makes the hero want to do things he is against and the audience by extension. John just says nothing and stare at him while he is holding the woman. Having a line where Marston says, "sorry miss this isn't personal but this man must die" but then Dutch gets scared and throws her at Marston and the latter accidentally shoots her and the former runs away would've given the scene the emotion it should've had. 

This cutscene was when I was losing any kind of hope. The rest of Dutch's scenes don't fare any better. He never even has anything as potentially dramtically as the aforementioned hostage scene. He just shows up antagonizes John and then leaves. Later in the game Marston looks at Dutch through biniculars, the latter shoots him the binoculars in his face to the point where he gets knocked out and then there is a fade black and he escapes that level of incompetence completely unscathed. 

Then Nastas dies later on in the story and it was by a bunch of generic enemies who weren't even named. Harold MacDougal also escapes and lives to tell the tale even though his questline had Dutch appear in the cutscenes and antagonizing John. He doesn't even scare or try to torture Edgar Ross. There's not even a scene where he kidnaps Abgail considering the fact he called her a whore prior so it can follow up with using he as a way to finally kill Marston. Angering or trumatizing Jack. This would also help segway into the epilogue of the game since right after Dutch dies, Marston heads back to his family anyway, maybe encountering Dutch makes them glad they are reunitied with Marston because the government could never keep them safe. Anything that makes me remember Dutch as a villain I like and finally made me feel like I was enjoying the game. 

When finally defeating Dutch and doing the epilogue, I wonder was there ever a need for Marston? All the people he was trying to kill were so ineffective and incompetent at what they did. Williamson would hide in Mexico and can't even lay a finger to Reyes. Esqualla had no geniune power over anything or anyone. Dutch's crusade at West Elizebeth wouldn't even go longer than 6 months or even 2. 

I'll make a tangent on Red Dead 2 where it makes me start wondering what was ever compelling Dutch to warrant the prequel? It was just Rockstar yet again showing off how compelling their backstory sounds. I might not like Star Wars' Darth Vader that much but at least him in Return of the Jedi and by extension of how evil the Emperor was so compelling in the quest to turn the Luke Skywalker to the dark side and how in spite everyone being absolutely convinced that he would strike down Vader but it ends with Luke refusing to take action and would rather die on the Death Star and then leading to Vader to redeem himself because he didn't want to see his son get tortured. 

This sequence in Return of the Jedi was the only thought provoking part in the Original Trilogy, it's one part I can look back on with fondness. It's good enough that I geniunely can picture George Lucas making a Prequel Trilogy on Vader and The Emperor. At least George Lucas made me picture the idea that a prequel starring them could be compelling because he showed me that they can be. 

Dutch Van Der Linde in spite of how much Rockstar hyped him in RDR as being this amazing villain was never even close to what the story made him out to be. All of this geniunely makes me dislike Red Dead Redemption 2 by proxy. Dutch might be a well written villain in that game? Well that's like making me feel sorry for some person I don't like in online or real life. They probably have some reason why they act like the people they do but I never found them endearing so I don't want to know. I just want to forget I ever spoke, interacted or even know about them. 

Anyways, I zoned out during the epilogue, I just wanted this story to end. Marston died and I was laughing like Nelson Muntz from the Simpsons instead of feeling sad like the game wanted me to.

Jack Marston is somehow able to get weapons training training even though cowboys and outlaws were wiped out and they had no relatives or the even made it aware to the audience that Jack did know someone who could do that. To praise Star Wars again, at least Luke got training because Obi Wan was nearby his aunt and uncle's house. Don't even know such a character for Jack Marston since it time skipped to him being an adult when Marston died. Edgar Ross a villain I don't care about dies and I'm just done talking about this story. 

Overall, I didn't like Red Dead Redemption when I played it and time has made even harsher on it. I dislike it so much even though it's not a bad game on a techical level that I questioned what made me go through it. The story is very poor which was supposed to be it's massive selling point over the Grand Theft Auto series. The gameplay is just a more limited and stripped down of that very series. When I look back on playing this game, I question, was there a point of me getting to the end credits? If I was a hardcore gamer in the 5th and 6th generations and I told this was being the standard for what a great game is, I would've certainly had a retirement arc from gaming in the 7th gen or have a scorn for AAA mainstream gaming that many gamers do now.