As a time poor father of two, I’ve only just managed to finish the story for Red Read Redemption II, but wanted to share some thoughts having enjoyed reading the recent debate in the Inbox.
Red Dead Redemption is one of my favourite games of all time, so I was incredibly looking forward to playing the prequel.
However, strange design choices and an overlong, repetitive story mar the wonderful characterisation of Arthur in what is a visually stunning recreation of the dying days of the Old West. The climax to the main story is magnificent, but it’s a real slog to get there.
I’ve heard people describe the game as having ‘last gen mission structure’ and I absolutely agree.
I still like the game and am glad to have played it, but this recent essay on Polygon does a good job of summing up how I feel. It’s a long read, and I don’t agree with it all – the criticism of the controls is overplayed – but it includes a possible alternative story arc that would have seen the game begin with Arthur, Dutch, and the gang at the height of their powers, thus making the decline and betrayal all the more powerful. I would have liked to have played that.
I wonder whether you, with the benefit of hindsight, would agree that Red Dead Redemption II isn’t the masterpiece we all originally thought and hoped for, and it’s possible that hype for the game and Rockstar’s reputation meant people were too ready to overlook it’s clear flaws.
I suspect the answer is ‘no’, but I also wonder if it will turn out to be one of those games where time and distance see it being critically re-evaluated in the years to come. Perhaps we’ve already started to see that given the game’s lack of recognition at the BAFTA Game Awards.
Keep up the good work.
Paul
GC: We think you’re right. It’s a good game, but it has clear flaws. Not being shown why everyone is loyal to Dutch (or why Micah is able to gain such an influence) is a key problem with the narrative.
