This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff.
Rockstar's Red Dead Redemption (RDR) has been lauded by many as 2010's best game. It's considered a masterpiece, possibly Rockstar's best game. But is it really a great game?
I'll admit I wasn't even interested in RDR. I bought it reluctanctly, based more on buzz than any real hope that it would be good. And I wanted it to be good, because I had been waiting for a action adventure based on the old west since the 1980's.
During the mid to late 80's and early 90's the developer Cinemaware created what at the time were amazing action adventures for the Commodore Amiga. These were ported to other systems, but the principle platform was Commodore's premiere personal computer.
Games like Rocket Ranger, Lords of the Rising Sun, and Defender of the Crown had gorgeous graphics and an interesting blend of action, adventure, and sometimes even strategy. And while Cinemaware let gamers visit outer space, 1930's era Chicago, and even England during the middle ages, they never gave us a Western.
Fast forward to 2010 and Rockstar releases a beautiful and fun action adventure which takes place in the old west. My prayers had finally been answered! Or had they?
While I definitely found fun in Red Dead Redemption, as I played the game I also found a story not unlike most stories by the revered developer. In other words, it took itself a bit too seriously. RDR has the typical bloated story, just like all of the Grand Theft Auto games, and while the actual game play is well polished, it doesn't really have the variety that most reviewers claim.
Are there really that many different activities to do in RDR? Or are there just dozens upon dozens of missions that repeat the same game play over and over again? I really think it's the latter. And while that's not a bad formula, and one that definitely serves gamers whose main interest are action games, it can wear on some of us.
In my mind a great action adventure should know its limits. While it's suitable to give gamers 30 – 100 hours worth of similar game play in an RPG, 10 hours is really all we need for an action adventure. Too much of a good thing can turn people away and keep them from ever seeing the end of a game. And when you throw in random events such as animal attacks that can almost instantly kill you, you also run the risk of alienating gamers through frustration alone.
So while I'm definitely not saying Red Dead Redemption is a bad game, I really feel like we almost arbitrarily give some games great scores simply because they hit the right notes for long enough to impress us. We are captured by the game play and it sways us to believe a game is better than it really is.
In the end all that really matters is that people enjoy a game, of course, and Rockstar isn't renowned because they suck at making games. They know their business. But by the end of the first section of the game I personally had experienced enough of the game play and story. I was finished. with it And since I knew the game was going to go on for a considerably longer time, it was the perfect place to stop.
