Red Dead Redemption Review

By Simon Parkin Published 17 May, 2010

Forgiven.

Version tested:

A few hours after disembarking the dusty train that winds into Red Dead Redemption, reformed bandit John Marston meets a smart young journalist from Manhattan. His assignment? To observe life on America's final frontier and dramatise his findings in an article for the well-to-do ladies of New York. His pressed clothes and clean-shaven jawline contrast with protagonist Marston's facial scrawl of stubble and scarring, but beneath appearances, the men share a common purpose: to find gold in the sun-baked Wild West.

The meeting mirrors the wider context of Red Dead Redemption's release. Liberty City with its buffed taxis, resolute skyscrapers and air of affluence may appear a world away from this arid, adverse wilderness, but peel back the skin and the framework is identical. Red Dead Redemption is GTA: Wild West, a sandbox most familiar, albeit one that, for once, is filled with sand.

Set 50 years after the events of the more light-hearted Red Dead Revolver, Redemption's frontier has become a cat's cradle of political interests, stretched taut by moneyed men in bed with federalised government. The Wild West has grown mild in its old age, and grizzled gunmen with their brutish ways are growing obsolete.

In setting the game in the twilight days of a cliché, Rockstar provides an overarching tension beyond the immediate lives of its inhabitants. Where Grand Theft Auto IV's Nico Bellic was desperate to escape his heritage, Red Dead Redemption's John Marston clings to it, a man in search of purpose and redemption in a world slipping from relevance.

Nevertheless, it's a world that Rockstar San Diego paints with flair and an abundant appreciation for the Western in cinema. Parched canyons give way to tousled plains across which steam trains puff their way, heading off into purplish horizons. A hangman's noose swings in the breeze from a giant rock. Carts teeter along thin cliff paths, while drunks are spat from saloon swing doors into the arms of waiting hookers squeezed tight by corsets and puffy knickers. Campfires flicker, coyotes howl and droves of wild horses gallop to a melancholy whistled melody or the splang of a banjo. A buzzard squawks, a shadow in the noon sky. Videogames can offer windows on forgotten vistas; Red Dead Redemption is a vivid rebuilding of a world lost to time and technology.

'Red Dead Redemption' Screenshot 1

You can save your game anywhere in the wilderness by building a campfire wherever you pull up your horse.

But Red Dead Redemption's world exists for more than mere observation. Marston has a score to settle. A reformed bandit, the stoical gunslinger arrives in the Border States hunting a former gang associate who now terrorises the vicinity. When a bid for reconciliation fails, leaving Marston bloodied and half-dead, you must begin to job of reacclimatising the man to life on the frontier, nursing him back to health and gathering a team of hapless characters to help you take down your enemy. As with GTA, you take on smaller errands and targets en route, building fame, notoriety or honour, raising your status in the world as you gather power, weaponry and a posse in anticipation of the endgame showdown.

As ever, Rockstar gives you freedom to roam far and wide from the word go (although you won't be able to cross the border to Mexico until the halfway point), but limits your immediate objectives to a small geography. The borders of your missions expand at a slow pace, hour by hour, ensuring you grow familiar with the dirt paths and settlements and begin to build a memory map of the world and its sights. In the same way, details about Marston's past and mission are drip-fed. As your territory expands, so too does your knowledge of yourself, as the typically reserved, early-20th-century gunman builds trust and slowly confides in those around him in an incessant stream of cut-scenes, both long and short.

Missions are, as in GTA, assigned by key characters you meet in towns and outposts. These boast the same simple inventiveness that has always marked Rockstar's work out - and for those wearied by years of delivering drugs and stealing cars, the chance to herd cattle in a thunderstorm, act as an accomplice in a snake oil salesman's scam, or shoot rabbits as they try to steal a friend's carrots at night makes for a welcome, often creative change. Of course, as the game progresses, so the brutality scales with it. High-speed horseback shoot-outs in which you can either choose to take out the rider or the animal have never felt so dynamic, and even the simplest of objectives is made interesting by the emergent chaos that ensues.

Key story missions are buffered by a seemingly endless clutch of side-quests and playful distractions. Some of these, such as the games of poker, five-finger fillet, and horseshoe throwing, or the bounties you can take on, exist simply to swell your bank balance. But very often, you'll be hailed by strangers in need at the side of the road. Stop to inquire as to their predicament and they'll send you on an errand (or spring a trap), one that can often be approached in different ways, and which affects your standing in the community. These might be to convince an old man to part with his property, or may require a more immediate response (such as the hooker set upon by an angry client - "I'm gonna cut you a new hole") but either way, they help to pepper the world with distraction and break up the linearity.

With meta-challenges for hunting and skinning particular animals, collecting herbs and plants and finding treasure, each traipse across the landscape is littered with interactive potential. Where GTA's cities are densely packed with life and story, the wilderness could easily have been too empty in its expanse. By punctuating every journey with side-quest offshoots, Rockstar ensures the game world is just as packed as Liberty City, while still maintaining that visual sense of isolation and loneliness that is so crucial to the Western.

'Red Dead Redemption' Screenshot 2

Visit a town's picture house and you can pay to see a silent movie, a proto-Disney animation soundtracked ‘live' by a creaky piano

Your primary mode of transport across the world is by horseback, the animal fast proving itself to be a far more flexible and dynamic mode of transport than a hi-jacked car, able to comfortably negotiate any type of terrain. When you gain access to a lasso it's possible to harness any wild horses you come across by chasing alongside them and hurling your rope over their neck. What should, by rights, be a fiddly task is made straightforward, as simple as lining up a moving headshot with your reticule, and then easing the animal to a standstill. Once reigned you can mount the horse and, following a short mini-game of sorts in which you attempt to ride out the horse's bucking by altering your balance, the animal is yours to ride.

Despite the temptation to chop and change between horses (different breeds offer different levels of obedience, speed or stamina), there are benefits in sticking to a favourite, as in time you build loyalty which results in stamina bonuses, allowing you to run at full pelt for longer before tiring the horse. As you begin to clock up the miles together across, hill, canyon and stream, you form a bond - and this relationship between protagonist and transport, the kind alluded to in the great Westerns, is undoubtedly one of Red Dead Redemption's greatest successes.

'Red Dead Redemption' Screenshot 3

The key characters Marston associates play with clichés in fun ways from the jittery, repellant grave digger Seth, to the loquacious conman West-Dicken.

Forget to tether your horse when stopping in a town and you need only whistle and the stallion will come running, the kind of convenience that even the most technologically-advanced vehicle in Grand Theft Auto must stop short of. Hog-tie a bandit and you can roll him onto the horse's hindquarters and carry him across the world. By the end of the game there will be no doubt in your mind: without the need to feed, water or rest your virtual animal, horses are better than cars.

However, by the end of the game you will be left with other, less enthusiastic feelings too. While Rockstar San Diego triumphantly matches the storytelling of Rockstar North, redacting their cinematic influences with finesse and imagination, there is still an occasional roughness to the ground-level interactions that can grate.

Marston runs awkwardly on the ground and, for all the fluidity of the horses, you only need to take a tumble off an unforeseen ledge for the game to come grinding to an abrupt, awkward halt. Combat, so often the weak point in Rockstar's output, is solid, with a Dead Eye bullet-time mode combining with the ragdoll physics to create the kind of iconic shooter-keeling-from-a-rooftop images that define the genre in film.

However, the cover mechanic, which sticks Marston to the nearest rock or wall, feels sticky and outdated, while the expectation that you wrestle with the camera, reticule and steering during horseback shootouts is simply too tall at times. Problematically, once your sense of curiosity at what lies over the next hill dissipates, you'll find every 10-minute gallop across the landscape tiresome and over-familiar, and so will begin to rely heavily on the game's various fast-travel options (via train, carriage or campfire teleport).

The very best Western films enjoy a rapid fire of crisp, purposeful scenes to link the action. It's a format that works well when packed into 90 minutes of imagery delivered at 24 frames per second. But stretched out over 50 hours, the intensity of the Western form is necessarily diluted, resulting in pockets of intense excitement, linked by long, meandering treks across - admittedly wondrous - scenery. Red Dead Redemption has fully subscribed to the Housers' vision of a blockbuster videogame: a string of cinematic set-pieces and flawed yet endearing characters nestled within an orthodox narrative structure, seasoned with generous pinches of extra-curricular tasks.

'Red Dead Redemption' Screenshot 4

Red Dead Redemption's soundtrack is standout, mixing banjos, harmonicas and winsome whistles with the odd song to mesmerizing effect.

Rockstar's skill in creating a believable, functioning world with a distinct, coherent and consistent atmosphere is peerless. The broad-brush vision is masterful. No game has done sunsets and fiddles, stirrups and stubble with this assuredness. And while the script may fall short in its cinematic inspirations - the comedy of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid or the gravitas of Unforgiven, for example - the gap has been closed. Yet in the details, there's a roughness that niggles, the execution lacking the grace and fluidity of contemporaries who perhaps reign in the ambition and scope in favour of depth and polish.

The result is an exceptional Rockstar game, one that successfully re-clothes the Grand Theft Auto framework in an exciting, distinct and expertly realised scenario. But just how satisfying the formula remains after the exuberant destructiveness of Red Faction: Guerrilla, or the joyful, ad-hoc player stories born in the freedom of Just Cause 2's playpen, is increasingly under scrutiny. And even within Rockstar's own canon, there is little here for that smart young journalist to inform Liberty City about that it didn't already know. A magnificent eight, then.

8 / 10

A note about Red Dead Redemption's multiplayer: a free-roaming mode allows up to seven other players to join your game, saddle up as a posse and take on other player- or AI-controlled groups in a similar way to GTAIV's multiplayer modes. Additionally, a slew of deathmatch and capture the flag variations are available for up to 16 players, each opening with a Mexican stand-off, the survivors of which can then position themselves strategically ahead of their foes' respawning. Modern Warfare-style leveling overlays all multiplayer modes, gradually unlocking new guns, horses and costumes provided as added incentives. Unfortunately, we weren't able to test any of these modes in the version of the game supplied for review. You can read more about them in our recent hands on.

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Simon.

About Simon Parkin

Simon Parkin is an author and journalist on video games. A regular contributor to Eurogamer since 2005, his work has also appeared in Edge, The Telegraph, Gamasutra and Boing Boing.

Read more articles from Simon by visiting the Simon Parkin archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (465) Latest comment 4 months ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • ecureuil #1 2 years ago

    Knew it would be crap. >_>

  • cozeny #2 2 years ago

    Oscar worthy?
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 16:03

  • the_dudefather #3 2 years ago

    8/10 to yuma

  • king2001 #4 2 years ago

    Howdy Pardner, looks like yer got yerself a 8 there.

    Those purty young ladyfolk from around these parts sure gonna be wantin’ some of that newfangled multiplayer action.

    Yeehaw!!

    /dances crazy jig

  • uglygamer #5 2 years ago

    ♦ 100.0% | PlayStation Official Magazine UK
    ♦ 100.0% | Official XBOX Magazine (UK)
    ♦ 100.0% | GamePro (US)
    ♦ 100.0% | PSM3 (UK)
    ♦ 100.0% | Eurogamer (DE)
    ♦ 100.0% | Gamereactor (DK)
    ♦ 100.0% | guardian.co.uk
    ♦ 100.0% | Gamer.nl
    ♦ 100.0% | JeuxActu.com (FR)
    ♦ 100.0% | Gamereactor.se -- (SE)

    ♦ 98.0% | IGN (UK)
    ♦ 97.5% | Game Informer (US)
    ♦ 96.0% | Multiplayer.it (IT)
    ♦ 97.0% | IGN (US)
    ♦ 95.0% | CVG (UK)
    ♦ 95.0% | Cynamite.de
    ♦ 95.0% | GamePro.de
    ♦ 94.0% | 9lives.be
    ♦ 93.0% | NowGamer (UK)
    ♦ 92.0% | Games Aktuell (DE)
    ♦ 91.0% | SpazioGames.it
    ♦ 90.0% | gamesTM (UK)
    ♦ 90.0% | Gamekult.com (FR)
    ♦ 90.0% | jeuxvideo.com (FR)
    ♦ 90.0% | Eurogamer (IT)
    ♦ 90.0% | TVG (US)
    ♦ 90.0% | Gamekult -- (US)

    ♦ 80.0% | Eurogamer (UK)
    Edited by 2 at 17/05/10 @ 18:15

  • cianchristopher #6 2 years ago

    So, they've "redeemed" themselves after Red Dead Revolver, have they?

  • HoriZon #7 2 years ago

    Only an 8?? EG is a disgrace! ;0

  • JahB #8 2 years ago

    can't wait, we don't have nearly enough good western games.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 16:06

  • sport #9 2 years ago

    Utter shambles!!!

  • spekkeh #10 2 years ago

    in b4 shitstorm

  • peteb #11 2 years ago

    ...tumbleweed......

  • cozeny #12 2 years ago

    Of course it's better than Alan Wake. It's in HD for one!

  • kincaide #13 2 years ago

    After the over hyped IGN and Official Playstation Mag reviews (them over hyped - never) is this the real truth?

    Obviously very deflating.

  • Vroom #14 2 years ago

    Oh, this gonna get messy.

  • Verwandlung #15 2 years ago

    Waiting for pc version.

    edit: Huh, I only have a computer. If i had one of those consoles I would buy this game immediately ..
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 16:13

  • gman7714 #16 2 years ago

    Mmm an 8 a little dissappointing :(

    /goes to read the review to find out why

    Edit
    Having now read the review, I dont see anything that will detract from my enjoyment of this game.

    I also agree with all the comments about how the MP is a major part of this game and hence a review of SP only seems slightly flawed. But hey ho, stroll on release day and some shootin' of rootin' tootin' varmits.

    Edited by 2 at 17/05/10 @ 17:38

  • Retroid #17 2 years ago

    Review doesn't mention how this compares to Deadwood.

    FAIL.

  • JJrabbit #18 2 years ago

    Since the multiplayer aspect hasn't been reviewed, could it not be possible for the score to go up once the multiplayer part has been taken into account?

  • HoriZon #19 2 years ago

    oh it is the PS3 version as well so it has to get knocked down a bit for that ;)

  • dpb135 #20 2 years ago

    IGN 9.8 .... blimmey

  • gohda #21 2 years ago

    oh shi- not an 8

  • gohda #22 2 years ago

    AS GOOD AS HALO

  • MiniAmin #23 2 years ago

    "A magnificent eight,"

    A magnificent review.

    The game itself looks superb, after reading the comprehensive review, the number at the end is of little consequence to me. I'll be picking this up as soon as I can, as it looks like it'll be a 10 to me.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 16:12

  • dpb135 #24 2 years ago

    Also faceoff please :)

    Want to know which version is best

  • Liamario #25 2 years ago

    I've no problem with the score, but your scores in general are starting to become extremely inconsistent

  • LetsGo #26 2 years ago

    FFS! I wanted this to be amazing, not just good.

  • TonyHarrison #27 2 years ago

    I'm not sure I like something like this being compared to Just Cause 2. This is very much story based, whereas that was just a playground to create as much chaos as possible with little thought to the story. As such I found that boring, yet if the story here is good, it'll hook me right until the end.

  • Mark1412 #28 2 years ago

    Truly mental that you weren't able to access the multiplayer part as, for a vast amount of people that is the selling point.

  • andywilkie35 #29 2 years ago

    HOLY TIN OF LILT BATMAN

  • mingster #30 2 years ago

    oooo was expecting a higher score for this!
    goes back to read review.
    No test of the multiplayer either ... hmmm that's the main draw.

  • Clive_Dunn #31 2 years ago

    See, it's not as good as Spectrum classic "The Wild Bunch".

  • Dylbot #32 2 years ago

    About what I expected, about what I rate GTA IV at.

  • Monkey_Puncher #33 2 years ago

    Are we seriously at the stage of mass stupidity where an 8/10 is a bad game?

  • Eraysor #34 2 years ago

    Normally I despise anything western-themed, but I'll probably pick this up once it's got a little cheaper.

  • sonicyoda #35 2 years ago

    Rockstar fans expecting a 10 and nothing less?
    I don't see what the problem is. You'll buy it anyway.

  • mcmonkeyplc #36 2 years ago

    We reached mass stupidity when EG gave Halo 8/10. They did it too themselves :p

    8/10 is a good score for just SP. Probably another point if the MP isn't shit.

  • kingnothing12 #37 2 years ago

    I'd rather take the opinion of a reviewer than a dirty pirate ;-)

  • cozeny #38 2 years ago

    I don't wanna be harsh or anything, but this is a pretty unfair score. So this is either a mistake or the reviewer clearly was a bit tired or had a shitty day, when he/she played the game. I really hope this is a mistake, otherwise I don't know what to think about Eurogamer's reliability. No offence, but.. that score is an offence to us gamers.

  • Essien #39 2 years ago

    Hmm. Considering cancelling pre-order. I know 8 is not a bad score, but I have so little money I can really only afford a few games a year. However, the review seems to say that the main negative point is that it gets boring after 50 hours - I generally never play games for more than 20 or so without getting bored. Is there a different score for those with short attention spans?

  • LeD #40 2 years ago

    OK. This is where I draw the line with EG reviews, they have lost all credibility recently. What the fuck have Red Faction Gorilla and Just Cause 2 have to do with this game? Oh I see, they're sandbox games.

  • cozeny #41 2 years ago

    Having been playing this the past few days all I can say is: 8/10? You're having a giraffe. Very interested to hear why Simon's marked it down. The moment I saw the score I knew it must be an "Simon review".

  • kinky_mong #42 2 years ago

    Using my patented "EG Silly Season Review Correction Device" I give this game the amended score of 9.

    But seriously, I hope you'll be writing an indepth multiplayer review once you're able to, otherwise this review only covers half the package.

  • CaptainFantasm #43 2 years ago

    Enjoyed the review, very well written. Multi-player does sound interesting though, more on that would be nice at some point.

    Loving the shit-storm about an 8. The review makes the game out to be worth playing, even without reading the score.

  • bwort #44 2 years ago

    The score is just easy to explain: for this game every online mag gets more clicks, if they give a score under 9. That`s it. Remember, the boring FAble 3 gets 10/10....

    With this 8, they just want attention...nothing else..
    Edited by 2 at 17/05/10 @ 16:23

  • solent-hamster #45 2 years ago

    8/10 is a good score for just SP. Probably another point if the MP isn't shit.

  • Oldtrusty77 #46 2 years ago

    8/10 is no-where near a bad score. I think it's time for us all to grow up a little and use a little common sense when looking at review scores.

  • Widge #47 2 years ago

    @JJrabbit

    Well... no, not really. EG have reviewed the multiplayer as a separate components on a few occasions now. I don't know whether this is the "right" way or not to do things, certainly a defined approach needs to be outlined here. Maybe one to ask Tom on the blog!

  • cianchristopher #48 2 years ago

    Great review - I can only pick out the following negative sentiments about the game as a whole:

    Occasionally buggy terrain
    Marston's awkward running animation
    A less-than-perfect cover mechanic
    A struggle to control aiming/steering/shooting simultaneously during high-speed shoot-outs
    A lengthy 50 hours playtime that has peaks and valleys of quality

    Given that all of these concerns are equally applicable to GTA IV, and given that GTA IV remains one of the finest games ever made - I think I'll be giving this one a whirl...

  • ElNino9 #49 2 years ago

    I knew this would tank. GTA IV was pap, but this looks even worse.

  • Essien #50 2 years ago

    Actually have decided to cancel pre-order for now. Will wait to see if EDGE review concurs with this, then I will re-evaluate.

  • Chazmeister #51 2 years ago

    8 out of 10 isn't a bad score but it looks and sounds more like a 9 or 10 to me. Though as a fan of the Western genre, I may be a bit biased. However the review seemed to struggle to find any negatives so why only an 8?

  • gohda #52 2 years ago

    @ElNino :D

  • Bertie Verified Senior Staff Writer, Eurogamer.net #53 2 years ago

    Ace. Sounds fantastic. I can forgive the hiccups.

  • Vyggo #54 2 years ago

    I am worried about the confirmation that it is in fact GTA in the Wild West. As someone who hasn't enjoyed a GTA game after 3 that doesn't sound too promising. I am still going to buy it because I really liked what I've seen of this game, but I might wait a few months... Not sure yet.

  • fongy #55 2 years ago

    What you have to remember is that this is one person's review...
    We all have opinions...
    How many games have you bought that didn't scored that highly but you LOVED?!?!
    You know the type of games you like...
    You know the ones you don't...
    Sometimes scores mislead people and an 8 is by no means a bad score - but equally, if it's a game you love (Dynasty Warriors anyone?) you know it'll always score 5s, 6s, 7s (if you're very lucky!) and you won't care because it's something you love...
    So forget reviews...
    Forget scores...
    BUY WHAT YOU LOVE TO PLAY!!!

    (I for one, LOVE a good western - so even if this had got 6, 4 , ZERO - I'd still be buying it!)

    ;)

  • Widge #56 2 years ago

    I reckon I’d love this, the main negative that I pick up is that traversing the area can be a bit of a chore at times and the horseback combat can be a bit of fingertwister. Main positive is drawing a comparison (negatively) alongside toybox open world games. I can’t stand them. I want to immerse myself in a world and its atmosphere, having it yanked out of reality by thinking the player is an ADD 14 year old absolutely ruins it for me.

    How “big” is the area in this game? Fallout size? Fuel size?

  • Dave797 #57 2 years ago

    I think if you lump the multiplayer components in with this review it's a comfortable 9. And tbh that's about what I expected.

  • Mkwone #58 2 years ago

    Since when has 8 been a bad score?

  • RelaxedMikki #59 2 years ago

    woo hoo!

    Only 3 and a bit days to go! Gimme, gimme, gimme..!

  • Nuronv #60 2 years ago

    I do love some peoples reaction to the rating system. 8/10 is bad now is it? If you were going to get it before is an 8 going to put you off?

    Fingers crossed one day games reviews might actually set rid of this stupid arbitrary number rating.
    Is it worth buying?
    Yes, no or maybe

  • cozeny #61 2 years ago

    One thing I will say however, I really don't think EG should have let a woman review a landmark game like this. Having read Simone Parkin's past reviews she's not a very credible professional.
    Edited by 3 at 17/05/10 @ 16:30

  • HoriZon #62 2 years ago

    I'm gonna write to my MP and get them to complain to EG about this score!

    :/

  • bladdard #63 2 years ago

    What about graphical fidelity EG? Any tearing, framerate issues?

    Come on guys talk about half a job!

  • Capa26 #64 2 years ago

    After playing and enjoying the relentless, free-roaming, mayhem of Red Faction: Guerrilla and Just Cause 2 I take the review's last point as a positive.

    A sandbox can be about anything and be based on any mechanics as long as it's enjoyable. A story-driven, sombre epic sounds like the perfect balance to the frantic pace of RF and JC2. I'd have been fairly devastated if the developer had tried to incorporate building destruction and near-superhero like abilities in a Western game...

  • kingnothing12 #65 2 years ago

    I love the fact that everyone's throwing in the towel and cancelling pre-orders over '1' guy's opinion even though he has praised it and not once said 'do not buy'.

    I'll be enjoying this immensley come release and i'm sure the sensible commentors will be also.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 16:32

  • Mughes #66 2 years ago

    Yes, because all throughout the build-up to this release the one question I've been asking myself is how it compares to Red Faction, since they're so obviously comparable

  • angerisagift #67 2 years ago

    @Essien - Actually have decided to cancel pre-order for now. Will wait to see if EDGE review concurs with this, then I will re-evaluate."

    I'm hoping this is sarcasm, because if you even read the review rather than just glancing at the score, you really wouldn't be taking that course of action. Unless you are a total Mong of course.

  • Beano #68 2 years ago

    When will the DF comparison article be up, EG? ;)

  • UncleLou #69 2 years ago

    Only a bit worried about the cover/shooting mechanics. GTA IV's shootouts with a pad were crap, but glorious with m/kb.

    That aside, I haven't been that excited about a game in years.

  • rudderless #70 2 years ago

    @ #48 (and others) The comparison to JC2 and Red Faction: Guerrilla is more than valid given that part of the appeal of sandbox games is in making your own fun. So, after the freeform chaos of those two, perhaps RDR's open-world entertainment isn't *quite* as immediate or enjoyable, in the reviewer's opinion.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 16:30

  • karooo #71 2 years ago

    IGN gave it 9.8 guys now i know its IGN but still its MGS4 all over again.

  • Ignatius_Cheese #72 2 years ago

    That'll do pig, that'll do.

    Will be saddlin' up my hoss this Fri.

  • ParanoidZombie #73 2 years ago

    comparing this to just cause 2 sounds very weird - what's gonna happen when LA noire is out? EG will mark it down because it's not as fast-paced as crackdown2?

  • macmurphy #74 2 years ago

    Whilst I understand EG want to get a review out as soon as possible, surely not including the multiplayer means it can't be scored. With multiplayer modes increasingly offering legs to packages, and in some cases being more important than the single player campaigns (I'm looking at you FPS's) surely they've only reviewed half the game here?

    I understand that GTA is traditionally a singleplayer game, but now they have put time into changing this emphasis surely a review should reflect the change in status? What if the MP is exceptional (or utter pony)?

    Really impressive, cogent review, but wouldn't it be better to wait for the complete package before scoring it? Otherwise you're forced to stand by a score that may be inaccurate, or to remark something.

  • Capa26 #75 2 years ago

    @KILLA

    Her?

  • Pinky_Floyd #76 2 years ago

    It would be really nice if EG could also give some details on the technical side of things. Frame rates, tearing, sound quality, that sort of thing. It's all part of the package. Reviews are becoming more like a story and the quality of the prose seems more important than the information the review imparts.

  • theiceman #77 2 years ago

    Personally i think a 8 is a very good score for a wild west game! Can't wait until i've gotten my copy.

    /goes back to watching blazing saddles

  • GaidenZero #78 2 years ago

    I love all the conspiracy theories that crop up when a review doesn't meet some peoples expectations. Oh, it's PS3 game so it was marked down, it's to drive site traffic etc..

    Is it not possible that the opinion of the reviewer may well vary slighly from that of the player? For me sometimes EG are a bit off (maybe a point either way), but I'm allowing for personal preference . The day EG is more that a couple of points out on game after game is the day I make angry comments in the thread, er I mean stop reading it and find something more in tune with my views ;p

    After all, thats the point isn't it - finding a mag/site which you know closely (not perfectly) matches your thoughts?

  • Mughes #79 2 years ago

    If Ellie Gibson had reviewed this she'd have eaten the disk and given it a 6

  • coomber #80 2 years ago

    "MGS4 all over again"

    You mean Eurogamer have hit the nail on the head for a second time?

  • LockeTribal #81 2 years ago

    Can be kinda hard to review multiplayer if there's no-one on to play with, seeing as this has been reviewed before the game has been released.

  • LeD #82 2 years ago

    The problem I have now with EG reviews is that I can no longer identify with a reviewer, and trust that their enjoyment of the game is a fair approximation of mine should I buy a given game.
    It used to be the other way around, where I was always pretty damn sure if a game had a good review text and score to match, I'd be certain not to make a mistake with regards to my gaming tastes.
    So I think I'll stick to the forums now, until some new reviewer comes along to refresh the pack. Bring back Kristan ffs!

  • Spekingur #83 2 years ago

    Isn't the comment about the multiplayer on the final review page completely wrong? Deathmatches are for up to 8 players while free roam are for up to 16 players who can form a posse of size up to 8 players.

  • eeyoretheboar #84 2 years ago

    @g13ryj - "Well written review but an 8 seems a bit unfair. Looking at other reviews on t'other sites I notice they have given the game a 10 or a 9."

    Right, because EG should score a game just by looking what other sites have given it, rather than by having their own opinion.

  • Pinky_Floyd #85 2 years ago

    Multiplayer might very well complete the package for some of you but single player is where the vast majority will get their boots on with RDR. Score the MP seperately, the main game is where it's at. Who knows the MP might score a 10 and merging the scores would drive that down the total down to a 9. Then you would be complaining about that.

  • Sir_TimAlot #86 2 years ago

    Simon Parkin = E.B. Farnum

  • Nuronv #87 2 years ago

    [sarcasm]
    I think in fact if Ellie had reviewed this it would have actually got a 9/10, If people say Alan Wake is a Man's game surely one with loads of Pony's is a girls game.
    [/sarcasm]

  • NOSAVIOUR #88 2 years ago

    Forget the score at the end. What a boring review.

  • ecosse_011172 #89 2 years ago

    Aren't all Rockstar games overrated? look at the crapfest that is GTA IV ffs...

    Good to see a hint of honesty although clearly 5/10 would have been more suitable.

  • binky #90 2 years ago

    Really well written review. Looking forward to Friday's release and SEEING FOR MYSELF how good it is.
    Wonder if the horse roaming is as tedious as the Windwaker sailing?

    mmmm Windwaker...

  • theiceman #91 2 years ago

    What a bunch of whiny babies crying over a 8 FFS! While i'm here why did i deserve a neg when all i wrote is that it is a good score?
    The minority here really bring down the site. Maybe they should go to CVG instead with all the kids in nursery?

  • cellardoor #92 2 years ago

    From what i've read on neogaf the framerate is rock solid on both platforms, dropping occasionally on the PS3 but only at a level the most anal tech-nerd would care about. For an enormous (twice as large a map as San Andreas goes the buzzline) game streaming with practically no loading I think it's as good as you can get on either console.
    The comparison to Red Faction and Just Cause is a little baffling. I enjoyed both games a lot but they were simply diversions, empty and a little unsatisfying. This looks like it's dripping with the detail and depth that only Rockstar can deliver and that I will happily suffer through a wonky cover system for.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 16:49

  • Pinky_Floyd #93 2 years ago

    WTF has Ellie got to do with this review? Give her a break you mongs. How precious do you have to be to get outright offended that someone dare disagree with your opinion of a game. Despite the fact you haven't even played it.

  • Roarster #94 2 years ago

    Hmmm, slightly torn now. Although it sounds like a good game, I'm not sure if I've got the patience for the dodgy controls the review mentions. There's too many good games about and I really don't fancy a repeat of the GTAIV shooting and cover mechanics.

  • Hog-lumps #95 2 years ago

    I've always loved the Western genre, so this game sounds fab to me despite the flaws.

    I certainly won't be worried about the 'stilted running animation' as real cowboys don't run :)
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 16:49

  • Dave797 #96 2 years ago

    Horses for course then. EG wanted a non stop thrill ride that went from one spurious scenario to another where as I wanted a real world I could create my own story in. I want peaks and troughs tbh because isn't that what makes the amazing moments
    stand out more? A slow canter across a wide open plain with long shadows and a burnt orange sky sounds perfect to me. Just goes to show sandbox games are literally what YOU make of them.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 16:50

  • Capa26 #97 2 years ago

    @Pinky_Floyd

    Amen.

  • metallicorphan #98 2 years ago

    didn't you guys give GTA4 a 10?,so this game is worse?

  • wez_316 #99 2 years ago

    So Sin and Punishment 2 is the best game of the month then EG? I'll have to grab it soon. Going to be getting this too of course, but maybe when its £20 rather than right away! Also, major thanks for being the only games reviewers who aren't either too snobby or too score happy :) Much love!

  • dbranchevans #100 2 years ago

    'I've been playing it a few days now and its much better than that', I'm sure you have Cozeny! Does sound identical to GTA with all the same great elements that game has with perhaps a few more negatives. I do think sandbox games are starting to suffer from this obsession with square millage rather than actual things to do, at least they've made the effort with side quests but I suspect like a lot of people I ended up cheating to getting a helicopter in GTA to get around and I think there'll be a similar problem with this, ad nauseum from riding through miles of sandy hills. Does look beautiful and fun for a while but not sure I want to spend 50 hrs completing a game that should of been half that...

  • bigbadbeasty #101 2 years ago

    @binky

    If it is like Windwaker boat travel I know I can tolerate it.

    Ordered today regardless, as I really fancy something like this, makes a bit of a change from the standard game themes.

  • lucifonz #102 2 years ago

    I find it extremely unprofessional to publish an effectively unfinished review for a title where a large portion of the content simply hasnt even been played. This score will get placed on the game's metacritic average however is an incomplete review... Seems like EG just wanted to get this out on the embargo time rather than do it's readers justice and publish a complete fair review.

    That said whats there is well written etc.

  • Deckard1 #103 2 years ago

    meh the whole underscoring hyped games and over scoring unhyped, quirky and "cool" games on eurogamer is getting old now. I sense another bottom of the metacritic table coming up for eurogamer.

  • Pinky_Floyd #104 2 years ago

    The important thing about his game isn't the score. No, this game cries out to he experienced by any lover of games and westerns. I dare say most of us would still buy it to try it even if it got a poor score. You know why, we all wanna eat beans and fart round a campfire if we are being honest with ourselves.

  • makariel #105 2 years ago

    Why are people keep posting the IGN score? If you want to know how IGN rates it, why don't you go over there?

  • Capa26 #106 2 years ago

    @binky

    Would be more concerned with the horse riding being as tedious as the Twilight Princess horse riding... traveling from location to location with beautiful design in between but with absolutely zero character interaction or life-signs beside a few runty bugs and those fuckin' moblins. Yes I love a good horseback fight, but I'm just trying to cross a bridge you respawning benders...

  • Nuronv #107 2 years ago

    @Pinky_Floyd
    The Ellie Scores seem to be a Eurogamer meme at the moment, take them as tongue in cheek.

  • cellardoor #108 2 years ago

    I think this'll divide people greatly. People spoiled with something as slick as Uncharted are going to be repulsed by this, whereas people looking for the long burn, the exploration and the stories that crop up as a result of just happening across something in the wilderness are going to be treated to one hell of an experience. I'm pretty chuffed that my money is going to be spent on something I can play for 50+ hours. That's value!

  • Bradach #109 2 years ago

    i think EG should have waited with the review to include a multiplayer review. Multiplayer is a good 50% of the reason i buy games these days so i was disappointed that there was no mention of it. If they couldn't play it because there is no one online then they should have waited.
    I'll definately be picking this one up.

  • Vanmunt #110 2 years ago

    well that read like 'I really am not a fan of this game, but if I give this anything less than an 8 I will get shafted'...

    how can riding across the desert on a horse get boring..

  • Retro_ #111 2 years ago

    Dear Eurogamer, Please could you, for once, stop reviewing the 360 version of a game and review the PS3 version.... just once, it won't hurt you.

  • Skandalle #112 2 years ago

    Great score, and to have that with the multiplayer side of things stripped out is a truly great achievement for R*
    Bring on Free roam!
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 16:58

  • Capa26 #113 2 years ago

    "how can riding across the desert on a horse [with no name] get boring.."

    I know... it always feels so good to get out of the rain.

    ..........sorry.

  • FogHeart #114 2 years ago

    Wow! Sounds like the best bits of all those classic Wild West films. Especially the....Campfire Teleporting?????!!!

    Oh well. In real life standing on a health kit just breaks the box, and walking into a fire will just ruin yer Adidas. RL sucks.



  • Dylbot #115 2 years ago

    Holy shit, I got negged for saying I expected this mark? Rockstar have this tendancy to make flawed but ultimately brilliant games. I didn't expect this to be perfect, and I certainly didn't think GTA IV was. You can't honestly disagree with me on that one. Doesn't mean I didn't love the shit out of it, and I'm pretty sure I'll have the same feelings for this game.

    Calm yourselves, baying wolves.

  • SpaceMonkey77 #116 2 years ago

    8/10 is still a damn good score, that's its not worth sniffing at. However, I'm afraid I'm going to pass on RDR2.

    Thing with me persoanlly and Rockstar games is, that they've gotten too serious for their own good, that at times, they forget that you are playing a game and its supposed to be fun. Games like Crackdown, Just Cause, Saint Row and Red Faction G, remember to bring this to the table and have raised the bar, possibly at the expense of the story, and that's not always so bad.

    Rockstar need to stop leeching off of their film influences so much, or they'll end up circling the well like Kojima, where actual gameplay and fun can be compromised, in search of BEING LIKE FILM story, authenticity etc. Please remember ITS A GAME, ROCKSTAR. I became a gamer swimming in apathy, after indulging so much in GTAIV, for while its story, characters were outstanding, the gameplay itself suffered and became a drag of several mundane, yet dry feeling options. It felt at times like the only one with a smile who was enjoying themselves was Roman, when it should have been me.

    The result. Authenticity and realism is commendable but doesn't always = fun game. I fear that while RDR will be a swan song this month for many, Rockstar are getting lapped by the sand box competition, who OFFER MORE FUN GAMEPLAY. If I want a serious mature story, I'll go watch Deadwood of the Sopranos, or watch someone play Heavy Rain.

    RDR I'll get when its cheap.



  • CaptainQuint #117 2 years ago

    Damn, once again, Rockstar's usual scrappy controls stop this from being a purchase, for me. I wish they'd reign in some of that ambition and instead concentrate on polish.

  • UncleLou #118 2 years ago

    Horses for course then. EG wanted a non stop thrill ride that went from one spurious scenario to another where as I wanted a real world I could create my own story in. I want peaks and troughs tbh because isn't that what makes the amazing moments

    Nail on the head, I think. Personally, I don't like the "instafun" free-roaming games like Just Cause. I need a convincing, meticulously fleshed out world to live in, and it sounds like RDR will deliver just that, but I can totally see why some people prefer something like, say, RF:G to GTA IV.

  • Capa26 #119 2 years ago

    @Nutjob

    There appear to be letters missing in most words when you type a sentence.. could you check your keyboard has every letter on it?

    Either that or you are eight years old and need to stop playing such violent games.

  • croxyj #120 2 years ago

    Review the entire game then give it a score, you can't even propose to review a game if , in the current gaming market anyway, the most sought after aspect hasn't been tested. Ridiculous

  • UncleLou #121 2 years ago

    ey forget that you are playing a game and its supposed to be fun. Games like Crackdown, Just Cause, Saint Row and Red Faction G, remember to bring this to the table and have raised the bar, possibly at the expense of the story, and that's not always so bad.

    Heh, just the opposite for me - the "fun" argument is a bit a useless one though - I have fun being involved in a "serious", cinematic story like in GTA IV, while the "fun" in RG: F felt gimmicky to me and bored after a couple of hours, and I had felt I had seen enough of JC after the demo(s). :)

  • Nuronv #122 2 years ago

    yes "fun" is subjective, as are reviews.

  • croxyj #123 2 years ago

    Spacemonkey 77 you seriously have not kept up with this game watch the trailers, hell watch some of the streams its immensely fun to insinuate that they've gone for a serious story line and left the fun out can only be the remark of an ignoramus.

  • NOSAVIOUR #124 2 years ago

    How can you review a game, give it a score, and not the touch multiplayer component which is a very big part of it.

  • HandOfBeadle #125 2 years ago

    I dunno if this has been covered in the comments section already, but Simon, did you realise you can skip from one area to the next without having to ride there by horse all the time? Someone on another forum who has a review copy said there was, and it doesn't seem as though you covered it.

  • ryohazuki1983 #126 2 years ago

    I think most people are aware 8/10 is a good score, however it's the most anticipated game of the year for a lot of folks, thats why some appear to be "disappointed".

    Also I really can't understand how the hell people cancel pre-orders based on 1 review, IMO thats just total madness.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 17:16

  • PlugMonkey #127 2 years ago

    "The result is an exceptional Rockstar game, one that successfully re-clothes the Grand Theft Auto framework in an exciting, distinct and expertly realised scenario. But just how satisfying the formula remains after the exuberant destructiveness of Red Faction: Guerrilla, or the joyful, ad-hoc player stories born in the freedom of Just Cause 2's playpen, is increasingly under scrutiny."

    In other words "EG now realises that it went waaay over the top with the 10/10 GTAIV review, and we've got to make the adjustment back to reality at some point". ;)

    Still on pre-order. The original Red Dead was one of my favourite games of the generation. Not perfect by any means, but I really clicked with it for some reason.

    Anyone remember the 'The Quick and The Dead' inspired quickdraw competition? Fuck me, that was hard.

  • Zerobob #128 2 years ago

    Refering to the last paragraph of the review, I'd much rather emmerse myself in this wild west type world than the utter boring blandness of Red Faction.

    I thought the review gave away far too many details of the game, ie. telling the game, rather than describing aspects of the game. That said it got over the negative points well; bad cover system, bad running, boring horse riding between A and B.

    I can forgive the boring horse riding, which is maybe unavoidable. I can maybe forgive the bad cover system on a large scale sandbox game, where clipping can't be too detailed, but is the running animation really too hard to get right/change?! Its things like that which ruin a great game.

    Still, the missions, locations and game mechanics all sound fun. I think I'll pick this up.

    Also, anybody think that the review gave a detailed explanation of what the negative points are and why, but failed to say what exactly the positive aspects were and why they worked well? I think you were meant to assume a lot of the things mentioned were good and make you think "coool" but the reviewer actually failed to say they were good, or describe why they worked well.
    Edited by 2 at 17/05/10 @ 17:28

  • Farzlepot #129 2 years ago

    8/10?

    8/10?!

    8/10?!?!

    That's it. I'm committing suicide. I can't believe that my favourite game that I haven't played yet, didn't get the review score that I wanted it to get. There's just no point in my life anymore.

    Good-bye, cruel world.

  • hibee #130 2 years ago

    Christ on a bike, are we really going to have this outpouring of drivel after every major realease? *8 is a good score*. It suggests a great game with some flaws - as does the actual review. And if you are sure the game is worth more then I can only assume you've already played it so why the fuck are you reading reviews? Please piss off. Thanks. Oh, and it would be really great if we could finish with the pathetic Ellie hate too. Just because you are a peurile mysoginistic little arse with an abiding terror of all females doesn't mean you have to shout that fact to the world. Ta.

    Aaaaanyway, game sounds intriguing, but I would like to know more about the shooting, as I got very bored of GTAIV halfway through and never finished it. Anyone know if there's a demo coming?

  • Ninja_Tino #131 2 years ago

    READ THE REVIEW!!! Don't just glimpse at the number.

  • Capa26 #132 2 years ago

    @EarlBassett

    Aye... Sergio Leone would be turning in his grave at that comment.

  • Hypercube #133 2 years ago

    Ok. So you don't know anything about westerns then.
    And how many westerns have you seen that are 90 minutes long?

    "Fistful of dollars" is only 99 minutes long."High Noon" is 85 minutes long.

    What's your point?

  • LeD #134 2 years ago

    #168

    "READ THE REVIEW!!! Don't just glimpse at the number."

    Problem is that it's boring, fails to deliver a good account of the plot and characters, and makes flawed points and unfair comparisons.

  • neems #135 2 years ago

    @HandOfBeadle - the review actually mentions fast travel, virtually in the same breath that it complains about long distance travel.

    To my mind, this seems like a decent review. A well considered, more realistic take on a game that threatens to become buried in it's own hype. I have it on pre-order, and I think it sounds fantastic. Nothing in this review either fills me with alarm, or makes me want to hurl abuse at the reviewer.

    As a side note, does anybody else feel that 8/10 is a better score than 80%? I realise that mathematically speaking they are the same, while allowing scope for 8/10 to cover anything from 75 - 84%, but somehow, to me, 8/10 conveys a better impression than 80% does. Or maybe I'm just weird.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 17:32

  • macmurphy #136 2 years ago

    For anyone that's feeling suicidal a quick trip to Metacritic reveals that Eurogamer is erring on the side of harshness. It's at 96 on the 360 after 16 reviews with nothing below a 90.

  • brazzauk #137 2 years ago

    10 hours in and this is a 9/10 for me. I prefer it to GTA IV so far (for me that was a 9/10 as well) because I prefer the setting but the core game is the same! Could have freshened up some bits, would like to have seen a new wanted mechanism, bit bored of the escape the circle to get the bar to cool down now.

    Love this game, cant wait to try it on PSN on Friday, I think the multiplayer will be more of a novelty, dont see it replacing BFBC2 as my online game right now but it may be fun for a bit.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 17:31

  • UncleLou #138 2 years ago

    "u gettin the ps3 version lou or u waiting months to pla it on pc with a mouse and put up with bugs?"

    Heh, I've seen more, and more serious, bugs in two months on the PS3 than in the last twelve months of PC gaming - Uncharted freezing, UC2 not loading a savegame, God of War 3 breaking a savegame...

    That said, I don't have the patience to wait for an unannounced PC version. PS3 day one purchase no doubt.

  • razzastuta #139 2 years ago

    What is going on? How come Eurogamer are reviewing games with awful scores? 7/10 for Alan Wake and now 8/10 for THIS?

    Whatever is going wrong with the world?

    Why can I not live in a world where a professional games reviewer gives a decent score for a game that is yet to come out and I may or may not want to buy? This whole democratic process and free choice is wrong, it simply shouldn't be allowed.

    If I was in power, all the games I liked the look of before I reviewed them - regardless of quality - would be an instead 11/10 because that's the kind of reviewer I'd be, just to please the masses.

    Oh - and bring back hanging too.

  • coomber #140 2 years ago

    Why was I not informed about IGN's 'tits and boobs' section before now?

  • andywilkie35 #141 2 years ago

    well BUTTER MY ARSE

  • guernican #142 2 years ago

    Dear Eurogamer. May I make a humble editorial suggestion in the light of this wearisome (in parts) comments thread.

    Bin the numbers. Just bin them. As your reviews are clearly produced with far more of an eye towards giving the prospective gamer a value judgement on the game's tropes, foibles and whatnots, than they are towards producing a necessarily reductive number, why not make some of these ignorant little bastards work for their insight by ditching the score and suggesting that they, y'know, read the text and all.

  • roz123 #143 2 years ago

    EG should review games on hype and advertising alone. Only then will their reviews have any credability

  • hulkamania78 #144 2 years ago

    It is not a bad score but to mark it as good as Just Cause is ridiculous. Its like a cricketer reviewing FIFA OR PES utter bullshit!!!!

    This is the only site to review lower than a 9 thats without MP. Nothing like controversy to get more hits on your website EG. You guys should be ashamed GTA4 was not better than this and I loved that game.

  • SpaceMonkey77 #145 2 years ago

    Sure, these sand box games will be different for everyone, different strokes and all. When I posted earlier, that was based on my personal opinion and experience with GTAIV. Again, others might have experience the game differently. If I'm done with their games, again that's my choice.

    And sure, I like a good story too, and perhaps I'm jaded as most stories in game are not that compelling for my attention. The story versus game thing is tricky to balance, but shouldn't be so. Gameplay and story have to be at a certain level for me to bite.

    Lol, well sorry for not spell checking my every post. We can't all be C3PO and get shit perfect all the time. Only human.

    @croxt

    Dude, watched the trailers, and it looks like the last Rockstar game in western clothes (while being not to shabby looking). While Rockstar's talented, like I said, I'm worn out on their games. You can think what you like, I've my own view, made my choice and it doesn't tickle me enough. Bargain bin pick up at xmas for me.

  • spekkeh #146 2 years ago

    Not sure why my "in before shitstorm" comment was marked down, seems like I got it exactly right.

    I always loved the Eurogamer site and comment sections, as it was the only game related website where people seemed to possess half a brain. Guess the excellent EG reviews, which to me have always been spot on (apart from Fable 2 and GTA, minor hype blimps, but I have no doubt it will be spot on in this case too), have now garnered too much attention and bitten itself in its own behind.

    Back on topic of the game, I never really got into GTAIV. I felt they had excelled in all the technical areas, but forgot to improve on the gameplay, which was in essence the same as GTAIII and was starting to feel dated. This review seems to say the same, that beneath all the pretty environments it's in essence just GTA wild west, with the same gameplay that felt outdated two years ago.

    Still, Rockstar managed to again sucker me in and get me incredibly excited for this game, so I'm most definitely going to buy this, love it--at least in the beginning and then get annoyed by all the same old niggles again. O fortuna.

  • local_celebrity #147 2 years ago

    At least Eurogamer bothered to play the game. Their Italian cousins seem to have just cut and pasted the press release:

    "Red Dead Redemption is a masterpiece. This game is the perfect example of how a developer should work to create the best atmosphere and to represent a beautiful historical situation. The graphics, the gameplay elements and everything else is at top level. Buy Red Dead Redemption, now!"

    Those Italians. They're so excitable.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 18:49

  • ignatiusjreilly #148 2 years ago

    An 8?!

    This is the biggest game Rockstar have done since GTA IV, and is already receiving Game of the Year 2010 nominations from specialists all around the world.

    Can you please ensure Simon's article reflects this - he needs to respect the huge achievement he's writing about here.

  • lordofthedunce #149 2 years ago

    @ guernican

    Dear Eurogamer. May I make a humble editorial suggestion in the light of this wearisome (in parts) comments thread.

    Bin the numbers. Just bin them. As your reviews are clearly produced with far more of an eye towards giving the prospective gamer a value judgement on the game's tropes, foibles and whatnots, than they are towards producing a necessarily reductive number, why not make some of these ignorant little bastards work for their insight by ditching the score and suggesting that they, y'know, read the text and all.

    As much as it saddens me to say, it's in EG's interest to attract as many hits as possible. Keeping the masses riled keeps the ad revenues flowing.

    My advice is to stick to the forums for chat about games and leave the comments sections alone if they bother you too much.

    I'll probably pick this up when it drops in price. Make a nice one to meander through on those lazy Sundays.

  • Physically_Insane #150 2 years ago

    8/10 is not a bad score at all. I'll be picking this up at the end of the week for sure. But I do have a tiny feeling that they gave this a lower score than it should have for more hits. I mean look at the Alan Wake review.

  • Fab4 #151 2 years ago

    Just remember...this is the same reviewer who gave MW2 a 9/10...and that had a shit SP story and a shit MP.

    You can take one of two things from that...

    1) He doesnt know what he is talking about

    or

    2) RDR is really crap.


    I'm hoping for option 1.

  • mkreku #152 2 years ago

    This is the same score I'd have given GTAIV..

    And since I thoroughly enjoyed GTAIV: please release this on PC too!

  • macmurphy #153 2 years ago

    @razzastuta.

    I can see what you're saying mate, but the truth is reviews should not (IMHO) be entirely subjective. Everyone has a game that they just didn't get - I never like Half Life 2 and probably would have scored it a 6. It just never clicked with me. But if I reviewed it and gave it a 6 I would be doing the game a disservice, because it seems that it is worthy of a much better score for the majority of people. So subjectively it's a 6, but objectively it's not. Reviewers are writing for other people, not themserlves, so they should be objective.

    As a respected site, Eurogamer has a responsibility to keep its scores roughly in line with everyone else. Alan Wake and Red Dead look like their scores will be slightly below the averge, and that's fine. The reviews are well written, you can pick apart the text and decide if the game is for you.

    But I still think that if a site or magazine consistently gives scores that are out of touch with its peers then I begin to question the reliability of those scores. The truth is I don't want an utterly subjective opinion, which some people seem to think we should expect. If I want that I'll ask some dickhead down the pub. I want an objective and considered account.

    This allows for a margin of difference, so I can live with 8/10 and I'll not whine about it. But if we keep seeing Eurogamer reviews out of touch with everyone else then we doubt them. And that's never a good thing, surely?

  • Farzlepot #154 2 years ago

    @ Nutjob,

    Don't you have anything better to do with your time? I've been reading through the comments section, which is frankly hilarious in parts, and since the beginning I've seen your name popping up with some kind of snide, yet virtually incomprehensible, comment every other post.

    If you dislike EG that much, can I make a suggestion to you? You see that big, red X on the top-right of the browser window? Click it, and EG will disappear from your screen. Provided you never type 'eurogamer.net' into your address bar the next time you open your browser, it will never bother you ever again.

    More importantly, you won't be here anymore. And that'll be beneficial to us all.

  • swisstony #155 2 years ago

    reading a comments thread like this i'd do the review scores 'on purpose' too, it keeps muppets apoplectic with rage, and that has to be a perk.

    "As a respected site, Eurogamer has a responsibility to keep its scores roughly in line with everyone else."

    No, it has to give a game a score and explain why the game receives that score with reasoned analysis rather than 'nah not for me', which it does.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 17:55

  • TRUTH #156 2 years ago

    Everyone read various bloody reviews before judging. So far Metacritic have given this 96/100 (scored very highly & again Eurogamer scored the lowest 8/10).

    I'm sure this is a great game - just read more.

    http://ww w.metacritic.com/games/platform...
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 17:55

  • PlugMonkey #157 2 years ago

    Hypercube
    "Fistful of dollars" is only 99 minutes long."High Noon" is 85 minutes long.

    What's your point?

    Well, aside from the running time thing (which wasn't 100% accurate, and was something of a side point) I think his main point was that most westerns DON'T enjoy a rapid fire of crisp, purposeful scenes to link the action. A lot of them (particularly John Ford and Sergio Leone; and subsequently Clint Eastwood) are quite famous for having long, slow, languorous shots of scenery, dogs, horses, flies, cows, flies, people sleeping and flies.

    As a result, if you asked me to list film genres that I associate with "a rapid fire of crisp, purposeful scenes", westerns would be somewhere fairly near the bottom.

  • dsmx #158 2 years ago

    Why does everyone who doesn't like the scores on eurogamer keep bringing up that other sites gave the game this score. All you manage to prove by doing that is that those sites give out high marks easily.

    While eurogamer does occasional get sucked into the hype (GTA4 springs to mind) it is usually right when it comes to the scores. Considering almost everyone here will not of played the game yet perhaps you should stop whining about how other sites gave it a higher score and judge for yourself when you actually play it.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 18:04

  • Azazel #159 2 years ago

    8/10 - Shit
    9/10 - Acceptable
    10/10 - ZOMGBONGO

    New Games Review Marking System (NGRMS)

    ?
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 12:57

  • Hypercube #160 2 years ago

    Well, aside from the running time thing (which wasn't 100% accurate, and was something of a side point) I think his main point was that most westerns DON'T enjoy a rapid fire of crisp, purposeful scenes to link the action. A lot of them (particularly John Ford and Sergio Leone; and subsequently Clint Eastwood) are quite famous for having long, slow, languorous shots of scenery, dogs, horses, flies, cows, flies, people sleeping and flies.

    As a result, if you asked me to list film genres that I associate with "a rapid fire of crisp, purposeful scenes", westerns would be somewhere fairly near the bottom.

    OK, put like that I completely see the point (but not necessarily agree with it entirely!). Just mentioning the running time seemed odd - there are short Westerns, and there are long Westerns. There are Westerns full of action, and there are slow, meditative Westerns.

  • Ryboy #161 2 years ago

    Negging cunts, I hate you. Enjoy your cancer.

  • afghan_jones #162 2 years ago

    you mad lesbian cow, clearly the game should be an 11 why dont you go back to farmville and your ds games you bra burning clunge gobbler!

    (am i doing this right?)

  • spekkeh #163 2 years ago

    Oh good! I see they reinstated the 'ignore poster' link. Buhbye nutjob!

  • UncleLou #164 2 years ago

    People just need to accept that this game just isn't THAT good!

    You mean: people need to accept that Simon thinks the game isn't THAT good. Whether it's a bag of shite, a masterpiece or something in between I'll decide all for myself, thank you very much.

  • uglygamer #165 2 years ago

    Reviews so far

    ♦ 100.0% | PlayStation Official Magazine UK
    ♦ 100.0% | Official XBOX Magazine (UK)
    ♦ 100.0% | GamePro (US)
    ♦ 100.0% | PSM3 (UK)
    ♦ 100.0% | Eurogamer (DE)
    ♦ 100.0% | Gamereactor (DK)
    ♦ 100.0% | guardian.co.uk
    ♦ 100.0% | Gamer.nl
    ♦ 100.0% | JeuxActu.com (FR)
    ♦ 100.0% | Gamereactor.se -- (SE)

    ♦ 98.0% | IGN (UK)
    ♦ 97.5% | Game Informer (US)
    ♦ 96.0% | Multiplayer.it (IT)
    ♦ 97.0% | IGN (US)
    ♦ 95.0% | CVG (UK)
    ♦ 95.0% | Cynamite.de
    ♦ 95.0% | GamePro.de
    ♦ 94.0% | 9lives.be
    ♦ 93.0% | NowGamer (UK)
    ♦ 92.0% | Games Aktuell (DE)
    ♦ 91.0% | SpazioGames.it
    ♦ 90.0% | gamesTM (UK)
    ♦ 90.0% | Gamekult.com (FR)
    ♦ 90.0% | jeuxvideo.com (FR)
    ♦ 90.0% | Eurogamer (IT)
    ♦ 90.0% | TVG (US)
    ♦ 90.0% | Gamekult -- (US)

    ♦ 80.0% | Eurogamer (UK)

  • mizcicz #166 2 years ago

    yea eurogamer. you are SO UNIQUE. i know now. i know.

  • Felwyn #167 2 years ago

    obviously everyone else is biased

  • Physically_Insane #168 2 years ago

    People get upset over a hyped game when it scores lower than a 9 because games are expensive. I can't afford to buy a game every week like films or music. I generally only buy highly rated games once a month.

  • Demiath #169 2 years ago

    Videogames can offer windows on forgotten vistas; Red Dead Redemption is a vivid rebuilding of a world lost to time and technology.

    Sold. Sold! S-O-L-D!
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 18:19

  • Onelove1867 #170 2 years ago

    The sh*tstorm created here over the number at the end of the review is embarrassing.

    Seriously, do people not READ anymore? What would people do without a Metacritic average to pour over?

    Multiplayer aside, this is a pretty decent and in depth review that gives a pretty fair and balanced view of the game's pro's and con's. If you want to find out what the game is actually like, have a read of the review and weigh up the balance between the pro's and con's yourselves, instead of relying on an insignificant and vague score from 1-10 to tell you to buy it or not.

    Personally, I'd like to suggest to Eurogamer that you guys remove the scoring system. You're big enough to stand on your own two feet now and don't need the Meta-hits.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 18:21

  • spekkeh #171 2 years ago

    obviously everyone else is biased

    And this is the naked truth. When it comes to really big budget hyped multiplatform games, there's only two websites that are vaguely reliable: Eurogamer and Edge. The rest just caters to the money and the fanboys.

  • PlugMonkey #172 2 years ago

    uglygamer
    Reviews so far

    ♦ 100.0% | PlayStation Official Magazine UK
    ♦ 100.0% | Official XBOX Magazine (UK)
    ♦ 100.0% | GamePro (US)
    ♦ 100.0% | PSM3 (UK)
    ♦ 100.0% | Eurogamer (DE)
    ♦ 100.0% | Gamereactor (DK)
    ♦ 100.0% | guardian.co.uk
    ♦ 100.0% | Gamer.nl
    ♦ 100.0% | JeuxActu.com (FR)
    ♦ 100.0% | Gamereactor.se -- (SE)

    ♦ 98.0% | IGN (UK)
    ♦ 97.5% | Game Informer (US)
    ♦ 96.0% | Multiplayer.it (IT)
    ♦ 97.0% | IGN (US)
    ♦ 95.0% | CVG (UK)
    ♦ 95.0% | Cynamite.de
    ♦ 95.0% | GamePro.de
    ♦ 94.0% | 9lives.be
    ♦ 93.0% | NowGamer (UK)
    ♦ 92.0% | Games Aktuell (DE)
    ♦ 91.0% | SpazioGames.it
    ♦ 90.0% | gamesTM (UK)
    ♦ 90.0% | Gamekult.com (FR)
    ♦ 90.0% | jeuxvideo.com (FR)
    ♦ 90.0% | Eurogamer (IT)
    ♦ 90.0% | TVG (US)
    ♦ 90.0% | Gamekult -- (US)

    ♦ 80.0% | Eurogamer (UK)

    So? GTAIV got similar scores everywhere, including on EuroGamer, and that was an 8/10 game if I ever played one (IMO).

    How about, instead of quoting a load of other peoples' opinions to form your opinion, you play the damn game and then form an opinion all of your very own.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 18:25

  • KilgoreTroutXL #173 2 years ago

    Sounds like a lot of fun and I'm looking forward to it. But as with GTA IV, I doubt I'll manage to make it through the whole thing (awful kind of them to put 50 hours of game in the game though.)

    The skinning achievement gives me warcraft nightmares, naturally.

  • PlugMonkey #174 2 years ago

    Hypercube
    "OK, put like that I completely see the point (but not necessarily agree with it entirely!). Just mentioning the running time seemed odd - there are short Westerns, and there are long Westerns. There are Westerns full of action, and there are slow, meditative Westerns. "

    Then all there is left to argue is which ones are "the very best Westerns", as Mr Parkin put it.

    (It's the long, slow, meditative ones) :p

  • HokutoNoKen #175 2 years ago

    EDGE review:

    [link url=http://www.edge-online.com/features/review-red-dea d-redemption
    ]http://ww w.edge-online.com/features/revi...[/link]

    9 / 10

    / Ken

  • SpaceMonkey77 #176 2 years ago

    Nothing wrong with an 8/10. Many games out there would love to have that score.

  • MyPointIs #177 2 years ago

    Simon would've given an 8 to GTA IV as well. I'd like to know if he played mostly using the automated targetting or not (it seems not, as other reviewers praised how easy was to shoot while riding ...)

    I love R* games myself, GTA/Bully were near perfect gaming heaven in my book. I love the Western setting. You do the math.

  • TheBrow #178 2 years ago

    I think history has proven that 8/10 is The Most Controversial score you can possibly give...

    [edit - I'm not trying to suggest that EG are being deliberately controversial here, I'm more expressing surprise at the level of response the score is generating. I'm not certain but didn't something similar happen with Halo and with MGS4?]
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 18:36

  • wynams #179 2 years ago

    No comment on the 8/10, just that this review should not give a score without considering the full body of work (i.e. multiplayer). I've come to trust EG less and less with the hurried reviews, reviews that slam a game but give 8/10 (DAO) and reviews that just belie metacritic. EG is constantly an extreme outlier on the metacritic scores, that should tell you something.

  • dsmx #180 2 years ago

    Still don't why people are getting so up in arms about the 8, all that means is that it's a solid game with very few things that will detract from your enjoyment of it. Most people will enjoy it but there will be people who will hate it.

  • TRUTH #181 2 years ago

    My favorite game this year turned out to be Metro 2033 on XB360, and thought it was better then Bioshock 2...That only scored 7/10 (Metro 2033) here on Eurogamer, also MW got a 9/10, and that was so overrated! I prefer KOF XII and Blueblaze to SSF IV, I think Demon's Souls is the best game on PS3, yet scored lower then Killzone 2 (which I found shiity) and though Uncharted 2 was a good game, personally I thought it was 8/10 for me. I preferred Bayonneta to GOW III, yet GOW III gets all the glamour...The point is that games may appeal in different areas to people. RDR has scored a solid 8/10 here - yet people complain, then go and buy MW2, simply because it got a 9/10 here on Eurogamer!

    I think some reviewers start to niggle about things that no-one really cares about, and blow it out of per-portion as if the reviewer is some sort of expert game designer, or someone who spends the whole time just looking to knock the game that plays great, but just need to magnify a problem that is really non existent to most gamers...If people who where hoping to buy this game and now decided that it's shit because it scored 8/10, is really feeding this form of reviewing games!!!... By the away Metacritc have scored this 96/100 - must be a decent game, though it probably fairly shit as it never got 99/100!
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 18:39

  • Jamman3 #182 2 years ago

    Yeah, I have to admit - as much as I love Eurogamer, I am getting slightly annoyed by the new trend of giving out consistency lower scores than the rest of the review sites. I don't know if they're doing it on purpose to attract more attention or they've just happen to employ very (or maybe over) critical staff. Either way, I can only see this hurting them in the long run if it carries on like this.

    Also, for someone like me (a poor student!) who only buys a half a dozen games a year, it's slightly annoying to see a lower scored review from a games site I trust, after hearing and seeing so many good things about the game. It puts doubts into my - and other peoples - mind, and could stop them from purchasing a potentiality brilliant game.

    That is all =)

  • irrelevanthuman #183 2 years ago

    Sounds great(with some pretty minor quibbles)and if it wasn't for economic considerations this would be a no-brainer.As things stand will be waiting to see how Crackdown 2 is received before laying down the green stuff for either game. Just Cause will keep me going in the meantime though,as far as open world shennanigans go.

  • FooAtari #184 2 years ago

    This review thread is embarrassing. Yet again you all mange to prove why the games industry isn't taken seriouslly outside the industry and why many still considered in a kid/teen hobby

    @manmurphy

    As a respected site, Eurogamer has a responsibility to keep its scores roughly in line with everyone else.

    /facepalm

    No it doesn't. It has a responsibility to form an honest opinion of the game and justify that opinion.

    And anyway, EG gave the game an 8. That's 1 point, one minuscule little point below half the reviews on Metacritic.

    @Physically_Insane
    People get upset over a hyped game when it scores lower than a 9 because games are expensive. I can't afford to buy a game every week like films or music. I generally only buy highly rated games once a month.

    So? What does that have to do with the score EG give? I don't see how the score given should relate to hype and how much you can afford to spend on games.
    Does it effect your opinion of the game THAT much? I've bought a lot of 9 or 10 out of 10 games that I thought were crap, and a lot of 7 or 8 out of 10 games that I thought were bloody great. Basing your purchases entirely on review scores is stupid at best. At least pay more attention to the text as it's a better way to get an idea if you will like it or not.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 18:41

  • Bloobat #185 2 years ago

    AWSOME! I must buy this after Modnation racers!

  • makeamazing #186 2 years ago

    What is wrong with some people slating an 8/10, thats good in my book.. I am sure some people in this forum are not actually old enough to play this game.

    With regards to GTA, as it was the first GTA game on the Next Gen at the time, i can understand the hype (even though it certainly wasnt as good as SA and VC)... but i think because it was new on the platform thats one of the reasons is scored highly. I completed GTA yesterday, and though i love GTA, it overall was alittle on the boring side mission wise. If EG were to review that today in comparison with RDR i am pretty sure it would get less (7).

    In an open world game, things such as riding for ages is no different to driving a car (or in the end just using taxis)... i am not sure how the developers would get around that easily in an open world game. From what i have read with regards to the mission types and what you can do, this game is more exciting to me than GTA, as i think the main thing that lacked in that game was variety.

    Anyway cant wait to get this and play it, regardless of the childish meltdown that some individuals are having that it didnt get a 10.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 18:46

  • Bradach #187 2 years ago

    not a bad review of half the game...

  • govaner7 #188 2 years ago

    why are people defending eurogamer scores , the facts are there, they are consistently bottom of the metacritic ratings. They are either the only site that gets the right score or there consistently wrong.

  • AllenSpawn #189 2 years ago

    All this nonsense for an 8. You lot on here sure are a "wild bunch".
    I think that the reviewer is gonna be "unforgiven". And what's with the 4pm review-- I thought it was coming at high noon!
    But after Reading the good, bad and ugly reviews, I shall be taking a fistfull of dollars down to the store to buy this.

  • Toonster #190 2 years ago

    /puts comment-viewing threshold at +10

    ahhhh, much better

  • spekkeh #191 2 years ago

    In fact, I think you're just gathering fools

    Given you've registered just to whine about a game receiving a very decent score, I think you may be right.

    It's an eight! Not a three! Get over yourselves f*cktards. It's Dorkfail all over again.

    My ignore button is smoking.

  • Darren #192 2 years ago

    Ah, dear old EG and their ambition to be the website that offers the lowest game scores on Metacritic... ... well, OK... that's not true but it does look that way sometimes. ;)

    Now I have not played this game so I cannot say whether it deserves an 8 or a 10. I'll just say that I view Eurogamer's review and resulting score as the lowest limit of review scores (which they usually are) so if a game gets an 8 and 9s and 10s elsewhere then I consider it a must buy (unless I hate the genre, obviously). Can't wait to play this fantastic looking game so I can make my own mind up about it. :)

  • Dave797 #193 2 years ago

    A quote from another review site on mounts which shall remain nameless:

    "Artfully animated and joyous to ride, they join Epona and Agro in gaming's equestrian elite. It's possible to build a real attachment to them as well: one wild stallion we broke in and tamed at the story's outset stayed faithful to us for some 15 hours, and when it eventually keeled over of exhaustion it was a moment as powerful as any of the story's scripted twists and turns."

    That right there is what this game is all about, regardless of the niggles feelings like that don't come around in games often, roll on Friday!
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 19:02

  • Shrike #194 2 years ago

    I feel dirty for joining the bandwagon but that just did not read like an 8. I don't skip to the score, and by the end of page 2 I was pretty convinced it was going to be a 10. When the caveats rolled in I thought "well, maybe a 9" - the 8 took me by surprise.

    I haven't played the game yet, it may well be 8-worthy, whatever. The point is very few 8s get lavish, poetic three-page reviews, and that's why the score is a surprise.

  • onezeonx #195 2 years ago

    Eurogamer comments are full of shit!!

    If you arse lick and say "wow great review eurogamer!" you get sucked off more than bill clinton!

    Yet mention anything bad about the review process and you abused lol

    As for the game ill get and enjoy so stuff ALL reviews!

  • CalmHorizons #196 2 years ago

    It takes a peculiar type of hypocrite to argue that game-reviewers are, on the one hand, corrupted by a highly regulated industry, whilst also deriding any journalist who has the chutzpah to stick to their guns and give a balanced review that doesn't simply tailor itself according to the level of marketing hype a game has received.

    Alas, many such people exist, and frequent these comments in droves it seems.

    Kudos to Eurogamer for attempting to maintain a level of objectivity that many people -fanboys- seem entirely incapable of doing.

    * Oh and an eight is a perfectly respectable score for a game that the review, rightly highlights, has reused the mechanics of both a series and a genre that have been well established. The former being GTA and the latter being Westerns in cinema. Hardly the revolutionary stuff that 9's and 10's should surely be reserved for.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 19:09

  • alan_stealth #197 2 years ago

    Oh what a surprise Eurogamer, trying to up their ante as critics by giving a game an 8/10 that's going to get 10 everywhere else.
    I notice this has happened on a lot of high profile releases recently.
    It's a bit pathetic really, I used to think they were a nice change from the americanised manufactured Gamespot but it's getting just as bad.
    I guess that's the thing with internet editorials, you can't have a Page 3 girl to sell your product, so you try too hard to be edgy and different.

    The Sun says Page 8.

    And
    Fuck Sony.
    Ha.

  • macmurphy #198 2 years ago

    @ Fooatari.

    First up I said I could live with the score. I think you've misunderstood me, and in fairness I don't think I phrased myself very well. I said 'As a respected site, Eurogamer has a responsibility to keep its scores roughly in line with everyone else.'

    Perhaps this implies that I think they should not have the courage of their convictions and should wait to see what everyone else does and mark a game accordingly. This is not what I mean at all. I just believe that if we are to respect the scores given, their should be some kind of parity with what everyone else is saying.

    My point stands; they are not writing for themselves but for their audience, so reviews should be objective and not subjective. If they are objective, I would expect the scores they give to fall broadly in to line with the wider consensus. So I like Simon's review, and he seems to have given a fair account. At the same time I also expect Eurogamer's scores to roughly reflect the wider held view.

    You reckon Eurogamer 'has a responsibility to form an honest opinion of the game and justify that opinion.' Simon could honestly think Red Dead was shit. He could give write a journalistic masterclass illuminating it's faults and give it a 4. But would that be fair to the readership? Or would it be fair to the game?

    He's welcome to his honest opinion, but I want that tempered with objective comment - that's what good journalism is to me. Like I said I wan't ragging him, I think his score may end up on the lower end of those given, but it seems a pretty fair assessment. I just think in general that the idea that a reviwer's honest opinion is all we want is a fallacy. It's not all I want; but we may just have to aggree to disagree.

    Either way the idea of the game makes me wetter than an otter's pocket. Roll on the weekend.

  • bad09 #199 2 years ago

    Wow, shit storm in here! I came in just to say hurry up with PC version Rockstar you lovely people you, I quite fancy this.

    That's all please continue the shitstorm guys!

    / jumps on horse, gets the hell out of Dodge

  • coastal #200 2 years ago

    So better than Tow Truck Simulator?

  • Spekingur #201 2 years ago

    I think the point about the score is that so many games are getting 8/10 and above that you can't really tell what might be good and what might not be.

    Also, this at the end of the article below the score is wrong:

    A note about Red Dead Redemption's multiplayer: a free-roaming mode allows up to seven other players to join your game, saddle up as a posse and take on other player- or AI-controlled groups in a similar way to GTAIV's multiplayer modes. Additionally, a slew of deathmatch and capture the flag variations are available for up to 16 players, each opening with a Mexican stand-off, the survivors of which can then position themselves strategically ahead of their foes' respawning.

    Up to 16 players can join you in free roam whereas only 8 can join you in the Mexican stand-off deathmatch variation.

  • Darren #202 2 years ago

    I really can't understand the main criticism in this review that the game is TOO long at all. No-one accused Red Faction Guerrilla, Just Cause 2 or GTA IV of being too long because they're sandbox games and they tradionally have a longer lifespan than most other games that offer a piddling 6 to 8 hour campaign plus obligatory multiplayer.

    What's wrong with playing a game over a period of months rather than finishing it in a couple of days? Such games are probably best enjoyed that way anyway. Games are not movies meant to experienced in one sitting (this is where the 90 minute movie analogy falls apart I think). While a long game might not be ideal for a reviewer who wants to get his write up done on a schedule, it's not a problem for those of us who buy our games and want maximum value for money, something that we won't finish in two short sittings across a weekend!

  • Genyus #203 2 years ago

    I don't get the problem, I think this is the best review out there. Not necessarily what's in it, but the way it supports it's deserved 8.

    First off, an 8 is not bad at all, it means that this game will definitely have you satisfied but there are some flaws. Now these flaws get explained, and they are kind of obvious and spot on.

    So please, I think EG just gave the best score it deserves, a 10/10 is just bullshit.

    And I will be buying this game.

  • tonixuk #204 2 years ago

    Its just 1 opinion! This will probably be a 10 for me but my mrs would give it a 3. Would it bother me? No.....Its just 1 opinion!

  • dloob #205 2 years ago

    Whoa! That's a lot of Nerd Rage.
    Mostly from people who haven't even played the game yet I presume.
    Are they upset that it didn't get the 10/10 that the advertising and hype told them it should get?

    Looks like a winning strategy for developers
    1. Hype an average game to high heaven,
    2. Watch the high scores roll in from sites too scared to unleash the brainwashed fanboys upon themselfs
    3. Profit!

  • Retroid #206 2 years ago

    alan_stealth: "The Sun says Page 8.

    And
    Fuck Sony.
    Ha."

    I think you need to take your brain medicine.

  • welshben23 #207 2 years ago

    First of all I'd like to say that I don't give a shit about the review or the score. I'd have bought the game if it got 2/10. But to even hint at the fact that the game may not be as good or as enjoyable as Just Cause 2 or Red Faction: Guerilla is just pathetic. OK, Just Cause 2 is a very good game but RF:Guerilla is a boring, repetitive, unrealistic mess. Red Dead Revolver is better than that.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 19:29

  • GooseUK #208 2 years ago

    Id love to buy this on pc, but after the DISGRACE that was GTAIV pc i will be buying it on xbox... and 8/10 really? are eurogamer trying to be overly snobby atm? Of course i havent played it yet, but based on Alan Wake being a 7/10 (no chance) i bet this is the game of my life lol

  • Der_tolle_Emil #209 2 years ago

    I wonder how the comments would look like if there was no score below the review text until the game is actually out and people are busy playing it.

  • wynams #210 2 years ago

    Here is a fun exercise, read this review, then go read the IT review (translate if you must) @ [link url=http://www.eurogamer.it/articles/red-dead- redemption-recensione?page=4
    ]http://ww w.eurogamer.it/articles/red-dea...[/link]

    Its the same damn review, the difference? 8/10 and 9/10

  • Stratix #211 2 years ago

    8/10? I'm calling bullshit.

  • konnsky #212 2 years ago

    don't really care bout the score, I'm getting it as soon as I get paid!

  • MyPointIs #213 2 years ago

    Just fyi Eurogamer.de and Eurogamer.es both gave it 10/10. I haven't checked other countries.

    I understand how a game like this one or GTA IV can either be a 10 or an 8, depending on the viewpoint. However, I can't shake the feeling that EG.UK can sometimes be a lil out of touch.

  • GooseUK #214 2 years ago

    Oh, and bear in mind that GTA 4 got a 10... After recently replaying most of it... No

  • ph101 #215 2 years ago

    Shame no PC version announced yet. Looks fun.

  • WJF #216 2 years ago

    I've only read one other review of this game so far (GamesTM), but despite them scoring it one mark higher they too mentioned pretty much every flaw that Simon does in this review, it's just that they were willing to overlook them more and stress the atmosphere in the text.

    So grabbing scores in a list and saying 'LOK! LOOK! THY IZ BYING DIFFERENT!' is a little misleading in this case as the actual complaints are exactly the same (except for the controls on the horse...I don't think GTM mentioned that but I can see it being a hassle given that it sounds similar to the drive-by mechanics of GTA IV.)

    If the complaints listed in the review resonant from GTA titles with you (like they do with me) then you can easily see why EG have gone with an 8 as opposed to a 9 or 10 for the final score.

    It doesn't matter anyway of course as an 8 is still a fine score and if you're seriously basing your buying decisions on a number you need to seek professional help anyway.

  • darkmorgado #217 2 years ago

    @macmurphy

    reviews should be objective and not subjective

    Now you're just being stupid. Reviews are, by definition, one person's opinion. Therefore they will ALWAYS be subjective.
    No publication, or journalist, has any responsibility whatsoever to "fall in line" with everyone else's opinion. To even suggest that they do implies that everyone should just think the same thoughts, like the same things, etc.

    Maybe that's how you like to live in your little world of happy mediocrity, but I am afraid the real world doesn't work like that.

  • makeamazing #218 2 years ago

    I think the point about the score is that so many games are getting 8/10 and above that you can't really tell what might be good and what might not be.

    Perhaps anything with an 8 is considered good, or are you saying you hope more games get less to make it easier in what you want to buy ;)

    Seriously what has happened to these forums recently...

  • bad09 #219 2 years ago

    @ ph101

    Don't worry, PC has not been announced but this is Rockstar they always support PC, it will come. It just better hurry up!

  • Rodchenko #220 2 years ago

    I was expecting a 10/10 now and a backlash 5 months later by the really cool people who'd suddenly tell us how it was all quite overrated in the first place and in hindsight no more than an 8/10, really. Simon elegantly bypassed the inevitable ;)

    I am so looking forward to this game.

  • adamantium #221 2 years ago

    I'm glad there are some people here who agree with me that GTA4 was TREMENDOUSLY overrated. Going back and playing GTA recently I cant believe how unsatisfying the combat is. I am not going to make any criticisms about this games as I have not yet played it but I fear that the same issues from GTA the reviewer mentions may plague this. An outdated cover system and occasional difficulty with character movements cant carry over well to the competitive multiplayer. How many of you are still playing GTA4's multiplayer? There are 2 games that dominate the xbox live charts week after week - Modern Warfare 2 and halo 3.. I dont see this changing that.

    Still, i gather from the review that those criticisms aside this will be a fun and satisfying single player game. However, I feel for most of us, in a month this disc will not be in your xbox or ps3 tray

  • Power_n_Glory #222 2 years ago

    Was reading like a 9/10 game. Surprised it got an 8 but that's still a decent score.

    Gotta say, Eurogamer seem a little off with the marks these days. Harsher than everyone else. Alan Wake 7/10, Splinter Cell 7/10, this gets an 8...Alan Wake read like a 6/10. It's the only review I've read on the game but I'm surprised to hear it's averaging 8.3 on metacritic. I don't agree with this Simon Parkin guy anyway. He gave Splinter Cell a 7 and Modern Warfare a 9. Best advice, keep an eye out for whose reviewing the game and if they've got the same taste in certain games.

    8/10 a good score, but for me, it's not a first day purchase buy. That's the kind of difference a final score can make for me. There are just too many games coming out and I just don't have the time to play them all. Just bought Splinter Cell, haven't bought Super Street Fighter 4 yet, waiting for UFC 2010, doubt I'll get around to buying God of War.......I might pick up a few games in the summer when their cheaper and there is a draught.

  • ccfb #223 2 years ago

    Any word on overall framerate?

  • Capa26 #224 2 years ago

    @macmurphy

    How in the holy lord of fuckington can a review be objective? Explain this to me please.

    If Simon (and this is Simon and not Eurogamer as a whole) thought this game was shit he has every right as you say to call it shit... would that be fair to the game or the readership (which indecently makes EG sound like a weird cult)? Yes, because it is HIS opinion. You can disagree with it and argue to your heart's content, but the only way it is unfair is if he is making baseless criticisms of mechanics, art style etc. which he doesn't justify with his own opinion (not some set of rules that automatically make a game good).... and even in this instance certain issues can affect people's enjoyment of a game FAR more than for others... I personally cannot be arsed to play Fallout 3 for the simple fact that when I shoot someone in the head they do not die. Argue with me all you like about the rest of the stuff in the game (which incidentally I think is pretty astonishing), but in my eyes it sucks a fuck for that one reason. Unfair? Well no because fairness is also SUBJECTIVE. It is my opinion that the mechanics are flawed. You make think my dislike of the mechanics is unfair. This does not make it objectively shit... it is in my eyes subjectively shit (if a very pretty pile of shit I might add). People dying from a bullet to the face is a criteria I have for what I feel is a good game SUBJECTIVELY (if it has guns in it obviously), this would not be the same for every person. This is how reviews work and why reviewing itself would be so god damn pointless if the writer felt the need to check other reviews to see what the general consensus was. Case in point: Yahtzee does not do this. I disagree with his reviews on various occasions, but I appreciate that he has the audacity to state his own views no matter how different from the norm they may be.

    Unless (and this is one MASSIVE unless) you are actually saying that a game or any form of media or novel or art or etc. can be objectively good or bad.

    If this is the case please direct any forthcoming responses to the fucking insane and loopy brigade.
    Edited by 2 at 17/05/10 @ 20:20

  • digoutyoursoul #225 2 years ago

    "Ryboy: Negging cunts, I hate you. Enjoy your cancer"

    you absolute penis

    "raynolds: open your eyes and your review is complete nonsense, you are not able to adequately assess any project ...... "

    really piss poor trolling attempt. go to the alan wake thread, you will fit in there

    "MrMarc: To all the 8/10 naysayers - Seriously, grow the fuck up."

    well said that man.

    "Retro_: Dear Eurogamer, Please could you, for once, stop reviewing the 360 version of a game and review the PS3 version.... just once, it won't hurt you."

    NowGamer has confirmed they are the same despite, according to the reviewer the xbox 360 being a inferior graphics machine

    "Nutjob: wh would the do that when the hate ps3 and get paid b ms to sa it's better?"

    get out much?

  • des #226 2 years ago

    Oh,look another EG shitty review.

  • jamhead #227 2 years ago

    Magnificent review. The best I have read in a while. The game sounds great too, and the 8/10 justified. Ignore the rabid fanboys...

  • addyb #228 2 years ago

    Looking forward to this game a great deal! Should be arriving Thursday (weds if v lucky) Cant wait to just roam around checking out the environment etc. I hope the multi player is good but i havent got high hopes. I didnt enjoy GTA IV online so if RDR is good its a bonus for me.

    To be honest i couldnt care less what score EG gave this as i generally get an overall perspective from Metacritic if needed but more often than not if the ingame footage interests me and certain members of certain forums like it then thats good enough for me.

    It is funny coming on EG though and checking out the meltdown in the comments section. These people who moan and whinge need to get a life or grow up. They have to be younger than 18 they have to be. Anyone over this age and making childish comments need to move out of there mummys house and maybe get a woman! :)

  • Demiath #229 2 years ago

    Stratix:8/10? I'm calling bullshit.

    I hope you realize that the only way to interpret this is to assume you think the game is worse than an 8. Because 8/10 a very good score according to EG's review scale (though it wouldn't be on, say, IGN or Gamespot).

  • lugia4000 #230 2 years ago

    Don´t believe eurocrap. This was the only review from RDR that was below a 9. Every review said the game was incredible and never went below 9, except this one.

  • Slipstream #231 2 years ago

    Pre-release I wasn't expecting a 10/10 game.

    From all of the material up until now, and then finally the reviews, this definitely does seem like an 8/10 game.

    All of you expecting Multi-player to boost the score by much don't hold your breath, alot is missing from it that would essentially make it a stellar purchase, but it still sounds good none the less.

  • Alatair #232 2 years ago

    Cannot really judge this as an adequate review as multiplayer, althopugh I do not blame the writer, is not a contributing factor to the score.

  • heflys #233 2 years ago

    IMHO, the review reads more like a 9/10, since the complaints are only minor, but an 8/10 isn't the end of the world. Anyway, I wanted to comment on quote below.

    "But just how satisfying the formula remains after the exuberant destructiveness of Red Faction: Guerrilla, or the joyful, ad-hoc player stories born in the freedom of Just Cause 2's playpen, is increasingly under scrutiny."

    That's difficult to gauge, since the game has just come out (or not), and it's doubtless anyone has seen everything in the game; so it's difficult to grasp its lasting potential. IMHO, it's kinda hard to mention RF: G in this matter.....But, meh

    Besides, this game has a number of MP modes.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 20:26

  • chrisola #234 2 years ago

    if it has auto sticky cover and complicated horseback shooting controls i'd probably enjoy it to a point, but they would annoy me, so i'd probably go with the 8/10 as i love western games and the story \ atmos looks spot on!

    Waiting for face off before i buy...give me time to get on with some other games :p

  • spekkeh #235 2 years ago

    @Darren
    No-one accused Red Faction Guerrilla, Just Cause 2 or GTA IV of being too long because they're sandbox games and they tradionally have a longer lifespan than most other games that offer a piddling 6 to 8 hour campaign plus obligatory multiplayer.

    Well none of the hype train reviews accused GTAIV of being too long, which is kind of a tautology. I would certainly accuse GTAIV of being way too long. Once I stopped being a student and rolled up my sleeves with the hoi polloi (+1 if you understand the reference) and given the increase in excellent games out there, I don't like stories taking more than 15 hours. There's some excellent missions in GTA, like the bank robbery, drowned in a lot of pretty mediocre cut and paste fetch / kill quests. I'd rather the game was only eight hours of complete awesome with no filler whatsoever.

    To me sandbox games are all about rewarding curiosity. In the next game Rockstar should really ditch the drawnout 50 hour linear story, and create a short story but with lots of different branching story lines. Just like you want to see what happens if you get a 5* wanted level and drive your car at maximum speed over that ledge, so you should be able to see what happens if you don't take that quest for the petty thief, but shoot him between the eyes.

    Then you'd get a 50 hour game for who has time for something like that, and a ten hour game for who doesn't.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 20:31

  • airjoca #236 2 years ago

    WHEN DID 8/10 BECOME A BAD SCORE???

  • coolbritannia #237 2 years ago

    how much to play it online on psn?

  • Shabbaranks #238 2 years ago

    Good review by EG + good score = good game.

    Let me mount my horse!

  • XdarXideX #239 2 years ago

    Jesus Christ... will it never end? Is EG short on hits lately!? Or are its writers just bored with games all of a sudden?

    EDIT: Not that I'm saying 8/10 is a bad score... but it's pretty clear EG have been lowering its scores lately for one reason or another. And let's all be honest... 8/10 is widely seen as a "good but not great" score so why not fall in line instead of lowering a games Metacritic score needlessly?
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 20:39

  • dsmx #240 2 years ago

    People are under the insane delusion that 8=medicore thanks to every review site reviewing on a 7-10 scale.

  • DjFlex52 #241 2 years ago

    "I wonder how the comments would look like if there was no score below the review text until the game is actually out and people are busy playing it. "

    @Der_tolle_Emil

    The comments would actually be talking (or complaining??) more about the contents of the review and not just the score.

    And to all the thread commenters complaining about the review score complainers, who also haven't played RDR, the same was said about MGS4, Dead Space, Alan Wake's low scores and the complainers were RIGHT. After they finished playing those games, their review score complaints were justified. Those games were better than the scores EG gave them.

    My suggestion to EG is: Don't give a reviewer a game that isn't in a genre they like to play since the people they are reviewing for do like that genre and want to relate that review to their game experience. That's just common sense. All games have flaws but some are still a 10/10. I sometimes think that reviewers consider playing a certain game as a JOB task instead of being FUN which devolves their review into becoming just selective nitpicking. That's why so many reviews here at EG read like a certain score but then you're surprised when you see the score at the end and it doesn't match the text.
    Edited by 2 at 17/05/10 @ 20:43

  • Errol #242 2 years ago

    Are there any tow trucks in this game?

  • Capa26 #243 2 years ago

    "And to all the thread commenters complaining about the review score complainers, who also haven't played RDR, the same was said about MGS4, Dead Space, Alan Wake's low scores and the complainers were RIGHT. After they playing those games, their review score complaints were justified. Thiose games were better than the scores EG gave them."

    @DjFlex52

    Is it a FACT that those games were better than their scores or do you simply think they were better than those scores. Mass opinion is not fact..... nor is one person's opinion.

    The general opinion may have been justified in terms of people's own appreciation of the game, but they are not objectively good/great/bad/shit games.... this is impossible.

    I thought Dead Space was around the 5 mark for its derivative setting/story/jump-argh-structure.... am I wrong or do you simply not agree? There is a massive difference.
    Edited by 3 at 17/05/10 @ 20:50

  • afghan_jones #244 2 years ago

    People are weird.

    The odds of any single publication matching your taste perfectly is pretty much zero.

    However it is quite easy to read a few reviews from a single source and get a feel for how they value things relative to you. So I can read a review, the text AND the score and figure out where my own personal 'score' sits relative to that. I dont need it to match up exactly but I can generally tell where EG sensibilities lie and where they fit in with me.

    Why are people struggling with this?

    Anyway, well written review, an evenhanded appraisal that tells me ill probably love it. Cheers.

    (although I asumme the reviewer has seen no westerns ever, except Wild Wild West. 90 minute action-fests?? Really?? Far as Im concerned the western is one of the most slowburning genres of film out there)

  • XdarXideX #245 2 years ago

    I love the EG diehards here defending them when they KNOW that their scores have been purposely lowered lately.

  • spekkeh #246 2 years ago

    I for one would applaud game critics nitpicking for a job instead of lauding every effort with fanboy praise.

    First of all, how would the medium as a whole ever progress if nobody pointed out the mistakes--glaring or hidden.

    Secondly, what do we care if a game gets slated, it's not our product!

  • XdarXideX #247 2 years ago

    @Capa26 - Explain how an opinion can be fact... What he's trying to point out is that the majority opinion of those games he listed was that they were ALL better experiences than the reviewer let on. What I'd like to point out is that in almost every review on EG there is some comment saying "Good review... read like a 9, score a 7" or similar... a sign that something isn't right with their scoring. Maybe the Editor is lowering the scores just to get hits? Who knows? But what is more likely... that the reviewers don't know how to score games, or that their scores are being altered?

  • darkmorgado #248 2 years ago

    I love the EG diehards here defending them when they KNOW that their scores have been purposely lowered lately.

    Oh really? How do you know this? Have you got a secret camera in the EG office?

    Stop being a retard.

  • spekkeh #249 2 years ago

    I love the EG diehards here defending them when they KNOW that their scores have been purposely lowered lately.

    I think they have been lowered lately. Which is great. What does it say when every big game gets a nine or a ten? With IGN you now have to base your purchase on whether it's a 9.8 or only a 9.3 (piece of crap tsh), that's just bollocks. I say lower it even more!

  • XdarXideX #250 2 years ago

    @spekkeh - How would you feel if something you worked hard on for several years had been nitpicked for pointless little flaws? I'm sure you can empathise

  • bad09 #251 2 years ago

    "I thought Dead Space was around the 5 mark for its derivative setting/story/jump-argh-structure.... am I wrong FACTUALLY?"

    Yes.

  • makeamazing #252 2 years ago

    I thought Dead Space was a 7, and there lies in the problem with reviews, one person thinks a game is great, while another thinks the game is rubbish. I dont get the love for Pokemon games or animal crossing (especially those people in their 20's)... but thats life, everyone is different.

    I just dont understand why people are complaining this has got an 8. If you are so crazy to be upset by EG 8, just pop over to IGN or one of the othersites to cheer yourself up. On the whole the game is getting great reviews, that would suggest, if you like westerns, you like GTA, you are most likely going to like this... not difficult is it :D

  • XdarXideX #253 2 years ago

    @darkmorgado - stop throwing childish names around and read my point about the difference between the scores and the review text.

  • Capa26 #254 2 years ago

    @Capa26 - Explain how an opinion can be fact... What he's trying to point out is that the majority opinion of those games he listed was that they were ALL better experiences than the reviewer let on.

    Can you read words!?

    I said opinion can NEVER be FACT.

    You or anyone else may think that those games were better experiences in your own mind, but they might not be for someone else or the reviewer.

    This is a pretty fucking simple concept to grasp.....

  • Capa26 #255 2 years ago

    @bad09
    Probably meant in jest I take it, but if not... explain...

  • byakuya83 #256 2 years ago

    i am disappointed to read this has similar control and camera issues as gta 4. trying to chase someone on horseback whilst shooting at them sounds just as fiddly as the similar motorcycle missions on gta 4. similarly with on-foot travel and the cover mechanic. these are such important aspects of the type of game rockstar creates but they never get it right.

    plus, it seems this has the same rigid and frustrating mission structure as gta 4.

    gta 4 - reskinned.

  • Koborover #257 2 years ago

    "A magnificent eight, then."

    I think Simon means a 8.5, then. Come on Eurogamer, just introduce the decimal.

  • Goodfella #258 2 years ago

    @ ecureuil (The very first person to post)

    You seem to be holding 2 potential world records. Firstly your post count is 54051 (wtf?!) and secondly your moronic post got you negged by a massive 202, so far. LOL.

  • bad09 #259 2 years ago

    @ Capa26

    While I do disagree with you on my beloved DS, your instinct is correct I was playing with you. :)
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 21:06

  • chrisola #260 2 years ago

    To get back to the actual game....can you actually talk to people on this game? Is it RPG like where you can talk to NPC's or is it more like the GTA where its hundreds of people wandering around that you can't really interact with?

    Also, it's been too long since GTA4 - is it 'press a button to into cover' or a 'you will stick automaticaly near cover' as IGN's review just says it's a tweaked version of GTA 4 shooting system -- which i haven;t played for ages and can't remember how it works (i sold it a week after release..)

    Also, i really hope you can use whips as a weapon, or lasso people, that would be funny to lasso and drag people behind you horse etc :p
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 21:09

  • darkmorgado #261 2 years ago

    @darkmorgado - stop throwing childish names around and read my point about the difference between the scores and the review text.

    So the review doesn't match up to your own opinion of what constitutes the score at the end?

    Guess what, you have a different opinion from the reviewer!

    Doesn't make you right, and doesn't make the reviewer wrong. Just means you are nitpicking and throwing your dummy out the pram.

  • AOFanboi #262 2 years ago

    To the people complaining they did not test multiplayer: How many people, pre-launch, would actually be online with the game in order to get enough people for a multiplayer session? "Well, me and a few that had pirated the game joined in a shootout session..." does not exactly sound reasonable. Should they have delayed the review until a couple of weeks after launch? People were already pestering EG about when the review would appear.

    And to the people worshipping at the Metacritic altar: Marc Doyle is not actually Jesus Christ. Live with it.

  • Spekingur #263 2 years ago

    @#270:
    mikeamazing wrote:
    Perhaps anything with an 8 is considered good, or are you saying you hope more games get less to make it easier in what you want to buy ;)


    What I meant was that there are so many games with 8+ score where the score actually does not represent the game properly. Just compile a list of all console games (or just PS3 and XBox360) that have received an 8+ score. One list from Eurogamer and one list from metacritic. Count the games. Compare.

    What EG really needs is the User Score at a more obvious place.

  • RelaxedMikki #264 2 years ago

    Quote Koborover: < "A magnificent eight, then." I think Simon means a 8.5, then. Come on Eurogamer, just introduce the decimal. >

    Can we pretend Eurogamers 8s run from 8.0 to 8.9 (rather than 7.6 to 8.5). Then we can say that a 'magnificent 8' is 8.9. And then we can pretend that RDR is 8.9 and the 'starts good but ends pretty much attrociously' Fable II is 0.1 better at 9.0? And then we can all be happy?

    /scratches head sheepishly

  • spekkeh #265 2 years ago

    @xdarxidex
    How would you feel if something you worked hard on for several years had been nitpicked for pointless little flaws? I'm sure you can empathise

    Sure I can empathise. But why should I? That's still bollocks. Look at rottentomatoes.com, some $200M movies get a 2/10 ROTTEN. None of those critics empathise with all the hard work that's gone into that, that's just the way the entertainment cookie crumbles. An 80% FRESH score (80% of reviewers being positive, the score may still be a 6) for any movie is considered absolutely stellar.

    And that's the way it should be, but outside EG and Edge, game criticism is just not up to standard.

  • freakzilla #266 2 years ago

    I little hyperbolic for my tastes, couldn't read through th whole review because of it.

  • NHDave #267 2 years ago

    What a crap review! Didn't even play the multiplayer and they give it an 8!???? Every other website is slurping all over it and Eurogamer gives it an 8....maybe the reviewer is retarded......EG is an absolute disgrace to videogaming.....I'm never visiting this website again! BYE!

  • el_pollo_diablo #268 2 years ago

    I love people moaning about low/high scores when they've NOT EVEN PLAYED THE FUCKING GAME.

  • Capa26 #269 2 years ago

    @bad09

    Thank the heavens. I respect your right to enjoy Dead Space... even if it is meh ;)

  • darkmorgado #270 2 years ago

    I'm never visiting this website again! BYE!

    You won't be missed. Maybe you would feel more at home over at IGN. They like immature fanboy bollocks over there.

  • UncleLou #271 2 years ago

    I love the EG diehards here defending them when they KNOW that their scores have been purposely lowered lately.

    When have I heard that before? Ah, right, 2002, the Halo review.

  • Weezer #272 2 years ago

    Same flaw s GTA then - endless roaming around not actually doing very much? I tired of GTAIV very quickly, annoyingly. Really wanted to like it...

  • addyb #273 2 years ago

    So for those that are picking this up. What are you looking forward to in regards the game itself. Single player roaming? Side Missions, hunting, multi player?

  • Beek4257 #274 2 years ago

    Am I the only one who hasn't played this yet?

  • ninja_dinosaur #275 2 years ago

    i feel nothing but pity for some1 who cares this much about review scores. imagine having to totally lose your shit every time a game u think shud be awesome gets a mere "8 out of 10".

  • Killerbee #276 2 years ago

    Great review, and given the comments, I think an 8 sounds justified. Many of the criticisms levelled at it could equally be made of GTAIV and for me, GTAIV was a very clear 8 as well. By which I mean: tremendous scope and ambition; a wonderfully realised world; great scripting, but a story that could've done with some serious editing and better pacing; weak combat and vehicle handling that wasn't *fun* any more... plus a bit of ennui from playing the last three games in the franchise...

    So sadly, having lost interest well before getting to the end of GTAIV, I don't think I'll be picking this up... at least until it hits the bargain bins.

  • addyb #277 2 years ago

    I didnt really like GTAIV at all. Vice City is still my favourite of the series. RDR appeals due to it being a western environment and by all accounts riding horses, exploring etc is apparently just more fun. I guess driving round a city in cars gets stale after you have done it 3-4 times.

  • El-Dev #278 2 years ago

    8 is a good score so will be picking this up as it has caught my attention recently.

  • makariel #279 2 years ago

    I didn't buy GTA IV, since it was missing a good tow truck. I might get Red Dead however. I love western movies and the idea of playing someone similar to William Munny sounds awesome :D

    Besides, I'm still puzzled about people who complain about scores. How can you tell 8 is 'too low' for a game that hasn't come out yet? Do you have some kind of space brain that let's you look into the future? In this case I don't believe you. Or you're pirating like crazy? In this case STFU since you're not spending money on it anyway.

    Peace :)

  • macmurphy #280 2 years ago

    @capa

    'Unless (and this is one MASSIVE unless) you are actually saying that a game or any form of media or novel or art or etc. can be objectively good or bad.'

    Err, yeah this pretty much covers it. I don't like Half Life 2 but objectively I can take a step back and appreciate it's qualities. I can see what it got the critical acclaim it did. So if I were to judge it objectively I'd say it's a good game, just not my type of game.

    Of course you can objectively judge things, what do you think the review process is about? Look at IGN, they have a second opinion. Often the two reviewers may disagree wildly, and the score is often a middle ground between the two. This is a collaborative, objective judgement. Even though Eurogamer works with a single reviewer, I'd like to think they don't just gob off about how the game makes them feel on that day, but take a step back to reach a measured opinion.

    Only my opinion mate, no need to have a cow.

  • zisssou #281 2 years ago

    Eurogamer in shock putting in a controversial score to get more hits :o

  • Dave797 #282 2 years ago

    Its an interesting point why don't EG just introduce decimals? So in this case RDR would have got an 8.5 and not half as many people would have bitched and moaned about the score. I just can't help thinking that with only 10 possible ratings (5 of which are barely used) EG are limiting themselves because the difference between a 7 game and an 8 game can be huge. But if one was a 6.5 and the other an 8.5 its much easier to distinguish. Just a thought.

  • Retroid #283 2 years ago

    How some people seem to be reacting to an 8/10 score.

    Bonus that it's (loosely) related! :D

  • Capa26 #284 2 years ago

    @ macmurphy

    "I don't like Half Life 2 but objectively I can take a step back and appreciate it's qualities. I can see what it got the critical acclaim it did. So if I were to judge it objectively I'd say it's a good game, just not my type of game.

    Of course you can objectively judge things, what do you think the review process is about? Look at IGN, they have a second opinion. Often the two reviewers may disagree wildly, and the score is often a middle ground between the two. This is a collaborative, objective judgement."

    No it isn't and no you can't.

    The review process is an individual's opinion on a piece of media whether it be a game, a film, a book or anything. Opinion cannot be objective. Lets check the definition... [link url=http:/ /www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/objective
    ]http://ww w.askoxford.com/concise_oed/obj...[/link]

    - adjective 1 - not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

    So... if a review were to state that Red Dead Redemption has horses, this is objective... it is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions... it is fact. If the reviewer says the horse is poorly implemented this is no longer objective... opinion is present. A list of facts is not a review nor is a review ever a list of facts.

    Your statement about Half-life 2 is still subjective... you may not appreciate it with your opinion, but it is also your opinion that there are qualities which others may like.

    The IGN example is also incorrect. Two reviews and a collaborative total is not objective... it is two subjective opinions on a piece which are then brought together for a more balanced, yet still subjective total. Two subjective reviews, one subjective total.

    This is really really easy.

    "Only my opinion mate, no need to have a cow."

    Apologies for having a cow, but that statement puts it into perspective perfectly. You cannot have an opinion about the definition of words.... they are fact (or at least accepted as so... if you want to argue with ancient etymology then be my guest).

  • starbug1978 #285 2 years ago

    Marked down 1 point because Yngwie Malmsteen isn't in the game??!! wtf

  • FooAtari #286 2 years ago

    Metacritic has a lot to answer for...

    Oh and this;
    How would you feel if something you worked hard on for several years had been nitpicked for pointless little flaws? I'm sure you can empathise

    /Massive facepalm...

  • local_celebrity #287 2 years ago

    Every time Eurogamer posts a score that SLIGHTLY differs from the consensus, all these mentally ill people flood the boards.

    This thread is a mosh pit for care in the community.

  • dsmx #288 2 years ago

    Eurogamer please just get rid of the scores, It would cut down on the number of retards who seem to think 8 is a bad score.

  • Physically_Insane #289 2 years ago

    I'm hating the "can't believe people are thinking 8/10 is a crap score" comments.

    If you actually read what people are writing only 2% of the negative comments are complaining about the 'crap' score.

  • razzastuta #290 2 years ago

    @ macmurphy

    I do agree to some of your points Mac. I think you'll find I was reacting to "over-the-top" views on the score of 8/10 - no, it's not a rubbish score at all, but I find a minority of comments towards some opinions on a review are somewhat overly aggressive (Alan Wake's score being an incredible reaction) and usually uncalled for.

    I must admit I have sometimes felt the odd-review from Eurogamer to be "off-base". It's reviews of both Dead Space and the Wii's port of Resident Evil 4 both scored 7/10 (personally having played both I felt they were both deserved 9/10 - especially RE4 despite being a "port";) and there is the odd occasion that I wonder if Eurogamer's reviews are just solely written to cause a reaction - but the key to me buying a game for me, at least, is to gather a collective of opinions from different reviews rather than base my choice on just one website. Eurogamer gave Alan Wake 7/10 - I still bought Alan Wake and am currently enjoying it a lot more than Ellie Gibson probably did.

    So with that in mind, do I think Eurogamer has a responsibility to keep it scores in line with other reviews? Of course not. Even though I may or may not agree with the review (should I play the game) not once do I think that just because one reviewer out of ten says a game is not worthy of a 9/10 score then he/she should be condemned for it. It's his/her opinion - that's what they what do, they review the game then provide their score. I think all reviewers can only be objective to the best of their ability and sadly, although it urks some readers, a review can never be entirely 100% objective.

    I don't believe in giving a review a great score just because other sites say so, but maybe EG should consider a "second opinion" which IGN commonly do regarding some (maybe higher profile) games.

    However, you make a good point where a games site reviews games off-base in comparison to others - but in fairness, Alan Wake and now RDR received two "off-kilter" reviews and it's time to doubt EG's credibility? Hardly "inconsitency" at the moment.....although if they ever gave Prison Break: The Conspiracy 10/10 then maybe it's about time to doubt EG's reviewing policy.

  • KojoMojo #291 2 years ago

    what the hell?, i read this thinking it sounded brilliant i couldnt really see any bad points that made it drop two points and if you're going to do a review do it when you can play the whole of the game it just sounds like its brilliant and then i was shocked when i saw the score it was given

  • Cheeky #292 2 years ago

    Eurogamer has steadily been going downhill lately with their reviews. Whether they're harshly scoring a game such as Alan Wake, or providing an imbalance between the tone of the review and the actual score - this review, for example, read more like a strong 9 than an 8 - a bit of credibility has been lost in recent times.

  • Capa26 #293 2 years ago

    "I think all reviewers can only be objective to the best of their ability and sadly, although it urks some readers, a review can never be entirely 100% objective."

    @razzastuta

    A 100% objective review of RDR would sound like this...

    It has horses, cowboys, revolvers and is a videogame. This is objective.... any praise or criticism or even a score at the end is subjective.

    Reviews should not be objective and never are.... a good reviewer is not objective or striving to be so, they give a balanced opinion of what they perceive are the game's pros and cons and the most effective ones for me do so with humour and/or literary flair.

    Please people... stop using the word objective if you think it can be applied in any way to a review of a thing.
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 23:25

  • ERG1008 #294 2 years ago

    It's a format that works well when packed into 90 minutes of imagery

    The reviewer obviously hasn't watched any Sergio Leone films then. They go well over the 2 and a half hour mark.

  • makeamazing #295 2 years ago

    What I meant was that there are so many games with 8+ score where the score actually does not represent the game properly.

    I would be more concerned for the games industry if more games (especially ones that have been in development for a few years) were not hitting 8 or above. So your hoping in the future more games get 7 instead (sorry ;), then perhaps you can complain there are too many games getting 7/10 and you dont know which are good or not ;)

    If you can point to all of these games that should not be getting 8/10 or more, and enlighten us all :D
    Edited by 1 at 17/05/10 @ 23:44

  • zisssou #296 2 years ago

    I love how my comment was deleted.. makes you wonder why you even bother using EG..

  • smelly #297 2 years ago

    wowzers! This first NOT nine or ten score for this game!

    I want this though.. so will read the review super carefully to discover why in a second.

    As for the rest of you STOP YOUR WHINING ITS ONLY A FUCKING NUMBER!

  • smelly #298 2 years ago

    As for the score being "wrong" - how do you lot know? Have any of you played it? AFAIK it's not out until tomorrow?

  • smelly #299 2 years ago

    Right. I've read review.. i'm still buying it.. even though i found gta4 REALLY REALLY REALLY Boring.

  • DjFlex52 #300 2 years ago

    Is it a FACT that those games were better than their scores or do you simply think they were better than those scores. Mass opinion is not fact..... nor is one person's opinion.

    @Capa26

    You missed my point and i'm glad others explained a bit further.But I'll clarify even more. First of all, the 3 games I mentioned got at least 2 points higher than EG's scores on practically all other sites and by most gamers who liked that game's genre.

    BTW, It is a FACT that the majority of game sites and gamers liked those 3 games better than the scores given by EG. How can you refute that? If you can, please show me all of these sites that agreed with EG's scores of those games then. You can have your personal opinion of a game....good for you ;-)

  • Robm612 #301 2 years ago

    I totally agree that 8 is a good score, but when you look at the fact eurogamer gave Just cause 2 an 8 also, and ign is giving it 9.7 and 9.8 for US and uk when i know for a fact that RDR is miles better, looks like eurogamer is getting taken off my bookmarks, this is a pathetic attempt to get more hits......

  • drhickman1983 #302 2 years ago

    Why do people put so much emphasis on the score at the end of a review? Reviews should be there to give people an idea of a games (or films, or books etc) good and bad points. Reading the review, it sounded pretty balanced, highlighting what the reviewer thought the successes and failures of the game were. The score at the end is pretty arbitary. And it's intersting to note how in many websites and publications a 1-10 ranking system is often unbalanced. 1 to 6 are "bad", 7 (to 8) are "average" leaving just (8) 9 and 10 for "good". If the ranking was balanced then 5 would be average.

    And I don't get why people get so irate when a game they haven't played yet gets less than a perfect score. Looking at my rather small game collection, I don't think a single one gets a 10. The only game I'd give a 9 is Fallout 3 (current gen anyway. Ico is worth a 9 also). Most games I buy score on my own personal ranking system, a 7 or 8.

    I'm getting Red Dead Redemption on release, I'm very excited about it, it's the first game I've bothered to get on release for a very long time, usually buy pre-owned. But from the descriptions I've read, I doubt it will reach a 9 in my ranking system, as not many games do.

    After my ramblings against the virtually arbitary scores and the furore they can incite, I'll ponder something regarding the game: Will it be possible to hijack the cars that will appear now and then? Could be kinda cool driving an antique (to us) car into a horse or cow or something.

  • Charlie_Miso #303 2 years ago

    Strange how an 8 score will lead to me getting this, whilst a 10 would have put me off (bad GTAIV experience)

  • thelzdking #304 2 years ago

    I don't get what the problem is; eight out of ten is a good score. At the very least it indicates that the game in question is, in general, of a very high quality.

  • Capa26 #305 2 years ago

    "BTW, It is a FACT that the majority of game sites and gamers liked those 3 games better than the scores given by EG. How can you refute that? If you can, please show me all of these sites that agreed with EG's scores of those games then. You can have your personal opinion of a game....good for you ;-)"

    Firstly I never refuted that fact. I understand that a lot of people love Dead Space for example which I don't personally like and I felt the EG review and Yahtzee's review were a bit more critical of the things I found to be irritating. What I said was this does not make a game objectively good, just popular and generally perceived as being a good game. To take a different example if you voted for the Conservatives in the recent election you would be with the majority opinion of the needs for the country... yet just because the Green party received less votes it doesn't mean their policies are wrong... you just don't agree with them.

    EG's score is not wrong. It is a subjective critique. The rest of the opinions are not necessarily right... they are just more popular. Again... a game or any piece of media cannot be objectively good or bad. They are simply perceived as being good or bad by different people due to what they think makes a solid experience of gaming.

    Not quite sure how I missed your point...

  • StrafeMcgee #306 2 years ago

    Seems to me that the main criticism of this revolved around the idea that it's essentially Gta 4 as a western, with very little expansion upon that games formula, whilst games like red faction and just cause have expanded somewhat upon the genre's foundations.

    Still sounds like a fantastic game, but it's lack of experimentation or progression has led to it feeling a tad tired, hence the lowered score.

    Sounds fair to me. Still buying it though.

  • Stuz359 #307 2 years ago

    For me, the review sums it up. This is a great game with flawed control mechanics which let it down. I don't think a game can get 10/10 or whatever anyone is clamouring for without great control mechanics which this game seems to lack, just as GTA4 did.

    For some reason Rockstat tend to focus their energies on creating the world, the story and the characters. This is not a bad thing but if the game controls like a dog I can't see how it would be a joy to play.

    For perfect control mechanics, see Super Mario Galaxy.

  • RESIDENT_nEVILe #308 2 years ago

    The score is too generous. I mean, Marston can't even swim.

  • DjFlex52 #309 2 years ago

    @Capa26

    I guess we don't disagree then :)
    I just wondered why you singled out my post compared to the volatile comments all through this thread. I never said anyone was "wrong" for their opinion or score. I only referred to the consistency in reading a review and how the review score relates to it.

  • man.the.king #310 2 years ago

    Sounds good to me - what's everybody so up-in-arms about?

  • kekz23 #311 2 years ago

    lol EG trying to be edgy again so they get more people visiting the site.

  • smelly #312 2 years ago

    @kekz23: Shhh! Langdell might be listening!

  • DjWhizzkidd #313 2 years ago

    I don't know what this means, but once again Eurogamer gives the lowest score so far to a major release.

    This seems to be a recurring theme.

  • Beano #314 2 years ago

    So, EG... where is DF's comparison article?

    Whould be very useful to read it BEFORE the game hits the shelves this friday.

  • DoctorFraud #315 2 years ago

    EG have no credibility left.

  • PlugMonkey #316 2 years ago

    PatAU
    Over-reactions to this review were guaranteed as soon as it scored less than 10.

    If it had scored 10, I imagine we would have had 400 posts of people saying they had been sucked into the hype again, just like GTAIV.

  • Pinky_Floyd #317 2 years ago

    I wish I could look down on this thread from atop a tall building. With a sniper rifle.

  • muscleblade #318 2 years ago

    Thank you EG and Simon for an honest non biased review. It seems like most reviewers dont dare give this game lower than 9/10.

  • Katsumoto #319 2 years ago

    Despairing for humanity, again.

  • LeD #320 2 years ago

    FWIW, the incredibly nitpicky, cynical and blasé Gamekult, who you could say are the french equivalent of what Eurogamer used to be from an editorial point of view, gave the game a 9 out of 10, which is the equivalent of an EG 10.

    Review

  • darkmorgado #321 2 years ago

    If you actually read what people are writing only 2% of the negative comments are complaining about the 'crap' score.

    No they're not. More like 60%. You have idiots complaining that Eurogamer hasn't posted an "objective" review (which is impossible), idiots complaining that Eurogamer doesn't score games just like everyone else, idiots moaning that 8/10 is too low a score before even playing the game themselves, idiots moaning that they didn't buy a console "just" to play 8/10 games, isiots saying it is proof the site deliberately lowers its scores to be controversial...

    Every single time the site gives a hyped-up game a less-than-perfect score, the fanboys go wild.

    I would like to put my signature against the petition for getting rid of scores completely. EDGE magazine did this for an issue a few years back and it worked really well - rather than relying on a single person's interpretation of the scoring system, people were left to decide for themselves where they would place the game on their own scale based on the actual text.

    Half the morons on here complaining about the score haven't even read the review. To me, the 8 seems entirely justified and the reviewer goes to great pains to point out that the game is brilliant, with a great atmosphere - but atmosphere can't always make up for repetitive or shallow mechanics or a cover system that felt out of date back when GTA4 came out.

    Yes, I am still buying this game. No, I don't think 8 is a bad score. No, I don't think Eurogamer are "wrong".

  • abot #322 2 years ago

    With so many comments you would think that Ellie reviewed the game. Just kidding.

    But seriously this is insane.

  • Matfink #323 2 years ago

    Ah bring back the days of Crash when they used to have 3 people review games...

  • darkmorgado #324 2 years ago

    if you voted for the Conservatives in the recent election you would be with the majority opinion of the needs for the country

    While I agree with all of your other points, this analogy is pretty flawed considering that more than 60% of the country DIDN'T vote Conservative.

  • Big-Swiss #325 2 years ago

    Eurogamer Germany gave it a 10/10!

    seriously, is it a new marketing tactic from EG.net to give awesome games a bit a lower score?

  • butler` #326 2 years ago

    8/10 is fine for just the single player for me

  • darkmorgado #327 2 years ago

    seriously, is it a new marketing tactic from EG.net to give awesome games a bit a lower score?

    There's a MASSIVE hole in the logic of people saying that the site is deliberately scoring lower than other reviews.

    Namely, Eurogamer usually post reviews before or at the same time as other sites - SO HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT THE OTHER SITES ARE SCORING?

  • PlugMonkey #328 2 years ago

    PatAU
    @PlugMonkey -
    "the 10 for GTA was vastly excessive. I think a 7 would be more fitting. GTA 4 is bested by its three predecessors ffs. "

    I couldn't agree more (well, maybe an 8), and yet that received universal acclaim as well. So what exactly is that proof of? Nothing, except that the games media is not immune to being swept along in the hype of a big release.

    As a result, I'm more than willing to at least play RDR before I berate Mr Parkin here for his flagrent bias and lack of journalistic integrity. I afforded Whitehead the same courtesy after the GTAIV review, and when I decided to take his reviews with a pinch of salt in future, I did it at least with the benefit of having played the game he reviewed.

    I don't really see how anyone can have an opinion one way or another without having played the damn thing, let alone nearly 400 of them.

  • dr_faulk #329 2 years ago

    Also, Steve, if you're in here, we're going to John's later.

  • PlugMonkey #330 2 years ago

    darkmorgado
    There's a MASSIVE hole in the logic of people saying that the site is deliberately scoring lower than other reviews.

    Namely, Eurogamer usually post reviews before or at the same time as other sites - SO HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT THE OTHER SITES ARE SCORING?

    There's another even more MASSIVE hole in the logic. What publisher in there right mind is going to keep sending review code out to a website that deliberately marks games down in some sort of global marketing conspiracy to push up their hit count by a few thousand?

    It's hard to keep running a games website if everyone has stopped sending you games.

  • Big-Swiss #331 2 years ago

    @darkmorgado

    now that was lamost a bit stupid.

    they don't have to know what other sites review, if you wanted to do that, not saying I'm sure that is the case, you simply review a game, give it a score, and then mark that score down by two, and you are for sure lower then the majority of other sites. Oh man, I can't believe I just had to explain something like that. No of course, I need to fucking know every score made to be lower.

  • darkmorgado #332 2 years ago

    simply review a game, give it a score, and then mark that score down by two, and you are for sure lower then the majority of other sites.

    Yeah, because all reviewers will score a game the same. Sigh.

    What publisher in there right mind is going to keep sending review code out to a website that deliberately marks games down

    But where is the proof that they are deliberately marking down? There isn't any. Just because Eurogamer has a stricter interpretation of its scoring system, as do EDGE and GamesTM. Why should they be expected to tow the line?

    Oh, and your argument is flawed - EDGE is notoriously strict with its review scores, but it hasn't hurt them. If anything, publishers see a good score from EDGE as a badge of honor. A 9 from EDGE carries a lot more weight than a 9 from IGN.

  • kangarootoo #333 2 years ago

    This thread is the embodiment of "shoot the messenger".

    You want a game to be perfect. Somebody tells you it is not (unsurprising, as no game is perfect).

    Your disappointment turns to anger, and that anger is directed at the review. Your inner child believes that the person that brought you the bad news created the bad news by bringing it to you.

    You try to discredit the review, as if you can convince everyone the bad truth is not true, your disbelief will be suspended and your reality will be changed.

    NONE of this changes what the game is and how you will feel when you play it. If you truly suspend your disbelief, you will have the gameplay experience you want to have. You will overlook the flaws, and you will genuinely have a great timem playing the game...... which begs the question, why read the review in the first place?

    Why not just try to have enough self confidence to just enjoy the game, and give it the 10/10 in your head your truly believe it deserves, and not need a review to validate you by agreeing with you? That is what is at the root of this every single time. The angriest posters and quite simply insecure, and feel devalued if the review doesn't agree with their own passion. They want their unbridled enthusiasm to be shared by all, so they will be part of the larger crowd of popular thought. It is understandable, but its a shame people get so angry over it. But the one thing guranteed to make somebody angry is fear, in this case fear of not being part of a common belief in the stunning awesomeness of RDR. The most furious person in the room is always the most frightened.
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 09:39

  • Spekingur #334 2 years ago

    Why am I excited for this game?
    Because I get to play as a gorram cowboy!

  • DeeTee_uk #335 2 years ago

    Seems like an honest review of what looks like a good game. I'm more likely to buy it based on this. As others have said, 8/10 is not a bad review, but I think the review itself is of more importance than the score. Did the review give me an insight into the game that I did not have before? Yes. Did it highlight where the game excels, and where it falls short? Yes. Job done then.
    If you think that reviewers are obliged to give perfect scores to the games you personally like, you have a worrying view on the world.

  • Malkotheslick #336 2 years ago

    I love Eurogamer and I for one am happy that the site gives generally harsh reviews rather than being sucked in by the hype machine. Personally everyone spitting the dummy because the game got a good but not perfect review is slightly sad. I'm also guessing that in a 50 hour long game there will be a lot of filler and some crap missions that you have to drudge through in order to get to the fun stuff. Take GTA 4 for example the first time I had fun playing that games was Lil Jacob's first mission about 2-3 hours in. This filler probably detracts from the overall score.
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 09:48

  • PlugMonkey #337 2 years ago

    darkmorgado
    But where is the proof that they are deliberately marking down? There isn't any. Just because Eurogamer has a stricter interpretation of its scoring system, as do EDGE and GamesTM. Why should they be expected to tow the line?

    Oh, and your argument is flawed - EDGE is notoriously strict with its review scores, but it hasn't hurt them. If anything, publishers see a good score from EDGE as a badge of honor. A 9 from EDGE carries a lot more weight than a 9 from IGN.

    Well, my flawed argument was agreeing with you...

    Suggesting that EuroGamer deliberately mark down games is patently absurd. If there was a publication that always put in outlying low scores, publishers would be inclined to not send them review copies prior to release. For example, I bet ZeroPunctuation doesn't get too many pre-release review versions sent his way...

    This isn't the case with Eurogamer, or GamesTM, or indeed Edge; who for all their bluster gave GTA IV 10/10 just like everybody else.
    Edited by 2 at 18/05/10 @ 09:56

  • Rorsch #338 2 years ago

    When can we get a comparison between the 360 and PS3 versions? :)

  • parablax #339 2 years ago

    Lowest review score so far by a mile (well 10%).

    It's only one guys opinion though.

  • darkmorgado #340 2 years ago

    Apologies PlugMonkey, I misinterpreted what you were saying - I thought you were arguing that the site DOES deliberately mis-score its reviews.

  • darkmorgado #341 2 years ago

    I bet ZeroPunctuation doesn't get too many pre-release review versions sent his way...

    In fairness, most of his reviews are deliberately harsh for comic effect, and I would find it hard to believe that any publisher isn't aware of that.

  • DoKtoR #342 2 years ago

    @ Darkmorgado:

    "EDGE is notoriously strict with its review scores, but it hasn't hurt them. If anything, publishers see a good score from EDGE as a badge of honor. A 9 from EDGE carries a lot more weight than a 9 from IGN."

    Damn straight!

    That's why EDGE & Eurogamer are my 2 favourite sources for game reviews - they obviously don't pander to the publishers whims (or truckloads of "sponsorship" money) like IGN and other crap review sites.

    I for one am happy with an 8/10 for Eurogamer as being a sufficient enough score for me to buy a game - the fanboys be damned.

    Edit: All fixed Darkmorgado!
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 10:37

  • darkmorgado #343 2 years ago

    LOL@ DoKToR

    That was actually my post you quoted, not PlugMonkey's.

  • magikdodo #344 2 years ago

    @DoKtor ' they obviously don't pander to the publishers whims (or truckloads of "sponsorship" money) like IGN and other crap review sites'.

    Saints row 2 says hi..EG 9/10 if I recall..fell for the hype, paid full RRP for a ps2 game...

    /worst game buying decision I've ever made

  • kangarootoo #345 2 years ago

    @magikdodo

    Saints Row 2 was fantastic. You are clearly mentally ill ;)

  • magikdodo #346 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo ' mentally ill'

    To each his own...For me, it was a nightmare of a game..I'm not mentally ill..

    /why the stick? did I get your girlfriend or ..?
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 10:35

  • Turrican #347 2 years ago

    Adding my 10 pence worth just for the hell of it -

    I felt it read like a 9 and was a little suprised at the 8, however re-reading it I think Simon is saying that they haven't really moved on much from previous GTA and they either need to change the structure or make games like this as good as the movies they are aping to justify the constant high scores they have been getting.

    Also agree with others that are wondering how other sites can give 100% scores when they blatantly haven't played the Multiplayer and are just reposting the sales blurb.

    I think I will get it but only if Tesco reduce it on launch day, or otherwise perhaps cheaper in a few months time. Can no longer justify £40 on a game when PC launches are often half that. Getting old I think!

  • thefishmonger #348 2 years ago

    The folks at Eurogamer Italy have awarded it with a 9/10 and it looks like that is what Metacritic is going with. Amusing.

  • DoKtoR #349 2 years ago

    @magikdodo

    I could of told you not to get Saints Row 2 - the whole series is craptacular (I used to work at EB Games).

    The reviewer must have been on drugs to give Saints Row 2 a 9/10 though... sometimes it pays to ignore the score completely.

    I'm sure if EG did away with scores there would be less uproar in the comments from fanboys, but then if they did that there would be less uproar in the comments from fanboys (maybe they like reading the whinges of fanboys?).

  • PlugMonkey #350 2 years ago

    thefishmonger
    "The folks at Eurogamer Italy have awarded it with a 9/10 and it looks like that is what Metacritic is going with. Amusing."

    But metacritic is an average of all the review scores.

    If EG gave it 9 just because MetaCritic gave it 9, then the average would go up, meaning EG's review would have to go up, meaning the MetaCritic would go up, meaning EG's review would have to go up; thus creating a paradox and destroying the universe!

    Careful there, fishmonger! You'll destroy us all!
    Edited by 2 at 18/05/10 @ 10:52

  • kangarootoo #351 2 years ago

    @magikdodo

    Whoah there. It was a daft joke. Hence the ;) I am not seriously suggesting at all you are mentally ill. If you heard me say the joke out loud it would make sense, but I guess it got lost in text. I was mocking outrage at your dissing of SR2. Of course we are each entitled to our own views, not disgareeing there. Just a little joke gone wrong. Sorry about that.

  • kangarootoo #352 2 years ago

    @DoKtoR

    This is madness. I loved SR2. SR2 remembered why San Andreas was fun (jet packs and riding a BMX off a cliff whilst wearing a parachute).

    You and me might need to fight in the playground if this insolence continues.

    ;)
    ;)
    ;)

  • Pulsar_t #353 2 years ago

    Seconding that magikdodo is mentally ill. DoKtoR also gets high marks for being ridiculous.

    Also, GTA4 didn't deserve its perfect reviews either.
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 11:28

  • theiceman #354 2 years ago

    Meh meh meh meh meh. Ha ha ha look at all the fools here crying into their pillows it only got a 8.
    It should be called Red Eye Redemption instead with all the ppl crying their saviour flopped. Lolz

  • jonsaan #355 2 years ago

    'Rockstar ensures the game world is just as packed as Liberty City' - So pretty empty then. Outside of the missions?

  • Capa26 #356 2 years ago

    "And to all the thread commenters complaining about the review score complainers, who also haven't played RDR, the same was said about MGS4, Dead Space, Alan Wake's low scores and the complainers were RIGHT. After they finished playing those games, their review score complaints were justified. Those games were better than the scores EG gave them."

    @DJFlex

    Indeed there are some extremely stupid comments in this thread, but this one was attempting to address those trying to bay the idiots.

    It was this comment I didn't agree with... those games were not better than the EG score and the complainers were not right to say that EG's score was too low. This implies that a majority opinion (which gave it glowing praise) is fact... and that those games were objectively better than a 7 (or whatever they got).

  • magikdodo #357 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo: truce, didn't see the 'smiley' at the end..

    But, SR2 was a ps2 game in a next-gen era..

    /still don't know how it scraped through quality control..possibly in a cardboard box ala Snake ;()
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 11:33

  • pancho #358 2 years ago

    Someone should write to IGN asking how long they played the multiplayer modes for...

    Seems pretty unlikely they (or anyone else for that matter) received a different build of the game to EG.

  • Capa26 #359 2 years ago

    "if you voted for the Conservatives in the recent election you would be with the majority opinion of the needs for the country

    While I agree with all of your other points, this analogy is pretty flawed considering that more than 60% of the country DIDN'T vote Conservative."

    @magikdodo

    Yes. Yes it is. Was trying to illustrate a point about popularity of opinion vs. objectivity. Anyway yes... remove the majority bit and just look at the Tories and the Greens... that works.

    By the by I agree with you wholeheartedly about Saints Row 2.... was a messy, unfunny, dull, uninvolving game which tried to do a Vice City without the style or wit.

  • kangarootoo #360 2 years ago

    @magikdodo

    "still don't know how it scraped through quality control..possibly in a cardboard box"

    Only if the cardboard box was flying a helicopter gunship and wearing a dress. That is how SR2 rolls.

    I agree that SR2 had less style and humour than GTA:SA, but SA was done and dusted and GTA4 had swapped its jetpack for a moody 5 o'clock shadow. In the absence of a fun GTA game (flame on), SR2 filled a space.

  • FooAtari #361 2 years ago

    @BigSwiss
    Eurogamer Germany gave it a 10/10!

    seriously, is it a new marketing tactic from EG.net to give awesome games a bit a lower score?

    No. It's different fucking reviewers for christ sakes.

    Edit
    Was perhaps a bit harsh there in my response. But I can only tolerate so many stupid posts in one thread.
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 12:18

  • Acrid #362 2 years ago

    Want.

  • neems #363 2 years ago

    Not just any cluster fuck... this is a Rockstar cluster fuck.

    Now I realise that every other bugger in the world likes to moan about how 8 is actually a good score, but I'm going to join in regardless. Honestly, does nobody play a game, let's say Dead Space, really enjoy it, and then think that 7 is a fair score? If I see a film on IMDB that has a score of 7, I think it's probably a good film. If it's an 8 or more, then it's probably a great film.

    This whole thread illustrates the image problem that gamers have. The world doesn't look down on us because we play games. It looks down on us because so many of us are so utterly utterly retarded about them. Personally, I like games a fair bit more than is probably healthy for a man my age. So if even I'm looking at some of you and thinking 'Jesus get a life' then you know you're in trouble.

    Maybe Eurogamer should just poll the readers pre-release to determine what the review score will be? Or they could just review the hype perhaps. 'Not advertised as much as GTA4, but word of mouth amongst hardcore gamers has largely made up for that, I give RDR 9. We'll re-review the game once we've actually played it.'

  • jstar #364 2 years ago

    Classic nonsense comment from Eurogamer reviewer:

    'The very best Western films enjoy a rapid fire of crisp, purposeful scenes to link the action. It's a format that works well when packed into 90 minutes of imagery delivered at 24 frames per second. '

    90 minutes?!?!?! Are you smoking crack?

    Outlaw Josey wales - 135 mins
    Unforgive - 130 mins
    Gun fight at the ok corral - 122 mins
    Once upon a time in the west - 170 mins or so
    Good the bad and the ugly - 170 mins or so

    Rapid fire, crisp purposeful scenes? Could you any more clearly illustrate your complete lack of knowledge on this subject?

    How can you get something so astonishingly wrong? Parkin, you are an idiot sir.

  • spekkeh #365 2 years ago

    People who think EG has once again purposefully given the lowest score just to get viewers, should have another look at the metacritic listing of Alan Wake. Yes you're an ass and you should feel that way. A year from now, an 8 will not be the lowest score given to Red Dead Redemption, and could well be the closest estimate to what the game really deserves.

  • djed #366 2 years ago

    Everyone knows women are made out of sand.

  • Sarge #367 2 years ago

    Hookers, yay!

  • Jackface #368 2 years ago

    Seems solid enough but I got bored with GTA IV disappointingly quickly so I won't bother with this.

    It was a combination of having seen it all before, the difficult-to-care-for lead character, the vastness of the map and the endless driving around looking for things to do. Plus, and this is the clincher, I just don't have time in my real life to fritter away 50 hours (FIFTY?!!?) on a videogame.

  • Jackface #369 2 years ago

    I haven't bothered with any of the pages and pages of comments here, life's too short, but I'm curious why there's a debate over it getting a 'bad' score? The review read like it's a great game, and 8 is the score a great game should get.

    Bizarre.


    EDIT: LOL! Negative karma for pointing out the obvious, brilliant. You comments folks really are (for the most part - some gems here) total cretins.
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 13:08

  • tickleygonad #370 2 years ago

    8/10... I'm not getting it now!!! I only play games that are 9/10 or higher!!

    Seriously why has this caused so much fuss?! It's hardly a poor score and it's only an opinion!!

    If it bothers you that much you could always make a 10/10 gold star out of card and stick it to the case using sticky backed plastic!!

    Plebs!!!

  • razzastuta #371 2 years ago

    @ Capa26

    I wasn't actually trying to suggest that reviews SHOULD be objective. My comment was directed at macmurphy trying to tell him that a review will never be 100% objective, so I don't actually see what your problem is.

    As for asking people to stop using the word "objective" I don't think even you have the power to stop freedom of speech, Capa, however much you may wish for it! :o)

  • chubster2010 #372 2 years ago

    @ Darren
    re 'No-one accused Red Faction Guerrilla, Just Cause 2 or GTA IV of being too long'

    I've accused GTAIV of being too long many a time. And all the other GTA's were too long to be honest (aside from Gay Tony and The Lost...). In every GTA, I simply got bored of the stories and characters and gave up.

    The add ons for GTAIV were much better that the original game and this is mainly due to their length - they were much snappier...less bloated.

  • GamesConnoisseur #373 2 years ago

    People have had happily played 7/10 games and commented after EG reviews that they either agreed with all/some comments or disagreed strongly as in their opinion thru found review to be too harsh/soft.

    That goes for Dead Space, Planescape Torment and Alan Wake.

    Now 8/10 score suddenly weighs more dirtier and inferior than above three lower scored examples?!
    No only cos OTHER reviews were ALL higher and THUS EG is wrong?!

    Mmm... Edge and EG are still two gaming reviewers I fully values and respects above likes of ign.com who give out 9/10 likes there is no tomorrow and Gamespot more fairer but still too soft.

    What smells worse for me are the amount of judgements that game deserves better WHEN said persons HASNT ruddy yet played the game?!

    How are we able to form justifable subjective opinion if was worth this or that?! I decided Alan Wake to be a damned fun and enjoyable game recent weekend and EG review score and contents was just something I read as just an opinion AND not facts.

    Though still those opinions prepared me to not approach the game with high expectations but instead got suprisedly pleased!

    10/10 score and playing RDR may have led me to... 'Er is there summat wrong with me? Too jaded?' moments!

    You couldoho elsewhere if you won't put up with EG reviews or perhaps try to contribute with informed opinions to add to debates.

  • Capa26 #374 2 years ago

    "I think all reviewers can only be objective to the best of their ability and sadly, although it urks some readers, a review can never be entirely 100% objective."

    @ razzastuta

    Sorry, but this seems to suggest you were stating that reviewers should try and make reviews objective to me. Yes it can never be entirely 100% objective, but also any criticism (whether postive or negative) within a review cannot possibly be even 1% objective... it is impossible... it is directly affected by opinion. A reviewer should not be trying to be objective the best of their ability... that isn't what makes a review a review... critical opinion is.

    Yes I can't stop people using the word... freedom of speech and all that bollocks. But I'm pretty riled at people who seem to think criticism within a review is about anything other than personal opinion... it's dumb as sin.

    Again... if people want to argue with the dictionary and ancient etymology about the definition of objectivity... go right ahead.
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 13:23

  • thefishmonger #375 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    Ello. I'm aware of Metacritic working out the average across all scores but what I'm saying is the Eurogamer Italy has awarded RDR a 9/10. I was not aware that Eurogamer dished out different scores depending which territory it is in.

    Italian review with 9/10
    Edited by 2 at 18/05/10 @ 13:43

  • darkmorgado #376 2 years ago

    I was not aware that Eurogamer dished out different scores depending which territory it is in.


    Well yes, because it is different people reviewing it.

  • kangarootoo #377 2 years ago

    Lets clear this whole objective/subjective thing up once and for all, 'cos clearly some posters need a new dictionary.


    An objective statement is one that is empircally true. E.g. water is made up of 1 hydrogen atom and 2 oxygen atoms.

    The tes of an objective statement, is that every person everywhere in the universe making the statement correctly will (save for dialect) give the same answer. If you tell me the molecular makeup of water, you will either give me an objective statement or an incorrect one.


    A subjective stament is one that varies with opinion. E.g. a hatstand is tall.

    "Tall" is not a universal measurement of anything. Indeed it is a relative term. Tall compared to what? Ask 100 people if a hatstand is tall and you will get different answers, none of which is right or wrong. You may even get a question back, "tall in relation to what". They key test again is whether you would get the same answer from everyone you ask, in this case clearly not.


    The only objective elements in a review are the basic details. It is a video game, for the 360 PC and PS3. It supports 1 player (or whatever). It uses the standard controller. Stuff like that.

    Whether the game is "good" or not is subjective, because the word good is a subjective term. It is quite simply not an empirical measurement. And crucially no matter how many people say it is good, it is STILL subjective.

    People often mistake consensus for objectivity. They are not the same thing. Everyone on earth could agree that water is wet, but it is still a subjective description. Equally, it doesn't matter whether people disgree over what makes up water, its molecular build remains objective.

  • PlugMonkey #378 2 years ago

    thefishmonger
    Ello. I'm aware of Metacritic working out the average across all scores but what I'm saying is the Eurogamer Italy has awarded RDR a 9/10. I was not aware that Eurogamer dished out different scores depending which territory it is in.

    Just joshing chief, it's good for morale. ;)

    It makes sense if you think about it though. If you're going to get someone in to translate Parkin's review into Italian, might you not aswell just get in someone to play the game and write their own review, which isn't just in the right language, it also takes in any cultural differences that might affect how the game is received?

  • Boomerang #379 2 years ago

    Wow, this is like a text version of a playground arguement. (9 year olds are also immature, stubborn and ill-informed)

    /gets back to work.

  • PlugMonkey #380 2 years ago

    @ kangarootoo

    I think people always seem to have to take these things to absolutes to deliberately break the intended meaning. I'm well aware that an opinion can never be 'objective', and yet despite the oxymoron, the term 'objective opinion' does exist, and does differ in its meaning from a 'subjective' opinion. Criticism has to retain some semblance on objectivity, or at least some attempt at it, or else it becomes completely worthless to any outside consumer.

    If a reviewer tells me a game sucks because he reviewed on the day his cat was runover, or because Rockstar turned him down for a job, or because he had to review it on Xbox and "teh Xbox suxxorz!!", then it's a fat lot of good to me. In order to serve its customers, a review HAS to take a game on its merits from some sort of an objective stand point.

    I'd even go so far as to say that a review that says "This is an RPG, and I hate RPGs, so 2/10" is a failure not only of the reviews editor, but of the reviewer themselves. When I'm paying the magazine cover price, or looking at the website's adverts, it's in return for the service of them giving me a rundown of a game as objectively as they can.

    Obviously opinions will vary, but 100% subjectivity is useless to me as I don't give a fuck what sort of day they're having, or even what sort of games they like, I'm paying them for a service and that service is to tell me how this game rates compared to the other examples on the market so I can make an informed decision.

    If they can't do that consistently, then I'll go somewhere that can. That's what separates professional critics from fanboys. Fanboys are 100% subjective.

  • Barbellion #381 2 years ago

    I usually think Eurogamer is very well-written, but this is journalistically sloppy - ragdoll physics, anyone? - and the score does not match the tone of the review in general. I also think that comparisons with Just Cause 2 and Red Faction Guerrilla are utterly bizarre and arbitrary - they're just aiming for different things completely. I think Rockstar are being marked down because they are Rockstar; this is the same site that gave 10/10 reviews to both Fallout 3 and Fable 2, which are often both pretty poor but have ambience to carry them through the patchier bits. I think Eurogamer often fancies itself as being a bit like Edge, but it is too prone to hyperbole elsewhere for that tone to be consistent.

    For a reviewer who so often champions the 'feel' and emotional response that even flawed games can generate, this is pretty mealy mouthed. Why chide (and mark down) a game for having so much repetitive travel, when that's a) the point and b) there's an option to skip it anyway if it isn't your thing? Little mention is given to the advances and improvements on the GTAIV template, either, such as the Fable 2-like consequences of your actions. A frustrating review, with or without that score.
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 14:41

  • mfnick #382 2 years ago

    If this comments section doesnt convince you to get rid of scores, nothing will.

    Jeez.

  • FireMonkey #383 2 years ago

    I find it odd that so many other reviews have given it 10/10 when they have yet to play the multiplayer.
    Quite often the multiplayer parts of games actually raise the review score of games. Are the 10/10 reviews going to become 11/10 if the multiplayer is excellent?

    Without the multiplayer, 8/10 seems a pretty good. I'd imagine from what I have read of the multiplayer that it will actually raise the score to 9/10 which is great.

    I also think 10/10 reviews are crap as to really deserve that score the game should be pretty much flawless which this game doesn't sound like it is.

  • kangarootoo #384 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    I'm being a pedant here, but what you are describing is constructive critisism, not objectivity. I too absolutely want a review to be constructive, but that still doesn't make it objective.

    "but 100% subjectivity is useless to me"

    Not really. Particularly because that is the only kind of review you will ever get (save the details I mentioned earlier). The implication is that 100% subjectivity is based on irrelevant references or subjects, but that doesn't have to be the case.

    What a good review will contain is... "knowing what most gamers like and dislike (i.e. the subject), my subjective opinion of game X is, because it bears comparison to said references in the following ways". Its no more objective just because it used suitable reference subjects and declared them clearly.

    E.g.
    "Knowing that nothing else on this planet is over 4 feet in height, I shall describe that 6 foot hatstand as tall". Still entirely subjective, but CONSTRUCTIVE.

    A good review will reveal its references, and be constructive in its use of them, when making subjective observations. And incidentally, this review did exactly that.

  • cervezapr #385 2 years ago

    Of all the reviews on Metacritic this is the lowest one and the worst points you use on your review are not the bugs but personal things. It feels like the author does not like the western setting and that he is giving a personal score instead of an unbiased one. From what I have seen Rockstar did way better one this than on GTA IV. Its not a bad review but when the lowest one on Metacritic is a 90 (given by Eurogamer Italy). Not that this game is a 10 because of a few bugs and animation glitches but they are very few considering the vast amount of stuff put into this game.

  • SFG_Clan #386 2 years ago

    I think you were a bit too hard on the game, it's an open-world game of course the player will eventually tire of trekking across it but that goes with almost any type of game; whether it be playing the same map or racing the same track. This is a dynamic world full of things to do and with the usual brilliant Rockstar storytelling,depth, and voice acting. I really think the reviewer was just being pretentious in some ways; as Rockstar games are immensly popular with gamers and journalists. So instead of the open world game genre coming across as tired I think the review comes off as just trying to be different for the sake of it.

    You also completley ignored the multiplayer aspect, apart from a note at the bottom of the article, which is in my opinion criminal. Poor show Eurogamer I think it at least deserves a 9 as it is above the usual standards of western games.
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 15:02

  • TheJuriel #387 2 years ago

    So much whining about a good enough score..? Ugh.

    Why not stick to something more relevant, like how the PS3 loses in image quality and framerate to 360, just like with GTA4? :p

  • PlugMonkey #388 2 years ago

    @ kangarootoo:

    I'm well aware you are being a pedant. So am I. ;)

    In your pedantry you are correctly defining the term 'objective', but not the term 'objective opinion'. It might well be an oxymoron, but language is elastic and you have to make allowances for that. It's a definable term, meaning 'an opinion not coloured by emotion'.

    For example, my subjective opinion of my car is that it's a fucking classic! A piece of auto-motive art, and quite simply, the only car in the world that's worth owning. Which is why I wouldn't sell it.

    My objective opinion is that it's an unreliable heap of shit, and an irredeemable money pit. Which is why I would suggest you not buy it.

    If you want to swap tall tales of motoring adventure over a couple of pints, you'll be wanting my subjective opinion.

    If you're wanting buying advice, you're going to be wanting the objective opinion - oxymoron or no - because that's the one that has the useful information that is transferable to you. You might want to call that 'constructive criticism', but that won't erase the term 'objective opinion' from the English language.

    (It's basically the standard all-conquering language pedant stalemate: definition vs. usage ;D)

  • Psi #389 2 years ago

    I came here fully expecting to skip the review to the end and see the score I wanted.

    When I didn't see that score I feel it my duty to whine like a bitch in the comments section until this matter is resolved to my likeing.

    Could someone summarise the three page review clearly too long for my attention span and the 500 comments that followed it and tell me what to do?

  • kangarootoo #390 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey

    "language is elastic and you have to make allowances for that"

    Elastic yes, nonsensical NEVER! :D I shall explain.

    "an opinion not coloured by emotion"

    There is simply no such thing. A statement truly uncoloured by emotion is an objective statement, not an opinion. An "opinion" by its very nature cannot be uncoloured by emotion. It is a worthy aim, but an unachievable one.

    I am all for the evolution of language, but at any given moment in time a word has to mean something or it does not. And right now, the definition of "objective" does not allow it to be used within "objective opinion". As Hercule Poirot would say, it offends the intelligence :)


    "If you're wanting buying advice, you're going to be wanting the objective opinion - oxymoron or no - because that's the one that has the useful information that is transferable to you"

    But what you will give me as a motoring expert will not be an objective opinion, it will be a MIX of objective statements ("the engine on that model comes in 1.6cc and 1.8cc, but only the 1.8cc version has the option of an automatic gearbox";) and subjective (if very well informed) opinion ("it burns a lot of oil, but its easier on the tyres, so overall its the better choice if you want to save money";).


    "It's basically the standard all-conquering language pedant stalemate: definition vs. usage"

    Well you have me there, as for all my posturing, I am a firm believer in evolving language. I am one of the people that says a dictionary does not tell you what words mean (like some unchangable rule book), but rather a book that describes common usage of words (which is of course subject to change).

    I just like slow evolution of language, and specifically for the right reasons (not just because teenagers can't spell properly). And more crucially, the evolution shouldn't remove the ability of a language to discriminate in meaning. Change the words used by all means, but don't condense the language. In this case, if we start confusing objective and subjective, how do we state clearly that something is one or the other, and show distinction between the two?


    Christ, its all got a bit heavy hasn't it. Here is a picture of a cat on a bike to restore balance.
    http://ww w.brseattle.com/images/cat%20on...

  • dpb135 #391 2 years ago

    Just like GTA 4, apparently ps3 versions is only 640p ..... gimped again. 360 is 720p.

  • PlugMonkey #392 2 years ago

    "And more crucially, the evolution shouldn't remove the ability of a language to discriminate in meaning."

    But this doesn't. Objective and subjective, when applied to human opinion, discriminates between an opinion that is:

    "placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric. "

    and an opinion that is, or at least attempting to be:

    "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased. "

    (To quote Dictionary.com's conveniently quotable definitions. I know that when it comes to forum debating I should really be using Wikipedia for my references, so as to ensure that they have as little grounding in fact as possible, but I feel when it comes to a debate of this nature any quoting of definitions is sufficiently asinine for the source to not really matter...)

    So it IS discriminationg in meaning. All human opinion may, by it's very nature, be 'technically' subjective but there are still varying extents to which we can allow our own moods, attitudes and opinions to colour them. Calling the ends of that scale 'subjective' and 'objective' discriminates more meaning than calling them 'subjective' and 'also subjective'.

    Essentially, an 'objective opinion' may not be objective from an objective standpoint, but it is objective when subjectively compared to a 'subjective opinion'.

    :)

  • kangarootoo #393 2 years ago

    Well ok, I guess we are cool for now. But if I get so much as a sniff of a slipping standard, I'll be flying heads.

  • darkmorgado #394 2 years ago

    I remember when EDGE tried doing that... *cackle*

    Yeah, that was the best Issue ever!

  • darkmorgado #395 2 years ago

    [link url=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=24 7104
    ]http://ww w.computerandvideogames.com/art...[/link]

    It's being reported that the PS3 version is sub-hd while the XBox version is 720p with 2xAA (basically the same as GTA4)

  • ButterflyEdge #396 2 years ago

    Oh my life people, some of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. We're supposed to be a community, stuff like this is pathetic.

    Great review, can't wait to play it. Mighty high score, good stuff.
    I hate to patronise - but all you idiots out there flaming the 8 score, you know that's actually huge, right? on a scale of 1-10, 5 would be the middle-of-the-road/average, so how the hell is 8 BAD?

    People baffle me.

  • Cronan #397 2 years ago

    Metacritic score for the 360 version is now 95%. The Eurogamer UK review doesn't even appear, although the Eurogamer Italy review does (their Filippo Facchetti gave it 9/10).

    I do like the Italian site, especially the page links, which are called Pagina.

  • SEVQA #398 2 years ago

    Now I want Rockstar to get to work on a Back to the Future sandbox with time traveling multiple sandbox Hill valleys within one environment as the Red Dead Redemption world reminds of Hill Valley 1885 from back to the future III.

  • thefishmonger #399 2 years ago

    Well regardless of all the scores the general feedback is that this is a bloody fun game and that's good enough for me.

    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 17:28

  • Chufty #400 2 years ago

    Great review. Game sounds shit.

  • razzastuta #401 2 years ago

    @ Capa26

    Whoa there Capa, calm down - I think you're barking up the wrong tree. As I explained before (but you somehow clearly missed the point or have not read properly) I was trying to tell someone that reviews will never be and can NEVER be "objective", nor was I suggesting they should be. Maybe if I should've explained that a little better, maybe?

    "I think all reviewers can only be objective to the best of their ability and sadly, although it urks some readers, a review can never be entirely 100% objective." is what I said, correct.

    What I think I was trying to explain [to macmurphy before you jumped in] is that when a reviewer can only be objective "to the best of their ability" this means that there HAS to be subjectivity somewhere in the review, surely? You're wrong to think I would suggest something that is, ultimately, unavoidable purely down to human fallibility....since no human, however trying to objective, can ever be such.

    What's worse Capa, is that I agree with what you're saying regarding reviews - yet you're just missing the mark, somehow! Nevermind.

    And as for the "objective" phrase/word, I was only trying to have a laugh with you, matey. :o)

  • TRUTH #402 2 years ago

    Well it look likes one of the best looking games is actually SUB HD on PS3 - Alan Wake now has to take less shit now from all those PS3 fanboys!!!

    http://ww w.computerandvideogames.com/art...

  • curtlikesmeat #403 2 years ago

    1. Not a bad review - I actually could stand to read a couple more pages of it to be honest. Five page reviews for big releases in the future? I mean, your writers are employed full time right?

    2. Any word on the differences between versions, or is there a Digital Foundry thing coming?
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 19:00

  • Waldo #404 2 years ago

    Do you get telegraphs and smoke signals every thirty seconds from people who want you to take them to the saloon and the puppet shows?

  • chrisola #405 2 years ago

    "I remember when EDGE tried doing that... *cackle* "


    EDGE reviews games like they were music cd's or films, so i think they NEED the score..unless a short paragraph or a two and some low quality screenshots for a game is all you need to help you get a feel for it -- to me a half page of text followed by a number is right for that style.

    Large multi page reviews? As long as there is a good summary and wrap up at the end, a score doesn't really add anything...i think a good reviewer should be able to give you an idea of the game's quality without it.
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 20:22

  • Wolverfrog #406 2 years ago

    Huh, I was expecting a 9 or 10. Still, this should be a good game to pick up.

  • Penguinzoot #407 2 years ago

    EG, at the end of every review could you just provide a link to PlugMonkey and Kangarootoo's wonderfully reasonable and intelligent discussion of reviewer objectivity and subjectivity, as seen above please?

    Many Thanks,
    PZ ;)

    PlugMonkey and Kangarootoo:
    You have restored my faith in humanity, thank you ;)


  • FooAtari #408 2 years ago

    @curt
    Not a bad review - I actually could stand to read a couple more pages of it to be honest. Five page reviews for big releases in the future? I mean, your writers are employed full time right?

    God no. Three pages is enough, I can't even be arsed with that sometimes. What do you want, a commentary of the game from beginning to end?

  • UncleLou #409 2 years ago

    Great review. Game sounds shit.

    Read the review again, you didn't understand it.

  • curtlikesmeat #410 2 years ago

    "What do you want, a commentary of the game from beginning to end?"

    I think sometimes when I'm on the fence I like to hear about how it plays more specifically. Some EG reviews spend two of the three pages setting the scene (and this worked well for stuff like Braid). That's just me though - I can understand if it's a game you're definitely buying anyway you probably don't want to read that much in depth stuff.

    I guess I was just thinking back to when I used to buy magazines - reviews seemed longer then, maybe they weren't, but it seems like an EG review would fit on a one A4 page review....
    Edited by 1 at 18/05/10 @ 22:01

  • neonxaos #411 2 years ago

    Hmm, this sounds really interesting - I give it seven kangaroos on the interest scale. I will also purchase it at some point, based on the words of the review.

  • GitSomE_UK #412 2 years ago

    Rar rar rar

    /Joins without knowing what's going on...

    It's all rubbish 8/10 rar rar

    Even teh Daily Mail scored the game higher than EG !

    Rar Rar biased rar rar

    You betrayed me EG boo hoo rar rar

    /Leaves via swinging doors heading into the sunset

    P.s Can you customise your character so you can wear just the chaps? If so... I'm in.

  • wonton #413 2 years ago

    This looks quite good, again another game to add on my list.

    And I'm going to say again what a few others have already said;

    8/10 is a good score.

    It is an opinion.

    A journalist does not have to conform to exactly what the rest of the industry says. So what if IGN et al gave it a 9? 8 is only 1 less ffs.

  • Psi #414 2 years ago

    If the score had been a 9 would this all have happened?

    But one numerical digit lower and people pack a mental. I love this site.

    I can just imagine the panic at Play.com

    "Sir! pre-orders are cancelling at record speeds, whats happening!!"
    "It's that damn EUROGAMER again, DAMN! YOU!!!!!!OOO!!"

  • PlugMonkey #415 2 years ago

    Psi
    If the score had been a 9 would this all have happened?

    But one numerical digit lower and people pack a mental. I love this site.

    I can just imagine the panic at Play.com

    "Sir! pre-orders are cancelling at record speeds, whats happening!!"
    "It's that damn EUROGAMER again, DAMN! YOU!!!!!!OOO!!"

    No, if the score had been a 9 we would have fallen back on the default 500 posts of fanboy format wars.

    If the score had been a 10 we would have had 500 posts about EG being sucked in by the hype and scoring it too high in return for R* advertising.

    Every big release gets 100s of comments posts. There's no big conspiracy.

  • FooAtari #416 2 years ago

    @curt

    "I think sometimes when I'm on the fence I like to hear about how it plays more specifically. Some EG reviews spend two of the three pages setting the scene (and this worked well for stuff like Braid). That's just me though - I can understand if it's a game you're definitely buying anyway you probably don't want to read that much in depth stuff."

    Not going to buying it myself. I just think 3 pages should be enough to give an accurate review with pros, cons etc. But you make a fair point about the reviews setting the scene. One paragraph, two at most setting the scene then get stuck into the nitty gritty of the review

    "I guess I was just thinking back to when I used to buy magazines - reviews seemed longer then, maybe they weren't, but it seems like an EG review would fit on a one A4 page review...."

    I think you would find there is not a lot of difference in word count, apart from maybe in Edge or GamesTM. Most magazines have lots of nice big pictures padding out the page count.
    Edited by 1 at 19/05/10 @ 10:06

  • Tonasaurus #417 2 years ago

    This game looks well rubbish...NOT.

  • TONYgr #418 2 years ago

    I have 360 and ps3.For what console should i buy it?Are there any big graphical differences?Where is digital foundry when you need them most???

  • Irenicus38 #419 2 years ago

    Jesus, only 8/10 for this gem??? That's stupid... Rather read the review from gladriel:

    [link url=http://www.eu.gladriel.com/reviewF ull/content/1481/Red-Dead-Redemption-Review/
    ]http://ww w.eu.gladriel.com/reviewFull/co...[/link]

  • Psi #420 2 years ago

    @PlugMonkey
    lol you know I think you're right.

    I must be getting old, I didn't know about this game until a friend asked me if I was going to get it. Popped over here and saw the hell unfold.

    I'd love to see the real life overractions of some posters here. Dissatified with a pair of socks and trying to return them, screaming like their lives have been ruined.

  • spatss #421 2 years ago

    LOL at people getting angry at an 8.

  • godfatherobie #422 2 years ago

    Congrats on another appalling review.

    You feel you can even write a review when you havnt touched the multiplayer., I always thought reviews where about letting the gamers know about a game,
    But sadly it seems Eurogamer have jumpe don the Commercial bandwagon, caring more about getting a review out quickly than any true opinions.

    and 8/10... well done. 31 other reviews are in, as of today, and 31 of those rate the game between 9/10 & 10/10

  • Waldo #423 2 years ago

    You feel you can even write a review when you havnt touched the multiplayer., I always thought reviews where about letting the gamers know about a game,
    But sadly it seems Eurogamer have jumpe don the Commercial bandwagon, caring more about getting a review out quickly than any true opinions.

    and 8/10... well done. 31 other reviews are in, as of today, and 31 of those rate the game between 9/10 & 10/10 .

    Most of those 9/10 and 10/10 reviews didn't factor in the multiplayer either.

  • dryden555 #424 2 years ago

    GTA was a solid "8" game, so this score sounds right too. Would have liked to seen more of an economy that one can participate in like buying stores, or even building a new town (aka Deadwood).

  • psychokitten #425 2 years ago

    I'm sorry, I have to jump in here, not that the comments thread hasn't been utterly retarded until this point, but...

    "You feel you can even write a review when you havnt touched the multiplayer., I always thought reviews where about letting the gamers know about a game,
    But sadly it seems Eurogamer have jumpe don the Commercial bandwagon, caring more about getting a review out quickly than any true opinions."

    Rockstar/Take 2 gave Eurogamer a copy of the game with no multiplayer (this isn't unusual for pre-release games), what exactly do you expect them to do? Not review it? What do you imagine the public reaction would be if Eurogamer refused to review the game because the MP component wasn't in it? I'm sure you'd be thrilled with that. Yes, Eurogamer putting out a review *after* the game has come out, that sort of thing gets a great reaction :p

    They reviewed the game they were given and put a big obvious disclaimer at the bottom saying the Multiplayer wasn't part of the review. I'm sure they'll do an update at some point (or seperate part) about the MP.

    In any case, I can't wait for Friday!

  • MDL199 #426 2 years ago

    Why do some people think that a review by a games journalist is the definitive opinion on any given game?! You can only judge a game if you play it yourself!

  • TRUTH #427 2 years ago

    95/100 on Metacritic

    Eurogamer scored it lowest 8/10

    PS3 has sub HD resolution

    Both 360 / PS3 games are one of the best visuals seen on this gen consoles (esp as an openworld game).

    PS3 has extra costume for those who care!

    Great game and look forward to it.
    Edited by 1 at 19/05/10 @ 19:06

  • Ergates_Antius #428 2 years ago

    I think we should track down everyone who complained about EG not reviewing the MP aspect and disconnect them from the internet - they're cleary too stupid to be allowed on here.

    Also, everyone complaining that 8/10 is a bad score needs to be kicked in the face until they die.

    I've had enough of these fuckwits contaminating the web with their stupidity.
    Edited by 1 at 19/05/10 @ 18:40

  • Sn@ke #429 2 years ago

    ON XBOX 360 THIS GAME RUNS AT 720P WITH 2X ANTIALISING. ON PS3 IT RUNS ON SD RESOLUTION AND NO ANTIALISING

  • Vanmunt #430 2 years ago

    ON XBOX 360 THIS GAME RUNS AT 720P WITH 2X ANTIALISING. ON PS3 IT RUNS ON SD RESOLUTION AND NO ANTIALISING

    other news

    Your a moron who can't find Caps Lock

  • actionfitz #431 2 years ago

    "five-finger fillet"

    erm, so there's brothel mini games too? O.o

    I expect that score will change when EG gets to test the multiplayer? (im reffering to the disclaimer at the end of the review).
    sounds like a solid 8-9 out of ten.
    To Ye Olde Shoppe!

  • spekkeh #432 2 years ago

    Played it for a little while, definitely liking it so far. Which is somewhat of a suprise, cause I found GTAIV to be quite uninspiring, and this is GTA Wild West skin. But the pacing until now is so much better, and the feeling of exploration much greater. It's definitely not a perfect ten or anything, but to me a 9 so far, am wondering how it will hold up over longer periods (I'm not as patient with games as I used to be).

  • gjgjg #433 2 years ago

    my god man
    http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=x8gNPUzmjJY

  • RichyRichh77 #434 2 years ago

    8/10 is a fair result for me after a number of hours with the game. You can't get away from the fact that it is GTA IV reskinned but whether that is a good or a bad thing does come down to personal choice. For me after having gone back through GTA IV + DLC I'm enjoying it a lot due to the familiar controls lay out combined with the huge wild west vistas.

    The cover system as with GTA IV has a few short comings compared to the likes of Gears of War 2 but is more than made up for with the excellent Dead Eye Meter - nothing more satisfying than blowing the knee caps out of a bandit and watching them attempt to crawl away. :)

    A couple of things that are niggling me at the moment are:

    Water = Instant death! Being able to swim in games like GTA IV and Assassin's Creed 2 was a blessed relief from those times when you inadvertently lose control and end up ankle deep in water.

    Collision Detection glitches - Falling through a bridge over a ravine for the 3rd time resulting in instant death and another reload would make even the baby Jesus cry. The funniest glitch was coming across a rider submerged in the ground, I initially thought it was a stranger encounter that required me to free him from quick sand.

    Marstons moonwalk - Start pressing/holding A to run and watch that bad boys feet run like mad but not actually move anywhere for a few seconds. Amusing the first time I saw it, looks shoddy every other time.

    In the grand scheme of things these are minor niggles when you consider the depth of the single player campaign and associated challenges, the sheer size of the map to explore, let alone the hours of fun to be had with a multiplayer posse but they do, in my mind, prevent this from being the: OMG!?! Cream my pants, this is the best game ever 10/10 that some people are hoping for.
    Edited by 1 at 21/05/10 @ 17:01

  • MrsPacMan #435 2 years ago

    Just playing poker, the AI is more fun than most of the AH's on-line

  • GitSomE_UK #436 2 years ago

    I'm having a lot of fun playing this. Yes there are clipping glitches here and there but I can forgive that due to the shear scale of the game. It's HUGE.

    I find it quite relaxing riding around looking at the great expansive scenery. Wildlife running around all over the place and coming across the odd stranger at random who needs help or wants to nick your horse.

    /See racoon shoots it and skins it

    There's a strange relaxed pace in this game maybe it's the excellent music but there's something about it where you just get into the spirit of things and mosey around.

    I'm finding the gun fights to be pretty good too R* have definitely been inspired by the Spaghetti Westerns and for that R* I salute you for yet another first rate game.

    Yet again it's full of R* brilliant moments...

    I was riding along when I saw a man jump of his horse and dash to some rocks. I chased after him thinking something was going on. There was... he was taking a piss! He was actually urinating a big arc of yellow piss.... He stopped he shrugged and went back to his horse.... Quality!
    Edited by 2 at 22/05/10 @ 02:29

  • kongzi #437 2 years ago

    It's a fair review, but that comparison to Just Cause and Red Faction is completely ridiculous. Those are just very big tech demo's. The story is just an excuse for some gameplay scenarios. Beyond blowing up buildings in Red Faction, and swinging around the world in JC2, there isn't a whole lot to it, just the tech. When you're playing it, the world never really comes alive. It's a map with some dots on it.
    Red Dead has impressive tech as well, but backs it up with a well realized story, fresh setting and good characters. So to me, that's going one above and beyond what the others do. Even though you can still make out the seams, it comes very close to being a world in itself. For me that adds a lot to the experience.

  • deaneager #438 2 years ago

    I've played about 3.5 hours of it now and my opinion is that it's not even the best sandbox game this year. It's too slow, there's too little to see and do and the missions so far have been pretty boring.

    Crackdown is still my number 1 sandbox, with GTA IV at number 2 and Just Cause 2 a very, very close 3rd.

  • TRUTH #439 2 years ago

    Just Cause 2 was soooooo repetitive, AI was dumb, go from one spot-kill-blow up thing then repeat again!

  • mizcicz #440 2 years ago

    8 is a joke. just finished the game and played mp for some time. the game has some flaws - it´s not perfect, i agree with that. but still it is a lot of fun and very well crafted and cleverly designed overall. i´m not even a big fan of westerns but this one sucked me in. technically it is really astonishing as well. to give this game a score lower than a 9 out of 10...if you like the setting or not...is just not fair and not very professional. it was the same with ratchet and clank - crack in time. eg wants to be different - to get some attention. i do not like this attitude at all.
    Edited by 1 at 23/05/10 @ 14:59

  • pancho #441 2 years ago

    Technically it is REALLY astonishing...

    [link url=http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=jVVXyKP1FVk
    ]http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=jVVXyKP1FVk
    [/link]

    [link url=http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=7q7v4F8r9Og
    ]http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=7q7v4F8r9Og
    [/link]

  • Dizz #442 2 years ago

    One of the few times I disagree with a Eurogamer review. This should've gotten a 10. It's pretty obvious to what extend they polished in the small details and how they did their homework..your horse making noise when danger is around (note to self: pay attention, dismounting next to a bloody rattlesnake isn't a great idea), the voice acting and banter, the small stuff happening in town, the minimalist music. It's a playable Leone movie. Absolutely fantastic.

    The multiplayer is sheer brilliance. Like someone said, MMO PvP without the stupid boring bits.

    Periods of calm, and then suddenly a situation explodes. This isn't a game for ADHD patients, there's enough for them out there already.

    If it will ever come out for the PC, I'll spring for that version too. In the meantime, I hope they go all out on the DLC. :)

  • Ridethelightning #443 2 years ago

    It's a typo they were supposed to press the 10 button but they pressed 8 which is a common mistake as it is located just above 10.

  • Farzlepot #444 2 years ago

    I've not played much of the game yet, just a handful of hours, but first impressions are gold. And so far, my first impressions of RDR are just that - thar's gold in that thar game.

    One of my least favourite aspects about GTA 4 was that if you weren't on a mission, there was almost nothing to do besides driving around aimlessly. Unless you actually enjoyed hunting down 200 pigeons, that is. And while the world was certainly well-made and interesting, there was almost no reason to go off exploring because you knew it would be an exercise in inanity.

    RDR, on the other hand, begs you to leave the dusty roads and delve into the arid world around them. Sometimes you'll be stopped by a woman on the side of the path begging you for help, only to be thrown off your horse and watch her ride off into the sunset (she didn't reach the horizon before finding a bullet in her head, though - I love that horse), or being ambushed by roadside bandits. If you get bored, you can sit and play a few hands of poker or blackjack, or head into the wilderness and hunt the local fauna. For the more constructive players amongst us, you can get a job as a bounty hunter or night watchman, both of which encourage you to take your marks alive if you can.

    And the world itself is utterly beautiful.

    The missions, so far anyway, have been unique and varied. Stopping cattle rustlers, breaking horses, tracking down bandits, herding cattle, rescuing hostages (this is the first game I've played where you can actually save somebody from being hung by shooting the rope, and the first time in a long time I've cheered at the screen) - some sound more exciting than others, but they all have their appeal and singular challenges.

    Were I to review this and GTA 4, I think I'd swap the scores around. RDR is sublime.

  • jstar #445 2 years ago

    Let us just be thankful that none of the morons who write for this steadily deteriorating website are actually involved in making anything. Otherwise we really would be in trouble.

    Eurogamer has become like my uncle. Last time I saw him he was dribbling into his lasagne and occasionally shouting random words at the top of his voice at terrified nurses and family members. I always enjoyed visiting him because one never knew what he was going to do next. Some times he talked such nonsense I laughed till my sides split. Other times he just got his cock out and tried to fuck his pillow. But with family you have to take the rough with the smooth. With websites, luckily, you do not.

    If someone asked me what type of games the Eurogamer reviewers liked I literally wouldn't be able to tell them. It seems to change from week to week. The number you attach at the bottom of your reviews seem to have been decided upon by writing some numbers on pieces of paper, flushing them down the loo and then seeing which one you can fish out of the sewer with the least amount of shit on it.

    Eurogamer, dear old friend, what the fuck is wrong with you?



    Edited by 1 at 24/05/10 @ 12:16

  • TheEnd #446 2 years ago

    Wow, this review score is dead wrong. How the site can laud Bayonetta on one hand and then pass this game over on the other is hilarious.

  • mungolikebeans #447 2 years ago

    Having played this for a good 6 hours or so i think 8 is spot on.

    It's an amazing game but a few repetitions bring it down.

    Travelling from a to b is basically used as filling in dialogue and some of these seems to go on forever!! I'm also not sure about the death system - when you die you just respawn at home as if nothing happened (not sure what the answer to this is but it ruins the illusion a bit) Also seem to get stuck on scenery a lot, which is not useful when i'm being filled with lead.

    Lovin' it though.


  • Jmog #448 2 years ago

    What is wrong with you people? EG didn't give it an 8. One reviewer did. And that 8 has nothing to do with any universal opinion of the game. It is just HIS opinion of the game. Not how good he thinks it will be in your world. A review is about how much enjoyment the reviewer got from the game.

    And as such, there is no such thing as the review being wrong. I would give it a 9 myself. That's how good I think it is. The reviewer gave it 8 because that's how good HE thinks it is. We are both right. Now stop acting like idiots.

  • GenuineEntropy #449 2 years ago

    Um, without wanting to get embroiled in all the '8 controversy', I own and have played this game at length....

    It's really rather good and IN MY OPINION merits the 9/10 scores being reported elsewhere.
    I would also like to add that I haven't touched the MP aspect of RDR yet, I base my personal 9/10 opinion purely on the single player experience.

    As mentioned, this is merely my opinion and I am not a professional game journalist, so perhaps I do not posses the same objectivity professional journalist are at least supposed to aspire to.

    Please don't maul me for stating my opinion in a public forum. I've had more than enough mauling thanks to RDR's ninja-cougars this week. :-P

    (And how on earth did *they* escape mention in your review? Those "wada-fugg-jus-killed-mah-horse-and-then-me" cougars are pretty much the first things anyone I know who's played the game mentions!)

    Edited by 1 at 25/05/10 @ 13:26

  • drhickman1983 #450 2 years ago

    Been playing nigh on 20 hours of the single player now (though I'm only 33% complete, I've been getting sidetracked a lot) and some multiplayer. Though I'm not somebody who puts much merit on review scores, if I had to award it anything I'd have to say I agree with 8.

    The game world is extremely well made, can't fault the enviroment at all. The landscape is the single most amazing thing about this game. But the gameplay just hasn't amazed me, sorry.

    The missions are pretty repetetive, and I'm feeling the same way about the random encounters. Once your horse is stolen two or three times, you sort of know its coming.

    And some of the core mechanics seem a bit annoying. Horse riding works well, for sure, but then some of the on foot controls seem a bit, I don't know, stiff. The cover mechanic is a bit too sticky too. I'm sure many people will disagree with my next comment, but it's what I genuinely feel: I think the combat, and on-foot controls in general, are actually a step down from GTA4.

    So I'm sorry if my low score of 8 offends you people, but I'm simply not enjoying the game enough to give it a 9. If I was going to give a score based purely on technical accomplishment, then I'd give it a 9 or 10. But even though the scenery is a massive part of this games experience, there are other aspects to this game, which simply don't feel as accomplished.

    If you disagree, fine, your entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine, and as the reviewer is to his.
    Edited by 1 at 26/05/10 @ 00:54

  • CHACK #451 2 years ago

    Well written review to a point but an 8 out 10 score awarded without Multiplayer content being included is just shoddy - it may be that EG prides itself with getting reviews up on the quick but this deserves at least a 9.

    At least.

  • troysimpson #452 2 years ago

    this same reviewer gave Just Cause 2 a score of 8.

    this game is WAY better than Just Cause 2.

    just my opinion.

  • troysimpson #453 2 years ago

    those of you who have only played six or so hours and think it's kinda boring don't realize you're still in the tutorial phase. that's how crazy this game is!

  • Farzlepot #454 2 years ago

    I've finished the main storyline now (still loads to get on with though) and... wow.

    That's all.

    Just wow.

  • I\'mListening #455 2 years ago

    ^ Finished the main storyline today, and I agree - Wow! Perhaps the best ending to a game in 15 years. This is an absolutely unbelievable game.

  • ayreon2084 #456 2 years ago

    Video review with Miss Hungary! :p

    It's a bit late, but who cares? hot chick!! :)
    [link url=http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=ntvWn9epZDk
    ]http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=ntvWn9epZDk
    [/link]
    http://bit.ly/c6zQs1

  • brseg #457 2 years ago

    OK, I'm late to the party, I got RDR last week. Its absolutely amazing. [cant be bothered to write a review!]. Loved the gameplay variety, from the main missions to the other tasks and activities. Graphics are quite often jaw-dropping, e.g. on my first trip to Armadillo town, the salloon, train station, or first ride over a river or canyon view. Gun mechanics feel even better than I expected, satisfying even to shoot a bird or rabbit.
    Jumping on the bandwaggon, I am worried you consider this game equal to Just Cause 2. For me, JC2 was a tech demo, I never felt connected to any of it. I've hunted for wild animals in RDR longer than I played the JC2 demo.
    Anyway, hats off to Rockstar, incredible acheivement.
    Edited by 1 at 20/06/10 @ 12:16

  • murrell96 #458 2 years ago

    this game is amazing its not crap

  • murrell96 #459 2 years ago

    this game is amazing

  • swede #460 2 years ago

    My gosh - I wonder what he could mean?

    Has this 'user' been banned?

  • SupremeSkill #461 2 years ago

    I would have given GTA IV 7/10.

    It was simply so much worse than the earlier GTAs and the gameplay and controls sucked so bad.

    This game sounds good on paper, but if it's anything like GTA IV, I'll pass.

    Also the RAGE engine is not too optimized at times.

    EDIT:

    I bet that EG as every other gamesites were bribed for GTA IV reviews.
    Edited by 1 at 22/07/10 @ 00:34

  • valyrian #462 1 year ago

    Good review, EG reviews are much more realistic than IGN
    9 for Pro Evo
    10 for Reach
    10 for GTA 4
    THERE ARE NO 10/10 games
    IGN stop sucking everyones's cock

  • CosmicCracker #463 1 year ago

    Giving a game an 8 is one persons opinion. Why cry for over 300 comments, if you don't like the review go to another site that gave it a better score and convince yourself that you need to buy it.
    Better yet get a better paying job so you can have the luxury of buying 8/10 games and giving them to your poor friends when you decide that it's a piece of plop.

    Personally i HATED GTA games and the only thing that prevents me from buying this game are two things
    1...I need a better paying job
    2...Is it a GTA game set in the west before hookers were called hookers.

  • CosmicCracker #464 1 year ago

    Ok bugger it, i just bought it.
    Let's see what all the fuss is about...

  • coomber #465 1 year ago

    Just finished it. Agree with the review completely. Good game but nothing amazing. Certainly no GOTY.

  • norsende #466 4 months ago

    EG giving RDR an 8 is the biggest joke in the history of game reviews. I had forgotten about this already, but after being reminded through Metacritic new EG reviews take on a whole new twist... Time to change gaming site.