I have no doubt that Red Dead Redemption 2 will be a good game. It will probably be even better than that ̵
With all this out of the way, based on the reaction so far I think to be the only gambler that's not completely over the moon about Red Dead Redemption 2. The first Red Dead Redemption was better than amazing – it was magical. That's why I still look so strong almost a decade after it was released. And nothing I've seen from trailers has convinced me it's going to be as brave as the first one. ” height=”0″ width=”970″ data-original=”https://cnet2.cbsistatic.com/img/SwhfvbMW4TO31_ZvQCvTWreKXQQ=/970×0/2017/10/17/371c7e5e-7934-4f36-ba03-850014a868ac/spoiler-warning.jpg”/>
I loved everything about the first game.
All this led to a great experience, but what really made the game magical to me was an incredible story centered on an erroneous but sympathetic protagonist – John Marston. Marston's mission is to save his family by hunting the gang members he used to ride. During the journey, you will come to know him as a violent man who desperately tries to do right to those he loves. The conflict, although it is something typical of the Western genre, is performed perfectly.
So the original Red Dead Redemption was one of the first open world games with combat that was actually fun. It had a persuasive story and a world that really seemed like it could still turn if you watched or not. It was also one of the first video games for really loss on the Western genre. Technically speaking, Red Dead Redemption is a sequel to Red Dead Revolver, but the original revolver has a much smaller extent. Both Revolver and the previous GTA games felt like blueprints as Red Dead Redemption became a fully realized and beautiful masterpiece.
Red Dead Redemption was also one of the only major video games that eventually ended with the protagonist's death. Just like blockbuster movies, big video game titles rarely have the courage to do something like that. Red Dead did and did it in a way that made the end one of the best and most appropriate closing of a game I've ever played.
The second game looks like more
I've been trying to put my finger on why I'm not so excited about Red Dead Redemption 2 as my friends since the first teaser trailer hit a couple of years ago. Only the fact that another Red Dead Redemption was on its way was enough to make the fans drool and I've done the same after followers of other hyped sequels like.
Something about beautiful shots of western scenery did not work for me, and maybe that's because I'm getting burned out of the bigger, more beautiful, more explosive video game sequel. Other games in the Arkham series were great, but nobody repeated the focus on Arkham Asylum. The annual iterations of Assassin's Creed have killed my love for what once was an interesting series of relatively continuous history.
I have less time to play games than I used to, so I completely avoided the latest entries in the Fallout series and Borderland series; I also skipped Dishonored 2 and the second Shadow of Mordor game despite loving their respective predecessors because I do not really like to retreading the old ground in video games in exchange for iterative graphics upgrades, a bigger map and a handful of new mechanics.
I choose now and choose games that have a chance to show me something surprising – a new gaming experience. Metal Gear Solid V, for example, combined the regular stealth of the series with an expanded range and a host of new tools that invite player creativity.
I'm worried Red Dead Redemption 2 will not fulfill my desire for something unique and surprising. The game trailer looks amazing and it seems that you can interact with the world in a whole host of new ways – from talking to each member of your roaming bend and building relationships therein to determine whether to escalate or abuse conflict on the fly.
But it's a prequel. Since we know what happens to the central gang in question, I'm worried that history will not surprise me. The shooting looks more polished, but similar. And if Rockstar simply accepts access to adding more characters, more mechanics and more mini-games, I'm concerned that Red Dead Redemption 2 will lose some of the connections to the first.
It would not be a bad thing necessarily if the shooting mechanics are similar to the first one. Again, they were good in the first. I also like the idea of tying a band with your horse, which is emphasized in the trailer, but I did it in the first game alone. Formalizing it and other random world elements can make them less special.
More than that, everything I've seen from Red Dead Redemption 2 looks safe. The fans show the features we would ask for, while the original Red Dead Redemption gave us something we did not even know we wanted.
As with most of the followers mentioned above, it seems that Red Dead Redemption 2 will contain iterative graphical upgrades, a larger map and a handful of new mechanics. It is okay. It will be enough to make it quite fun, especially because it will build on something that was already so remarkably good.
Red Dead Redemption 2 comes out October 26th, and I hope it shows me wrong. I hope Rockstar holds the biggest, boldest surprises in the game hidden – and I'll give them a world of credit if that's true. Although I'm not, I'm sure I'll end up playing the game anyway because of my love for the predecessor, and I'm sure I'll be fine. I just do not want to be able to shake this nasty feeling of disappointment that it's another sequel and not the magical experience of riding in the sun for the first time in a well-rounded western world when I knew that surprises in great grad waited for me just above the horizon.