==Prologue==

In my very first Final Verdict, I called Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune “the most frustrating type of game to review: Great But Flawed”. Having just beaten Red Dead Redemption, I regret to add an even more ambitious game to that category. Rather than frustrate myself with an attempt to review the title, however, I’ve chosen instead to examine its flaws and propose the ways in which it could – theoretically – have achieved unqualified greatness.

==Introduction==

Red Dead Redemption has several interrelated issues that will take time to explain thoroughly. In short: the game is too long, its mission structures are too formulaic, and it fails to consistently motivate either the player or the main character. The fact that certain endgame events seem to be radically out-of-place serves only to complicate matters.

==Problem #1: The game’s length==

Needless to say, I can’t explain why Red Dead is too long without first summarizing its plot in some detail. Therefore, be warned:

** MASSIVE SPOILERS FOLLOW **

Over the course of the almost-20 hours that I spent playing Red Dead, I experienced three different stories, three different endings, and an epilogue before credits finally rolled. I say “three different stories” and “three different endings” because the main character is tasked with completing three different central objectives in sequence.

Story #1 takes up the game’s first 8-or-so hours. Government agents have kidnapped the wife and son of a man named John Marston, forcing him to make his way across Texas to kill another man named Bill Williamson, a member of his old gang. This story ends when John finally storms Bill’s stronghold, only to learn that Bill has just fled for Mexico.

Story #2 takes up the game’s next 9-or-so hours. John makes his way across Mexico to kill both Bill Williamson and Javier Escuella, another member of his old gang who was never mentioned until now. It’s not until John has finally killed both of these men that he learns that he must also kill Dutch van der Linde, the leader of his old gang, who was only rarely mentioned before now. This story ends when John delivers Dutch’s body to his government handlers, freeing himself at last to be reunited with his family.

Story #3 takes up the game’s last hour-or-so. John labors to get his family farm back in order with the help of his wife, Abigail, his son, Jack, and his old friend, “Uncle”, who (say it with me!) was never mentioned until now. This story ends when – just as things are finally looking up for John – his former handlers suddenly descend upon his farm with a dozen soldiers and have him executed.

Red Dead itself does not arrive at its true ending until – in a 15-minute epilogue set three years later – Jack Marston tracks and kills the government agent who killed his father.

==First things last: Events out of order==

What I can’t understand is that what I’ve called “Story #3” takes place at the very end of the game despite the fact that every part of it – except for its last mission – would make infinitely more sense if it took place at the very beginning of the game!

Let’s consider Story #3 in more detail: you meet John’s wife and son; you experience life on John’s farm; you complete a series of missions that are all shorter and simpler than even the earliest missions in the game. Wouldn’t it make every bit of sense to place all of this at the start of the game instead, so that players actually come to know John’s wife and son before they’re stripped away from him?

As it is, players spend some 17 hours attempting to rescue a wife and son whom they’ve never seen. It’s only after this odyssey that they finally advance from what appears to be the game’s final encounter (with van der Linde) onward to what seems to be an absurdly belated tutorial period (on Marston Farm).

==First things first: Re-order events sensibly==

Move all of Story #3 – except for its final mission – to the very beginning of the game, and then have Abigail and Jack kidnapped. The player could subsequently tackle what I’ve called “Story #1” and “Story #2”, winning Abigail and Jack back only moments before taking on the game’s final mission, followed by its epilogue. Why not?!

==Problems #2 and 3a: The formulaic mission structure and player motivation==

After spending a few hours as John Marston, I realized that Rockstar must have found a formula for their missions and then stuck by it slavishly.

Whenever you meet a new mission-giving character, you know that they will assign you 3-5 missions. Why is there not a single character who gives you only one mission? Or a single character who gives you a half-dozen or more? Once you’ve recognized this formula, some player motivation is lost, since suspension of disbelief becomes harder to maintain when certain events (such as character deaths) become obvious impossibilities for certain windows of time.

(Similarly, whenever you approach a floating X to start a new mission, you know that you are about to sit through a cut scene lasting 1-3 minutes. Why is there not a single cut scene that lasts for less than one minute or more than three? For reasons I can only begin to imagine, the team member in charge of cut scenes seemingly acted as a modern-day Procrustes, stretching briefer scenes and sawing away at longer ones until they all fit into this arbitrary framework, no matter the loss of drama involved!)

==Problems #2 and 3b: The formulaic mission structure and John’s motivations==

Just as the formulaic structure of Red Dead’s missions weakens player motivation, so too does it make a laughing stock of John Marston’s own motivations.

I can understand completing several missions for Bonnie; she saved John’s life, and it makes sense to repay her kindness in full. I can even understand completing several missions for Marshal Johnson; he’s the most obvious candidate for “guy who’s going to help John kill Bill Williamson, since he can’t seem to do it alone”, and it makes sense that it’ll take a while to earn his trust and respect.

But why does John run so many errands for everyone else, too? Dickens is a swindler, Irish is a drunkard, and Seth is a loon. Why does John agree to complete mission after mission for these fools instead of just helping each of them out once and then warning them that he’s going to put bullets in their brains if they don’t assist him immediately?

This is a man whose wife and son have been kidnapped, a man who has no time to waste. This is a man whose first defining action is pointing a gun at a fort full of gang members. Why then is this man taking shit from every Tom, Dick, and Harry in all of Texas?

Worse yet, nothing changes as John makes his way through Mexico in Story #2. I can understand completing a couple of missions for Ricketts, who’s something of a hero figure. And I can understand completing a mission or two for Luisa, who’s a damsel in distress. But Allende and Reyes are both rapists! Why is John – a man who regularly gives local prostitutes friendly reminders that he’s married – doing so much dirty work for men who treat women like sex slaves? They don’t even give him anything in return!

Lastly, when John finally returns north, it makes perfect sense that he completes several final missions for his government handlers, but it makes no sense whatsoever that he also wastes time doing a handful of favors for the heroin addict McDougal.

==Solution to all three problems: Make the game only half as long==

Keeping in mind that Red Dead is a sandbox-style game – and that mileage will therefore vary somewhat by player – I can’t see any reason why the game’s main storyline should take nearly 20 hours to complete. The way I see things, 10 hours should have sufficed.

Two different approaches would have achieved this effect, both of which presuppose the slight re-ordering of events that I recommended earlier.

===Option 1: Remove half of the game’s missions===

Complete several missions around Marston Farm. Watch as Ross abducts Abigail and Jack. Move on to complete several missions for Bonnie and several more for Marshal Johnson. Then complete one or two missions for Dickens and one each for Irish and Seth. Lastly, storm Fort Mercer, and learn that Williamson has escaped.

Travel to Mexico and complete a couple of missions for Ricketts. Move on to complete several missions for Allende and then several more for Reyes and Luisa combined. Take down Williamson, and then return to John’s government handlers for a few last missions. Finally, complete the stand-off mission, die, and play out the epilogue as Jack.

BOOM. The game’s over in half the time, the order of events makes sense, the pacing quickens enough to consistently motivate the player, and John himself takes on only those missions that make sense for him to accept. Every single problem is solved simply by removing half of the game’s mission content and reshuffling a portion of what’s left!

==Option 2: Break the game up into two separate titles==

(This is a radically different approach which I like less but offer up as an alternative.)

Game 1: Complete Story #3 – except for the last mission, of course – and then complete Story #1. The only difference would be that you’d probably have to actually succeed in killing Bill Williamson in order for the game to not end on a disappointing cliffhanger.

Game 2: Complete Story #2 – modified slightly to be a story about hunting down only Escuella and van der Linde, since Williamson would already be dead – and then complete Story #3’s final mission, followed… perhaps… by completing the epilogue.

I say “perhaps” only because it might make more sense to end this hypothetical Game 2 with John’s death and then drastically expand Red Dead’s epilogue into one final 10-hour campaign, thus creating Game 3 in a Redemption trilogy.

==Conclusion==

I doubt that I’ve persuaded anyone of anything. Given the number of 10s that I’ve seen associated with reviews of Red Dead Redemption, it’s possible that I’m the only person in the world to have perceived any of the flaws detailed above as such. Nevertheless, I hope that I’ve provided a thought-provoking look at what could have been!

 ==Prologue==

In my very first Final Verdict, I called Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune “the most frustrating type of game to review: Great But Flawed”. Having just beaten Red Dead Redemption, I regret to add an even more ambitious game to that category. Rather than frustrate myself with an attempt to review the title, however, I’ve chosen instead to examine its flaws and propose the ways in which it could – theoretically – have achieved unqualified greatness.

==Introduction==

Red Dead Redemption has several interrelated issues that will take time to explain thoroughly. In short: the game is too long, its mission structures are too formulaic, and it fails to consistently motivate either the player or the main character. The fact that certain endgame events seem to be radically out-of-place serves only to complicate matters.

==Problem #1: The game’s length==

Needless to say, I can’t explain why Red Dead is too long without first summarizing its plot in some detail. Therefore, be warned:

** MASSIVE SPOILERS FOLLOW **

Over the course of the almost-20 hours that I spent playing Red Dead, I experienced three different stories, three different endings, and an epilogue before credits finally rolled. I say “three different stories” and “three different endings” because the main character is tasked with completing three different central objectives in sequence.

Story #1 takes up the game’s first 8-or-so hours. Government agents have kidnapped the wife and son of a man named John Marston, forcing him to make his way across Texas to kill another man named Bill Williamson, a member of his old gang. This story ends when John finally storms Bill’s stronghold, only to learn that Bill has just fled for Mexico.

Story #2 takes up the game’s next 9-or-so hours. John makes his way across Mexico to kill both Bill Williamson and Javier Escuella, another member of his old gang who was never mentioned until now. It’s not until John has finally killed both of these men that he learns that he must also kill Dutch van der Linde, the leader of his old gang, who was only rarely mentioned before now. This story ends when John delivers Dutch’s body to his government handlers, freeing himself at last to be reunited with his family.

Story #3 takes up the game’s last hour-or-so. John labors to get his family farm back in order with the help of his wife, Abigail, his son, Jack, and his old friend, “Uncle”, who (say it with me!) was never mentioned until now. This story ends when – just as things are finally looking up for John – his former handlers suddenly descend upon his farm with a dozen soldiers and have him executed.

Red Dead itself does not arrive at its true ending until – in a 15-minute epilogue set three years later – Jack Marston tracks and kills the government agent who killed his father.

==First things last: Events out of order==

What I can’t understand is that what I’ve called “Story #3” takes place at the very end of the game despite the fact that every part of it – except for its last mission – would make infinitely more sense if it took place at the very beginning of the game!

Let’s consider Story #3 in more detail: you meet John’s wife and son; you experience life on John’s farm; you complete a series of missions that are all shorter and simpler than even the earliest missions in the game. Wouldn’t it make every bit of sense to place all of this at the start of the game instead, so that players actually come to know John’s wife and son before they’re stripped away from him?

As it is, players spend some 17 hours attempting to rescue a wife and son whom they’ve never seen. It’s only after this odyssey that they finally advance from what appears to be the game’s final encounter (with van der Linde) onward to what seems to be an absurdly belated tutorial period (on Marston Farm).

==First things first: Re-order events sensibly==

Move all of Story #3 – except for its final mission – to the very beginning of the game, and then have Abigail and Jack kidnapped. The player could subsequently tackle what I’ve called “Story #1” and “Story #2”, winning Abigail and Jack back only moments before taking on the game’s final mission, followed by its epilogue. Why not?!

==Problems #2 and 3a: The formulaic mission structure and player motivation==

After spending a few hours as John Marston, I realized that Rockstar must have found a formula for their missions and then stuck by it slavishly.

Whenever you meet a new mission-giving character, you know that they will assign you 3-5 missions. Why is there not a single character who gives you only one mission? Or a single character who gives you a half-dozen or more? Once you’ve recognized this formula, some player motivation is lost, since suspension of disbelief becomes harder to maintain when certain events (such as character deaths) become obvious impossibilities for certain windows of time.

(Similarly, whenever you approach a floating X to start a new mission, you know that you are about to sit through a cut scene lasting 1-3 minutes. Why is there not a single cut scene that lasts for less than one minute or more than three? For reasons I can only begin to imagine, the team member in charge of cut scenes seemingly acted as a modern-day Procrustes, stretching briefer scenes and sawing away at longer ones until they all fit into this arbitrary framework, no matter the loss of drama involved!)

==Problems #2 and 3b: The formulaic mission structure and John’s motivations==

Just as the formulaic structure of Red Dead’s missions weakens player motivation, so too does it make a laughing stock of John Marston’s own motivations.

I can understand completing several missions for Bonnie; she saved John’s life, and it makes sense to repay her kindness in full. I can even understand completing several missions for Marshal Johnson; he’s the most obvious candidate for “guy who’s going to help John kill Bill Williamson, since he can’t seem to do it alone”, and it makes sense that it’ll take a while to earn his trust and respect.

But why does John run so many errands for everyone else, too? Dickens is a swindler, Irish is a drunkard, and Seth is a loon. Why does John agree to complete mission after mission for these fools instead of just helping each of them out once and then warning them that he’s going to put bullets in their brains if they don’t assist him immediately?

This is a man whose wife and son have been kidnapped, a man who has no time to waste. This is a man whose first defining action is pointing a gun at a fort full of gang members. Why then is this man taking shit from every Tom, Dick, and Harry in all of Texas?

Worse yet, nothing changes as John makes his way through Mexico in Story #2. I can understand completing a couple of missions for Ricketts, who’s something of a hero figure. And I can understand completing a mission or two for Luisa, who’s a damsel in distress. But Allende and Reyes are both rapists! Why is John – a man who regularly gives local prostitutes friendly reminders that he’s married – doing so much dirty work for men who treat women like sex slaves? They don’t even give him anything in return!

Lastly, when John finally returns north, it makes perfect sense that he completes several final missions for his government handlers, but it makes no sense whatsoever that he also wastes time doing a handful of favors for the heroin addict McDougal.

==Solution to all three problems: Make the game only half as long==

Keeping in mind that Red Dead is a sandbox-style game – and that mileage will therefore vary somewhat by player – I can’t see any reason why the game’s main storyline should take nearly 20 hours to complete. The way I see things, 10 hours should have sufficed.

Two different approaches would have achieved this effect, both of which presuppose the slight re-ordering of events that I recommended earlier.

===Option 1: Remove half of the game’s missions===

Complete several missions around Marston Farm. Watch as Ross abducts Abigail and Jack. Move on to complete several missions for Bonnie and several more for Marshal Johnson. Then complete one or two missions for Dickens and one each for Irish and Seth. Lastly, storm Fort Mercer, and learn that Williamson has escaped.

Travel to Mexico and complete a couple of missions for Ricketts. Move on to complete several missions for Allende and then several more for Reyes and Luisa combined. Take down Williamson, and then return to John’s government handlers for a few last missions. Finally, complete the stand-off mission, die, and play out the epilogue as Jack.

BOOM. The game’s over in half the time, the order of events makes sense, the pacing quickens enough to consistently motivate the player, and John himself takes on only those missions that make sense for him to accept. Every single problem is solved simply by removing half of the game’s mission content and reshuffling a portion of what’s left!

==Option 2: Break the game up into two separate titles==

(This is a radically different approach which I like less but offer up as an alternative.)

Game 1: Complete Story #3 – except for the last mission, of course – and then complete Story #1. The only difference would be that you’d probably have to actually succeed in killing Bill Williamson in order for the game to not end on a disappointing cliffhanger.

Game 2: Complete Story #2 – modified slightly to be a story about hunting down only Escuella and van der Linde, since Williamson would already be dead – and then complete Story #3’s final mission, followed… perhaps… by completing the epilogue.

I say “perhaps” only because it might make more sense to end this hypothetical Game 2 with John’s death and then drastically expand Red Dead’s epilogue into one final 10-hour campaign, thus creating Game 3 in a Redemption trilogy.

==Conclusion==

I doubt that I’ve persuaded anyone of anything. Given the number of 10s that I’ve seen associated with reviews of Red Dead Redemption, it’s possible that I’m the only person in the world to have perceived any of the flaws detailed above as such. Nevertheless, I hope that I’ve provided a thought-provoking look at what could have been!

cool story bro...
 
...unfortunately not as cool as the story in Red Dead Redemption

First of all, the story was told that way to create that sense of mystery to John Marston.  Honestly, when you started the game, did you ever think that John was out to kill Bill Williamson because his family was abducted?  No, well for me.  Originally I thought he was out for revenge.  I thought John was a bad ass who just wanted blood and blow people's brains out for nothing.  However, as the story progressed, you learn to appreciate the character coz you gradually learn his intentions and what "redemption" John was trying to achieve.  That way, you appreciate his redemption from being that bad guy to being truly a good guy since for the player, the initial perception of John's character was he's a bad guy, then you learn his good intentions and opportunities to change.  If you started with his family kidnapped, then there wouldn't be too much of an impact to actually appreciate John's character.  And it will just be a stupid story badly told chronologically without any suspense and mystery. 
 
Second, John runs errands for these people because he needs to get the people the government people need.  If you're a person being used by the police with your family as "insurance" for you to deliver, do you think you would risk the life of your family by threatening more people and creating enough attention in the crowd to actually expose yourself that you're working for the government?  Of course not, you try to lay low and work undercover so that you can "look" like you are out for revenge, but in truth, you are working for the government coz you are being blackmailed.  In short, John was trying to "use" these people to get to the men he needs as smoothly as possible.  If he goes out threatening and killing people, then that would draw too much attention and will actually let Bill, Javier and Dutch know about what John is doing. 
 
Third, John kept working with the Allende and Reyes coz they promised they would get and give him Bill and Javier.  Have you tried listening to their conversations during the rides?  Most of the people in the game always entertain John by telling him they can be partners or they can be good in a team or whatever, but John always say that he's helping them to get Bill and Javier, and not for their cause. 
 
Lastly, if you didn't get motivated in playing the game, then it's either, you didn't actually take the time to appreciate the story OR the game is just not really for you. 
 
I found RDR to be a well told great game.  For a very dramatic and complicated story, John's character was well-developed, I appreciated how his past and present transitioned on John's character and how the end was fitted well for John Marston.  I found the pacing to be just quite right for sandbox game and I couldn't stop playing the game.  It's not perfect, but it's definitely one of the most memorable games of the current generation.  It was a long game to play, but for me, I didn't even notice it already took my around 25 hours playing RDR, I got somewhat addicted to it lol!

You know what helped me fail to perceive any of these flaws? I never played Red Dead Revolver, so I assumed Dutch, Javier, and Uncle were all people I was supposed to know and care about from the previous game. I felt like I was playing catch up the whole time, but I thought it was my own fault. I agree, many missions could be cut and the story streamlined, but in the end I think I'm glad they didn't. I enjoyed the missions, and I really enjoyed playing the game. Sometimes I would stop and think to myself, "This is kind of silly, why am I still helping this fat man peddle his wares", but that didn't stop me from having fun shooting bottles out of the air, and "Holding the line" when people turned on us.  
I don't know, maybe I should be disappointed in myself. I'm ALL about story based games like the Mass Effect series, so hate to say "always sacrifice story for gameplay." Maybe this is a special case, because I simply enjoy riding around the west, shooting guns out of dudes' hands, herding cattle etc. 
Placing story #3 at the end was certainly an unconventional choice, but I don't think it was put there without consideration. I rather enjoyed the fact that they put us back into the life of a simple rancher after all the crazy outlaw justice that just happened. I felt like I had some kind of virtual PTSD because every time I left the farm for some menial task like hunting or delivering flour sacks, I was checking around every corner waiting for the ambushes that had become so common in the previous acts.
 
I agree with you, there's too much wrong with this game to blanket it with 10/10's. You have to admit though, the game is far from perfect, but it sure is fun....and that's not nothing.

IMO the real problem is that the story isn't well paced. If it had been a linear type of game where the story integrates naturally with the gameplay, maybe it would have kept my interest longer. Unfortunately, I didn't care much for Marston and dropped RDD for something else. I looked up the ending though and regreted not finishing it so that I could have experienced myself... It's an interesting story, and I know that nobody would want RDD to be linear instead of open world, but in a way I think I might have enjoyed it more if it were told that way. 
 
That being said, RDD's gameplay is a ton of fun.

Why does John agree to complete mission after mission for these fools instead of just helping each of them out once and then warning them that he’s going to put bullets in their brains if they don’t assist him immediately?

I could write quite a bit about the things I disagree with you about but it seems you wanted a shorter game with a more straight forward story.   

The only part of the game I felt was too long was Mexico which also had the worst characters in the game. The way in which John Marston will tell everyone what he is doing no matter who they are seemed a little out of character for him and became very tedious.You complain about his motivation with most of the characters and while some of it is quite stupid (Mexico being the worst) he does threaten the people who take it to far or annoy him like Irish and eventually the people in Mexico too. The point here is that he needs the people in New Austin, the actual people for the assault on the fort not the info they have like in Mexico and in Mexico he has no friends or allies and has never been there before so needs those people but yes it does have way to much hoping back and forth between groups and side missions. I actually want to go back and play the Mexico section again to see if it is possible to avoid unimportant missions for people.

Ive heard the whole put the family at the start thing quite a bit but I do not see how that would have helped the game anymore than having them at the end.  So if the game had a short section at the start where your family is taken away which I assume would be a short time as the player would need to get into the game and play or shoot something their would be no time to develop the characters before they are simply taken away from John and all that player has over a player with this section at the end is an image of what they look like. The game takes long enough as it is to get into the actual cowboy stuff so you would have made the player play as a farmer, then have the government take his family away, then explain what you have to do, then have the opening of the game. The game would actually be much longer because you would still need a section at the end where John would have to explain what he has done to Jack who is curious and a part where John fixes the farm to show he is done with his outlaw life then follow that with the shootout. 
 
Also Uncle was mentioned at the start of the game and actually described by John, I am not sure how you missed it.

" cool story bro...  ...unfortunately not as cool as the story in Red Dead Redemption "

"The point here is that [John] needs the people in New Austin, the actual people for the assault on the fort..."

 I respectfully disagree. 
 
The biggest problem with RDR was McDougal.  I wanted to shoot that fucker so bad.  
 
He's RDR's Manny Escuela.  Except he doesn't get shot in the eye. 

"  I respectfully disagree.  The biggest problem with RDR was McDougal.  I wanted to shoot that fucker so bad.   He's RDR's Manny Escuela.  Except he doesn't get shot in the eye.  "

John spends all of this time finding a way to bring a gatling gun into Fort Mercer... seemingly without ever pausing a moment to consider what'll happen if it takes him so long to ready this grand plan that Bill isn't even at Fort Mercer anymore by the time he enacts it. And - needless to say - that's exactly what happens. (This is a big part of the reason why I complained in my essay that John fails to act like a man who has no time to waste!) Rockstar never even attempts to explain why John doesn't simply monitor Fort Mercer with one or two of Marshal Johnson's men night after night, waiting for Bill to let his guard down. Instead, they just lengthen Red Dead's narrative with this inane, Goldbergian gatling gun sub-plot, and expect a majority of players to swallow it unquestioningly. Unfortunately, a majority of players did, and a majority of critics gave the game a flawless 10/10. "

I'm going to go play some more Read Dead Redemption now. I have wenches to kill.

@MooseyMcMan:

@sarahsdad:

I actually like how it was set up really. Once John had his family and farm life back it felt like a real happy ending was about to happen, then suddenly...