This review contains spoilers
It's pretty good, but nowhere near as good RDR1.
I honestly would heavily dislike the game's story if it weren't for the epilogue. Mostly because the main story really doesn't fit with the narrative of the first game at all.
I think the epilogue nevertheless tied everything together well, because it really exposed that Micah was the true product of the main story. Having Micah as sort of an "Anti-John" in the end was important.
I just wasn't a fan of this game's side missions at all. And I think the entire Rhodes chapter made me bring down the entire score by a whole star by itself. I honestly found myself loathing a good portion of this game's story by comparison to the first one. It's difficult to really talk about it.
In laymans terms:
In the first game, you play as the typical wild west hero, who gets betrayed by a so called "righteous society", all in the name of progress.
This game promised to have the perspective of the outlaw instead. No longer are you a wild west hero, you're a bad man. That's what the game promised and honestly should have been. But Arthur's storyline really just serves to set up the real "bad man" in Micah, the game's main antagonist.
I understand most people wouldn't have wanted to play as a character like Micah, but going into this game, I craved it.
And in the end that's just my opinion really: I think I would have loved the game a lot more if from scene 1 I was playing as Micah, experienced the whole game from Micah's eyes, and in the end get shot by John. I think that would have been much better. Would most people have agreed with me? No. And I understand why for the average person, the average normie, playing from a more neutral character like Arthur's perspective was more palatable, but I think his story only served to distract from the overarching narrative of the series. It distracted from the much darker bigger picture that the first game had masterfully crafted.
Gameplay wise the game is much weaker than the online as well. Your horse doesn't come to you if you get too distant from it, you can end up just stuck in some places that way. The gun repair mechanic was also particularly annoying. Just a lot of decisions that were made for the sake of realism, which don't really serve a fun purpose.
The one real saving grace is the free roaming, which is very in depth, and honestly you can never go wrong with the overall Red Dead design of things. The story just weighs it down.
TLDR:
>Story sucks except for the epilogue
>The side missions are often the worst thing in the game
>The realism sucks in terms of gameplay
>The free roaming is pristine as usual for RDR.
Overall it's a B Tier game that should have been an S Tier. 3/5 is being a bit generous.
I honestly would heavily dislike the game's story if it weren't for the epilogue. Mostly because the main story really doesn't fit with the narrative of the first game at all.
I think the epilogue nevertheless tied everything together well, because it really exposed that Micah was the true product of the main story. Having Micah as sort of an "Anti-John" in the end was important.
I just wasn't a fan of this game's side missions at all. And I think the entire Rhodes chapter made me bring down the entire score by a whole star by itself. I honestly found myself loathing a good portion of this game's story by comparison to the first one. It's difficult to really talk about it.
In laymans terms:
In the first game, you play as the typical wild west hero, who gets betrayed by a so called "righteous society", all in the name of progress.
This game promised to have the perspective of the outlaw instead. No longer are you a wild west hero, you're a bad man. That's what the game promised and honestly should have been. But Arthur's storyline really just serves to set up the real "bad man" in Micah, the game's main antagonist.
I understand most people wouldn't have wanted to play as a character like Micah, but going into this game, I craved it.
And in the end that's just my opinion really: I think I would have loved the game a lot more if from scene 1 I was playing as Micah, experienced the whole game from Micah's eyes, and in the end get shot by John. I think that would have been much better. Would most people have agreed with me? No. And I understand why for the average person, the average normie, playing from a more neutral character like Arthur's perspective was more palatable, but I think his story only served to distract from the overarching narrative of the series. It distracted from the much darker bigger picture that the first game had masterfully crafted.
Gameplay wise the game is much weaker than the online as well. Your horse doesn't come to you if you get too distant from it, you can end up just stuck in some places that way. The gun repair mechanic was also particularly annoying. Just a lot of decisions that were made for the sake of realism, which don't really serve a fun purpose.
The one real saving grace is the free roaming, which is very in depth, and honestly you can never go wrong with the overall Red Dead design of things. The story just weighs it down.
TLDR:
>Story sucks except for the epilogue
>The side missions are often the worst thing in the game
>The realism sucks in terms of gameplay
>The free roaming is pristine as usual for RDR.
Overall it's a B Tier game that should have been an S Tier. 3/5 is being a bit generous.