7 votes

Is Red Dead Redemption 2: Special Edition worth it at $60?

Red Dead Redemption 2: Special Edition

The first Red Dead Redemption is probably my most-played console game. I just really enjoyed it as an open world sandbox and completed the singleplayer portion of the game something like nine times.

If I bought it, I seriously doubt I would touch the multiplayer portion of Red Dead Redemption 2. I didn't bother with it at all in the first game and never really got into the multiplayer bits of Grand Theft Auto IV or V either.

So, my main concern is how Red Dead Redemption 2's singleplayer experience compares to the first game. Is it just as good? Better? Will I find myself similarly drawn into it as I was with the first game?

7 comments

  1. Akir
    Link
    You'll probably get very mixed responses to this question. RDR2 is much more immersive and realistic than the first game, but that comes at the cost of having much slower pacing. If you are...

    You'll probably get very mixed responses to this question. RDR2 is much more immersive and realistic than the first game, but that comes at the cost of having much slower pacing. If you are playing for the story, then 80 percent of the game will be spent on horseback, and at least 50% of that will be at meandering speed while the characters yammer on exposition. And personally speaking, it's the only game I have ever been annoyed at for not having enough gunplay.

    I would recommend just buying the base game for now. I'd be amazed if they don't make the extra content available as DLC at some point.

    7 votes
  2. balooga
    Link
    I just have the base game. I'm not even sure what's included in the special edition, but I'm not looking for more of anything in what I have. It's a huge game with a staggering, overwhelming...

    I just have the base game. I'm not even sure what's included in the special edition, but I'm not looking for more of anything in what I have. It's a huge game with a staggering, overwhelming amount of content. If you're a completionist type you're going to have your hands full for a very long time, even with just the base game.

    It does pull you in like RDR1, but there are also some surprising design decisions that may have you fighting with the controls or getting frustrated at the hurdles set up in front of basic things. You may also find yourself just wanting to wander around camp, playing Dominoes and singing songs by the fire. I've spent a surprising amount of time just soaking in the virtual world, doing nothing in particular. If you enjoyed that aspect of the first game, this one multiplies it by a hundred. Also there are an obscene amount of collectible goodies if you're into that sort of thing.

    5 votes
  3. grahamiam
    Link
    I stopped playing it halfway through and haven't picked it back up in several months. The world is very alive and immersive, but the gameplay and story are both not compelling at all, to me. I...

    I stopped playing it halfway through and haven't picked it back up in several months. The world is very alive and immersive, but the gameplay and story are both not compelling at all, to me. I think it's worth playing just to experience the world, but I wouldn't pay $60 for it.

    3 votes
  4. cfabbro
    (edited )
    Link
    From a comment I made last month: In retrospect I would probably downgrade the A++ to a solid B... but still, I very much enjoyed it and am still going back to play a few hours of Online a week...

    From a comment I made last month:

    Mini-review (as spoiler free as possible):

    The single-player story mode was a bit of a mixed bag for me. There were some really great moments littered throughout, with an amazing cast of characters, and the story arch for the main protagonist is fantastic... but there were also plenty of moments that really dragged on and got incredibly tedious/repetitive feeling as well. Thankfully the middle act of the game takes a really unexpected but fun turn, which reinvigorated me, however it was so short-lived, felt so rushed and was so underdeveloped that I just wound up being disappointed by it. The ending more than made up for it though... it was incredibly well done, highly emotional, and overall very satisfying.

    The epilogue was really boring to start, but once it opened up again and I could start exploring again, it was great. It was especially nice to be able to finish off exploring every nook and cranny in the map, conclude some of the "stranger" mission chains, and finally find out what happened to all the other characters you grew to know and love over the course of the main story. The very ending of the epilogue story was also very satisfying as well.

    The online co-op story missions are also great, however they are incredibly short, and Rockstar are clearly not done making them yet, since you wind up left with no real conclusion to it... which sucks.

    A++. Much like the original game, I will likely keep playing it for another 100 hours or more.

    In retrospect I would probably downgrade the A++ to a solid B... but still, I very much enjoyed it and am still going back to play a few hours of Online a week these days. It's not as good as the first game, which was far more action packed and had way less faffing about, but RDR2 is still well worth it IMO.

    p.s. I don't think the Special Edition is worth the extra $ though

    2 votes
  5. [3]
    hungariantoast
    Link
    Thanks @Akir, @balooga, @grahamiam, and @cfabbro for your recommendations. I ended up buying the game and playing it for almost two hours and yeah... Red Dead Redemption 2 is going to be the first...

    Thanks @Akir, @balooga, @grahamiam, and @cfabbro for your recommendations. I ended up buying the game and playing it for almost two hours and yeah...

    Red Dead Redemption 2 is going to be the first game I return on Steam.

    It's literally just the performance. It's awful. Have any of you ever played Payday 2? That game's lowest graphics settings are hilariously low quality. It's actually quite cool, because it makes the game much more accessible for lower end hardware. It's pretty rare to find a game that allows you to dial things that far down.

    Red Dead Redemption 2's lowest graphical settings make the game look equally low quality to Payday 2's, but it performs far, far worse. My computer's specifications are well beyond the "recommended" specifications set by Rockstar and I couldn't maintain sixty frames per second at any point throughout the beginning of the game. I was mostly stuck in the high thirties. That's not an unplayable framerate, but combine that with the extreme low quality of the settings required just to reach that point and it just isn't worth it to me to put up with that.

    More than anything else, I'm just disappointed. GTA V, as far as I remember, ran fairly well. This game does not.

    1 vote
    1. balooga
      Link Parent
      Oh, that’s a shame. I’m a console gamer and wasn't aware of the performance issues on PC. Sorry it didn’t work out for you, it really is a good game if you are able to play it.

      Oh, that’s a shame. I’m a console gamer and wasn't aware of the performance issues on PC. Sorry it didn’t work out for you, it really is a good game if you are able to play it.

      1 vote
    2. cfabbro
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Ah, sorry to hear that. Rockstar PC ports are always a gamble to buy, especially so close to launch before they have had time to iron out all the kinks. My buddy couldn't even get the Rockstar...

      Ah, sorry to hear that. Rockstar PC ports are always a gamble to buy, especially so close to launch before they have had time to iron out all the kinks. My buddy couldn't even get the Rockstar launcher or game to load for several days after launch, until they released the second hotfix (because the first didn't actually fix the issue). He never had any framerate issues once he finally got it loaded though, and neither did I, but we both have pretty high-end GPUs.

      1 vote