Red Dead Redemption’s re-release is insulting

Nearly every month, we get a re-release straight from the depths of nostalgia. Suffice to say, Rockstar’s Red Dead Redemption is no different. 

Released on Oct. 29 for PC, those unable to get their hands on an Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 have finally been graced with John Marston’s vigilante fantasy. But, considering that it’s been 14 years, does it stand the test of time? 

Considering that it originally released in 2010, the game’s world is stunning. If the Wild West has a feel, Red Dead Redemption gets it. Tumbleweeds, rickety wooden towns and enchanting sunsets are a plentiful sight, and it’s hard not to feel entranced by the introspective, somber atmosphere.

If you’re looking for an above average western tragedy filled with revenge, violence and a whole lotta guns, look no further. The characters are fantastic, the world design is stellar and the hunting is aplenty. Any player looking to ride along for the journey will find the game to be an absolute blast, particularly if you enjoy superb writing.

In a sea full of hyper-violent, idealistic male protagonists that roam games like “Call of Duty,” “Battlefield” or “Assassin’s Creed,” Marston stands out as a thoughtful subversion of the typical hyper-masculinity that has long been associated with gaming culture. 

This portion of Red Dead Redemption always struck me as unique, and it’s largely why I still return to the series again and again. It manages to combine the graphical power of one of the previously mentioned AAA games along with an intriguing and confrontational plot and writing style. Though the larger narrative may play the fool, Red Dead Redemption has always argued that Marston’s endless pursuit of a valiant revenge fantasy is a road to nowhere, and the truth is, that’s only a small portion of the extremely large appeal.

Shipping over 23 million units and winning game of the year in 2010, Red Dead Redemption has made enough of an impact to remain massively successful, and that effect hasn’t been lost on its audience. Despite the outdated graphics, restrictive mission structure and general lack of player agency, Red Dead hit 32 on Steam’s top sellers even before it was released on PC, and as of now, it’s still sitting comfortably at 43. Whether it’s the memorable characters, subversive narrative or some other element of Rockstar’s extensive world, it’s clear that Red Dead is loved by the gaming community.

And that’s exactly why Rockstar felt comfortable pricing it at $50.

Just to clear up any misconceptions, this is a re-release, not a remake or a remaster. It’s just the same decade-and-a-half old game, with no new shaders, missions or stories. Though they updated it a little bit to allow for better performance on modern hardware, this is really just Red Dead as it was, 14 years ago, and I really can’t help but wish that it got the same treatment as other AAA franchises.

Resident Evil 2 (2019) and Resident Evil 4 (2024) redefined the original survival horror experiences for a brand new generation of gamers, and it paid off big time for Capcom. 

Yakuza Kiwami twisted the already fascinating city of Kamurocho into something that felt welcoming to newcomers while still faithful to the original.

Games like Demons’ Souls, Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door and Dead Space found a way to focus their effort in an appealing way that revitalized their respective entries. With each completely redesigning their games around user interface, graphics, and sound mechanics that completely transform the atmosphere and gameplay possibilities.

Each of these remakes was built from the ground up by a studio that shares a passion. Even if you’re ambivalent about the ethical principles of making a remake, there is a definite value to the idea of bringing generations of gamers together, where old ideas are able to evolve and flesh themselves out into something new.

So for $50 dollars, which could (basically) get you any of the above mentioned games, why would you give your money to a company that doesn’t give the very games that built their reputation the respect they deserve?

Sloppy remasters of GTA and scummy online practices have been Rockstar’s standard for their finely tuned games. They may have the potential for masterpieces, but that demand should never come before a quality check or the health of your employees. 

Overtime was rampant during Red Dead Redemption’s development, and with the sequel, workers alleged that Rockstar even asked them to commit 80-hour work weeks. In terms of industry-leaders, Rockstar remains one of the top proliferators of poor quality control and employee treatment within the gaming industry, and — let me tell you — that’s no small feat. 

Though this particular release went by without news of technical or ethical concerns, the decision to repackage something that’s been in the bottom bin of your local GameStop is the exact type of corporate rubbish that spits in the face of gamers, fans, and artists everywhere.

While I would urge you to spend your time taking in Red Dead Redemption’s western fantasy, I’d thoroughly advise against mindlessly giving your cash to a corporation who, day after day, is looking a lot less like a developer and more like a creative corpse.

Daily Arts Writer Nathaniel Ross can be reached at nateross@umich.edu.

The post Red Dead Redemption’s re-release is insulting appeared first on The Michigan Daily.