The source of much criticism since its announcement, Red Dead Redemption — the freshly released PS4 port — admittedly isn't as half-arsed as we feared it would be. But at the same time, it's far from the remaster that such a beloved PS3 classic deserves. We've ran through the open world epic's opening hours in order to write this Hands On article, and our impressions are fairly mixed.
Let's start with the positives. First off, Red Dead Redemption has simply never looked this good on a PlayStation console. A significant resolution boost means that the often muddy world of the original PS3 title has been replaced with a much sharper New Austin across the board. The game's art direction is still great, and the improved resolution helps highlight its finer details. It's an attractive release, a whole 13 years after its initial arrival.
The gameplay holds up decently as well. It doesn't quite have the weighty impact of Red Dead Redemption 2 — perhaps a good thing, depending on who you ask — but the shooting still satisfies on a mechanical level. The way bodies dynamically ragdoll as bullets thud into them will never not be impressive.
Cutscene direction, voice acting, story pacing — these are all things that Red Dead Redemption does exceptionally well, even by today's standards. We were sold on the sordid tale of John Marston all over again after just half an hour with this re-release. There's a reason why it's held in such high regard, and we doubt that'll ever fade.
But priced at $50 / £40, it's difficult not to feel as though this PS4 port should be working a lot harder. Outside of the aforementioned resolution boost, there's really not much to write home about. The frame rate's capped at a solid but disappointing 30 frames-per-second, and none of the game's assets — in terms of characters or environments — appear to have been enhanced in any way.
Fortunately, we haven't encountered any newly introduced bugs — and we're hoping it stays that way — but we have noticed some issues with shadows. Particularly on buildings, shadows seem to pop-in really late at times, making for a pretty annoying distraction. What's more, lighting on distant landmarks — like mountains or cliff faces — can seem a bit off until you ride a little closer. Some kind of issue with draw distance, perhaps?
Now, we've already said that this PS4 version looks nice overall, but it's a different story once you start opening menus. Menu text and icons don't seem to have been upgraded at all, resulting in some seriously rough presentation. Set against the backdrop of what seems to be a 4K re-release, these old menus are jarring.
And that's about it, for better or worse. Again, we're glad that this port doesn't appear to be a total sh*tshow like the now infamous Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy, but it still feels like steep price tag has been attached to a decidedly barebones remaster. We'll have a full review for you in the near future.
Will you be playing this PS4 version of Red Dead Redemption? Saddle up and ride out into the comments section below.
Comments 69
If it drops to below £20, it might be worth getting. Now we just have to wait for a ps5 version of the second game.
"and none of the game's assets — in terms of characters or environments — appear to have been enhanced in any way."
Perhaps they're scared of the type of people who say RDR2's John doesn't look like the John they know...sigh, so they'd rather not touch anything. Still, the $50 is highly disappointing.
Already played it back then, not much incentive to pay high price especially, to play same thing again, plus looks old of course now.
I'm gonna be hearing about this for the next month, aren't I...
Why have the article about RDR being 4K/30 even available if it redirects to this article when you click on it?
I've still got a my Ps3 so am happy to play it on that if I choose to.
Meh. Not every game needs an expensive remake. In fact, I'd say very few need a remake at all.
What's important here is Red Dead is now available on all modern platforms. Which is something we should expect of every game from every company. Besides that, as long as it's not worse than the original release (glares at GTA...), who cares?
$50, though, is a bit much. But, you know what, it isn't $70. It's definitely a scummy price — especially to those in tune with the value and depreciation on games — but it is technically a budget price for a budget port.
"Red Dead Redemption has simply never looked this good on a PlayStation console. A significant resolution boost means that the often muddy world of the original PS3 title has been replaced with a much sharper New Austin across the board. The game's art direction is still great, and the improved resolution helps highlight its finer details."
So price aside, not AS bad as previously slated in other articles and the subsequent comments.
It's a port with higher resolution. Not a remaster. A port attempting to pad the corporate coffers by asking the moronic to shell out $50 for the most minimal effort possible because they think of you, the modern gamer as not worth more than the maximization of that ratio.
It's egregious, and if you buy into it at that price, you are only not only willfully allowing yourself being taken advantage of, but you are also perpetuating a model the industry is barreling toward now and into the future.
Have a weird but obviously uncertain feeling that Xbox backwards compatibilty is partly to blame for it being 4K 30fps on PS as well, for some sort of parity. Could be completely wrong too of course. Could of potentially ended up with a SeriesX and PS5 remaster at 60fps instead, if it wasn't already availible on Xbox backwards compatibilty 360 to Xbox ONE. $50 and £40 that's got nothing to do with Xbox or PS though
At least it has Liar's Dice right? Honestly, that's the best minigame in the series.
dang. It actually looks pretty good. Must resist urge to purchase until it is cheaper.
While it isn't a full remake a la Resident Evil 2/3/4 or even a true remaster, there is more to the port than previously indicated. I don't think it's worth $50, but at least it's playable on modern consoles (the lack of a PC port is weird, though). Now we just need a GTAIV re-release (and Max Payne 3).
It’s the half assed cash grab it appeared to be from early reports. And unfortunately it’s selling well, so expect more of these lazy ports.
I have no problem with the game being a straight port, but at the bare minimum it needs to have increased resolution and frame rate on PS5, and since only one of those boxes are checked, it's a deal breaker for me, especially at that price. I'm still bewildered with how Take-2 was willing to fund development of this port, but stopped short of 60fps and a PC version. It doesn't add up. I suspect they wanted to keep frame rate parity across all consoles and a PC port will be released a bit later on.
Says a lot regarding the sad state of Take-two's treatment of classic Rockstar titles is merely a feeling of relief mixed with disappointment.
Will be interesting if the likes of Mr Illusion gets challenged to try a 60fps unofficial mod. Clearly could've had extra bells & whitles on s PS5 specific version,but this is about as much as one can expect out of current day Take-two.
Was never a fan of RDR 2's extra mechanics which seemed geared towards the mtx driven defunct RDR Online. That said,at $70 my neck of the woods will wait for a decent sale physical or digital down the line.
I'd like to see a PS5 native version of RDR 2. I suspect the studio had large amounts of turnover, they lost lots of key staff, and they have less ability + interest to do that.
@poetwarlord Most of the staff are working on the next GTA game with the rest working on the RD and GTA online modes. That's why they outsource most of the remasters and ports now.
Should be cheaper. Obviously it’s priced like this for parity on Switch where it’s “all new!” Not sure I have it in me for a replay but I wouldn’t pay more than….£7.99?
I wouldn’t talk down to people who want to spend their money on it though and those who do should get over themselves!!!
Quite like the idea of playing this portably so will pick up on the switch if it runs well enough.
I wouldn't even call this a remaster, it's just a port, like they just straight up ported over the PS3/360 version to PS4 with minimal effort.
@RoomWithaMoose budget price? It's more expensive than a lot of new releases 😂 A budget price would be 20. "It isn't $70"...of course it isn't, it's not a new game. Can't give them praise for not pricing it at 70
What about Red Dead Revolver? Is that playable on modern systems?
If you've never played it before, sure, it's worth $50 for the game. It's a great game. The biggest argument against the $50 price is that it's been a lot cheaper for a long time on other platforms.
If you've completed it once or twice and are considering going back to it, that's a lot of money for very little improvement. I won't bite, personally, even near $10 - there's too much else I haven't played yet to go back to this a third time if it's not remastered to make it worthwhile. I might think differently if I had a Switch and wanted to play it on the go, but probably not.
I'd encourage people not to buy it at this price, to send a message that this isn't treating customers well. Just to be clear, however, feel free to disagree - and spend your money however you want.
Pass. And no, I can’t think of anything more to say.
Never played the PS3 version. I'm excited to play this after I rated RDR2 the best piece of media ever created in human history.
30 fps only is disappointing for a remaster of the old gen.
@bkeswick
30fps is the only thing holding me back as well. If this was 60fps it would be a Day One even for the price.
Very curious you didn't make any comparison to the Xbox version, which I've been playing in 4k for several years, at £0 extra cost other than the £10-ish I paid for the 360 copy in CeX back in 2014. I wonder if it's exactly the same as the upscaled 'backwards compatible' version Microsoft made available a few years ago, or if they've put in any extra effort for PS4 and PC users?
I think underrated aspect of this as a trophy hunter is now being able to get a Platinum for this without any online trophies! Great news but I still may wait for a little discount
I never found time for the PS3 version and want this. But patiently waiting for it drop to $20 or so.
I attempted a replay on my PS3 about 3 years ago but lost interest after about an hour or so because of the graphics. Even a non remastered upgrade in graphics and smooth 30fps has me considering purchasing this new version of RDR after a price drop.
The big deal here will be for the experience first time players will have. $50 for the game and Nightmare dlc for them will be good value. For me I purchased RDR when released in 2010 and can not loose the idea that I should be able to put my PS3 disc into my PS4 and download this port, same with my Nightmare disc. Or for $10 each to download.
Well, this is good, the "discerning player", even hardcore is willing to play a crap upscaled game at 30fps?, hahaha... and at 50 quid in PS4 ??? hahaha... come on people, next time you trash a PS5 game because it runs at 30fps with 4k, 3d sound, VRR, ALLM, etc; I'll just say RDR or Zelda for that matter...lol. Nothing wrong how you waste your money, but please, do not get on your high horse trashing other games, haha
@Untempered-Link It actually not available for PC gamers. Only switch and PS4 users get to enjoy this.
Nope, I bought it on PS3 (twice) and I refuse to buy it again on another platform that isn't PC.
My ps3 version works fine. If anything I want to play the switch version. But not for 50 dollars. 20 max.
@Untempered-Link Digital foundry is probably better for these types of tech analysis.
My only two gripes are the lack of 60FPS and the high price point. 30 bucks is a top bar for this, but they know they'll get more money that way, cause a crap load of people will still buy it day 1. It's just business. Ill wait for sale, im in no rush to replay it asap.
@Stevemalkpus It's backwards compatible on Xbox.
It's not really a remaster. It's an upscaled game where they didn't even bother to take advantage of the new hardware and increase the framerate.
Quake II was re-released recently for £8.99. Instant buy.
@NeonTiger even if this was £10/$10/€10 the lack of 60FPS is a deal breaker.
I really think people are overreacting here. The port is ok, loads of people have not played it before, we should be happy that it's finally available on current gen systems. Sure, the price is a bit high, but it'll come on sale eventually. No rush.
@RoomWithaMoose
Do you work for Rockstar? Ahaha
@MattBoothDev not for me, being a console player primarily im used to it. Stable 30 fps will be absolutely fine for this game.
Shame they went for the PS4 pro target, bit lazy when you can see how fast PS5's are flying off the shelf.
Is it cheaper or easier to port to a PS4 then a PS5 natively I wonder? Or is it simply just playing it safe on the BC and PS4 user base.
Shame, 4K 60fps would have made it an instabuy for me. 30fps.... nah I'll wait until it's around a tenner tops.
Yes nice res upgrade to 4k but nothing else for 50quid ,more needed to be done on rdr port ,I'll wait until its 10-15 quid no rush on this for me ,great game but needed more work for 50 quid
Sorry 40 quid still to much though
@AverageGamer You've been able to play it on PC at 4K at 60fps for a long time already. That just makes this port even more worthless and embarrassing.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tXMaJHGnGDU
R* have really dropped the public relations on this one.A great game like this deserves love and care and this had none. Come on R* make it right public apology and announce a remaster worthy of the name!
@Andy22385 Tell that to The Last of Us Part 1 and Kirby's Return to Dreamland.
You sound like you are trying to upsell this insult of a game. If you bought this you are feeding rockstars and triple a gamings greed.
@Matroska I don’t condone emulation; and plenty of people feels the same way and would rather have the game playable via an official way.
From my perspective GTAV Online is not all that interesting which is why its an extra downer for me to see all there resources go towards making content for this stuff and not focus on making remakes and new titles.
GTA trilogy was clearly a lackluster effort so then they decided not to put in any effort at all.
Ultimately, they should show the game more respect, it's a masterpiece.
I don’t understand why the absolutely garbage combat and character movement in all Rockstar games gets a a constant pass from everyone.
GTA5 controls like a ps2 game ffs.
@bkeswick These people couldnt even be bothered to make red dead 2 at 60fps ,which sold over 55 million copies. And you think they would do that for part 1?
It’s a bit much and I wouldn’t doubt they release a remake or full remaster at some point. Personally I’d want a remake with some RDR2 bells and whistles plus 60fps so going to hold out.
People like to get all up in arms about the cost, but those are a bunch of the same people griping about work conditions and pay for some of these animators, artists and coders… so if they wanna milk a few $$ from folks then go for it. Sure it’s makin money for the devs but it’s also putting food on peoples plates.
I’ll always consider the mileage I get from a game at home vs the arcade and it’s exponentially cheaper.
I'm not too concerned about story and more focused on game-play. I will just stick to Red Dead Redemption 2.
Never played RDR and only briefly RDR2 so i would be interested in those game but 30 fps on PS5 makes buying them a no-no for me.
Microsoft could buy Rockstar and merge them with Activision. And then make GTA 6 a MMO with a $15.99 monthly fee for access. Lol. The original RDR was the only Rockstar game I enjoyed and I fell off there so it doesn't really matter to me.
@PixelDragon “ You can't confidently get on the moral high ground when companies like R*/Take-Two have no morals of their own.”
You do you. I will still take my moral high ground.
@RoomWithaMoose the last of us was literally rebuilt from the ground up, this is a port it's completely different
@NeonTiger not for a game that originally released on the PS3 and Xbox 360. Not for a game that currently works on the a Xbox Series X at 60FPS.
Not for a game with zero additional changes. Running at 4k@60 is the minimum we can expect in this instance.
60FPS is vastly superior to 30FPS
@MattBoothDev what? It doesn't run at 60fps on Series X, where did you get that from? 30fps, same as PS5.
@Andy22385 Which is why The Last of Us Part 1 is a full priced release, while Red Dead is a budget release.
@RoomWithaMoose AC Mirage only cost me £29 in the UK and that's a full new game. 50 in no way is budget.
@NeonTiger you can patch the 360 version, can't you?
Edit:
Yes, apparently, according to the source I found on Google, dated February 2023, it runs 4k@60 on Xbox Series X.
@MattBoothDev no, it doesn't.
https://youtu.be/POkimIzv-VM
@NeonTiger fair enough. However, 60FPS for this release should've been the minimum and it's a pisstake.
@MattBoothDev sure, i would love 60 fps as well, but it seems that in order for it to play above 30 fps on both last and current gen, there would have to be a lot of code overhaul, the code of this game being notoriously problematic.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...