Talk:Red Dead Redemption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Red Dead Redemption has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
April 11, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Rockstar task force.
Note icon
A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)
WikiProject Westerns (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Westerns on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.

GTA Clone?[edit]

I note yet again that I have provided two reliable sources calling this a Grand Theft Auto clone. The category has consensus, and there are plenty of broader context arguments (please don't make me copy-paste them) at: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 10#Category:Grand Theft Auto clones. Since both antagonists here are ignoring these arguments (and one has been involved in that discussion), I'll assume they are persuaded. The info is WP:V and should be represented per WP:NPOV. If it really is WP:FRINGE, I at least want to see the "100s" of sources calling it an "an open world western action-adventure". bridies (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition to my previous objection that the only cited sources are passing references in reviews of unrelated games, I would also like to note following comment by Hahnchen on the matter:
Out of the hundreds of sources for Red Dead Redemption, only two describe it as a GTA clone, neither of them has RDR as the subject. If you Google "red dead redemption" "grand theft auto clone", the first link is Grand Theft Auto clone, the second is User:Bridies/Sandbox/GTA. A user page sandbox out ranking every reliable source shows how this is non-standard terminology. In this edit, I am told that all views should be represented as per WP:NPOV, but the categorisation of RDR as a GTA Clone is clearly WP:FRINGE. [1].
I feel like that is a pretty good summation of why adding GTA clone as genre to this article, or video game article, is problematic. -- Calidum 02:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Again the same thing happens if one Googles "red dead redemption open world western action adventure": Wiki and cites copy-pasting Wiki. And again, crucially, I am still waiting for a single source placing this game in an "open world action adventure" genre, let alone the "hundreds" which will "clearly" demonstrate that the claim for it as a GTA clone is FRINGE. bridies (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
As per your request, I have found some sources that refer to the game as either "Western" or "action adventure": the Red Dead Wiki, GameSpot, IGN, Eurogamer, G4TV, Metacritic, Giant Bomb,, GameTrailers, VentureBeat, The Huffington Post, and a bunch of other websites. And this is just within the first four pages of a Google search; there are plenty more sources out there. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 20:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
No, that was not my request. I am requesting sources which call it an "open world western action adventure", or at least "open world action adventure". Still waiting. bridies (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, I purposefully didn't look for sources stating that it's an open world game, since that doesn't need sourcing. It's a clear fact.
Secondly, we don't need a source that strictly names the game an "open world Western action adventure"; if it's named "open world" by one source, "action adventure" by another, and "Western" by another, then that's enough. They don't need to use the entire quote, if that's what you mean. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 06:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we do. Yet again we see a complete lack of understanding of the most basic Wikipedia policy, here. Per WP:SYNTH, you cannot take 2 seperate claims (open world; action adventure) and stick them together to create a new genre. If one is claiming that the notion of this game as a GTA clone is FRINGE because it is "clearly", per "hundreds of sources", an "open world action adventure" (as in a genre), then you need to prove it with sources which explicitly say that. You cannot originally synthesise two seperate terms. Open-world we do not currently treat as a genre, and either way it is hugely broad, encompassing everything from Minecraft to MMOs to MMOFPSs. Action adventure contains everything from GTA clones to Metal Gear (also a stealth game) to ToeJam & Earl (also a Roguelike - uh, oh, is that a term implying copying? Better go delete the article/cat/mentions of that, too). Neither of these terms, individually, are mutually exclusive with "GTA clone". If you have "hundreds of sources", calling it an "open-world action adventure", and that's what the genre (otherwise called "GTA clone") should be called, prove it. bridies (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, let's get back to basics. The first sentence of the article says: "Red Dead Redemption is an open world, western action-adventure video game", while the "Genre" section of the Infobox simply states "Action-adventure" as the core genre; Grand Theft Auto V, a featured article, takes the exact same approach (excluding the word "western", for obvious reasons), as do multiple other articles. I personally like it this way; the first sentence isn't strictly saying "This is the genre", but it's letting readers know that the game is an open world Western game (though not necessarily of these genres), while the infobox is letting readers know exactly what genre it is (action-adventure). You take that how you like. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 09:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH is about as basic as it gets. So, again, why does that preclude also having Grand Theft Auto clone in the infobox? ToeJam & Earl, also a featured article, has action adventure, dungeon crawler and roguelike all in the infobox. More importantly, why does that preclude it going in the GTA clone category? Probably every other action adventure article is in more than one genre category. The only reason given for it not being so in this case is that GTA clone is supposedly WP:FRINGE. Still waiting for someone to provide these "hundreds of sources" to "clearly" prove this. 09:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I think you've made an excellent point here, but the problem is that a quick Google search responds with multiple results stating that ToeJam & Earl belongs under the Roguelike genre, while there are very few sources that mention Red Dead Redemption's status as a Grand Theft Auto clone. In saying that, I don't really have a problem with the article belonging in the category; I just don't really feel that it belongs in the infobox, for reasons stated above. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 09:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The WP:SYNTH argument is a distraction. If a wolf is bad, and a wolf is big, describing it as "a big, bad wolf" is not synth. I'm fine with describing RDR using the same terms as GTA, that it is an "open world action-adventure". That's two things. There are so many reliable sources describing it as such, I thought bridies was trolling when he asked for examples, but it looks like he genuinely believed that I was pushing open world Western action-adventure as a new genre. - hahnchen 16:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Shall I just quote the policy for you verbatim? Like I had to do with SUBJECTIVECAT? Here is WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Right, so what is the genre? Action adventure? Why are we not more specific, as the case for every other action adventure game. I have again cited sources for including Grand Theft Auto clone; you have nothing other than "clearly, clearly. Clearly." bridies (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
And then can we at least have cited these "so many" sources which place it in the genre of "open world action adventure"? How about a few? Again. bridies (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Describing a wolf as "big, bad" is not synth. It's an essay, but there are some examples here, here & here which may give you a clearer understanding of synth. Please stop repeating this argument. - hahnchen 16:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Bridies, do you actually believe RDR is not an open world adventure game (or whatever the article calls it)? Or are you just arguing to make a point? -- Calidum 18:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Calidum, I'm beginning to think you simply can't read. Here, is WP:SYNTH, verbatim, yet again: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. What you are doing is neither summarising or simple juxtaposition (and that is a mere essay) you are again claiming this as a genre (combining different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source) in order to exclude GTA clone. So again, provide the sources to prove it. bridies (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Gameplay screenshot[edit]

As was pointed out to me in a recent edit, the article doesn't actually have a screenshot of gameplay; the only image (excluding the cover art) is a promotional screenshot. As such, I have found four screenshots that I believe could be suitable: Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 and Option 4. Can I get some input, or some alternative options? I believe the horse-riding element should be included in the image, but I'm open to suggestions. -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 03:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? CR4ZE, X201, czar, SNUGGUMS? -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 01:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm partial to P3 for its variety, crispness. P2 a distant second. Perhaps a more iconic scene could make a good shot? czar  01:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
czar, could you possibly emphasise on what you mean by "more iconic scene"? -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 01:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I meant a scene with sufficient commentary to add a related caption. I'd say that I didn't have something specific in mind, which is the truth, but now that I'm typing, I know if I were choosing I'd be going right for the scenery during the first border crossing into Mexico with a caption about how well that scene was received. That's my bias talking, though. Still think P3 is the best of the four, though. czar  01:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, czar. I agree that an iconic scene such as the crossing of the border into Mexico would be a great idea. Therefore, I have taken three screenshots from that scene that I believe could be suitable: Option 1, Option 2 and Option 3. Do you think one of these would be suitable, or do you still prefer P3 above? -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 07:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Nice. The first one could work, but the latter two appear to be highly compressed (if taking a shot from YouTube, I'd crank the quality to 720/1080 from the gear icon first). New P1 or old P3 are the best options, in my book. It's also possible that I like old P3 because its size hasn't been reduced yet, which could kill its detail czar  14:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and obtained better quality versions of the newer screenshots (P1, P2, P3). I've also reduced the size of old P3 (here). Any definitive preference yet, czar? -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 01:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead and include any of those images as long as you can explain their significance adequately in a FUR. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Original pics 2 or 3 for me. The new ones - while sharper and crisper than the first batch - have the player character in too much shadow for my liking. - X201 (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
That's a good point. Although I can agree that there is too much shadow, I feel as though including a screenshot from the crossing into Mexico is really suitable, and it might even be able to go in the Reception section; I've already found enough critical statements that display how well the scene was received. Would you be able to agree with this if I managed to find a screenshot from this scene that doesn't involve much shadow? -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 09:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The shadow is just a comment about the first thing that struck me. Crossing into Mexico is a good choice, its a key moment in the game and there should be a good supply of sources (look backs, re-plays etc) for it as well. - X201 (talk) 14:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The second Mexico shot to me is a definite no. The third one I like, the first I think is excellent. However, if your intention was to replace File:RedDeadRedemptionGameplay.jpg, none of them are suitable. They'd be fantastic in the plot section to illustrate a pivotal moment in the story, but they show little of how gameplay works. The other tricky thing to navigate is that the screenshots don't really serve the casual reader. First-glimpse impression is a man on a horse on a desert plain. John's crossing into Mexico is remembered so well partly because of the fantastic performance by José González. I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a short gameplay clip of this moment. There's no policy against having video so long as we respect the NFCC, and it's been allowed with Dishonored.
In terms of serving the gameplay section, I agree with Czar on the third original shot, but am also concerned about how good it will look at low-res. You could play it safe by getting a shot of the Dead Eye ability, or of John doing something morally reprehensible like hogtying a civilian or robbing a train. CR4ZE (tc) 09:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
The intention isn't really to replace the existing image, but to include one that features a screenshot of actual gameplay; the image in the article at the moment is only a promotional screenshot. I also agree that including a short video of the journey into Mexico would be good; I can go ahead with this, if anyone else agrees.
As for including an image in the Gameplay section, I actually think a screenshot of the Dead Eye ability would be a suitable idea, showcasing the ability itself, as well as the game's use of guns in combat. I've quickly gone ahead and found three screenshots in Dead Eye: Option 1, Option 2, Option 3. The latter two are also notable; Option 2 features the most memorable and pivotal moment in the game (the final main mission), and Option 3 showcases an actual gunfight in the game, which is a large gameplay feature. Any comments? -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 12:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


I think it would be worth adding the "Grand Theft Horses" allusion from the Eurogamer retrospective (source already in article). Several of those legacy statements could likely be stacked as well. It would also be good to have more on Marston's legacy in the respective section (i.e., a subsection like EarthBound#Ness) czar 20:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)