Talk:Red Dead Redemption/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversy surrounding Zoo Weekly[edit]

A journalist for Australian magazine Zoo Weekly has been let go from his position after making an email public in which Rockstar asked for more favourable coverage of the game.

I think this is important and should complement the "Reception" section.

Source: http://www.geek.com/articles/games/did-rockstar-get-australian-gaming-journalist-fired-2010047/

PopEax (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Critisism of Rockstar's work ethics[edit]

As unfortunate as this topic may be, it has little if anything to do with the videogame Red Dead Redemption itself and would be more suited on the page for the actual company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.19.148.131 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reports of Red Dead Redemption being close to development hell[edit]

See here - http://www.joystiq.com/2010/01/12/sources-red-dead-redemption-development-in-trouble/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.79.207 (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hear it'll be out on PC too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.118.7.188 (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The R* controversy should be mentioned in the "development" section. Jayrossss (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a sequel[edit]

This game is not a sequel, it is a spiritual successor. Says so on the rockstar website. Could somebody fix the article please?

http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/4481/asked_&_answered_red_dead_redemption_multiplayer_posses_episodes_from_liberty_city_and_much_more.article 68.69.132.13 (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for providing the link. - X201 (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development[edit]

The Development section should have all information related to making the game. The Rockstar spouse issue should be mentioned. As of now, the development section contains primarily information about the trailers released, which are unrelated to development and should be placed in a marketing section. Jayrossss (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, as does WP/VG style guidelines. Have rearranged the article to suit. - X201 (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They will have a demo released on the 10th of may —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.36.165 (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No plot details for now[edit]

Even with the episode of GameTrailers TV and review scans of the game, there is not enough info to clearly make a quick plot overview. So unless some article with a clearer plot overview or until the game comes out, don't add story info. Thanks. The Phantomnaut (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 99.91.2.137, 17 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Track listing

All music composed by Bill Elm and Woody Jackson, except where noted. Red Dead Redemption Original Soundtrack (75:18) No. Title Length 1. "(Theme From) Red Dead Redemption" 5:38 2. "Compass (Red Dead On Arrival Version)" (James Lidell) 2:59 3. "Already Dead" 1:31 4. "Redemption In Dub" 2:09 5. "Dead End Alley" 2:06 6. "Muertos Rojos (aka The Gunslinger's Lament)" 5:50 7. "Triggernometry" 5:23 8. "Estancia" 2:02 9. "El Club De Los Cuerpos" 6:24 10. "Exodus In America" 4:59 11. "The Shootist" 4:17 12. "The Outlaw's Return" 6:54 13. "Luz Y Sombra" 5:19 14. "Bury Me Not On The Lone Prarie" (William Elliot Whitmore) 2:24 15. "Born Unto Trouble" 3:12 16. "Far Away" (José González) 4:39 17. "Horseplay" 3:49 18. "Deadman's Gun" (Ashtar Command) 4:15 19. "Gunplay"

99.91.2.137 (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is already in the article. ?? Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 13:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only difference I see if that the request includes "and Woody Jackson". Please confirm this and provide a reliable source for this information. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 69.10.69.2, 17 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please change "All music composed by Bill Elm, except where noted" to: "All music composed by Bill Elm and Woody Jackson", except where noted" As they both composed all the non-instrumental tracks. As per: http://games.venturebeat.com/2010/05/13/red-dead-redemption-will-grand-theft-auto-style-game-work-in-the-wild-west/

http://www.psxextreme.com/ps3-news/7074.html


Please change the tracklisting order to:

01 Born Unto Trouble 02 The Shootist 03 Dead End Alley 04 Horseplay 05 Luz y Sombra 06 El Club de los Cuerpos 07 Estancia 08 (Theme from) Red Dead Redemption 09 Triggernometry 10 Gunplay 11 Redemption in Dub 12 Muertos Rojos (aka The Gunslinger’s Lament) 13 The Outlaw’s Return 14 Exodus in America 15 Already Dead 16 Jose Gonzalez - Far Away 17 Jamie Lidell - Compass (Red Dead On Arrival Version) 18 Ashtar Command - Deadman's Gun 19 William Elliot Whitmore - Bury Me Not On The Lone Prairie

As per: http://www.amazon.com/Red-Dead-Redemption-Original-Soundtrack/dp/B003LVX7JG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dmusic&qid=1274112434&sr=8-1

69.10.69.2 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Do you have a reliable source for the claim about Woody Jackson? Thanks. Celestra (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Wwj3, 18 May 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change all_music = Bill Elm, except where noted to all_music = Bill Elm & Woody Jackson, except where noted

because - they composed the score and soundtrack together the reliable source would be the actual contents on the rest of the wikipedia page for RED DEAD REDEMPTION which states repeatedly that they composed the music for the game together - thank you Wwj3 (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry--we cannot even cite ourselves as a source. Please find another one. —fetch·comms 01:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol. nobody is updating the page, because they are all too busy playing the game. Damn.

Edit request: sub 720p native resolution on the Ps3[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change native resolution in the info box. Read Dead Redemption runs at 644p on PS3, despite the game back cover. This was confirmed by this source in May,18. source Also, in this page they say Xbox 360 version is sharper: source El motinak (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DONE. Thanks.

Looks like it wasn't only a rumor. After all, like the 640p article said, just a rumor.. source T-oliveira (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until Digital Foundry gets their head to head article. The Phantomnaut (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharper doesn't mean it's 720P there is an example of a 640P ps3 game actually looking sharper than the xbox360 720 version aka tekken 6 : http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-tekken6-resolution-game-blog-post Markthemac (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think you're right. However, the page refered in the article source does talk about the res issue. RDR is sub HD in PS3. El motinak (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, voicework?[edit]

I've gathered that the game has garnered praise for the acting, but I'm surprised that there's no mention of the voicework in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.8.197 (talk) 08:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, when I mentioned that there was no mention of the (critically acclaimed) voicework on this page, I was told that there wasn't a need to praise every aspect of the game. That's cool. Now, BACK TO MY ACTUAL QUESTION. I didn't ask for anything to be praised, but I think that an important aspect of video game production should be mentioned. Voice acting has been singled out as an important part of this game, and in Rockstar Games in general. It is definately a component of video game production, and is becoming more important as storytelling becomes more important. The Red Dead Redemption commercials don't provide a technical breakdown of the game's graphical merits or sophisticated gameplay, but showcase the PLOT of the game, and characters, who are coincidentally, voiced by actors. Am I the only one out there who thinks there should be mention of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.8.197 (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to praise every department. I look at Grand Theft Auto IV for example. They mention low profile voice actors but it's there in comparison to previous Grand Theft Auto games. Also Michael Hollick had a notable win at a popular video game awards show. There hasn't been a case like that for Red Dead Redemption. It's not necessary as of now. The Phantomnaut (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I will say on the matter, is that I believe the voice actors should be mentioned like any other person that made a movie or TV show. Don't lavish praise on them (unless it wins an award), but just give the names. --Hourick (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm not demanding that anyone be praised, I'm just talking about mentioning it. I want to point out that I also never made the argument that mentioning the voicework is absolutely 'necessary'. After all, is this article necessary? I'm asking if mentioning the voicework would be pertinent to the article, that is all. 98.237.8.197 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Then I think the names of the actors should be included. I have been seeing this game being played and I was curious as to who did the voice work (acting?) on it. Whoever did it, did a great job on it.
Please take a look at WP:GAMECRUFT, point 10 before adding a voice actors list. Generally it's done in one of two ways, both using prose rather than a list. The fist is to have a section for the characters, each with some background on the character, and list the voice actor there, similar to how movie articles used to. The other would be to have it in the Development section, similar to how Batman: Arkham Asylum does.--Teancum (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GameInformer Score[edit]

Asking that the "9.8" rating from GameInformer be changed to 9.75--GameInformer only ever gives ratings in multiples of .25. Nitpicky, yes, but accuracy is still important on Wikipedia...164.58.23.250 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GameSpot Review[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

GameSpot reviewed the game here: http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/action/reddeadredemption/index.html , giving it a 9.5. Perhaps that should be added to the Reception table?

 Done —fetch·comms 21:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times Review[edit]

Could we take out the big ugly parenthetical clause from the NY Times review? It wasn't in the review itself, and if people really need to look up tour de force, the page could link to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.168.88.183 (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. APL (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development section[edit]

"Despite the listing, Rockstar confirmed that there is no PC version currently in development.[14]"

Check this reference.--87.16.235.238 (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read the whole paragraph - X201 (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most expensive game of all time?[edit]

According to the Daily Mail, a British news paper, Red Dead Redemption "cost $100m to make" and that would make it the most expensive game of all time.

link to the article in question is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1279439/Red-Dead-Redemption-Groundbreaking-video-game-lets-players-relive-Wild-West.html#ixzz0oJjc0wTc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Underscoredickie (talk • contribs) 16:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GTA4 cost was 150million Markthemac (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100 Million dollars is nothing. Time splitters cost a whole company into administration and Fallout cost up to 80million pounds, more than 100m dollars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.80.15 (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dead Wiki[edit]

Soetermans removed the link to Red Dead Wiki from the article, saying that "A Wikia page has to be substantial to be added to the External links section". What defines "substantial"? The wiki is pretty popular now that the game has been released and has lots of info about the game. I think that in general, if there's an active external wiki for a game, it should be linked to from the article (in case there are multiple wikis for a given game, I'd link to the most popular one). Ausir (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's referring to WP:FANSITE item 12. which says that open Wikis must have a history of stability and a substantial number of contributors. The Red Dead wiki only has 444 registered users of which half have edited 5 times or more and just 24 users have edited more than 50 times. Meaning that the diversity of the wiki could be called into question. - X201 (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like registered users are up to a little over 800. That's pretty big for a Wiki documenting a game. ---Xaliqen (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which in one way makes it worse. Its made the percentage of users with more than 50 edits vastly smaller. - X201 (talk) 13:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has 1 million page views daily now. Ausir (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

Which source says the game takes place in 1911? Another article I read said the game takes place in 1908..

--24.132.210.122 (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The back of the damn box moron. --Tnafan121 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I don't have that 'damn box' kiddo.. Do you know where I can buy this 'damn box', is it a special edition? --24.132.210.122 (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the special edition and on the cardboard sleeve it says 1911. Haven't compared the sleeve with the actual game box to see if they both say 1911. - X201 (talk) 08:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you play the game and look at the in-game map it says "1910," so it can't be 1908, plus the game ends in 1911. Meaning it takes place in 1911, as a 1910 map would most likely not be released until late 1910/early 1911.Halofanatic333 (talk) 14:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPOILER ALERT- Also, near the end of the game where a character is standing beside the grave of someone who was killed (I am being as vague as possible not to give too much away!) the date of death on the grave marker is 1911.Rednotdead (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional material[edit]

If anyone is looking for additional reception it was revied by:

Salavat (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack / James (Jamie) Lidell[edit]

Hi! I guess the person responsible for the track "Compass" should be Jamie Lidell, not James Lidell. I think it's the same person, as Jamie Lidell recently released a record with a track of the same name. I would correct it, but if the track is really credited to someone called James Lidell (I don't know, I don't have the game and maybe it's just some sort of a alias) I'm not sure what to do. Just leave the name as "James" and link to the Jamie Lidell article? --Hurgh (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plot spoilers[edit]

Are they really necessary? If someone wants to find out information on the game, fair enough, give a plot summary. But don't blow the whole plot wide open, I'm just glad I'd completed the main story when I came to the wikipedia page for the game. It totally spoils the ending of the game, which is a plot twist. It's the equivalent of saying Bruce Willis was a ghost to people entering theatres the day of the Sixth Sense release.

You putting a spoiler of the Sixth Sense on a Discussion page for an article that has nothing to do with the Sixth Sense is worse, IMHO. 198.161.230.10 (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it can be edited to leave out spoilers but give a general idea. The game is story based, spoiling the story kinda ruins the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.163.184 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't leave out information just because it may spoil the story for information. This is an encyclopedia and should be all encompassing. See WP:SPOIL. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 14:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. For people who want to easily avoid it, the can click a section after it. The Phantomnaut (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Can we at least post "PLOT SPOILERS" in the header or in the very first paragraph? I just skimmed it, and now I know the plot twist at the end. There was no indication that the entirety of the main plot points were being covered to the conclusion of the game. I am very upset and feel that the lack of any kind of notification of plot ploilers may ruin people's gaming expieriance; as mine was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.14.148.51 (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Phantomnaut (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The very fact that it is a summary of major events in the plot should be warning enough. I you do not wish to read the ending, don't look at the end of the plot section. Halofanatic333 (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Halofanatic. Plot summaries include all the vital components of the plot -- intro, conflict, climax, resolution....if they didn't, then they wouild be incomplete. I'm trying my best to be WP:CIVIL here....Guiltlessgecko (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing word[edit]

In the first paragraph it says "It was for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 in May 2010." and should say " It was released for the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 in May 2010." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbarriga (talk • contribs) 03:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Henry talk 04:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DLC Bugs and Glitches - Fixed after 24 hours[edit]

I don't believe this information is notable, and believe it should be removed. The issue was short lived and already fixed, so other than a quick sentence stating that the DLC caused issues requiring a second patch 24 hours later, in depth description of the glitches is unnecessary.

As it's already involved several reverts, I'm opening this section to gather consensus. ferret (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it again. It's extremely common to have glitches in DLC that get fixed, and considering this was resolved quickly it does not pass Wikipedia's general notability guideline. I have removed the content as it is full of original research, being backed up by a single reliable source that only covers an small portion of what's written. If we include something like this (particularly the opinions on the "Controversy" of the title update it's something we'd have to include for every quick-patch for every DLC released for every game. It's common, it's resolved. There's no reason to keep this content in the article. Though the issue is "significant within the community" it doesn't have remotely enough weight to merit inclusion. Coverage by reliable sources on the issue is minimal, and almost all of said sources mention that the issue is now resolved. Existence does not equal notability. Though the community was affected, every community in every game is affected by bugs. --Teancum (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm still in disagreement here, however, I'm honestly tired of trying to push my case. As an avid gamer, I too agree that bugs in games occur every day, major or minor. However, I also believe (and also the community as a whole, as evidenced by the abundance of news stories about it) that this bug was significant enough to affect the game as a whole, having escalated people to levels they may never have been able to attain without the prescense of the bug. I understand it lasted under 36 hours, but I'm firmly of the belief it changed the face of Multiplayer. However, as I mentioned, I will leave it to you all from this point. If you truly believe it is completely forgettable and no one will remember/talk about this in a year, then by all means leave it down. --Vemnox

Incorrect picture title[edit]

Some clever human being put the game's name as "Halo" directly underneath the picture of the box art. Should probably be changed to the game's actual name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurahack (talk • contribs) 17:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source?[edit]

In the article it states the Undead Nightmare DLC is said to be released on Oct. 26.. Is there a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.136.78 (talk) 22:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows XP version release date[edit]

When will it be out for Windows XP ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.22.134 (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not coming out for PC. See [1]. --Teancum (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

any reviews out there for the characters?[edit]

List of characters in Red Dead Redemption is up for deletion now, do to the fact that most characters don't get any reviews. Are all of the characters significant in the game, or does it just focus around one guy? If you know of any reviews that mention the other characters in more than passing, please point me in that direction. Thank you. Dream Focus 22:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try [www.reddead.wikia.com], it's got everything you need to know about the game. It's also got a brilliant page on the characters in both Redemption and Revolver. Deely1 12:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sales hit 6.9 million[edit]

http://www.vg247.com/2010/09/02/take-two-q3-financials-la-noire-delayed-into-2011-rdr-sells-6-9-million/ Im2duvi (talk) 10:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Thephatphilmz (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy added[edit]

So I decided to add the controversies. I only outlined it, so people may add to it. Please do not delete it, just fix if neccasary Thephatphilmz (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added something similar, it seems like the Politburo are hard at work on this page, despite the fact that the game is faulty. Pathetic. daithi81 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2010 (GMT)

See WP:CIVIL. Geoff B (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You said that I didn't cite a reliable source. So, Rockstar aren't a reliable source on a game they created? Interesting. daithi81 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2010 (GMT)

I notice that Fallout: New Vegas article has a similar section. Any thoughts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas#Technical_issues

daithi81 (talk) 14:00, 06 Jan 2011 (GMT)

Edit request from Mrlife, 23 January 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} In the Reception section, change "According to Eurogamer, Red Dead Redemption sold over 5 million units in May and June,[53] and nearly 8 million copies to date.[54]" to "According to Eurogamer, Red Dead Redemption shipped over 5 million units in May and June,[53] and nearly 8 million copies to date.[54]" since those numbers are for shipped product not sold product according to the sources. Thanks! Mrlife (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 06:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game of the Year Edition[edit]

Just discovered this, I think I might be one of the first to have found it, pretty much confirms a GotY edition with at least the contents of the Undead Nightmare Disc.

http://www.gamestop.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=89394

Release date of March 1st. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.58.70 (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over 100 Game Of The Year Awards[edit]

I had added a note that the game got over 100 Game Of The Year awards, which was reverted. The source was admittedly just a blog and as such not reputable, but it contained direct links to almost each one of the 100 awards. Can I put the note back in and randomly pick 5 or so of those direct links? What's the proper procedure here? Getting 100 GOTY awards is certainly notable and quite different from "several", as the article currently reads. EboMike (talk) 07:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game Informer “PC” thing[edit]

So, Game Informer incorrectly showed PC among the platforms. But the whole thing looks a little suspicious for me. I mean, everywhere is the same low-quality picture of the magazine’s page with PS3, Xbox 360 and PC platforms (PC marked with yellow), and we even don’t know who made this picture. Could someone check Game Informer’s April 2010 issue to make sure that PC really was listed there? Creo11 (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Dead Redemption: Game of the Year Edition[edit]

New version Red Dead Redemption: Game of the Year Edition - the definitive, complete Red Dead Redemption experience that includes all the free and paid downloadable content packs released to date - is now available at retail stores in North America for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Rockstar Newswire. --2.91.35.155 (talk) 04:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Red Dead Redemption/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)

First off, let me say that I'm stoked someone wants to get this amazing game passed as a Good Article. I spent many an hour playing RDR and hope to see it promoted. That being said, I still have to review it fairly, and there are some issues that currently keep it from passing. Below you'll see my list of issues I've found, and if I'm still working on finding problems, the  Doing... symbol. Please do not wait until I'm done reviewing to fix these issues. In fact, I'd much prefer given the number of them so far that you start right away.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Issues found[edit]

  • Per WP:LEAD and WP:LEADCITE everything in the lead should appear in the body of the article, and references should not be in the lead if they can be referenced in the article. Therefore there should be no references in the lead.
checkY (x)
Quick comment I don't see any issues of it here, but for future reference, the lead can contain references if a.) the information may be questioned, or b.) there's a quote. I only mention this because it sounded like there should be no references at all. --JDC808 ♫ 16:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a similar issue in the infobox. Euphoria as an AI engine is never spoken of in the prose, and RAGE is barely mentioned. Please expand the prose for these two parts of the overall engine and move the references out of the infobox. The citations for release dates can stay.
checkY (x)
  •  Done I further clarified what Euphoria is. --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gameplay section is sorely lacking in references, and the bullet point section seems unnecessary. These points feel like they could collectively be described in 1-2 sentences of prose.
checkY Bullet points (x)
checkY (x/x/x/x/x/x/x/x)
  • For clarification all instances of posse should be singular and the first wikilinked. Right now it looks like posses, as in having ownership of something.
checkY (x) However, to have ownership of something, it's "possess". "Posses" is just the plural for "posse". Confusing and annoying, but true.
  •  Not done This can still be reworked so all instances read as singular to avoid confusion. --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
checkY (x)
checkY (x)
  • There is no reference for the NASCAR endorsement in the Marketing section
checkY (x)
  •  Done, though I removed one dubious reference --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Swimming is not an option, as the player character cannot swim" -- this is redundant, and the whole issue of whether they can swim seems largely irrelevant except to fans of the game. Unless there were some critical commentary on the need to be able to swim I see no need to have this included.
  • The Reception section is largely a quote farm, which is a potential WP:COPYVIO issue. It needs to be restructured to rely less on quotes. It also should be expanded and more organized, perhaps by type of commentary (gameplay, graphics, etc). Right now it's a jump from one media outlet to the next. There is also no need to list the score directly in the prose (with the exception of GameRankings and Metacritic scores) as it's already in the sidebar.
½checkY (x) I got rid of some quotes, but it probably still needs more fixing up?
JDC808 ♫ clarified that some one or two word quotes ("amazing", "stunning", etc.) can be used. Excluding these small quotes, there are only about three or four proper quotes left in the Reception section, which seems acceptable. --Rhain1999 (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not organized per my above. It has no flow, but jumps from reviewer to reviewer with the same gist of "[x] said [y]" (even if it's not a direct quote). Take a look at X-Men Legends#Reception. Paragraphs are organized by such things as commentary on gameplay, multiplayer gameplay, graphics, sound, story, etc. That's what needs to happen here. --Teancum (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
checkY (x) I tried. I'm not sure how well I did. --Rhain1999 (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Authors should be cited for quotes and commentary. For example, IGN doesn't have a mouth, but the reviewer, Erik Brudvig does.
½checkY (x) Obviously, it's a bit hard to go through every single reference and see who wrote them all really quickly, but I fixed all of the IGN ones. I'll go through the rest soon.
checkY (x)
  • Some references are missing authors, access dates, date of publication, publisher, etc. Also, the publisher is not the website, but the owner of that site. For example, not ComputerAndVideoGames.com, but Computer And Video Games; not rockstargames.com, but Rockstar Games. Publishers should be wikilinked in the reference as well where possible (not a redlink).
checkY (x)
  • In this instance WP:QUOTEs (either single ' or double ") should only be used when citing a direct quote or listing a song name. Singular words like 'honor' and "Dead-Eye" should have these things removed. This paragraph in particular has an issue:
  • At the 2010 Spike Video Game Awards, Red Dead Redemption won the "Game of the Year", "Best Song in a Game ("Far Away" by José González)", "Best Original Score" and "Best DLC (Undead Nightmare)" awards and some critics have called the game's music score among the most influential in the history of video games. Done Not done
  • To clarify, the only thing that should have quotes is "Far Away", as it's the title of a song. Only direct quotes from people and songs should double quotes (") in this case, and nothing should have single quotes ('). --Teancum (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this instance "Game of the Year", "Best Original Score", etc should not be wikilinked
checkY (x) I think I got them all.
  •  Done There were a few stragglers left, but I got em'. --Teancum (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
checkY
  • Whole numbers under 10 should be spelled out as words, except when in lists, tables or infoboxes (WP:NUMERAL)
checkY
  • Short, 1-2 sentence paragraphs or short sections should be merged with other paragraphs/sections if possible (WP:LAYOUT)
  • Is there nothing else on the soundtrack? It seems a great soundtrack like this would have more written about it. It might be a good idea to mention the awards for "Far Away" here briefly, or discuss any reviews for the soundtrack. Perhaps mention more on the composition, such as any unique instruments, famous artists who had input, etc. For instance, the idea of playing the trumpet against a drum is show in the YouTube reference provided.
½checkY (x) You should have a look and tell me what you think should be added to it.
  •  Done Good enough. I expanded on it. --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment One word quotes are acceptable if the word would not normally be used in these articles to describe things, e.g. fantastic, amazing, etc. --JDC808 ♫ 16:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Rhain1999 (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead web references should not be removed if they cannot be replaced, but an archived version is preferred if available (WP:DEADREF). These are the dead links, but odds are you can find reliable sources to replace most, if not all, of them.
checkY (x/x/x)
  •  Not done There is still one more, ref #34 (GAME Australia). --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
checkY (x)
  • What makes the following reliable sources: RockstarWatch.net, GamerCenterOnline, Aeropause Games, Game Rant
checkY (x)
  • Initial check says most things are good, but IMDB is not a reliable source since it relies on user-submitted content. I'd suggest using this (Established reliable video game sources) custom Google search to find a replacement.
checkY (x)
checkY (x)
  • Nintendo Everything is used to cite a Game Informer score. Just cite the issue of the actual magazine (or online review) instead. No need for a source that cites another source.
checkY (x)
checkY (x/x)


New issues April 4

checkY (x)
"* Done --Teancum (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead "ranking it #3" should be "ranking it third"
checkY (x)
"* Done --Teancum (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Teancum (talk · contribs) 13:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I can't believe how much effort you're putting into all this! It's midnight here, so I'll fix a few now, but when I wake up, I'll be sure to do heaps more. :) Rhain1999 (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Though in the above, please just reply to one of the points letting me know when you've worked on something. I'd like to use  Done for my own confirmation after I've checked the updates. Thanks! --Teancum (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might just put checkY when I change something, and then the notes (if needed) after it. A yellow tick stands out much more than a bunch of notes mixed up with other notes! :P Rhain1999 (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, as far as I'm concerned, I've fixed pretty much every problem that you've noted, but it still says  Doing..., so I guess I just have to wait until you've noted every problem? :) Rhain1999 (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm still looking over the prose. The Reception section still needs reworking. It's still a quote farm and basically follows "[website] gave the game [score], [insert random quote]". It doesn't cover the aspects that critics liked/disliked and is borderline WP:COPYVIO due to the sheer amount of quotes and (some of) their sizes. --Teancum (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COMPLETE - The article review is now complete. Anything remaining still needs to be addressed, but otherwise we're finished. Great work on taking care of things so quickly! --Teancum (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I don't think there's too many above problems to be addressed, but I'll get to the remaining ones as soon as I can! Thank you for being so helpful and giving me such good feedback to use! This is a great game, and the article deserves to be equally as great. :) —Rhain1999 (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, what does this mean for the article? Pass or fail? Or are there still some remaining problems? --Rhain1999 (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be passed. I have a few nitpicks I'm cleaning up, but nothing I'll make you take care of. They're just things that are easy for me to do that will prep it if the article ever gets nominated to be a featured article. --Teancum (talk) 15:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your co-operation in this! You've been a wonderful reviewer, very nice, and explained all the problems really well. Thank you so much. :) --Rhain1999 (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your edits. It's still technically not a Good Article. I said I will pass it, but that doesn't mean it's ready yet. I'm still tweaking edits and cleaning. Also, the nominator should never pass their own article. --Teancum (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I should have taken a better look. Your work has been excellent, but the tweaks have been much more than just tweaks thus far. As this is my bad (and you've busted your chops to get so much done) I will make the final adjustments, grammar repairs, etc. When I'm done I'll promote it. --Teancum (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for taking action without asking first, especially in this situation where action should not have been taken by me. Thank you for being so kind over this process of fixing up this article; it deserves to be a really good article and I'm happy that you've taken the time to help that happen. Also, if you need some help with some of the tweaks, or if you want me to fix some more things up, feel free to tell me. I may have worked hard on this article, but what I've done may seem pretty simple in the eyes of some, and I'm happy to help. Thank you. --Rhain1999 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC) :)[reply]

✓ Pass --Teancum (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windows version[edit]

Wait a minute. The following statement does NOT say if it will come out for Windows or not, see (http://kotaku.com/5560793/red-dead-on-pc-dont-hold-your-breath): Red Dead Redemption is one of the best games of the year. Heck, it's my favourite game of the year so far. But I own a console. If you own only a PC and want in on the action, well...

Look, we never like to say never, but the chances of a PC port of the Western adventure look remote. with a Rockstar admin writing on the company's news site "As of now, there are no current plans to bring Red Dead Redemption to the PC platform. If that should change, we will let you know".

PC owners will of course be familiar with the now traditional 6-12 month delay in porting big Rockstar games to the platform, so this isn't the end of the road for your hopes and prayers. That said, we don't often see Rockstar being so blunt about things, either.

ALAN WAKE IS IN DOUBT, HEAVY RAIN IS IN DOUBT AND NOW THEY GONNA F... us by not releasing Red Dead Redemption for Windows?? Why dont they just as well STOP making games for Windows if they gonna treat us like sh*t ? Perhaps someone should REMIND Rockstar where GTA was first released once upon a time?! Red Dead Redemption = GTA wild west style. AND TO TOP IT ALL ONE OF THE BEST GAMES 2010, who knows maybe Rockstar went insane in the end and are no longer interested in making money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.59.180 (talk) 23:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC) [Buy a 360 you big girl.203.9.151.254 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Authenticity[edit]

Perhaps a section can detail that the game is historically incorrect; ie the weapons are historically incorrect (ie regarding the scopes, ... see Remington Rolling Block rifle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.176.96 (talk) 09:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fictional game. This is close to WP:FORUM. Guiltlessgecko (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While it is no easy task when attachment points are not provided, a scope can be attached to literally any firearm. So long as the attachment is completely firm and immobile, all that remains is for the scope to be adjusted for accuracy.72.228.55.140 (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 "Fortnite Map" "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. [2].
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, PlayStation.com, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
czar, could you possibly emphasise on what you mean by "more iconic scene"? -- Rhain1999 (talk to me) 01:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (t • c) 09:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Expansion[edit]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2016[edit]


The section about griefing in multiplayer should contain a reference to the Friendly Free Roam [1]. I suggest a line as below:

On October 23, 2010 an update was released to include a Friendly Free Roam [2], where it is not possible to kill other players.

Jeroen loeffen (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done added to multiplayer section and added note to review section - X201 (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first edit copied my suggested text that correctly describes the additional type of multiplayer, now it has been altered in a way that makes it look like killing in multiplayer is not possible at all. To be precise, there are 3 types of multiplayer: Friendly [no killing other players], Normal [killing other players with aiming support] and Hardcore [killing other players with no aiming support]Jeroen loeffen (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://reddead.wikia.com/wiki/Free_Roam
  2. ^ http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire/article/10151/friendly-free-roam-coming-very-soon-to-red-dead-redemption-multi.html

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Red Dead Redemption. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox credits[edit]

@Wrath X: Perhaps the infobox should only list those credited both in the opening and closing credits? In this case, John Ricchio, Leslie Benzies, and George Davis would be removed. Benzies is listed as a producer at Rockstar North and an executive producer of the overall title—I'd say his listing as a lead designer was in part due to him reportedly saving the game, but I doubt it was his official title on the project. Considering the template documentation recommends three names per parameter, removing Ricchio and Davis, at the very least, seems like the most logical option, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 13:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument does sound reasonable but it does bring up a question, at least for me. Is your suggestion only for situations where there are more than three names? GTA V's infobox includes Michael Unsworth as writer despite him being listed as main writer only in the opening. Is it okay to leave him in the infobox since the writers there don't exceed three? I do think it's okay. For now, I'll remove Ricchio and Davis; Benzies can stay since the designer field doesn't exceed three. -- Wrath X (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know you removed your comment but I think it's still worth replying: the best way to approach it, as the template documentation suggests, is on a case-by-case basis per discussion. It's not always a discussion of opening vs. closing credits, since sometimes combining the two is logical (as with the case for Grand Theft Auto V) and uncontroversial (as with The Last of Us)—and plenty of games don't actually have opening credits, for example, so it's not a "one size fits all" argument. In Red Dead Redemption's case, however, I think the most logical removals are John Ricchio ("Producer" in opening but "Production" in closing) and George Davis ("Art Director" in opening but "Assistant Art Director" in closing), since all the other employees have more consistent job titles (Steve Martin, Josh Needleman, and David Kunkler are "Producers"; Joshua Bass is "Art Department Director", Daren Bader is "Art Director", and Nick Trifunovic is "Lead Artist"). It's a matter of balancing which roles appear more important, and I think removing Ricchio and Davis does this effectively. I think it makes sense to keep Benzies for this reason, too. Just my thoughts. – Rhain ☔ 16:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Case-by-case basis. Makes sense. Well, I've already removed Ricchio and Davis, and kept Benzies. -- Wrath X (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Music of Red Dead Redemption[edit]

My complaint is that it is not obvious or easy to find that there is a separate wiki page about the music/soundtrack to RDR. From what I can tell there are 2 links, one in the body text in the middle of the 'development' section and one in the Red Dead series footer. So my proposal is to move the half paragraph that mentions the soundtrack to a new subheading 'Music' and under that subheading add a 'main article' link to the music article to make it clear. Then it is would be much more obvious at a glance from the table of contents or skimming this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undiacritical (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Dead_Redemption/Archive_1&oldid=1154080870"