Red Dead is Gamespot's Game of the Year.

http://www.gamespot.com/best-of-2010/game-of-the-year/index.html?tag=topslot;img;1

It's hard to argue with a game as accomplished as Red Dead Redemption. This is a game with a lot of things going for it--a complete package that offers excellent gameplay, stirring music, memorable characters expertly given life with superb voice acting, and an enthralling story taken from the pages of cIassic Western films. Red Dead Redemption is GameSpot's 2010 Game of the Year.Gamespot

The Nominees were:

• Heavy Rain
• Mass Effect 2
• Super Mario Galaxy 2
• Starcraft 2 - leading in user votes
• Bayonneta
• Battlefield Bad Company 2
• Vanquish
• Super Meat Boy
• Halo Reach

I must say i am very impressed with their final ten list. Some pretty good games in there.

Have no opinion on Red Dead since I barely played the story.

Discuss. :)

Great game, but SC2 and ME2 were better made games.

RDR had the most bugs ive seen all gen and yet its like gamespot just ignored em.

With that said, this RDR is still one ofr my fav games of this year. Great voice acting, good story, well written dialogue.

Red Dead Redemption is definitely one of the best games of the year.

I feel that Civilization V should've been on the list, but I'm not surprised that it wasn't. One token PC nominee was enough and clearly Starcraft II was the sensible choice. But really, Bayonetta (!), Heavy Rain and Vanquish over Civ V...it just further adds to my belief that about 70-80% of GameSpot editors don't play PC games at all, probably never have. I mean, seriously, Dead Rising 2 one of the top 5 PC games of 2010? You gotta be f***ing kidding me.

Once again, no Best Adventure Game category in a year which saw some great and innovative adventure games (Amnesia, Heavy Rain, Sam & Max).

I'm happy it won. The game was terrific, and the setting was something different from the norm.

For me, RDR turned Rockstar published games from 'must buy' to 'wait and see' due to its lack of polish.

Like the GTA's before it, I just get terribly bored with the open-ended, open-world thing. But I can certainly appreciate that it's a very well-made game, with great atmosphere and lots of unique special touches.

A solid list, to be sure. I don't know what i would have chosen. I don't think I personally woudl have chosen Red Dead Redemption, because I don't see myself ever going back to it. The story was good (by video game standards) and was entertaining throughout, and never drug on too long, but I don't see myself every replaying it.

I would probably say Vanquish. I had a blast going through the story and I will replay it over and over again. The ability to replay a game is one of the most important criteria you can use to determine its overall quality. I may be slightly biased toward Vanquish, I always love to help underrepresented games get their moment of fame.

Like the GTA's before it, I just get terribly bored with the open-ended, open-world thing. But I can certainly appreciate that it's a very well-made game, with great atmosphere and lots of unique special touches.

Teufelhuhn

I do understand that there is a lot that this game has to offer, but everytime I play it i feel like it is a GTA clone in the wild west. I think the praise it has received has been completely blown out of proportion. I cant play this game for more than an hour at a time due to the bugs and glitches. Like someone said before me, the whole open world thing is incredibly boring to me. I really do appreciate that amount of things this game offers, but in terms of the experience that it provides, I feel that there were others this year that truly kept me captivated for hours on end like Mass Effect 2 and Mario Galaxy 2. I was just shocked to see so many awards given to Red Dead by Gamespot this year, especially when there seemed to be better options, in my opinion, for some of their awards.

I'm very happy with this. A title fully deserved.

I'm struggling to understand why so many people seem to think Mass Effect 2 was the best game of the year. Sure it was a good game, but not anything particularly special or different, and certainly not game of the year material.

I think it's a good list with the nominees. Congrats to Red Dead for winning GOTY here. It wouldn't be my pick, but I can understand all the praise given.

I don't mind that choice. I'm glad Bayonetta was considered, though.headninjadog

For me, RDR turned Rockstar published games from 'must buy' to 'wait and see' due to its lack of polish.

CarnageHeart

I find it strange that people keep complaining about these game-breaking bugs and glitches when I didn't experience a single one in my 30 hours with the game. Maybe it was patched by the time I played it. To me, it seemed incredibly polished.

I feel it's well deserved. It was easily my 2nd favourite game of the year. Sadly, Deadly Premonition wasn't nominated.

Congrats on RDR. Yaaay! Oh. Merry Christmas!

[QUOTE="streak000"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

For me, RDR turned Rockstar published games from 'must buy' to 'wait and see' due to its lack of polish.

CarnageHeart

I find it strange that people (mainly you) keep whining about these game-breaking bugs and glitches when I didn't experience a single one in my 30 hours with the game. Maybe it was patched by the time I played it. To me, it seemed incredibly polished.

I feel it's well deserved. It was easily my 2nd favourite game of the year. Sadly, Deadly Premonition wasn't nominated.

It must be nice to have low standards. Deadly Premonition would have to radically improve to work its way up to garbage.

That comment is both rude and stupid. There was really no need for an insult.

I thought DP was easily the most unusual and refreshing game I've played all year. There's no denying that the graphics and controls are rather awful by today's standards, but I got used to them in time, and enjoyed one of the most unexpectedly awesome videogame stories ever written. It made me feel like I was playing through a lost season of Twin Peaks, and York was by far the most interesting character I've seen in years. I loved most of the non-combat sections. I pretty much hated the combat, but it's forgivable considering the budget nature of the game and the amazing amount of content it contains. It's pretty much one of my favourite games this gen.

[QUOTE="streak000"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

It must be nice to have low standards. Deadly Premonition would have to radically improve to work its way up to garbage.

CarnageHeart

That comment is both rude and stupid. There was really no need for an insult.

I thought DP was easily the most unusual and refreshing game I've played all year. There's no denying that the graphics and controls are rather awful by today's standards, but I got used to them in time, and enjoyed one of the most unexpectedly awesome videogame stories ever written. It made me feel like I was playing through a lost season of Twin Peaks, and York was by far the most interesting character I've seen in years. I loved most of the non-combat sections. I pretty much hated the combat, but it's forgivable considering the budget nature of the game and the amazing amount of content it contains. It's pretty much one of my favourite games this gen.

So you're saying its not merely your low standards, but your desire for a Twin Peaks homage that allowed you to enjoy DP? Makes sense. There are lots of fans of source properties who enjoy the most broken of license based games.

If you had bothered to actually play Deadly Premonition, you would have realised that nothing about it is broken. It certainly makes a poor first impression and certain parts of gameplay are clunky to the nth degree, but I was able to look past these things and enjoy the game for its quite brilliant story, its memorable characters, its many shocking moments and its quirky sense of humour. And yes, I also enjoyed it as a Twin Peaks homage. Seems I wasn't the only one, as the game has developed quite a following. It was even recognised by GS in its awards, with several nominations and a win in "the most surprisingly good game" category.

Edit: The first paragraph was deleted to avoid suspension, but I hope you had a chance to read it. It summed up my feelings towards your attitude quite well.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="streak000"]

That comment is both rude and stupid. There was really no need for an insult.

I thought DP was easily the most unusual and refreshing game I've played all year. There's no denying that the graphics and controls are rather awful by today's standards, but I got used to them in time, and enjoyed one of the most unexpectedly awesome videogame stories ever written. It made me feel like I was playing through a lost season of Twin Peaks, and York was by far the most interesting character I've seen in years. I loved most of the non-combat sections. I pretty much hated the combat, but it's forgivable considering the budget nature of the game and the amazing amount of content it contains. It's pretty much one of my favourite games this gen.

streak000

So you're saying its not merely your low standards, but your desire for a Twin Peaks homage that allowed you to enjoy DP? Makes sense. There are lots of fans of source properties who enjoy the most broken of license based games.

If you had bothered to actually play Deadly Premonition, you would have realised that nothing about it is broken. It certainly makes a poor first impression and certain parts of gameplay are clunky to the nth degree, but I was able to look past these things and enjoy the game for its quite brilliant story, its memorable characters, its many shocking moments and its quirky sense of humour. And yes, I also enjoyed it as a Twin Peaks homage. Seems I wasn't the only one, as the game has developed quite a following. It was even recognised by GS in its awards, with several nominations and a win in "the most surprisingly good game" category.

Edit: The first paragraph was deleted to avoid suspension, but I hope you had a chance to read it. It summed up my feelings towards your attitude quite well.

I missed your first paragraph but if it was the same quality as the rest of what you've written...

Crap gameplay and game design = crap game. I can forgive a certain lack of polish when a game does something new (I don't expect an original concept to be as polished as fps #2,346) but execution still matters, and that is where DP fails abysmally.

Clearly you somehow manage to enjoy it despite its low quality and there's nothing wrong with that.

You know, RDR is a good game and all, but REALLY? Another Rockstar game voted as GOTY when it isn't even close to perfection? A lot of these videogame writing sites continue to make the mistake of calling games like GTA perfect when those games are plagued with all sorts of problems, such as bugs and glitches that weren't even fixed. I'm disappointed by their choice. Really!

[QUOTE="streak000"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

For me, RDR turned Rockstar published games from 'must buy' to 'wait and see' due to its lack of polish.

CarnageHeart

I find it strange that people (mainly you) keep whining about these game-breaking bugs and glitches when I didn't experience a single one in my 30 hours with the game. Maybe it was patched by the time I played it. To me, it seemed incredibly polished.

I feel it's well deserved. It was easily my 2nd favourite game of the year. Sadly, Deadly Premonition wasn't nominated.

It must be nice to have low standards. Deadly Premonition would have to radically improve to work its way up to garbage.

You sad, lonely person. You seem to derive some sense of self-worth from ridiculing strangers on GS and I'd be lying if I said it didn't irritate me. Which was your intention from the start, but whatever. I'll bite. Here's the first paragraph:

Your conceit is extremely unlikeable, your arrogance pathetic, your pompous self-importance downright laughable. You seem like an extremely unpleasant person and I feel grateful that I don't know you personally. You didn't even try to discuss the game itself, but instantly launched a rather personal attack and started ridiculing my taste. You're a disgrace.

streak000

and both you guys need to stop referring to it as DP. Tis VERY distracting reading 'I like DP'. ;p

P.S To streak, Carnage is usually a pretty pleasent person. i doubt it was his intention to be rude.

You know, RDR is a good game and all, but REALLY? Another Rockstar game voted as GOTY when it isn't even close to perfection? A lot of these videogame writing sites continue to make the mistake of calling games like GTA perfect when those games are plagued with all sorts of problems, such as bugs and glitches that weren't even fixed. I'm disappointed by their choice. Really!

Metamania

I personally prefer open world games like Assassin's Creed and inFamous because those games still feel a lot more focused. Their main mission structure also doesn't feel like it was phoned in.

I also really dont know why Rockstar continues to have extremely lengthy (hence boring) campaigns in their games. The world they create is massive already with tons of s*** to do. There is no need to make you play extremely boring missions just to see the end of the story.

[QUOTE="streak000"]

You sad, lonely person. You seem to derive some sense of self-worth from ridiculing strangers on GS and I'd be lying if I said it didn't irritate me. Which was your intention from the start, but whatever. I'll bite. Here's the first paragraph:

Your conceit is extremely unlikeable, your arrogance pathetic, your pompous self-importance downright laughable. You seem like an extremely unpleasant person and I feel grateful that I don't know you personally. You didn't even try to discuss the game itself, but instantly launched a rather personal attack and started ridiculing my taste. You're a disgrace.

S0lidSnake

and both you guys need to stop referring to it as DP. Tis VERY distracting reading 'I like DP'. ;p

P.S To streak, Carnage is usually a pretty pleasent person. i doubt it was his intention to be rude.

Snake, try reading from the beginning of the thread before you defend Streak (I don't know how he got that name, but I have a suspicioun). I hadn't even said anything to him when he picked my name out of the hat of all of the people who stated they weren't fans of RDR and insulted me.

I also really dont know why Rockstar continues to have extremely lengthy (hence boring) campaigns in their games. The world they create is massive already with tons of s*** to do. There is no need to make you play extremely boring missions just to see the end of the story.

S0lidSnake

Appreciate the support. I really didn't mean to start a flame war, but I don't like being ridiculed by total strangers for having a different opinion. There was simply no need for him to take such a condescending tone. I still don't understand why he chose to speak to me like that. I can respect him not being a fan of Deadly Premonition, but to imply I'm stupid for enjoying it is going a bit too far.

Back on topic, I didn't think the RDR campaign was boring. It had some pacing issues in the Mexico section but it picked up nicely after that. Besides, the story itself isn't that long at all. You could easily finish it within 12 hours if you ignored all the side stuff. I don't think the game would be any better if it was shorter. Have you played Gun? That had a 4-5 hour story and it was over in a flash. It simply wasn't long enough. I think we should be careful what we wish for sometimes...

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

[QUOTE="streak000"]

You sad, lonely person. You seem to derive some sense of self-worth from ridiculing strangers on GS and I'd be lying if I said it didn't irritate me. Which was your intention from the start, but whatever. I'll bite. Here's the first paragraph:

Your conceit is extremely unlikeable, your arrogance pathetic, your pompous self-importance downright laughable. You seem like an extremely unpleasant person and I feel grateful that I don't know you personally. You didn't even try to discuss the game itself, but instantly launched a rather personal attack and started ridiculing my taste. You're a disgrace.

CarnageHeart

and both you guys need to stop referring to it as DP. Tis VERY distracting reading 'I like DP'. ;p

P.S To streak, Carnage is usually a pretty pleasent person. i doubt it was his intention to be rude.

Snake, try reading from the beginning of the thread before you defend Streak (I don't know how he got that name, but I have a suspicioun). I hadn't even said anything to him when he picked my name out of the hat of all of the people who stated they weren't fans of RDR and insulted me.

OK, now I understand. I assume you mean the 'whining" thing? I seriously didn't mean that as an insult. I just phrased it wrong and if it offended you, I apologise. Besides, I qualified it in the very next sentence. You could have just said something and I would have edited. I'm really not an unreasonable person.

EDiT: The reason I singled your post out was because I've noticed you post about these horrible glitches every time RDR comes up. I just didn't know what you were talking about, because as I said, I never encountered a single one of any significance. I was a bit frustrated with your unwavering argument about the lack of polish. When I played it, RDR seemed super-polished for a game of that size.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

I also really dont know why Rockstar continues to have extremely lengthy (hence boring) campaigns in their games. The world they create is massive already with tons of s*** to do. There is no need to make you play extremely boring missions just to see the end of the story.

streak000

Appreciate the support. I really didn't mean to start a flame war, but I don't like being ridiculed by total strangers for having a different opinion. There was simply no need for him to take such a condescending tone. I still don't understand why he chose to speak to me like that. I can respect him not being a fan of Deadly Premonition, but to imply I'm stupid for enjoying it is going a bit too far.

Back on topic, I didn't think the RDR campaign was boring. It had some pacing issues in the Mexico section but it picked up nicely after that. Besides, the story itself isn't that long at all. You could easily finish it within 12 hours if you ignored all the side stuff. I don't think the game would be any better if it was shorter. Have you played Gun? That had a 4-5 hour story and it was over in a flash. It simply wasn't long enough. I think we should be careful what we wish for sometimes...

yeah, i got distracted by the treasure hunting stuff, poker and bonnie. im going to go back to it soon and try to finish the campaign.

OK, now I understand. I assume you mean the 'whining" thing? I seriously didn't mean that as an insult. I just phrased it wrong and if it offended you, I apologise. Besides, I qualified it in the very next sentence. You could have just said something and I would have edited. I'm really not an unreasonable person.

EDiT: The reason I singled your post out was because I've noticed you post about these horrible glitches every time RDR comes up. I just didn't know what you were talking about, because as I said, I never encountered a single one of any significance. I was a bit frustrated with your unwavering argument about the lack of polish. When I played it, RDR seemed super-polished for a game of that size.

streak000

RDR, especially the PS3 version, had some pretty massive issues. In our own official thread for the game, many people reported the game constantly freezin on them along with other bugs and glitches. I had the game freeze on me once but other than that it was a pretty smooth experience. But it doesnt mean the problems didnt exist.

For me, RDR turned Rockstar published games from 'must buy' to 'wait and see' due to its lack of polish.

CarnageHeart

My copy of Red Dead Redemption was on the PS3 and I played through it without any issues whatsoever. The game worked perfectly for its sheer scale and detail. Maybe it was your system?

It appears, based on the anecdotal evidence, that the PS3 version of RDR is vastly inferior to the XB360 version. I've played the XB360 version and the Undead expansion in the neighborhood of about 40 plus hours and my problems with the game have been minimal.

It's a damn shame the PS3 version was crippled to such an extent because PS3 owners have been shortchanged on one of the best games of this generation.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

For me, RDR turned Rockstar published games from 'must buy' to 'wait and see' due to its lack of polish.

synyster-666

My copy of Red Dead Redemption was on the PS3 and I played through it without any issues whatsoever. The game worked perfectly for its sheer scale and detail. Maybe it was your system?

sometimes it's the install. not sure if carnage tried it, but usually these freeezes and major bugs (not glitches) are caused by corrupted files during the install. deleting the file and installing the game again should fix these issues.

It appears, based on the anecdotal evidence, that the PS3 version of RDR is vastly inferior to the XB360 version. I've played the XB360 version and the Undead expansion in the neighborhood of about 40 plus hours and my problems with the game have been minimal.

It's a damn shame the PS3 version was crippled to such an extent because PS3 owners have been shortchanged on one of the best games of this generation.

Grammaton-Cleric

According to Eurogamer's Digital Foundary, the PS3 version wasn't even on the cards when the game was first designed.

"The Face-Off highlighted the resolution, performance and anti-aliasing differences, while the cutbacks in environmental foliage also seemed to go down like a cup of cold sick with the enthusiasts. I learned subsequent to the feature from an extremely reliable insider source that RDR's world was actually designed before a PS3 version was even on the slate, suggesting that memory allocation was a challenge."

I liked it. Play through it twice, plus Undead Nightmare. Still, I prefer Mass Effect 2, but I'm partial to sci-fi and games with lots of dialogue choices. Also, there were more noticeable bugs and other issues with RDR.

I wish they'd release RDR on the PC. The framerate drops I got in Tall Trees was annoying.

According to Eurogamer's Digital Foundary, the PS3 version wasn't even on the cards when the game was first designed.

"The Face-Off highlighted the resolution, performance and anti-aliasing differences, while the cutbacks in environmental foliage also seemed to go down like a cup of cold sick with the enthusiasts. I learned subsequent to the feature from an extremely reliable insider source that RDR's world was actually designed before a PS3 version was even on the slate, suggesting that memory allocation was a challenge."

S0lidSnake

It's unfortunate that this far into a hardware cycle we are still seeing this type of thing. Bayonetta was also much worse than the XB360 version (apparently even after the patch) meaning that PS3 owners got shafted on two of the best games of 2010.

I own both consoles but even I cringe at the lunacy of the gulf that often separates the respective versions of PS3 and XB360 multiplatform games. We know the PS3 isn't technically weaker in terms of hardware and at this point these shoddy ports are becoming inexcusable.

Developers: Take the time to do it right.

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

According to Eurogamer's Digital Foundary, the PS3 version wasn't even on the cards when the game was first designed.

"The Face-Off highlighted the resolution, performance and anti-aliasing differences, while the cutbacks in environmental foliage also seemed to go down like a cup of cold sick with the enthusiasts. I learned subsequent to the feature from an extremely reliable insider source that RDR's world was actually designed before a PS3 version was even on the slate, suggesting that memory allocation was a challenge."

Grammaton-Cleric

It's unfortunate that this far into a hardware cycle we are still seeing this type of thing. Bayonetta was also much worse than the XB360 version (apparently even after the patch) meaning that PS3 owners got shafted on two of the best games of 2010.

I own both consoles but even I cringe at the lunacy of the gulf that often separates the respective versions of PS3 and XB360 multiplatform games. We know the PS3 isn't technically weaker in terms of hardware and at this point these shoddy ports are becoming inexcusable.

Developers: Take the time to do it right.

In fairness to third parties, most nowadays do a good job with the PS3 versions of their games. That's not to say that the X360 versions aren't clearly better in side by side comparisons, but shoddy ports like RDR and Bayonetta are the exception rather than the rule.

It appears, based on the anecdotal evidence, that the PS3 version of RDR is vastly inferior to the XB360 version. I've played the XB360 version and the Undead expansion in the neighborhood of about 40 plus hours and my problems with the game have been minimal.

It's a damn shame the PS3 version was crippled to such an extent because PS3 owners have been shortchanged on one of the best games of this generation.

Grammaton-Cleric

I would have gone with that or gone with Mass Effect 2