dev. Rockstar Games
Played on Xbox, also available for PlayStation 2.
Video games are a library of clunky categories and silly acronyms. There are role-playing games (RPG), platformers, and squad-based tactical shooters (SBTS). There are first-person shooters (FPS), sims, and massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG). And within these categories? Mixing and mingling and cross-category breeding. A shooter has elements of stealth. A platformer mixes in some RPG. And so on.
Rockstar Games' Red Dead Revolver is a third-person shooter with elements of RPG, a category easily nutshelled as a guy running around with guns blazing. It is set in the Old West--somewhat of a rarity for video games. Whereas WWII seems to make its way into a game at least once a month, dusty towns and quiet drifters have been somewhat ignored. At least until recently, that is; Atari released a Western-themed first-person shooter (think Doom) called Dead Man's Hand earlier this year, and with the arrival of Red Dead Revolver, an Old West explosion may be imminent.
Or maybe not. Dead Man's Hand was a sloppy and fairly uninspired game, and Red Dead Revolver, though a better game, is not entirely successful. Visually it is startling--inspired by spaghetti Westerns, it's scratched and grainy like an old film--but this aesthetic is tarnished by poor game play and design. Third-person shooters need tight controls--precise, graceful aiming, and a simple inventory--but Red Dead Revolver's controls, especially its aiming, are far too clunky. Anyone who played the original Max Payne on Play- Station 2 knows how frustrating a jittery aim can be, and jitters are an ailment Red Dead Revolver shares. Every third-person shooter is built upon hordes of enemies, and the less precise control you have over your gunman the more the poor bastard is going to be pummeled. My man in Red Dead Revolver was named Stan, and Stan took a lot of abuse--shots to the head, troubles with dynamite, etc. --which, combined with my hassles with aiming and the constant reloading of my six-shooter, exposed another flaw in the game: Stan was a ridiculously tough hombre.
Damage has always been a tricky element for video games. Playing a character who can be killed by one or two shots would be outright dull, so developers have tackled the problem by finessing the same solution: the health bar. But though health bars have worked well over the years, they are fairly worthless when your man and his enemies can take too much damage. My man Stan could take 10 to 20 shots; his villains could take five to six--both numbers are too high, and they steal from the enjoyment of the game. No matter how pretty a game is, no matter how cinematic, it is still, in the end, meant to be played, and Red Dead Revolver is not always fun to play.
Still, this doesn't mean the game is a complete failure. The people at Rockstar Games are a competent, if morally vacant, bunch (see Manhunt), and they've added enough innovative elements to keep things interesting. One such element is a special targeting system called, ridiculously, the Dead Eye Zone: By pulling on the left trigger and pushing down on the right analog, an enemy is targeted several times at once so that your man can unload several shots at him in a rapid fire, his hand slapping down on the hammer Ă la Lee Van Cleef. Another solid idea: a small town, where firearms can be replenished and the attention of ladies can be purchased. There are high-noon showdowns and crank- fire Gatling guns, stints on horseback and on trains. Characters can be spoken to, and though conversation is not nearly as deep as in a game like The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker, it's still a decent element to include.
The last third-person shooter I've come across that was great to play was Lucas-Arts' Armed and Dangerous, a game weak on graphics but vastly entertaining and blessed with an engaging story. Red Dead Revolver, while decent on story--as in, it's simple and fairly unobtrusive (and summed up in a simple word: revenge)--sadly botches the game play. It may be pretty to look at, but that's only half of what's necessary.
