Red Dead Redemption vs Grand Theft Auto IV

Ever since its release in May, Red Dead Redemption - Rockstar's western sandbox title - has been showered with praise and even tipped as a potential Game Of The Year winner. No one was expecting it to stink, so the praise came as little surprise.

What has been odd is the way that the Grand Theft Auto IV (GTA) comparisons ceased soon after its launch. For months we’d been hearing Red Dead Redemption (RDR) referred to as Grand Theft Wild West, Grand Horsetheft Auto, Grand Theft Horse and just about every other painful and poorly constructed play on the concept. As soon as the game came out, however, the comparisons disappeared. Why, we wondered? There’s no avoiding the similarities in style, controls, movement and structure, no denying the subversive and scatological humour underpinning some of the missions and entertainment.

I suppose the comparisons disappeared because when Red Dead Redemption finally arrived, it seemed only fair to assess it on its own merits. How nice. Thing is, we at Megabits loved GTA IV. It won our inaugural Head2Head contest last year and still gets plenty of play on our consoles, so we say to hell with fair, we’re going to pit Marston against Bellic and see who wins...


STRUCTURE

Ibwib: Unsurprisingly, the look and control of RDR closely resembles GTA IV, but the 'feel' is a little different. GTA laid on plenty of distractions from the main story, while RDR seems almost to lay on a main story for when you get bored of the distractions. It has similar mini games to GTA that take you out of the main game engine, but also far more activities that take you away from the main story but still keep you in game. Besides the stranger missions, there’s treasure hunting, law enforcement, gang hideouts, flower picking, animal shooting...the list goes on and on.

Nevertheless, RDR’s beautiful environments do feel a little empty. It falls short of GTA’s oft-mentioned 'living breathing city'. It calls on you to explore the deserts and towns in the same way that Fallout 3 did, but what's out there doesn't actually offer the same variety and inventiveness. GTA, on the other hand, saw exploring as little more than a means to an end, that end being, 'Dude, I've just landed a stolen helicopter on the Statue of Liberty's head!'

Sure, you could go looking for pigeons to shoot and stunt jumps to launch yourself from, but for all but the most obsessive gamer, those countless collectibles were bordering on grind. Conversely, the ambient challenges of RDR are broken into smaller, more varied and more appealing chunks.

Bojeeva: The look and feel of the mini games in RDR are perfectly suited to the arid landscapes and early 20th century environs. Horseshoe throwing, poker, arm wrestling and five finger fillet aren't simply addons but are insidiously woven into the storyline. All in all, they feel a little more integrated than GTA's bowling, darts and pool games - and are far more fun and rewarding as a result.

Reaching the 100% complete milestone and accompanying accolades in each game is markedly different too. Whereas GTA's jumps, pigeons, delivery missions and stranger tasks reeked of monotony, RDR’s tasks are reassuringly achievable. Simply by completing the 57 story missions, shooting the occasional pack of wolves or by helping out a stranger or two, you'll find yourself well on the way to 100%, which incentivizes you for that final push.

Saying that, Red Dead is painfully easy - far more so than the Liberty City-based forerunner. None of the missions prove overly taxing and only on occasion is it necessary to reattempt a task. The option to replay missions at a later date is very welcome though... what I’d have given to retrace my steps a few times in GTA (particularly the bank robbery and museum heist missions!).

Ibwib: I think the absence of mobile phones at the turn of the century played a big part in making RDR’s mini-games fit in with the game. Knowing that you had to maintain a 'like' stat in GTA meant that every telephoned request for a game of darts had to be carefully considered before you could reject it, and all too often you'd find yourself tediously trudging over to the bar when you'd rather be doing other things. In Red Dead Redemption, when you play a hand of poker or a round of five finger fillet, it's because you've chosen to.


On the subject of choosing how to play the game, GTA's missions always seemed inviolate - it was technically possible to stop part way through, but you never did. In RDR, you can find yourself travelling across the map after a bounty or to complete a task for a stranger, when all of a sudden the desire to see if you can gallop to the top of a distant escarpment takes hold, and the mission goes out of the window. What I'm saying is that, for me at least, RDR's distractions tend to be entertaining diversions that I choose to enjoy, while GTA's were an annoyance. You could have cut everything except the missions and the free roaming out of GTA and I'd have called it an improvement, but I'd be gutted if you did the same to RDR.

Bojeeva: Agreed. It always felt like you were in a kind of bubble with GTA... start a mission and everything else goes by the wayside - the mission is the be all and end all, and stray off the path and it's 'Mission Failed'. It didn't feel as open ended as RDR, which almost encourages you to get distracted, allowing you to pick up a mission at a later stage. RDR feels much more like a true sandbox game. Saying that though, I kind of like the focus of GTA – too many times I got sidelined by helping a stranger or shooting some critter for its pelt…

GRAPHICS

Bojeeva: Although only a few years separate the release of these titles, the graphical divergence is staggering. GTA, while accomplished and a definite improvement on all its predecessors, pales in comparison to the luscious vistas and varied tundra in RDR. Manys the time you start a path from one town to another, only to pause along the way to take in the gorgeous sunset, or watch a stagecoach evade bandits. Wolves will congregate in the distance, eyeing up an elk. Bears will watch you from afar before charging in the hope of some cowboy flesh. Lightening strikes, and a sudden storm soaks you and your horse... all really nice touches. It’s a magical environment that leaps from your television screen.

Marston's animation is far less clunky than Bellic's too. Facially, he looks suitably rugged and realistic, his movement is subtle and smooth. The horses have received widespread praise for their accurate gallop and elegant canter. GTA was undeniably attractive, RDR - although set in the past - is graphically, years ahead.


Ibwib: I'm quite surprised at that. Not that you think RDR is better aesthetically, as it is, but by quite how much better you reckon it is. The ambient effects such as the sunsets and lightning flashes work in a slightly more sedate and realistic fashion than GTA's swift transitions, and it certainly seems that there is a lot more texture and fine detail in RDR’s world, but I can't help but suspect that that's a result of a marginal improvement in the graphics meeting a much more expressive landscape.

I think Red Dead's edge in graphical terms is a function of it being set in a varied countryside rather than a single city. It also helps that GTA always had a strangely pastel-coloured feel to it, whereas RDR is a game of contrasts; muted scrubland dotted with bright sages and adobe walls splattered with the remnants of a passing sheriff.

SOUND

Ibwib: If this were simply a question of soundtrack, GTA would win hands down. Don't get me wrong, the geekier ends of my CD racks are bursting with the records of famed spaghetti western composer Ennio Morricone , and I love the way RDR has captured the evocative feel of his Once Upon A Time In The West soundtrack - but the incidental music will never be enough on it's own to top Grand Theft's truly enormous selection of licensed tunes. A few funny movies at the Armadillo house can't quite raise the laughs of "Oh no, 'ere come the fackin' dragons!"

But just when it looks like Red Dead has been trumped by it's twentieth century predecessor, you have to stop and consider the gunshots; the mixture of short, sharp crack and deep bass rumble compressed into a split second and garnished with a faint echo. I'll go on record as saying that it's the most powerful sound effect I've heard in a game, and that's despite playing Killzone 2 and Prototype on a proper home cinema surround sound system. It's a small point, but a vital one, those gunshots add a sense of physicality to RDR’s pixels.

Bojeeva: Specially-recorded radio shows and comedy sketches featuring the likes of Ricky Gervais (and Frankie Boyle's appearance in the DLC) were a fantastic inclusion to GTA. Add to that the TV programmes and banter of passers-by, and Rockstar's modern day tale came to life. The developers pulled off the same old trick with RDR but perhaps to a lesser degree. Although the movie theatres do provide a humorous five minutes, they're not in the same league as GTA's offering.

However, where atmosphere is concerned, RDR definitely comes out on top... Ride along and hear a shot in the distance, then the gallop of horse, a scream, and another gunshot - closer this time. No car radios here - instead, the grittier sounds of the American frontier are represented perfectly. And what of the sense of urgency and panic as you hear a scream in the distance and spy some scoundrel running along with hog-tied woman in tow? Brilliant.

There certainly isn't the same humour as in GTA, but RDR wins through on the scripting too - it's like sitting back and watching one of those old black and white westerns.

MULTIPLAYER

Ibwib: You know what? I hated GTA's multiplayer. I really wanted to like it. I really appreciated the attempt to break away from the traditional flag capturing and death matches on a constrained map, and replace it with a similar sense of progression and changing objectives as you find in a single player game or class-based shooter. But while the idea of pitting teams against each other in opposing missions was great on paper, in practice it always fell flat, with players wandering off, missing their objectives, wilfully griefing, or simply losing interest whenever there was a lull in the action.

My one caveat to that would be the racing. GTA remains my online racer of choice. It occupies a perfectly balanced middle ground between the unsatisfying gimmickry of arcade and kart racers and the micro-management and stat bashing of serious simulators. GTA multiplayer racing offers a combination of preposterous speed, convincing yet not restrictive physics and bootloads of variety. I'd rather race in GTA than Forza, Toca or Gran Turismo!

Despite that one shining beacon however, GTA’s multiplayer is essentially a disappointment, it wouldn't take much for Red Dead to better it. In fact, RDR not only betters it, it makes it dance at gunpoint, humiliates it, shoots it between the eyes and buries it in a shallow grave somewhere in the Mojave Desert.

Sorry GTA, but when it comes to multiplayer, RDR has got you outclassed. The co-op missions are fun and varied and offer a genuine challenge, the deathmatches and gold gathering challenges take place on well balanced maps, largely free of chokepoints and littered with high calibre 'equalisers' that give everyone a chance even when pitched against more experienced players, and, of course, the icing on the cake-the free roam environment that lets you structure your own multiplayer fun.

Bojeeva: GTA's multiplayer didn't live up to its billing in my humble opinion – and I even disagree with you about the racing element. In fact, I thought the handling of the vehicles was shoddy and it was soooo unforgiving!

Despite the multitude of game modes, most of them were too similar. Cops and robbers was a nice take on a classic theme and some of the team-based japery was fun but the ease with which other players could pick you off with a single shot from their ridiculously powerful weapons proved a huge irritant and stopped me coming back for more. RDR's multiplayer, on the other hand, is far better balanced. The free roam map is a game in its own right. I spent ages trying to survive for 10 minutes as a Public Enemy – not only trying to avoid the NPCs but the other gamers who leapt into my free roam session. Great fun.

DOWNLOADABLE CONTENT

Ibwib: What we've seen of Red Dead's DLC so far has been a) free, and b) really enjoyable. Outlaws to the End added new co-op options to a game that had pretty much everything else, making it a complete package. Although the four impending DLC models don't look set to add new play styles to the game, they are set to add new missions and environments.

GTA, on the other hand, only had two DLC packs, neither of which was free. Saying that, The Lost and the Damned offered nearly 10 hours of extra missions, while The Ballad of Gay Tony brought some of the old gonzo insanity back to the GTA experience. These weren't simply tweaks, polishes and addons, they were fully realised games in their own right, and were subsequently repackaged and sold as such.

So the question is, what do you want from DLC? Small, inexpensive addons that prolong the original game, or big, pricey chapters that are practically new games in their own right. Much as I love playing Red Dead co-op, I have to say, GTA wins this.

Bojeeva: Again, I concur. News has just emerged that there are four new DLCs incoming for Red Dead - including a zombie addon (!)... but although these will certainly add to the package as a whole, the GTA DLC was truly exceptional. Each of the Liberty City Episodes put an entirely different slant on Liberty City, introducing some wonderfully fleshed out characters and adding a new perspective on the city you'd grown to love. GTA has to win this one.

OVERALL

Bojeeva: So there we have it, two of Rockstar's most successful titles - each having sold by the bucketload. But which comes out on top? For me, RDR improved upon GTA in almost every way; it looked better, the story was more engrossing, the side missions were more fun and rewarding, the multiplayer more entertaining and the varied environments refreshing...

However, GTA remains my Rockstar game of choice. The reason? Longevity. For all the plus points, I can't help but feel that RDR is dreadfully short. And easy. When all's said and done, the difficulty level is pathetically simple and there is little replay value in the solo missions. Coming in at a pretty dismal 14 or so hours, the single player missions tend to be run of the mill - ride from A to B, collect X and give it to Y. By way of contrast, I felt a real sense of achievement when I received the accolade for completing GTA within 30 hours - and even that was pretty tight.

RDR is a fantastic game and was well worth the wait. It kept me glued to the screen and is surely a contender for Game Of The Year. Nevertheless, I think I'll stand by the winner of last year's Head2Head showdown... GTA is, for me, the sandbox game of choice!

Ibwib: Now this is tough. As with last year's Head2Heads, I started this group test thinking I already knew the result, only to find that analysing everything in its component chunks made me think differently. I honestly thought GTA IV was going to win this hands down, but the presence of co-op and the excellent multiplayer has pulled me onto the Red Dead Redemption side of the line.

There's no denying the fact that RDR is shorter and slightly emptier than GTA, but for me length isn't the be all and end all of game value, and the emptiness of Red Dead Redemption feels like an atmospheric aid, and something that contributes to the game's enjoyably unhurried feel. I love GTA, and my heart says it should win. My head and my itchy trigger finger, on the other hand, are going for RDR, and they're who I'm listening to. For me, Red Dead Redemption takes it...

Bojeeva: Hmmm, a split decision. To the streets... we'll have to settle it with a duel!

Missed the Red Dead Redemption review? Read it after the jump...