Red Dead Retribution

Why Rockstar got the game right but the name wrong

Red Dead Redemption is an indirect sequel to the 2004 video game Red Dead Revolver. They are both hard-boiled Western RPG games, full of gun fights and heists in the Ol’ West. For the third game in this series — for some reason— Rockstar decided to call it Red Dead Redemption II. Even more confusingly, part 2 is a prequel to Redemption 1. One would think a better naming convention would be to simply add a different “RE” word after the ‘Red Dead’ part, like so many other franchises of this century: Reloaded, revolutions, requiem… revengeance? And there’s one word that would have fit this game perfectly given the nature of the story it tells: retribution.

Much of your playtime in-game is spent with the character Arthur Morgan, a man presented as a dumb lump who is bad with words but good with a gun. He is given a fatal diagnosis half way through the story as a result of an unkind choice early on. The ‘redemption’ of the title comes in the form of Morgan attempting to mend his ways and become a better person by helping others and making up for the bad things his gang has done. It is a slight but well told story and comes to a satisfying climax where Morgan (depending on your choices) acquits himself with honour. But, frankly, that isn’t what the game is about. Red Dead Redemption II is about killing…