Red Dead Revolver or Gun?

[jkam]

Which one is better to those that have played both? I figure since they are both cheap now I would like to pick up one or the other.

 

[the3rdkey]

I have only played Red Dead and it is awful. The multi player is ok tho.

 

[shipwreck]

I liked them equally. They are very similar games, but GUN offers a little more variation in gameplay and a little "sandbox" type environment as well. Both are extremely short though.

 

[whiptcracker]

Red Dead was short but I enjoyed it. I thought Gun was awful.

 

[Reality's Fringe]

[quote name='whiptcracker']Red Dead was short but I enjoyed it. I thought Gun was awful.[/QUOTE]

Opposite for me. I'd get Gun. It's about, what, 6 hours long, but at $20 it's a damn fine game. There are some wonky graphic issues, but nothings more fun than shooting an arrow strapped with dynamite at someone's leg, wathicng them hobble away in fear, and then explode into several pieces. Oh, and the voice acting is great.

 

[bigherb]

both are good but gun is better

 

[bobo2k4]

I liked the aiming in Red Dead more than Gun.
But in overall I think Gun was the better game but not by much.
Gun was more freeroaming while Red Dead was more linear.

 

[Mike UFC]

I loved Gun. The short length of the game sucks for sure but that was really my only gripe. I played it on PC and the mouse/keyboard controls were great.

 

[CaptPete]

If you like the idea of a western themed game with gunfights being the main focus, then you'll like either of them. They're both pretty short though.

I'd say that Red Dead is more `arcadey' than Gun, which is a much more open-ended, run around and pick your next mission sort of game. I liked the soundtrack and atomosphere of Red Dead better, along with the fact that you can play as multiple characters.

In any case, I played the Xbox versions of both. For Gun it dosen't seem to matter much which one you get, but for Red Dead I'd get the Xbox version. Here's a quote from the Gamespot review:

"Between the Xbox and PlayStation 2 versions of Red Dead Revolver, the Xbox version is far and away more visually appealing. The frame rate is higher and more consistent, textures are cleaner, lines are less jaggy, and the various special effects employed by the game just look better."

 

[Lieutenant Dan]

I liked Red Dead a lot. I didn't really like Gun much at all. Red Dead definitely had a better atmosphere.

 

[Transformah]

Gun is a better game. It has more things to do and has a better story. Both games are short though. I'm looking to pick up Gun for 360 when it hits bargain prices.

 

[CoffeeEdge]

Red Dead for the multiplayer. Duel mode never gets old, to me anyway.

Gun isn't bad, though. Not all they cracked it up to be, but good overall.

 

[flybrione]

I just started to play Gun yesterday evening and it is very enjoyable game. The voice acting is top notch the graphics would be decent for an xbox title not very good on 360 though.

The weapon play is decent in Gun, but I like the gun play in Red Dead much better. The draws were great and the horse missions were really well done but there were not enough of them.

Both games are on the short side but If you decide to collect everything in Gun and do all the side missions it would be a little longer. They are the two best western games on the market and I would recommend both.

If you are looking for a longer game play experience and a little free roam go with Gun. For pure gameplay go with Red Dead.

 

[Ledhed]

I've only played RDR, and though it's pretty short, I played through the whole thing and enjoyed it (save for the crap-ass mine stealth level). If you can snag it under $10, do it. I have friends who had very similar opinions regarding Gun, though I've never played it myself.