I do not think Red Dead Redemption 2 is a bad a game. That should be clear because a 3/5 is a decent score, but I say that specifically because I think I'm about to write things that make people think I hated it.

Review scores are weird. Generally speaking, they are used to express how good someone thinks a game is. More realistically, they're more used to express how much someone likes a game, which I think is different. I do not particularly like racing games, but I wouldn't give a new Gran Turismo 1/5, even if I don't like it. That's partially because you should probably try to score a game based on an attempted objectivity, and I think an element of that extends to trying to judge a game for how effectively it pulled off what it tried to do. This lands me here: what is Red Dead Redemption 2 trying to do? What is it trying to be? The answer is a handful of things, and unfortunately some of them come at odds.

I had seen so many times people comment about this game being very realistic. It would take time to skin an animal, it would take time to loot bodies and homes, it... well, to be honest, that's kind of where the "realistic" part ends. Otherwise, it is a pretty arcady experience. It's wall to wall gun fights where little strategy is required. You get to fulfill your gunslinger fantasy to the utmost degree. That would be all well and good if that was what the game gave you and left it at that. Instead, it is largely tied to the story, the part most people give praise. We'll get there.

The first thing I want to address is that realism part. If you're going to be a game based on realism, your goal should be getting players to interact with the actions they need to be doing. Put them in control of the mundane, that is what grants you that realism. Watching a cutscene of skinning and looting is very much not an immersive experience. Thankfully, skinning is very rarely required via the story, so it is left for those who for some reason enjoy that, since hunting animals is also not necessary at all---the effect it has on your camp is... well, I never heard any complaints nor did I as a player get reprimanded. Looting, quite frankly, isn't either. You do get some ammo just by running over people's guns, which having never had to purchase ammo, means that is literally the only way I obtained ammo, which was more than enough for the game. That is okay, for the record. This is because taking 2.5 seconds to loot every single one of 50 bodies after a gun fight would take an absurd amount of time. No, 2 minutes doesn't sound like a lot, but there is the time of running to each body, and then compound that with the dozens, maybe hundreds of fights you have. The game is long, and looting that much is not fun. The reason a game might have an action like that take time is if it were truly a survival game. One where you have to use your time wisely, like if a monster is stalking you. One where you might have made the wrong decision and it's too late, or puts you in a compromising position. Additionally, it might be something like Fallout 4, where you choose what you want to loot from people, which you don't get to do here. But in RDR2, almost every time you finish a gun fight, you are free and safe to loot as you please. There is no urgency. So why am I forced to waste that much time? Welcome to Red Dead Redemption 2. Want to loot a house? Animation to open a chest, which is fine. But then separate animations to pick up 3 different things in the chest, then do it with every other compartment in the house? Why do I have to walk at the slowest pace the game engine will allow just because I'm in my camp?

See, the issue isn't necessarily these things. A lot of this can be avoided. Only some missions make you look houses or corpses, so otherwise, since I already mentioned I was not punished for rarely interacting with these systems, it seems all of these factors are optional to interact with. The issue is that not engaging in these means the game left to play is barebones. The shooting is probably better than any prior Rockstar game, but that isn't saying much. The first person mode, which I played 90% of the game in, was solid, but it was incredibly easy. Accuracy is generous, ammo is plentiful, health, energy, and deadeye consumables were as well, so as the game went on and on, I realized I didn't even have to interact with the cover system. Hell, AI didn't either, so every mission became stand there and shoot everyone without much risk. At first I avoided deadeye because it felt too easy, but then I realized the game was so easy as it was, so deadeye just meant it went by quicker. It then occurred to me that no, avoiding those systems doesn't make the missions barebones, because the missions don't have you interact with those things already, save for the few I mentioned where you need to loot a thing. The horse care, hunting, fishing, whatever, those were at best included in a single mission as an introduction. You can do those yourself afterward if you so choose. For many things, that's actually great, as a concept. Being able to pick and choose the content you like and dislike can be good. Here, it just meant these tedious activities are optional, and the required stuff is bare. And repetitive. Because of the low variation in gameplay in the main story, it becomes more and more grating as the game chugs along. It would have been different if you were expected to engage in different content more. There are two missions where you play poker, but other than that, there are three ways missions play out: stealth, which isn't great in Rockstar games and is very rigid, riding your horse and shooting, and then just regular shooting. Often stealth missions turn into shooting ones too, whether you like it or not. There is one interesting thing that came up in some missions, where you were able to give directions to the NPCs, who would take the lead on an action, whether it should be stealthy, whatever. It didn't come up that much, but enough that it was nice to see. However, the meat of the missions was still exactly the same. Hell, you can't even choose if your stealth takedown is a lethal or non-lethal one, the mission decides that for you with the same animation breaking someone's neck---sure looks lethal to me. Essentially all missions go:

-"We're gonna rob a stage coach. Low security, low risk"
-"Shoot! There are a couple Pinkertons!"
-"Shoot! There are 5 more in front of us somehow!"
-"Shoot! There are 15 coming in from our side!"

Every single time. There is always a promise is no noise, then there are dozens and dozens of enemies to be mowed down that are flowing in from every position, popping out of balconies like an arcade lightgun game. Reminds me of Uncharted 1, fighting enemies in some tomb Nathan Drake unearthed for the first time in centuries that are somehow deeper in it than he is. They come from everywhere, regardless of the logic of it. What would have been nice is maybe some alternate ways to conclude missions, maybe talking your way out of one? Some player choice? Hi, meet this segue.

Rockstar has heavily gone towards a cinematic narrative. They want it to play out mostly as crafted, where the gameplay allows for some of your decisions, like I mentioned above with directing NPCs. If that is the case, then that is completely fine. It's a narrative game about a very specific character named Arthur Morgan, who has a backstory you can't change, and a mentality you can't change. Perfect, tell me his story. Except... you... kind of can change it? There are a few, and I mean a few, moments in the story where you are given the chance to make a moral choice. This is usually something in games I like a lot. But typically for those games, that is either a major focus of the story, or you're playing a character who is largely in your hands. The question here is: am I Arthur Morgan, or is Arthur Morgan me? Early on I recall the option of killing or sparing three train patrons. I spared them, because hey, I'm a nice guy. But Arthur Morgan is not me. You are then subjected to cutscenes or forced actions wherein Arthur Morgan does some bad, bad things. Again, this is okay: this is the character we are seeing, and we are going to watch the needle on his compass of morality go back and forth as he is forced to reconcile his current life with the way society is driven. In some parts, this is done quite well. Once you're halfway through the story, anyway, since the first half is almost no story at all. Once you enter the open world area up until long into the story, little changes in the actual story. You do missions with little gravity, most of the strife between characters begins much later, other than just typical gabbing. About two thirds in the game is when a pivotal point in Arthur Morgan's life happens, and from then on you are given more decisions that can improve or ruin your karma. The reality is your karma doesn't have much of an effect on the game's outcome---simply how Arthur Morgan dies. It does impact some dialogue in the game, but it doesn't do much. So, because none of your decisions really play much impact, I felt frustrated early by trying to be good only to see Arthur Morgan ruin it, then later on when I have become more engrossed in his character and story only to have the game give me control over some of it. Not to mention the fact that quite frankly, I don't care how many people I might have spared in later missions, the amount of people you kill for vapid reasons throughout the missions is absurd. There is some dialogue from John and Arthur about how they would never kill in cold blood, that Dutch taught them that and is failing to uphold his own values now. Except we kill so, so, so many people to the point where it's just ridiculous, many of which are just doing their jobs. It came to the point where every time they were moralize their actions as them just being out here trying to live came off as a joke. I get that the point of the story is that way of life dying out, but it would give a lot more weight to the characters' claiming that if we didn't have a body count in the thousands by the end.

To summarize those thoughts a bit more before I get too bogged down: RDR2 doesn't know what it is. A realistic survival game? An arcady shooter? A narrative-driven game? A blank-slate character? It's none of those things but all of them at the same time. It spends half the game meandering, and by the time the character interactions become engrossing, the gameplay has overstayed its welcome. Our gang of 20 or so people, half of which aren't gun fighters, are constantly able to overpower waves and waves of enemies, be they a rival gang whom has little to do with the story, Pinkertons, a couple of plantation families, the army, whoever. I understand that the gameplay will sometimes come at odds with the story, but perhaps if the shooting was more skillful, more difficult, we could have had more gunfights with fewer enemies, adding tension, erasing that feeling of our gang being completely invincible. It could have been an incredible narrative if it didn't also want to waste your time.

Having said all that, it is still very polished. It's beautiful, the score is great, the voice acting is great, the open world is filled to the brim with details and activities you can do, even if some of them are as bland as I mentioned. While I do somewhat wish the karma system in the open world was separate from that of the story, there is a lot you can do out there, and to some pretty insane credit, they included a significant amount of the map from the first game, even though it had very little involvement via the story. Though, while they did a pretty good job at doing this story and not making it feel out of place from Red Dead 1, it is a bit of a retcon that you can go to that area of the world as John in the epilogue, considering he canonically is visiting there for the first time in the first game. But, that's forgivable. Ultimately, I believe Red Dead Redemption 2 is still probably an experience that is worth playing.