Introduction
People are going to mock me for this, but I don't understand this game. I just don't. It's clear to me that Rockstar were more interested in making a cartoon movie rather than a video game with, you know, gameplay. There's very little new about RDR2, and every gameplay mechanic is heavily flawed. The story is dull and characters are unlikeable, audio across the board is unimpressive, and it's obnoxiously hand-holdey and restrictive... but that's just the start of its endless flaws.

I spent way too many hours with this game trying to like it, but instead I just yearned for the original Red Dead Redemption, and found myself floored by the intense hyperbolic praise this game gets ad nauseam. RDR 2 is an incredibly underwhelming experience in all areas. If this is the pinnacle of modern gaming, then it's no wonder my interest in video games has progressively waned in recent years. There's very little going for this game and I wholeheartedly recommend you play an actual video game instead... you know, one that actually lets you play it instead of limiting your interactivity at every move.

The Great
++Everything in RDR2 feels physically based. No more static... anythings. It makes the world feel much more real.
++There is a hell of a lot of content on offer here.
++It's not perfect, but the addition of first-person rocks and is smoother here than in GTA V.

The Good
+Rockstar fanboys never shut up about and downright fetishise "attention to detail", but it is true that there are plenty of impressive subtle moments. That being said, can we stop pretending as if Rockstar are unique in this regard or that these minute details, otherwise typically unnoticed outside of nitpicking YouTube videos, are somehow what makes this game a "masterpiece"?
+The gore is a nice addition. Brutal, but not too unrealistic or frequent.
+Treasure hunting's somewhat fun, although harder than in the original.
+The dialogue interaction system is flawed, but interesting and a worthy addition.
+Plenty of graphical options make the game easy to run on many systems.
+They're more tedious than in the first game, but I still really enjoy completing the challenges.
+Great acting.

Mild Issues/Things to Note
-+Sound design's okay. I don't know... I don't find the ambient effects too impressive, and the 3D audio modern games use often makes everything sound too distant and unrealistic. Nothing has punch.
+-Gangs repopulate camps/settlements, which is pointless and slightly annoying.
-+The game's softer colours and blander art-style make it a step-back from RDR even visually at times. It looks much less realistic and lacks the grit and grime of the original. It doesn't look like a typical western the way the original so perfectly emulated. That being said, it can look gorgeous at times. The lighting is beautiful.
+-Why do iron-sights exist when they're cumbersome to activate, obscure vision and give no kill feedback?
-+At first, I found the slow animations for every little action to be painfully obnoxious, but once I learned to accept the game for what it is, it barely annoyed me anymore.
+-Just as with GTA V versus GTA IV, the ragdoll in this game is fine but not nearly as impressive as the prior game's.
-+The UI is a bit slow.
-+Legendary animals are a missed opportunity. They're about as easy as regular animals. The rewards and systems aren't entirely clear, either. Still, I enjoyed searching for them.
+-Encounters with strangers throughout the world are repetitive and uninteresting.

The Bad
-Some of the realism aspects are superfluous and clunky. It's a video game, not real life or a simulator, so back off, especially when you conveniently overlook realism in plenty of other moments.
-The game doesn't do a good enough job of explaining minor game mechanics/systems. I was full of questions for the first 10 hours or so.
-Arthur Morgan's a bland, dopey protagonist -- at least in the first two acts.
-Shooting on horseback is even worse than the last game.
-The soundtrack's disappointing. It's repetitive yet forgettable.
-Hunting is expanded upon, but has a learning curve and is a total chore.
-The prelude is painfully dull.
-Textures are often shockingly low resolution.
-Dialogue often gets cut off. Trips are too short for long conversations.
-More options in missions, such as differing outcomes or choices of tackling objectives, would be appreciated.
-Money has very little use after you've bought all the guns you want.
-Camera movement sucks on controller. It feels so floaty.
-Movement is clunky.

The Terrible
--I've finished the prologue and the first two acts of the game. Next to nothing of interest has yet to actually occur. By this point, I give up. If your gameplay is a failure and your narrative is a snooze-fest, you have very little going for you. I'm not going to sleep my way through another dozen hours just so you can hurry up and get on with it. Plus, I play video games for the joy of the moment to moment gameplay. RDR 2's gameplay has nothing going for it.
--A purely subjective thing, but the atmosphere for me is nowhere near as strong as RDR. It's lost its edge and pervasive feeling of danger and mystery.
--This game's so anti-interactive it hurts. Rockstar might as well have made a movie because that's clearly what they'd rather have done. Every mission is scripted to the second, preventing you from experimenting or going your own way. The game controls itself for you constantly, whether it's steering your character/horse for you or limiting your movement speed or playing a unique animation or outright taking away control completely. This is incredibly backwards design and results in constant frustration. Just let me play the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ game.
--Combat is incredibly simple and not terribly responsive. Every weapon packs a similar punch, and the only real important strategy is to stay around cover and aim for the head. Every firefight plays out exactly the same way.
--John Marston was a very morally flawed protagonist in the first game but he seemed as though he was trying to do better and had plenty of admirable traits, but it's not hard to see why he was like that in the first place given the degenerate gang we're part of in this sequel. I understand the narrative necessity, but it's hard to like anyone in this game when they're all reprehensible. Also, characters in general are nowhere near as likeable or memorable as in the game's predecessor.
--Is a step back in every way not related to tech in comparison to the original RDR.
--No story mode DLC. A missed opportunity for an Undead Nightmare 2.
--Not that I care about Online anyway, but it's still crappy of Rockstar to neglect Online almost entirely.

Content/Replayability: 8.5/10
Audio: 4.5/10
Graphics: 7.5/10
Gameplay: 3/10
Overall: 4/10

Conclusion
When people discuss RDR2, I almost never hear anyone praise the game's actual gameplay, and even fans acknowledge its faults... so how can a game with bland or outright crap gameplay possibly be deemed a "masterpiece" or a 10/10? I've read a lot of discussion about this game as I've been bewildered trying to understand its adoration, and yet I've seen little explaining why it's so good. I typically see generic statements like, "the story is amazing", "the graphics are incredible", or "the attention to detail is unmatched". Really? That's what made you play it for 80 hours until completion?
I typically hate the word "overrated". I think it's both overused and totally misused most of the time, but if one game warrants it, it's Red Dead Redemption 2. Why? Because its gameplay is pathetic... because the pace of the story is a crawl... because the world is empty... because the mission structure is ancient... because it's paranoid about giving the player too much control... and yet people still suck it off to completion.
Red Dead Redemption 2 is a terrible video game. Hard pass.

[b]Introduction[/b] People are going to mock me for this, but I don't understand this game. I just don't. It's clear to me that Rockstar were more interested in making a cartoon movie rather than a video game with, you know, gameplay. There's very little new about RDR2, and every gameplay mechanic is heavily flawed. The story is dull and characters are unlikeable, audio across the board is unimpressive, and it's obnoxiously hand-holdey and restrictive... but that's just the start of its endless flaws. I spent way too many hours with this game trying to like it, but instead I just yearned for the original Red Dead Redemption, and found myself floored by the intense hyperbolic praise this game gets ad nauseam. RDR 2 is an incredibly underwhelming experience in all areas. If this is the pinnacle of modern gaming, then it's no wonder my interest in video games has progressively waned in recent years. There's very little going for this game and I wholeheartedly recommend you play an actual video game instead... you know, one that actually lets you play it instead of limiting your interactivity at every move. [b]The Great[/b] ++Everything in RDR2 feels physically based. No more static... anythings. It makes the world feel much more real. ++There is a hell of a lot of content on offer here. ++It's not perfect, but the addition of first-person rocks and is smoother here than in GTA V. [b]The Good[/b] +Rockstar fanboys never shut up about and downright fetishise "attention to detail", but it is true that there are plenty of impressive subtle moments. That being said, can we stop pretending as if Rockstar are unique in this regard or that these minute details, otherwise typically unnoticed outside of nitpicking YouTube videos, are somehow what makes this game a "masterpiece"? +The gore is a nice addition. Brutal, but not too unrealistic or frequent. +Treasure hunting's somewhat fun, although harder than in the original. +The dialogue interaction system is flawed, but interesting and a worthy addition. +Plenty of graphical options make the game easy to run on many systems. +They're more tedious than in the first game, but I still really enjoy completing the challenges. +Great acting. [b]Mild Issues/Things to Note[/b] -+Sound design's okay. I don't know... I don't find the ambient effects too impressive, and the 3D audio modern games use often makes everything sound too distant and unrealistic. Nothing has punch. +-Gangs repopulate camps/settlements, which is pointless and slightly annoying. -+The game's softer colours and blander art-style make it a step-back from RDR even visually at times. It looks much less realistic and lacks the grit and grime of the original. It doesn't look like a typical western the way the original so perfectly emulated. That being said, it can look gorgeous at times. The lighting is beautiful. +-Why do iron-sights exist when they're cumbersome to activate, obscure vision and give no kill feedback? -+At first, I found the slow animations for every little action to be painfully obnoxious, but once I learned to accept the game for what it is, it barely annoyed me anymore. +-Just as with GTA V versus GTA IV, the ragdoll in this game is fine but not nearly as impressive as the prior game's. -+The UI is a bit slow. -+Legendary animals are a missed opportunity. They're about as easy as regular animals. The rewards and systems aren't entirely clear, either. Still, I enjoyed searching for them. +-Encounters with strangers throughout the world are repetitive and uninteresting. [b]The Bad[/b] -Some of the realism aspects are superfluous and clunky. It's a video game, not real life or a simulator, so back off, especially when you conveniently overlook realism in plenty of other moments. -The game doesn't do a good enough job of explaining minor game mechanics/systems. I was full of questions for the first 10 hours or so. -Arthur Morgan's a bland, dopey protagonist -- at least in the first two acts. -Shooting on horseback is even worse than the last game. -The soundtrack's disappointing. It's repetitive yet forgettable. -Hunting is expanded upon, but has a learning curve and is a total chore. -The prelude is painfully dull. -Textures are often shockingly low resolution. -Dialogue often gets cut off. Trips are too short for long conversations. -More options in missions, such as differing outcomes or choices of tackling objectives, would be appreciated. -Money has very little use after you've bought all the guns you want. -Camera movement sucks on controller. It feels so floaty. -Movement is clunky. [b]The Terrible[/b] --I've finished the prologue and the first two acts of the game. Next to nothing of interest has yet to actually occur. By this point, I give up. If your gameplay is a failure and your narrative is a snooze-fest, you have very little going for you. I'm not going to sleep my way through another dozen hours just so you can hurry up and get on with it. Plus, I play video games for the joy of the moment to moment gameplay. RDR 2's gameplay has nothing going for it. --A purely subjective thing, but the atmosphere for me is nowhere near as strong as RDR. It's lost its edge and pervasive feeling of danger and mystery. --This game's so anti-interactive it hurts. Rockstar might as well have made a movie because that's clearly what they'd rather have done. Every mission is scripted to the second, preventing you from experimenting or going your own way. The game controls itself for you constantly, whether it's steering your character/horse for you or limiting your movement speed or playing a unique animation or outright taking away control completely. This is incredibly backwards design and results in constant frustration. Just let me play the fucking game. --Combat is incredibly simple and not terribly responsive. Every weapon packs a similar punch, and the only real important strategy is to stay around cover and aim for the head. Every firefight plays out exactly the same way. --John Marston was a very morally flawed protagonist in the first game but he seemed as though he was trying to do better and had plenty of admirable traits, but it's not hard to see why he was like that in the first place given the degenerate gang we're part of in this sequel. I understand the narrative necessity, but it's hard to like anyone in this game when they're all reprehensible. Also, characters in general are nowhere near as likeable or memorable as in the game's predecessor. --Is a step back in every way not related to tech in comparison to the original RDR. --No story mode DLC. A missed opportunity for an Undead Nightmare 2. --Not that I care about Online anyway, but it's still crappy of Rockstar to neglect Online almost entirely. Content/Replayability: 8.5/10 Audio: 4.5/10 Graphics: 7.5/10 Gameplay: 3/10 Overall: 4/10 [b]Conclusion[/b] When people discuss RDR2, I almost never hear anyone praise the game's actual gameplay, and even fans acknowledge its faults... so how can a [i]game[/i] with bland or outright crap gameplay possibly be deemed a "masterpiece" or a 10/10? I've read a lot of discussion about this game as I've been bewildered trying to understand its adoration, and yet I've seen little explaining why it's so good. I typically see generic statements like, "the story is amazing", "the graphics are incredible", or "the attention to detail is unmatched". Really? That's what made you play it for 80 hours until completion? I typically hate the word "overrated". I think it's both overused and totally misused most of the time, but if one game warrants it, it's Red Dead Redemption 2. Why? Because its gameplay is pathetic... because the pace of the story is a crawl... because the world is empty... because the mission structure is ancient... because it's paranoid about giving the player too much control... and yet people still suck it off to completion. Red Dead Redemption 2 is a terrible video game. Hard pass.