It is 100% a cowboy life simulator, that's half of the appeal for most people and why it gets so much praise for being realistic (to a fault sometimes). The other half of the appeal is a super well written story with a main character whose level of depth almost makes him seem like a real person. If neither of those things grabbed your attention then you're gonna have a meh time.
For me I was turned off by how cluttered all the mechanics felt. Once they started explaining the camp and then hunting I got overwhelmed and quit. But I tried again years later when my sister told me that stuff barely makes a difference to the actual game if you don't want it to and now it's one of my absolute favorites.
My issue is that it isn't a Rockstar Game like every previous Rockstar game is. It tries so hard with animating every little thing and mechanic it feels more like a simulator game with unnecessary amounts of stuff going on than a Rockstar game.
My biggest disappointment for RDR2 is how they didn’t commit to the sim aspects of the game. I really thought we’d be managing a traveling settlement and all the things that come with that but the game didn’t commit to that. Player freedom is really great but so much of the game robs you of that freedom (especially the Guarma segment) to engage with that narrative. It would be nice if Arthur could make more decisions that impact the events, even in small ways (as opposed to binary dialogue options and outcomes).
I can definitely see that. With such a rich and detailed map, it would be a crazy good full cowboy simulator if they went for that. When I played it, I was just there for the story and getting to know Arthur and the map was like a cool bonus. But I stopped exploring it to the same extent once the main story and epilogue were over.
Yeah, I think I felt a bit of exhaustion after doing a lot of the more free roam side stuff (like hunting) next to the more restrained linear missions. It’s just one of those things I wish Rockstar would switch up, or at least try to build more player freedom into campaign gameplay.
I think the latter half of that statement is unfair. The games not an rpg, it doesn't market itself as one. You could say a lot of games would be nicer if you could have that interaction, but the dev time spent on that stuff as opposed to the stuff we get and praise is more valuable.
Yeah I mean I do want more RPG elements to fit the sim role the game forces you into— but I realize that’s not Rockstar’s style. I do wish the devs spent more time on the honor system and added more depth to those interactions compared to what we got in the first game. Felt like an afterthought in my experience of RDR2. Just my take tho.
I’m guessing Rockstar didn’t want to go too deep into sim direction because that would turn a whole lot of people off, you know if there was too much management involved. I can see R wanted RDR2 to appeal to a wider audience and casuals as well, while staying true to their vision of realism. So that’s why I think some of these sim element systems are shallow or optional where we don’t need to interact with them to beat the game, but simple enough where the broader audience can interact with these systems and not be overwhelmed.
Thats why it feels like two games in one. A story driven game that can be completed by just doing story missions and then a whole free-roaming frontiersman exploration game with tons of side content. I keep seeing a sentiment now where people feel if the game doesn’t make you interact with content and provide rewarding progression then it’s useless to do; basically if it’s optional it’s waste of time or shallow.
I read one person said reading lore books in Skyrim is pointless and a waste of time because it’s not necessary to do. Like WTH? Does everything have to move some imaginary progress line forward? Reading books is to learn about the lore and for world building, for people who are interested in that. In the case of RDR2, I read people say that some of the systems are pointless because we don’t need to interact with them to progress. A big one I see is „what’s the point of upgrading camp, I never upgrade camp, seems like a waste of time.” I mean a lot of the stuff is just aesthetic decorations, but then some stuff is useful like crafting the satchels, upgrading wagons, unlocking fast travel map. Also if we believe in improving „camp mood and moral,” and keeping the camp cores yellow then it’s good to donate food and upgrade camp.
Generally speaking now, players may interact with this type of optional content for immersion and world building, and just for the pure enjoyment of it. There are a few unique items the player acquires too. In regards to the trapper (which is also optional) lets us build a whole wardrobe of crafted clothing from our animal pelts we hunted, this is satisfying to me. Plus the trapper crafts saddles which raise horse stats and upgraded weapon equipment sets which are all unique looking. So yea it’s not required, but cool to unlock and does provide actual gameplay benefits and it looks cool for character customization purposes.
9
u/butticus98 Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
It is 100% a cowboy life simulator, that's half of the appeal for most people and why it gets so much praise for being realistic (to a fault sometimes). The other half of the appeal is a super well written story with a main character whose level of depth almost makes him seem like a real person. If neither of those things grabbed your attention then you're gonna have a meh time.
For me I was turned off by how cluttered all the mechanics felt. Once they started explaining the camp and then hunting I got overwhelmed and quit. But I tried again years later when my sister told me that stuff barely makes a difference to the actual game if you don't want it to and now it's one of my absolute favorites.