Spider

This is a horribly written article by a writer who clearly doesn't play video games! Red Dead Redemption is an older game, the author argues that the world feels smaller, which it is! Is that a bad thing? Absolutely not! It's still a vast expansive space and I would argue as big as most open world games need to be.

The gun verity is smaller? This is literally a non-issue as Red Dead Redemption is not a shooting game. It's an open world adventure and guns are just one part of the game.

Missions can feel repetitive? I've played both games and I did not find any of the missions in RDR1 repetitive so that must be your experience.

Having to kill the old gang? The characters from RDR1 are far more endearing in my opinion.

Arthur didn't exist. I would argue John is a considerably better lead despite RDR2 trying to lesson the character.

You know what happens to the gang? Literally the second you turn on RDR2 you already know how it's going to end. The reason you know what happens to the gang in RDR1 is because YOU'VE PLAYED IT BEFORE! 🙄

You're alone in the west. It's a single player game. If you want to spend all the time with other characters play a multiplayer game!

John can't swim. In a Western game?! No! When we think of western games the thought that jumps to mind is cowboys in speedos! 🙄

Having to play as Jack! It's no worse than having to play as Arthur.

Limited hunting? Again cowboys hunting crocodiles isn't what comes to mind when I think of the old West! In many ways RDR1 is much more faithful to the time and place than RDR2.

If you're going to write about a much loved game please spend some time trying to understand why people are very eager to play it over 15 years later and less time putting together a tone deaf article.