Well, you can like or dislike any game, these things are subjective, but Days Gone, unlike RDR2, understands that open world games are about freedom and the ability to use the open world to get shit done. I had great gameplay moments in it where I would ride my bike through zombie hordes to lure them into some village I had to clear of human enemies, or plan how to take out a zombie horde using different tools and approaches and the terrain. There was none of RDR2's cinematic railroading into very specific gameplay sequences.
Then, it had a very well written story about a guy, and a girl, and some other people (not going to spoil it for people who haven't played yet, but it's great), none of this shit about a dying henchman following some obvious lunatic around for 80 hours.
Man, the fact that you keep bringing up RDR2's story being "a bunch of people following a conman" shows you have no idea what it's about - and the fact that you find it so unbelievable shows you have no life experience.
Rolls eyes... Ok, let's see what you got, boyo.
It's not about a bunch of randos following a conman it's about a family - and the lead family figure (Dutch is basically Arthur's father) losing his way and dragging people down with him. Dutch and his gang had A LOT of success before you start RDR2 - people don't follow him because he's shouting platitudes they follow him because he proved himself before and they believe in him.
But this is an example of RDR2 being bad. The player wasn't there when Dutch was supposedly successful (you can't even use RDR1 as a crutch here, because in that game also, Dutch was just some crazy you hunted down). So all the player sees is Dutch proposing more and more ludicrous schemes. You can't use some "background" lore as an excuse for the player to ignore what they see in front of them.
Also, you have to keep in mind what kind of characters make for good video game protagonists. It's the Wild West, ffs. Can you imagine John Wayne or Clint Eastwood following some "daddy" character for years through multiple retarded scenarios?
People don't show their true colors until shit really gets hard, and that's what happens with Dutch. He's lived a charmed life and was able to be a good leader to his crew before they started hitting a string of bad luck and now he's showing himself to be a petulant egotistical asshole - all things that probably existed before but got papered over because they were doing well. But because these people love him they put up with his shit and let him lead them places they shouldn't. It's about the price of unwavering loyalty - which is a very real thing.
Dogs have unwavering loyalty. Interesting people at the center of 80+ hour long games should not. Actually scratch that, even dogs start biting if the owner kicks them.
Arthur dying is also about him realizing that doing good and doing bad are active choices - it's not circumstances that led him to this point - no one is at fault but himself - he chose to rough up some dude for money even knowing it was the wrong thing to do, which caused him to get TB. He chose to continue following a man who was doing clearly the wrong thing. In a world of woke "circumstances, systemic oppressions, etc" it's refreshing to have a strong moral message ( if you choose to play good, obviously ) that realizes we are responsible for our own decisions.
Yeah, I am sure Sopranos, Goodfellas, Scarface, Rio Grande, etc would have been a lot more interesting if every time someone did something bad, they would be punished from above for the rest of the show. Tony Soprano with leprosy maybe for the last 6 seasons? If you want to make that point, that's not how you do it.
Also, I love most of the games you listed, but none of them have the humanity or strengths of RDR2 except parts of Planescape. Arthur having a conversation with a nun about his life choices and being scared to die is so far beyond anything in all of those games, again barring some of Planescape. It's pretty clear you like cool and heady genre fiction writing - and the majority of the games you listed are good genre fiction - but they don't match the level of writing in RDR2.
Lol, you are delirious, bro. RDR2 writing is a story of a loyal dog. I mean I know these things are subjective, but come on...
I know this place is full of people who don't have the ability to modulate their opinions - everything has to be "ITS INCLINE" or "ITS SHIT" but you'd be better suited saying RDR2 is not written to your taste, because claiming the writing is shit just makes you look like an idiot. It's like arguing that Snowcrash is a better written book than Lonesome Dove because it has a bunch of cool heady ideas.
No, defending its writing makes you look like an idiot. You should try reading some books to get an idea of what good writing is and how to evaluate it. RDR2 writing is bad on every level, other than it does sound like how regular people talk, as opposed to some video game. But aside from that, it's absolute trash, extremely boring in terms of plot, and having no real substance either beyond some dime store philosophical ideas.
