GTA is seriously suffering from the "complex morally conflicted protagonist" plague

[Comrade Monke]

Seriously am I the only one who thinks we need less complex and more flawless protagonists in GTA? With the exception of Niko, characters like CJ and Michael just don't fit in this type of game.

 

Every single time such a character is introduced the story falls into the same stereotypes every time: 

 

1.  Character has to protect family

2. Character doesn't want to pursue a "life of crime" but is forced to 

3. Character now is "epic morally conflicted lead with relatable (!!) Issues"

4. Story starts involving into a boring mess of cutscenes with the protagonist whining and complaining about his life of crime but perfectly guns down 60+ people in an average playthrough.

5. Loved one dies because ehh we had no more use for him but we are gonna pass it off as a very dramatic event because complex writing

6. Game ends with character giving up life of crime but he will still gun down random cops during gameplay.

 

Now while the above may sound like the story structure of this year's terrible Ubisoft open world game, it's actually all GTA stories after vice city. With the exception of GTA 4 where it was (somehow) written in a way to fit the gameplay, all other have been the exact same thing I described above.

 

That type of story doesn't fit GTA, GTA is a game all about stealing cars and taking over the city through violence. GTA is a game where you can gun down thousands of cops and gang members in an average playthrough. 

 

This forces the game to follow this structure:

 

1. Protagonist arrives in city

2. Protagonist starts looking for opportunities

3. Protagonist begins shouting at people until they are either dead or paying him.

4. Protagonist is kingpin

5. Protagonist kills all bad guys.

 

And that's not a bad thing. Why do people think every game has to have a complex story? It's fun to have a feel good story where you take over and makes you feel like a confident boss.

 

This is why Tommy Vercetti or Toni Cipriani are the perfect protagonists.

They are confident, they have a powerful character, they don't care about much other than themselves and whoever's deemed "alright" by them, and they intimidate everyone into giving them what they want because they are big criminals.

 

I hope GTA 6 gives us another feel-good story and protagonist. And if they introduce a female protagonist, I hope they make her Catalina-esque (powerful and sh*t).

 

Anyway what do you guys think? Do you agree or do you like the complex stories better?

[Midnight Hitman]

There should be a story where the (only) protagonist actually dies at the end, and you won't be able to play that savegame anymore.

[ilikebanana]

4 minutes ago, Midnight Hitman said:

There should be a story where the (only) protagonist actually dies at the end, and you won't be able to play that savegame anymore.

Bruh, that wouldn't even work. The only way they can do is doing what R* did in (SPOILERS) RDR2.

[Comrade Monke]

13 minutes ago, Midnight Hitman said:

There should be a story where the (only) protagonist actually dies at the end, and you won't be able to play that savegame anymore.

Literally this would be worse than GTA advance 

[String]

I think CJ, Niko and Michael are among the best protagonists in the series so maybe I prefer the conflicted ones though at the same time Tommy V is my favourite since I started with him. 

 

I would like to see more villainous/scumbag protagonists that's why I don't mind Trevor and I particularly like Michael. It did get tiring with the criminals with a heart of gold type protagonists that almost everyone after San Andreas was. I think Michael in particular is both a snake and still someone you can root for. 

 

Curious to know why you think Niko fits but Michael and CJ do not, if anything I remember the 'ludonarrative dissonance' argument being the loudest for Niko. 

[Comrade Monke]

1 hour ago, AkshayKumar said:

I think CJ, Niko and Michael are among the best protagonists in the series so maybe I prefer the conflicted ones though at the same time Tommy V is my favourite since I started with him. 

 

I would like to see more villainous/scumbag protagonists that's why I don't mind Trevor and I particularly like Michael. It did get tiring with the criminals with a heart of gold type protagonists that almost everyone after San Andreas was. I think Michael in particular is both a snake and still someone you can root for. 

 

Curious to know why you think Niko fits but Michael and CJ do not, if anything I remember the 'ludonarrative dissonance' argument being the loudest for Niko. 

Perhaps I interpret Niko differently than most. I don't think he is necessarily morally conflicted. He is in a way "wise" due to his war experiences, sure, and there's depth to him, but his overall goals are still revenge and power. His war experiences making him tough makes it believable enough that he can gun down 60+ cops during the average GTA player's gameplay session. That's how I feel at least.

 

Anyway, if you notice, in GTA sa CJ's personality is inconsistent. They wrote him to be far less violent than the others, yet because this type of character doesn't fit in the game, there are many moments when CJ suddenly adopts Tommy's personality in order to be able to do the things necessary for the plot. For example in the mission where you cold-bloodedly kill jizzy, they couldn't have "good" CJ do that, therefore he temporarily and suddenly turns into Tommy, waves a gun around and doesn't give a f*ck who's dead or alive. 

 

If a protagonist with depth that is still written in a way to be believable for this type of game could be introduced again in the future, I would like that too. But a deep character still has to be violent enough for the gameplay and story, like Niko.

[Grotti Vigilante]

I'll be honest, I can sort of see where you're coming from. At it's core, Grand Theft Auto is a crime game above all else, right down to the point that the most common crime you commit is the eponymous title. This is why I really disliked Zero's missions in San Andreas because it's literally the furthest thing you could get from the series. Who seriously thought that working for a dweeb like Zero by playing with toys to deal with a childhood rivalry with no actual stakes was unironically a good idea? It's not like the game even mocks him for it, it unironically expects you to go along with it. Yes, I know Vice City had Demolition Man and Bombs Away!, but at the very least the involvement of RC vehicles was for actual criminal purposes! By contrast, the idea of two nerds having a petty conflict that's the key point of their story is more in line with The Big Bang Theory.

 

That said, I don't necessarily mind characters that are a bit deeper than being violent thugs. Tommy Vercetti is a personal favourite of mine because he has the charm and charisma. He's a criminal through and through, but he's also got a nice side that he is careful to show, and even then you know his kindness is not to be mistaken for a weakness. In the past I've been critical of Vic Vance, but I realise now having caught up to the game's story that his character is trying to be a good guy in a bad guy game, and so at the very least it works for him because the game doesn't reward him for his ways. I feel like even a protagonist that wanted to get out of the crime game could work if the story eventually showed him that once you're in that deep there's almost no coming back. It's a bit pessimistic and cynical, but it would largely work in my opinion.

[Ryo256]

28 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

I'll be honest, I can sort of see where you're coming from. At it's core, Grand Theft Auto is a crime game above all else, right down to the point that the most common crime you commit is the eponymous title. This is why I really disliked Zero's missions in San Andreas because it's literally the furthest thing you could get from the series. Who seriously thought that working for a dweeb like Zero by playing with toys to deal with a childhood rivalry with no actual stakes was unironically a good idea? It's not like the game even mocks him for it, it unironically expects you to go along with it. Yes, I know Vice City had Demolition Man and Bombs Away!, but at the very least the involvement of RC vehicles was for actual criminal purposes! By contrast, the idea of two nerds having a petty conflict that's the key point of their story is more in line with The Big Bang Theory.

Of all the examples you could have taken. You picked the optional missions? The point of optional missions is usually that the players could take a break and do something unconventional. So the chances of doing unrelated and quirky can happen. The problem would be if this was the main mission that you were forced to do. Besides it's not like you don't do something criminal in those missions like e.g destroy vans with terrorist toys.

So yea, IMO, a poor example. No offence.

[Grotti Vigilante]

1 minute ago, Ryo256 said:

Of all the examples you could have taken. You picked the optional missions? The point of optional missions is usually that the players could take a break and do something unconventional. So the chances of doing unrelated and quirky can happen. The problem would be if this was the main mission that you were forced to do. Besides it's not like you don't do something criminal in those missions like e.g destroy vans with terrorist toys.

 

I just made a whole thread making a case as to why the missions don't belong in GTA, but in the case of side-missions the other games still treated them seriously. Avery Carrington's missions were very serious criminal acts, the Cubans and Haitians were full blown gang wars despite not being story missions, and even the optional asset missions had some serious criminal elements to them. In GTA IV, the most notable side missions outside of the story are assassinations. In TBoGT, you did have missions in club management, and yes they were also unconventional, but they still involved some serious elements to them. Zero's missions are still outliers, and destroying the vans with toys is pretty much the closest you get to a typical GTA mission. 

 

1 minute ago, Ryo256 said:

So yea, IMO, a poor example. No offence.

None taken.

[Ryo256]

7 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

In TBoGT, you did have missions in club management, and yes they were also unconventional but they still involved some serious elements to them

Rarely.
 

7 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

Zero's missions are still outliers, and destroying the vans with toys is pretty much the closest you get to a typical GTA mission. 

Which works against your own argument.

The problem is that you seems to pick on Zero mission but you seem to ignore GTA V's elements. What about "Did somebody say Yoga?", what about towing missions for Tonya, what about hunting missions for Cletus? You're telling me, the Zero missions, a bunch of side missions, is an issue when example of non-criminal MAIN mission and side mission with non-criminal elements already exist in GTA V. But it's the Zero missions that is the problem? Which actually has blowing up van element in it unlike GTA V examples?

Here's the thing, Zero is important. He helps you build your garage and he helps you in the heist. Some nerd is threatening this guy to the point that if he loses, you will lose this important asset in your team. And you have reduced to him to be some 'dweeb.' No, the stakes are kinda important because Zero is important to CJ.

Edited September 13, 2022 by Ryo256

[Grotti Vigilante]

1 minute ago, Ryo256 said:

The problem is that you seems to picked on Zero mission but you seem to ignore GTA V's elements.

 

What about "Did somebody say Yoga?"

Yeah, that mission sucks and needs to be erased from history. It doesn't mean Zero's are any better though.

 

1 minute ago, Ryo256 said:

what about towing missions for Tonya,

Making money on the side doing menial jobs isn't unknown in a GTA game. It would've been better if it was for illegal purposes such as someone wanting cars to sell, but it's still not completely out of place.

 

1 minute ago, Ryo256 said:

what about hunting missions for Cletus?

Seems like a natural inclusion to me personally. If anything Rockstar didn't go far enough because they could've gone the Red Dead route and let you sell animal parts to the black market.

 

1 minute ago, Ryo256 said:

You're telling me, the Zero missions, a bunch of side missions, is an issue when example of non-criminal MAIN mission and side mission with non-criminal elements already exist in GTA V. But it's the Zero missions that is the problem? Which actually has blowing up van element in it unlike GTA V?

I haven't excused GTA V's flaws and nobody else mentioned GTA V before you did. But Zero's missions are notable because they are so far-fetched from the formula of what makes GTA that they are almost insulting to the player who is playing this game in which the whole point is being a violent criminal, not to play with toys simply because of two nerds having a childhood rivalry. Blowing up vans is frankly the least they could do for us.

 

1 minute ago, Ryo256 said:

Here's the thing, Zero is important. He helps you build your garage and he helps you in the heist.

Which happens regardless of whether or not you do his missions and therefore doesn't make them anymore fitting or important for the game. The game might treat it like you've done his missions, but you really don't have to do them and Zero still helps you out. It's not like his shop missions are required to help you in your garage building and casino heist, you can freely ignore them and Zero is still doing what he does without any changes.

 

1 minute ago, Ryo256 said:

Some nerd is threatening this guy to the point that if he loses, you will lose this important asset in your team.

I seriously doubt that Berkley is that dangerous an individual because the game doesn't present him as one. The worst he does is hang Zero in his closet like it's a high school drama. Realistically once CJ bought the shop he could've easily roughed him up a little bit and even caused greater criminal damage to his properties such as smashing which would've been much more in line with the series compared to what we got.

 

[Ryo256]

47 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

Yeah, that mission sucks and needs to be erased from history. It doesn't mean Zero's are any better though.

You missed the point. Sucky MAIN mission is a bigger problem than a SIDE mission. Of all the examples you wanna pick, go for the main mission examples first. Not what's optional.

 

47 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

Making money on the side doing menial jobs isn't unknown in a GTA game.

Those Tonya missions pay you nothing. Also it is strange that you ignore the point that Zero's Mission earn you its property income. So you are making money off them. While even if you eventually unlock the ability to purchase towing property, you still have to PAY for it (the missions did not unlock it for you) and then do towing missions to earn anything. Zero Missions are far far far far more valuable than Tonya's. So if you can accept Tonya's missions, then by that standard, you should accept Zero's, you have to or else it's not fair at all.
 

47 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

but it's still not completely out of place.

So are Zero's.
 

47 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

Seems like a natural inclusion to me personally. If anything Rockstar didn't go far enough because they could've gone the Red Dead route and let you sell animal parts to the black market.

No criminal elements. Nothing like blowing up van kinda criminality. Automatically Zero's missions are better by your suggested logic. That's what I'm pointing at. Zero Missions offer more criminality than this. Give them credit. And diss the non-criminal Cletus mission first (and for Trevor for all people lol).

 

47 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

I haven't excused GTA V's flaws and nobody else mentioned GTA V before you did

You said series. You mentioned other games too as an example. So I assume V is included in series. So that's my issue. If you are talking about series as a whole, consider V or else I think you are being unfair. Because there are non-criminal missions that are worst than Zero's in the series. If your argument was that they are out of place in GTA SA only then you have a point but they are not the worst in the series. They are not.

 

47 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

But Zero's missions are notable because they are so far-fetched from the formula of what makes GTA that they are almost insulting to the player who is playing this game in which the whole point is being a violent criminal, not to play with toys simply because of two nerds having a childhood rivalry.

Because doing Yoga is better for a violent criminal? It's not. At least Zero let's you play with machine gun and destroy vans with people. They are psychos nerds and you take a part in something chaotic for the sake of using Zero's intellect for other criminal activities like heist. It's about CJ also being a friend, a business-owner and helping property issues just like V protagonists do with their properties as well. Not out of place in V (I asume you would say that) and it's definitely not out of place in GTA SA, you have to criticize V first before you can even touch Zero's missions.
 

47 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

Which happens regardless of whether or not you do his missions and therefore doesn't make them anymore fitting or important for the game. The game might treat it like you've done his missions, but you really don't have to do them and Zero still helps you out. It's not like his shop missions are required to help you in your garage building and casino heist, you can freely ignore them and Zero is still doing what he does without any changes.

They did that for you, the players. They wanted you to have Zero without a price but if you do everything, it makes sense why Zero is important. He is important to CJ, losing him is costly because the game doesn't give him any other smart guy replacement. Narratively, he has a place. It should be respected....unlike some characters I can point out in V.
 

 

47 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

I seriously doubt that Berkley is that dangerous an individual because the game doesn't present him as one. The worst he does is hang Zero in his closet like it's a high school drama.

They may not be an issue but the deal (loser leaves town) is that if Zero loses then he will be discouarged and leave. CJ will lose him. CJ helps him, showing him as a good friend and a boss. It adds to his character as well.  Though I would reckon people who play with terrorists toy to be more of an issue, even Berkley seems to interfere with your heist so he's not that of a joke.

 

47 minutes ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

Realistically once CJ bought the shop he could've easily roughed him up a little bit and even caused greater criminal damage to his properties such as smashing which would've been much more in line with the series compared to what we got.

It's not in line with CJ though. So it's more of a CJ problem than Zero.
 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Ryo256

[universetwisters]

I just wanna play as a sh*tty person like Waingro from Heat. But it's okay because its a fictional character 

 

 

[Comrade Monke]

3 hours ago, Grotti Vigilante said:

I'll be honest, I can sort of see where you're coming from. At it's core, Grand Theft Auto is a crime game above all else, right down to the point that the most common crime you commit is the eponymous title. This is why I really disliked Zero's missions in San Andreas because it's literally the furthest thing you could get from the series. Who seriously thought that working for a dweeb like Zero by playing with toys to deal with a childhood rivalry with no actual stakes was unironically a good idea? It's not like the game even mocks him for it, it unironically expects you to go along with it. Yes, I know Vice City had Demolition Man and Bombs Away!, but at the very least the involvement of RC vehicles was for actual criminal purposes! By contrast, the idea of two nerds having a petty conflict that's the key point of their story is more in line with The Big Bang Theory.

 

That said, I don't necessarily mind characters that are a bit deeper than being violent thugs. Tommy Vercetti is a personal favourite of mine because he has the charm and charisma. He's a criminal through and through, but he's also got a nice side that he is careful to show, and even then you know his kindness is not to be mistaken for a weakness. In the past I've been critical of Vic Vance, but I realise now having caught up to the game's story that his character is trying to be a good guy in a bad guy game, and so at the very least it works for him because the game doesn't reward him for his ways. I feel like even a protagonist that wanted to get out of the crime game could work if the story eventually showed him that once you're in that deep there's almost no coming back. It's a bit pessimistic and cynical, but it would largely work in my opinion.

I don't necessarily think characters shouldn't have a good side just that it should not be over emphasized

[Zello]

I want a criminal who enjoys being a criminal.

[Jason]

10 hours ago, Comrade Monke said:

4. Story starts involving into a boring mess of cutscenes with the protagonist whining and complaining about his life of crime but perfectly guns down 60+ people in an average playthrough.

 

There's a term for what you're talking about called ludonarrative dissonance - when the games story conflicts with the actions of the player.

 

Personally I don't think ludonarrative consistency is really required in a series like GTA, nor do I think the game needs a protagonist story that works within the constraints of what the player is able to do in the game. But if it does matter I think the answer to the problem has already been found by R* tbh, just handle it like they do in RDR1 and 2, both of which have the best protags they've ever done (especially Arthur) and a system and to some extent a story that can hold up some semblance of ludonarrative consistency, ie story and player actions can loosely make sense. I don't think they should ever push for that to be 1:1 though cause that'll just cause more problems than it's worth.

 

10 hours ago, Midnight Hitman said:

There should be a story where the (only) protagonist actually dies at the end, and you won't be able to play that savegame anymore.

 

That'd be terrible.

 

I also wouldn't want the safe version of that which is you can continue to play the save but before the save returns to a point of no return after you complete the story.

 

Cause f*ck points of no return, they're lazy.

[Thelema93]

That's why I love Trevor. You can justify any kind of free roam gameplay because he's a psychotic motherf*cker. Morals are an afterthought. 

[LowTierDude]

We need more characters like Trevor, Tommy and the Saints Row 2 Boss. There's no lying in the type of people they are and that definitely helps curb ludonarrative dissonance.

Edited September 14, 2022 by sabitsuki

[.Ryan.]

Honestly as long as the protagonist is well written I don’t really care if they’re morally conflicted or want to run the entire world.

 

As long as it fits with the story that’s being told.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Algonquin Assassin

[Midnight Hitman]

I didn't like Trevors' character that much. His "over the top psychopath character" felt so forced at times, I think R* could have done that way better. To me it felt like they threw him in just for the sake of having something different in the game.

[Tommy "Nightmare" Smith]

23 hours ago, Midnight Hitman said:

There should be a story where the (only) protagonist actually dies at the end, and you won't be able to play that savegame anymore.

That's called real life

[Comrade Monke]

1 minute ago, Tommy "Nightmare" Smith said:

That's called real life

Real Life 6

[GhettoJesus]

On 9/13/2022 at 4:39 PM, Comrade Monke said:

And that's not a bad thing. Why do people think every game has to have a complex story? It's fun to have a feel good story where you take over and makes you feel like a confident boss.

I am conflicted on this one. First of all, every GTA has an extremely shallow story. They are hastily put together, there are lots of clichés, and whatnot. So for once it would be nice to see a complex story just to show everyone who thinks that GTA games are well written what a good story is like.

 

On the other hand, a complex story is not what not what GTA games need. R* can flex their writing skills successfully in the Red Dead Redemption franchise.

 

I feel like R* is in a bit of a crisis. They tried to make a good story in GTA IV and it was just a bunch of clichés since Niko just ended up being a hitman which we have already seen with Claude. They tried to tone it down in V but they couldn't decide whether they should just write something overly simplistic without caring about it too much throughout the story or whether they should take it serious so they did a mix of both. I just don't know whether R* can find the right path. I feel like I see the 3D trilogy though rose-colored glasses and that's why its stories don't bother me despite their deep flaws. A simplistic structure, like the one you described, may not be the best for VI however. I think that gamers have raised their standards. Though one may argue that just because it's GTA, R* could allow itself a very simple structure like III. However, as you said, R* really needs to break with the whole "I want to leave crime but I can't cliche"

 

I think they should actually try for a complex story once. A proper one, not some shallow "deep" story like in GTA IV. That's the type of story we have never seen before. Have a protagonist who doesn't want to leave crime but isn't a sociopath either. Someone who sees both sides of the coin.

Edited September 14, 2022 by GhettoJesus

[Pistol Bobcat]

13 hours ago, Homicidal Hipster said:

That's why I love Trevor. You can justify any kind of free roam gameplay because he's a psychotic motherf*cker. Morals are an afterthought. 

 

This is why I always liked Toni Cipriani as a protagonist, when he's not being a loyal mafia soldier we get more than a few missions to confirm he's clearly got issues, so going on a police rampage with him just felt right.

[Comrade Monke]

50 minutes ago, GhettoJesus said:

I am conflicted on this one. First of all, every GTA has an extremely shallow story. They are hastily put together, there are lots of clichés, and whatnot. So for once it would be nice to see a complex story just to show everyone who thinks that GTA games are well written what a good story is like.

 

On the other hand, a complex story is not what not what GTA games need. R* can flex their writing skills successfully in the Red Dead Redemption franchise.

 

I feel like R* is in a bit of a crisis. They tried to make a good story in GTA IV and it was just a bunch of clichés since Niko just ended up being a hitman which we have already seen with Claude. They tried to tone it down in V but they couldn't decide whether they should just write something overly simplistic without caring about it too much throughout the story or whether they should take it serious so they did a mix of both. I just don't know whether R* can find the right path. I feel like I see the 3D trilogy though rose-colored glasses and that's why its stories don't bother me despite their deep flaws. A simplistic structure, like the one you described, may not be the best for VI however. I think that gamers have raised their standards. Though one may argue that just because it's GTA, R* could allow itself a very simple structure like III. However, as you said, R* really needs to break with the whole "I want to leave crime but I can't cliche"

 

I think they should actually try for a complex story once. A proper one, not some shallow "deep" story like in GTA VI. That's the type of story we have never seen before. Have a protagonist who doesn't want to leave crime but isn't a sociopath either. Someone who sees both sides of the coin.

I wouldn't mind that type of story but I am afraid they would just make all cutscenes full of sadness and crying. If they were however, to have a complex story that isn't however, all drama, I wouldn't mind.

[AmigaMix]

17 hours ago, Jason said:

I also wouldn't want the safe version of that which is you can continue to play the save but before the save returns to a point of no return after you complete the story.

 

Cause f*ck points of no return, they're lazy.

If we're talking about overly controlled narratives & "low stakes"-endings (including a "simple" croaking of the protagonist), sure.

But there are game worlds which change in pretty radical ways, and you can't really expect developers to account for a billion different aspects, or stem the workload that'd arise from including several vastly different endings.

 

Edited September 14, 2022 by AmigaMix

[Jason]

48 minutes ago, AmigaMix said:

If we're talking about overly controlled narratives & "low stakes"-endings (including a "simple" croaking of the protagonist), sure.

But there are game worlds which change in pretty radical ways, and you can't really expect developers to account for a billion different aspects, or stem the workload that'd arise from including several vastly different endings.

 

 

There are genres and types of games where it works but I find points of no return in open world games in particular to be... sh*t.

 

It does also create a mentality of encouraging players to do absolutely everything before they finish the story which can cause burn out. Things like epilogues are extra effort but I personally would rather a shorter main story and a well done epilogue over a longer story and a point of no return.

[A Good Man]

On 9/13/2022 at 11:39 AM, Comrade Monke said:

This is why Tommy Vercetti or Toni Cipriani are the perfect protagonists.

They are confident, they have a powerful character, they don't care about much other than themselves and whoever's deemed "alright" by them, and they intimidate everyone into giving them what they want because they are big criminals.

They are generic, one dimensional and have no character development throught the story. 

[AmigaMix]

28 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

There are genres and types of games where it works but I find points of no return in open world games in particular to be... sh*t.

 

It does also create a mentality of encouraging players to do absolutely everything before they finish the story which can cause burn out. Things like epilogues are extra effort but I personally would rather a shorter main story and a well done epilogue over a longer story and a point of no return.

I thought RDR2's epilogue was well done, I've also seen people complain that it felt superfluous... "damned if you do, damned if you don't!".

Edited September 14, 2022 by AmigaMix

[Ryo256]

6 minutes ago, AmigaMix said:

I thought RDR2's epilogue was well done, I've also seen people complain that it felt superfluous... "damned if you do, damned if you don't".

IMO, this is because I find that neither the main story nor the epilogue were short.

I enjoy playing through RDR2 but whenever I finish it and look back, asking myself if it was worth going through all that. It is hard for me to say yes if I am honest.