It has been more than a month since I finished playing Red Dead Redemption 2 and I have developed a bitter attitude towards the game. I am still in awe of the graphics and the gameplay and what Rockstar was able to accomplish. This game is truly revolutionary in depth and scope. But like getting out of a toxic relationship, you can’t really assess the damage until you’ve had some distance. I’ve come loaded for bear: Rockstar is great at making games, but not in telling story. Why? I felt like I was being strung along and eventually punished, despite my desire to simply leave Dutch’s gang.

In building a character in a video game, the gamer develops his/her identity with that avatar. That character becomes a representation of you and me. In Red Dead, I identify with Arthur because I’ve chosen his clothes, his horse, and the choices he makes in the world. I have spent so much time playing him, being him.

As written, Arthur is a more mature, level-headed character than the rest of the gang. While he is quite foolish in being a criminal, he is self-reflective. He owns a journal! I would have preferred Arthur to have acknowledged this from Day 1 of the story. Not until many bad decisions from Dutch, “We need more money,” and a sad diagnosis of tuberculosis, does Arthur finally mesh his theory with action. But why did it take so long? There was a disconnect with who Arthur was and why he continued to commit to the gang. Why? What about his past made him go back to Dutch? Throughout the game, he’s making the same sly quips to Dutch and their relationship eventually distances. It’s punishing to go through the same routine, again and again, for the many parts of this story… and we’re mostly in swamp as we do so. (Underutilized map by the way. Who the fuck wants to be in a shitty swamp for most of the time?).

To me, the player, I see Arthur as someone who recognizes the futility of what they’re doing but continues to do so. Outside the main missions, I can rob wagons until the end of time and eventually retire with the accumulated wealth. Why do I have to roll with Dutch in the first place?

Seeing Arthur decay due to tuberculosis is simply un-fun. I get it: end of an era, futility of life, atonement for past sins, everything eventually dies, yada yada, etc. etc. And then you kill my fucking horse at the end. As a player, I have given so much time and energy into building Arthur, completing side missions, and just walking around in this beautiful world. I have developed a bond with my horse. And then, you take it all away. Why play the game in the first place? Sure. You can argue this is an exercise in the idea that life will eventually fade away, that you should take stock of what’s good, and enjoy the small moments when you can. That’s fine, but justify it. Red Dead does not justify its punishment.

This lends itself to a larger question pertaining to entertainment as a whole. Should we watch a movie, play a game, and have it comfort us, or challenge us? Should we go to a place of fantasy and have it work out in the end? Or, should we see a mirror in our own lives in order to recognize the faults in humanity? Arguments can be made for both, but only accepting one fails to reap the benefits of the other. The trick is to find balance between the two, and, to make a good case why you choose to go down a certain path with regards to your audience.

All entertainment should be entertaining. Red Dead Redemption 2 is very entertaining. I derive great utility from riding from gang hideout to gang hideout and cleaning house. Gaptooth Ridge is my favorite because the terrain is most unique and you can yield the most loot (cash and gold nuggets, baby).

But if Red Dead sought to challenge us, it failed. I felt punished for giving the game so much of my time. I felt punished for investing so much in Arthur Morgan to eventually have it taken away. Watching movies and TV is about surrendering to the story. Gaming is about building agency in a player in order to shape the story. As my girlfriend and I watched the story play out, we kept saying, “Fuck Dutch. Arthur just needs to leave with Sadie and build a new life.” The repetition of Arthur wrestling with the trajectory of Dutch and the gang was frustrating. Make a decision, dude.

Consider The Sopranos. I have spent days watching this show because I have seen the whole series more than 5 times in total. I am smitten with this show, knowing full-well Tony is a piece of shit and he eventually dies in the end. (Come on, folks. It’s obvious). Why do I continue to go back to this well, knowing full-well that Tony will eventually die? It’s the journey, the process of his character. The dilemma that follows Tony is the same as Arthur: Why shouldn’t I just give up this life of crime? Both characters are wrestling with the same thing, trying to find happiness and a sense of comfort in life. Tony’s lack of empathy and his unwillingness to change is justified. The window into his childhood and his own manias are reinforced in a world that is neither nurturing nor reaffirming. With Arthur, we don’t get a sense why he is constantly returning to Dutch. We get snippets here and there, but he isn’t fully flushed out. Now, I have wondered what Tony would be like if he did resign his position as the don. He would probably be killed or die a more metaphorical death; sequestered somewhere in Idaho under a different name, peeling potatoes like the rest of us schmoes. Since Arthur resides in the world of gaming, we feel compelled to make the choices we want to make. While it’s obvious to us that Arthur and Tony should stop what they’re doing, we feel we have the agency to get Arthur the hell out of there, because, we can! With Tony, we are simply witnesses to the trainwreck that is his life.

Red Dead is punishing because it gives us the tools to make choices but forces us to commit to their own continuum. In the end, is that really a choice, or just punishing the audience with their own version of the truth?