I've been playing Red Dead Redemption 2 again recently and have been thoroughly enjoying it, but this one thing has always bugged be about this game and Rockstar games in general, and that's how restrictive they are with their mission design. You decide to get off your horse too early when riding to an objective, mission failure. You stand outside a building too long while your friends go inside, mission failure. The list goes on, but you get the point. If you go even slightly outside the railings of the amusement park ride Rockstar has setup, instant mission failure.
This whole issue is made even worse by how in contrast the missions are with the open world. The open world is a sandbox where you can handle situations how ever you want. It feels like a living, breathing world where NPCs will react to your actions. It almost feels like there were two entirely separate teams working on the open world and missions, who aren't coordinating. Given how big Rockstar is that could absolutely be the case.
I've also been playing Kingdom Come Deliverance II and that game is in a lot of ways quite similar to RDR2 with it's set protagonist, realism, and open world sandbox. The flexibility of how you can handle quests in that game really highlights the shortcomings of RDR2. I know KCDII is an RPG and focuses more on player dialogue choices, but the existence of the honor system demonstrates how Rockstar is willing to let player actions dictate the story and world, so they could at least let some of that bleed into the missions. Maybe sprinkle a few high and low honor choices into missions, and don't fail the mission if you do something slightly wrong. Have the world react to the player not doing what you want. Have your friends call after you if you're lagging behind or something. I'm pretty sure that already happens in the game at some point.
Thank you for listening to my rant. This is just something I've been meaning to put into words for awhile.
I dropped KCD 1 after ~30 hours for the same reason as you, but at least KCD has some justification - the whole point of the game is to be an ultra-realistic simulation of medieval life, a roleplaying game in the truest sense of the word.
Your character starts out not even knowing how to read, even though you, the player, obviously do to interact with the GUI. He's the son of a blacksmith who never would have learned anything else, so he, the character, has to spend time learning basically everything, even if you, the player, already have it figured out.
You and I think that design is unfun. Clearly, though, there's an audience for it, as KCD 2 sold something like a million copies on launch day and instantly recouped their development costs.
Yes, I'm aware of that justification. I like the idea in principle, but it doesn't hold water in this game, because the mechanics they used to simulate ultra-realism are not realistic at all. Picking up a weapon in real life doesn't impose a state of bodily malfunction where you have about as much control of yourself as a blind drunk standing on one stilt. I've used swords and bows, and trained in a fair number of other physical skills. Even my very first time, there was never a point where I suddenly found my arms or legs failing to work. The most forgiving way I can describe this implementation would be to call it a ham-fisted attempt.
It seems so. If some people enjoy slogging through those mechanics, then I'm happy for them. I have better things to do with my time.