It is rare. Most games come and go, but people are still talking about the IGN Red Dead Redemption 2 review like it was published yesterday. When Dan Stapleton slapped a 10/10 "Masterpiece" score on Rockstar’s Western epic back in 2018, it felt like a foregone conclusion. Of course it was a 10. The grass swayed. The horses had... well, you know. The mud looked wet.
But then, the honeymoon ended.
Players actually got their hands on it and realized that "masterpiece" is a heavy word to carry when you're forced to watch a three-second animation just to pick up a can of beans. The friction was real. You’ve probably felt it too—that moment where Arthur Morgan moves like he’s waist-deep in molasses while you’re just trying to turn around in a general store. This creates a weird tension between critical acclaim and the actual "feel" of playing the game.
The 10/10 Heard 'Round the World
The IGN Red Dead Redemption 2 score wasn't just a number; it was a statement about what we value in gaming. Stapleton argued that the game’s "sheer polished brilliance" outweighed the clunky inventory systems or the rigid mission design. He wasn't alone. Most major outlets folded under the weight of Rockstar’s production value.
Think about the technical achievement for a second. In 2018, seeing the way light filtered through the trees in Lemoyne was transformative. It wasn't just "good graphics." It was an ecosystem. You could spend three hours just watching a hawk dive for a rabbit, and honestly, many players did. The IGN review captured that sense of awe perfectly. It focused on the way the world felt alive, a place where you didn't just play—you existed.
However, the "Masterpiece" tag ignores the "Rockstar formula" problems that have only become more obvious with time. If you step five feet off the intended path during a heist, you get a "Mission Failed" screen. It’s a strange paradox: the most open, reactive world ever built, governed by the most restrictive, linear mission scripts in the industry. This is where the divide started. Critics saw the forest; a lot of frustrated players were stuck looking at a very specific, annoying tree.
Technical Prowess vs. Player Agency
We have to talk about the controls.
💡 You might also like: Lara Croft Tomb Raider 2003: What Really Happened to the Icon
They’re heavy. Arthur has weight, which is great for immersion but occasionally miserable for gameplay. If you read the original IGN Red Dead Redemption 2 coverage, there’s an acknowledgment of this "deliberate" pace. But "deliberate" is often a polite word for "slow."
The game demands your time. It doesn't just ask for it. Want to loot a house? That’ll be five minutes of opening individual drawers. Want to travel across the map? I hope you like cinematic camera mode and rhythmic button tapping. For a reviewer, this feels like "commitment to realism." For a guy with forty minutes to play after work, it can feel like a chore. This is the fundamental gap in gaming journalism that RDR2 exposed. The criteria for a "10" often prioritizes the art of the medium over the fun of the mechanics.
What the IGN Red Dead Redemption 2 Coverage Got Right
Despite the backlash against "perfect" scores, the IGN team was dead on about the narrative. Arthur Morgan isn't just a protagonist; he's perhaps the most well-realized character in the history of the medium.
Roger Clark’s performance brought a vulnerability to the "tough outlaw" trope that we hadn't really seen before. The way his voice cracks when he talks to his horse, or the subtle cough that starts halfway through the game—it’s devastating. The review correctly identified that the story carries the game through its sluggish middle chapters.
- The relationship between Arthur and Dutch van der Linde is a slow-motion train wreck you can't look away from.
- The camp system, while mechanically thin, creates a sense of family that makes the eventual betrayal hurt more.
- The ending isn't just a conclusion; it’s a transition that recontextualizes the entire first game.
If you look back at the IGN Red Dead Redemption 2 video review, you’ll notice they spend a lot of time on the atmosphere. They weren't wrong. The sound design alone—the way a gunshot echoes off a canyon wall or the muffled sound of a saloon piano from across the street—is still unmatched. In 2026, we are still using RDR2 as the benchmark for "living worlds." Even "Cyberpunk 2077" or "Starfield" haven't quite captured that same sense of a world that functions whether you are there or not.
The Misconception of "Perfect"
People see a 10 and think it means "flawless." It doesn't.
Stapleton has clarified this multiple times in various podcasts and follow-up articles. A 10 means the game is essential, a landmark achievement that moves the needle for the entire industry. Red Dead 2 did that. It pushed the boundaries of NPC interaction and environmental storytelling to a point where every other open-world game suddenly looked a bit "gamey" and fake.
But it’s okay to hate the way it plays. You can acknowledge a game is a masterpiece of craft while admitting you find it tedious to actually interact with. That’s the nuance that gets lost in Twitter (or X) threads and comment sections.
Why the Discussion Persists in 2026
Why are we still here? Why does IGN Red Dead Redemption 2 still trend?
Because the "Great Game vs. Good Experience" debate hasn't been solved. We’re seeing it again with modern titles. Every time a massive, high-budget sequel drops, we go back to the RDR2 rubric. Do we reward the ambition, or do we penalize the friction?
There’s also the "Red Dead Online" factor. IGN’s initial review couldn't account for the fact that Rockstar would essentially abandon the multiplayer mode in favor of "GTA Online." This left a sour taste in the mouths of fans who wanted a "living Western" they could inhabit with friends. The single-player is a 10, but the "product" as a whole became a point of contention.
The Arthur Morgan Effect
Most people who revisit the game today aren't doing it for the shooting mechanics. Let's be honest, the auto-aim does 90% of the work. They're going back for the quiet moments.
They’re going back to go fishing with Dutch and Hosea. They’re going back to see the sunrise over the Grizzlies. The IGN Red Dead Redemption 2 review tapped into that emotional resonance. It’s a game about the death of an era, the closing of the frontier, and the realization that the world doesn't want people like you anymore. That theme is universal. It resonates more than a clunky inventory menu ever could.
Actionable Insights for Your Next Playthrough
If the original reviews convinced you to buy it, but you struggled to get through it, you aren't alone. The game requires a specific mindset. You can't play it like "Grand Theft Auto."
- Ignore the Gold Medals: The mission requirements (headshots, time limits) actually ruin the flow of the story. Don't worry about them. Just play the mission.
- Turn Off the Mini-map: Use the compass or nothing at all. The world is designed with enough landmarks that you can actually navigate by sight. This fixes 50% of the "boredom" because you're looking at the world, not a GPS circle.
- Spend Time in Camp: Don't just rush the yellow icons. Listen to the stories around the campfire. This is where the actual character development happens.
- Walk, Don't Run: It sounds crazy, but walking through Saint Denis or Valentine makes the game feel better. The animations are designed for a slower pace. When you try to play it like a twitch-shooter, it feels broken.
The IGN Red Dead Redemption 2 review might be a lightning rod for criticism of "access journalism" or "over-hyping," but the core of the review holds up. It's a game of immense, lumbering beauty. It’s a flawed masterpiece that cares more about its soul than its convenience. Whether that deserves a 10 is up to you, but its impact on the industry is undeniable.
Take the game on its own terms. Don't fight the controls; lean into the weight. Stop trying to "beat" the game and start trying to live in it. That’s where the 10/10 experience actually lives—not in the shooting or the looting, but in the long, quiet rides across a world that is slowly, inevitably, passing you by.
Practical Next Steps:
To truly understand the legacy of the game beyond the scores, look into the "Noclip" documentaries on game development or the various long-form video essays regarding "Ludonarrative Dissonance" in Rockstar’s design. This will give you a better framework for why critics and players often see two different games when they look at the same screen. If you haven't played since launch, try a "no-HUD" run on PC with a few immersion mods—it changes the entire perspective of the experience.