In the age of outlaws, most western epics tended to end in a tragic, yet heroic demise for the hero of the story. Gunslingers drew their guns in blazes of glory in hopes of surviving one final gunfight. Rockstar Games' open-world western does something different. Instead of our hero meeting his demise by a hail-fire of bullets, he slowly deteriorates internally and externally right before the player's eyes, and unlike the plots of other Rockstar titles, the player can't shoot their way out of it.
You play as Arthur Morgan, a trusted senior gun in the Van der Linde gang, a group of notorious outlaws on the run from lawmen and civilization alike. Like most of Rockstar's previous games, the plot centers around a criminal who is committing crimes and actions for their own benefit, which include robbing banks or even just killing other people. You have the freedom to go anywhere and do anything, and if that entails running over a group of pedestrians, then so be it. Red Dead Redemption 2 is no different. That feeling of limitless imagination runs rapid across the open plains of the dying west, however for the first time in the developer's history, your actions feel as if they have consequences. The game tells you who you play as, but ultimately, you decide what kind of person you want to be.
In previous Rockstar titles, the player was able to go from one end of the map to the other, potentially killing and pillaging every living thing in its path before continuing the linear progression of the main story. In Red Dead Redemption 2, there's a certain weight to your actions as the character of Arthur. Early on, the game portrays the protagonist in a light that makes him seem nothing more than a hired gun with a thirst for wealth. You rob trains, banks, and everything in between, choosing who to spare on your path to a better tomorrow with little to no regard for those it affects, which is representative of the play style of the traditional player who doesn't flinch when hogtying an unsuspecting farmer and placing him squarely in front of a moving train. He isn't remotely redeeming in any way shape or form, which is conveyed through his ruthless nature when it comes to the gang and its finances. But Arthur doesn't know any better. The gang is the only family he's ever had and the lifestyle of it is the only one he's ever known. He was raised to rob, steal, and kill and fundamentally believes he can't do anything better.
As the story unfolds, the gang suffers setback after setback, coupled with more than its fair share of casualties in its pursuit of paradise. Arthur begins to have the realization that in order to survive, the gang must adapt to the new "civilized" world in some capacity or another, but never makes any sort of fundamental change to himself as a person. He knows the van der Linde gang represents the past, and their inability to change with the times is going to lead them straight into the ground. It isn't until the outlaw contracts tuberculosis that we truly begin to see change in the once heartless gunslinger. Arthur reflects on the life of violence he had grown accustomed, posing the question, "was it really worth it?" He begins thinking more deeply about his actions, the likes of which are determined by the player. He reacts to the player's choices, both in the open world and in the narrative itself, leading to the player to think more deeply about who they kill, who they help, and ultimately, what kind of man Arthur will be for the remainder of his time on Earth.
Will he remain cruel and insensitive to the world around him? Or will he potentially find redemption through selfless acts? Both scenarios are plausible and solely based on the actions of the player. The central theme of a life misspent holds true in both iterations of the story. The "positive" ending has Arthur seeking to leave a positive legacy by helping those around him, while the opposite has him remaining in emotional solitary because the player could possibly believe it is too late for him to change. His death is inevitable due to the circumstances of the time period, but deciding what kind of man Arthur will be with the time he has left is what influences the player's relation to the narrative.
Both narrative formulas convey the power of the game and the medium of gaming as a whole. The narrative experience of the player is tailored by their choices as Arthur Morgan, causing them to reflect on their actions in a virtual world, something that no other art form has even come close to accomplishing. Arthur's reaction to player's quest for redemption or violence is shown through dialogue with other characters or even his personal journal. Should the player decide to fundamentally shape the gunslinger into a "good man," Arthur notices that he begins doing things for people rather than solely for money. On the contrary, should he remain the same violent outlaw, he begins to think he is plagued by cruelty that he can't escape. Either way, the player witnesses the slow deterioration of Arthur, both physically and mentally as a result of his sickness, unable to "save" him in any way.
But he can be saved as person. Or he can't. He can be redeemed as an outlaw. Or he can remain a monster. The choice is entirely up to the player. Making the user think about their actions in a fictional world envelopes them in the narrative journey of Arthur Morgan more so than any medium ever has. You feel like you're apart of his journey, not just playing it.