GameSpot gave Red Dead Redemption 2 an 8/10. The Metacritic average was 97.

Let's run the tape. Red Dead Redemption 2 has a Metacritic score of 97 — one of the highest-rated games in recorded history. GameSpot submitted an 8/10. That is an 80 on a 100-point scale. The gap between GameSpot's score and the critical consensus is 17 Metacritic points — wider than the gap between a 'good game' and a 'generational masterpiece.' Those are not adjacent categories. Those are different shelves in a different store.

The review's central argument is that RDR2's realism makes it feel like 'a second job.' Eating, bathing, loot animations, horse brushing — these are documented as flaws. Every other major outlet reviewed these exact same systems and filed them under 'immersion,' 'world-building,' and 'why this game is incredible.' GameSpot's reviewer looked at a design philosophy praised by 96% of critics and concluded it was a productivity problem. The 8/10 is not a score. It is a preference for fast travel dressed up as criticism.

For internal consistency: GameSpot gave God of War (2018) a 10/10. God of War has a Metacritic score of 94. Red Dead Redemption 2 scores three points higher on Metacritic than God of War. GameSpot's score for RDR2 is two points lower than their score for God of War. This produces an inverse correlation coefficient that would fail a first-year statistics assignment. Within GameSpot's own scoring framework, the game the entire industry called the most accomplished open world ever made ranks below a game that scores lower everywhere else. The math ain't mathing.

RDR2 won Game of the Year from dozens of outlets, sold over 60 million copies, and is still cited as the benchmark for open world design. Kallie Plagge filed an 8 on day one of the review embargo because Arthur Morgan had to eat stew. That stew is now a cultural artifact. The review is a spreadsheet error. Eight out of ten. Closed.