I never get why people complain about this. RDR2 mission variety is great and all it's contemporaries have endless copy paste content that varies very little. Why would you ever want that in a Rockstar game

Give me focused linear missions that feel unique over endless samey camps like BOTW, Far Cry, or GoT.

The missions fit in very seamlessly, the open world of RDR2 isn't really that special, the missions/story/presentation make the game. It's just the open world of Rockstar is very free and based around the player interacting with the world. Where as near every other open world game just gives you a checklist to go around to complete. The world is a diorama, but Rockstar makes a boxed in sandbox. That's what makes their open world design special.

If the idea of the freedom of being an outlaw in the old west appeals to you, and you're ok with switching to missions that feel unchanged in game design philosophy since Grand Theft Auto 3 to progress the story, you'll love it.

How come no one ever made this complaint until nakey jake did. It's the same thing I said before, the games you're comparing them to are just the same camps, over and over, with little to no narrative to string you along to each one. This game design hasn't changed since Far Cry 2, it's also vastly less successful both critically and sales wise.

Just an odd complaint. The GTA 3 system is fantastic and allows Rockstar to create a phenomenal story on top of a fantastic open world game. They execute both extremely well and have since GTA 3. Lots of good open world games fail on this front, they either create a great story or a great open world. But rarely ever both. The best open world games use the linear story(or quests) intertwined with a sandboxy open world.

Also RDR2 has no progression system.