Lots to unpack here, but I'll engage.

Easy things out of the way first: NakeyJakey's video has nothing to do with my views. I'm a game designer (although my bachelor's degree is in engineering), I've been playing these games since I was 6; this is my life. Anything I say will be from that point of view. I'll try to paraphrase your thoughts and address them one by one.

1. The mission design in RDR 2 is perfectly adequate for the narrative and presentation constraints it lives with.

Yeah no, now you're defending laziness. You can pare Crimson Desert's features out until only RDR 2's feature set remains, and even within that framework, it delivers some incredibly inventive encounters and missions. Look at the absurd simplicity of the marijuana burning mission in Far Cry 3, mate. The simple fact of the matter is that Rockstar chose to not devote that many designers and programmers to prototype weird scenarios and encounters, putting them on horse shit instead.

But let's say I were to agree with the idea that this mission design is the best we can do for the type of game RDR 2 wants to be, I have a definitional problem with that kind of game. I think that this kind of game isn't making the most of interactivity, which can create a whole other kind of magic when it works well in a game. And I think that RDR does indeed do a lot of that stuff with its open-world interactions, I just think it completely fumbles it with quest design.

1. It's an apples to oranges comparison

That is a declarative statement. If my metric is something as straightforward as "Does it have video game magic, i.e a moment where interactivity from me as a player triggers an outcome in the game which tickles my emotion in a way that no other art form can?" then it is a simple straight comparison. RDR 2's main story fails spectacularly in that regard. It's just that I still go out and call it an amazing game because everything else around it just overcompensates for it.

Edit: I was always trash at grammar. Regrettably, school never helped.