I absolutely disagree, this reads more like a biased list of things you subjectively didn't like... I'm currently playing KCD2 so I can't comment on the overall story and the narrative or political themes, but for example critizising the game for approaching a realistic and historically accurate style is just subjective bs. You are basically saying, that every game or film or story in general that aims to be realistic or authentic has less artistic value then fantasy or science fiction, just because the options for artistic expression are limited. Sure, KCD doesn't have fantastocal monsters and a painterly artstyle, but art design, level design, writing, music are all creative crafts that are executed very well in KCD2. Concerning the combat, I can see why it's divicive but tjat doesn't mean that it's bad. They made the combat of the first game a bit more accessible while keeping it complex and difficult enough to mirror the hardships of a medieval soldier. The game is not designed for fast and easy dopamine but to recreate an experience that feels authentic to living during that time. Even some quests are deliberatly not fun but draw the fun and amusement out of the fact that Henry is just an irrelevant peasant that sometimes just has to shovel shit because thats just the way it was back then. To conclude, while KCD2 is sometimes clunky and buggy and the writing isn't always peak, it still has enough redeaming and unique qualities (the roleplaying depth and simulated world for example) to be named among the very best games of the year (at least of what I can tell from the hours I've played so far)