I've been playing Red Dead Redemption 2 again recently and have been thoroughly enjoying it, but this one thing has always bugged be about this game and Rockstar games in general, and that's how restrictive they are with their mission design. You decide to get off your horse too early when riding to an objective, mission failure. You stand outside a building too long while your friends go inside, mission failure. The list goes on, but you get the point. If you go even slightly outside the railings of the amusement park ride Rockstar has setup, instant mission failure.
This whole issue is made even worse by how in contrast the missions are with the open world. The open world is a sandbox where you can handle situations how ever you want. It feels like a living, breathing world where NPCs will react to your actions. It almost feels like there were two entirely separate teams working on the open world and missions, who aren't coordinating. Given how big Rockstar is that could absolutely be the case.
I've also been playing Kingdom Come Deliverance II and that game is in a lot of ways quite similar to RDR2 with it's set protagonist, realism, and open world sandbox. The flexibility of how you can handle quests in that game really highlights the shortcomings of RDR2. I know KCDII is an RPG and focuses more on player dialogue choices, but the existence of the honor system demonstrates how Rockstar is willing to let player actions dictate the story and world, so they could at least let some of that bleed into the missions. Maybe sprinkle a few high and low honor choices into missions, and don't fail the mission if you do something slightly wrong. Have the world react to the player not doing what you want. Have your friends call after you if you're lagging behind or something. I'm pretty sure that already happens in the game at some point.
Thank you for listening to my rant. This is just something I've been meaning to put into words for awhile.
To me, this is different choices in player autonomy/agency. No player is truly autonomous in a game world, but giving the player choices and having the choices have outcomes that actually impact the gameworld makes it feel like it's your own agency making the choice.
For example, why would I eat the fish in Nier Automata? Doing so kills me. Why would they give me the option to have a game-ending early on in the game based on eating a fish? Because in giving you the choice to do so, they've given you a level of autonomy. They let you find out for yourself what the consequences are, and the consequences make sense in the context of the game world.
Rockstar is bad at respecting player agency, but you know what the worst was in my experience?
Hogwarts Legacy. (Note: I pirated this trash to not give Rowling any money)
Right off the bat, at the beginning of the game, you're meant to follow your Professor through a dark seemingly endless empty space. If you leave the side of your Professor, nothing terrible happens, just big red scary words cover the screen saying you've failed because you lost track of the Professor.
In a game that actually respects player agency, you wouldn't just be like "Hey, you're doing THIS MISSION WRONG" (which is basically what the message said in nicer terms), you would give the player an actual event showing why it was dangerous.
What would be so hard about animating a shadowy horror coming out of the shadows and snatching you, instantly killing you? At least then you have learned why you shouldn't venture alone. Because there are scary monsters in the dark and they could kill you! This respects the players agency by allowing them to explore but also giving them clear limits that fit the theme of the world in which they exist. There's definitely scary horrors in Harry Potter, and a myriad of things that could kill a new student. We don't see any of them, just big all caps "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!"
The game would pose further issues, like not being able to jump over obstacles that your character is clearly jumping higher than. Invisible walls is another thing which disrespects player agency and breaks world immersion.
It's been a while since I played it, but the whole game was crammed to the gills with these kind of wag of the finger "we didn't tell you to play that way so don't" instead of using compelling story-based reasons to keep people from doing those things.
I'm reminded of the abyssal words in Elden Ring's expansion. There are signs that tell you "Don't let them see you!" and "You have to hide and run!". You find an area with some tall grass and some creepy eye-monsters. And sure enough, if they see you they come running at you. They'll knock you over, grab you, and explode your head.
Clearly you're supposed to sneak by them.
But...
spoiler
You can also parry their attack, and then just kill them.Or just fucking book it and run past them, but that's way harder.
I also read that on release, Star Wars Outlaws that being seen during a stealth mission was an insta-fail.
Unlike, say, Alien Isolation where you get to see yourself swallowed up by the Xenomorph when you fail.
Apparently they sent an update to Outlaws that changed that, because people hated it obviously.
Insta-fail on spotted should be a difficulty option like in Metal Gear.
BG3 follows tabletop RPG style. You can fight your way through or sneak your way through or talk your way through
Fail to talk well or sneak well means you get to try the fight method
At very least if sneaking fails you ought to be able to run and hide and sneak again with it a little harder 'cause they're looking for you