I don't think any of what Jakey covers, which is very much how I felt playing it, has anything to do with choices that would affect the outcome of the story. It was more like I didn't feel like the game would let me think and handle things my way. Every story beat could still play out the same, but the missions should feel like I'm coming up with a way to do them rather than the game failing me for doing something fun that still ought to accomplish it. I'm thinking really hard about whether or not there are any story choices in MGSV, which he uses as an example, and I don't think there are, but that game will let you accomplish your mission by however you see fit in your Lego bucket.
That's not game design. It's the feel of a single mechanic. And honestly, there are so many open world games to play that have driving that feels good.
They missed me. Like I said though, I still enjoy a great crime story, but I might have to accept that it comes attached to a game that doesn't want to let me use my brain.
I don't think they stuck the landing with RDR2, so their reputation in my mind is much different than it is in yours. GTA V, though I enjoyed it much more than RDR2, I would have liked to see them push further. I know GTA VI will go on to be one of the best-selling video games of all time, and I might even be one of those customers, since we don't really have many other options for a good crime story in games anymore, but I'm not sold on it sight unseen like you are. And no, we haven't seen it yet from this trailer; those were cut-scenes. I know for a fact I'm not alone on how I felt about RDR2, though if I were a betting man, I'd wager I'm in the minority; still, that's not a flawless track record to me.
It is not clear from that trailer that they're going after a more living world, and after playing some Starfield, it's good to remember that that's not always desirable anyway.
This video is a great representation of how I felt about Red Dead Redemption II, but the video author went even deeper than I did into the systems, finding issues. Here's a shorter version than that 40 minute video.
The single player story missions don't actually let you use all of the open world systems they crafted to resolve your missions. They have one specific idea for how the mission should be completed, and anything outside of that is a fail state. One specific instance from my own playthrough was that I had to sneak into a factory's second floor. I snuck around in the dark and found a way to climb onto the 1st-level roof so that I could open the window and get into the boss's office that way. Mission failed. What they wanted me to do was go through the first floor and walk up the stairs for some reason instead of the solution I came up with. If they really didn't want me to go in that way, they could have blocked the window with an obstruction or something, but instead they just gave me a hard fail state. The whole game's story mode ended up feeling like a giant tutorial, so on-rails that they don't want you to do anything but one the thing they're trying to teach you; except you run out of stuff to learn in the early parts of Act 2, so it just ends up being really frustrating when you don't read the developers' minds and solve it their way.
As for the story playing out exactly the same way, that's not at odds with what I wanted. At the end of each Act, there's a big job, something goes wrong, and you have to move to a new camp. None of the missions between those events would prevent it from happening. They can still have their big set piece moments and keep those missions exactly the same. But what they could have done, that would fit the narrative they built perfectly, is to let me earn money however the hell I want, which is an idea the video author had as well. Again, the game itself is what set our expectations for this to work. It's a game that allows you to earn bounty money and sell skins if you want to go legit, and it lets you rob trains and banks if you want to be an outlaw; except not really on that last part. Train and bank robberies are basically scripted events only (and they always go wrong instead of ever allowing you the satisfaction of a well-planned heist, like a good open world game in this setting would). And despite the story constantly revolving around getting more money, they don't give you a threshold of money to reach that allows the story to move forward. It only moves forward after you've done all of their missions, and the money doesn't really matter at all. And this is a huge missed opportunity, because it would encourage you to engage with all of those open world systems that their missions don't actually let you use.
If you want to see a perfect example of this money mechanic already implemented in another game, look at Baldur's Gate II. The early hours of the game give you a simple objective, rescue your sister, and there are three obvious ways that the game presents to you as to how to do it, one of which is to raise like 20k gold. How you get that gold is up to you, or you can also just enlist some nebulous factions to get you the info you need for a favor instead. This objective encourages you to do whatever side quests you find interesting, since most of them pay you money. This structure would have been right at home in RDR2.
GTA V's idea of freedom, which is still better than RDR2 but worse than a lot of modern sandbox games, is to give you like 3 options for any given heist, and you do setup missions for them. That's cool, but it would be nice if they expanded on this to give you less explicit options and more systemic ones. Like maybe one option is to break through a gate, and you could do that with explosives, an armored car, or a 737, if you hijacked one earlier.
It's certainly a looker, and the story is super intriguing for this setting.
Now, unfortunately, let me put my cynicism hat on. It's dusty, because I don't wear it often. Red Dead Redemption II was such a bummer in terms of how much freedom it was allergic to trusting the player with, and while GTA V arguably offered more via heist missions, which were very popular with everyone, it was still pretty limited compared to actual sandbox games, and heists were likely the most expensive part of making that game. Short of a proper demo of the loop of the game showing me otherwise, I'm going to assume that it's business as usual, sticking to the same dated design, because they're probably not going to rock the boat when that old formula still reviews and sells so, so well.
EDIT: By the way, only confirmed for consoles in 2025, not PC. This was stupid and outdated back in 2013 and 2018 too. I'm sure as hell not double-dipping on two versions of the game.
If you ask me, I'd say that's exactly why they won't rise further, or much further. They're measuring all of this before and after they take action, and if the price increase sees a trend line go in the wrong direction, it'll be a while before they bump it again. I wasn't angry at Netflix for raising their prices such that you could call it a backlash; it just became too expensive to justify having it around when there isn't anything I know I want to watch on it.
They can't raise the price too much, or people quickly find out that it's cheaper to just buy the games outright. Their sweet spot seems to have stuck right at 1/4th the price of a new AAA game per month. Believe me, I was surprised to find out from all kinds of failed products and services over the past few years that people can actually do math.
I played a fair bit more Backpack Hero, and made some more progress in the story mode. Still a bit too grindy for my tastes, but I'll either finish it or just stick to the classic roguelike mode.
I've been playing more Starfield, and the recurring thought I have every step of the way is, "this should be better". To go into much more detail than that would be to right a dissertation, but the short description is that the game has barely changed compared to Fallout 4 and Skyrim.
I got through another few missions of Wargroove 2. It continues to be a worthy successor to Wargroove.
Combined with Starfield, Pillars of Eternity is helping me resist starting a new run in Baldur's Gate 3. I also have that feeling of, "this should be better" here, but it's pretty much entirely down to production value. Number 1 with a bullet is that I wish it was fully voice acted, including narration. Still though, loving everything else so far despite real time with pause, which has been less of a problem than I thought.
Okay, that helps. Both are on PC, but it's unlikely this 11 year old plays them on PC, as this is primarily a game people play on consoles in either case. Both will also have physical versions. If I were a betting man, I'd bet they want the PS5 version, but that's like a 65% chance. I'm not sure what your situation is, but surely you could ask the kid's parents, right? Also FYI, FIFA is the old name for the series, and starting with this year, it now goes by EA Sports FC.
GameStop gift cards probably won't help you if they want the game for PC. There are also a lot of games that you can only buy digitally. Do you know which game you want to get for them? That could narrow it down. Otherwise, you might have to get even sneakier about finding out what platforms they have access to.