Benjo, please. Fighting in a WWII game does not glorify Nazis or devalue the Holocaust. Playing a Civil War strategy game does not glorify or devalue slavery. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Playing RDR does not glorify any of the atrocities committed by anyone during the era.
Did you know that the Mexican state of Chihuahua put a bounty of $200 on any Indian scalp when 20$ was yearly salary for many? Guess what the result was? So if RDR made a mission set in that situation in Mexico, does it devalue the Indians, does it glorify scalp taking or is it racist for showing what the Mexicans did to the Indians? How many more self-loathing rabbit holes can we go down there?
So anyway, the late timeline of RDR in general really hurts the massive game play possibilities, no one wants to play a reservation Indian whom the federal government has pacified with coffee, sugar, alcohol and Indian Agents that are the 1890's version of Obamacare. What a waste of potential and hell, talk about disrespectful, don't even allow the Indians to be shown in all their glory.
Also this character in the screenshot looks like a black man, not a Sioux or Northern Cheyenne. He doesn't even look like a Comanche which were much darker skinned and shorter than the northern plains tribes.
The scenery is looking amazing in the screenshots, shame we won't see a small band of Northern Cheyenne or Sioux crest a hill in full regalia and feathered lances, with headdresses of eagle feathers and buffalo or antelope horns, mountain lion pelt quivers, painted ponies, tasseled moccasins, quirts, stone warhammers and Henry repeaters.
Imagine a series of missions where you are captured by a plains band, then you have to prove yourself as a warrior and you get to hunt buffalo, raid white settlements of wagon trains or other Indian villages?
Nobody would trade that for a damn Model A clunking down the street.