> interactive open world
Depends on how you define it. If it's small scale interactivity (opening drawers, looking at things) then probably not unless CDPR really went ham in that department as well.
If it's larger scale stuff then yes. I've seen a list of paths and decisions you can make in the flathead mission and it's beyond anything I've seen in any other game. The amount of things you can find out to later use to your advantage, the sides you can pick, what you decide to do... it's surprisingly interactive and it has consequences.
Personally between interactivity at a micro level and something more macro I chose the latter. First option is great for immersion (which is why I'm hoping it's there), second option provides something more... tactile.
> attention to details
A lot of people that got to play the game said that the game has a lot of attention to detail.
> animations
What I've seen so far in 2077 looked fine. Some eyebrow raising moments like some of the melee stuff but apart from that animations looked pretty damn good, no complaints.
RDR2 has the advantage of using Euphoria (if it's still called that), a tech Rockstar has been using ever since GTA4 and it creates an amazing sense of weight to the movement and gun impacts. It looks really good. On the other hand that sense of weight can make controlling characters feels slugish as well (a common criticism to GTA4, GTA5 and RDR2).
I think people are setting themselves up for disappointment if they expect 2077 to be some kind of massive game changer.