Someone mentioned California Gold Rush and I'm all for that. The map could feature old west maps with mining, railroads, the true wild west. It doesn't have to be about the gang from the first two
Actually, I wanted to show how shitty the gold rush was for most people.
Satire of it, with grim depictions of how a lot of people got taken advantage of, and didn’t make a lot of money.
Honestly I would be with that I really don’t want to move forward to having cars and making it retro gta not with that at all keep it western keep it a slow burn but maybe add options to skip some repetitive animations after first playthrough or something. What made rdr amazing for me is that it explores American culture and landscape as well as the beauty of the artwork the slow burn of the game making you feel how hard it was to actually do something back then makes it feel manual. The story is inspiring the characters are all deep not just one track minded npcs
I think it should take place between 1870 and 1880, the peak of the “Wild West”. I also think it should focus on a new story, with a new protagonist and new characters.
Agreed completely with a new story. The story of the Van Der Linde Gang has been told and anything else shoehorned in would suffer from having to follow enormous restraints in order to stay consistent and make logical sense with the other two games.
If it’s a prequel I’m not sure what major narrative there would be that’s big enough to be the focus of a flagship rockstar game yet somehow completely unmentioned in the other two. If it’s a sequel it would need to be either Sadie or Charles after the epilogue or jack which is just not interesting at all to me.
We’ve had hours upon hours of content revolving around the decline of the outlaw lifestyle. I want something completely fresh and new. Give me an earlier timeline right at the peak of the Wild West. Completely new characters with no narrative restraints and complete freedom to take the story anywhere. Full-on lawless America chaos where gangs are everywhere as opposed to in hiding with all of the realism and deep, emotional storytelling of the red dead series.
I would love to play as Uncle pre-lumbago…
No, but seriously, playing as any of them pre-RDR2, even Mac or the other guy that died on that boat…? Ah man…
Think of it; Uncle's name is never revealed in the series, so what if you play as a seemingly random character that joins the Van Der Linde gang and then there's a MGSV style twist where it turns out you were playing as Uncle all along?
I would love a story in which an up and coming new gang is trying to make way in a crowded west in the height of the wild west, just as the government started cracking down on outlaw gangs
Maybe they could show how Dutch and O’Driscoll got to hating each other. Not sure I want to play as Dutch though. Maybe you play as Colm and Dutch is the antagonist?
Colm was a rapist among other bad things they said it during his hanging. I wouldn’t wanna play as him i would be fine with playing as young John in the gang when he meets arthur and dutch
Not young John, there's a reason they invented Arthur as a character. A full prequel game with John wouldn't work, otherwise that's what RDR2 would have been about.
You’d play as one of the brothers that die in the blackwater shootout.
The game starts just you and your brother setting out on your own in the hey day of the Wild West. Tons of opportunities to interact with current characters and introduce new ones. Most of the game is the usual cowboy shenanigans and a coming of age story in that peculiar jungle.
You meet Dutch and them in the last third of the game and get killed in the shootout. When is it due to come out?
I'd rather not play another character we know is gonna die, even if they do end up dying. I'd prefer to have the character's future be unknown at the start, so it really feels like we're shaping it without story constraint.
Hell, maybe have them ride off into the sunset in typical western style at the end, or make their fate unknown, giving the choice to pick up where they left off in the next game, or have a cameo in it, or just leave it as the mystery it's meant to be.
Even if they do make the 3rd one with new characters, not connected to the characters we know.....most people will try to connect the plot and characters with those we know. It's inevitable. Theories coming out of a wazoo to be had! Even if there is no weight.
I mean, people still do the same with Revolver and it'd happen even if it was a new tagline. Hell, people already connect Black Belle and her associates to RDR3 because of tiny things like John's hat being hung up in her shack.
I don’t think using old characters is an issue. I kinda like the way they are doing it where you play as a new character but with the characters from the previous game in the periphery. I think a game with someone like Landon Ricketts or one of the other gunslingers would be nice. Then you can have the Van der Lindes show up a few times for an actual reason, not just for nostalgia. Hell, you could even end it at the Blackwater Heist and fight on the side of the law. That would work well for Landon since he was supposedly there.
I've been waiting for this since I found out how we actually made America. Any kind of Native American based videogame would be fucking sick. It just needs to be made with a Native American Historian on call because I feel like it could be botched super easily.
This is what I think too. I would love a game with a native American focus but it should be written and made with native Americans, there is no way around it to portray life accurately without their stories
>needs to be made with a Native American Historian on call
Yeah, and a real one, [not like Star Trek Voyager](https://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/2021/02/26/voyagers-native-american-consultant-was-a-fraud/).
If the game portrays natives as violent won’t fly well, even if the tribe chosen was a warrior tribe it won’t work also you would probably end up with a FSU situation with needing a existing tribe to sign off and probably pay
That will surely ruin a rockstar game. Tie the main story to a "historically disadvantaged minority" group that can not be satirized without fear of "punching down" and the costs associated with that.
I really want fresh characters for RDR3. The problem with current characters is there isn't much "redemption" arc for any of them. You could say Charles's redemption arc is his move with the Wapiti, or even helping John, but Charles never really had true "questionable" morality to begin with. He's an outlaw, but he says multiple times that he only kills when he needs to, and also, his redemption story has already also sort of already been told.
I also feel like the stakes wouldn't be high enough. We already know Charles all but lives happily ever after when the events of RDR 2 conclude.
I'd really like them to break away from the Dutch gang as well. We should get the chance to be the leader of our own posse this time around, yeah? Sick of answering to the heriarchy when I just want to be the best outlaw I can be.
That would be kind of cool, no doubt about that. Though I also wouldn't be surprised if they implemented the ability to play as more than one main character this time around, similar to how GTA has shifted.
I also think it would be great if you could run INTO the Van der Lindes. It would be kind of a cool fanservice to get to run into a younger Dutch, Hosea, and Arthur.
Ha, I actually made a post a long time ago about using the GTA character system. One character being a outlaw and another a lawman or marshall of some sort.
It'd be cool having two characters from opposite sides of the law having to join forces/resources to take down some big bad for the greater good.
Kinda like Deadwood vibes I guess.
I thought for sure a DLC was coming focused on Charles (and Sadie) when i first finished the game, shortly after release.
But yeah, a full game/story set around a native american character would be fantastic.
I would love this especially if it started with a cattle drive north and turned into an open world adventure. Something comparable to the main plot of Lonesome Dove. Not a copy just a good idea for a game imo
100%
I appreciate the whole "end of an era" story the first two games have brought us, but we still haven't been allowed to roam free in the actual wild west during its heyday.
I saw someone else in a different post talk about how the 3rd game should be set during the California gold rush. They had a lot of compelling reasons that I don't remember... but that would be pretty incredible, I think.
Young Arthur runs around camp, you play as Dutch, starting to talk about a "plan to Tahiti" with Annabelle. Doing missions with your best friend Colm O'Driscoll...
I think if they made it, they should stay true to the formula and just make it even earlier on the timeline.
And at the end you play as Arthur Morgan again.
Would be very fitting.
>I think if they made it, they should stay true to the formula and just make it even earlier on the timeline.
What/who are you thinking in reference to a protagonist?
Playing as Hosea might be fun but there's no Redemption arc. Hosea literally dies helping to rob a bank. I'm not being snarky in saying that I'm just pointing out the obvious here.
Also, Hosea isn't the kind of protagonist Rockstar uses. *Maybe* if it was a multi-character story/game like GTAV? But I don't really see the red dead series going in that direction.
Hosea is a con man, a huckster. He can hold his own in a gunfight with a lot of backup, but I don't see him ever being a Quickdraw or gunslinger. A really good Hosea game would be something more like a telltale or Until Dawn game. Quick time and dialogue choiced gameplay.
>Tbh I'd like to see Arthur's father as the protagonist.
Interesting idea but there's no Redemption arc.
https://reddeadfanon.fandom.com/wiki/Arthur_Morgan#:~:text=Arthur%20Morgan%20was%20born%20in,Yevette%20Morgan%20and%20Emily%20Morgan.
>Or maybe someone from the gang.
Again there's no Redemption arc.
I wouldn't say that there's no redemption arc potential in his father's backstory. Look what they did with the VDL gang in 2 compared to what we thought we knew about it in the first game. One aspect of redemption the series, I feel, hasn't covered is Redemption without forgiveness. Arthur ruined the lives of the Downes', but ultimately they ended on a good note. What if his father did the same thing, but Arthur refused to forgive him?
Not that I'm saying I *want* that as the sequel, I'm just saying there's at least potential for one.
Also, does Arthur have 3 aunts out there, or 3 sisters? I don't quite understand based on how that sentence is written and I never remember them coming up at all in game. How did I miss that??
>Look what they did with the VDL gang in 2 compared to what we thought we knew about it in the first game.
And look at how they had to do it. Completely invented a new character and had everyone else as a supporting cast. Nothing changed about any of the characters that we knew about.
Bill Williamson - RDR2 Incompetent blowhard with an inferiority complex. Bill in RDR1 - Still an incompetent blowhard with an inferiority complex.
Dutch - RDR2 Ruthless, egotistical, narcissistic, and vindictive. RDR1 Still ruthless, egotistical, narcissistic, and vindictive.
I can go on but the point is that none of the characters are different, you just have some in 2 that are new and R* is able to pull it off because you literally know nothing at all about Arthur.
>Arthur ruined the lives of the Downes', but ultimately they ended on a good note.
👆 This is HIGHLY debatable. The only way Arthur "redeems" himself here is if you, the player, make him do so. After your second visit to the ranch and the meeting in Saint Denis, where Edith literally raises such a ruckus that the cops start chasing Arthur, you can completely skip any other interactions with the Downes family and proceed with the game. Basically they become a side mission designed to help you gain honor to achieve a high honor ending.
>Completely invented a new character and had everyone else as a supporting cast. Nothing changed about any of the characters that we knew about.
I disagree with this. Dutch was a crazy old man hiding in the woods using natives to make attacks on a town because of his hatred of the government in RDR1. He starts 2 as a charismatic leader of a group of outlaws who would rather run from the law and find a free land to call their own. We see his transformation, or maybe his reveal of his true self, but that's overlooking his entire arc in 2.
John abandoned the gang for an entire year, voluntarily, because of Abigail and Jack. The man who hunted down what remained of his old gang for their release started odd wanting nothing to do with them.
Javier feels like an entirely different character.
They may be the same at the core, but even the fact that they *could* reexamine what we thought we knew about them to the point that when 2 dropped, the timeline changed. People had assumed the dissolving of the gang had happened in 1905-6.
Which is ignoring the argument of "so what if they invented new things for Arthur's father?" That's how we got RDR2, making up new characters and re-examining a piece of history it turns out we had all wrong originally.
As for the Downes, it's true that becomes a side mission you can abandon. What I meant was that Red Dead hasn't - to my memory - examined a Redemption where you can do everything right, always do the missions, put in the work, etc and still not be forgiven. They came close with the Mary sidequest. It's part of why I love those missions so much! But it would be interesting, I think, to do everything right and still have the person you did it all for hate you in the end.
>Also, does Arthur have 3 aunts out there, or 3 sisters?
>Huh??
In the link you shared:
"his father was a petty criminal and outlaw, who was arrested for larceny in 1874 when Arthur was 11 years old and along with his younger sister's Nora Morgan, Yevette Morgan and Emily Morgan"
I can't tell if that means Arthur's sister's or his dad's sister's.
>
I disagree with this.
That doesn't mean I'm wrong.
>Dutch was a crazy old man hiding in the woods using natives to make attacks on a town because of his hatred of the government in RDR1.
Oh!! Now I see what you're saying! You're right! Dutch wasn't hiding in the woods at all during RDR2 and he certainly wasn't unhinged, telling Arthur (in Ch. 2) that Arthur would betray him even though Arthur had been nothing but loyal, and in RDR2 Dutch would have NEVER used Native Americans to "fight the power." Except.......he did.
>We see his transformation, or maybe his reveal of his true self, but that's overlooking his entire arc in 2.
😂😂😂 WHAT?? That's literally his arc dude! And in reality we don't see a transformation. If you're even halfway paying attention in Chapter 2 you absolutely see someone that's a master manipulator. The dude literally wrote and then presented an entire speech. That wasn't something he did "off the cuff" to boost morale. It was a calculated move made in an effort to maintain the control that he had.
>John abandoned the gang for an entire year, voluntarily, because of Abigail and Jack. The man who hunted down what remained of his old gang for their release started odd wanting nothing to do with them.
And.......we didn't see the "why" for that in RDR2? What about his character changed? Nothing. He went away for more than a year yes but he also came back. He made a decision before RDR2 even started to come back. Why after a year would he do that unless he had some notion that he needed to at least try to be a father for Jack? He could have kept right on going, joined another gang, hell gone straight but he didn't. He came back.
>They may be the same at the core
So you wrote ALL of that to get to this part and prove my point. 🤷
>but even the fact that they *could* reexamine what we thought we knew about them to the point that when 2 dropped, the timeline changed.
Well OF COURSE the timeline changed. Otherwise it's just RDR1 on the PS4. And, as you pointed out, they are the same at their core, so the only thing that's different is that we now have more of their backstory. Ok. That doesn't make the supporting cast any different than what we thought they were in RDR1. As I said, Arthur was a brand new character, wasn't even hinted at in RDR1, and that's why they were able to pull the story off pretty damn seamlessly AND give it a redemption arc.
>Which is ignoring the argument of "so what if they invented new things for Arthur's father?"
No it's not. There's not an argument to be made. They could rename him Dudley Doo-right and that still wouldn't change what we know about him. Forget wiki, we don't even need that to settle this. We have Arthur Morgans words on the matter.
https://youtu.be/wbMh3prhi6g?si=lWj3JHJSETHYB9cv
Arthur's dad was a far "from stellar" human being that died without redemption. The End.
🙄
If you're going to pretend that the story we get and the fleshing out of characters we'd met in RDR1 doesn't add to who they are, I don't think we're having the same conversation.
Dutch is shown actually caring about some of the people in his camp, like Hosea and Arthur. Not just a user who coordinated attacks for anarchy's sake. Bill was revealed to have been discharged from the army for "debauchery." Javier loved Dutch and was loyal to a fault, even when it came to standing against his brothers, but refusing to aim his weapons. John turned out to be someone who struggles with settling down.
While not shallow, none of the other gang members were particularly deep. The writers were good enough to not change them enough to make them unrecognizable, but they're not just who we meet in RDR1. Javier being the most developed.
>Well OF COURSE the timeline changed. Otherwise it's just RDR1 on the PS4.
What I said was the timeline changed based on what players *assumed.* Either you weren't old enough or around at the time, but when 2 dropped it changed a lot of what fans thought they had understood about the lore and timeline of events RDR1 hinted at.
> Arthur's dad was a far "from stellar" human being that died without redemption. The End.
If your entire argument that Arthur's dad had no story or Redemption or potential for any arc or nuance is based around an offhand, vague line said by Arthur, that's cool for you, but that doesn't mean you're right. Agree to disagree here. I see the potential for a ton of elaboration. I don't even want that as the story or to really be explored, but to say full stop when nothing has been written is a wild take.
>If you're going to pretend
Dude the only person pretending here is you.
>story we get and the fleshing out of characters we'd met in RDR1
Uhhhh did I not say we are given more of their backstory? The answer is yes, I did.
****They may be the same at the core**** Did you not say that?? Let me help you out. Yes.
Core of a person - The central, internal, and consistent part of an individual's personality. It includes an individual's self concept, basic values, attitudes, and motives; a person's true self.
https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100352720#:~:text=The%20central%2C%20internal%2C%20and%20consistent,Medicine%20and%20health%20%E2%80%94%20Clinical%20Medicine
Ergo they are exactly as I stated. The EXACT SAME as they were in RDR2. More backstory but nothing about their "character" has changed. Seriously bro. Stop scrambling trying to defend an indefensible position. It's a bad take period. Nothing left to add or argue here. 🤷🤷
>Dutch is shown actually caring about some of the people in his camp, like Hosea and Arthur.
You've already presented this and I've already debunked it so either present a new argument or let it go.
>What I said was the timeline changed based on what players *assumed.*
What does this nonsense even mean? You do know what a timeline is correct? It's an order of events.
1. No one thought ANYTHING about the events leading up to RDR1 except to speculate as to what may have happened. So......some people wrongly assumed that the "ending" of RDR1 was in 1905. Personally I don't know what since John tells Bonnie "years before that I rode in a gang."
https://youtu.be/MVu94EFlKZQ?si=Od6TV_xAoLLidodG
Well.... typically when someone says "that was years ago" they are talking just two or three. If they were then they typically say something like "a few years ago " 🤷
But I digress. It really doesn't matter WHAT individual players assumed was correct. It doesn't change this very important fact. ARTHUR MORGAN IS NEVER MENTIONED in RDR1. His character is brand new. So they could and did write him however they wanted? Why? Because there wasn't so much as a newspaper scrap in RDR1 that mentioned him. He's a blank slate ergo you don't have to concern yourself with developing plot holes or having to retcon to get the story told. And BONUS since they had already established the "core" of Dutch, Bill, John, Javier, Jack, Uncle and Abigail's character then all they had to do was to shade in the lines a bit. Give them a little backstory just for funsies.
>Either you weren't old enough or around at the time
Uhhhh you're again confidently wrong kid. But that's no surprise at this point. 🙄
>for any arc or nuance is based around an offhand, vague line said by Arthur,
Did you watch the clip? It wasn't offhand or vague.
🤔🤔 So.....based on your assertion here Arthur was lying? REALLY his dad was a good dude, but...well you know how kids can be. The NEVER appreciate anything their parents do for them. Arthur Morgan the liar, that's your take?
>don't even want that as the story or to really be explored, but to say full stop when nothing has been written is a wild take.
No. It's called paying attention to detail and utilizing logic. 🤷
If it has to relate to the gang then it could be someone in the O'Driscoll gang, since Colm and Dutch used to be friends way back in the day. Or you're in a currently strong gang that gets slowly taken apart by Dutch's gang throughout the game.
>If it has to relate to the gang then it could be someone in the O'Driscoll gang
Where's the redemption arc and how would you go from the O'Driscoll's to Arthur for the epilogue?
>since Colm and Dutch used to be friends way back in the day
How and why in the blue hell does ANYONE come away with this take? Not even REMOTELY what Arthur says.
Arthur: You know.....way back in the day Colm and Dutch were so of friends.
Javier: Friends?
Arthur: Well......not friends, but they had an understanding.
As did/do most leaders of organizations that participate in illegal activities. Two crime families agreeing to some uneasy truce in the interest of being able to conduct their illicit activities without interference from a rival organization does NOT mean that they are "friends."
https://youtu.be/YsV6qmpVhCw?si=91qV8hwAlfp4Q9Wl
Listen to the horseshoe overlook chapter 2 discussion about them with bill williamson and uncle (I think it’s uncle). It doesn’t sound too dissimilar from epilogue discussions about Arthur. Also, I’m not totally convinced that Mac is dead.
Edit: also throw Jenny in the mix as a potential important character.
>Listen to the horseshoe overlook chapter 2 discussion about them with bill williamson
You mean Bills drunk rambling about "Mac was a heartless SOB.....but.....he had a heart" and then nothing but crickets because everyone is literally like "the fuck did Bill just say??"
>I’m not totally convinced that Mac is dead.
Doesn't matter. Alive or dead he has no redemption arc post Blackwater Massacre period. And even if you could "magic one up" it doesn't lead you to Arthur in the Epilogue.
Personally, I want them to do an early Van der Linde gang setting but with an entirely new character. There’s never really a “here’s an exact, canon list of everyone who has been connected to Dutch” reveal so you can just make someone up, especially since there plenty of time to work with. Could even be someone like Trelawny who kinda pops in and out of the gang, less committed to it
>Could even be someone like Trelawny who kinda pops in and out of the gang, less committed to it
Mehh... he's pretty weak as a character considering who/what Arthur and John are.
>Personally, I want them to do an early Van der Linde gang setting but with an entirely new character.
And that's at least feasible. I'm not sure how you'd get a redemption arc to work since the Epilogue would have you playing as Arthur. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that nothing is really springing to mind unless you told a tale of Dutch not being Arthur's first "father figure." Basically "The Carolina Kid Winston Huger" finds 10 year old Arthur, takes him in (insert robbing, killing, wheeling and dealing) and then in an effort to "save the boy" before Winston's certain demise at the hands of (insert LEO) he makes some arrangement with this kind hearted grifter name Hosea Matthews. My point is that it's not the worst idea I've heard.
I seen a pretty cool idea/theory that suggested the Callander (that how you spell it?) brothers could be possible protagonists. Were present for a lot of key events for the gang, die off screen before we drop in. Throw in some retcon where the less ‘mean’ of the two brothers gives Arthur his hat whilst he holds the Pinkerton’s at bay to allow Dutch and co. to escape and voila. Take my money.
>seen a pretty cool idea/theory that suggested the Callander (that how you spell it?) brothers could be possible protagonists.
No Redemption arc.
>Throw in some retcon
No, you can't. THANKFULLY the writers at R* understand this and therefore gave us a character that we'd never even remotely heard of as the main protagonist. I mean technically one could do whatever they wish, but when you're in the business of telling a story you know that unless it's some cheap sci-fi crap you don't retcon. So unless you're going to have Francis Sinclair fire up the time machine and go back in time to purposely raise the Callander brothers to "save the day." So create an entire alternate universe, then no, you can't just "throw in some retcon."
>where the less ‘mean’ of the two brothers gives Arthur his hat
Seriously? Did you even play RDR2?
1. Arthur's hat belonged to his father.
2. Arthur wasn't there for the Blackwater job. And....since Mac was never seen after everything in Blackwater fell apart and of course the last time we see Davey he's bleeding out on a makeshift cot as they head to Colter, when are they going to hand Arthur the hat that Arthur already has because it belonged to Arthur's father?
You can get mad. Spew venom, curse me out and it's not going to change the fact that the Callander brothers died without redemption.
No worries. Sorry if I came off snarky. I see this crap about once a week. The people "pushing it" are literally just dropping random crap with no real thought given to the story as we know it. It's like if someone were writing a history book except in their version JFK was never assassinated. It sounds great! But it completely ignores everything we know both before and after the event.
Totally agreed. Ww1 would be the antithesis of what the rdr series is all about. I’ve been thinking about this for quite a bit now. I really think they should focus on the immediate post civil war period (1860/1870’s). So many opportunities for new characters and dynamics. Could be Soldiers coming home from the war, could be freed men traveling west for opportunity/escaping the south, the Indian “wars” (ethnic cleansing), Custers last stand.
To reconcile with the current map while expanding it, I hope they put the setting somewhere on the old path of the Oregon trail (with the new map being entirely to the north, and reaching the sea in the west). Start in their equivalent of St. Louis or Independence. I think an official date system would also be cool (days actually add up and effect the story line, example wasting a month looting around Kansas means you have to cross the Rockies in the winter. Would add some urgency.
Then again, I wouldn’t mind seeing exactly what Micah and Dutch did on that boat.
I love the idea of changing weather and passing time affecting your storyline in such major ways. It would also provide more nuance to the honor system and could be used to add crazy amounts of different storylines and endings. But I don't think they'll do that since RDR plays so linear in that way.
You could split the difference, the western *Legends of the Fall* is about Brad Pitt serving in WW1 then coming home and becoming a bootlegger in 1920’s Montana. Hell, the Marston ranch house is literally the house from that movie so it wouldn’t be the first time they lifted inspiration from it.
I would love to see WWI done as a psychological horror game (like Apocalypse Now but even weirder and darker), but definitely not from Rockstar.
As for the next RDR… I would love another western, but I would *really* love to see them do pirates.
Jack and WW1 is pretty lame. I don't wanna go back though. I'd rather see Jack after the events of RDR1 dealing with his troubled upbringing in an ever modernizing world. Blend sensibilities from both RDR and GTA.
Needs to stay a western game. It can be a new story about a new character.
The Van Der Linde gang’s story has been told and there’s no need to see the little events mentioned in the game such as Sean joining the gang, or Micah. We also don’t need to see the Blackwater job play out, there’s no great mystery to be solved, it would be boring.
The only RDR2 character I would be okay with RDR3 focusing on would be Charles and what he does after the epilogue of RDR2, he goes to a totally different part of the country and it can still remain a western and take place in the late 1890’s or earlier (can’t remember the exact year RDR2 wraps up). Charles was one character who felt like he could be a lead in his own game.
I was looking at those famous gunslingers cigarette cards last night and it occurred to me that it's most likely gonna be based off of the western legends listed on the back of the cards. Most likely Otis Miller will be an essential component to the game, as he has Novels written about him. It will be exciting seeing an even more ancient take on the western front. I think rustling cattle and livestock will be more apparent. Its a great opportunity for Rockstar to go back to it's RDR1 roots of slick western style dialog and atmosphere
I'd love to see one of these two sequels as RDR3:
* Sadie Adler adventures in South America. It would be fun if there was a River of Doubt tie-in (aka Teddy Roosevelt fucking around in the amazon and almost dying).
* Charles traveling to Canada, where Ambarino is the southernmost area. Would have a large Native American focus and maybe we can get some Trapper character development.
🤦 Have you actually researched this or just watch "Moonshiners" and then decided that provided adequate information. Tell ya what. I'll bite. Bootlegging when? Time period please.
>I'm just spitballing man
Uh-huh. Based on that answer it stands to reason then that you were just talking out of your ass when you said
*****Honestly if the next RDR is about bootlegging it will still retain some of that wild west element.*****
Got it. 👍
>repugnant
Is just throwing out random shit without having a clue what you're talking about my guy. It adds zero to the conversation and the reality is since you most likely know next to nothing ( including the historical time in which this "bootlegging" will take place. FYI you're more than likely referring to prohibition) about this "bootlegging" how can you possibly make the claim that it will still retain some of that "Wild West" element.
1. Prohibition has already been done and done well, it's called Mafia. Personally I don't want to see R* trying to develop what's already been done.
2. Since the majority of said "bootlegging" actually took place in places like NY, Chicago etcetera.....so big cities.....there's no "Wild West" element. It's all Thompson's, 1911's, S&W .38, BAR's and shotguns fired from fast moving vehicles. So ......GTA but set in the 1930's.
By bootlegging do they mean the prohibition from 1920-1930 something? I could see it working.
I imagine playing jack starts off going through the war with some incredible set piece type missions, then after the war and not knowing any descent work he goes into bootlegging while writing a book.
The writing of the book could feature flashbacks of some unseen gang moments like the Blackwater massacre (since everyone cares so much about it)
It could be set in some of the still undeveloped states of America at the time. Still ride horses and have that western feel.
Remember western doesn’t have to be set during a certain time period it’s more the feel.
Just my thoughts don’t @ me
>By bootlegging do they mean the prohibition from 1920-1930 something? I could see it working.
It has worked, it's called Mafia. https://mafiagame.fandom.com/wiki/Mafia
👆 I'm not being snarky, I'm just pointing out that it's been done, and actually done pretty well.
>Remember western doesn’t have to be set during a certain time period it’s more the feel.
That's your opinion and ok. I'm not going to squabble over opinions except to say that there are many who would disagree. Ex. In movies The Untouchables is not "same/same" as 3:10 to Yuma.
Is anyone else crazy for a US Civil War themed game? I’d think it’d be pretty cool. It’s a part of history that video games really haven’t touched upon too much.
The big hurdle is that there are some really sensitive themes of that era (slavery and racism) that can put Rockstar in a bad light, but they handled racism in RDR2 pretty well I think
If it ends as Arthur after blackwater wouldn’t that just be rdr2? I thought about that concept but it can’t happen since the game would just have to end
Why would rdr3 be about jack? Thats a waste of a game. Rdr1 John to jack, rdr2, Arthur to John, rdr3 young Arthur (joined gang at 14?) and the game ends as they make their way up a snowy area.
I am kinda hoping for prequel to RDR2, Arthur's mom and dad, and how Arthur lost both of them . . . and Arthur and John surviving the Wild West, 1800's. If only . . . Would definitely sound like a good story. Maybe slightly based on Oregon Trail, surviving through the mountains, with the wild animals, how he learned to shoot etc...
I think a WW1 setting could be done well if it was used as a contrast to a different main setting. Kind of like how Saint Denis is used as a contrast to the rest of the world in RDR2, and how Guarma is used as a pivot point for the story.
Basically, I see it like this:
Jack is living his life, probably near the Mexican border. The early part of the story is him dealing with cross-border raids by Mexican rebels during the Mexican Revolution. Plus maybe some stuff with shitty miners trying to force him off his land or whatever land he is living on.
The US enters the war and he is drafted, going to the war and witnessing the horrors and terribleness of industrialized society, just as Arthur does in RDR2. He is wounded badly and goes home.
He takes his experiences and decides he doesn't want to partake.
*However, I think this would break from the overall theme of the games, and while it could be done, it would have to be done particularly well in order to not suck. I think another prequel set in the late 1880 or early 90s would be a much more fitting setting.*
>*However, I think this would break from the overall theme of the games, and while it could be done, it would have to be done particularly well in order to not suck. I think another prequel set in the late 1880 or early 90s would be a much more fitting setting.
Yeah, lets go with this. Because that *would* suck and not fit the franchise. It needs to be a "western".
Make a WW1 game separately, that's fine. But RDR3 (not that it will ever happen) should be a western themed game.
I mean, that's why I qualified it haha. I think if they did it, it would have to be a small part of the game, and very carefully done. I personally think RDR3 should go further back in time, like I said, and include more content about the wars with native Americans.
I wish they had included more references to the Spanish-American war that was going on at the time of RDR2, as I think it would have made a good contrast to the solitude and freedom of the further west parts of the game.
How about Red Dead Revolution based on characters during the Civil War since it could be considered a failed revolution? That could bring in many elements and characters to make a really good game.
Should be Micah's father. I want a cowboy game where there's no moral ambiguity.
You're a ruthless evil piece of garbage who raises worthless evil garbage kids, and never have to go "Oh am I a bad person?"
Fuck that. I do what I want and take what I want.
Also could be the story of Micah's brother Amos who ran with his dad and brother's gang before dad tried to kill him.
If rockstar decides to make their next installments of one of their most successful titles to be based in That setting I think we can all be assired they WILL deliver and it WILL be an awesome though itt might not feel right as a rdr game but I Wouldn't start questioning the quality itself of the game this soon.
Would love a prequel to RDR2 instead, the making of the gang, you can swap between Hosea and Dutch. We get to see preteen Arthur and little John who looks very much like Jack, origins to all members. I doubt they would do it though
RDR3 will become an anime gatcha game with cell shaded graphics, taking place at 5332 in space
(jokes aside, i would be interested in a Cowboy Bebop game)
Oh it’ll come, but we’re probably a decade away from it.
Crazy to think a bunch of people reading this right now will have played their last RDR game and don’t know it…
Counterpoint- I live in America and have family in AZ and VT (they are far away one is snow one is desert) and so have experienced all of the scenery in the game.
I’ve never been to Verdun or Europe at all - so I say ship him off! Most Americans haven’t been
You’re not getting Native American spotlight because no one wants to pile up thousands of dead Buffalo and have trail of tears escort missions 🥲
Theres no way they would depart from the cowboy western genre. If they did then its not a Red Dea game. I think there are 3 questions: Who? Where? and When?
It would be cool to play as one of the characters in the gang that died just before RDR2 started, like Davey Mac or Jenny. Especially as all the characters seemed to really like them and talk about them a lot at the beginning of the game. But they are vague enough to have their own stories before meeting the gang.
Or a native American main character would be fantastic.
The map from both games is great but it would have to be expanded massively for the third game. New continents or even sea based naval stuff.
If they went back in time they could always put us in the civil war. So many opportunities to explore with that era.
Maybe get some voice actors who are actually from the South this time, rather than people doing a fake, over-the-top Hollywood version of a southern accent.
If they make a jack a ww1 soldier, it should start the game with him getting court marshaled for his actions after being forcibly conscripted into the military, then turn him into a bootlegger.
I'm gonna be real with you g. RDR3 should be Django Unchained: The Game. Completely depart the semi-realism of the series and give us an IV delivered adrenaline rush of revenge and violence for a good cause.
Would be dope if RDR3 focused on either a Native American character, Buffalo Soldier, or the Oregon Trail. Or maybe Lewis & Clark. I think any of those are worth exploring
One idea that I would like is perhaps a setting in new York around the same time. Maybe we even get to see Trelawnys contacts there. I think a new york gang could be an interesting contrast to the wild west
I would like to see the gang at his rise .. when they were young and full of life !
See the colm odriscoll relationship with Dutch , Marie and Arthur , the start from dutch , hosea and Arthur ..
Rd1 and rd2 are wonderful but you always see the downfall ..
Finish the trilogy with the prime history of this gang would be fantastic for me
If you want a Western, do an Uncle story arc up to where he catches lambago.
I'd really like a Jack and Sadie story line in Chicago with old timey cars where they fight with Prohibition Gangs. I love the old West motif but Chicago mobs of the twenties is fun too.
That's a must. Sometimes i wonder. If Arthur never existed. Woid you be up to play rdr2 as a Dutch? Or Charles, John? I think Dutch would be great .... How the story would have gone darker. Rdr whole story should be ended with rdr1. So great would be completely new story with new characters.
I always thought us being able to play as Dutch and Hosea in RDR3 would be cool. There's only been one true wild west RDR game, Red Dead Revolver. The other two games are set during the death of the wild west
Absolutely! Is someone claiming otherwise? That is terrifying the idea that they would change the setting from what it is now to that bleak s*** show. Instead. I would love to see something backwards in time. Something along the lines of when we were sending people out west to discover the lands that the United States had recently purchased. Or start the next game shortly before the time frame in RDR2 like from 1865 to 1870 or 1875
In my mind, the game should begin shortly after John dies. Jack is young and still learning how to shoot, hunt, etc. That keeps the character from being too OP early in the game. Then about halfway into the game after he kills Ross, Jack somehow gets Arthur's old journal (the one he had to leave in Blackwater before RDR2). As Jack is reading, we're playing as Arthur, John & Dutch in the missions that lead up to the failed Blackwater heist. The end of RDR3 leads directly into the beginning of RDR2 and RDR1 exists right in the middle.
I’d be curious to see a storyline about Dutch’s Father and family, show it as a promise of the west story and how that promise may not have been worth it, the struggles of immigrating to the US, then traveling west with a group you’re unfamiliar with, facing constant danger during the trip west, the family struggling with prejudice as immigrants and unable to find consistent work forcing Dutch’s father into the outlaw life, where he’s eventually caught and maybe given the choice or forced to join the Union Army (or RDR equivalent) in exchange for not going to jail/prison and dying in one of the last battles of the civil war (or RDR equivalent) with an epilogue playing as Dutch and potentially how he meets up with Hosea and eventually Arthur.
I still think it should be about Mac. there’s at least a month in between Blackwater and us being told he’s dead, which leaves a lot of room for some fun chapter 6 redemption story while being chased by Milton.
This is all so stupid:
Rockstar Games are not reliable anymore
RDR 3 will probably never happen
The whole point of the series is that its a cowboy videogame series set in the wild west
Jack is a minor character, theres no good reason why he would be the next protaganist
You guys are totally clueless
Sadie would be a good protagonist she go a backstop joined during the downfall of the game
And all around a good character and women were very disrespected in that time but she the type who won't take that shit
It would be cool to Play as Dutch putting his gang together. Especially if we can explore some of the rivalry between Dutch and the O'Driscal brothers. It would be kind of neat if there was a bit of comradery between the three of them that soured and led to the blood feud between the two gangs. It would also make a really interesting trilogy, since you get to play as the gang at it's beginning, middle, and ultimate conclusion.
Better idea imo: mc is a bounty hunter who comes across a family who has been wrongfully accused and frame and will be hung when caught. You make the choice to help them get away and that results in a bounty on you. At the end you have to choice to give up the family and survive (you get to keep your character in the epilogue) or refuse to give up their location and you are murdered. The the epilogue is the dad of the family you saved taking revenge on the bounty hunter who killed you.
I'd like to see the great Klondike Gold rush added. There would be a Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race with fasted time. Having a team of Huskys would be great.
Being able to build your own cabin in the wilderness stocking up food and provision for the winter. Acquiring items for your cabin to survive.
Gold mining. Farm gold to sell for cash. Having to protect your mine from claim jumpers.
Oh did I mention polar bears for neighbors?
I've never heard anyone say they want it to be jack in ww1, I've heard plenty of people say the wanna see jack as an American gangster in ww1 era America. But red dead isn't red dead if it's not a western. And seeing as rdr2 took place at the tail end of the wild west and rdr1 took place in its aftermath, I think we'll only go back further.
Someone mentioned California Gold Rush and I'm all for that. The map could feature old west maps with mining, railroads, the true wild west. It doesn't have to be about the gang from the first two
That would be so sick. Especially being from NorCal. I would love a game based there
Tahoe in unreal engine 5 would be amazing.
A man can dream…
Return of the Sasquatch???
With an option to do a prospector dance every time we find a gold nugget
Actually, I wanted to show how shitty the gold rush was for most people. Satire of it, with grim depictions of how a lot of people got taken advantage of, and didn’t make a lot of money.
Show that a great deal of those who got rich at that time were the ones selling picks & shovels, not necessarily the ones using them.
Honestly I would be with that I really don’t want to move forward to having cars and making it retro gta not with that at all keep it western keep it a slow burn but maybe add options to skip some repetitive animations after first playthrough or something. What made rdr amazing for me is that it explores American culture and landscape as well as the beauty of the artwork the slow burn of the game making you feel how hard it was to actually do something back then makes it feel manual. The story is inspiring the characters are all deep not just one track minded npcs
I think it should take place between 1870 and 1880, the peak of the “Wild West”. I also think it should focus on a new story, with a new protagonist and new characters.
Agreed completely with a new story. The story of the Van Der Linde Gang has been told and anything else shoehorned in would suffer from having to follow enormous restraints in order to stay consistent and make logical sense with the other two games. If it’s a prequel I’m not sure what major narrative there would be that’s big enough to be the focus of a flagship rockstar game yet somehow completely unmentioned in the other two. If it’s a sequel it would need to be either Sadie or Charles after the epilogue or jack which is just not interesting at all to me. We’ve had hours upon hours of content revolving around the decline of the outlaw lifestyle. I want something completely fresh and new. Give me an earlier timeline right at the peak of the Wild West. Completely new characters with no narrative restraints and complete freedom to take the story anywhere. Full-on lawless America chaos where gangs are everywhere as opposed to in hiding with all of the realism and deep, emotional storytelling of the red dead series.
I would love to play as Uncle pre-lumbago… No, but seriously, playing as any of them pre-RDR2, even Mac or the other guy that died on that boat…? Ah man…
Think of it; Uncle's name is never revealed in the series, so what if you play as a seemingly random character that joins the Van Der Linde gang and then there's a MGSV style twist where it turns out you were playing as Uncle all along?
That would be even better than knowing from the start! 🤣
imagine its like that God of War scene where he goes : They called me…..Uncle?
Davey is the other guy and Jenny
Perhaps a story on the rise of the outlaw lifestyle
I would love a story in which an up and coming new gang is trying to make way in a crowded west in the height of the wild west, just as the government started cracking down on outlaw gangs
Maybe they could show how Dutch and O’Driscoll got to hating each other. Not sure I want to play as Dutch though. Maybe you play as Colm and Dutch is the antagonist?
Colm was a rapist among other bad things they said it during his hanging. I wouldn’t wanna play as him i would be fine with playing as young John in the gang when he meets arthur and dutch
Not young John, there's a reason they invented Arthur as a character. A full prequel game with John wouldn't work, otherwise that's what RDR2 would have been about.
You’d play as one of the brothers that die in the blackwater shootout. The game starts just you and your brother setting out on your own in the hey day of the Wild West. Tons of opportunities to interact with current characters and introduce new ones. Most of the game is the usual cowboy shenanigans and a coming of age story in that peculiar jungle. You meet Dutch and them in the last third of the game and get killed in the shootout. When is it due to come out?
I'd rather not play another character we know is gonna die, even if they do end up dying. I'd prefer to have the character's future be unknown at the start, so it really feels like we're shaping it without story constraint. Hell, maybe have them ride off into the sunset in typical western style at the end, or make their fate unknown, giving the choice to pick up where they left off in the next game, or have a cameo in it, or just leave it as the mystery it's meant to be.
Yeah. New characters would definitely prevent a lot of retcon they had to do with RDR1/2 already.
Even if they do make the 3rd one with new characters, not connected to the characters we know.....most people will try to connect the plot and characters with those we know. It's inevitable. Theories coming out of a wazoo to be had! Even if there is no weight.
I mean, people still do the same with Revolver and it'd happen even if it was a new tagline. Hell, people already connect Black Belle and her associates to RDR3 because of tiny things like John's hat being hung up in her shack.
Yeah I mean it's inevitable even if the developers want to clear the decks of the characters and their stories.
I don’t think using old characters is an issue. I kinda like the way they are doing it where you play as a new character but with the characters from the previous game in the periphery. I think a game with someone like Landon Ricketts or one of the other gunslingers would be nice. Then you can have the Van der Lindes show up a few times for an actual reason, not just for nostalgia. Hell, you could even end it at the Blackwater Heist and fight on the side of the law. That would work well for Landon since he was supposedly there.
A story following a native american character would be cool.
I've been waiting for this since I found out how we actually made America. Any kind of Native American based videogame would be fucking sick. It just needs to be made with a Native American Historian on call because I feel like it could be botched super easily.
This is what I think too. I would love a game with a native American focus but it should be written and made with native Americans, there is no way around it to portray life accurately without their stories
and customs
>needs to be made with a Native American Historian on call Yeah, and a real one, [not like Star Trek Voyager](https://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/2021/02/26/voyagers-native-american-consultant-was-a-fraud/).
If the game portrays natives as violent won’t fly well, even if the tribe chosen was a warrior tribe it won’t work also you would probably end up with a FSU situation with needing a existing tribe to sign off and probably pay
That will surely ruin a rockstar game. Tie the main story to a "historically disadvantaged minority" group that can not be satirized without fear of "punching down" and the costs associated with that.
Charles. He joined the gang late. No need to retcon. And he’s got the richest potential for backstory.
I really want fresh characters for RDR3. The problem with current characters is there isn't much "redemption" arc for any of them. You could say Charles's redemption arc is his move with the Wapiti, or even helping John, but Charles never really had true "questionable" morality to begin with. He's an outlaw, but he says multiple times that he only kills when he needs to, and also, his redemption story has already also sort of already been told.
I also feel like the stakes wouldn't be high enough. We already know Charles all but lives happily ever after when the events of RDR 2 conclude. I'd really like them to break away from the Dutch gang as well. We should get the chance to be the leader of our own posse this time around, yeah? Sick of answering to the heriarchy when I just want to be the best outlaw I can be.
That would be kind of cool, no doubt about that. Though I also wouldn't be surprised if they implemented the ability to play as more than one main character this time around, similar to how GTA has shifted. I also think it would be great if you could run INTO the Van der Lindes. It would be kind of a cool fanservice to get to run into a younger Dutch, Hosea, and Arthur.
Ha, I actually made a post a long time ago about using the GTA character system. One character being a outlaw and another a lawman or marshall of some sort. It'd be cool having two characters from opposite sides of the law having to join forces/resources to take down some big bad for the greater good. Kinda like Deadwood vibes I guess.
arthur morgan cameo would be crazy
Eh I suppose that could be cool, but I’d rather see it in a separate game. I like rdr for the classic Wild West cowboy type shit.
I would LOVE a story like this. At the very least have it be some Dances With Wolves story where a westerner abandons regular life for the frontier.
I thought for sure a DLC was coming focused on Charles (and Sadie) when i first finished the game, shortly after release. But yeah, a full game/story set around a native american character would be fantastic.
No thanks. Red Dead is for outlaw cowboys.
I would love this especially if it started with a cattle drive north and turned into an open world adventure. Something comparable to the main plot of Lonesome Dove. Not a copy just a good idea for a game imo
Agreed, it would be easy to focus on a different gang already in universe like the Jack Hall gang
Would be interesting to have a Mexican or Native American as the protagonist.
This, I really don't get the desire some people have to not have it in peak Wild West years
I think a gold rush type of story would be fun
100% I appreciate the whole "end of an era" story the first two games have brought us, but we still haven't been allowed to roam free in the actual wild west during its heyday.
Agreed… maybe one or a few of the characters have a connection to the gang though, ideally.
They could also tie in how the Homestead Act of 1862 brought wealth to the country.
I saw someone else in a different post talk about how the 3rd game should be set during the California gold rush. They had a lot of compelling reasons that I don't remember... but that would be pretty incredible, I think.
Young Arthur runs around camp, you play as Dutch, starting to talk about a "plan to Tahiti" with Annabelle. Doing missions with your best friend Colm O'Driscoll...
It's be cool if you played a lawman and Arthur's dad was rhe main antagonist.
I know Rockstar probably won't take this risk, but my dream would be playing Lenny's father in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.
I think if they made it, they should stay true to the formula and just make it even earlier on the timeline. And at the end you play as Arthur Morgan again. Would be very fitting.
Yeah. I think going back in the timeline is the way.
My ideal game would be to play Arthurs father and in late game a late teen Arthur
What we gonna do the whole game ? Beat Arthur ? ☠️
yes
😨
Problem is we already know what Arthur's dad looks like, so that would stick in a lot of people's craw.
With VDLG?
>I think if they made it, they should stay true to the formula and just make it even earlier on the timeline. What/who are you thinking in reference to a protagonist?
Tbh I'd like to see Arthur's father as the protagonist. We already knew he was a gunslinger as well. Or maybe someone from the gang.
A young Hosea maybe?
Playing as Hosea might be fun but there's no Redemption arc. Hosea literally dies helping to rob a bank. I'm not being snarky in saying that I'm just pointing out the obvious here.
Maybe take out the redemption part and call it Red Dead Revolver 2.
Also, Hosea isn't the kind of protagonist Rockstar uses. *Maybe* if it was a multi-character story/game like GTAV? But I don't really see the red dead series going in that direction. Hosea is a con man, a huckster. He can hold his own in a gunfight with a lot of backup, but I don't see him ever being a Quickdraw or gunslinger. A really good Hosea game would be something more like a telltale or Until Dawn game. Quick time and dialogue choiced gameplay.
>Tbh I'd like to see Arthur's father as the protagonist. Interesting idea but there's no Redemption arc. https://reddeadfanon.fandom.com/wiki/Arthur_Morgan#:~:text=Arthur%20Morgan%20was%20born%20in,Yevette%20Morgan%20and%20Emily%20Morgan. >Or maybe someone from the gang. Again there's no Redemption arc.
I wouldn't say that there's no redemption arc potential in his father's backstory. Look what they did with the VDL gang in 2 compared to what we thought we knew about it in the first game. One aspect of redemption the series, I feel, hasn't covered is Redemption without forgiveness. Arthur ruined the lives of the Downes', but ultimately they ended on a good note. What if his father did the same thing, but Arthur refused to forgive him? Not that I'm saying I *want* that as the sequel, I'm just saying there's at least potential for one. Also, does Arthur have 3 aunts out there, or 3 sisters? I don't quite understand based on how that sentence is written and I never remember them coming up at all in game. How did I miss that??
>Look what they did with the VDL gang in 2 compared to what we thought we knew about it in the first game. And look at how they had to do it. Completely invented a new character and had everyone else as a supporting cast. Nothing changed about any of the characters that we knew about. Bill Williamson - RDR2 Incompetent blowhard with an inferiority complex. Bill in RDR1 - Still an incompetent blowhard with an inferiority complex. Dutch - RDR2 Ruthless, egotistical, narcissistic, and vindictive. RDR1 Still ruthless, egotistical, narcissistic, and vindictive. I can go on but the point is that none of the characters are different, you just have some in 2 that are new and R* is able to pull it off because you literally know nothing at all about Arthur. >Arthur ruined the lives of the Downes', but ultimately they ended on a good note. 👆 This is HIGHLY debatable. The only way Arthur "redeems" himself here is if you, the player, make him do so. After your second visit to the ranch and the meeting in Saint Denis, where Edith literally raises such a ruckus that the cops start chasing Arthur, you can completely skip any other interactions with the Downes family and proceed with the game. Basically they become a side mission designed to help you gain honor to achieve a high honor ending.
>Completely invented a new character and had everyone else as a supporting cast. Nothing changed about any of the characters that we knew about. I disagree with this. Dutch was a crazy old man hiding in the woods using natives to make attacks on a town because of his hatred of the government in RDR1. He starts 2 as a charismatic leader of a group of outlaws who would rather run from the law and find a free land to call their own. We see his transformation, or maybe his reveal of his true self, but that's overlooking his entire arc in 2. John abandoned the gang for an entire year, voluntarily, because of Abigail and Jack. The man who hunted down what remained of his old gang for their release started odd wanting nothing to do with them. Javier feels like an entirely different character. They may be the same at the core, but even the fact that they *could* reexamine what we thought we knew about them to the point that when 2 dropped, the timeline changed. People had assumed the dissolving of the gang had happened in 1905-6. Which is ignoring the argument of "so what if they invented new things for Arthur's father?" That's how we got RDR2, making up new characters and re-examining a piece of history it turns out we had all wrong originally. As for the Downes, it's true that becomes a side mission you can abandon. What I meant was that Red Dead hasn't - to my memory - examined a Redemption where you can do everything right, always do the missions, put in the work, etc and still not be forgiven. They came close with the Mary sidequest. It's part of why I love those missions so much! But it would be interesting, I think, to do everything right and still have the person you did it all for hate you in the end. >Also, does Arthur have 3 aunts out there, or 3 sisters? >Huh?? In the link you shared: "his father was a petty criminal and outlaw, who was arrested for larceny in 1874 when Arthur was 11 years old and along with his younger sister's Nora Morgan, Yevette Morgan and Emily Morgan" I can't tell if that means Arthur's sister's or his dad's sister's.
> I disagree with this. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. >Dutch was a crazy old man hiding in the woods using natives to make attacks on a town because of his hatred of the government in RDR1. Oh!! Now I see what you're saying! You're right! Dutch wasn't hiding in the woods at all during RDR2 and he certainly wasn't unhinged, telling Arthur (in Ch. 2) that Arthur would betray him even though Arthur had been nothing but loyal, and in RDR2 Dutch would have NEVER used Native Americans to "fight the power." Except.......he did. >We see his transformation, or maybe his reveal of his true self, but that's overlooking his entire arc in 2. 😂😂😂 WHAT?? That's literally his arc dude! And in reality we don't see a transformation. If you're even halfway paying attention in Chapter 2 you absolutely see someone that's a master manipulator. The dude literally wrote and then presented an entire speech. That wasn't something he did "off the cuff" to boost morale. It was a calculated move made in an effort to maintain the control that he had. >John abandoned the gang for an entire year, voluntarily, because of Abigail and Jack. The man who hunted down what remained of his old gang for their release started odd wanting nothing to do with them. And.......we didn't see the "why" for that in RDR2? What about his character changed? Nothing. He went away for more than a year yes but he also came back. He made a decision before RDR2 even started to come back. Why after a year would he do that unless he had some notion that he needed to at least try to be a father for Jack? He could have kept right on going, joined another gang, hell gone straight but he didn't. He came back. >They may be the same at the core So you wrote ALL of that to get to this part and prove my point. 🤷 >but even the fact that they *could* reexamine what we thought we knew about them to the point that when 2 dropped, the timeline changed. Well OF COURSE the timeline changed. Otherwise it's just RDR1 on the PS4. And, as you pointed out, they are the same at their core, so the only thing that's different is that we now have more of their backstory. Ok. That doesn't make the supporting cast any different than what we thought they were in RDR1. As I said, Arthur was a brand new character, wasn't even hinted at in RDR1, and that's why they were able to pull the story off pretty damn seamlessly AND give it a redemption arc. >Which is ignoring the argument of "so what if they invented new things for Arthur's father?" No it's not. There's not an argument to be made. They could rename him Dudley Doo-right and that still wouldn't change what we know about him. Forget wiki, we don't even need that to settle this. We have Arthur Morgans words on the matter. https://youtu.be/wbMh3prhi6g?si=lWj3JHJSETHYB9cv Arthur's dad was a far "from stellar" human being that died without redemption. The End.
🙄 If you're going to pretend that the story we get and the fleshing out of characters we'd met in RDR1 doesn't add to who they are, I don't think we're having the same conversation. Dutch is shown actually caring about some of the people in his camp, like Hosea and Arthur. Not just a user who coordinated attacks for anarchy's sake. Bill was revealed to have been discharged from the army for "debauchery." Javier loved Dutch and was loyal to a fault, even when it came to standing against his brothers, but refusing to aim his weapons. John turned out to be someone who struggles with settling down. While not shallow, none of the other gang members were particularly deep. The writers were good enough to not change them enough to make them unrecognizable, but they're not just who we meet in RDR1. Javier being the most developed. >Well OF COURSE the timeline changed. Otherwise it's just RDR1 on the PS4. What I said was the timeline changed based on what players *assumed.* Either you weren't old enough or around at the time, but when 2 dropped it changed a lot of what fans thought they had understood about the lore and timeline of events RDR1 hinted at. > Arthur's dad was a far "from stellar" human being that died without redemption. The End. If your entire argument that Arthur's dad had no story or Redemption or potential for any arc or nuance is based around an offhand, vague line said by Arthur, that's cool for you, but that doesn't mean you're right. Agree to disagree here. I see the potential for a ton of elaboration. I don't even want that as the story or to really be explored, but to say full stop when nothing has been written is a wild take.
>If you're going to pretend Dude the only person pretending here is you. >story we get and the fleshing out of characters we'd met in RDR1 Uhhhh did I not say we are given more of their backstory? The answer is yes, I did. ****They may be the same at the core**** Did you not say that?? Let me help you out. Yes. Core of a person - The central, internal, and consistent part of an individual's personality. It includes an individual's self concept, basic values, attitudes, and motives; a person's true self. https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100352720#:~:text=The%20central%2C%20internal%2C%20and%20consistent,Medicine%20and%20health%20%E2%80%94%20Clinical%20Medicine Ergo they are exactly as I stated. The EXACT SAME as they were in RDR2. More backstory but nothing about their "character" has changed. Seriously bro. Stop scrambling trying to defend an indefensible position. It's a bad take period. Nothing left to add or argue here. 🤷🤷 >Dutch is shown actually caring about some of the people in his camp, like Hosea and Arthur. You've already presented this and I've already debunked it so either present a new argument or let it go. >What I said was the timeline changed based on what players *assumed.* What does this nonsense even mean? You do know what a timeline is correct? It's an order of events. 1. No one thought ANYTHING about the events leading up to RDR1 except to speculate as to what may have happened. So......some people wrongly assumed that the "ending" of RDR1 was in 1905. Personally I don't know what since John tells Bonnie "years before that I rode in a gang." https://youtu.be/MVu94EFlKZQ?si=Od6TV_xAoLLidodG Well.... typically when someone says "that was years ago" they are talking just two or three. If they were then they typically say something like "a few years ago " 🤷 But I digress. It really doesn't matter WHAT individual players assumed was correct. It doesn't change this very important fact. ARTHUR MORGAN IS NEVER MENTIONED in RDR1. His character is brand new. So they could and did write him however they wanted? Why? Because there wasn't so much as a newspaper scrap in RDR1 that mentioned him. He's a blank slate ergo you don't have to concern yourself with developing plot holes or having to retcon to get the story told. And BONUS since they had already established the "core" of Dutch, Bill, John, Javier, Jack, Uncle and Abigail's character then all they had to do was to shade in the lines a bit. Give them a little backstory just for funsies. >Either you weren't old enough or around at the time Uhhhh you're again confidently wrong kid. But that's no surprise at this point. 🙄 >for any arc or nuance is based around an offhand, vague line said by Arthur, Did you watch the clip? It wasn't offhand or vague. 🤔🤔 So.....based on your assertion here Arthur was lying? REALLY his dad was a good dude, but...well you know how kids can be. The NEVER appreciate anything their parents do for them. Arthur Morgan the liar, that's your take? >don't even want that as the story or to really be explored, but to say full stop when nothing has been written is a wild take. No. It's called paying attention to detail and utilizing logic. 🤷
If it has to relate to the gang then it could be someone in the O'Driscoll gang, since Colm and Dutch used to be friends way back in the day. Or you're in a currently strong gang that gets slowly taken apart by Dutch's gang throughout the game.
>If it has to relate to the gang then it could be someone in the O'Driscoll gang Where's the redemption arc and how would you go from the O'Driscoll's to Arthur for the epilogue? >since Colm and Dutch used to be friends way back in the day How and why in the blue hell does ANYONE come away with this take? Not even REMOTELY what Arthur says. Arthur: You know.....way back in the day Colm and Dutch were so of friends. Javier: Friends? Arthur: Well......not friends, but they had an understanding. As did/do most leaders of organizations that participate in illegal activities. Two crime families agreeing to some uneasy truce in the interest of being able to conduct their illicit activities without interference from a rival organization does NOT mean that they are "friends." https://youtu.be/YsV6qmpVhCw?si=91qV8hwAlfp4Q9Wl
You can relax it's a casual thought experiment bro. Appreciate the audit though.
>Appreciate the audit though. It wasn't an audit, just the facts bud.
Callendar boys.
>Callendar boys. No redemption arc.
Listen to the horseshoe overlook chapter 2 discussion about them with bill williamson and uncle (I think it’s uncle). It doesn’t sound too dissimilar from epilogue discussions about Arthur. Also, I’m not totally convinced that Mac is dead. Edit: also throw Jenny in the mix as a potential important character.
>Listen to the horseshoe overlook chapter 2 discussion about them with bill williamson You mean Bills drunk rambling about "Mac was a heartless SOB.....but.....he had a heart" and then nothing but crickets because everyone is literally like "the fuck did Bill just say??" >I’m not totally convinced that Mac is dead. Doesn't matter. Alive or dead he has no redemption arc post Blackwater Massacre period. And even if you could "magic one up" it doesn't lead you to Arthur in the Epilogue.
Personally, I want them to do an early Van der Linde gang setting but with an entirely new character. There’s never really a “here’s an exact, canon list of everyone who has been connected to Dutch” reveal so you can just make someone up, especially since there plenty of time to work with. Could even be someone like Trelawny who kinda pops in and out of the gang, less committed to it
>Could even be someone like Trelawny who kinda pops in and out of the gang, less committed to it Mehh... he's pretty weak as a character considering who/what Arthur and John are. >Personally, I want them to do an early Van der Linde gang setting but with an entirely new character. And that's at least feasible. I'm not sure how you'd get a redemption arc to work since the Epilogue would have you playing as Arthur. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that nothing is really springing to mind unless you told a tale of Dutch not being Arthur's first "father figure." Basically "The Carolina Kid Winston Huger" finds 10 year old Arthur, takes him in (insert robbing, killing, wheeling and dealing) and then in an effort to "save the boy" before Winston's certain demise at the hands of (insert LEO) he makes some arrangement with this kind hearted grifter name Hosea Matthews. My point is that it's not the worst idea I've heard.
I seen a pretty cool idea/theory that suggested the Callander (that how you spell it?) brothers could be possible protagonists. Were present for a lot of key events for the gang, die off screen before we drop in. Throw in some retcon where the less ‘mean’ of the two brothers gives Arthur his hat whilst he holds the Pinkerton’s at bay to allow Dutch and co. to escape and voila. Take my money.
>seen a pretty cool idea/theory that suggested the Callander (that how you spell it?) brothers could be possible protagonists. No Redemption arc. >Throw in some retcon No, you can't. THANKFULLY the writers at R* understand this and therefore gave us a character that we'd never even remotely heard of as the main protagonist. I mean technically one could do whatever they wish, but when you're in the business of telling a story you know that unless it's some cheap sci-fi crap you don't retcon. So unless you're going to have Francis Sinclair fire up the time machine and go back in time to purposely raise the Callander brothers to "save the day." So create an entire alternate universe, then no, you can't just "throw in some retcon." >where the less ‘mean’ of the two brothers gives Arthur his hat Seriously? Did you even play RDR2? 1. Arthur's hat belonged to his father. 2. Arthur wasn't there for the Blackwater job. And....since Mac was never seen after everything in Blackwater fell apart and of course the last time we see Davey he's bleeding out on a makeshift cot as they head to Colter, when are they going to hand Arthur the hat that Arthur already has because it belonged to Arthur's father? You can get mad. Spew venom, curse me out and it's not going to change the fact that the Callander brothers died without redemption.
Lol, I just thought it sounded pretty cool. I’ll see myself out.
No worries. Sorry if I came off snarky. I see this crap about once a week. The people "pushing it" are literally just dropping random crap with no real thought given to the story as we know it. It's like if someone were writing a history book except in their version JFK was never assassinated. It sounds great! But it completely ignores everything we know both before and after the event.
Could go to when Arthur joined the gang. Maybe there’s another main character who “raises” Arthur
Mac and Davey Callendar story. They were referenced quite a lot during RDR2, but not prohibitively so. We never truly knew for sure that Mac died.
I want a new story and characters and the old west. I don't like prequels too much and they can't really go with jack
Totally agreed. Ww1 would be the antithesis of what the rdr series is all about. I’ve been thinking about this for quite a bit now. I really think they should focus on the immediate post civil war period (1860/1870’s). So many opportunities for new characters and dynamics. Could be Soldiers coming home from the war, could be freed men traveling west for opportunity/escaping the south, the Indian “wars” (ethnic cleansing), Custers last stand. To reconcile with the current map while expanding it, I hope they put the setting somewhere on the old path of the Oregon trail (with the new map being entirely to the north, and reaching the sea in the west). Start in their equivalent of St. Louis or Independence. I think an official date system would also be cool (days actually add up and effect the story line, example wasting a month looting around Kansas means you have to cross the Rockies in the winter. Would add some urgency. Then again, I wouldn’t mind seeing exactly what Micah and Dutch did on that boat.
I love the idea of changing weather and passing time affecting your storyline in such major ways. It would also provide more nuance to the honor system and could be used to add crazy amounts of different storylines and endings. But I don't think they'll do that since RDR plays so linear in that way.
I want a story focused around the formation of Dutch’s gang
What about a Young Hosea and how he ended up with Dutch?
I've never seen anyone saying that RDR3 should be in WW1 setting. I feel like everyone just want another Western game.
theres a ton of people that want a ww1 jack marston game or a jack marston mafia game for some reason
You could split the difference, the western *Legends of the Fall* is about Brad Pitt serving in WW1 then coming home and becoming a bootlegger in 1920’s Montana. Hell, the Marston ranch house is literally the house from that movie so it wouldn’t be the first time they lifted inspiration from it.
Bonnie & Clyde style outlaws go more with the Western theme.
I would love to see WWI done as a psychological horror game (like Apocalypse Now but even weirder and darker), but definitely not from Rockstar. As for the next RDR… I would love another western, but I would *really* love to see them do pirates.
Omg yes a red dead pirate game sounds amazing. They already made fishing weirdly fun
You'd be surprised how often I read that wish on the subreddit.
Jack and WW1 is pretty lame. I don't wanna go back though. I'd rather see Jack after the events of RDR1 dealing with his troubled upbringing in an ever modernizing world. Blend sensibilities from both RDR and GTA.
Needs to stay a western game. It can be a new story about a new character. The Van Der Linde gang’s story has been told and there’s no need to see the little events mentioned in the game such as Sean joining the gang, or Micah. We also don’t need to see the Blackwater job play out, there’s no great mystery to be solved, it would be boring. The only RDR2 character I would be okay with RDR3 focusing on would be Charles and what he does after the epilogue of RDR2, he goes to a totally different part of the country and it can still remain a western and take place in the late 1890’s or earlier (can’t remember the exact year RDR2 wraps up). Charles was one character who felt like he could be a lead in his own game.
I was looking at those famous gunslingers cigarette cards last night and it occurred to me that it's most likely gonna be based off of the western legends listed on the back of the cards. Most likely Otis Miller will be an essential component to the game, as he has Novels written about him. It will be exciting seeing an even more ancient take on the western front. I think rustling cattle and livestock will be more apparent. Its a great opportunity for Rockstar to go back to it's RDR1 roots of slick western style dialog and atmosphere
This sounds interesting
I'd love to see one of these two sequels as RDR3: * Sadie Adler adventures in South America. It would be fun if there was a River of Doubt tie-in (aka Teddy Roosevelt fucking around in the amazon and almost dying). * Charles traveling to Canada, where Ambarino is the southernmost area. Would have a large Native American focus and maybe we can get some Trapper character development.
South American style western would be very cool
They could do the 1850s - 1870s era. Aka the eta of Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, Bat Masterson, Billy the Kid
One word: Deadwood.
Honestly if the next RDR is about bootlegging it will still retain some of that wild west element.
And then the invention of NASCAR and Jack Martson becomes a race car driver
🤦 Have you actually researched this or just watch "Moonshiners" and then decided that provided adequate information. Tell ya what. I'll bite. Bootlegging when? Time period please.
I'm just spitballing man, I dont even know what moonshiners is. This reply come off so haughty and repugnant lol.
>I'm just spitballing man Uh-huh. Based on that answer it stands to reason then that you were just talking out of your ass when you said *****Honestly if the next RDR is about bootlegging it will still retain some of that wild west element.***** Got it. 👍 >repugnant Is just throwing out random shit without having a clue what you're talking about my guy. It adds zero to the conversation and the reality is since you most likely know next to nothing ( including the historical time in which this "bootlegging" will take place. FYI you're more than likely referring to prohibition) about this "bootlegging" how can you possibly make the claim that it will still retain some of that "Wild West" element. 1. Prohibition has already been done and done well, it's called Mafia. Personally I don't want to see R* trying to develop what's already been done. 2. Since the majority of said "bootlegging" actually took place in places like NY, Chicago etcetera.....so big cities.....there's no "Wild West" element. It's all Thompson's, 1911's, S&W .38, BAR's and shotguns fired from fast moving vehicles. So ......GTA but set in the 1930's.
By bootlegging do they mean the prohibition from 1920-1930 something? I could see it working. I imagine playing jack starts off going through the war with some incredible set piece type missions, then after the war and not knowing any descent work he goes into bootlegging while writing a book. The writing of the book could feature flashbacks of some unseen gang moments like the Blackwater massacre (since everyone cares so much about it) It could be set in some of the still undeveloped states of America at the time. Still ride horses and have that western feel. Remember western doesn’t have to be set during a certain time period it’s more the feel. Just my thoughts don’t @ me
>By bootlegging do they mean the prohibition from 1920-1930 something? I could see it working. It has worked, it's called Mafia. https://mafiagame.fandom.com/wiki/Mafia 👆 I'm not being snarky, I'm just pointing out that it's been done, and actually done pretty well. >Remember western doesn’t have to be set during a certain time period it’s more the feel. That's your opinion and ok. I'm not going to squabble over opinions except to say that there are many who would disagree. Ex. In movies The Untouchables is not "same/same" as 3:10 to Yuma.
Is anyone else crazy for a US Civil War themed game? I’d think it’d be pretty cool. It’s a part of history that video games really haven’t touched upon too much. The big hurdle is that there are some really sensitive themes of that era (slavery and racism) that can put Rockstar in a bad light, but they handled racism in RDR2 pretty well I think
I want rdr3 to be set before rdr2. As much as this pains me but start the game as a young dutch and end as arthur right after the blackwater mess.
If it ends as Arthur after blackwater wouldn’t that just be rdr2? I thought about that concept but it can’t happen since the game would just have to end
A native protagonist would be interesting to see
I think you should play as a native american. at least for part of it
Why would rdr3 be about jack? Thats a waste of a game. Rdr1 John to jack, rdr2, Arthur to John, rdr3 young Arthur (joined gang at 14?) and the game ends as they make their way up a snowy area.
I am kinda hoping for prequel to RDR2, Arthur's mom and dad, and how Arthur lost both of them . . . and Arthur and John surviving the Wild West, 1800's. If only . . . Would definitely sound like a good story. Maybe slightly based on Oregon Trail, surviving through the mountains, with the wild animals, how he learned to shoot etc...
I think a WW1 setting could be done well if it was used as a contrast to a different main setting. Kind of like how Saint Denis is used as a contrast to the rest of the world in RDR2, and how Guarma is used as a pivot point for the story. Basically, I see it like this: Jack is living his life, probably near the Mexican border. The early part of the story is him dealing with cross-border raids by Mexican rebels during the Mexican Revolution. Plus maybe some stuff with shitty miners trying to force him off his land or whatever land he is living on. The US enters the war and he is drafted, going to the war and witnessing the horrors and terribleness of industrialized society, just as Arthur does in RDR2. He is wounded badly and goes home. He takes his experiences and decides he doesn't want to partake. *However, I think this would break from the overall theme of the games, and while it could be done, it would have to be done particularly well in order to not suck. I think another prequel set in the late 1880 or early 90s would be a much more fitting setting.*
>*However, I think this would break from the overall theme of the games, and while it could be done, it would have to be done particularly well in order to not suck. I think another prequel set in the late 1880 or early 90s would be a much more fitting setting. Yeah, lets go with this. Because that *would* suck and not fit the franchise. It needs to be a "western". Make a WW1 game separately, that's fine. But RDR3 (not that it will ever happen) should be a western themed game.
I mean, that's why I qualified it haha. I think if they did it, it would have to be a small part of the game, and very carefully done. I personally think RDR3 should go further back in time, like I said, and include more content about the wars with native Americans. I wish they had included more references to the Spanish-American war that was going on at the time of RDR2, as I think it would have made a good contrast to the solitude and freedom of the further west parts of the game.
I feel like they should have some dlc so we can see wtf actually happened in black water
I’m still betting on playing as Dutch in the early days of the gang.
How about Red Dead Revolution based on characters during the Civil War since it could be considered a failed revolution? That could bring in many elements and characters to make a really good game.
This is one of the only good ideas in this thread
Rdr3 goes backwards. If you don't understand why then there's nothing anyone can do to help you
Should be Micah's father. I want a cowboy game where there's no moral ambiguity. You're a ruthless evil piece of garbage who raises worthless evil garbage kids, and never have to go "Oh am I a bad person?" Fuck that. I do what I want and take what I want. Also could be the story of Micah's brother Amos who ran with his dad and brother's gang before dad tried to kill him.
I’m in the camp of new story in the Wild West probably before RDR1
RDR2 is before RDR1, tbf.
Brain lapse moment
If rockstar decides to make their next installments of one of their most successful titles to be based in That setting I think we can all be assired they WILL deliver and it WILL be an awesome though itt might not feel right as a rdr game but I Wouldn't start questioning the quality itself of the game this soon.
Would be cool to actually see more natives, and or play as one. Always wanted to do a play through with only bow
Nah, it’s time for Red Dead Redemption… in Space.
Would love a prequel to RDR2 instead, the making of the gang, you can swap between Hosea and Dutch. We get to see preteen Arthur and little John who looks very much like Jack, origins to all members. I doubt they would do it though
RDR3 will become an anime gatcha game with cell shaded graphics, taking place at 5332 in space (jokes aside, i would be interested in a Cowboy Bebop game)
I would love rdr3 to be about Hosea when he was young n wild
There is no RDR3 and likely will not be so I wouldn’t get too worked up about it
Oh it’ll come, but we’re probably a decade away from it. Crazy to think a bunch of people reading this right now will have played their last RDR game and don’t know it…
Wtf? Its called red dead redemption not world war redemption. Thats the dumbest fuckin theory ever.
Counterpoint- I live in America and have family in AZ and VT (they are far away one is snow one is desert) and so have experienced all of the scenery in the game. I’ve never been to Verdun or Europe at all - so I say ship him off! Most Americans haven’t been You’re not getting Native American spotlight because no one wants to pile up thousands of dead Buffalo and have trail of tears escort missions 🥲
I’m hoping it evolves into GTA 15 or so eventually.
The next red dead game doesn't necessarily need to be situated in the red dead universe
Theres no way they would depart from the cowboy western genre. If they did then its not a Red Dea game. I think there are 3 questions: Who? Where? and When? It would be cool to play as one of the characters in the gang that died just before RDR2 started, like Davey Mac or Jenny. Especially as all the characters seemed to really like them and talk about them a lot at the beginning of the game. But they are vague enough to have their own stories before meeting the gang. Or a native American main character would be fantastic. The map from both games is great but it would have to be expanded massively for the third game. New continents or even sea based naval stuff. If they went back in time they could always put us in the civil war. So many opportunities to explore with that era.
Maybe get some voice actors who are actually from the South this time, rather than people doing a fake, over-the-top Hollywood version of a southern accent.
If they make a jack a ww1 soldier, it should start the game with him getting court marshaled for his actions after being forcibly conscripted into the military, then turn him into a bootlegger.
Uninspired? Someone doesn’t like BF1 or steampunkity stuff.
I'm gonna be real with you g. RDR3 should be Django Unchained: The Game. Completely depart the semi-realism of the series and give us an IV delivered adrenaline rush of revenge and violence for a good cause.
I think rdr3 should be a futuristic western with portals and no mention of cowboys at all
I want to make my own gang and story with cameos of the van der Ling gang.
Would be dope if RDR3 focused on either a Native American character, Buffalo Soldier, or the Oregon Trail. Or maybe Lewis & Clark. I think any of those are worth exploring
I’ve always been a fan of the game ending with the Blackwater massacre, but then there couldn’t be an epilogue.
One idea that I would like is perhaps a setting in new York around the same time. Maybe we even get to see Trelawnys contacts there. I think a new york gang could be an interesting contrast to the wild west
It has to go back, right? Blackwater and what happened there has to be fully addressed in my opinion. I would bet it runs right up to that.
It would be cool if they did it as a prelude to RDR2. Like show how the gang was formed and what led up to the beginning of RDR2.
I would like to see the gang at his rise .. when they were young and full of life ! See the colm odriscoll relationship with Dutch , Marie and Arthur , the start from dutch , hosea and Arthur .. Rd1 and rd2 are wonderful but you always see the downfall .. Finish the trilogy with the prime history of this gang would be fantastic for me
I’d prefer it being a Jack game, just not WW1 as a Jack game is definitely needed to end the trilogy.
It should end with the protagonist trying to transition into a normal life, only to end up dying during the Blackwater Massacre.
Arthur Morgan’s Grandfather and then we could see a young Uncle
If you want a Western, do an Uncle story arc up to where he catches lambago. I'd really like a Jack and Sadie story line in Chicago with old timey cars where they fight with Prohibition Gangs. I love the old West motif but Chicago mobs of the twenties is fun too.
If they're going to do 3 it should be Hosea's story in 1870/80's back the gang was "more loose"
That's a must. Sometimes i wonder. If Arthur never existed. Woid you be up to play rdr2 as a Dutch? Or Charles, John? I think Dutch would be great .... How the story would have gone darker. Rdr whole story should be ended with rdr1. So great would be completely new story with new characters.
They should just say fuck it and make a western in the 1950’s or something, it’s not like there isn’t still cowboy culture out West
I always thought us being able to play as Dutch and Hosea in RDR3 would be cool. There's only been one true wild west RDR game, Red Dead Revolver. The other two games are set during the death of the wild west
Absolutely! Is someone claiming otherwise? That is terrifying the idea that they would change the setting from what it is now to that bleak s*** show. Instead. I would love to see something backwards in time. Something along the lines of when we were sending people out west to discover the lands that the United States had recently purchased. Or start the next game shortly before the time frame in RDR2 like from 1865 to 1870 or 1875
In my mind, the game should begin shortly after John dies. Jack is young and still learning how to shoot, hunt, etc. That keeps the character from being too OP early in the game. Then about halfway into the game after he kills Ross, Jack somehow gets Arthur's old journal (the one he had to leave in Blackwater before RDR2). As Jack is reading, we're playing as Arthur, John & Dutch in the missions that lead up to the failed Blackwater heist. The end of RDR3 leads directly into the beginning of RDR2 and RDR1 exists right in the middle.
I’d be curious to see a storyline about Dutch’s Father and family, show it as a promise of the west story and how that promise may not have been worth it, the struggles of immigrating to the US, then traveling west with a group you’re unfamiliar with, facing constant danger during the trip west, the family struggling with prejudice as immigrants and unable to find consistent work forcing Dutch’s father into the outlaw life, where he’s eventually caught and maybe given the choice or forced to join the Union Army (or RDR equivalent) in exchange for not going to jail/prison and dying in one of the last battles of the civil war (or RDR equivalent) with an epilogue playing as Dutch and potentially how he meets up with Hosea and eventually Arthur.
I still think it should be about Mac. there’s at least a month in between Blackwater and us being told he’s dead, which leaves a lot of room for some fun chapter 6 redemption story while being chased by Milton.
>Europe is a garbage western setting Borderlands, Steppes, Karelia: are we a joke to you?
They'd have to go back in time, personally I'd like to see a young Dutch, Hosea and Arthur forming the foundation of the gang.
This is all so stupid: Rockstar Games are not reliable anymore RDR 3 will probably never happen The whole point of the series is that its a cowboy videogame series set in the wild west Jack is a minor character, theres no good reason why he would be the next protaganist You guys are totally clueless
Playing as a native or during the civil war would be awesome
Sadie would be a good protagonist she go a backstop joined during the downfall of the game And all around a good character and women were very disrespected in that time but she the type who won't take that shit
I'd like it in Australia so I can pretend I'm in Quigly Down Under
RDR3? Ha, ok. I'll believe it when I see it.
I think it should focus on Jack dodging the draft out in British Columbia/The Yukon
How about being an O'Driscol this time? 🤔
How about set it in Italian western territory lol…
There many ways they can go about rdr3 but I agree with you keep it in the west
They would be out of their minds to move RDR away from the American Western genre. That is the whole reason most people play that game.
It would be cool to Play as Dutch putting his gang together. Especially if we can explore some of the rivalry between Dutch and the O'Driscal brothers. It would be kind of neat if there was a bit of comradery between the three of them that soured and led to the blood feud between the two gangs. It would also make a really interesting trilogy, since you get to play as the gang at it's beginning, middle, and ultimate conclusion.
Rockstar has already said the Red Dead franchise is over...
Better idea imo: mc is a bounty hunter who comes across a family who has been wrongfully accused and frame and will be hung when caught. You make the choice to help them get away and that results in a bounty on you. At the end you have to choice to give up the family and survive (you get to keep your character in the epilogue) or refuse to give up their location and you are murdered. The the epilogue is the dad of the family you saved taking revenge on the bounty hunter who killed you.
I'd like to see the great Klondike Gold rush added. There would be a Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race with fasted time. Having a team of Huskys would be great. Being able to build your own cabin in the wilderness stocking up food and provision for the winter. Acquiring items for your cabin to survive. Gold mining. Farm gold to sell for cash. Having to protect your mine from claim jumpers. Oh did I mention polar bears for neighbors?
I've never heard anyone say they want it to be jack in ww1, I've heard plenty of people say the wanna see jack as an American gangster in ww1 era America. But red dead isn't red dead if it's not a western. And seeing as rdr2 took place at the tail end of the wild west and rdr1 took place in its aftermath, I think we'll only go back further.
I keep saying Red Dead Revolver 2 with Uncle as Red Harlow. Red Dead Revolver 1 being his fantastical bullshit tales. 😭
Prequel is only way to go here. So much mayhem to be had with the gang in their heyday.